God, Man, and Responsibility

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I'm sure we've all heard that chilling story about the Holocaust victim who scrawled "God will have to beg me for forgiveness" (might not be the exact wording, but this is basically what it meant) on the walls of Auschwitz (at least I think it was Auschwitz) and I'm sure we've all heard (or in some cases, made) Antitheist arguments along the lines of "If God is real why didn't He stop this?" or similar variations thereof. This line of thinking isn't new and has been around for centuries. What line of thinking am I talking about? The lack of human responsibility in the face of deities.

Evil Man comes to power, commits Evil Deed, is overthrown. Happy Person thanks God that Evil Deed is over. Angry Person asks why God allowed Evil Deed to happen. Et cetera.

Here is my problem with this line of thinking: it absolves humanity of it's own responsibility to prevent atrocities. By blaming God for not stopping it or preventing it from happening in the first place, we're essentially ignoring the numerous people who might have been in a position of power to put a stop to it in the first place. Neville Chamberlain, for example, could've prevented the sheer scale of WWII but was too afraid of repeating the mistakes of WWI to do so. Even after the war was long over he stubbornly insisted he did the right thing by trying to appease Hitler. Obviously he was a delusional tart with too much pride, but that's besides the point. The point is here was a man who could have very well prevented WWII from becoming as bad as it did (at least in Europe, possibly Africa too) but lacked the courage to do it. History rightfully blames him for his failure to do what was necessary, even if one could argue this comes from a "hindsight perspective" (I'd argue it doesn't and the signs of war were obvious from the beginning, but that's off-topic). And yet, many people might go out of their way to blame God for the war regardless. Why? What does it accomplish besides "sticking it to the Theists"? Nothing. I find most often it's utilized by people who simply want to shut down a Theist in an argument because they single-mindedly think 'muh religion bad' and that's that.

But then there are outliers, people who grieving or terrified or furious like the aforementioned Holocaust victim. I can imagine losing your faith in God when faced with persecution, imprisonment, and then execution in cruel and inhumane ways. I can understand how one could, from this perspective, ask "How could God allow this?". It makes perfect sense, actually. Why wouldn't a father who lost his daughter to a drone strike in a crowded market place demand of God, "How could you allow this to happen?". How can a woman who has been enslaved, beaten, and raped for years not ask why God didn't save her? How can someone spend their whole life dedicated to an all-powerful, all-knowing deity only to then lose everything in a single tragedy and not be upset with their maker? It's not lost on me how perfectly reasonable such a reaction would be. But it also poses a very serious question:

Why is God responsible for human actions?

Under the Rule of Law, Man is held responsible for his or her actions. Rapists, thieves, murderers, and other criminals are expected to be held accountable for the actions they undertake that inflict suffering and misery on others regardless of their intentions.

In parenthood, a parent is expected to raise their children with certain morals so as to become responsible adults once they mature. Often times the failure of a child to become said responsible adult is typically blamed on the failure of the parent to instill the proper morals within that child, usually through hypocrisy of some kind.

I'm not sure how it works for other religions so I really can't speak about their perspective, but from the Christian perspective God is both Parent and Lawmaker. We (humanity) are God's children, and are expected to follow God's rules. God's rules tend to overall revolve around the same, common principle of being good to your fellow Man. This isn't unique to Christianity at all and is pretty much the standard for most religions in the world, despite what Antitheists and Fundamentalists may think. The punishment for not following these laws - that is, inflicting evil upon your fellow Man - is eternal damnation. The wicked are, of course, offered a second chance to repent their sins and be forgiven for them if they are sincere. But those that do no seek salvation (or do not seek it sincerely) will not be granted it, and will be condemned in the end. This is, again, not a Christian-specific concept. Punishment for the wicked in the afterlife is common in a number of religions. Therefor it seems that God does in fact punish people for being cold-hearted, evil bastards right?

Well, for some, that clearly isn't enough. Punishment has to happen NOW. After death isn't quick enough, I suppose? Eternity in torment isn't good enough apparently? The whole argument seems confusing when one takes this into consideration, which just makes me question why bother? The righteous are granted eternal paradise in the afterlife, the wicked are condemned to eternal punishment in the afterlife. Seems like a fair reward system, doesn't it? God being all-seeing and all-knowing means no one can "get off the hook". No juries to bribe or threaten, no lawyers to argue in bad faith. God is, in a way, a benevolent judge. He sees all misdeeds and punishes those who commit them. So why does punishment need to happen now, in this life?

