/lit/ - Literature

>>16527317
>Well, what is the basis for the unbelief?
The most likely reason is that the reasons to believe in any god are unconvincing for an atheist.
>Always a paean to either the lack of physical evidence for positive religious claims or, in a softer form, the generally arbitrary and chaotic nature of the world being incompatible with a metaphysical order implied by a God or gods.
It obviously doesn't have to be either of those. The first option is poorly posed there, I guess. It should just be stated that there is a lack of adequate evidence for any god. The lack of physical evidence is just one part of it and is not what is just needed for a good reason to doubt god. I haven't heard of people talking about that second option.
>seeing as we only know the material world through media and not directly, which is why it's a dogmatic form of materialism
Are you trying to point out that some atheists are naively materialists? I don't really see why it matters that much. You haven't made it seem like you have to be a materialist to not believe in any god, still, and just because plenty of atheists have not considered their metaphysical views very deeply, that has nothing to do with atheism itself.

>>16488901
>>16488971
What are you trying to say? If we don't know what is evil, then we can just suppose that God is omnibenevolent, but that we cannot understand His morality directly if at all. There is no reason to suppose that, however, and it is not at all convincing. That is the sort of a leap-of-faith answer, I think.
If you don't believe that God is omnibenevolent, then there's no reason to get upset at this problem -- He is just no supreme.
>>16490620
See the above.
>>16488964
>>16488947
If we do not know evil, then see the above. If evil does not exist, then answer this
>Are you a moral nihilist? Do you accept that "goodness" exists? If you do, how could "goodness" exist while "evil" does not? If you don't believe in "goodness," then that is fair, I guess, but then God could not be omnibenevolent, which essentially entails conceding to the problem.
>>16488939
Then you're conceding the problem that God is /not/ supreme.
>>16489001
Is that supposed to be relevant? If so, how?
>>16488993
That is fine and does not conflict with what he is saying there. If one God or multiple gods exist that are not supreme (they are indifferent to humans are therefore not omnibenevolent, for example), that is a solution to the problem.
>>16489029
>>16489059
Even if it was posted with the intention to bait, it doesn't mean there can't be interesting discussion. If you disagree, I would like to know why.
>>16490245
>>16491060
That doesn't explain natural disasters.
>>16490788
See >>16493136
>I assume that you mean that the bad goes along with the good to complement the good to make it better, or something like that. That doesn't explain, let's say, babies who are born with terrible pain all their life until they shortly die, at least for the babies. Also, if God is omnipotent, then He could have made humans who did not need the bad to complement the good.