Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

David,
Excellent post.


What in particular (of Paines) convinced you that Christianity was a lie?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender,
To which one can reply:
To which evil do you refer? Evil by intent the necessity of freewill or evil without intent which is not evil.


Thoughts and comment welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

The Other Michael

SOMMS:

Read Paine's "Age of Reason". If it isn't on the II site you can find it at positiveatheism.com

cheers,
Michael

Ender

Typique!
The only way to answer this question and steadfastly hold onto the belief in a perfect being is to committ linguistic gymnastics by redefining "evil."

Of course i meant both moral and natural evil.

The theist must eliminate natural evil, (diseases, natural disasters, and just about 99 percent of the universe) by saying it is not evil. This is an issue of theodicy. There are two competing theodicies- Leibniz' and Spinoza's. Leibniz' posits the world as intrinstically good. If it weren't, pessimism is the default position. This would render suffering useless and wasteful, since they are sustained for nothing. Suffering/evil must be justified for something, otherwise life is existentially absurd. If there is a God, hopefully an omnibenevolent one, then by definition this guarantees all events that occur must hold purpose, despite the inability of human comprehension. Spinoza posits the world as no good- if it were so, this ridicules the position of evil (which is what you are doing) especially the enormous ones (holocaust, black plague) or constant on-going ones. Evil would be actually "instrumental good" and be rendered meaningless. The theist ends up in the shallow and superficial position of the onlooker who mocks the suffering with the consolation that "what happens is for the greater good." If there is a god, he could accomplish his 'mysterious ways' and eliminate the horrific events that took place in the past.

In addition, free will does not absolve God of anything- in fact he is responsible for creating that distinctly human attribute! With foreknowledge he knew the exact result of installing such an "actualization" in mankind prior to the act of creation.

SOMMS- are you still applying preparation H for the ass-reaming you got in that thread "best atheist argument i ever heard, with rebuttal" ?

~WiGGiN~

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender,
Now who is playing word games?

'Natural evil' is simply a term (most non-theists use) for 'thing which I feel is bad' ie suffering. There is nothing inherently 'evil' with earthquakes, drought or hurricanes. They are mere physical processes. Moreover, suffering can actually be a good thing: exersize, discpline and diet are examples.

It is intellectually dishonest to blindly lump all these things in as 'evil' then blame it on God.


This is the pose of the rebuttal: the only *real evil* in this world is conjured by man.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koyaanisqatsi

There is if your god exists, because he is the one that created them and allows them to continue to happen, wherein mullions of people and animals suffer.

Not if your god exists, they aren't. They are the direct result of your god's will; his "ineffable plan."

Now who is playing word games? You know damn well that the suffering inflicted by hurricanes has nothing to do with diet.

Not nearly as dishonest as it is to claim God wills all of existence into being and then accepts no responsibility for the suffering that coincides with that act of will.

I would concur, especially since man conjured your god.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Ender

You are, of course, when you characteristically deny the practical definition of the term “natural evil” in order to safeguard your immature belief in a non-existent mythological figure.
Correct, which leads to the empirical validation of the term. Perhaps meaning- empiricism is anathema to theists, especially those of the Christian bent. Won’t you agree? I do not desire terminal diseases, predatory animals, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, meteors, supernova explosions, or any other catastrophic natural phenomena because they decrease the quality of life. Anything evil harms the quality of my life. What kind of additional benefit can natural evil confer that a moral evil does in the stipulation of establishing interpersonal moral virtues such as forgiveness and tolerance? Bottom line: Natural evil is superfluous and is irreconcilable with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God.

What a bold, yet unsupported and gratuitous assertion! So what are they? Mere inconvenience? By denying they are evil you have abandoned any means of verifying what is “evil” and in your own solipsistic world you are re-creating language to suit your theistic urges. Evil is the poverty of the good. There’s nothing good about earthquakes, drought, or hurricanes.
Oh goody, more linguistic gymnastics! Unless you’d like to continue talking out of your arsehole, exercise, discipline, and diet are not suffering. You’re setting the bar extremely low here, one that is all-too-lenient to your theistic biases.
it is far more intellectually dishonest to credit God of the good and ignore the bad/evil/deficiencies. If God is the supreme diety, then all (i mean everything) is due to God. When you pick and choose, you are being intellectually dishonest!

