On Atheism vs. Christianity

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.) Ultimately, I don't think pain or pleasure can be used to establish anything conclusively indicating God's existence or non-existence.

Not to be uncharitable, but whatever atheists you were speaking with to get this impression weren't the brightest people out there. Why would they ignore pleasure? It serves just as important a role in evolution and the propagation of the species as pain.

It strikes me as much more likely that you've made this argument up and attributed it to athiests.

"Why do bad things happen to good people" or rather "why do bad things happen at all" is not an argument I've made up and attributed to atheists. I've been asked that question a lot, as a challenge to my faith, and it's a good question. But I find that the opposite, "why do good things happen at all" is rarely or never asked, and that is an intellectual dishonesty, to me.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But haven't you ever seen an atheist bring up this point before in a debate with theists or Christians?

No. That's what I just told you.

I see it at almost every one.

Quite frankly, if you told me the sky was blue I would feel compelled to go outside and check.

Well, that's just been my experience.

I have reason to believe that I have considerably greater experience with this subject than you.

Well, that's just your opinion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But haven't you ever seen an atheist bring up this point before in a debate with theists or Christians?

No. That's what I just told you.

I see it at almost every one.

Quite frankly, if you told me the sky was blue I would feel compelled to go outside and check.

Well, that's just been my experience.

I have reason to believe that I have considerably greater experience with this subject than you.

Well, that's just your opinion.

Eight year olds, dude.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

Humans evolved to prefer activities that insure their survival. However, in addition to that, humans evolved with an extremely flexible capacity to process information: the human brain. A side effect of the human brain evolving is the capacity to enjoy higher, more complex aesthetic stimuli. In this way human evolution 'overshot' the raw intelligence required to survive in the wild. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about this.

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

Epic fail on logic.

Atheists make no positive claims about the way the universe works outside of scientific discovery and as I explained above, there is nothing supernatural about humans evolving to enjoy higher order pleasures.

Christians on the other hand believe in supernatural events such as the ressurrection of Christ with 0 scientific evidence, but rather the Bible as their 'proof.' There is not a single shred of philosophical equivalence going on here.

Rubbish. The allegory of the resurrection on the cross is something any person can experience and because it transforms a person from a suffering clot into God, it gets called supernatural, as people often do when they don't understand things. What you don't know is that religion is a science of experience and only those who taste know. You just got fooled by the billions of clowns who think they are religious. Religion isn't a belief, it's a state of being.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I am not an atheist.

I don't see how not being an atheist should prevent one from shooting oneself in the head. Especially since it is highly probable that an atheist would believe in permanent everlasting death, while a theist would probably believe in some ascension to heaven.

The point being, why not, it doesn't matter anyway, it's all just chemicals. A true atheist would never bother with life because it holds no meaning for them. When they are gone their family may cry but their family will die eventually and they will be forgotten and meaningless, as meaningless as an ant in a hill.

:roll: My Sarcasm Meter must be broken.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.) Ultimately, I don't think pain or pleasure can be used to establish anything conclusively indicating God's existence or non-existence.

You're missing the point. Why would pain and pleasure play by the same rules in front of a BENEVOLENT god? The word benevolent is one sided. If you want to claim god is indifferent, then I'd be more inclined to humour your thought experiment (which is what I consider religion).

Pain/pleasure cannot be used to establish anything conclusive with relation to an existence of a god. It can be used to debunk the dogma which surrounds the belief that if a god exists they are all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent.

Because a benevolent God, as Christians see Him, is seen as a father-figure. A father causes his children both pain and pleasure, all with the purpose of helping them grow into what he wants them to become, and all while loving them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Because a benevolent God, as Christians see Him, is seen as a father-figure. A father causes his children both pain and pleasure, all with the purpose of helping them grown into what he wants them to become, and all while loving them.

Sounds like something a bunch of ancient Sheepherders would invent.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I am not an atheist.

I don't see how not being an atheist should prevent one from shooting oneself in the head. Especially since it is highly probable that an atheist would believe in permanent everlasting death, while a theist would probably believe in some ascension to heaven.

The point being, why not, it doesn't matter anyway, it's all just chemicals. A true atheist would never bother with life because it holds no meaning for them. When they are gone their family may cry but their family will die eventually and they will be forgotten and meaningless, as meaningless as an ant in a hill.

