Readers’ Responses to Our Question (190)

Sometimes a storm is just a storm.

Sometimes a storm is just a storm.

Why would a merciful God allow disasters? Consider three important Biblical truths related to this matter.

First, it is not wrong to ask why God allows suffering. The faithful prophet Habakkuk asked God: “Why do you make me watch such terrible injustice? Why do you allow violence, lawlessness, crime, and cruelty to spread everywhere?” (Habakkuk 1:3, Contemporary English Version) Jehovah God did not rebuke Habakkuk. Instead, he had that faithful man’s questions recorded for all of us to read.(Romans 15:4).
Second, it is important to understand that God feels for those who suffer. He is not aloof and mysterious; he is “a lover of justice,” and he detests wickedness and the suffering it causes. (Psalm 37:28; Proverbs 6:16-19) Back in the days of Noah, God felt “hurt at his heart” because of the violence spreading in the earth. (Genesis 6:5, 6) God has not changed; he does not feel differently about what is occurring today.—Malachi 3:6.
Third, God is never the source of wickedness. The Bible makes this quite clear. Those who attribute such things as murder and terrorism to God are maligning him. Job 34:10 says: “Far be it from the true God to act wickedly, and the Almighty to act unjustly!” James 1:13 states: “When under trial, let no one say: ‘I am being tried by God.’ For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” If someone has suffered evil, God is not the cause.
The question still is, If God is loving, just, and powerful, why are we surrounded by evil? Many people think of Almighty God as the ruler of this world, the one who is in direct control of everything. “Not one atom or molecule of the universe is outside his active rule,” said the president of one theological seminary. The Bible doesn’t teach that.
The Bible actually says who rules the world. 1 John 5:19 states: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” Jesus Christ identified this wicked one as Satan the Devil (John 14:30). Satan is cruel, deceptive, and hateful—traits that underlie much of the suffering that people experience.

So the question becomes, why does God allow Satan to rule?

In the Garden of Eden, Satan brought up the issue of universal sovereignty. Humans, Satan implied, should be able to decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. Satan accused God of being an unfit Ruler and Father and implied that he, Satan, could do a better job.

By seducing Adam and Eve into choosing independence from their Creator, Satan founded a family that was not truly independent but under his authority. Influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, by their “father,” the Devil, this family would choose its
own goals and standards of conduct. (John 8:44) That way of life would not bring them true freedom and lasting happiness. Jehovah knew full well that it would not. Still, he allowed the rebels to pursue their independent course, for only in this way would the issues raised in Eden be fully settled for all time.
For over 6,000 years now, mankind has built a world system of things, trying all kinds of rulership and codes of conduct. The result is that the human family is not truly happy, peaceful, or united. Instead, wars, famines, natural disasters, sickness, and death have plagued mankind, causing “futility,” “pain,” and “groaning,” just as the Bible states.—Romans 8:19-22; Ecclesiastes 8:9.
Jehovah has not been behind the scenes preventing all the crimes and tragedies that result, directly or indirectly, from disobedience to him. Although God has intervened in human affairs on occasion, his acts have not been in support of the present system. Rather, they have related to the outworking of his purpose.—Luke 17:26-30; Romans 9:17-24.

Jehovah would never be party to the harmful lie that Satan’s system can succeed and that it has found the key to happiness. Nevertheless, Jehovah has not been indifferent to events. In fact, he has been very active.
Jesus’ words show that God has not been sitting idly by, watching events unfold. (John 5:17) Since the rebellion in Eden, he inspired Bible writers to record his promise that a future “seed” would crush Satan and all who stuck with him. (Genesis 3:15) Additionally, by means of that Seed, God would form a government, a heavenly Kingdom, that would bless obedient humans and end all causes of suffering, even death itself.—Genesis 22:18; Psalm 46:9; 72:16; Isaiah 25:8; 33:24; Daniel 7:13, 14.
As a step in the fulfillment of those wonderful promises, Jehovah sent to the earth the One who would become the primary Ruler of that Kingdom. This one was none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Galatians 3:16) In accord with God’s purpose for him, Jesus focused his teaching on God’s Kingdom. (Luke 4:43) Christ provided a living preview of what he will accomplish as King of that Kingdom. He fed hungry thousands, healed the sick, resurrected the dead, and even showed his power over the natural elements by calming a violent storm. (Matthew 14:14-21; Mark 4:37-39; John 11:43, 44) Concerning Jesus, the Bible states: “No matter how many the promises of God are, they have become Yes by means of him.”—2 Corinthians 1:20.
Those who listen to Jesus and come “out of the world”—the system of things that is estranged from God and ruled by Satan—are welcomed into Jehovah’s family. (John 15:19) This global family of true Christians is governed by love, committed to peace, and marked by determination to eradicate any trace of bigotry and racism in its midst.—Malachi 3:17, 18; John 13:34, 35.
Instead of upholding the present world, true Christians support and proclaim God’s Kingdom in obedience to Jesus’ command recorded at Matthew 24:14.

the difference in that lesson would be that you would be teaching your daughter only how to prevent hurting herself- a singularly selfish perspective.

it would actually be encouraging her to let others be hurt at her expense, and that the small lesson of leaving her hair dryer on the sink was more important than the life of the 87 year old woman.

it would actually have the opposite effect of teaching her that her own selfish and self protection reigned supreme over the respect of other lives.

so the extremity of the lesson bears no equivalency to the value of the lesson learned

Vicky N :
**In my opinion, a merciful God would allow such disasters to happen because they give those who survive a chance to look back on their own lives and change. Yes, it's harsh for those who are used as examples, but really sometimes disaster must occur. People don't learn easily always, most have trouble learning, and by being 'slapped in the face' with something so huge a person can't look away and just ignore the disaster. Horrible problems bring up horrible truths, and we as a whole are much too dense to learn that with just a little slap on the wrist.**

In that case, it's perfectly acceptable for me to throw a toaster into my neighbor's bathtub in order to teach my daughter not to leave her hair dryer sitting on the counter next to the sink. It's harsh for my neighbor, sure, but my daughter just doesn't seem to be getting the point about water and small electrical appliances with me just talking to her about it. Perhaps watching an 87-year-old woman being electrocuted will get through to her, and even though it will have been "harsh" for my neighbor, it will have been worth it if it makes my daughter think and change her behavior when it comes to maintaining her bathroom.

