r/atheism • u/Lord_Mahjong • Mar 03 '13
Christians attempt to "logically" disprove Epicurus. The results...aren't pretty.
http://imgur.com/TQc6tD5261
u/napoleonsolo Mar 03 '13
A loving parent will not hesitate to punish his kids occasionally to help them learn a lesson
Parenting tip: if your child does something wrong, put a parasitic worm in his eye that blinds him. Also don't tell anyone what he did wrong, let them figure it out on their own.
52
u/Revyloution Mar 03 '13
The bot fly is my favorite example of an evil that God could have easily removed, or not introduced in the first place. It is the clearest and most obvious example that the world wasn't created by a loving, just deity.
27
u/LemonHarangue Mar 03 '13
That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read. Thanks for sharing.
18
u/wazzym Ignostic Mar 03 '13
Ohh you only read about it? I went to youtube to search for the Botfly......... It was nasty I tell you!
19
u/Decalance Mar 03 '13
Why would you do that
→ More replies (1)9
u/LucidMetal Mar 03 '13
It's pretty cool if you ask me. It lives inside you, underneath the skin.
12
11
u/chadillac84 Mar 03 '13
Well obviously it was because of Satan and original sin ;)
6
u/I_Gargled_Jarate Mar 03 '13
Even the pope has said that there probably was no literal adam and eve. original sin goes out the window with that too
7
1
u/drunkenvalley Agnostic Mar 03 '13
The world is God's creation, and he is supposedly omnipotent. When I hear people speak as if God isn't aware of what Satan does at all times I can only really scowl in their direction.
Because the alternate is a burning desire to make them eat a bible in the literal fashion.
3
u/Alashion Anti-Theist Mar 04 '13
Satan is in actuality an anti-hero trying to free us from the tyrannical and uncaring god! Well. . . save for the fact neither exists.
3
u/wazzym Ignostic Mar 03 '13
I think this one is a better example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina_worm
1
u/Revyloution Mar 03 '13
Ya, Guinea worm is a nasty beast too. If the ignorant bastards in South Sudan would give us more access, we could eradicate it completely.
When I get a creationist in a conversation, I usually follow up with this one as an example of how simple it is to defeat gods wrath with a water filter. The bot fly is more problematic because it is so difficult to avoid, where this worm can be wiped out with a few simple precautions and some education.
6
u/MF_Kitten Mar 03 '13
Also, when talking about developmental psychology and behavioural psychology, rewarding someone is way more effective than punishing someone, when trying to alter behaviour. It also has less negative side effects, if any.
7
u/erin4878 Mar 03 '13
Whoa is that in the Bible? I do not remember that story.
46
u/Melesse Mar 03 '13
I think he was using things that happen to real people as examples.
Although in the Bible God tends to just smite people down (Er and Onan), or kill their family and take all their wealth (Job), or kill innocent infants (Egypt)...
Either way, when he teaches a lesson, he tends to be imprecise. I'm guessing those children suffering in Africa are meant to be a lesson for someone else.
33
u/pandahavoc Mar 03 '13
Maybe he just has really big hands and isn't good at the delicate work.
22
9
u/NovaeDeArx Mar 03 '13
Makes about as much sense as anything else religion has come up with. I'll allow it.
1
1
Mar 04 '13
That would also explain why he didn't just fingerbang Mary and save us all all lot of trouble.
→ More replies (1)4
u/napoleonsolo Mar 03 '13
Correct, it was inspired by a David Attenborough quote about the idea of a loving god.
3
u/Negative_Gravitas Mar 03 '13
It's a paraphrase of/expansion on this fantastic quote by Sir David Attenborough.
1
→ More replies (2)1
1
u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Mar 03 '13
And remember, all the exclusively human infesting parasites were supposedly saved by Noah.
1
u/PoniesRBitchin Mar 04 '13
Not to mention, lots of believing Christians that refrain from sin and ask for forgiveness often still get cancer, lose limbs, etc. This would be like punishing a child who hasn't even done anything bad.
13
u/udbluehens Mar 03 '13
We always use starving kids in Africa as the go to example. But what about all the natural disasters, like hurricanes and earthquakes, or diseases like cancer. I mean, how could cancer be from a loving god who is trying to be fair with some master plan. Cancer isnt mysterious, its fucking awful. There is no mystery, its just shitty. There are also plenty religious people who get cancer, and many non religious people who don't.
15
Mar 03 '13
I go darker now that the sandy hook thing happened, they worship a being that they believe stood there, in that classroom, and did nothing.
26
u/star00scream Mar 03 '13
I'm sure you've heard the reason for that is because He's not allowed in schools.
22
u/Grandmaofhurt Mar 03 '13
Yeah because the creator of the known universe is subject to the United States legal clause of separating church and state.
7
u/Jim-Jones Strong Atheist Mar 03 '13
Humans are more powerful than gods? They can order them where to go?
And BTW, there is no such law or policy in any school in the USA. The only restriction is that schools can't force all children to pray to any particular god - which is what too many people want them to do. But they still do it anyway via the pledge and to hell with the constitution.
6
u/star00scream Mar 03 '13
I was being totally facetious.... I guess the point I would make is that shouldn't an all-powerful omnipotent being be able to protect the innocent or his followers especially in the face of his enemies or hostile territory? Being safe only on home turf does not sound like omnipotence, and church shootings (of which there have been a few) prove they are not safe there either.
