I always felt that evil = because of free will to be quite a cop out... First off, it does nothing to explain suffering caused by disease or natural catastrophes.
Second, thankfully most people have zero desire to sexually abuse children. It is not that they are heroically withstanding temptation, they do not even feel that temptation. Does that limit their free will? I would not say so.
Free will and empathy are perfectly compatible, and if every person was fully capable of empathy we would have a much better world.
I agree completely. If empathy, gratitude, and presence were elevated to the status that fear and greed currently occupy, it would be a true revolution. Perhaps naively, I believe that this shift is happening, albeit agonizingly slow.
@LadyRhianOr maybe he shouldn't have created "The Gays" only to punish them... the whole theology is messed up.
You might want to actually learn the "Theology" so you don't keep making wildly inaccurate claims about it.
Please feel free to enlighten us. > > > I'll take a stab.
A God that doesn't allow for free-will is more like a Tyrant than a God. He doesn't 'create' bad people any more than he 'creates' good people. He doesn't 'allow' things or 'forbid' things. People do that. He tries to show us a better way. It's up to us to choose it or not. If everybody lived like Christ (or Buddah for that matter) this would be a better world. Maybe boring in a no-conflict sort of way, but better. We'd still maybe have Hollywood to show us how conflict plays out I guess...
@LadyRhianOr maybe he shouldn't have created "The Gays" only to punish them... the whole theology is messed up.
You might want to actually learn the "Theology" so you don't keep making wildly inaccurate claims about it.
Please feel free to enlighten us.
> > > I'll take a stab.
A God that doesn't allow for free-will is more like a Tyrant than a God. He doesn't 'create' bad people any more than he 'creates' good people. He doesn't 'allow' things or 'forbid' things. People do that. He tries to show us a better way. It's up to us to choose it or not. If everybody lived like Christ (or Buddah for that matter) this would be a better world. Maybe boring in a no-conflict sort of way, but better. We'd still maybe have Hollywood to show us how conflict plays out I guess...
You think Christ and Buddha were sent by the same god? Which theology is that? Never heard of it before.
At this point is pretty clear that no church or religious community should be trusted with dealing with sex abuse by its members on its own.
I would extend that to any organization even privately owned companies...
I absolutely agree. I consider churches to be worst kind of organistations in regards to sexual abuse. Its traditions and special position (claimed divine mandate) seem to reproduce system of secrecy, valuing reputation of organisation over interest of survivor, and predator protection.
If this kind of crisis happened in, e. g., Amazon, no one would defend them because of their mission, or their importance to the nation, or whatever.
@LadyRhianOr maybe he shouldn't have created "The Gays" only to punish them... the whole theology is messed up.
You might want to actually learn the "Theology" so you don't keep making wildly inaccurate claims about it.
Please feel free to enlighten us.
>
>
>
I'll take a stab.
A God that doesn't allow for free-will is more like a Tyrant than a God. He doesn't 'create' bad people any more than he 'creates' good people. He doesn't 'allow' things or 'forbid' things. People do that. He tries to show us a better way. It's up to us to choose it or not. If everybody lived like Christ (or Buddah for that matter) this would be a better world. Maybe boring in a no-conflict sort of way, but better. We'd still maybe have Hollywood to show us how conflict plays out I guess...
You think Christ and Buddha were sent by the same god? Which theology is that? Never heard of it before.
I was under the impression that Christians believe God created all people, even Guatama Buddha. Due to free will, we can be evil, we can be Christian, we can be a buddha. He is simply making an observation that if people exercised their free will to live like Christ or Buddha that we might notice an improvement in conditions down here.
Lots of stuff. Try google. Here's a major thing from Bertrand Russell
There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching—an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.
Another thing I find grossly immoral is substitutionary atonement.
Not terrible, but if you insist on it being literal he also seems a bit like a spoiled child in the fig tree episode.
What I have think would be extremely tragic if everything written about his life is correct until he asks God why he has forsaken him and he just dies.
Lots of stuff. Try google. Here's a major thing from Bertrand Russell
There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching—an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.
Another thing I find grossly immoral is substitutionary atonement.
I can't really see either of those as a defect in his character: - Bertrand Russell did not believe in God and therefore interpreted Jesus' teaching on hell as a desire to punish. I suspect that those who do believe in God would see the same teaching as a clear demonstration of a desire to help people avoid punishment. - as for atonement I don't think that doctrine has anything to do with Jesus' character (at least as a man). If anyone would be deemed immoral for sending Jesus to take the sins of mankind onto himself it would be God.
