God is "love"

[ziffel]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/05/21/ethiopia.hunger.ap/index.html

"There are a 120,000 more like Bizunesh and UNICEF said they will be dead within a month"

As he does with house fires, God (if he exists) stands by and watches little children suffer miserably before succumbing to death.

I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. - Psalms 37:25

[premjan]

Letting so many people die without assistance is probably a good motivation for not converting food to fuel.

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

There is no real answer to why God does nothing to save these innocent children, but it sure is fun watching apologists make up answers!

[Half-Life]

There is no real answer to why God does nothing to save these innocent children, but it sure is fun watching apologists make up answers!

Like this one?

"See that little ten year old girl who just got shot in the head due to gang violence? Obviously God had a plan for her. Those crazy police officers who are trying to stop gang violence are fuckin' up the divine plan goddamnit!!!!" :D

[TheRealityOfMan]

There is no real answer to why God does nothing to save these innocent children, but it sure is fun watching apologists make up answers!

Like this one?

"See that little ten year old girl who just got shot in the head due to gang violence? Obviously God had a plan for her. Those crazy police officers who are trying to stop gang violence are fuckin' up the divine plan goddamnit!!!!" :D

I guess God doesn't leave room for the unexpected.

[Draconis]

Freewill, maybe? Maybe someone else should step in and do something. But if so, why bother asking God?

[Half-Life]

Freewill, maybe? Maybe someone else should step in and do something. But if so, why bother asking God?

Makes no sense why the free will of the gunman to shoot the gun is more important over the little girl's free will to not want to be shot.

How does God decide whose free will is more important to let the action take place?

[ziffel]

Makes no sense why the free will of the gunman to shoot the gun is more important over the little girl's free will to not want to be shot.

How does God decide whose free will is more important to let the action take place?

That's actually an interesting question. Apparently the decision is made according to the exact same laws of physics that govern the universe whether or not God exists.

Any comments from believers on this? 120,000 starving Ethiopian children will be dead in a month. Is this all part of God's plan? What about the bible verse I quoted ... "I've never seen his children begging bread", aren't all children God's children? Why is he letting them starve when it says he knows your needs and will take care of you?

[HollyHobby]

Have you ever seen that commercial showing pathetic, starving children while the song "Jesus loves the little children" plays in the background? I don't know whether to laugh at the irony or throw up.

Jesus apparently doesn't love the little children enough to feed them. Or maybe he's just low on funds, which is why you have to send money to the church's relief organization in order for him to act.

You'd think he could at least brush the flies off of the babies' eyes.

[Half-Life]

Have you ever seen that commercial showing pathetic, starving children while the song "Jesus loves the little children" plays in the background? I don't know whether to laugh at the irony or throw up.

Jesus apparently doesn't love the little children enough to feed them. Or maybe he's just low on funds, which is why you have to send money to the church's relief organization in order for him to act.

You'd think he could at least brush the flies off of the babies' eyes.

One of the best explanations I heard is that Jesus doesn't do anything because he works through people. if Jesus did everything for everyone, then nobody would learn anything and be too lazy.

But then the question becomes, "Well, what's the difference between Jesus existing and Jesus not existing then?"

There would be no difference in this case, just smoke and mirrors to keep Jesus "alive" in the world. ;)

And on a side note, why do the people in those commercials always have super nice clothes and rolex watches? They couldn't bring any food over with them? The camera crew couldn't bring any food either? It's strange they go over to these countries dressed all nice and warm and they are holding some skinny kid with his ribs bulging out of his skin and half naked saying "this child is cold and hungry, we need your help."

[ziffel]

Was reading in other forums today, after his God allowed Christian music artist Steven Curtis Chapman's 5 year old daughter to get run over and killed by an SUV last night (by Chapman's son, no less, a tragic accident)

The Christians in the forums are now *praising* God, and it makes me want to pull my hair out at the idiocy, and the utterly blind eye to their god's contempt for human life (if he existed as they believed). Like Job, Chapman was a faithful xian servant, and God's reward for him is not only allowing his 5 year old daughter to be killed, but the older brother to be scarred for life knowing he killed the girl accidentally.

I remember a similar situation, back in the 90's. A Baptist church in north Alabama was in session on a Sunday morning, and a tornado touched down in the area, and struck the church. The pastor's own 4 year old daughter (who was in the day-care area) was killed as the pastor preached about the love of God.