:roll: My Sarcasm Meter must be broken.

Nope, I'm serious. I see no intellectual harmony in a person who is sure that God doesn't exist and yet considers their life worthy of anything at all. It is no more worthy of existence than a rock or cattle--that's what their philosophy says by its very definition, if they are going to take it to its logical progression, which seems reasonable considering they in essence claim to worship logic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

So true. I shot myself in the head. I stopped thought and eternity began. And it's a GREAT place to be.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Because a benevolent God, as Christians see Him, is seen as a father-figure. A father causes his children both pain and pleasure, all with the purpose of helping them grown into what he wants them to become, and all while loving them.

Sounds like something a bunch of ancient Sheepherders would invent.

Disdain noted.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I am not an atheist.

I don't see how not being an atheist should prevent one from shooting oneself in the head. Especially since it is highly probable that an atheist would believe in permanent everlasting death, while a theist would probably believe in some ascension to heaven.

The point being, why not, it doesn't matter anyway, it's all just chemicals. A true atheist would never bother with life because it holds no meaning for them. When they are gone their family may cry but their family will die eventually and they will be forgotten and meaningless, as meaningless as an ant in a hill.

By God, there's NO HOPE for you yet. Just see how absolutely right you are. Just see it and let it take you. Dive head first into the NOTHING. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Nope, I'm serious. I see no intellectual harmony in a person who is sure that God doesn't exist and yet considers their life worthy of anything at all. It is no more worthy of existence than a rock or cattle--that's what their philosophy says by its very definition, if they are going to take it to its logical progression, which seems reasonable considering they in essence claim to worship logic.

Until now I never realized that you were an idiot. Man am I shocked.:shocked:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Nope, I'm serious. I see no intellectual harmony in a person who is sure that God doesn't exist and yet considers their life worthy of anything at all. It is no more worthy of existence than a rock or cattle--that's what their philosophy says by its very definition, if they are going to take it to its logical progression, which seems reasonable considering they in essence claim to worship logic.

Buddhists are also atheists, and they do not believe the things you insist that they must. Obviously, you have some wrong ideas about atheism.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Because a benevolent God, as Christians see Him, is seen as a father-figure. A father causes his children both pain and pleasure, all with the purpose of helping them grown into what he wants them to become, and all while loving them.

Sounds like something a bunch of ancient Sheepherders would invent.

Disdain noted.

Well it does. You know making it up as you go along.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The point being, why not, it doesn't matter anyway, it's all just chemicals. A true atheist would never bother with life because it holds no meaning for them. When they are gone their family may cry but their family will die eventually and they will be forgotten and meaningless, as meaningless as an ant in a hill.

Your logic here is invalid. It seems to me that you are implying that in order to place value & meaning on things, there has to be some objective omnipotent/omniscient force called god. This is a big non sequitur. Even without god, for the time that we are alive, we certainly can place localized value & meaning on things and events on Earth (or the universe). Meaning & value can only come from sentient beings, and that is what we are.

Additionally, if there was an omnipotent/omniscient force out there, the events and affairs of Earth would be quite meaningless in comparison to the knowledge/power of that entity. We would be far less than ants in an ant hill. As far as cosmology is concerned, Earth is out in the middle of Bumfuck Nowhere, and our actions here have only the most minuscule effect on other things in the universe. However, what is worse is that quantum mechanics seems to point to a reality that consists of mere waves of probabilities, and of course we consist of this quantum static. Macro events are the culminating result of this static, reflecting the probability distributions thereof.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: yllus
Not to be uncharitable, but whatever atheists you were speaking with to get this impression weren't the brightest people out there. Why would they ignore pleasure? It serves just as important a role in evolution and the propagation of the species as pain.

It strikes me as much more likely that you've made this argument up and attributed it to athiests.

"Why do bad things happen to good people" or rather "why do bad things happen at all" is not an argument I've made up and attributed to atheists. I've been asked that question a lot, as a challenge to my faith, and it's a good question. But I find that the opposite, "why do good things happen at all" is rarely or never asked, and that is an intellectual dishonesty, to me.