In my opinion, a merciful God would allow such disasters to happen because they give those who survive a chance to look back on their own lives and change. Yes, it's harsh for those who are used as examples, but really sometimes disaster must occur.
People don't learn easily always, most have trouble learning, and by being 'slapped in the face' with something so huge a person can't look away and just ignore the disaster. Horrible problems bring up horrible truths, and we as a whole are much too dense to learn that with just a little slap on the wrist.

In my opinion, a merciful God would allow such disasters to happen because they give those who survive a chance to look back on their own lives and change. Yes, it's harsh for those who are used as examples, but really sometimes disaster must occur.
People don't learn easily always, most have trouble learning, and by being 'slapped in the face' with something so huge a person can't look away and just ignore the disaster. Horrible problems bring up horrible truths, and we as a whole are much too dense to learn that with just a little slap on the wrist.

To Jay S from Daniel. Now that is being honest. I agree with you--and I believe that is properly agnosticism or a paradoxical or tentative (still really unestablished, a leaning this way and that) view which is removing oneself from the word God as much as possible but without getting into the contradictions which result from taking the world as accident and chance. But I doubt such a view can pass as atheism--and certainly should not do so when so many problems of mind, morality, etc. are involved. Especially is it dishonest to pass as atheism because the instant one says the world is not accident then no matter in what way "not accident" is portrayed people automatically smile and say "you are just speaking about the millenia old characteristics of God in another way". I especially think it dishonest to pass as atheism because atheists do write much of which one would logically conclude the world is accident and then backpedal to not accident when it suits them. When all these tricky, tiny little tactics are used it becomes impossible to honestly engage on such questions as morality without God, etc. and really in the end it is the atheists which will lose out. You would think that dismissing the concept of God would proceed with as much integrity as possible considering the endurance of the concept, all the millions of minds that have wrestled with such a question. Thank you for an honest engagement on the question though. And I certainly do agree with your attempt to take a position...well you get the idea. I personally would classify myself as agnostic and I go back and forth defending both God and a world without God trying to get the transition point clear, see what steps have to be taken, how to cross without too many people getting hurt,--or if it is even possible to live in a world without God (I mean collectively and with sustained purpose, etc.). I really just want to get it right. That is probably the best I can put it at the moment. Thanks for conversation.

700 TEACHINGS OF KORAN THAT JUSTIFIED 911 MURDER OF 2700 PEOPLE

Osama bin laden was a man with a plan – the creation of an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East that would be expanded to include all Muslim countries and then the entire world.

The only way this plan could succeed is the forced withdrawal of the US from the Middle East.

The US by failing to respond to Bin Laden’s attacks since the first trade center twin tower bombing in 1991 and indeed the appeasement of the US by ignoring other murderous attacks such as the Kenya embassy slaughter and the Cole attack made 911 inevitable.

The 19 Muslims who seized the 4 jets were the cannon fodder for Bin Laden’s vision.

Islam provided the religious and moral basis for the murder of 2700 people. By teaching hate of infidels – that killing and murdering infidels is the Law of God – these 19 Muslims were following EXACTLY the teachings of Islam – THEY WERE FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THEIR EVIL LEADER MUHAMMAD. You can hear Muhammad Atta yelling – Praise Be To Allah – over and over as he smashed the jet into the first trade center tower.

These righteous Muslim killers were obeying Koran 9:111, 9:29. 9;50 so they could ascend to the highest levels of Paradise and each be rewarded with a 1000 virgins that they could molest and sexually abuse for all eternity. The evil vision of Paradise with its eternal hard – on and virgins who re-virginate each time after sex promised to Muslim men who achieve martyrdom is a powerful motivation.

The 700 evil teachings of Islam created the hate in the hearts and souls of these Muslims and allowed them to kill as a religious duty – making “SLAUGHTER IN THE LAND.”

By
Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com

700 TEACHINGS OF KORAN THAT JUSTIFIED 911 MURDER OF 2700 PEOPLE

Osama bin laden was a man with a plan – the creation of an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East that would be expanded to include all Muslim countries and then the entire world.

The only way this plan could succeed is the forced withdrawal of the US from the Middle East.

The US by failing to respond to Bin Laden’s attacks since the first trade center twin tower bombing in 1991 and indeed the appeasement of the US by ignoring other murderous attacks such as the Kenya embassy slaughter and the Cole attack made 911 inevitable.

The 19 Muslims who seized the 4 jets were the cannon fodder for Bin Laden’s vision.

Islam provided the religious and moral basis for the murder of 2700 people. By teaching hate of infidels – that killing and murdering infidels is the Law of God – these 19 Muslims were following EXACTLY the teachings of Islam – THEY WERE FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THEIR EVIL LEADER MUHAMMAD. You can hear Muhammad Atta yelling – Praise Be To Allah – over and over as he smashed the jet into the first trade center tower.

These righteous Muslim killers were obeying Koran 9:111, 9:29. 9;50 so they could ascend to the highest levels of Paradise and each be rewarded with a 1000 virgins that they could molest and sexually abuse for all eternity. The evil vision of Paradise with its eternal hard – on and virgins who re-virginate each time after sex promised to Muslim men who achieve martyrdom is a powerful motivation.

The 700 evil teachings of Islam created the hate in the hearts and souls of these Muslims and allowed them to kill as a religious duty – making “SLAUGHTER IN THE LAND.”

By
Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com

700 TEACHINGS OF KORAN THAT JUSTIFIED 911 MURDER OF 2700 PEOPLE

Osama bin laden was a man with a plan – the creation of an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East that would be expanded to include all Muslim countries and then the entire world.

The only way this plan could succeed is the forced withdrawal of the US from the Middle East.

The US by failing to respond to Bin Laden’s attacks since the first trade center twin tower bombing in 1991 and indeed the appeasement of the US by ignoring other murderous attacks such as the Kenya embassy slaughter and the Cole attack made 911 inevitable.

The 19 Muslims who seized the 4 jets were the cannon fodder for Bin Laden’s vision.

Islam provided the religious and moral basis for the murder of 2700 people. By teaching hate of infidels – that killing and murdering infidels is the Law of God – these 19 Muslims were following EXACTLY the teachings of Islam – THEY WERE FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THEIR EVIL LEADER MUHAMMAD. You can hear Muhammad Atta yelling – Praise Be To Allah – over and over as he smashed the jet into the first trade center tower.

These righteous Muslim killers were obeying Koran 9:111, 9:29. 9;50 so they could ascend to the highest levels of Paradise and each be rewarded with a 1000 virgins that they could molest and sexually abuse for all eternity. The evil vision of Paradise with its eternal hard – on and virgins who re-virginate each time after sex promised to Muslim men who achieve martyrdom is a powerful motivation.