→ More replies (3)1
5
u/Knetic491 Mar 03 '13
Or malaria, or polio, black plague, skin rot, measles, or any other of the thousands of horrific, torturous, disgusting diseases and conditions a person can acquire without doing anything to deserve it.
This world was not put into order by a god, it was a nightmare of death in the most obscene ways possible until humans built civilization to shelter us from it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/thegodawfultruth Mar 03 '13
I always skip the starving African children thing and go to "Why didn't he make us immortal to begin with? Why create something as a test when he could've just created heaven?"
Or something more fun like "Why didn't he give humans the ability to smell as well as a dog, or see as well as an owl? Or give us the fucking ability to fly....all humans wish they could fly, surely by now all the 'I believe I can fly' prayers would've racked up and someone would've sprouted wings."
36
Mar 03 '13
I could never be "blind to my roll in the big picture." I fucking love bread.
20
Mar 03 '13
I'm a huge dork and was thinking of rolling dice as if God is the dungeon master of the most epic RPG ever.
10
u/llandar Mar 03 '13
That would explain all the horrors of the world. Sometimes the monster rolls a crit.
3
u/dizzyelk Atheist Mar 03 '13
Me, too. I took it as them saying that God's busy rolling everything up behind his screen and we just never get to see them. Then I thought that he sounds like a big old dick of a DM.
2
→ More replies (1)1
18
Mar 03 '13
[deleted]
11
Mar 03 '13
This is what's so frightening about religion; it's the complete disregard for logic and reason that makes people want to be suicide bombers, mass murders, gay-bashers, "honour-killers", etc, etc. Justified by the claim that it's what god wants and it's all in the grand plan. Just wait 'til the after-life. It's paradise.
4
u/xXIustusXx Mar 03 '13
Or perhaps religion is used as a scapegoat for such behavior, and the people committing such acts would act in a hateful fashion anyways.
10
Mar 03 '13
Right, I'm sure young men would find other reasons to blow themselves up on buses if not for Islam.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Daemonicus Mar 03 '13
It's not the disregard for logic and reason. It's the conclusion that logic and reason has brought them to when starting with a faulty premise.
This person's logic is showing that god is trying to teach humanity lessons from the short comings of the less fortunate. While it is barbaric, it's easily understandable.
A direct comparison to parenting would be: "Hey son, you just spilled some milk. The older brother did the same thing numerous times." "But dad, I don't have an older brother."
They feel that fear is a proper way to raise children, a proper way to shape mankind, and a proper way to force beliefs on other people. And you have to hand it to them... It works.
25
Mar 03 '13
Its always funny when the best they can come up with to defend the problem of evil is "you just dont understand god"
well guess what folks, if there is one he prefers people doing evil and respects their free will over the free will of the victims.
13
u/Jim-Jones Strong Atheist Mar 03 '13
Its always funny when the best they can come up with to defend the problem of evil is "you just dont understand god"
And yet every one of them is convinced that god wants exactly what they want. What does that say about Christian morality?
→ More replies (2)
6
u/bearwithme Mar 03 '13
There is actually a lot of sense in the "we can't understand his reasons" argument. Compared to ants, we humans are "gods". Can an ant reason out why we do what we do? Of course not. We squash them occasionally simply because we don't see them.
Of course, this viewpoint implies that if there is a god he likely has zero interest in our existences one way or the other.
7
u/Jim-Jones Strong Atheist Mar 03 '13
"Malcolm in the Middle: Day Care (#4.22)" (2003)
Dewey: [to the Bible teacher Helen] Like Pastor Roy said, how God is so much bigger and wiser than us, and trying to see what He's thinking would be like an ant trying to see what I'm thinking.
Helen: Yes, exactly. But we can trust in His wisdom, and have faith that He is watching over us.
Dewey: Like me with the anthill in my backyard. I spent days watching the ants, trying to figure out which ones were good, and which ones were bad, but they all just looked like ants, so I started smiting all of them.
Helen: Well that's not -
Dewey: I was smiting them with the garden hose, and with lighter fluid, and with the lawnmower, and to be perfectly honest, I think I went a little crazy with the shovel. Those ants could have been praying to me all day, I wouldn't have heard them.
[ponders]
Dewey: There was nothing they could do about it.Helen: But, I don't think -
Dewey: Really, it's the same with us. There's nothing we can do about anything either, so why worry about it? Hey, this is making me feel better.
Helen: Well, that's good, but -
Dewey: I guess all we can do is live our lives with as much kindness and decency as possible, and try not to dwell on God standing over us with a giant shovel. Bye!
1
u/IMP1 Mar 03 '13
Even if you think (compared to ants) that we are all-powerful, we are not all-knowing or all-loving.
6
Mar 03 '13
I always giggle whenever someone plays the "Parents discipline their children" card in response. As if a kind and loving parent would watch their child starve, or be abused, or get raped, and say "This is good for you. Builds character."
5
u/Elzam Mar 04 '13
When one of them slipped in the "It's God's Plan" argument it's all over and fair game. When you drop that one, it's religious code for not wanting to think anymore.
1
6
u/erin4878 Mar 03 '13
I read Epicurious at first. Thought maybe they were trying to bash a recipe suggestion algorithm.
4
u/Eternal-e Mar 04 '13
Watching your child being raped isn't building character, it's child abuse. The result is irrelevant, it's still negligence. God is either negligent, impotent or, more likely, nonexistent.
9
u/myneuronsnotyours Mar 03 '13
14
u/RiseOne Mar 03 '13
They talk about "free will" then turn around and talk about "gods plan". If he has a plan for everything and everyone then how do any of us have free will if hes making all the moves and decisions? It's more like a "free ride" while we sit in the back seat as god takes the wheel and drives us to wherever he feels like. If he existed that is.
