But if we want to live at all, we’re going to have to work with it. I didn’t say like it, I said work with it. — Fire Ologist

Yes. Thank your God for creating it, since you consider pain good. Job questioned it and Jehovah told him : Because I'm bigger than you. He accepted that and if it's fine for you, be happy. I disagree that there is anything intelligent or benevolent in a system that requires antelope to die in agony, torn apart by lions. They don't get the option of "working with it".

They don't get the option of "working with it". — Vera Mont

The other antelopes do.
The lions do.
The vultures do.
The bacteria do.
The grass does.

The other antelopes do.
The lions do.
The vultures do.
The bacteria do.
The grass does. — Fire Ologist

No, they don't. The other antelope are lucky to escape, for the moment; they don't 'work with' the loss of a herd-mate. Vultures, bacteria and grass benefit from the death and decomposition of animals. Another's pain is of no use to them.
(BTW, muscle growth doesn't hurt, either. Damage does.)

Ironically, Dawkins still made God the center of his universe ... but this isn't the case for all Atheist.

Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? — BitconnectCarlos

Among many other things, cockroaches are disgusting.

Among many other things, cockroaches are disgusting. — Lionino

And humans aren't?

No, I would not say that atheism is illogical, though I believe that God wants us to love each other and create peace (my personal opinion), that does not allow me to say that therefore atheists (whom do not believe in God) are automatically illogical.

It has taken a lot of time and dedication to understand what the implications entail (though I did start early) and so I can say this with a rather high degree of confidence. In my youth I certainly did not think so kindly. :heart:

“If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria.” - Nietzsche

And humans aren't? — Vera Mont

The ones I like aren't.

Of course it does. Who can deny that our morality is strongly influenced by evolution?

Evolution shapes our brains to survive which is not necessarily what is right or rational.

Not necessarily right or rational, but not possibly wrong or irrational.

says who?

If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong. Evolution helps us survive, not necessarily thrive or self-actualize.

says who? — flannel jesus

I did, see above.

If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong — BitconnectCarlos

Only if you see it as a matter of black and white and not as a spectrum.

necessarily thrive or self-actualize — BitconnectCarlos

Do you not think that the values that we define as necessary for those two are given (majorly) by evolution?

Although the head may err, the blood will never be wrong. — Nakajima Atsushi

antelope to die in agony — Vera Mont

If you have some conclusive proof of the phenomenology of antelope agony, that would be interesting!

muscle growth doesn't hurt, either. Damage does. — Vera Mont

I see you've entirely ignored the necessary relationship between the two, again.

Do you not think what the values that we define necessary for those two to be defined (majorly by evolution)? — Lionino

Man, what the hell did I even mean by this. Fixed now.

I did, see above. — Lionino

With no explanation, sure, that's not very compelling though

Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly. — BitconnectCarlos

That right? All the time the majority of the people believed in God, none of them killed any other? — Vera Mont

The truth is, you are both right.
What religions don't often face up to is that brotherly love and sanctity are actually applied only to believers. When it comes to unbelievers, all too often it's a different story. (Unbelievers includes those of a different sect.)
It's difficult to state this accurately. Not all religious people all the time regard unbelievers beyond the pale of sanctity, but it frequently goes that way.
But I don't think history shows religious people any worse than irreligious or atheistic people. (Though the majority of people through the majority of history have been religious, so the comparison is a bit flaky.)

But I don't think history shows religious people any worse than irreligious or atheistic people. — Ludwig V

Or vice versa. People who claim a religion don't just kill the irreligious and the heretics, they also kill those who profess a different version of their own religion, and those who profess their same religion but fight for a different king, people of their own nation and faith accused of crimes, their rivals, neighbours, fathers, spouses and other drunks at the same tavern.
Belief in a god stops no humans to from acting like humans; having no faith in a god causes no humans to act any worse.

“If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria.” - Nietzsche — BitconnectCarlos

He's right, of course, in his annoying way. Either there's a justification for that difference or there isn't. If there isn't, then morality is deficient. But I think there is. Cockroaches are annoying and dangerous. Butterflies mostly are not, but they are beautiful - except perhaps when they are caterpillars. (That's awkward, I admit) I don't see anything dubious about not destroying beautiful things that do no harm and something very dubious about not destroying dangerous things that are harmful.

