So, God could have prevented the Earthquake and didn't?

[KansasVoter]

It makes no sense to me how any God who cares about anyone would let it happen.

What a joke!

[wryter2000]

1. To paraphrase an Episcopal priest about the tsunami in 2004

"Plate techtonics cause the tsunami. The spirit of God can be seen in the people who are helping the victims."

Please, don't make God into your sock puppet.

[KansasVoter]

4. LOL... so plate tectonics is too hard for God to understand??

You can't claim miracles (man lifts car off little girl) are because of God and preventing earthquakes are not his responsibility also.

I love hearing "We don't know why God allows bad things to happen" but at the same time scream "miracle" weekly.

Wow, beyond all logic.

[rd_kent]

8. So god cannot control plate tectonics? Where was his "spirit" when THAT happened?

and since god appears to be a make-believe entity, a sock puppet is EXACTLY what he is and EXACTLY the way religion uses the concept of god, as a sock puppet.

[BurtWorm]

16. The spirit of humans is helping the victims.

God has nothing to do with any of it. As usual.

[gcomeau]

And who caused plate tectonics?

That little detail aside, you didn't actually respond to what was said in the OP. It didn't say God caused the earthquake (although if you believe anything about the claims made about God then you must conclude he did), it said God could have prevented it, but didn't. If we are to believe the claims about God's capabilities this is a true statement. (When we factor in God's non-existence of course it becomes false).

And flippant nonsense like that statement you quoted really pisses me off. It's the equivalent of someone saying "that suicide bomber didn't kill all those people, the explosive chemicals in the bomb strapped to his chest did!" Yeah sure, he put the chemicals together, and attached a detonator to them, and walked them into the middle of a big crowd of people knowing damn well what was going to happen... but THE CHEMICALS did the exploding, not him!

If you run around claiming there's an all powerful entity who is responsible for the creation of everything in the universe and the manner in which it all works and with unlimited power to intercede however it wants at any time then you don't get to then say it isn't his fault that the way he made things work occasionally results in the mass slaughter of thousanads of innocent people by the forces he supposedly designed, implemented, and controls.

[JohnnyLib2]

2. Haiti is largely Catholic.

It seems cruel to attack beliefs at this time.

[KansasVoter]

5. WHY????

[rd_kent]

9. I think thats the point of the post........

Because Haiti is so "religious" why did god allow this to happen to his followers?



IMO, a perfect time to ask such a question.

[jbnow]

18. If that was the point than fundies would have easy answer.

Most of them practice a mixture of Catholocism and vodoo.
Of course some fundies think Catholicism is satanic so there is that too.

I guess it's a fine time to ask it here, just a poor time if we were talking to someone grieving there. If the idea of God is any consolation tot them let them have that,

[Warpy]

3. Riddle of Epicurus

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

Moslems who claim that Allah is completely unknowable and Taoists who claim the universe as a whole is alive but not self aware have no trouble with this. Epicurus was onto something for the type of believer who thinks god is meddlesome and personal and especially the "god is perfectly good" types.

[jbnow]

19. Nice post. nt

[GodlessBiker]

6. One could say that the earthquake was Good in god's eyes, ...

in some way, but that we are incapable of seeing that, for whatever reason.

That, however, would lead to the conclusion that everything that happens (at least everything that happens that is not the result of human consciousness) is Good.

Evil is inserted into the world through human consciousness. That, or course, presents its own series of questions.

Totally unsatisfying to me, but you can say it.

[jobycom]

7. Really the time for this? You going to tell the thousands or millions who have only their God

to turn to now for any sense of comfort that you have a theological argument against their god?

I'm an atheist, and I can answer your simplistic question. You've never created a universe, so you have no idea what it takes to run one. Perhaps in some way only a god can understand this was kinder than not letting it happen. If you tell a kid she can't eat ice cream for breakfast, she will scream about how mean you are, because she doesn't understand what you do about health and nutrition.

But seriously, is this the time to argue against the only chance for sanity some people are going to have right now?

