Customer Discussions > Religion forum

I Lost (faith) and Found (reality)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 301-325 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:54:24 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
And...yeah, pointless arguing with this.

Good luck with that physics degree.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:56:32 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:02:24 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
I didn't say it was a fact, I said it was better than a fact. It is however a "fact" in the common usage of the term.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:05:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 7:06:39 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:09:50 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
A "fact" is just an observation and doesn't tell us much.

Regarding the second part, I'm saying the scientific meaning of "theory" fits the common usage of the word "fact".

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:10:09 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
SCL,

"And the the argument from evil appeal to "Evil exists" as the most crucial of all premises, but this is never found in the world itself. It is found to be projected by us onto things. One has to make an appeal to emotions to even get the premise that "Evil" exists."

Yes, OK. If you don't agree that kids dying from cancer, childhood sexual abuse, and such are evil, then I can see why you wouldn't buy the problem of evil argument. That doesn't make the argument an appeal to emotion fallacy. You simply don't accept one of the premises. I suspect that you do accept the premise in life and only deny it to try to make an argument. If you passed a starving child on the street, would you just say to yourself, "That's only subjectively bad"?

What's wrong with making an argument from the subjective human perspective? Are we not humans?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:19:26 AM PDT
J. Harding,

You have already admitted that moral judgements rely on emotions for preference to choose, so it is an obviously relying on emotions to make the decision. It is used to convince us that something is true, which is what appeals to emotions do.

There is nothing wrong with making argument from your subjective perspective, but that does not give one a right to claim that something exists or does not exist because of that claim which relies on your emotions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:20:38 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:30:57 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
SCL,

You're quibbling about the descriptive terms used in an argument and avoiding the substance. Right or wrong: your response to the problem of evil is to say that no evil happens in the world.

No subjective argument is required to show that children die of cancer, children are sexually abused, etc. Describing those things as evil is subjective. Are you disagreeing that they are evil?

We appear to have different understandings of what an appeal to emotion is. Do you disagree with this definition?:

"Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

I don't see emotional manipulation in the problem of evil. That's what appeals to emotions do. There is logic in the problem of evil, not just a statement that "The world makes you feel bad, so god is evil."

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:38:51 AM PDT
J. Harding,

The terms of the argument are the substance or an argument, because the argument becomes empty without them. It can still be valid, but it says nothing to us.

I would agree with the last sentences, which points out that the argument relies on a position without factual evidence, and in this case it would be that evil exists. All we could say is that emotions exist. And you are right that there is a logic in the argument because it is a valid modus tollens. The most crucial premise is what is under question.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:05:04 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
SCL,

"I would agree with the last sentences, which points out that the argument relies on a position without factual evidence, and in this case it would be that evil exists."

This is where you're wrong. The argument doesn't rely on the existence of evil, per se. It relies on the happening of events that can be described as evil.

I'm going to change the problem of evil slightly while trying to preserve the overall idea and see if that helps:

1. Childhood cancer is detrimental to the well-being of children with cancer.

2. Some children get cancer.

3. An all-powerful god could eliminate childhood cancer.

4. A god concerned with the well-being of children would want to prevent childhood cancer.

5. No all-power god who is concerned with the well-being of children exists.

What do you think?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:08:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 8:12:49 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:13:50 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Okay, this officially makes The List™ LOL

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:16:47 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
SCL,

OK, you can disagree with the premises. Please explain how childhood cancer is anything but bad for childhood well-being. This is the sort of thing apologetics reduces you to: arguing that cancer is good for childhood well-being.

Note that even if you could show that cancer was sometimes good for childhood well-being, I don't think that would be enough. An all-powerful god should be able to prevent only the cancer that's bad for childhood well-being, yet there's no evidence that god prevents any childhood cancer. You'd have to show that all childhood cancer is good for child well-being, wouldn't you?

Overall, I think you've missed my point. Don't you see that the problem of evil doesn't essentially depend on the labels good or evil?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:21:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 8:26:46 AM PDT
J. Harding,

Cancer is neither good or bad, this should be obvious by reading any text on cancer. It is amoral, so something amoral cannot be good or evil.

The problem of evil does state that it is about evil, so it does appear to essentially depend on the labels of good or evil or the argument is just noise. Not sure how you are missing that evil is the most important thing to make the argument work or have any legs.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:25:43 AM PDT
MaryAnn H. says:
"Where is the role model for all those marriages between a man and a woman that Christians hold so sacred?"

Well, ya see, first you get a woman pregnant by someone (something?) that is not her husband. Then down the line, you use servants to breed with the man of the house when the wife is infertile. These are just samples of the role models available when Christians get on the band wagon and talk about morals and ethics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:28:42 AM PDT
MaryAnn H. says:
I commend you for trying to make sense out of any of SCL's posts. It got so convoluted that I didn't even read them anymore.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:30:41 AM PDT
MaryAnn H. says:
Excellent!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:31:10 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
SCL,

My argument didn't say whether cancer is good or bad in an abstract sense. It only said that cancer is bad for childhood well-being. Can you give me a reference to a text on cancer that would lead me to think that cancer is good for childhood well-being?

The problem of evil is about things that happen in the world, whether or not you can call them evil. It is the events themselves that matter, not the term we assign them. If you want to argue that earthquakes, disease, and anything else is not bad for human welfare, fine. That's the argument you have to make, though. You have to say that god shouldn't want to prevent all of the things that afflict humanity for some reason, not that we can't call them evil.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:33:15 AM PDT
Ariex says:
ArmyMan says: "Have you tried reading any Christian apologetics literature?"

Ariex; The problem there is agenda: Apologetics is a form of "defense attorney" tactics, trying to sway or persuade the "jury" by any means, often by misrepresentation or outright deception. Sure, Dawkins and Hitchens have (and had) their agendas, but they were identifiable. Christians often fail to acknowledge or consider that apologists also have an agenda, and most often, it has little, if anything, to do with the "truth".

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:35:28 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:35:39 AM PDT
Ariex says:
Dr H says: "For one thing, I disagree with his contention that science can disprove the existence of God. This is the recurring theme in Victor Stenger's books as well."
Ariex: Yet both authors made it clear that they were referring to the god of the Hebrew scriptures, and that case has been made by many, usually by reading the Bible itself. No other book has turned so many believers into atheists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:43:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 8:43:42 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
SCL,

No, well-being is "the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous" according to Merriam-Webster's website.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well-being

Whether you think well-being is good or bad is not relevant. What the argument says is that god either doesn't exist or isn't concerned with childhood well-being. If you want, replace "well-being" with "health" in my argument. It shouldn't change the central idea.

The central point of the problem of evil is that things happen in the world that cause human misery. A god who is capable of preventing those things either doesn't exist or doesn't want to alleviate human misery. The label of evil is not really required.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:46:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 8:47:19 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:47:55 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
You just said:

<<<Why would someone hypothetically alleviate human misery if it is good?>>>
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1335 4 days ago
God is not a knowledge claim 626 2 minutes ago
The War on Wonen Continues Apace 8238 6 minutes ago
Dear atheists, 3996 6 minutes ago
Is homosexuality a 'good thing' ? 1068 13 minutes ago
Echo Chambers and the Vaccination Debate 2 18 minutes ago
The abortion football 217 25 minutes ago
Worst Ideas Religion Has Unleashed on the World 50 45 minutes ago
Science II 4191 1 hour ago
Pusillanimous Penguin 2 1 hour ago
Asking the wrong questions 76 2 hours ago
Did Paul Advocate Jesus is God? 47 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  181
Total posts:  8856
Initial post:  Jun 11, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 7, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions