If there is a God, he is a cruel God. To destroy those with so little,

[Paper Roses]

is beyond comprehension. All of us suffer our own personal setbacks and tragedy's. They may be nothing compared to those who suffer from the worldwide disasters that afflict mankind.

To the people of Haiti, I send my love and hope for your safety and ability to recover from the horrible fate that has fallen upon you.

To those of you who believe there is a reason for this, please do not be offended. As a personal belief, I cannot fathom that any almighty God would punish his people with a fate like this earthquake and the other events that have happened worldwide.

I respect anyone's faith, you are all free to choose what you believe but I am of the mind that there cannot be a grand scheme of things, orchestrated by some benevolent God. We are subject to the fate of the world as it evolves. We, in my opinion, have little reason to believe anything like this earthquake is part of any Gods plan.

Pray if you think it will help, donate if you can. I do trust that all countries of the world will send whatever aid they can and that we, as a nation, will do our part. I hope we assist these poor people with grace and care, working with all nations of the world to save these people from greater harm.

[rd_kent]

1. Be careful, comments like this will get you called a "heartless bastard"!

Read the other thread where the same has been said.

[kirby]

35. Sounds like 'God' is the heartless bastard n/t

[rd_kent]

41. I couldnt agree more!

[MineralMan]

2. There isnt. There is only Nature, and Nature isn't an entity. It just

is.

[Gman2]

3. God had NOTHIN to do with why they are destitute, and cant afford to build better.

That is man's inhumanity to man. Like most of what we blame on either God or the Devil.

[tblue]

13. Could God not intercede?

Couldn't God, conceivably, do anything He/She wants? And if not, why not?

Not expecting answers. Just posing some questions. I don't think it's even possible for the mind of man to conceive of the mind of God.

[Silent3]

51. You can blame humans for the pre-quake conditions...

...but how is compounding that misery with an earthquake a human failing?

If there is a God (and I don't believe there is) is crushing children under concrete blocks the Divine Way of sending the rest of us a message that we should have done more before the quake? Is giving us a new opportunity to show we care good enough a reason for all of the death and crippling injury and misery that's beyond our ability to fix no matter how we respond in the aftermath?

[malaise]

4. There is no god

but we humans choose to live above cracks in the earth's surface. It's called life and death. What happened in Haiti could have happened in Jamaica. Today for them - tomorrow for us. The fools here will say their gawd saved us but they didn't save the Kingstonians in 1907 when we had our great quake.

Some people need crutches to survive this thing called life.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cant trust em]

5. But it's all part of God's plan.

Everything is part of the big picture.

Why doesn't that make me feel any better?

[tblue]

17. Just like Sarah Palin being VP or W attacking Iraq. nt

[county worker]

6. Can there be a god or gods and not have orchestrated things happening?

Maybe there is a power that we all share in but it does not function as maker or destroyer.

[Goblinmonger]

8. We cannot know god's wisdom

He only gives us what we can handle.

How many people won't know this is sarcasm?

[Oregone]

14. Or His idiocy

[Hugabear]

39. Then he must have figured the Hatians could handle the earthquake

:sarcasm:

[ChadwickHenryWard]

65. That sounds exaclty like Job's jerkoff friends.

They all sat around telling him that nothing bad ever happens to a good person, despite the fact that that's exactly what just happened. It's a little bit silly to say that God never gives you anything you can't handle when many thousands of people very clearly can't handle a building fallen on top of them.

[uppityperson]

9. kick with the hope people will read the message, not just the OP

[spoony]

10. Donate, help, and take your beef to R/T. nt

[Tailormyst]

11. Silly Rabbit, God is only responsible for GOOD things- Like winning Grammies!

[Brickbat]

15. And touchdowns!

[ddeclue]

12. Stop using other people's tragedies to promote your God bashing..

You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God through this line of argument and all it is is very distasteful opportunism on your part. Perhaps if God exists he/she/it wants to test your compassion for those who are suffering.

“What if these are miracles, Mack…only we don’t have any experience in miracles, and so we’re slow to recognize them?” - Grand Canyon, 1991

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. +1

[OhioChick]

18. +1 n/t

[rd_kent]

42. Then stop praising god when good things happen.

[Silent3]

52. As soon as tragedies aren't promoted as reasons to pray...

...to God and to turn to religion. Is that fair? Or do you prefer leveraging tragedy to promote a point of view to be the exclusive domain of the pro-religious?

[laconicsax]

59. How despicable can you be?

Perhaps if God exists he/she/it wants to test your compassion for those who are suffering.

:puke:

Yeah, perhaps your wrathful desert sockpuppet sent an earthquake killing tens of thousands and causing millions more to suffer to test Paper Roses' compassion. That is completely depraved. Please excuse me while I retch.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

66. That's really astoundingly evil.

Here's a scenario:

You come walking down the street, only to see me mercilessly beating a defenseless man. "Why are you doing that?!" you shout. "I'm testing your compassion, of course!" I just wanted to see if you'd call 911!" Are my actions justified?

[laconicsax]

68. You must work in mysterious ways.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

69. That's some top notch theology.

The kind fundie atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens could never understand.

[damyank913]

70. After reading what you heathens have been writng...

...I can see why our Lord has performance anxiety.

[laconicsax]

74. Should an infinite being fear mortals?

I find the notion of an infinite supernatural entity with infinite power suffering any harm from finite humans absolutely hilarious.

[damyank913]

111. Other things to find funny...

...adults that believe in santa, the easter bunny, virgin births, and communicate with "supernatural invisible friends".

[bigwillq]

19. God has nothing to do with it.

Sh*t happens.

[Igel]

44. Truly. . .

The most concise summary of Ecclesiastes I've heard for a long time.

Except you left off the conclusion: "Shit happens. Then you die."

[uriel1972]

135. Hmmm as the all powerful, all knowing

creator of everything, repeat everything, setting it all in motion and intervening where it seems fit, it bears ultimate responsibility for everything that happens. Sorry you can't wiggle out of it with a bumper sticker. Unless of course you don't believe in it and are just saying these things happen is also a copout as the state of Haiti is the result of worldwide human activity. So in conclusion I say, "Get knotted you callous dipshit."

[RedCloud]

20. What can you expect from a god who sat idly by while they crucified his son?

[Libertas1776]

21. There are certain people in this country

who would say that , if another 1906 like 7.8 earthquake were to strike San Francisco, it was the act of a "just, and vengeful god" bringing down his retribution upon that "godless, liberal, and gay Gomorrah by the bay." Then, if another 1812 like 8.0 earthquake were to strike deep in the "God fearin'" heart land of Missouri, those same certain people would say it was the act of a cruel God, or even more simply, a god who works in "mysterious" ways or some other fluff.

This was not the act of any god or gods or some unseen divine hand. This was an act of nature, an entity who continues to humble us with her strength and ferocity.

[earth mom]

22. I'm sure those who believe in the prosperity gospel think it's what those people deserved.

:puke:

My heart breaks for the people of Haiti and it pains me and irritates me to see that religion is being used as a weapon at such a tragic time

Imagine if there were no religion...that's the world I wish I lived in.

[madmom]

24. +1

:grouphug:

[MineralMan]

26. +1

But what would Pat Robertson do?

[Warpy]

23. Gods have nothing to do with this, tectonic plates are to blame

along with grinding poverty, poor infrastructure, and no building codes.

Give what you can. Help if you can. And that's it.

The rest of this crap is counterproductive.

[raccoon]

50. +1. nt

[Silent3]

54. I just sent a donation...

...now I can multitask and talk about the issues in this thread too.

[PacerLJ35]

25. According to my beliefs

God created the world but he doesn't directly control the world. I don't believe in things like natural disasters as punishment, etc. When this world was created, good was paired with evil, because in life if you don't experience both, you won't appreciate the good in life. Hell, many people now don't appreciate the good things they have in life as it is. The way I see it, our universe is sort of a wind-up toy...it was created and then let go to function on its own. The decisions we make are our own, and thus have more meaning.

[FedUpWithIt All]

27. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[MineralMan]

28. Ah, a deist. Excellent choice.

[ZombieHorde]

31. Welcome to DU.

[Silent3]

56. As gods go, a god like that makes the most sense.

However, that's not a god who can really be described as either "good" or "bad" in any human sense of those words, and it's a waste of time to pray to that god.

What bothers me is the people who claim that their God is infinitely loving, infinitely just, and that He answers prayers, people who will go through whatever rhetorical backflips and logical contortions in takes to maintain that belief in the face of the kind of tragedy that's not in the slightest bit consistent with the existence of their supposed God.

[jgraz]

58. Then what's the point of having a god at all?

If all you need God for is to set the universe in motion, that's equivalent to whatever as-yet-unknown mechanism set the Inflationary Big Bang in motion. Why does that mechanism need to be labeled "God"?

[gharlane]

29. Come back....

.... when you've moved beyond a second-grade Sunday-school understanding of God/Deity/Spirit/call it what you will. Come back when you've moved beyond Pat Robertson's "understanding" of God.

"Pray if you think it will help,"

Ongoing, thank you.

"donate if you can."

Done. To Oxfam America, Doctors Without Borders, Mercy Corps, Red Cross.

You can find a bunch of organizations at http://www.thomhartmann.com/2010/01/13/haiti-earthquake-relief-how-you-can-help/

Frankly, at this point it matters little to me whether this is part of God's plan or not. I act on the assumption that what is part of Her plan is that I help out right now, and not post a bunch of stuff mulling whether She exists or has a plan, or not. I act after Pat Robertson goes on the air saying this is God's punishment on the people of Haiti because in his shriveled little unspiritual world, they supposedly "made a pact with the Devil to get rid of the French colonizers" (I'm not making this up -- Randi Rhodes just played the audio). As a religious person, I say Fuck You to the fundamentalist Pat Robertsons who use this to "prove" that there is a God who punishes Evil People, and to the fundamentalist Richard Dawkinses and Christopher Hitchenses who use this to "prove" that there's no God.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I was with you until the fundamentalist atheist bit

To compare and equate Robertson and Dawkins is just plain wrong.

[gharlane]

32. Dawkins is no Robertson.

I'll agree with you there, although he shares with Robertson the fundamentalist's conviction that his own beliefs are self-evidently true. Which was my point.