I agree with @Ammar that the fig tree episode is more concerning, although if that's the worst thing that anyone can find to say about him, that suggests to me he had a pretty good character.
@Grond0 Are you saying JC isn't god in the theology? I think you'd be wrong per the trinity theology.
EDIT: Also, don't you find eternal punishment for finite crimes immoral? It seems like you're saying my points aren't objectively horrible, but I think you were not advocating for objective morals anyway.
@Grond0 Are you saying JC isn't god in the theology? I think you'd be wrong per the trinity theology.
EDIT: Also, don't you find eternal punishment for finite crimes immoral? It seems like you're saying my points aren't objectively horrible, but I think you were not advocating for objective morals anyway.
I don't really think it makes much sense to evaluate Jesus's character in his role as God (if you believe in that, which not all Christians do as has been discussed before in this thread) - that's why I specifically referred to him in his aspect as a man in my post. I think that also makes the discussion more manageable as whether you're religious or not you can discuss his human character. I do find the idea of eternal punishment ridiculous and that's one of the lesser reasons I don't like the idea of God (and wouldn't want to follow a God that advocates such ideas even if he existed). I think the nature and morality of God is really a separate topic of discussion to Jesus' character though.
If we just consider Jesus as a religious man it seems to me that trying to help people to avoid hell is not a character defect in itself (though from the point of view of an atheist, setting himself up as having more knowledge than others and interfering in their lives could certainly be considered a defect).
@Grond0 Are you saying JC isn't god in the theology? I think you'd be wrong per the trinity theology.
EDIT: Also, don't you find eternal punishment for finite crimes immoral? It seems like you're saying my points aren't objectively horrible, but I think you were not advocating for objective morals anyway.
If we just consider Jesus as a religious man it seems to me that trying to help people to avoid hell is not a character defect in itself (though from the point of view of an atheist, setting himself up as having more knowledge than others and interfering in their lives could certainly be considered a defect).
Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Doesn't sound like a nice man to me.
In a work as lengthy as the Bible it's not difficult to take words out of context to evidence a point of view, but I don't see either of the above as particular evidence of bad character.
Luke 11:23 is referring to the accusation by Pharisees that Jesus has used the power of Satan to cast out a demon. In that context his meaning seems to be that the accusation does not make sense as Satan would not empower Jesus to cast out demons on his own side. In relation to taking sides more generally Luke 9:50 is more instructive, where Jesus reminds his disciples that they should support others doing good works, even if those others are not working directly on behalf of Jesus ("He that is not against us is on our side.”).
Luke 12:49 has got various interpretations, but the reference to fire in this instance probably relates to the coming judgment (that had been referred to several times previously in Luke 12). Jesus is thus just anxious for the purpose of his teachings to be fulfilled.
If you don't believe in God then many of Jesus' beliefs seem odd and as I said before his desire to push those on others could be regarded as a character defect. However, if you believe in God and accept that Jesus sincerely felt that he needed to intervene in order to save others from damnation - what else could a good man do, but act?
So once again we are at an impasse. What interpretation if any is the right one? How would you know?
And regarding the second point I don't care if a person is being sincere if they don't have a reasonable justification for their position or belief. Sincerity is quite irrelevant to truth.
And regarding the second point I don't care if a person is being sincere if they don't have a reasonable justification for their position or belief. Sincerity is quite irrelevant to truth.
That's something that was discussed pretty extensively before. I believe in evidence-based policies, so if there was evidence that God does not exist I would agree with you. However, I don't think there is such evidence - the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. While I don't myself believe in God, in a situation where his existence can't be proved or disproved, I don't think it's right to tell other people what they should believe.
As far as Jesus is concerned I would follow a qualified free speech argument. He would be fully entitled to put forward his point of view and try and convince others to adopt that. If, however, he moved beyond arguing his case to using coercive behavior, e.g. by using threats or violence, that would not be acceptable. I don't know enough about him to have a strong opinion, but based on what I do know I don't think he generally went beyond what we would now regard as free speech (though there are a few incidents where I think that was the case, e.g. overthrowing the tables of the money changers).
And regarding the second point I don't care if a person is being sincere if they don't have a reasonable justification for their position or belief. Sincerity is quite irrelevant to truth.
That's something that was discussed pretty extensively before. I believe in evidence-based policies, so if there was evidence that God does not exist I would agree with you. However, I don't think there is such evidence - the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. While I don't myself believe in God, in a situation where his existence can't be proved or disproved, I don't think it's right to tell other people what they should believe.
