The Theodicy Problem: No Problem for An Atheist

Indeed, as you say, one of the most difficult questions for the believer is "Why is there suffering?" It is interesting to me that this question has become so prominent in our age -- after the invention of pain medicines and antibiotics. That it did not register as strongly in the minds of the Medieval -- or even Enlightenment -- thinkers suggests to me that our shared assumptions about life have changed. But that is a discussion for another time.

I wish to state the oft ignored but analogous problem that dogs the atheist: "Why is there joy?" The questions -- and the conundrums -- are entirely symmetrical to the problem of suffering for the believer. Our existence, our reality, is punctuated with joy, beauty, and wonder. These experiences are (at least) equally random and gratuitous to our experiences of suffering. The answers given by the atheist to explain away this phenomenon are at least as trite and shallow as those given by believers to explain away suffering.

Hello!i have baG with
http://a-cash.info/pharmacyonline/vaigraonline ">.vaigra

Your name is mud

Whole nine yards - The

Put a damper on

Put a damper on

Have a Captain Cook

Have a Captain Cook

Keep schtum

(The) unkindest cut of all

Tail wagging the dog - The

The moving finger writes

Come on down

Far be it from me

New kid on the block

Arty-farty

Paint the town red

Sleep like a top

Draw a blank

http://besting.itrello.com >faxless cash advance no fax payday loan The balance of trade

http://besting.itrello.com >cash faxing loan no payday Tickle the ivories

Nice.

It's silly to blame a deity for natural events, but that is the gimmick. Priests and shamans have forever offered to intercede in return for a handout. We're conditioned to that thinking.

We also have to look at the functioning of the human mind: it seeks out patterns and matches them up. The mind races through myriad combinations and finds the ones that resonate somehow. That causes coincidences to stand out disproportionately. Some accept that as proof of a deity. Again, we're conditioned to that by millennia of priests pulling off miracles in return for collections, by their simplistic use of ghosts and souls to explain how a couple pounds of meat in our heads can hold visions and produce ideas.

When will we grow up?

Hi Gerry,

We were talking about modern Germany, not today's Germany. Take a look back to WWII. You were the one who used the example of the 30 Year War. That took place during the seventeenth century. I use something that took place during the twentieth century? If you want to see the results of an atheist Government today look at North Korea.

To make my last post clearer:

During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All by religious CHRISTIAN regimes!

Where is the body count of atheist regimes in TODAY'S Germany (the Germans have learned their lesson!), today's France, today's England (oh yes, I forgot, there is indeed some religious Islamist body count around), all of today's Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others.

The number of murders prove nothing pro or against the validity ("truth") of an ideology of any regime: Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.

Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the POLITICAL usefulness or danger of an ideology (and that includes religion) as seen by its perpetrators, NOT ITS TRUTH.

Gerry, what it proves is that atheistic regimes have been a lot more brutal in eliminating those that oppose them, so far in history, the bloodiest of all who have been in control of power.

The body count for modern Germany has been the extermination of six million Jewish people in a span of six years. If Hitler had succeeded it would have been far greater.

These mass murders were done on members of their own society. The German concentration camps are evidence to this brutality.

During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All religious regimes!

Where is the body count of atheist regimes in modern Germany, France, England (oh yes, some religious Islamist body count), all of Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others

The number of murders prove nothing pro or against any regime. The delusion of religion is neither proved nor disproved by murder numbers. Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.

Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the social usefulness or its contrary, not the truth of any religion.

Notice that Gerry offers the argument that,

"you are so obsessed with murder numbers to prove your belief."

"Then, what number of murders would be the minimum from where on you would judge religion as murderous?"

The point is that when an atheist regime comes to power the body count skyrockets, showing just how barbaric and immoral the belief that there is no god can be. The twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date in the history of civilization with between 80-100,000,000 people being murdered by atheist regimes.

Anonymous,

how so? Patriarchal caricatures? Your belief in the eternal non-reason seems to have clouded even your sensory perception, maybe even your skill of word choice, let alone your power of deduction ("Maybe that's why she rejected religion").

It is interesting that although Ms. Jacoby always claims to be a "free-thinker" her religious paradigms are always strictly patriarchal caricatures.

Maybe that's why she rejected religion.

Funny how those who say "there are no atheists in foxholes" are the same people who say that during the Korean War, we were being shot at from foxholes teeming with "godless communists."

I have a couple of questions for atheists and agnostics (not sure this is the best place, but what the heck).

What social options do we atheists have to take place of church for gatherings/socializing/rearing children? I live in the DC area, and have been looking but have not found anything suitable.

How do you intend to explain religion, etc to your children? How do you explain to them that you are a (once silent) minority in this respect?

What types of (non insulting)responses can one have to "god works in mysterious ways", and "gods will", "thank god xyz is ok after a crash", etc etc?

What do you say when someone sneezes?
How do you responde when someone says "god bless you" after you sneeze? What about bless you?

For ex-believers - Have you told your parents how you feel? (given that they taught you your prior religion to you) How did that go?

How can we promote ourselves as a political force? We are clearly the minority in the US - I hope that one day changes.

Just wondering...

Freestinker:

Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

~~ didn't think you did. I had seen others comment on that; (figuring this isn't private, thought I'd throw that in :) )

The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.

~~ true enough. I just take "not very likely" to a new level of "not going to happen" :)

You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."

"I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong. "

"I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no."

~~ isn't this near or at the arguement that one cannot prove a negative? (and please, (everyone) don't bother quoting from the bible/koran/etc as an example because one cannot trace todays bible/koran/etc back to the original writers. And, no god did not write the bible)

I don't believe one needs faith in order to fully believe there is no god. Personally, I came to that conclusion by examining what "faith" I had in the religion I was taught as a child, and realizing I was basically talking to myself when praying, that the bible (I was raised prodestant), could not be authenticated (who wrote it and when), that the bible was translated from one language to another over the years and therefore could not be 100% trusted for accuracy, and the basic fact that I was taught a religion that was invented hundreds of years ago, when humans' understanding of the world was all based on myth, religion, etc, and science was but an infant at best, as well as the fact that human's brains were smaller, etc.. I think what people need is basic logic to understand.

For instance, if you were never taught a religion as a child, and as an educated adult were introduced to any of the world's major religions, would you not have instant doubt, given that there is not any shred of proof in any way shape or form that anyones god or gods exist? I think if you look at the god question with a view that has not been tainted by child rearing brainwashing of religious beliefs, one would come to the conclusion that faith is needed to believe in a god. I think the opposite is true as well - those people that have lived only in a religious environment, and were not allowed (etc) to investigate, they would be incapable of using logic/reason to undo their learned religion. Just a thought.

"Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence."
~~ maybe, maybe not. I personally feel that there is a ton of evidence - Darwin's theory of evolution is the most 'proven' theory on earth - more proved than physics, more proved than plumbing, electricity, etc etc. It has been proved for the past, present, and future by virtue of being able to watch in real-time how organisms evolve. Everything that evolution has "proven" goes against all that is religious.

Add to that the feeling one gets when they realize that "I just don't get it" readily translates into "there is nothing to get", and suddenly, all becomes clear to those people.

Part of arguements that I have heard for the existence of god is 'how can so many people be wrong?'. There are tons of examples on how the masses' knowledge is false, but believed anyways.

Michael in VA,

Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.

You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."

I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong.

I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence.

Thank you Susan Jacoby for being the voice of reason, logic and rationality in this tidal wave of religiosity that is based on superstition, mysticism and blind faith. Your example of the grieving mother more comforted by a naturalist explanation of the loss of her 12 year old son to cancer rather than bewildered by the "God works in strange ways" idiom is an excellent one. Our self determination and self accountability qualities as skeptics prepare us far better to meet life's challenges with greater intelligence, responsibility and morality than any religion could possibly do.
Keep up your fine work as a very important light in the murky world of religionist propaganda.
Stan Friedland

"Freestinker:
Michael in VA,
So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open? "

Personally, yes, I would exclude agnostics. The definitions I put up were from www.dictionary.com. (I didn't make them up!).
Like all issues of faith, or lack thereof, its a personal decision - I decided that with my experience in life, having been to church, etc, there is no god. Simple for me.

For me, there is no open part of the question; no doubt in my mind. I don't believe the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes". I don't buy it. While having not served in the forces, but having some near death experiences myself, I didn't suddenly give up my beliefs and start believing in a god. My lack of faith is just as strong, just as valid, as a devote catholics to thier faith. As an aside, this 'foxhole' theory is very insulting to those of us who don't wear the athiest flag lightly. Why on earth would my feelings change about a lack of a god, because I'm facing death? It's not like I'm not aware of my eventual death. What's the difference being closer to death? (I digress).

"Freestinker:

Jihadist,

I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir."

HEAR HEAR!!! Well said!!!

"As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine."
Agree!

My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views."

I cannot agree on this. I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter. Other athiests that I know, facing death, also, did not waver in the face of a life ending. I've proven to myself that my prodestant upbringing was filled with fantasies, falsehoods, and false premises.

-A Humble Atheist.

Mr. Moderate,

The common denominator of the religious and secular atrocities is the "truth" claim of its perpetrators, not the specific philosophy underlying those atrocities, be it Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Pope(s), Ahmadinedjad, King Saul, Atta, every single suicide bomber, Inquisition founder Torquemada - they all "possess" the truth.

On the funny side: Talking about who invented religion, man or god: Do you know the story of the hillbilly who visited a planetarium for the first time? The director asked him, if he liked what he saw. "Yes, it's great, almost unbelievable! Well, somehow I can still understand that scientists find the paths of the planets and even the distance of the stars. But tell me, how come they know their names?

Moderate, your argument rests on secularism being the root cause of those atrocities. I don't believe that's the case with any of them, which is why I find the argument disingenuous. For example, Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941 when it suited his political purpose. However, your point that not all forms of secularism are benign is well taken.

For anyone interested, here's an interesting (and far from complete) laundry list of religious atrocities through the ages:
http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html

Gerry:

That was a joke. Levity, even.

All the best.

Gerry - interesting logic regarding proof/value of religion based on body count.

Could we include the plague? That was believed by the faithful to be a punishment from God. And belief and faith are all that counts when it comes to religion, right.

PRIVER - regarding next years unity walk, keep an eye on http://www.911unitywalk.org/

Does the comparison of murder numbers prove - or disprove - the existence of god, just simply logically arguing, which you always claim to do on such a high horse?

The Moderate,

you are so obsessed with murder numbers to prove your belief.

Then, what number of murders would be the minimum from where on you would judge religion as murderous?

Dear Banana Rama,

Brother Stalin has 100,000,000 motes on his banana. You shall know a thing by its fruit, Bunkey.

And...

My Banana is longer than yours.

E Fav:

What a cool idea- Count me in! :)

Banana rama - I like you

ARMINIUS - where are you?

PRIVER - maybe next year, we can lobby to get Pagans and atheists in the annual "Unity Walk" against religious intolerance that's held the Sunday before sept 11 in Washington.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's banana, but considerest not the big brown blemish that is in thine own banana?"

Moderate: Check your own banana ... it's pretty much ready for the compost heap. Of course, it's had more time.

Dear Chip:

"Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous,..."

I don't. Because they are.

"...and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument."

Sorry it is irritating. But Apples are Apples, Oranges are Oranges, and Murder is Murder. There is no shortage of "supposed" secular atrocities.

YOUR secularism may be of a progressive and liberal kind. Not all secularists are.

Take Sam Harris who advocates torture one day and dumps on Mother Teresa the next for one example.

Or Richard Dawkins who calls religious training "a form of child abuse." Then suggests that the state should intervene to "protect" children from their parents' religious beliefs. Does that smack of compulsory state religion to you? It does to me.

So the brown spots are already on the your banana if this represents your secularism. Rot is not far behind. We know where this self righteous kind of secularism goes.

I will stipulate that you may be better than these kinds, but take a look a the dark side or your own camp an you may get some context to work from.

The religionists are not all bad, and the secularists and Atheists are not all good. To say only your group has the literal truth, and no other ideas should be allow into the public square is to be a fundamentalist.

Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

I'll weigh in. I wasn't "converted" and I don't know any atheist that was. To paraphrase something I read on On Faith: Through many years of Catholic schooling I failed to understand why I couldn't 'get it'. Then I realized there was nothing to get :-(

Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."

-- Are you suggesting our efforts are futile? ;)

Whey are we here? Because we're here.

We're here to disrupt the complacent comfort of the homogeneous community. You cannot show light without the dark, to quote an old PBS painter. Contrast has a way of creating an edginess that is necessary in our discourse. John Stuart Mill was very clear on the need arguing the counter-perspective, even if no one believed it.

The specter of doubt was raised in me at age 12 by myself. Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Carl Sagan finished the job by age 16. So yes, I was "converted" by atheists in a way. But no, I have never converted anyone, and no, it is not my intent to ever do so. We're here just to let y'all know that the "unity out of many" that we seek is not arrived at by simply casting out the inconvenient fringes on either end of the statistical bell.

--FIUS

Archaeopteryx:

My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.

Um.. what?

The short answer is that we don't necessarily like what is happening in America, just like the atheists, and some of us want to be allowed to contribute to the discussion, cause maybe we've got some good ideas too about how to bridge the gaps.

"[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."

So I've formulated the hypothesis that the atheist/agnostics are here simply because they like to argue (i.e. they are not here to preach). I can respect that.

My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.

Freestinker -

I caught the Hitchens interview when it was aired live last Sunday. Good stuff, though nothing new for one who has followed the debates on his recent book tour.

Jay S.,

Provisional Atheist ... I like that one too.

Mr Mark,

There was a fascinating and provocitive interview with Hitchens on C-Span In-Depth this weekend. Worth a look if you haven't seen it before.

"What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect."

Ahhh what I'd give ... for the freedom to pick and choose my beliefs without an objective standard, skepticism be damned!

Moderate, my apologies. I have a bad habit of skimming. It seems we were making similar points. I think I missed the post you were responding to and wasn't getting the whole context.

That said, I think that religion ranks very high on the list of things that can bring out the worst pack animal potential of mankind, in a way that secularism by itself does not. Most religions are tribal systems by design. Mix claims of absolute truth with assertions that unbelievers or adherents to other faiths are inferior, should be converted, are not to be trusted, shouldn't be mixed with, should be killed if they don't submit, and all other such pearls of unwisdom codified in religious doctrines, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous, and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument. The more honest comparison would be not with secularism, but with racism, ethnocentrism, political extremism, nationalism, and so on.

In the context of the current On Faith topic, it wasn't secularism that inspired people to crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon. It was religion.

I have used the term "provisional atheist" for myself in the past, just as I am a "provional evolutionist". Since all evidence-based claims to knowledge are subject to revision based on new compelling evidence (which might or might not ever come), the provisional qualifier should not be viewed as a cop-out, just an admission that human knowledge is incomplete.

I suppose a provisional atheist is not that far from an agnostic, although the latter seems to leave the door open much more for god belief, and may view theism and atheism as co-equal possibilities.

I prefer the term naturalist in lieu of atheist, however, because it describes the philosophy I accept, rather than the philosophy I reject.

Jihadist,

I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir.

As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine.

My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views.

-A Humble Atheist.

"But maybe I'm wrong. So let me start the sociological poll by asking the question: Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

No. Those who describe themselves as atheists or agnostics come from a variety of backgrounds, some religious and some not. Nearly all seem to be strongly inclined to evaluate any claim to knowledge based on the evidence that supports that claim (many are scientists, so this comes naturally to them based on their training or some predisposition). In my experience, what they have in common is that they have given the question of god a lot of thought and study and ultimately found it lacking. They may have relied on a Dawkins or Harris to better articulate what they are thinking, but those I know were already there.

A Hermit,

Well put and I certainly agree.

However, theists often assume that most if not all atheists are absolute in their denial of the existence of god(s). That’s why they claim such a position requires faith. And it would.

But I agree with you that most atheists consider the existence of god(s) to be highly unlikely but ultimately leave the question still open.

As for Thor, as cool as he seems to be .... I doubt (with a high degree of confidence) that Thor actually exists.

Dear Freestinker -

Re: certitude.

I think we can all take as a given that there are few absolutes in this world, and that using terms like certitude always begs the question. After all, scientists were quite certain that the coelacanth was extinct until one was discovered alive in 1938.

The best we can do is to go with the evidence at hand, and by evidence, I exclude hearsay and eyewitness reports. There's a reason that forensic evidence almost always trumps eyewitness testimony in our courts. There is no such thing as "evidence" for the Bible myths. In fact, archaeology, geology and the other sciences more often put the lie to the Bible, rather than proving its far-fetched tales. Add to that simple and unscientific common sense and the Bible comes out on the short end of the stick.

As rational thinkers, we understand this. The mistake the religionists always seem to make comes in the form of the special pleading they hold for their beliefs. Why, one wonders, do they insist that there is "evidence" for their religious claims when there is as much (or more!) evidence for the existence of Santa Claus? The smart ones dump the evidence claim altogether and go straight for the "faith" card. The ones who are a little less smart throw in the eternal damnation canard to go with the faith card à la Pascal and his Wager.

What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect.

Heaven help us!

Thanks for the chat.

Minimalist,

I share your disposition on the matter.

I especially like your point about agnosicism. Many people use the term (incorrectly imo) to mean that the existence of god(s) is knowable but "I myself just don't know".

I think agnosticism means that the question is unknowable and I'm just not comfortable with such certainty about what is or is not ultimately knowable.

I prefer to think of myself as an open-minded or uncertain atheist.

Dear Freestinker -

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding what you termed, "a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found" for the existence of a god: Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting point when he says that while he knows atheists who wish that there might someday be proof that the Biblical god exists, he would be aghast at such evidence. The thought of spending an eternity in mindless servitude and ceaseless praise of such a being sounds to him worse than the alternative of hell. Hitchens cites present-day N Korea an example of life would be like under such a godly dictatorship.

I tend to agree with him, which is why I call myself and anti-theist, rather than an atheist.

Arminius,

Yes indeed!

I’m interested in getting a bit more specific with the terms we use here. I think many disagreements here are a result of ambiguous terms/labels.

Michael in VA,

So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open?

Mr Mark,

I agree with all your points. For rational thinkers, belief should never equal knowledge. The problem I see with vociferous atheists (including me at times) is the inference of certitude that often comes with passionate statements of disbelief.

What is really meant is: "I won't believe in any god(s) until I see scientific-quality evidence." So there is a presumption of non-existence, and a strong level of disbelief but always a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found.

If the term atheist does not infer absolute certitude, then it's a label that fits me well. If it implies that the question is definitively answered and closed forever then it would not. I could be happy with “agnostic atheist” unless agnostic means that the question is unknowable. I ‘m not sure if the answer to the question "do god(s) exist?" is knowable or not. I could argue that it is not knowable because by definition, supernatural entities are unknowable in the scientific sense. But if some god(s) do exist then they would be natural and knowable but we just don’t have the evidence yet. The scientist in me is very skeptical but wants to always leave the door cracked open should new evidence unexpectedly arise. So I agree with your point that “we can claim to a great degree of certainty is that gods do not exist based on all of the evidence available in the natural world”.

Mr Mark,
Michael in VA,
Arminius,
Minimalist,
A Hermit,
FIUS, and
Jihadist ....

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses to my question about absolute atheists vs. agnostic (or uncertain) atheists. The point I was getting at is that we often define and use these terms in different ways. Thus making it difficult to express or understand exactly what we mean to say.

The responses here show that agnostic and atheist are not always considered mutually exclusive, likewise with agnostic and theist. Also, some use agnostic to mean god(s) are "unknowable" while others mean "I personally just don't know". So it is very important to define our terms precisely, if we hope to fully understand each other.

Thanks again for your viewpoints.

Jihadist-

Let me echo Norrie's regrets. I've enjoyed watching you "fight the good fight" with your weapons of wit, humor, and respect. Merry do we meet and merry do we part, and merry we will meet again (I hope!). Blessed Be, my friend.

Jihadist,

I'm sorry to learn that you're leaving On Faith. Your posts have been wonderful and I've learned so much about so many things from you. Much fun, too.

I'll really miss you and I know that many other posters will also.

My family and I wish you the very best in all of the dimensions of your life.

Jihadist said: "Atheists have Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens et al. who articulated all they felt and think and giving reasons why they don't believe in God/gods, and their rights not to believe unmolested by state, groups and individuals. In other words, no harrassment of them, but their right to assert their non-beliefs, and to harass others for their beliefs."

I think that belief without evidence is, at best, misguided, at worst, idiotic. If that is harassment, then it is what it is.

I expect to be engaged, as I engage others. I do not expect protected status or tax exemption-- and it alarms me to have taxes extracted from me in order to pay for--oh what's a good one?--charter schools to teach bunk.

Long before Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris, we had Twain, Russell, Sagan, Bronowski, and countless others, scientists and writers, who articulated the danger and the folly of an "insufficient taste for evidence."

--FIUS

Dear Chip,

"Moderate, I've seen it argued both ways ad nauseum, and it surprises me not in the least that you ignore the inconvenient facts in favor of those that support your position when the position is anything but black and white."

I don't think you understand my point. It is that I see a "sillygism" here many times a week; most recently from you. It goes like this:

Historical figure X who believed Y committed atrocities and crimes.

Therefore Y caused X to commit the crimes and atrocities.

Further all persons who believe Y, everywhere and for all time, are responsible for these atrocities and crimes because X was a believer in Y.

Now you let X="Hitler" and Y="Christian".

So in order to clarify the structure of your fallacy I suggested different instantiations:

Let X="Stalin" and Y="Atheist"

Oh, THAT instantiation is nonsense! You say.

Actually the "sillygism" itself is nonsense.

And that is why I said "Give it up."

i love you.

Jihadist - do you really believe we are so stupid as to "base" our atheistic search for truth on rants like yours or anybody else's in On Faith? To denigrate an adversary in his dignity, moral and intelligence was a means of Hitler to quench conscience troubles with German soldiers by calling Russians "Untermenschen" (lower humans).

To place the serious search for one's personal handling on life and death as an atheist on a superficial "statistical" or sociological level ("a fad") is not only utterly unconvincing as to the reason, as to the contents of the underlying questions, but it also evades every serious try at empathy into somebody else's feeling and thinking but your "tribe's" - it is a well-proven way to maintain one's usurped "superiority". And people wonder why, lo and behold, we are getting angry sometimes?

It shows again the condescending basic attitudes of "truth possessors". The claim to possess the truth, Mr. Moderate, is the real "tertium comparationis" in your arguments, not the comparison of real or fictional numbers of murders, committed by this or that group, as you try to prove your religion with all the time. It is the truth usurpation problem that is the core of this discussion, not the vaccillating statements of Hitler, Stalin or whoever. Just for the records (to use Moderate's way of arguing for a moment): The 30 years' war diminished the German population by two thirds. Not before 200 years later the population reached the prewar level! I think even Mr. Moderate would brand this war a religious war, even if "religion" always, I'll admit that to Moderate, inevitably is connected to power grabbing. It starts with the horrible notion of "original sin", a super ingenious means of infiltrating and sickening unsuspecting minds.

And here we can find the analogy between Stalin, Hitler, Bush, Robertson, Hagee, Ahmadinedjad, et al., with different degrees of resulting disasters.

Let us state the basic difference between us: You are truth possessors, we are truth seekers. I, personally, put the latter on a much, much higher position in a scale of morality. Atheists, together with scientists, never claim to be in a possession of truth, they only defy that claim forced upon them by religionists. Atheists think truth is something dynamic, evolving, like the cosmos itself, while religionists think it is eternal, static, stalled. Not such an "eternal life" for me, thanks!

The Jihadist will be back. She like other "liberal" Muslims has to feed on other peoples' flaws. That way they don't have to consider their own flawed religion and states of militaristic Islam like the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran based on the "holey not holy hallucinator", "pwtfft"s and plagiarized messages.

Moderate, I've seen it argued both ways ad nauseum, and it surprises me not in the least that you ignore the inconvenient facts in favor of those that support your position when the position is anything but black and white. The point was simply that the holocaust was not the result of secularism as you so simplistically implied. Talk about tired canards. Men bound together under any ideology or creed under the leadership of persuasive demagogues can become dangerous. So it is with any such group or tribe believing their way is the only way, and woe to all who oppose it, be it political, social, religious, racial, ethnocentric, nationalistic, and on and on. Secularism by itself isn't an us versus them kind of thing. Its purpose is precisely the opposite. To single it out as the source of all things bad is, to be blunt, moronic. It's the equivalent of saying "the terrorists came in a bus. Buses make people terrorists!"

ARCHAEOPTERYX:

I'm not sure about your question: “Do you know any atheist who was converted by another atheist?”

I was not converted and don’t set out to convert others. What I experienced myself and see in other is a falling away from religion, for one reason or another (e.g., science education, unbiased historical information on religion, reacting against fundamentalist religion). I would have fallen away much sooner and much more easily if the facts about religion and the human support system were as accessible as they have been the last couple of years.

I certainly have experienced anger – for being personally misled and lied to and for seeing attempts to mislead the country and upset our precious secular democracy. These are justified reasons for anger, no? Anger, properly channeled, can be healthy.

Dear Chip:

Just a thought from Vladimir Lenin to round out the discussion:

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism."

Dear Chip,

"Hitler, as I'm sure you know but conveniently ignore, was a Christian."

Don't even try that hoary old canard. It has been answered so often it should be in an FAQ. Ever hear of Guido von List? K. M. Wiligut?

But since you fell for it, I will repeat some questions from an earlier discussion for you:

How do you explain the extermination of the Catholic priesthood in Poland?

Why did Heinrich Himmler say “Judeo-Christianity is the greatest plague delivered by history.”?

Why did Martin Borman say “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”?

Why did Alfred Rosenberg say: “One is either a German or a Christian, you cannot be both.”?

Why did Adolf Hitler say “Life is will to power...”?

I recommend a couple of excellent books to you:

“Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman“ by Abir Taha, Author House 2005.

“The Occult Roots of Nazism” by Nicholas Goodrick-Clark New York University Press 1985.

I can go on, but suffice it to say: you are misinformed on this topic.

Hitler was an anti-theist. He was not a Christian. The Atheists on this site like to manufacture lurid crimes to lay at the feet of "Christians".

They don't like owning up to the patron saint of Atheism, Uncle Joe Stalin, and his 100,000,000 murders in the name of creating the new socialist and atheist man.

Are Atheists Stalinists because Stalin was an Atheist? Stupid question. Right? But that is the level you function on when it comes to Christians.

Give it up.

I found Jihadist's suggestion that someone do a sociological study of vocal atheists here in On Faith quite intriguing.

One of the things that I've noticed is that there seems to be alot of angry atheists tuned in here, and that rabid athiest panelists seem to get the lions share of the comments. What is the source of all this ire I ask? If you think that theism is stupid and destructive, then are you also angry at all the other forms of human stupidity? Or is it just Christians that make atheists mad?

As an atheist/agnostic myself, I find all this talk a bit odd. I mean, my experience has been that you seldom see an atheist proselytizing. I've always felt that the decision to identify myself as an atheist was very personal, at least in the end, so outside influence was of limited importance.

But maybe I'm wrong. So let me start the sociological poll by asking the question: Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?

Hello Norrie Hoyt

I'm out of hospital and at home. This post to you is the last in On Faith from me for some weeks or perhaps forever. Many things happening here and there. The world economic and financial situation needs closer attention. None of the US presidential candidates seem to be focussing on the US economy seriously.

