Precisely. That’s why I brought it up this way. Rationalizing is something we hear often from some theists. That’s why I don’t enjoy debating much with theists. They always create a loophole or simply ignore what is brought forth. It would be nice to hear them say from time to time “I don’t know” but that doesn’t happen very often.
I must admit that I had never heard of Epicurus but it certainly brought a flashback when I had told my mom that I didn’t believe and although I expressed it in my own words it was basically along the same thinking as Epicurus. This world with the God being preached didn’t make sense to me at that point in my life.
If you are rational the problem of evil carries some weight. If you are an irrational believer, it is man who is evil, not god. God created man perfect and then man sinned (pulled away from god). Evil is caused by man and man’s own free will. God has nothing to do with it. Preventing it would be interfering with the gift of free will that God has given man. Even when god has perfect foreknowledge of what man will do with the free will, god allows it to happen so man can grow and learn. (I know, I know, What a fucked up idea. Even a parent will stop a child from playing with a loaded gun and shooting a neighbor in the head. But not the Christian’s loving god. Still, this is their best rebuttal.)
As I see it, suffering cannot exist where there is a deity with ascribed attributes of infinite mercy and compassion. However, it is my understanding that the same god has the ascribed characteristic of being infinitely just. I don’t understand how that could be if he’s also infinitely merciful. I’m sure I’m just confused again.
No religion has ever been able to justify the existence of evil and suffering. The best they have been able to do so far is to blame the victim.EG For Christians it’s because of original sin or because the suffering are predestined to be damned… For Hindus and Buddhists it’s Karma. No need to help the suffering, they are paying of a debt of bad karma through suffering. What a simple way of maintaining the status quo.
1 Like
I’m afraid debates with theists are usually for my own edification. Since I’ve been here only one has come back to say they’ve abandoned belief, and that the arguments and facts presented here contributed. To be honest I was fairly surprised to put it mildly.
However it does no harm to subject my own views to critical scrutiny from time to time, in fact I’d say it’s essential to constantly check the validity of all ideas, and hold them up to proper scrutiny, as science does. This is where religious beliefs are bound to fail, when instead of objectively looking for faults or flaws in their ideas, they try to ring fence them from all criticism either with personal faith, or draconian laws.
No valid ideas or beliefs would need protection of that sought, so when they invoke blasphemy or apostasy laws, or use violence to do so, it couldn’t be clearer that the beliefs can’t stand on their own merit.
1 Like
I agree.
Aside from the fresh aspects that fellow atheists add to conversation that will add to my knowledge, from facts, history or personal perspective - I find that the theists who arrive serve me as a constant reminder of a way of thinking I left and do not want to return to.
Not only in religious lines of thought, but in a reality test “line of thought”. We are all so capable of self-deceit and justification of actions that it is an area in my life that I like to be challenged on by others who are not perhaps biased in the same area that I may be.
@boomer47 And no religion will evert succeed in this task, it seems.
I’d say a way of thinking that is now impossible to return to, I can’t unlearn the basics of informal logic, or pretend it doesn’t exist or the consequences of not adhering to those principles.
I think if children were taught the principles of informal logic from a young age, that would pretty much make all superstition a fringe endeavour.
AMEN
As far as I’m aware, very young children (under7) have brains like sponges. A perfect time to start teaching them how to think. Also probably the optimum time for them to learn languages.
It does seem that way to me, although I’m a scientific illiterate so can’t really say with confidence. I defer to greater knowledge.
1 Like