The "problem" of evil

Page 2 of 28<12345>Last »
July 6th, 2016 at 11:54:34 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: FrGamble
If I invoked the rotten egg clause the way you have applied it I would never read anything you write.


You say you have free will.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
July 6th, 2016 at 11:59:40 AM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Quote: FrGamble
This seems very precarious type of morality. It seems to allow a certain balance that is hard to maintain. Some stealing then would be permissible as long as it doesn't offset the comfort of the society. I think this type of morality would be a dream for those who are in power or a ruling class who could easily steal from a certain group of people while making it socially unacceptable to steal from another class of people. This would keep the powerful or the majority from feeling the discomfort you reference while allowing them to continue to mistreat and steal from minorities.
You mean the way the IRS steals money from the middle class?
July 6th, 2016 at 12:40:29 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Nareed
Having read this far, I invoke the rotten egg clause. "I don't have to eat the whole egg to know it's rotten." When you start with such a blatantly false premise, namely that atheists do not and cannot have morals, what's the point of reading further?


OMG, I did exactly the same thing. The first
thing he says is that atheists are lemmings,
we are so ignorant we can't see right from
wrong on our own and just follow the herd.
Atheists are so addlepated we couldn't possibly
determine an action is wrong on our own.

If that's the starting axiom of a sermon, one can
only determine it's all downhill for atheists from
that point on. I did read the rest but I was correct,
no surprises there.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 6th, 2016 at 12:48:40 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: FrGamble
She went on to say if the corrupt policies of the government and the wealthy did not force them to farm and live on the unstable mountainsides subject to devastating mudslides then they would not endure such tragedy.


Rotten egg.

There are plenty of other places where natural disasters do not involve mudslides on farmland. Like earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes, to mention a few.

Quote:
We don't have to build homes on mountainsides and in areas subject to flooding, but most often the people who are forced to are those who are poor who cannot afford houses on stilts or who can make houses that can withstand earthquakes. It has always stuck with me.


Rotten egg.

Why do you think all of the world's major cities sprang up on the sides of rivers? Because the floodplains of rivers are one of the most fertile lands available. You know what other areas are very fertile? Those adjacent to volcanoes, in particular the foot of such mountains. Not to mention rivers are the major source of fresh water for most people who've ever lived.

See, no need to eat the whole egg.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
July 6th, 2016 at 12:52:07 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: FrGamble
This seems very precarious type of morality. It seems to allow a certain balance that is hard to maintain. Some stealing then would be permissible as long as it doesn't offset the comfort of the society. I think this type of morality would be a dream for those who are in power or a ruling class who could easily steal from a certain group of people while making it socially unacceptable to steal from another class of people. This would keep the powerful or the majority from feeling the discomfort you reference while allowing them to continue to mistreat and steal from minorities.


You're introducing a new concept different than mine. That's it okay for some to steal. Where did I say that?

But one can evaluate that concept as well or any other, just don't pretend that's what I said.


Here's one you can evaluate using your god's all-powerful absolute concepts of morality.

A baby is born with a serious heart problem. With some early corrective operations he can likely live into mid 20s because the heart will begin to fail without some corrective surgeries. Without them he likely will die from anywhere 11-15 years age. The overall risk of mortality from the operations is 40% that he won't survive one of the corrective operations. The mother wants to go through with it, and the father doesn't. They can't agree, and are deadlocked. The child will probably live pain free without the operations though get weaker as the heart fails to adapt. But he could also live much longer and stronger if the operations are a success after going through some difficult and risky surgeries.

The parents come to you for advice. What's the correct moral decision?
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
July 7th, 2016 at 11:23:03 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
There' another religious problem. While it's not seen as an existential threat, the way the "problem" of evil is, it's actually the thing that's harming religion the most. That problem we may call The Platonism Problem, or more clearly: the disdain and contempt towards the actual, real, very much material world in which we live, and the quality of living we can achieve in it.

To paraphrase Darth Vader "Your ability to progress from steam engines and telegraphs to supersonic aircraft and the internet, is insignificant next to the power of the Lord."

People live lives, not religions, ideologies or philosophies. Most of us are interested in things like careers, family, friends, pets, hobbies, health, politics, sports, entertainment (books, movies, TV, web), etc., in various ways peculiar to each person. Deep philosophical questions, while interesting, have little impact on our lives. The exception comes from a discipline which broke away from philosophy and then multiplied: science.

