Why do you regard it as evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.)? jan.
Because it's the available body of facts or information. Which is why I keep inviting you to make more information available. Do you have any?
I don't have any, because there aren't any. It's one thing being fooled into thinking that it counts as evidence, but another thing to believe it to be true. How do you determine that the information given is factual? jan.
This is faulty logic. Humans don't step in when a lion kills its rival young, or when an alligator eats a gazelle. Humans study and treat wild animals by tranqing them, capturing them, caging them, measuring them, tagging them and injecting them. By any account, the animal would consider this suffering (it is in fear of its life as long as it is confined). But we, as humans know there is a loftier goal, and we know we are not being evil.
The problem of evil and immorality is only one argument against the existence of God. There are many others arguments that are even better. For example, we are often told that miracles happened often in the past but the evidence shows that they do not happen today. Why not? Why have the miracles suddenly stopped? A good argument against the existence of God is that if God really existed then he would have to keep the miracles going because otherwise no one would believe that he exists. Also one could also argue that a God who commits miracles is evil: Suppose that Jesus miraculously fed and healed thousands, raised someone from the dead, or that God parted the Red Sea to save the Israelites. Suppose that all of the millions of visitors to the shrine at Lourdes, France who claimed to have been miraculously healed were actually miraculously healed. Suppose that God were to reach out and instantaneously eliminate all pointless suffering in the world today. None of these miracles accomplishes nearly as much as God could: He didn’t do it yesterday, he didn’t do it at Auschwitz in 1945, or when the bubonic plague ravaged and killed millions in Europe during the 1300s. He didn’t do it in countless other cases where all of the morally relevant details were the same as the cases where he is alleged to have performed a miracle. Christine Overall says, “If Jesus was the Son of God, I want to know why he was hanging out at a party, making it go better [turning water into wine], when he could have been healing lepers, for example.”She concludes, “a being that engages in events that are trivial, capricious, and biased cannot be a morally perfect God.” She says, “As those who would defend the argument from evil point out, there is a huge amount of evil in the world—psychological and physical suffering, malnutrition, starvation, pandemics, cruelty, torture, poverty, racism, lynching, sexism, child abuse, assault, war, sudden deaths from natural disasters—the list is appalling. . . . Instead of using miracles to feed a small number, to transform water into wine, or to convert a few people, God could very well be performing miracles that have a much larger effect, especially on the lives of the millions of children whose suffering is particularly incomprehensible to anyone with a sense of justice. The question is why a good God would be concerned with details like the need for wine at a wedding, and yet apparently not be concerned with huge tragedies like the holocaust of six million Jews.” James Keller argues against God’s performing miracles: “The claim that God has worked a miracle implies that God has singled out certain persons for some benefit which many others do not receive implies that God is unfair.” He continues, “there may be two cases which are similar in all ways that seem relevant, yet in one case there will be a recovery (which some deem a miracle) and in the other case no recovery.” A supernatural being who performs a miracle while idly standing by in the presence of so much suffering in the course of history would be guilty of gross negligence, failing to meet obligations of moral stewardship, and failing to fulfill a duty to rescue. It would be reasonable to conclude that such a being is evil. Another good argument against the existence of God comes from biology. Biology has shown that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. While one can simultaneously believe in Darwinian evolution and in God, evolution is more likely in a Godless world. But the evidence also shows that the process of evolution by natural selection is sloppy and wasteful. More than 99% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct. Also matches of DNA sequence show that humans and gorillas shared a common ancestor. Miracles didn't happen then, and don't happen now. If miracles occurred in Biblical times then why don’t they occur now? It is highly suspect to claim that all the shock and awe stuff was only performed for the benefit of ancient, primitive people, but denied to us modern folk, today. Miracle claims initially bear witness against themselves, as they claim to violate the very laws of nature that cannot be violated. Links: http://www.provingthenegative.com/2008/05/100-reasons-to-believe-that-god-does.html http://www.nairaland.com/1150005/library-best-40-atheist-arguments http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/
This is a terrible way to refute the existence of god. Most of it is fallacious argument by incredulity. "I don't understand why X might do Y, therefore it's unlikely to have happened." This is an argument often used by Fundies, and it's dreadful. Not only does it profess ignorance (a bad way to make a case), but it makes the further fallacy of false dichotomy: "If X is not true then the only remaining option is Y". If we are going to refute the existence of God based on rational logic, it behooves us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that aspired to by evolution-deniers. The best argument you have made above is the evolutionary one. It constructively posits an alternate answer.
That must be really irritating when posters don't answer your questions. The appropriate action for pluto2 would be to respond with Jan-isms: answer the question with more questions. To wit: Can you explain why you are asking these particular questions? What has brought you to believe these are questions you want answers to? What do you mean by 'respond'?