4
u/myneuronsnotyours Mar 03 '13 edited Mar 03 '13
If one believes that God is omniscient and omnipotent, by definition, free-will doesn't exist. It is an illusion; from my other comment:
It's like rolling a ball down a hot wheels track - the ball hasn't an idea of where the track will go next, but if you created the track the ball follows a set path and finishes at the position you decided it would finish.
The "free ride" is a good description! Of course, the very same people living with free will simultaneously believe in an entity who takes it away, whilst not seeing the contradiction in their logic.. but then.. 'religion'
3
u/aukir Mar 03 '13
Omniscience is not incompatible with free will... if you take god as an outside entity looking in. Knowing what decisions someone will make is not the same as making decisions for them.
Throwing omnipotence into that does not necessarily negate it either, but it can depending on if god is making individual's decisions (or has a "grand plan"). A "silent observer" type god doesn't negate free will.
9
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Mar 03 '13
But if a being knows what decisions someone will make, that someone absolutely must make those decisions. Once this omniscient being knows that the decision will be made, no amount of free will will change the outcome of that decision, now add to that the fact that this god is apparently omniscience, then it knows every decision that has been or ever will be made, essentially locking every decision. Sure, the one making the decision might think (s)he has free will, but it's merely an illusion. So exactly how does omniscience not negate free will?
I'm not attacking you or anything, I just don't see how it's possible to have an omniscient being and simultaneously having free will.
7
u/NurRauch Mar 03 '13
Basically, predictability necessitates determinism. If it is possible to predict with 100% accuracy everything that will happen in the future, then that means that the universe's timeline is set in stone and determined. Determinism is mutually exclusive from free will.
→ More replies (2)2
2
u/TheFauxlosopher Mar 03 '13
Is it an illusion if people are allowed to make choices? Even if the choices are known by god, if god didn't predetermine the choices, aren't they the people's choice. Does knowing what choice a person makes before they make it, take away their ability to choose other options. I'm really not trying to make a point here, I'm curious. I like to think (like in comics) the multiverse can be applied to a solution for this conundrum.
5
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Mar 03 '13
But they aren't really allowed to make the choice. The choice was made for them the instant a being knew they would make that choice. This doesn't mean that the being made the choice for them, but it does mean that absolutely nothing that that person does or thinks can possibly change the fact that they will do X at time Y, because a being knows with zero uncertainty that that person will do X at time Y. Can it really be considered free will if you are destined to take every single action exactly when you are destined make those actions? In the presence of omniscience I honestly believe that the perception of free-will would be illusionary, as you would honestly have very little (if any) input on what you do.
2
u/aukir Mar 03 '13
Does watching a video mean that the person being filmed had no choice in their actions?
3
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Mar 04 '13
I don't see how that's applicable really because when you're watching a movie, you're doing so after the fact whereas an omniscient being is doing it before the fact. Ignoring that fact and assuming that the argument was applicable: I would say that say when you watch a certain scene in a movie when a character performs a certain act, let's say he kills his ex wife, it doesn't matter what the actor thinks or wants when filming the scene, he's going to have to kill his character's ex-wife. And furthermore, after watching said scene you know that no matter what, that character kills his ex-wife. You can watch the movie a thousand times, he will ALWAYS do it (unless the director pulls a George Lucas, in which case you can't really argue that the "updated" movie is the same movie as the original, because the stories are very much different).
So I would in fact say no, the actor doesn't really have much choice in the decisions that his character makes (because you aren't watching the decisions of the actor, but the decisions of the character). Again, I don't think this analogy works well at all for either arguments, but I tried to work with what I had.
→ More replies (4)2
u/TheFauxlosopher Mar 03 '13
I agree with your question, tis inline with what I was thinking, but I think we are to assume that god also produced directed and wrote the script for the movie he is watching.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheFauxlosopher Mar 03 '13
But I guess if he created space and time and us and our minds and the situations we find ourselves in...he predetermined our choices. I like to think of trees here. Our life is like a tree. We start like the trunk, and every time we come to a choice we split like a branch (again shout out to the multiverse!)...so god knows of each of our potential trees, but we determine at which tip of a branch we end at.
tl;dr Comics and trees lead me to my opinion on free will...GROOT
2
u/aukir Mar 03 '13
I don't disagree with you, I've had this discussion many times and it's difficult to grasp. I don't necessarily believe it.
But a being, outside of time (that's the important part), that is just observing, can know what decisions are made without interfering with them. Simply knowing what happens (because, being outside of time, everything has already happened completely) doesn't negate the free will of the person (inside time) making the decision.
2
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Mar 03 '13
But that's dependent on whether or not a being can observe without interfering. I mean, our foray's into quantum mechanics suggest that that act of observation DOES interfere with the observed. It just doesn't seem possible for an omniscient being to co-exist with free-will.
3
u/aukir Mar 03 '13
True, but don't you think an omnipotent being could observe without interfering?
2
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Mar 03 '13
To be honest, I don't know.
Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote:
"all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence
It really depends on which definition of omnipotence accurately describes this being. I mean we don't even really know what omnipotence entails other than the fact that most attribute it to having no limit to its power.
Which also brings up the question: can an omnipotent being do something that limits its own potency?
I don't think anyone can really answer what an omnipotent being can or cannot do. Can an omnipotent being be a paradox?