Thanks for the clarification on US and British based laws on libel and the links you gave. I'm irked that the lawyers cost me not for the amount itself, but the fact that the sum I am forking out to them so far can literally feed a hundred orphans three square meals a day at US $20 per pax per day for a year. Price of freedom of speech is as high as freedom from hunger it seems. I'm still given to cost benefit analysis and opportunity cost when I give out for causes and charities. I hope the excitable blog writers will be more conscientious in figuring out what is libel/slander themselves rather than rampaging like a mad, maddened and maddening herd. There are Malaysian laws that can get one for "incitement to hatred." Some Malaysians do taunt fellow Malaysians on race and religion that will make some posters here seem like polite old ladies having tea and complaining about the weather.

Anyway, on 13 September, Ramadan will start. I've been looking at the prepared lists for charities to give out to, and repast for breaking the fast of Ramadan at my residence and for mosques. Not to mention the schedule of round robin visits to mosques for prayers and charities here and there.

Food for Ramadan is quite tricky in some ways. Malaysians are very picky about food. Have to have lots of interesting dishes for breaking of fast during Ramadan. They love lamb, quails, pomfrets, prawns, crabs, tilapias, mussels, carps. So, have to pre-order them from now for the whole fasting month and for the festival at the end of Ramadan, Idl Ftr or Eid. Good thing my appendicitis put me in a "fasting" mode, being feed through the IV some sort of liquid sustenance.

I never knew you have cats in your family. My children have two cats - half-Persian half alley cats. Not so furry, not too insolent, nor as seemingly lazy and indifferent as a full Persian cat and more lithe and active. They named the cats, both females, Manggis and Embun, which are in Malay. "Manggis" is mangosteen and "Embun" is dew in English. Don't ask me why one is named after a fruit, and another after a perishable drop of water that happens during the cool dawn of the day.

My best regards to your family and you.

J

Moderate, secularism has little if anything to do with most of the wars and atrocities believers like to lay at its feet. In almost all cases they are the result of political, racial, and nationalistic ideologies embraced so blindly and fervently that they have more in common with religious fundamentalism than with secular neutrality. Hitler, as I'm sure you know but conveniently ignore, was a Christian. Granted, he was an odd flavor of Christian, but he was Christian nonetheless. When you hold up secularism as some kind of bogeyman in that way it just makes you sound foolish and blinded by bias, and it cheapens any valid points you have to make.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited." -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

E Favorite - if you can believe the ever-growing reports of out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences it might not be so bad.
Check the website http/www.near-death.com/
for confirmation - it has been said by those that allegedly know through acquired meditative abilities and experience that the afterlife has the same character and 'reality' as dreams but with the caveat that there is no longer a physical body to contend with (thus a pure life of the mind and thought albeit with the feel of a solid tangibility). There are said to be many worlds where you may find yourself after your demise - frankly, the mystery to me is why humans keep coming back as humans to good old Gaia - why not try life elsewhere in the universe?? The curious thing about religion is that it's usually got a very limited perspective - in that our world and our lives are portrayed as the only life in all of existence...we must now recognize that this is likely to be absurd in the extreme -
in the vastness of the Cosmos (which may even be multi-dimensional) there are surely older and more evolved civilizations (and some that are long dead). We tend to think small on this planet but afterall, homeo sapiens is relatively young as a lifeform (can it be possible that we've only had written languages and a societal structure for a mere few thousand years??) Maybe 20 or so years ago Julian Jaynes wrote a book called the The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind which stated that the origins of consciousness (and self-consciousness) were relatively new to man and only a few thousand years old. On the other hand, Neanderthal gravesites have yielded artifacts that may indicate a belief in an afterlife - certainly early Cro-Magnon evidence supports this. Now we're talking 25-50,000 years ago. I've always appreciated the imaginations of great science fiction writers - maybe they're tapping into the Collective Unconscious that Carl Jung was so fond of talking about. But here I am rambling again -

all the best.....

Arminius and Freestinker

Ignore what the atheists here say to you for a bit. After all, they are a still a minority group as yet who feel "repressed" socially. Never mind their laabellings on believers as deists or theists.

Let us have some more fun figuring out this newly vocal atheists as a sociological and politicised group without substantive, quantitative research, but based purely on very casual empirical observations in On Faith - what they say and do.

American atheists seem to be in an exciting stage(for them) of discovering their voice and identity as atheists - in finding out that there are others who think and feel the same way, and thus, getting a sense of individual and group "empowerment".

The budding vocal atheist movement (don't call them "strident" or "militant", they get really upset) if one can call their new asssertiveness as a group, has some parallels with the women's and gay movements of the sixties and seventies in the US.

For the women's movement, there were a series of high profile women writers such as Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, Gloria Steinem, providing grist and/or "ideology" (a.k.a. reasonings for beliefs and rights) for the women's movement.

Atheists have Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens et al. who articulated all they felt and think and giving reasons why they don't believe in God/gods, and their rights not to believe unmolested by state, groups and individuals. In other words, no harrassment of them, but their right to assert their non-beliefs, and to harass others for their beliefs.

As you know, in the women's and gay movements, there are very vocal, very persistent frontliners that can be quite strident and/or "militant". too.

"Militant feminists" comes out with the phrase such as "male chauvinist pigs" and "All men are pigs". There are strident and/or "militant" atheists who came out with phrases such as "All believers are delusional" and "I am anti-deist".

"Militant" gays came out with "We are everywhere" if I can remember, but quite mild in fact. But ut some were and still are given to "outing" high profile gays. This is just as atheists who want to "out" believers whom they think are closet atheists by taunting them as hypocrites and such to liberate them from delusional beliefs so it seems.

So, what do you think? Some other points or theories on this new and interesting social development re atheists?

By the way, as you can remember, the women's and gay movement toned down a bit after about a decade and their political activism became a bit more sophisticated. But achieving their respective objectives is still spotty - from abortion (women) to gay marraiges (gays).

I don't quite see as yet how Americans or many other people in other countries in the world can accept as yet, a first female president, or a first gay president, or a first atheist president. Or better, a first female black president who is an atheist.

So many sexists, homophobics, racists and anti-atheists still among us.

Best regards
J

Hi, Terry, regarding types of atheists. I don't know any (and I've come to know a lot lately) who simply resist theism.

They all seem to enjoy living life in the moment.

As far as death goes, the only thing I'm sure I've seen among atheists is an happy rejection of hell.

As for myself, I wouldn't say I'm particularly spiritually mature, but accept that when I die, I'll go the way of the rest of humanity. Not sure where that is - no one has ever come back to tell - but I think it's back to the cosmos.

Moderate - well, I can't disagree on either the first or second point....we're definitely in Iraq because of our own government's political agenda (and one I never supported) - the chaos that's been set loose between religious factions is another matter - and beyond our control for the most part....as my mother used to say, look before you leap.

The universe was definitely created or appeared in some fashion - or manifestation as the Buddhists would say. Religious seekers will (and should) look for answers wherever answers are to be found - and the end of the road is 'knowing thyself'. For me the conundrum is simply put - is God far away or very close (or both)? Is God different than me, or made of the same stuff?? Does God have a separate (and unknowable) identity, or are our identities intertwined like eternally entangled particles (as the physicists would say)?? What happens when you die (or do you??)? What happens when your spiritual work is done?

But here's the thing - how can one presume to find the answers from start to finish in a single lifetime? For me, believing (or having faith) does not translate into knowing - it's only a start. Life is short, but I won't be hurried. The 'win or lose everything in a single lifetime' aspect of Christianity is so off-putting to me that simple logic prevents me from buying into it. I can understand the atheistic ethos very well - but unfortunately this leads to a purely materialistic orientation and for me that's a pre-mature dead-end (unless there are covert spiritualist/atheists lurking out there that we don't know about).

That said, if you're an atheist that simply resists theism that's one kind of atheism. If you're an atheist that is able to live in the fullness of the moment with love and compassion and have dealt with your own impending death on your own terms and to your own satisfaction, you are probably far beyond most of us in your own spiritual development - you could be a bodhisattva and just don't happen to remember it.........cheers!!!

Dear Terry,

We are in Iraq because Cheney wanted their Oil. The Sunis are in the war in major share because they want to get a share in the oil revenue from Shiite and Kurd areas.

The Holocaust (conducted by secular criminals) is never far from the mind of the Jews that I know. They think that a Jewish homeland makes them safer in the world. I am not sure you can call that a strictly religious issue.

I agree with you that religion is created by people. However, I believe that the Universe, and us in it, was created by god. It is our conundrum meditate on the meaning of that. Religions are the varied response to that imperative.

Moderate - yes, secular politics has killed many more in a vast number of (ongoing) wars, when compared to wars inspired by religious difference - but wait... isn't that what's going on over in Iraq?? Supposedly all about differences in religious ideology, and that's just among believers in one religion - I guess we're the 'secular' dimension in that war ... or maybe not.

The folks over here that have always supported the war in Iraq most vocally (and politically) seem to be forever mentioning Christian values (the Jewish values are always just barely covert - but we all know Israeli interests are a factor). In the end, it's just hard to separate out one ideology from another (politics vs. religion) when entire populations an cultures are involoved.

My theory? Religion was created by, of, and for the people - spirituality can be and often is a different matter..... to me this is a quest by the one, not the many.

Norrie and Moderate - I also hold the Cathars in high esteem but mentioned that many strange and anti-social behaviors were attributed by the Church as a justification for their ongoing extermination. Many were mystics and contemplatives of a high order and had developed siddhis or psychic powers not uncommon with practitioners of various schools of Yoga, Taoism, Zen, Dzogchen and Tantric Buddhism as well as many Catholic and Protestant saints and mystics. The fact that they were able to self-immolate by walking voluntarily as a group into a massive burning funeral pyre shows the saintly resolve of many early Church martyrs.

As to the question at hand in the beginning - why does God seemingly allow the perpetual suffering of one ongoing human catastrophe after another if He is a kind and loving God??

As Norrie says, the Gnostics would attribute all of this to the imperfect Cosmos of the Demiurge that Moderate first mentioned - He is a mighty but created Deity that is not the Ein Sof of Judaism (and the Original Source found in all religions under many names) but is the old testament Yahweh of hellfire and brimstone, and is a self-absorbed pretender that doesn't seem to know any better. Humans can defeat the Demiurge & transcend human suffering through real Knowledge (gnosis) of the true Source (God) and re-aquire their birthright as perfect beings. They believed that Jesus was indeed the Redeemer - but that he showed the way to achieving salvation rather than serving as the instrument of salvation by proxy. Naturally this did not sit well with those that would give a different shape to the early Church and ultimately mysticism (the self pursuit of God) would be replaced by rules for salvation - doctrine and dogma.

Moderate - an excellent compilation of Gnostic writings can be found in the recent 'The Gnostic Bible' by Barnstone and Meyer. You will see that historically they have had (and continue to have) what can only be called admirable spiritual goals with a deep understanding of the Sacred and the Profane.

Ah Sunday - a good day for preaching!!! Amen.

Dear Anon/Terry:

Yes, religionists did conduct massacres and executions. Many of these had secular motivations. The Spanish Inquisition for example was conducted to secure the Iberian peninsula after its reconquest from the Moors. As such it was as political as it was religious.

Secular societies and leaders have killed vastly more, though. The perspective here seems to concentrate on the religious crimes to the exclusion of secular ones.

Religion is always compared to nonexistent perfection, rather than the real world around it.

The basis of comparison of religious wars should be secular wars.

The basis of comparison of religious crimes should be secular crimes.

History records that the only thing more dangerous than Mankind with God is mankind without God.

"From what you're saying here Paul sort of single-handedly edited the Gospels himself (maybe 50 ++ years after the fact) and made all the right decisions as regards 'the most truthful and accurate' of the many extant Gospels, thus giving us the 4 that we have today....a monumental work to be sure if true - one has to wonder at the degree of scholarly objectivity in those days however."

Not exactly Paul single-handedly. In fact far from it. Luke was a far better writer, and we find in Acts (also written by Luke) that Paul and Luke traveled together on a canonical journey from 57 to 64 AD ending in Rome. There was time for them to work on the Canon during this time. Luke wrote the Gospel according Luke (or it was written by a different author also named Luke). He tells us that he interviewed the eye witnesses in to set down an “orderly account'. He also wrote almost certainly wrote Acts. Clement tells us that Luke translated Paul's Letter to the Hebrews from Hebrew into Greek, which explains why the Greek was so much better than Paul's other letters. So there are strong indications that Paul and Luke collaborated extensively. The Gospel of Luke, Acts, and the Letters of Paul, and the other two Synoptic Gospels may have been brought together into the Canon before the death of Paul in Rome.

A lot of the nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship relied excessively upon translations and commentaries. A lot of it is, in fact, commentaries upon earlier commentaries. Gets pretty squishy that way. As Pope Benedict said the figure who emerges in the search for “the historical Jesus” is always surprisingly similar to the authors dong the search.

Arminius – I can see that you've done some study of the Gospels. The only thing that differs significantly from what I’ve read is your statement that it’s “very, very likely” that Mark had access to eyewitnesses.

Let me know if you’re going to address other things I’ve asked about. I don’t want to press you. As I said, I wanted to understand you, and think that I do have a better understanding, and maybe as much as is possible in this venue.

Anon/Terry,

I appreciate your mention of the Cathars. We should all strive to keep the memory of that noble people alive.

I'm sure you're well versed in the Cathars' story, but what you mentioned in your post might be misleading for those who have no knowledge of their extermination.

For those folks:

Yes, 200 Cathars were burned at Montsegur at the conclusion of their last stand. They voluntarily accepted their fate and were burned together in one huge pyre. They could have avoided that horrible end by converting to Catholicism, but they refused and remained true to their religion.

Many thousands of Cathers were killed during the Albigensian Crusade. The Cathers were exterminated not just physically but also culturally.

This cultural genocide was so complete, with all of the Cathar writings being burned, that most of what we know of the Cathars' beliefs comes from Catholic transcripts of the Inquisition trials.

The non-Cathar culture of the vibrant land of Occitania/Provence was also exterminated, and replaced with the sterile and intolerant practices of Northern France and the Catholic Church.

This was a grievous wound to all humanity, which continues with sad consequences to the present day.

BTW, Anon/Terry, I disagree with your saying that the Cathars had "strange beliefs." I think their beliefs are a more accurate interpretation of the universe than orthodox Christianity's.

In particular, I agree with their dubbing of Yahweh, the creator of the material world, as "the Ignorant Demiurge", a lesser diety who was stupid and thought he was the Ultimate Godhead when he wasn't. Yahweh/Demiurge was also predominately sadistic and cruel.

No wonder the Roman Church has acted as it has through the centuries - an inevitable consequence of its worship of that Bozo/Demiurge.

Best wishes.

For those interested, copies of original gospels, epistles, pseudo versions and related documents and a best-guess estimate as to their origins and date of publication can be found on line at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Contemporary NT exegetes have analyzed these documents in detail and from these analyses over 100 books have been published with signficantly different conclusions. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Moderate - to say the Elaine Pagels 'got it all wrong' concerning her coverage of that group in The Gnostic Gospels seems alittle over the top - and I recommend a reading of The Gospel of Thomas (and others) as a more quintessential Gnostic rendering from that time period (from the Nag Hammadi Library text). From what you're saying here Paul sort of single-handedly edited the Gospels himself (maybe 50 ++ years after the fact) and made all the right decisions as regards 'the most truthful and accurate' of the many extant Gospels, thus giving us the 4 that we have today....a monumental work to be sure if true - one has to wonder at the degree of scholarly objectivity in those days however.

You mave have seen in my ammended comment that while the early Church stoned and burned dissenters and heretics - and no doubt mainly after the Church was validated at the Council of Nicea in 325AD - they didn't crucify heretics because as you said this would be blasphemy of the sacred cross.

The Church burned and beheaded a variety of famous in infamous dissenters well into the 16th & 17th century (how can we forget Joan of Arc, & Gallilao barely escaped but recanted his heliocentric theory - his contemporary Giordano Bruno did not - and of course Thomas Aquinas himself, to name a few). Let's not forget the slaughter of about 200 Albigensians (Cathars) in the 13th century - many strange beliefs (didn't believe Christ was actually crucified because this would be impossible as God) and practices were attributed to this group of 'dissenting' Christians as a justification for burning about 200 at one time (to their lasting credit the Knights Templar refused to paricipate in this action ordered by Pope Innocent - eventually they were eliminated themselves for their vast property holdings - the Church's hand are far from clean throughout history). Even the early saints were careful with their own mystical observations relative to God and Christ (St. Francis and St. Theresa come to mind) lest they offend official Church doctrine - and lose their heads).

Catholic christians were of course not the only christians that used radical recourse to the opposition - Henry VIII was a lovely person, and let's not forget our own Salem Witch Trials (often called political in nature but nevertheless those witches were hung with the blessings of believing Christians). Well, As you say, all in all maybe not great numbers taken over nearly 1500 years, but Church leaders were often as ruthless as Constantine himself - the progenitor of Christianity as the offical Church of Rome (can he be considered an early Church Father??).

As you can tell, I'm just not particularly inclined to accept the Gospels as the gospel truth but I appreciate your references and will try and check out your recommendations.

I'm not an atheist but after my early years as a Catholic I've long since departed from mainstream Christianity and am more pursuaded by Buddhism these days. Well, I'm rambling now -

Thanks again for your response and observations.

Dear Arminius:

Definitely check out the wo books to you by David Trobisch "The First Edition of the New Testament", and "Paul's Letter Collection". He went back to the oldest surviving codices and minutely surveyed them for editorial and textual consistency. The degree of inter codex-agreement is consistent with the production of a First Edition done at one time by one set of editors. It is not consistent with every Church Father rewriting the stuff to suit himself over four centuries. Excellent quantitative historical study those books are.

A lot of the twentieth century scholarship was basically the opinions of guys sitting around in faculty lounges talking to each other, like The Jesus Project.

Trobisch a actually used earliest historical manuscripts to assess the redactional frame.

The subjective (although widely held)views you give on the Gospels are going to have to be revised in light of modern statistical work.

E Favorite,

Damnit, what are you, a shrink?!? (BIG grin!)

Tired, and getting grumpy. I will address the origin of the Gospels a bit here. Yes, I have put some time in on their origin. This off the top of my head, subject to correction.

No one knows who wrote them, except that someone named Luke wrote Luke (and the Acts). As to dates, I agree with the most commonly accepted dates:
- Mark, sometime between 60 - 70 AD aka CE.
- Matthew and Luke, between 75 - 85 or so.
- John, after 90.

John is usually considered the least historical of the Gospels, despite the most complete narration of Jesus' trial. Luke was the most literate writer, Mark the least. (I've read a bit of the Greek, this is true).

Since Mark was written no later than 70, it is very, very likely that the author - I'll call him Mark - spoke with first hand witnesses. They would have been 60 years old, at least, but it is reasonable. For the other gospels, it is a stretch. Figure this way. Since the latest date for the birth of Jesus is 4 BC aka BCE (this is the generally accepted date of the death of Herod the Great, he who received the Magi), then, since Jesus began his ministry at age 30 (Luke, I think), and it lasted for 3 years (based on John, who mentioned 3 passovers during this time), then the latest date for the death/resurrection is 29 AD/BCE. (I had loads of fun back in 1997 telling fundies that this was the true millennium). So, anyway, if a disciple had been 25 in 29, then in 65 he would have been 61. Very possible there were first hand witnesses for Mark; Jesus had more than 12 followers. It is also possible that Mark himself was a witness. Remember that the low life expectancy then was caused by deaths in childbirth and infancy. If you reached 18 or so, you had a good chance at reaching the 'three score and ten'.

Yes, the four canonical gospels were chosen out of a field of 50 or so. I have looked at - tried to read - the surviving ones that were not chosen. On that basis, the choice of the 4 does not surprise me. The Gospel of Judas, being Gnostic, is simply not understandable. Altho the theme of that work cannot be ignored. No, I don't have an answer.

Enough for the evening.

Dear Anonymous,

"Elaine Pagels is a highly respected scholar that writes extensively on the early Christian era and she makes it quite clear in her writings that the true authors of the gospels are completely unknown."

The old saying goes: The Iliad and Oddysey were not written by Homer, but by a different author of the same name.

Also, Elaine Pagels got the the whole thing with the Gnostics completely wrong in her book on that topic.

Gnostics existed for hundreds of years before Jesus. They were dualists who had a variety of sources of salvation from the Demiurge (inferior God). They were the New Age folk of their own time. When they heard of this Jesus Saviour, they incorporated him into their Esoteric Gnostic Myth about how souls would return to the true god from the. Pagels mostly talked about the Nag Hamadi Library in her book. My impression when I read it was "interesting but very shallow."

"In addition, the prevailing Christian view (mythology) that we have today is simply the results of the dominant thought of early Church leaders (Irenaeus, Athanasius, St. Augustine (later but in the same vein, Thomas Aquinas), et al).

There is good evidence that the New Testament was edited by Luke and Paul while Paul was in Rome, and they took Mathew, Mark.

The notion that the New Testament grew like a coral reef over hundreds of years held by the twentieth century academics is wrong.

I recommend two books to you by David Trobisch "The First Edition of the New Testament", and "Paul's Letter Collection". He went back to the oldest surviving codices and minutely surveyed them for editorial and textual consistency. The degree of inter codex-agreement is consistent with the production of a First Edition done at one time by one set of editors. It is simply not consistent with the idea that every Church Father rewrote the stuff to suit himself over four centuries. Excellent quantitative historical study those books are.

"For example, the Gnostics were an early Christian polyglot group that subscribed to alternate and contrary views, and were largely exterminated for their temerity."

Do you have any evidence that they were "exterminated" as opposed to being expelled and ignored? The early Christian church was on the run, and was getting exterminated regularly. I don't think that they were doing any extermination.

"And of course this 'disappearing' strategy was employed by the Church for hundreds of years as a punishment for heresy of all kinds (burning at the stake and crucifiction were de rigor)."

I know of no instance in which the Christian Church or states in Christendom crucified anyone. It would have been blasphemous. I doubt it ever happened. Can you offer a credible scholarly source for it?

The Spanish inquisition (over a thousand years later) engaged in torture and executions in approximately two percent of the heresy trials that they conducted. There are very detailed records available in Spain down to the present. The death toll may have been as few as 800, or as high as 2,000.

Nasty business, that, but compare it the the Secular Roman Marcus Licinius Crassus crucified many more slaves after the Spartacus rebellion in a week than the entire Spanish Inquisition executed by burning at the stake over two centuries.

E Fav:

Glad you liked it. :)

LOL stories like yours about "Frieda" make me wonder sometimes how others outside of our borders really do see America's citizens, when you take out the actions of the government.

Arminius,

I really liked your sunset story because I too have had very similar experiences where interactions with Nature at her most jaw-dropping beauty have moved me to tears. It's fascinating to me that yours led back to the Bible and a church.. and mine ultimately led me to my home in Paganism.

It shows me that our experiences are often so similar, and how wonderful it is that we can draw different conclusions from the same phenomena. Why would the Divine want us all to think the same if these types of experiences are supposed to lead us ultimately to where we feel most at home?

Priver – You’re keeping me laughing – and reminding me of a secular story along the lines of “Harold be thy name.” A guide in the US Capitol was perplexed when a tourist asked him how the statue atop the Capitol got the name “Frieda.” The guide couldn’t imagine how the stupid tourist got that idea, until he recalled that the standard ending of his spiel on the statue, was “And her name is Freedom!”

Arminius – Thanks. Regarding the gospels, I think I understand about living the message of love, but I don’t understand taking the message of eternal life at face value and not worrying about it. What is “face value” and what don’t you worry about?

I also wonder if you have studied how the gospels were written, how they were selected for inclusion in the Bible or if you’d be particularly interested in knowing those things? It seemed important for you to accept the gospels, on some kind of personal level, but not to understand them on an academic level, is that right? It sounds, too, like you’re trying to accept some of the tenets of Christianity too (e.g., not lusting….). So I still wonder – how does this relate to your sunset experience? It sounds like when you knew there was a God, you also knew there was a Jesus. But also did some checking (e.g., re-reading the gospels). Is that how it happened?

You say, “Logic and spirituality are oil and water.” What about logic and religion?

What do your non-religious children think about your religion?

Regarding militant atheism – my mention of it was somewhat off the cuff and certainly off-subject. I’m not fond of the term. I think the media invented it, not atheists themselves. I think it really means outspoken atheists, for instance, people who used to describe themselves as “not very religious” who will now just say “I’m an atheist” and discuss their position, similar to the way Christians would discuss their faith. What do you think?

I’m glad you’re grateful for this conversation. I certainly am.

E Favorite, for some reason I had to read gladly the cross-eyed bear about four times before I got it, and then I couldn't stop laughing. Now my forehead hurts from smacking it so hard. I think I need coffee.

Arminus, I enjoyed your sunset story. I had a similar experience one day about ten years ago. I was over at a friend's house when a fast moving thunderstorm came through. We took shelter inside while it passed, and when we went back out the setting sun was illuminating these thick stringy remnants of cloud from underneath in brilliant purples and oranges. I excused myself and drove home like a maniac to fetch my camera, then ran to the park across the street and snapped pictures until I ran out of film. It was achingly beautiful. The kind of sky Maxfield Parrish might have painted. Surreal and other-worldly. All the while I was amazed watching the people around me go about their business, eyes on their shoes, seemingly oblivious to the magnificent sight above their heads.

I can very much understand how such a thing might make one see the hand of god. I know I felt that way, in a metaphorical sense at least, that evening in the park - awed, humbled, and feeling connected to the universe in a way that only that kind of rare serendipitous beauty can inspire. Just happy to be alive and aware in the brief time the spectacle lasted. Few other things have made me feel a profound sense of wonder as intensely. The first time I saw the Aurora Borealis was one. Drifting on my back on a glass-still lake with the arc of the Milky Way stretched above me from horizon to horizon was another. Things like that truly make life worth living and in those brief moments rational thought would just get in the way. Plenty of time for that later.

I'm probably pretty close to what might be considered a militant atheist, but that doesn't mean I'm not also a romantic. Thanks for sharing.

E Favorite,

I’ll give your questions a shot.

‘Level of acceptance with the Gospels’: I buy into the message and the teaching. I take the message of love to heart and try to live it. I take the message of eternal life at face value and don’t worry about it. Some things Jesus said bother me; I am divorced, and, even at age 64, can look at a woman with a bit of lust. Other passages disturb me – “I come with the sword….”. I keep searching.

Holy Week is real to me, and very personal and emotional. Of course it may not be real to others. I accept that.

As for the sunset, logic cannot be applied there. Logic and spirituality are oil and water. Two different paths, but both are good.

My kids are basically non-religious.

I threw in ‘militant atheists’ as a tongue-in-cheek comment. Some of them are, the ones who insist that I am insane, for example.

I am grateful to you because you are making me think and examine where I am coming from. And red wine would be fine!

Chip and others,

Here I am, a believer, laughing my ass off! Thanks! And I love 'Life of Brian'.

Mr Mark,

I'm a little disappointed in myself. I was tired, grumpy, and had consumed one beer too many. My comment was out of line. Sorry.

Mr mark, Thanks for the "Chorus of the lonely Shepherds" info. Now I don't feel so silly about my reaction. I am amazed, though, that I hadn't heard that before.

Singing the Messiah in college choir was one of the best times for me.. where I discovered what music can do.

As a Jew in choir I even once found myself singing a solo for 'oh happy day'.. out of 200 plus people in the women's choir, she chose the only Jew in the group to sing about Jesus washing my sins away. As a young kid I used to think that 'well, the music is so pretty- does that mean I have to be Christian now? I don't really want to..'

Our version alternated between braying in between 'like sheep' and 'have gone astray' and our own verse- All we need sleep cause it is day...

And Python certainly did say it best.. 'always look on the bright side of life'..

anybody who says that religion has to be so solemn should be made to watch things like Life of Brian.

