God & The Problem of Evil

All forms and practices of sex are abused [re evil] where they’re solely used for abusing. It is the same for all other types of abuses. Point is there is room for the prevention of abuses.

My point is there is an under-realized potential morality drive within all humans [evidence -morality in babies, mirror neurons, etc]. When humanity recognized this potential more objectively, then humanity will be able to realize more of this potential for the masses and all sorts of “abuses” that are evil will be reduced, prevented or eliminated.

Prevention? Where’s this mass movement of prevention you speak of? I think you’re articulating what is commonly referred as a pipe dream.

You missed my point.
I did not claim there is an obvious efficient mass movement at present, but there are indications that things are moving in this direction. Note all Nations had banned slavery and made it illegal. This is a form of mass movement albeit not massive enough to cover other types of evil.

I stated humanity must start recognizing that inherent potential, understand its mechanics and process and work on it to realize its potential, then there will be results in the future.

Banned slavery in name only. sighs

There is no objective purpose or potential of humanity.

I understand there is a difference between Laws and practice.
But the point is there is an incremental improvement in terms of morality which I am arguing for.

Laws will not eliminate slavery, but it will definitely deter and reduce slavery in comparison to no laws at all. Are you arguing there will be more slavery if there are laws banning slavery?

Laws on slavery are a stop-gap measure and a fixed goal to provide room for greater improvements.

I think it has been sufficiently proved that the problem of evil poses as much of a problem for atheism as it does for theism. Of course, I don’t expect Prismatic to agree with my assessment.

I don’t agree because yours is a meaningless claim.
The “problem of evil” is a counter to the existence of God as real.
Whatever you associate with ‘atheism’ I have nothing to do with it.

I don’t believe in a God because God is an impossibility to exists as real within empirical-rational reality.
I don’t want to associate with the label “atheism” at all.
The fact is ‘evil’ [empirical-based] exists as real and posed a problem for humanity. So we as citizen of humanity has to find solutions to the empirical-based problem of evil.

It is, in fact, considered by many as the strongest argument against God. But it’s meaningless because without God there is no good or evil and therefore no argument, just personal likes and dislikes.

Are you sure you don’t see a contradiction here? You insist that you’ve proved God to be an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. So what? Whose idea of God, anyway? There are as many conceptions as there are people on the planet and every one of them is more or less wrong.

You suggesting here that the Good – a perfect, eternal, and changeless entity existing outside space and time and in which particular good things share, or “participate,” insofar as they are good – is an empirical realty and not merely an abstract idea. Do you know what that means? It means you’re a closeted believer in God. :-$

Only if as an atheist you believe evil exists, I don’t personally. I only see angry damaged people acting out.

Yeah. That’s my point.

Then we’re in agreement. Unfortunately a lot of our atheistic humanist brethren have not learned to shake all forms of religious yoke off specifically in their archaic embraced notions of morality or ethics. The ghost [shattered remnants] of religious past still resides within them in their beliefs.

I have defined what is “evil” from the empirical perspective.
Good is the opposite of ‘evil.’
Therefore the absence of evil acts is good.

If one is not committing evil [as defined], then one is doing good [logically].
Thus if one has brought up one’s child the best way possible, then one is doing ‘good’. There are a wide range of human activities and as long as these activities are not identified as evil [raping, theft, lying, etc.] then these activities are ‘good.’
So without a God, we do have good and evil acts.
What is a problem with that.

OTOH, note Allah [God] in the Quran sanction and exhort Muslims to kill non-believers, spread terror to non-believers and other ‘evil’ acts. God promote and condone evil.

Regardless of the many conceptions, logic and rationality will drive all theists to one ultimate definition of God, -the absolutely perfect God - otherwise [I have stated many times] a theist will end up with a god that is inferior and dominated by another god resulting one’s inferior god has to kiss the ass of the more greater and more perfect God.

Note I have defined what is ‘good’ empirically and it has nothing to do with any God [illusory and impossible].
If you have done your best to bring up your children without any evil intent and they have not committed any evils from your teachings, then such an act is ‘good’ which is empirically evident.
Any act that you have done that do not end up with evil consequences, that is considered ‘Good’.
There is no need for ‘good’ to arise from a God, QED.

