Need a Babysitter? Don’t Call God!

As I browsed the Internet this evening, I came across a post that made me shake my head in sorrow.

The author of this post tells a horrific story of the sexual abuse of a child, then has the nerve to explain that his loving God should be excused for not intervening in the situation. Follow the link above if you want to read the entire pathetic post for yourself. I’ll just provide some excerpts here. Don’t be surprised if, at some point in your reading, you find yourself weeping, gnashing your teeth, releasing a primal scream or engaging in some other expression of frustration, disgust or rage.

Monday evening I turned on the television in a hotel room in Gatlinburg, TN to hear something that made my blood boil…toward God. I was so disturbed by what I had heard that I found myself having difficulty sleeping. There were even moments when I wanted to scream out and cry for the misery that had been given to an innocent toddler who had no one to turn to…not even God.

You may have heard the news that someone video taped the rape of a three-year-old girl….

I hear so many stories about God’s powerful presence during times of prayer, when entire cities are transformed by revival. Why is the powerful presence of God always so evident when people are worshiping, but not when an innocent child is being mutilated and destroyed by those who she believes are the protectors of her world?

The absence of God in these kinds of situations is beyond frustration for me and millions of others….

Although the questions that surround God’s absence in times of desperation may never be fully reconciled on this side of heaven, there is an answer.

God is not our baby sitter….

Keep our children safe. Stop trying to give God our jobs. God is not a baby sitter!

Blessings,

Johnny

We’ve all read and heard stories of Christians (almost always fundogelicals) whom God has helped find parking places at crowded malls, whom he has helped find their car keys so they wouldn’t be late for important meetings, whom he has helped find the perfect wedding dress at the perfect discounted price…. We’ve also heard stories (far too many) of the sort told by Johnny: of children raped and brutalized (usually by people they trusted) while God did nothing, of children whose parents prayed for them instead of seeking medical treatment for them – and watched them die as God did nothing, of families who have been terrorized by tyrannical fathers (who justify their tyranny by quoting the Good Book) while God did nothing…. If you were Johnny, what lesson would you take from these things? What I’ve learned is that God’s a pretty good parking attendant, but he’s a lousy child care provider. Would you hire this deity to work in your day care center? Me neither.

Many years ago, I listened in amazement as Ruth Carter Stapleton testified to approximately 500 people that God had helped her pick out just the right number of ketchup bottles for a large dinner she had hosted. She told how she pushed her cart up and down the aisles and just couldn’t figure out how much ketchup she’d need. As she pushed her cart, she prayed for divine guidance regarding this critical decision. Finally, she reached out and grabbed some bottles from the shelf and placed them in her cart. And what do you know? After the party had ended and the cleaning up had commenced, she realized that she’d had a Goldilocks experience! She’d bought just the right amount of ketchup, not too much and not too little. At the time, even though I was a Christian, I thought her story was bizarre (as if the Master of the Universe actually cares whether someone buys 8 bottles of ketchup rather than 9). Having had a more than a few more years to think about the matter some more, I’ve reached a different conclusion. Noting that the Bible has plenty of stories about banquets, it doesn’t surprise me at all that he’s finally got the catering business figured out.

It’s ironic that Johnny calls his blog Flock’s Diner. He deliberately invokes the image of God as a shepherd and believers as the sheep under his care – there’s even a blurb in his sidebar that explains it. All I can say is, I hope God takes better care of sheep than he does of kids. How can Johnny defend God for not lifting a finger to assist a helpless child, yet contend that God cares for anyone at all? How can he miss the discontinuity? Instead, he makes an excuse for his piss poor example of a god: he’s not a babysitter; we have to take some responsibility for doing some things ourselves. I’ll take you up on that, Johnny: next time you can’t find your car keys, say this prayer – God, I know you’re not my babysitter, so I’ll go ahead and find my keys on my own this time. In the meantime, if there’s a child who needs your help, feel free to leave me alone for a bit so that you can go and take care of her. Did you ever think, Johnny, that maybe the reason God doesn’t help defenseless children who desperately need assistance is because he’s spending way too much time and energy helping childish, sheep-like Christians do shit that they really should be doing for themselves?

On the other hand, Johnny, maybe the reason God doesn’t help defenseless children is because he’s not there. Your analysis of the situation was not completely wrong. You were absolutely correct when you pointed out that people, especially adults, have to be willing to step up and take responsibility for ourselves, our families and our communities. But the reason for that is not because God needs people to be his “eyes, ears, hands, and even fists in the world.” No. Not at all. The reason is that the world needs all decent people to be “eyes, ears, hands, and fists in the world” to overcome brutality, violence and hatred. We have to do it on our own, because there is no God to help us do it or to do it for us. All of us must work together to make the world a safer place for everyone.

– the chaplain

131 Responses to this post.

  1. chappy:
    It’s getting to the point now that a trip to An Apostate’s Chapel almost always makes me want to go door-to-door, shaking Americans awake.

    This is eloquent, angry writing, maybe your best post ever.

  2. We’ve all read and heard stories of Christians (almost always fundogelicals) whom God has helped find parking places at crowded malls, whom he has helped find their car keys so they wouldn’t be late for important meetings, whom he has helped find the perfect wedding dress at the perfect discounted price….

    Just because these people are idiots doesn’t mean that God does not exist. There are going to be fruitcakes everywhere you go; church, Wal-Mart, the public school, etc. I admit on my blog that there have been some big-time screwups done in the name of Christianity (Crusades) and rant about “stupid Christians” that make all of us look bad. If I become an idiot, however, it doesn’t prove there is no God.

    Sometimes children are raped, innocent people die horrible deaths, kids starve in Africa, so and so forth. The world is a screwed up place, and although some of them won’t, I think most Christians would be willing to admit these things. You’re absolutely correct in aserting that God is not our baby sitter, and we as human beings need to be responsible for overcoming brutality, hatred, crime, war and whatever else you listed. Plenty of athesits site there disbelief in God because he doesn’t pop out of a magic lamp and answer all of their wishes. That’s not the God described in the Bible in the first place, no matter what “God found my parkingspace” lady says happened at the mall.

  3. Thank you, Chaplain. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thought these things myself. The idiots who pray for victory before a high school football game spring to mind, as well. Seriously, are they saying YHVH has nothing better to do than take sides in a high school football game? It’s too obscene to think about.

  4. This explains it all:

    I turned on the television in a hotel room in Gatlinburg, TN

  5. Clark said: If I become an idiot, however, it doesn’t prove there is no God.

    There isn’t anything that will prove there is no god. There is nothing that will prove there are no vampires. There is nothing that will prove that you don’t leave your body and visit a planet in the Canis Major dwarf galaxy from time to time.

  6. Excellent post. I felt like saying Amen at the end, but perhaps I should say RAmen.

    Nowhere in Johnny’s post does it say that the parents of the child actually asked god to babysit. It is FAR more likely that they hired the rapist as a babysitter or left her in the hands of a trusted friend.

    Leaving my body and visiting a planet in the Canis Major dwarf galaxy from time to time….that would explain a lot!

  7. Great Post. The parochial and/or individual belief that god finds keys & counts ketchup bottles, while 50,000 kids die of malaria everyday in Africa, is breath-takingly arrogant. These praying half-wits epitomise the self indulgence, self presevation & self delusion that all snakeoil salesmen throughout history have……… well I guess, thanked god for!

  8. Great post, another tip of the problem of evil iceberg!

    digitaldame, you’re right about the football game:-)

    Plenty of athesits site there disbelief in God because he doesn’t pop out of a magic lamp and answer all of their wishes.

    In that case, what does this God do that is distinguishable from a god invented by wishful thinking?

  9. ‘Fundogelicals’ – great word. I like it! I was one for years without realizing.

    Your post again raises the issue of evidence and reasonableness. It is so frustrating, isn’t it, that people inside the box just won’t think about issues like the ‘balance of probability’ or assess the evidence to answered prayer objectively. There is always a get-out clause.

    Another great post. Thanks. Keep up the good work!

  10. Thank you for having passion. That is such a rare attribute these days. Also, thank you for sharing my post.

    I always have a group study with atheists and agnostics, so none of this is surprising to me. In fact I have some very good friends who don’t believe in God, and we are able to have some amazing and eye opening conversations.

    In my opinion, atheists and agnostics are people who are truly seeking after truth. Most Christians have decided to believe and have made the mistake of continuing to seek. That, to me, is more offensive than anything an atheist can say.

    Keep the passion.

    Johnny

  11. Please allow me to restate one of my earlier sentences:

    “Most Christians have decided to believe and have made the mistake of continuing to seek.”

    Should have said:

    Most Christians have decied to believe and have made the mistake of no longer seeking.

    Thanks.

    Johnny

  12. Ex – Don’t shake them too hard, okay?

    Clark – Thanks for your comment. I agree that the intelligence, or lack thereof, of believers is not evidence one way or the other about God; it’s simply evidence of intelligence, or lack thereof, in believers. You said, “Plenty of athesits site there disbelief in God because he doesn’t pop out of a magic lamp and answer all of their wishes.” I’ve not seen or heard any atheists saying this. Could you provide a link or two?

    Digital – The football game is another great example, thanks.

    Evo – TV switches do two functions simultaneously: when the TV goes on, the brain goes off.

    Laurie – Thanks for refraining from the Amen – that’s sort of like a cuss word in this chapel. RAmen is a suitable substitute. ;)

    Orion – Christianity fosters a strange combination of humility and narcissism.

    A Thinking Man – I can’t take credit for the term, “fundogelical.” I first came across it at Ric’s blog. I think he may have coined it.

    Johnny – Thanks for your comments. Your statement that “Most Christians have decided to believe” is revealing. Most atheists don’t “decide” whether to believe, they just look at the evidence proffered and reach logical conclusions about it. What frustrates many of us is that some Christians seem to look at the same evidence and say, “I don’t care what reason says, I’m going to follow my heart, tradition, etc. instead,” while many other Christians simply seem to follow their lead without examining any evidence themselves.

    I’m not sure how to respond to your statement that “atheists and agnostics are people who are truly seeking after truth.” At face value, it looks polite and complimentary. One sometimes wonders, though, if Christians say this and leave off an unstated addendum like, “They just haven’t found it yet, as we, the Blessed Ones, have.” Is your statement the respectful, face value remark it appears to be, or is it condescending? You don’t have to answer that, it’s just something for you to think about.

