Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?

[robvalue]

Free will incoming...

I've explained this a million times before, but we can still have free will without being able to do horrible things to each other or get hideous diseases. We already have extremely limited free will. In fact, our will could be massively opened up to include all manner of things currently impossible, while losing the ability to hurt each other. Everyone wins.

If people for some reason wants to suffer, they could have the free will to have that suffering for as long as they wanted it. If it never existed in the first place, why would they want it though?

We would, of course, also be unable to get bored (unless we want to). So there goes that defence.

I'm not saying I'd do a better job than God. I'm saying I'd do a much better job.

I wouldn't have the egotistical obsession with them having to worship or "accept" me either. But even if I did, they could reject me without having to prove the point by impaling babies.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well one kind of free will is completely incoherent.

The other kind is trivially true but as silly as pantheism. Like I have said, when a compatabilist says "You're a compatabilist in all but name!" it's like a pantheist saying to an atheist "You're a pantheist in all but name!". It just shows how completely devoid of content such an -ism actually is.

Physical freedom sure as hell exists. But it would certainly be moral for God to limit a rapist or murderer's physical freedom as well, for the same reason that the police do. But surely God would do a much better job as well. He could prevent the rapist or murderer raping and murdering in the first place. If God thinks limiting the freedom of a rapist or murderer is worse than the rape or murder itself then he sure as hell is indeed the moral monster that I say he must be if he is all powerful and all knowing.

And seen as theists love to use the shitty parent analogy so much: God is like a parent who lets their children play in the road and starts fires, and doesn't prevent their children from doing those things because they don't want to impede on their child's 'free will'.

Well, God is like that, only even worse. As the greater the responsibility the greater the irresponsibility when that responsibility isn't used.

[robvalue]

I wouldn’t make people who would ever want to rape or murder. Even if they did, I’d let people create their own VRs to do so harmlessly. I’d give people maximal will, without it being ever possible for harm to come to anyone.

If I actually had free will, I could kill people with my mind.

[Edwardo Piet]

I wouldn’t make people who would ever want to rape or murder. Even if they did, I’d let people create their own VRs to do so harmlessly. I’d give people maximal will, without it being ever possible for harm to come to anyone.

If I actually had free will, I could kill people with my mind.

I agree. Except I'm not sure about that last sentence lol.

I don't think there's any version of free will that implies omnipotence lol.

And in fact, incompatabilist free will is so incoherent it's not even possible WITH omnipotence.

I've often argued that incompatabilist/libertarian/contra-causal free will is so incoherent that even God himself can't have it.

[Catholic_Lady]

I presume He has a good reason for allowing the natural world to take its course as it may. Sometimes good comes of that, sometimes bad comes of that. I presume overall the net good is greater, in the grand scheme of things.

There's that 'net good' comment again . . .

So it's okay for these awful things to happen if it leads to a 'net good'?

I don't know what you mean by "it's ok". Tragedies are always a horrible thing, and never ok things. I certainly don't think what happened to me was ok. 

But we don't know what the long term consequences would be, both in this world and in the next, eternal one, if this world were one where God always stepped in to prevent anything and everything that would cause us suffering. I assume things would overall somehow not work out very well, otherwise He would do it.

---

Again, I'd say it depends. Killing off all the Indians certainly wasn't detrimental to the settlers.

So you think that groups of people murdering each other and taking each others stuff maximizes well being? By the way Killing Indians and taking their land only led to war and more killing, it did not maximize well being for either side, eventually it had to be handled through treaty.

I think certain murders can maximize well being for certain people without negatively effecting the large scale society. But let's assume that it always does. Why should I care about the well being of people I don't know and don't care about?

(again, this is all devil's advocate. even if I didn't believe in God I would still care simply because of empathy because I'm not a sociopath)

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't know what you mean by "it's ok". Tragedies are always a horrible thing, and never ok things. I certainly don't think what happened to me was ok. 

I mean that you are saying that God allows it to happen because there will be a 'net good' at the end of it all.

But we don't know what the long term consequences would be, both in this world and in the next, eternal one,

You see. You're saying that in the long term God could consider it justified.

Even though he could make a world without it that led to exactly the same eventually positive long term consequences?

if this world were one where God always stepped in to prevent anything and everything that would cause us suffering. I assume things would overall somehow not work out very well, otherwise He would do it.

Again, you're offering a false dilemma again. We're not talking about God stepping in to prevent "anything and everything that would cause us suffering". We're talking about him at least stepping in to prevent the very worst things.

[Mr.wizard]

There's that 'net good' comment again . . .

