Atheists a question for you!

[Chris]

This thread is for the question that plagues so many and causes a barrier to belief.

How can a loving God allow pain and suffering?

Answer these for me-

With relation to good and evil in the world, if man did not exist and there was just nature would there be evil?


The holocaust in Germany to the Jews during the second world war- Mans doing by his own free will and ignorance of Jesus teachings or did God do it? Is it fair to blame this on God?

The presence of man brings good and evil to the world? You steal from your friend did God make you do that?

If God is in believers would he not experience the suffering we do to ourselves and desire us to be free of it? Would a loving god provide a solution wile still allowing us to have a free will?


This to save arguments- You cannot prove God (God of the christian bible) does or does not exist by current methods. It is purely experiential and a personal experience.

From an Atheists perspective what is the solution to evil in the world I mean man hurting man war and inflicted famines from industrialization varying weather patterns or war?

 

[Rhea]

In my opinion the best ways to address evil in the world are clear laws with strong enforcement, education to combat tribalism in culture or religion (us vs. them), excellent access to basic health care, a free press and brownies for everyone.

 

[Chris]

I know I ask all the easy questions lol but They come up so often. It gets asked to me to me from non believers, I thought it worth a discussion.

 

[WIP]

It occurs to me that if someone creates something that he expects to be a certain way and it turns out not even coming close to meeting his expectations then he would likely destroy it and start over. Wait! That almost did happen didn't it? Except for Noah and his family we were nearly destroyed. But I forgot, we don't have free will to defy God....or do we?

We need to keep things in perspective. We aren't even close to being on the same playing field with God. He is so far superior to us it is beyond our comprehension. When we begin to think of God and his understanding on our terms we do Him a huge disservice. I believe we bring pain and suffering upon ourselves by rejecting God.

 

[jasoncran]

In my opinion the best ways to address evil in the world are clear laws with strong enforcement, education to combat tribalism in culture or religion (us vs. them), excellent access to basic health care, a free press and brownies for everyone.

education? really,so the secular educational system is supposed to know teach morals? i thought that was for the church and family. funny aint it. its ok if the secular humanist teaches that but not the christian.

ah yes a moral utopia where man bases laws on science and religions are a thing of the past.

 

[Rhea]

education? really,so the secular educational system is supposed to know teach morals? i thought that was for the church and family. funny aint it. its ok if the secular humanist teaches that but not the christian.

ah yes a moral utopia where man bases laws on science and religions are a thing of the past.

(wherefore the derision? are all secular things bad?)

I do believe that a public education system can and should teach the level of morals necessary to live in a cooperative society together. Many individuals would choose to add further restrictions upon themselves, but yes, I don't see a gap in secular morals and the minimum required for cooperative society.

We have some important contributions to that here in the USA, such as those that have finally outlawed wife-beating and physical abuse of children. Those are secular. I personally would love to see in high school a class on child-rearing that includes the secular lessons of first aid, basic child physiology and psychology (don't shake the baby, don't swear at the child), nutrition, fitness and support. I think that would go a long way to changing the tide on child abuse. But there are plenty of others that can be taught universally without insult and to great purpose. MY kids' schools, for example, teach them that community service is necessary, that good eating habits are crucial, that cleaning up after yourself is expected and that bullying is wrong and you should stand up for the victims against bullies. These are, in my values, anyway, good things. Do you think there are people whose values reject these ideas?

Some values are based in a religion, and those are appropriately taught at home. But many are easily identified as useful to our society.

 

[jasoncran]

(wherefore the derision? are all secular things bad?)

I do believe that a public education system can and should teach the level of morals necessary to live in a cooperative society together. Many individuals would choose to add further restrictions upon themselves, but yes, I don't see a gap in secular morals and the minimum required for cooperative society.