Here's to all those out there who may have, as I did, gotten tossed out of a church for mishearing a prayer and asking someone if God's name was Harold. (Harold be thy name)

Dear E Fav -

The Messiah chorus you mention (All we like sheep) is known as the "Chorus of the Lonely Shepherds" in my circles.

Chip - Great post.

Hermit and priver and Mr Mark enjoyed your stories - I bet there are a lot of them.

I'm starting to wonder if the terms "free spirit" and "golden shower" were originally taken from hymns.

Have you heard of "Gladly the Cross-Eyed Bear"

I recall reading an article about a pastor's kid who couldn't figure out why they were singing about a bear in church.

I had a similar experience the first time I practiced the Messiah piece based on Isaiah 53:6. Unfamiliar with the bible verse, I was astounded and confused as the chorus belted out "All we like sheep!" "All we like sheep!"

I was quite relieved to finally hear the whole verse: "All we, like sheep, have gone astray"

I haven't laughed this hard while reading On Faith in a long time. Thanks everyone! Mr Mark and A Hermit, those are classic! I'll be passing those stories on to others if you don't mind. Priver, I think I'd have gotten along famously with your grandfather.

I've often wondered if any hope I had of attaining faith was doomed by my father exposing me at a young age to Monty Python. To this day I think Life of Brian is as rational a basis for religion as any other, only much funnier.

Chip's story reminds of a story my Grandfather liked to tell. Seems there was a young lady in front row of the choir of his church who had a habit of leaning forward as she sang the high notes. On Sunday morning, in a particularly passionate performance, she leaned too far, fell out of the choir loft and was caught by the ankles by her choirmates.

As she hung there, her robe and skirt drawn past her head by gravity exposing her to the congregation the quick thinking minister shouted, in his best prophetic voice, "Any man who looks up at that poor woman will be struck blind by God!!!"

Grandpa, a rakish young man at the time, turned to his brother with his hand over one half of his face and said, you know; I think I'll risk one eye..."

Chip:

"The final straw was one day during church youth group when I was rummaging around in the kitchen behind the chapel and discovered that the body of Christ is manufactured in a factory in New Jersey, and his blood is actually Welch's grape juice. I'd discovered the man behind the curtain and paying no attention just wasn't an option for me."

This made me laugh and reminded me of the time I caught my grandfather under the table drinking the wine that we were supposed to leave out for Elijah to drink during Passover.

Even as a former Jew, I can relate. Thanks for that. :)

Mr. Mark,

I would have loved to see the rest of that hymnal! :)

Chip writes:

"When I started to enter puberty several years later I did enjoy seeing the female members of the flock in their Sunday finery, which inspired many adolescent daydreams far more entertaining than the sermons I ignored in their favor."

Ha!

I had a similar experience. During my senior year in HS, I dated a rather buxom young lady from my church. We often sang the Sursum corda at the end of our Lutheran service which concludes with the words, "uphold me with thy free spirit." As my gal pal used to wear a Playtex Free Spirit bra, those words always elicited a playful wink between us.

One other church story - during my years in NYC, I worked as a freelance singer and usually had a church gig on Sunday. I sang for a while in Murray Hill at the Swedenborgian Church just off Park Ave. on E 35th street. The church hired a paid quartet (I was the tenor) and an organist. We'd meet Sunday about an hour before the service, read through the anthem and get it ready to perform. We never had time to go over any of the hymns - we just sight read them during the service.

Anyway, the church used a very, very old hymnal. One fine Sunday, we launched into the closing hymn and were doing fine until we reached the third verse and found ourselves singing the text, "let fall upon me your golden showers."

Needless to say, we all lost it and pretty much called it a day.

Dear Gerry & Anon -

I'm glad you enjoyed that site.

My linking to it was in no way an attempt to say, "here it is, the be-all and end-all, Bible debunked, case closed, if you don't believe it, you're an idiot." I posted the link as a starting point for what I considered to be a well-reasoned argument...and an argument I hadn't read anywhere else. Certainly, it is as compelling an argument as the "Jesus is a rehash of Mithras, Sol Invictus, et al," and it is certainly a more-believable argument than "supernatural beings exist who took human form, died and were resurrected to save mankind from sin."

I had hoped that Arminius would find the ideas interesting if not - to his way of thinking - compelling or conclusive.

Oh well...

Chip,

A great post !!!

Sheila, my story is very similar. I'm not sure I ever believed, but I became aware of my disbelief when I was eight years old, upon hearing the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday school. I simply couldn't fathom that I was being told such a tall tale by an adult who fully expected me to believe it was true. I felt insulted. Immediately after I asked my parents to allow me to attend "big people church" with them instead. It wasn't any better.

When I started to enter puberty several years later I did enjoy seeing the female members of the flock in their Sunday finery, which inspired many adolescent daydreams far more entertaining than the sermons I ignored in their favor. Luckily lightning never struck my pew, and the emergence of a bit of lace beneath a hemline still makes me thank a higher power. During that time I also, through weekly practice, learned that I could wiggle my ears. That skill will no doubt impress whoever is in charge of the pearly gates when I arrive.

The final straw was one day during church youth group when I was rummaging around in the kitchen behind the chapel and discovered that the body of Christ is manufactured in a factory in New Jersey, and his blood is actually Welch's grape juice. I'd discovered the man behind the curtain and paying no attention just wasn't an option for me.

Soon after, I informed my parents that I would no longer be attending church with them. I made exceptions on Christmas Eve and Palm Sunday. The former because it made my parents happy. The latter because the Canadian Brass would perform and the acoustics of the church made them sound truly glorious.

I stopped believing in God when I was sick with chicken pox at the age of six and decided to cut my hair on a Saturday.I did.The heavens did not fall.

In addition, I hated the high holydays. I do not know tht basic cause but my father went insane on the holidays. Perhaps he was hungry. I ate. Again, God did not punish me. Another blow against God.

Perhaps the major blow was when the rabbi put his hand up my thighs.

Since that time I have lived happily, ethically, honorably without the patriarchal god, with my comfort in life coming from friends, music, literature, and writing.

In my above post I have to ammend early Church strategies for heresy - obviously it was the Romans that crucified early Christians. Later on, the Church employed stoning & burning at the stake as a punishment for heresy and 'enemies' of the Church (after all, the wanton use of the deeply religious symbol of the cross would have been heresy itself - a stake without the cross member was sufficient to the task).

Mr. Mark - thanks for the corroborating links to the purported historical invention of Jesus....there is indeed much evidence to support this hypothesis. Elaine Pagels is a highly respected scholar that writes extensively on the early Christian era and she makes it quite clear in her writings that the true authors of the gospels are completely unknown.

In addition, the prevailing Christian view (mythology) that we have today is simply the results of the dominant thought of early Church leaders (Irenaeus, Athanasius, St. Augustine (later but in the same vein, Thomas Aquinas), et al). For example, the Gnostics were an early Christian polyglot group that subscribed to alternate and contrary views, and were largely exterminated for their temerity. And of course this 'disappearing' strategy was employed by the Church for hundreds of years as a punishment for heresy of all kinds (burning at the stake and crucifiction were de rigor).

Flavious Josephus, the great Jewish historian and chronicler of the early Christian era is not known to have mentioned Jesus in any context as a comtemporary social phenomenon - rather unusual to avoid mentioning such an impressive (if socially disruptive) presence if Jesus was indeed a social reality.

Great writers such as Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade have thoroughly and ingeniously covered the mythmaking propensities of the human mind (and spirit) and the roles and functions of mythology in general. Certainly all of the world's religions are chock full of religious super-heros that far exceed the ordinary in every way, and give us deeply imperfect folks with mundane lives something to aspire to in the process (a major function)- in our imagination we can be all of these things and more, and at least a few have achieved the impossible heights. Could Jesus be one of these beings??

Mr. Mark,

thanks for this very informative link, I learned a lot from it. It seems, the author has gone through a huge amount of reading and studying to produce such a coherent historical picture.

Even if Jesus existed (which he never downright negates), it remains a fact that the present brand of Christian ("eternal truth") belief has been generated by (is a concoction of) numerous political, factional, philosophical, historical factors and interests, and it has not appeared as the present "faith" before the Nicaean Council.

The light-handed dismissal of this article by Arminius is a secret to me. Does he want to abandon any claim to at least a minimum of intellectualism?

Arminius – you raise many interesting issues, which makes me want to quiz you more:

When you say, you “reached a level of acceptance” with the gospels, it sounds to me like you didn’t completely buy in to them. Is that so? If it is, what bothered you about them and how did you resolve that?

When you say, Holy week “is REAL to me” are you acknowledging that it’s a personal thing? That you realize it might not be real to others?

When you say “forget logic” and “screw logic” – do you mean you don’t care if the Christian beliefs that re-emerged from your sunset experience have any basis in reality or fact?

Regarding your children – where are they in terms of religion?

When you mention “militants” - which you have in at least one other post, what do you mean? What does “militant atheism” mean to you in practice? Do you have any specific examples of militant atheism?

When you say you’re grateful for my help, how am I helping you?

Thanks for the offer of a few beers. If we have the opportunity, let’s make it red wine, instead. I used to prefer beer, but now limit it to venues where the red wine is wanting. I had more than my share tonight.

After the beginning, and Creation was created, and God was rested, and the weeks passed, God saw what he had wrought, and cried "do over".

Satan said "wait, wait, perhaps if you came down to earth as a man, the people would better understand your purpose for them."

God thought for a moment and arranged to have himself born of a virgin woman, so that the people would know he was someone special. The woman was promptly stoned to death for the crime of fornication.

God then said, "well, one more try" and arranged an announcement so that the blessed Virgin would be allowed to carry to full term. And he was finally born. The prospect of the almost interminable boredom of living in time was unbearable, but fortunately he was omnipotent and could skip all that.

Once He began preaching His original word, he expected that the missteps made by the faithful would be corrected. To his astonishment they treated him as any other lunatic. They pointed to the first books, declaring them faultlessly transcribed. He countered with his rigorous knowledge of what He himself had said and showed the flaws in man's interpretation of his original intent in the first covenant. (how do you transcribe a burning bush after all)

Satan pulled him aside and said, "God, you may have to resort to miracles again, couldn't you walk on water or raise the dead? Throw them some kind of bone, so they know you're the One?"

God took this wise advice and did a little magic to help the recruitment effort. Again, he was astonished when people continued to ignore his divinity. Again Satan intervened, "You must understand, these people starve, suffer, die and are generally miserable--and you forget how well I tempt them." And god scoffed, "Well how hard can that possibly be? And what could you possibly offer them that cannot be exceeded by my shining glory? I'm going to cancel this whole experiment"

Satan said, "Wait, wait, wait, come with me to the desert and we'll have a chat. If you can withstand my best offer and you think it's so easy to die, I can arrange that. Then you'll at least know."

So God signed and Satan arranged everything, the betrayal, the crucifixion on the Hill of the Skulls.

God marveled at his friend's efficiency in the whole process, but when he read through his contract again, he noticed that he wasn't allowed to use his omnipotence to skip through to the end. The Lord of Hosts soon understood that he really had to die--all the way.

After it was accomplished, God was totally freaked out, to Satan: "Whoa, that was tougher than I expected, the Magdalene's body, magnificent... and the end, that chilling moment when I doubted my own existence! How powerfully these creatures feel, who I have created!

"Still, if I could do it, it shouldn't be so hard for them. I'll give them one more chance, one more miracle, I'll come back so that all who believe in my resurrection and pass through the valley, as I have done, will be assured my Eternal Companionship. To Hell with the rest."

Satan smiled, said: "Thank you"

Submitted for your amusement,

--FIUS

PS Freestinker. I cannot know what I cannot prove and I cannot prove that no god of some sort exists. I have my doubts, but I cannot know it, to my satisfaction, so to me it is "off the agenda" for my life's timeline. Whatever is, is-- and I'm content to let it be what it is. Write me down as an Agnostic on the overall god question.

Of the God of Abraham / christ of Christianity / prophet of Islam trilogy of terror I am more sure. It is bunk -- but as you've noted on another thread, I have no supporting evidence other than intuition. But write me down as an Atheist on the Yahweh question.

--Faithless

Dear Arminius -

I believe you took "a look" at the site I linked, but I had hoped you might have read a bit of it. I know how extensive it is, and there's no way that you could have gotten a sense of the man's argument in the 23 minutes between my original post and your reply.

BTW - the site is worth bookmarking for the links to the scholarly works of others, many of them well-known Biblical scholars. But, if you prefer to be dismissive and to call "flat earthed" an article that you couldn't be bothered to investigate in any depth - even after you asked me for "the facts" - then you'll excuse me if I fail to offer you additional links to support my position.

Truth be told, I'm a little disappointed in you, Arminius.

Mr Mark,

I took a look at the site. It seems a credible candidate to be lumped into the flat earth society and such. Wishful thinking. Right down there with 'Chariots of the Gods', that dain bramaged book of some decades past.

Most historians accept the historical presence of Jesus. What the Gospels said he did can certainly be disputed. Check out Widipedia - yes, I know, that place can be suspect. But the articles are well documented.

Arminius asks:

"What are the facts?"

I'd recommend the following link which contains an extensive article that I consider very compelling, well-reasoned and well-documented. The author posits that the figure of Jesus is the product of Jewish mythology:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Nella Lung, you said:

"Many theists are intelligent people. Once they hear all the facts and are given the ability to think freely and boldly, they too, will most likely abandon the clever superstitions and myths of old for reason and modernity.

So give me the facts, please.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

I, too, am an atheist. Thanks for your wonderful article. Today, in a world torn apart by baseless faiths, we need more atheists who are willing to speak up and reach out.

Many theists are intelligent people. Once they hear all the facts and are given the ability to think freely and boldly, they too, will most likely abandon the clever superstitions and myths of old for reason and modernity.

And to all my fellow atheists, it's time to let the world hear us!

Wiccan,

Thanks for your post. Aren't Coon Cats wonderful?

We had wanted to get a MCC since our last cat, Asland, who seemed to have some MCC characteristics, passed to his next existence.

No pet stores seemed to carry MCC kittens, at least not in our area. We tried the internet, but most of the breeders seemed to be Ma and Pa operations, not near us, who only have one or two litters a year.

These small breeders also tend to insist you sign a contract that you won't let the MCC outdoors. This seems to me to be an absurd, cruel imprisonment for any cat, and particularly for one with the MCC nature.

My son advised that I should sign the contract and then forget it - no one could enforce it. I told him I don't do things like that.

Then, after coming out of a meeting held 90 miles from home, my wife noticed the adjoining building: it was a pet shop with a sign: Maine Coon Kittens Inside.

We really lucked out with Archie and Belle. They have all the wonderful MCC characteristics, physically and psychologically. We weren't looking for purebreds, but they are, with their parents having those absurdly long, absurdly funny pedigree names.

We live in rural Vermont on ten acres. We let A & B outside during the day. We get them in at dusk.
The coyotes are nearby and we hear them baying at night.

There are also fishers ("fisher cats") all around, who think cats are the delicious new white meat.

An ecology lesson: Fishers were imported to Vermont in the 19th Century to rid the state of the porcupines who were harming the timber industry. Fishers were the only predators who could kill porcupines despite their quills.

The fishers knocked them onto their backs and then slit their bellies (all the product of the benevolent God, was it not?).

The porcs are now all gone from VT and cats are the new nourishment.

I always enjoy your posts.

Best wishes.

I've lived without a god idea for 60 years and find that it is a very satisfactory and satifying life stance within which to live, both through the good times and the bad.

I've lived without a god idea for 60 years and find that it is a very satisfactory and satifying life stance within which to live, both through the good times and the bad.

Salve, Wiccan!

I went to the link, and was, as our Australian friends say, gob-struck! Copied and saved to disk, in a growing treasury of Rumi. Thanks!

Vale, et pax tecum.

Mr Mark,

Hello, Music Man! And well versed you are in that, I am envious.

Anyway, you said:
"Well, I would say that non-believers are so because of the facts, believers remain so *in spite of* the facts.

OK, then. What are the facts?

E Favorite,

First, if I ever have the pleasure of meeting you face to face, I would like to buy you a beer or three. Or, if you don’t drink, we’ll hit Starbucks or whatever.

You are right, my ‘fall from grace’ was not a thought process. I was pretty well versed in religion at the time – hell, three semesters of religion, OT, NT, and comparative religion, plus massive exposure to the services. I just got disgusted with it, decided they had no arguments that I could buy, and left. Maybe lazy, I don’t know. It made no sense. When I look at it now, from that angle, it still makes no sense.

Re the sunset. Yes, ‘Glory to God!’ was totally spontaneous. No thought required. That’s the whole point – the thought came after this outburst. But it was a full-blown spiritual experience. No doubt in my mind. Something in my spirit erupted, and joined with that fire in the sky. Forget logic, I cannot explain it otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with the conclusion that you reached in your pursuits. For my part, I did not feel misled, just befuddled by the lack of anything to hang a belief on. As a footnote, one of the priests of my youth was a bona-fide nuclear physicist. I wish that I had listened to him better than I did. For me, the pursuits of science and religion are equally valid and parallel lines that meet at the infinity of God. (Have at it, you militants! – not you, E Favorite).

Now we get to the tough stuff. This is very difficult to explain. As I said before, I walked into All Saints on a Wednesday noon, and realized I had come home. Screw logic, I just knew that. Yes, I dived into the Gospels. After about four readings, including Acts and Paul’s letters, I had reached a level of acceptance. But reluctantly, at least at some points. Yet, yet… somehow, Holy Week is very, very intense for me. It is not intellectual, it is almost visceral. Can’t explain it, won’t try. But it is REAL to me. Even when I make bread (I bake my own), I think of the Last Supper. The pain, the sacrifice, the passion of the Christ is very real to me. I don’t know why. Maybe has to do with a lot of Scot-Irish heritage.

So, then, this is not where I stand, this is where I am. The journey continues. I am grateful for your help.

Oh, yes, my kids. I married at 30, had my first child, a daughter, at 42. Somewhat behind my peer group! Anyway, my girl, 21, is double majoring in dance and psychology, and wearing herself out by doing great things. My son, 18, is just in college, and has shown an unexpected interest in philosophy. His former interest was computer programming – my background.

Take care, keep in touch, and God bless.

Assalaam Alaikum, Jihadist. I'm sorry about your misbehaving appendix, but you seem to have found a way to pass the time during your enforced rest. :-)

Salve, Arminius! I found out about Rumi from this very forum. What a treasure he is. A lady named Pamela quoted one of his poems about Moses upbraiding a sheperd about how he was worshipping, only to be upbraided himself by God. http://www.iamlookingforgod.com/2005/05/moses_and_the_s_1.html

Namaste, Norrie. You know that my family believes that favored humans are allowed to reincarnate as housecats. My brother and I found Peter the Great, a Maine Coon Tuxedo, at the Fairfax County Animal Shelter 12 years ago, and he has ruled over us since then. Athletic, intelligent, and very mischievious; a glorious animal.

And to Maurie Beck, Live Long and Prosper (IVI)! What a fascinating post on "Exodus to Arthur, by Mike Baillie". I'm reading a PBS Nova transcript about it right now. I've always thought that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered more from bad press than the wrath of God: http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/960630/sodom.txt.

To Everyone: Blessed Be and have a great weekend!

You're right I could say the same for the hijacked Teaching of Christ, and the profiteering Evangelicals. I love science, I was mereley being an @ss, just to try and get a rise out of you, I know it's the least effective way to speak, but still I love the mind behing your words MR Mark. I know science is great, but gravity and nuclear fission, and the Table of Periodic Elements already exsited even before we "invented" these things, science will save us, but only if it is balanced by a moral use and used to benefit.

The Modern Miracle of Health is so successful because of the techniques refined during WW2, I know that religion is bad, Christ never walked around saying Build a Church here, or start a fundraising event here, that was a result of helping people, True Enlightenment is reach by balancing what you can control and knowing what is beyond your control, as for me apologizing is one of my favorite things...I am sorry that I was rude, I did read your post I was mereley being a jerk.

And yes you're right science is leading the way for a future, be it better or worse that is not up to science that is where the choices of men shall decide to take it...

Laughing on the Inside-MONK

Arminius writes:

"But no one has really gone to the core of the matter: where is the proof, or non-proof? Most non-believers seem to be, by definition, agnostics. IMHO, an atheist will say that because the existence of God, any god, cannot be proved, then God, or gods, do not exist. And a believer will offer proofs that God or gods exist, proofs that will not stand the test of logic. This oversimplification might at least be a starting point.."

Well, I would say that non-believers are so because of the facts, believers remain so *in spite of* the facts.

As a human being, I should offer some thanks to mankind for coming up with religion. It was, after all, our first attempt as a species to offer a "scientific" explanation for our natural world. It just happens that it was our most-infantile and off-base explanation.

To hold to such infantile beliefs in this day and age is a reflection of the fear and guilt that religion employs as a one-two punch to keep the believers in line. Strangely enough, the religious have no problem discarding our other early and now-discredited attempts to make sense of the world. When was the last time that a believer summoned an alchemist for his opinion before the pharmacist mixed his prescription, or the last time a believer requested that a witch doctor be present during his cancer surgery, or that NASA consult with an astrologer before launching a probe into the far reaches of space?

But who knows? If the Bible demanded that believers attempt to spin straw into gold to gain salvation, there might still be an alchemist on every corner and a religionist across the street accusing scientists of not being able to offer "proof" that alchemy was a chimera!

Back at ya.

E Favorite,

I have downloaded your response, and will reply after some thought. That sunset did not really give an answer to me, it opened a doorway. I am a seeker. I am indebted to you for helping me seek. More when I can figure some of this stuff out.

Thanks for the invitation, Arminius – my goal is certainly not to hurt your feelings – it’s to understand you. But I know from experience that feelings can get hurt in the process.

It sounds like you drifted from the church, but not actively toward atheism, right? When you say you “decided it was worthless and dumped it all” it sounds like it was not based on any objective (e.g., historical, scholarly-biblical research), but rather a decision based on your direct experience with the church, is that right? Regarding your assumption that “this is how most atheists get that way” I’m not so sure. What I find is that when people don’t talk with others about their feelings, they assume all sorts of things that may not reflect reality. What you describe is similar to why and how I gave up Catholicism, but unlike you, I didn’t give up religion entirely then (but I didn’t attend church) and still believed in God. I know someone else who quit both Catholicism and God as a child, because of psychological abuse by a nun (even while keeping it a secret and continuing in Catholic school). There are lots of other stories too.

When your sunset happened, I’d say (my opinion/speculation here, of course) that “something” definitely happened – it sounds like a full-blown spiritual experience of the type discussed on this forum a few months ago. But, not only are you sure that something happened, you are sure of what it meant –that there is a God, in part because you uttered “for the Glory of God.” I’d suggest that the words might not be so filled with meaning, but instead could be a spontaneous reaction, just as someone might say “Oh God” or “Sacrum Merdum” (in translation) when something really good, bad, or surprising happens – unrelated to anything religious.

When I had my experiences, I also knew something happened. Unlike you, I didn’t interpret them. In one case I did have an insight about my own humanity and my place in the universe. It wasn’t about the existence of God, but a knowing that I was fully human in a way I had never felt before. I’ve since learned that this feeling of oneness with the universe is pretty common element of these experiences.

That experience made me curious. I realized I had little academic knowledge about religion, so I started to research it. In the process I learned how little I knew about my own religion – which embarrassed me; how much I’d been misled, which angered me; and how incredibly shaky were the foundations of Judaism and Christianity, which shocked me. It still does.

I am not suggesting that you or anyone else should have gone into research mode the way I did. People are different. I also know people who did extensive research on religion without the prompting of an experience such as yours or mine. However, I do wonder if actually having additional reliable information beyond your innate “knowing” that God exists would have made a difference in your decision to return to the Episcopal church. What do you think? My other question, bluntly put, is, “OK, so you know God exists, how does that then relate to the Jesus story or any other religion’s story?”

I’m also curious about your children. Are they grown? Are they religious? How did it all happen?

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Dear XYMERIAN MONK -

Thanks for your comments.

You do yourself a disservice in your argument by shifting the goal posts and attempting to redefine my post into a "science good, religion bad" argument, but you can only do that if you willfully ignore what I actually wrote, ie: "in a world that for better or worse is dependent on and defined by the march of science."

I think the phrase "for better or worse" is unequivocal in its meaning, especially in context of my entire post.

You also offer up a typical strawman when you write, "that is why science has taken away hunger, and poverty, as well as suffering and War." The same sarcasm can, of course, be said of religion, so what's your point? More importantly, your sarcasm rings hollow as it also ignores the "or worse" modifier of my earlier post.

Still, thanks for engaging in the dialogue.

First sorry if this double posts...

Mr Mark:

The problem that religion faces it that it has no new or compelling arguments to make in this science-aware world. The belief in the supernatural is losing steam as civilization matures and progresses.

Thank you for explaining that. I mean who really wants to Follow Jesus anyway, I mean Love your Enemy and Love another are soo outdated. That is why science has taken away hunger, and poverty, as well as suffering and War. I thought that it was science that invented the Nuclear Bomb and Chemical Warfare, as well as better chemicals to benefit torturing...but no that was all "those" fanatics that LOVE...so when is the World Scientific minds going to go to Ethiopia and Angolia and serve those kids "knowledge" instead of food?

Science itself is not evil, neither is a personal relationship with Christ; however, you have to factor in that small Human element...that is where the world has lacked in its progression..Greed, Corruption, Deceit, and Hate...the power of science can not fix those things, but what do I know I'm a Monk.

P.S.

China is the worlds largest atheist nation and look at what they have done to my people in Tibet. So glad all that is wrong in the world can be taken away with scientific progression...LET THE HEALING BEGIN!!!

Liberated-MONK

Arminius writes:

"Most non-believers seem to be, by definition, agnostics."

True - at least in the sense that except for the pantheists, all theists are "atheists-minus-one," that minus being the one god that they do believe in out of the thousands invented so far by mankind.

Yes, Arminius, you've only to eliminate that one remaining god from your faith portfolio and you'll be full-fledged atheist, rather than the 99.999999% atheist you are now. :)

Mr Mark:

The problem that religion faces it that it has no new or compelling arguments to make in this science-aware world. The belief in the supernatural is losing steam as civilization matures and progresses.

Thank you for explaining that. I mean who really wants to Follow Jesus anyway, I mean Love your Enemy and Love another are soo outdated. That is why science has taken away hunger, and poverty, as well as suffering and War. I thought that it was science that invented the Nuclear Bomb and Chemical Warfare, as well as better chemicals to benefit torturing...but no that was all "those" fanatics that LOVE...so when is the World Scientific minds going to go to Ethiopia and Angolia and serve those kids "knowledge" instead of food?

Science itself is not evil, neither is a personal relationship with Christ; however, you have to factor in that small Human element...that is where the world has lacked in its progression..Greed, Corruption, Deceit, and Hate...the power of science can not fix those things, but what do I know I'm a Monk.

P.S.

Cina is the worlds largest atheist nation and look at what they have done to my people in Tibet. So glad all that is wrong in the world can be taken away with scientific progression...LET THE HEALING BEGIN!!!

Liberated-MONK

Gerry -

Thanks for your thoughts on music.

Yes. it's a strange thing. As a musician, I can listen to the last minute or so of La bohème and know exactly what compositional tricks Puccini is employing to make his effect, yet nine times out of ten, I end up in tears along with the rest of the "amateurs" in the audience, swept up in the emotion of the moment, a moment that was created in an extremely calculated way by an extremely gifted composer.

I HATE when that happens!