An earthquake recently hit an African Christian church and killed most of the patrons during the service, as they were praising and worshiping God. Some of the mothers had to witness their children being crushed by large blocks of concrete.

[Riley Stone]

Was reading in other forums today, after his God allowed Christian music artist Steven Curtis Chapman's 5 year old daughter to get run over and killed by an SUV last night (by Chapman's son, no less, a tragic accident)

The Christians in the forums are now *praising* God, and it makes me want to pull my hair out at the idiocy, and the utterly blind eye to their god's contempt for human life (if he existed as they believed). Like Job, Chapman was a faithful xian servant, and God's reward for him is not only allowing his 5 year old daughter to be killed, but the older brother to be scarred for life knowing he killed the girl accidentally.

I remember a similar situation, back in the 90's. A Baptist church in north Alabama was in session on a Sunday morning, and a tornado touched down in the area, and struck the church. The pastor's own 4 year old daughter (who was in the day-care area) was killed as the pastor preached about the love of God.

An earthquake recently hit an African Christian church and killed most of the patrons during the service, as they were praising and worshiping God. Some of the mothers had to witness their children being crushed by large blocks of concrete.

These are all very good points, Ziffel.

Another thing that I think is strange about the Christian viewpoint is that on the one hand, Christians will say that these things happen because God allows freewill to exist and/or that we are living in a "fallen world," and therefore, God is somehow obligated to allow the "rain to fall on both the just and the unjust."

And yet, in the very next breath, these same Christians will point to examples in which God does in fact prevent the "rain from falling" on them personally.

I remember listening to a Ravi Zacharias CD one time, and Mr. Zacharias told a story about his young daughter being hit in the eye with an object (perhaps a Frisbee, I don't recall.) Mr. Zacharias described his anxiety as he rushed his daughter to the hospital emergency room. He said that the doctors were amazed that the child's eye had not been damaged in any way, and they told him that if the object had hit the eye just a little bit differently, she would have lost her eye.

Mr. Zacharias said something along the lines of, "Would it be so terrible to believe that God intervened here and spared my daughter's eye in this situation?" Well, that's the thing. On the one hand, Christians want us to believe that God can't intervene in suffering. And then on the other hand, they ask us if we think it would be so terrible to believe that God did in fact intervene in their own personal suffering.

If we believe that God saved the EYE of Mr. Zacharias's daughter, then we have to wonder why God does not save the lives of the children who are dying in Ethiopia. I wonder why Mr. Zacharias would be so arrogant as to think that God would save his child from losing her eye while doing nothing to prevent the Smith's child from losing his foot in a mowing accident or the Anderson's child from losing her life in a drowning accident.

My aunt is a Christian, and she was diagnosed a few years ago with breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy but was not required to undergo radiation or chemotherapy. When I spoke with her on the phone about it, she said, "It's like God said, 'okay, I'll allow the cancer, but I draw the line here.'" (meaning, I guess, that she didn't have to have radiation or chemotherapy.) And I just thought (although I did not say this to her) why would God draw the line for you and yet not for the thousands upon thousands of other women who suffer and die from breast cancer each year?

I don't know why believers can view the pain and suffering that goes on in the world and think that a good God stands quietly by, allegedly intervening here and there, but choosing not to intervene when say a child is abducted, raped, and buried alive.

I guess it really just boils down to the desperate need to believe. If a person is desperate enough to believe a certain thing, he or she will invent any excuse, any rationalization, just so that he can keep on believing.

[itsamysteryhuh]

The answer just might be in Hebrews 9:27. Since we are all subject to dying, we are all subject to dying via different methods (ie, burning up in a house fire, getting hit by a car, having a heart attack, suicide, etc.). Anything beyond this becomes speculation (rather than true answers).

[itsamysteryhuh]

I guess it really just boils down to the desperate need to believe. If a person is desperate enough to believe a certain thing, he or she will invent any excuse, any rationalization, just so that he can keep on believing.

Or perhaps it's the desperate need for disbelief. If a person is desperate enough not to believe a certain thing, he or she will invent any excuse, any rationalization, just so he/she can keep on not believing... especially if believing will interfere with certain lifestyle choices.

[itsamysteryhuh]

And I just thought (although I did not say this to her) why would God draw the line for you and yet not for the thousands upon thousands of other women who suffer and die from breast cancer each year?