I notice you didn't say anything about the atheist anti-Muslim hater/warmonger Hitchens, however.

[Goblinmonger]

38. I avoided the Hitchens discussion

I would disagree wholeheartedly with the distinction of any atheist as fundamentalist. It is a misuse of the term which makes the term useless. Most people use it to just mean "someone I don't like." Hitchens tries to make a name for himself by being a dink, though I agree with most of his points on religion.

The distinction I would make between Robertson (and his ilk) and Dawkins is that Dawkins uses scientific observation to support his points while Robertson relies solely on mythology. I think that makes the attitude of one's "beliefs" being "self-evidently" true much, much different.

[ralph m]

73. Yes there is atheist fundamentalism!

Most of us who do not believe in gods or a supernatural world are content to leave others to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with science or social policies. But, the movement that the so called four horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett) started, is built on a bold assumption that NOBODY should believe in God or supernatural phenomena like souls, ghosts and what-have-you. Well, certainly the four horsemen aren't going to call for forced deconversion of the believers, but just having the point of view that belief in God is believing in a delusion, and the only way theists can remain rational is to compartmentalize their religious beliefs, means that the atheist fundamentalist can only have limited respect for the theist, in the same manner that the religious fundamentalist cannot fully respect anyone who doesn't share their creed or religious vision.

I would add that Dawkins and Dennett's hypothesis of memes acting like viral replicators of cultural ideas, could create a toxic atheist dogma; since harmful religious memes would be treated like harmful biological viruses.....eradicate them!

The followers of New Atheism, who have invaded the staid halls of secular humanism, and taken over the agenda, such as the recent shift in emphasis at Center For Inquiry from promoting humanism to promoting atheism, are prime examples of secular ideology that is based on a belief position that "everyone should think like me." This is no different than the POV of religious fundamentalists; and to me, that makes New Atheists a group of fundamentalist true believers.

You're not going to fully get the ethos of atheist fundamentalism just from reading Dawkins or the others, but try hanging out in online atheist groups. I spent the past year on the atheist networking hub - Atheist Nexus, and quit only to be talked into joining the smaller Think Atheist network a couple of months ago, and finding pretty much the same thing -- atheists who spend too much time talking amongst themselves, and not hearing the opinions of non-nonbelievers. My takeaway was that organizing around disbelief was a bad idea, since a conglomeration of people who share nothing in common regarding political and social opinions, are lumped together in one contentious group that can only agree on how much they hate religion and the people who believe these delusions.

[laconicsax]

75. With respect, you're in error.

Atheism has no beliefs, no rites, no sacred writings, nor any other thing which fundamentalism requires.

You might as well invent a charge of acableist fundamentalism for those who don't have cable TV and openly write and comment on the problems associated with and reasons to eschew cable TV.

[ralph m]

77. A movement built upon atheism has all it needs

to qualify as a fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism can be any movement that believes in strict adherence to a set of basic principles. When biologist Jerry Coyne labels Michael Shermer with the new swear word -- "Accommodationist," what is he trying to tell us? It seems obvious to me that Coyne is trying to intimidate Shermer, Chris Mooney, the NCSE's Eugenie Scott and others who dare to take the position that religion can be compatible with evolutionary theory. He views them the way that religious fundamentalists view moderate religionists who dare to join ecumenical talks or liberalize doctrine and religious traditions. The atheist fundamentalist movement is just as adamant about doctrine and purging moderates as the religious fundamentalist church is.

I was the target of a new swear word -- "Faitheist," for denying the dogma that everyone should be an atheist, and will be liberated and happy once they give up their false gods....sorry, but you can't apply the standard definition of atheism in a situation like this, where we have a movement built on scientism, and firm belief positions about what beliefs are natural, and what are delusional, with no allowance made for the subjective nature of how we understand the world. If someone says they believe in God because it "feels right," does that make them delusional? Does it even qualify as a compartmentalized belief?

I would also like to add that the most dangerous aspect of claiming that atheists cannot assume the negative qualities of fundamentalism, is that it immediately negates the possibility that new atheist movements can become dogmatic and intolerant of other people's beliefs.

[darkstar3]

78. Fundamentalism requires a set of dogmas or basic principles.

The only basic principle you seem to think these "fundamentalist atheists" share is that everyone must be an atheist. Fair enough, if you think that ALL of the people to whom you apply that label believe that, I can't disabuse you of that idea. I do, however, have a challenge for you:

Show me how the idea that everyone must be an atheist is spawned directly from atheism, and not from the simple dickish attitude of a man like Hitchens (who, atheist though he may be, is primarily a dick first).

[ralph m]

88. if theism is always evil, atheism is the only option permitted by these zealots

Well where does Hitchens get his dickish ideas from then? The core beliefs of the new, more aggressive atheist position advocated by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins is based on a claim that science has demonstrated that God is an unnecessary hypothesis; and that religion is a destructive social force.....not sometimes a bad force, always destructive! That sounds like they're leaving atheism as the only rational option to me.

The new atheist fans at newatheist.org have this statement of purpose at the top of the page:

Tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in modern society is not a virtue.
Religious fundamentalism has gone main stream and its toll on education, science, and social progress is disheartening.
Wake up people!! We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs.
It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.
http://newatheists.org/

[darkstar3]

89. Well bully for them,

but they don't get those ideas from atheism.

As has been stated by others in this thread and elsewhere, atheism is nothing more or less than the lack of belief in gods. It has no dogmas, no holy writs, nor anything else that requires people to follow certain rules. Lacking belief in something, anything, leads to nothing more than lack of belief in that thing. Hitchens and the "new atheists" are atheists, but they are also something more. In the case of Hitchens, he's an ass. In the case of the "new atheists", well, they're just angry and reactionary.

[ralph m]

91. Those angry, reactionary new atheists are the ones who are getting all of the attention.

It's the squeaky wheel getting the grease, so to speak. I know that atheism in itself is a statement of non-belief; my point is that there is a movement building up around the idea that everyone should also be atheist, and that all religious claims have to be treated as scientific claims. If there are atheist groups organizing under the banner of atheism, and establishing doctrinal claims, then atheists who don't share their vision have to speak up in opposition to them, and treat them in the same manner as religious fundamentalists.

[darkstar3]

92. So you know and admit that atheism

doesn't lead to what you're complaining about, but you still want to blame it on atheists. I see...

Now, to answer some specific items:
my point is that there is a movement building up around the idea that everyone should also be atheist, and that all religious claims have to be treated as scientific claims.
A couple of atheists who write a book or two does not equal a movement.

If there are atheist groups organizing under the banner of atheism,
There are, but every one of those groups that you can actually find on the internet, putting up billboards and such, appear to be interested only in creating a network of like-minded people. I have yet to see an "atheist organization" establishing doctrinal claims.

then atheists who don't share their vision have to speak up in opposition to them, and treat them in the same manner as religious fundamentalists.
And now we hit the crux of what you've been getting at. This entire post is nothing more than a veiled ad hom tu qoque: You are claiming that atheists are just as bad as any religious groups, and have their own fundamentalists, just so you can guarantee in your own mind that atheists have no moral high ground. Your argument is highly unoriginal.

[ralph m]

94. Antitheism is a belief position

Once again, it is a totally disingenuous argument to say that atheism just means a lack of belief, when the activists writing the books have specific claims about the harm caused by having religious beliefs, and that everyone can be and should be a naturalist. If atheism is adopted as a belief position, then it has all of the potential for dogmatism that religious beliefs develop.

[lazarus]

96. I'm an atheist

Tell me what I believe in because of that.

[ralph m]

98. you believe

that we live in a natural, physical world devoid of supernatural forces such as ghosts, souls, angels or an intelligent creator. You believe that minds are the result of brain function, and that once our brain dies, we have no immaterial mind to continue on after death. You believe that the scientific method and using reason and evidence are the only ways to establish an objective basis for understanding reality, and the truth claims of others.

[lazarus]

100. very good

now, what dogma do I believe in?

[rd_kent]

106. But THAT is not atheism.

Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.


What you describe is NOT atheism, it called REASON.

[lazarus]

109. you're right

it was late, and I had taken two Vicodin. I should have caught that.

[darkstar3]

104. Disingenuous?!

Funny you should use that word, when equating atheism with belief is about as disingenuous as you can get.

Atheism is not a belief position. It is simply defined as being "without gods". Anything else is just garnish added by the individual chef.

[rd_kent]

105. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system

Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

[ralph m]

121. Something has to fill the void!

I get a little tired of this "atheism only means disbelief in God b.s. when it should be plainly obvious that some set of beliefs have to be adopted or created to replace the void left by abandoning religious ethics and metaphysics. Obviously not all atheists are going to share beliefs in common or even agree on common strategies; but the tribal instinct that results in cliques being formed in religion, politics, sports or any other organization, also becomes part of atheist organizations. There are many different ways to replace the old religious thinking -- everything in between Marxism and Objectivism; but in the West, there seem to be two distinct ways of living as an atheist. One is to reserve condemnation of religion for situations where it can be clearly established that a religious belief or religious organization is causing harm, and be open to working with moderate progressive theists; and the other approach is to go all out on the offensive against religion and heap scorn on the moderates.

Your example of no one fighting or dying for atheism, shows the aggressive atheists aren't even willing to do a gut-check and question the negative possibilities that contempt for some people's deeply held beliefs could lead to. From what I've read of Richard Dawkins's notion of Meme replicators of cultural ideas (Viruses of the Mind in A Devil's Chaplain), he views religious beliefs as viruses of the mind. In theory, a tyrannical follower of Dawkins could take off from there and decide to treat the viral religious memes in the same way that biological viruses are treated -- eradicate them....which could include the hosts of those viral religion memes, depending on how zealous a fanatical leader would be willing to go in order to stamp out harmful memes.

[darkstar3]

124. Don't look now,

but you just busted out a version of the "God shaped hole" argument. void left by abandoning religious ethics...:wtf:

Your entire post is based on a false premise, and a very bad slippery slope, and I can't believe I wasted the time to read the whole thing.

[ralph m]

125. there you go, jumping to conclusions again!