[KansasVoter]

10. Your reply is dumber than what most religious people give me!

[jobycom]

12. Your reply is brilliant and full of objective reasoning.

[rd_kent]

13. "the only chance for sanity some people are going to have right now?" HAHAHAHA! Seriously?

And if you are an atheist, then you have no idea what the definition of atheism is when you post nonsense like this

You've never created a universe, so you have no idea what it takes to run one. Perhaps in some way only a god can understand this was kinder than not letting it happen.

That comment is in direct conflict with the definition of atheism.

[jobycom]

15. Yeah, seriously.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, either, but that doesn't mean I don't know the myths about him.

The point, since some of my fellow atheists here aren't very bright, is that you can't prove God doesn't exist by saying what you would or wouldn't do as God. The OP is essentially using the same technique I did--arguing what a god would or should do if one existed. My only point is that his argument doesn't work from a logical standpoint and is easily dismissed by believers. Further, the timing is about like trying to argue there is no afterlife to a parent who is burying their child.

You'll have to forgive me. Most of the atheists I hang around with are brighter than you two. I'll go now. Enjoy the circle thing.

[rd_kent]

17. Ha! A dim bulb calling someone "not bright". Pot, meet kettle.

[BurtWorm]

20. This was kinder than not letting it happen?

And you think that's somehow more helpful than wondering why anyone would believe in a benevolent god after this kind of brutal event?

[jobycom]

23. The OP said it made no sense to him why a god could do this.

I pointed out that the OP has no basis of comparison, having never been a god.

[Jim__]

21. I absolutely agree. A disaster is not the time to try to score political points! - n/t

[darkstar3]

22. Absolute tripe

First, no one here is telling a Haitian currently grieving for their home and loved ones that God doesn't exist.

Second, the idea that an earthquake is necessary for some sort of universal balance doesn't jive with the standard omnipotent creator concept espoused by so many faiths.

Finally, to answer you and other posters here about timing: Those of us who cannot help in the Haitians' time of need should be pondering both the causes and effects of this quake. For those who are inclined, that should include the religious implications of cause and effect. This is as good a time as any to investigate the problem of God's responsibility, and to think about why so many people bless God for the good things that happen to them, and never blame him for the bad things. Perhaps it is even time to re-read Job with a critical eye.

[jobycom]

24. Third first.

There are people grieving and terrified and searching the Internet for information. I went through this after Katrina, many here went through it after various other tragedies--9-11, the Missouri flooding, whatever. When I was trying to find out whether my parents, sister, brother, nieces, and various other in-laws were alive, it was a source of pain to run across statements like this, from either side. Obviously I don't really care whether someone tells me God doesn't exist, since I don't believe he does, either, but some will. Compassion should took precedent over scoring points in a debate no one will win, anyway.

Second, I didn't say it was balance, I said we couldn't know why some omnipotent creator does anything, so any argument saying it's a joke to describe a god who lets this happen as caring is flawed, because no one can know what a creator god has to do.

First, neither the OP nor I argued for the existence or non-existence of God.

[darkstar3]

28. Way to dodge all of my points.

1. If someone is coming to the R/T board of DU to find information about what actually happened in Haiti or lists of injured and dead, then that person needs to seriously re-evaluate their web-crawling skills and Google-fu.

2. Balance or not, your argument boils down to the idea that somehow, on some sort of cosmic scale that we can't understand, this quake had to happen. That idea, no matter what you call it, still doesn't mesh with the concept of an omnipotent creator, which is what many faiths, especially here in the West, worship.

3. Who cares whether you or anyone else actually argued for or against the existence of God. I was referring specifically to your statement here:

You going to tell the thousands or millions who have only their God to turn to now for any sense of comfort that you have a theological argument against their god?

Nobody on this board is telling anything to the Haitians, so take your straw man and go home.

[jobycom]

32. Just because you don't understand the answers doesn't mean I dodged your points.

1. I found a hell of a lot of information during Katrina on this board. Links, info, videos, etc. I was flipping between six or seven sites, none of which had everything I needed. Go through it yourself, you'll get it then. Any large discussion board can serve that purpose. Information is scattered and spotty, and people look for what they can when they are in need.

2. My argument boils down to we don't know why a creator does what it does. That includes your omnipotence point--if you can't understand why a creator does something, you can't understand why it doesn't. You are the one who brought up balance--that wasn't part of my argument. My point is that claiming you don't understand why something beyond your understanding does something doesn't mean that something doesn't have a reason for it that fits within the definition. In this case, specifically as the OP asked, we don't know why a god who cares can let things like this happen, because we cannot understand such a being. You are assuming arguments that aren't being presented. Reread the OP and my post, maybe you'll catch up eventually.

3. I don't even know what you're trying to say. You implied (I thought) that I was accusing others of saying God didn't exist. I said no such thing, and pointed that out. Then you quote me as though that proves something. Either I missed your first point, or your last point. You'll have to explain which.

The only straw man was in the OP, for using a narrow, simplistic definition of god then ridiculing it. That was my point. Too much for you, I realize, but oh well. Maybe you'll get there one day.

[darkstar3]

34. I find no reason

to continue arguing with someone so convinced of their unassailable position that they feel the need to repeatedly attack my intelligence. I think the posts here speak for themselves. Good day.

[jobycom]

39. And you use no reason.

You attacked me first. My position may or may not be unassailable, but you haven't even understood it, so you wouldn't know one way or the other.

[darkstar3]

41. And where did I attack you personally? n/t

[jobycom]

44. 28

The thread title and the last line.

[darkstar3]

47. Yeah, that would be attacking your ARGUMENT

not you personally. If you can't tell the difference, then I can't help you.

[jobycom]

48. "Take your straw man and go home?"

That's a line so thin even your omnipotent god couldn't find it.

[darkstar3]

50. How do you figure?

Do you feel this way because you don't know what a straw man is, or because you object to the vehement nature of my rejection of your crappy argument?

[jobycom]

52. Explain my argument to me. When you've done that successfully, you can call it crappy.

And be honest--you were attacking more than my argument.

Again, explain my argument. You have yet to come up with a decent response to it. I'm aware you think you have, and I'm aware that for some mistaken reason, perhaps the number of people who said "yeah" along with you, you think you're way smarter than me. But until you can explain my argument, much less come up with a decent response to it, you haven't proven anything. Maybe you're smart, and you're just having a bad brain day, I can't tell. But your response misrepresented my argument (I started to use "straw man" against you first, but didn't want to sound like I was attacking you), and you still haven't understood it. I'm sure that's more willful arrogance than stupidity--I mean, you're smart enough to work the words "straw man" into an argument, in a way that's almost a proper use of the concept even if it is misplaced in this case, so you can't be totally clueless. You just can't step back and admit that something was more complicated than you thought when you first read it. Can you? Prove me wrong there. Explain what I said, then explain why your first response was an oversimplification of what I said, and I'll go jogging and you can go insult suffering people to your heart's content.

[darkstar3]

54. Wow.

Read your post again, and then talk to me about arrogance. :eyes:

I'm done here. You have consistently demonstrated that there is no point in arguing with you further, firstly because you believe that "straw man" is a personal attack (showing a complete lack of argumentation knowledge), and secondly because the obvious chip on your shoulder precludes us ever coming to any semblance of an understanding.

[jobycom]

55. You have been done here before you started.

You still haven't understood one thing I've said, and you still accuse me of your failings. So long.

[jobycom]

56. You know...

You attacked me and misunderstood me and misrepresented me from the first post, and you think I'm arrogant defending myself. I tried to explain it to you and you accused me of creating a straw man rather than checking to see if maybe your infallible self could have made a mistake or missed something. And you accuse me of the arrogance and the chip-bearing shoulder. You are some piece of work.

Bye.

[uberllama42]

60. A word of advice

If you say "I'm taking my ball and going home," and storm away, don't come back to the playground 16 minutes later and say it again. People will laugh at you.

Look--I've thrown up my hands in exasperation and walked away from discussions. After reading your exchange with darkstar, I was going to abandon this thread without another word. I have concluded, as he has, that it's not worth talking to you. But you've embarrassed yourself here, and I don't have the willpower not to point that out.

