Does God allow Haiti to suffer?

A lot of people have said Pat Robertson was wrong in what he said, who am I to judge? When I read the Bible I feel the OT & NT are ONE. You can not have one with out the other. In Exodus in chapters 7 thur 11 If you can take the time to read you will see what GOD CAN DO. I know today us humans think we are SO SPECIAL,IDON'T
Look what GOD did to Pharaoh & to Egypt.

A lot of people have said Pat Robertson was wrong in what he said, who am I to judge? When I read the Bible I feel the OT & NT are ONE. You can not have one with out the other. In Exodus in chapters 7 thur 11 If you can take the time to read you will see what GOD CAN DO. I know today us humans think we are SO SPECIAL,IDON'T
Look what GOD did to Pharaoh & to Egypt.

CCNL1.

I really don't care who Schaum, DaniAL, Farnaz -- these self-described Atheists -- are. Their problem seems to be with all humanity, for all time -- due to their singular focus on God, or any of the gods.

There is no fault in God, or any of the gods. All sides of the god issue and their arguments merely prove the fault is in humans.

The extremes on both sides of the god issue accept nothing of the reality of mankind's progress, from our beginnings, up to now. Why do they do this, I wonder?

Put simply, the idea of gods has always been a mechanism for helping human groups to get organized, and stay organized, in order to better their success at survival.

The offerings of Atheists are no better, no worse.

The real argument is what defines success, at survival? Humans are usually a rather unruly bunch, especially in a bunch. Humans continue to search for ideas and actions to enable them to become less unruly, to become at least as organized for survival, as a wolf pack.

Ultimately, every human group is ruled by force. Today, all god-worshipping groups use the machine gun, and other like-tools, as the ultimate force. The same is true for all non-god worshipping groups.

Whether I am an Atheist (I am) or a god-worshiper, it's still a real toss-up, as to which group's machine guns I might prefer to face.

"If God is all-powerful and all-good, it would have created a universe with no suffering and no evil. But, evil and suffering exist. Therefore either God does not exist, is not all-powerful or is not benevolent. Attempts to justify the existence of evil are called theodicies. There have been no fully working theodicies created to date, even popular ones such as the free will theodicy were rejected thousands of years ago for reasons that still stand today. It seems that if there is a god, it is not the all-good moral being that classical religions would have us believe."
-------"Introduction to Theodicy" by Vexen, 2000 Jan

The Absence Theodicy is the argument that sees "God" as "goodness", anything not good (such as evil and suffering) is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every nuance in-between on all those scales--such as not hot and not cold, not rich and not poor, not good and not evil. "God" could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place. Either God is evil or it does not exist.

The absence theodicy does not explain why god created the scale of good and evil. We only experience any of these varying things because God created the scales in the first place, and created the extent of either end of the scale. By creating scales of heat and chill, good and evil, god makes it possible for us to experience them. If God chose not to create the scale of good and evil, then experience of evil would not be possible, only the experience of good. Not all experiences exist on scales; for example the Universe exists. Its existence and our experience of its existence is not on a scale, it absolutely exists. God could have made happiness or goodness an absolute, not part of a scale. But God instead created evil by creating the good/evil dichotomy.
All the various attempts to explain why God created evil do not make sense and we are therefore left with the truth that either God is evil or does not exist.

Is there one good answer from the God people here?

Did anyone even address the last question (best text or explanation)?

Someday, somebody should write a Jean Auel type of novel, where it opens with the first humans trying to speak -- develope a language. On page three they announce, "Well, one thing we know for sure, there are no gods."

Then the story goes on for another 700 pages, and there are four more novels about these folks, then Gibbon picks up the story, then Durant, bringing us through 30,000 years of mankind, right up to now.

Throughout all these stories, covering 20, 30,000 years, or so, never is a god or religion part of the story.

Maybe DaniAL12 and Schraum can co-author it for us. I'd love to read it.

And again "Schaum" returns not bothered apparently in the least that his/her "christer" comments resulted in the obvious that he/she is an imposter.

One must wonder if the real "Schaum" has any morals at all.

As noted previously:

Hmmm, Schaum noted :

"Actually, "christer" is a word that I, and to the best of my knowledge, only I, frequently have used on Jacoby's thread. I have seen it nowhere else until yesterday. Evidently Danial12 has appropriated it for his own use."

Au contraire as noted below from some of Farnaz's previous commentaries where she uses the word "christer" a number of times.

To wit:

"Why, Garak, Ma'am, how could I forget St. John of the Cross, Jew hater, early Sturmer type racist christer propagandist.
And then there was Luther.

Hatred just runs in your Christer blood, your God-hating genes doesn't it. It's your history, sistuh.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | November 30, 2009 8:21 PM"

And then there was:

"Garak:
.............
.............
Do you get annoyed when your christer self steps on the hands of the Muslims you slaughtered in Afghanistan? In Iraq?
Do you still have your table and chairs made of Jewish flesh and bones inherited from your daddy Nazi? That would be your Nazi altar boy?

.............

.............

Yunno, did you get your Christer BP dividend check?

.........

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | November 30, 2009 8:10 PM"

Bottom line: Schaum and Danial 12 apparently have picked up some word usage from their "friend" Farnaz's previous On Faith commentaries or is there something else here that looks a lot like significant violation of the Torah's Ninth Commandment and blog rules???

Hmmm, and Farnaz is a professed Jewish atheist so she should be quite familiar with what the president of American Atheists has said about "christers" and has she noted this in the past?? Check Google and find out!!!

More "christers" from Farnaz:

“Dr. Kessler,

I thought you might be interested in the "thinking" of one of your co-religionists, a Christer, calling himself an atheist, who blogs under the name of Coloradodog:
..........

Them's the Christers for you....Take the money, klll the brown and black folk, spread hate, and run, run, run...”.
…………
POSTED BY: FARNAZ1MANSOURI1 | OCTOBER 12, 2009 4:05 AM

And if you are interested check out "Stadtbear" previous comments, another of Farnaz's "friends"/strawmen? and his/her use of the word "christer"

e.g. from Susan Jacoby's column:
............

"Two thousand years of the christer's convictions, most notably the RCC, certainly prove he was right."

Posted by: stadtbear | April 19, 2009 7:23 PM "

"I have a problem with non-Jews: the holocost consumed some 12 million people. Half of those were Jewish. They are the only ones who actively keep memories alive of those lost. Where are representatives of the non-Jews who were murdered? The gays, the christers, the mentally ill, the gypsies and all the other non-Jews who were consumed. You never hear of any group attempting to keep their tragedies in the public mind."

Posted by: stadtbear | April 17, 2009 11:21 AM

hmmmm...CCNL1 returns, apparently oblivious to the fact that his impotent fist-shaking has gotten him nothing -- except banned on threads here.

Paraphrasing the genius Daniel12:

' Atheists and atheist political regimes have committed horrible crimes against humanity. Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, perhaps Hitler, and their atheistic tyrannies tortured and murdered millions.'

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.” It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions. “Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

Daniel12:

"In the West it is a logical impossibility to be an atheist and mystic.”

This from someone who has neither the understanding, perception nor vocabulary to discuss either atheists or mysticism!

Daniel12 is spectacularly inept when it comes to even the traditional philosophical arguments for god, such as the cosmological, the ontological and the arguments from design. Rather, he attacks those who do not believe in god in vague, fact-less “arguments” often so skewed and superficial that he makes no more contact with believers than with non-believers. Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, his comments and quotes are as reckless as they usually are deficient in accuracy.

But it is not anger that fuels his “thinking” or his “writing”. If anything, it is exasperation, the frustration of a man who imagines himself capable of directing people to their own noses, but denied the opportunity.

Exasperation is his dominant theme: it irritates him beyond endurance that atheists – of whom he knows nothing and perceives less -- are so often given a respectful hearing. He consistently fails to make a case, because he does not understand that to defeat an enemy you have first to understand it, and he is just too baffled to do that.

"God is Love. Can we ask Him to be more? God is intelligence. Can we inform the infinite Mind of anything He does not already comprehend? Do we expect to change perfection?" This is a quote from Mary Baker Eddy explaining to the human consciousness who God is. Her life was dedicated to raising mankind out of disasters and into peace through a higher understanding of God. She and millions of others have been lifted out of death and despair through this higher understanding of God as Love. One of the most important points she taught was that God is not like a human being that gets angry and punishes - God is not manlike! God is Spirit and we are made in His image - not the other way around.

It appears that we are made out of brains and blood, etc, and that we live in a material universe that can cause pain and suffering. Mankind is exploring consciousness and what true reality is - as she did over a hundred years ago.

"Accompanying this scientific consciousness was another revelation, even the declaration from heaven, supreme harmony, that God, the divine Principle is ever with men, and they are His people. Thus man was no longer regarded as a miserable sinner, but as the blessed child of God. Why? Because St. John's corporeal sense of the heavens and earth had vanished, and in place of this false sense was the spiritual sense, the subjective state by which he could see the new heaven and new earth, which involve the spiritual idea and consciousness of reality. This is Scriptural authority for concluding that such a recognition of being is, and has been, possible to men in this present state of existence, — that we can become conscious,here and now, of a cessation of death, sorrow, and pain. This is indeed a foretaste of absolute Christian Science.
Take heart, dear sufferer, for this reality of being will surely appear sometime and in some way. There will
be no more pain, and all tears will be wiped away. When you read this, remember Jesus' words, "The kingdom of God is within you." This spiritual consciousness is therefore a present possibility." Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy.

