They starved her to death. You don't have to be a believer to find that objectionable.

What I find objectionable is the Vatican decided what is best for her and not her family.

I love the Vatican's attitude toward human life: First, they will fight teeths and nails to ban any form of contraception then they will coach their followers into a twisted philosophy of guilt, mysticism and unearned love. At the end, not only they will call pain as a glorious gift but they will go to indecent lengths to keep you alive.

The first time I read the bible from cover to cover, I was left with the disturbing feeling that it was a manual for cattle ownership. Since then, the Vatican never failed to disappoint me on this idea.

The only reason they have to starve someone, even who is not aware, is becuase they aren't allowed to do something more humane, like a massive heroin overdose.

Late last year, her father won a decade-long court battle to allow her feeding tube to be removed, saying that was her wish. In line with the high court ruling, medical workers on Friday began suspending her food and water.

According to the court battle, we're not talking about brain activity and what "amount" of it constitutes life or death. We're talking about a feeding tube. Yes, she died of cardiac arrest, but they set her up to starve. She could've had a heart attack while on the feeding tube; vegetables living in hospitals aren't immortal.

Just because she can't feed herself doesn't mean she may as well be dead. We could "justify" letting newborns die under that idea.

she died of cardiac arrest (good idea to read more than the excerpt before commenting)

Point taken. But my point remains. They were prepared to starve a person to death, and even began the process. Again, you don't have to be religious to see why that's wrong.

(And for all we know, it was the trauma of starvation that precipitated the heart attack. After all, in the final analysis, we all die of cardiac arrest.)

The only reason they have to starve someone, even who is not aware, is becuase they aren't allowed to do something more humane, like a massive heroin overdose.

And that's supposed to excuse starving a person to death. You wouldn't do the same to a dog.

And that's supposed to excuse starving a person to death. You wouldn't do the same to a dog.

You can put down a dog, a cat and a horse. Humans on the other side should be forbidden to do so? On what side the barbarism lies? From those who want nature to follow it's course or those who forbid a human way to do so?

The only way human die from injection today are those who committed odious crimes and even then, only in some states of the union. On the other side, this decency is not offered to the decent being who just want to die. Mind-boggling.

@Amy & Toubrouk:

Your argument seems to be that lethal injection should be permitted, and since it's not, it's okay to starve people to death. I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic of that.

Kishke, Fifty years ago, that person would be dead. The lack of medical technologies would had seen to that. Right now the only thing we have is a human body is a vegetative state, unable to even swallow the nutrient needed for sustaining life.

We are talking about the level of a potted plant here.

Regardless of all the outrage, all the "Hosannas" and all the prayers, that person will never be sentient again. Even more, that shell of a person is nothing more than a macabre shrine to her former self, existing for a decade. This grotesque display will continue until she dies due to immobilism, bed sores and a mild virus.

Right now, keeping this body alive is a medical act. Just like keeping someone on the ventilator well after he went brain dead. Do a brain dad individual suffocate when the ventilator is turned off? No, since he's unable to be sentient of it. Same thing for that lady; stopping feeding her would had the same effect than letting a plant goes dry. The very fact that she died after only three days tells us how irreversible her vegetative state was in the first place.

We're not talking about starving people to death. We're talking about brain-dead bodies lying in a bed.

This illustrates one reason I oppose "compassionate killing." It is a slippery slope. Everything becomes okay, even something so self-evident as the barbarism implicit in starving a brain-dead person to death.

Here's all I ever need to know about the church's opinion on this woman, and women in general, entertainingly and educationally put: http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=3672

And per Toubrouk's early comment - funny how the believers in a glorious afterlife seem to really, really hate letting anyone get there.

funny how the believers in a glorious afterlife seem to really, really hate letting anyone get there.

This little line bring back to me funny memories. I was five at the time in a Religious (Read: Roman Catholic) education course in my school. There was the Sister who was telling us, all happy and smiling, that since we were Catholic, we would all go to this wonderful place called "Heaven" where we would be happy until the end of times.

Two days later, the same nun came back with a less-than-happy smile to tell the class that "Heaven is not an excuse for you to not look at both sides of the road when crossing a street". At that moment, I had a spiritual experience. I felt something in me swell with strength and passion for the first time; it was my Bull$hit Detector.

Everything becomes okay, even something so self-evident as the barbarism implicit in starving a brain-dead person to death.

Please tell me what makes a "Person" what it is. I am not talking about a "Human Being" but a "Person". One thing only: the unique and beautiful individual mind. This is what makes us greater than any other organism on this planet; our capacity to think and reason. Without this ability we are nothing more than the nearest beast. Have you ever protested the slaughter of a cow? What about feeling repulsed by the sight of someone mowing the grass? Why should you be outraged by the death of a human body with no mind?

I saw the pictures of the lady at the center of the story; she was beautiful, smiling and alive. Five days before her death she was reduced to the state of a piece of biological organs fit only for producing human manure. This state is not a slippery slope but a bottomless pit where nothing will move out of it.

Inserting food, removing feces.

Inserting food, removing feces.

Inserting food, removing feces.

Day after day until the blessed day that one of the organs of this grotesque medical contraption collapse and drag the whole system into oblivion.

Where is the decency in this? What is the Humane thing to do?

"funny how the believers in a glorious afterlife seem to really, really hate letting anyone get there."

Funny how atheists love to lump all christians in with strict catholics. Most christians would think it's a-ok to let a dead person die. My whole, entire extended family, for generation upon generation, was bible belt small town southern religious. We removed my Gma's feeding tube. No one would want to be like that. SO for the f-ing love of God, stop assuming we all do. Do you even know any christians?

I imagine the people wanting to keep her alive might see letting her die as murder, something they don't want to be guilty of for their own souls. Maybe. But hey, soon enough here in the US the government will be making that choice for us, and they've already made it clear money-suckers will die.

funny how the believers in a glorious afterlife seem to really, really hate letting anyone get there.

And funny how people who have never died before, or known anyone who died for a long weekend and came back to work on Monday, are convinced that death is the morally greater option in this case.

We all have our vanities, and "Oh, I couldn't bear to live like that!" is one of them.

Toubrouk, your argument assumes there is no inherent worth to a brain-dead human being. I disagree. Of course, my position derives from religion, and so is inadmissible in this debate. But our disagreement on that matter is besides the point. B/c what I'm saying is, religion aside, even if I agreed that there is no inherent worth to a human being in a "vegetative" state, I still would oppose starving him or her to death, b/c it is inherently cruel. That was the point of my comparison to a dog, to whose existence religion imputes no inherent worth, but which I nevertheless would not allow to starve to death, b/c to do so would be cruel.

funny how the believers in a glorious afterlife seem to really, really hate letting anyone get there.

A specious argument. I could as well say how funny it is that people who believe this is the only life are so eager to deprive people of it.

Momof3 - sensitive much? Careful, there. You're gonna hurt your ankles jumping to conclusions some day.

I said "funny how THE believers..." (emphasis added). Referring specifically to the Vatican's philosophy on life as mentioned by Toubrouk, and to the Vatican and Italian politicians, etc, mentioned in the link I posted.

Heck, I haven't even indicated whether or not I'm an atheist or of a religion that doesn't have a "Heaven".

I call myself a Progressive Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian, and while I disagree with the Catholic Church about a great many things, I don't begrudge them their opinion. One of the flaws of democracy is that it gives equal weight to opinions that are wrong, and letting Catholics participate in democracy is the least bad option.

It seems to me that a persistent vegetative state is the equivalent of being dead, and the law should allow a doctor to issue a death certificate in that situation. Whether machines keep some of the body alive or not is irrelevant; what matters to me is the survival of the consciousness, which separates this situation from that of a newborn.

This case illustrates how important it is to have a living will. If this woman had made clear her desires, then the question would be one of suicide not euthanasia.

But our disagreement on that matter is besides the point. B/c what I'm saying is, religion aside, even if I agreed that there is no inherent worth to a human being in a "vegetative" state, I still would oppose starving him or her to death, b/c it is inherently cruel.

I take the liberty to add the emphasis on the word "Vegetative" from your words. Let's explore this; The lately deceased lady was in a vegetative state for at least a decade. This means that she would had won a monopoly tournament against a piece of broccoli only for the single reason that the broccoli implicated as a player would had rot away, a week after the beginning of the tournament, before the end of the first turn.

Yes, killing is wrong and cruel. Regardless, I would do it in a heartbeat to save my life. If someone mug me on the street, he will meet me at my worst. This bring me to a point: inherently cruel for whom? In the case of the mugging, the cruelty is against me, hence my use of deadly force to get out of the situation.

Same case here: what is inherently cruel? Letting someone in an irreversible vegetative state die by removing all assistance from the outside world or keeping the said person alive as a macabre relic for their family, friends and a society with mystical values? Cruelty includes suffering. Who is suffering right now? The vegetative patient, the family constantly exposed to the macabre experience or the society that pays to keep this indecent situation in place?

Without a human mind, the human existence is without sense or value. Where's the need of maintaining that void? Is there not an inherently cruelty of not letting things end?

As I said, I'm not discussing the morality of the killing, which I consider wrong for reasons you will not accept, just as I do not accept yours. I see no point in debating religion, so I'm not going to do it. What I'm talking about is the method of the killing - i.e., by starving the person to death, which I consider cruel even by your standards. I don't see where you address this.

Kishke -

Its actually not cruel. Most often, sustenance deprivation is exactly how Doctors respect a patient's DNR directive. Its quite painless.

Kishke, I think Toubrouk's point was that part of "vegetative" includes not being conscious/aware of the environment or the self. She would not react, for example, to being pricked with needles. While "starving her to death" sounds ghastly to those of us with consciousness, of course, her vegetative state means that she had no consciousness nor pain. Practically speaking, she died in her sleep a decade ago. They just finally allowed her body to follow. And probably her soul/spirit, if you believe in that.

by starving the person to death, which I consider cruel even by your standards.

It would be cruel, if this woman could feel pain, hunger, could think or dream. She can't. Cruelty, in this case, in my opinion, is letting this once-beautiful woman languish in a bed for as long as medical science can keep her body functional. That's not living.

I believe in god, and souls, and heaven and all that, and I believe that if god is really god, that poor woman was gone from her body the minute she was brain dead, that she is in heaven and beyond the sad existence the Vatican seems eager to condemn her to. I'm all about cherishing human life, but she is dead, she has been dead for a long time, and her body's continued functioning is nothing more than a painful burden on her family.

This is why I am a twenty-one-year-old with a living will: pull the plug when the doctors advise it, take everything worth having--hell, skin me from head to toe if it'll help someone--and then burn the rest. Our bodies are the least part of what makes us people.

I don't think it's possible to know for sure precisely what such a person feels. Even if they don't respond to the obvious stimuli, there might be something at a deeper level.

Kishke, I am lost here; we agree that the lady was beyond any probable recovery and in a complete vegetative state. We are talking about someone who can't experience pain or hunger because that person is not sentient anymore. We are talking about the sentience level of a blade of grass.

We are talking about a cadaver kept alive due to the desire of others and the wonders of medical science.

Don't you just find the whole thing ghoulish?

Why it is so hard to just let it go?

Even if they don't respond to the obvious stimuli, there might be something at a deeper level.

And still you'd defend the choice to keep her alive? If she were trapped--blind, deaf, oblivious to sensation, unable to make her wishes known--in her own body, you would leave her there for a decade?...two?...half a century, spent in a lonely hell?