I deliberately left the subject open of how to fill the gap left by abandoning religious metaphysics, tradition, ethics etc. because I wanted to see what sort of conclusions would be inserted into that space. You immediately assumed I was using the God-shaped-hole conclusion, which was no where in my post. The gap doesn't have to be filled by a supernatural entity giving orders, but unless you want to be a totally amoral nihilistic hedonist, you have to put something in the place that has been occupied by religion.

That's the whole point behind developing secular humanism, which is the general path that most atheists in the Western World will go to put a naturalistic worldview together. ONce you start adopting general principles to live by, then you can't hide behind the "atheism only means disbelief" alibi to escape criticism that is directed at atheist writers and bloggers that you seem to share many opinions with.

When the most doctrinaire secularists, like Jerry Coyne, try to disparage more moderate secular thinkers into declaring that religious beliefs must be incompatible with science (especially evolution), it is a clear indication that the most aggressive and uncompromising atheists consider atheism to be a movement; and they want to tell everyone else how atheists should deal with theists. So hiding behind the dictionary definition of atheism becomes a dodge when you spend your time criticizing religion and declaring that religious beliefs are irrational and must be abandoned. Then the question of whether atheists can cause great harm becomes one of how far antitheist atheists would go to eradicate harmful religion memes (from the previous example).

[darkstar3]

126. Oh FFS...The "gap" you refer to

is exactly what is meant by "God shaped hole." Your premise is false. Abandoning the dogmas and "ethics" (though I use the term loosely) of religion does not necessarily leave a gap, or a hole, or whatever you want to call it, and to claim that it does is a falsehood. I can't believe you're using the God shaped hole argument while denying the fact that you're using it.

[ralph m]

127. you still can't get it through your head that

filling the gap with a naturalistic understanding of the world and humanist ethics is not the God Shaped Hole.

I can only conclude that you have decided you know everything already, and don't want to examine your own conclusions, and that's why you want to spend all of your time knocking down straw men.

[darkstar3]

128. I'm saying the hole itself

is a falsehood. It doesn't exist. It doesn't need to be filled with anything. Claiming that there is a hole, regardless of what you fill it with, is the God shaped hole argument, and that is why I have named it as such.

[skepticscott]

130. Atheism is not secular humanism

Another fundamental point you don't grasp. One does not have to be an atheist to be a secular humanist, nor does one have to be a secular humanist if one is an atheist. Atheism is concerned with only one small slice of the whole pie of existence, and is NOT, in any way, shape or form, an overarching philosophy of living. Atheism (the lack of belief in gods) says nothing about how to treat people, nothing about morals, nothing about ethics, nothing about values, nothing about what foods to eat or where to shop, any more than lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy does. It's dolts like you that keep trying to make more of it than it is, because you think it makes it easier for you to smear it that way.

Once you start adopting general principles to live by, then you can't hide behind the "atheism only means disbelief" Those principles do NOT stem from atheism, so yes, we can still adhere to (we don't hide behind it) the conviction that atheism means only disbelief.

[ralph m]

133. most atheists are secular humanists

The whole point to secular humanism was to separate it from the religious humanism. Secular humanism rejects religious dogma and claims of transcendent ethical standards as a basis for humanist ethics. If there are religious secular humanists, maybe you could name me one! I never met any or heard of any.

Again, you think everyone else is stupid or something....like we've never heard of the definition of atheism before! When I joined this thread, I specifically identified my objections to the movement that coined the term "New Atheism," and wants an aggressive, uncompromising approach towards even the most liberal religious adherents. Seems there are a lot of atheists here who want to throw crap at the theists on board, but aren't prepared to defend their own positions.

[darkstar3]

136. Prove it.

While most secular humanists are self-identified atheists, I challenge you to even come close to proving your assertion that most atheists are secular humanists.

And remember this: being snarky only works in certain situations, and brother, this ain't one of 'em.

[skepticscott]

141. I don't think EVERYTHING is stupid

just most of the things you've posted here. Even if it were true that "most atheists are secular humanists", that doesn't invalidate the point that secular humanism and atheism aren't the same thing. And is there anything fundamentally impossible about someone believing in a higher power or supreme being, but not basing any of their day-to-day living, actions or personal philosophy on that fact? That's frankly not too far from the definition of a deist, of whom there have been many.

[skepticscott]

117. Until you understand

the fundamental different between atheism and anti-theism, you should probably avoid this debate, because it's a dead-bang loser for you.

[ralph m]

120. Don't play definition games with me!

The only one of the big four atheist writers who wears the antitheist label is Christopher Hitchens, yet the other three also believe that moderate theists are just enablers for the hardcore fundamentalists, and that parents shouldn't teach their religious beliefs to their children. So, whether they call themselves antitheist or not, the heaping condemnation of all forms of religion and liberal theists by the group generally known publicly as the "New Atheists" are antitheist in their approach, so there is no need to look for a different word to describe them. Any atheist who throws new pejorative terms like Faitheist or Accommodationist at other, less extreme atheists such as Chris Mooney, Michael Shermer, E.O. Wilson or Eugenie Scott for telling Christians they don't have to give up their religion to accept the Theory of Evolution, for example, are secular fundamentalists who seek to drive a wedge between any cooperation with the moderate people of faith.

[skepticscott]

122. Maybe after you've taken enough

of an intellectual beating here, you'll start to grasp the concept that words mean things, and that definition of terms is critical to an argument with any weight. Atheism and anti-theism are NOT the same thing, and all of your long-winded blathering won't change that. Sure, many atheists also have an anti-theist bent to their thinking, but not all. Your use of terms like "extreme atheist" or "fundamentalist atheist", and your attempts to pin attributes of an anti-theist philosophy to atheism betray your ignorance of even the most basic terms you try to argue about. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Period. It cannot be light, moderate or "extreme" any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. And if ignoramuses in the media choose to characterize Hitchens, Dawkins and others by the term "New Atheists", when they're really talking about their anti-theism, that's their problem (and apparently yours too).

If you want to call what those guys write extreme anti-theism, be my guest (though perhaps that isn’t a snappy enough phrase for you). But simple lack of belief in gods neither makes nor implies any negative judgment about those who do believe any more than belief in gods implies a negative judgment about those who don’t.

[ralph m]

123. Which was exactly my point!

What sort of intellectual beating can you dish out when you acknowledge the same point I already made: "Sure, many atheists also have an anti-theist bent to their thinking, but not all"

Did I say ALL? I think you know full well who we're referring to.

[skepticscott]

129. The real point

which your own admission proves, (but which you still apparently don't grasp) is that atheism and anti-theism are NOT the same thing. If they were, then every atheist would also be an anti-theist, and vice versa, but as you've just acknowledged, that's not the case.

Like I said, if you don't like someone's anti-theism and want to argue against their reasons for being anti-theist, have at it (though you should be prepared for a lot of smackdowns in this forum if this is all you have). But unless you're intellectually dishonest or just dense, you should stop trying to paint atheism with the same brush as anti-theism by applying inapplicable terms like "fundamentalist" and "extreme".

[ralph m]

134. I NEVER SAID ALL ATHEISTS WERE ANTITHEIST

But you can't get it through your head, can you? Don't play dumb, unless you really are stupid! When I joined this thread, I specifically identified my objections to the movement referred to as New Atheism, and identified with Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett. And as long as the followers of these people, and 2nd rung new atheists like PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne feel free to throw words like accomodationist and faitheist at everyone who wants to take a moderate approach in dealing with religion, then it's appropriate to call them fundamentalists and extremists.

[damyank913]

158. That's absurd.

I choose to believe that things I can touch or experience with my senses are real. I choose to believe that empiricism is a good way to establish what the truth is and what to believe. I burned myself when I touched the fire; I learned not to touch fire because of the welt my last experience gave me. This is a phenomenon that I can reproduce at any time. Now I believe that fire can burn. Is this a belief system? If it is, okay, then it is a superior one.

[Jim__]

160. "... empiricism ... Is this a belief system?" Yes.

As to its being "a superior one", superior to what? It is a belief system, and like any other belief system, it has its faults, as is well-documented in Two Dogmas of Empiricism. A brief excerpt:

Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact and truths which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism.

...


The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.

If this view is right, it is misleading to speak of the empirical content of an individual statement -- especially if it be a statement at all remote from the experiential periphery of the field. Furthermore it becomes folly to seek a boundary between synthetic statements, which hold contingently on experience, and analytic statements which hold come what may. Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system. Even a statement very close to the periphery can be held true in the face of recalcitrant experience by pleading hallucination or by amending certain statements of the kind called logical laws. Conversely, by the same token, no statement is immune to revision. Revision even of the logical law of the excluded middle has been proposed as a means of simplifying quantum mechanics; and what difference is there in principle between such a shift and the shift whereby Kepler superseded Ptolemy, or Einstein Newton, or Darwin Aristotle?

For vividness I have been speaking in terms of varying distances from a sensory periphery. Let me try now to clarify this notion without metaphor. Certain statements, though about physical objects and not sense experience, seem peculiarly germane to sense experience -- and in a selective way: some statements to some experiences, others to others. Such statements, especially germane to particular experiences, I picture as near the periphery. But in this relation of "germaneness" I envisage nothing more than a loose association reflecting the relative likelihood, in practice, of our choosing one statement rather than another for revision in the event of recalcitrant experience. For example, we can imagine recalcitrant experiences to which we would surely be inclined to accommodate our system by re-evaluating just the statement that there are brick houses on Elm Street, together with related statements on the same topic. We can imagine other recalcitrant experiences to which we would be inclined to accommodate our system by re-evaluating just the statement that there are no centaurs, along with kindred statements. A recalcitrant experience can, I have already urged, bc accommodated by any of various alternative re-evaluations in various alternative quarters of the total system; but, in the cases which we are now imagining, our natural tendency to disturb the total system as little as possible would lead us to focus our revisions upon these specific statements concerning brick houses or centaurs. These statements are felt, therefore, to have a sharper empirical reference than highly theoretical statements of physics or logic or ontology. The latter statements may be thought of as relatively centrally located within the total network, meaning merely that little preferential connection with any particular sense data obtrudes itself.

...

As to your example:

I burned myself when I touched the fire; I learned not to touch fire because of the welt my last experience gave me. This is a phenomenon that I can reproduce at any time. Now I believe that fire can burn.