CCNL1.

Gosh, I didn't know. I guess I quit reading anything by those you mention, even before they started using "christer."

That kind of writing makes me ever so more grateful to the speed of light.

SCHAUM.

There is no term or word that offends me. "christer," fine. Words like that save me time, because when I see them, I need read no futher. Plus, I do not adopt any cult's practices of speech or anything else they do.

There are about five people posting here, who are very interesting writers. I appreciate them, and I thought it was funny that I was caught in al's subterfuge. I did scan all of al's Rick Warren post, because I've seen Rick Warren's name before -- the little I've seen Rick Warren's name before, I was curious as to why anyone would read an entire book by him. al satisfied my curiosity.

"While most of our friends in the Arab world sent nothing...."

Aid pledged or sent by Muslim countries:

- Algeria: $1USM in aid
- Burkina Faso: 152,000 Euros to aid
- Egypt: Medical supplies and personnel
- Morocco: $1USM in aid
- Nigeria: $7.2USM in aid
- Sudan: unspecified amount through the Red Crescent
- Tunisia: $1USM in aid
- Bahrain: $1USM in aid (cheapskates!)
- Bangladesh: Medical supplies and personnel
- Indonesia: Medical supplies and personnel, SAR experts, electricians and telecom engineers
- Iran: food and tents
- Jordan: medical personnel and supplies
- Kuwait: $1USM in aid
- Lebanon: aid workers, supplies, and tents
- Palestine: Collections taken by Red Cross/Crescent
- Pakistan: Large contingent of peacekeepers, blankets, medical supplies
- Qatar: rescue team and supplies
- Saudi Arabia: $50USM in aid
- Syria: 30 tons of unspecified aid
- Turkmenistan: $500,000US in aid
- UAE: set up air flights to Haiti. 3 different charities on the ground.

Please check your facts before spreading this nonsense. Muslim, Christian, or atheist, we're all human beings.

If you are a christer, Jesusgod promises that your soul will have everlasting life. In John 3:16 the Bible says: "For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." All that you have to do is believe in Jesusgod and your soul gets to go to heaven.

Have you ever considered your “soul”? Have you ever thought about how the afterlife would work? Which life forms get an afterlife and which do not?

Start with a bacterium. Does it have a soul and does it get an afterlife? A bacterium is a cell membrane filled with a variety of molecules. These molecules react together in different ways to create what we call life. Although all of these molecules are reacting in fascinating, interlocking ways, they are still nothing more than chemicals reacting. The "miracle of life" is no miracle -- it is a chemical reaction. When those reactions stop, the cell is dead.

The question: When the bacterium dies, does it get an afterlife?

I suspect there are few people in the United States who believe that bacteria go to heaven. The bible does not talk about heaven being filled with all the disease, putrefaction and pestilence that bacteria cause. What, exactly, would go to heaven? Do all of the bacterium's molecules get transported to another dimension so that they can keep reacting? If that were happening, there would be thousands of tons of chemicals leaving earth every day. Clearly there is no afterlife for bacteria cells.

What about mosquitoes? A mosquito is much more complex than a bacterium cell. For one thing, a mosquito is a multi-cellular insect with amazing capabilities. But if you look at each cell in a mosquito, it is very much like a bacterium in its basic functioning.

Do mosquitoes get an afterlife? Clearly not. Think of how many mosquitoes have lived and died over the course of millions of years. No one imagines heaven being full of septillions of everlasting mosquitoes. There is also the same problem that we saw with bacteria -- the only way for a mosquito to go to heaven would be to somehow transport all the chemicals in a mosquito from earth to heaven.

What about mice? They are no different from mosquitoes. Mice are multicellular organisms, but each cell is a little chemical factory very much like a bacterium. Dogs? Ditto. Chimps? Ditto.

So what about humans?

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no evidence, much less proof, of a "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your "soul" is a superstition invented by frightened humans who are intimidated by the ultimate fact of not being. The concept of a "soul" has been invented because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your "soul" truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled.

Think back to when you were a kid and you discovered that Santa was imaginary. As soon as you knew it, it was obvious. Reindeer cannot fly. A man cannot slide down chimneys. There is no way for one little sleigh to carry all the toys for all the kids in the world. It is obvious that Santa is a myth.

In the same way, it is obvious that human beings are big, walking chemical reactions. Your "soul" is make believe just like Santa. When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That is the end of it. You no longer exist. That is fact. There are no facts or proofs that support any superstitious beliefs in souls or afterlives – or resurrections.

Knowing this, you can see that everything about religion is imaginary. God, the bible, Jesusgod, the resurrection, prayer, the Ten Commandments, the creation story, your soul, everlasting life, heaven... every bit of it is the product of human imagination. The same goes for Allah, the Koran and so on. As a species we have believed all of this religious dogma, in its many and various forms, for millennia, and most of us believe it today to some degree. And yet... it is all fiction. Myth. Superstition. The "god" of today’s christers is just as fictitious as were the gods of the Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs.

Here is what we know about god:

There is no scientific evidence indicating that god exists
There is no scientific evidence indicating that god answers prayers
If we set up an unambiguous situation -- like asking God to restore amputated limbs -- God never answers prayers.
The bible is clearly the work of primitive men, not of an all-knowing supernatural being. Etc.

In other words, god a myth and a superstition. Even papists can see that. It is obvious.

Yet, if you talk to actively practicing christers, they ignore all of this evidence. They will tell you that god certainly does exist and that he is answering prayers for them every day. Christer bookstores and christer magazines are filled with stories of answered prayers. Christers believe that god is reaching down out of heaven and answering billions of prayers on Earth for christers.

Thus the question arises: If there is all of this evidence showing that god is imaginary, and if there is certifiable, undeniable scientific evidence showing that God never answers prayers, then why do christers insist that god is real and that god is answering prayers for them on a daily basis? What would prompt christers to make these statements despite all the contrary evidence? Other than making a buck, I mean.

To put it another way, what might motivate christers to ignore the strong evidence that god is mythological? Here are five possibilities:
--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because they are afraid of death. As I will prove in my next posting, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "heaven" or an "afterlife." Yet the prospect of permanent mortality is very uncomfortable to many people. Because of this discomfort, they may have such a strong reason to believe in Jesusgod’s' promise of eternal life that they need to support their belief with other evidence. Since Jesusgod also promises that he answers prayers, they are willing to turn any coincidence into an "answered prayer" and ascribe the answer to Jesusgod.
--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because it is a huge boost to the ego. This explanation works both for big "miracles" and small ones. Imagine this: that you have cancer, you pray to god for a cure, you undergo surgery and chemotherapy, and the cancer does go into remission. What cured you? The surgery and chemo -- all evidence indicates that this is the case. If god was going to cure you, you would have been able to skip the surgery and chemo. Yet, as a christer, it is a huge ego boost to believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe cured you. It means he has "big plans" for the rest of your life
--A christer might pray that god removes a stain from your favorite blouse when you wash it, and after you wash it the stain is in fact gone. It is the detergent that removed it. But a christer interprets the event differently. What it means to a christer is that the all-powerful creator of the universe has reached down from heaven to specifically hear and answer a prayer. If you selectively ignore all the prayers that god does not "answer" with the statement that "it is not part of his plan", then the idea that god is listening to and responding to you individually can be tremendously satisfying to the ego. It means that you are special in god's eyes. The entire thing is an illusion that is created in the mind of the christer to stroke the ego.
--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because they are afraid of being alone. They need an invisible friend to talk to in order to cope with loneliness, and god is the "community sanctioned" invisible friend that is accepted in our society. It may be that, for millions of people, an invisible friend is the only way they can cope with being alone. In order to make this invisible friend seem more real, it may help the illusion if you believe that he hears and answers prayers.

When we are born, we instinctively have a place in our brains for an "all-knowing, all-loving being". When we are young this being is called a parent, and children naturally and instinctively bond to their parents. What if a large number of people never outgrow this phase, and need to fill this place in their brains with something once they have left their real parents and moved on? In other words, what if this place in the brain remains into adulthood for many people, long after it has served its need, and people feel lonely unless they fill this place with something? Having an "all-knowing, all-loving" invisible friend would be an obvious thing to fill it with. If you can heighten the illusion by believing that this imaginary friend answers prayers, all the better.

--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because it makes them the center of attention with their peers at church. If you ever watch a group of christers comparing their answered prayers, you can see how this process works. One christer starts the conversation, "Well, my dog Binky was suffering from terrible skin sores, and the vet gave me some medicine and it didn't work when I first put it on, but I prayed to god and four days later the sores were gone! Praise Jesusgod!" Now what can happen is a game of one-upmanship. Another will say, "Well, I was planning my vacation and I had no idea where the money was going to come from, so I prayed to god and that very day a credit card offer came in my mail and the credit line was just enough to cover the bills! Praise the Lordjesusgod!" In such an environment, if you don't have a prayer story to tell, it appears that you have lost favor with god. Therefore, you may be willing to exagerate a little, and even make something up, in order not to lose face with your peer group.

This clearly shows that christers have strong incentives to delude themselves into believing. What you can see is that christers -- especially christers who are members of church communities -- have strong reasons to make up stories about prayer and to ignore all the evidence that "answered prayers" really are coincidences. These motivations completely explain the phenomenon of "answered prayers" in christer communities.

The fact remains: there is no god, except in myth and superstition.

Another founder of a "non-profit" is Eboo Patel and he pays himself well from his Interfaith Youth Core which, based on the IRS Form 990, appears to be more of a stock holding company for Mr. Patel than it is a non-profit. One wonders if Mr. Patel has donated some of his high salary or "non-profit" stock yields for the rebuilding of Haiti?

Mr. Patel's latest rant over on the guest pages is "Anti-semitism is linked to Islamophobia." Give us a break!!! Someday Mr. Patel will wake up and see that the only problems with the religions of today are the flaws and errors in their history and theology. By correcting these, there will be no religious "anti-these" or "phobias" because there will be nothing left to these religions except the general rules established by the likes of Hammurabi in the ~1770 B.C.

More information about Ms. Uddin's employer, The Becket Fund (for Religious Liberty),:

According to the IRS Form 990 for "non-profits", Kevin Hasson, CEO and founder of the Becket Fund, took a salary of $324,572 in 2007 or approximately 30% of the contribututions to the Fund. Hmmmm?? Interesting how these "non-profits" pay such big salaries to their founders!!!

Also from Wikipedia:

"Referring to various cases of RLUIPA litigation, Marci Hamilton writes in her 2005 "God vs. the Gavel" that it is "common for interest groups like the Becket Fund to belittle private homeowners' interests in the residential character of their neighborhoods as lowly 'aesthetics.'

" In that book's fourth chapter, Hamilton accuses the Beckett fund of "injecting interdenominational hatred into a context where it otherwise did not exist," referring to a January 22nd, 2003 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece wherein Becket Fund then-Vice President Patrick Korten implied that Abington Township, a suburb of Philadelphia, prevented a Jewish congregation from taking over a former Catholic convent solely on the grounds that such a move did not constitute a 'continuing use' of the property.

In fact, Hamilton contends, an additional confounding factor in that case that was not mentioned in Korten's op-ed was that such a move would "transform a property so quiet that neighbors did not know monks still resided there into a full-service, large-scale religious complex that would multiply traffic by a factor of 15." [2]

For the person impersonating Daniel 12 i.e. Danial 12:

From the On Faith's list of blog rules:

1. You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that:

- misrepresents your identity or affiliation
- impersonates others

And from the January, 2010 edition of Smithsonian, p. 47-

"The Qumran controversy took a bizarre turn last March when Golb's son, Raphael was arrested on charges of identity theft, criminal impersonation and aggravated harassment. In a statement, the New York District Attorney's office says that Raphael "engaged in a systematic scheme on the Internet, using dozens of Internet aliases, in order to influence and affect debate on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in order to harass Dead Sea Scrolls scholars" who disputed his father's findings."

DANIEL12 II.

Oh, you've read Rick Warren (I take your word for it). Anything else?

I believe it was Satan that caused the fall of mankind and the suffering resulting from this and I believe also that it is Christ in us, suffering, Love itself, that asumes the suffering of all mankind,suffering with us, at least in those who choose Him. In other words He is the Love with which we Love. Satan, in the form of hatred, is in those who choose him. Love or hatred two spirits, two destinys, your choice. yours, Tony Rotz

For the person impersonating Daniel 12 i.e. Danial 12:

From the On Faith's list of blog rules:

1. You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that:

- misrepresents your identity or affiliation
- impersonates others

And from the January, 2010 edition of Smithsonian, p. 47-

"The Qumran controversy took a bizarre turn last March when Golb's son, Raphael was arrested on charges of identity theft, criminal impersonation and aggravated harassment. In a statement, the New York District Attorney's office says that Raphael "engaged in a systematic scheme on the Internet, using dozens of Internet aliases, in order to influence and affect debate on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in order to harass Dead Sea Scrolls scholars" who disputed his father's findings."

DANIEL12 (II, I think).

You sound exactly like old Job, of The Book. Except he dealt with it some 2,500 years ago.

Understand that religion is superstition. Let's say that you were to create a far-flung news network, and you somehow had the capacity to observe all of the inexplicable tragedy that occurs on Earth each day:
all of the murders,
all of the car wrecks
all of the rapes
all of the mutilations
all of the torture
all the miscarriages and stillbirths
all of the disease
all of the starvation
all of the destruction
all of the terrorism
Let's say you had a news feed that delivered this all to you in real time. Just ten minutes with this news feed would be unbearable. Thousands of tragic, heart-wrenching events would inflict themselves upon you every minute. The volume of gut-wrenching, anguished tragedy in ‘god’s world’ is unspeakable.

Meanwhile, there is a girl in Pasadena who firmly believes that god answered her prayer this morning to remove the blood stain from her favorite panties. She prayed to god to help with the stain, and after she washed it the stain was gone. Praise Jesus! There are tens of millions of people in the United States who firmly believe that god is personally helping them each day with their trivial prayers like this. They believe that they have a personal relationship with god, that god hears their prayers each day, and that god has time to reach down and remove the blood molecules one by one. They believe it with all of their hearts.

It makes you wonder: If god has the interest and the will to answer these trivial prayers, then why does he have no time for the millions of other massively serious problems that arise on earth every day?

Look at the world we live in. All around us we have murderers, rapists, robbers, child molesters, terrorists, etc... How do they do their deeds?

If god is all-knowing and god answers prayers, then we have to believe that:
god watches them as they murder, rape, molest and terrorize other people millions of times a day, but he does nothing to stop them;
god watches the victims as they are being murdered, raped, molested and terrorized, but he does nothing to help them;
god completely ignores the prayers of the planet to eliminate murder, rape, child molestation and terrorism and allows these atrocities to continue unabated.

According to the christer’s Model of God, god is an omniscient, all-powerful, all-loving being who answers prayers. Imagine god sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven looking down upon Earth, seeing every detail. God speaks:

"Look at all of those praying people getting tortured in that death camp. Excellent! I won't do anything to stop that. And look at that little girl down there being raped and murdered. Perfect! She is praying like mad, and so is her mother, but I won't do anything to stop that. And there are three terrorists preparing to blow up a church and kill 1,500 people who are saying the Lord's Prayer to me right now. Outstanding! I won't do anything to stop that. How wonderful it is that 1,000 prayerful people will die of starvation today in Ethiopia. I love it! I won't do anything to stop that. Oh… and there's Suzy Jankins praying that I remove that blood stain from her panties for her big date with Chad tomorrow. Let me go help Suzy right now.”

If you believe that God is specifically reaching down from heaven to answer your trivial prayer to remove a zit or to wash out a blood stain or to help you find your lost keys, while at the same time God is allowing 27,000 children to die of starvation each day by specifically ignoring their prayers, then your God is insane. And you are delusional.

If you are a typical christer, however, you are just like Suzy in Pasadena. You say dozens of little prayers every day. You may pray for 20 trivial things today:
Pray for your car to start in the morning.
Pray for traffic to be light so you get to work on time.
Pray that you don't get fired for the mistake you made yesterday.
Pray that the coffee stain on your purse comes out.
Pray that it doesn't rain.
Pray that the price of a stock has gone up.
Pray that your computer doesn't crash.
Pray that your son got a decent grade on his math test.
Pray that there's enough money in your checking account.
Pray that the guy you went out with on Saturday calls you.
Pray that your mother in law cancels her trip for the weekend.
Pray for there to be an available washing machine at the Laundromat.
Pray that your car passes inspection.
Pray that they have your size in the shoes you are thinking about buying.
Pray that the envelope you are opening contains a check rather than a bill.
Pray that your cat didn't pee on the new sofa.
Pray for your baby not to wake you up tonight so you can get some sleep.
Pray that you have the winning bid for that camera on EBay.
Pray that they have the video you want at the video store tonight.
Pray that your team wins the game on Sunday.

And what happens? Some of your prayers would get "answered," some would not. If you are a believer, and if something nice happens, you attribute that to god -- he answered your prayer and is "looking out" for you. If you pray for something and it does not happen, or if something bad happens, you rationalize that it is part of "God's plan" . It is "his will" that this bad event occurred.

An unbiased observer looks at the same good and bad events and sees them for what they are -- random events. God has nothing to do with them. To the unbiased observer, it is obvious that religion is nothing but superstition.

If you are a believer, you can prove to yourself that they are random events. Tomorrow, instead of praying about everything, simply watch 20 trivial things happen without praying. Some will work out, some will not. There will be no difference. The act of praying about them does not change the outcome in any way. If you were to statistically analyze your prayers, it would become obvious to you that every "answered prayer" is a coincidence. The belief in prayer is just like any religious superstition. Walking under a ladder is not "bad luck". Neither is breaking a mirror. Neither is seeing a black cat. Statistics prove that a broken mirror has zero effect on your life. In the same way, statistics prove that god never answers prayers.

The dictionary defines the word "superstition" in this way:
An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
Prayer is rank superstition, nothing more. People who believe in the power of prayer are no different than people who believe in the power of crystal balls, horoscopes or lucky rabbit’s feet. Prayer is proven to be meaningless.

The reason why there is so much suffering in this world, and the reason why a statistical analysis of your trivial prayers always shows them to be complete coincidences, is because god is imaginary. Belief in god is pure superstition.

Road runnin, one of the Daniel12s actually posted as Danial12 but it is obvious that he really has no morality to speak of, deliberately trying to confuse things. I am the real Daniel12. What a coward...A nice model for his atheist friends.

DANIEL12 and DANIEL12.

Ah, two DANIEL12s. It's like if we had two Yavehs. You both will get a real kick out of reading Philip Roth's attack on this problem, in his novel, "Operation Shylock, A Confession."

Without attempting the eloquence of both my DANIEL12s (or their long-windedness), I do accept their proofs that the gods of humans truly present real problems for many.

But the gods of humans are only known of -- known of, not known -- through human's literature. Any human can make the effort to learn of this literature and quickly (well, maybe not so quickly) come to a complete understanding that it narrates the universal path of virtually every human group to a more successful, survivable, life for the group, i.e., organization.

And one has to study the beginnings of the group, and the beginnings of human's gods. First of all, the early grouping humans had little knowledge of science, and one cannot discount the importance of that.

While I am familiar with virtually all the religions (and the gods) of mankind, I will suggest to one of our DANIELS12s to read again the Old Testament, and note it is a narrative of humans teaching their Yaveh, not the other way around.

Yes, I know, "christers" refuse to see it that way, even while reading in scripture the Prophets never gave up on teaching their god to become a decent human being.

There are gods, and there are religions. Gods are unknowable, but religions are knowable. Knowing religions as well as I do, they are the reason Atheists, like me, are allowed to exist.

Actually, humans are a fairly stupid acting species. For instance, I have always wondered why there were thunder gods, and no lightning gods?

Asking that question, and considering it, one soon discounts the gods, and pays attention to only the religion.

Mahtma Gandhi summed it all up, pretty well, in his statement, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."

The problem with the modern atheist.

The problem with the modern atheist is that he is essentially a schoolboy, beating the dog of religion when anyone with basic understanding and logic knows of all the problems of logic and otherwise with religion.

A simple but obvious example of the problem with religion: A supposedly good God, devoid of evil, yet evil existing in the world. The problems with religion are obvious. One would think atheists would have progressed by now to the problems inherent in their own position. But one would have thought wrong. Modern atheists are so dogmatic and insistent their position is free of problems that it can be wondered if any of them will admit that problems with atheism have been written of in the past.

But let us move on to some of the problems with atheism. An evident problem is how reason can be taken as reason let alone exist by exactly no intelligent design behind existence. We are told by the good atheists however that things "can be explained as having arisen from the ground up, that no top down, divine answer is necessary". So we have the subhuman giving birth to the human and the human considered to be quite permanent even though literally created out of clay forming itself.

In a larger sense we have the problem with atheism that existence no matter man's mastery of nature is hostile to man, that man can never attain a true material let alone spiritual achievement. But of course in the atheist's world one must try...and arrive at some sort of political solution which however every avowedly atheist society so far has blundered at (Soviet Union killing millions; Red China destroying thousands, or rather millions as well, in its great leap forward). One would think that atheists at the least would give us the courtesy of acknowledging the problem of politics in the atheistic world. One would have thought wrong...

And of course without God man is not called into question as anything more than a purely economic animal, so the inevitable result is a leftwing egalitarian society (read Marxian) or at best man engrossed with trivialities (as in Western democracy today). The atheist's view of the world leaves us with the fundamental view that ultimately man is destined for nothing, so all projects are reduced as to seriousness and approach the level of triviality. If man is destined for nothing then how can anything be truly engaging? Answer: nothing can because never really leading to anything except failure in the end.

One would also think one would have a study of the psychological effects of atheism on a population. In fact the typical political response of the atheist calls for a psychological explanation. The atheist dispenses with religion--the old and outworn in general--and then considers everything pretty much settled. No problems with atheism as religion and other ways have been problematical in the past.

But of course this settlement is largely due to technological advancement, a society which has as its ruling objective the elimination of pain. Never mind that atheists also believe in the theory of evolution and evolution if characterized as a political process would be called an aristocracy. Natural selection has worked so far as human existence is concerned toward the creation of the intelligent man--a ruthless process of eliminating any type of man who stands in the way of intelligent man. An aristocracy in a word.

Atheists have not come to grips at all with the very science they always talk about. They talk of entropy but this does not bother them much. They talk of evolution but apparently evolution in their minds is consistent with leftwing egalitarianism. They also talk of morality even though in the same breath they speak of the relativity of cultures and especially man so we have a Chomsky or Jared Diamond saying essentially all is culturally and biologically equal concerning man but then offering...no real moral ground whatsoever. Heideggar however had the courage to say ethics is impossible. No God no real ground for such.

In general atheists believe in the relativity of things. Everyone's opinion is welcome so long as it does not conflict with anyone else's. No standard of excellence. The goal of society the greatest happiness. No stoic approach to an existence because without God fundamentally pain causing. More like an avoidance of all pain is the goal--while at the same time acknowledging nothing is behind existence and all is ultimately futile...

But I like best the reason of atheists, which is to say the reasoning mind. No intelligent design behind things but a supreme belief in the scientific method. Do atheists ever adore science! The very science they undercut by saying nothing is behind existence...What can be predicted by science other than ultimate failure in the atheist's world? What progress by science is to be expected? How can science even have a value when reason and its method (the scientific method) have arisen from exactly no intelligence behind things? Why do humans think things can be made better by reason and the scientific method when the entire universe including man and his reason arose by exactly no intelligence, no reason, no scientific method behind things?

Just a few of the problems with atheism. But let that not bother the good modern atheist. Let him go back to bashing religion--and feel he is the man of progress.

Christers consider the existence of their god to be an obvious truth. This assumption is false, not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible god is lacking, but because the very nature christers attribute to this god is self-contradictory.

Many christers, as well as atheists, claim that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. For example, while we may not have evidence that unicorns or dragons exist, we cannot prove that they do not exist. Unless we have a complete knowledge of the universe, we must admit the possibility that somewhere in the universe, there might be such creatures. But the claim that omniscience is needed to prove a universal negative presumes that the concept which we are discussing is logically coherent. If the attributes which we assign to a hypothetical object or being are self-contradictory, then we can conclude that it cannot exist, and therefore does not exist. I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which make their existence impossible. A cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible -- they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object.

Christers have endowed their god with all of the following attributes: he is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal god who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

Their god's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity. These attributes of god are related by the bible, which christers believe to be the perfect and true word of god.

One verse which many christers are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. But clearly these concepts of god are completely incompatible, and reveal the impossibility of all of them being held simultaneously by the same being. There is no foolishness in denying the impossible. Foolishness is worshipping an impossible god. I will demonstrate that the supposed properties of the christer god, like those of a cubic sphere, are impossible and, therefore, that god’s existence is an impossibility.

What did god do during that eternity before he created everything? If god was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely?

God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete -- it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing the elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If god is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A god who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator-god is impossible.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this perfect god did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in god's image and had the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey god.

Another christer impossibility: if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. How illogical can christers be? The ultimate source of imperfection is god. What is perfect cannot make itself imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

The christers' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have free will to be happy. The omni-benevolent god did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans free will to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into god's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not god. But that argument is patently false.

First, if god is omnipotent, then the assumption that free will is necessary for happiness is false. If god could make it a rule that only beings with free will may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with free will could. A perfect and omnipotent god who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of free will for happiness, god could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, god supposedly has free will, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of god, our decisions should likewise be perfect. The occupants of heaven, who presumably must have free will to be happy, will never use that free will to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point is made: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

Supposedly, god is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

Supposedly, god is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely injust. The absurdity of this infinite punishment appears even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of the human's imperfection is the god who created them. A perfectly just god who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the christers, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just god would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

The bible is supposedly god's perfect word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this god to provide us with this means for overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful god could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books called the bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect god has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man. No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of god is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigma. And yet the perfect god expects the imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful god would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

One need look to no source other than the bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just god who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census. It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's, and his christers’, skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

The imperfect bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

The imperfect bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it with Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which christers are either passively or willfully ignorant. The sign given by Isaiah to King Ahaz was meant to assure him that his enemies King Rezin and King Remaliah would be defeated. The prophecy was fulfilled in the very next chapter. Yet Matthew 1 not only misinterprets the word for "maiden" as "virgin," but claims that this already-fulfilled prophecy is fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus!