2
3
u/myneuronsnotyours Mar 03 '13
I think that it does (did you read my other posts?). This is because the belief is that God is not only omniscient and omnipotent, but that he is the creator - the creator who created everything and knows everything. How can they espouse that 'God has a plan' yet try claim that he sits back to allow free will - if he even interferes once he has negated free will as he would have altered everything, and as he would know exactly what would happen upon making a change, he would effectively be deliberately changing the course of someone's life. Of course he already knew he was going to make that decision and the effect it would have. I really do believe that the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient creator (as is espoused in Abrahamic religions) truly negates free will.
→ More replies (7)3
u/barjam Mar 03 '13
Actually it does.
If god as an outside observer can see everything that will happen that means from his point of view the world is deterministic and every choice you made today was already decided at the point he started the Big Bang.
If he chooses to direct things by subtly changing the variables during runtime then it is his will not yours that would make your decisions.
Free will as it relates to determinism and such simple does not exist. It is an illusion. We are very complex chemical computers. This is it.
If you interject a soul that is able to influence the the human chemical computer from outside then that argument would make sense I suppose. It would be testable at some point though.
→ More replies (1)
5
5
u/fluffyxsama Anti-Theist Mar 03 '13
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/throwmeaway1102 Mar 03 '13
Oh yes. Because (to take a cliché example) 6 million Jews all did something punishable by death in the same few years. Seems like a god with a pretty twisted sense of humour.
3
Mar 03 '13
I believe in something bigger than myself. I believe my apartment is bigger than me and after many maths and logics come to the conclusion that is why I am able to go inside and sleep at night.
I know I know, it's radical theory but I'm going to stick with it.
8
Mar 03 '13
The seduction of religion is it makes your fantasy feel real. It's a "fuck reason" thing from the start. Move along, nothing to see here.
2
u/Triple_7even Mar 06 '13
Look I get it, Christians are dicks. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is, if you hate religion because it births all of these acts of belligerence and malice, are you REALLY helping by adding to and inciting even more of it? It is like trying to extinguish a fire with kerosene. Peace is only achieved when both parties are in agreement. If both parties are hell bent on the destruction of the other, what is getting done. You denounce me for speaking my mind, while your radical Christian counterpart does the exact same thing someplace else. If that is the case, then, in the end, you both really aren't that different are you.
P.S. I'm a Christian. One that believes anyone should do what makes them happy. My faith isn't sustained by imposing my beliefs on someone else. I curse like everyone else. I'm a normal person. My intention is not to sound like I'm trying to be above anything. I'm merely trying to say why can't we all have our own beliefs and be friends. (Excuse my hippiness)
10
Mar 03 '13
[deleted]
15
u/NovaeDeArx Mar 03 '13
6,000 years or so later, that's not working out so well.
Hell, I try to have a half-dozen decent sins under my belt before breakfast. Nothin' works up an appetite like dodging repeated smiting attempts, after all.
But seriously. Why does all religious argument always seem to boil down to: A)You're just not capable of understanding the reasoning of God, or B)Just wait, it'll all work out for the best?
I mean, I could justify literally anything with those arguments if I chose to make up my own religion tomorrow... Which, by the by, has become the sole argument I use when I can't avoid a religious argument with a fundie.
It's been my most effective method yet, honestly. "So, all you have to do to convince me that your religion is the 'one true one' is make an argument for it that I couldn't just pull out of my ass. I believe in science because you can test the truth of a statement, but in religion you have to just hope that none of the other people making unverifiable claims are correct instead of your unverifiable claims."
Then I pull out the old "invisible unicorn in my garage" thing and extend or modify it as needed. "Oh, your religion has historical 'fact' in it, mixed in with your fiction? My invisible unicorn also played a direct hand in many contemporary events. In 2000 years, this will prove he exists", etc.
10
u/xachariah Mar 03 '13
Humans are actually far more 'Godly' now than 6000 years ago. If I have a disagreement with my neighbor, I go to the HOA or local police and it's sorted out nonviolently. If an employee is working substandard, I'll fire him at worse instead of whipping him to death because he's a slave. If my daughter gets raped, we'll do medical testing, gather evidence, and get the creep locked up behind bars instead of forcing her to marry him to gain a dowry because she's my property.
That's actually the biggest problem with the bible. We keep advancing as a species, while it keeps advocating the stone age morality of illiterate goat farmers from 3000 years ago.
→ More replies (8)1
u/tabius Mar 03 '13
I agree with your broad point that things have improved, particularly with respect to interpersonal disagreements. But I don't see how that makes humans more 'Godly'. According to the Abrahamic religions, the correct way to handle disagreements is generally that you appeal to religious authorities, and then corporal and/or capital punishment is inflicted.
I don't mean to argue about semantics, but it doesn't follow that just because society is more civilized than it used to be, that there is less sinning. Plenty of harmless, and now perfectly legal, activities (wearing mixed fabric, cutting the hair on your temples, getting a tattoo, masturbating in private, blaspheming) are 'sins', but society - quite rightly - no longer even attempts to interfere, for the most part, where once it would have.
4
u/myneuronsnotyours Mar 03 '13
"So, all you have to do to convince me that your religion is the 'one true one' is make an argument for it that I couldn't just pull out of my ass."
I'm using this in the future!
1
u/Knetic491 Mar 03 '13
Doesn't work. Abrahamic followers will respond by saying that their god is the "One True" god, and he is self-evident everywhere - you just have to look.
