New Atheist Billboards in California:"I Believe in Humanity, Not god"

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm sorry you feel that you or anyone else is 'having' to listen to Dawkins. No wonder there's never a dull moment for you, with Dawkins inside your head, filling it with shite whenever God looks the other way.

Love,

Caz
X

It is a blight, Caz, and thanks for the concern. I haven't heard nor seen of him for a while so things are looking up. Maybe he's found God and is keeping his head down for a while before announcing the unthinkable.

Anyway, it's just that God is far more interesting than Dawkins.

Dawkins says: "There is no God and anyone who believes in God is a lunatic, come with me and we'll analyse a 3,000 year old pebble in an attempt to find traces of a stick insect that lived a billion years ago. There won't be a trace of humour; just me relentlessly ranting about God, small stones and pointless extinct creatures".

Whereas God says: "Come with me, there's milk and honey, and angels sat in bath tubs half naked; happiness abounds, pleasures for everyone, no petty squabbling and bickering, and there are no scientists because small extinct creatures are resurrected and there's no need for their humourless kind".

It's God for me, any day of the week.

[Ally]

First off: I'm not "faith based".

Whereas God says: "Come with me, there's milk and honey, and angels sat in bath tubs half naked; happiness abounds, pleasures for everyone, no petty squabbling and bickering, and there are no scientists because small extinct creatures are resurrected and there's no need for their humourless kind".

It's God for me, any day of the week.

[Magpie]

Here's my person "War on Xmas" story from a couple of years ago.

I was involved in a (I though minor) issue at work concerning religious holidays. Each year my employer releases a list of religious holidays from various religions, and adherents are permitted to take up to two "discretionary" days to observe their holidays. Glancing over the list, I noticed that will even minority religions like Scientology, Wicca, etc. were included, Taoism was not. So I went to my supervisor, who is also my union rep (and coincidentally a devout Catholic) to ask why such an extensive list had such an obvious omission, and was promptly blown off. So I went to my manager and asked the same thing, and she didn't know, told me she'd look into it. Many weeks and several frustrating discussions with HR later, my employer came up with a compromise solution--they wouldn't change the official list, but if any Taoists requested the time, it would be treated as if it were on the list. No biggie, score one for diversity and move on.

Shortly after this, in the midst of Xmas season, I'm working merrily away, and I look up and everyone's missing. Then they start reappearing with heaping plates of food and start noshing away in their cubies. I ask my supervisor what's going on and she informs me that today was the annual pot-luck lunch. I quickly check my email--nothing--and I ask if there was a memo sent out. Her reply "Oh, I didn't send you a copy--I didn't think you'd be interested."

I've known this woman for about 15 years. I've never refused to participate in the Xmas potluck (or any Xmas activity that doesn't require me to dress up as anything or sing). And while my atheism was hardly a secret, my religion had never come up at work until that summer's issue (which wasn't that much of an issue). Even that was so low-key that if I hadn't be required to take it to her first, she'd never have known about it.

From that day I was more or less shut out of virtually all Xmas activities at work (excepting those that involve extorting money in the name of charity).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Ally,

It was an attempt at humour. Not my best effort by a long chalk, but please, now and again, discern the literal from the light hearted.

I've already laid it out but for the benefit of the hard of hearing I'll go round the houses again.

I think there probably isn't a God; I tend to be a 'seeing is believing' type of person. Having said that, I have no problem with religion. I hold no truck with the 'religion is the root of all evil' philosophy, and I use the word 'philosophy' liberally here because it really is base animal ignorance to suggest such a thing.

Christian virtues hold merit. It's a philosophy that allows people to dream; it instructs that it's nice to be nice; it tacitly and explicitly encourages order in this world. Now, these are all qualities and beliefs that I myself practice in the real world away from a keyboard. It follows thus I can appreciate the values of Christianity. Someone will pipe up on about the 'untold destruction at the hands of Christianity' and to be frank I couldn't even be bothered to counter such a notion. In the event that is your opinion, then no bother; it's not mine.

And, yes, in all seriousness I prefer people who follow a religion to atheists. It's only a preference I have and certainly not worth into going into a decline over, nor fighting with all the other dogs.

[Wickerman]

Riddle of Epicurus - ca. 300 BCE

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

[Fleetwood Mac]

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

Don't be so sure. It would be lackadaisical to think we have the answers. To which world do we compare ourselves with? Any option can only be evaluated by comparison. And, how do we know what is good unless we have evil? A false dichotomy to many, but I think you get my point.

[Ginger]

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

Epicurus is pretty easily answered. A god who makes it impossible for his creatures to do evil also makes it impossible for them to do good. The choices we make, and the intentions behind those choices, rather than their outcomes, determine our moral natures. That's a logical answer whether one believes in a god or not.

A much harder question for believers to answer is why God would allow apparently needless pain. When you break your arm, for instance, the disabling pain serves an obvious purpose. How, though, may one account for chronic pain that has no protective purpose?

[Robert]

I'm not sure I understand the last two posts. If a comparison is sought, then look no further than the Kingdom of Heaven, which is supposed to be a blessed place without suffering. And if one needs evil in order to have good, then is god capable of evil? Most Christians would say not.

Actually I do believe that virtue isn't worth much without evil - as did Nietzsche. But then Freddie and I aren't Christians.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not sure I understand the last two posts. If a comparison is sought, then look no further than the Kingdom of Heaven, which is supposed to be a blessed place without suffering. And if one needs evil in order to have good, then is god capable of evil? Most Christians would say not.

Actually I do believe that virtue isn't worth much without evil - as did Nietzsche. But then Freddie and I aren't Christians.

Robert,

I reckon the argument would go that in order to appreciate what is good in this world then you must have acts/incidents that are termed 'evil'.

[Wickerman]

Don't be so sure. It would be lackadaisical to think we have the answers.

Seeing as how all the questions of theology originate with us, then naturally we also have all the answers. This is after all only theology not science.

To which world do we compare ourselves with?

How many 'worlds' are there?

Epicurus is pretty easily answered.

Philosophical studies over the last two thousand years then, must have been a waste of time?

A god who makes it impossible for his creatures to do evil also makes it impossible for them to do good.

By what sequence of logic?
Epicurus expresses a flow of logic - If, And/Or = Therefore...

A much harder question for believers to answer is why God would allow apparently needless pain. When you break your arm, for instance, the disabling pain serves an obvious purpose. How, though, may one account for chronic pain that has no protective purpose?

Not sure I understand this, what protective purpose?
Pain is an indication of something amiss, whether it be a broken arm or the result of heart disease.

[Robert]

Hi FM

I agree that things are more valued if they have to be struggled for or are in some sense endangered. But then, the world didn't have to be set up like this - at least, not according to Christians, who believe in the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

"Pain is an indication of something amiss"
and that's why I don't keep fit.

[Magpie]

And if one needs evil in order to have good, then is god capable of evil? Most Christians would say not.

Many do, but they would be incorrect, at least Biblically:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

[Errata]

Many do, but they would be incorrect, at least Biblically:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

It's why I was always fond of the baphomet image of god. All about the balance.

[Limehouse]

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14