There is nothing in this example that differentiates empiricism from any other serious philosophy. The propensity to pull our hand back and learn from the experience is hard-wired, even in baby chimps. No philosophy needs to teach this to us.

[damyank913]

161. Although I honestly found your essay very interesting ...

I believe you took my comments out of context.

[rd_kent]

162. You really should not post drunk. Its like driving drunk, dangerous and you regret it later

when you wake up and realize how idiotic you were.

[laconicsax]

79. You clearly don't understand what fundamentalism, doctrine, or dogma even mean.

Look them up, then get back to me.

It is astoundingly stupid to say, "the facts say that 2+2=4, but because bronze-age text says that 2+2=5, we should respect the beliefs of those who believe so and have an honest discussion about what should be taught in schools." Such is the accomodationist position.

Mooney, Shermer, and Scott all take the accomodationist position of kowtowing to religious pressure no matter how ridiculous it is. I have little respect for the accomodationist position because it promotes the idea that religious belief deserves to be handled with kid gloves--that saying, "the creation account in Genesis is not literally true" is a step too far because it doesn't respect the moronic sincere beliefs of those who feel otherwise.

As has been stated elsewhere, suppose the accomodationist method were applied to matters such as space travel as it is with evolution. A news program covering a new space station would invite someone from NASA or the ESA and for 'balance,' someone who believes that the sky is a carpet painted by God. They would briefly let the the person from NASA to talk about the space station, turn to the other person who would exclaim some nonsense like 'this is ridiculous, what are they going to do, hook it on to the carpet?' then have a short debate on the issue that only serves to legitimize the moron's position.

BTW: Faithiest isn't a swear word. It's a descriptive label for individuals, perhaps such as yourself, who have 'a belief in belief.' Theists believe in one or more gods, faithiests believe in faith.

[ralph m]

90. I would suggest you do your own looking up!

fundamentalism: Take a look at definition no.2 in Websters http://206.16.217.135/dictionary/fundamentalism
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>
and tell me that it couldn't just as easily apply to an uncompromising secular belief position as well as religious beliefs.

To start with, the 2+2=5 answer may be valid to the religious believer in a mythical sense, and not as a literal, historical fact; and that's why atheist fundamentalists have more respect for religious fundamentalists, than for the liberals or moderates who are trying to keep something of value in their religious traditions, while keeping in step with the latest scientific facts. Your analogy is comparing apples to oranges in other words. Here are a few ways that liberal believers in a personal deity may choose to view their concept of God in light of what we know from science:
Kenosis, the deliberate decision of God not to disturb the natural order.
Panentheism, which says God is both the world and more than the world.
Emergent Theology, God is evolving, just like the universe.
Personally, I could care less if these ideas are rationalizations. Why should I kill their buzz if they feel it's necessary to carry along a belief in a transcendent deity, while making sure that this belief does not stand in the way of furthering scientific knowledge? The new atheists who want to attack them as collaborators and accommodationist atheists for not mocking their beliefs, are just one more unyielding fundamentalist movement that feeds off of religious fundamentalism.

Do Mooney, Shermer and Eugenie Scott actually say that religious belief deserves to be handled with kid gloves? If so, I'd like to know where any of them have made these statements. What I do hear from moderate atheists is a view that religious adherents should be free to apply whatever spiritual or religious interpretations they choose, as long as they do not contradict scientific facts, or lead to harmful social policy positions on sex education, gay rights, abortion rights, environmental action etc. The truth is that there is no real need to deliberately try to alienate progressive religionists, except for the cause of ideological purity of belief....stamping out those harmful religious memes for example. I'm fine with believing that belief is okay for those who choose it, unless the atheist zealots can prove to me that belief in God is always harmful and that everyone is happier and fulfilled being a naturalist with no supernatural beliefs.

I have no idea what this stupid "faitheist" slur is supposed to prove, except that when you are a member of an atheist forum or networking hub, it will be applied to you as a disparaging label if you dare advocate solidarity with progressive religious adherents. If Dennett and Dawkins are so sure that belief is bad, they have the burden of proof to demonstrate the harm. What they point out are the crimes caused by fundamentalists, who just happen to share their view that religious claims have to also be scientific claims.

[laconicsax]

93. And we're back to my original comment.

You might as well invent a charge of acableist fundamentalism for those who don't have cable TV and openly write and comment on the problems associated with and reasons to eschew cable TV.

I must be a fundamentalist speller because I try to adhere to a literal interpretation of a basic set of principles concerning spelling.

Either way, there is no basic set of principles that atheists share. Atheists are defined by what they do not have--belief in gods. What's more, you have defined all theists as fundamentalist by the exact same reasoning. If atheists are fundamentalist by not literally believing in any gods, then theists are fundamentalists by literally believing in gods.

As to my 2+2=5 analogy, imagine if you will (this shouldn't be difficult) that people who believe that 2+2=5 have considerable societal influence and political power. Imagine that these same people continually challenge education standards that hold that 2+2=4 and publish textbooks with a disclaimer stating that there's a controversy over whether the sum of two and two results in four or five--that 2+2=4 is just a theory with no more support than 2+2=5. Imagine still that people who believe that 2+2=5 have a powerful lobbying base and frequently try to enact legislation that supports their viewpoint.

If this happened, would you not be a fundamentalist mathist for speaking out against this? For insisting that under no circumstances does 2+2=5? Or would you perhaps, say 'que sera, sera' and accuse those who do of alienating progressive 2+2=5ists who don't literally believe that 2+2=5 and whose support is needed to oppose the efforts of those who do?

I don't respect beliefs that assert fiction in place of reality, only the believer's right to believe it.

[ralph m]

95. some atheists think they've got it all figured out

Either way, there is no basic set of principles that atheists share

No kidding! And you provided an example to illustrate the point:

I don't respect beliefs that assert fiction in place of reality, only the believer's right to believe it.

You are limited in how much respect you can have for people if you consider their beliefs to be fictional. If some theist has adopted one of the modern interpretations of deity like the Emergent, evolving God, to resolve the Problem of Evil, there may not be an objective basis for proving that belief to others. But on the other hand, you don't have the evidence to refute the claim.

My atheism is based on the premise that I don't see the value of making that proposition in the first place. But, I also recognize that all beliefs (even overly self-confident new atheists) are given emotional markers. Even rationalists who think they are basing all of their belief on reason, are just as prone to develop emotional attachment to certain beliefs, and stubbornly resist changing them. If this wasn't the case, more people would be more willing to change their minds than they are actually willing to do.

If this happened, would you not be a fundamentalist mathist for speaking out against this? For insisting that under no circumstances does 2+2=5? Or would you perhaps, say 'que sera, sera' and accuse those who do of alienating progressive 2+2=5ists who don't literally believe that 2+2=5 and whose support is needed to oppose the efforts of those who do?

There is no 2+2=5 argument in my examples, because the only ones who making factual, scientific claims from religion are the fundamentalists. The people who find subjective value in their religious beliefs are not making a fact claim or asking for textbooks to be changed to acknowledge it. Not all beliefs are scientific claims, and that is why Dawkins can only relate to the fundamentalists.

[lazarus]

97. believing that a god created the universe

is a factual scientific claim. Or is there some hidden flavour of Christian that doesn't believe god created the universe?

[ralph m]

99. not necessarily!

It is not a scientific claim if the believer claims to derive this truth from some mystical inner state of awareness that is not accessible to them through normal cognitive thinking. Besides that, a simple belief that the universe has a creator may not lead to any claims that it would look different than it would through a natural process. That's the whole genius of the concept that God is evolving too.

My question is why is it so important to some atheists to argue the point to begin with?

[lazarus]

101. because theists have beliefs

that are unscientific, and unscientific thought processes lead to major problems in society. You know, things like taking civil rights away from the gays because god hates them, that sort of thing.

And then there are the states that are dropping evolution from textbooks, or diluting it past recognition. How are those kids going to handle college biology courses? And there's a whole raft of "history" books that bear only a passing resemblance to actual history; it's all told through a fundamentalist Christian lens. Labor gets short shrift, liberalism is always portrayed as evil, etc. These books are being sold to home schoolers, and eventually will make their way into public/private school systems as the Fundies take over school boards across the country.

Stripping away a woman's right to choose because of some bullshit interpretation of the Bible is another one. I could go on for quite a while.

FWIW, I don't just go after Christians. I also have little use for believers in various forms of woo. Astrology, homeopathy, that sort of thing. It's all magical thinking that ends up hurting our society in the long run (sometimes the short run). The difference is the Powers That Be at DU caved to the wooers demands to have a private place all their own. The Meeting Room used to be like R/T, only for skeptics and woo. But it went away. So the only place to fight against magical thinking is R/T. And I guess the Health forum. When I have time I'll wade in there and take on the anti-vaxxers who seem to not realize that mumps can make a major comeback, and has in some areas.

[ralph m]

102. you start off by lumping all theists together in one group,

which is an obvious mistake to begin with, since there are so many different interpretations and understandings of how to incorporate the "divine" into their lives. There were many theologians who rejected the prevailing fundamentalist interpretations taken from the Bible, that homosexuality is caused by sin, and that a truly repentent homosexual could pray their way to normalcy, right from the beginning. It would have been a dangerous opinion to hold back in the days when sodomy laws were capital crimes, but the voices of reason grew louder over the decades, especially when increasing knowledge of human and animal behaviour revealed how complicated sexual orientation is for everyone. As with other issues like slavery and women's rights, which collided with literal biblical interpretations; when the majority see change is needed, they start looking for a fix, regardless of whether it can be justified by biblical literalism.

Anyway, theists who are not fundamentalists, do not shut off outside knowledge and try to live in the past; and I suspect that most believers fall naturally into that category. If anything fuels fundamentalism, it is fear and uncertainty. Some people who become afraid of what's happening in the world, are more likely to be drawn towards fundamentalism which gives loud, confident answers to their questions. Encouraging moderation in these troubled times is not going to be an easy task; but the first step is to try to understand how people who feel a strong need to believe that we live in a purposeful universe can keep that basic outlook, while remaining progressive on scientific and social issues.

