Atheism and Science

DogmaticLefty

Malty_T wrote: »

No, no and no. Have a subscription to a few science mags though.:)

I read science mags too. I also read the Brandsma Review, the New Oxford Review, Damian Thompson's blog, as well as keeping myself up-to-date with vatican.va and the vatican youtube site.

fitz0

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

Whats wrong with any of those? I rather like going to the cinema and if I can get cheaper tickets by signing up to a card then I will. If I wanted to buy a car, not being rich, I would take out a loan. FHM, meh theres better out there.

So why the condescending tone? Is there nothing to be gained from material possessions?

Dim

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I read science mags too. I also read the Brandsma Review, the New Oxford Review, Damian Thompson's blog, as well as keeping myself up-to-date with vatican.va and the vatican youtube site.

Why are you trashing this tread? you are distracting from the answers to my questions. I'm not finding you very helpful at all. Is there nothing else you can be doing?

chozometroid

chozometroid wrote: »

The second pair, "Is he able, but not willing, Then he is malevolent" make the pic an epic fail. The conclusion "he is malevolent" does not automatically follow from "able, but not willing to prevent evil." Allowing evil does not mean you wish evil on others

You never read Spider-man?
Peter Parker doesn't stop a robber from getting away despite fully being able to stop him with little to no danger or cost to himself.
This robber goes on to kill Peter's beloved Uncle Ben, and learn the lesson that "With great power comes great responsibility."
A lesson God doesn't seem to have grasped.
It's not the same kind of malevolence, but it's still bad enough to warrant laws about negligent death and endangerment.

Why would he possibly not be willing?

2Scoops

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like a statistician who still each week plays the Lotto.

<.<

>.>

....:o

fitz0

OT, I wasn't all that interested in science up until a few years ago. Id settled on agnosticism long before. And then I discovered Carl Sagan. And so was born a fascination with science. If only school science teachers had half the passion the world would be a better place.

So for me science had little part in me losing my faith, but a greater part in my decision that lack of faith was the right idea.

All those Isaac Asimov stories helped as well.

strobe

To the Op, the following videos I think sum up my opinion on the matter but do so in a clearer way than I'm capable in my own words:
(could also have posted in the atheist evangilism thread)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yegqAONXIDE

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

You never read Spider-man?
Peter Parker doesn't stop a robber from getting away despite fully being able to stop him with little to no danger or cost to himself.
This robber goes on to kill Peter's beloved Uncle Ben, and learn the lesson that "With great power comes great responsibility."
A lesson God doesn't seem to have grasped.
It's not the same kind of malevolence, but it's still bad enough to warrant laws about negligent death and endangerment.

Why would he possibly not be willing?

To use your Spiderman analogy, if God intervened and stopped the bullet, then Spiderman would not have learned a life-changing lesson, and would not have turned out to be the unstoppable driven superhero he is today. :pac:
Allowing evil is allowing free will, and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God. God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

Sorry this is OT, I won't continue.

fitz0

chozometroid wrote: »

Allowing evil is allowing free will, and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God. God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

I don't get this. Why would anyone think they need a bystander?

fitz0

fitz0 wrote: »

And then I discovered Carl Sagan. And so was born a fascination with science. If only school science teachers had half the passion the world would be a better place.

Carl Sagan's Cosmos should be required viewing in every school.
If he can't instil how ****ing awesome science is into kids, no one can.

chozometroid

fitz0 wrote: »

I don't get this. Why would anyone think they need a bystander?

That's like calling a fish aquarium owner a bystander when, at times, they allow the fish in the tank to fight each other, kill their prey, etc. and "live their life," but other times intervene and prevent some weak fish from being molested by other violent fish, or provide treatment for their illness. The fish don't think they need a bystander, but the fish aquarium owner sure as hell knows better than they do.

Galvasean

I miss Jakkass. Such a polite guy to debate with.

fitz0

chozometroid wrote: »

That's like calling a fish aquarium owner a bystander when, at times, they allow the fish in the tank to fight each other, kill their prey, etc. and "live their life," but other times intervene and prevent some weak fish from being molested by other violent fish, or provide treatment for their illness. The fish don't think they need a bystander, but the fish aquarium owner sure as hell knows better than they do.

