Dr Rick

Allowing billions to suffer for the actions of two is neither just nor fair, and there are much more kind and effective ways to teach people.

If Radorth's neighbor committed a crime for which Radorth had no responsibility, it would not be right to let Radorth or anyone else who had nothing to do with it suffer as a result.

Quote:

The "original sin" boils down to placing our wills above God's will...And deciding for ourselves what is "good" and what is "evil".

Christianity teaches that we are all "born into sin" before we can exercise our will one way or the other.

"God-fearing" people commit all sorts of evil acts that aren't just stupid, but downright evil. Those who follow a humane and decent ethical code not based on superstition and faith do much better.

It would be foolish to expect otherwise; atheists don't believe in Paul's made-up sky-daddy so we have no irrational compulsion to blindly accept his misogynistic and misanthropic advice as Christians do.

The bible teaches that Adam and Eve brought pain on everyone through Original Sin. You may have your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the myth, but it's still just idiosyncratic, and it's still just a myth.


Communism is not atheism, but it has much in common with religion in that it requires blind faith and obedience. Christians kill and oppress in the name of Christianity, Communists kill and oppress in the name of communism, but atheists do not kill or oppress in the name of atheism.

It is faith-based beliefs that make people abandon reason and do stupid and evil things; the lack of belief does not.

Religion and other faith-based beliefs lead some people to self-righteous hypocrisy; a lack of belief in gods does not do that.

The Inquisitions, Crusades, Thirty-years War, the Baltic genocides, Stalinism, Nazism, and 9/11 are part of a repetitive theme based upon faith and irrational beliefs, not atheism.

Non sequitur; athiests don't believe in gods and so don't blame them for anything. We fault superstitous folk that cling to irrational beliefs and commit all sorts of evil acts because of them.

The last part is partially right, but other irrational believers, such as Muslims and communists, share some of the blame, as well.

Radorth hasn't demonstrated that atheism is responsible for anything wrong here.

huh?

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones Will someone please explain to Radorth that atheists don't believe in "God"?

Radorth, atheists don't believe in "God."

Rick

Infinity Lover

Waitaminute... billions ARE suffering... how the hell are you going to prevent the suffering of many by yourself if there are billions? Let it happen? Don't have much of a friggin'choice now do I?

You mean if I could prevent it? Perhaps I think they're complete asswhipes, deserving everything they've got coming; do I know them?

Do I think God did a shitty thing? I'm not religious, so no.

Infinity Lover

Now that I think of it... people unavoidably end up making mistakes, and will unavoidably end up passing some on to their offspring, and so on, and so on... the "suffering of those billions" is unavoidable.

This off course is where the story of the fall of man poses an insightfull though supernaturally charged view at human nature.

The only way the "suffering" of milions could be avoided here (boldly asuming this ties in with Adam and Eve), is by killing the two before they reproduce. Wouldn't that constitute as punishment though?

And the only way the no answer could make sense, short of double homocide, is if the two were perfect beings incapable of making mistakes or passing them on, same as their offspring... now which rationally thinking atheist believes in that? Not even theists do! I'm sure plenty of atheists here based their answer on it nonetheless, or even worse, didn't give it any thought.

Infinity Lover

Oh, and the "turning the kid over yes/no" analogy sucks (sorry Rufus). Saving a bunch of people's asses for the moment, is hardly the same as preventing their suffering perminently. One might stub their toe the next day for instance (ouch!).

ybnormal

RA:
If the question was so generic, why did so many people keep insisting that it refered to Adam and Eve and then say that others were dancing for simply looking beyond Genesis?

You are clearly missing the entire purpose of this thread. With ALL due respect Sir, you don't seem to understand it at all. The answer to YOUR above question IS Sapient's OP. The reason people keep insisting that it refered to Adam and Eve IS the purpose of the OP.

Which is, that xians (and some nonxians) automatically refer to the bible for answers, even when not called for. The generic question DID NOT refer to Adam and Eve... it did not refer to anyone identifiable. It only said, "two people". Again, IMO, the fact that some folks automatically filled in the A&E blank, IS the purpose of the OP.