Because the person making the argument is not a Theist, of course. They are an Antitheist either because they have always been or because some tragedy has made them this way. Honestly, I can understand both positions. Many people commit evil deeds, sometimes in the name of benevolent higher powers. I may not respect Antitheism but I do understand it and how it comes about. But we have rules set by God Himself, and punishment reserved for those who break them. It seems illogical to argue that God must be held responsible for human evils then, surely? But only if you believe in the afterlife, which Antitheists do not. Consider now the perspective of both God and the Theist: mortal life is finite. The suffering, the pain, the trials of life will all end eventually and afterward things get better (unless you've been an asshole, then you're fucked) without end. No more sickness, no more hunger, no more misery. Eternal paradise. This mortal coil is there not the end of human life, but the beginning. A prelude to something grander. With this in mind, it's easy to take comfort in knowing that evil is duly punished. That of course doesn't mean criminals must escape punishment in this life, but rather that the worst of the worst that humanity has to offer will face two punishments: mortal and divine, in this life and the next - respectively.

For the Atheist none of this is true of course. But when making an argument against Theism, I think it's entirely necessary that one entertain the idea that said Theism is correct in some cases. The argument that God is responsible for evil deeds committed by Mankind being one of them. That it is somehow His obligation to stop us - His children - from being cruel to one another, when in all honesty we should know better. How can it be acceptable to pin the blame on God and not on those who've committed the deed? Of course you can do both, but to me that doesn't make it any better at all. In my humble opinion I don't think it's fair, right, or just to pin blame on God for not preventing the evil actions of human beings. We are independently thinking creatures with our own free will. Unless you're advocating we should all be obedient slaves to God, it doesn't make any sense to argue God is just as responsible (if not more responsible) for our actions as we are. It's true that we didn't choose to be this way, or to even be, but many things in life are not a choice. We can't always have a choice and when we do it's up to us to choose what is morally correct; what is morally right. In my mind it is not morally right to hold God responsible for the failings of weak and wicked Men who debase themselves by inflicting tyranny on their fellow Man. I believe those specific individuals should be held accountable for their actions, just as God does it. I believe a human being should alone be responsible for the actions they undertake or do not undertake.

What say ye, NSG? What do you think?

[Rojava Free State]

Because I don't believe in a God, I don't hold God responsible for anything. My issue is with the people who continue to put their faith in God even when it clearly isn't working.

Kid with cancer gets better=thank God.
Kid with cancer dies=God works in mysterious ways.

If you're gonna thank God when things go well, you ought to blame him when things go wrong. I personally don't believe in divine intervention so when the kid with cancer gets better, I thank the doctors who saved him or her, not the God that did nothing at all because he isn't real. When a family gets saved from a burning house, don't thank God. Thank the firefighters who risked their lives doing it. God gets way too much credit for things he had no hand in.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

Evil Man comes to power, commits Evil Deed, is overthrown. Happy Person thanks God that Evil Deed is over. Angry Person asks why God allowed Evil Deed to happen. Et cetera.

Here is my problem with this line of thinking: it absolves humanity of it's own responsibility to prevent atrocities.

We could also follow Arendt, and perhaps posit that, more fundamentally, the "Evil Man" framing absolves humanity of it's obligation to act with rationality and consider of the consequences of said actions. By contrast, "evil" is often (if not usually) invoked so as to suppose some inherent, fundamental characteristic that drives a person to act badly regardless of how they might otherwise choose. Indeed, such a conception of "evil" is fundamental to the idea of "original sin" which is so often invoked as an apologetic which attempts to explain away the problem of evil in the presence of a supposedly "loving" God; humans, it is supposed, are inherently wicked, and thus cannot help but do evil acts.

This perspective also absolves humanity of its responsibility to prevent atrocities. We were made that way by God, so why act differently?

And yet, many people might go out of their way to blame God for the war regardless. Why?

