The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
>>Of course you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be in denial. Why are you mad at Him?<<
Do, basically, a person who says he doesn't believe in God actually DOES believe in God but denies that he does?
I rather turn it the other way around: you're in denial that god doesn't exist. You desperately want it to be true, and therefore you "invent" conversations in your head that "convince" you that it MUST be true.
And we're back at pointless fingerpointing.
>>He's there. You just can handle the truth.<<
Indeed. I can handle the truth, its just that Christians can't handle it.
Do, basically, a person who says he doesn't believe in God actually DOES believe in God but denies that he does?
I rather turn it the other way around: you're in denial that god doesn't exist. You desperately want it to be true, and therefore you "invent" conversations in your head that "convince" you that it MUST be true.
And we're back at pointless fingerpointing.
>>He's there. You just can handle the truth.<<
Indeed. I can handle the truth, its just that Christians can't handle it.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Pretty much, at least in your case. It's called denial, and I'm not talking about a river in Egypt.
What are you talking about? I don't have conversations with anyone in my head.
That was baseless, all right. I'm only going by the things you've posted yourself.
Last edited:
I just got back from lunch. I stopped at the Indianapolis Arts Garden and listened to some gospel singers. That kind of emotion doesn't come from singing about money or cars or nothingness.
>>Pretty much, at least in your case. It's called denial, and I'm not talking about a river in Egypt. <<
Nah. I'm not in denial, especially not with myself. I know myself pretty well, and I can say that I'm SURE I don't believe in God.
I also know that most religionists can only be talked to by talking about things in the bible or things they say are in the bible. So, given that, I start arguements from things they themselves have sayd are true.
For example: God wants me to love him (according to some), yet will utterly punish and torture me when I don't. Basically, if God loves me (which is in the bible) he then has an extremely funny way of showing it.
>>What are you talking about? I don't have conversations with anyone in my head. <<
Ah, denial. You gotta love it.
I TOLD you your arguement was reversible to christians as well.
Nah. I'm not in denial, especially not with myself. I know myself pretty well, and I can say that I'm SURE I don't believe in God.
I also know that most religionists can only be talked to by talking about things in the bible or things they say are in the bible. So, given that, I start arguements from things they themselves have sayd are true.
For example: God wants me to love him (according to some), yet will utterly punish and torture me when I don't. Basically, if God loves me (which is in the bible) he then has an extremely funny way of showing it.
>>What are you talking about? I don't have conversations with anyone in my head. <<
Ah, denial. You gotta love it.
I TOLD you your arguement was reversible to christians as well.
prodigalson
New member
God will not punish you b/c you don't love Him, He will punish you because you rebelled against Him, His nature, His Son, and His children. Our sin goes against everything God is about, you might not of asked to be born but you were and now have chosen to wage a war against God. I don't understand how people think they can spit in the face of God and rebel against His ways and expect God to do nothing.
A story or example....
An Indian Chief has had a lot of stealing in his tribe so he makes a law that whoever is caught stealing will have to be wipped 100 times, soon the Chief finds out it was his mother stealing and the Chief being bound to his word and his law can't pardon his mother he covers her up with his body and takes the lashes himself.
A story or example....
An Indian Chief has had a lot of stealing in his tribe so he makes a law that whoever is caught stealing will have to be wipped 100 times, soon the Chief finds out it was his mother stealing and the Chief being bound to his word and his law can't pardon his mother he covers her up with his body and takes the lashes himself.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Like I said -- denial.
Why do you like to start arguments with religionists? And is it most religionists you like to start arguments with, or is it just Christians in particular? You might want to consider these two questions very carefully.
Sounds to me like you don't want to spend eternity with Him anyway, so how is it a punishment if He gives you your wish?
Why? What's so funny about the way He's shown you His love?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never said anything about having conversations with anyone in my head.
Not to any of the Christians I know.
Last edited:
Husband&Father
New member
The question of evil.
The question of evil.
Atheists challenge theism with the "question of evil". They note that evil is inconsistent with the popular concept of a holy God and offer evil’s existence as evidence of God’s non-existence. Evil’s sisters, suffering and injustice, beg the same question and present the same problem for a theistic worldview.
