We have established that god hates figs, but it’s difficult to understand why god hates Haiti. To watch the Jobian tribulations being imposed on that poor country, someone with a religious bent would have to conclude that the Haitians did something to royally piss god off. First, a massive earthquake devastates the country earlier this year, leaving millions to live in conditions that most countries would find deplorable. Then cholera steps in to add insult to injury, possibly brought there by relief workers. Today Hurricane Tomas is dumping tons of water on the country, and whipping it into a froth with high winds. In a country where a corrugated sheet of metal is called home, this can only result in a disaster of major proportions.
“We know that, particularly with flooding and mudslides, there’s going to be a loss of life,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said during a press briefing in Washington. “It’s inevitable.”
So what did they do to incur the Wrath of Yahweh? Is Pat Robertson correct that Haiti’s paying for a centuries old pact with the devil?
Obviously, those questions are rhetorical, because Yahweh doesn’t exist, and Pat Robertson’s a delusional moron. What I’m really asking is “Why do religious people not see this as evidence that god doesn’t exist?” How can anyone look at Haiti, and what that country is going through, and still believe in god?
Haiti is a nominally Roman Catholic country, though much of the population have bastardized their beliefs by mixing them with voodoo. About 85% of the country professes to be Catholic. Either way, though, their belief in the existence of god and/or supernatural forces is strong.
Contrast Haiti with a country like, say, Sweden. Sweden is nominally a Lutheran country.
As of 2009, 71.3% of the Swedes were members of the church, a drop of nearly 2% compared to 2008. Less than 4 percent of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2 percent are regular attendees.
23% of Swedes do not believe there is a god, with 17% actually self identifying as atheist. While Swedes tend to belong to the Church of Sweden, only 1 out of 10 believe religion is important, and, as seen above, a very small percentage actually attend services regularly. In short, Sweden is pretty far down on any measurements of religiosity. Yet, Sweden enjoys a very nice standard of living, no hurricaines or earthquakes, and suffers very little that could be construed as divine displeasure.
One would think that an all merciful god, the one that coincidentally most Christians believe in, would send hurricaines to Sweden and provide for a much higher standard of living in Haiti. But the opposite is true.
Good evidence, in my opinion, that either god hates Haiti (and loves Sweden) for unknown reasons or – he doesn’t exist.
I guess God doesn’t like Indonesia either, with all the tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
It is interesting how only those who believe in sin get punished for sinning. Perhaps if you don’t buy into it, you’re outside of Yahweh’s jurisdiction.
I guess you haven’t been tuning into the latest WBC broadcasts, John, because Fred Phelps has definitely stated that God does, in fact, hate Sweden. So, they aren’t getting off the hook, rest assured. You have Christian relatives there or something? 😉
John, I’m going to say this real slow so you can get it… the whole world made a pact with the devil by default when it denied it’s creator, just as you and your fellow atheist parishioners verify and do, here, every day. Haiti has no monopoly on sin, it just exemplifies it in less subtle terms. I mean, do you see your average American infidel sticking pins in effigies of their enemies or sacrificing their enemies’ family pets or even their children to their myriad of gods while doped to the gills on hallucinogenics? No, by gum, here in civilized infideldom, we do it in more evolved and sophisticated ways! Got a beef with your neighbor? Shoot the bastard through his living room window… or, if you’re of higher birth and breeding, sue the shit outta him and only make him wish he was dead when he’s left with no pot to piss in!
But, you know, I think you need to make up your mind, John. First, you dogmatically assert there is no God, then you finish up saying that there probably isn’t a God, given the “lack of evidence”… a highly subjective statement at best. Also, it’s a common albeit inexcusable trait in atheists to demand performance from God even when He has plainly said in His Word that no one has the right to expect anything good from a world (dominated by infidels and pagans) that is not destined to last. The Gospel message preaches salvation and preservation for ETERNITY and the world that is yet future… built upon the ashes of this one. Atheists always overlook this point, because, it tends to get in the way of their favorite pastime – bitching about and defaming God and Christians.
Look around you, John, at those less fortunate. Now… do you REALLY have it so bad? God hasn’t leveled your house with a hurricane or obliterated your family with pestilence, lately, has He? Maybe He’s guilty of favoritism on top of everything else, eh, John?
Life’s not so bad, (for you) is it?
Is this Christine O’Donnell?
He’s our Christine O’Donnell.
Perhaps God is trying to tell the Haitians they should totes clear off his fave place to vacay?