Because if God is the immutable author and creator of all things, then God intended that war and holocaust should occur. Ergo, the responsibility is God's. Various mental gymnastics have been offered over time to get God off the hook, including the time-honored and wholly mysterious "it's all part of The Plan." I'm not sure what kind of "plan" necessitates war and holocaust, but I'm pretty sure I won't like it. I can only shudder to think what the poor soul scrawling on the wall of a concentration camp thinks.

[The Grims]

If god gets credit for the good he also gets the blame for the bad. That is how it works.

[Ifreann]

With divine power there must also come divine responsibility.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Because I don't believe in a God, I don't hold God responsible for anything. My issue is with the people who continue to put their faith in God even when it clearly isn't working.

Kid with cancer gets better=thank God.
Kid with cancer dies=God works in mysterious ways.

If you're gonna thank God when things go well, you ought to blame him when things go wrong. I personally don't believe in divine intervention so when the kid with cancer gets better, I thank the doctors who saved him or her, not the God that did nothing at all because he isn't real. When a family gets saved from a burning house, don't thank God. Thank the firefighters who risked their lives doing it. God gets way too much credit for things he had no hand in.

I somewhat share your view that God shouldn't receive credit for things he had no hand in, but I wouldn't say he gets "too much" credit. Most people say "thank God" out of habit, usually more to express relief over a situation rather than lauding God has being responsible for it. Even Atheists tend to do this, again out of habit, because that's ultimately what the phrase has come to mean.

The same works for phrases like "God bless you", "Godspeed", etc. These typically don't have much religious weight behind them when said and are usually to wish luck to someone.

Evil Man comes to power, commits Evil Deed, is overthrown. Happy Person thanks God that Evil Deed is over. Angry Person asks why God allowed Evil Deed to happen. Et cetera.

Here is my problem with this line of thinking: it absolves humanity of it's own responsibility to prevent atrocities.

We could also follow Arendt, and perhaps posit that, more fundamentally, the "Evil Man" framing absolves humanity of it's obligation to act with rationality and consider of the consequences of said actions. By contrast, "evil" is often (if not usually) invoked so as to suppose some inherent, fundamental characteristic that drives a person to act badly regardless of how they might otherwise choose. Indeed, such a conception of "evil" is fundamental to the idea of "original sin" which is so often invoked as an apologetic which attempts to explain away the problem of evil in the presence of a supposedly "loving" God; humans, it is supposed, are inherently wicked, and thus cannot help but do evil acts.

This perspective also absolves humanity of its responsibility to prevent atrocities. We were made that way by God, so why act differently?

You can't really use the "Original Sin" as an argument because the Original Sin didn't occur at birth, it occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve consumed the Forbidden Fruit in direct defiance of God. Therefor saying we were "created evil" is wholly fictitious nonsense. Even if it wasn't, this doesn't explain the perspective from other religions. I realize I emphasized Christianity in the OP but that's only because I know it best out of personal practice; the actual intent of the discussion was divine in general, not just the Christian God.

Being unfamiliar with the perspectives of Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc. I can't argue for their perspectives on these things.

And yet, many people might go out of their way to blame God for the war regardless. Why?

Because if God is the immutable author and creator of all things, then God intended that war and holocaust should occur. Ergo, the responsibility is God's. Various mental gymnastics have been offered over time to get God off the hook, including the time-honored and wholly mysterious "it's all part of The Plan." I'm not sure what kind of "plan" necessitates war and holocaust, but I'm pretty sure I won't like it. I can only shudder to think what the poor soul scrawling on the wall of a concentration camp thinks.

"God works in mysterious ways"/"This is all part of God's plan" is just fundamentalist nonsense spouted by people with an aversion to science because they think anything made in a laboratory is the work of the Devil. It's American Evangelicalism in it's most extreme: cowardly and anti-science. Man cannot know what God's plan is; to suggest otherwise is pure heresy.

For all we know He may not even have a plan at all.

If god gets credit for the good he also gets the blame for the bad. That is how it works.

Who said God should get credit for the good in the first place? Unless He's directly responsible for the good, I don't think He should get credit.

[New Bremerton]

There is no god to praise, condemn, thank or blame. Man is exclusively responsible for Man's actions, good or bad.

[Sao Nova Europa]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Christianity I believe that men have free will to act in a good or evil manner and are judged thereafter by God. So, God intervening and stopping evil acts committed by evil people would be infringing on the free will of people. Of course, I could be wrong because it is some years since I've last read about it in theology.