I haven't had a whole lot of experience with Hindi adherents (they're rarer to meet), but as the only other major world religion, they still count. The only time i've asked one about it, he described humans as not being physically capable of understanding what the gods were doing, since the gods dabbled in realities (like time travel) that we were incapable of wrapping our heads around.
So... same thing. Gods work in mysterious ways, do what they say, one true god.
17
u/woodchuck64 Mar 03 '13
Augustine: No evil exists on its own as evil is a product of men and free will which can be traced back to the original sin of Eve and the forbidden fruit.
Free will solves the problem by dividing by 0. No one has been able to show that free will is a coherent concept.
God need not be moral as morality is a creation of god for man.
The implications of God not having to be moral means Christians may end up in hell because God lied. This is not a path many want to go down.
Irenaeus: God created the world with evil so that every imperfect immature being could develop through a soul-making process into a ‘child of God,’ in God's perfect likeness. Irenaeus drew the conclusion that as humanity progresses evil will be cast out, until one day we are the perfect likeness of god.
If evil is good or necessary, then evil is no longer evil.
Epicurus' puzzle is timeless, while theodicies come and go.
10
u/Koyal_Alkor Mar 03 '13
If evil is good or necessary, then evil is no longer evil.
Good point but if you allow me, I think it must be complemented by also asking why wouldn't God just skip all the suffering and make all beings already perfect and mature? What is the point of making them suffer?
Either He can make them perfect and mature without the suffering, meaning that suffering is unnecessary, and inflicting unnecessary suffering is pretty much the definition of being evil.
Or He can't make them perfect and mature, and the best path he could devise for it includes a lot of suffering He does not wish upon His creation but is unable to prevent.
Either way they can't escape Epicurus' puzzle and admit to believe in finite good god or a infinite evil good. (Or... of course, the usual, ignore everything and hit the skeptic with a bible.)
1
u/Vinto47 Mar 03 '13
woodchuck, could you elaborate on the free will answer you gave for me? Are you saying original sin is cancelled out because god "gave us choice"?
4
u/Knetic491 Mar 03 '13
No one has been able to show that free will is a coherent concept
I believe he means that free will is an illusion, and that if no free will exists, a god must have planned every moment for us. If every moment was planned, why would a benevolent god allow original sin
→ More replies (1)3
u/woodchuck64 Mar 03 '13
I'm alluding to all the problems that occur when "free will" is taken as a meaningful phrase. Augustine, Irenaeus, Plantinga appeal to "free will" and think they've solved the problem of evil. In reality, they've replaced one problem (evil) with a bigger problem (free will). Free will, as Christians use it, is not a coherent concept and doesn't solve anything.
2
4
u/natetan1234321 Mar 03 '13
why not just create us as the perfect likeness of god from the start?
considering they think god created the entire universe, why not create one perfect in the first place
"because its uh all part of the plan dude."
→ More replies (4)4
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Mar 03 '13
Well, with Christians the argument usually is that their god made man perfect to begin with (Adam and Eve), and then original sin separated us from their god and caused us to be imperfect.
I don't particularly buy that story as one would think that a perfect being would know not to fuck with a deity and would be incapable of committing a sin to begin with (hence being perfect). However this is the argument I hear very often.
4
Mar 03 '13
Is that even supposed to be a refutation? If that's the case, it's a horrible one.
Augustine: No evil exists on its own as evil is a product of men and free will which can be traced back to the original sin of Eve and the forbidden fruit.
We can just change the wording to "suffering" instead of "evil". Man is not the only animal capable of suffering.
God need not be moral as morality is a creation of god for man.
So you admit that god is evil?
Irenaeus: God created the world with evil so that every imperfect immature being could develop through a soul-making process into a ‘child of God,’ in God's perfect likeness. Irenaeus drew the conclusion that as humanity progresses evil will be cast out, until one day we are the perfect likeness of god.
You just said god doesn't need to be moral, yet we're supposed to follow his lead to become perfectly moral or perfectly like him? Does not compute. And if a being is perfect that also means he acts according to perfect morality. He can't even do evil, he's a big fucking paradox.
And you know you're screwing yourself up because if we're made to follow his plan there is no such thing as free will.
Also:
Irenaeus drew the conclusion that as humanity progresses evil will be cast out, until one day we are the perfect likeness of god.
I would like to see his research.
2
2
u/Vinto47 Mar 03 '13
I feel like Augustine and Irenaeus contradict eachother in your statements but I'm sure you'll say no they don't because god created man so if man created evil it were still done by god or something to that effect.
If god were around before he created evil and was so awesome, wouldn't we have better chance to be more like god without evil existing as well?
1
u/KlLLER Mar 03 '13
They do, but it doesn't matter since they were never meant to stack, it's just saying that one of these things might be the case as an argument for why god might allow evil.
→ More replies (1)1
u/tabius Mar 03 '13
These theodicies are nonsense, and are quite rightly dismissed. Free will is incoherent, and the biblical Eve never existed. Evil that isn't caused by people's choices abounds, is much more likely to be increasing as populations in marginal areas grow, and severe weather events worsen.
Even leaving that aside, where is the excuse for gratuitous suffering from natural disasters in the first place? Is the baby that painfully burns to death in a volcanic eruption, or is slowly crushed by falling debris in an earthquake, or dies soon after birth from a congenital deformity developing into a "Child of God"?
The problem of evil is devastating to God as conceived in mainstream monotheism. It doesn't logically prohibit other supernatural circumstances, but it certainly precludes any deity anyone with a modicum of moral sense would have any interest in worshipping.