That's even worse, if there's some spark of her left trapped in a useless body. People go mad in isolation, I can't imagine being isolated and sensory deprived for a full and hellish lifetime. Seems to me an even more compelling reason to pull that plug.

Amy, I still consider that one of the greatest act of defiance Humans ever unleashed towards the Gods was the invention of Penicillin and vaccination.

"God's Will" smitten by a bottle of pills? Who knew! :D

Amy, I still consider that one of the greatest act of defiance Humans ever unleashed towards the Gods was the invention of Penicillin and vaccination.

What's that supposed to mean? I don't get it.

Seems to me an even more compelling reason to pull that plug.

Why do you assume the person's suffering? There's no way to know. Maybe it's peaceful. Maybe not. Maybe she feels nothing at all. If you don't know what you're causing, it's best to do nothing at all.

Don't you just find the whole thing ghoulish?

No, I don't. I see this as a person of value, whose death should not be hastened.

My friend was telling me about a cop she knows who said that even a fetus that endangers the mother's life should be born.

The guy's a fool. I can't speak for Christian practice, but Jewish law says abort the fetus.

kishke:

But my point remains. They were prepared to starve a person to death, and even began the process. Again, you don't have to be religious to see why that's wrong.

No, I think you do have to be religious to see why that is wrong.

Toubrouk has said it already very well, but I will pile on. Your phrase "starve a person to death" presumes, without justification, just what you mean by "person".

As with Terry Schiavo, what the religious have done is to fetishize a pulse rate. Presuming, as with Mrs. Schiavo, everything past Ms. Englaro;s brain stem was simply gone, then there is simply no person there, no someone to whom we could be barbaric towards: the concepts of barbarism and barbarism as you use them are meaningless.

Even if they don't respond to the obvious stimuli, there might be something at a deeper level.

Which means you should stop to consider that possibly, just possibly, if that included sentience of any kind, the horror of such an existence would be beyond imagining.

Think about it: one of the worst forms of deprivation is solitary confinement. Her solitude would be crushingly complete.

++++

Toubrouk:

Amy, I still consider that one of the greatest act of defiance Humans ever unleashed towards the Gods was the invention of Penicillin and vaccination.

I'll raise you one: clean water.

For all the dietary fussiness of the Old Testament, funny God never mentioned the importance of clean hands and water. Particularly for children.

Either God was unaware of the germ theory of disease until humans brought it up, or God is (choose one or more) oblivious / despicable / non-existent.

That is what, Toubrouk meant, kishke.

How can you know she's not? I don't personally believe that people in a persistent vegetative state are suffering--I don't think they're there at all, the spark that made them human is gone. I think that keeping the body alive is fruitless and cruel to the living family. It was you who posited that there might be some deep reserve of sentience beneath the medical diagnosis of braindeath, and I merely offered my opinion that any sort of existence in such a state would be nothing short of an extended prison sentence.

If you don't know what you're causing, it's best to do nothing at all.

By that logic, you can argue she should be taken off the life support all together--they could be inflicting a horrible existence on her by keeping her alive. You don't know exactly what you're doing by keeping someone breathing and functioning on a very basic level, so it's best to do nothing at all. It would be kinder to her family if they didn't have to see their daughter's aging, atrophied, near-lifeless form laying useless in a bed for the next fifty years.

So, you think evidence-free beliefs, if they aren't your particular religion, are foolish?

Sure, I have no allegiance to any other religion but my own. My point, though, was that what he said is not necessarily the product of any religion, just his own opinion.

For all the dietary fussiness of the Old Testament, funny God never mentioned the importance of clean hands and water.

It's funny only if you assume that the dietary laws are required for reasons of health.

Which means you should stop to consider that possibly, just possibly, if that included sentience of any kind, the horror of such an existence would be beyond imagining.

Or maybe not. That's what we don't know.

By that logic, you can argue she should be taken off the life support all together

That would not be considered doing nothing. But I would agree that she perhaps should not have been put onto the life support to begin with.

What do you think of Jewish law that says little boys' penises should be hacked at because Jews should look different than others down there?

I'm not going to respond, just b/c the answer to any such question has to begin with a belief in God, and in His commandments to the Jews. If you believe, there's not much of a question. If you don't, there's really no answer. I don't think that's a gulf that can be bridged in a blog comment.

Kinshke you're a fruitcake. 48hrs off a feeding tube does not cause a fatal heart attack.

And your belief is not reason enough for the rest of us to live our life the way you would wish.

And quite frankly until you can provide proof that your religon is correct why should we take you any more seriously that that pedophile warren jeffs or david koresh?

And WR newborns can feed themselves, or do you suppose some tube magically sprouts out of a womans nipple a deposits the food diercty in the stomach no effort on their part required?

FOr fucks sake what it is about religion that drops your collective IQ's to my 3 yr old niece' age?

kishke:

It's funny only if you assume that the dietary laws are required for reasons of health.

No, what makes it funny is the profound theodicy problem this presents.

Despite human nature, God promotes dietary practices that have no purpose other than emphasize tribalism.

Yet cannot find the time or breath to make a couple simple suggestions that would have prevented hecatombs of easily avoided suffering and death.

All of which is OT.

What is OT here is the attempt by the Catholic Church to impose metaphysical claims upon those who find them bunkum.

And your belief is not reason enough for the rest of us to live our life the way you would wish.

I didn't say it was. But neither is your unbelief a reason for us to live our lives the way you would wish. That's why we have democracy, so we can vote on which way gets followed.

And quite frankly until you can provide proof that your religon is correct why should we take you any more seriously

Well, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not you take me seriously, and even if it did, I couldn't prove anything to anyone's satisfaction, just as you couldn't disprove it to mine. But how about this: If what I say make sense to you, take it seriously; if it doesn't don't.

So you're saying it wasn't all about George W. Bush, the "Liar!" President of the United States?

God promotes dietary practices that have no purpose other than emphasize tribalism.

How do you know what their purpose is?

kishke:

That's why we have democracy, so we can vote on which way gets followed.

You have forgotten our country is predicated upon contractually limited government. There are certain things beyond the government's purview, no matter what the majority votes.

Freedom of and from religion, as well as speech are two that come to mind.

Which brings to mind the whole freedom of religion thing (which, SFAIK, is allegedly the law in Italy): how does the Catholic Church presume to impose its metaphysical claims on those who find those claims vacuous?

Certain decisions are private, full stop. This is one.

How do you know what their purpose is?

True enough, I don't know what their purpose was. However, it is easy discern effect, regardless of cause.

More importantly though, I'll presume that I was completely wrong about purpose.

That still leaves you with the glaring theodicy problem I mentioned: [God did not] find the time or breath to make a couple simple suggestions that would have prevented hecatombs of easily avoided suffering and death.

"My friend was telling me about a cop she knows who said that even a fetus that endangers the mother's life should be born.

The guy's a fool. I can't speak for Christian practice, but Jewish law says abort the fetus."

I'm willing to bet I'm the only commenter here who's ever had a fetus endanger her life. Drastically so. And I say women who kill their kid to save their own lives are the worst sort of selfish cowards. Would you kill your 5 year old if you needed a heart transplant and she was a match? Totally off-topic, but I can't let that one slide, ever.

Skipper,

I can't believe I forgot the clean water! We just have to look toward Zimbabwe to see the vital need for clear water. You got me on this one.

Freedom of and from religion, as well as speech are two that come to mind.

But this is not a matter of religion per se. It just that in a question of human life, one's views are naturally informed by one's beliefs. I believe even vegetative human life is valuable. You believe just as fervently it is not. Freedom of and from religion allows each of us a voice nonetheless. That is democracy in practice.

Of course, best would be a policy that allows each to act upon his own beliefs. The danger in that, from my point of view, is that it won't stop there. The next step would be for doctors to decide when life should be terminated. In other words, the decision would be taken out of one's own hands. That's why a living will really is the best way to go. It allows each person to make these decisions for themselves.

As for the theodicy problem, I am not a student of theology, but I don't doubt that it has been addressed somewhere or other. It's not something that especially troubles me, or would impact my beliefs, in any case.

And I say women who kill their kid to save their own lives are the worst sort of selfish cowards. Would you kill your 5 year old if you needed a heart transplant and she was a match?

It's not comparable. The 5-year-old is endangering you. The fetus is.

Sorry, should have said: The 5-year-old is not endangering you. The fetus is.

bans against eating pork probably comes from the fact ...

Well, yes. He doesn't believe the Bible is God-given, so he rationalizes the commandment. It's just his theory.

And I say women who kill their kid to save their own lives are the worst sort of selfish cowards.

And had you died you children would have grown up thinking you were the selfish one

momof3:

And I say women who kill their kid to save their own lives are the worst sort of selfish cowards. Would you kill your 5 year old if you needed a heart transplant and she was a match?

Argument from analogy is problematic, because so often the analogy is inappropriate.

Which isn't necessarily the case here; however, perhaps re-casting the analogy would highlight a problem.

Let's say your five-year old was a psychopath (it happens to the best of parents), and was pointing a loaded and cocked pistol at your head (analogous to an ectopic pregnancy, I suppose)? Presuming the only option is to shoot the 5 yr-old before he shoots you, what then?

And, moving into even more troublesome terrain, what if your fetus suffers from Trisomy 13?

kishke:

Freedom of and from religion allows each of us a voice nonetheless. That is democracy in practice.

To be clear, I completely agree with you here. Also, I completely agree that your position is impossible to refute, or ridicule, because of the difference in entering arguments.

However, that is not what was at stake in Amy's post. What was at stake was the attempted imposition of metaphysical claims upon those who do not share them. We should be just as hostile towards that as towards the opposite case -- demanding the end of intrusive medical care regardless of the metaphysical beliefs of those affected.

As for the theodicy problem, I am not a student of theology, but I don't doubt that it has been addressed somewhere or other.

Not that I have ever seen. Theodicy came about as a consequence of Lisbon's 1755 earthquake. So far as I have ever seen it addressed, it boils down to asking why a benevolent and powerful God allows the existence of evil and suffering.

Superficially, that is easy to deal with: evil and suffering necessarily attend the existence of free will and a self-sustaining universe (e.g. -- a geologically active earth occasionally causes suffering and death on a huge scale; however, without that activity, the Earth would be sterile).

However, it has either not occurred to apologists (SFAIK), or they are in denial about the theodicy issues surrounding clean water and basic hygiene.

Those things are so simple that even humans could discover the need for them.

Therefore, the suffering and death their absence entailed were unnecessary, and well within the capacity of any God worthy of the name to prevent.

So, the theodicy problem is sitting there, right in the open. God is either less powerful than humans, or less aware, or unspeakably evil, or non-existent.

What other option is there?

Let's say your five-year old was a psychopath (it happens to the best of parents), and was pointing a loaded and cocked pistol at your head

Even better, to remove emotion from the equation, let's say someone else's 5-year-old psychopath was pointing a gun at your head and the only way out was to kill him. Would it be selfish cowardice to kill the child?

However, that is not what was at stake in Amy's post. What was at stake was the attempted imposition of metaphysical claims upon those who do not share them. We should be just as hostile towards that as towards the opposite case -- demanding the end of intrusive medical care regardless of the metaphysical beliefs of those affected.

I can agree with you there. My comment was less a defense of their position than an expression of horror that anyone would think it okay to starve someone to death.

On the theodicy question, I don't see this as different than any other question of why God allows evil to exist. All such questions presuppose that humans are empowered to understand and evaluate God's reasons for doing this or the other. Again, I can't speak for Christian belief, but in Jewish belief, God is seen as inscrutable, and Man cannot expect to understand the reasoning behind His actions. The expectation is that at some future date, when all is perfected, we will be enlightened. Whenever that does occur, I'll try and remember to raise the question of clean water!

(You might be interested to know that there are several Biblical and Talmudic commandments that are either hygiene-based or affect hygiene. If you're interested, I can email you privately.)

> And I say women who kill their
> kid to save their own lives are
> the worst sort of selfish cowards.

Looj, that is a fantastically crude thing for you to say.

Since the dawn of humanity, death during labor has been a terrifically efficient way to kill women. Take a look at this graph, and notice the spike that follows the industrial revolution.

A whole lot of our culture, as well as a whole lot of psychological and emotional biology is built around the understand that a pregnant woman is facing an hour (or an afternoon , or a weekend) that could wound or maim her. And that fact that modern medicine can reduce these threats doesn't make the risks go away, as if it weren't a problem any more. It's very much a problem we just handle it better.

(In fact, the stakes just wiggle around: Remember Amy ranting a few weeks ago that the rest of us should never have to care for sickly babies? Lunacy... Sheer, naked moon-worship.)

And even if a mother survives the first one, the second is only moderately less hazardous.

Camille Paglia has the right view of this. Our bipedal biology, and the complications it brings to reproductions, means that woman are war with nature, and they'll do what it takes to protect their interests.

And everyone else in the world, especially men, should be very circumspect about calling them "selfish cowards".

You, Lujlp, have never faced a threat like this, and will never be asked to. And the "cowards" know that as you speak.

Typo City, California.

Sorry, I been sick.

Sleep this week has been in 40-second puddles between coughing fits and chills; the "dreams" have all been about computer networks collapsing at work and incompetent bureaucrats spending money they haven't even taxed from me yet.

Then dawn comes, and it's all true!

Man cannot expect to understand the reasoning behind His actions - kishke

And yet you want us to belive that he wants brain dead bodies kept alive indefinatly thru mechainical aids?

I would say to you kishke perhaps there is a reson for death and we shouldnt try to avoid the inevitable.

And crid no I havent but were I to be married I'd rather have a live wife and a dead baby then a dead wife and dead baby

One of my favorite theologians addresses the "agent-less suffering" problem here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html

To piggy back on what Crid said (although I think he was really responding to momof3), pre-modern medicine, roughly 20% of all women died either in childbirth, or as a direct consequence thereof.

++++

kishke:

On the theodicy question, I don't see this as different than any other question of why God allows evil to exist.

It is different, because in the case of evil, it is an unavoidable consequence of human nature combined with free will.

In contrast, death from contaminated water is so avoidable even humans can do it, once they stumble upon the germ theory of disease.

There is a very clear difference between the two.

All such questions presuppose that humans are empowered to understand and evaluate God's reasons for doing this or the other. Again, I can't speak for Christian belief, but in Jewish belief, God is seen as inscrutable

The terms used to describe the God Abrahamic religions worship must have a meaning scrutable to humans in order to provide any point for their use.

The existence of easily avoidable death and cruel suffering directly contradicts those terms. Relying upon inscrutability as an answer amounts to completely avoiding the question.

I would be interested in seeing those passages; I include my email address when I comment.

It's not avoiding the question. It's saying the answer is beyond our understanding.

The terms used to describe the God Abrahamic religions worship must have a meaning scrutable to humans in order to provide any point for their use.

God is described in terms humans can understand b/c that's all we can comprehend. His essence and motivations remain beyond us. That's Jewish Belief 101.

it is an unavoidable consequence of human nature combined with free will.

Nothing is unavoidable for an omnipotent God. Which means there's really no difference between the cases.

Skipper is correct: It was M3, not Lujlp. I apologize!

And not only that:

> were I to be married I'd rather
> have a live wife and a dead baby
> then a dead wife and dead baby

Loojy's right: A successful flight from pregnancy can mean living to fight another day.

"Selfish cowards" is just gruesome language, wherever it came from.

kishke:

Nothing is unavoidable for an omnipotent God. Which means there's really no difference between the cases.

You still miss the distinction.

Within the context of human nature and free will, evil is unavoidable. God could, presumably, have given us a different nature, or eliminated free will, but with both as they are, evil is unavoidable.

Within the context of a homeostatic planet -- one which does not require God's intervention for every jot and tittle -- death and suffering due to natural forces are unavoidable.

In contrast, it is demonstrably true that there is nothing unavoidable about the tremendous death and suffering accompanying unclean water. The question is why, since it is so easy to accomplish, God didn't see fit to mention that.

The inscrutability argument is a dodge, a get out of jail free card, an admission that theists ultimately never have to answer anything.

When God gave to humans dominion over all the plants and animals, He was either lying, or manifestly ignorant about the fact that bacteria have dominion over us.

I don't like any of it, not one bit...

BUT, if someone is going to err, if someone is going to be wrong, if someone is going to fight some knd of legal or moral battle...I should think erring on the side of LIFE is far better than erring on the side of DEATH.

I'm not a big fan of artificial life, but I'm not a bigger fan of contrived death either.

Pick your side...but lets not pretend either one is pretty.

Main Entry: contrived
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
artificial , labored

Tell me Robert how is letting nature take its course artifical?

If anything keeping the woman alive unnaturally for 17yrs was contrived

Not much time now, but boy will I get back to this later. IN the meantime:

"And had you died you children would have grown up thinking you were the selfish one"

No looj, they would have grown up knowing I love all my kids, and would never kill one. They would have grown up surrounded by loving family and I'm sure a stepmom at some point.

A 5 year old pointing a gun at me? I don't know a mom on the planet (and I know hundreds, being President of a large moms group) that would ever kill their kid. Not to save their own life, not for any reason. Obviously, there are psychos out there who do kill their kids for any number of reasons, but they are not the norm. The norm (in nature at least, if not "civilization") is the mom who throws herself at the tiger to save her offspring when attacked. It's a biological imperative.

Ectopic pregnancies are not viable pregnancies, and do not fit the definition of pregnancy. I am not saying medicine shouldn't be used to help women in childbirth, of course it should. Why must killing a baby be medicine?

Looj, I think your preferences in the situation would be worthless. Like no man can tell a woman to abort, no man can make this decision nor should.

Hey SKipper, a fetus with trisomy 13 is not problematic in the slightest for my argument. I would never abort one and think the death of so very many of these kids is genocide. Not to mention eugenics.

As I said in my original post, I HAVE BEEN THERE, you have not, and I stand by my selfish coward comment. I get to.

Oh, and obviously I am fine. And the baby. Who is absolutely beloved by her siblings.

The inscrutability argument is a dodge, a get out of jail free card, an admission that theists ultimately never have to answer anything.

I can see why, from your point of view, you would see it that way, but that's not how I see it at all. It actually represents a foundational Jewish conception of God. The fact that it makes it inconvenient for you to disprove that conception of God is no concern of mine.

In contrast, it is demonstrably true that there is nothing unavoidable about the tremendous death and suffering accompanying unclean water. The question is why, since it is so easy to accomplish, God didn't see fit to mention that.

You might as well ask why God created a world where unclean water and germs are a problem. Surely they are not necessary for human nature and free will. My answer would be that I have no conception of God's reasoning. The same applies for why He did not warn us of them after creating them.

Skipper: Your email address is not visible to me. When I click on your name I get your blog; I don't see an email address there.

Hey SKipper, a fetus with trisomy 13 is not problematic in the slightest for my argument. I would never abort one and think the death of so very many of these kids is genocide. Not to mention eugenics.

I love the way the word "Eugenics" is dropped into this paragraph. As if that single word would wipe out any argument against the abortion of a Trisomic kid.

We are living in an age of unparalleled wonders where the man is bending the laws of nature. We are now able to detect things like genetic diseases and in some times, permanently treating them. But when we are called to act on these diseases we should ignore the human mind and return, in shackles of our ignorance, right into the arms of mother nature?

As far as I am concerned, the word "Eugenics" is quite a nice word for me.

My answer would be that I have no conception of God's reasoning. The same applies for why He did not warn us of them after creating them.

I got one; he's a bastard. You don't create a harmful virus for the good of humanity. As far as I am concerned, If a God exist, we should indict him for crimes against humanity.

(I would also sue him in Civil Court for all the flaws in the Human Body but this is another story)

You don't create a harmful virus for the good of humanity. As far as I am concerned, If a God exist, we should indict him for crimes against humanity.

It seems like you want God to have minimized unnecessary suffering, but what is unnecessary? How much is too much? We all suffer to various degrees at different times. Should God have created a world free of suffering and death?

What leads people to think that God owes us anything? According to Christian theology, all have sinned and fallen short of God's standards, and the penalty for sin is death and separation from God. Therefore nothing good should be taken for granted, but instead treated as something special that we get despite what we deserve. Be grateful for the good things and mourn the bad things.

If the existence of unnecessary suffering is an argument against the existence of God, then shouldn't the existence of unnecessary pleasure be an argument for the existence of God? If (a implies b) and (not b), then (not a).

My goal here is not to convince anyone that God exists, but to show that belief in the Christian God is not self-contradictory. Ultimately everything we believe comes from our subjective experiences, and for you to say "My experience leads me to believe that God does not exist" is as valid as it is for me to say "My experience leads me to believe that God does exist."

I would also sue him in Civil Court for all the flaws in the Human Body

No need! If you're unhappy with your purchase, I'm sure He'd be happy to take a return with a full refund of your purchase price.

"What leads people to think that God owes us anything?" Then what precisely do we owe that god?

"the penalty for sin is death and separation from God" That would only work if people died only after they had the ability to sin.

"They would have grown up surrounded by loving family" And yet when someone is a single mother regardless of her support structure you want her punished. Hypocrisy are you some how special? Also I'd like to point out the before a certain point in the pregnancy mom's death equals babies death. As far as ectopic pregnancy would you support medical technology that can transplant that fetus so that it survives.

kishke:
So as I understand it by Jewish law death is defined by the heart stopping. If I'm wrong disregard. Does that mean that when a heart transplant is performed that the recipient is dead and the donor continues to live? All the worlds faiths have to address the advances of science and many have (they would be called moderates or progressives), many have also refused out right (fundies).

Put quite simply we as a society should set down a frame work for what alive and dead means in the face of modern technology. If your willing to put in enough effort a vegetable can be kept alive for a very long time.

"If you're unhappy with your purchase, I'm sure He'd be happy to take a return with a full refund of your purchase price." Meaning?

vlad: I'm not an expert, but I'll answer to the best of my ability. In earlier times there was no need for a distinction between the different signs of death b/c they all occurred simultaneously. There is much debate among various experts regarding what should be viewed today as constituting legal death. Some say it should be cessation of cardiovascular activity, some a cessation of the ability to breathe. A minority allow brain death to be considered death (although my understanding is there are different definitions of brain death - not all would qualify). If you're interested in reading a summary of the issues and opinions in the context of Jewish law, there's one at this link:

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/brain.html

Your question is a fascinating one. I'm not sure of the legal status of the person you describe, but I can try to explore the question and get back to you if you're interested.

