The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Silver]

What we mean by perfection is an obvious case of subjectivity. The same goes for any human thinking god is good, which would be subjective bias. There simply is no such thing as objective good or divine perfection.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Good might be subjective. But perfect is an observable objective term.

[polymath257]

and sees no problems with a god who makes kiddie cancer world.

I don't get it why you fools still allude to the problem of evil. We are not omniscient beings, THEREFORE we cannot say "kiddie cancer is inherently bad". What if these dead children are having better lives than you and I at this moment, right now ? So, again ...are you an omniscient being ?

This is precisely the type of thinking that makes religious ideas so dangerous. it excuses any amount of evil perpetrated in life because the dead people 'may have a better life now'.

Seriously, if child cancer is NOT an evil in your mind, then you need to re-evaluate your whole morality. ANYTHING said as an excuse for it only undermines your moral system and shows it to be vacuous.

[Angrboda]

The problem is the claims made about a persons chosen deity, who in the case of christianity claim is a perfect being, that created a world that  same being declared as 'good'.  Perhaps good does not mean good in the way that we expect, in which case what's is the point of using the word at all, if it's totally disconnected from anything we can understand.

There has to be some way to measure what everyone means by perfection. I think the "as intended" definition is good because it provides a template from which to measure divergence. (Even if that template is not accessible to us.)

If a circle was intended to be circular, then it can be said to be perfect. If a circle intended to be circular comes out oval, then it isn't perfect.

(I also think we should avoid saying: Circles aren't perfect because they're not square.)

You might want to take a look at the following thread for ideas.

Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?

---

Re: Klorox, this seems to be the rationalization that harm is not harm if the victim is compensated. Does that mean that a billionaire can punch you in the junk, so long as he gives you money afterward?

[possibletarian]

In the old days people used to value humility, and were willing to admit that maybe they didn't have the capacity to judge. Humility is very much out of fashion now, so we all seem to assume that our own desires are what an omniscient being would do if there were one.

I just read this again, I think perhaps as societies move away from religious majorities (or strict political regime of some type weakens its grip) people then start to air the thoughts they have been having a long while.

I was raised a JW and there were definitely somethings you would never actually say, but did ponder privately it was only when I fully left and saw the ridiculousness (to me) of some positions that I spoke about then. Maybe in the same way it works with god belief, as the crowd mentality looses its grip people speak out.

Clearly if you no longer believe in a god there is not point in being humble as you did when you believed, once you see the world without a god you don't feel the need to defend a god, you decide in other ways how you should react. Another example and my once 'pet-peeve' is when believers used to say 'you are angry at god' when the reality was i was angry at them (and religion) for the apparent disconnect with reality and constant excuses for god (the same ones i used to use with unbelievers.. lol) i was angry that i once believed and used those excuses.

Now it is just a source of amusement, the path out of religious indoctrination and ways of thinking is a long one as i'm sure many on here would agree.

[R00tKiT]

I don't get it why you fools still allude to the problem of evil. We are not omniscient beings, THEREFORE we cannot say "kiddie cancer is inherently bad". What if these dead children are having better lives than you and I at this moment, right now ? So, again ...are you an omniscient being ?

This is precisely the type of thinking that makes religious ideas so dangerous. it excuses any amount of evil perpetrated in life because the dead people 'may have a better life now'.

Seriously, if child cancer is NOT an evil in your mind, then you need to re-evaluate your whole morality. ANYTHING said as an excuse for it only undermines your moral system and shows it to be vacuous.

I am not excusing anything, don't strawman my position, please. I am pointing out that we simply don't have complete information, and thus cannot assert stuff like "a deity who allowed this is incompetent". After all, it's this same deity who gave us instincts, feelings and reasoning ability which permit self improvement.

P.S. to the christian fool who gave kudos to your comment, go defend your three headed god first and fix your logically flawed doctrine, before talking about evil and competence.

---

Don't you dare speak about evil, John Breezy! ;

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV) “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Good might be subjective... my ass.

[John 6IX Breezy]

P.S. to the christian fool who gave kudos to your comment, go defend your three headed god first and fix your logically flawed doctrine, before talking about evil and competence.

You're upset because I think child cancer is wrong? I was a paramedic before switching to psychology. My sister is a nurse. My brother is a medical lab scientist (I took some courses as well before switching). Sorry I don't fit neatly into your villinization of Christianity lol.

I think Kloro could have argued his position better without drawing the conclusions he did.

[R00tKiT]

. Sorry I don't fit neatly into your villinization of Christianity lol.

What vilinization ? Some elements of christianity really are vile. I am not trying to just spread anti christian polemics, but some texts in the Old Testament are simply undefendable, morally speaking. It's true that Islam didn't condemn slavery either, but at least Islamic sources don't have passages like this;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV

[Angrboda]

[The Architect Of Fate]

Religion fight! Place your bets now!

I put $250 on John