Is the Tide Turning on Religious Belief?

[jes'fuchinwitcha]

Good. Now can we get to the issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

It has been proven that exactly the same number dance on the point as on the head. The form of dance itself is said to be that which occurs in St. Vitus's head.

[Chris]

Yeah... them and the Christian Bible. Then of course, there is Iblis in Islam, Rahu and the Asuras in Hinduism, Mara in Buddhism, Angra Mainyu in Zoroastrianism...

Or semi-facists in Bidenism.


I still say those personifications were metaphors. Again, like my grandfather personifying the dangers of the cellar under the house as the boogieman. And then there's Jesus talking in allegories in part because some people just weren't going to get it.

[Standing Wolf]

You seem to be describing yourself as you responded to nothing you quoted.

Who is good at that too.


If "the existence of evil doesn't have to be explained" then why do atheists demand explanation?

Oh, Jesus, Chris. Really? Okay, last post in this thread for me. I'm done with your stupid games.

Atheists only "demand explanation" for the existence of evil IN RESPONSE TO CLAIMS BY THEISTS THAT GOD EXISTS AND HE LOVES US.

You and D claim that theists and atheists agree that no supernatural agency is necessary to explain evil (I'm getting a sense of deja vu about now), but that isn't good enough for some theists. You have to inject a supernatural element to the equation when you say, "Yes, Man has free will to do evil things, AND GOD GAVE IT TO HIM". The atheist's view is that no god is necessary. Man isn't a mindless automaton, and neither are most of the more highly evolved creatures on the planet.

[Mister D]

In practical terms, the atheist determines whether an act they either see or contemplate is "bad" or not in exactly the same way the theist does.

That's not his question.

There is no such thing as an objectively bad or evil act, right? The answer would be that the atheist simply doesn't because it's a meaningless question. Right?

[Chris]

Oh, Jesus, Chris. Really? Okay, last post in this thread for me. I'm done with your stupid games.

Atheists only "demand explanation" for the existence of evil IN RESPONSE TO CLAIMS BY THEISTS THAT GOD EXISTS AND HE LOVES US.

You and D claim that theists and atheists agree that no supernatural agency is necessary to explain evil (I'm getting a sense of deja vu about now), but that isn't good enough for some theists. You have to inject a supernatural element to the equation when you say, "Yes, Man has free will to do evil things, AND GOD GAVE IT TO HIM". The atheist's view is that no god is necessary. Man isn't a mindless automaton, and neither are most of the more highly evolved creatures on the planet.

Yes, really. I think you post something and I respond in disagreement and you just can't believe anyone would disagree with you, so you mock and name call and get angry and quit.

So no still I do not understand why an atheist asks about a God he doesn't believe exists. Do you demand answers for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?--I don't.

"You and D claim that theists and atheists agree that no supernatural agency is necessary to explain evil (I'm getting a sense of deja vu about now)" -- good, you're starting to understand.

"but that isn't good enough for some theists" -- what theists, where? In this thread we have only heard that from atheists.

And there's that repeated oversimplification of Christian theology. Just when you were starting to understand the theist position on this you revert to atheist strawmen.

The question posed is not whether man makes choices of action. Or that man is the source of evil in those choices. The question has more to do with how those choices are judged and what teleological purpose all this has. The theist has his answer, explained already. The atheist stops at, as Who argued, man is the measure of all things. But look at the world around us and tell us where you find man in consensus on anything.

[Dr. Who]

That's not his question.

There is no such thing as an objectively bad or evil act, right? The answer would be that the atheist simply doesn't because it's a meaningless question. Right?

How do you determine an objectively evil act? On what basis?

[Dr. Who]

Yes, really. I think you post something and I respond in disagreement and you just can't believe anyone would disagree with you, so you mock and name call and get angry and quit.

So no still I do not understand why an atheist asks about a God he doesn't believe exists. Do you demand answers for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?--I don't.

"You and D claim that theists and atheists agree that no supernatural agency is necessary to explain evil (I'm getting a sense of deja vu about now)" -- good, you're starting to understand.

"but that isn't good enough for some theists" -- what theists, where? In this thread we have only heard that from atheists.

And there's that repeated oversimplification of Christian theology. Just when you were starting to understand the theist position on this you revert to atheist strawmen.

The question posed is not whether man makes choices of action. Or that man is the source of evil in those choices. The question has more to do with how those choices are judged and what teleological purpose all this has. The theist has his answer, explained already. The atheist stops at, as Who argued, man is the measure of all things. But look at the world around us and tell us where you find man in consensus on anything.

I'll ask you the same question as I posed to D: How does the theist determine an objectively evil act? On what basis?

[Mister D]

How do you determine an objectively evil act? On what basis?

No. First, you're going to take a position. I know you're not used to this and makes you angry but...well, tough. There is no such thing as an objectively bad or evil act. Is this correct? If that is not correct, tell me why. Based on your earlier musings both here and elsewhere, this should be an easy one. Perhaps you finally understand the implications?

[Chris]

I'll ask you the same question as I posed to D: How does the theist determine an objectively evil act? On what basis?

I'll answer this much, the atheist has no means to do so since, as you said, man is the measure, man is subjective, each with his own subjective view, but also man is the subject of action, the actor.

We might say, the law, but positive law is not moral law, consider slavery.


Let me note how you like Wolf completely ignored what I had posted and failed to respond, even in disagreement.

[jes'fuchinwitcha]

I'll answer this much, the atheist has no means to do so since, as you said, man is the measure, man is subjective, each with his own subjective view, but also man is the subject of action, the actor.

We might say, the law, but positive law is not moral law, consider slavery.


Let me note how you like Wolf completely ignored what I had posted and failed to respond, even in disagreement.

I completely disagree with everything you said.