Like it or not, the humanist vision does not provide comfort for a lot of people who are familiar with it, and they may very well be the majority. Humanism works for those of us who are not troubled by the apparent evidence that the universe cares nothing about our solar system and its planets; including this one that is teeming with life. Some people just cannot accept that, and want something more than humanist philosophy and science to guide their lives.

Same with "Aweism" as some of Dawkins's fans are calling it -- the view originally drawn from Carl Sagan, that we can find deep meaning and a sense of spirituality from our growing understanding of the universe, and the promise of future travel to distant parts of the Galaxy and beyond. Even many of us who enjoy watching the latest discoveries from astrophysics and cosmology recognize that this is a logical absurdity now that we know that the Universe is flying apart at an accelerating rate, and our distant future descendents will be cut off from discovering the whole universe even if they have billions of years to do it. The future of the universe is to go cold and dark as galaxies become cut off from each other and the skies go dark. Even if the definition of Aweism is expanded to include learning all of the biological details about life, and other scientific questions, in the end, Aweism becomes finding purpose in learning that the universe doesn't have purpose! Sagan, who I don't believe lived long enough to find out about the increasing acceleration of the universe, nevertheless did not take the fundamentalist position of people like Dawkins, who seem to think that this sort of contradictory spirituality will give meaning to people who want to believe in a universe with a purpose, and that it includes us.

On another note, maybe I don't spend enough time navigating around DU because I don't know where the "Meeting Room" is! Regardless, I am a little familiar with people who are on the new age fringe and have become post-modern skeptics of the scientific method -- that is one of the problems that an open church like the Unitarian/Universalists have -- there are likely many people there with new age spiritual notions, and I hope none of them are refusing to vaccinate their kids or taking dangerous natural health remedies. This is another example of why painting with a broad brush is a harmful pursuit. The post-modernists are progressive on most social issues, but can cause harm by allowing their hostility of the pharmaceutical industry to uncritically accept the unfounded claims of natural health scam artists......last I heard, Jenny McCarthy is still preaching that vaccinations cause autism, in spite of all of the evidence piling up against her. It's another example of why these battles have to be fought separately, and better understanding of how people understand their spiritual beliefs is needed to determine if or when they can lead to trouble. Until then a blanket condemnation of every form of supernatural beliefs is the wrong thing to do, since it will just alienate moderates, and push some of them towards fundamentalist religion as the only option against strict materialism.

[lazarus]

110. So which ones should I choose?

which magical beliefs should I say are fine and which aren't? I simply hold that magical thinking is dangerous.

And cruise around some of the recent threads in R/T to see why you shouldn't apply "fundamentalist" to an atheist.

The Meeting Room was on the old DU. It is no more.

[laconicsax]

103. Disproving claims isn't my job.

Someone who makes a claim should be able to provide evidence to back it up. Someone claims that a god exists had better have some way to back it up with more than an anecdote about a dream they had or a dodge about how science doesn't know everything. It isn't my responsibility to attempt to prove a negative.

If some theist has adopted one of the modern interpretations of deity like the Emergent, evolving God, to resolve the Problem of Evil, and can't demonstrate any way that their belief has any basis in reality, then there's no reason why I shouldn't lump their belief in with other fictions like the Easter Bunny or leprechauns. They're making guesses about other guesses--someone guesses that a deity exists, and someone else guesses about the nature of that deity while assuming the previous guess to be correct.

I think the key concept that you're missing is that while there's no value in making such a preposition, people do it all the time and very influential and powerful groups make it a point to elevate their guesses about reality to public policy. That makes it more than just their business.

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with Sam Harris' concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness:

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can’t be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin’s Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren’t sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

link

Atheists such as yourself, stand at an the outermost circle, not sharing the myriad of crazy beliefs but having instead a 'belief in belief:' a belief in faith or faithiesm.

[rd_kent]

107. And that means he is NOT an atheist.

I actually think you are arguing with a sock puppet, like Jim__, or Sal, or humblebum.

The verbiage is very similar and the arguments are nearly the same.

[laconicsax]

113. Can't blame people for trying to try to live up to an ideal.

And since "God" is a sockpuppet, engaging in sockpuppetry is a true expression of faith.

That said, I don't think we're seeing a sockpuppet at work--theist and faithiest arguments are just the same old recycled tripe and should be expected to be echoed by different people. The only hope is that some minds can be changed.

[ralph m]

114. why should they have to prove their claim to you?

Remember, a faith-based claim is not necessarily offered up as an objective fact that others must believe in. Once again, you're talking about fundamentalists. If someone believes in an emergent god, but recognizes it as a personal interpretation; there is no demand that you have to believe it also. But, it appears that you can't even allow that much.

They're making guesses that a deity exists, but unless Dawkins was lying so that he could also be called an agnostic, he declared that he personally ranked as a 6 on his own 7 level atheism to theism scale. Any atheist who is not positive enough to call himself a 7, and declare that there is no chance for this type of creator to exist, can only say that the intelligent creator is unlikely, not impossible to exist. And again, the emergent god concept is not something that would be used by fundamentalists, so bringing the 'threat to public policy' argument in again, is a red herring.

Speaking of red herrings, I think Harris stole that idea from Jihadwatch's Robert Spencer, who has used a similar argument since 9/11, to maintain that Muslim moderates are fringe players with the hardline Islamists always at the center. The only difference was that Spencer's metaphor is groups of people circled around a campfire.

Regardless, let's assume Harris actually has a point here other than to attack moderates from the atheist flank. Just because extremist Muslims and Christians are in the middle in this example, does that give us any evidence to show that moderates enable the fundamentalists, or that their desire to maintain their religion and be part of the modern world is a sign of weakness?

How about switching the concentric circles to a different subject to see if it would still make any sense:
Since Sam Harris believes that religion is evil and must be eliminated, he and his fans could stand at the center.
Around them are atheists who agree that religion is evil, but consider a campaign against religion to be futile.
And then, there are atheists who don't believe that religion is necessarily evil, followed by atheists who claim belief in God is good, and wish they could actually share it....and so on. Are atheist moderates enablers for atheist fundamentalists who want enmity with theists? Am I sheltering Sam Harris, even if I speak out against his interpretations? Are religious moderates who speak out against fundamentalism also enablers for the Dominionists and other fundamentalists?

Atheists such as yourself, stand at an the outermost circle, not sharing the myriad of crazy beliefs but having instead a 'belief in belief:' a belief in faith or faithiesm.

Did I say I believe in belief? All I said is that the people who hold these beliefs should be respected until evidence is provided that their beliefs are really causing harm. Once again, the Faitheism charge gets tossed up so that people advocating moderation and tolerance can be attacked by those who only understand fundamentalism.

[laconicsax]

115. I think you misunderstand my position.

I respect the rights of people to believe whatever they want. Beliefs have to earn my respect.

Astrologers have every right to believe that the position of the stars on the day your were born affects personality and directs your future. Those beliefs aren't worthy of my respect because they're nonsense.

Scientologists have every right to believe that Lord Xenu killed millions in volcanoes with nuclear weapons. Those beliefs aren't worthy of my respect becaues they're nonsense.

Muslims have every right to believe that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. Those beliefs aren't worthy of my respect because they're nonsense.

Christians have every right to believe that Jesus is both the son of God and born of a virgin. Those beliefs aren't worthy of my respect because they're nonsense.

Jews have every right to believe that they are God's chosen people. Those beliefs aren't worthy of my respect because they're nonsense.

In fact, all beliefs predicated on the existence of an unproven, unsuggested, supernatural force or entity aren't worthy of my respect because they're based in what is most likely fiction. Bollocks to whatever emotional baggage said beliefs may carry. A lot of people get very emotionally invested in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. If someone starts claiming that they're a descendant of George and Lydia Wickham, I'll call bullshit on their nonsense beliefs as well.

Life is far too short to waste time treating fiction as though it were true.

-Imagine what could be accomplished if an institution with the wealth and prestige of the Vatican dedicated itself to something other than promoting the fictions of a 2000 year-old death cult.
-Imagine what could be accomplished to end suffering in the world if people didn't believe that well-wishing is an acceptable substitute for action.
-Imagine how many people could, right now, be spared the self-inflicted suffering and agony of easily cured diseases and conditions by setting aside their belief that the Celestial Sockpuppet will cure them if they think about it hard enough.
-Imagine how many people would feel compelled do something to help the impoverished if they didn't think that such suffering might serve a greater purpose.
-Imagine what might be done about global climate change if an influential group of people didn't think that such worldly concerns are unimportant--that the world will end soon anyway.
-Imagine what would change if people didn't feel it their sacred duty to promote abstinence and discourage family planning and contraception in countries where AIDS is a major cause of mortality.

Need I continue?

If you want to pussyfoot around the issue and say that people are very emotionally beholden to certain ideas so we should do our best to avoid disturbing the serene fantasy world they've constructed for themselves, go right ahead. It's your right to believe that someone's beliefs in complete and utter fiction are inherently benign.

[damyank913]

71. I prefer to blame the Earthquake Tsar.

[Deep13]

164. Thanks for the condescending, dismissive attitude.

The question of theodicy is ancient and unresolved. And having what you call a complex or mature understanding of god does not get you past basic objections to it. Those purporting to believe in the Abrahamic god claim he is omnipotent and loving. That means he could have prevented the disaster and in fact all disasters. He did not. Why not? I've heard all the standard responses and they are all a priori and, therefore, logically invalid.

[Jim__]

165. "a priori" arguments are logically invalid?

I don't think so - from wikipedia:

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried');

...

Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."

[Deep13]

166. They don't prove anything without an independent basis...

...for the prior condition. In theistic responses to theodicy they end up relying on false or unproved prior conditions that often become circular.

Look at the Wiki example. The definition of a bachelor is an unmarried man. It is easily demonstrated that there are unmarried men in existence. So it really doesn't pass the from-ones-couch test because it depends on outside information that one acquired before flopping onto the sofa. All rabbits are animals. This relies on outside information that demonstates that rabbits are a variety of animal. That all rabbits are made of brass is a similar claim except that independent information plainly contradicts it.

[Jim__]

167. No. "a priori" knowledge is knowledge that is independent of expreience.

It is only dependent upon language. A priori knowledge is accepted as true. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori.