  13. Believe it or not, I tried to word that so that you wouldn’t assume what you stated is often assumed, but then didn’t worry about it, assuming that you wouldn’t assume what I was concerned may be assumed.

    Please allow me to clarify. Most atheists and agnostics are people who are willing to search even when our very evangelical country would place them in a box with the words “Don’t open until Jesus comes back!”

    As a Christian, I never stop searching, even when the dig takes me to places that I don’t want to go. I respect atheists and agnostics for being willing to go down that road, even allowing people to watch them walk it, while Christians are screaming, “Don’t go down there, you might stop believing in God!”

    To God’s and other wonderful Christian teachers’ credit, I have gone down those roads and come out with a stronger faith. I must admit, one’s worldview has a powerful impact on a person’s paradigm of belief. I choose to see God in the world, others choose to see something else.

    Thanks again.

    Johnny

  14. Johnny, thanks for taking the time to clarify your statement. Having read the posts you wrote in response to this, I believe your statement was intended graciously.

  15. Would you mind if I were to copy and paste the last four comments between you and me on this site to my comments section on my site? If not, that’s okay.

    Thanks,
    Johnny

  16. Johnny – help yourself.

  17. Great post! I absolutely love the prayer, “God, I know you’re not my babysitter, so I’ll go ahead and find my keys on my own this time. In the meantime, if there’s a child who needs your help, feel free to leave me alone for a bit so that you can go and take care of her.”

    I couldn’t find an actual video clip, but here are the transcripts from a 1993 SNL skit with Sally Fields and the late Phil Hartman as Jesus. Here’s an excerpt:

    Jesus: I listen to everyone’s prayers, and each prayer is answered in its own way..

    Tina: Yes?

    Jesus: And I was wondering.. if you would try.. to not pray so much?

    Tina: Well.. well, now I-I.. I thought you liked me to pray? As much as possible?

    Jesus: [ thinking in delicate terms ] How shall I put this..? If you could concentrate oyur prayers on just the most important things.. you know.. life and death, temptation.. and save the prayers like, “Dear Jesus: Be with me as I vacuum the stairs..” or, “Dear Jesus: Fill me with your spirit as I sponge off the slipcovers.” Things like that.. [ smiling ] It would just make things a lot simpler, Tina.

  18. Philly – I hope we can find a clip of that skit.

  19. Posted by Sarge on July 26, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    This alleged entity, I’ve been told, marks the falling of a sparrow. Doesn’t CATCH any, but allegedly nodds its head and writes it down somewhere…for some reason.

    When I mention that it’s kind of hard on the sparrow, I’m told (usually after having been told that this alleged entity and its thoughts and demands are easily knowable by reading a book that is sacred to it) has its own purposes and they are unknowable. No disonance there, is there?

    People I’ve known who survived concentration camps have told me that this sort of thing has two answers that are also questions.

    How could this have happened? Where was god?

    The answer:

    Where was man?

  20. Posted by eanes on July 26, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Chaplain– interesting post. I do believe in God, but I was challenged recently by a friend over on Xanga who said, basically, “I don’t pray for personal intercession, because I can’t believe that God cares about my job interview (or whatever) while failing to stop (for instance) genocide in Africa. And a God who cares more about my interview than genocide is not worth worshipping”.

    that was really an interesting comment, and in line with what you are presenting here.

  21. Sarge – His eye was on the sparrow, but, since he was helping me find my glasses at the time, he was distracted from catching it.

    Eanes – Thanks for your comment. I agree with your friend’s comment.

  22. Plenty of athesits site there disbelief in God because he doesn’t pop out of a magic lamp and answer all of their wishes

    This is a myth that is perpetuated to portray atheists as selfish and petty. If there’s any truth to this at all, it would have to come from the following thought process:

    “God doesn’t seem to answer my prayers.”
    “Wait a minute, God doesn’t seem to be answering anyone’s prayers.”
    “What if God is listening at all?”
    “What if God isn’t really there?”

    Easy to see how that might be twisted into, “God didn’t give me what I wanted so He must not exist.”

  23. Posted by RJWalker on July 26, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    As a reader of Johnny’s blog for several years, as as a “free range” Christian, I find meaning in Christian traditions (about which I try to think critically) as well as science and other modes of trying to understand our world.

    As someone said: “If you are going to seek truth, you have to be prepared to change your mind.”

    I believe that applies regardless of one’s current belief system.

    Namaste

    Bob

  24. RJWalker:
    Welcome to my blog. As you no doubt noticed in the comments above this, Johnny and I had a cordial exchange about his post and mine.

    What is a “free range” Christian?

  25. I think they’re tastier.

  26. Ever barbecue one before a Chiefs game? That might get it done.

  27. Posted by monodentate on July 27, 2008 at 4:35 am

    Time and time again, the classic Christian response to the absence of God in seemingly desperate times is “God works in mysterious ways. You cannot know his intent or purpose in our lives etc. etc.” I often get disgusted at the lengths which devout Christians will take to justify the existence of the God of Jacob (often against the face of logic — the very tool God gave us to discover him). It makes ABSOLUTELY no sense that God would allow thousands to die of treatable diseases in developing nations, for the mother of 4 children to be raped and murdered — yet would care enough to bring you the extra income you need for that addition to the side of your house, or to pay your central air conditioning bills (or for your baseball team to win the world series, etc. etc.). The God of Jacobs seems more like a God of convenience to me. This is perhaps the greatest injustice, because it prevents the tools that this world really needs – progress and dedication from all of the world’s inhabitants.

  28. Brilliant post.

    On the subject of prayer when I was deconverting I chose to experiement – I would say to myself that instead of praying I am going to just calm down and assess the situation, either the answer will come to me or I will get out of the pickle I am in or I won’t.
    Works better than prayer.

    I usually figure out the problem by calming the mind or the consequences I was dreading don’t come to pass.

  29. Free range christian – their the ones you don’t lock up in cages.

  30. “they’re” damn it. That’s what you get for being a smart arse

  31. Well you have to be careful though, because they could start tasting gamey. Some people don’t like that taste. Personally, I think it’s great.

  32. Posted by RJWalker on July 27, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Free range chicken – a Garrison Keiler (sp?) joke – where he referred to Episcopalians as “free range chickens”

    I take it to mean those of us who aren’t kept in theological pens and force fed, but rather wander around, hither and yon, pecking our theological grit from here and there.

    Many (most?) Christians seem to believe that when John reported Jesus as saying “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” [John 14:6] he was saying ‘you have to believe I am the only God incarnate and you have to accept me as your personal savior.’

    Others read “through me” as saying ‘accept or live out the essence of my teachings and ministry whether you “know me or not.”

    IOW, non-Christians who live honorable helpful lives, taking heed of the needs of their “neighbors” are eligible for whatever rewards might await us, on earth “as it maybe in heaven.”

    Note, these are my beliefs – I do not know how wide spread they are.

    And yes, I noted how the tone became respectful when Johnny joined the discussion.

    (And there is no doubt that some chickens are less than tasty. I kow a number who would not be let anywhere near my grill! )

    Namaste

  33. RJ/Namaste:

    Thanks for answering the question. Do free range Christians go to church at all? Do they circulate around two or three churches? Do they watch televangelists? Do they forego churches completely and just do their Bible reading and praying on their own or in informal groups or settings?

  34. Namaste is an Indian (dot, not feather) greeting, something about mutual respect, mutual peace, etc. I only know this from reading FSJ. ;)

    RJ, I would argue that all christians are free range chickens. The only difference is the size of the pen. Each picks and pecks at varied biblical passages, along with stuff from various church fathers and ministers, and they pick which bits to follow and accept and which bits to dismiss.

    I honor the place where your reason surpasses your faith.

    Namaste

  35. Namaste is a Sanskrit word/greeting. “Nama” means “bow”, “as” means “I”, and “te” means “youi”. So it comes out to “I bow to you” in the sense of “I recognize and bow to the divine spark within you”. It’s a belief that we all carry a part of the divine with us, located in the heart chakra. It’s typically said at the beginning and end of yoga sessions, for one. It’s generally accompanied by the mudra (hand gesture) of placing the hands together in front of the heart. Sorry if this is too far off-topic.

  36. “…others choose to see something else.”

    No, Johnny, we do NOT choose to see something else. It’s not a choice. As an example, do bald people choose not to have hair?

    We don’t see what you see because there is no evidence to convince us to see it. That’s all.

  37. Philly and Digital: Thanks for explaining Namaste to me.

    Luzid: Well said.

  38. Posted by RJWalker on July 27, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    >>Do free range Christians go to church at all? Do they circulate around two or three churches? Do they watch televangelists? Do they forego churches completely and just do their Bible reading and praying on their own or in informal groups or settings?

    I speak only for myself.

    I usually attend an 8 AM service at an Episcopal church, and a 9:45 service at a methodist church where I am a member (and was on staff for media stuff for awhile) I also attend services at a Universalist-Unitarian ‘church.’

    My religion and my faith are very important to me: I try to live my lefe as my invisible friends suggests I do.

    My invisible friend doesn’t tell me to tell others how to live their lives.

    For PhillyChief: who said something to the effect that all Christians (or all religious followers?) – Yes, my religious faith is just that: a belief which cannot be proven.

    >>I honor the place where your reason surpasses your faith.

    I wholeheartedly embrace reason and logic and science – they are critical parts of my life.

    I don’t know how to compare or measure my reason v. my faith. That would be something like comparing a day to a mile.

    For me, there is reason, and there are non-rational aspects to my life – where love, fear, joy, laughter etc, exist. And my own spiritual life.

    >>Each [fre range Christian chicken) picks and pecks at varied biblical passages, along with stuff from various church fathers and ministers, and they pick which bits to follow and accept and which bits to dismiss.

    Very similar to what scientists do: which facts do we examine – which facts do we use to formulate our hypotheses and theories, and which do we send packing?

    Should we “follow” Euclidean geometry or Lobachevskian geometry? Should we apply Occam’s Razor to that question?

    May I suggest Pirsig’s “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” for a discussion of this metaphysical aspect of physics and science.

    Your mileage, of course, may vary.

  39. As far as choosing to see, it would appear that we all do choose what we see. Whether we call it faith or educated guessing, one way or another, history, religion, and science all require a bit of faith.

    There is very little in this world that we can look at and say, “There it is!”

    It’s also interesting to me that the fundamentalism on the side of atheists has swung into the exact role that is so hated by them, which is the attitude of absolutes and resisting questions.