The 700 evil teachings of Islam created the hate in the hearts and souls of these Muslims and allowed them to kill as a religious duty – making “SLAUGHTER IN THE LAND.”

By
Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com

Dav,

For $99.99, you can have National Geographic determine what tree you fell from. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/participate.html

Sorry ... swap 6000 years and 4+ billion. I was laughing too hard while typing (thanks Dav, it's working already!)

Wow, Dav, you sure have a solid grasp of science, being able to cherry pick all those scientific findings that just happen to conflict with the bible. Do you have a background in a science field? How those stupid astronomers and geologists could think that the earth is only 6000 years old instead of 4+ billion ... what a whopper of a mistake!

Please ... enlighten us on the creation science theory of Noah's Ark and how it squares better with the physical evidence provided by biology and geology than that ridiculous theory of evolution which took millions of years. I need a good laugh today.

We do know enough about the creation of the universe to make an educated guess. The only problem is that science "cherry picks" the evidence it chooses to use. How many text books will state that we found soft tissue in dinosaur bones? If so, will it be acurate? Probably not. How about the fact that fossils form much faster than previously thought. Less than 200 years. What about the rapid formation of coal and oil? It'll all be cherry picked and put into science books. Lucy is on tour, a knuckle walking chimp, suppose to be 3 million years old or something. However, after 50,000 years there is no measurable carbon left in anything. Yet, carbon is in Lucy's bones? The more science tries to disprove the bible, the more it proves it. I actually like the fact that if science comes up with some kind of term like "Cambrian Explosion" it must be fact, cause that's a cool word.
As for me, I will believe that God created the earth. Again I say, if you believe you came from a monkey or ape, that's cool and I respect that. One day we'll find out who's the monkey and who's not. That's a bet I'll take, I like the odds.

Daniel:

Existence need not be accidental. We don't know enough about how the universe originated to say that it was an accident. Maybe universes originate on a regular basis (whatever regular might be when you are talking about space-time.)

We don't know enough about how life arose on a world like ours to know that it was accidental ... maybe given the combination of characteristics our world has, life is inevitable. Life might be as natural as star formation, given the right set of conditions.

We don't know that the origin of sentient life on a world that already has life is accidental; actually the odds might be reasonably good that, once life is present, some form of sentient life will eventually arise. It might not always look like us (why should it necessarily?), but we don't have much with which to compare.

Do all of these "don't knows" add up to "therefore there must be a deity responsible for it all?" No, because that also calls for a whole list of unknowns to be answered. It is just as reasonable to say that whatever "prime mover" is needed to kick-start the universe might be a non-sentient being, if it can properly be called a being at all. Since we don't have any evidence, it's just as reasonable to say that the prime mover might be a natural, non-sentient "spark", or quantum fluctuation. Certainly nothing you'd pray to or expect guidance from.

But an accident? Not necessarily.

Why would a merciful God allow disasters -- natural or man-made -- to happen?

Why, indeed!

Read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion . . . . . & grow up . . . . .

Sapere Aude!

BEWARE - anyone trying to enter into a reasonable conversation with Daniel

Why would a merciful God allow disasters--natural or manmade--to happen?

Perhaps a treatment according to biology and psychology will be useful in answering this question. Why not begin by saying straight out that God is an error of thought on the part of man and that really there is no God in existence and furthermore that existence is accident, chance, etc. Furthermore, why not say the latter is the atheist position although some atheists apparently believe that one does not have to believe existence is accident to be an atheist (how they manage this without arriving right back at a prime mover I have no idea. Perhaps paradox, as in the Tao, a way with no director).

We can see right off if God is an error of thought on the part of man then probably right now man is immersed in all sorts of errors of thought and that furthermore it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to remove man from such errors by teaching. Probably the errors of thought are genetic. Even further, it becomes meaningless to speak of being more of a moral being with a belief in God or without because a radical position either way is a defect of thought. We of course dislike it when a Godfearing person imposes on us and we respond in the same confused fashion when someone tells us he is scientific and can improve our lives but then turns around and says existence is accident. If existence is accident what improvement can be made? Toward what? Where?

I suppose what I am trying to say is the human race is filled with all sorts of defects of thought and is like a child trying to learn to drive, oversteering here, overcorrecting there. Trying to determine reason and morality is extremely difficult in a world in which we are still trying to get Kobe Bryant to become a team player or the Bush administration to stop choosing way overly loyal subjects for political positions.

Sometimes the problem borders on the outright ridiculous. Recently I have been having a discussion with an atheist on matters, and although I have been my usual asinine self (no gift for presentation) he seems to match me in stupidity because he lets his vanity get piqued and would probably not see if I was making sense anyway. And we both are arguing about morality! But apparently arrogance, vanity, being Godfearing, an atheist are all viable to a degree or they would not now be in existence.

Probably trying to cut out completely a belief in God or being an atheist or anything else for that matter has consequences we cannot biologically foresee. Just to give an example by examining something we all seem to have no problem with, the human capacity to make analogies, metaphors, etc., probably in order to have arrived at this ability millions of people overshot the mark and would constantly confuse one thing for another. A man acting like a lion would be believed to be a lion in the sense of the lion spirit having been transferred, etc. Humans would become animals literally to people simply for displaying certain animal qualities. People would anthropomorphize and say a roaring volcano must be a God because the most dominant men in the tribe would be angry and powerful figures.

The list goes on and on. Constant errors of thought which if overshot leading to human disaster but which if tempered leading to the capacity for metaphor, etc. Millions of years of trial and error. And here we are now still in the midst of error. We do recognize the problem though in the sense of noticing defects in artists, the play of sports figures, etc.

Take horse racing. Racing enthusiasts here are still trying to breed a horse--make it regular--which will win the triple crown. One fast enough to win the two shorter races and with the stamina to carry over into the longer. Could it be religious fundamentalists and atheists each have qualities the other lacks? I just find it difficult to believe that if indeed God is an error of thought that we now by simply removing this error arrive at reason. I think the human race is making all sorts of errors of thought and that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to find a balanced person.

Some people have mathematical gifts. Others musical. Other people are colorblind. In fact we see in single arts such as music a variety of styles and limitations among even the greatest artists. One guitarist can do this, another can do that. It makes little sense to argue about morality being better with or without God because we are arguing about one human tendency among many--kind of like asking would it be better to remove the whole arm or leave a part or leave the whole arm.

What this means for the question at hand--natural or manmade disasters--is of course that if we do not get honest about the error ridden humanity that we are we will become a manmade disaster completely inadequate to natural disasters and of course we will be left with only a hope in God. We either accept ourselves--all of us--as extremely fallible and in need of improvement (probably ultimately genetic, although how to create a better human is an immense discussion) or we fail before existence and no doubt cry out to God as the only consolation.