[madrchsod]

33. well i guess you could say this is mother earth`s deal....

[jgraz]

34. Which is why I've never understood the claim that religion is some sort of comfort to the believers.

To atheists, there is no all-powerful being deciding to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people. No sadistic asshole to give my friend brain cancer. It's all just random -- which is the most comforting thought I can imagine.

[gharlane]

37. Strawman much?

To atheists, there is no all-powerful being deciding to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people. No sadistic asshole to give my friend brain cancer.

Oddly enough, to Buddhists, there is also no all-powerful being deciding to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people. Somehow, though, that fact doesn't make everything "random".

Pagans (who are religious, and do believe in deity) also have little use for this idea. And many Jews, Christians and Muslims whose understanding of the nature of reality and "deity" goes beyond second-grade Sunday school lessons, also don't buy this distorted simplistic version of reality which is nothing more than a crutch for fundamentalists who don't want to think and a strawman for fundamentalist atheists who have nothing better to do than take potshots at people who see more to reality than a bunch of random electro-chemical reactions.

[jgraz]

40. "people who see more to reality than a bunch of random electro-chemical reactions"

Um... you were complaining about straw men? Respectfully suggest you develop at least a high-school understanding of basic science.

And while we're on the subject, do you really think a large majority of religious people do NOT believe in a supreme being? That, if pressed, they would say that their version of God could have done *nothing* to prevent the Haiti earthquake? I don't think so.

If you believe in a personal God, you believe that someone hears your prayers and makes decisions about events on Earth. To pretend this is not a very common religious view is to deny reality.

[gharlane]

45. What color is your herring?

Respectfully suggest you develop at least a high-school understanding of basic science.

Um.... general chemistry, organic chemistry, general biology, UC Berkeley, 1981-83. I admit it has been (ahem) a while and I'm not currently in the natural sciences, although I got a halfway decent undergrad-level background back in the day. But my understanding of basic science, or lack thereof, is not at issue, although your try at a red herring was kind of cute (if ultimately a failure). What's at issue is people's conceptions of reality, including possibly their view on what science is (and possibly not).

But really, don't be so coy. What, then, is your version of reality, if my description of what you believe is such an egregious straw man?

As for the rest of it... How "common" the religious views you describe (sadistic asshole supreme beings, etc. etc.) are is a matter for debate. Certainly some 300 million Buddhists have no use within their tradition for any sort of a supreme being, much less the kind you describe. Classical Rabbinic thought as far back as Talmudic times (like, 1800 years ago) eschewed the idea that God intervenes directly in large-scale natural events such as the "parting of the Red Sea", save for a very small number of events, which those rabbis enumerated, and which had all already occurred, and which don't happen to include the Haitian earthquake. The beliefs you describe are certainly common among simplistic fundamentalists, and that's the only kind of religious thought that fundamentalist atheists like to "debate", because it's much easier for them that way. And it's glaringly clear that that was the type of religious thought to which you referred in your comment ("an all-powerful being deciding to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people ... sadistic asshole brain cancer"). So no, to many religious people who have progressed beyond their simplistic second-grade Sunday school indoctrination, and who don't buy in to silly caricatures of their beliefs pushed by atheist fundamentalists, God (or whatever you want to call It, Him or Her) is not Santa Claus, sitting up in the sky with long lists of the Naughty and Nice, deciding whom to kill and whom to let live, whose prayers to answer and whose to laugh at. I've never denied that there are large numbers of people who believe that, but that, once again, is beside the point (what color was your herring this time?). Where your line of "reasoning" fails is that it fails to acknowledge that large numbers of religious people don't buy that version of what "God" is. But don't let facts like that get in the way of your "argument".

[jgraz]

46. Degrees aren't impressive if you don't understand basic concepts.

Characterizing certain events as random is one thing, but painting our reality as "random electro-chemical reactions" is a straw man used specifically by creationists who lack a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. I find it surprising that someone who has studied biology would resort to this argument.

The same goes for your understanding of religion. I wasn't saying that people believed their god *would* intervene. But very few would argue that their god was *incapable* of intervention should he so choose. Point to one theistic religion that worships a weak god, a god of strictly limited powers. You can't.

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe their god has the power to create and destroy worlds. Being the first cause, he is the ultimate cause of all death and destruction, even if he chooses not to micro-manage. So, while he may not have decided to directly kill hundreds of thousands of people, he certainly sat idly by while they died.

[gharlane]

61. Redder and redder, apparently.

Degrees aren't impressive if you don't understand basic concepts.

I shouldn't have chased after that red herring of yours. My bad. Of course, I never claimed a degree isn't in the natural sciences -- I had some coursework in high school and university, nothing more. That's what I meant by a "halfway-decent undergrad-level background back in the day". Reading comprehension is apparently not your strongest suit, however.

Characterizing certain events as random is one thing, but painting our reality as "random electro-chemical reactions" is a straw man used specifically by creationists who lack a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. I find it surprising that someone who has studied biology would resort to this argument.

I have no use for creationist nonsense, which is nothing but more strawmanship on your part. Your attempt to make this about whether or not I understand basic scientific concepts is as laughable as your attempt to paint me as a creationist. I don't believe some cosmic Santa Claus created the universe in six days. Evolution through natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin and as currently refined and understood among present-day biologists makes perfect sense to me, and the Biblical account of the origins of species makes no sense at all. (Clue: There actually are religious people who aren't creationists, or who believe "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science courses. Their numbers are not small; and they are not a tiny fringe of religious people awash in a sea of Pat Robertson followers, despite your attempts to paint all religious folk as such.)

If it's the term "random" you object to, then I'll gladly withdraw it. It's not important to the argument. Do you prefer "non-random electro-chemical reactions"? Would you like me to extend it to nuclear reactions as well? Quantum mechanics? String theory? It doesn't really matter. Your problem (perhaps it's not a problem but a "strategery") is that you refuse to define what you mean by your terms, including your concepts of the basis of reality, human and non-human consciousness, etc. Just as you've neglected to point out exactly what basic scientific concepts I supposedly don't understand.

But again, you are dragging a red herring all over the thread, and likely on purpose. I AM NOT TRYING TO DESCRIBE REALITY AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE MODERN NATURAL SCIENCES, despite your repeated attempts to mischaracterize my posts as doing so. When I refer to "people who see {no} more to reality than a bunch of random electro-chemical reactions" I am not referring to scientists (who are atheist, theist, Buddhist, Deist, agnostic, Pagan, and other things), BUT TO FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISTS, like yourself, apparently. I don't know why you can't grasp that. I suspect you simply don't want to because it upsets your tidy worldview in which all religion is a childish superstition based on the Cosmic Santa Claus, the "all-powerful being deciding to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people."

The same goes for your understanding of religion. I wasn't saying that people believed their god *would* intervene. But very few would argue that their god was *incapable* of intervention should he so choose. Point to one theistic religion that worships a weak god, a god of strictly limited powers. You can't.

You weren't saying that people believe their god would intervene? Really? Then why the fuck did you write about an "all-powerful being deciding to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people"? Those are YOUR WORDS, not mine. If that isn't an interventionist God, then I don't know what is. Of course, you've also decided to move the goalposts, so that now a deity who "decides not to micromanage" is guilty of "sit{ting} idly by while {hundreds of thousands of people} died."

You've chosen to ignore my specific details about various religions and how they deal with the idea of a God who creates or prevents earthquakes (or brain cancer, for that matter). It's not my "understanding" of religion that's lacking; it's yours. I have NEVER DENIED that SOME religious people believe your tortured caricature. You consistently deny that other religious people have a more nuanced or sophisticated system of belief. And it's now obvious that no amount of quotation or paraphrase from mainstream religion, such as straight-down-the-middle rabbinic Judaism, will change that.

But I suppose I'll try once more, futile though the attempt may be. Here's but one example. Discussing the Exodus narrative, Rabbi Carole Balin (Professor of Jewish History, Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion) writes:

The story is fantastic in every sense of the term: fanciful, remarkable, unreal, and superb.... ... {T}]he popularity of the Exodus {narrative} is baffling. One might imagine that its lack of historical veracity would knock it off its pedestal. After all, biblical scholars ... inform us that few of the book's details can be substantiated by cold, hard facts. ... Besides the fact that the Torah texts do not agree with one another on the length of Israelite enslavement in Egypt, these numbers do not add up against the evidence of extra-biblical sources. ... , ancient records demonstrate that Egypt controlled Canaan in 12446 {BCE}, a fact that makes an escape from Egypt to Canaan at that time rather unlikely. .... The biblical claim if 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37), which including their families would total nearly 2 million people, is hyperbolic at best. Plus, many of the sites appearing in the detailed itinerary of the Israelites' route from Egypt to Canaan (see Numbers 33) cannot be verified. ... From my perspective as a professor of Jewish history and a Reform rabbi, dismissing the story because it conflicts with historical data misses the point. ... {The Torah} is not intended to be a history book ... Instead, the Torah is a knitting together of narratives composed to cultivate a particular spiritual and moral point of view. So when God parts the Reed Sea, I can no more expect myself to nod in faithful assent like an open-mouthed child than when reading a book like Harry Potter. As a non-literalist, non-fundamentalist, liberal and committed Jew, I ascertain the message behind the medium. ... To my students' question, "But is it true?" I respond, "Yes!" and "No!"

-- in Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Rabbi Andrea Weiss, eds., The Torah: A Women's Commentary (New York: URJ Press 2008), pp. 326-27.

Now that represents but one example of an understanding of sacred text, and of the powers of deity, that's just a wee bit more nuanced than your second-grade caricature. One doesn't treat sacred text as literal truth, including the descriptions therein of the all-powerful being you love to hold up as your personal piñata. But I guess Rabbi Balin has no understanding of religion either. Only you do.