    I would like to say thank you to everyone in this discussion, and add that we can get a lot more done when we decide to discuss these subjects without sarcasm and with mutual respect.

    Have fun.

    Johnny

  40. I would like to say thank you to everyone in this discussion, and add that we can get a lot more done when we decide to discuss these subjects without sarcasm and with mutual respect.
    What is it we’re trying to get done?

    And by respect, do you mean respect for one another as human beings. I’m cool with that. But are you asking me to respect your religious ideas? Sorry, I can’t do that.

  41. Johnny:

    Inductive reasoning, which is the basis of science, does not require any faith. The fact that it doesn’t lead to 100% certainty does not preclude acceptance of highly probable conclusions as grounds for action and further investigation. That’s not acting on faith, it’s simply accepting that, as finite human beings, we have to do the best we can with the best information available at any given time.

    Historical inquiry does not require faith. It requires intensive, scientific study of historical artifacts and data. The conclusions drawn from these inquiries are, again, tentative. They are subject to revision or rejection pending additional inquiry. Again, this is not acting on faith; it is simply doing the best we can with the information on hand at any time.

    I won’t go into religion, because it’s a given that faith is foundational to the whole religious enterprise.

    You’re not seriously suggesting that acting on anything less than 100% certainty is acting on faith, are you? Are you 100% certain that, when you get into your car and drive to work tomorrow, you won’t get hit by a bus? Of course not. Do you consider it an act of faith to go ahead and drive to work anyway? I doubt it. Most likely, you’re playing the odds: you’re figuring that if you control all the factors that you can control – drive defensively, don’t talk on your cell phone or eat your Egg McMuffin while turning, etc. – you’ll probably arrive at work just as you always do. That is not acting on faith. It’s simply doing the best you can with the information and tools you have available.

    With regard to the sarcasm you see here, one way that atheist blogs may differ from Christian ones is that, as we atheists get to know each other, we engage in quite a lot of teasing, banter and sarcasm. Granted, our humor is weird and it may take some getting used to. By and large, though, teasing, calling each other out for saying stupid things and challenging each other for presenting weak arguments are ways that we show our respect for each other. We do it because we want to keep each other honest. I know it may seem strange to someone who isn’t used to such exchanges, but it’s pretty much the way things work in the atheosphere. Believe me, we’re just as hard on each other as we are on the theists who visit our blogs. In some cases (observe exchanges between Phillychief and Exterminator, for example), we’re harder on ourselves than on others. Having said that, I will note that I’m disappointed that you made the “atheist fundamentalism” remark. Given the context, I can only assume that it was aimed at either me or my commenters. If so, it was a cheap shot and I’m honestly surprised it came from you. The only thing that the atheists who hang out here hold as absolute is the application of rational, critical thinking skills to all questions. As I just noted, we demand it of ourselves as well as of others who enter into our discussions.

    Finally, Exterminator’s point about respect is widely shared among atheists. We respect other people as fellow human beings and recognize that we are all trying to live our lives in the best ways we can. We do not and will not respect all ideas. Furthermore, we do not extend respect to religious ideas simply because they are deeply held, treasured beliefs. I understand that most theists have huge chunks of their identities tied up in their beliefs (which is one reason why de-conversion is such a difficult process). Therefore, it’s easy for them to perceive attacks on their ideas as attacks on them as people. Believe me, they are almost never intended as such (except when someone is genuinely pissed off at someone else – it happens). A key difference between atheists and theists is that atheists, by and large, don’t have a lot of their self-concepts at stake in their identification as atheists. Most of our lives revolve around things that have nothing to do with god-belief. Therefore, we can usually distinguish ourselves from our ideas pretty easily. In fact, we love talking about ideas, so it’s a good thing that we can separate the people from the things they say. I suggest, in utter sincerity, that developing this skill would benefit those theists (some already possess it) who lack it.

  42. There is very little in this world that we can look at and say, “There it is!”

    Yet for everything that either can’t be explained or an individual can’t understand, way too many people have no problem saying “there He is!”. That’s just lazy ignorance.

  43. Did you ever think, Johnny, that maybe the reason God doesn’t help defenseless children who desperately need assistance is because he’s spending way too much time and energy helping childish, sheep-like Christians do shit that they really should be doing for themselves?

    Wow. I wonder how many people are completely screwed on Sundays for it being the day everyone happens to pray for their football teams. God must be busy…

    Kidding aside, you point stands rather well. How watered down do prayers become when you pray for selfish reasons as opposed to when you truly need a prayer answered? Not that anyone is listening, but still…

  44. Posted by RJWalker on July 28, 2008 at 9:51 am

    >>The Exterminator said, on July 27th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
    >>And by respect, do you mean respect for one another as human beings. I’m cool with that. But are you asking me to respect your religious ideas? Sorry, I can’t do that.

    I wonder if you can respect someone as a human being without respecting his or her ideas, or at least giving those ideas a respectful hearing.

    To me, respecting ideas doesn’t mean agreeing with them

    Politically, I’m mostly liberal. There are conservatives whose ideas I respect, even though I don’t agree with them.

    I respect their ideas where I can see they’ve given them lot of thought and analysis and haven’t just bought into dogma.

    To pursue the truth, you have to be willing to change your mind.

    If I’m not willing to consider the possibility that your atheism is the “truth,” then I’ve burned my truth seekers card.

    And vice versa

    Namaste

  45. Have a nice life, everyone.

    Johnny

  46. Posted by RJWalker on July 28, 2008 at 10:03 am

    >> the chaplain said, on July 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    >>Inductive reasoning, which is the basis of science, does not require any faith.

    Please prove Occam’s Razor, inductively or deductively.

    Please prove the number zero.

    I believe it’s easy to see the faith elements in someone else’s belief system, it is difficult to see them in one’s own.

    >>We do not and will not respect all ideas. Furthermore, we do not extend respect to religious ideas simply because they are deeply held, treasured beliefs.

    Fine. I don’t expect you to for that single reason. I hope you will at least consider that the faith aspect of my religious belief is at the peak of the pyrimid, if you will, but my theology arises from ongoing critical exploration and analysis.

    >>With regard to the sarcasm you see here, one way that atheist blogs may differ from Christian ones is that, as we atheists get to know each other, we engage in quite a lot of teasing, banter and sarcasm. Granted, our humor is weird and it may take some getting used to. By and large, though, teasing, calling each other out for saying stupid things and challenging each other for presenting weak arguments are ways that we show our respect for each other.

    Do you really believe that Christians don’t engage in teasing, banter and sarcasm?

    Come on by my men’s Bible study any Sunday evening.

    We do try to go light on the sarcasm, but even Jesus had His sarcastic moments – read the gospels – not some synopsis or Classics Illustrated – and read them with a beginner’s open eye’s and pay particular attention as to how Jesus deals with the disciples.

    May I respectfully submit that perhaps you have certain views of religious experience which you seem to be taking on faith, rather than on exploration and critical analysis of the reality and the experience.

    Namaste

  47. Posted by RJWalker on July 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

    The Chaplain

    >>Having said that, I will note that I’m disappointed that you made the “atheist fundamentalism” remark. Given the context, I can only assume that it was aimed at either me or my commenters. If so, it was a cheap shot

    I can’t speak for Johnny, of course, but I suspect that he meant to say that there are elements of fundamentalism in some atheists – just as the are fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Pastafarians.

    For me, fundamentalism in any belief system is inherently limited and short sighted.

    Or, perhaps he was being sarcastic. Surely you won’t claim sarcasm as the exclusive mode of discourse of atheism? (Note the light(?) touch of sarcasm in that rhetorical question.)

    Namaste

  48. Johnny: Best wishes to you.

    RJ: Thanks for your comments. Sarcasm is not exclusive to atheists, as you demonstrated. :)

    You’re probably right about Johnny’s reason for throwing in the atheist fundamentalism comment. I’ll admit that, in what was essentially his closing contribution to the dialog, it appeared to me that he just added that (along with the “faith” remark, both of which he may not have realized were extremely provocative) as a parting shot. My reaction could have been oversensitivity on my part. After all, atheists are not just cold, calculating people without feelings.

    You said:

    I wonder if you can respect someone as a human being without respecting his or her ideas, or at least giving those ideas a respectful hearing.

    and

    May I respectfully submit that perhaps you have certain views of religious experience which you seem to be taking on faith, rather than on exploration and critical analysis of the reality and the experience.

    If you’d read some of my earlier posts, you’d see how off the mark those comments are. Instead of doing that, you appear to have read one post and decided that you had me figured out. I, like many atheists, arrived at my atheistic position after not only having given Christianity a “fair hearing,” as it were, but a lifetime of “living the reality and the experience.” I can honestly say that I’ve explored the situation critically from both the inside and the outside. My explorations led me to make what may best be described as a paradigm shift.

    Christian commenters who leap in and out of one or two posts at atheist blogs don’t understand why we seem impatient with them and unwilling to listen to them. If the Christians would hang around and get engaged over time, they’d soon see that our impatience stems from the fact that the Christians rarely bring anything new to the discussions. They often rehash the same talking points over and over. If my atheist friends and I went to your blogs and did that, I dare say you would quickly grow weary of it.

    Namaste

  49. “Please prove Occam’s Razor, inductively or deductively. Please prove the number zero.”

    Oh debate games. Love ‘em. Would you also argue that because I can’t prove that the light will go on when I flip the switch or that I can’t prove that the mailman will bring me mail today or even that the Earth will continue to spin tomorrow that all of those are faith positions? And then, I would assume, once faith is justified, then hey, what’s wrong with having faith that there’s some magic sky daddy?

    The answer, of course, is that those aren’t faith positions. Those are positions arrived at through evidence and experience. It’s reasonable to expect certain things to occur or continue to occur because of past experience. So too, it’s reasonable to exalt Occam’s Razor for simplistic hypotheses are more fruitful than complicated ones. The more complicated a hypothesis, the higher probability of it being incorrect, at least in parts. If you start with a simple hypothesis, it’s much easier to test and refine than a complicated one. To use a cooking analogy, when seasoning, it’s easier to add than to take away.

    So can we prove Occam’s Razor? No. We can’t prove gravity either, but experience shows that the theories are reasonable and bear more fruit than the alternatives. Once again, if you want to call trusting in Occam’s Razor or gravity faith, so be it, but you’d be stretching the definition of the word far beyond the point at which it has any meaning.