So we don't know that we're being helped along. We may not be getting any help from anything, but we should praise this absentee overlord lifegiver just in case. I don't buy it. If there is some smug fish tank owner in the sky he can go his way and I'll go mine. The difference in how I live my life will be negligible.

chozometroid

Maybe the mods can spilt this:

chozometroid wrote: »

To use your Spiderman analogy, if God intervened and stopped the bullet, then Spiderman would not have learned a life-changing lesson, and would not have turned out to be the unstoppable driven superhero he is today. :pac:

So the only way for Spider-man to learn his lesson was for his Uncle to die, and leave poor old Aunt May out in the cold?

But you don't see Spider-man not helping people or not stopping bad guys because some innocent bystander might learn a life-changing lesson.

chozometroid wrote: »

Allowing evil is allowing free will,

That might explain why he might allow people to be **** to each other.
It doesn't and can't explain why natural disasters.

chozometroid wrote: »

and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God.

So he's withholding safety and happiness to teach a lesson he does actually have to teach?
You do that to your kid you'd be done for child abuse.

chozometroid wrote: »

God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

That doesn't make any sense.
If God in omnipotent (ie can do anything) and all knowing (and therefore knows how to do anything), why can't he teach all these supposed lessons without contravining free will and without anyone ever suffering evil.

Galvasean

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't and can't explain why natural disasters.

To inspire people to be kindto their fellow man? To make people appreciate what they've got?

King Mob wrote:

So he's withholding safety and happiness to teach a lesson he does actually have to teach?
You do that to your kid you'd be done for child abuse.

Go on then Billy, stick the fork in the toaster. See how I care.
*ZAPP!!!*
Now what did you learn?

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe the mods can spilt this:
So the only way for Spider-man to learn his lesson was for his Uncle to die, and leave poor old Aunt May out in the cold?

But you don't see Spider-man not helping people or not stopping bad guys because some innocent bystander might learn a life-changing lesson.

Spiderman is not all-knowing, so he can't make these decisions.

That might explain why he might allow people to be **** to each other.
It doesn't and can't explain why natural disasters.

There are consequences to constantly interfering with the natural course of things. God's intervention is done carefully with all factors known to Him and with the knowlede that things will not be thrown out of wack.

That doesn't make any sense.
If God in omnipotent (ie can do anything) and all knowing (and therefore knows how to do anything), why can't he teach all these supposed lessons without contravining free will and without anyone ever suffering evil.

Maybe because those lessons can only be taught that way. All-powerful doesn't mean you can make someone sad by making them happy.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

All-powerful doesn't mean you can make someone sad by making them happy.

Why not?
Doesn't omnipotence imply that God is can do anything?

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

To inspire people to be kindto their fellow man? To make people appreciate what they've got?

Surely there's a way to do that without inflicting a horror like the Haitian Earthquake of the South Asian Tsunami.

Galvasean wrote: »

Go on then Billy, stick the fork in the toaster. See how I care.
*ZAPP!!!*
Now what did you learn?

If I was omnipotent I would beam the exact and complete knowledge of toasters and why they hurt you when you stick forks into my kid's brain.

But the thing is a toaster is a mild electric shock, an earthquake causing children to lose their entire family and everything else in their world with neither and explanation or a reason.
I think you see the difference.

Galvasean

King Mob wrote: »

I think you see the difference.

I do indeed. However, i do enjoy playing devil's advocate by times.

chozometroid

chozometroid wrote: »

Spiderman is not all-knowing, so he can't make these decisions.

But you think God is and that he does make these decisions all the time.

But if Doc Ock is tearing **** up, should Spidey leave the cops on their own so they can learn how to take down super-villains?
Or should he use his great power to stop Doc Ock before anyone gets hurt?

chozometroid wrote: »

There are consequences to constantly interfering with the natural course of things. God's intervention is done carefully with all factors known to Him and with the knowlede that things will not be thrown out of wack.

But he's God why couldn't he make the "natural course" not have natural disasters when he made it?
And why does he have to worry about the wack?
He's God, he controls the wack.

And he does control the natural order or balance (and therefore is not all powerful) surely being all knowing he could figure out a way that teaches what he wants but where no one suffers.

chozometroid wrote: »

Maybe because those lessons can only be taught that way.

So he can't do it another way.
So therefore he's not all powerful

Or he can't figure out another way.
So therefore he's not all knowing.

chozometroid wrote: »

All-powerful doesn't mean you can make someone sad by making them happy.

Yea it does.
All powerful means being able to do anything.

The point is God cannot logically be All powerful and benevolent.

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

So he can't do it another way.
So therefore he's not all powerful

Or he can't figure out another way.
So therefore he's not all knowing.

Yea it does.
All powerful means being able to do anything.