""They would have grown up surrounded by loving family" And yet when someone is a single mother regardless of her support structure you want her punished. Hypocrisy are you some how special? Also I'd like to point out the before a certain point in the pregnancy mom's death equals babies death. As far as ectopic pregnancy would you support medical technology that can transplant that fetus so that it survives."

Sigh....no Vlad, no one is stupid enough (and I just posted this exact comment recently on the octomom thread) to damn women (or men) who are single parents due to death/extreme circumstance. We can and do damn them for choosing it, like their personal whims are more important than the kid. And I am thoroughly life insured, FYI.

I think it'd be great if every fetus conceived was wanted and could be saved. A goal worthy of working towards, don't you think? Or do you much prefer the "make 'em and scrape 'em" philosophy? I mean, putting on a condom is just so haaaardd....

"If you're unhappy with your purchase, I'm sure He'd be happy to take a return with a full refund of your purchase price." Meaning?

Toubrouk said that he would sue God for compensation for the flaws in the human body. My response was that if he's unhappy with what he's been given, I'm sure God will be glad to accept his body's return with a full refund of whatever he might have paid for it, in which case there are no grounds for a suit.

vlad: I meant to include the following links in my earlier response. They tell about a guy who got up and walked away four months after being declared brain dead, just as the doctors were about to harvest his organs:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340970,00.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/03/24/2008-03-24_oklahoma_man_who_was_declared_dead_says_.html

My idea was more around a class-action lawsuit. That body properly belongs to me but he screw-up the design. He needs to pay.

Of course, God would have to clear his charges for the creation and the release of biological weapons against civilians before and this might take a little time.

Who created the Anthrax spores first? If a man can be accused and found guilty of releasing them in the nature, Why not God?

"We can and do damn them for choosing it," Um the choice that would have killed you however unpalatable was still a choice. Your refusal to even consider the choice does not absolve you from it.

"I mean, putting on a condom is just so haaaardd...." Actually this depends on your religious views, since we are arguing faith and conviction and not science. Catholics believe that protection is a sin, as is most other things. In their own minds their belief is just as valid as your belief is to you. Then you have rape muddies the shit out of the waters.

Killing a child is wrong no one will argue that, the question is what defines child. Science has no solid (embryo, fetus and child do not have clear delineations) answer so we have to enter faith. Faith is not really debatable.

My idea was more around a class-action lawsuit. That body properly belongs to me but he screw-up the design. He needs to pay.

If you didn't commission and pay for the design, He doesn't owe you a thin dime. It was all a gift. Don't like it, return it.

They tell about a guy who got up and walked away four months after being declared brain dead, just as the doctors were about to harvest his organs

There's a technical term for this, it is called wrong diagnostic. It happen from time to time in hospital. Mistakes are made and sometimes, it came with irreversible consequences.

This being said, what are the possibilities? One over a thousand? One over a hundred thousand? Should we maintain, against our better judgement, large hospitals filled with people diagnosticated with a terminal case of Brain Dead just in case?

Medical "miracles" still happen today but they are more in the realm of the anecdotal than mainstream facts.

Faith is not really debatable.

Oh yes, faith is debatable. Especially when Witch-Doctors ask us to discard reason in the name of Holy Fairy-tales or when GOD became an excuse for committing the worst crimes.

Everything is debatable. There's not a better use of reason that to debate ideals?

Toubrouk: An idea: Your parents presumably knew of the flaws in the human body before producing you. Why not sue them?

"Oh yes, faith is debatable." That's not what I meant but fair enough that's how it came out.

First, my parents dint knew. Genetic testing at the time was unknown. Second, even if they knew, they wouldn't have the technology to fix it.

This is in opposition to an All-Knowing, All-Seeing and All-Powerful God who created the Human Body with all his structural flaws and it's reproductive issues. Since he's All-Knowing, he perfectly knew that the Human DNA was instable and that the human mechanic as created was so much bugged that a freshman in a university mechanical class could come up with a better design.

Honestly, why did he take the primate template and manipulated 2% of the DNA instead of making humans out of scratch? He slacked on the job and this is worth retribution.

Honestly, why did he take the primate template and manipulated 2% of the DNA instead of making humans out of scratch? He slacked on the job and this is worth retribution.

As I said above, if you believe in the Jewish conception of God, there's no point in questioning His reasons. And if you don't believe, there's also no point in questioning His reasons, b/c He doesn't exist. Which pretty much means there's no point to this conversation we're having right now. We're starting from different assumptions, which makes debate impossible.

"was so much bugged that a freshman in a university mechanical class could come up with a better design." Oh I agreed with you till you got to this point. I'll grant you might make a better one off design and if you remake the molds, replace the tooling, and scratch build each part maybe. Having been in freshman engineering classes I very much doubt it, same goes for a senior mech E class. The mechanical system is unlikely to be self healing, self replicating, and self contained. The system would wear down over time so the replicated copies would be much worse even if they were possible. Self adapting systems are the holy grail of engineering, however like the holy grail it might exist but no one has it.

"We're starting from different assumptions, which makes debate impossible." No but it does make a definitive resolution improbable. That's what makes the debate engaging. The exchange of ideas has a purpose all it's own.

off topic kishke:
Is a psych eval a normal part of conversion to Judaism?

vlad: Not that I know of.

vlad: But I should say, I'm not that familiar with the process.

The inscrutability argument is a dodge, a get out of jail free card, an admission that theists ultimately never have to answer anything. - Dont know who said it

I can see why, from your point of view, you would see it that way, but that's not how I see it at all. kishke response

Here's how I see it
James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

Now I have a question, has god ever answered any one prayers when asking why?
Lets have an experiment, all you belivers tonight pray for the answer for two questions, What it the meaning of life and the formula for cold fusion. Let us know who succsessful you all are, OK?

No need! If you're unhappy with your purchase, I'm sure He'd be happy to take a return with a full refund of your purchase pricePosted by: kishke

Werent you just advocating keeping bodies alive as long as possible no matter the circumstance as it was gods will? Why the change of heart?

As I said above, if you believe in the Jewish conception of God, there's no point in questioning His reasons by: kishke

I quote "there's no point in questioning"
FIrst off do you perhaps recall the exodus? the conquest and founding of Isreal? The selection of a king?

All your people did was question, except oddly enough when they were slaves in Eypgt, If god truly exists and turly want blind mindless obediance the he really fucked up, which shows he is that knowing or powerful

What leads people to think that God owes us anything?

>> By that logic why do we owe god?

According to Christian theology, all have sinned and fallen short of God's standards, and the penalty for sin is death and separation from God.

>>And according to that same theology we are all being punished for someone elses sins in our seperation from god, a sin jesus claimed was forgiven y his suffering in the garden, maybe I missed it but did god come back 2000yrs ago and everyone simply missed it?

If the existence of unnecessary suffering is an argument against the existence of God, then shouldn't the existence of unnecessary pleasure be an argument for the existence of God?

>>Define unnecesafy plesure and I might be able to comprehend the question

My goal here is not to convince anyone that God exists, but to show that belief in the Christian God is not self-contradictory.

>>You havent

Ultimately everything we believe comes from our subjective experiences, and for you to say "My experience leads me to believe that God does not exist" is as valid as it is for me to say "My experience leads me to believe that God does exist."

>>True enough, so long as you belive me when I say that my experince leads me to belive that vampires rule the world thru their straglehold an the illumianti and their hypnotic control of the olympian gods and the easter bunny

Killing a child is wrong no one will argue that, the question is what defines child. Science has no solid (embryo, fetus and child do not have clear delineations) answer so we have to enter faith. Faith is not really debatable.
Posted by: vlad

That because people of faith kept changing what defined a child. Give catholics enough time and they'll have masterbaters exectuted for "killing" billions of children

Werent you just advocating keeping bodies alive as long as possible no matter the circumstance as it was gods will? Why the change of heart?

Obviously, I was being humorous. I didn't really mean he should kill himself. Next.

James 1:5

The New Testament means nothing to me.

All your people did was question,

Yes, they did a lot of complaining, as Jews are wont to do, and were occasionally punished for it. So?

The point is they questioned, endlessly - kinda throws a wrench in your 'jews dont question gods will' shtick

Tell me though, how do you know what gods will is? And how can you ever be sure if you mindlessly obey with nary a thought to the ramifications?

If it were gods will that you be horrible tortured to death would you submit?

Or better et if it was gods will for you to be horribly tortured to death and you didnt know it was gods will would you submit?

kinda throws a wrench in your 'jews dont question gods will' shtick

Not at all. People don't always do what they're supposed to. That's not exactly news.

If it were gods will that you be horrible tortured to death would you submit?

What's your question? Are you asking whether there are cases where Jewish law requires that a person submit to death rather than sin? The answer is yes, a very few. Or are you asking whether I personally would follow the law in such a case? The answer is I hope I would have the strength, but who knows? I have no wish to ever find out. Where are you going with these particular questions?

Where I am going is the cost of blind mindless obedince.

Im not asking a death or sin question.

I am asking that if it were part of 'gods grand design' that some random nut job kill you horribly for no reason what so ever that you could understand would you sumbit without comment or question?

But more importantly, given god doesnt speak to us mortals how do you know what he wants?

I am asking that if it were part of 'gods grand design' that some random nut job kill you horribly for no reason what so ever that you could understand would you sumbit without comment or question?

The scenario doesn't make sense to me. If someone wanted to harm me, I'd try to stop him or escape. Why would I assume he's doing God's will?

But more importantly, given god doesnt speak to us mortals how do you know what he wants?

According to Jewish belief, He did speak to mortals at Mount Sinai, and to prophets then and subsequently. The Torah was given then; the commandments are either stated or derived from it.

Is or isn't god "all powerful."

He is all-powerful but allows humans free will.

You believe this why?

And you don't believe this why?

And how convenient

Convenient for whom? Me? This idea was around long before I existed. So who do you mean when you say it's convenient?

The scenario doesn't make sense to me. If someone wanted to harm me, I'd try to stop him or escape.

So what your saying kishke is if the stakes were high enough and you didnt understand then you would question. Kinda flies in the fact of your 'I never question' stance doesnt it?

Why would I assume he's doing God's will?

Gods will is inscrutable remember? Plus he's ordered and orchestated other peoples deaths hasnt he?

Another question isnt it part of Jewish belif that god is unchanging, what with being perfect and therefore haveing no need to change?

I don't believe in anything without evidence because I'm not gullible or an idiot.

I can see why a person would say there's not enough evidence to accept the religion. But my view is that there is more than enough evidence to remain in the religion one was born into, which is the question in my case. The belief of God's revelation at Sinai is one that has been asserted by billions of people over thousands of years. Additionally, the facts of Sinai were transmitted to me personally by my parents and grandparents, who received it in their turn from their parents and grandparents, and so on for the past 30 generations or so. My parents are not in the habit of lying to me, particularly about something this important, and I assume theirs were not either, and so on. That puts the weight of both global and personal history in favor of my remaining faithful. I'm not going to throw it all over just b/c there's no video of the event. I would need evidence that it did not occur and I don't see that forthcoming.

Besides, the Torah is independently known to have existed for at least 2000 years. Which means that the period in which the supposed fraud was foisted on an entire nation, all of whose ancestors claimed to have witnessed the events of Sinai, down to only about 1000 years. I find it difficult to believe that such a fraud could have been perpetrated in that amount of time.

Additionally, I'd want some evidence that it was a fraud, and who perpetrated it, and what their reasons were for doing so, and I'd want details, not some vague theory. Do you have such evidence?