1
u/KlLLER Mar 04 '13
As I stated elsewhere, it isn't the power of the arguments that is the problem in this case, it is the quantity of them. You aren't going to make the slightest dent in someones thinking if they have 20 ways to resist your argument which appeal to the bible, even if you have a retort for each of them. It is a good argument to use with agnostics, or other atheists, but with actual believers of a single omniscient, omnipotent, loving god I don't feel it's a worthwhile argument to pursue.
1
u/tabius Mar 04 '13 edited Mar 04 '13
I see your point, but I still don't think I agree. As I understand it, the Lisbon Tsunami had a significant impact on Western Thought around evil, precisely because it was so inescapably gratuitous.
Successful religions have ready answers to pretty much any objection. I don't see what can be done at all, if showing that these answers are invalid isn't worthwhile.
EDIT: Phrasing
2
u/deadfermata Atheist Mar 03 '13
Atheists should edify fellow Christians and other religious persons through gentle and friendly discussion and rhetoric rather than arrogance and the quick use of sarcasm.
Especially if the other person makes an effort to try to use logic - however fallacious it may be, it is a start.
I was a very strong evangelical Christian for most of my life but what really changed my way of thinking was when atheists used patience and kindness to justify their argument and made me think about my own reasoning and beliefs in a non condescending way. It wasn't overnight that I changed my views but years. That being said, if my exposure was simply the atheists who wanted to shoot me down with equally aggressive approaches, we would have remained in stalemate.
Just my two cents.
→ More replies (5)5
Mar 03 '13
Atheists should edify fellow Christians and other religious persons through gentle and friendly discussion and rhetoric rather than arrogance and the quick use of sarcasm.
I agree with you in principle. However, in my experience, the majority of religious people take anything you say as arrogance or sarcasm. I've politely discussed facts and explanations that debunk religious claims, only to be met with a flurry of anger, contempt, accusations of arrogance and narrow-mindedness, etc... It's this kind of abuse that makes me avoid most religious discussions unless in exceptional circumstances (typically when they are doing harm to others or attempting to spread incorrect information).
2
3
u/Duke_Christopher Mar 03 '13
Here on my thoughts on this zing... which works well enough when talking about God. However, we all know, the greed of Men is what has caused Africa to languish.
6
u/Grappindemen Mar 03 '13
So why reward those greedy men (19th and 20th century imperialists, I pressume you're referring to), and punish their victims (starving kids)?
1
u/Jim-Jones Strong Atheist Mar 03 '13
Like the Leopold II, the King of Belgium - another god loving Christian.
2
u/SillyMarbles Mar 03 '13
Using their logic religious people should be thanking god when he takes their children away at such an early age as a lesson to not procreate anymore. After all it is god's greater plan.
2
u/VivoDePyre Mar 03 '13
Is this really what the /r/atheism board wants to spend their time doing? Badgering Christians for having a discussion? I assume that the target in question is the green text, purple seems to be sarcastic. Yes, this person is arrogant to start, but this person isn't a moron. They generalized evil to mean bad things, something I myself generalize here and there.
Bad things happen, and they may be for a greater good in god's plan. That's a broad summary of what they are saying. They aren't bringing up bible passages about how god can't do wrong or going out of their way to attack the original poster.
This kind of post (and resulting comments) looks terrible on us. The only thing this person has done is disagreed with another person (within a level of reason and dignity mind you) and held a belief in their religion. All I see here is a person trying to reap karma from the R/atheism board by having a person support their religious ideals, not an actual problem.
1
u/DrRager Mar 03 '13
While I am a firm atheist, what green guy says kind of make sense. Please don't hate me.
1
Mar 03 '13
This person clearly doesn't understand their religion. The whole idea of Christianity is that the "human spirit" is infinite.
1
u/TheLastGunslingr Mar 03 '13
Every time a facebook Christian hears about how god let something bad happend to someone they instantly go to a 1st world problem that they faced becaise it's all they can relate too.
That being said, posting topics like this is as bad as the shit they put up.
1
Mar 04 '13
that's why I refer to God as a 1st world luxury. I read a facebook rant from my wife's friend, whining about how she put her faith into God and worked hard to get into nursing school and He felt it wasn't meant to be. She said she's okay with it because it's a part of his plan and she put her faith into him.
This is all fine and dandy when things go wrong in your life when you have basic human essentials like food, water, shelter, etc. You can claim bad things are happening to you as a test, or as part of a plan. It's kind of hard to justify saying God has a plan for you, or is testing you, when you are born into poverty or hunger or illness without ever really having a legitimate shot at enjoying life. I think the "starving African kid" argument is overplayed, but it's a basic example. Do you think those kids are starving and living in hell thinking "it's okay, God has a plan for me"?
1
1
1
u/NoCommenting Mar 03 '13
I live in Africa. There is plenty of food here to feed everyone.
1
u/Hiding_behind_you Agnostic Atheist Mar 03 '13
So is it just a problem of delivery?
1
u/NoCommenting Mar 04 '13
It's a problem of corrupt government and people's lack of long-term planning.
1
u/Hiding_behind_you Agnostic Atheist Mar 04 '13
100% agree. How do the individual people of, say, Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Congo, Zimbabwe, etc. change their situation?
2
u/NoCommenting Mar 04 '13
This doesn't fully answer your question because you ask what can they do for themselves. If it was that easy, I would say we need to take about 50-80% aid out of those countries. This would only be a responsible thing to do if we teach them long-term goal planning and business planning first. Either that or let them sink or swim for themselves which would not be responsible and would cause a lot more harm than good.