If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong. Evolution helps us survive, not necessarily thrive or self-actualize. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you not think that the values that we define as necessary for those two are given (majorly) by evolution? — Lionino

Evolution doesn't give a toss whether individuals or a given species survive or not. It doesn't even care much if a species survives. It is a consequence of the genetic variation of individuals within a species and the random effects of that variation on the survival and reproduction of traits amongst those individuals. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Homo sapiens is a social animal. So are many other species. It is curious that we so often see ourselves as individuals and society as an optional extra and a problem. But surely that fact sociality is so common should lead us to conclude that social living enables individuals to survive and reproduce better than competitors. I would agree that this may well have something to do with morality, insofar as morality is about social living. Evolutionary biologists regard this as "kin selection", based on preserving the genome and nothing at all to do with morality, so there is more to be said here.
I do agree that evolution doesn't have much to do with thriving or self-actualizing, as we understand it. Though it does seem very plausible that if morality interfered with the ability to survive at least until reproduction, it would surely die out. (Can you imagine a society in which everyone was celibate? Not for long.) So evolution must influence morality at least in that negative way.
The idea that ethics and morality are not merely about how to live in a society, but also about how to live well as an individual (that is, as an individual in society). Answers to that must be based on ideas about what human beings are and what they can be. But evolution, though it has an impact on everything, does not dictate everything, (though evolutionary biologists seems to forget that), so it is not impossible to choose different ways of living with the constraints of survival and reproduction. If our lives are really limited to survival and reproduction then they are grim indeed. It is better to regard them as the preliminaries to living well but not the whole story. There's more to be said, of course, but I'll leave it there.

I don't think it's illogical per se, in fact, today, maybe it's more logical that standard institutionalized religion, maybe not.

The issue is that it's a certainty claim: God does not exist.

If we narrow that down to saying something like, the Abrahamic tradition of God does not exist, then I think it makes sense to say one is an atheist in regard to that.

But to say that one is an atheist about any possible notion of God (which is very often very ill defined) assumes more than one can know.

I think agnosticism is better, with atheism being applied in specific instances.

I don't think this divide captures common language. Ask someone whether they believe there is a green (copper poisoning, it got shaved too) floating donkey tidally locked behind Jupiter in respect to the Earth. Yes, the animal donkey flying in space, always behind Jupiter from our perspective. Everybody will say "No, I don't believe there is such a donkey" instead of "Erm, I can't say either way", even though there is nothing logically contradictory about a green floating donkey tidally locked behind Jupiter in respect to the Earth.

But we would have way to check if this proposition is true, we can send a telescope to Jupiter, or several of them.

If you say that this donkey is immune to being captured by satellites, or that it is shy and only shows up once a year to one person who looks up at Jupiter at very specific instances, then someone is pulling my leg.

First, define what God is, then we can say if we know enough to say, with certainty, that such a thing exists or does not. Maybe we can't reach certainty, in that case we shift to probabilities.

"Erm, I can't say either way", even though there is nothing logically contradictory about a green floating donkey tidally locked behind Jupiter in respect to the Earth. — Lionino

On that basis, agnosticism is the only rational response. (It is my preferred response if people ever ask me.) But there are a number of physical impossibilities, not to mention improbabilities, about that the green donkey hypothesis that make it, in my view, unreasonable to be agnostic about it. I assume that you focus on logical possibilities because that's the tradition of our philosophy. But we have to live with physical impossibilities as well, so it seems a bit peculiar to ignore them, if what you want to understand is human beings.
Wittgenstein imagines himself in conversation with a philosopher about the question whether the tree they are sitting under really exists, and then realizes that he has to turn to anyone nearby who's listening and explain "It's all right, we're only doing philosophy". If it's only philosophy how can it matter to actual human beings?

First, define what God is, then we can say if we know enough to say, with certainty, that such a thing exists or does not. Maybe we can't reach certainty, in that case we shift to probabilities. — Manuel

That's the logical procedure, and some theists do like to try to follow it. But God isn't an empirical hypothesis. It is how you frame your life. What God means, according to the religions, is how one should (try to) live one's life. (What science means is not just the philosophy of science, but how you do it in practice.) Admittedly, how that works out in practice can be a bit puzzling to outsiders, but that's how the ideas work. (The same is true of science) To put it another way, if you start by defining God, that may turn out not to be a hypothesis, but an axiom. And there's no arguing with axioms, except by their results. In this case, the argument has to be about what life the believer leads.

I think agnosticism is better, with atheism being applied in specific instances. — Manuel

That's a very reasonable position.

Since when has it become illogical to disbelieve illogical claims (e.g. theism)? :chin:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/902043