Furthermore, the idea that there is a God and that the universe didn't emerge from nowhere without some first cause makes a lot of sense to me, and seems to me self-evident. I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise.

So what your saying kishke is if the stakes were high enough and you didnt understand then you would question. Kinda flies in the fact of your 'I never question' stance doesnt it?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know where you're getting that from.

Gods will is inscrutable remember?

I don't understand His reasons, but He has made clear to us what He wants us to do, and submitting to murderers is not on the list.

Look, luj, this is getting ridiculous. I've been forthcoming with honest answers, but I'm getting the impression you're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you're baiting me, I'm not going to play.

I don't believe in anything without evidence because I'm not gullible or an idiot.

Everybody has evidence of what they believe. Humans are experts at correlating diverse experiences into a worldview. Actually, "experts" might be too positive a word; most of the time we can't help but think that the things we observe by random chance indicate a trend. This is a survival trait: people who flee at the first sign of a predator get eaten less. As a result we're all inherently irrational.

I'm a Christian because my experiences confirm my understanding of Christian theology. Presumably, you're not because your experiences do not correlate with your understanding of Christian theology. It's not just a matter of one or more of us being gullible; we have simply had different experiences.

Figuring out which of one's beliefs are wrong is hard. Logic helps, but is insufficient, because we're hard-wired to treat conclusions as axioms. The best that we can hope for is to be open-minded and willing to change our minds when we experience something that contradicts what our worldview predicts.

There's no proof there's a god

I didn't say there was. I said there's no proof that that there isn't one.

There's no proof there's a giant purple gorilla hovering over your house, but do you believe in one because there's no proof there isn't one?

I have no reason to believe such a thing. I have reason - even if not perfect evidence - to believe the other, as I outlined above.

The wikipedia entry you cite includes the following:

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist."

That appears to be your argument precisely, and as you have pointed out, it is a logical fallacy.

At any rate, you are misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that God's existence is proved b/c there is no evidence otherwise. I am saying that I see no reason to abandon the historical belief without evidence that it is wrong. I have seen no such evidence.

In 2009, it's childish thinking to believe, sans evidence, in a big man in the sky watching over you.

I don't see what living in 2009 has to do with it. What is it about this year or decade that convinces you there is no God?

Billion belive in santa are they wrong?

Millions belive in vampires are they wrong?

Millions belive that Elvis faked his death are they wrong?

Millions have at one time belived in animal and elemental spirtis were they wrong?

Billions currently belive in Krishna, Kali, Vishnu, and Brama are they wrong?

Billion currently belive in Allah(who has commanded your death FYI) are the wrong?

Throught history millions have belived in Agdistis, Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Amaterasu, An, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu ,Ares ,Artemis ,Asclepius ,Athena ,Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brigit ,Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun ,Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina, Davlin ,Daw, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti ,Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate, Helios, Heng-o, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Juno, Jupiter ,Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu ,Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Kukulcan, Lakshmi, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Nammu, Nanna, Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo ,Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, Rhea, Sabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Seshat, Seti, Set, Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin ,Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Tiamat, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Venus, Vesta, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu ,Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, Yhwh, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil, & Zeus Were they all wrong?

What makes your god the right one?

luj, you're asking about my beliefs or you're asking for evidence? My beliefs you already know; definite evidence there is none, as we've been through above. By the same token, though, your list of deities is no evidence of anything either, so around we go.

I'm going to sign off for now; probably won't be back online till Sunday morning. Until then!

So you admit that there is no proof that you faith is any more valid than the faith of those seeking your death - or of children wanting toys from the magic man in a red suit

But you still expext us to respect your beliefs and hold your opinions as being valid when you yourself admit that we have no reason to do so.

Again (is it 3 or 4 times now?) I will ask what makes your god any more real then the ones I listed and the thousands I didnt?

FYI, if you show me evidence that god exists, I would have to be crazy or an idiot to deny it.

You seem to have a much more constrained definition of "evidence" than I do. There is tons of evidence that god exists: millions of people say so, some claim to have personally communicated with him, lots of books are written about the topic, philosophers have considered it for thousands of years, and so on. You have clearly weighed that evidence and found it lacking, and you're hardly alone. It is perfectly reasonable to say "I am not convinced that God exists," and it's even reasonable to say "I am convinced that God does not exist," but it is not reasonable to say "it is impossible for any thinking person to be convinced that God exists" because clearly some do think that.

I believe that God will eventually reveal himself to each person at least once, and in that moment of clarity one gets to choose to follow God (or not). Maybe that hasn't happened to you yet.

What makes your god the right one?

The preponderance of evidence has convinced me; it's the most reasonable explanation for what I have observed. It's consistent with what I know about science, people, relationships and my own feelings. Time and again, the choices recommended by my theological beliefs turn out to be the best ones, and arguments against them are unconvincing.

It's ok for thinking people to disagree. Hashing things out is a good way to arrive at a more accurate understanding of reality.

momof3:

As I said in my original post, I HAVE BEEN THERE, you have not, and I stand by my selfish coward comment. I get to.

Yes, of course you do.

However, in a free society, the rest of us get to consider your comment, and not stand by it.

In the case of Trisomy 13, many who are prepared to stand by their statements would consider carrying a fetus with Trisomy 13 to term an act of sheer barbarism.

kishke:

Skipper: Your email address is not visible to me. When I click on your name I get your blog; I don't see an email address there.

My apologies -- I assumed (having never tried it) that clicking on my name led to my email address, which I include with every post (MD11Driver--comcast.net)

You might as well ask why God created a world where unclean water and germs are a problem.

No. Bacteria are essential to a homeostatic environment. The question is what characteristics of God are consistent with not bothering to mention very simple measures to greatly reduce the bacteria in drinking water, while at the same time going on and on about dietary prohibitions whose predictable effect is to stoke tribalism.

No coherent Christian conception of God is consistent with what any morally sentient being would rightly consider, at best, grotesque negligence. This isn't an argument against the existence of God, but rather whether the religious conception of God is tenable.

That is the theodicy problem you are not coming to terms with.

Well, perhaps that is not entirely true. You actually do address it: I have no conception of God's reasoning.

Fair enough. In so doing, though, you have just holed all religion below the water line.

The moment we acknowledge we have absolutely no idea what God is about then we must conclude that God != religion.

Um millions belive that vampires exist, the history channel has scientists and phylosophers saying they are real, it xdoest make them real though.

More people, muslims in this case, belive that all jews must be killed - as there are more muslims than jews does that make their god more real because more people belive in him?

So far the only evidence you have offered is "other people belive too"

You want an argument againt you god?

Remember a guy named Job?
God killed his wife and children, murdered them to settle a bet with the devil, a bet they knew the outcome of, because after all god is all knowing and incapable of deceipt.

So he mureded chilren for nothing, he ordered the deaths of men women(and their rapes FYI) and chilren when isreal invaded the promised land

That is the god you worship, a killer of children

No coherent Christian conception of God is consistent with what any morally sentient being would rightly consider, at best, grotesque negligence.

I think you mean the opposite of what this says.

"Is consistent with" is a tricky phrase, and strictly speaking I agree with what I think you mean. In the Bible, God orders the deaths of children, which is consistent with the evil things that humans do. That doesn't make it evil when God does it, though. To loop back around to the start of this thread, in at least one case it can be characterized as mercy killing (the only alternative was letting them starve in the desert; interestingly, I don't see this brought up when some church opposes euthanasia or suicide). In another case, he destroys a city via fire from the sky because of the wickedness of the culture there. In the stories, God is perfectly able to tell when an action is OK and when it is not.

Um millions belive that vampires exist, the history channel has scientists and phylosophers saying they are real, it xdoest make them real though.

Correct, and those scientists and philosophers that claim that vampires are real are examples of evidence that vampires are real. Weighed against my experiences, it's not very convincing evidence. This contrasts with the evidence for God's existence, both historical (various writings that claim to be first person accounts of the supernatural) and current (people who claim to have a relationship with God). The anthropic principle is evidence of God's existence. The Big Bang is evidence of God's existence. The predictive ability of the teachings of those who claim to follow God is evidence of God's existence. The positive transformation in the lives of people I know, including myself, after deciding to follow God is evidence of God's existence. No one thing on its own is definitive proof; instead it is a correlation of disparate experiences that say, yes, the existence of the Christian God is the most reasonable explanation for what I see.

Evidence is not proof. What is true is true regardless of what anybody believes about it. Figuring out what's true can be hard, and the only tools we have are logic and our imperfect, random, subjective experiences.

What is true is true regardless of what anybody believes about it.

Intersting, are you willing to admit to the posibilty of there not being a god then?

Because quite frankly the only evidence anyone ever seems to be offering as proof of god is that other people belive as well.

Anyone recall the bubonic plauge? people belived that keeping flowers in your pocket would ward of the disease

Pseudonym:

I think you mean the opposite of what this says.

"Is consistent with" is a tricky phrase, and strictly speaking I agree with what I think you mean.

I must not have expressed myself clearly.

First, elucidate those characteristics God has.

Then, reconcile those characteristics with the fact that God chose to levy a fair number of dietary restrictions (among other things) upon his believers, yet somehow neglected the obvious: wash your hands after voiding, strictly separate human waste and drinking sources, boil water before drinking.

These are simple things that, had God included them along with the dietary elements, would have saved immeasurable death and suffering, particularly among the most innocent: children.

My position is that you cannot square these glaring omissions with any Abrahamic religion's concept of God.

Unless you throw in the "inscrutability" card. That does, indeed, vitiate the theodicy problem. However, it does so at the cost of wiping out every foundation of religious belief.

Intersting, are you willing to admit to the posibilty of there not being a god then?

Yes, absolutely. I'm surely wrong about many things, and I'm aware of confirmation bias. For all we know, we're living in a simulation, but I don't think that matters, because by trial and error I've determined that I can affect the amount of unpleasantness I experience.

Skipper:

Thanks, that's very clear. I am not sure how to avoid the "inscrutability" card, because I don't actually know how God thinks or what all the reasons for the dietary restrictions were. We know now that some of them have practical benefits, but I don't know that all of them do. Maybe contaminated water was not a big problem in palestine three thousand years ago. I think one benefit was to differentiate the Jews from their neighbors and limit cultural mixing. Theoretically God could have also saved lives by specifying advanced farming, metallurgical and mathematical techniques. Why not give the Jews gunpowder? In the absence of giving them omniscience he had to stop somewhere. I am fairly confident that minimizing human suffering is not one of the goals of God.

Could you explain what exactly you mean by "inscrutability" and why you believe it wipes out every foundation of religious belief?

So you admit that there is no proof that you faith is any more valid than the faith of those seeking your death - or of children wanting toys from the magic man in a red suit

As I have said, there is evidence that satisfies me. See above.

Skipper: God could have created non-harmful bacteria for the homeostatic world. My response stands.

But you still expext us to respect your beliefs

No, not in particular. What I do expect is for you to respect my right to hold and express my beliefs, just as I respect your right to hold and express a belief that I think is foolish.

Pseudonym:

I don't actually know how God thinks or what all the reasons for the dietary restrictions were. ... Theoretically God could have also saved lives by specifying advanced farming, metallurgical and mathematical techniques. Why not give the Jews gunpowder? In the absence of giving them omniscience he had to stop somewhere. I am fairly confident that minimizing human suffering is not one of the goals of God.

Theoretically, God could have done all those things. Instead, God became a real estate agent, and caused the Jews to slaughter all their enemies.

