Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The point of the thought-exercise is that this robot DOES have free will, what we call Artificial Intelligence, based on its programming. An omniscient programmer would know, then that his code would go awry when the robot took control of its own decisions, resulting in the murders. Blaming the AI is pointless, if the programmer is omniscient.

How long will it take you to reason it through, and see that there is no "higher purpose" but what we create, and that the sins are all stuff clearly made up by human beings and attributed to God, not the kinds of things a being greater than the entire universe would care about?

How and why and with whom we have sex? REALLY!? That's exactly what I'd expect a group of evolved-intelligent chimpanzee cousins to obsess about, not God.

Death for non-obedience? REALLY?!? That's exactly what I'd expect tribal warrior-shepherds to worry about, not God.

I actually considered listing about a dozen more that are clearly the work of man and not of an eternal being I could respect, but my point is already made, I trust.

You're quite correct; I don't think The Problem of Evil is a valid argument against God, except in the specific context of claiming that sins (or the nature to do so) are something we "inherited" somehow from our forefathers, as told in the founding mythologies of Christianity. You make few testable claims about your deity, but when you do (as here), we can compare them to our understanding of reality, and find them lacking. According to the story, God created the first man and then placed temptation for greater knowledge in front of him, knowing that man was likely to reach out and take it, then feels the need to destroy us all for the fruits (geddit?) of that decision, unless we pledge undying devotion to the blood-sacrifice savior (himself) he had to send to be murdered in our place.

Okay, Robot, you killed all those children by following the program I put into your head. I guess I shouldn't have put them into your test-area before I was sure you were ready. Normally, I'd have to destroy you for doing what your programming allowed, but instead I'm going to shoot my son, Jimmy, in your place, so I don't have to destroy you. As long as you tell me that you accept that Jimmy died in your place, then I'll let you live. And I'm not going to change your program... but if you accept Jimmy's sacrifice, you should stop wanting to slaughter children. Good luck!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I do feel obligated to add a couple more:

The same being that your ancient mythwriters called "God", whose "Eternal Objective Moral Code" we are supposed to follow Or Else™, has also said that permanent, heritable slavery, conquest and genocide, and the subjugation (and devaluation) of women are God Approved™.

"Go kill everyone in that town and take their land" (also "keep some of the young virgins for yourselves") is clearly not a command of God, but of people seeking to justify their greed in the name of God. The only way not to see that as plain as day is to blind yourself to it.

If you cannot objectively (hehe) look at those claims about God, and see that it is simply the hand of human beings who were seeking to justify their prejudices and fears by projecting them onto the mind of an eternal lawgiver (Um, noooo, we're not the ones making the rules... these are from God!!! ), then I don't know if you can be helped.

[Redbeard The Pink]

---

Again, this ignores the fact that Gaud doesn't just know what will happen, he's also responsible for the existence of all the agents that execute those happenings and is therefore the only being with the power to prevent or change anything those agents might do (by choosing not to create something, for example).


Again, I go to the robot example. If I create a robot and it glitches out and kills a bunch of people, but there was no way for me to know it would do that, then I wouldn't necessarily be responsible for anything the robot does.


If, however, I know the robot can or will eventually glitch out and do this (even if it wasn't expressly programmed to), and I still build the robot and change nothing about its programming, I become directly and personally responsible if that glitch activates and people die.


So either Gaud created the Universe with free will and can therefore be surprised by it and is therefore not omniscient, or all of space-time is the inevitable result of Gaud's singular action of creating the Universe with exact knowledge of how it would unfold, meaning that at best he is personally responsible for all actions, and at worst all actions are really only one action (Gaud's), and we are mere results of that action with no agency of our own.

---

---

Just to note, your reply here, doesn't really have to do with mine that was cited, as they are different topics.  My comment was on the question of if knowledge precludes free will.  I do not believe that it does.  I normally resist a change in topic, until one issue has been discussed, but this is at least the second time with me, that you have diverted to this topic, so I would like to address it. 

One thing, that I think is often overlooked when making such comparisons, is position.  This is not meant to be a free pass, but only to point out, that when making comparisons, that if any person did this, it would be wrong, are some what inaccurate.  For instance, I am not free to detain someone in the same way that a judge or an officer of the law are able.  Similarly a government can decide that any suffering incurred in war is for the greater good, however similar circumstances for an individual claiming the greater good as reason are not acceptable. 

This article http://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on...jZv9zZdESk describes a number of objections, to the question if a good all knowing God, could allow evil.  It discusses that evil is not a thing, but a lack of good.  Similar to darkness being a lack of light.  It also discusses a number of virtues, which would not be present, if evil was not possible.  Similarly it encompasses a larger view of the overall picture where allowing evil or suffering may be a greater good, even if in the specific we cannot see it or understand it.  That the struggle produces a character which cannot be achieved if there was no choice or free will.  That temporary suffering is allowed in regards to a greater eternal good.

As said before, this is a difficult subject, especially if we or a loved one is suffering at the moment.  Understanding is not going to help at this time, and I think that scripture teaches us that this is not a time to provide reason, but for compassion, and to grieve with the person.  I think that there are a few issues with your robot analogy.  One robots do not have free will, and it is unclear whether humans could even create a morally responsible robot.  Second is position and knowledge.  We do not have the authority or the knowledge to make such a call;  even if it is believed, that a greater good could come from it overall. 

It is not an easy topic, and I don't expect those who do not know God, or are seeking opportunity to present a negative view of God to be convinced.    That is to say, that the result of this philosophy is going to be largely dependent on your previous view of God.  I do think that it however shows that a reasonable defense can be made in regards to the problem of evil, and the presence of suffering does not necessarily negate God's omnipotence, omniscience, or his benevolence.  From the article "God made a world in which true moral decision-making and development of virtues is possible in humans, manifest by persons whose character is formed through growth and struggle."

---

As I've stated elsewhere, perfect knowledge alone wouldn't necessarily preclude responsibility or free will, but an all-powerful creator with perfect knowledge would preclude responsibility at best and free will at worst. You're insisting on focusing on the knowledge problem so you can then sweep the other problem under the carpet later. If you're going to discuss your deity's traits and one trait conflicts with another, you don't get to isolate the traits in discussion so the contradictions are off-limits.


Evil is not a thing, but good is not a thing either. Both of those words describe nebulous, abstract concepts that have been invented by humans to categorize actions and experiences. There is no magical force of good in the Universe, just as there is no magical force of evil in the Universe. One could just as easily flip the statement and say that good is not a thing, it is only the absence of evil, and the assertion would still contain an equal measure of inanity.


Furthermore, evil is absolutely a thing in your religion because sin is a thing in your religion. If your Gaud created the entire Universe, and the Universe contains suffering and sin, it can only mean one of two things: either your Gaud wanted the Universe to contain suffering and sin, or he was unable to stop it from developing suffering and sin and those things developed anyway against his wishes.


If your Gaud were omniscient and omnipotent, he could have foreseen that the system he was about to create would clusterfuck his plans and wishes so badly and then changed the design and created a different system that didn't contain those problems. If he's all-powerful and all-knowing, then the system could only contain suffering and sin because he did not wish to prevent or remove those things, ergo he wanted his system to contain those things, ergo he knowingly inflicted suffering and sin on an entire Universe merely by creating it with his intended design. This means he CANNOT be defined as all-good or incapable of evil, considering that he is personally responsible for all evil by virtue of the fact that he did not prevent or exclude it from his design.


If your Gaud is all-good and incapable of evil, then he wouldn't be able to be responsible for evil, meaning that he could not knowingly create a system where the inhabitants would suffer so much evil. If he created a system and it turned out to contain evil anyway, he could only be excused of responsibility if he either didn't foresee it or didn't have the power to create it any other way, belying either his omnipotence, his omniscience, or both.

