Answering the God is Evil argument

[CrimsonRyu17]

Adding to John, this is the crux of the problem of your argument. You're trying to teleologically argue that rape is wrong because it causes harm and suffering to an individual. But these could simply be social phenomenas which are reinforced by an individual's environment. Given a hypothetical society where a woman is praised for being raped, and she actually acquired a positive social status from it.

Does anyone here even know what rape is? You guys keep bringing it up and ignoring the fact that it does cause harm to the individual being raped. They are not social phenomenas, it causes actual internal damage and ME's can easily tell if a victim has been raped due to that internal damage.

Let's say there's a hypothetical society where people are praised for being kicked in the nuts. Just because they get a higher social status because they've been kicked in the nuts doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm to the individual.

[ShiroiHikari]

I don't even know what the hell is going on in this thread anymore.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Let's say there's a hypothetical society where people are praised for being kicked in the nuts.

There is. It's called truTV.

I don't even know what the hell is going on in this thread anymore.

It more or less lost me a long time ago. For a while there I could pretend to keep up, but . . .

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Does anyone here even know what rape is? You guys keep bringing it up and ignoring the fact that it does cause harm to the individual being raped. They are not social phenomenas, it causes actual internal damage and ME's can easily tell if a victim has been raped due to that internal damage.

Let's say there's a hypothetical society where people are praised for being kicked in the nuts. Just because they get a higher social status because they've been kicked in the nuts doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm to the individual.

You bring up an interesting point. If you wish to promote a "do no physical harm" ethic, then is a practice such as spanking evil? Or what about war? There is plenty of bloodshed there. Heck, circumcision is another one too. Why is that considered an acceptable practice? Let's take it a step further. What separates spanking or war from rape? If your answer is "psychological trauma", then it goes back to my critique, that such responses can be adjusted and altered depending on social patterns.

[Htom Sirveaux]

What separates spanking or war from rape?

Spanking and war could be justified in any society. Spanking is a corrective measure for a misbehaving child. War is an extreme measure to bring an end to extreme tyrannical oppression. Granted, both of these can be done for the wrong reasons, and there are people who would say that any reason for either one is wrong. But there's simply no way to justify rape. Well, except from the rapist's perspective, which is just totally warped. That's why it's rape. By its own nature, the victim is just that - a victim. Casualties of war are a tragic inevitability. In spanking, the child's bum is better within the hour, and the lesson is learned. Rape leads to no good end for anyone, ever.

I certainly don't see what it has to do with the "God is evil" argument, though . . .

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I don't refer to the motives for the act, but the act itself. Why not use rape as a corrective measure? Or use rape in war?

Grated this is going slightly off topic. We're getting into the specifics of morality as opposed to morality itself.

[Fish and Chips]

Returning to this thread against my better judgment seeing as my posts are and invariably will be misunderstood anyway, but:

To clarify, I've been arguing as if you were an atheist. This means I'm trying to prove to you (or you as the devil's advocate) that your system of thought is inconsistent. When you push that morality is relative, then I'm going to go to the jugular and tell you can't have a universal system of ethics and must accept the nihilist position. Also, we know that even in some modern cultures (or sub-cultures), theft and murder are considered moral. It's not like genocide has gone away and I know from working briefly with people in less then stellar situations that theft is viewed as being ok since it aids in their survival. In this case you could even say they are operating out of empathy and, in extraordinary situations where society breaks down like Katrina, they appear to be.

To add on to this, this is probably one of the biggest issues I have with morality being conditional to the survival of the species.

On the previous page I said Hitler could not be morally criticized for his genocidal actions under a system rejecting objective morality. Nate agreed, but countered that Hitler could still be criticized for setting humanity back by reducing our numbers needlessly and causing suffering, which empathy dictates we should not do to ensure the survival of our species. However, this judgment is conditional.