[darkstar3]

45. delete - wrong place

[rd_kent]

58. "My argument boils down to we don't know why a creator does what it does."- For your statement to

have any merit at all, you need to prove there is a creator to begin with. Good luck with that.

[gcomeau]

64. Ahem...

"My argument boils down to we don't know why a creator does what it does. That includes your omnipotence point--if you can't understand why a creator does something, you can't understand why it doesn't."


Then I have a suggestion, don't try claiming it has any specific nature. Ever. Don't tell people it has your best interests at heart. Don't tell people it loves them. Don't tell people it wants them to be "saved". Don't tell people it wants them to go to heaven, or has any intention of seeing that happen regardless of anything they do. Don't tell them it sent its son to earth in human form because it wanted him to be sacrificed on our behalf and for our benefit.

Because if you insist on declaring its motivations are unknowable whenever you're faced with a problem explaining something that happened then you have no business turning around and claiming to understand what its motivations are when you want to claim something good is coming from them. Doing so makes the argument you just presented here, which I see CONSTANTLY, nothing more than a hypocritical "get out of rationally justifying my worldview free" card.

In short, if God's motivations are unknowable would all Christians shut the hell up already about what God's motivations are whenever they're telling us all about how great he's supposed to be? How about that? Could we get that to happen?

[DeSwiss]

25. +1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Manz#Execution">
Felix Manz, Executed via Extreme Baptism

[ZombieHorde]

30. How many Hatians are on DU this week?

Probably not very many.

[jobycom]

33. Yeah, that's probably true.

Sorry, I'm just a different person than I see much of here. I actually worry about other people instead of just pretending to. My bad. I'll head back to the Lounge now.

[darkstar3]

35. Oh, I see.

Just because we like to debate things of an existential nature while a disaster is happening anywhere else in the world, we don't care about other people.

Did it ever occur to you that we might find discussion interesting enough to continue participating after making a donation to someone who can actually GET to Haiti and help these people? Of course not, because you felt the need to personally attack others on this thread, and you were looking for any justification you could find to do so.

Have fun in the Lounge. :missing boot smiley:

[jobycom]

40. What a joke!

Was exactly what the OP said, referring to people's belief in a god who cares. That's not an existential debate, it's an attack and an insult.

[darkstar3]

43. Against whom, exactly?

The injury that you have perceived from this thread is proof only that you have a large chip on your shoulder, not that the OP attacked anyone personally.

[jobycom]

46. Against anyone trying to turn to their beliefs for peace in this tragedy.

[darkstar3]

49. And, for the very last time,

none of those people are reading this board. Of course, you already knew that...

[jobycom]

51. How do you know they aren't?

Have you asked everyone? Have you gone to each person searching the web for answers to make sure none wind up here?

Probably not for the last time, but I've gone through this, on a lesser scale. You search everywhere for answers. I wound up on a lot of different sites, and some of them were doing just this kind of stuff. Why be an ass just because you don't think someone will see you being an ass? It takes nothing extra to be decent.

[ZombieHorde]

36. We are all just posting our opinions on a message board.

None of the posts in this thread are helping or harming the people in Haiti.

[jobycom]

42. Read the OP again.

He's attacking the beliefs of people suffering at the moment. Maybe without his "What a joke!" line at the end it would have been a nice, abstract debate on the nature of gods and good, but as it stands it's an attack on people suffering, and a gleeful nananana at believers.

After Katrina I got to read all about how God punished Mississippi for gambling, how God destroyed New Orleans for homosexuality, and on and on. This is the same type of attack, in the opposite direction. People turning to their beliefs are a "joke." People who think God cares are a "joke." The only semblance of peace and sanity hundreds of thousands of people are going to be able to find is a "joke." More crap we don't need from someone more interested in earning points in a juvenile debate that's raged for thousands of years with no solution, and in a form that the earliest caveman debates on the subject have easily moved beyond.