Personally, I am an atheist so I do not blame (any) God for the acts of evil people but the above argument is a logical one for a theist to make.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

You can't really use the "Original Sin" as an argument because the Original Sin didn't occur at birth, it occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve consumed the Forbidden Fruit in direct defiance of God. Therefor saying we were "created evil" is wholly fictitious nonsense. Even if it wasn't, this doesn't explain the perspective from other religions. I realize I emphasized Christianity in the OP but that's only because I know it best out of personal practice; the actual intent of the discussion was divine in general, not just the Christian God.
...
"God works in mysterious ways"/"This is all part of God's plan" is just fundamentalist nonsense spouted by people with an aversion to science because they think anything made in a laboratory is the work of the Devil. It's American Evangelicalism in it's most extreme: cowardly and anti-science. Man cannot know what God's plan is; to suggest otherwise is pure heresy.

None of this jives with the Christianity I was born and raised into. And, of course, one can move the theological goal posts around to one's heart's content, but that's precisely the sort of mental gymnastics I was referring to earlier. Since the Divine is inherently unknowable (as you say, "man cannot know what God's plan is") since it is necessarily beyond empirical observation and test, we can assign any intent and characteristic to God we like depending on how it will serve our ability to win an argument on the Internet.

As such, it's probably best to just short circuit the process by concluding that God is a non-falsifiable irrelevancy, so who cares really?

Except...

For all we know He may not even have a plan at all.

...I'm fairly confident that if I drop a bowling ball off of a tall building and it just happens to alight upon the top of your head, even if I didn't specifically plan that it should, I'm still responsible for your plight. What with my being the First Mover of the ball, and all.

But at a more fundamental level, for all we know God doesn't even exist, so the question is moot anyway.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Christianity I believe that men have free will to act in a good or evil manner and are judged thereafter by God. So, God intervening and stopping evil acts committed by evil people would be infringing on the free will of people. Of course, I could be wrong because it is some years since I've last read about it in theology.

The problem with the free will apologetic is the necessary underlying condition that it was God that created us to have the ability to be/choose evil to begin with. Thus, we end up with a God that punishes us for being what God made us to be to begin with. This seems unfair, if not sociopathic, at least to me.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Evil Man comes to power, commits Evil Deed, is overthrown. Happy Person thanks God that Evil Deed is over. Angry Person asks why God allowed Evil Deed to happen. Et cetera.

The obvious answer is that we have no proof of the existence of a deity or lack thereof, let alone the extent of his/her powers, let alone what he/she intends to do with them.

As such, religion's very existence, as something with unverifiable claims about the intentions of supernaturual beings, inherently absolves people of their rightful share of culpability for preventing evil. It's no coincidence that some of the most peaceful places in the world are the least religious, like Japan or Estonia or the Nordic countries.

And yet, many people might go out of their way to blame God for the war regardless. Why? What does it accomplish besides "sticking it to the Theists"? Nothing.

You call it "sticking it to the theists," I call it honesty. Willful ignorance about the fact that their deity's existence, let alone intentions, cannot be proven, legitimizes willful ignorance in other contexts. Those of us who value honesty need to draw a line and stand our ground, or else there will be "more where that came from." (See also; religious southern states' willful ignorance about Trump's mishandling of coronavirus. Or the "religious left" being willfully ignorant about the correlation between religiosity and that.)

Under the Rule of Law, Man is held responsible for his or her actions. Rapists, thieves, murderers, and other criminals are expected to be held accountable for the actions they undertake that inflict suffering and misery on others regardless of their intentions.

Precisely. And this is why Rule of Law, not religion, should be expected to guide human behaviour.

Relying on religion to allows people to just feign belief in it anyway. And we can't conclusively prove them dishonest, because the Bible leaves a lot of room for interpretation. At least the authors of Man's Laws had to make them more clear than those of "God's Laws." (Or, when they fail to do so, be interpreted in a legally binding way by the courts.)

This is, again, not a Christian-specific concept. Punishment for the wicked in the afterlife is common in a number of religions. Therefor it seems that God does in fact punish people for being cold-hearted, evil bastards right?