That snark aside, there is no need to wonder about God not providing more complex things when the simplest was readily available, only the motivation was absent. Further, SFAIK, there is no single factor that saves more children's lives than clean water and clean hands. (In societies without clean water, roughly half of all children die from diarrhea before age 5.)

Religions all claim to know a great deal about God: what God has said, and to whom; God's desires for mankind; God's rules for mankind; that God has a place called heaven, and what it takes to get there.

So, for all religions, God is portrayed as being very scrutable, indeed.

What characteristics does your religion believe God to possess, and how are they consistent with a host of fussy dietary rules on one hand, and deafening silence when it comes to the most important rule of all?

You say you are fairly confident that God does possess at least one characteristic: the absence of a desire to minimize human suffering, even through a measure so simple humans could eventually figure it out.

If a human was to act that way, we would rightly term that person a monster. If God does it, though, that is no impediment to worship.

Could you explain what exactly you mean by "inscrutability" and why you believe it wipes out every foundation of religious belief?

By inscrutability, I mean precisely what the dictionary says: impossible to understand, or interpret.

As I noted above, all religions are based upon possessing some knowledge about God -- it is that upon which the entire specialized edifice of beliefs is built.

However, when faced with any conundrum which directly contradicts the foundations of that edifice -- religion says one thing about God, reality says another -- then suddenly God is inscrutable.

Yet if God is inscrutable, then every element of belief edifice is worthless. A claim to know about God collides head on with a claim God is inscrutable. Can't have it both ways.

++++

kishke:

Skipper: God could have created non-harmful bacteria for the homeostatic world. My response stands.

God wanted a homeostatic world, which is impossible without bacteria. (Ever wonder what happened to all the rubber that was on your car's tires when you bought them when you get new ones?)

Absent God's continuous intervention, there is no way to fence humans off from bacteria. The same bacteria that kills children keeps you alive.

So, your response does not stand; your work still lies in front of you.

What are God's characteristics, and how are they consistent with fussy dietary laws that do not include the basics of hygiene and clean water?

God wanted a homeostatic world, which is impossible without bacteria. The same bacteria that kills children keeps you alive.

It may be impossible as the world is currently constructed; it is not impossible for an omnipotent God to have constructed it differently. He didn't, for some reason of His own to which I have no access. That same reason would (presumably) be why He didn't undo whatever He had just accomplished by informing us of the bacteria, but let us discover it on our own, over some centuries.

As I noted above, all religions are based upon possessing some knowledge about God

I don't know about other religions, but Judaism claims no knowledge of the essence of God, or of the reasons behind His actions (except where He has informed us of His reasons); to the contrary, we recognize that it is impossible for a human being to comprehend God.

Amy, I addressed that above, in my response to one of your earlier comments. I could probably elaborate and go on for a while, but the kernel (and a bit more) of my thought is there. I think it answers your question.

The only "evidence" you've presented is 'other people think so too'

By that logic you're also belive in alien anal probes, santa, the illuminati, vampires, werewolves, demonic possesion, and mermaids

kishke:

That same reason would (presumably) be why He didn't undo whatever He had just accomplished by informing us of the bacteria, but let us discover it on our own, over some centuries.

I still don't think you are fully taking on board the problem here.

There was not need to tell us about bacteria, only to direct us to do three things: wash our hands frequently, strictly segregate human waste and drinking water, and boil water before drinking. No why, just what.

It is undeniable that such simple advice is glaringly absent from a whole host of fussy dietary rules, and how to make sacrifices.

So, the question still remains: what are God's characteristics? How do they square with this undeniable negligence?

... we recognize that it is impossible for a human being to comprehend God.

Then upon what is religion based?

I love this conversation, but I think I'm going to try to make this my last post in this thread.

Skipper:

I believe that I know some things about God, but not all things. God reveals some things about himself, but he does not give an exact road map for how to live our lives; there are many things that Christians can legitimately disagree about.

What characteristics does your religion believe God to possess, and how are they consistent with a host of fussy dietary rules on one hand, and deafening silence when it comes to the most important rule of all?

I believe that God knows everything, loves everyone, and wants us to choose to follow him despite our nature. He can intervene supernaturally in the world but generally chooses not to in order to avoid compromising our free will.

According to God, the most important rule of all is "Love God". The second most important is "Love other people." Dietary regulations are way down the list. Asking "why did he not gift his people with X, which would have saved lots of lives and provided great benefit" asks us to assume a lot

I believe that one of the primary reasons for the various Jewish laws (civil and religious) was to show us how impossible it is for us to live perfect lives. The exact details of those laws (including whether or not boiling water is included) don't affect that purpose.

You say you are fairly confident that God does possess at least one characteristic: the absence of a desire to minimize human suffering, even through a measure so simple humans could eventually figure it out.

If a human was to act that way, we would rightly term that person a monster. If God does it, though, that is no impediment to worship.

We are not God, and he is not us. He can see the big picture and we can't. He knows unambiguously when something is right or wrong and we don't.

Control? Hatred? Ignorance? Fear? Stupidity?

Take your pick

kishke, what about an eye for an eye, and that whole pesky kill all the cannanite in the promised land?

Skipper, you are repeating what you said, but you're not addressing my response, which was that had God wanted to avoid the danger of bacteria He could have refrained from creating them, or created them in a form non-harmful for humans. The point being that without knowing His reason for creating them, it's impossible to question His reason for not informing us how to avoid their harmful effects. If you want to think of that as a dodge, so be it. I don't think we're going to get any further debating this point.

Then upon what is religion based?

On what God chooses to reveal to us of Himself.

what about an eye for an eye, and that whole pesky kill all the cannanite in the promised land

What about it? Explain the question please.

(You know, of course, that "eye for an eye" is not literal, and means simply to pay the worth of the lost eye, and that the Caananites were to be killed only if they refused to leave, and were indeed spared when they did, and that they themselves were unlawful interlopers in the land, having conquered it from its rightful Shemite inhabitants some generations earlier, right?)

I love this conversation, but I think I'm going to try to make this my last post in this thread.

Skipper:

I believe that I know some things about God, but not all things. God reveals some things about himself, but he does not give an exact road map for how to live our lives; there are many things that Christians can legitimately disagree about.

What characteristics does your religion believe God to possess, and how are they consistent with a host of fussy dietary rules on one hand, and deafening silence when it comes to the most important rule of all?

I believe that God knows everything, loves everyone, and wants us to choose to follow him despite our nature. He can intervene supernaturally in the world but generally chooses not to in order to avoid compromising our free will.

According to God, the most important rule of all is "Love God". The second most important is "Love other people." Dietary regulations are way down the list. Asking "why did he not gift his people with X, which would have saved lots of lives and provided great benefit" asks us to assume a lot

I believe that one of the primary reasons for the various Jewish laws (civil and religious) was to show us how impossible it is for us to live perfect lives. The exact details of those laws (including whether or not boiling water is included) don't affect that purpose.

You say you are fairly confident that God does possess at least one characteristic: the absence of a desire to minimize human suffering, even through a measure so simple humans could eventually figure it out.

If a human was to act that way, we would rightly term that person a monster. If God does it, though, that is no impediment to worship.

We are not God, and he is not us. He can see the big picture and we can't. He knows unambiguously when something is right or wrong and we don't.

kishke my point was if god wants us to love each other why has he ordered his followers to kill their fellow men?

What does an eye for an eye have to do with killing anyone's fellow men?

Besides, where did you get the idea that I believe God wants us to love everyone? Did I say that anywhere above?

eye for an eye = life for a life

Plus were did I say everyone?

You said god wants us to love other people, as animals have yet to attain the rank of people I assumed that by people you meant men
So I'll resate my question as simply as possible

IF god wants us to love other people why does he command us to kill?

eye for an eye = life for a life

Huh? a) It doesn't mean that. b) And what's wrong with a life for a life? There's nothing in my religion that would oppose death for a murderer.

Plus were did I say everyone?

If you include murderers in those who should not be killed, that's pretty much everyone.

You said god wants us to love other people

I did? Where? I don't recall saying any such thing.

IF god wants us to love other people why does he command us to kill?

Why do you assume God wants us to love other people? And assuming He does, why do you assume it's an indiscriminate command?

oh the peril of posting in a natually lit open area.

Pseudonym responded to skippers response to you, i couldnt make out the gerey font under the post and, no offense, but one religious appologist sound like another to me

So sorry - Pseudonym I redirect those questions to you

but one religious appologist sound like another to me

I'm acquainted with the feeling. Most atheists sound pretty much alike to me too.

lujlp:

if god wants us to love each other why has he ordered his followers to kill their fellow men?

In the Bible there were specific instances where this was ordered, but I'm not aware of any general order for Christians to kill people; this contrasts with my understanding of Islam. Are you talking about a general command or a specific case?

eye for an eye = life for a life

Interestingly (to me anyway), the "eye for an eye" doctrine was a prohibition against blood feuds, which can quickly grow out of control. Limiting compensation to that which was lost was pretty radical for the time.

Only because they all think it's ludicrous to believe, sans evidence, in something. That's all that atheists have in common.

No, b/c the arguments are often the same. If you believe in God you must believe in Santa, in vampires. What about the Caananites. Why do children die. Etc.

We're wildly different. Some of us are on the right, some on the left, some are libertarians, etc.

The same differences apply among religious people, believe it or not.

Interestingly (to me anyway), the "eye for an eye" doctrine was a prohibition against blood feuds, which can quickly grow out of control. Limiting compensation to that which was lost was pretty radical for the time.

An eye for an eye is not a permit to take an eye in return. It is a tort law, a requirement to pay damages for the lost eye.

No, b/c the arguments are often the same. If you believe in God you must believe in Santa, in vampires. What about the Caananites. Why do children die. Etc

The reasons the arguments are the same is because they are effective and the religious never have an answer.

You said you belive in god becuase of the evidence. That evidence constiting solely of other peoples belief in your trust in your parents no to lie to you.

Therefore it is resonable to assume had your parents raised ou to belive in vampires you would belive in vampires.

You want the best evidence that there is no god? Prophtets. God is perfect, therefore unchanging. He used to send prophets around that could perform all sorts of miracles.

When was the last time anyone saw a sea or river parted? A moving pillar of fire that did not burn?

By the way anyone remember the challange I issued to christians last thursday? Did god answer anyones questions on cold fusion like the bible promised he would?

Anyone?

Thought not.

The reasons the arguments are the same is because they are effective and the religious never have an answer.

They are not particularly effective so far as I am concerned, and if there were no answers, this thread would have ended long ago.

That evidence constiting solely of other peoples belief in your trust in your parents no to lie to you.

Partly but not solely. Read again.

Evidence there is. Definite proof there isn't. Which is how it's meant to be.

Again the only evidence youve offered is your feelings and other peoples feelings.

No evidence there's a god. If there were evidence I'd be happy to believe in god

I see it the other way. There is no evidence that there is no God. If there were, I'd be happy not to believe in Him. Since there isn't, though, I'll continue to rely on the less-than-perfect - but still convincing to me - evidence of His existence.

Again the only evidence youve offered is your feelings and other peoples feelings.

That's the only evidence that anybody has for anything. How do you know that I exist? You feel that your senses can be more or less trusted, and you work your way up from there. The same is true about belief in (the lack of) a God.