Mr Mark,

Well, I did not mean to upset anyone. Of course the questions that Freestinker asked have been asked a lot here. I do think he managed to package them better than normal. What he seemed to ask is 'Where are you really coming from? Have you examined the basis of where you stand, especially in relation to what the critics say of you?'

And the answers are coming in. And so far they are reasonable. But no one has really gone to the core of the matter: where is the proof, or non-proof? Most non-believers seem to be, by definition, agnostics. IMHO, an atheist will say that because the existence of God, any god, cannot be proved, then God, or gods, do not exist. And a believer will offer proofs that God or gods exist, proofs that will not stand the test of logic. This oversimplification might at least be a starting point.

Freestinker -

One more thought.

The problem that religion faces it that it has no new or compelling arguments to make in this science-aware world. The belief in the supernatural is losing steam as civilization matures and progresses. If one truly examines that which gets one through the day in this modern world, one would freely admit that religion has been relegated to the sidelines - a caprice, as it were, in a world that for better or worse is dependent on and defined by the march of science. Religion is faced with the reality that science and enlightenment have already dismantled and redefined enormous swaths of human experience that were once the province of religion.

As an atheist, I say, "thank god for that!"

Mr. Mark,

one more word about music and science:

An important part of the fascination music has for me is the fact that mathematical proportions (numbers) of time chips (vibration frequency of pitch, time comparisons of phrases, development of motifs, the time structure of a Sonata or Symphony, adapted to the auditory processing and memory stretch of our brain and finally the mastery of time modification of a great performing artist transcend into an emotional quality that can move one to tears.) For me, as an atheist, one of the great miracles of nature.

The effect does not require any knowledge of its scientifically explorable origin. But I refer to Robert Schumann's demand for a balance of "Kopf, Herz und Hand" in music and music performance.

Mary Cunningham,

You wrote:

"Try not to state your conclusion before you marshal your facts."

In college and law school the conventional wisdom (endorsed by the professors) was that the way to the highest grades was by first stating your conclusion and then stating why and how you got there.

Of course it really worked only if your conclusion was correct.

With a wrong conclusion boldly stated at the outset, it was hard to get a high grade even if your subsequent analysis was good.

But when your boldly stated conclusion was right, then you were likely to get a high mark.

Regards.

ARMINIUS writes:
"Freestinker:

Well, by damn, you seem to have opened a glorious can of worms! This is going to be fun. So far, I have heard a lot of babbling but no straight answers."

I'm surprised by your post, Arminius. First, because Freestinker asks a question that has been cogently addressed many, MANY times over on this blog, and second, because the answers offered in this thread alone put paid to Freestinker's oft-exploded argument

Perhaps straight answers aren't what you're looking for, or perhaps you don't recognize a straight answer when you see one. In these days of the Larry Craig debacle, it's confusing to imagine what some people consider to be "straight" answer. :)

Freestinker asks: "Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?"

I can honestly say I don't remember encountering any atheist who took the position of absolute denial. For me all questions are always open to revision, although the likelihood of overturning any of my opinions is directly related to the quality of the available arguments for and against it. If I'm interested enough in a subject I'll look at those arguments, consider their merits and implications and come to some kind of conclusion, in which I will have some degree of confidence from the tenuous and extremely provisional to something approaching certainty.But unequivocal, absolute certainty? I don't think that's possible on any question. People of faith might claim such absolute knowledge; I'm a little more humble myself...

In the case of God's existence I would say I have a very high degree of confidence in concluding that God does not exist.

That goes for all gods, of course.

To put it in perspective, Freestinker answer this for me; what's your opinion on the existence of Thor? Belief, unequivocal denial of existence or highly confident doubt?

Regards

A Hermit

"Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?"

Maybe there is a god, but given the evidence that currently exists there's no basis for rational belief in one. Perhaps some day evidence will be found that will convince me there is a god or gods, but I currently place the odds of that happening as so incredibly small as to not be worth much consideration. I do not claim to know there isn't a god, so in that sense I am agnostic, but I do not believe there is a god, and that makes me an atheist.

Hi Freestinker,

Speaking only for myself, I'm open to the possibility of some sort of deity, or deity-like entity. It's a weird, wooly Universe, so why not?

My disbelief enters the picture because I find the claims of human religions to have no verifiable historical basis; often contradict observable reality; have little internal consistency; and the moral positions are simple reflections of humanity itself (see, for example, the mix of great good and great evil endorsed by the Bible).

Faith is another quality I lack; I tried, believe me I tried. It's hard not to, being raised in a multigenerational family of pastors and church workers. I have no doubt in the sincerity of the faith and personal experiences of others, but in a way that's the point: what makes the personal faith experience of a Lutheran any more or less valid than that of a Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or shaman? The experience is real and valid to each of those people, but without a personal experience there is no rational reason to differentiate between them, or to declare one religious experience more sincere than the other.

I am not an agnostic; agnosticism is a position that one cannot truly "know" the existence of a god. There can be agnostic atheists and agnostic ("faith alone") theists; my sister, a recent seminary grad, is one of the latter.

I believe it is possible to have evidence of an entity that claims god-like characteristics, if it exists -- I just do not find any of the claims of human religions to be reliable at all, so I reject them all. My sister has a similar position (being a liberal christian she takes the historical claims, especially Genesis, with a grain of salt) but she has faith. I do not.

I'm pretty vocal about my atheism and not afraid to get punchy if some dingus like Stevens-Arroyo says ignorant crap about us, but as a whole I have good experiences with theists, and a friendly attitude toward them. My sister lives for Bach, and went into seminary to focus on devotional music. It inspires her, uplifts her and gives her life meaning, and I can't find fault with that at all. It's just not for me.

Freestinker:

Well, by damn, you seem to have opened a glorious can of worms! This is going to be fun. So far, I have heard a lot of babbling but no straight answers.

The atheist haters make a few important mistakes:

First, they think atheists are underdeveloped emotionally, because they don't cherish this warm cozy fuzzy feeling of "MAYBE there is a supernatural being" ("Maybe" is, of course, reinforced by "certainly", the feeling is thus enhanced, Pascal's wager.)

Second, the endless reiteration of the "moral" issue: Atheists are at least statistically (measured in prison inmates proportion) many many times more "moral", even when measured by the positive elements one can find in the Christian morality. And measured in the atheist terms of morality: They do something because they think it is right, not because they are afraid of being punished (and "redeemed" by our dear Lord etc.etc.) They don't believe in "redemption" and behave without the threat of hell and the hope for reward.

Third, they usually are certainly no less informed about religions and their history; from what I can conclude after reading so many posts, quite to the contrary. Normally believers couldn't care less about the history, about the political and philosophical strifes for theological sophisticated definitions, which finally became a historical inheritance by which we suffer up to this day, and which constitutes the material of most of believers for their "eternal truths".

Fourth, atheists don't "lack" anything, as believers so fervently reiterate. It is believers that lack the "cool", beautiful critical and at the same time highly emotional awe and wonder towards the awe-inspiring, mysterious and self-generating universe (may I recur to the snow flake example: God did not make them hexagonal, the chemistry and molecular structure of water procure this form), which they, in most cases, don't know and really don't care much about, especially the ID-brand.

Fifth, atheists don't try to "convert" anybody. Conversion would imply a religion to which someone is converted. The desperate and futile attempt to call atheism a religion has been debunked ad nauseam and doesn't have to be defended against anymore.

Sixth, atheists, or rather secular humanists are a far cry from a monolithic organisation. More often than not they have experienced what it feels like to believe in any sort of religion or superstition, and they have awakened to the possibility and dignity of the self accountable human mind.

Mr. Mark, thank you for your beautiful contribution to music and religion. I happen to be a professional musician myself, and nobody ever has criticized my work for a possible lack of faith. Music and religion do not correlate.

Freestinker:
"For self-described atheists:
Let me ask the question this way.
Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?

Just curious."

Personally, A) unequivically deny the existence of god. Personal reason: I did some investigation of the religion I was taught, found zero "proof", did some history on how the bible was written, and decided I was talking to myself during praying, no one else. I would have to say that my prior faith was probably not all that strong. Much like my (lack of) affinity for authority.

I think this may be mixing atheist and agnostic, not sure.

Some definitions may help:

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic 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 deity 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 commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Freestinker writes:

"In other words, if the existence of god(s) is unknowable (i.e. not provable), then the same must hold true for those who claim that god(s) definitely do not exist. That claim is likewise, not provable."

True, but what we can claim to a great degree of certainty is that gods do not exist based on all of the evidence available in the natural world.

The mistake that the religionists make is in ASSUMING that there is any more weight or gravitas attendant to their belief in a god existing than there is in the belief that the Easter Bunny exists. There is no proof of either, so why would one assume that disbelief in one (god) carries a greater risk than disbelief in the other (Easter Bunny)? Because some desert nomad with the knowledge set of a 21st-century 5-year-old said so and wrote it down in some book? Have at it!

I guess it all comes down to how much BS, myth and discredited opinion one is willing to accept whole-hog as being the EQUIVALENT of knowledge and fact that have been proven over and over again.

Thanks for the chat.

Arminius,

Why am I not surprised that you read Rumi? I love his poems.

For self-described atheists:

Let me ask the question this way.

Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?

Just curious.

E Favorite,

Go ahead and express an opinion or three. I have a rule of thumb for living: If ya wanna try to hurt my feelings, ya had best get up real early and pack a lunch.

Basically I drifted away from the church. It offered nothing but words at the time, and it made no sense. And nobody really agreed on anything, especially between denominations. And differences with other religions were even worse. I could see no way through the confusion, so I decided it was worthless and dumped it all. And, I think, this is how most atheists get that way, because when you look at the whole circus, it does not make any sense at all.

This period lasted 30 years or so. I raised two kids, the best two things I ever did, and taught them to make up their own minds about religion.

Then the sunset happened. I now believe that God must have put His hand on me and jerked my spirit, for a brief moment, out of the confusion so that I could realize that there is something great, wonderful, and beautiful beyond the noise and sweat and fighting that we see in His world. And if you stand in that place for an instant, you can see the beauty of His creation.

Here's a poem by Rumi, the Sufi mystic:

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase each other
doesn't make any sense.

I guess something like that happened to me. I can feel the militant types gathering.... Well, if I am insane, then it is a beautiful and peaceful madness. No voices, no burning shrubbery. But a lot of beauty and peace.

Jihadist,

I've just now caught up with your post of Wednesday, September 5th at 6:15 P.M.

My family and I are very sorry to hear of your illness. We wish you the best for a speedy recuperation. Feel good soon!

We have two new members of our family (did I mention this already?). They are brother and sister Maine Coon Cats, Archie and Belle.

If you are interested in cats and aren't familiar with Maine Coon Cats, you might find it an interesting diversion during your recovery to look into them on the internet.

The first thing I'd do is go to Google IMAGES and look at pictures of them. They're quite striking in appearance. Their origin is rather mysterious. They seem to be the only breed which emerged uniquely in the United States.

Folklore surrounds their origin. One story says they were bred from five cats sent to the American Colonies by Marie Antoinette. Early on people thought they arose from the mating of domestic cats with raccoons (hence their name) but that's physically impossible.

Maine Coons were only recognized as a breed in the 20th Century. They have always predominated in the northeastern U.S. but are now bred worldwide.

They have wonderful personalities and physical characteristics. If interested, check out http://www.maine-coon-cat-club.com/whatis/ (a great British post which accurately describes Archie and Belle).

*****************************

So much for the suggested entertainment. Now I'll turn to the LESS IMPORTANT matters of ON FAITH(the Universe loves cats more than anything else).

*****************************

I was fascinated to learn of your support of Malaysian blogs/sites and of the libel controversies surrounding them. I wouldn't have thought that Malaysia had the litigation mania prevalent in the U.S..

In any system of libel law there is a tension between making it easy to bring and win a libel suit and making it difficult.

If it's easy to bring and win a libel suit, discourse in society will tend to be suppressed.
If it's hard to bring and win a libel suit, free discourse in society will be encouraged, but some people will actually be defamed and damaged, but will have no legal remedy.

It's fascinating but very complicated to try to compare British and American law in this regard. If you go to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=American+vs.+British+libel+law&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web, you'll find 418,000 references on this point.

One U.S. Supreme Court case is most important. The 1964 case of New York Times vs. Sullivan makes it very difficult, and frequently impossible, for a "public figure" to win a libel suit. A "public figure" is any person who comes to broad public notice and attention, voluntarily (politician) or involuntarily (victim of crime or accident).

This decision promotes the American value of having the broadest possible public discourse.

Recently there have been suits filed in U.S. courts by people who lost libel suits in England, seeking to invalidate those judgments in the U.S.. Much fun for the lawyers but not for the parties.

BTW, many lawyers in this country would, I'm afraid, bill you not only for the fruit and flowers they brought you, but also for their time spent in arranging this (@ $300 per hr).

Hope your Malaysian lawyers are more civilized.

Hope you're already better.

As always, the best to you.

Mr. Mark,

My point is that atheism with certitude, as opposed to atheism without absolute certitude (agnostic), requires just as much faith as religion because there is no evidence to support the claim that god(s) definitely do not exist.

I'm not suggesting that atheism is a religion. I'm just saying that to conclude for certain that god(s) do not exist without any evidence (absolute atheism) also requires a leap of faith, albeit a smaller one than most religions.

In other words, if the existence of god(s) is unknowable (i.e. not provable), then the same must hold true for those who claim that god(s) definitely do not exist. That claim is likewise, not provable.

Freestinker sez:

"What tickles me is that so many atheists (with certitude) think their conclusions are logically sound and based on reason."

?????

Atheists and rationalists do base their conclusions on logic and reason. The religionist's argument is that we are *limiting* ourselves to logic and reason. There is no logic or reason involved in believing in the supernatural as there is no empirical proof for the supernatural. Indeed, once there is empirical proof for the supernatural, it ceases to be supernatural as proof must - by definition - exist in the natural world.

Why would anyone doubt that conclusions based on logic, reason and empirical evidence lack certitude? As there is no proof and no certitude to religious beliefs, there is no reason or logic behind the same.

Faith has nothing to do with logic and reason. You're making a cheap argument that's been refuted many times over.

Proof based on faith is opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Jihadist,

You make some excellent points about atheists with certitude. I cannot disagree.

And if atheism means certitude on the question of the existence of god(s), I must point out that the absence of evidence makes this claim as irrational as those who claim with certainty that god(s) do exist without any evidence.

What tickles me is that so many atheists (with certitude) think their conclusions are logically sound and based on reason. However, without evidence atheism with certitude requires just as much faith as any religion.

I’m curious to hear from some avowed atheists on this point.

Is atheism (with certitude) rational thinking or just another flavor of faith?

Dear Mary Cunningham -

Thanks for your response.

I went back and forth about whether you were employing an analogy or a metaphor. As the definition of a metaphor is, "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them," I took your use of the phrase "love of god" to be a metaphor as love directed at a "being" (god) is different than love directed at a non-being (music). If you prefer to call it an analogy, that's fine. So, it's an analogy.

You say, "love of music shares many features of love of God," and take me to task for not addressing the statement. Well, that's your opinion. Mine is very different. I would say that love that I feel for beings (my kids, fellow humans) shares none of the features that I associate with a love of music, chief among them that I love (appreciate?) music on an intellectual level that does enter into the equation when it comes to loving sentient beings, be they real (humans) or imaginary (gods).

Re: Mozart, Freemasonry, atheism & the Church. As early as 1738, Clement XII had prepared a papal bull against Freemasonry but didn't publish it as the Emperor himself was a Freemason. That didn't stop Maria Theresa from banning the Order throughout her possessions in 1764. In 1784, Carl Theodor outlawed all secret societies (the same year that Mozart joined the Freemasons). When Joseph II died, the Clergy began to storm against the Lodges. As Mozart biographer Alfred Einstein points out, "The mere fact of membership in a lodge constituted a protest against the Church." (Source: Einstein, Mozart - His Character, His Work. OUP 1945, 1975)

Perhaps my saying that the Freemasons were "banned by the Church" was overreaching. If not banned, then they were certainly not welcome (at the least, they were held in high suspicion), and membership in the Masons was seen as an affront to the church.

Let's just say that for a composer who was dependent on the patronage of both the Church and the royalty for his daily bread, joining the Freemasons wasn't exactly an act of toeing the line of the power brokers.

As far as your observations about Wagner, his own words on the subject are revealing:

"ONE might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal presentation. Whilst the priest stakes everything on the religious allegories being accepted as matters of fact, the artist has no concern at all with such a thing, since he freely and openly gives out his work as his own invention. But Religion has sunk into an artificial life, when she finds herself compelled to keep on adding to the edifice of her dogmatic symbols, and thus conceals the one divinely True in her beneath an ever growing heap of incredibilities commended to belief. Feeling this, she has always sought the aid of Art; who on her side has remained incapable of higher evolution so long as she must present that alleged reality of the symbol to the senses of the worshipper in form of fetishes and idols,— whereas she could only fulfil her true vocation when, by an ideal presentment of the allegoric figure, she led to apprehension of its inner kernel, the truth ineffably divine." (Wagner, Religion & Art, 1880).

Sounds good to me!

As to the many religious composers out there: yes, they are more numerous than the atheists. That wasn't my point. The point is that you don't have to be a true believer (like Bach) to write compelling religious music, anymore than Wagner needed to be a god, a giant or a dwarf to write his "Ring."

Re: Mendelssohn. Born in 1809, Felix Mendelssohn was baptized as a Lutheran in 1816 as his father (Abraham) sought to renounce his Jewish religion. Upon baptism, the names "Jakob Ludwig" were added to his own. His father also added the name "Bartholdy" to their surname, and Felix signed his name as "Mendelssohn-Bartholdy" throughout his life. Mendelssohn died in 1847. He spent his life as a Lutheran, not a "devout Jew" (indeed, his 5th Symphony - actually, the second full symphony he composed - was titled the "Reformation," and was completed in 1830 to celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Lutheran Church. The piece features quotes of the "Dresden Amen" with a finale based on Martin Luther's tune, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God.")

Thanks for the dialogue. Like you, I appreciate that words have meaning and that the selection of which words we use is important, especially in the context of debate. Perhaps I can be forgiven for employing a bit of less-than-precise language in response to your bald-faced assertion that, "it's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other. I doubt if they'll ever meet."

I will endeavor to be more precise in the future.

Mary,

Ah, yes. Strangers and sojourners, aren't we all? Lol.

I will tell you sometime about my parish, if you like. I am in love with the place - place doesn't even seem the right word... but will probably frustrate uninterested persons if I post here.

God bless.

Stan,

I never said that atheists don't like beauty. Of course they do. Beauty is what we are made for.

Only people who like shopping malls don't like beauty ;-)

To: Mr Mark and (later) Ryan Haber

Next another logical error. “As far as atheists not understanding the spirituality of music.”

Firstly, just because love of music shares many features of love of God (an assertion which you fail to address) doesn’t mean love of music *is* love of God. Jesus’s Kingdom was like a vineyard, Burns’ love like a red, red rose; neither man meant that heaven was a vineyard or love a flower.

Think three overlapping circles: one encompasses those who love God, a second middle circle those who love music, a third those who deny God. Now circle one (those who love God) can overlap circle two (those who love music) but it need not be coterminous with it. For example a devout Catholic could also be deaf. Similarly, on the other side, deniers of God could be great lovers of music. In music they could find their new God. Wagner, for example, tried in his operas to substitute culture for religion. The overlapping circles also deal with my assertion of a divide between religion,music,poetry and philosophy,science,and atheism. But this is the weakest part of my post. For example, a non-believer--like Wagner--could substitute music for religion. But that proves the similarites, maybe?

I have a few quibbles. The Catholic Church did not proscribe Freemasonry until well into the nineteenth century, so Mozart’s freemasonry is not an attribute of atheism. (The great Irish Catholic Daniel O’Connell was a free mason.) Insofar as religious composers go, you forgot Edward Elgar, arguably the greatest of all English composers since William Byrd, another Catholic. Bach was a good Protestant, as was Handel. Felix Mendelssohn, I recall reading somewhere, was a devout Jew, well, at least he was the son of the chief rabbi of Frankfurt, the two are probably not synonymous.

I recognize this is a blog for atheists and that I am an alien here. However, assuming sometime you might like a good exchange I end with a observations:

1)Recognize that an analogy is always about the subject of the sentence: Jesus was not defining vineyards and Burns was not concerned with flowers.

2)Try not to state your conclusion before you marshal your facts. (In an ideal world you would just state your facts and let your listeners form your own conclusions.)

3)Good discussions contain as much about courtesy as any thing else.

Ryan Haber:

Thank you for your acknowledgement. This blog is slowing up, and face it!, it is for atheists, not us.

I would just say that Catholic churches in Britain and Ireland are, for the most part, pretty poor, or, more kindly, architecturally not particularly distinguished. English Catholicism never had much money. Remember Henry VIII’s huge confiscation of the great Catholic cathedrals, churches and monasteries of England...kind of a reverse Robin Hood, he stole from the poor to give to the rich (his ‘nobles’, not very noble really). After Catholic Emancipation (1829) there were some great churches built, anything by Augustus Pugin, as well as the Farm St Church and the Brompton Oratory in London. Worth Abbey was rebuilt, but the great monastery at Glastonbury was left in ruins, a reminder maybe of what English Catholics had endured.

The need for churches conflicted with the more pressing need of ministry to the desperately poor Irish, who in response to the calamity of the Famine began pouring into London from 1845 onwards. In fact, my small church in the East End, was one of the earliest London mission churches built by the Church, a block or two away (and predating by decades) a Salvation Army hall. The Salvation Army is gone, but we are still here, still a vibrant church, still working class, although now the Irish have become Cockneys, the old immigrants are West Indian and the new migrants Eastern European. There are one or two asylum seekers from West Africa and a few Sri Lankans all named Thomas. In short a fair microcosm of the non-Latin American Catholic Church. The church is not much, but the parish has managed a good organ (and part time organist), our priest can sing!, and there is beautiful music...To hear high Mass sung Latin (or English), my husband and I go to the Brompton Oratory,(John Henry Newman's church) and their choir is wonderful.

Hopefully, we can discuss the philosophic basis of the faith another time.

God bless...

Mary Cunningham

Mr Mark,

I wrote earlier atheists analyze too much, but your scorn got in the way of your intellect here. I refer to your latest post about scientific music and atheist composers which completely—wilfully?-- misses the point.

Let’s back up. My first sentence was:

“Love of God is like love of music.”
Sept. 6 2007, 12:14 pm.

* Your* first sentence was:

“Thanks for the absolute hogwash about music.”

Now the definition of an analogy—not a metaphor, look it up—is clarifying one thing by comparing it to another. So the post was not about music—it was about love of God. When Jesus said: “The Kingdom of God is like a vineyard”, believe me he was not talking about a vineyard! He was trying to explain the concept of the Kingdom to his listeners. I was talking about the religious impulse, or the love of God, which is found almost universally in humanity—like the love of music--although I admit both of them in varying degrees.

I expanded the analogy with the next two assertions describing some features of music that (implicitly) resemble the religious instinct:

“Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit and not many respect it overmuch.”

Now *these* were what you could have criticized and we could have had some discussion, assuming it possible to have a discussion with someone who starts out by colouring his piece so prejudicially. The assertion of “no evolutionary benefit” was actually my weakest point as some anthropologists have written there is some evolutionary advantage in religion, group solidarity &tc.

Mr Mark,

I wrote earlier atheists analyze too much, but your scorn got in the way of your intellect here. I refer to your latest post about scientific music and atheist composers and completely—wilfully?-- misses the point.

Let’s back up. My first sentence was:

“Love of God is like love of music.”
Sept. 6 2007, 12:14 pm.

* Your* first sentence was:

“Thanks for the absolute hogwash about music.”

Now the definition of an analogy—not a metaphor, look it up—is clarifying one thing by comparing it to another. So the post was not about music—it was about love of God. When Jesus said: “The Kingdom of God is like a vineyard”, believe me he was not talking about a vineyard! He was trying to explain the concept of the Kingdom to his listeners. I was talking about the religious impulse, or the love of God, which is found almost universally in humanity—like the love of music--although I admit both of them in varying degrees.

I expanded the analogy with the next two assertions describing some features of music that (implicitly) resemble the religious instinct:

“Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit and not many respect it overmuch.”

Now *these* were what you could have criticized and we could have had some discussion, assuming it possible to have a discussion with someone who starts out by colouring his piece so prejudicially. The assertion of “no evolutionary benefit” was actually my weakest point as some anthropologists have written there is some evolutionary advantage in religion, group solidarity &tc.

The Jihadist has developed an affinity/understanding for/of atheism? Wow there is a shocker!! She is even writing an entire commentary without using the words "Allah be praised". Hmmm, maybe her Malaysian blogs are promoting atheism in an Islamic country? Maybe it is time we offer her political/religious asylum?

Probably not since I just remembered that famous phrase:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

E Favorite

What can anyone say.

For every Arminius among theists, there is a Canyon Shearer.

For every E Favorite among atheist, there is a Mobius.

Arminius

What else can Mobius do? Burn you at the stakes for believing in God? I'm only too happy to be one of those "militant theists" against "jihadist atheists" as and when I feel like it, but usually don't as I'm not on any mission here.

I'm also picking up interesting new terms and labels hurled by theists and atheists at one another here. And quite a few American inventive invectives I've never heard of before too.

Never mind. Atheists are all right if one get pass their usual cliches and one liners to describe theists, some of which are increasingly tedious by militant repetition. It's that word again, "militant". Uhhh....!

Best regards as always

J

Arminius - Thanks so much for your response. I’m not sure what you want my opinion on. I have lots of thoughts on what you said and want to be careful. It can be difficult, in this venue, to express oneself well when discussing sensitive issues.

When you say you were an atheist/agnostic, it sounds like your beliefs simply waned, is that right? Nothing in particular happened? It wasn’t based on anything that you learned? Would you consider yourself to have been a strong agnostic/atheist, or was religion something that you just didn’t think about? During that time?

One of the things that that strikes me is that our experiences were so similar, but our conclusions so different. One of my experiences was in an Episcopal church on Good Friday and even then it did not occur to me that the feeling came from God. It came from within – a swoon in thanks for a for a sorely needed rest from an overly busy life. I was incredibly joyful and grateful, but didn’t think about whom to thank.

Here’s my quandary, Arminius – I could go on, but I fear it would appear that I am trying to tear down your faith, and to some extent, I probably am – not YOUR faith per se, because being acquainted with many liberal Episcopalians, I know you are the least of the problems for secularists and may be functionally secular yourself (e.g., strongly supportive of separation of church and state). Still, after all I’ve learned about Christian history (some in Episcopal adult ed) I can’t square the information with sincere belief and think a lot of Episcopalians, including clergy, feel the same way – but stick with the lovely community anyway, crossing their fingers behind their backs as they say the creed.

Mobius:)

I know. Thank you for recognising that. Depressing isn't it? I'm one of the wretched who seek refuge in reiligion 24/7. Anything you can do to help the wretched of the earth who seek refuge in religion? We have no place to go. Taking refuge in the bosoms of Dawkin's and Hitchen's books is one posibility. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

And yet, alas, Oh Einstein! Oh my Einstein! Good Einstein! Dear Einstein! don't have the same punch as Oh God! Oh my God! Good God! Dear God!

Thanks again for your most enlightening observation. I now see the light at the end of the tunnel towards being a "bright". God be praised!

Regards and have a good weekend.
J

Thank you.

Religion is the refuge of the wretched.

E Favorite,

You are asking a lot. I will try to honor your request.

How did I become an atheist? Actually, it was atheist/agnostic, depending on how I felt when I got up. I am a cradle Episcopalian. Baptized, confirmed, altar boy. Even went to an Episcopal college. What led me away from that? Boredom. The Episcopal church then suffered under the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It was liking being outside, looking in, through the wrong end of a telescope. No feeling, just rote repetition. At least that is how I felt.