[ignoramus]

So, basically, as long as humans believe bullshit, god exists. But then again, which form of bullshit?

[Mudhammam]

This article http://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on...jZv9zZdESk describes a number of objections, to the question if a good all knowing God, could allow evil.  It discusses that evil is not a thing, but a lack of good.  Similar to darkness being a lack of light.  It also discusses a number of virtues, which would not be present, if evil was not possible.  Similarly it encompasses a larger view of the overall picture where allowing evil or suffering may be a greater good, even if in the specific we cannot see it or understand it.  That the struggle produces a character which cannot be achieved if there was no choice or free will.  That temporary suffering is allowed in regards to a greater eternal good.

Yeah, the Neoplatonist Plotinus advocated evil as the privation of good. Augustine and later Christan philosophers adopted it like so much else from the Platonists. It asserts that evil is non-being, or the lack of existence, as all existence is essentially good as it subsists in deity. Interestingly, it renders God responsible for evil in that a perfectly good being must either create that which is perfectly good, or that which lacks His perfect goodness, and that is, according to the Neoplatonists/Christians, evil. Your appeal to free will fails for the reasons I already submitted, putting aside the fact that free will is a poorly defined concept that has no relevancy here once remodified; there's the further problem that your God, if he is perfect, lacks free will (as a result of his other attributes, namely, omnibenevolence and omniscience), so there's no reason why we should possess it for any greater good - as it's apparently not necessary for the greatest good, God. If we are able to do evil, we are, contrary to what a perfect God would seemingly be able to effect, created imperfect. Your appeal to what may be called the "Mysterious Ways Principle" is shoddy reasoning that relies on the same inferences a young-young-young-YOUNG earthist might use to justify his belief that the world is less than a 100 years old. Namely, he might say things appear older for a reason only God understands. It's a misapplication of inductive argumentation and demonstrates the weakness of your claim in that it calls for a blind leap of faith rather than the simpler explanation which only relies on the data that we currently possess: apparent unnecessary and excessive suffering exists all around us; therefore, a non-apparent omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity does not.

[RoadRunner79]

Yeah, the Neoplatonist Plotinus advocated evil as the privation of good. Augustine and later Christan philosophers adopted it like so much else from the Platonists. It asserts that evil is non-being, or the lack of existence, as all existence is essentially good as it subsists in deity. Interestingly, it renders God responsible for evil in that a perfectly good being must either create that which is perfectly good, or that which lacks His perfect goodness, and that is, according to the Neoplatonists/Christians, evil.

Yes, God saw that it was good in Genesis 1. The current state does not need to reflect the original. I am open to evil having being, if you wish to make that argument. However, I think you will find that many here believe that neither good nor evil have any absolute reality in regards to being. They say that good and evil are subjective, and can change based on the subject. If that is the case, then we may not be even speaking of the same things.

[quote='Nestor' pid='1104508' dateline='1446520480']
Your appeal to free will fails for the reasons I already submitted, putting aside the fact that free will is a poorly defined concept that has no relevancy here once remodified; there's the further problem that your God, if he is perfect, lacks free will (as a result of his other attributes, namely, omnibenevolence and omniscience), so there's no reason why we should possess it for any greater good - as it's apparently not necessary for the greatest good, God.

By free will I mean a conscience and responsible choice. Again, I think you loose any strength in your argument, if you take away accountability and choice. Are you saying that free will is contrary to goodness?

[quote='Nestor' pid='1104508' dateline='1446520480']
If we are able to do evil, we are, contrary to what a perfect God would seemingly be able to effect, created imperfect. Your appeal to what may be called the "Mysterious Ways Principle" is shoddy reasoning that relies on the same inferences a young-young-young-YOUNG earthist might use to justify his belief that the world is less than a 100 years old. Namely, he might say things appear older for a reason only God understands. It's a misapplication of inductive argumentation and demonstrates the weakness of your claim in that it calls for a blind leap of faith rather than the simpler explanation which only relies on the data that we currently possess: apparent unnecessary and excessive suffering exists all around us; therefore, a non-apparent omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity does not.