We have some important contributions to that here in the USA, such as those that have finally outlawed wife-beating and physical abuse of children. Those are secular. I personally would love to see in high school a class on child-rearing that includes the secular lessons of first aid, basic child physiology and psychology (don't shake the baby, don't swear at the child), nutrition, fitness and support. I think that would go a long way to changing the tide on child abuse. But there are plenty of others that can be taught universally without insult and to great purpose. MY kids' schools, for example, teach them that community service is necessary, that good eating habits are crucial, that cleaning up after yourself is expected and that bullying is wrong and you should stand up for the victims against bullies. These are, in my values, anyway, good things. Do you think there are people whose values reject these ideas?

Some values are based in a religion, and those are appropriately taught at home. But many are easily identified as useful to our society.

in the day when i went to school the school didnt have to teach them, they were already assumed to be taught, but since parents do have to be parents and now the state that is why. i have a problem with that thinking of yours as that isnt what you stated. morals those arent morals.

all laws are morals of someones views correct.

based on what moree is murder illegal?
based on what moree is stealing illegal?

get the point?

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.​

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
   
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
   
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
   
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
   
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
   
6. You shall not murder.
   
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
8. You shall not steal.
   
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

when i was in school that was on the wall and often used a class rule. but hey that makes men evil i guess
per the ruling of stone v graham.

i understand the reasoning of some of that but i as a jw who knows that as well and memorised as well was never made to obey one and two, four but to follow the others in regards to fellow humans

yes tribalism ah yes public schools and education do a fine job of stopping that. i recall much of that going on. you cant teach a kid to love in school. the parents have too. so is the state going to override parents who teach otherwise? are they going to force homeschoolers to teach their version of "helping others"

i know where you come from and not of all it do i agree but to see that the athiest humanism is the shining beacon. do i need to walk you through the attrocities of athiesm?

the so call secular colleges that worship che guevarra a known murderer or the professors in my state the call stalin good man.


the problem here is that you assume that men will do what you say, care for others. they wont so then you cant compell them based on theres no moral truth as we dont have any. secular humanism states this

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
​

 

[jasoncran]

so your view is the replacement of diesm. interesting it therefore must dominate. per the sixth. not all of this is bad as we must cooperate but the problem is that you state in naiviate that men will do that, yet history has shown otherwise. what makes you think savage man will improve himself given thousands of years of violence and athiesm is no exception. need i remind you that secular japan in ww2(nitzchean type) attacked china and the asian countries in conquest.

the religous of that day ie kano jiggoro and others that formed martial arts that i love was in response to the meji dynasty and war like mentality. when one has been to war, i have seen more evil then you can imagine and the u.n was useless. men without God are evil in general if left unchecked.are all murders, no liars no, but we all lie , cheat and steal. and are greedy in nature. yes there can be moral athiests. but not all moral athiests will agree on what is moral.

i know of agnostic here on this forum whom shall remained unnamed that probably is as consertive as most christians on morals

 

[abrown9]

This thread is for the question that plagues so many and causes a barrier to belief.

How can a loving God allow pain and suffering?

Answer these for me-

With relation to good and evil in the world, if man did not exist and there was just nature would there be evil?

Since (in my opinion) the whole idea of evil is created by man, then no, there would be no evil. Acts that we might consider evil (stealing, killing, etc.) would still happen, but since there would be no man to judge these acts, then there could be no evil. Morality is subjective.

The holocaust in Germany to the Jews during the second world war- Mans doing by his own free will and ignorance of Jesus teachings or did God do it? Is it fair to blame this on God?

This is a pretty straight forward one for an atheist: Since there is no god, it is not fair to blame it on God. This was done through free-will and lack of any empathy towards other human beings. Blaming it on God merely creates a scapegoat for the perpetrators.

The presence of man brings good and evil to the world? You steal from your friend did God make you do that?

Like I said before, evil is state of moral conduct, and morality is subjective, so yes, man brings evil into the world (but probably not in the sense you mean). God does not make me steal from my friend. Greed would be the most likely culprit.

If God is in believers would he not experience the suffering we do to ourselves and desire us to be free of it? Would a loving god provide a solution wile still allowing us to have a free will?