The point is God cannot logically be All powerful and benevolent.

As usual, an atheist comes up with a definition for "all-powerful" which almost no theist believes in, AFAIK.

Being all-powerful, God could/did not avoid sending His Son to die for the sins of mankind. This does not mean God has limited "power." It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants. We just don't know everything about the nature of God. Slapping an attribute on Him and saying He must fit the definition we create is just plain fallacious.
Christians base the claim of omnipotence on various scripture in the Bible. This scripture, however, doesn't provide a complete breakdown on the composition of God.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

As usual, an atheist comes up with a definition for "all-powerful" which almost no theist believes in, AFAIK.

Being all-powerful, God could/did not avoid sending His Son to die for the sins of mankind. This does not mean God has limited "power." It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants. We just don't know everything about the nature of God. Slapping an attribute on Him and saying He must fit the definition we create is just plain fallacious.
Christians base the claim of omnipotence on various scripture in the Bible. This scripture, however, doesn't provide a complete breakdown on the composition of God.

No Chozo,

All Powerful means exactly what it says. Either you believe He is all powerful, or He is isn't 100% All Powerful; he is constrained by something. In which case there is something more 'powerful' than God.
Hiding this with the God is mysterious argument is not a viable argument because you have already put yourself in initial position to say
"Oh I know God can...."
Then you turn around and say:
"But you don't know God can"

chozometroid

chozometroid wrote: »

As usual, an atheist comes up with a definition for "all-powerful" which almost no theist believes in, AFAIK.

So you're saying you use a different definition of all powerful than the ability to do anything?
Do you believe God has limits to his power or not?

chozometroid wrote: »

Being all-powerful, God could/did not avoid sending His Son to die for the sins of mankind. This does not mean God has limited "power." It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants.

So he can't change his own plan?
But he isn't limited?
That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why does his plan lead to such pointless suffering?
Why not, when he was drawing out his plan, use his all-knowingness to figure out a way achieve his goal without earthquakes or tsunamis.

chozometroid wrote: »

We just don't know everything about the nature of God. Slapping an attribute on Him and saying He must fit the definition we create is just plain fallacious.

But hang on, you said:

chozometroid wrote: »

It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants.

That sounds suspiciously like slapping an attribute on him and saying he must fit the definition you created.
And it sounds like the old "God move in mysterious ways" bit.

And it doesn't even come close to answering my questions.

chozometroid wrote: »

Christians base the claim of omnipotence on various scripture in the Bible.

So you could say they slapped an attribute on him and said he must fit the definition they created.
And if we're going by the bible, oh boy then we know that God isn't benevolent.

chozometroid wrote: »

This scripture, however, doesn't provide a complete breakdown on the composition of God.

Why not?
Why doesn't it describe exactly what God is and what he wants and why he wants it?
It would have been a bit helpful and kinda the things you'd expect the Word of God to contain.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

No Chozo,

All Powerful means exactly what it says. Either you believe He is all powerful, or He is isn't 100% All Powerful; he is constrained by something. In which case there is something more 'powerful' than God.
Hiding this with the God is mysterious argument is not a viable argument because you have already put yourself in initial position to say
"Oh I know God can...."
Then you turn around and say:
"But you don't know God can"

Semantics.

I can't believe you post this as a reply to my post. I guess you didn't get the part where God is able to do anything that He wants to do. If something is not part of His plan, He won't do it. Just because you can ask an endless series of pointless "why can't He somehow make "a" happen whilst simultaneously make "b" happen?" questions doesn't somehow create a limit on God's power. This almost falls into the category of the "God can't do the illogical" where atheists say God is not all powerful because He can't kill Himself." I guess this means "something" is more powerful than God. I'd like to know what it is. If logic is an entity of some sort, then perhaps you could worship it and form a new religion from that.

I'm off to bed now. Good night, all ye that lack belief.

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

Why doesn't it describe exactly what God is and what he wants and why he wants it?
It would have been a bit helpful and kinda the things you'd expect the Word of God to contain.

I'm not sure who determines what one should "expect" the Word of God to contain. I never expected a detailed analysis of the inner workings of the Creator of the Universe, tbh. I'll answer the other questions later. I'm not Santa Claus for Dawkin's sake.

chozometroid

chozometroid wrote: »

Semantics.

I can't believe you post this as a reply to my post. I guess you didn't get the part where God is able to do anything that He wants to do.

Well we seem to agree that all power means God can do everything and anything.

chozometroid wrote: »

If something is not part of His plan, He won't do it.