To quote myself:

There is tons of evidence that god exists: millions of people say so, some claim to have personally communicated with him, lots of books are written about the topic, philosophers have considered it for thousands of years, and so on. You have clearly weighed that evidence and found it lacking, and you're hardly alone. It is perfectly reasonable to say "I am not convinced that God exists," and it's even reasonable to say "I am convinced that God does not exist," but it is not reasonable to say "it is impossible for any thinking person to be convinced that God exists" because clearly some do think that.

The preponderance of evidence has convinced me; it's the most reasonable explanation for what I have observed. It's consistent with what I know about science, people, relationships and my own feelings. Time and again, the choices recommended by my theological beliefs turn out to be the best ones, and arguments against them are unconvincing.

Belief in a God and belief in the lack of a God are formed the same way, using the same process, much as one can give the same algorithm different inputs to get a different result.

Pseudomyn by that reasoning the only reason the sun rises and the weather changes is because people think so rather than proven physical forces

kishke:

Skipper, you are repeating what you said, but you're not addressing my response, which was that had God wanted to avoid the danger of bacteria He could have refrained from creating them, or created them in a form non-harmful for humans.

Actually, I think I did. Just in case, I will reiterate.

God chose to create a homeostatic universe -- that means God set it up so that He does not need to attend to every jot and tittle.

As part of that homeostasis, life must adapt to a changing environment, and, in turn, create an environment within which life can survive. When animals die, bacteria are the ultimate consumers -- without bacteria, life cannot exist. However, that means animals, while they are alive, must constantly fight the bacteria. A body need not be dead for very long in order to prove that point.

Consequently, eliminating harmful bacteria means dispatching with homeostasis.

Which is why this keeps coming around to a theodicy problem. Absent the Good German defense, God cannot have qualities deserving worship. Fear and moral revulsion, but not worship.

There are two things worth keeping in mind here.

First, there is a far better explanation than inscrutability for this disconnect. That is, what Revealed texts actually reveal is not God's word, or intent; rather, it reveals what humans of the time knew about life invisible: nothing.

Second, God != religion. It is certainly true that at least every religion but one is objectively wrong. And there is no telling which among the uncountable theologies that one might be, if there is even one.

So, to keep ones eye on the ball, this discussion is not about God, but about religion.

Regarding the former, we can say absolutely nothing.

As for the latter, we can say that, purely as a matter of rolling the dice, it has nothing to do with God.

Catholicism determined to make others' life decisions for them, or Islam claiming the right to rule the world, should ponder the distinction.

Skipper, did you get my email?

However, that means animals, while they are alive, must constantly fight the bacteria.

Why? God could have created bacteria that consume only dead flesh, but do not attack live creatures.

Pseudomyn by that reasoning the only reason the sun rises and the weather changes is because people think so rather than proven physical forces

No, I am differentiating between what we believe and reality. Reality is what it is, regardless of what we think of it. Our beliefs are influenced by what other people believe. Two examples of that are peer pressure and argument from authority.

God cannot have qualities deserving worship.

If a supernatural being unlimited in knowledge and power exists, it is inherently deserving of worship. If it does not conform 100% to our understanding of "good" then it is our understanding that is at fault.

And yet he didnt, ever wonder why?

The 'reality" pseudonym, is that there is no proof of god.

Belief in god is nothing more than a rationalization for people to scared to face the fact that life is random and you wont be watching the people who fucked you over in this life burning in hell from up above.

kishke:

Skipper, did you get my email?

No, I didn't. I have been on the road for the last couple days. Ordinarily, that isn't a problem, but this time the hotel had huge connectivity issues, and my local email program still doesn't work. If you don't mind, please try it again tomorrow mid-day California time.

Why? God could have created bacteria that consume only dead flesh, but do not attack live creatures.

Okay, let's say, for sake of argument, that God both could, and did. Actually, that isn't a hypothetical. Since bacteria have existed much longer than multicellular animals, then there is every reason to believe that at one time, bacteria harmful to animals did not exist, because the animals themselves did not.

Unless God is willing to continually intervene in nature, then bacteria will evolve to fit the niches available to them. God could stop bacteria evolving resistance to anti-biotics, but unless God does something, they will.

You still have all your work before you.

Religionists claim to know God's salient characteristics, but resolutely fall back on the inscrutability defense: why fussy and worthless dietary rules whose sole effect is to emphasize tribalism -- as if that needed help -- but no hygiene advice? Why, knowing human nature, engage in particular revelation?

The inscrutability defense remains a means to avoid concluding that the evidence on offer has something direct indeed to say about God, and little of it good.

Pseudonym thinks a being unlimited in knowledge and power is inherently deserving of worship. That amounts to the Good German defense, and a complete abandonment of all moral intuition. What is at fault is our refusal to see things as they are, for what they are.

Also, it continues to elide the distinction between God and religion. Unless one is a deist (which differs from atheist and agnostic only in spelling), then a believer conflates the two, and it is the mediation of God through religion that we need to be talking about.

It is, after all, the sine qua non for Catholicism.

Pseudonym:

but I'm not aware of any general order for Christians to kill people ...

Deuteronomy contains explicit directions to kill people.

Now, very strictly and selectively speaking, that applies only to Jews (against Christians, among others).

However, there is plenty of reason to insist that the Old Testament applies to Christians, too.

After all, Jesus said so.

Skipper, you're still missing my point. Let's review: You wish to disprove the conception of God as good by questioning His failure to inform us of dangerous bacteria. To which I respond that for whatever reason He created them to begin with, He chose not to inform us of them. To which you respond that He had no choice but to create them, so that the universe can exist as it does. To which I respond that God is omnipotent and so could have created even a self-maintaining universe without harmful effect to humans had He so desired, in which case my response stands. To which you respond that He could not have done this without constant interference in the works of nature (which, paranthetically, I'm not sure why you assume does not occur). To which I respond that an omnipotent God can effect whatever result He wishes, including a self-maintaining world without harmful bacteria. To which you respond? Nothing, so far as I can tell.

Pseudonym thinks a being unlimited in knowledge and power is inherently deserving of worship. That amounts to the Good German defense, and a complete abandonment of all moral intuition.

How does the Good German defense ("I was just following orders") apply to God himself?

In theory it does not apply to those actually following God's commands because God, unlike Hitler, defines what is and is not morally acceptable. In practice, nobody today can prove they are following God's commands, so "God told me to do it" is not a sufficient defense for any illegal act. In the stories in the Bible, God actually issued the controversial commands in question.

The 'reality" pseudonym, is that there is no proof of god.

Correct: the "reality" is that there is no proof of anything, only varying levels of plausibility, and what is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to another. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but we behave as if it does when we form our beliefs.

but I'm not aware of any general order for Christians to kill people

Deuteronomy contains explicit directions to kill people.

In specific circumstances, but not general "go ye therefore and kill all unbelievers henceforth" commands. (Feel free to provide a citation.)

kishke, so your saying god had the abiltiy but chose not to and left mankind to discover germ theory for itself because he was far mor concered with whether or not we ate pigs and lobster?

What kinda god is that?

kishke, so your saying god had the abiltiy but chose not to and left mankind to discover germ theory for itself because he was far mor concered with whether or not we ate pigs and lobster?

No, luj, that's not what I'm saying.

What kinda god is that?

I don't know.

kishke that is exaclty what you said

here are a few of your quotes

To which I respond that for whatever reason He created them (bacteria)to begin with, He chose not to inform us of them.

To which I respond that God is omnipotent and so could have created even a self-maintaining universe without harmful effect to humans had He so desired,

To which I respond that an omnipotent God can effect whatever result He wishes, including a self-maintaining world without harmful bacteria.

So you see mishke you did say god could do what he wished but chose not to

and left mankind to discover germ theory for itself because he was far mor concered with whether or not we ate pigs and lobster?

What I didn't say is that God did this because He was far more concerned with dietary laws, as you suggested. I have no idea why He did it. As I've said over and over again, I know nothing of God's reasons for what He does.

I think I just heard a hair split

God apparenty was more concrened about pork shellfish asd mixing meat and dairy then germ thoery why else mention such dietary resrtictions?

kishke:

Skipper, you're still missing my point. Let's review: You wish to disprove the conception of God as good by questioning His failure to inform us of dangerous bacteria.

You are addressing a point I am not making. Theodicy problems are, by definition, with respect to a specific religion's ideation of God. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all claim to possess some specific knowledge about God's characteristics and desires.

The theodicy problem here is this: what, specifically, are the qualities God is supposed to have, and how do they square with God's de facto negligence regarding simple directions for hygiene, and the consequent suffering.

Whether God could create a universe without harmful bacteria is completely irrelevant. This is the universe He created, and He, by definition, completely neglected to easily prevent at least a couple thousand years of horrible deaths, primarily among women and children.

So your God is omnipotent (heck is He more powerful than humans?). Fine. Is He benevolent? Is He sufficiently aware of human existence to know of death so unnecessary even humans can prevent it?

There is an alternate explanation completely consistent with the evidence: regardless of whether god exists, all religions have created a God out of whole cloth, and that God reflects all the ignorance of the time. The humans that invented the monotheistic religions were tribalistic, but completely ignorant of bacteria.

No need for inscrutability, or to invoke any host of alternate universes, or even to discuss whether god objectively exists. This thread started as a specific religion making metaphysical claims which do not survive contact with even rudimentary knowledge about how life actually works. Yet, despite that, that religion (like all others) desires to impose those claims upon those who find them, for very good reasons, baseless.

I know nothing of God's reasons for what He does.

To which you should add that you have no idea what He does.

The moment you reach that obvious point, though, all metaphysical justification for all religion sinks like a greased safe.

Pseudonym:

How does the Good German defense ("I was just following orders") apply to God himself?

It doesn't apply to God, just as the Good German Defense does not apply to Hitler, but rather the Germans themselves.

The theodicy problem I have outlined above makes it clear that the Abrahamic God is either criminally negligent, or actively malevolent. Worshipping such a being is possible only through completely abandoning normal human moral intuition, even as flawed as that is.

Can you justify worshipping a being that, by adding only a sentence to whole reams of fussy dietary rules, could have prevented death by the hundreds of millions? I doubt you can without stepping uncomfortably close to why Germans worshipped Hitler.

In specific circumstances, but not general "go ye therefore and kill all unbelievers henceforth" commands. (Feel free to provide a citation.)

Deuteronomy 17:2 through 7.

You are addressing a point I am not making.

What do you mean? That was precisely the point you were making.

To which you should add that you have no idea what He does.

I don't see how that follows. In fact, it does not.

It seems simply enough to me kishke

If you dont know gods motivation how can you know his actions?

I think I just heard a hair split

You did. It was the weak strand of your attentiveness.

I'll only explain this once, so pay attention.

You said:

kishke, so your saying god had the abiltiy but chose not to and left mankind to discover germ theory for itself because he was far mor concered with whether or not we ate pigs and lobster?

The facts that God did not inform humankind of germ theory and that He handed down dietary laws are not anything I brought to light. They are well-known. Scripture includes the one and not the other. So that's not what you meant when you said "kishke, so your saying." What's left is the causative connection - that God did this "because" He was far more concerned etc. You claimed I said that. In fact, I did not.

If you dont know gods motivation how can you know his actions?

You're not serious, are you? I see lujip punch someone in the nose. I have no idea why he did it. I don't know lujip's motivation. But I do know his action. Simple?

What do you mean? That was precisely the point you were making.

You insist I am making a point about god. I am not. I am making a point about religion.