As far as Jesus is concerned I would follow a qualified free speech argument. He would be fully entitled to put forward his point of view and try and convince others to adopt that. If, however, he moved beyond arguing his case to using coercive behavior, e.g. by using threats or violence, that would not be acceptable. I don't know enough about him to have a strong opinion, but based on what I do know I don't think he generally went beyond what we would now regard as free speech (though there are a few incidents where I think that was the case, e.g. overthrowing the tables of the money changers).
What? I'm not telling anyone what they should believe. Also, if you believe in evidence-based "policies", you probably agree with me there is no good reason to believe in god. Therefore, all this rhetoric is unjustified. I'm not making an argument for the non-existence of god here.
Also, "the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence" is not always true. For example, if I say @Grond0 murdered his wife with a hammer in the living room and took the body into a specific burial site in the woods in the trunk of his car, absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. If there is no evidence of a murder in the living room and no evidence the car was used to transport a body and no evidence there is a body at the specified point, that is evidence of absence of a murder and body disposals, wouldn't you agree. In other words, absence of evidence is reasonable evidence against my claim.
He does use threats of hell (and other threats as well IIRC) all the time in the bible, so you must think it's not acceptable...
FinneousPJ said: What? I'm not telling anyone what they should believe. Also, if you believe in evidence-based "policies", you probably agree with me there is no good reason to believe in god. Therefore, all this rhetoric is unjustified. I'm not making an argument for the non-existence of god here.
Also, "the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence" is not always true. For example, if I say @Grond0 murdered his wife with a hammer in the living room and took the body into a specific burial site in the woods in the trunk of his car, absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. If there is no evidence of a murder in the living room and no evidence the car was used to transport a body and no evidence there is a body at the specified point, that is evidence of absence of a murder and body disposals, wouldn't you agree. In other words, absence of evidence is reasonable evidence against my claim.
He does use threats of hell (and other threats as well IIRC) all the time in the bible, so you must think it's not acceptable...
I didn't say you were telling anyone what to believe. However, you were saying that you care whether or not their beliefs are justified. My argument is that there are no justifications either way in relation to the existence of God.
I wouldn't charactertize your example as absence of evidence. There is positive evidence you can see and measure of the sites to demonstrate that no murder happened. In relation to the existence of God, in at least my definition of God, there is no physical reality to measure or evaluate.
As I suggested before, what is in your view a threat would not be perceived in the same way by a religious person. The context is important to distinguish a helpful warning from a threat. For instance a criminal gang, known for indulging in protection rackets, that comes into a shop and starts talking about fire hazards are likely to be delivering the latter. A mother who tells her young son not to touch a hot stove is likely to be delivering the former.
FinneousPJ said: What? I'm not telling anyone what they should believe. Also, if you believe in evidence-based "policies", you probably agree with me there is no good reason to believe in god. Therefore, all this rhetoric is unjustified. I'm not making an argument for the non-existence of god here.
Also, "the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence" is not always true. For example, if I say @Grond0 murdered his wife with a hammer in the living room and took the body into a specific burial site in the woods in the trunk of his car, absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. If there is no evidence of a murder in the living room and no evidence the car was used to transport a body and no evidence there is a body at the specified point, that is evidence of absence of a murder and body disposals, wouldn't you agree. In other words, absence of evidence is reasonable evidence against my claim.
He does use threats of hell (and other threats as well IIRC) all the time in the bible, so you must think it's not acceptable...
I didn't say you were telling anyone what to believe. However, you were saying that you care whether or not their beliefs are justified. My argument is that there are no justifications either way in relation to the existence of God.
I wouldn't charactertize your example as absence of evidence. There is positive evidence you can see and measure of the sites to demonstrate that no murder happened. In relation to the existence of God, in at least my definition of God, there is no physical reality to measure or evaluate.
As I suggested before, what is in your view a threat would not be perceived in the same way by a religious person. The context is important to distinguish a helpful warning from a threat. For instance a criminal gang, known for indulging in protection rackets, that comes into a shop and starts talking about fire hazards are likely to be delivering the latter. A mother who tells her young son not to touch a hot stove is likely to be delivering the former.
Great, so you agree there are no justifications.
Why is not my example absence of evidence?
I don't care about some hypothetical religious person, I care about what you think.
The problem with a God who has no measurable impact on physical reality is that he is irrelevant for our existence and the question becomes why you believe in a very specific entity that can not be proven instead of any number of different entities that also can't be proven...
This is one of the things that baffles me when people try to justify the existence of god by citing the bible. If this makes any sense then I can prove the existence of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian Pantheons the same way. They all had holy texts inspired or written by the gods.
FinneousPJ said: Great, so you agree there are no justifications.