Those not very religious...build us a better human, and be of all people most willing to see the multitude of human defects or please be quiet and not object if we drop to our knees in prayer before God. It is that simple and that difficult. I certainly hope this is the voice of reason...

But if not I am most certainly willing to hear a more reasonable argument.

CHAD:
**God calls you and me to an intimate and loving relationship with Him, one in which He and He alone knows how to truly fulfill every desire within us. I believe it may have been C.S. Lewis who said, "God whispers to us in our pleasure, and calls out to us in our pain, "I am here!" Lest we forget that we need Him, He allows disasters like Hurricane Katrina to happen in order to save us from ourselves. Praise His name in all the Earth!**

So God allowed all those people to die horribly to save them from themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever. They're dead - they weren't saved from anything.
Or are you saying that God allowed all those people to die in order to save me from myself? Gee, do I feel like rshing into his loving arms - not. What if he decides to send me to a horrid, painful death to save someone else from themselves? That's not a deity I find worthy of worship.

ELISHA:
**If there was no suffering, then how would anyone respect the happiness and the gifts that they have in their lives??**

By being happy?

**There are disasters in this world to remind people to be grateful for what they have. Most people take their fortunes forgranted and don't respect what they have been given. God wants to remind everyone that they have been given things, money, food, shelter, clothes...life, for a reason and that these fortunes can be taken away as quickly as they were achieved.**

I am not GIVEN money, food, clothing, or shelter. I work for money, and use it to purchase food, clothing, and shelter. I also work to grow food. You could say that I was given life by my parents and that it was maintained by them until I was grown, but no one gives me life now - I must work to maintian my life. Besides, if I give someone a gift, I forfeit the right to take it back.
According to your logic, it would be perfectly reasonable, and even a gesture of love, for me to periodically destroy all my daughter's possessions in order to remind her to thank me regularly for the things I've given her.

**A lot of people think they are guaranteed a full, long life, but it can be taken away at any time and there is nothing you can do to stop it.**

So it's ok for me to put a gun to my daughter's head every now and again just to remind her that she isn't guaranteed a ripe old age?

**Compassion. Before Katrina and 9/11, most people lacked this single word...compassion. They each concentrated on one person, themselves, and did not pay any attention to the people around them. After these events, compassion returned to the U.S. We all banded together and helped our neighbors by donating money, lending a hand, a place to live, food.**

Speak for yourself. I teach my child compassion by modeling it. Not by hurting other people or creatures to give her the opportunity to help them.
Every cat we have was either a stray or a foundling. Our rabbits were pets that someone turned loose. Right now, one of my daughter's friends is living with us to get away from a stepfather who constantly "accidentally" walks into the bathroom or bedroom when she's dressing. Please don't try to tell me that the plights of these animals and this child were allowed to happen so that we could learn a lesson from it. The only lesson a teenage girl needs to learn from a pervert is how to aim straight.

**Finally, after being separated for so long, we came together to fight for our country and support those who were suffering. God is compassionate. He heals and loves. It took two tragedies for us to wake up and realize that we too, need to heal and love. It is almost sickening to say, but these disasters helped our country just as much as they destroyed it.**

Tell that to the folks who died. Never mind, they can't hear you. But I'm sure they'd be thrilled to know that having their lives ended abruptly and violently made you a better person.

**God knows what he is doing and everything happens for a reason.**

Any god that would behave in such a manner does not deserve worship.

Several thousand words earlier Daniel petulantly promised: "I really have nothing to say to you anymore--no desire to reply to you ever again."

I should be so lucky...>;-}

Since then you've written another angry, insulting, irrelevant comment demanding once again that I repeat the answers I've already given you (and which you continue to ignore); and now you admit that you haven't read the Plato dialogue I referred to or finished Life of Pi? After criticizing my comments on them, accusing me of "missing the point" and calling ME a "phony"? This is too funny...

And on top of this you want me to go back through my comments and make a list of all the points you've been ignoring? You want me to summarize the books you haven't read for you, too? What am I, your tutor? You can expect me to express my opinions on anything you, or anyone else, might post here, but I'm not doing your homework for you. If you don't understand something I've written ask politely and I'll explain. If you disagree, say so politely, and explain, in relevant detail, why you disagree. Just make sure you keep it on point. If you do a good enough job I'll even change my mind; it's been known to happen.

Do I want honesty? Why yes, Daniel; a little more honesty, not to mention a sincere apology for your gratuitous insults, a promise to behave like an adult and a hint of humility would be nice. I won't hold my breath...

Absent all of that why should I bother with a rude, arrogant poseur like you, Daniel?

Regards

A Hermit

E. Favorite,

I enjoy having/putting things in proper prespective and doing it in as few words as possible. Your last commentary filled those criteria. My compliments!!!!

"If there was no suffering, then how would anyone respect the happiness and the gifts that they have in their lives??"

I've never really liked this line of reasoning, Elisha. First of all it suggests a kind of frightening model of learing. Should We beat and deprive our children so they'll appreciate us more when we show love and do good things for them? There have to be rules and limits and hard work, of course, but why the suffering ? seem far in excess of what's needed to teach the lesson.

Besides this there's the problem of those who suffer unrelentingly; who have no happiness or "gifts" in their lives. Is their only purpose on this Earth to be God's whipping boys; to suffer horribly so that we who are so priveledged will appreciate our good fortune? Again this just seems cruel and unnecessary. It's like saying I should beat one one of my children so the other will love me more.

I'm not saying we can't learn from such events, but the idea that a loving, comapssionate, all powerful God woul dhave to stoop to such methods to make us love him makes no sense to me.

Regards

A Hermit

Bertrand Russell has a very good answer to this question in his popular book "Why I'm not a Christian?". Good luck!

"Believe me, you'd better have God as your enemy rather than men"
- Anonymous Greek quote.

Save yourselves,
Help yourselves,
Live by yourself.

Die when you're ready to die.

Joe Derup – you say, “….Most living things can't contemplate the future. We can. God offers us help to get thru it.”

Here’s how I’d amend that: “….Most living things can't contemplate the future. We can. We invent God to help us get thru it.

RICHARD says: “God is here to drive home the point' those who die with the most toys dies, not wins...!” Do you mean that all rich people go to hell? How do you know that?

ELISHA, when you say “There are disasters in this world to remind people to be grateful for what they have.” How do you know that? Are you suggesting that God lets some people lose everything to remind others to be thankful for their good fortune?