That or the apocalypse is going to happen there. But I’m going to guess the Almighty just wants to tan without the peasants bothering him with questions about the meaning of life and shit.
Maybe he’s just racist.
Hi Jenn. LTNS 🙂
Hi, Jenn. It’s good to see you again.
@ Gideon / Christine O’Donnell
I’m going to say this really slow so you can understand. You dogmatically assert that we have no right to expect ‘performance from God even when He has plainly said in His Word that no one has the right to expect anything good from a world (dominated by infidels and pagans) that is not destined to last.’
The number of false assumptions you made in that one little nugget of insanity are staggering. 1. You assume there is a God. 2. You assume that God has an interest in humans. 3. You assume that God is so interested that he would deign to speak to creatures who are less to him than an atom is to us. 4. You assume that God would reveal some manner of will to said creatures. 5. You assume that said creatures could adequately understand that message. 6. You assume that they adequately translated that message and accurately recorded it. 7. You assume that the present incarnation of said message is in fact the message and that said message is in fact true. 8. You assume all of the foregoing despite voluminous evidence that NONE of the above are actually true or are, at best, utterly incapable of any analysis of their truth.
Your SOLE evidence for the truth of said book is that said book CLAIMS that it is a work of divine authorship, a claim made by hundreds of other sacred books throughout history. Indeed, that is definitionally speaking, what makes a book ‘sacred.’
Yo, Jeffy…
Well, son, if all of the “voluminous” evidence you speak of is so conclusive, then why is it that you infidels FAIL on every one of those and the points you just made when you all post diatribes akin to the one John, here, did? If God isn’t real, methinks that He’s real enough in the tormented minds of atheists that they go to the lengths that they do to slam Him. Also, don’t transfer any of those unnatural lusts you harbor for O’Donnell onto me, I’m not one of those rump-busters that so often find aid and comfort, here .
As for my “sole” source of inspiration concerning my faith in God, I’d probably be hard pressed to find out anything about Him in any other publication but HIS, now, wouldn’t I? I sure wouldn’t find out anything useful about him in any infidel-inspired ‘science’ book, right? Did you come by your denseness naturally, boy, or did you have to work at it?
John, I’m flattered that you’d name your blog after me… *sniff*… brings a tear to my eye! C’mere, you big infidel lug, you! {{{{{HUGS}}}}}
It’s such a comfort to know one is loved!
🙂
Lust for O’Donnell? You must be either blind or broke to put her name and lust in the same sentence. Hey wait, I can play that sick game to, watch this.
Hillary, porn
See, wait I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Add this to the already long list of assertions made lacking the requisite evidence to back it up.
Speaking of “denseness”, what evidence is there that the so-called “word of God” was written by anything other than humans? Oh, and don’t retreat to the unfalsifiable “god operated through humans” canard. At that point, heaping mockery upon you would be obligatory.
Jeffrey
Welcome to GideonWorld™. You must have taken a wrong turn on the Rationality Highway, blundered down Lollipop Lane, through Magic Meadows right into Delusional Junction. You turned right when a left turn would have brought you to Reality, but now you’re stuck in the delusion we call Gideon.
Nice to have you though. Stick around. 8)
I was going to comment on that guys blog, but I didn’t want to be the FIRST one.
Someone’s got to do it! Or maybe not. 😀
Has Gideon opened another blog? What happened to the old ones?
I admit, I’m a little new to some of the conversations on this topic, but I don’t understand why its the atheists who have to prove their point. Just saying. We’re not the ones saying something exists that can’t be seen, touched, etc…..
You correctly don’t understand. We atheists are not making any claims, though believers try to pin that on us because they incorrectly define atheism as a belief that there are no gods. That’s antitheism and it is a claim which itself needs justification. Atheists simply do not accept the claim that there is a god(s). Theists indeed have the burden of proof since they are the ones making a claim. They have yet to meet it, which is an understatement.
As you get into more and more discussions with theists, you will realize that their whole world view is based on nothing more than logic fallacies. You are very likely to run into the Argument from Ignorance (“we don’t know how the universe started therefor god”), Argument from Personal Incredulity (“I can’t fathom how all of this come to be therefor god”), False Dichotomy (“evolution is wrong therefor god”), Infinite Regression (“everything has a cause therefor the universe has a cause that is god, but I will arbitrarily assert that nothing caused god”), or arguments based on bad premises (anything William Lane Craig has ever said).
We shouldn’t, but we do because the majority opinion is (or is feigned to be) that a god exists, so like it or not, we’re placed in a position of explaining why we’re not on the bandwagon. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that because it’s really easy to explain why I wouldn’t accept such a claim and even to show how they wouldn’t either for anything else other than their god character.