We may not be in as much agreement as as you might think. Although my conceptions are radically unorthodox, at heart, I’m a theist. The “Good” I talked about is what Plato taught and I happen to agree. According to Wiki:

Note, however, that though the sun is an object of knowledge, we cannot know it by looking directly at it.

Confusion on my part then. Noted.

Well that’s what happens when an atheist enters a theist thread. I consider myself an unorthodox pessimistic atheist not to be confused with the atheistic humanistic nancies that believe technological innovation is the great and only savior of the world. In my world there is no salvation whether from God in the religious scribblings of a book or from a government political bureaucrat. No, for me this world is beyond saving and salvation is only a fanciful unattainable dream.

I’m one of those atheists that other atheists despise. I of course wear it as a badge of honor with pride. Lonely is the life of the modern cynic.

Note criticisms of Plato’s ‘Good’- same as my critique that such ‘Good’ and ‘God’ are empirically baseless and groundless;

No, you haven’t. You only gave an opinion.

What is all-encompassing can have no opposite.

Therefore, “evil” is estrangement from the real.

:laughing: I consider myself an unorthodox short-term pessimist and a sometimes long-term optimist theist, not to be confused with someone who believes in the religious scribblings of “sacred texts.” As for me, I’m not sure this (human) world is worth saving.

Maybe we should start a club or something.

BTW, I read the rest of the article and saw what Prismatic highlighted: Plato’s Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world and I agree. But I’m not limited by what Plato says. What Ferber wrote is more interesting because “simultaneously defined and unknown, and be in a state of both “being” and “not being”” is something a “mystic” might say.

You seem to be very lost here.
What I have stated is objective truth.
A proposition is true when it is supported and justified by empirical evidences.
I have defined what is ‘evil’ in terms of empirical acts and provided the basis of empirical evidence to support the definition.
The acts of murder [as defined] is ‘evil’ [as defined].
An act of murder is proven with the evidence of dead body who died abnormally and accompanied by a confession from the murderer and all these evidences are confirmed by experts in their specialized fields.

Btw, do you understand what is meant by ‘opinion’ in relation to objective ‘truth.’
An opinion is a proposition without subjective conviction and objective evidences.
What I have defined is not an opinion because my definition of evil [empirical] has to be supported by empirical evidence.

Where is your evidence to support what you termed as ‘good’ and ‘all-encompassing’?
Note the list of criticisms of your Plato’s Good I have provided above.

What is evil [empirically-based] is part and parcel of reality. Such evils must be addressed and resolved.

Btw, I raised this thread and the onus on me to define what is meant by the terms I used.
Protocol and ethically wise, you cannot force your way in to change my definition with your groundless and baseless terms.

A value-judgment is never objective.

Why?

Again you are lost here.

All value-judgment can be objectified to an agreed set of criteria and conditions to eliminate personal biasness.
Note beauty [whilst highly subjective] is objectified in the results of the Miss World contests and it is accepted objectively with the criteria and conditions ‘what is beautiful’ is judged upon.

It is the same with the results for diving, skating, gymnastic contests in the Olympics which is objective to the extent the winners are recognized without objections and the winners are listed in the medals listing won by each individual athlete and the respective countries.
To eliminate personal bias, the highest and lowest scores are ignored and the balance is averaged out.

As I had stated, what is “objective” is intersubjective consensus based on an agreed Framework & Systems [with it principles, methods, criteria, assumptions, consensus process,].

I believe the idea of objectivity that you have in mind is absolute objectivity, possibly belong to God, is an illusion and an impossibility.
There is no way one can produce anything that is absolutely objective without some elements of human conditions being involved in concluding what is objective.

Why???
Do you want to condone or commit an empirical evil like genocide [it existence can be empirically verifiable and proven]?
Do you condone empirical mass rapes, murders, and the likes?
I don’t condone nor promote the above evil acts, that is why humanity must address such and all evil acts then resolve them.