The fulfillment of prophecy in the imperfect bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is only one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged word of god. Many have been found. A perfect god who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

A god who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient god who is all-powerful and free willed is impossible.

A god who knows everything cannot have emotions. The bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may react emotionally.

Humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot repair. The perfect, omnipotent god, however, can repair anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect god lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.

Thus the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the christer god. No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of the christer god,, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of god is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

While believers may find comfort in being faithful to impossibilities, there is no greater satisfaction than a clear mind. One may choose to serve an impossible god; I will stick with the realities revealed by science and logic.

In “God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of god:

-Hypothesize a god who plays an important role in the universe.
-Assume that god has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
-Look for such evidence with an open mind.
-If such evidence is found, conclude that god may exist.
-If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science can thus far disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is a modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: god, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, god cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but it just doesn’t fly.

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence which I have just described were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.

In the same way, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor at the moment. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.

I see first of all someone here has no integrity, posting under the name Danial12 no doubt to be mistaken as myself--to put words in my mouth. We can hardly take the arguments of such a person seriously, because obviously the person has not the morality to post under a name not to be confused with mine. Such a person is a walking refutation of the supposed moral superiority of the atheistic position.

Second of all, we should address the notion of atheists not being prominent in prison populations, or that atheistic nations have low crime rates. Any modern nation (first world)--particularly homogeneous nations such as Japan and the Scandinavians--are trending toward atheism because of economic and technological success. Atheism is not the cause of this success. Atheism is not the cause of low crime. Atheism and low crime are consequences of technological and economic success. This can easily be seen by contemplating what happens to a nation which becomes atheistic before economic and technological success: the Soviet Union and Red China became atheistic before economic and technological success and killed more people than any other nations did over the twentieth century. Certainly there is no reason to be sure that if a nation becomes predominantly atheistic it will not persecute people who are not atheistic. Politics of the twentieth century demonstrates that.

Last, one does not have to be religious to criticize the position of atheism. The position has evident flaws--just like the religious position. But apparently atheists are as dogmatic as the religious because just like the religious they are not willing to admit logical problems with their position. Some evident problems: All becomes subjective--even objective science--because there is posited exactly no source, no standard of morality or reason behind existence. All is human construct. Another problem is that of course existence is ultimately futile. The best that can be achieved is a temporary conquering of matter. Furthermore an existence without God is one of fundamental irrationality and arguably this irrationality is superior to any reason because man arose with his puny reason from all this irrationality and even had his mind come from it. Problems of logic such as how reason is supposed to rise and be known as reason when existence has no reason behind it...And so on.

DANIEL12.

By page 3, of every book on any science I have read is the clause, "Scientists used to believe..." and then goes on to tell of the lastest, newer belief, or fact, if you will.

You make a good argument. I can agree with it easily, if science could tell me much about how the universe works, and how many universes there are, (i.e., nutrinos are strange).

I don't think arguing the existence of a god is the point. The point seems to be, "How did humans get their morals?"

I don't see where they got them from science. I also don't see where they got them from gods. I do see where they got them from philosophy and religion -- philosophy a long time coming.

Yes, I think humans got there religions and philosophies from pondering, to them, god-like things. Indeed, that is the liturature of the ancients, and we have nothing else.

The guy who invented the wheel left no commandments, as to its use.

It is easy to prove that any particular concept of a god is either inherently meaningless, contradictory, or contradicts known scientific and/or historical facts. There is no god.

Inconsistent revelation clearly contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.

The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist.

One can also argue that poor design contests the idea that a god-created life, on the basis that life forms exhibit poor or malevolent design, which can be easily explained by evolution and naturalism.

Non-belief contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. This argument is contested by the claim that God wants to test humans to see who has the most faith. This suggestion, however, is easily dismissed by the argument surrounding the problem of evil.

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory.

The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science.

The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") states that if the universe had to be created by God because a creator is required, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).

The usual response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is nonsensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.

Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, disproves the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable and meaningless.

The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."

An omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.

There is no god.

What would it mean if "God exists" were a truthful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.

Alltheroadrunnin,

You noted:

"Without you having to do the years of research I have had to do, merely know that Atheists owe religions their very life."

Interesting observation!! Danke Schoen!!!

BARFERIO.

Well, Atheists are usually well-to-do university professors, rich people, and authors, whose books sell well, so they don't have to hold-up liquor stores, for their income. Plus, their doctors supply all the drugs they need, prescription-legal.

That said, you are correct in your statement(s), for humans today. But you dismiss the 4,000 years of hard work it was for humans to teach their gods right from wrong. The Old Testament is a long narrative of exactly that. And it must be noted that the people were learning the same thing(s), at the same time their experience -- their reality -- was teaching it to their gods -- for most religions, that is. Islam got stuck, somewhere along the way.

Without you having to do the years of research I have had to do, merely know that Atheists owe religions their very life.

daniel12, less than one quarter of once percent of all prisoners in our country are atheists, yet we make up 8-16% of the total population, depending on your polling question.

If we have no morality, why is this so? Why are christians present in the prison population at a rate slightly above their representation in the population?

I never you christian types deal with this question.

We are moral, we control ourselves. We have an internal morality that is invisible to you obviously. Your claims that we have no morality are not born. Your inability to perceive this morality is Your Inability, it has nothing to do with whether or not it exists.

As well, this external morality you christians seem to prefer, how well is that working out? It seems to have no real effect on these prisoners.

You never developed any morality because you were infected by your religion. You are unformed, unfinished, and incapable of seeing that which you do not wish to see.

Religious thinking, the ultimate embracing of superstition, is the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the work of deliberate, effortful work in critical thinking, against our natural superstitious dispositions. Because most people have been taught not to think for themselves – and in fact dislike thinking for themselves -- this is hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.

Adolescent cognition leads children to all sorts of supernatural beliefs about how the world works. As they grow up the inclination to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as superstitions about such things as Friday the 13th, breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, fear of black cats…and, greatest of all superstitions, religion.

Common superstitions can be described as beliefs that have no rational basis or supporting facts, such as the belief in god. Some superstitions may be “amusing”, while others may profoundly affect choices made in life. None is based in fact, but most have roots deep in tradition and history. Source of all superstitions is in the irrational and illogical belief in the existence of god. Rationalism and conscience obliterate any need for faith in unseen, unprovable sky gods. When humans lose sight of rationalism, irrational and dogmatic religions arise which are morally deficient, elevating to moral status ancient, arbitrary, and ill-informed rules—taboos on eating pork, for example, as well as dress codes and sexual practices—possibly designed for reasons of hygiene or even mere politics in a bygone era.

Fortunately, as science, the scientific method, and critical thinking skills become more commonplace in our society, religion is more debunked because civilized people lose their primitive fears of what was not previously explained or thought through. Simply put, belief in god is simply no longer necessary, and has never been rational. Even Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter recently sold in a London auction.

There is, in fact, no god, nor even a hint of proof of god. It is all magical thinking. Ever wonder why god cures the lame so they can walk, and so people can get out of wheelchairs – but he never cures amputees? Because there is no god.

Thank you Faith and Leadership.

And I saw Eagle's flying, and she spoke sweet
and I knew, there was a God, and I will never doubt again,

Does God allow Haiti to suffer?

Haiti either suffers by God--which is to say God has his reasons for this suffering but ultimately promises redemption for the sinner--or Haiti just plain suffers.

The former is the Christian view and the latter is the view of the atheist. So what can be done for Haiti according to the view of the atheist? We can see that the religious view at least promises a salvation after death provided one has turned to God. The atheist view on the other hand at best promises the progress of society which has replaced religion and goes by the name of secularism and/or humanism.

But how much faith can we have in the "progress" of the atheist? First of all the world of the atheist has no ground for reason and morality. There is no ultimate truth, standard of such. Reason and morality are relative without God. Objectivity is impossible--and this includes scientific objectivity. All is subjective viewpoint overarched by a fundamental meaninglessness.

Worse for Haiti, the atheist's view plays up scientific notions such as Darwin's evolution, which means that Haiti lags behind the more prosperous societies and at best must bear the indignation of a handout--if a handout can help much of anything in the atheist's world. Even science in the atheist's world exists in finality to predict the ultimate futility of things (views such as entropy).

The atheist has decided there is no God so science at best is pattern on existence which ends in not God, nothing of salvation, but in....nothing. In fact in the atheist's world we cannot even be certain we are sane, for there is no truly rational element which supercedes irrationality. Once again, the relativeness of things...But I suppose Haiti can receive eventually what the humanistic society tries to promise everyone: A life of happiness (read no pain) even though painlessness is unachievable (no God, no end to pain).

If God does not exist we are forced to suffer or we artificially (because contrary to nature) end pain. The world of the atheist: no foundation for rationality or morality; no possibility of salvation; no promise of anything really except it be artificial reality which takes the sting out of existence. Unless we have the strength to live as meaningless beings, that we entertain ourselves without ever fooling ourselves that ultimately there is nothing.

