Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil

[Seax]

Wrong, there is no such thing as a four sided triangle, it's just impossible. It's not even possible to imagine such a thing. It cannot occur.

[Silver]

The square, which you are misinterpreting as a four-sided triangle disagrees.

[Seax]

The square, which you are misinterpreting as a four-sided triangle disagrees.

A square is not a triangle.

[Silver]

Obviously.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Well, for starters, a four sided triangle would be a square.

I mean, if someone can be this dense, it's easy to be confused about nature or even the nature of evil.

Indeed.

I'm still trying to parse the poster's bias/discrimination against radioactivity.

Colour me confused.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No, but there are problems created by men and problems outside our control.

Nope if problems exist god is the cause regardless of anything man does

---

No, but humans (and other cognitively advanced animals) are capable of acting in unnatural ways.

Nothing humans do is unatural 

By unnatural, I mean contrary to what is naturally advantageous.

That's a nonsensical definition 

There are things that are completely impossible in nature, like a four sided triangle, and then there are things that are impossible in the long run because they are conflict with the laws of nature; because they are against the Will of God.

This doesn't make sense 

 

This includes everything from the elements that really occur naturally and decay quickly, to behaviors or actions. 

Decay is natural and behaviors are all-natural 

Humans that act in ways contrary to what is naturally advantageous,

Again this is a dumb definition of natural and 

 that engage in pathological behavior, can be said to be acting unnaturally,

Nope totally natural and not uncommon either 

 and we are by no means the only species to engage in pathological behavior.

Yup that is natural 

This is evil.

No

[Lightbearer]

I noticed the user Catholic lady posted an OP asking how you would react if the Christian God showed himself to you & explained, with his divinely perfect logic, that he is moral. Some user said that that was a big 'what if,' but that they would immediately convert. But some others said they would still not accept him. I got the distinct impression that many, though by no means all, of the atheists respondents believe that the world is evil & that thus God would be evil. Many of the comments had an almost gnostic flavour to them, and it felt as though the commenters were gnostics that had lost their faith in a spiritual world.

We should distinguish, regardless of our personal beliefs on God, between natural and human evil. Natural evil is everything from the Onchocerca volvulus worm David Attenborough is fond of mentioning, to hurricanes, earthquakes and everything else not a product of men that harms us or causes us suffering. Human evil is whatever is unjust or wrong with our society or with an individual as a result of human action. Sometimes, as in the case of psychopathy, which is a mostly genetic, natural condition, the lines may be blurred a little. I should also say that I am coming from a pantheistic position; I don't believe in objective, natural evil; I believe that morality is an evolved instinct primates and possibly other social animals have to facilitate their cooperative evolutionary strategies. Morality serves an end; genetic survival. Nature, and God, are in my view, beyond good and evil. I understand some of the things I am criticising may be valid attacks on the Christian conception of God.


Many of the atheists in the thread seemed to think that God owed them something, or that the world should be without struggle, or that man should get to decide what God ought to do and not the other way around. Many people seemed to have a problem with authority in general, or to be narcissists. I think some atheists are angry at nature, and hate the world. They don't want there to be a God, because they want it to be true that, to quote Protagoras, 'Man is the measure of all things.' The idea of something higher than man, greater than man, offends their narcissism. For this fraction of atheists, atheism seems to be more a normative position than a descriptive one.

I cannot answer the poll as it refers to "if a god exists".

I think the poll reflects a theist arrogance (not you) that, if a god exists, it will obviously be theirs (and usually the god of Abraham). They seek desperately to prove "god" exists, especially people like W. L. Craig in the belief they are purely proving thier god exists.

To the poll, I say this: I would be totally indifferent but curious if I met a god as that god wouldn't be any worshipped on earth.

Theists tend to throw out the "You can't prove it doesn't exist as it's not falsifiable" but it is falsifiable only the nebulous god isn't falsifiable but their god must meet with their conditions such as not being evil, being a creator, giving man a free will choice, creating a heaven and hell. Those can be proved false or unsustainable theory and therefore the god can be proved false.  (Noting I refer to their god not all gods.)

I agree with paragragh 2. morality comes from nature. The most obvious proof of the claim is that animals in groups have some of the same morals.