So I gave up on it. For 30 odd years. Then, one day, I was driving north at sunset. A bunch of trees to the west blocked out the sun, but I noticed a lot of red sky. I looked forward to the sunset. Then, I passed by the trees, and saw, all over the sky, the most incredible sunset I had ever witnessed. Cool, right? Right. So, what did I do, say, Oh my goodness, far out, wonderful? No. I shouted – I did not say, I shouted – ‘Glory to God!!!’

Sacram merdam. I drove down the road, narrowing avoiding accidents as I continued to look. Then I wondered, what the hell did I just shout? Say WHAT?!? Where did that come from?

It took me a few days to unravel it. I have always loved the beauty of this world, and I am thankful for it – I appreciate it, from the heart. So there was a glorious sunset that I was thankful for. So….. if I am thankful for it, just who do I thank? Who else but God?

And that is where it started. The meaning was implanted in my heart. Cannot explain it, cannot prove it. But I KNOW it is there.

Since I had a pretty good familiarity with the Bible, I had, thank God, the good sense to go to the Gospels first. So, after my first pass at them after 40+ years, yielded “What the heck is this stuff? No way!”. Second pass – well, maybe. Then, on an exploring whim of midtown Atlanta, I discovered an Episcopal church that had a noon service on Wednesday. I went. When I walked out after, I realized that, after 30 odd years of searching and doubting, I had finally come home

I won’t go into the theology here, except to say that all – all – of my acceptance of Christianity stems from the Gospels.

Thanks for asking. Would like your opinion.

the ancient Tribes of Israel had a place where the word: Hell comes from, Sheoul, that was translated into Greek Gahenna...to English Hell

Concerned:

I have to ask what that person feels the need to scream from a mountain top his beliefs, You should not care so much (or obviously so Little) about what we as a collective audience thinks...what is the point of throwing a boulder to crush the mosquitoe on my shoulder..that is a saying my father would say to me as a child when I would try and insert my views.

The point you get, for you are obviously inteligent, albeit persistent in pushing your views; however, what has happened to you to make such a hatred of things that we as people hold "sacred" does it affect you as an American citizen to be forced o bow to God? NO

In the United States of America, you may freely join in in the religious debates; but in my country you can not, that is why I love America...everyone is free to have an opinion or a beleif that no one can break or take...you should be rejoicing that you have such a gift..

_MONK of XYMER_

I am taken aback by the numbers of those who post on this site, to my amazement I find several posters to be the worst.

Why Log onto this site and give such a rebuke to someone whom you have never met and their views affect you little? Why instead of assisting the world in its strife and pain would you spew so much hate towards another person and then have the nerve to demand an answer you are no worse than most, but no better than those who hold my country...

_MONK of XYMER_

E Favorite,

You asked me where I am coming from, and you asked nicely. I am trying to reply, and will submit my text tomorrow. It involves a lot of soul searching, which I think I need.

Thanks for asking, and God bless.

Let's bring a roman from the 1st century bce here to this forum for a short time. What would he think when he looks at the primary extant religions of today, particularly christianity?

Let's see, there's yahweh, jesus, and satan - three different gods, and for many mary is a goddess - after all people pray to her and beg for intervention. It seems to me this roman would see the christians as having not one god, but 4.

Then there's all those seraphim and angels (demigods) and fallen angels (uh, more demigods).

the story's pretty good too, yahweh is a fickle, angry, jealous god - just like zeus ... or is it jupiter? Anyway, this god invents a great paradise, seems to get lonely so he creates some poor creatures, gives them all sorts of wonders, then teases them with - knowledge!
the terrible evil women eats this knowledge, and for that reason ALL of us throughout the remainder of history have to pay for that crime.

I don't think the ancient jews had a hell, but I can surely be corrected on that since I don't know. the christians came up with this hell place where the dead are tortured for eternity, for not suppressing their reason in favor of unprovable faiht - our smart brains must suppress our strongest survival trait in order to avoid eternal torture in hell.

What a hideous, ugly story. How can you buy this crap with a straight face?

E Favorite:)

Of course. Why do you think some prefer the term "humanist" or "secular humanist" to describe themselves?

Actually, as the perception is that atheists prefers science, facts and logic, I almost use the term - carbon-based bipedal specie to be scientifically correct.

In Arroyo's previous thread on a previous question, I put out sub-categories and sub-sets of atheists to test reactions. It infuriated quite a few. Even Godfrey, the poet, comes out as a warrior-poet with fighting words in his post in response. Proof that easy generalisations and characterisations of atheists is as fallacious as easy generalisations of theists.

Best regards as ever.
J

I know people have various reasons to either believe or not believe in the existence of God. But I do not agree with your premise you gave for denying the existence of God. Given that we know the vastness of the universe and its age, if there is one who created it then it will be too simplistic to deny the existence based on the experiences such as those you have cited.

Jihadist - so you noticed -- atheists are HUMAN.

We knew it all along.

Arminius - I want to quiz you, but fully understand if you don't want to be quizzed - just say so.

I was recently a liberal Episcopalian. I stayed about a year after shedding my beliefs because I hated to give up singing in the choir. Luckily, I found a secular choir that sings sacred music.

I also liked the people – and the only time God came up was during the Sunday service. I fully understand the concept of a completely compassionate atmosphere at church. When I did leave, people urged me to stay, irrespective of my beliefs. Some confided that their beliefs were also lacking.

You mentioned spiritual experiences that got you back to religion. I had a series of “spiritual” experiences that set me in the opposite direction – though I backed up my insights up with research – the type the Roger mentioned, on Christian history.

So, my questions – what were the circumstances of your spiritual experiences? What did they tell you? how did you decide to go back to church and why the Episcopal church? When you dropped atheism, did you then accept Christianity, that is the whole Christian story of Christ dying for your sins, being crucified, resurrected, etc.? How did you become an atheist?

Any response appreciated.

Hello Stan

I had been enjoying reading the posts here.

As for your post, yes, I am one of those believers fascinated by atheists and atheism. Not quite for the reasons you stated thought.

I do find atheists in On Faith interesting, have a good sense of humour and do suggest to me good links and books to read.

At their best, as former theists, they recognise aspects of organised religions that are ridiculous and which I share with them but still remain a believer, or the atheists' preferred usage, theist. I do share with most that sepration of church and state is best for all.

Some of the reasons I am fascinated by atheists are what you may call anthropological and sociological reasons. In spite of what atheists say, they, being human after all, do need others to ally with, to relate to by common beliefs, values and principles. In this way, atheists do act like believers too here in On Faith in:

- Espousing what they believe in, meaning what don't believe in on God and religion.

- Taking on others who don't share theire beliefs as some believers do with adherents of other beliefs.

- Sometimes, always, denigrating the beliefs of others in promoting the primacy of their beliefs and the one "true one" to end all and be applied to all universally, like some religions.

- Tenaciously and persistently stating their beliefs, i.e. non-beliefs and why with reasons given and tenaciously quoting authors ideas and passages from their books as some believers would from scriptures.

- finding like-minded atheists to relate to, to associate with and to reinforce one another by mutual non-beliefs, objectives and sharing of experiences.

- Getting touchy-feely when non-atheists ask on their values as some believers are when asked on their beliefs as akin to an inquisition.

- Getting riled up when others break atheists into categories such as "Politburo atheists" or "militant atheists" as some gays and feminists were when called "militant gays" or "militant feminists".

I still see some still upset that Arroyo come up with "Politburo athiest" and "militant atheist". He's called a bigot several times by some atheist posters.

A bigot is when someone label, term or characterise you with something you don't like, but when you apply it to someone else, you are not being a bigot but only pointing out what is obvious and true, eh?

The irony was that, months ago, many atheists happily and consistently call believers idiots, moronic, delusional etc here in On Faith. Still do, but not too much, and of course all atheists believe so of all believers. Is that not a form of bigotry in generalising all believers as atheists are upset that Arroyo should generalise, categorise and characterise all atheists?

After all some dictionaries define a bigot as one who hold strong religious or political beliefs and opinions, and is intolerant of anyone who disagrees.

If calls for seperation of church and state is not political, if the rivalry and conflict of beliefs between atheists and believers is not political, what is it then, that is going on here?

I only see it as a discussion, exchange of views and experiences. Like you, I may or may not agree to some views.

Thank you, best regards
and have a good weekend

J

One thing that has always intrigued me and many others are biblical and pre-biblical stories attributed to God's wrath that may actually describe natural catastrophic events. There is evidence that the Flood was actually brought on by the failure of a glacial ice dam, allowing water to rush in to the Black Sea at the end of the last Ice Age (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/index.html). A similar event happened in North America when Lake Missoula broke through a Pleistocene ice damn on multiple occasions, flooding downstream reaches under hundreds of feet of water all the way to the Pacific Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods).

Below is an article on the possible causes of biblical events.

FIRE, FLOOD AND COMET

From NEW SCIENTIST, 9 January 1999, p. 42

Review: Exodus to Arthur, by Mike Baillie Batsford, £ 15.99, ISBN 0713484520

Fire, brimstone and pestilence have ravaged the Earth since the dawn of time, wiping out cities, even whole peoples. Or so the ancient prophets and storytellers would have us believe (there’s a fair bit in the Bible). But could they possibly be describing real events?

As a renowned authority on tree rings and their use in dating ancient artifacts and events, Mike Baillie might seem an unlikely author for a book which tackles a lot of mythology. But he’s a perfect candidate, since he recently helped complete a 5000-year continuous and global record of annual growth patterns. It revealed five major worldwide environmental shocks. To find out what they meant he turned to the early texts.

His conclusion comes as a shock. Not only did the five episodes coincide with the onset of “dark ages” for society, but they were triggered by cometary impacts. If Baillie is right, history has overlooked probably the single most important explanation for the intermittent progress of civilization. Worse, our modern confidence in benign skies is foolhardy, and our failure to appreciate the constant danger of comet “swarms” is the result of a myopic trust in a mere 200 years of “scientific” records. Our excuse is that Christianity probably suppressed the dire warnings of earlier sages in an effort to downplay their influence, as Baillie points out.

The tree-ring record points to global environmental traumas between 2354 and 2345 BC, 1628 and 1623 BC, 1159 and 1141 BC, 208 and 204 BC and AD 536 and 545. Baillie argues that the tree rings are recording first the biblical flood, then the disasters that befell Egypt at the Exodus, famines at the end of King David’s reign, a famine in China that ended the Ch’in (sic) dynasty, and finally, the death of King Arthur and Merlin and the onset of the Dark Ages across the whole of what is now Britain.

The biblical account of the Exodus and contemporary annals from China speak of cometary activity preceding calamity. Previous writers have wondered if the hail or red-hot stones that befell the Egyptians was due to the eruption of Santorini, the Aegean volcano that destroyed Minoan civilisation. The pillar of smoke that guided the Israelites may have been the plume. But a single volcano is an unlikely cause of a global downturn.

So Baillie goes a step further, arguing that a series of cometary impacts around the size of the 20-megaton explosion at Tunguska in Siberia might be enough to trigger earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions and ocean floor outgassing. This would explain why comets are seen as portent, along with the occurrence of flooding and poisonous fogs – all reported at the time of Exodus and during others of Baillie’s five catastrophes.

As he admits, he has ventured beyond his professional expertise in exploring mythology. Is it correct to assume that references to angels and dragons are descriptions of comets? Science would be much poorer if acknowledged experts felt unable to speculate as Baillie has done here. But science also tends to seek solutions, and if the author is not carried shoulder-high for broaching this important subject, it will be because his doomsday scenario offers little in the way of an immediate technical fix. If a couple of lumps of interplanetary rock the size of several football pitches hit Europe tomorrow, tens of millions would die (sic). And some astrophysicists reckon that an event of this order is likely at least every 5000 years – killing at least a quarter of the human population.

Baillie proposes seeding space with our DNA in an effort to survive, but that doesn’t sound quite as much fun as carrying on as we are. Let’s hope both he and the astrophysicists are wrong.

Ben Rudder is an anthropologist.

Copyright 1999, New Scientist

The topic of one's faith is a touchy subject for anyone...those who have "no" faith are slow to listen to those who "have" faith. And those whose faith is "absolute" are quick to condemn those who have "no" faith..and yet I see no answers coming from either side, NO ONE WINS an argument..the utter lack of beleif in a personal God affects me little in the way that some of you seem to have taken offense to someones dibelief.

We are victims of our own egos, man is a prideful being, we pride ourselves in our inventions and we pride ourselves in our intellect; however, we pride ourselves in our accomplishments; and yet, few pride themselves in terms of failure. We see situations that oppose what we hold to be "sacred" as evil or wrong, and yet I see the same thing in the times of Jesus....

The pharisees said to Jesus he was wrong and evil and that he was a false prophet, yet Jesus carried on without even giving a thought to their actions against him why?

We as the HUMAN race have failed, be you Jew, Muslim, Mormon, (one of the hundred protestant religions), or Bhuddist, Hindu or Monk the simpelist of all things is TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER... and we say that is too hard??

_MONK of XYMER_

Mary Cunningham - you said, "It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other."

Philosophy is misplaced in your equation. Philosophy talks deeply about religion, either pro or con. Indeed, it talks about nearly everything that people think about. But in itself philosophy is a dead end. The value of philosophy is that it tends to create a bridge between apparently conflicting disciplines, such as religion and science.

Mary Cunningham - It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other.

What a strange worldview you have. I'm an atheist and scientist and I love music and words. One thing I will admit to; music is able to transport one to a different realm, what some might call a "spiritual" dimension.

You also wrote that "Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit ..."

Not so fast. Music, like religion, is ubiquitous and found in every culture. There is a great deal of evidence that religion has an evolutionary basis, and recent research suggests that music might have an evolutionary basis as well (Fitch 2005, McDermott and Hauser 2005).

Fitch, W. T. 2005. The evolution of music in comparative perspective. Pages 29-49 in Neurosciences and Music Ii: from Perception to Performance. New York Acad Sciences, New York.

McDermott, J., and M. Hauser. 2005. The origins of music: Innateness, uniqueness, and evolution. Music Perception 23:29-59.

E Favorite,

I am Episcopal. Liberal.

Ryan Haber, you say, “God, what a beautiful world You've made!” Please consider that humans made all that beautiful church music and art and architecture and ritual.

ARMINIUS - What is your Religion? What denomination is the church you go to?

ROGER – did you know that student clergy and theologians are taught about the same things you mention during their formal academic training? Granted, it might be slanted differently, but they learn the same stuff. I’d be fascinated to know how they process it in such a way that allows them to then go out and preach and teach things they know are not so. Wouldn’t you like to know?

How about you, Mr Mark?

Arminius-

Had to laugh when I read your comment on music and math. My son did a science project on Pythagorean harmonics many years ago, and I have spent the time since forgetting all that I knew about them.

Hey, Wiccan!

Glad you're here. 'Arminius' is a 'nom de guerre', because of a historical war game I am fond of. Nope, I'm not your sister. But a brother, maybe, of sorts.

I have great trouble understanding anyone who is fat and happy and insists that this world and life is some kind of trial. It is a gift. I fully realise that there are too many in this world, even in this country, for whom life is a trial. This does give me guilt, because I do not do enough to help. My religion does not give me guilt, only joy.

I share your opinion. I am a retired journalist. Few yars ago I lived a whole year in Rome doing research for a book I intended to write: "The Origins of Christianism". I lost my faith as I discovered that religion was an instrument created by man as he was trying to understand and explain natural phenomenons. Things which he was far fom understanding he explain by the existence of gods... thus, he knew more than the others and started to take advantage of the flock. The comtemporporary preachers are their descendents and are taking advantage of credulus individuals.
Long before Jesus Christ, Allah, Yawhe, etc. People beleived in one God born of a virgin as of virgin Mary...and monotheism... One have to search about Gilgamesh, Horus,etc... May I suggest to those who are searching for the thruth:
Luigi Cascioli The Fable of Christ, -10020 Roccalvece - VT - Italia or the most interesting book of a gentile schoolar: The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S. One Adventure Place, P.O. Box 74, Kempton, Illinois 60946 USA. - (Roger Delorme, Sherbrooke, Que. Canada)

I share your opinion. I am a retired journalist. Few yars ago I lived a whole year in Rome doing research for a book I intended to write: "The Origins of Christianism". I lost my faith as I discovered that religion was an instrument created by man as he was trying to understand and explain natural phenomenons. Things which he was far fom understanding he explain by the existence of gods... thus, he knew more than the others and started to take advantage of the flock. The comtemporporary preachers are their descendents and are taking advantage of credulus individuals.
Long before Jesus Christ, Allah, Yawhe, etc. People beleived in one God born of a virgin as of virgin Mary...and monotheism... One have to search about Gilgamesh, Horus,etc... May I suggest to those who are searching for the thruth:
Luigi Cascioli The Fable of Christ, -10020 Roccalvece - VT - Italia or the most interesting book of a gentile schoolar: The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S. One Adventure Place, P.O. Box 74, Kempton, Illinois 60946 USA. - (Roger Delorme, Sherbrooke, Que. Canada)

I share your opinion. I am a retired journalist. Few yars ago I lived a whole year in Rome doing research for a book I intended to write: "The Origins of Christianism". I lost my faith as I discovered that religion was an instrument created by man as he was trying to understand and explain natural phenomenons. Things which he was far fom understanding he explain by the existence of gods... thus, he knew more than the others and started to take advantage of the flock. The comtemporporary preachers are their descendents and are taking advantage of credulus individuals.
Long before Jesus Christ, Allah, Yawhe, etc. People beleived in one God born of a virgin as of virgin Mary...and monotheism... One have to search about Gilgamesh, Horus,etc... May I suggest to those who are searching for the thruth:
Luigi Cascioli The Fable of Christ, -10020 Roccalvece - VT - Italia or the most interesting book of a gentile schoolar: The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S. One Adventure Place, P.O. Box 74, Kempton, Illinois 60946 USA. - (Roger Delorme, Sherbrooke, Que. Canada)

Hi, Arminius!

"I came back because of some spiritual experiences that showed me the beauty of God's creation, His love for us, and the joy of celebrating that."

If you were named "Arminia" I'd swear you were my sister. She and I both just can't understand those Christians who "love" God but hate His creation. Any world where you can see and feel such beauty can't be all bad. :-)

Isn't it great that essays by an avowed athiest consistently generate the most activity on this forum?

Well done Susan!

Dear Arminius -

Thanks for your kind comments.

You are the admitted exception that proves the fear & guilt rule.

You are my Poulenc...

Mr Mark,

First, let me commend you again on your excellent comments on music.

Next, you said: "The reason religionists cling to their delusions are many, but surely the chief motivators are fear and guilt. Of the two, I believe that guilt is the stronger. The very thought of losing one's faith evinces such high levels of guilt that most believers just run screaming."

In the immortal words of Charlie Brown, "Good grief!" Not all of us religious types are like that. I seem to be the exception here because I came back to belief after 3+ decades of atheism. I came back because of some spiritual experiences that showed me the beauty of God's creation, His love for us, and the joy of celebrating that. My church is the same way - you do not find guilt or fear there. That church is, quite literally, the only place on the planet where I am completely at peace.

I don't go around shouting my belief, or putting down the belief - or non-belief - of others. I just try to live what I believe.

Thou shalt wipe front to back

Thou shalt not shart

Mary and Ryan - get a [chat]room for god's sake! Go and make beauty together :)

PS. Atheists like beauty as well (and music).

Andrea:

I did see that. Was funny.

What is the propper way? Do you put your hands together and pray it comes out looking like the virgin Mary?

Or do you just yell "Oh God!" everytime it hurts?

Stan -

Good points.

The reason religionists cling to their delusions are many, but surely the chief motivators are fear and guilt. Of the two, I believe that guilt is the stronger. The very thought of losing one's faith evinces such high levels of guilt that most believers just run screaming.

C'est la vie.

Russell,

Don't know if you caught a comment on the last question...something about how to crap properly in the eyes of God, you know, a holy crap. I'd appreciate your imput.

Mr. Mark; Thanks for the comment on music; I was writing one too, but I'm an amateur Bluesman, not a pro so I should leave the commentary in your vastly more qualified hands but I can't resist adding a few observations.

People may have strong preferences in music and art, but those preferences do not usually lead them to question the morality of those with different tastes, or to declare one school of or style as the "one true music". And many of us are far more eclectic in our musical tastes than the religious are in their faith; I love Blues and Jazz, but I love the occasional Opera too and have been know to weep unashamedly at the symphony.

Mary says that music has no "evolutionary value" but this seems to me to ignore what music is. Music, like all art, is a powerful form of human communication, and communication, in all its forms, has very obvious "evolutionary value.

Thanks again for the excellent comment Mr. Mark; I bow to the maestro...

A (Hard Rockin') Hermit

I don't have a manifesto, but I do have some sage advice:

Sex is NOT bad. The people who think sex is bad are the ones who have bad sex.

Never argue with a deeply religious person, you'll go insane.

If you see a man on the corner asking for food or money.......do one of two things, either give him what he asks for, or tell him to be more creative for next time.

Never fart during sex.

If you are caught in a bathroom stall looking for gay love, then just fess up, and at least offer the cops a "bribe".

More words of wisdom to come later.

Mark Eaton:
Luke:

You missed the point of the book entirely. The point of the book is to look at what God has done WITH Job, not what has God done TO Job. God has TRUSTED Job's faith enough that He can say to Lucifer "Everything that he is and everything that he has you can destroy, just do not take his life" knowing that Job would not give up his faith in Him. Now that is something that I want, for God to trust ME. That is what suffering is all about. God TRUSTING us with trials. Knowing it will not destroy us or our faith."

What about Job's first family, his sons and daughters who were killed to prove God's point?
Surely Job raised them to trust God as he did? Or maybe God didn't trust them?

Mary Cunningham,

I love your posts, one HIC to another. Moderns do exult humanity too much, imagining that we have infinite capabilities and can solve any problem. Moderns do expect too much out of life - perfect contentment, and anything less is a dirty trick.

Your analogy to music and deafness is good as well. Something can be self-evident in itself, without everyone seeing (or hearing) it. Blind people don't see even the brightest light. Too true.

I do wish to suggest a correction on one point, though.

"Poetry, music, religion" on one side, versus "philosophy, science, and atheism" on the other: that's very much how the ancient Greeks saw the matter. Ever since at least St. Justin Martyr, patron of philosophers, made his great apologies in the AD 160s, Holy Church has not seen it that way. Our faith isn't just a set of myths - it is true, and so it ought to be compatible with the rest of true reality.

We are convinced that though it is not provable, our faith concerns real things that are really coherent and part of the real world of reality. As such, a philosophical system that is adequate to the task ought to help us (1) understand our faith better; (2) articulate it to others in a way that they see its reasonableness. Moreover, because our faith and scientific inquiry both ponder the same real world (only different aspects of it), an adequate philosophy ought to be able to help us see how faith and scientific inquiry (or reason in general) can fit together coherently and without conflict. Because there is in fact God, an adequate philosophy ought to be able to show the inherent inconsistencies found within atheistic philosophies.

That all said, I think you are on to something in the nature of religion that is lost to most Americans, and increasingly, Westerners in general, because we are utilitarians and functionalists. Utilitarians and functionalists have little use for beauty because it is not very functional. While faith contains understanding about who God is; religion (both ritual and informal practices of faith) is the means by which we enter into that relationship. While the Catholic faith (for instance) is reasonable and intelligible by reason, the Catholic religion is sensual and desirable by the will. That is, the faith can be articulated as a set of propositions (though doing so shallows it out immensely) but the religion is more like a work of art, more like a poem, more like a sculpture or a cathedral (not coincidentally) - more like a love affair.

American churches are so often so ugly because we have little use for beauty. Just look at a shopping mall or an airport - both American architectural innovations - and you'll see what I mean. Protestant religion (distinct from faith) IS Catholic religion MINUS "all that useless ritual".

Why do I believe the Catholic faith? Because I have articulable reasons for believing it true, that it accurately describes the real reality about God and is completely compatible with the rest of what I also know, about tables and rockets and people and history.

Why do I practice the Catholic religion? Because the faith teaches me to do so, and in doing so, I have come to know the Living God, to enter into a love affair with him that has left me dazed and confused, exhilerated and befuddled, longing, yearning, sighing, singing, gazing and all the other things that make life alive. Dipping fingers in holy water upon each entrance into a church is not true or false - it is beautiful. Beautiful golden chalices are almost utterly unfunctional - but they are so beautiful. A pageant of vestments and chants and polyphony are mostly unnecessary - and yet so breathtakingly beautiful.

In that, our Catholic religion is very much like music or poetry. It is a very cramped soul that looks at a sonnet by Shakespeare or a quatraine by Dickinson and says, "Well, why couldn't she have just said 'I feel sad?'" But there are people who say that. Our literary- and art- critical establishment are FULL of such cramped crabbiness.

Even the drama of free will, our present discussion. It is ENTIRELY unnecessary. That is the very first principle of the Christian faith - God did not need to create us, but did so freely out of love; it follows that he did not need to create us in any particular way, but created us with free will so that we could freely love him, and find fulfillment in a relationship with him.

What role terrorists and cancer have in this drama, I cannot say. People who are set on having the person they have lost, and refuse to be happy without that person - quite naturally they will think terrorism and cancer aren't worth having around. Clearly, those things aren't good, to be sure. But even with terrorism and cancer and tsunamis, there is so much beauty in the world, in life. Somehow, all the tragedies don't blot out the beauty... somehow, they even make it stand out in high relief. We are amazed by great acts of heroism largely because they needn't have been at all... Just as we are horrified by the insane acts of depravity, because somehow we sense that they needn't have been.

God, what a beautiful world You've made!

Just thought I would mention that the numbers of comments for the 12 panelist's comments on this issue are as follows: 12,49,7,2,10,91,28,351,12,6,4,4. Which one had the 351 - more than all the rest combined? Susan Jacoby - the only atheist in the bunch.

Why might this be? Maybe because the theologs don't have much to say? Basically all the other 11 responses boil down to: We don't know the mind of god, suffering teaches us good things, everything was fine until people used the free will god gave them, we are being punished.

Or maybe because people are secretly fascinated by atheism - its a kind of forbidden fruit. Believers have always had doubts, but their institutions have used various emotional manipulations to suppress them and make people feel guilty. Maybe a whole generastion of people is on the verge of saying, "You know what! Maybe the emperor really does have no clothes! I evetually came to realize the Easter Bunny and Santa were fictional - maybe the same is true of god too! Hey this feels good. I'm free of superstition at last!" Say it without guilt - THERE IS NO GOD. It's really OK.

We know the earth is no longer flat. We shouldn't keep slaves. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. The earth is billions of years old. We share much DNA with chimps. Species go extinct. Continents move. These are all things we have learned, all facts that have gradually made the likelihood of a supernatural creator existing tend to zero.

Time for a manifesto. Atheists of the world, vereinigt euch!

Kate – building on what others have said – I know plenty of Christians who are not deluded or irrational – I used to be one myself!

In my case, I simply didn’t think about my religious beliefs the way I did other issues in my life. The whole societal and religious system was (and is) set up to discourage rational thought about religion. Good thing, because it’s not ultimately rational, it’s all about faith, at its core, which any believer will say. The few times I was ever involved in a discussion about religion when a person would challenge me, saying what I believed wasn’t rational – I’d simply agree, saying “That’s way they call it faith!” end of discussion. Good for me, because I couldn’t have carried on much from there.

It’s very frustrating when a person I know who is perfectly rational and intelligent, starts going off on God. Not because it makes me think that person is totally deluded - I already know they’re not - but because this compartmentalized behavior is so hard for me to identify with, now.