    As for zero, it’s a label, like wind or love. You can’t prove zero or wind or love, but you can attempt to prove what they represent, what they’re labeling. Zero of course represents a value of nothing, and is a placeholder in numerical systems of mathematics. Once again, inadequacy to explain or prove such things is not an open door to exclaim, “then there’s a god!”

  50. RJ:
    To me, respecting ideas doesn’t mean agreeing with them.
    I believe you’ve gotten the following two “respects” mixed up:
    (1) Respect for everyone’s right to have and express his or her ideas.’
    (2) Respect for the ideas themselves.

    Now, clearly, I respect others’ ideas in sense number 1. As a free speech purist, I’d defend your right to spout any nonsense you’d like.

    However I don’t respect all ideas. Some ideas with which I don’t agree seem pretty well thought out, and I’d respect them even up to the point of reevaluating my own. But some ideas — like Christianity — are pretty damned stupid. I don’t respect those ideas at all. I’m not going to outline all the levels of nonsense in your religion, but I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  51. Exterminator,

    You have provoked my return. I would at least suggest that the attitude of determining facts based on physical proof is the same attitude that caused millions of women to continue dying after childbirth, almost prevented Christopher Columbus from sailing to the Americas, argued (after witnessing) that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, and on and on. It wasn’t until someone braved the trip or invented a tool to prove these facts, i.e. the microscope, that people stopped laughing and finally found these “ridiculous” ideas to be facts.

    It would have to be a turn in the wrong direction of our very capable age to assume that because there is no tool or mode of travel to prove the existence of something that it simply doesn’t exist. Even the Giant Panda was thought to be propaganda until less than one hundred years ago.

    The frustration over the fact that we can’t build every tool to discover every mystery does not prove that all we see is all that exists. Nor does it prove that if we can’t do it, it can’t be done. That attitude would be fundamentally unscientific. It is not the role of man to state that something is not possible or nonexistent simply because we can’t look at it or place our hands upon it.

    I am sure that someone will pick apart my statements and proof text their way through justifying that anything (except God) can exist without being proven. And that’s fine. However, I would submit to you that there are still plenty of mysteries in this universe, many of which may never be discovered by the eyes and hands of human beings.

    It is with this worldview and paradigm that my faith remains. I do not believe that I am the highest point of existence, assuming that if I can’t see it or do it, it cannot exist. That is what allows me to hold on to my “pretty damn stupid” faith.

    This really is fun. Debating with any kind of fundamentalist is always a joy. Thanks for the debate.

    Johnny

  52. Posted by RJWalker on July 29, 2008 at 10:30 am

    >>Christian commenters who leap in and out of one or two posts at atheist blogs don’t understand why we seem impatient with them and unwilling to listen to them. If the Christians would hang around and get engaged over time, they’d soon see that our impatience stems from the fact that the Christians rarely bring anything new to the discussions. They often rehash the same talking points over and over. If my atheist friends and I went to your blogs and did that, I dare say you would quickly grow weary of it.

    LOL

    Change a few key nouns there and you could post that with approval at a “Christian” site.

  53. Posted by RJWalker on July 29, 2008 at 10:37 am

    >> >>To me, respecting ideas doesn’t mean agreeing with them.
    >>I believe you’ve gotten the following two “respects” mixed up:
    >>(1) Respect for everyone’s right to have and express his or her ideas.’
    >>(2) Respect for the ideas themselves.

    >>Now, clearly, I respect others’ ideas in sense number 1. As a free speech purist, I’d defend your right to spout any nonsense you’d like.

    As will I, both as a free speech advocate and a card carrying member of the ACLU

    That statement could be read as pretty arrogant , if it means you consider all religious ideas to be nonsense, considering how widespread religious ideas and theologies are through history

    FWIW, I respect your atheism to the extent it is well considered.

    I would consider it “spouted nonsense” should it turn out that you have a closed mind:

    To pursue truth, you have to be willing to change your mind.

    Namaste

  54. How does religious belief allow for one to change their mind, especially if they’re not “free range” believers?

  55. Johnny:
    It would have to be a turn in the wrong direction of our very capable age to assume that because there is no tool or mode of travel to prove the existence of something that it simply doesn’t exist.
    Ummm … I never said that there’s proof of the non-existence of anything. Before starting to type, why don’t you take a moment to actually read what you’re responding to, and then take another moment to think?

    Be that as it may: You point to Columbus’s voyage, the invention of the microscope, the discovery of the giant panda. Wow, those events sure gave some people the last laugh. So, OK. Go on a reportable and replicable voyage to heaven, or invent a scientific instrument to locate and measure the soul, or discover Jesus’s physical existence and present him — maybe in a zoo — to the world. Then, feel free to laugh and laugh and laugh at me, because my incredulity would have been exploded, and I’d have to eat crow until it was flying out of my ears. Until then, though, I’ll continue to think your beliefs are stupid.

    You may you have a long job ahead of you. So get to work!

    RJ
    That statement could be read as pretty arrogant , if it means you consider all religious ideas to be nonsense, considering how widespread religious ideas and theologies are through history.

    Read it however you like. I never claimed to be arrogance-free. But instead of pointing out my personality traits, why not answer the question I asked you? What would you think if you’d heard the story of Jesus for the first time on Fox News — and then found that you were unable to verify it anywhere else?

    By the way, there are lots of idiotic and/or disgusting ideas that are widespread throughout history. I hope you don’t use that based-on-glorious-tradition argument to advocate slavery or the subjugation of women — or the idea that the Earth is supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

    Shalom

  56. Exterminator,

    We are all arrogant until we are humbled by exerience.

    You are giving away your age.

    Johnny

  57. Which is what makes typos so much easier to handle as we get older.

  58. Johnny:
    I’m pretty damn old, and I’ve been humbled by experience many times. However, I’ve never been humbled into believing in Jesus.

    I do agree with you on tyops, though.

    So, look at the major breakthrough we’ve reached, you and I, through dialoguing here? We’ve discovered one important area of commonality. Perhaps we could get together for a beer sometime and talk about spelling.

  59. Brilliantly written.

    You’re right, of course. The “God” of the fundalogicals doesn’t exist. The arrogance of anyone who would imagine that there is a god guiding their shopping decisions make me want to physically assault them.

    But just as there is clearly evil in the world (how else would you categorize a person who would videiotape the rape of a child), there is also a quality of good.

    I have come to think of “God” not as a deity, but as that force of good in whatever form it manifests.

    The fundalogicals, it seems to me, are like people who clip out pictures of flowers and imagine that they smell sweet.

  60. I have come to think of “God” not as a deity, but as that force of good in whatever form it manifests.

    That’s peculiar, because I’ve come to think of “God” as an amalgamation of those forces of evil and tyranny and ignorance in whatever form they manifest themselves.

    I think there are, unfortunately, very few forces of good in this world. But some of them definitely are “Liberty” and “Learning” and “Laughter.” That’s why I keep wishing for ‘ell on Earth.

  61. Posted by RJWalker on July 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    >>How does religious belief allow for one to change their mind, especially if they’re not “free range” believers?

    It isn’t the type or category of belief.

    It is the degree to which one maintains open inputs.

    I know close minded religious folks, and close minded non religious folks.

    I know open minded religious folks, and open minded non religious folks.

  62. Posted by RJWalker on July 29, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    >>That statement could be read as pretty arrogant , if it means you consider all religious ideas to be nonsense, considering how widespread religious ideas and theologies are through history.

    Read it however you like. I never claimed to be arrogance-free. But instead of pointing out my personality traits,

    Your personality traits? Interesting: my characterization was conditionally expressed.

    Of course. all of your comments have been fair minded and neutral, right?

    >>why not answer the question I asked you? What would you think if you’d heard the story of Jesus for the first time on Fox News —

    If it were on Fox News, I’d be pretty hesitant to believe word one. Are you thinking I’m a Fox News fan because I’m religious?

    >>and then found that you were unable to verify it anywhere else?

    Hmmmm. Verify. Interesting concept.

    >>By the way, there are lots of idiotic and/or disgusting ideas that are widespread throughout history. I hope you don’t use that based-on-glorious-tradition argument to advocate slavery or the subjugation of women — or the idea that the Earth is supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

    Reading between the lines, you are making huge assumptions about my beliefs and values based on my being religious.

    Supported on a tortise?

    Freakin’ idiot….

    Everyone knows it’s a turtle.

    (That was a joke – you know, humor? With a touch of sarcasm. As is this “clarification, demonstrating a quickly deteriorating belief in demonstrated reading comprehension skills and ability to see what should be plain.)

    Or are only people who agree with you allowed the magnificent posting traits you have claimed for yourselves?

  63. R.J.:
    Reading between the lines, you are making huge assumptions about my beliefs and values based on my being religious.

    Actually, you’ve read between the wrong lines. I knew from a previous comment of yours that you are most likely not a Fox News fan. You identified yourself as being “mostly liberal.” So the only assumption I made about your poliitical beliefs is that, as I do, you find slavery and the subjugation of women pretty horrifying. I don’t know if we have similar attitudes about turtles and/or tortoises. For the record, though: I believe in them.

    Because of our shared political views, I used Fox News in my example. I picked the news source you were most likely to find unreliable. Had I thought you were a right-wing fundy, I would have used “left-wing media” in its place.

    By the way, I claim no magnificent posting “traits.” I do have a certain respect for people who try to use language effectively when communicating. I like to think I’m one of them. From what I’ve seen, you’re one of them, too.

    So feel free to include jokes without pointing them out to me. On the other hand, it would be nice if they were funny.

  64. Posted by RJWalker on July 30, 2008 at 10:15 am

    >>I claim no magnificent posting “traits.”

    Oh? I could have sworn you wrote:

    >>With regard to the sarcasm you see here, one way that atheist blogs may differ from Christian ones is that, as we atheists get to know each other, we engage in quite a lot of teasing, banter and sarcasm.

    Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my use of the word “magnificent?”

    >>I do have a certain respect for people who try to use language effectively when communicating. I like to think I’m one of them.

    Having been a writer most of my life, and a professional writer and analyzer for a good chunk of my professional career, I’ll not that you are competent as a writer, but below “effective” as I envision that word when applied to persuasive writing.

    Namaste

  65. Posted by RJWalker on July 30, 2008 at 10:24 am

    >>A key difference between atheists and theists is that atheists, by and large, don’t have a lot of their self-concepts at stake in their identification as atheists. Most of our lives revolve around things that have nothing to do with god-belief. Therefore, we can usually distinguish ourselves from our ideas pretty easily. In fact, we love talking about ideas, so it’s a good thing that we can separate the people from the things they say. I suggest, in utter sincerity, that developing this skill would benefit those theists (some already possess it) who lack it.

    Rereading the thread, I could help but stop and gasp in astonishment at that self-description. Each sentence, each idea is extraordinary.

    In that one “paragraph” you have reached a level of written effectiveness which shines well above the rest of what you write.

    I suspect, however, that the effect you have produced, however, is quite different than the effect you intended.

    Namaste

  66. Posted by RJWalker on July 30, 2008 at 10:26 am

    >>that atheists, by and large, don’t have a lot of their self-concepts at stake in their identification as atheists.

    Hence the name of this blog?

  67. Late to this discussion (and thus not going to get into the squabble, but instead commenting on the original post):

    Brilliant. Just brilliant.

    To the “God is not a babysitter” line, I want to say this: If you saw a child being raped or beaten, would you decline to intervene because you weren’t that child’s babysitter?

    Supposedly, your God sees everything. How can he see a three year old being raped, and not intervene? If, as The Chaplain said, he intervenes to find people’s car keys but not to save a three year old from being raped, then how is he anything but monstrous? And if God doesn’t intervene at all, in rapes or lost car keys or anything, then how is that any different from there being no God at all?

    What’s more, much of the Christian imagery I’ve seen sees Jesus as a shepherd. What is that but a babysitter? You can’t offer people the hope and promise of a shepherd and then, when they actually need a shepherd, say, “Hey, sorry dude, God’s not your shepherd, find your own damn sheep.”

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly: This idea is not only one of the most appallingly patronizing things I’ve heard all week — it utterly misses the point. You could perhaps argue that God wants us to look after ourselves and not turn to him for support all the time… but how on earth does that apply to a three year old child? Three year old children can’t take of themselves. They do, in fact, need babysitters. Are you saying that God isn’t responsible for looking after three year olds and they should just look after themselves? If so, shame on you.

  68. Posted by RJWalker on July 30, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Greta:

    >>Supposedly, your God sees everything. How can he see a three year old being raped, and not intervene? If, as The Chaplain said, he intervenes to find people’s car keys but not to save a three year old from being raped, then how is he anything but monstrous? And if God doesn’t intervene at all, in rapes or lost car keys or anything, then how is that any different from there being no God at all?

    That is one of the most challenging questions to the Judeo-Christian tradition

    First, please note I am not asking anyone here to subscribe to my beliefs or to become any form of deist.

    (My aim is simply to present my views to those who are willing to accept that they do embrace a degree of rationality – my core faith is non-rational, as is my sense of humor, my loves and my hates – but I try to subject my views ,which I believe are thought out from that core believe and are thus subject to rational analysis*, and those of my co-religionists to thoughtful, critical analysis.)

    And yes, there are many Christians (but far from all) who believe God finds their keys and gets them parking places.

    If you can get access to Rob Bell’s Nooma dvd “Rythym” you will find that he, pastor of a “mega church” in Michigan raises the same challenge and objection (as have many Jewish and Christian writers over time.)

    But please be aware that there are many Christians who reject that “Santa Claus” view of God.

    Personally, my views are perhaps best expressed (and informed by) by John Polkinghorne (Canon Theologian of Liverpool Cathedral in England . He served as Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, and was an influential quantum mechanics scientist.)

    You can hear his discussion at http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/quarks/

    If you don’t want to listen to the whole thing, start at about 30:35 and give it about 9 minutes.

    BTW – I don’t agree entirely with the views he expresses in that program, but his discussion of “how can bad stuff happen under a loving God” is, I believe, worth listening to.

    >>And if God doesn’t intervene at all, in rapes or lost car keys or anything, then how is that any different from there being no God at all?

    The two extremes: a “Santa Claus God” and “no god at all” are not the only two possibilities (Unfortunately, the advocates of the Santa Claus God are the one’s who get the most attention, and thus contribute to what is, in my view, a distorted view of the Judeo-Christian theology of God.)

    >>What’s more, much of the Christian imagery I’ve seen sees Jesus as a shepherd. What is that but a babysitter?

    A mistake I believe many fundamentalist and conservative Christians make is try to apply the images and analogies and parables of the Bible literally. As reported, Jesus himself warned against such literalism.

    If I am reading you correctly, you’re making something of the same mistake in taking the image of Jesus as a shepherd and trying to stretch the image past the breaking point.

    Just as the history of atheism is thousands of years old and has been advanced by many great thinkers (Nietzsche and Marx come immediately to mind – keeping Marx’s atheism separate – to the extent possible -from his political economic analyses, but let’s not forget Percy Bysshe Shelley), there have been thoughful discussions within Christian thought and theology.

    By definition, my core faith is a belief which cannot be proven. I believe, however, my theology, my world view, if you will has been rationally developed – at least to the extent that I am able and aware – and I will continue to apply critical analysis to the ideas which I encounter.

    Namaste

    ====================
    * I often argue with my literalist friends who insist that Genesis presents a literal, factually true account of creation. pointing out that Genesis 1 gives us one sequence of creation, in which animals are created before man, and Genesis 2 tells us Adam was created before the animals

    I am also a fan of Erhman’s “Misquoting Jesus.”

    I personally do not believe that the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible negate the essence of its truth and value.

  69. Posted by RJWalker on July 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Greta:

    >>If you saw a child being raped or beaten, would you decline to intervene because you weren’t that child’s babysitter?

    >>Three year old children can’t take of themselves. They do, in fact, need babysitters. Are you saying that God isn’t responsible for looking after three year olds and they should just look after themselves? If so, shame on you.

    Please reread the material quoted from Johhny’s blog- especially his last line:

    “Keep our children safe. Stop trying to give God our jobs. God is not a baby sitter!”

  70. Hey Greta,

    I’m glad you wrote. One of the major pictures that studying the Hebraic and Jewish roots of the New Testament has given me, is that of the Shepherd.

    To understand the role of a shepherd, one only has to spend a little time with the Bedouin shepherds of today in the Middle East. Bedouin shepherds still hold to the ancient practices of the Jewish shepherds of the time of Jesus. One practice that is specifically important is the fact that the shepherd does not take care of the sheep; it is the under shepherds who do the actual shepherding. The shepherd or owner of the sheep merely points the way, while the women, boys, and girls do the actual feeding and guiding.

    This is the picture that Jesus is sharing with Peter when he says to Peter, “If you love me, then feed my sheep” (My paraphrase of John 21:15-17).

    It is not the role of the shepherd (God in this case) to do the actual shepherding (babysitting in this case) but the under shepherds (children of God in this case). Unfortunately, many “Christians” have attempted to make God an under shepherd, expecting him to give us parking places, pay for our groceries, and babysit our kids. No matter how much those people claim that God has provided those things, the Scriptural and practical truth is that God offered guidance for how we can be better parents, providers, and planners.

    God does not choose our college, our car, or our wife. That is our job. That does not mean that there is no God. It means that just like most parents, there comes a time when we expect our children to take care of themselves using the guidance that we have provided.

    “If you love me, babysit your own kids.”

    Blessings,
    Johnny

  71. R.J.:
    Having been a writer most of my life, and a professional writer and analyzer for a good chunk of my professional career, I’ll not that you are competent as a writer, but below “effective” as I envision that word when applied to persuasive writing.

    I think you may want to analyze your own writing. What the hell is an “analyzer,” anyway. I, too, have been a professional writer most of my adult life, and, to tell you the truth, I’ve never encountered an “analyzer.” I’ve known editors, copyeditors, copywriters, reporters, interviewers, rewriters, columnists, publishers, layout artists, graphic designers, agents, and many other denizens of the publishing industry. But I’ve yet to meet an “analyzer.”

    So, as an analyzer, you probably ought to be able to answer this question: When you envision the word “effective,” what does it look like. What kind of font do you see? What color is it? Are the letters close together, or spread out? Is it sitting alone on a page or a screen somewhere, or is it accompanied by other words that you also envision?

    Clearly, I’m dubious that you’re a professional writer. I’ll still readily grant that your written communication abilities do seem to exceed those of many other Christians’. Congratulations! Unlike many of your co-religionists, you’re actually literate. Perhaps you’ve even gotten paid for chugging out some religious screeds. But that doesn’t really make you a professional — except, maybe, in the technical sense. If I were you, I wouldn’t be blowing hard about your writing qualifications, because they’re not borne out by the way you sling the language.

    Of course, I’m no analyzer, so I may be wrong.

  72. RJ,

    I honor the place where you and getting to the point converge.

    Namaste

  73. Posted by Slut on July 31, 2008 at 12:29 am

    Wonderful, wonderful post. I’d like to print this out and hand it to every smug Christian I’ve ever met.

  74. Posted by RJWalker on July 31, 2008 at 10:04 am

    An analyzer is someone who analyzes the material about which he or he writes, including determining whether he or she has sufficient information on which to base opinions.

    I didn’t think it was that tough.

    >>Perhaps you’ve even gotten paid for chugging out some religious screeds. But that doesn’t really make you a professional — except, maybe, in the technical sense. If I were you, I wouldn’t be blowing hard about your writing qualifications, because they’re not borne out by the way you sling the language.

    Actually, before I retired, I used to get paid for analyzing and writing about complex issues of international law and finance. The pay was pretty good.

    Up until now, I haven’t said anything about my writing skills (having merely noted that I had some experience on which to base a critique of others – was it yours? I have insufficient interest now in what you and Chaplain have to say to scroll up) but I haven’t said anything about my own skills.

    I don’t claim to be a great writer – I’m competent at expressing ideas. Every now and again, I can turn a decent phrase.

    Until You and Chaplain learn more about religion and Christianity, whatever your skills of logic analysis and expression, in my experience, you won’t have much of value to say regarding religion.

    Your writing here reminds me of the critiques of young anti-evolutionists – they are almost invariably so insufficiently knowledgeable about evolution that their “critiques” are, at best, humorous, but, more typically, ludicrous.

    I wait Greta’s response.

    Namaste

  75. Posted by goyo on July 31, 2008 at 10:44 am

    Excellent post. These replies and excuses everyone is making are pitiful. Either god is active in the world, or he isn’t. And by active, I mean in people’s personal lives.
    That includes protection for the innocent. Or else, as Greta noted, he’s not worth believing in.
    I was listening to an interview with a soldier that had just returned from Iraq who had been shot in the head and lived. His mom had started a “prayer chain” for him when she heard the news of his injury. He lived, and is now saying that god has a plan for him, and his mom started a website about her son’s miracle healing.
    What about the other guys in his group that were killed? God had a different plan for them?
    What is the “plan”? To continue living, getting married, having kids, and then dying of old age?