I admit, I should have stayed out of here. Long ago we used to have long-winded learned discussions in this forum, where well-intentioned people on both sides could have intelligent debates. I guess I just thought it was the same forum, not some religious version of GD, where any opinion is deliberately misunderstood and attacked by people who don't understand the words they are using. (Not you on that one.) Maybe it still is in other threads.

[ZombieHorde]

61. I don't think the OP is calling believers a joke, I think the OP is calling

the concept of an all loving and powerful God a joke, but you may wish to ask the OP for clarification if you feel differently.

After Katrina I got to read all about how God punished Mississippi for gambling, how God destroyed New Orleans for homosexuality, and on and on. This is the same type of attack, in the opposite direction.

I disagree. I think a difference exists between "God is punishing you" and "God is a joke (God is imaginary)." One is saying the victims are bad, the other is saying those who believe in God are mistaken.

[uberllama42]

37. You just compared a natural disaster which likely killed thousands

to a parent keeping a child from eating ice cream for breakfast. I think you just lost the game.

Might there be some metaphysical sense in which being crushed to death in an earthquake is actually a net benefit? Theoretically, yes. But there is no good reason to believe that that is the case. We have no evidence that the world was created by a deity with a higher plan who subjects us to hardships for our own good.

Somehow you have no problem comparing a nation's tragedy to a petulant child whining for ice cream. But we must not criticize their belief in God at a time like this. Right.

[jobycom]

38. I really have no idea how you got any of that from my post.

I compared a person trying to understand how a god would think to a child trying to understand a parent. Beyond that, you aren't even in the ballpark of what I said. I didn't talk about net benefits nor any evidence of a creator. I merely said that the OP's argument is simplistic and poorly timed.

[dalaigh lllama]

11. I don't know of many people who haven't had bad things happen to them at some point

in their lives. I guess I believe our response to bad things matters more than the bad thing that happened, and I've long since quit putting the blame on the Guy-in-the-Sky. I recommend reading Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning," which work resulted from his survival at Auschwitz.

[rd_kent]

14. I agree, but people certainly attribute "good things happening" to god all the time.

Why not attribute the "bad things" too?

[dalaigh lllama]

26. We all ponder these things and usually come up with answers that work for us

My idea is that I don't need to understand why the good stuff happens in my life in order to be grateful for it, and when the bad stuff happens, I try to figure out what I'm supposed to be learning from it and hopefully do some growing.

[DerekG]

27. This agnostic hopes your little hero proves more useful

At present, he seems to have put all our tax money into killing brown people and saving the banksters. Do you think he'll actually do anything good in his presidency?

[darkstar3]

29. Um,

when and where was Obama mentioned anywhere in this thread?

If you have an axe to grind against the current president, may I suggest you venture over to a thread that actually discusses him and his policies? You can find many of them in GD and GD:Presidency.

[ZombieHorde]

31. +1 Silly attempt at a thread hijack. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. There's nothing Obama hates more then brown people.

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

57. Your king fu is weak! Your response has nothing to do with the OP. Thats a hijack attempt, FAILED

FAIL

[RagAss]

59. Bring me this God you speak of.

[dcsmart]

62. stop blathering about god and donate some money or volunteer

some time with the relief effort...

and, yes, i did donate to the red cross....

[darkstar3]

63. What makes you think the OP hasn't donated?

And what keeps people from donating and THEN "blathering about god"?

[dcsmart]

65. nothing...

nothing at all, as long as the first response is assistance. Theodicy has been the conversation since humans anthropomorphized god. If people by now have not figured out that the "loving god idea" is flawed, then that is what we end up with, blathering. i understand the existential questing that people do when experiencing these types of events, history is full of them, but there is no answer. Well, some have provided answers and i encourage people to read about them in order to understand how philosophers and theologians have tried to answer the question, but in the end i think those answers are inadequate, as do other scholars.

anyway, i should have not posted my comments...sorry...it is just frustrating to me to see the same question always coming up and always the same bickering back and forth, especially in this forum.

[KansasVoter]

67. I donated $100 and worked matched it 100%. So STFU!

[rd_kent]

66. .