@lack yes but Christianity already has a built-in explanation for the problem of evil - saying that it is our fault, not god’s. The Christian religion makes it a problem that we are not “good enough”.

@b_chocolatey
Yes, there are many different ways to try to respond to the problem of evil.

One way is to claim that evil is our fault, and somehow the "good" that comes from us being free enough to do evil outweighs the evil that we actually do. This doesn't help with kinds of evil known as "natural evil" like animal predation or natural disasters, though.

Another is to claim that the evil we see around is actually part of a greater good somewhere in the future, so it's actually okay, or even "good" in a way.

I'm not sure I find those responses satisfying when I dig into them, but regardless, the "problem of evil" isn't a big part of why I'm an atheist. It just happens that the problem goes away entirely if you assume the universe is indifferent :)

@lack ok. I’m only interested in debating the problem of evil if that is the reason why you are atheist, the reason why atheism is considered reasonable and convincing by atheists. All other arguments for atheism seem to be arguments for agnosticism or deism at most; or a refutation targeted against one religion in particular (“Mohammad was a illiterate pedo!”)

@b_chocolatey In an academic context, "arguments for atheism" are usually arguments against what's known as "the God of Classical Theism" or some variant of monotheism. If that's not what you believe, I can see why those arguments aren't relevant to you.

Maybe you can help me understand more about what you actually believe in; that way we can make sure you're not bringing up arguments that I'm not making, and I won't bring up arguments that aren't relevant to you :)

@lack okay. In order to be an “atheist” as I understand it, you have to 1. Disbelieve in any possible historical persons with paranormal powers, who could walk on water, etc. 2. Disbelieve in the existence of any invisible-and-immortal entity that could will the dead back to life, etc, even without a human representative, outside intervention 3. Disbelieve in any possible creator who determined the natural laws of physics, wished for the universe to emerge from emptiness or from primal chaos

@lack 4. Disbelieve in the possibility of the human mind and personality existing in some other form, after bodily death 5. Disbelieve in the possibility of the here-and-now human mind and personality having any causes outside of the laws of electricity, chemistry, and fluid and solid mechanics

@lack 6. Disbelieve in any ethical standard of “you should do that… you shouldn’t do that” except as determined by human intellect and social dynamics, which themselves are second-order and third-order effects of molecular chemistry, etc

@lack the argument I am making is that atheism - the perception that supernatural “woo” is the product of a barbaric age and easily disproven by even a moment of rational thought by any well-adjusted adult - well, runs into the limits of what is epistemologically rational. It is a cultural preference, a “vibe” that relies upon a self-reinforcing in-group. A social construct. #philosophy #modernism #postmodern #culture #politics #religion

@b_chocolatey

I think that there is a kind of "movement atheism" or "new atheist culture" that might fit some of what you're talking about here. That part is indeed a social construct.

However, there is a fact in reality that God either exists or not. And I might believe one way or the other (or neither), that actual belief I hold (or do not hold) is not itself a social construct.

My beliefs are influenced by the culture I'm in, but I can still interrogate the truth or falsehood of that belief on its own, if I practice some epistemic humility and honesty when I think about why I hold such a belief.

@lack #atheism that hold up to its marketing has to be able to logically refute every kind of supernatural “woo”, not just the most conspicuous or ridiculous sort. #skeptics #skepticism And #rationalist materialism that lives up to its marketing, regrettably, does not exist.

@lack Atheist does the same thing. If the universe seems indifferent to human suffering, that proves conclusively that there is no creator deity behind the universe. The universe is not “good enough”.

@b_chocolatey I would say an atheist using that line of reasoning is making a mistake.

If the universe seems indifferent, there could certainly be no creator. But there could also be an indifferent creator. Or an evil one. Or a good one who just isn't strong enough to do anything about it. Or a huge number of other explanations. I do think it is a small point against the idea of a creator who is both loving and powerful, but even then not a conclusive "must not be" deductive argument. Which is why I don't use that argument :)

@lack the #rationalist #scientific mind should accept, with #Nietzchean #Buddhist -like resignation, that we live in a Lawful Neutral universe that is sometimes indifferent to human well-being. Sometimes the hurricane wins. Sometimes the virus wins. Doesn’t conclusively dis-prove that Someone invented hydrogen and oxygen all those trillions of years ago.

@b_chocolatey @lack but frankly also there are non-Abrahamic conceptions of god that are less punitive

@Ariellec @lack 👍

@Ariellec @lack what’s interesting is that, when they wrote Genesis and said that God made the sky and a garden and so forth, somebody had to ask “if the sun and sky is eternal then why do we die so fast?” And then they wrote chapter 3

@Ariellec @lack They got to the origin-of-death myth pretty fast, and they wrote a pretty unpleasant one. But other origin-of-death myths are pretty gruesome. In a Native American myth, apparently an owl-god decided that humans should have a limited lifespan to prevent overpopulation. And then the owl’s baby chickling was the first to die

@Ariellec @lack look up “origin of death myth” in Wikipedia