Precisely. And that's another thing that's so harmful about religion. It bluffs about reward and punishment in the afterlife; making people complacent about the need to offer reward and punishment here on Earth; incentivizing people who don't genuinely buy it to bluff about believing it. (Which makes people especially complacent about the need to offer those particular individuals reward and punishment here on Earth.)

Well, for some, that clearly isn't enough. Punishment has to happen NOW. After death isn't quick enough, I suppose? Eternity in torment isn't good enough apparently?

The obvious answer is "they never really believed it in the first place and are just pretending to so that other people will trust them more."

Throw religion away, and you've thrown away any incentive to fake belief in it.

[Cisairse]

[W]hen making an argument against Theism, I think it's entirely necessary that one entertain the idea that said Theism is correct in some cases.

I do not. God is not real.

[Kowani]

While noting that I don’t believe God is real…the reason the afterlife point doesn’t hold water is simple: Prevention is better than a cure.

[Neanderthaland]

Well it depends:
A God who is omnipotent and omniscient, and also a creator deity, is ultimately responsible for everything that will ever happen. There's no free-willing their culpability away, they knew exactly what the consequences of creating the world as-is would be, could have done it differently, and chose not to.

A God who lacks any one of the above traits would be less responsible, or even not at all.

Of course, this would not absolve the relevant humans of responsibility.

[Nimzonia]

Why is God responsible for human actions?

Because, if he exists (which he does not), God created the entire context in which it is possible for evil actions to be committed. Evil was not possible until God created it. He must bear the responsibility for the cruelty of the existence which he has chosen to subject us to by creating the absurd and inhumane petri dish we live in. God is like an arms dealer who denies any responsibility for the harm caused by his wares. If you create the means by which others are subjected to suffering, without which their suffering would not be possible, you are partially responsible for that suffering.

If God had made us all immortal, invulnerable, omnipotent, and impervious to harm, there sure as hell would have been no holocaust. But no, he made us as flimsy bags of water with 200 pain receptors per square centimetre, which was an entirely unnecessary thing to do.

[Elwher]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Christianity I believe that men have free will to act in a good or evil manner and are judged thereafter by God. So, God intervening and stopping evil acts committed by evil people would be infringing on the free will of people. Of course, I could be wrong because it is some years since I've last read about it in theology.

The problem with the free will apologetic is the necessary underlying condition that it was God that created us to have the ability to be/choose evil to begin with. Thus, we end up with a God that punishes us for being what God made us to be to begin with. This seems unfair, if not sociopathic, at least to me.

Not really. God created us with the ability to choose to do/be good or evil. He does not punish us for having that ability, but for how we utilize it. It's like having an automobile, one does not get punished for having it, but if one speeds or runs people over with it then punishment is levied for how one uses it. In either case, the individual is responsible for his own actions.

[United Muscovite Nations]

In the sense that a computer programmer is responsible for all the actions that the programs he created take.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

Not really. God created us with the ability to choose to do/be good or evil. He does not punish us for having that ability, but for how we utilize it. It's like having an automobile, one does not get punished for having it, but if one speeds or runs people over with it then punishment is levied for how one uses it. In either case, the individual is responsible for his own actions.

Again, this doesn't jive with the Christianity I was raised in, according to which this "free choice" was made long ago by someone other than me, but for which I am still responsible despite the fact that I could not have possibly had any say in it.

This would be like having a particular make and model of automobile, and being punished with citations, increased insurance premiums, jail time, or eternal hell-fire because a completely different person who only happens to own the same make and model themselves is a bad driver. I'm being held responsible for someone else's choice. I call shenanigans.

(As to whether or not this is "really" Christianity/theology, or a correct interpretation of the Eden myth, etc: viewtopic.php?p=36956422#p36956422)

[Nimzonia]

The problem with the free will apologetic is the necessary underlying condition that it was God that created us to have the ability to be/choose evil to begin with. Thus, we end up with a God that punishes us for being what God made us to be to begin with. This seems unfair, if not sociopathic, at least to me.

Not really. God created us with the ability to choose to do/be good or evil. He does not punish us for having that ability, but for how we utilize it. It's like having an automobile, one does not get punished for having it, but if one speeds or runs people over with it then punishment is levied for how one uses it. In either case, the individual is responsible for his own actions.

The individual also has to pass a driving test to prove they can drive safely before they're allowed the freedom to drive in the first place.