In short, you apparently insist on hanging on to a tortured, cramped, literalist caricature of what religious people believe (once again, YOUR WORDS: an "all-powerful being deciding to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people. ... {a} sadistic asshole {who gives people} brain cancer"), based on anthropomorphized, second-grade understandings of literal interpretations of sacred literature. The only concept of a deity you will allow to exist is the Cosmic Santa Claus. You keep doing that because it's all you have a prayer (you should excuse the expression) of "arguing against". It is you, not me, who is arguing that sacred literature is incompatible with science or history, and that God is a Cosmic Santa Claus. That is of course what Pat Robertson and Rick Warren argue. Reasonable religious people don't. I'll go with people like Rabbi Balin, or Albert Einstein, who was quite respectful of religion but eschewed your idea of a personal Cosmic Santa Claus God. In his essay "Science and Religion" he wrote, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

[Deep13]

168. You are treading close to the sin of pride.

You are accusing others of ignorance while you yourself demonstrate a very limited understanding of the subject. You raise the same strawman argument about critics that you claim they raise about you.

Your assertion that atheists think that you believe in a simplistic god is a dodge and an effort to conceal the fact that what you actually believe in is has no greater validity. The fine points of your theology cannot overcome the fundamental objections raised by theodicy. If god is unable to prevent disasters, especially ones that really are acts of nature, then in what way is he god? If he is unwilling--and that includes claims of not understanding his grand plan--then in what way is he good? What divine plan can justify the mass suffering it caused in those who did not agree to be part of the plan and who now have no chance in benefiting from it.

You have no basis in fact to proclaim yourself above this kind of argument or to claim some kind of superior knowledge. Nothing you think you know about god has any factual basis behind it. However nuanced it is, religious faith remains a gigantic circular argument.

[damyank913]

72. I call it the sharp stick in the eye belief system...

(fill in this blank) is better than a sharp stick in the eye. Or biblically put: but for the grace of god, there go I...

[Laura902]

36. We humans just made up

god to comfort us and answer questions that ancient peoples could not answer that we have only begun to barely understand now. Pray for the people in the world that are suffering if you believe in that, donate or team up with people to help others. just don't tell me that god decided long ago to put humans here on earth, then watch each and everyone of them die but only keep some of their souls with him and others in eternal suffering BECAUSE HE LOVES EVERYONE EQUALLY-ugh

[Odin2005]

43. Shit like this is why I CAN'T believe in a God.

[donheld]

47. "To destroy those with so little,"

While leaving Dick Cheney untouched. I don't get it.

[RagAss]

48. Bring me this God you speak of.

[raccoon]

49. God didn't sent the earthquake, that was an act of nature. nt

[jgraz]

57. And who controls nature, according to most Western theologies?

Are you saying that the God that most Westerners believe in is incapable of stopping an earthquake?

[raccoon]

62. Well, Harold Kushner says not (and I agree.) If you haven't read the book

WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE (by Harold Kushner), I recommend it. It helped me to clarify my thoughts about a lot of things.

[rd_kent]

112. I have, and it seems like mental maturbation and an excuse as to why god, who is all powerful

is sometimes powerless.......

[laconicsax]

116. Logical contradictions are the inherent result of omnipotence.

An omnipotent being should be able to create a situation it is unable to prevent. If not, it wouldn't be omnipotent.

[demosincebirth]

119. You make sense to me. nt

[dcsmart]

53. stop blathering about god and donate some money or volunteer

with the relief effort.

[darkstar3]

55. Again, what makes you think the OP hasn't donated?

We all have every right to "blather about god" whether or not we donate to help the Haitians, but aside from that, what's to stop anyone from doing both?

[laconicsax]

60. Isn't it obvious?

Anyone who points out the stark contradiction between a terrible tragedy like this and the existence of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent deity must only sit at home hoarding their Nazi gold and would certainly never donate time or money to a relief effort.

[Midwest_Doc]

63. "The lord works in mysterious ways"

Isn't that what you are supposed to say at times like this?

[laconicsax]

64. Either that or, "God has a plan."

[rd_kent]

67. .

[DeadEyeDyck]

76. But George Benard Shaw

was will to exterminate hundreds of thousands of "lower classes" to spruce up society. You have to be careful with revisionism. Even Sanger wanted to do away with the dark-skinned lots as did Che. Everything must be understood in its context. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

[Divine Discontent]

80. it was a horrible event in history. we are all going to die in this life. I believe we all have a

soul that has feelings that others cannot see or understand, except God.

Godly people, too, hurt when they see this suffering. This life is one to show sacrifice, and love no matter what. Only God knows why this life that we have has to be this way (seeing our loved ones die eventually, and us to them, disasters, pain, heartbreak).

You chose to post here, to voice your opinion that there is no god, or that God is a cruel being. It is your right to feel that way, and I will simply say, take it to the being above us all and ask for understanding. We are all tested in this life...

God bless the suffering who are still alive, for we ALL know what it's like to see a loved one die, and we think, why God?



Blessed are the merciful *Matthew 5 : 7

[darkstar3]

81. Oh really?

for we ALL know what it's like to see a loved one die, and we think, why God?
Do you ever get an answer? More to the point, do you ever ponder what the answer might be? I'd be curious to see what your thoughts have been, and whether you consider those possible answers acceptable.

[Divine Discontent]

82. I consider them very acceptable. That I and every single living animal around me is here for but a

blink of an eye, in reality to the millions of years the galaxies have been formed. We are all here for a short time to learn, to grow, to love and allow ourselves to be loved.

It is truly nice to know that no matter how messed up things are, I feel great solace in my spirit that it will all work out to glorify God. I count it all joy. Maybe not the very moment I lose a loved friend or family member, but the time I shared with them is appreciated. We are born innocent, and I choose to go to my grave innocent by acknowledging I will never understand everything I need to in the short time I have. We all have a journey. May yours be blessed with more joy than pain.

[darkstar3]

83. I hate to say this,

because "you seem a decent fellow," But I find the crux of what you said sits very wrongly with me...

The phrase it will all work out to glorify God is monstrous. To simplify a long and wandering rant on the subject into a few statements that will hopefully make more sense:

To claim that everything will eventually glorify God is to admit that somehow God either allowed or caused horrific things to happen so that those who survive will worship him more. Monstrous is the only adjective that I can think of to describe that type of action, and when you factor in that many of those killed in such tragedies may have been condemned to eternal hellfire (depending on who you ask), monstrous doesn't come close to describing the horror.

[Divine Discontent]

84. life is what it is - a short existence for each of us. We all face pain & suffering, we all know

someone, if we live long enough, who died tragically, or several people who died tragically, those who suffer great pains from disease, etc. This is not a new discussion we're having. It's been the essence of kind men and women for centuries. I am not all knowing of existence and creation. I believe it is doubtful that as complex as the galaxies are, our brains and bodies are, and how amazing or beautiful some things can truly be, such as a peaceful night on a lake watching the sun set over the horizon, or listening to a baby kitten purr as it is held by a human, that there isn't a rhyme or reason to 'it' all.

When there is tragedy, people persevere if they live through it, and that is how humanity has survived all these thousands of years. I don't discount how horrific the violent/tragic events that have happened over the millenia are, I simply say that I realize we're here for a very short time, and we all contribute in our own way to choosing to show love to others or not.

[darkstar3]

85. Some of what you say is true,

however it has nothing to do with what I've said.

Yes, we are discussing "the problem of evil," which essentially leads to the question of whether or not God actually exists, so I guess I can see why you broke out the "argument from design." That said, however, you're wandering off on a different topic. You say here that you think there's a "reason to 'it' all." You said earlier that you think that everything will work out to the glory of God. Don't both of these statements necessitate the idea that God either allows or causes evil?

[Divine Discontent]

86. Okay, my take.

I believe, no matter how simplistic it is, as many things that are amazing can be just that, both good and evil exist in the dimensions that surround us. We cannot see everything, only what our brains allow. I believe that for whatever the reason, evil has been permitted power, and in conjunction with the belief that I believe the higher power that created our existence wants to surround itself with those who truly try to love their neighbor, even if there is nothing in it for them, and who suffers through pain & misery and still glorifies God and shows evil that one doesn't need to have great strength or riches to be of great value to God.

Job suffered greatly, and he possibly was angry at God in his heart but never cursed at God. He surely is greatly loved by God if his story is as accurate as written.

Regardless of what we believe, there still is the fact, looking at just actions, there are some people who enjoy hurting or killing others, and others who would risk hurting themselves to save others. I do not know why there is good and evil. I wish I could explain it with brevity and fact. But, there is good and evil. The explanation of which is the great mystery, regardless, and certainly very entertaining to fathom.

[darkstar3]

87. Job?

One of the worst books in the bible. You say that Job surely is greatly loved by God if his story is as accurate as written. I disagree. The story shows that God, at least the one of the Bible, will go to any murderous and disgusting lengths to prove a point and to bring glory to himself.

[humblebum]

138. It seems that Job accepted God as He is/was, and not as he thought

he should be. As a believer, I think that too often people tend to think that if God doesn't match their ideas of what or how he should be - then he either doesn't exist or he is a bad god. Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." That statement pretty much gives an indication as to how Job probably understood God to be. No one is under any compulsion to believe or accept these things (except by overbearing humans)and in fact Scripture does tell us that we need to seek him in order to find him.

[darkstar3]

139. Where to start....

I think that too often people tend to think that if God doesn't match their ideas of what or how he should be - then he either doesn't exist or he is a bad god.
This isn't about MY idea of God. Rather, it is about the generally accepted view that God is good, personally involved, and loves his creations. The story of Job seems very strongly to contradict at least one of those aspects, chiefly the "love" one. If God loves us, then why would he cause us to suffer such horrible losses. And don't break out the parental analogy either, because it just doesn't track when you bring in the concepts of death and eternity.

On your Bible quote: If we're going by the Bible, then we were made in God's image. Our morality, our understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, come from God. Now while you can argue that it is impossible for us to see the whole picture like God supposedly can, death and suffering are universally accepted as negative concepts, and causing them is generally accepted as an immoral act or "bad thing".

No one is under any compulsion to believe or accept these things (except by overbearing humans)
Au contraire! You see, the Bible makes quite clear that hell is real and filled with those who are unworthy of the kingdom of heaven. To BE worthy, one must accept Jesus as "the way, the truth, and the light." For "no man cometh before the father except through me." Ergo, we ARE under a compulsion to believe these things, that of eternal suffering and torment.

Scripture does tell us that we need to seek him in order to find him.
Are you perhaps familiar with the phrase "you find what you look for?"