I'm simply saying that I cannot explain everything, but I don't think that you have made a positive case that it is unnecessary or without reason either. From reading the scripture, and personal experience of God, I do believe God that He is Good. From history and evidence in nature, I do believe the God of the Bible exists. And I concede that sin and evil are present in the world. I don't accept your premise, that evil or suffering cannot be present if God is good, so it is up to you to support it. How do you explain evil from an atheistic worldview? Is there real good and evil; or is it something you entertain when you want to make an argument against God?

[Mudhammam]

Yes, God saw that it was good in Genesis 1. The current state does not need to reflect the original. I am open to evil having being, if you wish to make that argument. However, I think you will find that many here believe that neither good nor evil have any absolute reality in regards to being. They say that good and evil are subjective, and can change based on the subject. If that is the case, then we may not be even speaking of the same things.

Are you beginning with the premise that Genesis is a literal account of history or an allegory? If the latter, in what way does it reflect everything we know about the conditions of primitive earth and the evolution of life? Let's pretend that each human being is ultimately responsible for their individual willingness to inflict harm on others. First, that doesn't negate the suffering caused by weather catastrophes, diseases, illnesses, carnivorous or parasitic organisms, etc. Is all of that the fault of immoral behavior? Of course not. Secondly, how does this negate the moral obligation of any cognizant being, to say nothing of a half decent one, who is aware of such suffering - caused by persons or otherwise - and who also has it within his or her power, to prevent it?

By free will I mean a conscience and responsible choice. Again, I think you loose any strength in your argument, if you take away accountability and choice. Are you saying that free will is contrary to goodness?

Not at all. I view responsibility and choice as relative terms that only have practical value but are inapplicable when examining causes of human behavior. Free will means nothing but the power to act or not to act in accordance with the determinations of the will - the key word being "determinations". I contend that the will both determines and is determined. As God is said to be perfectly good he can only act towards those ends which are the best. That means he is not free to do otherwise than what is necessitated by his perfectly good will. As he is also said to be omniscient, this implies that he knows what actions both he and his subjects will perform, which is no different than saying that all actions are determined or necessitated by his perfect knowledge of future events which in time have not yet been actuated by either himself or his subjects. All of this, I might add, stands in contradiction to his supposed immutability, but I suppose we can limit ourselves to these paradoxes for now.

By the way, I'm not a moral relativist or subjectivist. I believe that there are certain human goods that are discoverable by experience and reason.

I'm simply saying that I cannot explain everything, but I don't think that you have made a positive case that it is unnecessary or without reason either. From reading the scripture, and personal experience of God, I do believe God that He is Good. From history and evidence in nature, I do believe the God of the Bible exists. And I concede that sin and evil are present in the world. I don't accept your premise, that evil or suffering cannot be present if God is good, so it is up to you to support it. How do you explain evil from an atheistic worldview? Is there real good and evil; or is it something you entertain when you want to make an argument against God?

Are there any arguments in there? "I believe in the Bible" is not very persuasive, any more than you should be persuaded in the Islamic conception of the Resurrection of the Dead on Judgment Day because the Qur'an says it will occur. "Ipse dixit" is no more convincing when it's on the lips of a Christian insisting on God's mysterious yet perfectly good judgments than it is when a Pythagorean proclaims the transmigration of souls. You haven't said anything to rebut my arguments, which rely on deductive and inductive reasoning, not subjective feeling - the onus is on you to demonstrate that my reasons are either invalid or unsound.

