Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?

[Edwardo Piet]

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

---

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.  



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.

^This^

We are never saying that you are saying any of these things are intrinsically good, CL. But you are saying that they are extrinsically good, in God's eyes, or he wouldn't allow it to happen. He MUST have a GOOD REASON FOR IT.

And I just think that's abhorrent. I know you have a good heart, CL, but I don't think "mysterious ways" or "it'll all work out in the end" are answers to a being that allows such horrible things to happen when he by definition doesn't need to allow it in order to achieve exactly the same end results. As an omnipotent being he by definition can achieve this 'net good' without the bad. A truly good and truly omnipotent being wouldn't have to allow this natural world full of suffering to get exactly the same net good but without all the awful bad.

And, to be honest, there is no good that can make up for some of the bad that goes on in the world. Heaven could be a place of perfect beauty and bliss that lasts forever... and all justice could be dished out in the end. But that would NOT make up for all those innocent children and animals who suffered needlessly.

And it is, indeed, completely needless, if this being that you speak of is truly omnipotent.

[robvalue]

I was telling my long suffering wife about how theists can astound me with their ability to compartmentalise. They can hold several beliefs concurrently which, if allowed to come into contact with each other, make no sense and cause instant contradictions. But I guess the pragmatic benefits of holding the beliefs in isolation has caused the brain to have this seemingly magical power. It keeps them apart and displaces anything which might threaten them.

Evolution never ceases to amaze me! It’s more magical than any religious story.

[Edwardo Piet]

God not divinely intervening every time anything bad would happen to any person, I assume, serves a greater good.

Strawman and false dilemma again. We're not talking about him stepping in to prevent anything and everything. We're talking about him at least stepping in to prevent the very worst things. This is not a choice between either no intervention and constant intervention. It's a choice between God stepping in to prevent things like animal cruelty, child rape and serial killings. At the very least. Or a choice where he just overlooks it all and waits until judgement day......... When he could have prevented it from happening in the first place.

This isn't a choice between stepping in to prevent all possible suffering or not stepping in at all. After all, we wouldn't want God stepping in to prevent the suffering that comes with a smallpox vaccination, for example. But then again: That begs the question... why does God allow things such as smallpox in the first place? Why are those things even necessary? Why does God create an imperfect natural world with suffering when he could create a perfect world without suffering?

These things are only necessary because he makes them necessary. He wants suffering. You can say it's for the greater good but then you fail to realize that he could allow the greater good to happen without any suffering involved. God doesn't need a means to an end he can literally create perfection right from the outset.

And, to be honest, the only reason it would be bad for God to step in to prevent the mildest sufferings—once he stupidly allows any kind of suffering to be possible in the first place when he doesn't have to—is because when it comes to milder sufferings God interfering with freedom WOULD cause MORE suffering by limiting people's freedoms. But that is NOT the case with more extreme sufferings like rape and murder and childhood cancer and animal abuse. Those things would very much be worth God's intervention to remove and prevent. This is why you keep offering this strawman and false dilemma between intervening about absolutely everything or not intervening at all.

But still, even the mild sufferings are not necessary because God doesn't need to allow them in order to get to this 'net good'. God can do literally anything logically possible, right? So there is absolutely no need to create bad stuff to get to the good stuff he can just get to the good stuff and yet he chooses not to. So he's clearly either not all that good or he's not all that powerful.

---

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)

We agree that that would be the maximum goodness! You see? This is why morality is objective... because we both agree on that because we both recognize that needless suffering is objectively bad. I don't need a God to think that that would be the maximally good scenario: Zero pain, death and suffering.

And yet... once again you are missing the point. If God is truly omnipotent and can do everyhting logically possible THEN HE DOESN'T NEED TO HAVE LOTS OF SUFFERING AS A MEANS TO THAT MAXIMALLY GOOD SCENARIO. HE CAN INSTEAD CREATE THE SCENARIO FROM THE START AND KEEP IT THAT WAY.

[Catholic_Lady]

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

---

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.  



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.

No, there is no good that comes from children starving, in and of itself. It's a horrible thing. Which is exactly why God gave us the moral responsibility to feed the hungry, take care of each other, not be greedy, use our actions for good to help others, etc. There is a greater good (presumably) that comes from God allowing free will and allowing the world to be as it would, naturally, without stepping in and resorting to divine intervention. If all of us chipped in, and if government leaders werent corrupt, I think the number of starving children would greately be reduced. God gave US that responsibility, I assume, for a reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

When we see that someone else has failed to help someone in need we don;t just shrug.  Thats a god thing, apparently. Farming out his own responsibility for his own creations even though he seems to have an exceedingly low opinion of the apes in question.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, there is no good that comes from children starving, in and of itself. It's a horrible thing.

There is no good that comes from children starving, in and of itself, and also no possible moral justification for it unless it's to prevent even worse suffering which God necessarily does not have to allow if he truly is all powerful.

---

Which is exactly why God gave us the moral responsibility to feed the hungry, take care of each other, not be greedy, use our actions for good to help others, etc.

God didn't have to make that even necessary.

There is a greater good (presumably) that comes from God allowing free will and allowing the world to be as it would, naturally, without stepping in and resorting to divine intervention.

He doesn't have to choose between two crappy choices. That's the point.

If all of us chipped in, and if government leaders werent corrupt, I think the number of starving children would greately be reduced. God gave US that responsibility, I assume, for a reason.

He's a moral monster for allowing the suffering to happen in the first place instead of getting to the end 'net good' result right from the beginning.

---

When we see that someone else has failed to help someone in need we don;t just shrug.  Thats a god thing, apparently.

Indeed. If God's mission is to prove that we are morally superior to him he has succeeded.

---

This makes God the most evil of all by Einstein's logic.

[Catholic_Lady]

As I said. I assume one day each one of us will understand.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some of us already do, lol.

[Edwardo Piet]

As I said. I assume one day each one of us will understand.

That just seems like a way to stop thinking about it and switch your brain off, to me.



Again, there's literally no possible moral justification for allowing needless suffering when you're an omnipotent being that doesn't need it.

But it's okay. You're a theist. So when you run out of answers it's expected you'll choose a "one day we'll know, I guess." response over a giving up on your beliefs response.

[Amarok]

As I said. I assume one day each one of us will understand.

That's not an argument that's simply kicking the can to so unknown point. Weak sauce .