Atheists: Come out, come out, wherever you are

[Aussie Chris]

Yes, it could happen. Look at Iran.

This makes me think of a televised debate in Australia with Richard Dawkins (where a member of the audience argued that [paraphrased] "evil would reign").  Richard quite calmly indicated that there has never been a situation where an invasion/atrocity has occurred on the grounds of spreading atheism.  Maybe this is a little trite though because although quite correct, it doesn't really address the fact that an absence of cause [in this case religious rightiousness] is a little difficult to articulate when trying to motivate your kinsmen to rape, pillage, and plunder.

So the fact that religion has been used as an excuse to justify many an evil act it doesn't, in and of itself, make religion responsible for the evil act.  You could also argue that if religion and religious leaders hadn't become so hysterical about their version of morality then Richard Dawkins himself wouldn't exist, at least as a media identity and author.

[serious crayons]

Hi, Chris! Nice to see you around these parts! 

[Aussie Chris]

Hi, Chris! Nice to see you around these parts! 

Hi there, it has been a while hasn't it?  I guess the dredging up of one of my favourite old threads couldn't help but get me to post something, eh.

[delalluvia]

Let's deal with these one after the other:

<Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?> 

No, it isn't God's job to prevent evil: it is our job.

Says who?  According to some religious dogma, god is supposed to be omnipotent.  If someone makes this sort of claim about their god, this is a statement they can be called on.

<Then he is not omnipotent.>  We are God's body, and it is our responsibility to govern ourselves in the physical form.  And through us collectively, we ARE omnipotent.

Again, few religions claim the faithful are omnipotent, because, of course, they know they're not.

<Is He able, but not willing?>  The Divinity is ever willing, but we must be able because WE have free will as we were created to act as WE will.

Uh uh uh.  If he is willing, then why doesn't he do it?  This sounds like an excuse.  If WE are able to do something, if WE are omnipotent, if WE are responsible...why do we need a god?

<Then whence cometh evil?>  That is obvious.  Through our willful actions that are destructive to others.

Yeah, but who created us?  And who created evil?

<Is he neither able nor willing?>  Neither.  Non sequitur input.

Not at all.  Quite relevant.  God is claimed as creator, as omnipotent, as loving and caring by some religious beliefs...these are quite relevant questions that go right to the heart of why a god is worthy of worship, if - according to your post - we do everything for ourselves and to ourselves.

[serious crayons]

I'm not sure you'd even have to get into human evil, and whose "job" it is to control it. You could simply ask, why would a loving, caring, omnipotent god allow tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes? Obviously those cause untold misery, probably at least as much as that caused by human evil, but they're "acts of God."

If there's an omnipotent god, and that God is also "loving and caring," then either God's definition of loving and caring, or God's ultimate loving and caring purposes, are so far beyond our understanding that there's hardly any point in trying to grasp God's intentions.

All humans share some basic moral assumptions, whether they follow them or not. But it's clear that our moral assumptions in no way match the way the world operates, even in its "natural" state, that is, without human intervention. Since God, if there is a god, is presumably in charge of nature, then one has to ask why God's morality seems so out of sync with ours.

[delalluvia]

Richard Dawkins' speech countering the Pope's claim that Hitler was an atheist.

Good listen

&feature=related

[Brown Eyes]

I'm not sure you'd even have to get into human evil, and whose "job" it is to control it. You could simply ask, why would a loving, caring, omnipotent god allow tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes? Obviously those cause untold misery, probably at least as much as that caused by human evil, but they're "acts of God."

If there's an omnipotent god, and that God is also "loving and caring," then either God's definition of loving and caring, or God's ultimate loving and caring purposes, are so far beyond our understanding that there's hardly any point in trying to grasp God's intentions.

All humans share some basic moral assumptions, whether they follow them or not. But it's clear that our moral assumptions in no way match the way the world operates, even in its "natural" state, that is, without human intervention. Since God, if there is a god, is presumably in charge of nature, then one has to ask why God's morality seems so out of sync with ours.

I agree with everything you say here.  But, I'd also like to add the observation (and it's part of the core of why I question religion/god, etc.)... that the idea that human morality and "God's" morality should in some perfect scenario match-up... is human-centric.  If humans believe that god is in charge of the universe (including all elements of creation), why should a god always be so connected to human concerns or interests?  Maybe a tsunami has some great benefit to some other natural aspect of the world (maybe somehow beneficial to sea life, say) unrelated to humans.