So it's okay for these awful things to happen if it leads to a 'net good'?

I don't know what you mean by "it's ok". Tragedies are always a horrible thing, and never ok things. I certainly don't think what happened to me was ok. 

But we don't know what the long term consequences would be, both in this world and in the next, eternal one, if this world were one where God always stepped in to prevent anything and everything that would cause us suffering. I assume things would overall somehow not work out very well, otherwise He would do it.

3 million children die of hunger each year, you're telling me that this necessary for some greater good? Why can't God just eliminate suffering and death altogether, it seems to me that God if he is all powerful could reach maximum goodness without all of the death, pain, and suffering.

[Catholic_Lady]

If god doesn't exist morality is still objective . And no most atheist don't believe it's subjective.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48227.h...e+morality

---

I don't know what you mean by "it's ok". Tragedies are always a horrible thing, and never ok things. I certainly don't think what happened to me was ok. 

But we don't know what the long term consequences would be, both in this world and in the next, eternal one, if this world were one where God always stepped in to prevent anything and everything that would cause us suffering. I assume things would overall somehow not work out very well, otherwise He would do it.

3 million children die of hunger each year, you're telling me that this necessary for some greater good? 

No, and that's what I just explained, dude. 

The individual thing itself (ie starvation) does not serve a greater good. 

God not divinely intervening every time anything bad would happen to any person, I assume, serves a greater good. Both in allowing humans to have free will and in allowing the natural processes of this natural world to run their course. I assume there is a valid reason why He allows for both of those things, even though they sometimes cause suffering.  

Why can't God just eliminate suffering and death altogether, it seems to me that God if he is all powerful could reach maximum goodness without all of the death, pain, and suffering.

I assume this IS the maximum goodness, if all things are considered, which we can't consider since we haven't seen all of eternity.

(edited due to misreading the first time lol)

[Mr.wizard]

If god doesn't exist morality is still objective . And no most atheist don't believe it's subjective.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48227.h...e+morality

---

3 million children die of hunger each year, you're telling me that this necessary for some greater good? 

No, and that's what I just explained, dude. 

The individual thing itself (ie starvation) does not serve a greater good. 

God not divinely intervening every time anything bad would happen to any person, I assume, serves a greater good. Both in allowing humans to have free will and in allowing the natural processes of this natural world to run their course. I assume there is a valid reason why He allows for both of those things, even though they sometimes cause suffering.  

Why can't God just eliminate suffering and death altogether, it seems to me that God if he is all powerful could reach maximum goodness without all of the death, pain, and suffering.

I assume this IS the maximum goodness, if all things are considered, which we can't consider since we haven't seen all of eternity.

(edited due to misreading the first time lol)

I'm sorry but your are saying that God allowing 3 million children per year to starve to death contributes to the greater good. Because if god stepped in a saved the children it would effect our greater good at some point in eternity. I am not implying that you personally think starving children is good thing, I'm trying to argue with your reasoning as to why an all powerful god would allow or would even have to allow this to take place.

[Amarok]

If god doesn't exist morality is still objective . And no most atheist don't believe it's subjective.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48227.h...e+morality

---

3 million children die of hunger each year, you're telling me that this necessary for some greater good? 

No, and that's what I just explained, dude. 

The individual thing itself (ie starvation) does not serve a greater good. 

God not divinely intervening every time anything bad would happen to any person, I assume, serves a greater good. Both in allowing humans to have free will and in allowing the natural processes of this natural world to run their course. I assume there is a valid reason why He allows for both of those things, even though they sometimes cause suffering.  

Why can't God just eliminate suffering and death altogether, it seems to me that God if he is all powerful could reach maximum goodness without all of the death, pain, and suffering.

I assume this IS the maximum goodness, if all things are considered, which we can't consider since we haven't seen all of eternity.

(edited due to misreading the first time lol)

1. that poll is hardly representative of atheists as a population 

2. The fact that most moral philosophers are both unbelievers and moral realists puts a nail in that narratives coffin .

---

No, and that's what I just explained, dude. 

The individual thing itself (ie starvation) does not serve a greater good. 

God not divinely intervening every time anything bad would happen to any person, I assume, serves a greater good. Both in allowing humans to have free will and in allowing the natural processes of this natural world to run their course. I assume there is a valid reason why He allows for both of those things, even though they sometimes cause suffering.  

It's still awful presumption

---

I assume this IS the maximum goodness, if all things are considered, which we can't consider since we haven't seen all of eternity.

(edited due to misreading the first time lol)

We would never accept that logic in any other circumstance.So it's special pleading .