*waves*
I’m still reading when work doesn’t bury me.
“You correctly don’t understand. We atheists are not making any claims… yada, yada…”
Oh yes, you are! Through your actions and words you dogmatically assert that there is NO God, or evidence of God, and that Christians are illogical, etc. You’re making the not-so-subtle statement that you are more intelligent than any Christian, which, is decidedly unprovable, (like many of your evolutionary theories) and, therefore, unscientific. If you’re making unprovable, unscientific statements and trying to pass them off as empirical truth, that is illogical as well as dishonest and hypocritical. In other words, you’re just one of hundreds of pompous-assed infidels I’ve encountered that claim to subscribe to a non-belief system that is not true atheism at all, it’s merely another faith that is built up primarily upon a derivative of pagan nature-worship, which is what evolution essentially is.
With that, you’re also a hypocrite in accepting evolution (as most “atheists” do) over special creation while still allowing for the possible existence of God, which, atheism, understood in it’s proper context, condones. Evolution is only possible without the possibility of the existence of a deity. Your esteemed guru, Richard Dawkins, has admitted that there could be god-like beings in existence, but, denies that God, Himself, exists. Another hypocrite! Your other esteemed guru, Christopher Hitchens, however, correctly labels himself as an antitheist in that he denies the possibility of any god or God existing. He, at least, knows what he’s talking about with regard to his claims, unlike you and your buddy Dawkins.
Also, I have all the evidence that I need to reach a logical conclusion that God exists and that He still has a hand in the affairs of this world. Because you won’t or are not smart enough to see what I see, doesn’t negate that assurance that I have. Perhaps I have insight you don’t possess, therefore, it’s illogical for you to assume that I’m wrong when you don’t have my perspective. I, too, have no need to justify anything that I claim. I only rebut what others arrogantly and dogmatically try and assert over me.
So, sonny, before you start trying to school anyone about what they ought to believe, make sure that you, yourself, know what you believe… and, based upon past performance, I’d say it’s a safe bet you’re wrong!
Okay. I don’t state that there is no evidence of god. There could be. But I have simply never seen any evidence which I would consider as being evidence for god. Not the same thing. And I’ve never said Christians or followers of any belief are illogical. I do think that in this specific case they are not using logic, however. Again, not what you are accusing me of. And while there is a trend that the higher the intelligence the less likely one is to believe in a god, there are many intelligent Christians, Muslims, Jews, Jains, etc., I firmly believe that on this matter I am being smarter than they are. And where did I claim that there is not god? I have never made this claim. Even if I did, this would still not remove the burden of proof from you for your claim that god exists. Thus I plead innocent to all charges.
I LOVE this screed-
Total bullshit, but well written. Too bad evolution is a conclusion based on evidence from amazingly disparate disciplines- paleontology, geology, molecular biology, embryology, comparative morphology, evolutionary development, genetics, and on and on. Have you even read a book on evolution? Not one of those filled with idiotic nonsense like those written by non-experts at the Disco Institute, but one written by a researcher in the field of evolutionary biology? No faith required. Evolution is a fact. Deal.
Sure. If you want to believe it, go for it. But don’t tell me that I should believe it as well and not present that evidence. Once you do that, all the self-assurance in the world will not immunize you from utter mockery. And who is trying to assert non-belief over you? You came here, to an atheist’s blog. We didn’t go over there. You don’t get to come on here, assert the existence of God and refuse to meet your burden of proof and expect anything but mockery. This playground crap is unbecoming, unless you’re trolling. Or a masochist perchance?
Nor are we trying to impose enforced prayer in public schools, raise monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouses that are irrelevant to western legal systems, make discriminatory laws based on sexual orientation or gender, make religion-based public policy such as the recently reversed decision to ban stem cell research or push spectacularly counterproductive abstinence-only sex ed programs. Name me one example where atheists have done anything remotely similar. Just one that isn’t a complete distortion of reality (e.g., “they’re trying to ban prayer in schools!” No, we’re not.). Please explain how the less-than-20% minority is pushing you around. “Help! Help! I’m being repressed!” Yeah. Right.
You’re right. It would be wrong to do that. The problem for you is that your subjective experience is not in any way shape or form evidence for anyone else. “Witnessing” is a useless exercise. Not because we don’t listen, but because it carries no weight as evidence. If you’ve had some experience that convinces you, great. I haven’t.