It’s a rough time we’re going through, now, but good that it’s happening, I think in the long run. Reminds me of the feminist and civil right movements – they were rough – a lot of misunderstanding and sorting out of attitudes – but really good in the long run. Not that those issues are completely worked out, but society is dealing with them a lot differently and enormously better than before.

CAMBELLITE, you ask "Where was God when my relative was dying? God was the compassion of a stranger. It's that simple, and that complex. Paradox is like that."

I'd say the best of humanity was in that stranger.

@Mark Eaton, RE "God created carbon, iron, magnesium, and fire but we should not blame Him when the steel fails in a building and it collapes killing hundreds. Steel is a man-made object. Why do you want to blame Him when something bad happens but not praise Him when something good happens. If you get a promotion at work, He should get the praise. But do you give it to Him?

I give Him praise for all good things and give Lucifer the credit for all bad things."

I don't blame god for anything. I don't believe he exists. I take full responsibility for the results of my actions, be they good or bad. Anything else is simply puerile.

@SOK7, RE "It is beyond your power to stop a hurricane, and I doubt there anything you could have done to stop what happened on 9/11...

...but what are you doing that might keep even one baby from starving? What have you told your congressman to do concerning Darfor? Have you ever contributed to the American Red Cross. Would you be willing to pay a dollar a day so that a starving child could receive 3-meals a day and an education? Or is that someone else's problem?

You build empathy through suffering. You build character by how you choose to respond to suffering."

Suffering isn't a prerequisite for empathy. It requires only caring about the welfare of others. I completely agree that we should do what we can to come to the aid of those who are suffering when we can do so without causing more of it. We have a responsibility towards our fellow man. Not believing in an interventionist god or the consolation prize of an afterlife makes that principle all the more important. But, since the discussion is about god, who is supposedly merciful and omnipotent, we must ask ourselves how he can allow such things. He can't possibly be both omnipotent and merciful when there's so much suffering and pain in the world without also being a sadist. I see the monotheistic world view as inherently sadomasochistic. Love based on fear isn't really love. It's a form of slavery.

If I believed such a god existed I could not worship, love, or respect him. I might fear him, but that would only make me hate him. Any system that revolves around suffering, no matter how richly it's rewarded, is needlessly cruel and corrupt. If you were omnipotent and could have created the universe in any way you saw fit, would you have created one so full of misery? If your answer is no, that makes you far more moral than your god.

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"
Doug McLeod

Does the term "evil" as used here refer to some objective idea of right and wrong or just something contrary to the preference of a particular observer?

A nice example of a spiritual atheist lyric written by Neil Peart of Rush.

The Larger Bowl by Rush

(a pantoum)

if we're so much the same like I always hear
why such different fortunes and fates?
some of us live in a cloud of fear
some live behind iron gates

why such different fortunes and fates?
some are blessed and some are cursed
some live behind iron gates
while others only see the worst

some are blessed and some are cursed
the golden one or scarred from birth
while others only see the worst
such a lot of pain on the earth

the golden one or scarred from birth
some things can never be changed
such a lot of pain on this earth
It's somehow so badly arranged

some things can never be changed
some reasons will never come clear
it's somehow so badly arranged
if we're so much the same like I always hear

Mark Eaton: of course, no offense was intended. I use generalization losely. I have known some mighty fine human beings who happen to be fundamentalist christians.

Russel D: I'd be honored to buy the first round.

--
This whole forum is a fascinating expression of the limitations of language. Here we all are, trying to use words to describe things that are by definition, indescribable. Of course we misspeak, misunderstand, get worked up over something that's usually nothing.

But we're still talking about it. That, to me, is a miracle worth noting.

Mark Eaton:
***The point of the book is to look at what God has done WITH Job, not what has God done TO Job. God has TRUSTED Job's faith enough that He can say to Lucifer "Everything that he is and everything that he has you can destroy, just do not take his life" knowing that Job would not give up his faith in Him. Now that is something that I want, for God to trust ME. That is what suffering is all about. God TRUSTING us with trials.**

God let Satan torture Job because Satan threw down a double-dog dare. You'd think God would be above such schoolyard pi$$ing contests, but apparently not. If God had truly been expressing his love for Job, he would not have said "Do whatever you want as long as you don't kill him" when Satan challenged Job's motive for loving God, he would have simply told Satan to bugger off.
I don't ever wish to be used by someone else in that way. I'm so glad that my gods don't pull that sort of stunt.

Mary Cunningham:
"It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other. I doubt if they'll ever meet-- in this millenium at least, assuming there is an earth for them to meet upon. "

You need to re-read this and figure out for yourself how insulting this is to atheists, as well as poets and musicians. Do you really think all atheists can't possibly enjoy music? How far apart do you think science and music are? They are closer than you think - math and music are intertwined. Frankly, math and everything (save for philosophy) are intertwined.

Also, religion is a form of philosophy - so how can they be on opposite sides of your fence?

You did however, correctly put science and religion on opposite sides - they are. At least science examines itself every so often.

Someone else here made a list of the athiest musicians in history - I'm sure it's not a complete list....

Mr Mark,

I was about to write something to correct Ms Cunningham, but fortunately I read yours first. An outstanding rebuttal! I could never equal it. You did, however, neglect to mention the math connection, starting with Pythagoras, 5th century BC(E).

Campbellite:

Very well said sir.

I would share a beer with you any day.

Andrea:

DODGEBALL season is upon us!

There is no basis for the assumption that suffering was designed for some specific purpose. I suggest that we deal with suffering on its own terms. Any lessons or meanings in the suffering are ours to make, instead of being decided for us.

The theodicy problem is only a problem for those who posit a LOVING, GOOD deity.

Given the existence of everything from the scabies mite(only infects humans), Guinea worm, &c. all the way to floods, hurricanes & earthquakes, none of which could possibly be our fault, the only rational recourse for true believers is that their deity is either evil or else utterly uncaring about humanity. Given the size of the universe, the latter seems more likely, not to mention more cheerful.

God is the good stuff, and Satan is the bad. Oh OK. Well if Satan is cancer, then if a dictator or murderer got cancer, does that mean that Satan is just as good at dishing out justice?

Dear Mary Cunningham -

Thanks for the absolute hogwash about music.

Perhaps you don't realize that there is a great deal of SCIENCE behind music, from the construction of viable instruments to the harmonic structure of the tones themselves. Music needs no help from god. It can be dissected scientifically and put back together at will. Anyone who has tuned an instrument to a Strobo-conn is availing themselves of the science behind the music. Anyone building a piano or a violin is dependent on science to construct a great instrument.

What about concert halls? Do you think there is no science involved in their construction? Different halls have different acoustics. It may interest you to learn that a different acoustic may significantly alter the way a musician plays a piece.

As far as atheists not understanding the spirituality of music, it happens that Mozart, Hector Berlioz, Johannes Brahms and Giuseppe Verdi were atheists, yet all wrote Requiem Masses that must be considered among the greatest in the genre. Of course, you have no understanding of "absolute music", ie: music that has no "meaning" or back story but exists purely as music to be enjoyed as music. There is such music, reams and reams of it, though you may not hear it very often at your local fundy church.

And, speaking of composers: Beethoven quit the Catholic Church and adopted Goethe's Pantheism, as did Robert Schumann. Bizet scoffed at Christianity, Debussy described himself as a Neo-Pagan. Mozart left the church and joined the Freemasons (who were banned from the church) and on his deathbed, refused and sent away the priest his wife had summoned. Of creeds and churches, Franz Schubert remarked, "Not a word of it is true." Richard Strauss embraced Nietzsche's philosophy and wrote a tone poem based on his "Also sprach Zarathustra." Tchaikovsky was a theist for most of his life but became an atheist after reading Flaubert's letters. And, of course, Richard Wagner was an out-spoken atheist who caught hell from Nietzche when he wrote the spiritual "Parsifal."

There's always the exception to the rule: Francis Poulenc was a carefree atheist until a close friend was decapitated in a car crash, at which point he vigorously resurrected his dormant Catholicism (and the music world was better off for the change. His religious works are truly outstanding).

Poulenc aside, it boggles the mind to imagine the music world devoid of the atheistic composers I mentioned above.

As a performing musician myself with a degree from an accredited university, I find it haughty on your part that you would elect to expound on matters that lie clearly outside of your area of experience, let alone expertise. Your comments on music are the equivalent of opining that the space shuttle gains its orbit because the sky is blue.

There is no divide whatsoever between science and music. Indeed, while science could well exist without music, music could not exist without sound science behind it.

I think what you may be trying to say is that one need not understand the science behind music to enjoy music, or to feel that music is important to your life. That's an obvious truth - most human beings aren't trained musicians (one need not know that the Elvis song 'It's now or never" is sung to the tune of the old Itaiian song "O sole mio," or that the tune of Neil Sadaka's "Never gonna fall in love again" is lifted from the third movement of Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony to enjoy those latter-day adaptations of a good tune, but one would be incorrect to believe that Rachmaninoff stole the tune from Sedaka!). I would imagine that for many people learning the science behind music rather takes the gild off the lily. There's something to be said for the inner workings of any art remaining a mystery to the general public, be it the artwork of the scumbler or the slight of hand employed by Penn & Teller.

Perhaps - just perhaps - SOME people approach religion in the way they approach the arts. While it may be good for the historian to know that most of the specific incidents in the life story of Jesus closely mirror those of other mythical gods that preceded him in history (including the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection), for the believer, it may create doubts that impede one's "enjoyment" of their faith.

Your metaphor was poorly founded and argued. Try again.

Cambellite:

Thank you. Us Fundies take no offense. When I lost my 26yr old son in July to cancer, I felt the same as you. No one could understand. It was the silence of friends and loved-ones that comforted me, along with God giving me strength to accept the loss. Has He dimished the pain, not that I can see. He has just given me a peace that I could not expect or express. It was amazing and still is.

Russel D: "Faith in a God is good and all, and it allows people to have hope, but when it comes down to it, it's the inner strength and personal conviction that will help and save you. NOT the belief that God will get off his rump and help you out."

I would say that the inner strength that you and your wife discovered, is the stame stuff that I call God. God isn't out there, rolling dice, God is in here, the strength and conviction and stubbornness and refusal to lay down and take it that keeps me going, every day of my life.

It's a tragedy that ignorant Fundamentalism has become the definition of Christianity in American culture, because truthfully, I think the Fundy's have it all wrong. They missed the boat. They have ears but do not hear. When you try to disect the faith with that scalpel of course it falls apart.

Try reading the stories as myths to be lived out, rather than commandments to be obeyed. Pretend it was written by Homer and see how you feel about it.

When a family member lay dying last year, angry and bitter at the world for failing to live up to unrealistic expectations, I went to a church to pray. First time I'd set foot in a church in two decades. As I sat, in the back, bawling my eyes out (I must have made quite a racket) a woman came and sat with me. She didn't say anything, didn't tell me I was a sinner. She just sat there and breathed slowly and prayed. And after a few minutes she rubbed my back and left.

Where was God when my relative was dying? God wass the compassion of a stranger. It's that simple, and that complex. Paradox is like that.

Michelangelo:

I really dislike it when people cherry-pick scriptures to fit their needs. You obviously forgot to include these:

Job 1:12 God allows suffering to come to Job
Exod. 34:7 Inquity of the father visited on the children and generations to come.

There are guaranteed results of God laws that He has put into place. The law of the sower you listed above. The law of "be sure your sin will find you out" is another.

Karma does not exist. It is a man-made construct to explain God's laws without including God himself.

Re: Job

God allowed Job to be tortured by Satan for no purpose other than he could. He knew Job wouldn't turn away from him, so why did he do it? Why did the almighty God have to allow one of his people to be tortured, his sons and daughters to be killed to prove a point to Satan? This is where God lost his moral authority.

I'm not sure this is the main reason that most atheists are atheists. I'm an atheist because I know that there is no such thing as magic or invisible creatures, and because it's clear that humans have a propensity to make things up and then believe them with utmost fervor.

You're statement "The only answer offered by believers is that God gives man free will and that it is our fault--not God's--when bad things happen to good people." is incomplete, which is why you don't see how it can be an answer.

When bad (or good) things happen to good people, is is precisely _OUR_ fault. The Good Book teaches the concept of Karma:

* Mat 26:52 All take the sword, perish by it.
* Gal 6:7 God can't be mocked, a man reaps what he sows.
* Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds

Thus, you're conclusion is based on a faulty and incomplete information. You're assuming that every bad thing that happens to a "good" person, doesn't deserve it. You're assuming a person is "innocent", while being blind to the Karma the person has created for themselves.

You have lived before, and you will live again. The ONLY true knowledge, is the knowledge gained via experience.

If you are ever a parent, you will learn the concept of Tough Love.
i.e.
You tell your child not to touch the stove, knowing that it is hot, and will burn. Your child however, lacks the -experience- to KNOW what is hot, and is naturally curious. They of course, touch the stove and get burned.

As a parent, we never want harm to come to our child, but at some point, we have to respect the fact that our children will make poorer choices, because in the long run, they will gain an important lessons -- gnosis -- sometimes the ONLY way to TRUELY learn is by first hand experience. Its similiar to trying to explain color to a blind man -- they have no frame of reference to understand.

Your statement "The gulf between believers and atheists on this point is unbridgeable." is also incorrect. I have an atheist friend who converted to mysticism after seeing what he was missing in his understanding. Without the proper foundation, people will forever be led into error.

MichaelangeloTruth@yahoo.com

The theodicy problem seems to be just a part of a larger dilemma we face if we try to believe in a God that intervenes in the affairs of mankind. The modern dilemma is – how do we make any sense of the past, present and future if the intervention of a supreme being can occur at any time and without any known cause? Since our Neolithic ancestors didn’t know what we know they invented gods to help them explain and control life’s events. Today, however, we know much, much more about cause and effect than our Neolithic ancestors; interventionist gods are no longer needed to explain how our world works. In today’s world believing in these gods now hinder our efforts at understanding. Is this ironic or what? We live in a universe that is indifferent to the plight of humans – it treats us all the same. None of us can violate its laws. Although we don’t understand all these laws, we know that ultimately our fate is determined by the laws of physics and the mathematics of probability. If we get any help in this life it is from other human beings. I find this comforting. I can read the newspaper and make some sense of both the good and bad I see there.

Luke:

You missed the point of the book entirely. The point of the book is to look at what God has done WITH Job, not what has God done TO Job. God has TRUSTED Job's faith enough that He can say to Lucifer "Everything that he is and everything that he has you can destroy, just do not take his life" knowing that Job would not give up his faith in Him. Now that is something that I want, for God to trust ME. That is what suffering is all about. God TRUSTING us with trials. Knowing it will not destroy us or our faith.

Lepid,

Thank you! I get a little irked when people use Job as an example of God's love. Love, indeed!

Luke,

I never liked chess. Give me a dodgeball analogy.

It is true that it seemed kind of sadistic to punish Job just to prove a point to Satan. Kinda makes you feel like a chess piece, eh?

Ok He-Man, who are you really? That's hysterical.

Michael Sweat:
**In the book of Job, it is clear that (bad) things happen to good people. We know that even from our own experiences. However, Job's story also makes clear that God is at work and has a plan for each of us, whether we can understand why these things happen or not and whether we understand God's dealings with us or not.**

In the book of Job, God used Job as a pawn to win a bet with Satan. Ever see the Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd movie "Trading Places"? God and Satan are like the Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche characters.

By the power of Greyskull!

I Have The POWER!

Oh OK, so it's my fault that I deserve death. Oh bring me the suffering that I deserve Lord for thinking naked women are attractive! Oh burn me in eternal torment for getting angry with my transgressors! Let me bleed and suffer for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time and never hearing about the Bible. What a cop-out. It's my fault. The blame-humanity crowd. It's sick and masochistic. So you CHOOSE to be sinful? That's you. The conscience is our weak little link to God? Nonsense. Your problem is that the arguments are too convenient, and then when no explanation is left, you just blame humanity for all of our woeful suffering. If you hate yourselves so much, STOP WEARING SEATBELTS. I am not angry at God - I am angry at the self-loathing psychosis I find in others on a picosecond basis. Ofcourse it is easy for it to fit your worldview when you believe in it. If I believed that little fairies liked to drag things to the ground when I let go of them, then the idea of gravity would make little sense to me, no? It's too convenient that God only cared about Middle Easterners until the Bible just happened to be translated into other languages. So God only speaks one language? He only talks to one group of people? How convenient for the unbelievers to whom he doesn't speak. Oh wait, how convenient that he is trying to speak to me but I am blocking it with the rebellious nature embedded in my DNA (funny, I don't remember DNA being in the Bible). Oh wait, how convenient it is created me in his image but how convenient that it is all my fault. So damn convenient.

Mary C.,

Atheists don't enjoy poetry and music? Not all atheists are science nerds ;)

Also, what if your neighbor is playing their music too loud? Can you file a "noise" complaint?

Love of God is like love of music.

Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit and not many respect it overmuch. Some people are tone deaf, some are plain deaf; these can live perfectly respectable lives and have no sense of loss because they cannot hear it.

Other people cannot live with music. It fills their lives, they hear it and marvel, it causes them great joy. Quite simply, it is a part of their innermost being. They view people who deliberately *choose* to live without music with utter incomprehesion.Why would anyone want to live without music?

It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other. I doubt if they'll ever meet-- in this millenium at least, assuming there is an earth for them to meet upon.

Mary Cunningham,

"To sum: we try to measure God in human terms and when we can’t do so atheists say if I can’t measure Him, He doesn’t exist. It is tautological in that we are only measuring what we can measure."

The only way that humans can receive information about the universe is through observation and deduction. But theistic doctrines define their gods as undetectable through that empirical method. There is no reason to assume that there are things that cannot be detected empirically. How did anyone come up with the idea of gods in the first place? If I had grown up completely isolated from religion, the idea of gods may never have occurred to me.

Kate,

"And people of faith regularly are told by atheists that we're stupid, naive, idiotic, illogical, etc. I presume your point is demonstrating that some people have appalling manners."

No disagrement about manners, although I emphasize that only a minority of atheists have that lack of manners. Similarly, only a minority of Christians go around telling unbelievers that they deserve to suffer for eternity in hell, or that natural disasters are punishments for unbelief. However, the latter behavior is much more offensive as a matter of moral principle, and much more hurtful for the person hearing it. So while I condemn atheists who call believers stupid, I also say that believers should abandon the doctrine of eternal damnation before they consider asking for sympathy.

I hear many Christians say that Muslims who oppose Al Qaeda-style terrorism have an obligation to publicly condemn it, and they have a valid point. My response is that Christians who oppose the hatemongering of people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have an obligation to publicly condemn those men.

The god of this world is not the God of Love.

It is Satan.

Take that to the bank.

I thought He-Man was the Master of the Universe.

Kate:

"And people of faith regularly are told by atheists that we're stupid, naive, idiotic, illogical, etc. I presume your point is demonstrating that some people have appalling manners. In that, you and I agree. Many people really need to learn their basic manners. What you believe is none of my business and frankly, what I believe has no impact on your life either. "

I agree - too many people have a lack of manners.
I disagree with the supposition that other's faith do not have an effect on my life. In a perfect USA, that would be true, but it simply is not. Case in point, our current president - he feels he was placed in power by god - clearly this affects me and my family. The idea that abstinence is the only solution to birth control is religious based, not fact based. (ironically, if we had all the birth control available to everyone, abortion rates would certainly go down, I digress). The fact that we have "under god" added to the pledge of alligiance - how am I supposed to explain that to my daughter when she comes of age? Athiests as a whole are certainly a minority - and an ignored minority at that.

"Your choice to not believe in God / gods obviously works for you and I'm truly glad you live in a culture that supports your choice. And if you're tempted to read that last with a tinge of sarcasm, it's not meant as such. "

I didnt' take that as sarcasm (I'm sure there are those that would...). My culture, however, at best tolerates my belief system - it does not support it. There would have to be many changes to support it the way religions are supported. Could I build a tax-free 'church' if I don't believe in god? Could an atheist ever run for president? (hopefully someday!). Can we remove 'god' from anything government related?

"Like IronicalDonical, I too am amazed by the amount of energy atheists put into denouncing and ridiculing God. I would have thought there'd be better uses for time but again, it's their time to make use of as they wish. "

I don't intend to ridicule - I personally just "dont get it" when it comes to god. (raised as a prodestant, by the way). We atheists, and frankly some non-christians, have been put down by the christian majority in the USA for far too long. We as a group have only come to the surface because of how far a right-turn to conservative christianity this nation has taken, that we have simply been awakened to speak out. By trying to force, the doctrine and false theory of intelligent design on our children in public schools, the secular folks of the country were appalled, and had to stand up for their rights. There are many examples that this administration has used religion and the fear of god to push illogical behavior controlling legislation. Personally, if I was a person of faith, I would be insulted by how this administration has used religion for divisive purposes.

Incidentally, National Geographic had a great cover story on Darwin - (athough the front cover tag line was misleading "Is Darwin Wrong?" - the answer is no, he was correct), and that the theory of evolution is the strongest supported theory in the history of mankind. Stronger theory than electricity, plumbing, etc. It is a great read. And at the same time, does not dismiss the faithful's beliefs in a

"And it would be nice to have a dialogue on the subject, it's pretty much impossible -- not because I think atheists are going to Hell. The concept is actually foreign to my theological universe. It's because regardless of how reasonable and respectful and considerate and thoughtful I might endeavour to be towards your religious beliefs (God does not exist), I can never overcome the atheists' basic principle that my faith in something larger than myself is proof positive that I am, in your words, not capable of reason or rationality. "

What I said was in response to another comment:
""Can't someone in their 30's or 40's with a solid education and rational thinking accept Jesus?"

In my opinion - NO, they cannot. By definition, "rational" (having its source in or being guided by the intellect (as distinguished from experience or emotion)), has nothing to do with faith ( belief that is not based on proof). No, they cannot be both rational, and believe in a superstitious being.
"
I think I was not clear enough. Its not that someone like yourself is incapable of reason or rationality. However, When it comes to the god question, (so to speak), people of faith, who have not taken the time/energy/etc to investigate their (and others') beliefs, I do not think can rationally discuss god or the possibility of a lack of god, because that sort of unchallenged faith is counter intuitive to rational thinking. It isn't meant as a blanket statement, exceptions are always present. If one is not open to the possibility of ones' faith not fitting with ones' real-life experiences in the world, how can that person look at the god question with open eyes? My own process of this came because of studying world history in college, and from that, realized that for me, my experiences with religion did not match with my real-world experiences. That was the first, last, and only time in my life that I questioned my faith, and questioned the rationality of what I was taught. During that time, I was not closed to the idea that my view of the world through religious eyes was wrong for me.

But back to the topic of the original article: Answer to why does God let bad stuff happen? Crap happens... get over it. Hurricanes, evil deeds by others.. I'm really not getting what this has to do with God. Politicians hijacking religious principles in exchange for political power? Not exactly a new concept, not exactly limited to America and not exactly culturally contained. This is God's fault? Fine, if you want it to be but please, don't build this mental construct in your head and then use it to "prove" that I'm not quite right in the head.

I agree - bad stuff just happens. Blaming a god for life's trials simply removes the onus of the individual to act. I don't believe anything is god's fault - man invented god, therefore it is mans fault for anything god does or does not do.

I never intended to indicate that you are "not quite right in the head". Quite the opposite.

Simply put, God is powerless, inert, dead.

According experts, god is the prime mover, which has no cause. God cannot move, intervene, nor intercede. To be able to do so would imply a cause other than god e.g. another god. He must remain the causeless first causer. He must remain immobile, and indeed, insentient. He is merely the fabric of existence, the context within which consciousness arises--the ether of yore so to speak.

As such he lives only as we live, exists only as we exist, conscious only as we are conscious. He is not a separate "being" for his beingness would require a start from non-being.

God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. He is simply the background radiation of existence. It is truly a marvelous existence, but there is no requirement for justice, retribution, punishment, fairness, nor reward, nor grace. No heaven, no hell. Just quanta.

One day we'll get over ourselves. We assume that we are so special that we invent god to be like us and create this self-referencing, recursive muddle that we cannot dig our way out of.

We are special in that we have this sentient consciousness, the ability to sense existence with agreeable consistency, and the ability to conceive of the future and the mobility to alter it. This is the foundation of all higher concepts. Nothing more is required.

And if god were not insentient, inert and dead, surely he would be mighty proud that such a rich, complex and beautiful result could arise from e=mc^2.

--Faithless in US

scooter:

So what you're saying is that God lets us suffer to teach us a lesson (I know you put it in prettier words, but let's be honest, that's what you're saying.)

I have to say, as a father myself, i find this whole idea utterly repugnant. I would not abandon my children to suffering and pain just to teach them to obey me.

What you're describing sounds to me like a Father who lets one son run out into the street and get hit by a car to teach his other children not to play in the street. "See kids; if you don't love and obey Daddy you might get squashed like your brother did!" You call this love?! Surely an all-powerful, wise, merciful and compassionate Father could find a better way to nurture his children's love.

The God you describe sounds like an abusive parent to me. "Say you love me or I'll let you die" doesn't inspire real love in return.

Regards

A Hermit

Andrew McCarthy

I liked your piece. To sum: we try to measure God in human terms and when we can’t do so atheists say if I can’t measure Him, He doesn’t exist. It is tautological in that we are only measuring what we can measure.

However, I think atheists analyze too much. OK—I’m just a HIC (humble Irish Catholic) and I know Freud said the Irish were the only race impervious to psychoanalysis so maybe I’m judging others by my own standards but hey! atheists judge me by theirs, why not them by mine, so to speak?

Modern humanity exalts itself too much! It gives us a false sense of what life can deliver. We expect a painless existence with no suffering, and expect to live forever. What other era has ever thought this way? Christians historically have always recognised the material inseparability of humanity from the rest of Creation. Why should we be exempt from the natural processes of decay and bodily dissolution let alone the incidence of disaster and catastrophe? Men and women, in the Christian understanding of the world, are called by God to take part in the development of the earth, *but we remain integrated with it, and with the fate of all living things.*

In the biblical image, all we are is dust. The world, as created by God, is perfect for his purposes, and therefore for ours. Human engagement with it should be a sequence of fruitful discoveries: hopefully therein will be evidence (rightly evaluated) of the divine scheme. But humans are never going to lose the essential characteristics of our humanity. We are an integral part of the mass of living things which exist on the face of the planet, and the terms of our material lives, as provided by the Creator, are set by the common laws of matter which affect all things.

Why is this a reason for atheist rage? We are human, merely human. We are living beings like the millions of other livings things upon our earth. Those facts has never bothered me much, but then I am a HIC.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham
London

Andrea:

You just gotta love hearing about those things. Perfect cannon fodder for the argument about how righteous and good the Right wingers are.

Like I have said before. Christianity is full of hypocrisy. Just another point to give it more truth.

I have said the same thing for most of my life. Since I was 9 or 10, I have had many people close to me die. They have been murdered, committed suicide, had asthma attacks, been in car accidents, cancer, heart attacks, and natural disasters. I have lived in hotels while my home was being rebuilt after a tornado. I have held my best friend as he took his last breath. I know the anger and hatred I felt as I blamed God for what I felt were unfair, cruel, and capricious acts on His part. I know the pain that can only be felt when, sitting alone in the small hours of the morning and counting up the losses of loved ones, you wrestle with God. It took years from my life and those are years that cannot be given back. It was not untill after I met my wife that I realized that I had been wrong, that what God and the Bible said was not that there would be no pain in the world but that He would be there to dry my tears and to ease the pain in my heart. I realize now that He also has walked my path when he sent His Son to die for me, who at the time had done NOTHING to deserve that gesture and EVERYTHING to deserve death. I have prayed and will continue to pray for the hope and peace that I now have and which has been tested by yet more deaths will soon be be felt by the crowd of people that are looking for answers in the world and are doomed to continue a pointless and starving existence. A crowd of which I was the leader of.