This "problem of evil" has many facets. If God is the creator, then he must have created evil. If God is a personal entity and protector, then he must allow evil. The list goes on and on. Generally, it is at this point of the growing list that shows "God" and "good" don't necessarily go together that "mysterious ways" are invoked, and we come to an impasse.

[humblebum]

140. Well we definitely see things differently.

I view death and suffering as temporary. As far as the compulsion part goes. The Bible makes it clear that we do have a choice and that all sins, save one, are forgivable. There is no perfect person.
As far as evil. Yes, God did create all things, including a spiritual realm, and like people, those in the spiritual realm also have free will along with consequences for choices made. Ergo Satan.

[darkstar3]

142. Wow...

Let me see if I've got this logical progression down:

1. God created the universe, including all things that are good AND evil.
2. After a time, God created man in his image.
3. God created man with enough free will to choose whether to acknowledge God's existence or not.
4. If man doesn't acknowledge God's existence without proof in this blink of existence, he is sent to a realm of pure evil, which God also created specifically for those who reject him.

THIS is LOVE?

[humblebum]

143. To those to whom much is given, much is required.

But to those who have only a mustard seed of faith... . No one is expected to have the same amount of faith as the next person. To those who show mercy, mercy will be shown to them.

There is not a person alive who has the wisdom to explain everything, but I guess we'll all find out in the end.

And, you know when we are discussing "proof", we enter the world of philosophies and epistemologies, and that conversation could last for a week. "Proof" is only absolutely objective in science and math. And even the SM has a mechanism for re-evaluating "proof" upon the submission of new evidence. In all other disciplines "proof" is more subjective in degrees, depending on the discipline.

[darkstar3]

144. Where'd you go?

What tangent did you shoot off on?

I didn't say anything about proof, and I didn't say anything about mercy. You wanna come back to the topic at hand?

I posted a simple progression for you to analyze and respond to. Are you saying you find nothing wrong with the progression?

[humblebum]

145. Your #4 ... proof...?

I think I did respond. I don't have a view of God as a Genghis Khan.

[darkstar3]

146. I was talking about faith with the whole "without proof" thing,

but whatever. Is THAT your only beef with the progression? Do you otherwise agree that 1-4 are true?

[humblebum]

147. I think that your 1 thru 4 are right in a very 'puritanical' sort of way, but

I tried earlier to explain how I view the origin of evil. I think man was created in the image of God. Jesus is called the "visible image of the invisible God". Obviously, God is a being with a range of emotions and in that light we are made in his image. And yes, I do believe we have free will, but I do not believe that we all have the same capacity to make the same decisions. So no, I do not agree with your assessments when they are presented with such rigidity. I do not think that we are meant to understand everything. When our powers of observation are limited to seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, and touch - we are indeed in the dark about many things.

If one accepts such a harsh view of God, then it must be pointed out that the Pharisees were the most upright and strict believers of their day and they were also the ones whom Jesus condemned totally for their lack of compassion. They followed the 'letter', but not the 'spirit' of the law.

I should add something about that "proof thing". If you are looking for empirical "proof", I don't consider that possible, short of a divine revelation and then I doubt if it would be recognized as such unless all are witnesses and I think that is in line with scripture. And that's why I also said that proof is only totally objective in the empirical sense.

[darkstar3]

148. So you can't refute anything from 1-4 above,

but you don't like the picture that they paint. I'm afraid that's just tough. The rigidity that you take issue with doesn't make my statements any less true about the Christian God as revealed by the Bible and the majority of Christians.

Now, to answer some specific points:
I do not believe that we all have the same capacity to make the same decisions.
This is true to a certain extent, but in the Christian worldview EVERYONE has the capacity to make the most important choice, which is whether or not to acknowledge God. That is the basis for the argument of free will.

I do not think that we are meant to understand everything. When our powers of observation are limited to seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, and touch - we are indeed in the dark about many things.
This looks suspiciously like the Mysterious Ways Clause. As I said, once the MWC is invoked, we are at an impasse.

If one accepts such a harsh view of God, then it must be pointed out that the Pharisees were the most upright and strict believers of their day and they were also the ones whom Jesus condemned totally for their lack of compassion. They followed the 'letter', but not the 'spirit' of the law.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? We're not talking about laws or rules of conduct here, but rather about the statements made by the Bible and by Christians about their God. Items 1-4 above cover the concept of creation and man's lot within it. There is no 'letter' of any 'law' to follow here.

If you are looking for empirical "proof", I don't consider that possible
You'd be right.

and I think that is in line scripture.
Yes, scripture does say that flat-out proof of God will never come because then it would negate the importance of faith. (That's what I remember, anyway.) Scripture also says that Satan is a master of deception who will constantly try to trick you into not believing. These are both attempts at self-perpetuation on the part of biblical writers. The statements about proof are a way to create circular logic in order to keep people from questioning why there's never any proof. "There's no proof for God, but the Bible says there never will be proof for God for various reasons, so God must exist." The statements about Satan as the deceiver are a great insight as to why hard-line creationists claim that "the Devil put fossils in the earth to make us think that the story of creation in Genesis isn't true."

[humblebum]

149. You definitely have your own way of thinking. I just gave you my POV.

Logical empiricism (positivism) is the recognized basis of the Scientific Method. Absolute objectivity, umless new evidence is presented. While this the recognized best way to conduct scientific research, it is limited in other areas. It totally ignores methods of inquiry that have been around for centuries, which can clearly provide logical subjective proof,ie. ontological inquiry and teleological inquiry.

You can interpret and think anyway you see fit, but to me atheism is sufficiently too narrow in view to be taken seriously. Agnostics, I can understand. Atheism ... well it is what it is.

[darkstar3]

150. Off topic,

and once again a conflation of atheism and positivism as we have argued about before. You can't answer the questions I've asked so you fall back to your favorite attack topic.

I don't even care about that anymore, because I refuse to continue having that same argument with you over and over, but here's a news flash for you:

Agnostics ARE atheists by definition.

[humblebum]

151. I have never conflated positivism with atheism, but only in your

mind. Related? definitely. Identical? Definitely not. And I would advise you to tell all those agnostics who say they aren't atheists that they are wrong. Definite identity crisis in the making.

[darkstar3]

152. I have told them,

and I will continue to do so, and the honest ones will admit it, because if you actually look up the definitions, it is irrefutably true. And now that you have absolutely nothing new left to say, good night.

[humblebum]

153. If you are resorting to some kind of philosophical inclusion then you could

probably make your case, but in common usage

Oxford dictionary -

agnosticism - noun. belief that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

atheism - noun. the belief that God does not exist.

[darkstar3]

154. .

Nicely done, picking a dictionary that can't be directly checked online by anyone reading your drivel unless they subscribe to OED.com.

Of course, a Google search of 'oed definition atheism' does yield this, which is VERY different from you've posted.

Oxford English Dictionary

atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

agnostic: (from Greek agnostos, "unknowing, unknown, unknowable") One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and, so far as can be judged, unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

source:http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard_5.htm

Notice one thing it does NOT say is that atheists BELIEVE something specific. The OED talks about DISbelief, not belief. Your supposed OED definition is the same claim that believers have made about atheists since before the internet was invented, namely that atheism is a belief or belief system, and that claim is, as it has always been, false.

Notice also that, since agnostics actively deny the possibility of supernatural knowledge, and as such lack belief in a god or gods, they are also atheists.

ETA: For clarity, since some people apparently need it, about.com is NOT an atheist website, but rather a website "about" pretty much everything under the sun.

[humblebum]

155. The Oxford dictionary is considered the primary scholastic dictionary

And you will notice that I did say philosophic inclusion, which could be dramn as a venn with 2 circles labeled theism and atheism and inside the atheism circle would be agnosticism. But that is most certainly not the common usage when a distinction is made. A larger circle representing a discussion of the subject of religion could include both theism and atheism, but they are in no way the same thing.

[darkstar3]

156. So,

no answer to the fact that your posted definition supposedly from OED was dishonest, and continued (weak) defense of trying to treat atheism as a religion.

I swear, I feel like arguing with you is like fighting with a punch-me clown. I'm tired of knocking you down only to have you bounce back to the exact same spot with the exact same grin on your face. I said good night before, and then I let you goad me back into this stupidity, but rest assured that will not happen again. Find yourself another boxer.

[humblebum]

157. Where the heck do you come up with this stuff? Talk about boneheaded.

You resort to going to an atheist website to find a definition of atheism. If you just happen to have dictionary on hand,use the damned thing. When you can't win an argument you characteristically start using the ad homs - not just with me but with several others I've noticed.

[humblebum]

159. OK, if you feel that the Oxford def. was dishonest, then

here is Random House College edition's entry: "-Syn. Atheist, agnostic, infidel refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An ATHEIST is one who denies the existence of a Diety or of divine beings. An AGNOSTIC is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from committing to any religious doctrine." It also lists "Infidel", which of course isn't particularly applicable here. In this context, it demonstrates how they are alike and how they differ. It doesn't get much simpler than that. The simplest argument is usually the best argument.

[humblebum]

131. You just can't seem to handle that others don't quite see things

like you do. So you don't have faith. Big deal. So you cannot understand how they feel the way they do. Big deal. I don't believe the way you do. I've seen both sides of life and I'll take faith any day. I don't arrive at my beliefs like you do, and I certainly do not share your horrific view of God. And you know what? I don't even care. I empathize with people who pray and with people who believe. It is healthy and it is their right. I am a little put off by the way you are always attacking believers. And I stress the word 'attacking'.

[darkstar3]

137. Oh climb down off your high horse!

If you think the post you replied to was an 'attack', then your skin is thinner than prosciutto. This subthread was an honest discussion between myself and a believer about the problem of evil, and that believer understood that my post wasn't an attack. If you have something to add to the discussion, then by all means do so. I do not, however, see anything contributive in this whining screed.

[rd_kent]

108. What a bunch of BS!

No, we don't all think "why god?" But many of us DO think "why do they still believe this crap?"

[humblebum]

132. You are always so witty. Good with words, too. nt

[rd_kent]

163. And you are not.

[demosincebirth]

118. The cause of all human suffering, aside from natural disasters, is

"mans inhumanity to man."