Fr.Meslier's the problem of Heaven
Posted 01-14-2013 at 06:44 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
No such problem exists for naturalism as we naturalists note that is what one expects of Nature without a supernatural boss!
That supposed narcissistic God would have no right to demand any relationships with us as the evil overthrows that twaddle. What really counts is how such a being would treat sentient beings instead of His mere desires!
We are not pottery to which He grants purposes, and He is not our potter to permit harm to.
Theists are as battered spouses and children, defending the indefensible, with their love of power. They superstitiously want Him to fulfill their wishes, yet claim success with what they think are answered prayers but which are only the post hoc fallacy- coincidence, and then rationalize about phony unanswered ones. Yes, that Stockholm syndrome enters the equations. They are the Patiricia Hearsts, cooperating with superstition!
Confirmatory bias and cognitive dissonance enters the territory of reasoning when people ought to look as objectively at the evidence as possible. Theists are so wedded to their abuser that they prefer the well-trained eyes of faith to reality. Haughty John Haught avers that why, faith envelopes the whole being to grant us trust in Him, whilst Dawkins' nemesis, Alister Earl McGrath avers that why, first the believer gathers the evidence and then uses faith as certitude. Either way, faith keeps people enthralled to their batterer! And then to those two's protestations of faith as blind faith, it ends up as such!
This is why and how they rationalize unrequited evils!
They use the argument from personal incredulity that Nature explains why evil with their argument from ignorance with that Grand Mystery, that superfluity, that obscures instead of explaining. So much with that twaddle!
Yes, we naturalists do have that confirmatory bias of wanting evidence and do not have cognitive dissonance with our pellucid naturalism.
That supposed narcissistic God would have no right to demand any relationships with us as the evil overthrows that twaddle. What really counts is how such a being would treat sentient beings instead of His mere desires!
We are not pottery to which He grants purposes, and He is not our potter to permit harm to.
Theists are as battered spouses and children, defending the indefensible, with their love of power. They superstitiously want Him to fulfill their wishes, yet claim success with what they think are answered prayers but which are only the post hoc fallacy- coincidence, and then rationalize about phony unanswered ones. Yes, that Stockholm syndrome enters the equations. They are the Patiricia Hearsts, cooperating with superstition!
Confirmatory bias and cognitive dissonance enters the territory of reasoning when people ought to look as objectively at the evidence as possible. Theists are so wedded to their abuser that they prefer the well-trained eyes of faith to reality. Haughty John Haught avers that why, faith envelopes the whole being to grant us trust in Him, whilst Dawkins' nemesis, Alister Earl McGrath avers that why, first the believer gathers the evidence and then uses faith as certitude. Either way, faith keeps people enthralled to their batterer! And then to those two's protestations of faith as blind faith, it ends up as such!
This is why and how they rationalize unrequited evils!
They use the argument from personal incredulity that Nature explains why evil with their argument from ignorance with that Grand Mystery, that superfluity, that obscures instead of explaining. So much with that twaddle!
Yes, we naturalists do have that confirmatory bias of wanting evidence and do not have cognitive dissonance with our pellucid naturalism.
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
Theists love to find excuses for God1 Why, they never can find one legitimate one to overcome the logical and Rowe's evidential arguments from evil!
The greater good and the unknown defense arguments reflect the argument from ignorance! No amount of goodness in the future state can expiate for the evils of this life!
God would have to expiate for his evils, and theists believe that His nature is good so He has no responsibility for any evil and we must have free will for soul-building. No, we do not!
Is putative God not free and is the Supreme Robot, because He can do no wrong as theists so claim? Would we really be robot were we able to choose amongst the good , the better and the best as Burton porter suggests. Would we really be moral robots? In no manner would we be robots despite all the trees to produce paper for the defenses and theodicies purporting to prove His goodness with free will and soul-making!
Ti's no hobgoblin of little minds to require Him and theists to acknowledge the consistency betwixt Heaven on Earth and Heaven itself as the problem of Heaven notes.
We owe God nothing and He has no rights over us as Lamberth's argument from autonomy claims whereas He faces that one-way street- the obligation to have put us into a better situation!
Again, this gnu atheist goes to the heart of theism!Posted 02-12-2013 at 02:50 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
