Is the anti-theist argument from undeserved suffering circularish?

[SteveH]

Your God created suffering. You worship your god. You love your god and the suffering it created. You take joy in childhood leukaemia.

That is insulting and profoundly stupid.

[Nearly Sane]

That is insulting and profoundly stupid.

It's what the problem of suffering is all about. I find it sickening that there are some who praise their god for finding their contact lens but ignore that their logic necessitates that their god chooses to create suffering.

[Rhiannon]

It's what the problem of suffering is all about. I find it sickening that there are some who praise their god for finding their contact lens but ignore that their logic necessitates that their god chooses to create suffering.

You and me both, but to be fair I don't think Steve falls into that category.

[Nearly Sane]

You and me both, but to be fair I don't think Steve falls into that category.

I didn't say he did.

[Rhiannon]

I didn't say he did.

No but you are picking a fight with the wrong person. Difficult for Steve to defend a position he doesn't hold.

[Nearly Sane]

No but you are picking a fight with the wrong person. Difficult for Steve to defend a position he doesn't hold.

I posted the comment to Vlad, Steve replied. I simply explained why I don't think my post was insulting or profoundly stupid.

[SteveH]

Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.

[Rhiannon]

Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.

But God could choose to heal suffering, or prevent further suffering. And the fact that humanity is 'fallen'...really? Trying to think of the French theologian's name who said that God does what he can in cases of suffering, but that doesn't really square with what the Bible says and smacks of making things up to suit.

All that aside though, however sarcastic, irritating, repetitive and rude non believers can be, they don't lie, distort and misrepresent. And they certainly don't label others as 'dark', with the implications that has when coming from a Christian. And there are posters on here who assert that beliefs such as my pantheism are because I've been 'led astray' by the 'deceiver'. Those statements aren't rude, they are bloody scary.

[Robbie]

Rhiannon:- "..there are posters on here who assert that beliefs such as my pantheism are because I've been 'led astray' by the 'deceiver'. Those statements aren't rude, they are bloody scary."

That is appalling. I don't read all posts because I too find some scary! From what I see you're a well respected poster on here - & I aint't grovelling.

Nevertheless I agree with what StevenH says; there are posters here who are downright arrogant and insulting to anyone who doesn't go along with their own ideas, a lot of it is unnecessary & stifles debate.

[SusanDoris]

Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering.

Since theologians are people, and 100% of thoughts, ideas and words emanate from human minds, then anyone who knows anything about theologians must agree that they do not actually know any facts at all about any God/god/s ever.

I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.

It seems to me that the word 'unpleasant' etc is used because whoever it is to whom you refer does not accept, and challenges, assertions about any God?

[Shaker]

Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering.

... even though, rather inconveniently, the Bible says otherwise. Whoops!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your God created suffering. You worship your god. You love your god and the suffering it created. You take joy in childhood leukaemia.

I don't think so....but then what do I know?

[torridon]

Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent".

Redefining 'omnipotence' to avoid the problem of evil ? That would be an exercise in word play calculated to preserve a belief rather than an honest exercise in understanding.  John's Gospel tells us that all things are created by God.  So it is not just all things bright and beautiful, it is also all things wriggly, smelly and verminous; all the things that cause us suffering.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Redefining 'omnipotence' to avoid the problem of evil ? That would be an exercise in word play calculated to preserve a belief rather than an honest exercise in understanding.  John's Gospel tells us that all things are created by God.  So it is not just all things bright and beautiful, it is also all things wriggly, smelly and verminous; all the things that cause us suffering.

I think you are trying to confine and permit God to the ideas of the classic philosophers but given the modern spin.
The picture of God which Christians have is reflected more in the total biblical account.

Humans find themselves with a sense that things are not perfect and this defines their suffering....but should also leave us with the riddle that there is nothing in matter or nature that defines perfection.

[Nearly Sane]

Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.

I wonder why then Augustine struggled with dealing with it so much. Theodicy has a long history which indicates that you are incorrect about your claim on theology. Further once people start claiming miracles as evidence for their god they go down the route of saying that it chooses between sufferings, so according to you a number of the believers in here have no acquaintance with theology.


Oh and Isaiah 45:7

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder why then Augustine struggled with dealing with it so much. Theodicy has a long history which indicates that you are incorrect about your claim on theology. Further once people start claiming miracles as evidence for their god they go down the route of saying that it chooses between sufferings,

I don't see anyone round here claiming miracles as evidence for God.

I think hard arsed antitheists would have as much problem explaining human suffering or indeed suffering as any theologian.They can't escape the task though due to the small matter of medical ethics.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are trying to confine and permit God to the ideas of the classic philosophers but given the modern spin.
The picture of God which Christians have is reflected more in the total biblical account.

Humans find themselves with a sense that things are not perfect and this defines their suffering....but should also leave us with the riddle that there is nothing in matter or nature that defines perfection.

The total biblical account makes your god out to be be a total cunt. Murdering everyone but 8 people, asking for children to be murdered, sending a bear to kill children, approving of slavery, indulging in callous thuggery for a bet, wanting to kill Moses because he didn't do stuff quickly enough, indulging in blood sacrifice to suit some twisted set of rules for both Jesus and Jepthah, killing everything first born, approving of rape.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see anyone round here claiming miracles as evidence for God.