You know, not everyone gets breast cancer. There must be some cause. Think about it. :eek:

Which one(s) of you is (are) going to Ethiopa to help these children out? How many wealthier people in Africa and other countries are going to sit by and watch as these children starve? Are there any people in your own neighborhoods that could use some help from those more fortunate... perhaps a retired person barely getting by on a fixed income, or even a low-income family of 4 that just can't seem to get ahead even though both parents work very hard every week?

[J.F. Gaul]

It's funny that so many will wag fingers at theists for their god not doing anything to help the poor, starving, and suffering when the same people say nothing of the millionaires and billionaires who give only a smidgen of their fortunes to the needy. I know of theists who devote much more of what they have (percentage-wise) to the suffering in the world.

Rather than mocking theists about their beliefs, perhaps we should reform the way we think about what humans do to help the suffering.

[ziffel]

I guess it really just boils down to the desperate need to believe. If a person is desperate enough to believe a certain thing, he or she will invent any excuse, any rationalization, just so that he can keep on believing.

Or perhaps it's the desperate need for disbelief. If a person is desperate enough not to believe a certain thing, he or she will invent any excuse, any rationalization, just so he/she can keep on not believing... especially if believing will interfere with certain lifestyle choices.

:banghead:

Lifestyle choices? the ol' 'atheists don't believe because they prefer sin' bit? seriously? could you be more trite, please.

Since when has believing resulted in a Christian's 'sin' being eradicated? most Christians I know struggle with the exact same 'sin' problems they had before they believed.

JF Gaul, my purpose here was not to mock - but to illustrate that what they believe in isn't valid. They are espousing a god who they claim is a god of "love", but sits idly by and watches children not only die, but to suffer miserably before dying, for no good reason. Their god is supposedly all powerful, yet chooses not to exercise his power to help even children in need.

Regardless if humans are doing the job or not, HE has the power to do it, according to them, and doesn't. So he (God) becomes compliant with evil.

[Half-Life]

I guess it really just boils down to the desperate need to believe. If a person is desperate enough to believe a certain thing, he or she will invent any excuse, any rationalization, just so that he can keep on believing.

Or perhaps it's the desperate need for disbelief. If a person is desperate enough not to believe a certain thing, he or she will invent any excuse, any rationalization, just so he/she can keep on not believing... especially if believing will interfere with certain lifestyle choices.

Just like you with Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Paganism, right? :huh:

[Half-Life]

And I just thought (although I did not say this to her) why would God draw the line for you and yet not for the thousands upon thousands of other women who suffer and die from breast cancer each year?

You know, not everyone gets breast cancer. There must be some cause. Think about it. :eek:

Which one(s) of you is (are) going to Ethiopa to help these children out? How many wealthier people in Africa and other countries are going to sit by and watch as these children starve? Are there any people in your own neighborhoods that could use some help from those more fortunate... perhaps a retired person barely getting by on a fixed income, or even a low-income family of 4 that just can't seem to get ahead even though both parents work very hard every week?

Exactly, then it's up to no one but humans. What's the point of saying, "We need to do the work to help, but God is sitting there anyway watching and doing nothing."

There's no difference between him existing and not existing then. You actually side more with the atheistic viewpoint on this one as there is no God willing to lift a finger.

[Half-Life]

It's funny that so many will wag fingers at theists for their god not doing anything to help the poor, starving, and suffering when the same people say nothing of the millionaires and billionaires who give only a smidgen of their fortunes to the needy. I know of theists who devote much more of what they have (percentage-wise) to the suffering in the world.

Rather than mocking theists about their beliefs, perhaps we should reform the way we think about what humans do to help the suffering.

Atheists don't get mad at god for not helping the poor or starving children. We don't believe there is one to help.

It's the theists who believe that God loves these starving children more than humans can, yet does absolutely nothing to give them food or clothes. He lets them all die. Since this is pathetically stupid, theists have to come up with some sort of rationalization as to why God doesn't give 2 shits about his children he "allegedly" loves so much.

But, it's just that - a rationalization and nothing more. There is no proof God is loving, theists just say he is because it's warm and fuzzy.

If a God did exist, it's more than likely an evil type of God exists who enjoys playing jokes, planning miscarriages, planning birth defects and handicaps, and tinkering with results of football games by guiding passes into the arms of receivers while ignoring Ethiopia.

[Valdemar]

Which one(s) of you is (are) going to Ethiopa to help these children out? How many wealthier people in Africa and other countries are going to sit by and watch as these children starve? Are there any people in your own neighborhoods that could use some help from those more fortunate... perhaps a retired person barely getting by on a fixed income, or even a low-income family of 4 that just can't seem to get ahead even though both parents work very hard every week?