Maybe he would? This one doesn't really apply to Atheists I guess.

This to save arguments- You cannot prove God (God of the christian bible) does or does not exist by current methods. It is purely experiential and a personal experience.

I would go as far to say you can NEVER prove the existence of God (or disprove the existence of God), since, by definition, he is supernatural. Science deals only with the natural.

From an Atheists perspective what is the solution to evil in the world I mean man hurting man war and inflicted famines from industrialization varying weather patterns or war?

I'm not really sure there is any solution. Evil just is. Evil is subjective, and man will often do acts that go against other's moral code in order to benefit. Sometimes two moral codes are at loggerheads. In this scenario, the moral code of the minority is deemed evil.

Varying weather patterns and famines (to some extent...socioeconomic issues come into play as well) do not really fit into the morality scheme. They are chance occurrences that can negatively impact a human's life, but are by no means evil.

 

[Chris]

Since (in my opinion) the whole idea of evil is created by man, then no, there would be no evil. Acts that we might consider evil (stealing, killing, etc.) would still happen, but since there would be no man to judge these acts, then there could be no evil. Morality is subjective.

Cannibals had no conscience about eating others until christian missionary's arrived.. now they dont do it.




This is a pretty straight forward one for an atheist: Since there is no god, it is not fair to blame it on God. This was done through free-will and lack of any empathy towards other human beings. Blaming it on God merely creates a scapegoat for the perpetrators.

Prove that! - you cant say that like that, coz its not proven and cant be with what we know now.

Li ke I said before, evil is state of moral conduct, and morality is subjective, so yes, man brings evil into the world (but probably not in the sense you mean). God does not make me steal from my friend. Greed would be the most likely culprit.



Maybe he would? This one doesn't really apply to Atheists I guess.



I would go as far to say you can NEVER prove the existence of God (or disprove the existence of God), since, by definition, he is supernatural. Science deals only with the natural.



I'm not really sure there is any solution. Evil just is. Evil is subjective, and man will often do acts that go against other's moral code in order to benefit. Sometimes two moral codes are at loggerheads. In this scenario, the moral code of the minority is deemed evil.
I am going to start another thread read the replies and understand what christ did to eliminate suffering and evil christ is god. not many realize what it changed...

Varying weather patterns and famines (to some extent...socioeconomic issues come into play as well) do not really fit into the morality scheme. They are chance occurrences that can negatively impact a human's life, but are by no means evil.

 

[abrown9]

Since (in my opinion) the whole idea of evil is created by man, then no, there would be no evil. Acts that we might consider evil (stealing, killing, etc.) would still happen, but since there would be no man to judge these acts, then there could be no evil. Morality is subjective.

Cannibals had no conscience about eating others until christian missionary's arrived.. now they dont do it.

The circumstances under which cultures change with the introduction of new cultures is shady at best. I'm not exactly sure what point you are attempting to make here with regards to subjective morality. That the cannibals views on morality changed?

Prove that! - you cant say that like that, coz its not proven and cant be with what we know now.

Hence why I prefaced "since there is no god" with "This is a pretty easy one for an athiest:" Your thread was addressing atheists, and that is how I (an atheist) would respond.

Again, the existence of God can never be proven. God is supernatural. The minute that we can prove that God exists or doesn't exist is the minute he stops being God. Science deals only in the natural (by definition).

While I would label myself an Atheist, I obviously cannot say for certain that "there is no God", because there is no way to prove that. There is, however, no evidence for the existence of God, which is why I choose not to believe. That is just my own belief system.

 

[Jab-Jab]

I'm an atheist by technicality since I don't believe in any specific deity.

I don't think evil in itself can ever be destroyed. All we can do is do our best in the situation we have and learn from each other, and stand against that witch threatens us. Sometimes its each other, sometimes its natural disasters, sometimes its ourselves.

I think we think about theses things deeper then we really need to. I'll just spend time trying to do the least amount of damage that I can. :nod