Let's assume that in several hundred years Earth is facing a population crisis. In nature, the cycle of life prevents overpopulation through culling, but humanity, in its striving for survival, has broken free from that wheel (for the most part). Now Earth is bursting at the seems with too many people, and if something isn't done, all of humanity will go extinct for lack of resources. In such a time as this, should Hitler's actions have been replicated, he would be renowned as a savior of humanity for making the difficult, necessary sacrifice of however many millions of people needed to die to keep Earth habitable for the remaining billions.

Extreme circumstances perhaps, but this possibility alone prevents genocide from being an unconditionally unacceptable act.

[Peanut]

Does anyone here even know what rape is? You guys keep bringing it up and ignoring the fact that it does cause harm to the individual being raped. They are not social phenomenas, it causes actual internal damage and ME's can easily tell if a victim has been raped due to that internal damage.

Technically, sex causes internal damage as well. I'd concede that rape causes more damage but damage is damage so then the question becomes how much damage is too much. But that's not why I'm again jumping into this and quoting you. The real reason is that, every time this comes up, I'm wondering if people are reading (or following) what I'm saying or just seeing the word rape and letting their emotions tied to that word take control. I thought I addressed this before but apparently not in a way that was clear to everyone. I'm sorry that I didn't do that so, to try and fix this once again, I will explain myself for the last time. If this comes up again, anywhere, at all I will just copy and paste this and move on with my life.

In an atheistic, evolutionary system of the world, where passing on your genes is the highest level of success that one can obtain, you cannot argue that something like rape is unethical because you are claiming that there is something more important then the biological success of the species (in fact, though I can't remember his name, a big named thinker/scientist has been quoted as saying basically rape is evolutionarily necessary, if I can hunt down the name I'll mention it later). Knowing this, I used rape as an example to counter the argument Nate was pushing. Seeing that the argument Nate was pushing had a morality tied to the development of society, I choose Ancient Sparta as a point in history where rape (and I don't see how anyone would say that the marital practices of Ancient Sparta weren't rape) was socially acceptable to prove morality is relative. Nowhere, have I claimed that rape is good or that atheists should become serial rapists. All I've tried to do is show that an atheistic standpoint like the one Nate has been pushing can't claim that something like rape is immoral. I hope that clears things up and now for something different.

I certainly don't see what it has to do with the "God is evil" argument, though . . .

Before we can call anyone or anything "evil" or "good" we have to define those words. In this case, Ryan, myself and others are saying that an atheist cannot define those words and therefore cannot use them in relation to God or any other being/thing. So, really, we are just getting at the foundations of things and, as a result, hitting other arguments/topics as well. It's like trying to find out why the Leaning Tower of Pisa is leaning. The answer is the foundation. In this case, we are going to the very foundations of things and, as a result, pointing out what's wrong with the entire structure.

[Nate]

If you wish to promote a "do no physical harm" ethic, then is a practice such as spanking evil?

Well, spanking has been shown in studies to cause resentment and not be very effective as a tool for correction. Positive reinforcement is far more effective than negative reinforcement for discipline. Besides, I don't think teaching kids "Violence is the solution to all of life's problems" is really that great.

And besides, you forget about the people who like spanking, but we won't get into that...

Heck, circumcision is another one too. Why is that considered an acceptable practice?

Good question. Though I don't know if this is true or not, (spoilered for slightly mature content)
[SPOILER]I have heard that you are more likely to catch an STD if you are uncircumcised. This may not be too much of an issue in modern society where condoms are easy to obtain, but it would make sense how it would be useful in ye olden days.[/SPOILER]

What separates spanking or war from rape?

Well, spanking is, I would say, a barbaric resort for parents who are incapable of teaching their children properly, resorting to violence to assert themselves as dominant. Kind of like spousal abuse, a husband/wife beating their mate to show "I am top dog and you will listen to me or else."

Likewise, war can cause great pain and loss even for those who are not direct combatants, such as a drain on the country's economy, civilian casualties, losing a loved one in combat, and even the survivors of combat can be heavily injured physically (loss of limbs, sight, brain function) or even mentally (PTSD, shock).