Religions, to me, seem to be stories about people.  People are a teeny-tiny part of the universe... not to mention only one species of countless here on earth.  Why would a god always be focused on human concerns?  The fact that so many religions or all religions, are human-centric to me indicates that these are myths/stories devised by people to deal with human fears, etc.  And, things like Greek myths and Egyptian religion seem to be case studies in this... we see those myths as stories or almost literature now... but they were actual religions for hundreds and even thousands of years.

The idea that a long-established religion can be completely thrown over-board is a really interesting and perhaps cautionary tale for current religions.

[serious crayons]

But, I'd also like to add the observation (and it's part of the core of why I question religion/god, etc.)... that the idea that human morality and "God's" morality should in some perfect scenario match-up... is human-centric.  If humans believe that god is in charge of the universe (including all elements of creation), why should a god always be so connected to human concerns or interests?  Maybe a tsunami has some great benefit to some other natural aspect of the world (maybe somehow beneficial to sea life, say) unrelated to humans.

Well, that's a good point. When I think about the tsunami, I think about seeing Jon Stewart making fun of Star Jones (then a co-host on "The View") who apparently said something like, she had planned to be in the area that day but something interfered and she wasn't there, which she attributed to God watching over her. So Jon Stewart pointed out (humorously, of course) how absurd it was for Star Jones to think that God would be sure to protect her, but obviously didn't care about all those other thousands of people. What a weird god that would be. Which raises the question of why people even bother to pray that, say, they'll get that promotion at work or whatever. Why would God care about that, yet let other people endure far more dire or tragic situations?

But you're right, not only is there no reason to think that God cares more about Star Jones than other people, there's not even reason to think that God cares more about people than other creatures.

[Marge_Innavera]

I agree with everything you say here.  But, I'd also like to add the observation (and it's part of the core of why I question religion/god, etc.)... that the idea that human morality and "God's" morality should in some perfect scenario match-up... is human-centric.  If humans believe that god is in charge of the universe (including all elements of creation), why should a god always be so connected to human concerns or interests?  Maybe a tsunami has some great benefit to some other natural aspect of the world (maybe somehow beneficial to sea life, say) unrelated to humans.

Religions, to me, seem to be stories about people.  People are a teeny-tiny part of the universe... not to mention only one species of countless here on earth.  Why would a god always be focused on human concerns?  The fact that so many religions or all religions, are human-centric to me indicates that these are myths/stories devised by people to deal with human fears, etc.  And, things like Greek myths and Egyptian religion seem to be case studies in this... we see those myths as stories or almost literature now... but they were actual religions for hundreds and even thousands of years.

The idea that a long-established religion can be completely thrown over-board is a really interesting and perhaps cautionary tale for current religions.

"Process theology" has a few things to say about that.  A fairly good summary is at http://www.ctr4process.org/about/process/GodUniverse.shtml

I can't speak for Louise in replying to reactions about "God's job"; but she isn't the first to make a point about expecting the Creator to be Mr. Fixit:

At Auschwitz, the question: "where was God."

The answer: "where was man?"   (William Styron)


Needless to say, process theology is considered a heresy, by religious and atheist fundamentalists alike..

[louisev]

Here's my take on it, and I don't sweat anything about Star Jones thinking God was watching out for her or whatever.  God is not a guy, and is not vindictive, God is the sum total of all of the natural laws and forces that govern the universe, and is, at the same time, consciousness itself - the consciousness of the universe.

We don't sit around and ask whether gravity is evil when someone falls in a ravine and breaks his neck.  However, those who believe in a personal, anthropomorphic God, DO believe that God has a hand in these workings of natural law.  Is there 'bad' gravity and "good gravity' - bad gravity is the kind that causes you to fall in a ravine and break your neck, and the good gravity is the gravity that keeps you on the surface of the earth and not float into the Sun?  No.  There's just 'gravity' - with all of its implacable working.

And that is how God works, whether fundamentalists like it or not.    The contradictions and limitations that fundamentalists grapple with as articles of faith are caused entirely by their view that God is some sort of super-guy, and supernatural, and in actual fact there IS nothing outside of nature.  God is the sum total of all nature.

Whether Star Jones was saved or not is not really in God's job description.  That is a factor of her karma and her plan for her incarnation.  If she wants to chalk it up to God well good for her, but just like blaming God for gravity allowing you to crash in a ravine, giving credit to God for your own personal karma is just as erroneous.

In case anyone wants to know what this point of view is, it is called mystical pantheism:  the belief that God is immanent AND knowable.