[The Emerald Legion]

The gods are not responsible for your actions. Anymore than you're responsible for your neighbors.

[Kathol Rift]

I think of God as the person who started the ball rolling. He created the universe, he created life, set down some rules, then kind of leaves us to our own devices. He watches, and if something is wrong enough, he intervenes or sends a messenger to intervene. We all meet our judgement in the end, and we will all get what we gave. We are responsible for our actions, not God. Saying God is responsible is like the person who kicked over the dominoes blaming the person that set them up. It’s not his fault, it’s your fault. You did it, not God.

[US-SSR]

Because I don't believe in a God, I don't hold God responsible for anything. My issue is with the people who continue to put their faith in God even when it clearly isn't working.

Kid with cancer gets better=thank God.
Kid with cancer dies=God works in mysterious ways.

If you're gonna thank God when things go well, you ought to blame him when things go wrong. I personally don't believe in divine intervention so when the kid with cancer gets better, I thank the doctors who saved him or her, not the God that did nothing at all because he isn't real. When a family gets saved from a burning house, don't thank God. Thank the firefighters who risked their lives doing it. God gets way too much credit for things he had no hand in.

This. "Hands that help are better than lips that pray." -- Ingersoll

[Albrenia]

I personally do hold people who sit by and watch people suffer and die when they could solve the problems with zero costs to themselves responsible for their chilling lack of action... particularly those who created all the actors involved in said chilling events with full knowledge of exactly how they'd react and act in every possible circumstance.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Christianity I believe that men have free will to act in a good or evil manner and are judged thereafter by God. So, God intervening and stopping evil acts committed by evil people would be infringing on the free will of people. Of course, I could be wrong because it is some years since I've last read about it in theology.

Personally, I am an atheist so I do not blame (any) God for the acts of evil people but the above argument is a logical one for a theist to make.

No, you're right. That's exactly how it works in Christianity.

None of this jives with the Christianity I was born and raised into.

I'm assuming this is a Protestant Church you were born and raised into? Many Protestant denominations have a tendency for revisionism as a result of their heavily anti-Catholic origins. This particular interpretation of the Original Sin was an Augustinian invention, though. Frankly I'm not a big fan of Augustine because he introduced a lot of outside ideas to the faith, some influenced by Manichaeism and Platonic philosophy. Many major Protestant reformers took inspiration from Augustine and his works, probably too much.

But that's a whole other topic of discussion...

And, of course, one can move the theological goal posts around to one's heart's content, but that's precisely the sort of mental gymnastics I was referring to earlier. Since the Divine is inherently unknowable (as you say, "man cannot know what God's plan is") since it is necessarily beyond empirical observation and test, we can assign any intent and characteristic to God we like depending on how it will serve our ability to win an argument on the Internet.

It's not "mental gymnastics". We may not truly know God's intentions, but through the New Testament we do have a glimpse at what He expects of us. This doesn't tell us everything about how He works of course but it gives us enough insight to make informed presumptions. Not about everything, but about how we as human beings should live our lives; how we should act and treat other people. Through the teachings of Jesus Christ we can determine that God wishes us to respect and care for our fellow Man as these words come directly from His own mouth.

...I'm fairly confident that if I drop a bowling ball off of a tall building and it just happens to alight upon the top of your head, even if I didn't specifically plan that it should, I'm still responsible for your plight. What with my being the First Mover of the ball, and all.

This is a terrible analogy. God isn't throwing bowling balls off roofs. If He was, you could hold Him responsible. But God didn't start the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Rwandan Genocide, the Armenian Genocide, etc. He doesn't give people cancer, wreck their planes into the ocean, or convince their wives to kill them in their sleep. All things people can and have blamed on God.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Christianity I believe that men have free will to act in a good or evil manner and are judged thereafter by God. So, God intervening and stopping evil acts committed by evil people would be infringing on the free will of people. Of course, I could be wrong because it is some years since I've last read about it in theology.

The problem with the free will apologetic is the necessary underlying condition that it was God that created us to have the ability to be/choose evil to begin with. Thus, we end up with a God that punishes us for being what God made us to be to begin with. This seems unfair, if not sociopathic, at least to me.

Except that's not true. The ability to commit evil came from the Forbidden Fruit. Humanity wasn't created with the ability to commit evil.