The animal might be scared because it's a new experience, although they don't suffer. But we don't worship animals (anymore). We shouldn't expect animalistic behavior from a god. The logic is sound. The problem of evil is a considerable one for theists. And before you say it's a part of the natural systems required for life, tell me what the divine purpose is of human-specific parasites, baby cancer, or the Zika virus?
Of course they suffer. They're scared to-death. Try abducting a person, keeping them locked in your cellar, and then tell me they're not suffering. Each of these statments seem nonsequitur. What does worshiping animals have to do with anything? Are you suggesting theists think god worships us? What does animalistic behavior from god have to do with anything? Are you suggesting we behave animalistically toward wild animals? (Are you sure you're using the right word?) I think you have gotten the analogy flipped around. My analogy is that god's (alleged) actions toward humans can be compared to human's actions toward animals. (Thus, it's a lousy argument to try to refute god.). Fallacy: Argument by incredulity. By analogy, we don't rescue every animal from death. To reiterate: I am simply dismantling bad arguments - to ensure the quality of the atheistic stance is unassailable. (We're the rational ones, after all.)
My point is that a God who treats people like animals isn't a God worthy of worship. Humans are evil towards animals, we murder them daily, and not in self defense.
You can make claims all you like, but if you can't back them up under scrutiny, then what are those claims worth. They become dogma, like sideshow bob who believes his claims because he wants to. Hardly intelligent. I think I may have some points that can shed light on pluto 2's ideas, but we need to discuss them. Of course if he wants his points to true, despite the contrary, then he can ignore me, and pretend there are no contradictions. jan.
I don't see how it isn't. It's compatible with a pantheistic Hindu godhead, but certainly not with a benevolent Hebrew god who rewards the just and punishes the wicked. Of course someone said he makes the rain fall on both, but I think that's just rationalization. You can always point to some sin that caused god to punish everyone with disaster and disease, but that excuses anything god does, because we are always sinners! It's a circular argument that only appeals to the theistically challenged. It's only an argument against a certain conception of god, yes. It's fully compatible with an amoral asshole.
+ Straw man. The issue at-hand is whether he exists, not whether anybody likes him. That argument is no more sound than one a theist might make. We need to be the rational ones. Not the issue. I listed scenarios where our actions are not evil, yet those subject to it (wild animals) are in fear of their life. i.e. your examples of (alleged) god's actions might make us think it's evil, yet it does not make it so. It's a flawed argument. We should stick with the evolutionary biology argument. It's far stronger than trying to paint some fictional deity into a logical corner.
[ aside ] I know. I think I see what you're doing. I often do it myself in IRL* discussions. You're essentially getting your opponent to hang himself by his own rope, rather than you making assertions of them that could be denied. (A fictional example: If, say, pluto were to admit admit that, say, Wiki is his authoritative source, you have allowed him to shoot himself in the foot. Which is much better than you insinuating that his sources are questionable, i.e. shooting him yourself, allowing him to be outraged)). This is probably different than how you might describe it. The essential point remains though, not to accuse opponents of a flaw, but rather to let them essentially confess their flaw. It's a sound technique - under certain circumstances. It works when a) there are few participants, b) when the issue is narrow in focus and c) when there is no time limit. Unfortunately, in an online forum there are a) too many participants, b) too many parallel discussions and c) the thread moves along too fast - for the technique to be effective. In good faith, it often behooves one to make their points short and sweet, and not simply draw the discussion out into a infinitely regressive loop of answering question with question. * in real life [ /aside ]
It is rational. If god's manifested behavior doesn't fit a theist definition, it's reasonable to assume that god doesn't exist. If none of the definitions fit observed behavior, then none of them exist. If it were only a matter of fear, I would agree, but it's not. People suffer immensely from physical pain and die slow lingering deaths due to ubiquitous conditions which god could change. He's not excused from this just for sending those people to heaven.
America was founded on religious freedom. A provision was added to the Constitution to prevent the state from defining a one size all religion. Unlike most of the countries of Europe, America was predominantly settled by the Protestant religions, which have hundreds of sects; Pilgrims, Amish, to Evangelists. This was a departure from the resettling Europe of the dark ages by the Holy Roman Empire. The empire had consolidated hundreds of pagan religions into one. Roman Catholic became the main religion in Europe for centuries; from 4th century to the 15th. The Protestants were various denominations of Christians who had split off from the Catholic Church, seeking alternate ways to practice religion. This was new. America was part of that change, with the timing of the spilt in the Catholic Church and the discovery of America, coordinating. It was a fateful time in history. Having a wide range of Christian denominations in America, made it easier to maintain religion. There was free market competition among religions, so it was not always pretty; dirty pool. But on the other hand, if one orientation did not appeal, rather than having one or no religion, like in Europe, it was possible to find a replacement. The natural beauty and bounty of the wide open and natural America was also very conducive to the faithful of religion; God had shed his grace on thee. It was easy to find one's spiritual center when so much hope and potential was laid put before you. The American dream only required faith and works. Faith in the good outcome and hard work to demonstrate your commitment to your faith.