  76. Goyo,

    One mistake we can easily make about God is approaching him with a pragmatic philosophy. Another mistake is to assume that God is a staunch democratic provider. Either of these approaches makes God out to be what he isn’t, a provider of all for everyone whether we do for ourselves or not.

    God provides through his teaching, not unlike a parent or any animal who bears young and sends them out to live what they’ve been taught.

    I would not say that if my parents did not stand over my bed all night without sleeping to keep me safe, that they weren’t parents worth having. It is very silly to assume that God is supposed to be some kind of piggy bank for everyone or he’s not God. Over and over, the words of the Bible point to the words of the Bible as being the instructions of God. Nowhere does that instruction tell us that God does not require us to learn, grow, and provide for ourselves.

    As for the mother of a wounded vet, there is no end to the way the mind deals with such a crisis. Just because a person mentions God, does not mean God has anything to do with what they are speaking about. With that said faith in God helps to heal the mind and body from the devastating mental and physical effects of such tragedies. Who are we to diminish whatever means aids in a mother’s healing?

    As far as “prayer chains” go, there is plenty of evidence that proves the power of prayer, whether one attributes that effectiveness to God or to placebo is up for one’s own choice. Either way, prayer is powerful.

    The mysteries of God will always boggle the finite mind. One living and another dying is the way of the world; it has very little to do with whether or not God is taking care of us. In our human minds, dying is a tragedy while living is a reward. Who knows what God may believe about that view? It is natural to want to live, even Jesus said he came to give life and give it to the full. And whether we live or die tragically or peacefully, that is in the hands of one another more than in the hands of God. After all, we are the under shepherds. What have you done to help out a fighting soldier, a neighbor, an enemy? How have you impacted others positively in your would? If you have shared, helped, encouraged, then like it or not, you have done the will of God and fed his sheep, and he thinks you are a child worth having.

    Johnny

  77. RJ:

    I feel extremely confident in saying that Chaplain knows more about Christianity than you do.

    As far as I’m concerned, why do I need to know anything about it? I don’t know much about Rumpelstiltskin, yet I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it’s obviously a fairy tale. Why would I invest any of my precious time studying that kind of nonsense?

  78. Posted by RJWalker on July 31, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    >>Either god is active in the world, or he isn’t.

    And that has something to do with whether He exists?

  79. RJ:
    By the way, you never did answer my question, so I’ll repeat it here:

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  80. The first mistake we can easily make about god is approaching him as if he were real. It’s downhill after that usually.

  81. “Until You and Chaplain learn more about religion and Christianity, whatever your skills of logic analysis and expression, in my experience, you won’t have much of value to say regarding religion.”

    Sorry I missed this one. At first, this seems intelligent and thoughtful, really appealing to the the pluralist, tolerant, liberal sensibilities. On further thought though, it’s borderline stupid.

    Would one have to learn more about killing people in order to say something of value about murder? How much would be enough? How about NAMBLA’s position of having sex with boys? Do you and I not have anything of value to say about that until we’ve at least witnessed a boy being buggered? Perhaps we’d have to bugger one ourselves? Would one be enough? How about drug abuse or alcoholism? Would we have to experience it, understand the culture of addicts before being able to weigh in with anything of value?

    Then of course there’s the most obvious thing of all – where’s the proof for this god? What point is there in studying the rituals, the dogma, the crackers and funny hats associated with the belief when the belief itself is unreasonable? Suppose members of NAMBLA spoke about the value of socializing with other members, charity efforts they put on, the supposed healing factor of praying to have a chance to bugger a boy again, would that matter in the assessment of NAMBLA’s core belief? Would an in depth study of the songs they sing, the literature they write, and so forth have any bearing on your opinion of their core belief?

    So no, I reject this statement wholeheartedly RJ. It’s ridiculous.

  82. Oh I almost forgot…

    Namaste

  83. I just realized that Namaste anagrams to “same ant.” Is that god’s way of saying what he thinks of people who use that word? He does work in mysterious ways, y’know? If he bothers to appear in a Cheeto or a urinal stain, why wouldn’t he want to send special messages to puzzle solvers? By the way, it also anagrams to “man seat,” so maybe that’s god’s eupehemism for “ass.”

  84. Posted by RJWalker on August 1, 2008 at 5:54 am

    Exterminator:

    Please explain the significance of the anagram argument.

    What are the rules of logic and rational analysis, “reason,” in your terms, that lend significance to those anagram “observations.”

    I speculate that trumpeting them as you do actually gives lie to the claim that your group of atheists don’t have their egos tied up in their belief system. I submit that the “anagram argument” demonstrates a desperate need to justify that position.

    >>What frustrates many of us is that some Christians seem to look at the same evidence and say, “I don’t care what reason says, I’m going to follow my heart, tradition, etc. instead,”

    Ahhh, the crux of the matter – I’m sorry I missed it.

    Yes, as a believer in a deity, I am “following my heart.”

    As a believer in laughter, and love, and hate, I do the same. I don’t care what reason says, they exist.

    As I have already noted,faith is belief which cannot be proven.

    It appears that you folks accept only “reason” and “proof.”

    To me, that is very much like the fundamentalist Christians, who accept only the Bible.

  85. Posted by RJWalker on August 1, 2008 at 5:55 am

    >>Then of course there’s the most obvious thing of all – where’s the proof for this god?

    Where is the proof that all that exists is provable?

  86. Posted by Fatalotti on August 1, 2008 at 8:10 am

    RJ reminds me of someone. Myself, a year ago, when I was a egotistical amateur evangelical apologist. I loved that line of reasoning. “The evolutionists put just as much faith in their unproven science as theists put in their unproven God.” I always thought it was the most clever subterfuge for escaping actually answering the damn question.

    But in my relentlessly agonizing struggles as a Christian, one dark trait always cast a shadow over relgiion. To use an earlier example, I may not have faith, nor proof, that when I flip that switch in my livingroom, the lights will go on. But I’ll tell you one thing that light’s not going to do to me, or anyone else for that matter. It’s not going to punish us, temporally or infinitely, for not having said faith.

    I see it this way. The stakes are so goddamn high in religion; you know, the cloud of potential eternal torment lingering over Christianity, and many other religions for that matter, that if even the slightest bit of doubt exists, let alone the mountains of doubt that seem to stand in so many ’seekers’ paths, then something is very wrong with your school of thought. And if this God does exist, he deserves no devotion and certainly no worship.

    Thanks for the blog Chaplain. It’s refreshing to have somewhere to put these thoughts.

  87. “Where is the proof that all that exists is provable?”

    Where’s is the proof that it isn’t?

    Boy, it’s fun answering questions with questions, because then you never have to actually answer anything.

    I honor the place where bullshit ends and answers begin

    Namaste

  88. Posted by RJWalker on August 1, 2008 at 10:55 am

    Ahh. I see we’ve reached the crux of the matter.

    You folks think anything aside from “reason” is bull.

    Except for things like love and hate and laughter, I guess.

    I don’t.

    You have to spurn and insult those with other views.

    Interesting way to prove your point.

    Namaste

    PS: Exterminator – I’ve answered your Fox question several times, although without explicitly mentioning it.

    I didn’t want to insult you by assuming that you couldn’t see the applicability of the concept I’ve expressed to your question.

    PhillyChief:

    >>Boy, it’s fun answering questions with questions, because then you never have to actually answer anything.

    >>I honor the place where bullshit ends and answers begin

    Ah grasshopper. Too bad you don’t know about the Socratic method. I guess that means you haven’t reached Philosophy 101

    .

  89. In the words of a wise and learned marketing genius, “Mean people suck.”

    Can’t we all get along?

    I really am finished here, but feel free to email me. I learn a lot from opposing views, and I welcome your criticisms and comments openly and respectfully.

    Thank you all.

    Johnny

  90. RJ:
    I’ve answered your Fox question several times, although without explicitly mentioning it. I didn’t want to insult you by assuming that you couldn’t see the applicability of the concept I’ve expressed to your question.

    Feel free to insult me. I have a very difficult time understanding multi-leveled religious bullshit. So please answer the questions directly instead of beating around the bush. Don’t give me “concepts” that are “applicable,” or spin me any parables, or answer in the abstract, or link to previous comments or other posts, or give counter-examples. Just answer the questions honestly. In English, which is the language in which the questions are posed. Here, again, is the specific paragraph you should respond to:

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  91. Chaplain – excellent post. I really enjoyed it.

    As for RJ:

    “Until You and Chaplain learn more about religion and Christianity, whatever your skills of logic analysis and expression, in my experience, you won’t have much of value to say regarding religion.”

    The “smart” apologists always seem to end up at The Courtier’s Reply, don’t they? It sounds really great – until you stop and actually think about it a bit.

    Then it’s just stupid again.

  92. RJ,

    1) If it took you this long to realize a group of atheists wouldn’t value irrationality like faith, then I don’t think you’re in a position to criticize anyone else’s intelligence or educational level.

    2) Love and emotions are labels we give to physical functions of the brain and subsequent hormonal effects. You can call all that magic if you want. I don’t care unless you’re going to peddle that stuff as fact. You might be interested in reading Linden’s The Accidental Mind.

    3) I’m quite aware of the Socratic method. What you’re not aware of is you’re not Socrates, not even close, you’re not hosting this dinner party and we’re not all fools sitting around you to be lead by the nose. In fact, I’m not even sure if you deserve a seat at the table. Maybe the kiddie table.

    I honor the place where your arrogance meets reality.

    Namaste

  93. Posted by RJWalker on August 1, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    >>1) If it took you this long to realize a group of atheists wouldn’t value irrationality like faith, then I don’t think you’re in a position to criticize anyone else’s intelligence or educational level.

    Sounds good unless one has dealt with atheists who have studied and learned and thought about the issues and positions with which they disagree and who are willing to consider the views of those with whom thy disagree.

    Once one realizes that there are such atheists, one realizes how far you folks fall short .

    Johnny apparently has seen you as mean.

    I see several of you as sophomoric. With a possible exception: Mr anagram man has a ways to go to meet that lofty ideal.