Joe Derup – you say, “….Most living things can't contemplate the future. We can. God offers us help to get thru it.”

Here’s how I’d amend that: “….Most living things can't contemplate the future. We can. We invent God to help us get thru it.

RICHARD says: “God is here to drive home the point' those who die with the most toys dies, not wins...!” Do you mean that all rich people go to hell? How do you know that?

ELISHA, when you say “There are disasters in this world to remind people to be grateful for what they have.” How do you know that? Are you suggesting that God lets some people lose everything to remind others to be thankful for their good fortune?

The universe is violent.
Most living things take it as it is.

Most living things can't contemplate the future.
We can.

God offers us help to get thru it.

Jesus, when questioned by Pilate, said his fathers world was of the spirit. Earthquakes, floods and even terror attacks are events that happen on this Planet and are NOT of GOD's making.
Stuff happens! Gid, i believe, is there for US to cope and make sense of our finite statis on this planet. WE make ourselves to be 'Kings' of all we survey yet, comparied to a Tsunami or Hurricane, we are mere mortals and live or die by our own actions.God has nothing to do with strife or pain.
It comes to all of us.God is there,in Spirit, to help us get the proper prospective of who we are and and why we are here on Earth.God is here to drive home the point' those who die with the most toys dies, not wins...!

To Hermit from Daniel. Ok, we can play your little game. Go ahead and make a list of things you think I should address, but be warned Hermit that our argument cannot make any sense unless we agree on basic definitions such as atheist and God. When you state things such as atheists not necessarily believing in accident it becomes senseless to start dragging Plato in etc. because you simultaneously assert that no God exists and then say atheism is compatible with what most people recognize as a Godlike existence, an existence which is not accident. So do atheists believe in accident or not? is that the view of existence? If atheists do not do so, well then how can this be reconciled with a disbelief in God? We have to get our definitions straight first or we just talk at cross purposes. That is about as honest as I can be about the argument at the moment. What? You want me to be more honest? I have not read the Platonic dialogue you mentioned earlier. I also stopped reading the life of Pi when the lifeboat landed and the Tiger went into the jungle--I felt I understood enough at that point. Honesty can go deeper if you like. We should begin with basic definitions and then talk in simple English, put things in our own words. I for one feel I have gotten a lot out of our discussion already. On future questions here at on faith I intend to develop some of the ideas. I can only say I intend to the best of my ability to just think through the problems at hand. That is all I have to say for now.

To Hermit from Daniel. Ok, we can play your little game. Go ahead and make a list of things you think I should address, but be warned Hermit that our argument cannot make any sense unless we agree on basic definitions such as atheist and God. When you state things such as atheists not necessarily believing in accident it becomes senseless to start dragging Plato in etc. because you simultaneously assert that no God exists and then say atheism is compatible with what most people recognize as a Godlike existence, an existence which is not accident. So do atheists believe in accident or not? is that the view of existence? If atheists do not do so, well then how can this be reconciled with a disbelief in God? We have to get our definitions straight first or we just talk at cross purposes. That is about as honest as I can be about the argument at the moment. What? You want me to be more honest? I have not read the Platonic dialogue you mentioned earlier. I also stopped reading the life of Pi when the lifeboat landed and the Tiger went into the jungle--I felt I understood enough at that point. Honesty can go deeper if you like. We should begin with basic definitions and then talk in simple English, put things in our own words. I for one feel I have gotten a lot out of our discussion already. On future questions here at on faith I intend to develop some of the ideas. I can only say I intend to the best of my ability to just think through the problems at hand. That is all I have to say for now.

God gave man freedom of choice, these events occured because of free choice. everything is connected and everything has a reason for being.

If there was no suffering, then how would anyone respect the happiness and the gifts that they have in their lives?? There are disasters in this world to remind people to be grateful for what they have. Most people take their fortunes forgranted and don't respect what they have been given. God wants to remind everyone that they have been given things, money, food, shelter, clothes...life, for a reason and that these fortunes can be taken away as quickly as they were achieved.

Both 9/11 and Katrina were terrible disasters, but they both opened up the eyes of people around the world. They both proved that we, as humans, are not invincible and that we can be broken down. We must all remember to realize that we are just humans and we can not control what happens. A lot of people think they are guaranteed a full, long life, but it can be taken away at any time and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Compassion. Before Katrina and 9/11, most people lacked this single word...compassion. They each concentrated on one person, themselves, and did not pay any attention to the people around them. After these events, compassion returned to the U.S. We all banded together and helped our neighbors by donating money, lending a hand, a place to live, food. Finally, after being separated for so long, we came together to fight for our country and support those who were suffering. God is compassionate. He heals and loves. It took two tragedies for us to wake up and realize that we too, need to heal and love. It is almost sickening to say, but these disasters helped our country just as much as they destroyed it.

God knows what he is doing and everything happens for a reason.

If there was no suffering, then how would anyone respect the happiness and the gifts that they have in their lives?? There are disasters in this world to remind people to be grateful for what they have. Most people take their fortunes forgranted and don't respect what they have been given. God wants to remind everyone that they have been given things, money, food, shelter, clothes...life, for a reason and that these fortunes can be taken away as quickly as they were achieved.

Both 9/11 and Katrina were terrible disasters, but they both opened up the eyes of people around the world. They both proved that we, as humans, are not invincible and that we can be broken down. We must all remember to realize that we are just humans and we can not control what happens. A lot of people think they are guaranteed a full, long life, but it can be taken away at any time and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Compassion. Before Katrina and 9/11, most people lacked this single word...compassion. They each concentrated on one person, themselves, and did not pay any attention to the people around them. After these events, compassion returned to the U.S. We all banded together and helped our neighbors by donating money, lending a hand, a place to live, food. Finally, after being separated for so long, we came together to fight for our country and support those who were suffering. God is compassionate. He heals and loves. It took two tragedies for us to wake up and realize that we too, need to heal and love. It is almost sickening to say, but these disasters helped our country just as much as they destroyed it.

God knows what he is doing and everything happens for a reason.

If there was no suffering, then how would anyone respect the happiness and the gifts that they have in their lives?? There are disasters in this world to remind people to be grateful for what they have. Most people take their fortunes forgranted and don't respect what they have been given. God wants to remind everyone that they have been given things, money, food, shelter, clothes...life, for a reason and that these fortunes can be taken away as quickly as they were achieved.