All views relative in the atheist's world. No conclusive argument for morality or reason. The best one can say is that we should be moral and reasonable even though all betterment of society will eventually come to nothing. So which view will Haiti choose? It seems an earthquake is not conducive to atheism. How sturdy really is atheism today and how sturdy can it be made? How much misfortune can an atheistic society stand before it crawls back to God?

Would it be too much to ask--too morally questionable--that atheists approach Haiti with precisely this question in mind? Yes, no doubt about that. The opposite course must be taken! Save Haiti! Save at all costs the more the atheistic view triumphs! Because of course atheists do not want to know just how much suffering they can stand without returning to God.

God forbid that the world should be Haiti. Or rather blind ourselves by pleasure to God and Haiti. Save Haiti by God. Or rather so we feel better. Pleasure for Haiti and pleasure for ourselves. An end to God but not earthquakes.

Of course god hates Haiti. How else can you answer that question? This god in particular, is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnimalevolent. Just look at his followers: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and right here on the Post spidermean2. These are some of the most malevolent characters ever seen, almost as bad as their god.

Thank god there's no god.

Huh. I see interest in Haiti has died out pretty quickly.

NAVIN1. Define how you mean "obtuse." Obtuse, I research, is a very strange word. It can mean "this or that." Fundamentally, obtuse is an indirect angle, thus the point of something becomes dull, or muted, like a glancing blow with a sharpened instrument. Or, leaving the blow out, it does refer to something being pointed, but still at an angle.

I take your use to be correct, however, if it is admitting you do have an angle -- most of which I like.

On Haiti, I'm wondering if the USA might just inact the "Prataeus Action." That's General D. H. Patraeus, Supreme Commander of our troops in Iraq. The "Action" is whereby we pay the enemy about the same monthly pay scale (twice a month), as we pay our own troops, to stop fighting.

It's had some effect, but I doubt that effect lasts long.

In Haiti, it would be an attempt to treat all Haitians as children of a family, without the proviso that they ever grow up -- pretty much like we do it in our families here, nowadays.

Well, Tuesday will come, and we'll have another inane essay question, whether or not it has a misdirected point; and we'll get some more dull posts, and some not so dull.

I know, mine are dull, but hopefully amusing.

"does god allow Haiti to suffer?"

When you actually look at this question you realise just how silly it is.

Until "god" has been defined the question has no meaning.

"does god hate Haiti?"

When you actually look at this question you realise just how silly it is.

Until "god" has been defined the question has no meaning.

Hmmm, "Catholics for Choice"? Have they taken any of their assets ($10,358,717 in 2006) and donated it to the rescue efforts in Haiti? Probably not!!!

They do however spend a lot of money on lobbying. From their online IRS Form 990: expenditures on lobbying 2004-2007, $1,322,992 (latest numbers available)

And what does the leader of this wing of the Immoral Majority pull down as a salary?

For Frances Kissling in 2006, $471,460 - not bad for promoting the killing of the unborn!!!

And why don't we see this group saying the following ???:

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll.

Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

Fri, Jan. 22, 2010

"Bible notes to come off GI rifle sights

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A Michigan defense contractor will voluntarily stop stamping references to Bible verses on combat rifle sights made for the U.S. military, a major buyer of the company's gear.

In a statement yesterday, Trijicon of Wixom, Mich., says it is also providing to the armed forces free of charge modification kits to remove the Scripture citations from the telescoping sights already in use. Through multimillion dollar contracts, the Marine Corps and Army have more than 300,000 Trijicon sights.

The references to Bible passages raised concerns that the citations break a government rule that bars proselytizing by American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are predominantly Muslim countries.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command initially said the Trijicon sights didn't violate the ban and compared the citations on the sights to the "In God We Trust" inscription printed on U.S. currency.

Yesterday, however, Army Gen. David Petraeus, Central Command's top officer, called the practice "disturbing."

"This is a serious concern to me and the other commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan," Petraeus told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

One marking is "JN8:12," a reference to John 8:12: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, 'I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life,"' according to the King James version of the Bible."

But suffering can be alleviated by antibiotics, good engineering, public health, good governance, economic regulation, development of family institutions, social outreach groups, decreased consumerism, ....

But then the nature of suffering at its root is to say, heh, thanks I'm not dying from pneumonia or diarrhea, how about strokes and Alzheimer's or suicide bombers, can you fix that?

Thus I don't think we can end suffering, but we darn well try (by being good doctors, engineers, economists, leaders, family members...)

hariaum

Sometimes, perhaps often, I am too obtuse. Sometimes the subject is. Oftimes I can't tell which is which.

Whenever we reduce a psychosocialspiritualevolutionary... entity into a equation, likely we are wrong. Never the less, let me propose:

suffering= realization that identity does not equal being: the realization of the distance between aham (my Iness) and hamso (the reality of what I am).

That is, when I realize that

I am not who I think I am, I suffer. (eg.: I am not going to die, I am happy innately, I am wise, I am part of the true one religion, I am going to heaven, I am not righteous, I am in control of my life, I am not a Nazi...)

Or in the negative, I am who I think I am not (I am the Haitian who has lost children, I am the jew that survived long enough in auschwitz to see my spouse raped, I am the islamic women gang raped by my parents and the tribal elders because I said I was raped, I am the one for whom the bell tolls...)

Or in the absurd; there is no way I am that (I am the stone, I am the wind, I am the earthquake, I am the earth being polluted to extinguish life, I am the source and end of reality...)

Or in the existential: I exist, but I do not know myself (or It will take me a lifetime to answer that question, let me get back to you), The I does not exist but is rather a series or predetermined chemical reactions creating a hallucination of consciousness...

Or in the transcendental: I am the hated of an infinitely loving god (crap, I'm screwed), I am the loved of a wrathful god (thank god I'm saved, praise the lord), I am one with reality, they tell me, but I don't see it.

Finally, as the Upanishads expound:
neti neti neti and
aham, Tat tvam asi, hamso

not this, not this, not this...
I am (this), That thou art, I am (being).

Then of course there is Yahaveh

hariaum

Hey Faith,

"I, went sky diving, I went Rocky Mount,ain climbing, I went 2.7 seconds...
and I loved deep-er, and I spoke sweeter and I, gave forgiveness I've been denying"

And someday I hope to get the chance to live,

Once again: Bravo for Israel but keep in mind the USA taxpayers paid for those planes, hospital and supplies with our $4 billion/yr in foreign aid for Israel.

find it interesting that a small county of Israel was able to land 2 planes containing a field hospital with modern medical supplies enough to treat hundreds of people within 72 hours of the earthquake. While most of our friends in the Arab world sent nothing.... A Jew says to save one life is to save the world....

I prefer one progression at a time.
Multiple personality disorder is not my thing. I have rejected this premise on a few occasions.

Without death there cannot be life.I hope to settle down. It's a hope, I don't expect it.

Many, regulars know who I am. I have made it clear from my writings specifically to those who are,or have helped me learn, hoping they would understand and perhaps see a difference.
Lord knows, I don't see one and I still don't understand the dis.

I will never be on the level of many with regards to skill. It's the education and the fact that I don't live on the computer.
Nor do I wish too, I like talking to people.

This forum provides an avenue for those in different societies, to communicate, make Friends, form alliances,educate, to share comedy, theater, music, writings,books,prayer practices and yes sorrow.

What's a Jew?, what's a muslim, what's a Christian, what's a Buddhist? what's a politician, what's a leader, what's love, what's hate,

I don't see a difference,when we all sit at the same table.
And there is an interesting thought to ponder.

I find myself on occasion defending Jewish Law, Islamic prayer,Catholic values and the Faith of the Earth and this often places me in a bad light.

Which is sad.

sorry for any mis-spells

Well, the problem is she pollutes the site. Some of the problem is the subject: religion. I don’t know if one can manage a non emotional blog on religion, and this one is only lightly moderated and open to abuse. And she is abusive, make no mistake.

What will happen is a new blogger or two will appear, at first extremely reasonable but as things progress increasingly intolerant and finally abusive and vicious. These ‘new’ bloggers are her, in a (somewhat) varied form, and they all agree with her and praise her to the sky. She will also make sure that any regulars, who know what is happening, are driven out.

I had a glance at that discussion of 11 February in the Jacoby blog of last year: the main posters who objected to her farcical falsity are all gone: themoderate, timmy2, nevermore, jamil. I had left much earlier. Now themoderate was an Anglican, jamil muslim, timmy2 atheist, nevermore (I think) secular Jew. My own Catholic voice had been silenced previously. These different outlooks and viewpoints IMHO were valuable.

There’s an old law in economics: Gresham;s law of debasement or bad money drives out good. In this case abusive behaviour drives out cooperation and free exchange of views.

Well, the problem is she pollutes the site. Some of the problem is the subject: religion. I don’t know if one can manage a non emotional blog on religion, and this one is only lightly moderated and open to abuse. And she is abusive, make no mistake.

What will happen is a new blogger or two will appear, at first extremely reasonable but as things progress increasingly intolerant and finally abusive and vicious. These ‘new’ bloggers are her, in a (somewhat) varied form, and they all agree with her and praise her to the sky. She will also make sure that any regulars, who know what is happening, are driven out.