Why is not my example absence of evidence?
I don't care about some hypothetical religious person, I care about what you think.
1) Agreed. 2) There is physical evidence available about what happened (or didn't happen) in each location. You could think of that as negative evidence, rather than as the absence of evidence. 3) I've said many times I don't believe in God and so it's not surprising that I give little credence to what the bible says. I would be skeptical about any historical document written down many years after the events it describes - even before considering all the revisionist processes the bible has been through by those with an incentive to make it justify a particular faith.
I do think it's appropriate to care about what a religious person thinks and why they think that, given how prevalent and important religion still is in the world. I must admit though I have little sympathy with more fundamentalist mindsets (of any religion), i.e. where people think that their particular brand of religion has all the answers. That's where I think your view about the weight of evidence does score - if your religion is one of thousands, then believing your particular doctrine is right about everything and everyone else is wrong makes no sense to me. Relating that view to @Ammar's point, I agree that belief in a particular, specific entity as God is problematic - the views I expressed about absence of evidence relate to a general view of God rather than something specific.
FinneousPJ said: Great, so you agree there are no justifications.
Why is not my example absence of evidence?
I don't care about some hypothetical religious person, I care about what you think.
1) Agreed. 2) There is physical evidence available about what happened (or didn't happen) in each location. You could think of that as negative evidence, rather than as the absence of evidence. 3) I've said many times I don't believe in God and so it's not surprising that I give little credence to what the bible says. I would be skeptical about any historical document written down many years after the events it describes - even before considering all the revisionist processes the bible has been through by those with an incentive to make it justify a particular faith.
I do think it's appropriate to care about what a religious person thinks and why they think that, given how prevalent and important religion still is in the world. I must admit though I have little sympathy with more fundamentalist mindsets (of any religion), i.e. where people think that their particular brand of religion has all the answers. That's where I think your view about the weight of evidence does score - if your religion is one of thousands, then believing your particular doctrine is right about everything and everyone else is wrong makes no sense to me. Relating that view to @Ammar's point, I agree that belief in a particular, specific entity as God is problematic - the views I expressed about absence of evidence relate to a general view of God rather than something specific.
2) No, there cannot be evidence of what didn't happen. Are you even serious at this point?
I also think it's appropriate to care about what a religious person thinks and why they think that. But you're not religious and I don't care what you think a hypothetical religious person might think.
Comments
Please feel free to enlighten us.
>
>
>
I'll take a stab.
A God that doesn't allow for free-will is more like a Tyrant than a God. He doesn't 'create' bad people any more than he 'creates' good people. He doesn't 'allow' things or 'forbid' things. People do that. He tries to show us a better way. It's up to us to choose it or not. If everybody lived like Christ (or Buddah for that matter) this would be a better world. Maybe boring in a no-conflict sort of way, but better. We'd still maybe have Hollywood to show us how conflict plays out I guess...
Guy Who Handled Sex Abuse Cases for Vatican Quits After Allegations of Sex Abuse
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/30/guy-who-handled-sex-abuse-cases-for-vatican-quits-after-allegations-of-sex-abuse/?fbclid=IwAR3nXD9grKUNEEaQnqAmxZuucztrhH0DY-KwwJ1DAIrKhk2KJFa5H9isynUIn the least shocking news you’ll ever hear from the Vatican, a priest who helped manage cases of sexual abuse has quit his job two months after being accused of… committing sexual abuse.
If God exists, I don't know if he's laughing... or crying.
>
>
I'll take a stab.
A God that doesn't allow for free-will is more like a Tyrant than a God. He doesn't 'create' bad people any more than he 'creates' good people. He doesn't 'allow' things or 'forbid' things. People do that. He tries to show us a better way. It's up to us to choose it or not. If everybody lived like Christ (or Buddah for that matter) this would be a better world. Maybe boring in a no-conflict sort of way, but better. We'd still maybe have Hollywood to show us how conflict plays out I guess...
You think Christ and Buddha were sent by the same god? Which theology is that? Never heard of it before.
Another thing I find grossly immoral is substitutionary atonement.
What I have think would be extremely tragic if everything written about his life is correct until he asks God why he has forsaken him and he just dies.
- Bertrand Russell did not believe in God and therefore interpreted Jesus' teaching on hell as a desire to punish. I suspect that those who do believe in God would see the same teaching as a clear demonstration of a desire to help people avoid punishment.
- as for atonement I don't think that doctrine has anything to do with Jesus' character (at least as a man). If anyone would be deemed immoral for sending Jesus to take the sins of mankind onto himself it would be God.