Why would a holy, loving, just and omnipotent God allow evil/suffering/injustice? Our sensibilities say he wouldn’t, our reasoning tells us he couldn’t. Evil exists, we know it, we see it, so it must be that there is no God because surely that can’t co-exist.
Skeptics, atheists, agnostics and antagonists draw evil like a six shooter. They fire off the "question of evil" smugly and confidently assuming we (Christians) can’t answer because they truly believe that there is no answer. Atheists and their philosophical kin (at least the intellectually honest ones) know their position offers no answers and, in truth, has no basis to even try, so they attempt to portray moral equivalence by posing theism’s unanswerable questions. Their message; atheism has no answers to the big questions but neither does theism, therefore one is no more credible than the other. The technique is effective but it remains a technique not an argument.
Admittedly oversimplified, the question of evil is as follows:
A holy God would not allow evil, if God exists why is there massive, pervasive and unrelenting evil in the world? A loving God would not allow suffering and a just God would not allow injustice, why are we thus plagued and inflicted?
There is an answer. Be afraid atheists, there is an answer. With more confidence and unwavering assurance than any 50 non-believers could muster I unequivalecly and explicitly state that there is, indeed, an answer.
That being said, I’m not going to give the Christian answer to evil right now.
For now I just want to point out an inconsistency in atheists using the question of evil to further atheistic aims.
It is this: The question itself supports, assumes and points to God.
The question of evil presumes that evil exists and it presumes that evil is universally recognized as such. By depending on the stipulation that evil exists (precluding the existence of God) the questioner is stipulating and admitting that there is an objective, absolute standard that defines and identifies evil. Further he is making the case for a similarly objective and absolute moral standard. By insinuating that it would be immoral for God to allow evil when he has the ability to stop it he is confirming that immorality, and by logical extension, morality are realities.
For the question to be a valid disqualification of theism it must claim that God is in violation of a standard of morality (a moral law) by allowing evil. Objective standards of good and evil, right and wrong, morality and immorality have to exist in order to use them to condemn (prove the non-existence of) God. Objective standards can only come from one who is objective and with the authority to set standards IE: God.
THE QUESTION OF EVIL ADMITS MORAL ABSOLUTES AND THUS PRESUPPOSES GOD.
The question of evil.
Atheists challenge theism with the "question of evil". They note that evil is inconsistent with the popular concept of a holy God and offer evil’s existence as evidence of God’s non-existence. Evil’s sisters, suffering and injustice, beg the same question and present the same problem for a theistic worldview.
Why would a holy, loving, just and omnipotent God allow evil/suffering/injustice? Our sensibilities say he wouldn’t, our reasoning tells us he couldn’t. Evil exists, we know it, we see it, so it must be that there is no God because surely that can’t co-exist.
Skeptics, atheists, agnostics and antagonists draw evil like a six shooter. They fire off the "question of evil" smugly and confidently assuming we (Christians) can’t answer because they truly believe that there is no answer. Atheists and their philosophical kin (at least the intellectually honest ones) know their position offers no answers and, in truth, has no basis to even try, so they attempt to portray moral equivalence by posing theism’s unanswerable questions. Their message; atheism has no answers to the big questions but neither does theism, therefore one is no more credible than the other. The technique is effective but it remains a technique not an argument.
Admittedly oversimplified, the question of evil is as follows:
A holy God would not allow evil, if God exists why is there massive, pervasive and unrelenting evil in the world? A loving God would not allow suffering and a just God would not allow injustice, why are we thus plagued and inflicted?
There is an answer. Be afraid atheists, there is an answer. With more confidence and unwavering assurance than any 50 non-believers could muster I unequivalecly and explicitly state that there is, indeed, an answer.
That being said, I’m not going to give the Christian answer to evil right now.
For now I just want to point out an inconsistency in atheists using the question of evil to further atheistic aims.
It is this: The question itself supports, assumes and points to God.
The question of evil presumes that evil exists and it presumes that evil is universally recognized as such. By depending on the stipulation that evil exists (precluding the existence of God) the questioner is stipulating and admitting that there is an objective, absolute standard that defines and identifies evil. Further he is making the case for a similarly objective and absolute moral standard. By insinuating that it would be immoral for God to allow evil when he has the ability to stop it he is confirming that immorality, and by logical extension, morality are realities.
