How much pain can atheists withstand ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course it isn’t. The existence of God and discussions of religion are two completely unrelated topics.  Sounds like you need more experience.

Boru

They're not unrelated lol. The vast majority of religions are centered around some concept of God. If we don't agree on this concept, there is no discussion, at all. But it's understandable that you would disagree as an atheist, you want to get your religious opponent into messy discussions and a have a lot of religious content to attack, so that you can come out winning. 

This is common sense : I can't have a discussion with someone about the contents of a holy book, if they don't believe it's ... holy.

Nonsense. Religious belief and religious behaviour exist whether God exists or not. It’s like saying you can’t make plans for Christmas until you determine whether Santa exists.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

This is common sense : I can't have a discussion with someone about the contents of a holy book, if they don't believe it's ... holy.

Yes, you can.

[Angrboda]

Citation please.

I'm glad you asked, at least you care



Quote : "At the heart of this belief system is Hume's affirmation that there is a god, although not a morally good. Lastly, I summarize Hume's theism (which I call amoral theism ), which is unique in the history of ideas."



Quote (from the section "Interpretation of Hume's view") : "There is, therefore, support for interpreting Hume as a deist of a limited sort. Gaskin calls this Hume’s “attenuated deism,” attenuated in that the analogy to something like human intelligence is incredibly remote, and that no morality of the deity is implied, due especially to the Problem of Evil. However, scholars that attribute weak deism to Hume are split in regard to the source of the belief. Some, like Gaskin, think that Hume’s objections to the design argument apply only to analogies drawn too strongly. Hence, Hume does not reject all design arguments, and , provided that the analogs are properly qualified, might allow the inference. 

Administrator Notice
Links removed.

I meant a statement from Hume which supports your claim. I'll give some time to the material you reference, but ultimately that's opinion on a subject which the author himself admits is unclear in the very abstract that you quoted. By most accounts Hume is very critical of the argument from design in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I'm currently debating whether to leave this discussion to others and bow out. However, in the meantime, what you have given me as a citation claims that there is "support for" the conclusion. Pardon me if I'm underwhelmed by this.

[Astreja]

A god who would torture anyone for eternity is not only hostile but infinitely evil.

Why do you worship an evil god, TEoA?

You should first define the contentious word "evil". And then we'll discuss your opinion

My definition of evil: Deliberately causing pain and suffering to a sentient being.

Nothing more to discuss.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A god who would torture anyone for eternity is not only hostile but infinitely evil.

Why do you worship an evil god, TEoA?

You should first define the contentious word "evil". And then we'll discuss your opinion

My definition of evil:  Deliberately causing pain and suffering to a sentient being.

Nothing more to discuss.

I would amend that slightly to, ‘Deliberately causing needless pain and suffering to a sentient being.’ For example, jabbing a child with a sharp metal object is evil if it’s done for shits and giggles. Jabbing that same child with a sharp metal object in the process of administering a tetanus vaccine, not so much.

Boru

[Ravenshire]

Can you like, put in some extra effort when answering ?

Perhaps when you put some effort into thinking.

You're nothing more than the latest chuckle-fuck to bring worn out arguments from the generic christer handbook. If I were you, I'd be fucking embarrassed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is common sense : I can't have a discussion with someone about the contents of a holy book, if they don't believe it's ... holy.

Yes, you can.

He just wants to avoid discussion. "Admit that the book is holy so we can discuss whether or not it's holy." 3rd grade debating tactic.

[arewethereyet]

Can you like, put in some extra effort when answering ?

Perhaps when you put some effort into thinking.

You're nothing more than the latest chuckle-fuck to bring worn out arguments from the generic christer handbook. If I were you, I'd be fucking embarrassed.

Pretty sure this is the best he has to offer.  Don't expect more, you will surely be disappointed.

[Ravenshire]

Perhaps when you put some effort into thinking.

You're nothing more than the latest chuckle-fuck to bring worn out arguments from the generic christer handbook. If I were you, I'd be fucking embarrassed.

Pretty sure this is the best he has to offer.  Don't expect more, you will surely be disappointed.

I have no fear of disappointment.

There is, however slim, some microscopically small chance I may wind up surprised, though.

[Paleophyte]

It is broken is what it is. We have precisely zero experience with creation of universes or creation from nothing. What you call "creation" is merely rearranging existing matter and energy. Your analogy fails.

We have experience of what an intelligent agent is capable of doing (us). So the anaology goes the universe might also be the work of an intelligence

Emphasis mine. Wow, that's weak sauce. And it hasn't escaped me that you've shifted analogies from your previous failure.

Probably you shouldn't forget the bigger picture. When you consider things as big and sophisticated as the Solar System, is it acceptable to you if we say: nah, unimpressive, all this is just rearrangement of matter. You want us to seriously believe that something this huge kept rearranging itselff in ad hoc ways for billions of years, and that life forms as complicated as human beings came out of this mess ?

Give me one good reason why not. Kindly save us your ignorance and read up on chaos theory, emergent behaviour, and self-correcting systems first.

Are you trying to bastardize people?

By removing the mythology that we were made like a mud pie?

Consider something mundane such as following a recipe, we know that human beings can perfectly fail at that by a simple, tiny mistake and screw the meal. Imagine that the task was assigned to monkeys instead of human beings, the probability of failure is now much higher. Imagine if we have no one instead of monkeys, ..........?
 When we have a good cook, they will smartly combine the ingredients and leave the food in the oven, and the oven will take care of the rest. If we have a good meal in the end, that's because we have a smart and knowledgeable cook. It's certainly not solely explained by the oven alone. The oven being an analogy for the "forces of nature"; 

The whole evolutionary history is a very long "cooking" process that yielded human beings. You really need a good cook who put the right ingredients in the oven........

False analogy. That isn't how nature cooks. And it's very good at it because it has had 4 billion years of practice.