They are angry, because their LOGICAL arguments, which they find infallible, fall on deaf ears by the religious. If god can't be good and all seeing and all powerful, why do the religious insist god is, is what angers atheists — god must be atheist

Which then falls full circle with the Epicurean Paradox. Huh. It seems we've been angered by our religious counterparts for quite some time now.

It's not their fault, basically... we would be angered by another form of atheism, if there were any, that were different from our form of atheism. It is all tribal survival tactic, to rope in as many subscribers to our ideology as possible. This is human nature.

The Nazis had an ideology, the communists, the capitalists, the feudalists, the slave keepers, the Hindus, the American natives, and most likely a lot of African tribes. The only tribe that I know of where I sense no ideology (organized belief) is the Chinese. Sure, now they have communist rule, but prior to that, it was truly a free-for-all society. Grab what you can, observe morality, but if you can get away with something, do it; be diligent, work hard, be humble, but if you make it big, trample on others. A little bit like a cat society, if there were any: if you are an underling, be moral, be dutiful, and do your part. If you are a ruler, you can do anything you want. This is not a condemnation of their society, because believe me, in societies with ideologies, much worse things go on. This is instead a bemused observer's admiration that amongst all societies where there is one, this society has survived and thrived with no ideology. None that I know of, anyway. China: a place where human nature gets truly let free, that is, free from the bounds of organized dogma. A Randian Utopia.

I could be wrong with this opinion on the Chinese society, because I know it only from hearsay and from reading fiction. And from watching movies. So if you say I'm wrong, I shalt capitulate to your recounting a contrary view of China to mine.

Which then falls full circle with the Epicurean Paradox. Huh. It seems we've been angered by our religious counterparts for quite some time now. — john27

Yes, this has been the status quo for millennia now.

Did he/do we have a choice? What's the alternative to being practical? Bury our heads in the sand/clouds? — Agent Smith

More here than meets the eye. For Aristotle there apparently was no science as we might understand it. "Putting nature to the question," was still almost 2000 years in his future. Nor was nature something that could be questioned on the basis of their understanding, because nature was by them understood to be a world of imprecision. Plato found requisite precision in ideals, Pythagoreans in numbers - neither in nature. So far as nature was concerned, then, their knowledge was in a sense, and necessarily, a blank book. Which of course is not entirely true: we were told in our Astronomy 101 class that the Greeks were aware of precession, "Historically, the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is usually attributed in the West to the 2nd-century-BC astronomer Hipparchus." (Wiki.) If you do not know what precession is, research and be amazed.

Anyway, Aristotle's science was one of observation and trying to make sense of what he observed. His nature was wet, gooey, messy, a nature of qualities. Since then the Pythagoreans are ascendant; our nature mainly one of quantity, number, and measurement. The history of ideas, interesting stuff.

:up: Interesting to say the least. Did you notice, you must have, that the way science (physics actually) works is weird? The "perfect" mathematical models in it approximate messy reality.

Shouldn't it be the other way round? Our approximations imperfect (messy) and reality perfect. That's how it is in math: Making rough estimates are part of a mathematician's daily routine and the truth, the numerical answer, is precise.

We're derailing the thread by the way.

Maybe nature perfect and models "messy"? And whether or not the math must be perfect maybe an open question?

Maybe nature perfect and models "messy"? And whether or not the math must be perfect maybe an open question? — tim wood

:up:

No it has not. Just because you say so it does not make it true. Maybe you believe that, and kudos to you, I'm happy for you. But in logical grounds it has not been defeated, but, in fact, supported.
Stop saying it has been defeated when it has not. — god must be atheist

yes it has been defeated, as the reasons i stated.

and you offer no counter argument to those reasons

therefore you are ignorant of the fact that it is defeated

yes it has been defeated, as the reasons i stated.

and you offer no counter argument to those reasons — Miller

Sorry, I missed the counter arguments you say you'd stated. I'll revisit this tomorrow or later tonight. I'm really curious to see those arguments you say exist.

\

I missed the counter arguments you say you'd stated. I'll revisit this tomorrow or later tonight. I'm really curious to see those arguments you say exist. — god must be atheist

Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads.

And don't assume god does not feel every bit of pain we feel along with us. Life without pain does not work. Nobody would do anything.

Thank you for listing your counter-arguments here. I appreciate that.

Now please read my counter-arguments to your counter-arguments.

Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. — Miller

Not any. There could be conceivably a physical creation that is all good. Why would you say that that good and bad are necessary attributes to a creation? This is a declaration that is axiomatic, and it actually can't be supported by logic only by belief. So if you believe that, another person can VALIDLY believe that there are worlds, physical manifestations, where only good exist, and bad and evil do not.

And the reason creation contains bad... is whose fault? Who created creation according to you, and who is responsible ultimately for the bad in creation? If a creator who was INFINITELY good, created the world, there would be no bad things. After all, he is INFINITELY powerful so he could have created that world.

Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. — Miller

Free will can only choose evil if the evil choice is a valid option. If a creator who was INFINITELY good, created the world, there would be no such choices possible. After all, he is INFINITELY powerful so he could have created that world.

And don't assume god does not feel every bit of pain we feel along with us. — Miller

How do you know what your God feels? Is that not a bit presumptuous of you to claim you know your God's feelings? After all, he is INFINITELY complex, is he not? According to you, he is. Are YOU infinitely complex? No. So don't pretend to know what your god is like and what he feels. You are too small compared to him (in your own world view.)

There could be conceivably a physical creation that is all good. — god must be atheist

impossble. and even if it was possible you wouldnt want it

How do you know what your God feels? — god must be atheist

dont assume he doenst

impossble. and even if it was possible you wouldnt want it — Miller

You state this as if it were proven. No, that is not proven. Much like the possibility of a physical world being all good is not proven.

but that is not the point whether you and/or I can imagine such a world. The problem is that GOD can imagine and create such a world. He is ALL POWERFUL, remember? So by not creating such a world, he failed to be not evil.

How do you know what your God feels?
— god must be atheist

dont assume he doenst — Miller

I am not assuming anything. But you claim to have knowledge of that. What gives? Can you read my reply with the eyes that God gave you? Can you comprehend what you read with the mind that God gave you? If you can't see or comprehend that, then god gave you false eyes and a false mind. Then you go and worship him. Again: What gives?

The problem is that GOD can imagine and create such a world. He is ALL POWERFUL, — god must be atheist

magical thinking

wordplay

creation is always relative and logical. god cant create a creation that defies that

i am like jesus

one with god

so i have access to his omniscience