Evil is easy to explain on my worldview. Bad shit happens as a result of accidents i.e. being in the wrong place at the wrong time, ignorance, and the natural tendency towards egoism. There's no ultimate purpose for it - just what purpose you or I give it.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

How do you explain evil from an atheistic worldview?  Is there real good and evil; or is it something you entertain when you want to make an argument against God?

It may sound like I'm being silly here, but I'm not. I actually think there's something akin to the Dungeons & Dragons alignment system, in real human personalities, by which a two-axis scale ranks people according to their good/neutral/evil nature, and their attitude toward law and order versus having a more chaotic spirit. Nine possibilities.

Now, I don't believe that "good" and "evil" are real things. They are sort of placeholders for an idea of things we consider harmful, but really, you don't describe a hurricane as "evil" even though it does great harm. It takes intent to be evil. Agreed, so far? The person who looks to others and is selfless is "good", while the person who is selfish and cares little for whether they harm others (reduced/no empathy) is "evil", on my scale. An evil person may never do any actual harm; they simply need to conduct their actions as though others are less worthy of consideration from one's self, and would not care as much if they got what they wanted by harming others. It is essentially a question of what we choose to do with our own power, especially as we get power that is disproportionate to that of others.

For those who are Lawful, they believe in orderly systems, hierarchy and authority, and following strict codes. They find comfort in that sense of structure and conservatism. They are the forces of preservation and tradition and stability in society. The Chaotic are the free spirits, the ones who don't like to be confined by roles or tradition, and they are the creative minds who dream of new things and want to try new approaches. They may have no problem following rule sets, as necessary, but would walk right through those walls if they perceived them to be such. They are the rebels, the forces of change and imagining (as per the John Lennon song), of our wild spirit.

Some (perhaps) people are not as strongly so, in any of these directions, and are best described as Neutral; they will do what seems best to them in each situation. We are complex beings, and a Lawful Good person might break tradition and every rule in the book, doing great harm to others, if they believed in the cause (it's one of the reasons we fear religious indoctrination of others so much-- this is how you convince a good person to do terrible things to others which they would not do otherwise, as in Pat Robertson's recent comments about making gays wear "special colored" clothing... perhaps pink triangles will suffice, Pat?). The hippie who follows no social rules, who walks with his head down so he doesn't step on an earthworm, and harms no one in this world but would help anyone he could, is an example of Chaotic Good. Emperor Palpatine from StarWars is an example of Lawful Evil, using manipulation of people and the system/power structure to achieve his own ends. Chaotic Evil is the Joker, of course; some people just want whatever they want, and don't care if the world burns down around them.

I consider myself Neutral Good. But whatever we use to describe these ideas, it seems clear to me that evil is not a real thing, except in terms of the basic premise that everyone wants to live in society as unharmed by others as possible, and so we define the ideas of human good and evil in terms of that premise.

[Mudhammam]

I might just add, Rocket, that we define good and evil as such on that premise because everyone recognizes that to be a condition which is, at least in view of themselves, good - and its contrary, evil.

It's the chicken and egg problem of Euthyphro's dilemma, really. Do you people say X is good because they want it or do they want it because X is good? Maybe it's both?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You're asking the wrong questions, Delicate.  Perhaps, instead of looking for justifications for atheism, you need to look for justifications for religion.  See, that's very important here because I'm not so much a hard-line atheist as much as I simply haven't found any religion or deity that continues to sound believable after some basic questioning.

So, if you'd like to ask some specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.  And if you'd like to explain your beliefs, I'd be happy to ask some questions about them.

I have looked at justifications for religion and found them credible. Many if not most of the critiques leveled against them from internet atheists look terrible on closer scrutiny and this can be demonstrated, time and time again. The really good, penetrating critiques of theistic arguments are very few and very far between.

Or perhaps it's the arguments that can penetrate the wall of ignorance you've built around yourself which are are few and far between instead?

Chicken and egg and all that, although when you suspend all logic and reasonable discourse like you clearly have, you may as well troll away the answer instead ^_^