I think hard arsed antitheists would have as much problem explaining human suffering or indeed suffering as any theologian.They can't escape the task though due to the small matter of medical ethics.

Alan Burns claims it numerous times, so has Sassy. So you are just wrong on your first point.

On your second,you seem to have missed Epicurus 's point and ignored the fact that humans are not claimed to be the creators of all, and omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. By the way, I'm not antitheist whatever the state of my arse is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alan Burns claims it numerous times, so has Sassy. So you are just wrong on your first point.

On your second,you seem to have missed Epicurus 's point and ignored the fact that humans are not claimed to be the creators of all, and omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. By the way, I'm not antitheist whatever the state of my arse is.

You missed my point with Torridon that he is confusing classical philosophical definitions with the picture of God in the bible which reflect the Christian experience and world view.



Epicurus has made a category blunder in including omnibenevolence in his big three....can you spot what it is?

[Nearly Sane]

You missed my point with Torridon that he is confusing classical philosophical definitions with the picture of God in the bible which reflect the Christian experience and world view.



Epicurus has made a category blunder in including omnibenevolence in his big three....can you spot what it is?

Since you seem to disagree with Alan Burns, what is this 'Christian worldview'? Leaving aside my doubt about individual"s having anything as fancy as aworkdview, there seems as many strains of Christianity as Christians.


As ever you appear not to know what a category error is. If you are suggesting that your god isn't omnibenevelent, you are just back to worshipping a thug.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since you seem to disagree with Alan Burns, what is this 'Christian worldview'? Leaving aside my doubt about individual"s having anything as fancy as aworkdview, there seems as many strains of Christianity as Christians.


As ever you appear not to know what a category error is. If you are suggesting that your god isn't omnibenevelent, you are just back to worshipping a thug.

There are two points here and I think we can dismiss the first one by saying that all Alan has to do is to establish whether he is committed to the modern atheist appeal to classical philosophical positions on God or the biblical position on God. I would bet good money on the latter.

 The trouble with benevolency is unlike omniscient no universally agreed definition of benevolence is available or can be. Unlike omnipotence it can never be anything near as defined.


God's benevolence is yet to be realised and omnibenevolence is relegated to whatever we want it to mean individually.

Now that you know that I don't expect you or the others to use it in conjunction with the words Omniscience and omnipotence.

[Nearly Sane]

There are two points here and I think we can dismiss the first one by saying that all Alan has to do is to establish whether he is committed to the modern atheist appeal to classical philosophical positions on God or the biblical position on God. I would bet good money on the latter.

 The trouble with benevolency is unlike omniscient no universally agreed definition of benevolence is available or can be. Unlike omnipotence it can never be anything near as defined.


God's benevolence is yet to be realised and omnibenevolence is relegated to whatever we want it to mean individually.

Now that you know that I don't expect you or the others to use it in conjunction with the words Omniscience and omnipotence.

Your first point is a non sequitur to you and Alan disagreeing about miracles, and then to snowboarding the 'Christian worldview' in relation to 'modern atheism', whatever that is, is bizarre.


There has been lots of discussion from Christians on here about the meaning of omniscient and omnipotent to show that neither is anymore clearly defined than luminescent so your second point is simply wrong. Leaving that wrongness aside, we have your god choosing to create leukemia for children and you worship that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your first point is a non sequitur to you and Alan disagreeing about miracles, and then to snowboarding the 'Christian worldview' in relation to 'modern atheism', whatever that is, is bizarre.


There has been lots of discussion from Christians on here about the meaning of omniscient and omnipotent to show that neither is anymore clearly defined than luminescent so your second point is simply wrong. Leaving that wrongness aside, we have your god choosing to create leukemia for children and you worship that.

We can discuss what Alan believes and how you seem to have cack handled that in the context of our debate elsewhere.


The point is that our overwhelming feeling that childhood suffering is a wrong to be righted even though it is a material process is not drawn from any natural evidence but from God who it seems has provided us with the means of eradication.


Also you are ignoring Human prioritisation


The other problem you have is, in making God the villain the universe must be unutteringly and intermibally bad.

[Nearly Sane]

We can discuss what Alan believes and how you seem to have cack handled that in the context of our debate elsewhere.


The point is that our overwhelming feeling that childhood suffering is a wrong to be righted even though it is a material process is not drawn from any natural evidence but from God who it seems has provided us with the means of eradication.


Also you are ignoring Human prioritisation


The other problem you have is, in making God the villain the universe must be unutteringly and intermibally bad.

No idea what you are on about in the first sentence. And it's downhill from there.  To be fair your last sentence isn't complete gibberish but simply wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what you are on about in the first sentence. And it's downhill from there.  To be fair your last sentence isn't complete gibberish but simply wrong.

May I just remind you that you will be hard pressed to find universal agreement of what omnibenevolence is.


If one finds childhood leukemia to be bad argue how that fits in with restoration to fullness of life by God in the next life.