“Failing is not an option. I can do all things through Christ.”
8 August 2006 by Cassandra
I saw this as a headline on someone’s Myspace today. I’m not going to link to her because she’s apparently a good friend of some of my good friends (who are all Catholic, are products of Catholic schools, and of the south, by the way). So I read this and cringed.
Failing is not an option. I can do all things through Christ.
I mean, failing isn’t usually an option for me either. But I can do everything that I set my mind to. Sure, the support of my family helps, but ultimately, all I have is me. If I can’t rely on myself to succeed, what do I have? Absolutely nothing.
I find it so sad that this 28 year old woman doesn’t have enough courage, self-esteem, and confidence to go through life knowing that she can do anything - and do it all on her own. Is this how her mother raised her? Her father? Of course, she’s not alone. I can’t tell you how many Christian women I have met put their god and their husbands before themselves - every time, no matter the situation. Not only do they not matter to their church, they don’t matter to themselves either.
They say that believers are, in general, happier than non-believers. I don’t buy it. It seems to me that anyone who feels that they need Christ (or anyone else) to get through life successfully would be someone who has some serious issues.
8 August 2006, on 9:30 pm
God is a crutch, pure and simple. He is Santa Claus for adults. I don’t buy that believers are happier, either. I’m an athiest; I have a rare incurable disease; yet I’m happier than anyone else I personally know.
I heard a story on NPR yesterday about a woman whose husband has been in jail for 30 years. Yet she gets through because of her “faith in God”. What kind of God would let something like this happen to her?
I have gotten many things in life that other people only dream of; my own business, my dream home, a wonderful wife and son, and many other things. I’ve got an “attitude of gratitude”, but *I* did it all. Not some “god”. I set goals, and I didn’t quit until I accomplished them.
You can spit on one hand, and pray in the other, and guess which one will fill up first?
8 August 2006, on 9:58 pm
And if she does fail she blames herself for not having enough faith in gawd or Jeebus. She will set unrealistic goals based on fairy tale expectations because some book promised that she would succeed if she just has enough belief in the “all powerful”. The end result is self-loathing and mistrust of her own abilities. She won’t be able to rejoice and take pride in any real accomplishments because they won’t measure up to the “all things are possible” standard.
When I think of all the great stuff I learned when I failed at stuff I attempted I wouldn’t give up those failures for anything. Many a great discovery has come from “failure”.
I’m happy my first marriage failed because otherwise I would never have married the second great guy that I adore. He’s glad his three marriages failed because he’s got me now and, yes, I’m the best.
Failing is a great option!
8 August 2006, on 10:25 pm
I’ve often heard believers tell me “With god, all things are possible.” Then I tell them that’s the biggest load of bullshit I’ve heard.
To all Xtians, I have a test of faith for you. To those of you who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that with god all things are possible, go into a children’s cancer ward and say that. Or you could go to Somolia where there are starving childern everywhere. There are Xtians out there that couldn’t say that to dying children.
Honestly, a god that could let the world get in such horrible condition then hide behind the veil of “free will” is not worthy of worship.
8 August 2006, on 10:56 pm
What’s possible with Gawd for, say, an African child born with AIDS? Everything seems more possible with Gawd when there’s food in the pantry, a car in the garage, a paycheck coming regularly. Everything is more possible with Gawd when you have either enough leisure time to do a needlepoint sampler saying so (”With Gawd, All Things Are Possible” right there on the living room wall), or the scratch to pay someone else to do so.
All things really are possible with cocaine- at least for a while.
Welcome, Cassandra, I promise to believe you when you tell me the sky is falling.
8 August 2006, on 11:19 pm
They say that believers are, in general, happier than non-believers. I don’t buy it.
Hey Cassandra! Welcome!
I don’t buy it either. I know a few xian women (some of them family members) who have frequent pity parties with themselves and try to drag me in on it. I repeatedly have to tell them only THEY can make things happen, and when they succeed they should give themselves the credit and be proud of themselves for their accomplishments.
Lifting some of these women up from depression is like trying to pull an anchor out of mud.
8 August 2006, on 11:22 pm
All things are possible with god… he’s just really, really lazy. Well, he is getting old you know… can’t do all the fancy miracles like he did back in his youth. He’s pretty much limited to yelling at kids to stay off his lawn now.