    Anagrams as argument? As discussion? LOL

    >>I’m quite aware of the Socratic method. What you’re not aware of is you’re not Socrates, not even close,

    I’m completely aware of that, but I’m also aware that his method has been used and useful by all sorts of folks over the millenia

    >>we’re not all fools sitting around you to be lead by the nose.

    I haven’t the slightest bit of interest in leading anyone by the nose or in anyone willing to be lead by the nose.

    All I’ve been looking for are truth seekers.

    As I’ve said, I believe that in order to seek truth, one must be prepared to change one’s mind.

    I was hoping to meet some here.

    Until we here back from Greta, I won’t know if there are any here or not.

    But so far, I haven’t found any one here willing to seek truth and put his or here ideas to the test .

  94. Hey, RJ:

    You left another response here, but you still haven’t answered my series of questions. I’m beginning to think you’re dodging. Anyway, just as a reminder, here they are again:

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  95. “Sounds good unless one has dealt with atheists who have studied and learned and thought about the issues and positions with which they disagree and who are willing to consider the views of those with whom thy disagree”

    So rather than have someone who openly dismisses your belief as unreasonable, you prefer someone who will keep that to himself and just humor your indulgence and quietly put up with your continued ramblings about that indulgence. Now see, I would find that a bit condescending if I were you, and certainly disingenuous, but if that’s what you like and it makes you happy, have fun with that.

    You’re full of shit though when you say you’re looking for truth seekers, unless you’re definition of truth seekers means either:
    • people who will agree with me
    or
    • people who will humor me

    Neither of those types you’ll find here.

    I also find your accusation of sophomoric behavior in light of your own exhibited here as jejune. To call it sophomoric would be an insult to sophomores everywhere. You can of course try to redeem yourself by answering questions which have been asked of you, something a truth seeker would not hesitate to do for others, and certainly anyone expecting answers to their own questions would realize this was a necessity.

    I honor the time when truth becomes what you seek.

    Namaste

  96. Posted by RJWalker on August 2, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    FWIW, some good came from my visit here – it lead me to refresh my study of atheism, including at http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

    Of particular interest (although I don’t agree with everything in it – but I do tend to agree with the criticism of the intolerance of most Christians towards atheists) http://www.religioustolerance.org/mettetal01.htm

    Don’t let the bed bugs bite ….

  97. Funny how after allegedly having such extensive chats with atheists, ones whom you feel those of us here fall short of in comparison, you felt the need to read up on atheism. So were they not what you claimed them to be, were but chose not to cast their pearls before swine so to speak, or perhaps you simply made up all that about having experience talking to such nice atheists? Hmmmm

    I honor the time when your conscience awakes

    Namaste

  98. RJ:

    It’s so nice for us that you’re refreshing your study of atheism. Maybe you’ll learn something this time through. As a way to prompt your thinking, you might want to answer this series of questions. I’ve asked you these quite a few times, but I guess you didn’t notice them.

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  99. Posted by RJWalker on August 3, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Exterminator:

    I have already answered your “Fox” question: but, since you seem to want a specific linkage , the Fox question ignores my position that religious (or any) faith is belief which cannot be proven – whether the “evidence” is on Fox or Huffinton Post or the Bible or the gnostic gospels or any “sacred” text is immaterial to the question of faith.

    You focus exclusively on the seen world. (Been there, done that, have the T-shirt and the bumper sticker.)

    Perhaps you are right to do so.

    And you focus on one specific description of God – the Christian version – and find literal fault with that attempt to describe God. And then conclude that no God exists.

    I focus on God’s second great publication: the world and universe as we know it, and see and feel beyond the immediate sensations, and I believe there is a God – a creator.

    Maybe I’m wrong.

    Certainly, the teleological argument that the universe’s order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god does not prove His existence when invoked solely within the realm of the 5 senses and the ‘visible’ reality.

    But I believe there is more than the sensate reality.

    For those who don’t, the existence of a higher being is unseeable: logic and reason and cold hard fact do not permit such existence.

    Maybe that’s all there is. Maybe not.

    To an extent, I am Platonist – not in the sense that the cave shadows comprised of cold had facts are illusory – but in the sense they reflect another reality

    Is the Bible the only truth of God? About God? I don’t believe so. The Bible is man’s words on man’s paper and is subject to man’s limitations.

    Disproving the classic comics version of Christianity (held by many Christians – all groups have their contingent of “I just want to be feed” types – is but a first step for a true philosophy of atheism. Taking that approach, you next need to grapple with the abridged version, then the unabridged version.

    Let’s assume you’ve knocked off Christianity. Now you have to deal with Judaism and Islam, as we share a God.

    Knock Him off completely, and you’re left with Baal and Shiva and Thor hundreds or thousands of versions of man’s response to life. (You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities)

    Some read Tilloch’s existentialism and end at agnosticism or atheism.

    Others end with more firm belief in Him, albeit letting go of the insistence on a particular set of described features.

    Perhaps man creates God(s) from an existential need for an answer to the basic questions of life. And, perhaps, the creator has intended that psychological phenomenon.

    May I suggest that true, or, shall we say, the best, or perhaps most encompassing atheism doesn’t focus just on disproving Christianity.

    Broaden your critique – deal with the concepts -not the creed, the dogma – and save yourselves the unending slog through the pantheon.

    In my experience, pronouncing something silly neither makes it so nor reflects critical thinking.

    Don’t let the bed bugs bite….

  100. Posted by RJWalker on August 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Philly:

    >>Funny how after allegedly having such extensive chats with atheists, ones whom you feel those of us here fall short of in comparison, you felt the need to read up on atheism.

    You find on-going interest and study “funny?”

    You might consider whether you reveal more about yourself with that argument than about me.

  101. R.J.:
    I have already answered your “Fox” question.

    Actually, you haven’t. What you did do is use a lot of words to deflect my question. That’s typical Christian sneakiness, but you’re not going to get away with it. I didn’t ask you to comment on my “focus,” or to tell me what yours is, or to explain your belief system as it relates to other belief systems. Heck, fella, I just asked you a series of simple questions, which, really, require nothing more than short answers. A child could do it. Here are the questions again. Please don’t make the false claim that you’ve answered them — until you do.

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  102. Posted by RJWalker on August 3, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    >>Heck, fella, I just asked you a series of simple questions, which, really, require nothing more than short answers.

    I gave you a short answer, you didn’t like it.

    I gave you a long answer.

    Same result.

    One more try:

    You talk in terms of evidence.

    I respond that, for me, faith, as belief which cannot be proven” is not subect to evidence or other rational means of analsis.

    Some think rational analysis is all that there is.

    I don’t

  103. R.J.:
    Man, this is getting tiresome. Since you’ve come here uninvited to spout your nonsense, act like a good witness for “the truth” and answer the questions. Not with riddles, or what-ifs, or alternate questions, or suggestions for ways the questions might be rephrased, or exegeses on your opinions about the questions, or lies that you’ve already answered the questions although not in so many words, or with any other weasel-y evasions. They’re simple questions that even an idiot could answer honestly.

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  104. “You find on-going interest and study “funny?”

    Only when that study is remedial, and the student has been boasting exceptional knowledge and experience prior to said study.

    I laugh, but I also applaud your admission of lesser knowledge than you previously lead on. That is a wonderful step in the right direction.

    I honor the place where your humility overtakes your arrogance.

    Namaste

  105. Posted by RJWalker on August 4, 2008 at 9:04 am

    Terminator

    >>Since you’ve come here uninvited

    Seems to me you were the folks who took part of one of Johnny’s blogs and commented on it

    Uninvited.

    Interesting view.

    Re your “question”- perhaps I haven’t expressed nyself well enough: I reject the premise of your question – that all knowledge is based on sensate knowledge.

    Thus, the question itself needs no answer -a question based on false premisses is meaningless.

    PhillyChief:

    I announced that I seek further knowledge in my first post.

    I believe that the search for truth is unending, and I welcome thoughtful views which confound my own.

    >>Wonderful step in the right direction. I see you know the truth.

    In your own eyes.

    Don’t let the bed bugs bite.

  106. I announced that I seek further knowledge in my first post.

    Yes, but you let on that what you had so far was more than what you actually had.

    I honor where your deceptions are shed like old skin

    Namaste

  107. R.J.:
    Re your “question”- perhaps I haven’t expressed nyself well enough: I reject the premise of your question – that all knowledge is based on sensate knowledge…. Thus, the question itself needs no answer -a question based on false premisses is meaningless.
    What a slimy response that is, typical of Christians. “I reject your questions, so I need not answer them.” That’s playground dialogue, suitable for 8-year-olds, not an interchange between adults. So, if you’d like to be a grown-up for a change, I ask you, yet again, the following. (I’m putting my paragraph in boldface this time, because, apparently, you have difficulty reading italics.)

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  108. Posted by RJWalker on August 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    A hearty thanks.

    I think I know why you guys think of yourselves as atheists.

    Don’t let the bedbugs bite.

  109. RJ:
    You’re welcome … but wait! Before you leave, could you answer these questions for me?

    I suggest you go back and read the gospel stories as if they were reported on Fox News, complete with charts, statistics, and doctored graphics. Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous? Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News? How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”? Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?

  110. I think I know why you call yourself a truth seeker, you talk about your pretend friends as real, why you pretend to know more than you do and why you avoid answering questions.

    I honor where your ego lets go of the last word.

    Namaste

  111. I posted this on Flocks diner, but it’s better suited for this site.

    At that moment, I decided that the boy’s smile has to be a gift from God. How else could a smile so beautiful be explained from a child who had been through such misery.

    It’s wonderful that “god” was so willing to give you the gift of a smile – what about a gift for the suffering child? Apparently a smile is more important than any of the billion and a half things “god” could have done to stop the monster – having him make a mistake, be seen, drop dead, get scared, change his damaged mind, etc.

    The child was hard-wired to do things that make adults respond; children who smiled were better survivors because that, combined with the instincts adults have to respond to children, helped those genes survive.

    Imagine the things “god” could do. What if pedophilia were genetically linked with a heart condition – pedophiles could drop dead and we’d have no hint “god” was doing it, so no challenged to faith.

    Ridiculous to believe that “god” so loves us, but so hates this child, that he/she/it would let the child suffer, with limited cognitive ability, and then die. Faith really can justify anything, no matter how disgusting and vile – it’s the universal apologetic of evil.

  112. Posted by Tokeloshe on August 5, 2008 at 6:09 am

    “Please prove Occam’s Razor, inductively or deductively.”

    Occam’s Razor isn’t a scientific theory or law. It is a method. If the simplest solution is proven wrong via testing the next simplest is tested, until the real answer is reached.