Both 9/11 and Katrina were terrible disasters, but they both opened up the eyes of people around the world. They both proved that we, as humans, are not invincible and that we can be broken down. We must all remember to realize that we are just humans and we can not control what happens. A lot of people think they are guaranteed a full, long life, but it can be taken away at any time and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Compassion. Before Katrina and 9/11, most people lacked this single word...compassion. They each concentrated on one person, themselves, and did not pay any attention to the people around them. After these events, compassion returned to the U.S. We all banded together and helped our neighbors by donating money, lending a hand, a place to live, food. Finally, after being separated for so long, we came together to fight for our country and support those who were suffering. God is compassionate. He heals and loves. It took two tragedies for us to wake up and realize that we too, need to heal and love. It is almost sickening to say, but these disasters helped our country just as much as they destroyed it.

God knows what he is doing and everything happens for a reason.

I believe god has everything happen for a reason and if something like 9/11 or Katrina would not have happened we would be living differently. 9/11 opened everyone’s eyes and made many people see what we were taking for granted. I personally became more involved in my community and helped the less fortunate. We learn from our mistakes as well from disasters. God works in mysterious ways and if it takes something like 9/11 or Katrina to get our attention he will help us through these tough times. God helps us overcome our upsets and will always be there for us no matter what.

Dear Chuck:

This is some seriously sick sh*t. You belong to an apocolyptic religious cult full of self-loathing people.

Dear Chuck:

This is some seriously sick sh*t. You belong to an apocolyptic religious cult full of self-loathing people.

Dear Chuck:

This is some seriously sick sh*t. You belong to an apocolyptic religious cult full of self-loathing people.

world mass polarity.
what is more catastrophic than marrying and losting in the hag???
the old hag is this life that mankind live in ,where the hag is holding on mankind with her steel huge labia minora and labia majora,no release,no parole, no escape, none will take mankind from her unshackable unbending jaw but death!yet, mankind is keen and sharp to cling on the spider house!!!why so ?knowing very well that the hag devoured in her huge ugly belly billions of mankind before?.
what is the hag about?why is the hag?what other alternative to the hag?what is the consequence of being lost in the hag?those who chase behinde the hag what are they going to accomplish?those who they limit their knowledge to the sophistication of the hag what are they adding to the hag?when mankind die will the hag be with?
where is the escape?in reality there is no escape,the hag is a must on every body male and femal.the big question is ,how to mesh in the hag nice and safely???what kind of knowledge do i need do i need immunition do i need fortification?by all means,understanding the characteristics of the hag is a must .world mass polarity and the name of the game is mankind vs the hag.
mankind in his right mind should not let the hag blind him or her from seeing other life ,the double fiasco is loseing other life and the hag .the last breath of the hag is the last breath of mankind.

To Hermit from Daniel. What a colossal phony you are Hermit! An atheist removes a prime mover, direction, etc. from existence. This leads to an existence of chance, accident. Read some books. You try to avoid this conclusion by phony "atheists do not necessarily believe in accident". Well show how atheists do not necessarily believe in accident and simultaneously refute a prime mover, etc. Show us your logic. You have given nothing you liar. You tried once with the Tao, but I pointed out how ridiculous that was because the Tao is a way, and how can one have a way if all is accident? The only way of straddling the issue is paradox. If that is what you mean have the honesty to say so, but no, it is transparently obvious now that you are just causing trouble and not at all concerned about making any sense.

I actually try to solve some of the problems at hand. If God does not exist and all is accident and atheists want to make God an error of reasoning then you would think atheists would be open to perhaps much of human existence being an error of reasoning which was still necessary for survival (biology recognizes all sorts of makeshifts). Especially because the concept of God has played such a large part in human existence. But no! Atheists prefer to reduce God to an error and then somehow tell us that now we are at the enlightened atheist viewpoint and furthermore that God although being an error was after-all a quite small error and a logical progression can be explicated which leads up to today to of course the atheist viewpoint. How dogmatic! We replace the millenia old error of God with the certain atheist when basic reflection would ask that if God was such an error than perhaps we had better be humble and reflective. Perhaps there are all sorts of necessary errors of thought. Perhaps atheism is an error because atheists are certainly sure there is no God although of course atheists like the rest of us are confined to this little earth...

And notice hermit that in this line of reasoning above I simultaneously offend the believers in God by suggesting God is an error and offend the atheists by suggesting if all is accident and God was an error we can by no means be certain about anything, not even atheism.

That is proof of my good will--by not taking sides and simply looking over the problem honestly. And that is what you are incapable of doing. You are as ridiculous as a religious fundamentalist.

What atheists have to demonstrate if they want to hold that God is an error is a clear line of reasoning out of the past which sidesteps God--which is quite a feat when all is suddenly reduced to accident and there is no prime mover. I have no problem with such attempts, but you would think atheists would at least be intelligent about it and wonder if God is an error of thought and this error has persisted for millenia, well then, there might be all sorts of errors of thought--and certainly we should not think we are now in position with the right method, perspective, etc. We should be suspicious of our own thoughts. I see no such suspicion at all on the part of atheists. Just a move from the blundering error called God to blundering, cocksure, atheists.

As for your comments on life of Pi, never mind--you miss the entire point. More than metaphor was going on. The author might have intended mere metaphor but what occurred over the whole is an outstanding reverse of anthropomorphism. Instead of man projecting human characteristics onto things as in anthropomorphism, animal characteristics were projected onto humans. And I certainly claim no big originality in seeing such things. In fact one of the reasons I give all my thoughts away is because I just want to move fast and think and not be bothered with constantly checking on whether I am being original. Let other people do that is my belief--and I sidestep accusations of plagiarism or whether I am being arrogant by just giving away thoughts.

As for Plato, his philosophy never removed itself from God because it retained so many concepts we associate with God--in fact this can be a working definition of idealist. It was somewhere between old ways--traditional God ways--and attempts to realize on earth the perfect society (republic). Plato unlike modern atheists was honest and showed in his republic what a non-traditional society would have to be like (there is your morality without God!). I actually love Plato. He was not a phony like modern atheists.

Hermit, you phony, all you modern atheists have to do is write a republic for us like Plato attempted and do it right and all will follow...But if you modern atheists cannot do so, all your railing against the religious comes to naught. Anyone can plainly see that. In common parlance you modern atheists show the religious only the stick and offer no carrot. Where is the carrot? Show the carrot and the bunny rabbits of stupid religious belief will follow along. If you cannot grasp that I have just tried to help you modern atheists, then so much for you.

Ask a religious person. A religious person reading these words would be troubled, believe me. I think I am doing a tolerable job of thinking. No religious person or atheist would be knocking on my door anytime soon. I just follow the logic year after year and let what position I ultimately end up at take care of itself. So far I am not much of a friend to anyone else.