False. Man is the measure of all things- what diminishes the quality of man’s life is evil. What increases it is good. Your only recourse is to induce buffalo shuffling and contort definitions to suit your fancies.

Again, is God capable of stopping evil, but won’t? then he isn’t benevolent, nor moral. This rules out your mythological figure.
On the other hand, if God is willing but unable, then he isn’t omnipotent. This leaves the possibility of a deist god, Spinoza’s- most certainly not your Omnimax comic book God.
The third possibility is that God is both capable and willing- your God- so then what is evil? You response to this scintillating anti-theistic argument was a capricious and whimsical denial of natural evil.

NEXT!

P.S. it’s no wonder why Epicurus remains a paragon of atheists for 2,300 years.
~Speaker of the death of God~

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender,
The truth finally comes out: 'Natural evil' is simply what you don't desire. Whatever 'decreases the quality of your life'.

So be it:
Paying taxes is 'evil'.
Strawberry icecream is 'evil'.
Working out is now 'evil'.

Thus the meaning of 'evil' is completely lost...drowned by an ocean of personal preference and utter subjectivity.


So now the universe is defined by whether it is convenient or inconvenient to you?

Earthquakes are a laymans term for certain kinds of tectonic plate activity that relieve pressure.
There are 100s of them a day...almost all go unnoticed.
Drought is a geothermal phenomenon in which a geographical region experiences lower than normal amounts of precipitation.
Hurricanes are high pressure dynamics created from other high pressure weather fronts.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' with natural phenomenon. Are you really proposing that geologists and others that study earthquakes are 'evil' for doing because they study horribly evil, satanic earthquakes? I think not.


I see. Man is the center of the universe. Things are evil based solely on how man feels about it. If one day man 'feels' strawberry icecream is evil then its evil. However, the next day man could change his mind and so it wouldn't be 'evil' anymore.

You cannot define 'evil' in terms of mere preference. For why not simply call it that (preference)and be done with it?


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender

SOMMS

Not necessarily mine but all humankind. Natural evil has no beneficiaries- especially when it is uncontrollable and is blind, irrational, and does not figure in a paradise. You will agree that a terminal disease, a predatory animal, an earthquake, or any other natural disasters are privations of the good. If you want to be taken seriously, you will address each one of my comments, instead of zeroing on snippets and creating strawpersons.

Fallacy of strawman. Natural disasters aren’t an subjective preference- they do not benefit my life in the least- nor yours. When you decide to take this discussion seriously, let me know, and we can get down to business.

Either you have a serious reading disability or you are being disingenuous here. Let me restate my earlier question: what are natural disasters? Are they inconveniences? I am challenging you and putting you on the spot. Do not espouse typical theistic behavior and waffle here.

Nice description, but irrelevant. I wouldn’t want to experience a serious earthquake- anything above 6.0 on the Richter scale. Would you? Why not? Try and be honest here. Why aren’t earthquakes evil? Are they or are they not a privation of the good?

Non sequitur. How does that support your case that they are not a “poverty of the good?”

Non sequitur again. How does that support your case that they are not a “poverty of the good?”

if not, what are they? I already asked you this.

I don’t suffer insipid theistic biases like you do and assume everything evil must be satanic. I applaud geologists and other scientists of natural phenomena because they apply the scientific method in the hopes of corralling the blind irrational forces of nature for future uses. Your god did an atrocious job in designing this infinitesimal, insignificant world where much of it is uninhabitable and nearly 99.999...% of the universe is inhospitable to life. He could’ve done a better job, don’t you think?

You cannot separate man from his assessment of reality. The entire corpus of human knowledge is filtered through the senses and made readily intelligible via the human mind (logic, habits, psychological inclinations, etc). Ergo, everything is man-made- morality, philosophy, science, religion, language, culture, and etcetera.

you mistake subjectivity with actual pain and destruction. It is not to my subjective whims that I suffer from the searing pain of the volcano. Your understanding of subjectivity and empirical evidence of pain or pleasure is utterly embarrassing.

You’re woefully dense and idiotic. Please put in some effort in addressing all of my points I raised in the previous posts, or at least, starting with this one, instead of lazily picking and choosing snippets of my statements and render them out of context.

~Speaker 4 the Death of God~

David Gould

"Age of Reason" - his examination of the first five books of the old testament in particular.