How in the world is that intellectually dishonest? There's no intellectual requirement to ask the converse to every question. Especially when the first question already answers the second.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'd also like to add that there is no "atheist philosophy." There are rather many, many incongruent worldviews which are atheistic. Anyone who claims, "atheism says X," is only demonstrating his own ignorance.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Because a benevolent God, as Christians see Him, is seen as a father-figure. A father causes his children both pain and pleasure, all with the purpose of helping them grow into what he wants them to become, and all while loving them.

I've heard the father figure thing, and it makes sense to a degree. We experience pain so we can grow as children of god correct? Where it breaks down is the VAST difference between the 'lessons' that the father figure teaches through pain. And is god actively teaching these lessons by causing the pain, or just allowing pain to exist in the world?

Think about that in the context of abortion.

 

[StageLeft]

ou are implying that in order to place value & meaning on things, there has to be some objective omnipotent/omniscient force called god.

Yes.

we certainly can place localized value & meaning on things and events on Earth (or the universe). Meaning & value can only come from sentient beings, and that is what we are.

Why only sentient? To my cat it's important she sleeps 20 hours/day. To a bee it's important a flower is there. Without God you are merely a more evolved version of a bee, so what is important to you is no more relevant than what is important to the bee. 100 years from now you're both dead anyway.

the events and affairs of Earth would be quite meaningless in comparison to the knowledge/power of that entity.

Unless that being specifically said that they weren't, I agree.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: yllus
Not to be uncharitable, but whatever atheists you were speaking with to get this impression weren't the brightest people out there. Why would they ignore pleasure? It serves just as important a role in evolution and the propagation of the species as pain.

It strikes me as much more likely that you've made this argument up and attributed it to athiests.

"Why do bad things happen to good people" or rather "why do bad things happen at all" is not an argument I've made up and attributed to atheists. I've been asked that question a lot, as a challenge to my faith, and it's a good question. But I find that the opposite, "why do good things happen at all" is rarely or never asked, and that is an intellectual dishonesty, to me.

How in the world is that intellectually dishonest? There's no intellectual requirement to ask the converse to every question. Especially when the first question already answers the second.

Well, whatever it's called, it's not paying attention to the whole picture.

 

[StageLeft]

Until now I never realized that you were an idiot. Man am I shocked.

I think perhaps you're not as sure of things as you would like to think you are.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

OP Should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil which is what you're trying to talk about but failing miserably at. I really don't care to comment at this point but it's painful to read you floundering about in your own thread not really understanding what your trying to criticize.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Why only sentient? To my cat it's important she sleeps 20 hours/day. To a bee it's important a flower is there. Without God you are merely a more evolved version of a bee, so what is important to you is no more relevant than what is important to the bee. 100 years from now you're both dead anyway.

So why don't the cat and the bee kill themselves? Why do they bother with life?

It's funny how arrogant humans are. For some reason our existence is so much more important than that of a monkey. Get over yourself.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Without God you are merely a more evolved version of a bee, so what is important to you is no more relevant than what is important to the bee. 100 years from now you're both dead anyway.

And with god, what happens? You die, go to heaven, only to sit around all day and watch angels play harps? How does god solve the 'meaninglessness of life' problem?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I am not an atheist.

I don't see how not being an atheist should prevent one from shooting oneself in the head. Especially since it is highly probable that an atheist would believe in permanent everlasting death, while a theist would probably believe in some ascension to heaven.

The point being, why not, it doesn't matter anyway, it's all just chemicals. A true atheist would never bother with life because it holds no meaning for them. When they are gone their family may cry but their family will die eventually and they will be forgotten and meaningless, as meaningless as an ant in a hill.

:roll: My Sarcasm Meter must be broken.

Nope, I'm serious. I see no intellectual harmony in a person who is sure that God doesn't exist and yet considers their life worthy of anything at all. It is no more worthy of existence than a rock or cattle--that's what their philosophy says by its very definition, if they are going to take it to its logical progression, which seems reasonable considering they in essence claim to worship logic.

I think you should probably leave what atheists think to the atheists.

Life provides you with the opportunity to feel fulfilled, happy, excited, whatever. All of these things are positive feelings, and things that people like. Death (presumably) is an endless expanse of nothing. While life is also filled with pain and unpleasentness, I fail to see any reason to believe why the 'logical' conclusion is to choose endless nothingness over things that you enjoy.