8 August 2006, on 11:55 pm
I get so tired of watching people I love wallow in misery because they are waiting for god to help them. The only person you can rely on completely is yourself. I just want to shake them sometimes.
9 August 2006, on 12:03 am
The only person you can rely on completely is yourself.
Well, I might not say “only”…
We can clearly rely on others — family, friends, co-workers…
And some of those bonds can be incredibly strong…
But you’re right: if you can’t even trust in your own potential or abilities, that’s one huge mark against you right there…
9 August 2006, on 12:04 am
Moppet, that’s my favorite xian arguement because it’s the absolute easiest to refute.
All you have to do is say okay, then ask gawd to give you the power to fly like Superman.
Or to crawl up walls and shoot webs like Spider-Man.
Or to instantly heal all wounds like Wolverine.
All they’ll do is hem and haw and then go on to something else. And it’s funny as hell because you know you just won and have forced them to cook up a wammy of a rationalization in order to tell themselves they won.
9 August 2006, on 12:16 am
Hey, folks! Please welcome long-time comment queen Cassandra (also known as the Atheist Mama) to GifS with a hearty heathen “high-ho and how-do-you-do?!?”
Great post, Cassandra. I found this particularly moving: Not only do they not matter to their church, they don’t matter to themselves either.
Aye. And there’s the rub.
9 August 2006, on 12:22 am
PS: I believe more in real people in my life who have loved me. One of my favorite exchanges in recent pop movies:
Bruce Wayne: I wanted to save Gotham. I’ve failed.
Alfred: Why do we fall, Master Wayne? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.
Bruce: You still haven’t given up on me, have you?
Alfred: Never.
9 August 2006, on 12:27 am
Bob, that’s why I put the word ‘completely’ in my statement. There are plenty of people I can rely on, no matter what their beliefs are, but ultimately I am the only one who is held accountable when I do not reach my own goal. At least that’s the way I view it.
9 August 2006, on 3:04 am
Not to disagree with, but to simply riff on what Amy and Bob just said, I’ll refer you back to this post from last year:
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/08/10/the-christian-paradox/
Bill McKibben, one of my favorite writers (I don’t know his faith, nor do I care much), posits that sometimes people simply can’t help themselves, and that Jesus himself was trying to tell us this. Food for thought. I’ll tell you one thing, there’s a person right here on this site who saved my life twice — and all I have to say is, make sure you have good friends and relations for when the time comes that you have to rely on them completely.
Maybe that’s part of it. Be a good damn person, or they will abandon you when the shit hits the fan. That qualifies as holding only yourself accountable, dunnit?
Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.
Longer excerpt:
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
9 August 2006, on 3:28 am
“Failing is not an option. I can do all things through Christ.”
And I can do all things through Zuesy and Shiva-ey and Allahey.
The mark of religion rests on those who do NOT have true species wide EMPATHY.
These people cannot comprehend that they pray to Jeebus with the same conviction that Muslims pray to Allah or Hindus pray to Shiva or whatever.
These people suffer from small minds.
I have a smoldering intuition that these people that, even though they sat through sixth grade science class, still hold a geocentric view of the universe.
How else can they hold the 2-D view of earth?
With life being the only horizontal and when people die they take either 90 degrees down or 90 degrees up, what other simpleton flag do you want?
9 August 2006, on 5:05 am
Belief in God doesn’t relieve you of your human responsibilites — it re-emphasizes them. Even (or especially) those responsibilites that the existing social structures might let you evade. God is not a crutch. He’s a challenge.
9 August 2006, on 6:11 am
The scary part is that I agree! I am one of those that ‘believe’ - and yet what I read here makes total sense. There is more contradiction in what I see in fellow christians than what I see elsewhere and its worrying. Your honest and thought through responses to ‘failing is not an option…etc’ is the kind of dialogue SO many christians are SO afraid to have. Its refreshing.
Failing isnt really a choice - we all do it from time to time and for me its always empowering. Sure - there are regrets about some of the failures especially when they have hurt those that I love - but mostly I’m stronger and the wiser for the failures.
The bits about people suffering so terribly (eg AIDS orphans in South Africa) especially resonates - what a contradiction.
Philosophy year one at uni helped me to come to terms with the horrible reality that sometimes there just aren’t answers.
9 August 2006, on 6:33 am
No, gawd most certainly IS a crutch.
For people who can’t accept that we might not have a purpose in life other than just trying to make ourselves and others happy.