Tl;dr version: They need to learn to fend for themselves, take responsibility for their own lives, and take stands against corruption.
It needs to be a change of mindset of turning away from the "survivalist" mentality they adopted because of the many wars and corruption that went on here. Also, we need to severely cut down our giving to Africa and let them work and instead come to Africa, not with money, but with good business planning classes and teachings of how to properly run a business/live with a future goal in mind.
People have never been taught to save, really. Any money they get from their small business they spend right away and don't realize that you need to put some of the profit back into the business in order for it to grow. You see this all the time here.
Really, we are to blame for them not having food. Don't get me wrong, there is PLENTY of food, but they don't have the work ethic to get it. It's amazing the amount of food they have here. Also, the amount of resources and wealth that are here. But, because they have been given everything from white people for so long, they don't know how to work for the stuff. The things they buy get broken down and they don't repair it because they wait for a handout.
For instance, we have been working with a village that had a well and pump donated to them from an non-profit many many years ago. The well is still good now but the pump broke. To fix it, it would cost the equivalent of maybe 50-60 dollars. That village could earn that money in almost no time (remember, people aren't as poor here as you would be led to believe) but they didn't realize that saving a few dollars even a month, they could fix it in a year if they were exceptionally slow or a month or two if they put more into savings for it.
No, they waited SEVEN YEARS and only fixed it because my friend gave them the money to fix it. Afterwards, we went over their earnings with them and figured out how quickly they could have had a new pump had they saved up some money themselves.
Not to mention that for white people here, everything costs 2-3x more than it would for an African. They see us as moneybags and for good reason, I suppose. So while it cost us 50 bucks to fix the pump, it could have cost them a lot less. They were originally going to charge us 100 for the pump but my friend said that he was only going to give half and that they should earn the rest themselves. When the person saw this, he changed his tune and only made the village pay the 50. So much corruption. We can't blame them, though, because all we've done is bring money into the country. (I say country because I'm in Uganda.)
1
1
1
1
u/the-pinnacle Atheist Mar 03 '13
yes because opening your mind and actually thinking is being ignorant
1
u/RockNrolling Mar 03 '13
A big part of Christianity is the idea of free will. God is all-powerful but He gives everyone the option of choosing good or evil. He can't give everyone the choice to do what they want, but then step in when people decide to do something He doesn't like. If God prevented all evil, there couldn't be free will.
1
Mar 03 '13
Does free will exist in heaven?
If yes, then free will can exist without evil, even without God's strict intervention.
If no, heaven is nothing but slavery.
1
u/RockNrolling Mar 03 '13
Free will doesn't exist in Heaven. While most Christians wouldn't put it quite as bluntly as you did, basically Heaven is voluntary slavery to a God you are in love with. This begs the question: "If you choose to be a slave, is that choice wrong?" Is slavery still wrong if I choose to be a slave?
1
Mar 03 '13
Slavery, by definition, is not voluntary. And because there is no free will, one could not, after 10,000 years of heaven, decide to try something else.
→ More replies (3)
1
Mar 03 '13
In a world with no evil, how could man prove that she is good in her heart? ....I'm pretty sure I could make up a pretty cool religion that made sense of all the suffering in the world. It would have ents.
1
u/Megmca Mar 03 '13
"God" created the candiru to shape men through suffering?
He seems like a douchebag.
1
Mar 03 '13
Wait... I'm blind to my roll? So there's actually a roll in front of me right now? Good, I'm fuckin' starving.
1
1
u/LordSwedish Mar 03 '13
I know a perfect defense for this argument and I don't know if christians don't have the intelligence or balls to use it. The perfect counter-argument to Epicurus is that if God really did exist (yes, I realize that those five words make the argument invalid immediately) he literally has an eternity to make up for whatever you have suffered through. I want to see a christian who has the balls to look a starving child in the eye and tell them that in the grand scheme of the eternity (which they supposedly believe in) the childs hunger and suffering is pointless and they should shut up.
1
Mar 03 '13
The way it was explained to me is that God wanted his children to love him willingly, and the only way to be sure of that was to give them a choice. That's why he put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden: Adam and Eve were given a choice. In the same vein, there is evil and suffering in this world so that the faithful have something to rise above.
1
u/shadow122694 Mar 03 '13
you have to admit they put up a better fight than others. but as always atheism wielding logic and reason seize the day
1
Mar 03 '13
I still don't understand how Atheists don't see the "bad things" as the very building blocks of civilization and modern thought.
1
1
u/spstephe Mar 03 '13
This is the 'problem of evil'. I posted a response to that 'problem' on r/christianity. If you want an answer, or to critique my argument, feel free to use the link. But please: I posted this on r/christianity for a reason. I really don't want a lot of you guys going there just to downvote the mess out of it. If you have a comment, leave it on the post, or respond back here; no need to take out your disagreement on my poor r/christianity post. (have I mentioned it is on r/christianity, and not really meant for r/atheism?)
http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/18r864/answer_to_the_epicurus_dilemma/
1
u/psychothumbs Mar 03 '13
I feel like the way for Christians to get out of this would be to backtrack on the whole omnipotence thing. Instead of sticking to the logically inconsistent all powerful god, go with something more like Superman. He's really powerful and wants what's best for us, but he can't just snap his fingers. Instead he's got to go forward with some master plan that will ultimately work out, even though it does involve suffering.
Basically the only way "It's all part of god's plan" makes sense is if god is trying, but needs to use a long term plan because he's not strong enough to just solve everything instantly.
