Atheism, theism and jelly beans

I do mean "necessary consequences of a world that allows for free will", not free will itself. World is the cause and natural disasters are the effect.
OK.

But I don't see what that has to do with free will.

So even though humans are not predictable, you envision a world where the consequences of their actions are?
Unable to parse. I didn't suggest the consequences of unpredictable humans are predictable.

And you can somehow distinguish between the wholly human-caused and natural contributing factors, no matter how far down the chain of causation?
Yeah, sure.

Was hurricane Katrina a disaster because of nature or human neglect of the levees or choice to live there in the first place? Was the weather, itself, caused by human pollution, and would that have even been a disaster without other human contributions?
Hurricanes are not caused by humans.
Weather is not caused by pollution.
Both these things went on their merry way for eons before humans came along.

And if we couldn't distinguish between human-caused and natural contributing factors, wouldn't nature seem essentially as arbitrary as if there was no sufficiently predictable causation?
Well, we can, so...

What, even though people completely neglect to protect themselves from the elements, the world would just magically protect them anyway?
What?

That would seem to preclude doubt in a god or a reliably predictable natural world (from which we could develop science), both necessary for free will.
I am not sure what you're saying here. You're sort of jumping over too many dots to connect.
 
OK.

But I don't see what that has to do with free will.
Seems to be a theme with you.

So even though humans are not predictable, you envision a world where the consequences of their actions are?
Unable to parse. I didn't suggest the consequences of unpredictable humans are predictable.
Again, seems to be a regular problem for you. No one said "humans are predictable". I said " the consequences of their actions are". Maybe try reading a sentence a few times.

Hurricanes are not caused by humans.
Not all hurricanes are disasters either.

Weather is not caused by pollution.
Depends on your stance on climate change, I guess.

Both these things went on their merry way for eons before humans came along.
Exactly, disasters are contingent upon humans experiencing them.

Well, we can, so...
Can we? You never answered whether better levee maintenance or people simply not living there would have avoided that disaster. If not, maybe we can't tell the difference, and if so, maybe the disaster was not wholly nature's doing.

I am not sure what you're saying here. You're sort of jumping over too many dots to connect.
Is English your native language?
 
OK, another discussion has degenerated into trollish insults. Nothing left to see here.
 
Last edited:
Seems to be a theme with you.


Again, seems to be a regular problem for you. No one said "humans are predictable". I said " the consequences of their actions are". Maybe try reading a sentence a few times.


Not all hurricanes are disasters either.


Depends on your stance on climate change, I guess.


Exactly, disasters are contingent upon humans experiencing them.


Can we? You never answered whether better levee maintenance or people simply not living there would have avoided that disaster. If not, maybe we can't tell the difference, and if so, maybe the disaster was not wholly nature's doing.


Is English your native language?

Hey,

You can obviously talk and think but I've got some knowledge to part with you if you want it. Some people do not portray themselves accurately when faced with a computer screen.

Dave wants to be a moderator so can come across as a bit of a complicated know it all but I think his will is good.

I think Dave was simply saying you are going to fast for him, can you explain what you are talking about a bit more(connecting the dots bit)...?

Anyway, you two are a pretty good match up.
 
Hurricanes are not caused by humans.
Weather is not caused by pollution.
Both these things went on their merry way for eons before humans came along.
The extra strength and unexpected locations of hurricanes that form over AGW's warmer oceans is now, and for some time to come will be, caused by humans.
Weather is nowdays often changed - caused - by stuff people have put into the air.

Both those things will soon have been changed and continue to change - in terms of human lifespan permanently - by the unprecedented boosting of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration during the past century, and the continuation of that boosting over the century to come.
 
Atheism, by definition, is not an ism. Every human is a theist or not a theist. Every human who once lived was a theist or not a theist, regardless of whether the word theist or the word atheist had yet been invented. One need not know, believe, think or hear of anything concerning a god or gods in order to not be a theist.