Here is the FIRST response on this thread...

What "whole story" was so evident? What please, did seebs "allude to" and/or "refer to" in the first post, which Sapient properly ignored?

I am also left to point out that you too, deferred to the bible, which is why you too had a difficult time giving the obvious answer to the generic, bibleless question.


RA
If the OP wanted to limit the question to A&E, then it should have specified as such. I find it funny that some "freethinkers" have gotten upset that xians are willing to think outside the box.

See? The OP did no such thing. Sapient clearly began this thread saying, I am looking for YOUR thoughts, not thoughts that are in the bible.

And I suggest that had xians thought outside the box, as Sapient requested, Adam and Eve would never have been referred to on this thread. But as I just pointed out, that only lasted until the first response by seebs.

Again, this is a most simple question for those without the bible on their brain, and the ONLY answer is still, "NO!"

Infinity Lover

Simple my foot. Let billions of people suffer?... What constitutes as suffering here and what doesn't? Are we talking temporal suffering? Permanent suffering? How are you going to prevent billions from making each other suffer? Wouldn't the suffering of those billons be unavoidable anyway? Wouldn't those billions suffer at all unless you caused it?

The whole thing pivots on a "what if the impossible were possible" hypothesis. If you aren't thinking with bible on the brain, you at least would need to do something strikingly similar.

Dr Rick

It could be prevented by one who has sufficient powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men; an omnipotent god like the one most Christians worship could definitely prevent suffering, or else he wouldn't be omnipotent.

It would be unavoidable for limited beings such as ourselves, but there is no logical reason that it would be unavoidable for an omnipotent god. A god that couldn't avert all suffering would not be omnipotent.

To answer the last question, you probably don't, but if you were like the god described by Christians, you most definitely would. Furthermore, if you were like the Chrisitian god, you would love all of them.

That is a limitation that an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god could not have; he would have many options open to him to prevent suffering, or he wouldn't be all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful .

An all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god could do all of that, and many Christians do believe in that type of god; they just make-up all sorts of arguments about free-will/original sin/working in mysterious ways and other non sequiturs to explain why he doesn't/can't.

It's also possible that you are not comprehending the plenty of atheists answers or haven't given them much thought.

I definitely don't understand that answer.

It is not impossible to prevent all suffering because it is not illogical to do so. Just because humans can't do something doesn't mean it is impossible; it just means that it's not possible for humans. The question posed in the OP does not automatically require that we limit our answer to what humans can do.

Rick

Mad Kally

If two atheist men were in love with two xian women, how would they answer the original question?

Would you let billions of people suffer for the actions of two people?

Yes, no, I might/might not, or dance around the question? How about this answer already posted?

Infinity Lover

(but the billions are people nonetheless... that's billions of limitations to what you could do)

So you have no problem with filling in the blanks the hypotheisis poses with superhuman substance... but if I go all the way and turn the hypothesis, and it's subsequent discussion into a "god did a shitty thing, because I wouldn't do the same if I had the power" discussion, and I don't play along because I'm not a believer, and I think that trying to make sense out of nonsense is a waste of time...
"Do I think God did a shitty thing? I'm not religious, so no."
...well perhaps you understand it now. (I don't think god did didly squad, and I don't use supernaturals to fill in blanks.)

p.s. don't think the hypothesis would let you off the hook, so you wouldn't ever need to let anyone suffer. Billions of people will fuck up left and right all the time... you'd end up reprimanding all of them sooner or later for something.

Infinity Lover

Dance around? I'm trying not to trip over the holes in it. If the hypothesis does refer to God, Adam and Eve, and subsequently mankind, it doesn't make sense because the "suffering" is basicly the shit we do to ourselves and each other. If it doesn't the hypothesis makes for a shitty basis for a discussion on x-ian ethics (and why else present it specificly to x-ians), because a singular brief punisment doesn't compare to what the biblical metaphor represents.