An Atheist Explains Suffering
We talk with a young atheist about his view of suffering.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
This is why people turn away from atheism.
@photothinker You sound like a masochist.
@Lookin4TruthDotCom If morality is external to an individual, then to that individual it is not morality, it is obedience.
Thats ok.
You dont tell a 1 year old about suffering. Learn them about love and that all have a choise.
I should add that I wasn't referring our feeling of sympathy for animals that makes us aware of the horrors of genocide, but our mere sympathy for other humans and also the fact that if we don't look after the weak, someone stronger than us can do the same to us. If we set an example of helping the poor and weak, and minorities, we can at least hope that someone will follow our foot steps and help us when we face the same challenges. its called "making the world a better place" to live in.
Murder and genocide is wrong because there no one is to say who ought to kill who. Anyone with strength and power can murder other beings. An example is edible Animals who have no defense against humans- we breed and eat them for profit. So genocide becomes a sensitive matter to people who understand the horrors of Genocide. And as the time passes on, humanity becomes more and more aware of their flaws and improves it laws. Thats why things like Slavery are thing of the past now.
You are actually repeating the same question I answered earlier. Why is anything immoral?What benefit has come from murdering of Jews? None. There is a very simple answer to your question. He committed genocide. Why is genocide wrong? because we don't want to be a subject to genocide ourselves. You don't do to others what you don't want to happen to you.
Would you follow the morality that was prescribed 2000 years ago? or 1400 years ago in case of Islam? No, morality itself changes its definition. Everything in life is determined by the "drift that humanity takes". Maybe morality was what was approved by God, but today we see it as something that helps sentiment beings, and minimizes suffering.
took some ideas from this blog: ht tp :/ /the blog. philosophytalk. o rg/ 2007/ 07/ where-does-mora. ht ml. Remove spaces.
I did a quick Google search on morality and there is a good argument by one of the oldest philosophers Plato. In his dialogue with Euthyphro, Euthyphro claims that good is good because it is approved by God, how ever being "good" is criteria set by approval of God itself. So in essence Euthyphro was saying "God approves of good because God approves of good." This is where the problem of evolution of morality comes in. If all that god approves is good, then would you stone sinners to death?
From living our lives, we often make observations, including ones about morality. We might be told from the beginning that good moral behavior is what God's prescribed to us, however as we grow older we tend to lose our strict moral code and moral values becomes more abstract. When you say someone bigger than you, it could be your parents when you are a kid, or a teacher that tells you you to be on time, which has nothing to do with morality, yet it becomes something rewarding/punishing (cont).
Totally agree. It is blind nature, not a conscious God that causes suffering.
Just to make it clear about the "agent of moral behavior"- usually people believe moral behavior is more beneficiary over immoral behavior. That's what drives us to do good. It may or may not be true, but there is a selfish interest in being good.
What is he higher purpose/meaning you ask- none. It is what you prescribe it to be. Doesn't make a lot of believers very happy, but after a while anybody can get used to the idea of meaninglessness of life and find useful things to contribute to. But you might ask why contribute when it has no meaning? well, it is to experience joy(again which has no meaning in itself but yet it is "joyful"- I rather be than not be- get my drift?)On the question of who started it? well how about what started it
(continued): How do you even determine which religion is the true religion since every religion claims to be the one true religion and claim its superiority over all other ideas and philosophies. To answer your question morality evolves over time. What is right today was not acceptable 50 years ago. Thats why we have things like debates and philosophy and a court system that tries to serve justice and keep societies in order. So my criteria for good and evil is my reasoning and my judgments.
What is a believer's criteria for good and bad? Is it not their obscure feelings that tell them to avoid certain things and do certain actions. Why do so many Americans not follow their Christian teachings in a literal way? it because they know its just a guideline and they cherry pick the nice parts and leave out the out-of-date moral standards. And if "God's transcendent moral Standard" were really transcended then you would see the whole world following one religion. (continued)…
I am a little confused. you are saying you believe in God because it comforts you and not because you actually believe? You are like many other apologists then who argue that without God and religion, there is no morality and meaning in life. Sorry to hear what happened to you, but there are a lot of people who go through suffering without using their faith as crutches.
I couldn't understand much of what he was saying because of his accent. 🙁
You mean u rather tell the poor girl, that's how God who has all the power and might decided to make you like this. Yet you cant see or hear God, u have to just "believe". Just tell her the truth instead of Karma bullshit – she will appreciate it.
what a doosh, his answer is wanting.
Oh good- I entirely agree. I wasn't sure if you were one of "those" who just wanted to silence everybody who didn't hold to their view of things.
I do believe that the presuppositional line of argumentation is very effective, and possibly the most effective, but don't deny the validity or effectiveness of evidential arguments, either. What do you think of alternate apologtic methods?
Well, I think that the purpose of apologetics is to provide a rational defense of Christianity, not to close the mouth of the unbeleiver necessarily, but to prove that Christianity is intellectually sound. I do believe that it must be in love that we defend our beliefs. I think we agree; I'm simply pointing out the attitude in which apologetics must be carried out in order to be biblical.
That's funny. I thought that Craig did a much better job than Douglas debating Hitchens.
There are no videos related to this?
Alright. We've got a presuppositionalist in here. I totally agree. Atheism particularly has to borrow values and standards from the Christian view to uphold its own worldview.
In other words "sorry little girl tough luck " in a meaningless universe, meaningless suffering happens, then you fade to black., and if your parents were killed in this tragedy they are gone forever there is no comfort for them, and the person who killed them will not suffer in any afterlife, good & evil are illusions, but surely you can reedem this event? Im not caping on athiests for not being comforting enough, but for holding such counter intuitive falsehoods, Atheism is child abuse!