Another link to Canadian utuber recollargedeon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1qVYwPs-w

For the love of free speech..

God is Almighty, Omnipotent and compassionate???

Below are some thoughts about all organized religions by a reared of my article on Islamic mumbo-jumbos. Please read what he is saying about religions.

Comments by a reader:

“I expose the falsehoods of all man made religions. These religions are just for business purpose. Arab religion is a derivative of Hindu religion. In Hindu religion the religious class is asking the masses to worship the stones. Shiv linga and parvati stones are the famous stones. Shiv linga is a male sexual organ and parvati is a female sexual organ. The Arabs have taken the parvati stone to mecca and calling it a holy stone came directly from paradise .How stupid and ignorant are the followers of this religion. The Hindus are spinning around the stone in India seven times clockwise and the stupid followers of Arab religions have just made one change....They made it to anticlockwise....What a great change .This parvati stone is a outstretched vagina, through which head of a baby is delivering out. The followers of Arab religions including the converts are saluting and surrendering their heads to this stone three or five times a day. They are kissing this stone (Parvati vagina and head of baby)during their very holy holy pilgrimage. If you will disclose to them this reality of worshiping the stone, they will desperately reply.. "no we are not worshiping stone, we are worshiping our god through this stone". What an intelligent answer . Stupid followers of a sadist god. He create them and asking them to raise their asses many times a day.

These poor followers are scarred of these gods. He has threatened them if they will not worship him, he will screw them in hereafter life. At other place this god has used another weapon "sex in the paradise",72 virgins for men. But no body ask this god,what about females, what they will get? I think Arab god is gay god, jealous of females .”

Yousef Tabish

Well done, Agnosticator; that was short and to the point...unlike my next comment.......

------------------------------

“To Hermit from Daniel. Hermit, if it pleases you, you can call me an effing whatever in every sentence you write to me just as long as you make sense.”

Don't worry Daniel, gratuitous insults are your tactic, not mine, remember?

You make a lot of noise here about logic and then ask me a series of questions, which I've already answered repeatedly in my previous comments, without making any effort at a logical rebuttal of those answers. I don't accept your narrow, confining definition of atheist, and I've explained to you why several times over. Repeatedly telling me you think I'm being illogical really isn't very helpful; at some point you're going to have actually show these alleged flaws in my logic. Your failure to comprehend is not a flaw in my logic, by the way...

Even if we were to concede that the concept of God was at one time a useful, or even necessary, tool for human moral development (and I'm not conceding on the “necessary”) you haven't shown me why this should continue to be so. In fact, if God is, as you put it, an error; merely a metaphor standing in for some naturally occurring process I would argue that we do better to recognize the error, drop the unnecessary doctrines and dogmas associated with that error and get on with examining moral issues in the light of reason, liberated from religious clutter and conflict. Surely that's a more logical approach!

By the way; you seem to think you're on to something clever and original here but your “important psychological discovery” is really nothing new. Robert Buckman's "Can We Be Good Without God?" might be a useful introduction for you if you'd like to examine the idea on something more than the superficial level one tends to get in internet forums. That the idea of God was a useful artifact in the formation of human morality is a central idea of his.

As far as “Life of Pi” goes you have again sidestepped the point. Whether its Anthropomorphism or the reverse is not the issue. The author of Pi is asking us to consider the question of whether it is better to believe in a pretty story (like your “god error”) or to face reality. That's what the metaphor of the tiger in the lifeboat is all about (and I thought you liked metaphors, how did you miss this one?) I contend in the end it is better to face reality. Stories can teach us, can help us make sense of reality but at some point we have to be able to make the distinction between fiction and fact, between the symbol and the reality the symbol represents. The concept of God may be a useful fiction at times, but for some of us it has past its usefulness. A morality such as you describe based on the fear of being constantly watched by a judgmental God is not what I would consider a mature or particularly healthy morality (and I don't know why you think the people of the Middle East should require this more than others. I'd say the problem there is an excess of religious thinking, not its absence...)

And yes, Daniel, I'm aware that Plato was an idealist; if you recall one of the objections I raised to your idea that the existence of things like human goodness, love and intelligence requires the existence of some external “ultimate goodness” was that this seemed too much of an appeal Platonic idealism (another logical argument you've failed to rebut) so no, Daniel, I'm not celebrating Spartan methods, I was referring you to a particular argument on the subject of the nature of morality, the substance of which you have again failed to address. This is common failing in your comments I find; you seize on some tangential issue, like reverse anthropomorphism in Life of Pi or Plato's idealism, make a lot of noise about it and never get down to addressing the actual points I've made. If you indeed have no more to say to me I shall certainly feel no loss, since you really haven't said anything new. For all your self-congratulatory talk about loving logic and thinking it seems to me that what you really love is the sound of your own voice, the sight of your own words on the screen. You've shown precious little respect for logic which challenges your presumptions or ideas which don't conform to the little boxes you've prepared. You accuse atheists of being “obstinate, angry, repetitious, determined to hammer home pet views” but you could be describing yourself here. You say you don't respect me, or most other atheists? Well that tone of contempt has been obvious from the start, Daniel, so that should answer your question about why I take offense at your remarks, but don't be too smug. You're really not half as clever as you seem to think you are. Your improvisations here have more in common with a well rehearsed show tune than Coltrane or Miles Davis (and the sheer arrogance of comparing your attempts at logic to such genius tells us rather a lot about you.)

Regards

A Hermit

Look, it all boils down to a simple formulation:
If you believe the following premises:
A) God is omnipotent and
B) Evil exists
then it follows that:
C) God wills evil.

If you claim that it is our own evil that creates suffering, well, god created us with this capacity. Why? If you respond because that gives us free will, well, why do we need free-will? Couldn't god have bestowed whatever kindness he/she/it wanted in a way that did not necessitate evil and suffering. If you answer that god couldn't then you've denied (A). Something has to give. There is no way out.

Perhaps the overt intervention of God is prohibited by the Terms of the Covenant?

Perhaps the overt intervention of God is prohibited by the Terms of the Covenant?