In answer to your last paragraph I say this: If the god of Abraham exists, atheists would be correct to believe god owes them a life without suffering as that is what it could provide and, if it doesn't, it is evil as there is no possible free will scenario that could take place where the god is not evil or gains the right to punish them for the wrong decision. That being the case, if there is suffering, then there is no point in worshiping it as evil gods don't create heavens.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So humans are not part of nature?

Boru

No, but humans (and other cognitively advanced animals) are capable of acting in unnatural ways.

By unnatural, I mean contrary to what is naturally advantageous. There are things that are completely impossible in nature, like a four sided triangle, and then there are things that are impossible in the long run because they are conflict with the laws of nature; because they are against the Will of God. This includes everything from the elements that rearly occur naturally and decay quickly, to behaviors or actions. Humans that act in ways contrary to what is naturally advantageous, that engage in pathological behavior, can be said to be acting unnaturally, and we are by no means the only species to engage in pathological behavior.

This is evil.

So, if evil doesn't exist in nature, and evil is the result of acting in way that are not naturally advantageous, then evil HAS to exist in nature.

Let's say that a volcano erupts and spews billions of tonnes of toxic gases and burning ash into the air. The resulting contamination kills millions of plants and animals, including some that filled unique and necessary environmental niches. The deaths of these organisms creates a cascade effect that causes even more widespread damage to the biosphere, eventually cutting off food, water and harbourage for hundreds more species. According to any common, sensible interpretation of the term, such an eruption would qualify as 'natural evil', since the volcano had no moral intent to cause harm.

Boru

[zwanzig]

I get that the angry atheists thing is evergreen - but it's probably more to do with your own apprehensions than the level of anger on the boards or in atheism at-large. Not that this would matter, even to you, since you don't believe in objective whatsits to condemn angry atheists by. OFC, people can have misgivings - and what I've noticed over the years with deconversion stories and general conversation is that no atheist believes that god owes them something or is angry at a god they don't believe in. They believe that there were people who owed them something, and people that they believed in abused that trust. That god is what you would call a human evil.

This. ∆∆∆
If ever I seem angry, it is not at any supposed God but those who deign to speak for him. If such a creator being truly exists as spoken of, they chose their representatives poorly, because these men and women used their authority and influence to manipulate me for years, to make me feel guilt and shame for choices that I was told I am free to make, and to stunt my psychological, intellectual, and emotional growth to make me easier to control and make it harder for me to conceive of life independent of their authority. (I might have been less resentful and bitter if raised in a regular Christian religion, because the LDS is a pretty repressive fundamentalist evangelical cult, but it's a negligible difference.)

This is not possible, no such explanation would satisfy my criteria for morality. My issue with the Christian God is that he is described with ultimate characteristics, perfection, able to know everything, able to do everything. Assuming this is true, it must logically follow that any suffering, great or small, is inflicted as the result of this god's intention. There would be no suffering if this god desired there to be no suffering.

It further must logically follow that this cannot be excused by the claim that this god has a plan, the execution of which requires human (or any, for that matter) suffering to take place. For, a god capable of absolutely anything could achieve whatever goals he wishes, in any way he wishes, and it also further follows that it cannot happen in any way but that which he wishes.

It further must follow that it is illogical for an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god to resort to any kind of long term plan, for any reason. Plans exist specifically because it is not possible to do anything and everything all at once, with the metaphorical snap of a finger. To have to resort to a plan requires a god limited in his power and reach. To resort to a plan in spite of no such limits means that it can only be an unnecessary action undertaken deliberately.

This is brilliant and my thoughts mirror this path. The only thing is, I don't want to worship anyone. I used to put the caveat on it that if a God was whiny enough to demand obedience and reverence from me, it likely didn't deserve it. But I cannot see myself willingly handing my worship over as an unprompted gift either.

By the by, the NT isn't this idealistic elevated book either. It's just as primitive as the OT. It describes ritualistic cannibalism in order to recreate a blood magic sacrifice. It introduces the petty human ideal of a torturous afterlife for those who don't come under heel, based upon our need for retribution and punishing those we feel wronged by. It's not enough to live with God again; we gotta make those sinners pay.

[Angrboda]

I agree. Worshipping any god, no matter how worthy, is inferior to not having to worship anyone at all. Just think if you had to live under your parents' thumb, not just now, but forever.