I had a glance at that discussion of 11 February in the Jacoby blog of last year: the main posters who objected to her farcical falsity are all gone: themoderate, timmy2, nevermore, jamil. I had left much earlier. Now themoderate was an Anglican, jamil muslim, timmy2 atheist, nevermore (I think) secular Jew. My own Catholic voice had been silenced previously.

These different outlooks and viewpoints IMHO were valuable.
There’s an old law in economics: Gresham;s law of debasement or bad money drives out good. In this case abusive behaviour drives out cooperation and free exchange of views.

The eye of the needle,

I remember a scene from a movie.

"He's close" pause...
an explosion

Soldier, who's in charge here.

"yeah".

or something along those lines,
thank you,

Ender2 noted over at the GI Joe thread:

"We get your same C&P on every thread. You've ridden that one trick pony to death. And, once again I remind you that the Islamic world are pikers compared to the millions we have slaughtered to maintain our empire.

600,000 dead civilian Iraqis.
2,000,000 exiled Iraqis.
300,000 dead Iranians by our boy the Shah
1,000,000 dead indiginous humans by our puppet gov'ts in south America."

Posted by: ender2 | January 21, 2010 1:34 PM

The body counts with references:

The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,478 killed in action, 899
non-comabat, 95,021 – 103,673, Iraqi civilians killed,

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

"The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries
1 55 million Second World War 20C
2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C
4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
7 20 million Annihilation of the South and North American Indians 15C-19C
8 20 million Iosif Stalin 20C
9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C
11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
13 15 million First World War 20C
14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
15 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C
16 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
17 7 million Thirty Years War 17C
18 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C
19 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C
20 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C
21 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C"

Ah, the first few posts here renew, somewhat, my love for my fellow man -- especially TIMMY2.

Then, farther down (or up, as it were), my friend, NAVIN1, doesn't quite answer the question, "What do we mean by suffering?" Or does he?

As I see it, let's say, here we have a crocodile suffering from hunger. He stealthily glides toward the bank of his watery-muddy refuge. A zebra happens along, desiring to relieve his suffering from thirst. The crocodile, using all the might creation gave him, launches his entire body up out of the murk, gapping mouth, with all those teeth, at the neck of the zebra, grabbing on ferociously and dragging 800 pounds of meat and bone into the depths, for dinner.

Thus all creatures survive, or not. Is it suffering? Then life is suffering. Up until the cocodile shows up, enjoy your days.

The cocodile? Well, like the shark, he has no ememies, no one to eat him. Surely, these two are the gods' chosen. Oh, also the cockroach.

Wait, no enemies? Huh. Man. Well, there goes that argument.

Except, Joseph Campbell observed. "All life lives by killing." And, as NAVIN1 might say, even the tectonic plates are life.

Admittedly, the philosophical problem of evil was the catalyst for my break from religion. However, as I learned more about the Abrahamic religions, I started to dismiss the problem of evil in favor of more compelling arguments.

However, after listening to Christians attempt to respond to the problem of evil, their responses seem incomplete at best and quite possibly just plain silly. As such, I have gained a new found respect for the problem of evil.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic: http://lnk.ms/5VVDW

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

steve44122: "While most of our friends in the Arab world sent nothing"

And you know, as of this submission, not one of the Muslim panels has addressed this question. Allah Be Praised!

Bravo for Israel but keep in mind the USA taxpayers paid for those planes, hospital and supplies with our $4 billion/yr in foreign aid for Israel.

I find it interesting that a small county of Israel was able to land 2 planes containing a field hospital with modern medical supplies enough to treat hundreds of people within 72 hours of the earthquake. While most of our friends in the Arab world sent nothing.... A Jew says to save one life is to save the world....

I find it interesting that a small county of Israel was able to land 2 planes containing a field hospital with modern medical supplies enough to treat hundreds of people within 72 hours of the earthquake. While most of our friends in the Arab world sent nothing.... A Jew says to save one life is to save the world....

"Matt 19:23-26

19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." 19:25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, "Then who can be saved?" 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, "For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible."

Although Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarians give a "thumbs-up" on Matt 19:23-26 as being said by the historic Jesus, not everyone agrees:

"Rabbinic

Samuel Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 331f) mentions the following partial parallels:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, etc. This is an obvious folksaying to illustrate a nearly impossible task or something extraordinary.

In the Talmud we find a similar expression, "an elephant passing through a needle's eye" [B. Ber. 55b, B. BM 38b], referring to an impossible dream or over-subtle dialectics.

See also Abrahams, Studies II, p. 208, where he cites a contrasting passage from a difficult text, PR 15(70a), "The Holy One said: Open for Me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which you may enter tents and (?)." Cf. also Cant. R. 5.2.

One suggestion is that it may be kirka'ot of Isa, 66.20, where the meaning is probably "dromedaries." "If this be so the parallel, or rather contrast is striking.

The repentant sinner opens a needle's eye to God, and God opens a gate in which tents and camels might camp. The figure almost seems employed as a foil to the Gospel passage quoted." Others have explained that is Syriac/Aram., "camel" could be a misreading of "rope."

Islamic

The following example of the saying is found in the Quran, and in this case the item that cannot pass through the eye of a needle is a rope rather than a camel:

To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the rope can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin. (Al-A'raf 7:40)

Commentary

"Greg Jenks

The theme of wealth is a mixed one in the biblical tradition. While we may project feelings of envy onto the ancients, it is also the case that divine favour was expected to be manifested in wealth - land, animals, slaves and lovers. Under the Deuteronomistic theology faithfulness to the covenant would lead to exactly such an outcome, and the absence (or loss) of same was seen as a mark of divine displeasure. Health was seen through a similar lens.

Poverty was not seen as a positive state of life, hence the radical challenge in the beatitude for the poor: 043 Blessed the Poor

The prosperity gospel is an ancient dimension of religion. After all, religion can presumably offer just four or five rewards:

protection from danger of various sorts, including sickness and one's enemies (the divine as talisman)

fertility and virility (the divine as aphrodisiac)

prosperity (the divine as power)

wisdom/integration (the divine as truth/meaning)

life after death (the divine as remedy for mortality)

It seems improbable that the ancient were universally opposed to wealth and power.

We may not like them in the hands of others, but few of us are adverse to having a good grip on these blessings ourselves.

At the same time the Wisdom texts, an intrinsically universalist tradition, know of the risk that wealth (and other forms of power, including sexuality) can corrupt the retainer class and cause harm to the wider community. Justice is perverted, careers damaged, etc. For example, and even outside the Wisdom tradition, see:

You must not distort justice; you must not show partiality; and you must not accept bribes, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of those who are in the right. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, so that you may live and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
(Deut 16:19-20 NRSV)

Presumably Jesus was no less aware of these issues than other spiritual masters of various times, so there is no real justification for attributing so much of his sayings to anonymous sources or the generally undistinguished Gospel writers who show themselves to be such lesser souls in these matters.

In this particular case, there is the added consideration that the saying about the eye of the needle seems only to make sense as an aphorism created in Aramaic - not the language of Mark the gospel writer. The present Greek is possibly a garbled version of an Aramaic proverb (which may or may not have been created by Jesus) as follows:

It is easier for a [camel] rope to be put through the eye of a needle,
than for a wealthy person to enter God's domain.

Rather than elaborate on the confusion of the Aramaic gemla (meaning camel, but also rope [made of camel hair]) and the Greek kamelon (camel), let me just point to one web site that discusses this in more detail.

The possible Aramaic origins of the saying argue against creation by Mark, while the implicit critique of traditional assumptions of wealth as a sign of divine favour also suggests a more insightful creator than canonical Mark.

The preachers' false tale of a small gate can be traced back to the ninth century, but has no basis in fact despite the reports of Victorian visitors to the Holy Land who claimed to have seen such a small doorway. It is possible they were misinterpreting the exceptionally small door to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (see photo below). The original large door has been reduced in dimensions on a number of occasions to prevent people driving carts into the church and filling them with treasures. The remaining very small entrance is sometimes known as the "Door of Humility."

I agree with Christians' & Muslims' basic commandments:

1. One should exploit others suffering to spread one's own religion.

2. Charity should be done with an ulterior motive to gain power.

3. One should identify weakness in another country and culture. Then, instead of letting them correct problems, one should exploit.

4. Divide and conquer.

5. Always pretend to do charity. This provides the perfect cover for the true agenda.

6. Always remember that my god is better than the other's god. Use this belief to justify and rationalize acts of deception & destruction.

7. Religion is about winning and expanding, not about spiritual development.

8. Might is right.

9. If the whole world can be converted to Islam or Christianity, we will win. Then we will destroy the other inferior religion.

10. Peace on Earth and goodwill to mankind - NOT.

Does God allow suffering:

(not to mention that we are being asked to speak for god)

What do we mean by god? What do we mean by suffering?