I agree with @Ammar that the fig tree episode is more concerning, although if that's the worst thing that anyone can find to say about him, that suggests to me he had a pretty good character.
EDIT: Also, don't you find eternal punishment for finite crimes immoral? It seems like you're saying my points aren't objectively horrible, but I think you were not advocating for objective morals anyway.
http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2009/11/imperfect-and-immoral-teachings-of.html
https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/jesus-immoral-teachings/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jesus
https://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/the-immorality-of-christ/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_teachings_of_Jesus#Problematic_teachings
https://thelife.com/unjust-and-immoral
https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/11/reasons-to-be-ashamed-and-not-fan-of.html
https://relevantmagazine.com/god/8-things-i-wish-jesus-had-never-said
If we just consider Jesus as a religious man it seems to me that trying to help people to avoid hell is not a character defect in itself (though from the point of view of an atheist, setting himself up as having more knowledge than others and interfering in their lives could certainly be considered a defect).
11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
Doesn't sound like a nice man to me.
Luke 11:23 is referring to the accusation by Pharisees that Jesus has used the power of Satan to cast out a demon. In that context his meaning seems to be that the accusation does not make sense as Satan would not empower Jesus to cast out demons on his own side. In relation to taking sides more generally Luke 9:50 is more instructive, where Jesus reminds his disciples that they should support others doing good works, even if those others are not working directly on behalf of Jesus ("He that is not against us is on our side.”).
Luke 12:49 has got various interpretations, but the reference to fire in this instance probably relates to the coming judgment (that had been referred to several times previously in Luke 12). Jesus is thus just anxious for the purpose of his teachings to be fulfilled.
If you don't believe in God then many of Jesus' beliefs seem odd and as I said before his desire to push those on others could be regarded as a character defect. However, if you believe in God and accept that Jesus sincerely felt that he needed to intervene in order to save others from damnation - what else could a good man do, but act?
And regarding the second point I don't care if a person is being sincere if they don't have a reasonable justification for their position or belief. Sincerity is quite irrelevant to truth.
As far as Jesus is concerned I would follow a qualified free speech argument. He would be fully entitled to put forward his point of view and try and convince others to adopt that. If, however, he moved beyond arguing his case to using coercive behavior, e.g. by using threats or violence, that would not be acceptable. I don't know enough about him to have a strong opinion, but based on what I do know I don't think he generally went beyond what we would now regard as free speech (though there are a few incidents where I think that was the case, e.g. overthrowing the tables of the money changers).
Also, "the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence" is not always true. For example, if I say @Grond0 murdered his wife with a hammer in the living room and took the body into a specific burial site in the woods in the trunk of his car, absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. If there is no evidence of a murder in the living room and no evidence the car was used to transport a body and no evidence there is a body at the specified point, that is evidence of absence of a murder and body disposals, wouldn't you agree. In other words, absence of evidence is reasonable evidence against my claim.
He does use threats of hell (and other threats as well IIRC) all the time in the bible, so you must think it's not acceptable...
I wouldn't charactertize your example as absence of evidence. There is positive evidence you can see and measure of the sites to demonstrate that no murder happened. In relation to the existence of God, in at least my definition of God, there is no physical reality to measure or evaluate.
As I suggested before, what is in your view a threat would not be perceived in the same way by a religious person. The context is important to distinguish a helpful warning from a threat. For instance a criminal gang, known for indulging in protection rackets, that comes into a shop and starts talking about fire hazards are likely to be delivering the latter. A mother who tells her young son not to touch a hot stove is likely to be delivering the former.
2) There is physical evidence available about what happened (or didn't happen) in each location. You could think of that as negative evidence, rather than as the absence of evidence.
3) I've said many times I don't believe in God and so it's not surprising that I give little credence to what the bible says. I would be skeptical about any historical document written down many years after the events it describes - even before considering all the revisionist processes the bible has been through by those with an incentive to make it justify a particular faith.
I do think it's appropriate to care about what a religious person thinks and why they think that, given how prevalent and important religion still is in the world. I must admit though I have little sympathy with more fundamentalist mindsets (of any religion), i.e. where people think that their particular brand of religion has all the answers. That's where I think your view about the weight of evidence does score - if your religion is one of thousands, then believing your particular doctrine is right about everything and everyone else is wrong makes no sense to me. Relating that view to @Ammar's point, I agree that belief in a particular, specific entity as God is problematic - the views I expressed about absence of evidence relate to a general view of God rather than something specific.
I also think it's appropriate to care about what a religious person thinks and why they think that. But you're not religious and I don't care what you think a hypothetical religious person might think.