Chip says:

"SOK7, starving babies are a character builder, is that what you're saying? How does he decide who gets the axe as a sacrifice to the character of others?"

In the case of starving babies, 99-percent of the time, people decide who gets the axe - either through their actions, or as a direct result of their failure to act.

It is beyond your power to stop a hurricane, and I doubt there anything you could have done to stop what happened on 9/11...

...but what are you doing that might keep even one baby from starving? What have you told your congressman to do concerning Darfor? Have you ever contributed to the American Red Cross. Would you be willing to pay a dollar a day so that a starving child could receive 3-meals a day and an education? Or is that someone else's problem?

You build empathy through suffering. You build character by how you choose to respond to suffering.

I'm fascinated by the statements by some that an atheist just doesn't understand, because he/she hasn't experienced god - in the way that person of faith has.

I note that schizophrenics experience voices and experiences too - and I don't doubt that it is absolutely real for them, but I also don't believe that what they are experiencing is real either.

I understand and agree with the points Susan Jacoby has made. I have exactly the same problem with the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about the "power" of God, but I have chosen a different way to deal with it. Although it is not as comfortable as convincing yourself that God will "protect" you, I have come to believe that God is a force of perfect love that exists independent of human beings, but there are limits to what love can do. It can't control nature or the rules of chance, nor can it compel people to do good rather than evil. (I also believe there is a force for evil at work in the universe, and some days I'm not sure who's winning.)

hello all. I'm going to attempt to answer Ms. Jacoby's very good question she stated in the second paragraph (why the innocent should suffer for the exercise of "free will" by the guilty?).

I think of God as a loving Father who doesn't want to see any of us suffer. However, God is thinking of the big picture in terms of what's happening on Earth. He can't intervene now to stop our suffering at this point without sacrificing the long term wellbeing of all his creatures for all time (meaning eternity). The issue at hand is our separation from God (sin) that we are experiencing today. This separation resulted from one being (Lucifer) parting ways with God's plans for the universe. Because we were created to have free will then God also knows that Sin (separation from Him) will always be a possibility (for all time - even after sin plays out here on Earth). That is why God must allow Sin to run its course this one time. As an example to all of us of just how bad things can get when we separate ourselves from Him. So when we're trotting around the universe (or wherever) a few million years from now we'll have a complete understanding of the ramifications of any decisions we choose to make. We will most likely not choose to separate ourselves from God again as the result of that path will be clearly known. This is why God hasn't stepped in and removed sin and suffering from our lives sooner. It would only leave open future doubt about what would have happened if man where left to plot his own destiny, and the cycle would repeat itself. It must be awful to sit back and watch your children suffer so, but He is doing it out of true love and not lack of compassion.

I feel sad about Ms. Jacoby's statement that she would choose to hate God. God loves each of us more than we know. We may suffer and die during our lives here on Earth (is that really a reason to hate?), but we can live again with Him if we choose.

v/r
scott

Russell,

He didn't mean to touch sandals with that undercover godsquad officer. It was an innocent 'bump"...not footsie.

Andrea:

Accident?

SSSHHHHHYEAH!........Riiiiiiight.

Russell,

But he said it was an accident!

Al,

"Most discussions of the existence of God by atheists include an element of anger, which is difficult to understand if they really believe that there is no God."

From my reading, most of anger seems to be directed not at God but at the claims made about God and at believers for defending those claims. I describe myself as an agnostic pantheist - although I don't rule out the possibility of a supreme being, I see no reason to believe in such a being since there's no conclusive evidence.

My own anger is directed at believers who, as Jacoby noted, see their neighbors' houses destroyed by a tornado and think that God spared their own houses. It's directed at believers who claim that hurricanes in New Orleans and tsunamis in Asia are God's punishments on unbelievers. It's directed at believers who claim that human sin is the cause of all suffering, including Duane Gish's hateful and unscientific notion that meat-eating among animals originated with the Fall of Man. Most of all, it's directed at believers who want public-school teachers to force my children to pray.

People, hit the POST button once and once only!

Hitting it many times does not speed up the posting process, it sends your message to the board multiple times!

It also shows that you don't know how to use a computer, which probably doesn't help your argument!

Andrea:

Job was tortured cause he was giving "funny signals" in the Men's Room. HA!

Atheism is not a belief but a by product. A by product of frustration with faith, intellectual blockage of emotional and spiritual truth; a product of a subtle rebellion that refuses to submit itself to "any being" that can be cruel, capricious, and oftentimes seemingly disassociated with His Creation.

Always question your spiritual system on your behavior not on your belief. Are you refusing God because of past hurts where you may have felt He didn't come through? Are you refusing because of simply not wanting to be held accountable? Are you refusing because of a moral or social agenda that crosses the known line of God s plan. think about it on a personal level and see what you find

Atheism is not a belief in a by product. A by product of frustration with faith, intellectual blockage of emotional and spiritual truth; a product of a subtle rebellion that refuses to submit itself to "any being" that can be cruel, capricious, and oftentimes seemingly disassociated with His Creation.

Always question your spiritual system on your behavior not on your belief. Are you refusing God because of past hurts where you may have felt He didn't come through? Are you refusing because of simply not wanting to be held accountable? Are you refusing because of a moral or social agenda that crosses the known line of God s plan. think about it on a personal level and see what you find

Atheism is not a belief in a by product. A by product of frustration with faith, intellectual blockage of emotional and spiritual truth; a product of a subtle rebellion that refuses to submit itself to "any being" that can be cruel, capricious, and oftentimes seemingly disassociated with His Creation.

Always question your spiritual system on your behavior not on your belief. Are you refusing God because of past hurts where you may have felt He didn't come through? Are you refusing because of simply not wanting to be held accountable? Are you refusing because of a moral or social agenda that crosses the known line of God s plan. think about it on a personal level and see what you find

Charles,

You brought up the example of Job. Why was Job tortured?

Dear Susan,

your point of view is perfectly reasonable if you use a human standard of viewing the events in question as good or bad and God as doler of rewards and punishment.

A God that pampers us and showers us only with goodies is not a "good" God at all. Such a God would stagnate us and leave us spoiled as the children of parents who do raise their kids that way.

If God is infinite and a creator (as those who believe in God hold) then God must truly express itself infinitely in all manner of expressions. this means creating tornados as well as sunshine, otherwise God would limit itself creatively.

Humans grow through challenge, so experiencing these "evil" expressions are really vehicles for growth. Watching a child die may teach us compassion. Watching one's home destroyed by tornado may teach us not to take life for granted and to live by challenge not by security (which is stagnating).

Ah, but the pain you cry. Yes, there is pain. When a child goes outside to play and falls and scrapes his knee, for the next ten minutes the world has ended. The pain is unendurable and unending. A wise parent knows that the pain is temporary and the worse thing to do would be to keep the child indoors forever so that future pain could be avoided. Pain is part of life, part of the growth process and part of the experience of being. It adds to our character and our dimensions.

But consider this. In the scheme of infinity (if we do have immortal souls), a single human lifetime of 80 years is virtually nothing. The pain we experience in a lifetime is a smaller fraction of our total existence than the 10 minutes the child experiences the pain of a scraped knee. In both cases, it seems forever and unbearable, but to a wise God, the pain is temporary and comes with the opportunity for permanent growth. Even death itself is part of that process. It is a break from the trappings of our lives and a chance to ease the pain and regroup. So God has given us that mechanism for dealing with pain as well.

Finally, God does not create these things out of evil but out of love and out of necessity. It is the nature of an infinite being to create infinitely. God gives us the same gift: to express our lives infinitely and with love. With that infinity will come expressions that others abhor. But all of that is part of free will and discovering who we really are and letting us decide who we want to be while we are in the process of becoming infinite ourselves.

When we ask that good question we often forget that God is not just outside of us, but in us. So when we suffer, the one who suffers the most is God -- who is perfect Love. That's key to entering into the mystery of Christ crucified and resurrected.

Important aspects of Christianity's answer:

1. Sufferings exist because otherwise freedom to love is impossible.
2. Much suffering is unnecessary, that's why God still performs many healings.
3. Determining which are necessary can't be formularized because God is a Love relationship.
4. In general, suffering becomes a pointer to the need and reality of the afterlife.
5. Perfect Love will redeem them all sufferings if we allow them to shape us into perfect Love.

Great resources:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/suffering.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-0wR87okY

Jerusalemight,

thank you for the argument for us atheists:

Knowledge is limited. No scientist would ever doubt it. Therefore he tries to expand knowledge.

Knowledge is limited. No religionist would ever doubt this. Out of fear of this unknown, he places the god joker where the limits are.

Michael: As many before me have pointed out more eloquently, Pascal's Wager is a lame challenge to non-believers.

Would an omniscient god accept the faked belief by someone who really believes, deep down, that the recipient of his worship does not even exist?

Does faking the rituals of a religion, going to church, etc. replace an absence of true belief?

If an atheist does good works in this life, but never acknowledges the existence of a god, is he really still doomed by your religious standards? Why not do good for goodness sake, rather than under threat of post-death punishment? Which is more honorable ... being good because you know that this is the only life you get and you want to leave this planet a slightly better place, OR being good because you are scared to death of an afterlife punishment?

You followers of the Cult of Abraham never CEASE TO AMAZE!!!

You create a Jealous God, Omnipotent and Omniscient, The One God of All, then immediately limit it, and create an Ursurper, that challenges it for dominance. Actually, from what you claim, the Ursurper actually Kicks God's Arse and claims rule over this universe, making it and its inhabitants, You and me into NOTGOD, or EVIL.

Your God is a Wussy. I can see how it is created in Your image. You refuse responsibility for Your actions. You blame the Ursurper you conviently created for this instead of recognizing you are too stupid, lazy and trite to do the right thing THAT YOU WERE BORN KNOWING YOU SHOULD DO...and the You want the weak little god you created to FORGIVE YOUR LAZY ARSES.

If Your god gives you Victory in War, he obviously gives Your enemies an Evil time..but wait, all of the evil is the Ursurpers realm...so the Devil actually gave you the Victory by giving more death and destruction, evil, to you enemies.

This is completely illogical. Either Your god is all powerful and created everything, or he isn't and shares power with the evil you created to CYA.

You would think after 3500 yrs you guys could polish this mess up a little to make it at least halfway believable to a rational person.

ps I try to capitalize Your Name because You created Your god, so You deserve the credit.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Tim, you say, "I see God everytime I see a sunset, the stars or a mother's tear. It makes me so sad that some overlook these everyday miracles in favor of their own tortured line of reasoning."

I say, don't worry about it, people don't overlook beautiful sunsets just because they don't believe that an omipotent, invisible supernatural being created them. Nor do they perceive their line of reasoning as "tortured" - quite the opposite - it's the faithful, trying to insert God in nature who seem to have tortured reasoning.

It strikes me that given Pascal's Wager is a correct assessment of the reality of God's existence; the benefits accrue to atheists in this world only. Benefits to beleivers, assuming they fulfill the requirements (whatever they are), are infinite after this life. Both will benefit from lives lived in a fashion that each acts in accordance with their own wills, as long as they harm no one else, where such harm does not provide both short- and long-term benefit. i.e. in confers a life-or-death imparative.

Nice to know you're still here Andrea. :)

PV:

Isn't it interesting how over the course of 2,000 years, the message has been lost? Or overlooked?

Sucks, don't it?

"I appreciate your comment on your anger toward God as an atheist. Most discussions of the existence of God by atheists include an element of anger, which is difficult to understand if they really believe that there is no God. How can they be angry with a person who does not exist. I believe that their anger reflects the idea that the atheists do not like the God we have. He does things that they do not like. In response, they say that God does not exist, but with an element of the anger that they feel toward him. Discussion of the existence of God among atheists and believers would be more productive if the atheists would just say that they are angry with God."

I'm no spokesperson for those who are atheistic, but as a naturalist myself I can assure you that I harbor no anger for the hypothetical god(s). I never had faith in such a being, so my worldview is not a product of disillusionment in some former belief. My anger, when it does flare up, is with many of the human followers of such beliefs since they often turn to simplistic, unworkable answers to complex problems that call for human solutions.

I think Jacoby's point was that IF she were to accept the existence of such a being, she would have to be angry at it for what she sees in the world around her. What we non-believers see is a world that looks like one in which there is no supreme being at the helm.

That does upset some people, believers and non-believers alike. For others, it shows that humans better get their act together and start looking for solutions to problems inside their own little heads rather than in ancient myths.

It's all part of the growing-up process, both for individuals and for the human species.

I believe in my personal, loving, gracious, forgiving, and eternal God. I have never really tried to "prove the exsistence of God," because my faith is in my personal God. I have come to the realization that it is more important for me to ask "How?" instead of "Why?" Not "Why did this disaster occur? but "How am I to respond to it?" I believe that my response to an evil act or disaster conveys my view and belief in my personal God. So I must react in a kind and loving manner to those who are injured, wounded, and oppressed. A personal God is seen not in hatred, violence, and destruction but in our reactions to the hardships of this world. By the way, my personal God is waiting with open arms to accept me into eterntal life when I die by an automobile accident, plane crash, bullet, tornado, earthquake, cancer, heart attack, or by drawing my last breath in the still sleep of the night.

Jim, you say, “The search for proof of things believed in faith is what scientists do.”

What scientists do is quite different from what religious people do: scientists develop hypotheses, then look for evidence, involving, for instance, numerous experiments, double-blind studies and extensive peer review. If they can’t find sufficient evidence, they drop that hypotheses, or perhaps, set out later, based on new evidence and new hypotheses. When religious people decide they have faith in something, they hold onto that faith, without looking for additional evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary. In this forum, I’ve seen many religious people, some lay, some clergy, simply making statements about the mind of God that they have faith in, even though other people of the same general religion do not believe (e.g., biblical inerrancy vs. a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible; what God means when he does or does not intervene in human life). Bishop Chane, in his current essay does this and is getting a lot of flack from both believers and non-believers. some of the believers strongly disagree with his interpretation of God's design and some non-believers think he has no basis on which to make a determination.

I was born and raised Catholic.

As an adult when faced with the unreasonable and inconsistent philosophy, I realized the beauty was in the simple message of Love thy Neighbor, not the rituals, nor the miracles (I do not believe in miracles). Most Christians have conveniently forgotten this in favor of political gains or just plain fantasy...

Now I'm embarassed for them.

Thank you Ms. Jacoby

Ms. Jacoby, as a Southern God-fearing gentleman, I graciously accept you challenge. I will attempt to explain my position, the position of just one faithful Christian, on the relevance of evil and provide my non-linear logic about bad things happening to good people and visa versa.

Everything belongs to God. The good, the evil, and the otherwise. I believe there is something greater than myself. The archetype of the recipient of the machinations of a capricious God is Job. Job endured tragedy sanctioned by God and only requested one thing in return--understanding. I think that Job, utilizing the limitations of his humanity, recognized that there is always a cause and effect. That is the nature of this planet. Challenging the actions or even the existence of God is hardwired in our DNA. We can question, plead, lament to God for resolution (where there can never resolution--losing 10 children all at once leaves wounds that never heal) or basic understanding it will not come. I understand and accept the fact that God stopped speaking to man long ago. (That's another point of contention.) The only choice we have is to choose to continue living or embrace death.

I choose to live and believe in a God whose omnipotence reflects both the good and evil of man and the planet. I believe that if I'm having a hard time with life then so is God.

Each of us has to seek our own path, our own way of living with blatant evil and never enough good. My way of coping and continuing is defining God's cause and effect. For me that means making God a woman who created man and the planet for a single selfish reason: The reclamation of a lost lover--Lucifer. I'm using my imagination to create a work of fiction that defines God's cause and effect and re-write the Bible to remove the dross intentionally left in.

So, there you have it. We believers in God are not all the passive, thick-headed lot you make us out to be. Some of us daily straddle the line between belief and disbelief. Bottom line: God, like any good parent, made us the way we are and is ultimately responsible for how we turn out. And regardless of how we turn out or what we do or don't do in the process there will always be a place reserved for the prodigal. And that includes atheists.

I believe in my personal, loving, gracious, forgiving, and eternal God. I have never really tried to "prove the exsistence of God," because my faith is in my personal God. I have come to the realization that it is more important for me to ask "How?" instead of "Why?" Not "Why did this disaster occur? but "How am I to respond to it?" I believe that my response to an evil act or disaster conveys my view and belief in my personal God. So I must react in a kind and loving manner to those who are injured, wounded, and oppressed. A personal God is seen not in hatred, violence, and destruction but in our reactions to the hardships of this world. By the way, my personal God is waiting with open arms to accept me into eterntal life when I die by an automobile accident, plane crash, bullet, tornado, earthquake, cancer, heart attack, or by drawing my last breath in the still sleep of the night.

Yes I know the 'free will' arguement is a problem for non believers. Unfortunately it is the only answer. When God created the earth it was perfect, no death, no destruction, no disasters. In order to have free will there must be a choice otherwise what decision is possible? So into this perfect earth there was only one rule, only one opportunity for evil, man chose that evil and due to that we now live in a fallen world.

It is this kind of thinking that I find really interesting -- "If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him." Well how else can you have free will -- have choice? If evil and the ramifications of choosing evil do not exist then you have no free will. My God is not interested in building a bunch of automatons. Let's suppose for a moment that life was perfect, but you had no free will, there was no choice for you to make, wouldn't you then be railing against God for His race of robots?

I see God everytime I see a sunset, the stars or a mother's tear. It makes me so sad that some overlook these everyday miracles in favor of their own tortured line of reasoning.

Russell,

I'm here. Just got on here this morning with about 200 new posts to read through. I especially enjoyed your good needs evil, man needs a smoke after whoopie comment. Pure gold, man.

Pablo:
Just what I thought not one atheist could give a credible reason for believing there are such things as good and evil.

Actually, there have been several, on this thread and others. There just haven't been any that YOU consider credible because you only have one criterion for credibility.

LUKE!!!!:

Where you been man? I missed your tattooed butt on these boards.

I have been having fun with Pablo.....as usual.

Where's Andrea? I miss her too. I need companions.

Can't take on everyone by myself. ;)

C.S. Lewis shows the built in-contradiction in the question (from the book Mere Christianity):

“My argument [when I was an atheist] against God was that the universe seemed to cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction to it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -- in other words—that the whole world was senseless -- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -- namely my idea of justice -- was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

And the best one of them all.

Thank god for C-SPAN

From Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com

The death of D. James Kennedy yesterday marks the second death of a major figure in the religious right this year (after the May death of Jerry Falwell)–I wonder if this is making his followers and other fundamentalist Christians take a long hard look at the state of their faith, seeing as they generally consider earthly tragedies and misfortunes to be punishments from God (recall Robertson’s remarks on Ariel Sharon’s stroke, and the countless comments made by others with regard to Katrina).

Why do people keep saying that Susan is "missing the point," and then saying that the real point is that THEY have faith (which is what they really mean when they say that god walks with us, or whatever.) Her point is that it apears absurd to atheists when people, for example, praise god for having survived an earthquake that killed their neighbors. The implication is that if god chose them to live, he also, logically, chose that others would die. She is asking how believers square this with their belief in a loving god. (The answers are the usual ones: god is testing us, he moves in mysterious ways, he is punishing us, he does not intervene etc. etc.) But the larger point is that an atheist perspective is a legitimate one in a forum "on faith." If believers want to talk to each other about how much they believe, they can go to church. For better or for worse, faith is a major public issue in America - no politician can be credible nationaly without professing faith in the supernatural. Atheists have long been fairly silent in national discourse because of a widespread culture that equates reasoned atheism with sin, and uses fear (of hell, of displeasing grownups) to suppress inquiry. It is time atheists spoke up like everyone else. Religious faith has long had a bully pulpit: We have to hear public figures making what appear to us ridiculous statements about the supernatural causes of apparently natural phenomena all the time. It is time to give some of our more articulate spokespeople - like Susan - a place to be heard, like everyone else. That is the point.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

The reason that the problem of theodicy exists is because Christian doctrine presumes a God that is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. These are incompatible with the existence of suffering.

An omnibenevolent God wouldn't create suffering in the first place for any reason. And if God needed to cause suffering for some valid and necessary higher purpose, then that would argue against omnipotence. Also, the latter situation might fit a definition of God as just, but a just God would explain the higher purpose instead of deliberately not explaining things. A God who was both omnibenevolent and omnipotent would have the power and desire to accomplish some higher purpose without suffering.

Assuming that suffering has a reason sounds like denial instead of consolation. Suffering has no inherent meaning. We give our own meaning to it when we face it with bravery and learn from it.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

So this stuff has apparently replaced Horoscopes in newspapers? At least they had some entertainment value.

What the Post describes as 'faith' is simply superstition.

Until we learn to live in and for the present, and to solve problems ourselves, without depending on the Magical Guy in the Sky, we're not going to get out of the mess we're in. One would think a major national news organ would understand this.

But, there's money to be made off the misguided. Just ask the GOP.

Rungus,

A very poignant story. Yet I have to wonder against which evils you would have God intervene to prevent. Should he only intervene against mass murder? Against rape also, perhaps?

What if he were to intervene against some evil (however minor it might be) that you intended to commit? Say, he made your arms useless when you were about to hit your child too harshly (for example; of course I am not accusing you of child abuse). Maybe he should intervene by making the bottle disappear shortly before you have too much to drink, or cause the car to refuse to start when you are about to drive drunk?

What would such a world be like then? Kind of like bowling with bumpers - you can't really crap out in a game like that, can you? In fact, without any way to judge, you might think you're pretty good at bowling in such a situation. But in fact you wouldn't be good at bowling. If you are not free to fail, your successes mean nothing - they aren't even successes.

Living outside of such a world, and in one with horrid suffering like that caused by the Birch County killer, it is easier to say that such a world would be better. The grass is always greener on the other side, right?

In fact, in such a world, you might just as easily scream at God, "Why do you keep interfering with my life, with my decisions?" That would be a valid question to ask God.

In this world, "Why did you let my little baby die?!" is a perfectly honest thing to scream at God. I don't think God minds that at all. It's real and honest and genuine. Even, "I'm *@&! mad at you, and I'm not going to speak to you again!" is a perfectly real and honest response to undeserved suffering. I think he's cool with that.

Two people being honest with each other can have a real relationship, even if painful and strained. Looking at people I know who have divorced, they are almost never honest with themselves or each other, but hide motivations and put up game-faces, contriving answers to accomplish something, rather than to share reality with each other. That's how my parents were (and still are) with each other, at least. That's when the relationship ends. Fakers can't have relationships, and two fakers certainly can't relate with each other.

God gave us free will, and he meant it, and isn't going to take it back. Bad things happen. It's OK to tell God that you think his plan sucks. Be honest.

It doesn't follow from God's plan being displeasing to us (or even being an objectively bad plan) that God doesn't exist. To say to oneself and to the world, "I don't like the way the world works, therefore, I am going to deny God even exists, because he is ultimately responsible," well, that's just disingenuous. It's putting up a face, fronting like you (or I) know more than limited creatures like ourselves can possibly know.

I suspect that especially those who are denying the existence of God on the basis that they feel screwed over by his plan are actually very angry at him: he didn't save them from the Birch County killer in their life. Say that. Better just to be honest. Then at least we (humans) can have a relationship with each other; and maybe with God (should he exist) too.

God once said, "Don't confuse me with my followers."

According to C.S. Lewis, If humans are truly free to choose good or evil, then evil must be a real possibility. An omnipotent God could surely prevent evil, but he could only do so at the cost of human freedom. Human freedom is better than a world without suffering because it makes real love and real goodness possible.

Suggest you read his book, "The Problem of Pain". As cold is the absence of heat, so is evil the absence of God. Therefore it does not make sense to attribute evil to a God that is nothing but goodness.

Part of the atheist's (and other's) difficulty, as implied by Susan Jacoby, is the belief that suffering has no meaning, or has only an evil meaning ("why the innocent should suffer, etc.").

Perhaps Christianity is unique in asserting a value to suffering, which some find revelatory and encouraging, and others find a stumbling block -- too weird to comprehend.

As a practicing Catholic who is not in fact the Pope, I can only speak for myself, but it seems to me if someone believes that God loves them because he spared their house in a storm (and perhaps by extension loves his neighbor a little less because his was destroyed), they don't really understand the Christian message. A big part of that message is that earthly success or failure is not an indication of divine favor.

Some of the saints thought themselves more blessed by God when adversity came their way, especially the kind that you rub elbows with every day at home, in the office or in the monastery.

It sucks that I am condemned to eternal suffering because God has made a weak case to prove his existence and some woman many, many years prior to me ate some fruit God didn't want her to. Wow, the root of all evil - Granny Smith apples. Funny, I pray and nothing happens. God must be apathetic to my life. Sounds more like a bad parent to me. Sit me in front of the TV with a bag of Oreo cookies - maybe there will be one he tells me not to eat, and then everyone in my family tree henceforth will rape, murder, and torture each other (plenty of them in his name). Man, that's quite a claim.

There's room in between the concept of an anthropomorphized deity and nothing. Like magic is all around us, but we see it as natural because we're familiar with it, so also could it be that god is all around us, while we keep looking for something other than what is. I agree that the concept of a god who is planning the world and causing good and bad things to happen is, as Calvin said to Hobbes (paraphrased) "either arbitrary or mean and either way i've got the willies". But that is a separate issue from what happens when we die. All around us are constant reminders of the cyclical nature of, well, nature. There's no reason to believe that we disappear from the world when we die and every reason to believe in rebirth of some sort or another.

Butterfly:
"Also, angry athesit (sic) lady ignores the fact that churches and other faith-based charities usaully out-perform secular institutions in the area of disaster response. We saw this after 9/11 and Katrina. God's intervention in this world occurs through His children. "

=======================

quick reminder:
a faith-based White House started a war of choice, over oil, and is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.

Is that God's intervention?

Nathan,
Without God, there are no morals? Are you kidding with this? You cannot distinguish good from bad without religion as a compass?
KJ

You can always change a person's suggestions, you can somethimes change their thoughts, but you can never change thier beliefs.

My email to a friend who send me this article:

This is a good article, though I see 2 glaring
fallacies in her presentation:
1. Bad things do not ever and have not ever
happened to good people. In response to Rabbi
Kushner's best-seller "When bad things happen to
good people", one of my heros, John Gerstner
wrote a little booklet called "The problem of
pleasure: Why good things happen to bad people"!

2. When she makes this statement, she's making an
unwarranted, irrational assumption about
morality:
"If there were a deity responsible for both human
evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would
hate him. I would prefer to go to hell rather
than to make bargains with such a cruel,
capricious Master of the Universe"
She's assuming that SHE knows what objective evil
is and is not. What is her point of reference
for adjudicating between the two? Unless there
does exist a personal, transcendant God who tells
us what is right and wrong, how can she claim to
have a moral claim against Him? Thus, atheism falls under its own weight.

Susan

I appreciate your comment on your anger toward God as an atheist. Most discussions of the existence of God by atheists include an element of anger, which is difficult to understand if they really believe that there is no God. How can they be angry with a person who does not exist. I believe that their anger reflects the idea that the atheists do not like the God we have. He does things that they do not like. In response, they say that God does not exist, but with an element of the anger that they feel toward him. Discussion of the existence of God among atheists and believers would be more productive if the atheists would just say that they are angry with God.

Al

Lepidopteryx and Wiccan,

Your comment and question are closely related.