I'm not going to call a child being spanked equivalent to rape, that'd be stupid. War, I'm going to go ahead and call equivalent, not that they have the same consequences but the level of harm that can be done is about the same. Spanking I would say is a misguided action, and the parents who do it can be taught better, whereas a rapist isn't misguided.

Now Earth is bursting at the seems with too many people, and if something isn't done, all of humanity will go extinct for lack of resources. In such a time as this, should Hitler's actions have been replicated, he would be renowned as a savior of humanity for making the difficult, necessary sacrifice of however many millions of people needed to die to keep Earth habitable for the remaining billions.

Actually, I agree with this. I'm not sure how this undermines my point, unless you're going to call genocide an unacceptable act regardless of circumstances. Which in that case, defending the Israelites in the Old Testament might be a little tricky (and I don't accept "Genocide is totally okay if God says so," because then you're in agreement that genocide isn't always bad, you just disagree on the reasons).

[CrimsonRyu17]

In an atheistic, evolutionary system of the world, where passing on your genes is the highest level of success that one can obtain, you cannot argue that something like rape is unethical because you are claiming that there is something more important then the biological success of the species (in fact, though I can't remember his name, a big named thinker/scientist has been quoted as saying basically rape is evolutionarily necessary, if I can hunt down the name I'll mention it later). Knowing this, I used rape as an example to counter the argument Nate was pushing. Seeing that the argument Nate was pushing had a morality tied to the development of society, I choose Ancient Sparta as a point in history where rape (and I don't see how anyone would say that the marital practices of Ancient Sparta weren't rape) was socially acceptable to prove morality is relative. Nowhere, have I claimed that rape is good or that atheists should become serial rapists. All I've tried to do is show that an atheistic standpoint like the one Nate has been pushing can't claim that something like rape is immoral. I hope that clears things up and now for something different.

Rape is only an evolutionary necessity in certain species, like diving beetles, but it isn't the primary means of reproduction at all. In fact, there are only a few species that actually do rape and when they do, it isn't out of instinct to pass on their genes but pure domination.

If that were actually the case, with rape being necessary, then mating rituals and competition between males (Bighorn Sheep for example) would not exist. These methods ensure that only the best of the best get to pass on their superior genes. That way you won't have weak offspring and this contributes to ensuring your species' survival.

This is why, when a lion takes over another lion's pride, he doesn't allow the cubs to live because they supposedly ensure that his species is alive whathaveyou. Instead, he kills them, to bring the females in to heat so he may pass on his genes because he is the superior lion.

[Peanut]

Rape is only an evolutionary necessity in certain species, like diving beetles, but it isn't the primary means of reproduction at all. In fact, there are only a few species that actually do rape and when they do, it isn't out of instinct to pass on their genes but pure domination.

If that were actually the case, with rape being necessary, then mating rituals and competition between males (Bighorn Sheep for example) would not exist. These methods ensure that only the best of the best get to pass on their superior genes. That way you won't have weak offspring and this contributes to ensuring your species' survival.

This is why, when a lion takes over another lion's pride, he doesn't allow the cubs to live because they supposedly ensure that his species is alive whathaveyou. Instead, he kills them, to bring the females in to heat so he may pass on his genes because he is the superior lion.

In an atheistic, evolutionary system of the world, where passing on your genes is the highest level of success that one can obtain, you cannot argue that something like rape is unethical because you are claiming that there is something more important then the biological success of the species (in fact, though I can't remember his name, a big named thinker/scientist has been quoted as saying basically rape is evolutionarily necessary, if I can hunt down the name I'll mention it later). Knowing this, I used rape as an example to counter the argument Nate was pushing. Seeing that the argument Nate was pushing had a morality tied to the development of society, I choose Ancient Sparta as a point in history where rape (and I don't see how anyone would say that the marital practices of Ancient Sparta weren't rape) was socially acceptable to prove morality is relative. Nowhere, have I claimed that rape is good or that atheists should become serial rapists. All I've tried to do is show that an atheistic standpoint like the one Nate has been pushing can't claim that something like rape is immoral. I hope that clears things up and now for something different.