First of all, if you believe in an afterlife or if you don't, then death itself is not suffering. (What comes afterward is a different question.) But logically, we have to set aside the question of the thousands of dead. It sounds cruel, I know (and I don't stand by the callousness of this logic, but it is logical), but we need to be clear.

Once we realize we are dealing with the suffering of the living, that is the suffering we an empirically gauge. We understand that humanity is suffering, some no doubt more than others but I don't know how to measure that either. What is humanity suffering from?

Those that believe in randomness are suffering because they do not control the world well enough to reduce the suffering - but they believe in randomness; what control are they talking about? A random universe has neither causality nor responsibility. Thus suffering is a false attachment with a sense of control.

Those that believe in a mono-ideology, that there is one way to do things right, must look on this event and say the causality is in the denial of that mono-ideology. In their learned hate of the other, they feel suffering is the just reward of the "wrath of an angry god." In their construct of their mono-ideological smugness, they think, "If they had been like me, they would not have suffered." Thus, for these people, suffering is the justice of their merciful god.

For those that believe Truth is god, this suffering too is a part of that Truth. It is not a matter of causality, that is too complex to be precise and just about (though worthy of research - fault lines, poor building, etc). It is a matter of our response to what has happened. The given is given. That which is, Is. Now what. The suffering comes from a sense of disempowerment, we can't do enough. Disempowerment comes from ignorance, we don't know enough. Ignorance comes from a) finite minds given to us, b) finite time to grasp the complexity, c) a choice we made of what we value. The last is more complex: by making certain choices (the method by which we arrive at truth - a book, a stastic, an anecdotee...) we bind our ability to see beyond that choice. But all of these things, these finitudes, are also given. Now if we value truth, the given is not "wrong," So we look into the given.

The response is obvious, if we don't get lost in the words, if we worship truth, then we become givers in finite ways. That heartfelt giving is the response to that heartfelt suffering and both are the birthright of the human heart. And the giving is empowered by education, by hard work, by compassion and empathy, by a love of an ordered universe, by a desire to express truth in our lives. Thus while many millions of dollars rush to help the living suffering in Haiti, you are learning, you are growing, you are sympathizing, you are becoming empowered to help, to alleviate suffering. That is your right and duty. (You=Our here, of course). But you and I are working at our jobs, you and I are trying to learn to be better... we should not forget that by participating we are helping - we must act, "pick up you bow, Arjuna," it is of our Nature to act.

But I disagree with some theologians who seem to believe that the soul is ephemeral, that it changes, it grows. No, to me, the soul is already with and within Brahman. But my human nature is here and evolves as I choose it. The suffering in my world, and in my mind, drives my world and my mind, to make it better. It is my material nature that makes that so, for the Gita says, "for what do you grieve...there was never a time that you nor I did not exist nor shall that time ever come." It is not for the soul but for the human that we grieve - and this we can make better.

hariaum

The role of religion:

To support superstitious beliefs as, what ever god wants will happen so don't do anything yourself. Or, science is wrong, don't trust scientists. Or, the power elites are against you so trust the church to provide true sanctuary. Or, don't spend money in investing in infrastructure, give it to the church to support the bishops and pope, and Pat robertsons's of the world in their cushy lifestyles. Or, don't learn secular science and reasoning as it is anti god....

The right role of religion (though some will honestly admit that what all organized religions really want is power) is to provide education to people of the way of relating with the Truth. When religion chooses superstition over truth, it is in the service of its own interest, not that of God=Truth (g-d=tr-th?). So I think religion is at fault in Haiti. It failed to inform the moral and mental character of the people and the government about the importance of IBC (building codes) and the value in distributed power supplies, food sources, and water supplies. It failed to teach the people of Haiti that it is far more important to build stable critical infrastructure than to build a church. ...

But religions will not see their failure to act, they will see their god's will to act - a handy excuse for the failings of the money grubbing power seeking sycophants all to happy to exploit the "opium of the peoples".

hariaum

"This is a man-made disaster, period. It was 2 centuries in the making. Infastructure and buildings that are not seismically designed and built for lateral load resistance or for 2-3 times gravitational acceleration in vertical load resistance will collapse in a severe earthquake. This is not a theological debate."

Well, yes and no. Yes, the poor infrastructure in Haiti was a significant contributor to the problem. But, if a 7.0 quake had hit Tokyo or San Francisco at a depth of 5 miles below the surface, it would have done significant damage as well. But you're right in that this is not a theological argument.

Then there is always the very funny but very honest two hour presentation by Julia Sweeney entitled, "Letting go of God". The show is being shown on cable TV. Check your TV listing for date and time. Tape it for your relatives and friends.

Timmy2,

Oh, such ignorance. Most Christians I encounter I have no idea from whence Judeo-Christianity comes from. They don't take the 2nd Commandment seriously. I don't make this mistake. A Jewish friend will explain it to you.

But here is the short version. Make NO graven images of any kind, nor bow down before them, nor worship them. Notice how you violate the 2nd Commandment so insolently by making "God" then bowing down before it and worshiping it. I don't do this. "G-d" reminds me that I should never violate the 2nd Commandment. I don't presume to know the mind of G-d. Why do you?

ARCHYBOI

What will happen if you put an "o" in between that "G" and "d".
fury from God? Will he be upset?

Wars are cause by such reverence for an imaginary being. So I'm just wondering what the consequences of not being so reverent would be?

I live in California. Earthquakes are a price I pay to live near the ocean and mountains together. $20,000 is the price I paid to have my home reinforced against earthquakes.

Most Haitians can not find $20,000 to use for such purposes. They are poor. Poverty is not fixed by God but by the culture and physical circumstances. Religion is an aspect of the culture. So, in a sidelong way, religion has some bearing on the suffering of the Haitians.

God/Mother Nature started the Big Bang. She/he/it also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, god/mother nature is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variability/randomness of Nature.

So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping/revering cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the Commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

It's people that increase the suffering of others, currupt government, lax building standards, etc. It's me first policies that increase the suffering of so many, yet people always seem to blame God, did God encourage the use of unsafe building practices or did the lust for money, does God encourage poor health care and refusal of affordable health care for the people,or does the lust for money. Does
God want people to live in squalor or does the lust for money by some cause it.

This is a man-made disaster, period. It was 2 centuries in the making. Infastructure and buildings that are not seismically designed and built for lateral load resistance or for 2-3 times gravitational acceleration in vertical load resistance will collapse in a severe earthquake. This is not a theological debate.

The government has been dysfunctional for centruies. Without strong central governance and minumum construction standards enforcement appropriate to a seismically active region, this is what you get.

Invoking G-d is inappropriate. If G-d must be dragged into this, then pray for stronger benevolent governance and earthquake construction standards. With sufficient financial support and investment this does not have to repeat. That will do a whole hell of a lot more good.

The G-d talk amounts only to impotent platitudes of avoidance and denial.

(I don't stand by the views and opinions mentioned there inasmuch I've misinterpreted genesis a bit there - the problem, if there is one, has more to do with the persona:
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2009/05/restrictions_on_priesthood_oth/comments.html - comment as 'c a c x o' which is closer to my present opinion)

I know that some theists will claim that god does not intervene in these matters because he gave us humans free will and he does not want to interfere with that free will. That raises the question, if god does not intervene, why bother praying?

There are no good or evil magical entities that cause human suffering.

And the "spiritual texts" were all written by men, not by magical entities.

I have first hand knowledge about this one,

It so happens that I was there when the Haitians made their deal with Satan. I was working as a young TMZ reporter at the time and it was my first assignment. I was really just supposed to get some reaction shots of Satan after asking him the question: "Hey Satan, what did you think about your depiction in the South Park movie as Saddam Hussein's lover?"

Anyway, I got a tip that Satan was going to be at this night club in Port-Au-Prince. When I approached his table to get my shots I noticed that Satan and his entourage, which included Pat Robertson BTW, (he was the minion holding Satan's lawyers briefcase) were all sitting with the Haitian president in a private booth. I specifically heard Satan tell the Haitian president that he would take care of France for the Haitians. He laughed for a bit at that notion that anyone would need help taking care of France, but he agreed to do it in exchange for the souls of all Haitians. He said these were the cheapest souls he ever bought. Then he said "France" and laughed some more. Then I saw the handshake go down.

I also won a Papzi Award for my photo of Satan when I asked him about the South Park movie. It was awesome. I caught him just as the steam was starting to come out of his ears.

This is all 100% true. If you don't believe it, I guess you're just one of those people we like to call "non believers". Or "people of no faith". You know, people who have a rigid demand for facts and evidence before they can believe anything. I find people like that very sad. Shallow, empty and cold. Thinking that all knowledge is evidentiary based.

Anyway I guess this is just my way of responding to this question by saying: What a friggin joke.

For that matter, what basis is there for the assertion that gods are even necessary?

What basis is there for asserting that gods would be good or that gods would intervene in the world? It's possible that gods exist who are not good and/or do not intervene in the world. As a matter of intellectual responsibility, claims of divine intervention should only be made if there is testable evidence for the claim. That's because such claims are no different from asserting that, say, the wind blew a rock off the top of a mountain.