That's just plain insulting. Do you think Christians with their missions are the only ones who contribute money/time toward mitigating pain and suffering and hunger in this world?

I'll bet I give a higher percentage of my income than most Christians on this board to various charities and causes, yet I'm not able to say that I'm an Atheist for fear of reprisal or rejection.

And, I give because I genuinely care, NOT because some "holy book" commanded me to "tithe."

[Half-Life]

Which one(s) of you is (are) going to Ethiopa to help these children out? How many wealthier people in Africa and other countries are going to sit by and watch as these children starve? Are there any people in your own neighborhoods that could use some help from those more fortunate... perhaps a retired person barely getting by on a fixed income, or even a low-income family of 4 that just can't seem to get ahead even though both parents work very hard every week?

That's just plain insulting. Do you think Christians with their missions are the only ones who contribute money/time toward mitigating pain and suffering and hunger in this world?

I'll bet I give a higher percentage of my income than most Christians on this board to various charities and causes, yet I'm not able to say that I'm an Atheist for fear of reprisal or rejection.

And, I give because I genuinely care, NOT because some "holy book" commanded me to "tithe."

I heard that if they take your money and the money turns to blood in their hands, then they know it was an atheist's money and to shun you away. ;)

[Valdemar]

You know, not everyone gets breast cancer. There must be some cause. Think about it. :eek:


You're not serious, are you? Are you actually suggesting that those women who don't get breast cancer are somehow "blessed" by god?

Here is a good web-site you might want to check out:

Biology 101. (http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/rkr/Biology101/lectures/biolectures.html)

[ziffel]

Exactly, then it's up to no one but humans. What's the point of saying, "We need to do the work to help, but God is sitting there anyway watching and doing nothing."

And then they end up giving God the credit anyway.

"Look at all the awesome work God is doing in Ethiopia!"

Not unlike how God usually gets the credit for successful surgeries, rather than the medical team that slaved 18 hours to perform it, and went to school for 12 years to train for.

[Valdemar]

I heard that if they take your money and the money turns to blood in their hands, then they know it was an atheist's money and to shun you away. ;)

I'm sure the church has never found a dollar it didn't like (or one that turned to blood).

[Riley Stone]

It's funny that so many will wag fingers at theists for their god not doing anything to help the poor, starving, and suffering when the same people say nothing of the millionaires and billionaires who give only a smidgen of their fortunes to the needy. I know of theists who devote much more of what they have (percentage-wise) to the suffering in the world.

Rather than mocking theists about their beliefs, perhaps we should reform the way we think about what humans do to help the suffering.

Why not do both?

Seriously, though . . . this is a discussion about the incoherence of the theistic worldview as it relates to the problem of pain. Surely you don't object to us participating in such a discussion?

If you would like to start a discussion about the generosity of the atheist compared to the generosity of the theist, you might consider starting a thread on that topic. However, in that case, I'm not sure what assertion you would make. Would you say: Theists are far more generous than non-theists? And if so, what evidence would you supply to support such a claim?

Or perhaps you would like to start a thread discussing the subject of what people can do to help the children in Ethiopia. In that case, we might discuss practical (and not so practical) ways that each person can help. I'd be more than happy to be involved in such a discussion.

However, I do take issue with the implication that discussing the problem of pain as it relates to the theistic worldview is somehow something that we should be ashamed of. It seems to me that the sooner people in our society acknowledge that we are in fact alone, that we have only one another to rely on, that God is not going to be helping out with anything, we might become more effective in ending the suffering we see all around us.

[Riley Stone]

You know, not everyone gets breast cancer. There must be some cause. Think about it. :eek:

Which one(s) of you is (are) going to Ethiopa to help these children out? How many wealthier people in Africa and other countries are going to sit by and watch as these children starve? Are there any people in your own neighborhoods that could use some help from those more fortunate... perhaps a retired person barely getting by on a fixed income, or even a low-income family of 4 that just can't seem to get ahead even though both parents work very hard every week?

Itsamysteryhuh:

As I said in my previous post . . . this is a discussion about the problem of pain as it relates to the coherence of the theistic worldview. Why is that whenever such uncomfortable issues are discussed, there are certain people who become very upset, scolding those who would discuss the subject, and attempting to use accusations such as, "what are YOU doing to help those children?" as a way of ending the dialogue.