Read it again, my point wasn't rape is evolutionarily necessary, it's that you can't tell a person that rape is wrong with ethics based from evolution.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I don't refer to the motives for the act, but the act itself. Why not use rape as a corrective measure? Or use rape in war?

Grated this is going slightly off topic. We're getting into the specifics of morality as opposed to morality itself.

But the motive is what separates them, that's what I'm saying. Motive is the reason for action, even if that motive is as simple as "I just felt like it." You don't do anything for no reason whatsoever.

[CrimsonRyu17]

Read it again, my point wasn't rape is evolutionarily necessary, it's that you can't tell a person that rape is wrong with ethics based from evolution.

Finally, a non-tl;dr. I was merely correcting the statement that rape is an evolutionary necessity. Just like how I stated that rape is actually harmful to an individual. Since I'm not too knowledgeable on the topics of ethics and such, I'm not going to pretend I know.

[Nate]

Read it again, my point wasn't rape is evolutionarily necessary, it's that you can't tell a person that rape is wrong with ethics based from evolution.

I'm not sure that that's necessarily true, but I haven't studied deeply into ethics in regards to evolution, so I can't argue against it, but that's due to my own lack of knowledge.

[Peanut]

Finally, a non-tl]

Ok, that clears things up.

I'm not sure that that's necessarily true, but I haven't studied deeply into ethics in regards to evolution, so I can't argue against it, but that's due to my own lack of knowledge.

What I've read is pretty much what you've been arguing as the devil's advocate throughout this thread. So, I would guess that would be the main argument used to counter what I've said. Their might be someone else out there who argues differently, but if not, I don't think you're able to get around what I've said. I'm pretty sure that it will reduce to an ethical system which can change and, therefore, you can't say something like rape is unethical.

[Fish and Chips]

Good question. Though I don't know if this is true or not, (spoilered for slightly mature content)
[SPOILER]I have heard that you are more likely to catch an STD if you are uncircumcised. This may not be too much of an issue in modern society where condoms are easy to obtain, but it would make sense how it would be useful in ye olden days.[/SPOILER]

I've heard this too, actually, though I couldn't give you the source. A study in Africa vaguely comes to mind for some reason, but that's all I remember.

Actually, I agree with this. I'm not sure how this undermines my point, unless you're going to call genocide an unacceptable act regardless of circumstances. Which in that case, defending the Israelites in the Old Testament might be a little tricky (and I don't accept "Genocide is totally okay if God says so," because then you're in agreement that genocide isn't always bad, you just disagree on the reasons).

And here I'm afraid I have to deliberately cut myself off, since I actually have a follow up to this, but I feel it would veer this thread into even more dangerous territory than it's already in. I can, of course, discuss it in private (PM or IM) with anyone who is interested.

[That Dude]

One thing that I've noticed is a common thread in all these comments is the fact that no matter what, everyone is arguing from a prepositional standpoint.

Though I agree more with Fish, I do think that Nate is right in the point that he is trying to make that you can't fully convince the atheist. As Chesterton said, "Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative." We can (and have) shown sound and true logical reasons for belief in God, but it comes down to their willingness to put faith in the philosophy of Christianity -or Deism in general. We cannot decide for them, it all comes down to their choice and Gods leading.

I could say more, but most of what I wanted to say was said long ago by Fish, Doc, Peanut, and Ryan.

[Nate]

"Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

I don't see how that's daring or even unreasonable. I would assume you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Vishnu or Thor or Zeus, yes? Those are universal negatives, and yet you assert that those deities don't exist pretty easily.

