Forum theists: when you have a moment, please...

[Tartarus Sauce]

What about a topic on why god is good despite doing bad stuff

I find discussing theodicy with atheists very frustrating, because they are not able to supply a valid moral standard by which to judge God. Most atheists with whom I have discussed this make an argument from incredulity. They base their judgment of God on their own personal moral standards or relative to social norms of Western culture.

This could just as easily be turned around as a weakness to theistic arguments of moral absolutism, though. Whether absolute morality exists is a different matter from whether it can be logically and unambiguously demonstrated.  Unless an authentically binding moral absolute could unequivocally be demonstrated not only as true, but capable of being infallibly understood by all with no human error or limitations constraining its comprehension and acceptance of legitimacy, all your doing is discrediting those who hold a different set of subjective standards for criticizing your own subjective conviction in a different set of standards that claims  objectivity. In other words, welcome to the same opinionated ballpark the rest of us are playing in, we got a dozen more batters waiting to take their swing after you. 

I also find it puzzling that you fault others for having their values influenced by sociocultural norms, yet this assumes that Christianity itself is free from the purview of sociocultural influence. Unless you're willing to argue that the tenets and values of Christianity were generated in an ideological vacuum free from the tainting reach of cultural interference and distortion --- an extremely foolish argument to make since literally every single religion has grafted the preexisting and organically developed cultural norms, values, and concepts proliferating in the society they spawned from --- your dearly held morals have been just as heavily pushed through the filter of sociocultural influence as everybody else's ethical principles.

There's nothing wrong with that either, feel free to join us, the water is fine. But if that's honestly what's frustrating you in your talks with atheists, perhaps you should reconsider how much the same biases might be influencing your own thinking.

[John V]

Am I only one who thinks it would be great to see more threads started by some of the established theists on these forums? 

I'm not trying to be snooty or discourage theists that have recently joined from participating, but there has been a massive influx of new members starting threads that are just insane.

It would be nice to see more conversations started by theists who know what they're talking about and happen to be familiar with the rules of engagement. 

Just a thought.

Get your fellow atheists to take things seriously and I'll start some threads.

Good luck with that!

Seriously, whenever a theist is making good points, other atheists jump in with the standard red herrings to thorw things off course. Why would I bother making threads when I know this will happen?

[abaris]

What topics would you most like to discuss? Unless of course you think I'm insane.

Why us? Why not something close to your home?

[Jenny A]

Am I only one who thinks it would be great to see more threads started by some of the established theists on these forums? 

I'm not trying to be snooty or discourage theists that have recently joined from participating, but there has been a massive influx of new members starting threads that are just insane.

It would be nice to see more conversations started by theists who know what they're talking about and happen to be familiar with the rules of engagement. 

Just a thought.

Get your fellow atheists to take things seriously and I'll start some threads.

Good luck with that!

Seriously, whenever a theist is making good points, other atheists jump in with the standard red herrings to thorw things off course. Why would I bother making threads when I know this will happen?

I suppose fuck you is not a serious answer?   Seriously, I do try to respond seriously to all claims of proof of god.  Many of us do. ---seeriously, soberly, and without profanity.

I also tend to respond to most  Christian claims about what the bible means (is that enough equivocation for you?) because I often find them odd in historical and even biblical context. 

The last few theist through are not Christian, though they claim to do.  It's hard to find a sect that agrees with them.

[mediocrates]

Seriously, whenever a theist is making good points, other atheists jump in with the standard red herrings to thorw things off course. Why would I bother making threads when I know this will happen?

Why would any atheist entertain a debate consisting solely of the same drivel many of us were force-fed from the day we were born.  The same scriptures, same anecdotes, same speculation, assumptions, and contradictions... Having questioned religious teachings from within the church I have heard more ridiculous explanations for legitimate questions than I care to recall (just ask a creationist about meteor crater in Arizona if you need an example...) 

I think what is being said here is that any atheist would like to see a debate that takes a different route from the tired old arguments.  Many of us have lost the ability to swallow that crap long ago.  The reason we don't see any diversity in the arguments is because there are no logical arguments to be made on the side of theism. "You have to have faith because the bible tells you to" is all there is.

[Athene]

---

Am I only one who thinks it would be great to see more threads started by some of the established theists on these forums? 

I'm not trying to be snooty or discourage theists that have recently joined from participating, but there has been a massive influx of new members starting threads that are just insane.

It would be nice to see more conversations started by theists who know what they're talking about and happen to be familiar with the rules of engagement. 

Just a thought.

---

Get your fellow atheists to take things seriously and I'll start some threads.

Good luck with that!

Seriously, whenever a theist is making good points, other atheists jump in with the standard red herrings to thorw things off course. Why would I bother making threads when I know this will happen?

Don't.
If you feel you're going to be under siege for posting a thread, don't do it.

[Strider]

 I disagree, some of you have read the Bible but you take to it with a negative attitude, biased against it. Actually I've seen little from you that would make me believe you understand the Bible. 

GC

I disagree with you in a respectful way and then you personally insult me. I see you haven't changed much, GC.

Think what you want, I know enough about the bible and science that I'm confident in my beliefs - or, more specifically, my non-beliefs.

[abaris]

 I disagree, some of you have read the Bible but you take to it with a negative attitude, biased against it. Actually I've seen little from you that would make me believe you understand the Bible. 

GC

Yet you understand the bible how your parents and/or pastor wanted you to understand it.

[GrandizerII]

Nothing wrong with that. How else can one judge God (assuming he exists)? Or are you saying God should be beyond judgement even if he did things that harm us?

If someone has either an impoverished idea of God's nature and/or inadequate standard for The Good the he lacks the ability to distinguish between   what only appears to be harmful and that which actually is. In addition God's restorative justice alters the calculus.

Only appears to be harmful? Who decides whether one's pain is an illusion? And it's not "restorative justice" if too many people are going to be ultimately punished at the end.

I may not understand why Hitler did exactly what he did, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to judge that he did a lot of wrong, and doesn't change the fact that someone like him invokes a feeling of revolt and disgust at him due to what I deem unethical acts against others.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If someone has either an impoverished idea of God's nature and/or inadequate standard for The Good the he lacks the ability to distinguish between   what only appears to be harmful and that which actually is. In addition God's restorative justice alters the calculus.

Only appears to be harmful? Who decides whether one's pain is an illusion? And it's not "restorative justice" if too many people are going to be ultimately punished at the end.

I may not understand why Hitler did exactly what he did, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to judge that he did a lot of wrong, and doesn't change the fact that someone like him invokes a feeling of revolt and disgust at him due to what I deem unethical acts against others.

In themselves pain and pleasure serve poorly a moral guides and even then require a higher principle to distinguish between good and bad pleasures and good and bad pain. Other than that your only argument is your incredulity.