And frankly, all this Christocentric discussion is turning this into a debate on Christian theology. Seeing as that wasn't the intention of this thread, can we stop focusing specifically on Christianity? My original intention was to approach the subject on a pan-religious scale, not specifically a Christian one.

Evil Man comes to power, commits Evil Deed, is overthrown. Happy Person thanks God that Evil Deed is over. Angry Person asks why God allowed Evil Deed to happen. Et cetera.

The obvious answer is that we have no proof of the existence of a deity or lack thereof, let alone the extent of his/her powers, let alone what he/she intends to do with them.

As such, religion's very existence, as something with unverifiable claims about the intentions of supernaturual beings, inherently absolves people of their rightful share of culpability for preventing evil. It's no coincidence that some of the most peaceful places in the world are the least religious, like Japan or Estonia or the Nordic countries.

Ah, yes. The classic "religion is primitive superstition holding humanity back" argument.

First off, Japan if I remember correctly is a highly spiritual and traditional country. Their religious practices aren't the same as Western, Middle Eastern, or Indian practices centered around higher beings of great power. Their practices are closer to animism, IIRC. Furthermore religion has always played an important role in the Nordic countries (especially Sweden), the Czech Republic, and Japan. It wasn't even a hundred years ago that Japan's Emperors were considered gods in their own right; something they shared with the Chinese. Estonia and the Czech Republic in particular were ruled by brutal, Antitheist dictatorships for several decades that purged religion from their society to extreme degrees.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest religion had anything to do with these countries becoming so developed. Countries like China, North Korea, Russia, and many other countries where religion is largely irrelevant to society at large are still terrible places to live. Correlation does not equal causation.

Never mind that religious institutions have been the single greatest contributors to scientific advancement in human history.

You call it "sticking it to the theists," I call it honesty. Willful ignorance about the fact that their deity's existence, let alone intentions, cannot be proven, legitimizes willful ignorance in other contexts. Those of us who value honesty need to draw a line and stand our ground, or else there will be "more where that came from." (See also; religious southern states' willful ignorance about Trump's mishandling of coronavirus. Or the "religious left" being willfully ignorant about the correlation between religiosity and that.)

Honesty is a virtue in literally every religion on the planet. I happen to value it myself, as do most religious people. The only "willful ignorance" here is your refusal to see that most religious people aren't the raving fundamentalists you think we are, a problem many Atheists seem to have. Bringing up Trump doesn't help you, either. The man is the living embodiment of every sin in Christianity. Anyone who has the guts to call themselves a Christian and admire that man is only proving they know absolutely nothing about their own self-professed religion. Politicians have long been using the 'faux righteousness' tactic to drum up the religious support. The GOP is no exception.

Precisely. And this is why Rule of Law, not religion, should be expected to guide human behaviour.

Relying on religion to allows people to just feign belief in it anyway. And we can't conclusively prove them dishonest, because the Bible leaves a lot of room for interpretation. At least the authors of Man's Laws had to make them more clear than those of "God's Laws." (Or, when they fail to do so, be interpreted in a legally binding way by the courts.)

God's Laws aren't as vague as people think they are. But swindlers will always try to swindle; that's their way. If they can use religion to do it, they will. Nothing is sacred to them. And if they're clever enough, they can pull it off. It works the same way for the Rule of Law. You really think people can't manipulate laws, courts, law enforcement, etc. to get out of trouble? People do it all the time.

But you seem to be making the assumption I'm arguing in favor of Sharia Law or something equally nonsensical which, I assure you, I am not. I'm not sure where you got the impression I want to impose theocratic laws.

Precisely. And that's another thing that's so harmful about religion. It bluffs about reward and punishment in the afterlife; making people complacent about the need to offer reward and punishment here on Earth; incentivizing people who don't genuinely buy it to bluff about believing it. (Which makes people especially complacent about the need to offer those particular individuals reward and punishment here on Earth.)

Now that's just plain untrue. I can't name a single religious society that never punished people for Earthly crimes, so this whole argument is made out of straw.

The obvious answer is "they never really believed it in the first place and are just pretending to so that other people will trust them more."

Throw religion away, and you've thrown away any incentive to fake belief in it.

Of course they didn't believe. You realize I was talking about Antitheists, right? Not fundamentalists? Apparently not because now your arguments make a lot more sense. Blaming God for misfortunes is not something religious people do very often so I'm really not sure what you thought we were discussing here.

