I'm going to do a write-up, introducing atheists of all stripes to the problem of evil. What it says. How the argument works, the variations, and how you can use it in an argument against Christians.

The goal is for atheists to have a good working grasp of the problem of evil and why and how it allows us to claim, rationally, that it's better to be an atheist. If you want a serious, positive, intellectual, rational argument FOR atheism, this is what I'm building. For you.

If you want some background info, here's some links. You might find them too dry.

iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/n.../evil.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/K019

Anyone got any questions, no matter how stupid, I'll entertain them here. If they are substantial, I'll edit my draft to incorporate the answers.

A Primer for "Vinny":

SHOVE IT BACK UP YOUR ASS.

All apologetics with regards to the problem of evil fall to the same tired old axe that every god claim falls to.

Evidence?

Primer concluded. You can thank me later.

Quote:The goal is for atheists to have a good working grasp of the problem of evil

I never knew that WE had a problem with it. Without a sky-daddy the issue is very simple. Shit happens and it happens because a lot of people are no-good scumbags.

Its the jesus freaks who have the problem explaining how, if their god created everything and pronounced it "good" that he can still be a god and not merely an incredible fuck up for not anticipating the problem of evil.

Personally, I enjoy watching them twist their scrotums into knots trying to get out of that one....and always failing.

Vinny, just start the discussion for those who care to participate please.

Don't insult our intelligence by trying to educate and lecture us yeah?

Quote:Quote:The goal is for atheists to have a good working grasp of the problem of evil

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. 'as an atheist' I have no position on any other topic whatsoever and no goals of any kind.

As a skeptic, and from a range of other philosophical positions, I have a lot of opinions and questions,but no ultimate goals.I have no interest in the problem of evil; too vague a term to be useful and based on a moral judgment. I AM concerned about,but do not navel-gaze on the problem of suffering.

I don't know about anyone else ,but your presumptuous arrogance is starting to get up my nose. How old are you? 16 tops?

(August 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The goal is for atheists to have a good working grasp of the problem of evil

I never knew that WE had a problem with it. Without a sky-daddy the issue is very simple. Shit happens and it happens because a lot of people are no-good scumbags.

Its the jesus freaks who have the problem explaining how, if their god created everything and pronounced it "good" that he can still be a god and not merely an incredible fuck up for not anticipating the problem of evil.

Personally, I enjoy watching them twist their scrotums into knots trying to get out of that one....and always failing.

You'll be surprised at how well-plausible this sky-daddy is for philosophers, even philosophers who have a strong background in science. Logically and rationally, Philosophy of Religion, Science, Time, Mind have all currently led us to a place where metaphysically and scientifically (oh, youse gonna get mad at dis I can feel its!!!) the case for God is a very plausible possibility.

You might think I'm joking but I mean it 100%. Science doesn't traverse the borders of naturalism. Most philosophers of mind all but recognizes that unless you are willing to tie yourself into an epistemic pretzel trying to justify a purely physicalist worldview (it's not easy, trust me), you have to concede that there is more than the material world out there. Because while science and math can measure and calculate and predict consciousness, they cannot explain consciousness.

Even David Chalmers, our favorite hippie philosopher and atheist is a dualist because of this problem of science.

And this is precisely the metaphysical move that opens up rational space for the possibility of Godlike being in the actual world.

So tldr: You're partly right. The fundie Christians heads are spinning the moment you mention anything other than John 3:16, but there are very knowledgeable and intelligent Christians out there too whose beliefs happen to be supported by reality, if not science.

We need to be able to grapple with their claims and we need to be able to put more of our people in school to fight these ideas. The faster we do this, the faster we realize that we can't just say "science did it". We need to open ourselves up to metaphysics.

The answer is in understanding metaphysics.

Quote:You'll be surprised at how well-plausible this sky-daddy is for philosophers

Then you probably don't want to know what I think of "philosophers."

(August 30, 2012 at 7:50 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You'll be surprised at how well-plausible this sky-daddy is for philosophers, even philosophers who have a strong background in science. Logically and rationally, Philosophy of Religion, Science, Time, Mind have all currently led us to a place where metaphysically and scientifically (oh, youse gonna get mad at dis I can feel its!!!) the case for God is a very plausible possibility.

Perhaps that's what you should be doing then, making that case?

Quote:You might think I'm joking but I mean it 100%. Science doesn't traverse the borders of naturalism. Most philosophers of mind all but recognizes that unless you are willing to tie yourself into an epistemic pretzel trying to justify a purely physicalist worldview (it's not easy, trust me), you have to concede that there is more than the material world out there. Because while science and math can measure and calculate and predict consciousness, they cannot explain consciousness.

"You cannot explain ergo" - meh, doesn't hold any water for me Vinny.

Quote:Even David Chalmers, our favorite hippie philosopher and atheist is a dualist because of this problem of science.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Quote:And this is precisely the metaphysical move that opens up rational space for the possibility of Godlike being in the actual world.

It begins. At first it was "god"..now we're left with "god-like". I'm sure that by the end of the discussion we'll be left with "a nice guy, different, but nice - slight limp when he walks".

Quote:So tldr: You're partly right. The fundie Christians heads are spinning the moment you mention anything other than John 3:16, but there are very knowledgeable and intelligent Christians out there too whose beliefs happen to be supported by reality, if not science.

Which ones?

Quote:We need to be able to grapple with their claims

Handled - "Evidence?"

Quote:and we need to be able to put more of our people in school to fight these ideas. The faster we do this, the faster we realize that we can't just say "science did it".

Seriously, who the fuck says this?

Quote:We need to open ourselves up to metaphysics.

The answer is in understanding metaphysics.

Nah, they just need to provide some evidence. To be honest, I'm not really a huge fan of metaphysics.