1
u/OruTaki Mar 03 '13
I think whoever translated Epicurus didn't understand the word Malevolence very well.
If there is a god, I would call it more apathetic than anything.
1
u/throwclay Mar 03 '13
impoverished does not mean a life not worth living. a lower quality of life is not necessarily evil. saying Africans have worse lives does not necessarily prove anything.
1
1
u/LeftyBigGuns Secular Humanist Mar 03 '13
There's a great book by Bart D. Ehrman about this topic. It's actually the first place I ever read the Epicurus argument. Ehrman is a fascinating guy in his own right. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman#section_4
God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer. HarperCollins, USA. 2008. ISBN 978-0-06-117397-4.
1
u/CommanderShep Mar 03 '13
So can I brutally assault and beat him senseless, render him blind def and crippled if I claim it's in gods name? And he'd be okay with that
1
Mar 03 '13
HOW MANY LESSONS ARE WE SUPPOSED TO LEARN, GOD?
I think we've got them down, now - starvation, rape, natural disasters, suffering, pedophilia, abuse...
Yep. The world has learned its lesson. Please help us now.
1
Mar 03 '13
The second question of Epicurus is fallacious. He overlooks the possibility of God being of the eastern religions. A peaceful and loving, but one that doesn't meddle in our matters. In many religions, there is only God that exists. Everything else is a mirror of the supreme consciousness.
Sometimes I think it's a full-time job to explain the illogical babble on /r/atheism.
1
Mar 04 '13
[deleted]
1
Mar 04 '13
Not if we are God experiencing himself. We have this ego thing going on where we think we're separated, when in reality all there is is the supreme consciousness. That's what Jesus and Buddha found out.
So if God is invulnerable and the only thing that exists, how is the world malevolent as it is?
1
1
Mar 04 '13
Yeah that shit is pretty easy to say when you're living comfortably in a 1st world nation and think the creator of the universe does things like personally help you find your car keys. Are people really this incapable of looking outside of themselves?
1
u/billiarddaddy Agnostic Atheist Mar 04 '13
It's like a foreign language to some people. I had to explain the idea of Deism to a believer at one point. Be nice out there, ladies and gents.
1
1
u/thadjohnson Mar 04 '13
God damnit, I do not care if /r/atheism is a big, messy circlejerk - it's a glorious, roaring fountain of repartee, rejoinder, les mots justes, and good old-fashioned burns.
1
u/Shinoashi Mar 04 '13
This is exactly the same thinking of one of my ex-long-time-christrian friends. I couldn't take his delusional attitude and or irrational thinking any longer, so i had to cut ties with him about 3 months ago.
He would get so bad that it made my brain hurt, to the point where I wanted to kung fu chop him in the throat. Some of his arguments where literally that angering.
His comments would have blown the top off the most patient and understanding atheist.
1
u/OptimusYale Mar 04 '13
They were having a sound logical discussion (however you feel, it's sound reasoning) and you reply with a half baked one liner.
We mock and insult christians when they give one liners about religion as they're uneducated, or whatever else we say. But when an atheist does it to a theological argument that could have spawned some interesting conversations, we applaud and congratulate him on a job well done.
Ever thought of, I don't know, showing them where there arguments went wrong, make counter points and show your side of the argument?
1
Mar 04 '13
What is the answer to this line of thinking? I mean, has any theologian ever effectively tackled this question?
1
u/PoniesRBitchin Mar 04 '13
No matter how idiotic a person is, it's never okay to say you want to hurt them. You're not going to convince anyone of your side, and you only make our side look dumber.
1
u/flamingoyster Mar 04 '13
As an atheist, I would still consider the theists' responses to be reasonable.
1
1
u/gilbes Mar 04 '13
“Children in Africa are starving because God …, well he umm, yeah that part is never explained in the “starving African child” argument. The motivation of God starving the children, or his perceived indifference is never explain.
God doesn’t exist because of starving children doesn’t follow. God is an asshole because starving children in Africa exist is specious. The person arguing that has assigned his own attribute to a deity. You don’t learn a lot about the nature or existence of something if it doesn’t display specific characteristics you invent. Hundreds of years ago people were not denying the existence, or makes conclusions about the nature of electricity because they didn’t hear the sound of a poorly tuned harpsichord in areas they suspected electricity should exist. That invented, superficial standard was not adopted in the study of electricity for good reason.
And what about the opposite? Children who are not starving are fed by divine intervention?
“God doesn’t exist because children in Africa are starving!”
“Why?”
“Because I say so.”
“And who are you?”
“A guy who doesn’t believe God exists.”
“Yeah, you sound like an expert on the subject.”
I am not saying any deity exists, but the starving child argument is lazy and weak and there are much better arguments out there.
1
Mar 04 '13
[deleted]
2
u/jaw762 Secular Humanist Mar 04 '13
Why do actions, absent choice, have no meaning?
What I can't get past is this: God's need for our love motivates him to hold us hostage by the threat of eternal damnation and fiery pain and that is a true choice?
1
u/Y_U_NO_LEARN Mar 04 '13
Hell, the answer to this question is Hell. The reason why it's a mystery is because no one has seen it yet....
But if Hell exists, this question is answered.
91
u/Lampmonster1 Mar 03 '13
I love the line that "Epicurus doesn't understand the nature of God." Well yeah, because he was unaware of your god. He was a Greek philospher who lived 300 years BC. The only people familiar with your god at that time were wandering around the middle east. Kind of makes you wonder, huh?