How does your string of unevidenced claims challenge my hypothetical rationale at all? If a deity existed with limitless power and knowledge. that allowed, let alone created, a world with the ubiquitous and unimaginable suffering we see, it would rationally be a pitiless indifferent monster.
FYI, I find the notion of torturing anyone to death as vicarious redemption to be morally repugnant.
You might want to reconsider using that line argument with the Watchmaker and Look At The Treeās analogy. Why? Because it applies to every mythological god, not just yours.
Examples being:
āIsnāt nature enough proof of Odinās existence?ā
āIsnāt nature enough proof of Hecateās existence?ā
No! Absolutely not. Your religious views are not validated by nature, any more than ancient Norse or Greek religions would be validated. That argument is total crap. Nature is evidence of itself, nothing more, nothing less as it does not and cannot prove the existence of a deity.
W.A.Y., how do you actually know any/all of this? Do you consider it fact? Or is it a belief (something decided upon based on faith, not data)?
Please, please, please donāt say itās because a book says so. Lots of books say lots of things. Lots of them are even called holy.
You should know that preaching is not debating.
Citation for [1] the assertion that we would be blind with a different arrangement, and [2] papers covering any supposed refutation of the prior assertion?
I suspect you have none.
The irony of seeing this being posted by someone who thinks āMagic Man did itā is not lost on me, or anyone else here ā¦
Except that scientists have a far better understanding of these entities and interactions, than any number of mythology fanboys.
Try reading the assertions contained in your goat herder mythology and find out.
Yawn. Preachy bollocks consisting of unsupported blind assertion.
Indeed, and not at all relevant to the hypothetical rationale Iād presented either. One wonders what some theists think omnipotence and omniscience mean, and what possessing such characteristics logically imply.
@Sheldon ā¦ indeed, heās another one who will never provide a proper answer to the questions:
[1] What makes you think that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology is real?
[2] Why this particular choice of cartoon magic man from this particular mythology?
All weāll see from him and the other mythology fanboys, are the usual platitudes, evasions, fallacies, and attempts to shift the burden of support via well-known pieces of duplicitous discoursive legerdemain.
I find it funny how they cry and whine about how we atheists donāt have the answers but suddenly theyāre at a loss of words and canāt answer our questions about the plot holes and contradictions directed towards their own mythology.
Or pretend that we still donāt have the answers to various questions, even when we throw a raft of peer reviewed scientific papers at them containing the answers ā¦
Well, apparently they arenāt good enough, nothing ever is.
Itās called having a closed and obstinate mind where the actual facts donāt line up to the beliefs and expectations of the Theist. So out of denial, they shoot it down. Itās up there with that scene where Darth Vader tells Luke that heās his father and like the Theist, Luke does not accept it.
Mmm. Yes. Letās not forget about the part where those who fail to believe in this āJesusā go to Hell. What a compassionate God! Not jealous at all! Not suffering from the biggest, most perverse inferiority complex imaginable!!! Not in the least!
And you believe it. You buy into Godās inferiority complex. You buy into this āget out of Hell freeā bullshit. Youāre afraid not too. Thank goodness for the plethora of people outside of Christianity who donāt give a pickled fuck about Jesus.
I think youāre scared of Hell and youāre so lazy that youād rather have a āmessiahā save you than do the hard work of earning your way out like the rest of us. Am I right people?!!!
Whilst I appreciate the help, what kind of deity he believes is real is not the point, I created a hypothetical and logical inference, based on the characteristics some religions and theists give their deity, namely that it possess omniscience and omnipotence, and yet is perfectly benevolent or merciful. Which is of course logically incompatible with the existence of ubiquitous suffering, whether it is claimed to have deliberately created it, or is simply allowing it to happen.
NB This hypothetical was to counter @Sidās endless assertions about a blind pitiless universe, since the universe isnāt sentient, and cannot be culpable, hypothetically a sentient deity would of course be culpable, ultimately culpable even.
Iām always here to help, Shelly. Iāll even lend you five bucks if you need it. Letās see Jesus do that!
At this point, I figured this thread needed some pleasant background music to add a bit of ambiance.
I like this song better. It describes Christianity perfectly.
Meh. Trololoā¦
It is evidenced atheists just reject it.
Look at other major religions and they all point forward or point back to Jesus.
Look at the timing of Christās arrival it was a small window and at the right time.
Look at the scientific revolution, Jesus was a catalyst for it.
Modern day education is due to Christ followers
The calendar BC AD is due to Jesus
There are more books on Jesus than anyone else who ever existed, why?
āJesus was born in a tiny, irrelevant town in the Roman empire, and raised in another small village. He had to walk from one place to the next, and as an adult he never traveled more than 200 miles from the town where he was born. He had none of the resources people use to make an impact: no social media platform, no podcast audience, no clever videos, and no website. He didnāt even have the resources people used in the first century to make an impact: he never held a political office, never ruled a nation, never led an army, and never authored a book. His family was insignificant. The locals suspected he was an illegitimate son, his mother was a poor peasant woman, and his father couldnāt afford much. Jesus didnāt receive an expensive education, never married, never had children, never owned a home of his own, and didnāt possess much more than the clothes on his back. As an adult, his own brother was suspicious of his ministry, a work that ended after just three short years. Public opinion, turned against him, most of his followers abandoned him, one disciple betrayed him, and another denied him. He was rejected by the religious, hunted by the powerful, mocked and adjust the persecuted by his enemies. He suffered an unfair trial, was publicly, humiliated, brutally, beaten, and unduly executed in the most horrific way. Even then, the few followers who remained had to borrow a grave to bury him. Yet this is the man who changed history, inaugurated the common era, and forever transformed the most important and revered aspects of human culture. How is it possible that a single man ā a man like Jesus ā could have this impact?ā
Sorry @WhoAreYou, but I have read and re-read that response and it still doesnāt remotely address the hypothetical scenario in my post, or the logical inference I drew from it in my original post. Here it is again then, and see if you can address it without a long list of irrelevant and unevidenced claims.
āIf a deity existed with limitless power and knowledge, and it created or even allowed, a world with ubiquitous suffering, then by any human rationale it would be a barbaric sadistic monster.ā
FYI, No one has presented any objective evidence for any deity on here, all you have managed is unevidenced platitudes, and irrational arguments. like the ones youāve offered again in that post? One could believe pretty much any world religion using your criteria. So I must ask what is your criteria for disbelieving all the other deities that humans have imagined are real?
To keep an open mind then, offer the best piece of evidence you think you have for any deity, I canāt lower the bar much more than that for you. Then we will submit that evidence to critical scrutiny.
In the meantime I will take a look at thoseā
Claims for supernatural events would necessarily set the highest bar for evidence, as not once has any such event been demonstrated to be possible, you are offering the lowest bar for what you call evidence.
You are of course free to believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy, but I cannot base belief on unevidenced anecdote and hearsay, irrational and weal;y reasoned arguments, and hyperbole and hubris from those who want to believe it is true.