(February 20, 2016 at 10:23 am)Mancunian Wrote: We need to keep reminding them of how disgusting their delusions are.

Point is, you don't. Their priests/pastors have already done a very good job of making them believe in god testing us or evil coming into play. If you want to catch them, you have to confront them with science. The age of the universe, the age of earth and man's puny span of existence in comparison.

If they're not creationists, they may listen. If they are, the effort is futile either way. Not that I want to convince them anyway. If they don't bother me, I don't bother them. Only on this board it's gloves off.

(February 20, 2016 at 11:14 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 10:23 am)Mancunian Wrote: We need to keep reminding them of how disgusting their delusions are.

Point is, you don't. Their priests/pastors have already done a very good job of making them believe in god testing us or evil coming into play. If you want to catch them, you have to confront them with science. The age of the universe, the age of earth and man's puny span of existence.

If they're not creationists, they may listen. If they are, the effort is futile either way.

That's not true, the problem of evil was one the first things that made me start questioning the existence of god.

(February 20, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: That's not true, the problem of evil was one the first things that made me start questioning the existence of god.

Individuals might, but it's the first thing apologists adress when debating atheists. It's also one of the least interesting points that can be made in favor of atheism. Because it's like finger pointing and the bible, which they always like to quote, presents a whole lot of evil as a test to certain individuals.

For me, by the way, the first question was, reality not adding up with the narrative.

(February 20, 2016 at 11:19 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 11:16 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: That's not true, the problem of evil was one the first things that made me start questioning the existence of god.

Individuals might, but it's the first thing apologists adress when debating atheists. It's also one of the least interesting points that can be made in favor of atheism. Because it's like finger pointing and the bible, which they always like to quote, presents a whole lot of evil as a test to certain individuals.

For me, by the way, the first question was, reality not adding up with the narrative.

I think the point is strong, and I think it is an example of reality not adding up with the narrative.

(February 20, 2016 at 11:26 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I think the point is strong, and I think it is an example of reality not adding up with the narrative.

No, it's one of the weakest points. On the same lines as theists claiming, you can't have any morals without god. As I said, it's adressed already in the bible, it's one of the most favorite barricades of christians, since they can argue with a whole lot of contras, such as test, free will and evil being in play and it's used as kind of a thoughtless first attack more often than I care to count.

I actually cringe when I see it.

(February 20, 2016 at 11:39 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 11:26 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I think the point is strong, and I think it is an example of reality not adding up with the narrative.

No, it's one of the weakest points. On the same lines as theists claiming, you can't have any morals without god. As I said, it's adressed already in the bible, it's one of the most favorite barricades of christians, since they can argue with a whole lot of contras, such as test, free will and evil being in play and it's used as kind of a thoughtless first attack more often than I care to count.

I actually cringe when I see it.

I disagree

(February 20, 2016 at 8:28 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: This does happen in other species but it doesn't happen often percentage wise in any species, including our own, because the genes responsible for that are not conducive to survival or offspring.

Sure enough, your offspring won't pass on your genes when you kill them, so for evolution that's a big no-go!

On the problem of evil, other species are much worse. When a bear is seeking a mate, and finds a female with cubs, he kills off the cubs because a bear doesn't want to just sow his genes - "There Can Be Only ONE!!!" is it's philosophy (actually, She-Bear won't mate with him while she has cubs to raise). So, after Mr. Bear has murdered her cubs, what does she do? Does she attack him in retribution for her cubs? Nope, she immediately undergoes physiological changes, and willingly mates with that despicable, murdering brute, because that's survival for you to replace the cubs that were lost when the opportunity is right in front of you. Still, isn't bear philosophy disgustingly unjust, self-centered, and depravedly indifferent to any principles which Gawd would have for us? So, then, I would have to ask the blithering theist, why does he think there's anything typically "sinful" regarding human behavior?

(February 20, 2016 at 12:18 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: On the problem of evil, other species are much worse. When a bear is seeking a mate, and finds a female with cubs, he kills off the cubs because a bear doesn't want to just sow his genes - "There Can Be Only ONE!!!" is it's philosophy (actually, She-Bear won't mate with him while she has cubs to raise).

Why's that worse? Because our social structure says so? Bear's evolutionary system tells him to pass on his genes. If bearess doesn't want to mate with him because of previous offspring, it's only natural to get rid of it. Lions are the same, by the way. Nature's way. We aren't superior to that. It's only more hidden behind what we call civilization. But in some cases that layer breaks. Such as with that woman, who drowned her children because her lover didn't want them.

(February 20, 2016 at 10:14 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 12:28 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: When religious people are trying to explain why suffering and evil are allowed to exist in a Universe created by a loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god, they generally default to some combination of "it's all our fault" and "the Lord works in mysterious ways," claiming that hardship makes us stronger and brings us closer to god.

Well, yes. So why do you even go there? It won't convince any christian otherwise. The only religious conversations I had, way back in the late 80ies and early 90ies, were about the suffering of innocents. I saw the futility of bringing up that kind of argument right there and then.

Hey, I wouldn't fault anyone for addressing theistic gabble, when they can find within themselves the patience for it, plus a lot of padding when they bang their heads. I don't see it as pointless to do once in a while, because out here in cyberspace there really are no two-way discussions, and your arguments may help some unknown people who read this while questioning what they were told. It's not for the theist who you are addressing, it's for his victims who are attempting to break free.

Well, it is pointless, since from where they're standing, they already have their answer.