For people who need the overhanging Sword of Damacles, hell and eternal suffering, to inspire them to act in a moral manner.
For people so materialistic that they need the promise of eternal reward to be decent human beings.
For people who are too weak-minded to look for a reason for natural occurances beyond “Gawd did it.”
For people who can’t cope with reality without a giant-scale imaginary friend.
For people in pursuit of power who need a means to control and persuade the masses.
Gawd provides a convenient crutch for all these types of people, and many others.
9 August 2006, on 7:25 am
Y’know what, “Mellow”? You’re right.
God is a challenge.
God is a challenge to free thinkers who don’t want to ignore reality in favor of blind faith, who don’t want to give up personal freedom and creativity for obedience driven by fear of ETERNAL SUFFERING that is watched over by believers who are supposedly enjoying the paradise of heaven.
Watching non-believer friends burn alive is part of heaven with your challenging god.
God is achallenge to homosexuals who have found love, but who god’s loyal followers seem to think if find to ridicule, beat, murder, and publicly denigrate as sub-human in our nation’s seat of governance.
God is a challenge to the advancement of our civilization, as people stand in the way of technological or medical progress because we are “defying the will of god”.
God is a challenge to you, as well - prove your god exists, using the tools of peer-reviewed observation and experimentation (Google them if you have no idea what I’m talking about). Until you do, you’re literally talking crazy talk.
What exactly to you even mean by “human responsibilities”? According to god, it is more a priority to place my own child in mortal danger because of a whimsical order from on high than to take responsibility for that child’s safety in defiance of a sadistic, megalomaniacal narcissist myth? (Abraham & Isaac) You say “human responsibilities”, but I’ll bet those HR’s mean something much closer to religious dictum than the much more reasonable “self-evident truths” that our humanist country was founded on.
You’re so Mellow, Monotheist, that you haven’t bothered to make a damned bit of sense. Great that you stopped by.
And thanks for not doing what every “loving” fundie does to those who choose reason over sacred superhero comics: offering to pray for my soul and playing that moral-mafia extortion card of “hell awaits”. Ugh.
The Slayer album of the same name is the only “hell awaits” that has any relevance in the real world.
I can easily prove it exists, for starters.
Must… stop… commenting…
Fury… at morons… rising…
Real work… not getting done…
Raindog - I, MoeHammered, endorse and approve of your porking mockery work.
Perhaps next he (I) could battle MechaGodzilla?
And lose, of course.
9 August 2006, on 7:44 am
Taylor, that is very well said and really sums up my thoughts on why people need God. Mind if I post that on my blog, with a link back here?
9 August 2006, on 8:27 am
Thanks for the welcome everyone! As I said when I was invited to join, I’m honored to be a part of GifS!! I promise that in the next few weeks or so, I’ll be posting more often.
You know, this also reminds me of when people say that “God only gives us as much as we can handle” (or something like that). I have heard so many mothers say that. You know, the ones who are pregnant with their 6th kid? I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with 6 kids, but to think that you only got pregnant (again) because God thinks you can manage is absurd. Take some responsibility, damn it!
He must have really screwed up with women like Andrea Yates, huh?
9 August 2006, on 8:52 am
Hooray! Welcome aboard, Cassandra! Hopefully your arrival doesn’t foretell the hour or our deaths!
Anyone? Anyone?
9 August 2006, on 9:32 am
I see your point Sean, and I have been in the same position where I have had invaluable help from friends and family, and I honestly don’t know what I would have done without them. But I’m also a firm believer that if you are not willing to help others, and if you do not surround yourself with caring people who are going to support you, then you are not likely to have the sympathy of others when times get tough. So even that ultimately rests on your shoulders.
Can you tell I’m a bit cynical? Comes with the territory - I’m constantly on my guard because I know that my views could get me into big trouble with my family, my job, and my community. I guess from all that I have come to learn that I am the only person who can truly help myself.
Sorry if I’m not making sense - I’m heavily medicated right now. S’nice.
9 August 2006, on 10:01 am
LOL Marcus & RDZ! I admit that RDZ’s comment on the falling sky went over my head, but after seeing Marcus’ comment, I got it.
9 August 2006, on 10:10 am
Cassandra, you’re so complex! I think we- atheists, democrats, liberals, scientists, freethinkers, truthseekers, “truthiness” busters, etc.- all have a touch of Cassandra these days. In a country where the louder you are, the more people believe you, those with that cursed “inside voice”- you know, the reasonable, the mature, the soft-spoken, are slowly going crazy. At least Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and, now, Joe Lieberman all got put on timeout. Viva Lamont!