    It has resulted in a popular concept whereby it is used as a rule of thumb, but it isn’t a law in and of itself.

  113. Posted by Joreth on August 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Exterminator:

    Perhaps you need to break it down even further for him? Instead of making the answer be “essay”, make it multiple choice or true/false – y’know, the way 8-year olds answer test questions.

    1) Would you believe them, or would your gut tell you that they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous?
    A) I would believe
    B) My gut would tell me they’re mendacious, childish, and potentially dangerous

    2) Would you then seek evidence apart from the assertions you heard on Fox News?
    A) I chose A above so I would not seek evidence.
    B) I chose A above so I would seek evidence to have support for my beliefs.
    C) I chose B above so I would not bother seeking evidence.
    D) I chose B above so I would seek evidence to confirm or deny the account because I do not hold beliefs or disbelief of any sort without some sort of evidence to support them and I’m willing to let go of my disbelief with adequate evidence.

    3) How would you feel if no evidence was forthcoming, and if, in fact, there seemed to be a great deal of evidence arguing against the truth of Fox’s “information”?
    A) I chose A both times above, so I would ignore any lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.
    B) I chose B above so I would seriously re-consider my initial belief in light of contrary evidence.
    C) I chose C above so this would not surprise me at all and would only confirm my gut reaction.
    D) I chose D above and therefore feel vindicated when the evidence turned up to support my gut reaction, possibly spurring a truth-campaign to correct the gross injustice of bad reporting that millions of Americans bought into hook, line and sinker.

    4) Would you still respect Fox’s ideas, or would you dismiss them as mere propaganda dispersed to further an agenda of some sort?
    A) I chose A above so of course I would still respect Fox’s ideas.
    B) I initially believed but reconsidered after contrary evidence came to light, so I would also now begin to suspect Fox’s ideas.
    C) I initially disbelieved and didn’t bother to research it because it was patently, obviously false, so I probably never respected Fox’s ideas to begin with.
    D) I may or may not have ever respected Fox’s belief, but airing this kind of story in the face of contrary evidence would definately make me lose respect for them.

  114. Posted by Joreth on August 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    I suppose I should have included an option like:

    B.2) I initially believed and reconsidered after contrary evidence came to light, but the story just feels true, so I suspect the “contrar evidence” of somehow being false. Therefore I will continue to respect Fox’s ideas.

  115. Joreth:
    Excellent analysis of the complex issues involved. And hilarious, too. Nicely done!

  116. The best (to me at least) version of Okham’s Razor I have come across is: “Don’t multiply entities without necessity.” In other words, if a phenomenon can be explained without resort to the supernatural, don’t invoke the supernatural.

  117. That’s not the God described in the Bible in the first place, no matter what “God found my parkingspace” lady says happened at the mall.

    I think that this is a good point. I have heard atheists, when asked what it would take to change their minds, say “If God came down with the Four Horsemen and trumpets blaring, etc.” then I would finally get down on my knees and pray.

    The problem that with that idea is that it is a good answer to a different question, “What would it take to make you a Christian who believes in the apocalyptic vision.” The answer really says nothing about God, it says more about a rejection of a parochial vision of God.

    So, the idea that God doesn’t protect us when horrible things happen just shows to me that we live in a capricious world with very bad people; it says nothing to me about the existence or non-existence of the Christian Protector God.

    I do agree that this idea of God is stupid and selfish, Chaplain.

    Good addtiion to the COTG, BTW!

  118. Posted by Postman on August 18, 2008 at 10:54 am

    As it turns out, the real reason He doesn’t help kids is because they seem to annoy the Bejesus out of Him:

    http://deusexeverriculum.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/dear-little-children-of-the-world/

  119. Mike:
    Thanks for your comment.

    Postman:
    Thanks for the comment and the link to your piece.

  120. [...] To beginning babysitters need help: Oh, dear. I’m not running any babysitting, home economics or parenting classes this semester. Try your local high school or community college. But, whatever else you do, please do not take babysitting lessons from God! [...]

  121. I always think God must have a really hard time every year at the soccer tournament season. What a hassle. So many people asking for the trophy for their own team? How the hell does he decide that! I would retire.

  122. crazyasuka – thanks for coming to the chapel. I read in Chicken Soup for Soccer Moms that God tosses a coin before each match. Having thus fixed the outcome, he immediately heads to the nearest bar and downs a beer or three, enough to make the prayers of all those moms fuzzy enough to add a bit o’ bite to his buzz.

  123. I think the advocates of the atheistic position need to do a more thoughtful analysis of the problem of evil. When it comes to the discipline of theodicy, Plantinga’s free will defense which is summarized here is a good start when examining the problem of evil.

  124. @ David Bergen:

    “The problem of evil” is a problem for theists, not atheists. The atheist position is that shit happens. We don’t need to examine the matter any further.

    Theists are the ones who have to reconcile free will, divine sovereignty, an omni-max deity and the fact that shit happens. Plantinga’s argument is only persuasive if one agrees that his premises are a) acceptable, or at least plausible, and b) inclusive of all the major factors required to examine the matter. If I were a theist, I would not consider a syllogism consisting of four premises and a conclusion a good start to such an examination.

  125. I think any advocate for Christianity should do his homework and:
    1) not presume atheists he encounters haven’t heard such elementary arguments before
    2) have a better understanding of the arguments he’s bringing to the table

    The problem of evil is indeed a problem for Christians who believe their god is all powerful, all knowing and all good. Those three things are irreconcilable with the existence of evil, so every apologetic for the problem of evil essentially removes one of those four things. Plantinga’s apologetic, what you call the “free will defense”, removes the all powerful element, btw.

    Laughable article David, but then it’s perfect for such a laughable wiki, so nice work.

  126. I probably shouldn’t bring it up without being able to siet the reference, but there is a verse of Bible scripture that says in effect “if not for the existence of evil we could not know that God is good.” Good and evil are opposites in a dychotomy. If there was no evil, then in a subjective sense there would be no such thing as good either. The existence of good and evil could be in the plan of God, without taking away from his divine nature of being all good, all powerful and all knowing.

  127. Clark:

    Thanks for your comment. You realize, of course, that I don’t accept passages from any holy book as authoritative. The good-evil dichotomy you described is a Christian construct that inadequately rationalizes the “problem of evil” and an “omni-max” deity. Your solution, that the existence of good and evil could be in God’s plan preserves God’s omnipotence (which is sacrificed through redefinition in the free will arguments of Plantinga and others), but sacrifices God’s omnibenevolence. God cannot be all-good while being the creator – or, at the very least, an enabler – of evil. That position is logically incoherent.

  128. And that’s another example of removing one of the four. If the existence of evil serves your god’s plan, than it can’t be evil, can it? If your god is all good, then his plan is all good, and if evil serves the plan, then it therefore is a good thing and you’ve removed evil from the equation.

    Furthermore, if your god is incapable of creating beings who can recognize good without having to compare it to evil, then he’s either not all powerful or he’s not all knowing, since he couldn’t figure out a better way. FAIL

    Next.

  129. [...] Dies, but God Finds Keys 2009 March 29 by the chaplain You may recall that I wrote a piece last summer in which I asserted, citing a Christian source, that God is a lousy babysitter. I’m sorry to [...]

  130. ok, I admit that things go wrong in the world all the time. Kids are raped, children are starving, people are murdered, but let me tell you somthing, it is OUR FAULT! We were put on this Earth by God because we have to learn right from wrong. Even if we KNOW right from wrong things can still go bad. There are people in the world who don’t care about it at all and and say F**k it, and murder and rape others. God put us here to make decisions. We have Earth so we can be good people and do well. In a way Earth is like a training center. Why would we we be on Earth otherwise? Everybody can’t go to heaven. The people who do bad in the world WILL pay and WILL go to hell for it. Sometimes good people die because of those bad people, but God knows what a good person you were and you will go to heaven for it. He can’t intervene when a child gets killed or when someone does bad because it is OUR decision what we do. On Earth we can do whateeever we want even if there are rules. It’s OUR choice. If we do bad, we go to hell. Only if it’s somthing like killing and not believing in god. others too. God put us here to make decisions. We have to make our way to heaven. Good people will die, will get hurt, will suffer, but it is not God’s fault. He created us, he gave us life, he gave us somewhere to live. We have a chance. The people who say God helped me find the wedding dress I wanted, find the right amount of ketchup I needed, or anything like that, what they don’t realize is he did not help you. It just happened. He does not intervene. It is up to us to survive and do right in the world. that is why we are here. He could have made us all good people and all go to heaven but he doesn’t want that. He wants people to believe in him and do good on their own. Some people can’t do that. They arn’t capable of doing it. It is not God’s fault. God will make sure that any child that has been hurt and was a good child will be in God’s house. The people who commit the crime… will go to hell if they do not beg for forgivness. I know that seems like letting them off the hook, but they have to mean it. Not just to escape going to hell when they die. This article is selfish. You don’t think about what God did for us. You don’t think about how it’s the person’s fault who commit the crime. You blame it on God. That’s crazy. YOU try controlling the entire world. I’d like to see it. I really would. You WILL go to hell if you don’t fix your attitude and believe in God.

  131. Erica:
    Thanks for dropping into the chapel.

    *****
    You said, “Kids are raped, children are starving, people are murdered, but let me tell you somthing, it is OUR FAULT!

    I agree. People do all sorts of stuff – some of it is good, some of it is bad.

    *****
    You also said, “He does not intervene.”

    Does this mean that you don’t pray? Good for you. Prayer is a colossal waste of time.

    *****
    This bit is interesting – “Earth is like a training center. Why would we we be on Earth otherwise?”

    Earth is not a training center, it just is. Moreover, we aren’t on Earth for any purpose, we – like the Earth on which we live – just are. That’s cool, because that means that we get to create our own purposes rather than wasting our lives acting as if this existence is just the rehearsal. This isn’t the rehearsal – it’s the whole show. I find that exciting.

    *****
    You shot your big guns at me when you said, “You don’t think about what God did for us.”

    God hasn’t done anything for us. What has he/she/it done for you? And, if he/she/it has done something for you, doesn’t that contradict your contention that he/she/it doesn’t intervene in human affairs? You can’t have it both ways – God doesn’t intervene, except when he does.

    *****
    Later on you said, “You blame it on God.”

    Now, that’s silly; why would I blame anything on a being in whom I don’t believe?

Respond to this post