Sure Dawkins admits to the possibility that some god exists. But don’t confuse the possible with the probable. It is only intellectual honesty (something I find sorely lacking in strident believers, including yourself) which obliges him to say that. If pressed, he would even acknowledge that evolution doesn’t happen. Does Dawkins think there is a real possibility that some god exists or that evolution is incorrect? I hardly think so. And don’t lecture me on understanding atheism. I AM an atheist. You are not, and have demonstrated your ignorance and prejudice on the matter clearly. And note the false dichotomy- special creation must happen if there is a god so that acknowledging the possibility of a god makes him and I hypocrites. Says who?
But you misunderstand something else, and wrongly. You seem to do that a lot. Go figure. Evolution was never the starting point for my atheism. Even if we did not understand how the variety of species came about (you can deny this till you are blue in the face – and it sounds like you are – but biology simply can not be understood except within the context of evolution), it would not lend one iota of support to any form of special creation, not even the typical short-bus special. That’s another false dichotomy. The reason I am an atheist is because I have yet to see any good evidence for the existence of ANY deity, not just your version. What is usually presented as evidence by strident believers such as yourself (as I described in another comment on this blog entry) are things like “How can all this have come to be without God? Therefor God.” or “I can’t believe that all this complexity could have randomly happened, therefor God.” These are arguments, not evidence. And BAD arguments steeped in logic fallacies to boot.
I have come to expect insults and ad hominem from believers such as yourself, like calling me “sonny” or a hypocrite. And I am likely older than you. I just have one question- Now, who’s your daddy?
Correction: “If pressed, he would even acknowledge that evolution doesn’t happen.” should read “If pressed, he would even acknowledge that evolution might be wrong.” Whoops.
I think you give him far too much credit.
Gawd’s real problem with Haiti is that He loves trees. Much of the havoc and devastation we’ve seen in Haiti is Gawd’s payback for that nation’s sin of deforestation.
“Now, who’s your daddy?”
LOL! Certainly not you! Most preschoolers could have followed my analysis of your interpretive deficiencies, but, then, most "atheists" I've had the… uh… 'pleasure' of dealing with aren't real strong in the listening department. No slur intended, there, Shameless, just an observation that you're obviously more into telling than hearing. You're in good company on this site, btw. You'll feel right at home. (See, John? I just plugged ya!) 😉
I dunno… let's try this again. Yes, you DO dogmatically and assertively claim there isn't any God, which, by your own admission is decidedly un-atheist, by default. By default, in that you accept and share without reservation, through thought and deed and association, the opinions of all the other infidels, here, their theory of evolution. I previously stated and now reiterate that evolution, as dogmatically presented, effectively negates the presence or existence of a deity, i.e. God. Therefore, you cannot be who and/or what you claim to be. The person you indirectly labeled as ignorant, perhaps dishonest about their claims, Chris Hitchens, is the only infidel I know that is actually living up to his credo. It's useless denying it, Shameless, you can't take back what you've said. "False dichotomy's" don't enter into anything, here, I'm just explaining to you what you don't understand about yourself.
And, in anticipating a dissection of the term I used to describe Hitchens' status, yes, your supposed "atheism" consistently and unwaveringly promotes evolution, which is a derivative of ancient paganism, the worship of nature, i.e. "Mother Nature". You ascribe our origin and being to the unconscious and involuntary actions of lifeless matter somehow imbuing itself with the power of creating not only life, but, sentient life, conveniently, of course, leaving out the myriad of attending deities your pagan predecessors inserted in order to present a viable alternative and replacement for the one true God. Your religion is certainly more sophisticated, given the advance of so-called science (to obscure and confuse it's real identity) and the passage of time, (another useful tool in the hands of those that cannot provide observable evidence for their unobserved/unobservable theories) yet, nevertheless, it remains the scion of it's pagan progenitor.
You "atheists", too, seem to think that science is something that you came up with and that it somehow hobbles Christian theology. It's really a mystery to me, that one, as to what dark and damp orifice you pulled that out of! (Well, not really!) All I have ever maintained is that any credible science should result in the revelation and realization that life is too complex to have just "happened" and "evolved" all on it's own. I realize I'm getting into some deep intellectual territory, now, for an "atheist" mind to try and follow, being as it doesn't follow their interpretation of empirical analysis. Nevertheless, logic (again, rightly interpreted) dictates that something can't come from nothing, much less prosper and progress, despite all of these new quantum theories that are crawling out of the woodwork. (By the way, I was studying Quantum Mechanics/Theory back in the late sixties and seventies, before my 'evolution' to Christianity – what were you doing, then?) So, no, even with that, I can't produce a Polaroid of God actually shaping Adam from clay, just as you're hard pressed to produce yours of the first mud-skipper sprouting arms and legs and the ability to actually respect it's sex partner as and for more than just a hole to shove it's prick into! There are just subtle and not-so-subtle indications throughout nature that God is the Creator, not sheer happenstance.