As to your statement that there must be some reason why people get breast cancer . . . do you know what that reason is? And please consider this to be a rhetorical question.

I have heard Christians say that breast cancer is a result of women getting abortions. I have heard other Christians say that it is the consequence of sin. I have heard every lunatic explanation under the sun from Christians who never cease to amaze me with their ignorant and dishonest justifications and twisted "explanations" for their primitive beliefs.

There are many reasons why discussions such as this one are important. One reason is that such discussions can provide comfort and relief for those who have been told by ignorant and hateful Christians that their suffering--their diagnosis of cancer, the death of their child, the terrorist attack on their country's soil, the famine that their country is experiencing--is somehow a result of them having found disfavor with God. If you doubt that Christians make such ignorant and cruel claims, I'll be happy to provide numerous examples of such claims being made from the pulpits of well known pastors and theologians. Does the name Jeremiah Wright mean anything to you? I could start with him, but believe me, I wouldn't need to end with him.

Imagine a woman at her child's funeral who has just been told by her Christian "friend" that her beloved child's death from leukemia was God's way of getting her attention, of letting her know that he disapproved of her being an atheist before it was "too late" and before that woman herself ended up in hell. Nice thing for a woman to hear at her baby's funeral. Yes? Things like this happen all the time. Surely, you can see the devastating impact that such a worldview may have on people who suffer. I think it's important for people who suffer to know that their suffering is not in any way God ordained or even allowed by God. Don't you?

Happily for me, I am very selective about the kinds of believers I will even engage in discussion. I use a biblical instruction in such cases to refrain from tossing my pearls to pigs. Ergo, I'm afraid I will have to decline to respond to any further self-righteous complaints and/or rants on your part in an attempt to end a discussion such as this one. Feel free to rant away--the discussion will continue. And in fact, this is the type of discussion that is not going away any time soon.

I believe that a time of societal enlightenment and sensitivity is coming, and theists may as well get used to these kinds of conversations occurring more publicly and more frequently than ever before. And I hate to say it, but as long as the theists have people like you offering up the kinds of responses you have provided so far in this forum, I think the theistic team is not going to be experiencing much of a winning streak.

Atheists and skeptics have every right to discuss and criticize a flawed and ignorant worldview that is predominant in the society in which they live, a worldview that is beneath human dignity and compassion. Such discussions, if anything, can only result in universal freedom from ignorance, which I believe will result in a kinder, gentler society, a society of people who rely on one another and who work with one another to significantly reduce suffering and to improve the quality of life for every human being.
Riley

[Half-Life]

Riley,

It is just very stupid that theists have an excuse for God for everything that happens. It's getting beyond the point of "explanations" now and into the "excuses" territory:

"Why doesn't God feed the starving children considering he had no problem raining down manna in the Bible?"

Don't be silly. It's up to us. If we don't care, why would God care and do something? God's not a personal genie.

Score 1 point for God there!

"Why doesn't God save young kids from being shot during a gang shooting?"

Don't be silly. God gave us all free will. If a gang member chooses to fire a gun, God's gonna kick his feet up and wait for the paramedics to arrive. If they can't save the girl in time, then obviously God wanted that child in Heaven. If they do save the girl in time, it was obviously God's will that the child be saved and live longer. Praise God!

That's about 2 points for God there!

Anything can be justified using phrases that mean nothing. These 2 explanations are gibberish.

Then you have the "God saved my child from getting hit by a car today! It was a miracle. I am very sorry that your child got run over by a car and died though. It's obvious God wanted your child. Good thing he saved mine though."

It's stupid. How can theists not see it?

[J.F. Gaul]

Seriously, though . . . this is a discussion about the incoherence of the theistic worldview as it relates to the problem of pain. Surely you don't object to us participating in such a discussion?

I have no objections, but perhaps you could tell me the purpose of such a discussion?

If you would like to start a discussion about the generosity of the atheist compared to the generosity of the theist, you might consider starting a thread on that topic. However, in that case, I'm not sure what assertion you would make. Would you say: Theists are far more generous than non-theists? And if so, what evidence would you supply to support such a claim?