So is that why he lets horrible things like earthquakes happen?
Why does his plan include that?
What possible effect would it have on his final plan if he just tweeked that bit?

Does his plan takes precedent over people?
Doesn't sound benevolent to me.

In fact it sounds exactly like a villain that Spider-man fights.

chozometroid wrote: »

Just because you can ask an endless series of pointless "why can't He somehow make "a" happen whilst simultaneously make "b" happen?" questions doesn't somehow create a limit on God's power.

You don't seem to understand the questions or why I'm asking them.
If God doesn't have limits he should be able to do stuff like I'm suggesting.
However the stuff you're suggesting (that he must adhere to a set plan that necessitates horrible suffering of innocent people) is putting limits on what he can do.

chozometroid wrote: »

This almost falls into the category of the "God can't do the illogical" where atheists say God is not all powerful because He can't kill Himself." I guess this means "something" is more powerful than God. I'd like to know what it is.

You mean the unliftable stone paradox?
I'd love to hear a Christian answer that wasn't "it doesn't count."

Omnipotence itself isn't logical, so why can't he do the illogical?

chozometroid wrote: »

If logic is an entity of some sort, then perhaps you could worship it and form a new religion from that.

It's no more an entity than grammar or math.
And what's the problem with using logic to analyse a concept?
You make it sound like a dirty word or something.

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm not sure who determines what one should "expect" the Word of God to contain. I never expected a detailed analysis of the inner workings of the Creator of the Universe, tbh. I'll answer the other questions later. I'm not Santa Claus for Dawkin's sake.

That's not an answer to the question, it's a deliberate dodge.

Why does the only apparent communication between God and the creations he supposedly loves not contain any meaningful information about God?
Wouldn't it just lead to a better understanding of who he is and why he's letting so many suffer?
Might be a comfort to some people, something people who love you actually do.

Have you honest ever asked questions like these yourself?

monosharp

King Mob wrote: »

But with the amount of tits and free sex they wave in faces, I can understand why.

Halleluyah! I've seen the light!

So help me get my story straight;

Dinosaurs, yes no ?
Evolution ?
Work on Sunday ?
Penis cutting required ?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Without God...

I wanted to make a point about this pic, though.
The second pair, "Is he able, but not willing, Then he is malevolent" make the pic an epic fail. The conclusion "he is malevolent" does not automatically follow from "able, but not willing to prevent evil."

You know there are many good free dictionaries online ? Honestly, all it takes is a copy paste to google and you can get the definition of a word.

thefreedictionary.com wrote:

malevolent [məˈlɛvələnt]
adj
1. wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; malicious
2. (Spirituality, New Age, Astrology & Self-help / Astrology) Astrology having an evil influence
[from Latin malevolens, from male ill + volens, present participle of velle to wish]

Thesaurus
Adj. 1. malevolent - wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; arising from intense ill will or hatred; "a gossipy malevolent old woman"; "failure made him malevolent toward those who were successful"
malicious - having the nature of or resulting from malice; "malicious gossip"; "took malicious pleasure in...watching me wince"- Rudyard Kipling
2. malevolent - having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"
malefic, malign, evil
maleficent - harmful or evil in intent or effect

I can't even count the amount of books, movies, tv shows etc etc where someone asks the simple question "Why god, why ?" when something bad happens. I have seen Christians debating this an uncountable number of times.

By the very definition of the word, you are wrong. To be malevolent he doesn't need to cause harm, it simply needs to appear that he causes harm. Through his actions or non-actions harm is caused, hence he is malevolent.

If god exists and is the creator of everything then he is also responsible (note I don't use the word created) for harm. If god create the world, the weather etc then he is responsible for tsunami's, storms etc.

Allowing evil does not mean you wish evil on others

Please see definition of malevolent. It doesn't require him to wish evil on others.

monosharp

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Epicurius's philosophy lives on today: it's called consumerism. He must be proud. Are you a happy little consumer who lines up every Saturday to buy "stuff" from the shopping malls so as to fulfill your every material desires? I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

What the 'harrypotterswand' are you on about ? Why are any of those things bad ?

wikipedia wrote:

For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia, peace and freedom from fear, and "aponia", the absence of pain, and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends.

Sounds good to me.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Spiderman is not all-knowing, so he can't make these decisions.

Spiderman would beat god anytime.

There are consequences to constantly interfering with the natural course of things.

The natural course is things is, according to your beliefs, his plan. Hence he is responsible for them.