Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil

[Mister Agenda]

Regarding the problem of evil, it strikes me that the pantheistic viewpoint is particularly cowardly. By denying both moral and natural evil, they achieve the equivalent of, 'Not my problem, brah.'

Boru

I don't deny human evil, I deny that evil exists in nature.

It only exists in nature if it is the will of an omnipotent moral agent.

A moment to address your biases:

https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewco...ext=psyfac

https://www.sciencealert.com/atheists-ar...g-to-prove

---

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.

God only owes us something if we are God's creation and God loves us. It's reasonable to expect an omnipotent being who loves us to be able to show it by protecting us from needless suffering. The problem of evil isn't an argument against a creator God, just against a benign one.

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 don't think you're qualified to make that diagnosis over the internet. I also think you're a jerk. Thank you for disabusing me of the notion that pantheists might be counted on to speak more politely towards atheists than Abrahamists. It's clear from your words that our mere existence offends you.

I'm at peace with nature and I love the world. I would be happy for there to be a God if it was benign and competent but its power was limited such that it's doing the best that it can under the circumstances. I wouldn't want a God that was hostile to us or incompetent. Would you? I don't care if there's an indifferent God and if there was, it wouldn't care if I care.

I would be surprised if there isn't anyone superior to humans in the entire universe, I just don't think that would make them gods.

Atheism is not believing any deities are actually real, full stop. Theism is believing at least one deity is really real, full stop. Any other qualities an atheist or theist may have are in addition to their atheism or theism, not a part of their atheism or theism. Both are merely opinions on the topic of whether or not at least one god or God is actually real. Neither can be normative, they are merely descriptions of either the state of mind of not holding a belief in the existence of a deity or holding such a belief. If all you know about someone is whether they're an atheist or theist; you know very little about them.

[Ryantology]

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.

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.

[Nay_Sayer]

Silly nazi, Of course not. I could never be mad at FSM.

[purplepurpose]

God is like a thug. "I can torture you. So, better obey me". And according to the bible he proposes such existence for as long as he like. And its natural that many people get rebellious.

[Ryantology]

Christianity would work so much better if they just excised the old testament stuff, Jesus was a really revolutionary figure with revolutionary ideas. OT God was just one of thousands of angry warrior king types with magical powers, there's really nothing special about that myth whatsoever, and that religion likely would have died out with all other ancient religions if it hadn't been used to as a traditional and credibility foundation for a new religion which is, for the most part, not really similar at all.

[Angrboda]

God is like a thug. "I can torture you. So, better obey me". And according to the bible he proposes such existence for as long as he like. And its natural that many people get rebellious.

"That's a nice eternal soul youse got there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Christianity would work so much better if they just excised the old testament stuff, Jesus was a really revolutionary figure with revolutionary ideas. OT God was just one of thousands of angry warrior king types with magical powers, there's really nothing special about that myth whatsoever, and that religion likely would have died out with all other ancient religions if it hadn't been used to as a traditional and credibility foundation for a new religion which is, for the most part, not really similar at all.

Agree to disagree. Not a single positive idea of Jesus found in the Gospels is original, let alone revolutionary.

Boru

[Silver]

God is like a thug.

Not like the good kind portrayed in gay porn, then.

[Seax]

I don't deny human evil, I deny that evil exists in nature.

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.

[Silver]

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.