9 August 2006, on 10:42 am
[...] cross-posted at God is for Suckers [...]
9 August 2006, on 11:30 am
Hey, folks! Please welcome long-time comment queen Cassandra (also known as the Atheist Mama) to GifS with a hearty heathen “high-ho and how-do-you-do?!?”
Cassandra, welcome! Very glad to have you on board here…
We gotta have enough for a bowling team by now, eh, Sean?…
Marcus, you design the jerseys…
9 August 2006, on 1:46 pm
Bob,
How’s this?
9 August 2006, on 2:09 pm
[...] Well said, from a commenter at the wonderful God Is For Suckers blog. I commented that “God is a crutch” and someone disagreed, then Taylor responded with: No, gawd most certainly IS a crutch. [...]
9 August 2006, on 3:00 pm
Yes, bienvenida again, Cassandra!
Taylor, MoeHammered, checks are in the mail.
9 August 2006, on 4:43 pm
That sure is an interesting god you got there, MoeHammered. Sounds like the one I’d expect a fundamentalist like yourself to believe in. Nothing like the One I follow though.
9 August 2006, on 5:09 pm
Really Mellow? So you don’t believe in a gawd who orders death as punishment for pretty much everything?
You don’t believe in a gawd who handed down ten commandments with death as the punishment for nine of them?
You don’t believe in a gawd who committed and/or ordered genocide?
You don’t believe in a gawd who, if you are right, murdered the entire world except for what, six people?
You don’t believe in a gawd who’s “son” said you have to hate and abandonded your family in order to follow him? The one who berated some Jews for not killing their disobedient children?
You don’t believe in a gawd who condoned slavery and oppression of woman, and who ordered murdered for homosexuals?
9 August 2006, on 5:29 pm
Cassandra really hit the nail on the head with this post. I’ve never understood how Xian women can really be happy, never having any goals for themselves and living their lives solely for the pleasure of somebody else. I also can’t imagine measuring my worth as a human being based on whether or not my hymen is intact…but that’s probably why I said “fuck you” to Xianity a long time ago.
9 August 2006, on 5:36 pm
9 Matt
“I’m normally not a praying man, but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman!” - H Simpson.
And that would be about as effective.
18 MoeHammered
God is a challenge to you, as well - prove your god exists, using the tools of peer-reviewed observation and experimentation (Google them if you have no idea what I’m talking about).
The interesting thing is that gawd comes with built-in sabotage for these concepts. If gawd could be proven, says the believer, then he wouldn’t be gawd.
True ’nuff. By definition, nothing unnatural can exist. Anyone claiming to be gawd, no matter how powerful, is just an alien pulling a Goa’uld, but still limited by the laws of physics*.
The theists know this, ergo, they set up the “faith” requirement to stifle all inquiry and prevent the inevitable conclusion.
* “Any sufficiantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Give me the tech your typical soldier might use (rifle, grenades thrown and launched, what have you) and ancient Romans would think I’m Mars. Doesn’t make it so.
21 Marcus
9 August 2006, on 6:52 pm
Marcus: EXCELLENT!
We’ve GOT to get those on the GIFS store…
9 August 2006, on 8:53 pm
Matt’s post:
1) No; take out the “pretty much” and that’s nature you’re talking about.
2) No, that was people.
3) People again.
4) Nature again (if it actually happened).
5) I’m not a Christian, but I suspect Jesus was speaking about the possible social consequences of following a spiritual way of life.
6) No, people again. We’re all equal in God’s sight.
9 August 2006, on 9:26 pm
Ah, I see you’re a follower of He Who Can Do No Wrong; it’s us sinners who f’d up his plan. So how are we to know when events are god’s doing, or our own? It’s god’s work when it seems to be a good thing, eh?
9 August 2006, on 9:38 pm
“Anyone claiming to be gawd, no matter how powerful, is just an alien pulling a Goa’uld…”
Don’t you mean Ori?
9 August 2006, on 10:15 pm
It’s all our (or nature’s) doing. God doesn’t act in the world, and He doesn’t have a plan in the sense that you mean. His plan is that we treat ourselves, each other, and the world with the respect and appreciation they deserve. We sin when we fail to do that. But the only punishment for sin is lives that are worse than they would have been otherwise. And at best (considering that we live in part in the natural world) our lives may be very tough anyway.