[W]hen making an argument against Theism, I think it's entirely necessary that one entertain the idea that said Theism is correct in some cases.

I do not. God is not real.

That's your opinion.

While noting that I don’t believe God is real…the reason the afterlife point doesn’t hold water is simple: Prevention is better than a cure.

And yet "prevention" is not how a justice system works. You cannot punish someone before they have done something unless you can prove they intended to do it.

Well it depends:
A God who is omnipotent and omniscient, and also a creator deity, is ultimately responsible for everything that will ever happen. There's no free-willing their culpability away, they knew exactly what the consequences of creating the world as-is would be, could have done it differently, and chose not to.

A God who lacks any one of the above traits would be less responsible, or even not at all.

Of course, this would not absolve the relevant humans of responsibility.

Except you just explained why that doesn't work. If God is truly omnipotent then He can limit his own omniscience, which is the generally accepted interpretation of God's omniscience in Christianity.

Why is God responsible for human actions?

Because, if he exists (which he does not), God created the entire context in which it is possible for evil actions to be committed. Evil was not possible until God created it. He must bear the responsibility for the cruelty of the existence which he has chosen to subject us to by creating the absurd and inhumane petri dish we live in. God is like an arms dealer who denies any responsibility for the harm caused by his wares. If you create the means by which others are subjected to suffering, without which their suffering would not be possible, you are partially responsible for that suffering.

If God had made us all immortal, invulnerable, omnipotent, and impervious to harm, there sure as hell would have been no holocaust. But no, he made us as flimsy bags of water with 200 pain receptors per square centimetre, which was an entirely unnecessary thing to do.

Except this argument completely writes-off the afterlife entirely. Ergo, it holds no weight behind it. You're basically arguing that a bird's life sucks by explaining it's existence during the period before it's egg has hatched and completely disregarding everything after that. Death in most religions is the beginning, not the end.

Not really. God created us with the ability to choose to do/be good or evil. He does not punish us for having that ability, but for how we utilize it. It's like having an automobile, one does not get punished for having it, but if one speeds or runs people over with it then punishment is levied for how one uses it. In either case, the individual is responsible for his own actions.

Again, this doesn't jive with the Christianity I was raised in, according to which this "free choice" was made long ago by someone other than me, but for which I am still responsible despite the fact that I could not have possibly had any say in it.

This would be like having a particular make and model of automobile, and being punished with citations, increased insurance premiums, jail time, or eternal hell-fire because a completely different person who only happens to own the same make and model themselves is a bad driver. I'm being held responsible for someone else's choice. I call shenanigans.

(As to whether or not this is "really" Christianity/theology, or a correct interpretation of the Eden myth, etc: viewtopic.php?p=36956422#p36956422)

Again, that's an Augustinian invention that has mostly solely been adopted by Protestant churches. Traditional Christian doctrine holds the Original Sin occurred when Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the Forbidden Fruit, damning themselves and their descendants for disobeying God and providing them with the knowledge of good and evil and the ability to commit either/or.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Because I don't believe in a God, I don't hold God responsible for anything. My issue is with the people who continue to put their faith in God even when it clearly isn't working.

Kid with cancer gets better=thank God.
Kid with cancer dies=God works in mysterious ways.

If you're gonna thank God when things go well, you ought to blame him when things go wrong. I personally don't believe in divine intervention so when the kid with cancer gets better, I thank the doctors who saved him or her, not the God that did nothing at all because he isn't real. When a family gets saved from a burning house, don't thank God. Thank the firefighters who risked their lives doing it. God gets way too much credit for things he had no hand in.

This. "Hands that help are better than lips that pray." -- Ingersoll

Except "hands that help" is literally a major part of Christianity. We are encouraged to help others. It's literally the Word of God.

I personally do hold people who sit by and watch people suffer and die when they could solve the problems with zero costs to themselves responsible for their chilling lack of action... particularly those who created all the actors involved in said chilling events with full knowledge of exactly how they'd react and act in every possible circumstance.

As do I, but if God intervenes every time one of us fucks up then what is the point of us having free will at all if He can just override it? And once more this disregards the entire afterlife, which is eternal and everlasting unlike mortal life.