It doesn't help that there is no iron-clad proof of God's existence. You can argue from an intellectual standpoint but there's still no giant sign in the sky that says "YO GOD HERE WHAT UP." Many atheists have said if God would just show Himself, they'd believe. Now, of course, you'll discount those people and say "Oh they wouldn't believe even then" or quote the verse that says "They have the words of the prophets and even if someone rose from the dead they wouldn't believe" but it boils down to the fact that for example (and without getting into whether reality is subjective or if everything is an illusion or anything like that) I can see the chair I'm sitting in. I can sit in it. I can pick it up. I can assert that yes, this chair exists.

I cannot touch God. I can't give Him a high-five. I can't have a conversation with Him. It's different.

Further, asserting a negative is more or less the standard way things work. The burden of proof is on someone to prove that something exists, not that something doesn't exist. For example, I could say to you "Prove that you didn't murder a hobo on the street." How would you prove that you didn't do this? It is rather up to the person who is accusing you of doing it to prove that you DID do it.

And since you might agree that it would be pretty messed up for police to go to everyone's house when a crime occurs and say "Prove that you DIDN'T do this!" you should be in agreement that asserting a universal negative is a pretty easy thing to do. Much easier than asserting a universal positive at least.

We can (and have) shown sound and true logical reasons for belief in God

That's not entirely true. Whether or not they have is questionable (if it was so easy, there wouldn't continue to be arguments to this day) but the only thing they've managed to do is show sound and true logical reasons for belief in objective morality. That's not the same thing as showing reasons for belief in God. Getting from objective morality to God is a whole other argument, because you could argue for sources of objective morality from places other than God.

[Peanut]

That's not entirely true. Whether or not they have is questionable (if it was so easy, there wouldn't continue to be arguments to this day) but the only thing they've managed to do is show sound and true logical reasons for belief in objective morality. That's not the same thing as showing reasons for belief in God. Getting from objective morality to God is a whole other argument, because you could argue for sources of objective morality from places other than God.

I'm going to agree and disagree with you here namely because I don't think you can have objective morality outside of a source that is god-like. The question becomes which god, and that is where there argument stops and other arguments come in. If you can think of another objective source though that is not god-like then I would be willing to listen to it.

[Nate]

Well when I say God capitalized, I'm talking about the Christian God specifically, as opposed to god or gods. So you're right in that you would need a god-like deity for a source of objective morality, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be the Christian God. That's why I said that proving objective morality exists isn't the same as proving God exists.

[Fish and Chips]

So you're right in that you would need a god-like deity for a source of objective morality, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be the Christian God. That's why I said that proving objective morality exists isn't the same as proving God exists.

To clarify my own posts, this was the position I was arguing from. If you felt I was trying to argue specifically for the Christian God in any of my points, I apologize for the confusion. I do believe objective morality demands a god or god-like figure to support it, but which god that might be is a separate subject entirely, to be talked about only after we've established whether or not a god or gods must or can exist.

[Nate]

If you felt I was trying to argue specifically for the Christian God in any of my points, I apologize for the confusion.

No, no, I knew you weren't. My initial post about this was responding to That Dude, who said that you and Peanut had put forth lots of good, solid reasons to believe in God in this thread. I corrected him by saying that no, all you guys had done was give solid reasons to believe in objective morality, which is different from believing in God (again, Christian God), and that getting to God from objective morality is a whole other argument (since you could argue that morality comes from other, different god-like beings). My last post was clarifying that for Peanut.

[rocklobster]

No, no, I knew you weren't. My initial post about this was responding to That Dude, who said that you and Peanut had put forth lots of good, solid reasons to believe in God in this thread. I corrected him by saying that no, all you guys had done was give solid reasons to believe in objective morality, which is different from believing in God (again, Christian God), and that getting to God from objective morality is a whole other argument (since you could argue that morality comes from other, different god-like beings). My last post was clarifying that for Peanut.