For the question to be a valid disqualification of theism it must claim that God is in violation of a standard of morality (a moral law) by allowing evil. Objective standards of good and evil, right and wrong, morality and immorality have to exist in order to use them to condemn (prove the non-existence of) God. Objective standards can only come from one who is objective and with the authority to set standards IE: God.
THE QUESTION OF EVIL ADMITS MORAL ABSOLUTES AND THUS PRESUPPOSES GOD.
One Eyed Jack:
>>Like I said -- denial.<<
Whatever.
>> Why do you like to start arguments with religionists? And is it most religionists you like to start arguments with, or is it just Christians in particular?<<
I like to argue with them, mostly because otherwise very smart and reasonable people start throwing logic/rationality out the window when it comes to their faith. I am simply trying to understand WHY they do so. So far, theism has never been able to convince me that their faiths are true. Atheism does have the awnsers that are convincing.
>>I have no idea what you're talking about.<<
I know. Its called "denial".
>>Not to any of the Christians I know.<<
You obviously don't even know yourself then.
Husband & father:
>>Their message; atheism has no answers to the big questions but neither does theism, therefore one is no more credible than the other. <<
You are quite mistaken. Atheism has awnsers to life's Big Questions (tm), just as theism does. However, most religionists tend not to accept their awnsers, because those awnsers threaten their own view of the world and their place in it.
>>There is an answer. Be afraid atheists, there is an answer.<<
Ofcourse there is an awnser. Its not a correct one, but sure there is an awnser.
>>That being said, I?m not going to give the Christian answer to evil right now.<<
How surprising.
>>By depending on the stipulation that evil exists (precluding the existence of God) the questioner is stipulating and admitting that there is an objective, absolute standard that defines and identifies evil. Further he is making the case for a similarly objective and absolute moral standard. By insinuating that it would be immoral for God to allow evil when he has the ability to stop it he is confirming that immorality, and by logical extension, morality are realities. <<
The arguement is quite easy. Given the above stipulations on the real world, we can show that this stipulation leads to a logical inconsistency. Therefore, something about the stipulations is incorrect. Since they come from the bible and the bible is supposed to be the Infallible Word of God, we therefore can conclude that the bible is NOT infallible and therefore NOT the Word of God. Now, given that the bible is NOT the word of God, why believe that God exists AT ALL?
>>Like I said -- denial.<<
Whatever.
>> Why do you like to start arguments with religionists? And is it most religionists you like to start arguments with, or is it just Christians in particular?<<
I like to argue with them, mostly because otherwise very smart and reasonable people start throwing logic/rationality out the window when it comes to their faith. I am simply trying to understand WHY they do so. So far, theism has never been able to convince me that their faiths are true. Atheism does have the awnsers that are convincing.
>>I have no idea what you're talking about.<<
I know. Its called "denial".
>>Not to any of the Christians I know.<<
You obviously don't even know yourself then.
Husband & father:
>>Their message; atheism has no answers to the big questions but neither does theism, therefore one is no more credible than the other. <<
You are quite mistaken. Atheism has awnsers to life's Big Questions (tm), just as theism does. However, most religionists tend not to accept their awnsers, because those awnsers threaten their own view of the world and their place in it.
>>There is an answer. Be afraid atheists, there is an answer.<<
Ofcourse there is an awnser. Its not a correct one, but sure there is an awnser.
>>That being said, I?m not going to give the Christian answer to evil right now.<<
How surprising.
>>By depending on the stipulation that evil exists (precluding the existence of God) the questioner is stipulating and admitting that there is an objective, absolute standard that defines and identifies evil. Further he is making the case for a similarly objective and absolute moral standard. By insinuating that it would be immoral for God to allow evil when he has the ability to stop it he is confirming that immorality, and by logical extension, morality are realities. <<
The arguement is quite easy. Given the above stipulations on the real world, we can show that this stipulation leads to a logical inconsistency. Therefore, something about the stipulations is incorrect. Since they come from the bible and the bible is supposed to be the Infallible Word of God, we therefore can conclude that the bible is NOT infallible and therefore NOT the Word of God. Now, given that the bible is NOT the word of God, why believe that God exists AT ALL?