I really like that arrogant assumption of yours, too, that only the higher intellect tend toward evolutionary thinking! That's good, and, pretty consistent with evolutionist thinking, as they're quite adept at pulling unprovable stats and observations out of their asses. It's also hilarious, considering the history of the passage of some real lowbrows through this particular blog, over time. Cretins that couldn't wait to get those "ad hominems" you infidels always trademark to Christians, going, whenever they were out-classed or even ignored. They usually presented and even still present themselves when discussions really got going in a civilized direction. So, if you want to talk "ad hominems", son, speak to some of your fellow "atheists", here… better yet, disagree with them, they'll school you up proper!
In light of what we've been discussing, thus far, I don't think you want to tread anywhere near the subject of Christians enforcing their beliefs or prayer in schools or anywhere else. Not when you have pagans like yourself force-feeding evolutionary biology and Abiogenesis and other humanistic clap-trap down the throats of children, without even the option of knowing and understanding Christian science. That's one of the biggest hypocrisies in the pagan repertoire! No, don't even go there… you'll only end up looking ridiculous on top of hypocritical.
So, I hope that makes things a tad clearer for ya, son. Oh, and don't let that "son" business throw you… that's just the way that myself and mine refer to one another at any time. You know, like "buddy" or "bro", etc. Nothing personal.
Like everything else, it's all in the interpretation.
Not our fault you’ve got nothing to say.
Tell that to Ken Miller.
You are a liar.
No, he labels himself by the proper term for one who believes that there are no gods – antitheist,. Again you speak of things you have no knowledge of. Is there anything that you do have real knowledge about? I mean, besides sophistry.
Studying Quantum Mechanics at the graduate school level. What’s that got to do with evolution or atheism?
Bah. You’re just an arrogant troll. . You have nothing of substance to say and you aren’t even honest enough to acknowledge that there’s a p0ssibility that you’re wrong. Dawkins and I are way beyond you. We’re done
“Bah. You’re just an arrogant troll. . You have nothing of substance to say and you aren’t even honest enough to acknowledge that there’s a p0ssibility that you’re wrong.”
I’ve had lot’s of time to debate both issues with myself. Anyway, since we’re declared done, I congratulate you on your staunch adherence to standard infidel policy of cutting and running when the veneer of sophistication is stripped away from their arguments. No need for any ground-breaking deviation from that hoary tradition on your part, eh, Shameless?
Good luck with your delusions… whatever they represent, they’re decidedly NOT atheist.
Ooops! Heh-heh… fucked up the quote, there. Oh well… God’s grace is sufficient for me!
😉
And that’s great, though the term “God’s grace” is as vacuous as the rest of your diatribes. What ever floats your boat. But you don’t get to state the claim that God exists and not back it up.
Here endeth the lesson. And the severe intellectual spanking I gave you.
Christine said: “Through your actions and words you dogmatically assert that there is NO God, or evidence of God, and that Christians are illogical, etc. You’re making the not-so-subtle statement that you are more intelligent than any Christian,”
Sounds like a typical American woman, which explains a lot. You say one thing and she plays the 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game and twists whatever you say into something completely different.
Lemmee guess, Capt. No-Brains… you’ve had some bad experiences with women and marriage… and, naturally, it was all HER fault, right? 😆
No problem, boy!
Just take out a newspaper ad in the “Personal” section… here’s a suggestion on the wording:
“Frustrated male ego-freak needing a compassionate and understanding woman/slave/punching-bag for intimate moments and fun-filled camping-outdoorsy ‘Deliverance-style’ outings in remote spots even Bigfoot hasn’t found, with similar inbreeds. Bring own beer and 4X4.”
That work, Cappy?
It’s hard to take someone serious who still uses phrases like sonny and boy. But don’t worry I’m sure you and Jim Crow will have plenty to talk about up in “heaven”.
Cappy: I call ’em as I see ’em… boy.
Chappy: It was inevitable.
😉
Gideon:
We’d better mark this date on our calendars, as it may be the first time we’ve agreed on something!
WTF? Sexist, much?
Hey, America is only one country, there’s still all the others, lol.