So true. I remember as a kid that I once saw a poster that showed that the Golden Rule can be found in just about every religion known to man. And it doesn't even trace back originally to Christianity, believe it or not. The true origin, if I'm not mistaken, is Hammurabbi's Code.

[WhiteMage212]

I think if you all read Mere Chrisitianity (C.S. Lewis) then most of these questions would be answered. First half of the book would be were you might wanna start.

Edit: ah, here we are. Look for a copy of Mere Christianity (or look online) and go to Book Two titled What Christians believe. (page 35 in the newer copies.) In that particular spot, he talks about atheism and how simple it is, then he goes onto if there were a good and evil God. Too busy to get involved in this discussion but go ahead and take a look at that chapter. It's a worthwhile read.

[Atria35]

I think if you all read Mere Chrisitianity (C.S. Lewis) then most of these questions would be answered. First half of the book would be were you might wanna start.

Edit: ah, here we are. Look for a copy of Mere Christianity (or look online) and go to Book Two titled What Christians believe. (page 35 in the newer copies.) In that particular spot, he talks about atheism and how simple it is, then he goes onto if there were a good and evil God. Too busy to get involved in this discussion but go ahead and take a look at that chapter. It's a worthwhile read.

I read it, and quite frankly..... I found that he had strawman aetheist questions. They were not strong questions that I've heard aetheists ask at all, and didn't really see compelling evidence for his line of thinking. It's good if you've never really thought about it on the other side of the fence, but not satisfying if you haven't.

[Syreth]

I think if you all read Mere Chrisitianity (C.S. Lewis) then most of these questions would be answered. First half of the book would be were you might wanna start.

Edit: ah, here we are. Look for a copy of Mere Christianity (or look online) and go to Book Two titled What Christians believe. (page 35 in the newer copies.) In that particular spot, he talks about atheism and how simple it is, then he goes onto if there were a good and evil God. Too busy to get involved in this discussion but go ahead and take a look at that chapter. It's a worthwhile read.

It's been awhile since I've read Mere Christianity, but I would have to agree. I think that he expresses the idea that objective or absolute moral law requires a god-like arbiter, or originator. It's one of my favorite books on Christianity that I've read.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

C.S. Lewis, while an absolutely gifted Christian writer, is not exactly the strongest of philosophers/apologists. As Atria said, he does tend to create straw man arguments and stuff.

[Nate]

That's why Christians like him, though. He's great at making them think "Yeah we're so awesome, look how great we explained this!" and atheists read it and go "Uh...these aren't very good arguments."

[That Dude]

No, no, I knew you weren't. My initial post about this was responding to That Dude, who said that you and Peanut had put forth lots of good, solid reasons to believe in God in this thread. I corrected him by saying that no, all you guys had done was give solid reasons to believe in objective morality, which is different from believing in God (again, Christian God), and that getting to God from objective morality is a whole other argument (since you could argue that morality comes from other, different god-like beings). My last post was clarifying that for Peanut.

Sorry Nate, I too was trying to communicate that objective morality must come from a god/godlike being. I wasn't thinking when I capitalized the G. Though I do personally believe that it's more than reasonable to believe that the cause of objective morality is from the Judeo-Christian God. But that's besides the point.

Also Syreth and Whitemage, an excellent apologist and author you two should check out should be Francis Scheaffer. He does an excellent job in his works explaining how modern thought was formed and how we as christians should view this knowledge. Another good one to check out is Ravi Zacharias.

[Nate]

Though I do personally believe that it's more than reasonable to believe that the cause of objective morality is from the Judeo-Christian God.

Ehhhhh...like I said, whole other argument.

Also, I really don't like that phrase. "Judeo-Christian." It's kind of insulting to Jews in my opinion, since they don't want to be associated with us because they think we're wrong about Jesus being the Messiah, as well as having a slightly different view of God than we do. I mean if we're going to mention them why not go all the way and say "Islamic-Judeo-Christian God."