><
 
Vociferous:
Lots of gray area in what you, personally, consider "reasonably convincing", and meeting that vague criteria effectively requires proof.
I don't like the word "proof" in this context, because I don't think there can be indisputable "proof" of God, analogous to the certainty of something like a mathematical proof, say. But then again, I don't think there can be indisputable proof of the existence of a tomato, either, so God's not so special in that regard.

It's strange that a lot of theists (such as yourself, I suppose) fixate on what an atheist like me would require in order to be convinced that God exists. For me, the interesting question is: what convinces you, the theist? I mean, if we're going to discuss me then it's all a bit hypothetical, isn't it? What might convince me, hypothetically, that God exists? I'm not sure.(*) Whatever it is, I haven't seen it yet. But we're missing an opportunity by talking about me, aren't we? Right here we have before us somebody who has become convinced, by whatever process, that God is real. Maybe if you could tell us what clinched the matter for you then somebody like myself could follow you down the same path and end with the same belief. After all, whatever it was that convinced you must be something damn good, because you're not an idiot, right?

I don't really understand the reluctance of some theists to talk about why they believe when they are confronted by skeptics. Is it that it's something deeply personal to them? Is it that they are afraid that their reasons are too fragile to be exposed to possible criticism or enquiry? Or what?

---
(*) That is, I'm not sure now. I could talk about why I used to believe in God, and indeed have done so to some extent in the past on this forum. The reason I don't believe in God these days is that I realised that the reasons I believed in the past weren't very good ones.
 
Last edited:
"God is in every rock, every blade of grass. Why, all you have to do is look at the world and you see God everywhere."

If God is everywhere then why are there people dying every day? Why is there so much cruelty and misery in this world if there is a God?

When I look at the world I definitely do not see God, in fact I see the complete opposite of God:

I see people dying, I see people being oppressed by the Capitalist system, I see many people living in pain and I see poverty, misery, hardship and oppression. I see Capitalist injustice everywhere.

All the evidence that I can see, including the scientific evidence of course, clearly shows that there is no God and that there never was one.

I think those people who believe in God must be completely delusional to believe in something that there is absolutely zero evidence for.
 
fascinating topic
I think those people who believe in God must be completely delusional to believe in something that there is absolutely zero evidence for.
not to defend a belief in god, but isn't your perspective demonstrative of the subjective nature of belief? (either way)
for instance, you stated
All the evidence that I can see, including the scientific evidence of course, clearly shows that there is no God and that there never was one.
but there is no "scientific evidence" that there is or was no god. the best you can state, with any kind of scientific accuracy, is that there is no evidence to date for a god (any).
There is circumstantial evidence against a god, but that's subjective.

The list you gave is selective and if you speak to a religious (theist) person you will have an entirely different list. that list, like@DaveC426913 says:
is mined with circular arguments and question begging.
AFAIK, the only thing that we can actually state with any scientific authority is that faith, or the belief in something without evidence, seems to be inherent in the species.

I think James R has a point:
what convinces you

and the answers are fascinating as they apply to so many things other than religion, from conspiracist ideation to anti-vaxxers and flat earthers.
 
If God is everywhere then why are there people dying every day? Why is there so much cruelty and misery in this world if there is a God?

When I look at the world I definitely do not see God, in fact I see the complete opposite of God:

I see people dying, I see people being oppressed by the Capitalist system, I see many people living in pain and I see poverty, misery, hardship and oppression. I see Capitalist injustice everywhere.

All the evidence that I can see, including the scientific evidence of course, clearly shows that there is no God and that there never was one.

I think those people who believe in God must be completely delusional to believe in something that there is absolutely zero evidence for.
All of your complaints are irrelevant to the concept of a "creator". Maybe god exists but just doesn't fit your idea of what he/she/it should be like.

While I feel that the idea of god just moves the goalposts for the ultimate question of where did everything come from. These arguments against some "altruistic" or "religious" concept of god have no bearing on the deeper issues.
 
(huge pic)
While I am an atheist, I don't have a problem with the logical consistency of a God who created life and then gave humans free will to do with it as they please.

Even fallible human parents let their kids skin their knees, or let their delinquent teens spend a few nights cooling in a jail cell. How else would they learn to grow up? We don't call them malevolent or evil.
 
Back
Top