Below are comemnts by a reader of my article on Islamic mumbo-jumbo. This readers explain about all organized religions:

"I expose the falsehoods of all man made religions. These religions are just for business purpose. Arab religion is a derivative of Hindu religion. In Hindu religion the religious class is asking the masses to worship the stones. Shiv linga and parvati stones are the famous stones. Shiv linga is a male sexual organ and parvati is a female sexual organ. The Arabs have taken the parvati stone to mecca and calling it a holy stone came directly from paradise .How stupid and ignorant are the followers of this religion. The Hindus are spinning around the stone in India seven times clockwise and the stupid followers of Arab religions have just made one change....They made it to anticlockwise....What a great change .This parvati stone is a outstretched vagina, through which head of a baby is delivering out. The followers of Arab religions including the converts are saluting and surrendering their heads to this stone three or five times a day. They are kissing this stone (Parvati vagina and head of baby)during their very holy holy pilgrimage. If you will disclose to them this reality of worshiping the stone, they will desperately reply.. "no we are not worshiping stone, we are worshiping our god through this stone". What an intelligent answer . Stupid followers of a sadist god. He create them and asking them to raise their asses many times a day.

These poor followers are scarred of these gods. He has threatened them if they will not worship him, he will screw them in hereafter life. At other place this god has used another weapon "sex in the paradise",72 virgins for men. But no body ask this god,what about females, what they will get? I think Arab god is gay god, jealous of females .

Yousef Tabish "

Posted by SKM

Below are comemnts by a reader of my article on Islamic mumbo-jumbo. This readers explain about all organized religions:

"I expose the falsehoods of all man made religions. These religions are just for business purpose. Arab religion is a derivative of Hindu religion. In Hindu religion the religious class is asking the masses to worship the stones. Shiv linga and parvati stones are the famous stones. Shiv linga is a male sexual organ and parvati is a female sexual organ. The Arabs have taken the parvati stone to mecca and calling it a holy stone came directly from paradise .How stupid and ignorant are the followers of this religion. The Hindus are spinning around the stone in India seven times clockwise and the stupid followers of Arab religions have just made one change....They made it to anticlockwise....What a great change .This parvati stone is a outstretched vagina, through which head of a baby is delivering out. The followers of Arab religions including the converts are saluting and surrendering their heads to this stone three or five times a day. They are kissing this stone (Parvati vagina and head of baby)during their very holy holy pilgrimage. If you will disclose to them this reality of worshiping the stone, they will desperately reply.. "no we are not worshiping stone, we are worshiping our god through this stone". What an intelligent answer . Stupid followers of a sadist god. He create them and asking them to raise their asses many times a day.

These poor followers are scarred of these gods. He has threatened them if they will not worship him, he will screw them in hereafter life. At other place this god has used another weapon "sex in the paradise",72 virgins for men. But no body ask this god,what about females, what they will get? I think Arab god is gay god, jealous of females .

Yousef Tabish "

Posted by SKM

Below are comemnts by a reader of my article on Islamic mumbo-jumbo. This readers explain about all organized religions:

"I expose the falsehoods of all man made religions. These religions are just for business purpose. Arab religion is a derivative of Hindu religion. In Hindu religion the religious class is asking the masses to worship the stones. Shiv linga and parvati stones are the famous stones. Shiv linga is a male sexual organ and parvati is a female sexual organ. The Arabs have taken the parvati stone to mecca and calling it a holy stone came directly from paradise .How stupid and ignorant are the followers of this religion. The Hindus are spinning around the stone in India seven times clockwise and the stupid followers of Arab religions have just made one change....They made it to anticlockwise....What a great change .This parvati stone is a outstretched vagina, through which head of a baby is delivering out. The followers of Arab religions including the converts are saluting and surrendering their heads to this stone three or five times a day. They are kissing this stone (Parvati vagina and head of baby)during their very holy holy pilgrimage. If you will disclose to them this reality of worshiping the stone, they will desperately reply.. "no we are not worshiping stone, we are worshiping our god through this stone". What an intelligent answer . Stupid followers of a sadist god. He create them and asking them to raise their asses many times a day.

These poor followers are scarred of these gods. He has threatened them if they will not worship him, he will screw them in hereafter life. At other place this god has used another weapon "sex in the paradise",72 virgins for men. But no body ask this god,what about females, what they will get? I think Arab god is gay god, jealous of females .

Yousef Tabish "

Posted by SKM

To Hermit from Daniel. Hermit, if it pleases you, you can call me an effing whatever in every sentence you write to me just as long as you make sense. My procedure is one of logic. I really have no views. I enter a "view" and then just follow a logic chain to wherever. Sometimes I pop up at this view or that. But I am much more interested in just increasing a logical view of the world.

An example of illogic that you hold: At the very beginning of your reply to me you state " that it is a gross oversimplification to say that an atheist must accept that all is accident". A gross oversimplification? What then is an atheist? If all is not accident, then what? If all is not accident, then how can we keep from arriving at the view that everything has some sort of direction to it--which is what people mean by God?

Or are you going to try to straddle the issue with the Tao or something--which is a way with no directing agency? At best you enter paradox, if you do choose to make the straddle choice, which is of course mystification, mysticism.

But back to an important point I want to clarify. You seem so concerned with whether people insult you that you overlooked totally what could be an important psychological discovery.

I mentioned that God could still have been very important for morality even if having been an error because it might have been necessary in conflicted areas such as the middle east to believe that one is being watched when one really is not (this of course keeping people in line. And this of course being the principle of anthropomorphism). You brought up in reference to this the book the "life of Pi" which I too read. What you failed to see though in your zeal to take offense at me is that the life of Pi is the reverse of the anthropomorphic principle I was speaking of. The anthropomorphic principle is assigning human characteristics to animals, objects, etc., resulting eventually in an all seeing God. The life of Pi had a boy in a lifeboat assigning animal characteristics to humans (because of being a surviver of ship disaster and needing to stave off the psychological horrors endured in the lifeboat).

To be short Hermit, and if you really did have it in you to take pleasure in thinking rather than hammering your atheism nonsense into people's heads (and you really do descend to the level of mere propaganda) you would have observed that perhaps in different situations humans come up with different mental constructions to come to terms with reality, and even if God is an error he is necessary--and furthermore there might be all sorts of "errors" necessary for human mental functioning. In fact we can perhaps postulate that the boy in life of Pi was incapable of the anthropomorphic principle because he was in a lifeboat with no way to project onto anything human characteristics and was therefore forced to project onto the humans in the boat characteristics from the outside...animal characteristics, and not least because the humans in the lifeboat were reduced to the level of animals.

Do you at all see Hermit? Pure pleasure in thinking. It has nothing to do with this view or that, just being prompted to thought. I really see no difference between the vast majority of atheists here and religious fundamentalists. Obstinate, angry, repetitious, determined to hammer home pet views. I really have little respect for either of you. And I suppose I offend both of you. But I just like to think--in