9 August 2006, on 10:44 pm
I also don’t buy the crap that believers are happier than non-believers. I was at once a believer, and nearly everything that I read and heard was how I just wasn’t good enough, and never would be. I was always sinning, there was always something about me that was bad and I needed to change. I was pathetic and hopeless and anything that I accomplished was only because of God’s blessing.
It does a number on your self-esteem, and makes you want to be even more submissive and dependent. For Christianity, this is a great thing, so they preach that the world (and you) are evil and you need to focus more on God and church. Sadly, many people believe this. I used to, and sometimes, because of my upbringing, I feel very guilty for not believing.
9 August 2006, on 10:51 pm
His plan is that we treat ourselves, each other, and the world with the respect and appreciation they deserve. We sin when we fail to do that. But the only punishment for sin is lives that are worse than they would have been otherwise. And at best (considering that we live in part in the natural world) our lives may be very tough anyway.
I appreciate the comments, MM, but taking the (basic and blunt examples of) suffering and death of kids seems to go against much, if not all, of what you say here.
But I’m sure you’re already familiar with the problem of natural evil, so I’ll let it go…
10 August 2006, on 1:20 am
I take your point, Bob. The death of a child is a far more powerful argument against God than any amount of philosophy is. That’s a big reason I argue for God’s non-interference. If a child’s death was part of a divine plan I’d want nothing to do with it.
But we seem to be stuck with natural evil. If things like plate tectonics and large-scale atmospheric circulation are necessary for life to develop (as scienfically they appear to be) then earthquakes and hurricanes will always be with us. The same evolution that produced us produced AIDS. The alternative to natural evil isn’t a better existence. It’s no existence at all.
10 August 2006, on 3:11 am
# MellowMonotheist Says:
August 10th, 2006 at 1:20 am EST
I take your point, Bob. The death of a child is a far more powerful argument against God than any amount of philosophy is. That’s a big reason I argue for God’s non-interference. If a child’s death was part of a divine plan I’d want nothing to do with it.
But we seem to be stuck with natural evil. If things like plate tectonics and large-scale atmospheric circulation are necessary for life to develop (as scienfically they appear to be) then earthquakes and hurricanes will always be with us. The same evolution that produced us produced AIDS. The alternative to natural evil isn’t a better existence. It’s no existence at all.
MM: I don’t profess to be as philosophically sophisticated as our Doctor Bob, but I was thinking today about all this… And, stop me if I am wrong on this one: doesn’t a chaotic universe make more sense than one that you have tried to map to a divine plan? I mean, we have been over this many times, haven’t we? It just seems to me that given the two possibilities: 1) A universe created by a divine being for what reason we haven’t a clue, or 2) A universe that simply exists on its own, the second satisfies Occam’s Razor so much better than the first. As others have said, let’s eliminate the middle man.
Again, I am no philosopher. Just a humble guy trying to make sense of it all. To me, introducing that middle man makes things a whole lot more morally complicated, doesn’t it? It starts to ascribe morality to things that are just natural. And then we end up back with the dead babies questions again.
10 August 2006, on 10:03 am
But we seem to be stuck with natural evil. If things like plate tectonics and large-scale atmospheric circulation are necessary for life to develop (as scienfically they appear to be) then earthquakes and hurricanes will always be with us. The same evolution that produced us produced AIDS. The alternative to natural evil isn’t a better existence. It’s no existence at all.
Well, first, I’m not really sure just how “necessary” anything is in this world when one already grants the properties of omniscience and omnipotence.
But, second, even if one grants that the processes of the world are necessary in some way, the problem then becomes why so many of these physical processes are kept hidden from us. Saying that “cancer is a by-product of some physical process” is fine — but it doesn’t seem to answer any of the problems posed by the problem of natural evil.
Also, I’m curious about your views on non-interference. Is “standing by” morally justified, in your view?
10 August 2006, on 11:15 am
“natural evil”
Evil is a moral concept, it requires a designer. There’s no such thing as evil, absent a God(s). As soon as you remove any design or misfortune from it, its an empty concept. Is fire a “natural evil”? I guess, but then again it also heats up your food, it can be used to keep forests from overgrowing, it can keep you warm, etc. ‘Evil’ then becomes a situational thing, an earthquake in and of itself isn’t evil, after all they helped create this continent, and this beach, etc.