Wiccan rightly asks why we ought to be held responsible for the sins of dimwits 6000 years ago. Lepidopteryx observes that we have no choice about the world into which we are born - this broken one.

The key to Wiccan's question is in Lepidopteryx's answer. "Original sin" is not the same as other kinds of sin. Sin in this sense is more generic: brokenness, damaged relationship. We are not responsible for original sin - it's not the sort of thing we can be responsible for. We are born into the situation.

When my parents were getting ready to buy a new car, I was going to get the ol' 1980-something Volvo stationwagon to take to college with me. Then my sister managed the unmanageable - she wrecked the thing. Why was I held responsible and deprived of the car I had been offered? Well, simply put, I wasn't held responsible, found guilty, distrusted, or punished. I just inherited a situation (a car) more broken than the one I had wanted and had been intended for me. Because the world is a real place, and when something bad happens, we cannot just press reset on the video controller and try again.

The world we have inherited is broken - if not by "Adam" and "Eve" then by somebody between them and us. But we don't need to worry about whether we should suffer for their sin... we do each of us do enough bad things to merit at least some of the crud we have to deal with. In fact, in my own life, I am at least 1/2 responsible for most of the damaged relationships I experience; I am almost entirely responsible for financial problems I have incurred; I am totally responsible for the harmful things I have done to my body... No need to blame Adam and Eve for those things, or get mad at someone else for breaking the world.

Why does the Post print Jacoby only on its web page, and allow "Axis of Evil" Gerson the luxury of the editorial page? This woman is GREAT.

Mark Eaton,

Those beleiving god exists only in your mind don't hate god, they just feel sorrow watching that much energy wasted on providing and accepting poor proofs about god existence and their tragical consecvences.

Many true non-believers see with same or even more sorrow the evil coming from too strong belief in non-existence of god.

It seems the kind of animal character each of us has can be even or soemtimes more important in determining our acts than the kind of belief or non-belief we have.

Mary C. said:
"Look, Brian, God is not interventionist."
===================
All Christians are taught that he is and that is why they pray.

I don't believe it either.

I am vexed as to why you would choose to publish a piece (very poorly done) from an atheist in 'on faith.' The author does nothing to neither enhance nor challenge my faith in this article. It seems to me that you are looking for provocative headlines, not 'thought provoking' authors writing articles that have some significance. So thoughtfully bankrupt, this article could have been written by my 8 year-old son. Stop the disgraceful commentaries and give us something to think about!

In the book of Job, it is clear that (bad) things happen to good people. We know that even from our own experiences. However, Job's story also makes clear that God is at work and has a plan for each of us, whether we can understand why these things happen or not and whether we understand God's dealings with us or not.

I choose to believe that there is a God as a matter of faith ... not as a matter of passivity. Natural disasters and other (good and bad) things happen (Matthew 5:45), and I am not best positioned to answer the question "why". However, I don't take any joy in knowing that others suffer. I am thankful that God cares for me and blesses me by sparing me from some of the "bad" things that happen in this world. And I take great comfort in knowing that He has promised a place in heaven for me and for all those who believe in Him (John 3:16; John 14:3).

God is not the author of evil but rather good as described in the creation story (Genesis 1).

There are consequences for our actions and the exercise of our free will. And as part of the exercise of my free will, I choose to love God and desire to go to heaven, making a commitment by faith to a loving, caring, and all-knowing God. My challenge to all who read this is the challenge Joshua laid out to the children of Israel, "... choose this day whom you will serve ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). In love ...

"If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him...."

Unbelievable. Be assured, Ms. Jacoby, that a deity is not responsible for human evil or anything else we bring on ourselves. What an uneducated statement.

Who allows this cynical secularist time on here anyway?

That was me just now.

Hey J:

Your argument is so typical of atheists. Completely mixed up.

First you said I was wrong to believe in the unproven. Then you said you were right not to believe in it.

Get straight.

If you insist on believing only what you can test, even though you are not all-knowing, then I should be able to believe in what I can't test. After all, it isn't "belief" unless its unprovable. We don't "believe" the sun exists. We know it.

Belief is a very well established and logical idea. It is based on the idea that human knowledge is limited. This is a fundamental principle in all science and philosophy.

People who deny that their limited knowledge might have left out something important have every right to be scared.

I would only change the last sentence by substituting her for him and mistress for master.

Hey Jerusalemight,

So what you're saying is because an athiest doesn't buy into your "what if machine" you think say she is afraid of something?

My friend, this is just the nuttiest reasoning I've heard of late.

Your god idea cannot be disproven, nor can it be proven. Someones disbelief in such an idea cannot be taken as proof of fear.

I believe what I can test. I hit the button the light goes on, I repeat this 10 times, and each time the light goes on. I conclude that the button controls the light. You tell me god controls the light, I have no proof, neither do you. I'll stick with the button theory until I have better proof of something else.

Your idea about "What ifs" is sheer fantasy, which I enjoy greatly mind you (nothing like a good story), but let's not run our lives, our countries, or our world on such nonsense.

We have far too much power in our very human hands to throw rational thought out the window.

Let's do what we can to prepare for or prevent those future natural disasters and leave the "What ifs" to the fiction writers.

'unless you believe that God gave wind, water, and rocks free will.'

You'd be surprised ! How was Jesus able to calm the storms ?

There is a voice an ancient voice (from the days of Abraham) that cries from the desert "Les innocent vont payer pour les coupable..." that's french for "the innocent are going to pay for the guilty's mistakes "

Maybe if they could reason, we could ask Mother Nature and all her creatures, how they feel about man.

'unless you believe that God gave wind, water, and rocks free will.'

You'd be surprised ! How was Jesus able to calm the storms ?

There is a voice an ancient voice (from the days of Abraham) that cries from the desert "Les innocent vont payer pour les coupable..." that's french for "the innocent are going to pay for the guilty's mistakes "

If they could reason we could ask Nature and all her creatures how they feel about man.

How simple.

If you assume--as Jacoby does--that this physical world is all there is to life, then of course people who believe in God confront immense contradictions every day.

But try to tell an atheist that there is more to life than meets the eye. They cover their ears and shout "La la la!"

Jacoby won't face the obvious question.

What if...just what if!...there was more. What if God had a way to justify any suffering, by counterbalancing it in some way that we don't see now. After all, we are used to such ideas. Accepting deferred gratification is basis of maturity.

If there is some deferred gratification in our lives. If there is some connection we make to God that lasts eternally somehow. Then all her unanswerable questions can be answered by any first-grader.

Jacoby knows this. That's why she writes in circles around the idea of deferred gratification in this world. That's why she won't face it head on.

I think she's afraid to...

Wow Ms. Jacoby, you have your work cut out for you here.

I have good news though, I am a big-time Theist and have recently had an excellent one-on-one discussion with God. Yep, he appeared to me as a burning Mac laptop.

He's given me some great news, God wants all of us believers to send Ms. Jacoby money. That's right, send her some cash. This he told me will help her to understand how cool he is, and that he's really very nice when not provoked. He feels she'll then start writing (once she's collected enough..uhm..evidence) about him.

So there you have it people, god has spoken through me.

What's that? You don't believe me? Why not?

You believe all those moron's who were wandering around out in the desert 2000 years ago smoking hasish. Why not me?!!

Well, if you don't believe me, a modern contemporary human like yourself, ask yourself why then you are so ready to believe those people from so far in our past?

Must be one of those mysteries of faith things.

Dear Susan,
The problem starts at the first statement.The whole concept of good and evil is flawed in that it comes from our own perspective.We want it to be rational when goodness is something that is essentially immeasurable. We put ourself out in front of the arbitration as rationalists yet our rationality fails us. And you are not alone in this because too many religious people do this also. We all want to put ourselves out in front. We demand to know why things happen and we think we can understand them in an entirely rational manner.
The amazing thing to me is that in some ways there is not much difference between atheists and believers when they feel they can rationally understand why things happen.We all want to become the arbiters.Thus your point on when good people from our perspective suffer in random events and we rejoice when God spares some yet others die. This too has bothered me.
Here is how I would explain what I can explain. Do you believe in goodness or rationality? They are not the same thing. Rationality as I understand it gives one precise measurement or precise definition. But both of these things fail in that all measurement and definition are tautologies. They become a secondary idea to what is being defined/measured.
And so reality as we define it becomes real via tautological thinking. We make a world that is one of constant motion and constant perception, one that requires measurable sensory input of different quanta, and we declare it all real. But again two errors are made. One is it comes from a human point of view and two it comes from a human point of view that man can ultimately figure everything out. But it is as Abraham Heschel once said that reason can only take one so far and that means it cannot be the sole basis of life. Reason and rationality have their place but too often it gives us confidence when in truth it should give us fear and trembling.
Unless we are willing to put this kind of discussion on the forefront we will be left with these two camps. One that is atheistic and hates that if there is a G-d that he has left us in a violent and terrible world where the innocent suffer more than the guilty. The other camp is one that feels it can believe in God and have heaven here on earth with their own kind of reasoning where good and evil are things that can be rationally explained.
I will stay with Heschel and Kierkegaard and Socrates. Learn the limits of human thought. Never have fear of the unknown. Death comes to us all and as Socrates once said ...why should you fear something you cannot understand? If you believe in things that are immeasurable then you can believe in eternity. And if you believe in goodness and justice then you can hope for an existence where it truly exists. Could it exist here? Only if we really were willing to face our limits.
Heschel's fear was that the human being only saw things from a human perspective. But we certainly had nothing to do with the creation of the universe.So who made it? You may think you can rationally figure it out via science and evolutionary study but you are fooling yourself. All things by their very nature can never be explained away. All information comes to us only via sensory input and thus we remain as Socrates saw things. We must know that we cannot know otherwise we are sophists.
Wittgenstein said that truly religious people never see life as tragedy. I agree with him. So many things we view as good turn out bad and visa versa. Have hope for better things but one must hope for something beyond mere sensory input. Who created it all? Rationality is by its own creation a kind of poem. I believe therefore that there is a poet and I kind of like the thought that if there is just one sliver of good in this crazy and mixed up world, then I should hold onto that with my whole being. I hear the same thing in you. It is all we have...

I'm so appreciative of the fact that atheists are now being heard. It's healthy.More murders, rapes, etc. have been committed in the name of religion or a god than any other cause. We need to rid ourselves of their terrible crimes.

right on! however, the is appears to me to be constant creation; makes me wonder if i am on some weird, wonderful carnival ride and death is merely the exit from the ride to my real existence. as for all the others, maybe the experience they get they chose. by now

It is the abandonment of all reason by defenders of their faiths which troubles me, leading me to doubt if reason can ever rule. God didn't put a dolt in the presidency--we did.

It is the abandonment of all reason by defenders of their faiths which troubles me, leading me to doubt if reason can ever rule. God didn't put a dolt in the presidency--we did.

amen

Probably because the topic is religion, the comments posted on this topic amply demonstrate the downside of blogging. In response to a reasoned if emotional commentary there are a series of poorly written, poorly argued, ugly, and demeaning posts. The rare nugget is buried in a mountain of inappropriate dross. That the postings must be loosely monitored is almost the only accurate observation in the entire sorry lot. Thanks, but I'd rather put myself at risk by reading the letters in The New York Times and The Nation. Even if I disagree at least they are polite, thoughtful and well written.

How dopey.
Whether you think we were created 6000 or 6 million years ago, we've still had ample time and opportunity to turn our world back into Eden. All those years of haggling and fighting and hating, when, as modern religion has always taught, we could have treated each other decently and reaped a harvest from peace. Just think how advanced our civilizations would be now had humanity learned how to cooperate with each other, instead of destroy each other.

No, the blame for bad things is probably on us. We simply can't be sure that a cure for cancer didn't die, along with the inventor's father, at Verdun, Nagasaki, or in the Nazi death camps.

i agree also,i would hate him.

i agree also,i would hate him.

i agree also,i would hate him.

In my religion “faith” is a word used to describe belief in a supreme being that is believed without proof. Some refer to it as a theological virtue.

Faith in something not proven is the not the private domain of my religion. Even though they can not prove it, some scientists believe that there is life somewhere else in the universe besides our planet earth. In fact, a great deal of time is being spent trying to find some evidence of what they believe. A mere drop of water on a distant planet would sustain their hope to find what they believe in faith. A great deal of time is also being spent trying to find the missing link that will prove conclusively that humans evolved from some other form of life.

The search for proof of things believed in faith is what scientists do. The only reason that people keep on searching is because they have faith in what they are searching for. Without faith they would stop looking. There is no need to search for evidence of that which is proven, and it is a waste of time for persons to search for that which they do not believe exists.

Atheists draw the line on faith when it comes to belief in a supreme being. I am not sure why they discriminate against this sort of faith. But they do. It is their right to be wrong I suppose. Of course I could be wrong and they could be right. The thing is if I am right they will miss much more than I will miss if I am wrong. It’s a gamble I suppose but I like the payoff odds.

So then, why does God (this Intelligent Designer) allow pain and tragedy and bad things to happen to his creation today? Why do humans suffer so often? Why are there earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters? What about disease and deformity. Death... why is there death, making life often miserable? Sometimes sudden and if not sudden or unexpected then oftentimes slow and painful? Agonizing to go through but perhaps just as agonizing to watch it.

And why do animals kill other animals in ways that appear to be so cruelly at times, grotesquely and harshly? These and other similar questions are legitimate questions that do deserve answers. I have stated I will offer my own opinions to these issues. I have thought about these things often. My own Father died at 38 years of age, when I was 15. It was a traumatic experience, one that I still remember and visit. It started as an aneurism, that when he went to the hospital went undetected until a week later. By then his kidney (was born with only one) as well as his intestines had suffered irreparable damage from lack of blood supply. He went in as a strong, muscular, healthy man, three weeks later he died, after incredible suffering. I was very close to my Dad. Yes these issues deserve answers.

Have I found these answers, which would give this Intelligent Creator some sort of acceptable "pass" so to speak, in my mind. Answers that would allow me to continue to love him, respect and give my worship to him despite these issues being very real and continually affecting people and life all over the world today? In my own case, as far as I am concerned, through my own searching, yes I have. I will share what works for me. This is not to persuade anybody on this board, but to simply state why I personally am satisfied with what I know.

There are several lines of reasoning that work in helping me to reconcile these two issues that A- "A Loving Intelligent Creator" that designed all life around us, with B- the reality of many undesirable things that we also have around us today.

For one thing, the bible does offer sound reasons to believe it is from a higher source than man, in my opinion as well as many others) makes the promise that ALL of these problems will be completely done away with permanently. Death, pain, mourning, crime, war, disease, old age, sickness, hatred, prejudice and many other things will be gone. The sea will no longer be agitated, the bible claims. If God is the Creator of the entire universe as well as all life on earth, then he also has the power and ability to put an end to these things causing so much pain and misery. The ability would certainly be there, if he is the Creator, and the scriptures tell the reader that this will become a reality. So for starters, regardless of WHY He allows these conditions to take place, there is a promise that these things will come to a PERMANENT END. This same principle applies with the animal kingdom as well. Regardless of just why the lion (for example) kills with such savagery, the bible says it will eat grass, just like the bull in an everlasting world. In fact all animals will become peaceful, it promises. That alone has a powerful impact for me and many others today. Does it really matter WHY God allows these animals, or these many other problems to exist today, if tomorrow there is assurance it will be completely removed? Especially if the "source" of these promises is one that offers sound reasons to believe them. The bible is that rare source in my honest opinion.

But let's discuss just WHY God may allow these situations to exist for a moment anyway. While it is true that nobody enjoys suffering, pain and the like, it is also true that these conditions can help develop desirable qualities in the individuals that experience them. In fact the bible says that Jesus learned obedience and other desirable qualities through his difficult times and sufferings while on the earth. *If* God is the Creator of all things, and if he allowed his only begotten son to take the beatings and persecution that he did, then obviously some good can be the result by allowing these less than desirable situations to exist today as well.

In support of this, James Chapter 1:2-4 tells the reader, "to consider it all joy when you meet with various trials, knowing that this tested quality of your faith works out endurance. But let endurance have its work complete, that YOU may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything." So once again we can see some value in God's eyes by allowing trialsome conditions and situations to exist. Just because we humans may not fully understand exactly WHY God has allowed certain things to take place, does not mean that he does not exist at all. This may be some kind of opportunity for humans to gain an inner strength, perhaps a greater appreciation for when life is better, free from all these problems plaguing mankind. When I had a very serious staph infection earlier last year, I was scared for a few days. When I knew I made it out of the woods I was really happy to be alive. My appreciation had grown through that experience. The existence of these problems however does not just automatically discount or deny God's own existence. At least not in my mind.

Furthermore, if the bible is true, it does say the first human couple desired independence from their Creator. They said they could decide for themselves what was right, wrong, good and bad, without God. Perhaps God did allow the earth to be inhabited without any intervention for a period of time. God may be simply allowing man to govern himself, and we can all see the results of this feeble attempt. We are told He will not allow these conditions to continue indefinitely however. But that explanation does have merit. It may be painful during this time, but in the end the issue will be settled once and for all.

The fact too is that despite these negative conditions around us at times, most people do want to LIVE anyway.

Life does have value even today. That's why we usually seek treatment if something goes wrong medically. It's why we snap on our seat-belt, and make our kids do the same. It's why we workout, watch our cholesterol, get enough sleep, take vitamins and many other things because there is still much more GOOD when it comes to life than there is the negative for most people today. It's not ALL bad and rotten and miserable. I enjoyed a wonderful swim in the ocean today. Beautiful turquoise waters on a white sandy beach, all alone. A really nice tropical salad as well for dinner. Playing with my dogs can be a blast. Having pleasant conversation with friends, my wife or son is valuable and often enjoyable. Today one of my best friends from years ago and his family arrived for a visit from Ca. How nice to be able to catch up on how he's doing, to show him some of my personal swimming holes, play some sports, eat a nice fat steak or whatever else we feel like doing. Life is not all bad, as some might have people believing. And again, if God does exist, he certainly can take away these other things that bring us down.

And there is a promise that he will do just that. If the bible holds no value for you whatsoever, then there is still the possibility that this life will only take us into a better life, something perhaps even blissful.

The bible also talks about a wicked, powerful unseen spirit force that God allows to influence the earth, In fact, it says that he was hurled down to the earth by God's own son. Again, why would God want this wicked influence on the earth? Possibly because it allows us to be tested, to develop endurance, and for some perhaps to even find God. Once again the very encouraging answer to that wicked influence of a devil, to all of the other ailments affecting mankind including death, the brutal animal kingdom and too many other things to list here is that God says he will bring all of these problems to an end once and for all. For me, such a promise coming from the one that created all things, is something I can see as becoming a reality. It is not some fairy-tale hope, in my mind. It is believable and logical. And it sure sounds better and more plausible than the alternative some believe; that all life just happened on its own, with no governing force whatsoever for all of the complexities of what we see around us. There is no hope of a better future. No chance of anything wonderful. A dog eat dog world where even the dogs that win have no future whatsoever. Survival of the fittest with the fittest have nothing to look forward to but permanent death. A bleak, dark no hope kind of existence. Not too much to get excited about with a life and hope like this.

So in conclusion, there are also many possible reasons why he allows the problems to exist today. Helps us develop greater appreciation for life and health and even for God. Develops endurance, faith and other positive qualities. He is allowing man to govern himself for all to see the results firsthand. Humans are moved to think spiritually, to look for an answer to these issues when faced with these issues. Prepares us for something better. Draws communities and people closer together. But regardless of exactly why he does allow these problems to exist, there is sound reason to believe his promises that soon ALL of these plagues will be removed once and for all by God himself. Those words are repeated over and over again in the bible. So even if I did not know why he allows the miserable parts of life to exist, I can be comforted that it will soon be gone. That is something I believe in and believe in with great confidence. It is a worthy hope in my mind. And it sure beats anything else I've heard up to this point, on this board, or in my life!

All the best -Vinny

Unbelievable!!! The Jihadist now returns minus her appendix. She also notes "Am putting out quite a sum for civil lawyers for the Malaysian blogs/sites I help fund. Malaysian readers are now quite prone to sue blog owners, managers, and writers for what is written in the blogs, even by readers/posters of the blogs/sites. "

And what "pray tell" Jihadist are the addresses of these blogs/sites you help fund? We would all like to tune into these to see if they are supporting peace in the world to include the condemnation of the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Or do these blogs/sites address the flaws in the foundations in Islam and its founder, the "holey not holy hallucinator"???

Again one is reminded of those famous lines:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

Well, you may get your wish. Har, just kidding. Who really knows. But I do feel somewhat similar, I'm not an atheist, but I think about boxers figures who thank God for their victory... that one always cracks me up. Like God was up there saying, well Oscar prayed more but Felix prayed harder. What to do, what to do.

But basically what you have described is a small amount of ignorance... more of a reaction to attitudes than any real discounting of the existence of God. My mother would have a hard time relating the principles of quantum physics to me, but it doesn't mean that quantum physics isn't real.

There is more here... but whatever... best wishes.

I truly admire the courage contained in the last words of your essay. These words are, "If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him. I would prefer to go to hell rather than to make bargains with such a cruel, capricious Master of the Universe." As an atheist myself, I am still a little afraid to go that far. What if I'm wrong? But I guess I need more courage of my convictions. Thanks for the article.

I was a bit taken aback with Jihadist's comments at first. What a reasoned approach! However it soon dawned on me that with his version of God all religions are invalid. So, same result. Good show!

>>The only answer offered by believers is that God gives man free will and that it is our fault--not God's--when bad things happen to good people. This is not an answer at all because it does not address the question of why the innocent should suffer for the exercise of "free will" by the guilty.<<

Ms. Jacoby:

The argument put forth in this little story is admittedly the same as the one you have already discounted above, but maybe it offers a different perspective than you have heard before. Maybe not. It does not specifically address the issue of natural disasters (except possibly, indirectly, in one small portion) -- that is for another essay. I submit it for your and your readers' consideration...

“You, God, cannot exist. And even if you did, I would not worship you! Those stupid Christians, they say you are all-Powerful? You are all-Knowing, all-Loving, and all-Good? How many of them have proclaimed that to their deaths? They don’t see the immediate contradiction. How can that be? How can you allow such incredible evil to take place in this world of yours??? Either you are not powerful enough to stop it, or if you are, you are not good enough to want to do so. Worship that?! NEVER!!! Where were you when 6 million Jews (supposedly your people) were murdered by Hitler and the Nazis? Where were you when countless millions were terrorized and executed under Stalin and the Communist Party? Do you see the misery of the citizens of North Korea right now? Do you see the civil wars in Africa that are killing still more millions and tearing those nations apart? Do you see it?? Why did you let psychos fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters? What are you doing when you watch murderers and rapists at their ghastly work? Could you do nothing for the little girl who was enduring yet another session with her tormentor before he finally discarded her and left her in the woods for the animals? Or is it that you simply wouldn’t? Did she do anything to deserve that? It seems to me if I had the power to stop something evil from happening – and chose not to – that would make me complicit in the evil. Would I not be guilty as well? So are you an evil God? Quasi-evil, then? Maybe you’re not all that bad, you just aren’t all that good either, and you simply lack the power to stop evil? Or the most basic, most simple answer of all is the one that turns out to be true. You simply don’t exist….If you are there, I would have you tell me! If you are there, how can you allow such things to happen?”

What would you have me do about it?**

“Ah! What was that?”

I said, What would you have me do about it?

“About what, evil?”

Yes.

“Well, stop it, of course!”

All of it or just some of it?

“Hmmm, all of it, I guess.”

Then every single human being would cease to exist.

“Ok, then only some of it, the WORST kinds. The Holocaust, and other stuff like it for example.”

How would you like me to do that?

“I don’t know, you’re the God here, not me.”

You are the one complaining about how I do my job, so how should I get rid of the “worst” kinds of evil?

“Well, get rid of the really bad people, the ones who are responsible and cause human atrocities.”

You mean you want me to kill them, end their lives?

“Sure, why not, they have forfeited their rights to live.”

Should I kill them before or after they have done their evil deeds?

“I don’t see the sense in letting them carry out their evil plans, so before.”

And when they come before my Judgment Seat, shall I hold them responsible for evil deeds that they did not commit?

“They would have.”

But they didn’t and won’t know what they didn’t do wrong.

“I guess that could pose a problem.”

Yes it does. What about numbers? How many people does somebody have to murder before I kill them?

“Well, clearly several million is enough. Probably 1,000 is enough too.”

What about one? What about the person who only ever murders one person in his or her life, but that one person is your wife, or your daughter, or your son? Is one murder enough for me to intervene?

“I guess I would want you to intervene in that case, too.”

So all murderers are out. What about rapists? Should I kill them too before they rape?

“Yeah, kill all the rapists too.”

How about liars, cheats, and thieves? The top officers of Enron, for example, who stole millions of dollars and destroyed the life-savings and therefore the lives of thousands of people.

“I don’t know, that’s kinda bad, maybe.”

Have you ever stolen anything, ever lied, ever cheated?

“You know I have.”

So you want me to kill you now?

“No, of course not! You have to draw the line somewhere!”

Ah, so the problem becomes one of where to draw the line. Do such and such sin, and I kill you. Do something that’s just a touch less offensive, and you live. Most people will be telling me to draw the line just above their heads.

“Maybe you don’t have to kill them, just prevent them from doing the evil.”

So you want me to interfere with free will?

“Yes, when it’s appropriate!”

Now that we’re not killing people any longer, when is it appropriate for Me to prevent someone from hurting someone else?

“When it’s really hurtful.”

What’s really hurtful?

“Ok, fine, when it’s hurtful.”

So basically, anytime someone is about to hurt someone else by sinning, I should prevent them from doing it?

“Yes.”

And now you have just destroyed free will. You have created a world of automatons, who act and do only good because they are unable to do evil. But good can only exist if evil exists also, for without evil there is no good. And by taking evil out of this world you have also taken away good. Now you have created a world without charity, without mercy, hope, kindness, or love. You have created a world devoid of emotion, like the inner workings of a computer, which behaves in one way only because no other way is possible.

I created human beings to Love me, not to act loving toward me because they have no other choice, but to Truly Love me. When someone loves me, he does great acts of good and righteousness for others and the world and in doing that brings Glory to Me. But the only way for a person to truly love me, is if that person has the choice to not love me. There is no other way. When someone chooses to love himself over Me, it produces within himself selfishness, pride, rage, ambition, and greed. Satisfying these desires becomes his driving force, at the expense of other peoples’ happiness and well-being. This is the source of 90% of the evil in this world, and is what drives a person to commit atrocious acts of evil against his fellow humans.

I chose to create this world so you would know the supreme joy that comes from Love, and Purity, Holiness, Charity, Righteousness and Faith. Unfortunately you would not truly understand these if you did not also know Evil, and I have chosen to allow you to know and experience both, rather than know and experience neither. But I am All-Loving, All-Powerful, All-Wise, All-Knowing, and All-Good, and in the long-term I take evil situations and turn them into good. You wish I would act sooner, but I see further than you see. You experience the pain of the dentist’s chair to fix a toothache. The mother cleans her baby’s wound with alcohol so that it doesn’t become infected. The dentist and the mother cause pain to their charges, but it is temporary and ultimately for their good. In the same way, if you trust Me, I will carry you through the difficult, painful times to the other side where goodness and righteousness abound. But you must Trust Me. If it means the end of your life, you will be in Paradise and never experience pain again. In this way my servants have sacrificed their lives for my Name, because they have Known me, and in doing this have brought glory to themselves and to Me.

If you are still having trouble believing in Me, the very fact that you use the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ implies the existence of a higher moral authority than yourself. Animals are not ‘good’ or ‘evil’, they just are. Sharks, tigers, black widows, scorpions do not