I wasn't trying to say anything about the comparative generosity of theists or atheists. The question of the benevolence of God is really only relevant within Christianity. The nature of religious belief is to shield itself from questions that aren't already built into the religion. For example, for a Christian, "Why does God allow suffering?" is allowable, but "What does God do about suffering?" is unanswerable, and therefore never considered. Ask Christians what God does in the world, and they will tell you what other Christians do in the world. Which frames a new question: How is the word 'God' used, and what rules govern its use?
The benevolence of God is a doctrinal question; the existence of God is outside the religion. We see, from Christians' usage, that there are certain rules about the way the word "God" is used. For example, when Christians look at suffering in the world, they will say, "There must be a God. Look at the generosity displayed!" When a disaster happens to themselves or someone close to them, they will say, "I question God's love." The way the word is used defines the contextual questions that can be asked. The second a question outside the religion is brought in and the Christian is made to feel it, then and only then is the question considered. For us to discuss the question of God's benevolence here is interesting, but it isn't a question we are really confronted with.

When I said that I knew of theists who devoted more percentage-wise to alleviating the suffering in the world, I meant in comparison to some in the world who have more resources, not atheists. I apologize if the latter was implied. I did not at all hope to suggest that anyone had anything to be ashamed of. However, it does seem like we (myself included) devote more time to considering an imaginary being's actions than we do our own efforts to improve conditions in the world. But that is another discussion. Apologies all around!

[Riley Stone]

Seriously, though . . . this is a discussion about the incoherence of the theistic worldview as it relates to the problem of pain. Surely you don't object to us participating in such a discussion?

I have no objections, but perhaps you could tell me the purpose of such a discussion?

I think I did address that question in my post to Itsamysteryhuh.

I am curious, though, if you question the purpose of such discussions . . . may I ask you what is the purpose of you questioning our purpose?


IWhen I said that I knew of theists who devoted more percentage-wise to alleviating the suffering in the world, I meant in comparison to some in the world who have more resources, not atheists. I apologize if the latter was implied. I did not at all hope to suggest that anyone had anything to be ashamed of. However, it does seem like we (myself included) devote more time to considering an imaginary being's actions than we do our own efforts to improve conditions in the world. But that is another discussion. Apologies all around!

No offense taken, and no apologies needed. However, would you mind if I point out (in what I hope you will accept as an entirely friendly manner) that while you are suggesting that we devote less time to these discussions and more time to improving world conditions, you are at this very moment doing what you suggest we stop doing. :p

Personally, I enjoy these discussions.

As a former Christian, my voice has been silenced and/or discouraged—directly and indirectly—by Christians for years. And sadly, I don’t think I’m the only person who has experienced this.

Many if not most of us live in a society that is dominated by blind adherence to primitive religious beliefs. Those of us who have failed to accept such beliefs have, too often, been branded as unworthy, contaminated, or corrupt.

In this forum, skeptics and atheists are able to openly express their views, without fear of reprisal.

In this forum, skeptics and atheists are, perhaps for the first time, not only allowed to express their views but to have their views validated by others who have had the very same thoughts, the very same questions. It’s a way of saying to one another, “You know what? I’ve wondered that, too!” It's a way of connecting with people who think as you do. Given the isolating effect that atheism has on many in our society, I think that establishing and nurturing such connections is very worhtwhile.

In addition to talking with those who are like-minded, this forum allows atheists and skeptics to challenge Christians who, for too long, have been able to dominate society with their cruel doctrines and religious claims. In public forums like this one, Christians are invited to come in and answer these questions. And if the questions cannot be answered, as of course they cannot be, then perhaps little by little, more and more people in our society will begin to think carefully about such claims. Perhaps more and more people in our society will become sensitized to the cruel consequences of such primitive superstitious beliefs. At some point, perhaps religion will die out altogether and be replaced with groups of people whose sole purpose is to find ways to reduce suffering and to improve the quality of life for as many people as possible.

Since I am a person who values truth, I cannot help but think that a society that values truth will be a better society to live in than one that does not.

[itsamysteryhuh]

At some point, perhaps religion will die out altogether and be replaced with groups of people whose sole purpose is to find ways to reduce suffering and to improve the quality of life for as many people as possible.

Would that include a bar on every street corner, legalization of marijuana, no marriage, and no need to worry about cheating on your significant other? Just curious.


As I said in my previous post . . . this is a discussion about the problem of pain as it relates to the coherence of the theistic worldview.

It seems there are opposites for everything in existence. This includes, but is not limited to, white and black (and various shades in between), dark and light (and variations of dimmer and brighter), love and hate (and variations of like, fondness, dislike, being annoyed with, etc.), etc, AND good and bad. There are also opposities "created" when it comes to terms such as "pleasure." There are various levels of pleasure (some pleasure, a lot of pleasure, etc.) which will eventually approach the realms of not being pleasure, but being "pain" instead.