There is an alternate explanation completely consistent with the evidence: regardless of whether god exists, all religions have created a God out of whole cloth.

Yes, that deals with all the evidence, except for the evidence of the existence of God. Which is why it's no explanation at all.

And the evidence god exists is... (fill in evidence below):

Been there, done that. See above.

Yes, that deals with all the evidence, except for the evidence of the existence of God. Which is why it's no explanation at all.

Remember, I am not talking about the existence of god (the lower case use of the word refers to the existence of some being outside our material existence).

Rather, I am talking about any religious ideation of that supreme being: God.

Reality refutes the qualities the Abrahamic religions attribute to God.

In other words, even granting the objective existence of a god, God does not exist.

The Mormon God does not exist. Nor does Islam's, or Judaism's, or Christianity's.

I presume you ascribe to one of those variants. If that God is god, then you must be able to demonstrate why the other Gods do not exist.

You cannot.

And just to put a little icing on that cake, it is provable that if a set of statements contains a contradiction, than you may use that set of statements to demonstrate anything, no matter how absurd.

So, even if each God was free of internal contradiction -- a demonstrably false assumption, but I will grant it for the sake of argument -- the set of statements about all Gods contain statements that are mutually exclusive and contradictory, and whose relative truth value is completely unknown.

Therefore, one can use those statements to say anything whatsoever. However, by including everything, nothing is excluded.

Yet because nothing is excluded, as the above theodicy problem shows, the explanatory power of religion is precisely zero.

Regardless of whether god exists.

Can you justify worshipping a being that, by adding only a sentence to whole reams of fussy dietary rules, could have prevented death by the hundreds of millions?

That would have prevented zero deaths because everybody dies. In your view, how much is god required to actively intervene in our lives in order to not be self-contradictory?

Deuteronomy 17:2 through 7.

That's civil law and doesn't apply to Christians today, in the same way that the various dietary laws don't. It also specifically refers to people living in "one of the towns God gives you", i.e. the area that the Hebrews reconquered in what is now called Palestine.

And the evidence god exists is... (fill in evidence below):

I asked God to make me less of an asshole, and he did. When I pay attention, he gives me insight. In my own life, behaving according to his commands tends to produce optimal outcomes. By nature I am selfish and arrogant, but he has given me the desire to be humble and share. I'm not special; there are people with much more spectacular conversion stories than mine.

That's civil law and doesn't apply to Christians today, in the same way that the various dietary laws don't.

Why not?

Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version)

The Fulfillment of the Law
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

then you must be able to demonstrate why the other Gods do not exist.

I don't see why.

if it is provable that if a set of statements contains a contradiction, than you may use that set of statements to demonstrate anything, no matter how absurd.Therefore, one can use those statements to say anything whatsoever. However, by including everything, nothing is excluded. Yet because nothing is excluded, as the above theodicy problem shows, the explanatory power of religion is precisely zero.

Look, I'm sure this is meaningful to you, but it does nothing whatsoever for me. Sorry.

the area that the Hebrews reconquered in what is now called Palestine.

Israel.

then you must be able to demonstrate why the other Gods do not exist.

I don't see why.

I do if you cant objectivly show how other religions are wrong then you cant objectivly show how yours is right

I do if you cant objectivly show how other religions are wrong then you cant objectivly show how yours is right

I need to do that only if I'm interested in proving my religion's truth to you. But I'm not interested in that at all. So long as I'm satisfied with its truth, that's enough for me. It's subjective, get it?

if you cant objectivly show how other religions are wrong then you cant objectivly show how yours is right

I need to do that only if I'm interested in proving my religion's truth to you. But I'm not interested in that at all.

And yet you said god wants us to worship him, how are unbelivers supposed to worship the right god if those who already worship the right god let other people know?

While I admit I am no expert on juedaism but arent you supposed to spread the word?

So long as I'm satisfied with its truth, that's enough for me. It's subjective, get it?

Nope, if the existance of god is subjective then he doesnt exist because that is my subjective experience, one back up by objective repeatable results - unlike yours

That's civil law and doesn't apply to Christians today, in the same way that the various dietary laws don't.

Why not?

Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version)

The law referred to there is the moral law set down by God -- the ten commandments and so on. The moral law is how we should live our lives, and the civil law was the rules and regulations of the society that they had back then. One way to tell them apart is that if a punishment is specified, it's a matter for the civil authorities.

if the existance of god is subjective then he doesnt exist because that is my subjective experience

It's not the existence of god that's subjective, it's belief in god.

While I admit I am no expert on juedaism but arent you supposed to spread the word?

Nope. We don't proselytize.

And yet you said god wants us to worship him, how are unbelivers supposed to worship the right god if those who already worship the right god let other people know?

Well, plenty of people have become believers over the centuries, so evidently it's not as big a problem as you pretend.

Nope, if the existance of god is subjective then he doesnt exist because that is my subjective experience, one back up by objective repeatable results - unlike yours

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But I'm not really that interested. I conceded from the get-go that I cannot offer proof that will satisfy you. I can only give the reasons the evidence satisfies me. You can read all about it above. I'm not repeating it.

Pseudonym:

That would have prevented zero deaths because everybody dies. In your view, how much is god required to actively intervene in our lives in order to not be self-contradictory?

I thought the context made my meaning clear: I am talking about easily preventable premature death. Absent basic hygienic practices, the mortality rate through the first five years of life approaches 50%. Nearly all of that is due to diarrhea induced dehydration.

That toll, taken over a couple thousand years, even if restricted to the area within Abrahamic particular revelation (another theodicy problem, but one is enough for now), amounts to hundreds of millions.

Of course, no intervention was required that had not already been amply demonstrated: to wit, the fussy dietary rules in Leviticus. Already, God had intervened in such a way that an additional insistence upon clean hands and water would have not stood out in the least.

Had God done so.

By the very definition of the word, God negligently allowed the deaths of hundreds of millions of children.

So, the question still remaining, is what characteristics would any God have that could have, through the tiniest additional movement of a finger already raised, nearly eliminated the horrible deaths of the most innocent?

That's civil law and doesn't apply to Christians today, in the same way that the various dietary laws don't.

Huh? Here is how Deuteronomy starts: (1:3) And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;

That isn't civil law, because it was directed by God through Moses. Shifting the actual carrying out of the penalty into the civll realm is precisely the same sort of false distinction that apologists use for the horrors of the Inquisition.

It also specifically refers to people living in "one of the towns God gives you", i.e. the area that the Hebrews reconquered in what is now called Palestine.

As if D17 isn't bad enough, review Deuteronomy 13:1 through 10.

That is as may be. The question above was to show where God directed murder. Well, God does.

As if D17 isn't bad enough, review Deuteronomy 13:1 through 10.

And even if you limit the applicability of Deuteronomy -- a championship caliber elision (thank you, lujip) -- and give it the most restrictive possible reading, then Israeli Jews must kill any member of Jews for Jesus who happens to wander into the country, as well as every Muslim. And Mormon. And Hindu. And bloody etc.

++++

kishke:

I need to do that only if I'm interested in proving my religion's truth to you. But I'm not interested in that at all. So long as I'm satisfied with its truth, that's enough for me. It's subjective, get it?

I get that, and so far as that statement goes, it is impossible to disagree with.

Except religion doesn't stop there, does it? However, just as we must distinguish between god and God, we must also distinguish between your spiritual beliefs and religion.

All religions, everywhere, at all times, to the extent of their ability, attempt to impose objective material consequences based upon their metaphysical claims. That, if I may be so bold, is precisely the point of Amy's post.

if it is provable that if a set of statements contains a contradiction, then you may use that set of statements to demonstrate anything ...

Look, I'm sure this is meaningful to you, but it does nothing whatsoever for me. Sorry.

Well, it should. Some Jews proclaim that God is, among other things, a real estate agent that gave them perpetual title to certain areas in the Middle East.

Consequently, there are serious objective material consequences affecting the entire world based upon metaphysical claims whose explanatory power is absolutely zero. Even worse, the truth value of those claims is impossible to discern from other, mutually exclusive, claims because they all share precisely the same basis: on account of God said so.

Just as the basis of Sharia law is worthless, and the claim that the Pope is St. Peter's representative here on earth.

If the consequences of these claims were limited to those who freely choose to believe them, that would be fine.

But they aren't.

All religions, everywhere, at all times, to the extent of their ability, attempt to impose objective material consequences based upon their metaphysical claims.

Look, we went through this above. Democracy in action, remember? And you said you agreed. Let's not repeat everything again.

As for the rest, I'm sorry, but these abstract counter-intuitive logical "proofs" about sets of statements that exclude nothing coming to prove everything - they mean nothing to me and to what I believe. As for the consequences for everyone else, as I said, we've covered that.

My judgement is that we've all said pretty much everything we have to say on the subject. I certainly have. Most of what's being posted now is just reruns. No one in this discussion is going to convince anyone else in it of anything they haven't convinced them of yet. So if y'all don't mind (and even if you do), I'm going to sign off. It's been interesting.

I am talking about easily preventable premature death.

What death is premature and what death is not? If God magically caused every person to live at least 40 years, we would simply shift the boundaries of what we consider to be premature death. If he intervened actively every time that a human being is morally required to intervene actively, there would be no doubt at all about his existence, which is not what he wants.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of various opinions about the Mosaic law here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Christian_views_on_Mosaic_Law

The question above was to show where God directed murder.

Murder by definition is unlawful, and the rules described here constituted the law of the time. God provided moral, civil and ceremonial laws through Moses, and in some of the civil laws God does endorse the death penalty.

What death is premature and what death is not?

If death is easily delayed by humans, then it is premature.

All that God needed to do here was what God did with respect to dietary restrictions, or the Decalogue.

No intervention required to do so. Avoidance required manifest neglect.

Murder by definition is unlawful ...

Your reasoning is circular. Hitler made murder legal, so it was only killing?

Never mind that. God directed humans to commit homicide, without any statute of limitations.

God's directives still stand.

++++

Religions and their Gods are material things. Unlike god, Religion and God are susceptible to evidentiary argument. The Abrahamic Gods and their revelatory claims fail even casual critical examination. (NB, again, I have nothing to say about the existence or characteristics of god).

Why do I bang on about this? Because of the claims Islam makes. Because of the provenance problem (true on account of God said so), there is no way to discount Islamic revelation without also decimating Christian and Jewish revelations.

Yet, on what other basis can one counter Islamism?

One of God's attributes is justice, and since our default state is to reject God we deserve every bad thing that happens to us. When God gives us good things anyway, it doesn't give him any additional obligation to us. He doesn't even have to be fair: he might give you more than he gives me, for no apparent reason.

Murder by definition is unlawful ...

Your reasoning is circular. Hitler made murder legal, so it was only killing?

I'm not sure to what extent Hitler codified the Holocaust in law (vs just ordering it done anyway), but the straightforward definition of murder is unlawful killing. Not all killing is murder: war, execution, self-defense, and in some jurisdictions accidental killings are not murder.

God directed humans to commit homicide, without any statute of limitations.

Homicide has a precise definition. The killings God directed in the passages you've listed are equivalent to the death penalty, not to killings unsanctioned by the state.

Because of the provenance problem (true on account of God said so), there is no way to discount Islamic revelation without also decimating Christian and Jewish revelations.

We don't need to accept or reject all claims of divine revelation together, and since many claims contradict each other we can't accept all of them anyway. You could reject Islam on the basis that it contradicts more plausible claims about the nature of God.