While most people don't care about quantum physics, thermodynamics, biology, chemistry, geology, etc., it's undeniable these things do affect our lives. Think of anything at all you do which involves no technology at all. Cell phones, computers (is there a difference now?), the work you do, the movies you see, the books you read, the food you eat, the car you drive, etc. are all a result of the practical applications of science, including such esoterica as quantum mechanics.

You don't need to know a thing about science in order to make use of what it produces. But most people are aware of the link and therefore are supportive and respectful of science. Or at least most people regard science as a "good" thing.

In the meantime religion keeps providing less and less relevance to most people. Precisely because of the contempt it has for this world. I know a great many people who attend a church or synagogue regularly only because they enjoy the ritual and get to socialize before and after the services. Many, especially at synagogues, have little or no idea what the ritual is about, or what this or that prayer means.

I attended two Passover dinners recently. I found many of my family had not attended one in years. Why? because most years Passover coincides with the spring break, and most people are out of town. I call them dinners, rather than "Seders," because aside from reading a few pages from the agaddah (however you spell it), half-heartedly doing some rituals, and singing a holiday song or two, it might as well have been any other day.

The food was good though. and that was what most people there commented about. That and desert.

That's the relevance of religion today. And that's a problem (for religion)
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
July 7th, 2016 at 1:34:22 PM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
I've realized that the biggest hindrance to belief in a creator or creation is not the problem of evil, suffering, the triumph of science or anything else. It's simply that people don't perceive to need God to live their lives on a daily basis. The water boils, the food is on the table, you go to your job, sit on your porch just the same as those who believe. It rains on the just and the unjust, so who needs God? Even if the universe depends upon Him holding the atoms together He doesn't lord it over us so why worry about it?
July 7th, 2016 at 2:13:46 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: pew
It rains on the just and the unjust, so who needs God? Even if the universe depends upon Him holding the atoms together He doesn't lord it over us so why worry about it?


Well, the only god I could personally have actual evidence for, is the one who chooses to remain completely unknown.

Which is actually different than saying god doesn't exist. Like a bowler who rolls the bowling ball. He lets it go, but after that it simply completes whatever actions it's going to complete without any more direct input.

But on the other hand, that theory only provides another possibility, not a proof.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
July 7th, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Nareed
In the meantime religion keeps providing less and less relevance to most people.


That really sums it up nicely. Catholics
aren't staying away from mass and
confession for any other reason then
it's just not relevant to their lives
anymore. It's clearly a waste of time
for them, they don't need it. And
why would they.

FrG will hop around on one foot waving
the Bible over his head, yelling that the
Church has never been more needed
or more relevant. But he gets paid to say
that, it's his job. The people see it differently,
and the numbers are massive.

35% attend mass, where it used to be 95%.
2% go to confession, it used to be almost
100%. The times are changing and the Church
isn't, simple as that.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 7th, 2016 at 2:51:56 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: rxwine
Well, the only god I could personally have actual evidence for, is the one who chooses to remain completely unknown.


It's called Deism.

The idea is that some god created the universe and then has done nothing about it, or has not affected it. A variant grants it also created humans.

It is the only type of theology that could make sense, provided we found a solidly grounded theory which requires a creator. I estimate the chances of that as between zero and 10 to the minus googolplex squared. The closest thing, curiously enough, is the multiverse hypothesis, and that's nearly universally derided by theists :)

Why closest? I can conceive of a sentient super-being, or more likely a group of them, setting in motion an enormous number of experiments, models, artifacts, decorations, or whatever our universe is to them, to see which one does what, or they like best, or is found more pleasing by their god, or is cheaper to produce in mass quantities, or proves the theory of ethereal glarnaxtivity, or something :P

Of course, such a deity would not necessarily be omniscient (we don't know how soot forms, exactly, but we make use of it in making various types of engines and heating systems), omnipotent (how many of our machines can loose control?), and certainly not omnibenevolent (we make things that blow up). But they'd fit with the data we have coaxed out of the universe, except for the tiny detail of creation being required.


Quote:
But on the other hand, that theory only provides another possibility, not a proof.


Ah, but if this theory is right and the god(s) are not a stuck-up, sadistic sociopath who need constant adulation, then perhaps one day we can sue them for wrongful something or negligence or shoddy design or depraved indifference or something :)
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
Page 2 of 28<12345>Last »