Anyways, I cant let this term go by without commenting on it. I don’t think “natural evil” is a consistant set of terms. There’s nothing “natural” about evil, from either an atheistic or theistic standpoint.
10 August 2006, on 12:05 pm
Evil is a moral concept, it requires a designer. There’s no such thing as evil, absent a God(s). As soon as you remove any design or misfortune from it, its an empty concept. Is fire a “natural evil”? I guess, but then again it also heats up your food, it can be used to keep forests from overgrowing, it can keep you warm, etc. ‘Evil’ then becomes a situational thing, an earthquake in and of itself isn’t evil, after all they helped create this continent, and this beach, etc.
Yep, sorry about that. Just going along with the tradition. When the word “evil” is used in this context, it’s not meant to imply any kind of agency (just as the word “valid” is not meant to imply any kind of truth). When the phrase “problem of evil” is used, all that’s meant is a problem based on (or perhaps “what seems to be,” since I wouldn’t want to beg any questions) the problem of unnecessary suffering. The term “natural evil” here would just correspond to (what seems to be) unnecessary suffering from a particular source, i.e., the physical world, as opposed to human action. That is, one obviously wouldn’t want to claim that viruses are “evil” in the sense you mention — i.e., viruses don’t have malicious intentions and make faces as they infiltrate your cells (”BWAAHAHAHA!”) — but their presence and function points to a specific conditional statement based on the claim of theists, i.e., if God exists, then He would be responsible for the laws.
These clarifications seem to be enough to get the ball rolling, at least in the tradition.
And you’re absolutely right: once God is out of the picture (i.e., once the conditional statement from the theist is rejected), natural processes simply become amoral, apathetic physical things that we need to protect ourselves from, and nothing more. The focus and explanation of natural processes shift tremendously, once God is out of the picture.
10 August 2006, on 2:36 pm
Sarah, it would seem your instinct is right on target: Skeptic magazine’s current issue out now has a large section on empirical studies done comparing the “happiness” of believers vs. non-believers - and these studies at least pretty much debunk the ol’ “believers are happier” trope.
Sean, Bob, I’m no philosopher either, but the view MM seems to be espousing about “god” sounds deistic to me; am I reading correctly?
10 August 2006, on 3:01 pm
Standard greeting… statement of personal history or spiritual quest, admission of trial and discovery of something called “atheists”. Oddly placed cliche. Statement of belief in deistic infallibility? Another cliche… grammatically unsound, comprehension confused, unintelligible statement… Statement of personal worth. Backhanded statement about atheist “faith” and affirmation of personal deity.
Generic closing thanks, end of witnessing
10 August 2006, on 3:14 pm
Eve, thanks for the link to the Skeptic magazine article. What really seems to ring true about religion is the statement that: “religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems).”
If we could only get the time back wasted on those “imaginary solutions” and pour that energy into finding real solutions, we might actually make some real progress in society.
10 August 2006, on 4:52 pm
I agree, MoeNeigh; I for one would like to see the money spent on studies like the does-prayer-really-work? ones spent instead on studying, researching, discovering, and perfecting *real* solutions to *real* problems.
Whoever funned Criss.O’s comment, all that’s lacking is the Seinfeldian “yadda-yadda-yadda!” *lol*
10 August 2006, on 7:21 pm
The idea of evil to me has always contained a volition of ill intent. Good and bad being pretty much the standard bearers of how we see natural processes. Evil on the other hand requires a certain intent. I think of it in terms of how we as humans have ordered our societies. Evil is willful harm being done for any reason such as murderers, rapists, pedophiles. Just because god does not exist does not mean there is not any evil. It is a good word and loaded with meaning why should we not use it?
I agree with most of the above and am much happier today than I was as a believer.
10 August 2006, on 8:27 pm
Sean, Bob, I’m no philosopher either, but the view MM seems to be espousing about “god” sounds deistic to me; am I reading correctly?
Howdy-Howdy, Eve…
Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s one of the lines of deism…
[insert dramatic-founding-fathers-god-bless-american-tone]
It can also be a little wacky, when you think about it — i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving being that simply creates the world, with all the processes and attitudes that will clearly result in a grossly unfair and gratuitous pain-suffering-and-death game, and, as a by-product, simply waits on the sidelines, watches everything happen, and never even cares enough to intervene or stop any of it. Very strange. Not exactly sure how this view would be any less problematic than the standard ones.
But hey, whatever…it’s probably me…
10 August 2006, on 8:59 pm
No, not entirely you. I misspoke a bit in saying I don’t believe that God intervenes at all — I meant by that, He doesn’t intervene by bending the way nature operates. I suppose in that sense I am a deist. But that sort of deism (as you pointed out) doesn’t get you much. I would argue that He does intervene through human actions.
10 August 2006, on 9:18 pm
Marcus! That was brilliant (I assume it was you). It is now part of our commenting article:
http://gods4suckers.net/on-commenting/
Please lemme know if Marcus was not the author of that. Fucking brilliant.
10 August 2006, on 9:32 pm
Heh… heh… heh…
10 August 2006, on 10:04 pm
MellowM-
By all means, please do argue how your loosely-defined god intervenes via human behavior in ways that are clearly discernable from the usual, normal, non-supernatural types of behavior humans engage in every day.
Also, it would be nice to know why he doesn’t bother to intervene via human behavior in cases of serial killing and child torture.
I guess your god is cool with those.
Or perhaps he’s too busy to get to all of those problems.
Being omnipotent sure is tiring! Wait, no it isn’t…
Your earlier comment about me being a “fundie” was a joke, I assume. But my response to your comment on THIS site was absolutely justified. You need to explain your background and your beliefs – there are so many flavors of imaginary sky-friends that in order for us rational godless types to properly respond to you, we need to know which one you’ve chosen to choke down.
And I’m still waiting for your response to my challenge of your god – proof.
How is it you’ve come to know, identify, and understand this pseudo-deist, non-interventionist (sort-of), but still there, powerful, supernatural, conscious force? How do you tell when your god is intervening through human actions in a way that is clearly different to the rest of the rational world? Are there marionette strings attached? Does Handel’s “Messiah” chorus sound from the clouds in THX surround sound?
You say “that sort of deism… doesn’t get you much”.
What, exactly, does your sort of deism (which is WHAT again, exactly?) get you, besides hopeful smiles based on a daydream?
Even if you could show us it exists, WHAT GOOD IS YOUR GOD?
How long do I wait for that answer?
10 August 2006, on 10:06 pm
MellowMonotheist: I would argue that He does intervene through human actions.
But don’t you see? This argument is terribly convenient for the theist, because a god who intervenes “through human actions” is pretty much impossible to prove, certainly by irrefutable, incontrovertible, reproducible hard scientific fact. The believer simply ascribes whichever “human actions” fit his/her concept of his/her god to that deity’s selective intervention, and falls back on the “god’s non-interference” excuse with the actions that just don’t fit. Which certainly doesn’t smack of all-goodness and perfection on its part to me.
And if you turn the argument around if you also believe in supernatural agents of evil like demons, for example, and attribute the horrible death of a child to, say, Iblis or Rati, then you’re basically admitting that either god isn’t all-powerful and/or -knowing, or if it *did* know what was going to happen and let it or chose not to do anything about it, that it may not be all-good and -perfect.
I also see you use the capitalized “He” to refer to the god you say you believe in, which leads me to surmise that the concept you hold of a supreme being is basically the abrahamic deity, which is traditionally an all-good, -male, -perfect, -knowing, -present, -powerful god - not a non-interfering one at all…
10 August 2006, on 10:11 pm
Oops. I see I basically repeated what MoeH said; oh well, carry on.
10 August 2006, on 10:44 pm
I misspoke a bit in saying I don’t believe that God intervenes at all — I meant by that, He doesn’t intervene by bending the way nature operates.
In some ways, instead of focusing strictly on human behavior, I’d rather He bend something natural at some time or another.
I suppose in that sense I am a deist. But that sort of deism (as you pointed out) doesn’t get you much.
As long as you’re aware of the problems, MM, do whatever you want to do. (Most of the believers who come by here can’t even do that much, so it was refreshing to hear your honesty.)
[glory-days-rant]: One time I was arguing in bar with a believer-colleague of mine. We were discussing evil (i.e., unnecessary suffering), and he gave this long, involved, and extremely implausible “explanation” for some objection I had concerning natural evil. I mean, completely fucking wacked. So, I got close to his face, looked him in the eye, and said, “If you don’t know what to do with that, just say the words, ‘I don’t know what to do with that’.” So, he looked right at me, said it back to me, and meant it. I immediately replied, “Okay. Good. Fine. Next round’s on me.”[/glory-days-rant]
I mean, shit, if you can’t at least be honest with yourself, then what the fuck good are ya?
“Sophism sucks” — another suggestion for a motto that would go on the back of our bowling jerseys…
11 August 2006, on 12:32 am
Sean and Marcus that is fantastic.
I suggest one more note
If you come here and comment, great. The moderator reserves the right to grade you and edit your comments for the enjoyment of all atheists everywhee.
11 August 2006, on 12:57 am
Cassandra, sorry for being a day late but welcome aboard!!!
11 August 2006, on 10:52 am
[...] The Martian has already commented on a great comment (!) from a thread in the God Is For Suckers blog, so I won’t repeat what he said; he’s obviously right. [...]
11 August 2006, on 2:29 pm
[...] I guess another basic problem with claiming that God might intervene through the actions of other people is why, when people desperately try and want to help others, their efforts so often are frustrated. [...]
12 August 2006, on 1:11 am
MoeHammered:
That kicked ass.
12 August 2006, on 9:28 pm
Thanks. I think one of the key qualities of my comment is that I beat the very well-spoken Eve to the punch.
Props to Cass and the rest of you wonderful godless heathens for inspiring me to comment after a long absence.
Or perhaps god intervened through my human behavior.
Still waiting for MM’s explanation of the value of her god.
12 August 2006, on 9:58 pm
[glory-days-rant]: One time I was arguing in bar with a believer-colleague of mine. We were discussing evil (i.e., unnecessary suffering), and he gave this long, involved, and extremely implausible “explanation” for some objection I had concerning natural evil. I mean, completely fucking wacked. So, I got close to his face, looked him in the eye, and said, “If you don’t know what to do with that, just say the words, ‘I don’t know what to do with that’.” So, he looked right at me, said it back to me, and meant it. I immediately replied, “Okay. Good. Fine. Next round’s on me.”[/glory-days-rant]
Bob. That fucking rocked, too. Nice thread!
13 August 2006, on 1:53 pm
i put this comment on cassandras blog, but wanted to add it to the mix here too now that i have discovered GifS..forgive me if that’s silly.
the day i realized and actually fully understood that i am an atheist, and have been for a long time, was one of the most liberating days of my life. since then i have felt more happy, more open, more loving, more forgiving, more tolerant, more patient, more receptive and more accepting of everyone and everything around me. having full realization that it is entirely up to me to decide what i wish to make of my story is a relief. i haven’t become a different person and i still have the same struggles as anyone, but i feel differently about them. they feel like choices. as if i am a mountain climber and i can climb any mountain i choose. if i don’t make it to the top, it isn’t a failure. it’s a pause, another choice. i can try again, or i can choose to move on to something else. life is short, i don’t have to climb every mountain and i can be who i want to be. long comment, but your post moved me to rejoice in my atheism!!
14 August 2006, on 4:06 pm
MoeH, I guess I better put my game hat on…
Sandra, thank you for a great “share!” Stop by any time you like.
15 August 2006, on 8:10 am
Eve, the schmackdown is rejoined at “Fucking Asshole Update”.
It ain’t pretty.
18 August 2006, on 2:05 pm
Think about this! What if….. what if your wrong. What if on the last day of time - as we know it, you find yourself standing in front of God. What can you say or do if you have disrespected and discounted “The” all powerful God. A God who offered you everything and had his hand slapped away. People who are believers are not weak or cowards. The are wise enough to know that we can not just be accidents of nature. They are humble enough to know that we don’t know everything nor, can we do everything. They have a purpose and try to serve that purpose. We serve our Lord, we are not perfect, we are not sinless. But, I have to question anyone’s motives that so venomously attacks people who try to live their convictions. So, what if your wrong?
18 August 2006, on 2:54 pm
[...] I like to have fun with some of the various fundy comments we get around here and this one struck me, partly because of its legibility, but mostly because of its tired arguments. Typically, “KR” stands for King Retard around here, but today it also stands for Kathy Ruth. She poses the following questions and comments to us: Think about this! What if….. what if your wrong. What if on the last day of time - as we know it, you find yourself standing in front of God. What can you say or do if you have disrespected and discounted “The” all powerful God. [...]