As to your statement that there must be some reason why people get breast cancer . . . do you know what that reason is? And please consider this to be a rhetorical question.

1. High fat intake - Breast cancer seems to occur more frequently in countries with high dietary intake of fat. Japanese women, at low risk for breast cancer while living in Japan, increase their risk of developing breast cancer after coming to the United States.

2. Being overweight (or obese) - A known risk factor for breast cancer, particularly in postmenopausal women.

3. Alcohol use - Using alcohol is an established risk factor for the development of breast cancer, and the risk increases with the amount of alcohol consumed. Women who consume two to five alcoholic beverages per day have a risk about one and a half times that of nondrinkers for the development of breast cancer. Consumption of one alcoholic drink per day results in a slightly elevated risk.

4. Hormonal therapy - A large study conducted by the Women's Health Initiative showed an increased risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women who were on a combination of estrogen and progesterone for several years.

5. Lack of exercise - Studies have also shown that regular exercise may actually reduce a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. One study from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) showed that as little as 1 1/4 - 2 1/2 hours per week of brisk walking reduced a woman's breast cancer risk by 18%.


Such discussions, if anything, can only result in universal freedom from ignorance

With this quote (above) you are grossly over-estimating both your current knowledge and the lack of ignorance on your part when it comes to such subjects.


The answer just might be in Hebrews 9:27. Since we are all subject to dying, we are all subject to dying via different methods (ie, burning up in a house fire, getting hit by a car, having a heart attack, suicide, etc.). Anything beyond this becomes speculation (rather than true answers).

Look in the direction of these arrows. ^^^^^^^

[TheRealityOfMan]

We are all subject to dying. Yes of course I go along with this.

"Anything else is speculation" -The problem is many Christians rely too much on speculation and assertion in centering the world views.

Legalising marijuana? What has this got to do with Atheism? Whether or not it is legalised or decriminalised is a matter of debate but I don't see what that has to do with JEsus.

Bar on every corner? In the UK there already is this and yes there is sadly lots of binge drinking. It is also sad that people cure their dependence on getting drunk/violence/antisocial behaviour/petty crime by turning to fundamentalist religions like Islamism. In the UK some guy just set off a bomb in a restaurant chain after turning to a monotheistic group.

Cheating on your significant other? Isn't this considered bad outside of Christianity as well? What makes you think Atheists don't have similar disdains for love rats than theists? Again what does this have to do with religion unless you want a Saudi system of execution for adulterers.

I am an Atheist. I do not binge drink, I oppose the recreational use of marijuana use (not sure about whether banning it is effective), I oppose the use of heroine (not sure about whether burning crops in Afghanistan is helpful), if I was married I would not ideally have sex outside marriage unless we both agree on open marriage (open marriages sometimes work, sometimes don't. Closed marriages sometimes work sometimes don't).

[Half-Life]

We are all subject to dying. Yes of course I go along with this.

"Anything else is speculation" -The problem is many Christians rely too much on speculation and assertion in centering the world views.

Legalising marijuana? What has this got to do with Atheism? Whether or not it is legalised or decriminalised is a matter of debate but I don't see what that has to do with JEsus.

Bar on every corner? In the UK there already is this and yes there is sadly lots of binge drinking. It is also sad that people cure their dependence on getting drunk/violence/antisocial behaviour/petty crime by turning to fundamentalist religions like Islamism. In the UK some guy just set off a bomb in a restaurant chain after turning to a monotheistic group.

Cheating on your significant other? Isn't this considered bad outside of Christianity as well? What makes you think Atheists don't have similar disdains for love rats than theists? Again what does this have to do with religion unless you want a Saudi system of execution for adulterers.

I am an Atheist. I do not binge drink, I oppose the recreational use of marijuana use (not sure about whether banning it is effective), I oppose the use of heroine (not sure about whether burning crops in Afghanistan is helpful), if I was married I would not ideally have sex outside marriage unless we both agree on open marriage (open marriages sometimes work, sometimes don't. Closed marriages sometimes work sometimes don't).

Yeah really.

No believer smokes marijuana? It's all atheists?

No believer goes to a bar? it's all atheists?

No believer cheats on their spouse? It's all atheists?

What was "itsamysteryhuh's" point? :confused: