Atheist in a foxhole

Anyone who says there are no atheists in foxholes has not read about the Siege of Leningrad. (Glad to hear it worked out well, Matt.)

As I said on the BW, I am not sure why this phrase is even touted by Christians as a point of pride. Even if 'no atheists in foxholes' was true, it certainly wouldn't be something I'd brag about. If some people do get religion in times of overwhelming fear, stress, and pain, that is not exactly a selling point for its rationality.

Its kinda like claiming that many people believe your theology when they are high on crack. Maybe that's true, but I don't see why it should that convince me you are right.

XKCD said the same thing in similar personal circumstances.

http://xkcd.com/836/

Glad to hear your wife made it through ok.

There are no theists in rabbit holes.

Just saying.

Glen Davidson

Thank you for sharing. I am very glad that your wife was able to come home with her facilities in tact. Modern medicine, for all we still have yet to understand, is amazing because the science works.

Glad to hear that your wife survived and survived well, Matt.

I have no comment about your doctor. All I know is that when I hear the phrase "I wish I could pray", then there's something going on with somebody. And I've heard it more than once. My heart always hangs

Meanwhile, at an interfaith dialog some years ago, I was seated next to two mainline Christians, a Muslim imam, a Buddhist, a Jewish rabbi, and maybe one or two more.

"We all serve the same God," the two mainline Christian ladies said.

"No, that's not true," said the Muslim imam. I listened to them a moment, stared at the table and said nothing, for I was embarrassed that a Muslim imam knew more about the respective claims of the Bible and the Koran than two Christian ladies. Kind of ackward.

But that's when the Buddhist guy told his story. Not sure why he picked that moment, but he did pick that moment.

"My wife was in the (local) hospital, and she suffered from a very serious disease," he said. "The doctors could not do anything for her, and we were growing desperate. We didn't know what to do."

"A black man was walking down the hallway, and as this man got closer, I recognized that it was a local Pentecostal Christian pastor named (name deleted but I knew who it was immediately). This pastor smiled, said hello and how was I doing, and I told him there in the hallway about my wife and our situation.

"He said encouraging things, and asked if we could pray together right there. We both went to my wife's hospital bed and he prayed for my wife, and afterwards he departed."

"The next day my wife was healed. The disease was gone."

The Buddhist guy remained a Buddhist. Nobody asked why he remained a Buddhist after what had just happened. But that was honestly okay, it was good enough that he had courageously chosen to share his healing story at all.

****

So what's the point of sharing this story with you? Well, like you, he didn't try to cut any divine deals or bargains. It was the black preacher that asked to pray with his family, NOT the other way around.

And of course, he didn't even convert to Christianity (and the black Pentecostal preacher did not ask him or his wife to do so.) Nor did the preacher ask for any money or any favors or make any promises.

It was just a chance encounter, the Christian preacher said some encouraging things to the Buddhist guy and prayed for the wife, and then he went home and that's that. Next day the wife was healed of the disease.

But the Buddhist man never forgot what happened. It changed his outlook about life and God, even though he labeled himself a Buddhist (and may still do so, I don't know).

God healed the Buddhist's wife just off of one preacherman's one-shot prayer asking God to heal his wife.

Would that event convincingly answer your doctor's specific objection, the one you agreed with? Probably not.

But the Buddhist and his wife needed a miracle. THEY, are happy with the one-shot prayer and subsequent healing, and they don't see God as capricious or unfair about it.

****

We all have foxholes. Or we will one day, if we keep on living. Why face life's foxhole without God?

FL

Typo Correction: "My heart always hangs heavy when I hear that statement."

FL said: God healed the Buddhist's wife just off of one preacherman's one-shot prayer asking God to heal his wife.

I'm not quite sure why FL's God went through all of the trouble to design so many killer organisms anyhow.

Wait a minute, I just thought of something. God must have designed everything to appear evolved because he didn't want the blame for malaria, TB, pneumonia, etc. I suppose we can thank the various IDiots for keeping the blame strictly upon God.

Glen Davidson

I wish I could pray

If my selection makes no difference to God, why select any? It makes no difference.

FL: "God healed the Buddhist’s wife just off of one preacherman’s one-shot prayer asking God to heal his wife."

Sorry, but you've made a logical leap that I am not willing to make. You've shown no evidence that the claim that the prayer caused the cure. In fact, the only thing that can be accurately said is that the two events are correlated. You may find that correlation sufficient for belief, but it isn't sufficient for evidence of the cause you claim.

FL: "Why face life’s foxhole without God?"
For the same reason that face adversity without Athena. I am not convinced your God exists. Why would I waste my time?

For a view about thanking those who deserve it (and exist), see Daniel Dennett Thank Goodness I'm Alive

In fact, the only thing that can be accurately said is that the two events are correlated. You may find that correlation sufficient for belief, but it isn’t sufficient for evidence of the cause you claim.

You’ve shown no evidence that the claim that the prayer caused the cure. In fact, the only thing that can be accurately said is that the two events are correlated.

FL said:

You’ve shown no evidence that the claim that the prayer caused the cure. In fact, the only thing that can be accurately said is that the two events are correlated.

Okay. Correlated.

I haven’t been in foxholes, but I can tell you that those who resort to praying in a crisis on a submarine will no longer be part of the crew if and when the sub makes it back to port.

I recall an incident in which a young, enlisted reservist from some backwater was assigned to our boat as a result of some administrative error somewhere. The kid came across the gangplank with a bible in his hand and told the deck watch that he would go to hell if he didn’t get “saved.”

After a few hours in the after torpedo room with a few members of the crew, the kid was in a panic and begging to leave the boat. He was gone before morning; error corrected.

That kind of mental instability does not belong on a submarine. Screening for submarine duty is not just physical; it is also psychological.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I'm not quite sure why FL's God went through all of the trouble to design so many killer organisms anyhow. Wait a minute, I just thought of something. God must have designed everything to appear evolved because he didn't want the blame for malaria, TB, pneumonia, etc. I suppose we can thank the various IDiots for keeping the blame strictly upon God. Glen Davidson

So why didn't God protect the children and others who've been killed in the several tornados in Oklahoma? And all around the world people die every day, yet I suspect the majority of them are religious in one way or another and pray for help. Their prayers don't seem to be answered, but instead it seems to be rather random events and circumstances as to who lives and who dies. So if someone prays and the person lives, God was there, but if they die, then it was just their time and God couldn't/wouldn't help?

Suppose I wrote a completely fictional article for a fundamentalist/evangelical magazine about a "healing" that rang all the right evangelical bells: 'incurable' disease; doctors have given up; visit by pastor who 'lays on hands'; sickbed conversion by the patient; doctors can't explain the cure, etc. What the hell, throw in a near-death experience--maybe Jesus saying, "It's not your time yet. I have work for you to do still."

I could write that very convincingly. All I would need are a few examples of similar allegedly true stories in that or similar publications. AND, I think I'll donate the article and send along a check for a couple of thousand so the magazine can continue its 'ministry'.

Now, my question: What are the chances that magazine would exert any effort to authenticate my story? Would they try to contact the fictional patient? Contact me for names and addresses of doctors, nurses, other witnesses? General fact checking of any kind?

I'm betting--not a chance in hell. (But lots of mail solicitations for all sorts of Christian media, and the chance to contribute more money for the furtherance of God's work.

We don't know much about God but one thing is certain: He is a most capricious thing. How could I trust a character like that?

I think that the "I wish I could pray" thing wasn't for healing, but for comfort. That's religion's big hook, comfort. It makes people feel better, especially those that have no idea how to deal with emotions (mostly people raised in highly authoritarian homes).

When you are told, as a child, not to cry and suck it up and 'deal with it'. You fail to lean how to deal with the really strong emotions that come from someone's near (or actual) death. Religion gives a way to deal with those emotions that are generally acceptable to authoritarians.

People who have dealt with emotions constructively before can do so again, without the need for religion. It's hard, it sucks, but dealing with strong emotions like this is the sign of a mature person.

I could be wrong about the doctor's thoughts, but I thought it important to mention the comfort side of religion.

FL said: We all have foxholes. Or we will one day, if we keep on living. Why face life's foxhole without God?

3. Because, AIUI, your god will not listen to people who are praying out of a mercenary, insincere desire for personal benefit anyway - so even according to you, its pointless for us to do so.

harold,

I believe you're referring to "prosperity theology", i.e. the idea that God rewards the faithful with Mercedes limos and 50 foot swimming pools.

what the christians are so proud of - despite it being far less than universal - is the fact that people under the harshest stress break down and give in to their fears. taking pride in the fact that your system of self-declared evidence-free authority has terrified people into submission is just another example of the general moral incompetence of christianity. christians confuse hundreds of years of imposing morals upon people with actual moral skill, but i have yet to meet a single one with a gift for ethics

Mike Elzinga said: I haven’t been in foxholes, but I can tell you that those who resort to praying in a crisis on a submarine will no longer be part of the crew if and when the sub makes it back to port. I recall an incident in which a young, enlisted reservist from some backwater was assigned to our boat as a result of some administrative error somewhere. The kid came across the gangplank with a bible in his hand and told the deck watch that he would go to hell if he didn’t get “saved.” After a few hours in the after torpedo room with a few members of the crew, the kid was in a panic and begging to leave the boat. He was gone before morning; error corrected. That kind of mental instability does not belong on a submarine. Screening for submarine duty is not just physical; it is also psychological.

Chris Lawson said: harold, I believe you're referring to "prosperity theology", i.e. the idea that God rewards the faithful with Mercedes limos and 50 foot swimming pools.

No atheists in foxholes: WWII vets remain religious
A report of a study by a marketing guy and his brother, a chair of religious studies, who conclude that marketing religion to combat veterans is a Good Thing.

Reginald Selkirk said: No atheists in foxholes: WWII vets remain religious A report of a study by a marketing guy and his brother, a chair of religious studies, who conclude that marketing religion to combat veterans is a Good Thing.

Ian Dowsett said: i have yet to meet a single one with a gift for ethics

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said:

Ian Dowsett said: i have yet to meet a single one with a gift for ethics

I am not a Christian, but that sounds like a ridiculous assertion. I think your sampling pool has been too polluted by the likes of FL-trolls and political religious right blowhards in the US. Understandable frustration, but I think you're succumbing to hyperbole.

harold,

I know a Vietnam vet who lost his religious beliefs due to his experiences as a soldier. In this case the foxhole converted him to atheism.

Much of this discussion seems to be predicated on some rule that atheism prohibits miracles. This is of course wrong. "Probability so low as to be effectively impossible" is not "impossible". It's just as likely for many small, individually minor events to simultaneously cascade into a miraculous mountain of good fortune for no obvious reason as it is for small, individually minor events to cascade into an avalanche of disaster for no obvious reason. In fact, we are here now because the good events have outnumbered the bad events for billions of years.

Right at the edge of our conceptions of self-organization, we can suggest that self-reproducing systems capture larger proportions of configuration space than non-reproducing ones, and that systems that can plan to reproduce can capture even larger fractions. In other words, "chance favors the prepared mind". You can non-religiously view prayer as one way of preparing the mind to capture those chances.

Carl Jung had a better term without the mathematical baggage: "synchronicity".

Matt Young said: I hope this is not too far off task, but two years ago, on June 4, 2011, at approximately 8 a.m., I took my wife to the emergency room. I did not bring her home again till November 18. On the fourth day in the hospital (and the second in the intensive care unit), a young infectious-disease specialist decided to treat her for encephalitis and ask questions later. The diagnosis was confirmed in a couple of days: HSV-1 encephalitis. Complications, including nearly fatal pneumonia, followed, and my wife remained in a semi-conscious state for around two months, ultimately sporting four tubes sticking out of various locations. A very good friend, whom the nurses knew as That Doctor Who Always Visits, came in and looked at the chart every day. One morning, he was leaving just as I was arriving. “I wish I could pray,” he remarked. “Yes,” I said, “but God – that is, the god that we do not believe in – would not respond to such prayers anyway.” That Doctor agreed, God would not allow someone to become sick and then effect a cure just because someone asked. Surely, God, who already knew our feelings, would not be so capricious as that. And indeed, I did not once pray to God or bargain with God (or anyone else) during the entire ordeal. Contrary to something I once wrote (here, p. 166), there are atheists in foxholes. I never saw the infectious-disease specialist again; I think she was there that day to substitute for her partner. Was she an angel? No; she was a well-trained physician evaluating her evidence. My wife’s survival (with all of her marbles) is nevertheless a miracle: a modern medical miracle. God had nothing to do with it.

Here's what the U.S. House Armed Services Committee thinks about atheists:

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bias-brigade-intolerant-members-of-congress-shoot-down-non-theistic

harold said:

Reginald Selkirk said: No atheists in foxholes: WWII vets remain religious A report of a study by a marketing guy and his brother, a chair of religious studies, who conclude that marketing religion to combat veterans is a Good Thing.

I think we can safely conclude the following - 1) Many people are not religious and don't become religious under emotional stress. There were many atheist WWII combat veterans. 2) I'd bet that some people lose religious convictions when confronted with stress, but we don't hear about that. 3) Religious thoughts and rituals may help religious people deal with stress. That's extremely well-established. 4) WWII took place in a very different time. American "religion" at that time was dominated by non-polarizing, mainly non-political, "mainstream" denominations. Clergy were predominantly highly educated figures who studied in seminaries, often touching on ancient languages. Church-going was a routine social ritual. All of this was true even for the tiny, austere, rural Baptist church I was raised in. And I can't speak for everybody, but there was a very strong ecumenical trend. It's very unsurprising to me that under stress, soldiers would turn to comforting, traditional, non-polarizing beliefs. There may have been a statistical trend toward increased participation in that type of religion, if combat reminded soldiers of the comforting side of it. I haven't seen a study, but in my anecdotal experience, contemporary combat isn't producing the same effect. Religion, mainly meaning Protestantism but also to a lesser degree Catholicism and some forms of Judaism, is increasingly polarizing, political, and antagonistic. And military personnel are at least as much exposed to that side of religion as everyone else. A key difference is the rejecting and antagonistic flavor. Things like widespread birth control and gay rights didn't exist during WWII (and hence controversies associated with them didn't), and churches weren't involved in promoting harsh economic policy. Bizarre as it may sound to us, during the WWII era, "religion" would have been, if anything, associated with concern for less fortunate, rather than with callous insistence that the poor aren't poor enough. The whole flavor of religion being a pose for self-righteous, self-serving, callous bigots just wasn't as strong in those days. So those results, even if true, may no longer apply.

DavidK said: Here's what the U.S. House Armed Services Committee thinks about atheists: https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bias-brigade-intolerant-members-of-congress-shoot-down-non-theistic

From the linked article: “They don’t believe anything,” groused U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas). “I can’t imagine an atheist accompanying a notification team as they go into some family’s home to let them have the worst news of their life and this guy says, ‘You know, that’s it – your son’s just worms, I mean, worm food.’” U.S. Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) chimed in with, “This, I think, would make a mockery of the chaplaincy. The last thing in the world we would want to see was a young soldier who may be dying and they’re at a field hospital and the chaplain is standing over that person saying to them, ‘If you die here, there is no hope for you in the future.’” You would have to be a pretty lousy chaplain to say things like that to grieving family members. It would be akin to a fundamentalist Christian chaplain telling the mother and father of a fallen soldier that he is roasting in hell because he hadn’t accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

"Hardly one soldier in a hundred was inspired by religious feeling of even the crudest kind. It would have been difficult to remain religious in the trenches even if one had survived the irreligion of the training battalion at home." ~ Robert Graves, "Good Bye To all That"

DavidK said: Here's what the U.S. House Armed Services Committee thinks about atheists: https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bias-brigade-intolerant-members-of-congress-shoot-down-non-theistic

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said: I hope this is not too far off task, but two years ago, on June 4, 2011, at approximately 8 a.m., I took my wife to the emergency room. I did not bring her home again till November 18. On the fourth day in the hospital (and the second in the intensive care unit), a young infectious-disease specialist decided to treat her for encephalitis and ask questions later. The diagnosis was confirmed in a couple of days: HSV-1 encephalitis. Complications, including nearly fatal pneumonia, followed, and my wife remained in a semi-conscious state for around two months, ultimately sporting four tubes sticking out of various locations. A very good friend, whom the nurses knew as That Doctor Who Always Visits, came in and looked at the chart every day. One morning, he was leaving just as I was arriving. “I wish I could pray,” he remarked. “Yes,” I said, “but God – that is, the god that we do not believe in – would not respond to such prayers anyway.” That Doctor agreed, God would not allow someone to become sick and then effect a cure just because someone asked. Surely, God, who already knew our feelings, would not be so capricious as that. And indeed, I did not once pray to God or bargain with God (or anyone else) during the entire ordeal. Contrary to something I once wrote (here, p. 166), there are atheists in foxholes. I never saw the infectious-disease specialist again; I think she was there that day to substitute for her partner. Was she an angel? No; she was a well-trained physician evaluating her evidence. My wife’s survival (with all of her marbles) is nevertheless a miracle: a modern medical miracle. God had nothing to do with it.

If you or your wife ever come to be Theists or Christians you'll instantly conclude the exact opposite. In fact, all converts do. They look back and see that God preserved their life.

The whole "Atheist in a foxhole" thing reminds me of a good independent Canadian film I saw a while back, "The Quarrel", about two estranged friends, both Holocaust survivors, one's reaction to the Holocaust was to become an extremely religious Orthodox Jew and dedicate his life to it, the other was to become an atheist (in the film they meet by chance on a Jewish holiday years later and quarrel about God et al.). Pretty sure that reflects reality and the variability of people.

I have no idea what "pastoral care" means to the Corps of Chaplains of the US military. I do know that my father, who served as a chaplain in the Royal Australian Navy for many years, would have been horrified at the idea that any chaplain of any persuasion could so far forget his vocation, his duty and his oath as to make any remark disparaging one who had died in the service of country, most especially to the bereaved family.

A Masked Panda (6d58) said: ..."chance favors the prepared mind". You can non-religiously view prayer as one way of preparing the mind to capture those chances.

Dave Luckett said: I have no idea what "pastoral care" means to the Corps of Chaplains of the US military. I do know that my father, who served as a chaplain in the Royal Australian Navy for many years, would have been horrified at the idea that any chaplain of any persuasion could so far forget his vocation, his duty and his oath as to make any remark disparaging one who had died in the service of country, most especially to the bereaved family.

harold said: I don't have an actual example of this; I was responding to the claims of some bigoted congressmen. On the other hand, my bet does remain unchanged. I'm not saying that I know that post-modern right wing fundamentalist chaplains have sometimes made disparaging comments about the combat dead. I don't know that. But what I am saying is, given the behavior that post-modern right wing fundamentalists display in most other settings, I would wager money that they have.

The "no atheists in foxholes" idea intrigues me. At one time in my life I believed it. I don't believe it any longer

Having been in various modern equivalents of foxholes in recent years, I can't say much religious opinion was discussed there. And my companions were people from all over the spectrum. There were a variety of nations represented, and people with all sorts of views.

It was pretty simple, in my experience. There just wasn't the time or mental effort to spare for anything beyond our immediate needs. We weren't thinking about politics, or religion, or philosophy, or anything involving high-order abstraction.

Highly stressful situations degrade people's performance and mental powers. That is certainly true of combat environments. Things like tunnel vision, auditory perception and dulled thought are normal reactions. In that setting, only the simplest things can be done or considered. That's why soldiering has really simple mantras and drills like run-down-crawl-observe-aim-fire and shoot-move-communicate. And they are practised over and over until the soldier can do them (almost) in his or her sleep. Because that's about the level of function the soldier will have at the moment of truth.

The religious people I knew overseas did their observances and their discussions while on a base, in a relatively calm and safe environment. Once outside the wire, they may well have retained their faith undimmed, but it wasn't the immediate concern. They definitely did not talk about it.

And I certainly did not witness anyone becoming more religious in the course of a mission. Possibly some did afterwards, as a result of the stress and trauma they'd experienced - but I never saw or heard of it.

Just my two cents' worth. And my respects to Matt for sharing such a personal and painful story.

Corvus Coronoides said: And I certainly did not witness anyone becoming more religious in the course of a mission. Possibly some did afterwards, as a result of the stress and trauma they'd experienced - but I never saw or heard of it.

As to foxholes, the rule in my unit was "Trust in whomever you may wish to trust, but make sure your foxhole's grenade sump is properly done."

As an actual Buddhist, I could see a Buddhist couple allowing a pastor to pray for them, so he could feel he'd done something. I could even see them remembering him with respect as someone with the courage of his convictions. I truly doubt they would believe that his god actually did anything, though. (Note: That wouldn't be me, but then I'm less forgiving of ignorance and arrogance...)

Corvus Coronoides said: Highly stressful situations degrade people's performance and mental powers. That is certainly true of combat environments. Things like tunnel vision, auditory perception and dulled thought are normal reactions.

eric said:

Corvus Coronoides said: Highly stressful situations degrade people's performance and mental powers. That is certainly true of combat environments. Things like tunnel vision, auditory perception and dulled thought are normal reactions.

This is why I don't think 'no atheists in foxholes' is a very relevant point - even to the extent it may be true. Also why I don't think Christians should take pride in such behavior. With the impact on cognition, 'no atheists in foxholes' is a bit like proudly proclaiming there are no atheists when drunk. Even if that's true, why would anyone view that fact as supportive of your theology? People in such situations are stupider and less rational, not smarter and more rational. If your theology increases in popularity under conditions when people are stupider an less rational, well...

Low percentage of atheists in foxholes? Hmm... I doubt it. But I know where you can find a very high percentage of 'born-again' Christians.

Death Row.

Guys (mainly) hoping for that escape clause that allows them forgiveness for their sins of rape, murder, torture, kidnapping, pyromania, etc. So they won't have to be in hell with all those children born into families with the wrong religion. And biology teachers.

JoeBuddha said: As an actual Buddhist, I could see a Buddhist couple allowing a pastor to pray for them, so he could feel he'd done something. I could even see them remembering him with respect as someone with the courage of his convictions. I truly doubt they would believe that his god actually did anything, though. (Note: That wouldn't be me, but then I'm less forgiving of ignorance and arrogance...)

First of all, I am very glad your wife survived and doing well.

Secondly, I know you love your wife tremendously by the way you write about her.

Thirdly, and most importantly, and with all due respect, YOU were not in the foxhole, SHE was.

We first have to look at the two possibilities: 1) God exists and 2) God does not exist.

If God does not exists, we have to discover the origin of everything, including the laws of quantum physics which say that everything can come out of nothing from a quantum fluctuation, etc. But the laws have to be there first. Who created the laws? A possibility is that the laws themselves were created spontaneously. But that is a theory difficult to either understand or accept. Spontaneously how? No theory today even attempts to answer that question.

If God DOES exist, then there are a multitude of questions to be asked and answered. Why would God create such a beastly world based on one organism having to kill another in order to survive (except for the gentle plants, of course, who take energy from the sun)? Was original sin not what the Bible says but the fact that we were born killers (for survival)? But who gave us that sin if not God who put us here? Why would God create a world with disease and accidents and randomness and death? Etc. etc. etc.

So let’s think. If God exists, we must presume he is omniscient and omnipotent, by definition. If we exist, there are two options: either we are immortal souls or we are mortal, having been born in a physical world and scheduled to die.

If we are purely physical, and God exists, we have to ask why did He have us get born and live in this hellhole? There has to be a reason. We won’t ever know, because in this scenario, we will cease to exist upon our death and we will never have an answer.

If we are spiritual beings, why did God put us here? One answer I hear all the time is that God put us hear to “learn.” Buddhists believe that in their reincarnation ideas, as well as other faiths. OK, but this brings up all sorts of other questions. If we are here to learn, then it means we were ignorant about something. Which means that at some point we were ignorant about a lot of things. Which means that in the spiritual world there is a progression of learning. Which means that TIME exists in the spiritual world. Time? In the spiritual world? That’s a concept that neither physicists, who say that time started at the big bang, nor religious leaders, who say that the world of the spirit is timeless, agree with. So if we think that we are here to learn it means that at some point we were ignorant, which means that at some point we were born. But that means that we are not eternal sprits.

OK. You can say that we are not eternal spirits going backward, but that we are eternal spirits going forward, and that God created us at some point in TIME. So here it TIME again.Why did He create us? And why now? Remember, God has ALWAYS existed, by definition. Eternity is a difficult concept for our minds to grasp, but imagine ALWAYS, FOREVER, ETERNAL EXISTENCE. Why would God pinpoint a point in time in which He would create other souls?

This is the problem with reincarnation. It makes no sense, at least in our means of logic.

Now, here’s the rub. I can’t imagine how this whole complex world could have come about without some ultimate being. But I also can’t imagine how it came about WITH some ultimate being, considering all the consequences I listed above.

There is only one thing I know: being an atheist is the same as being a theist. You need the same rigor to prove that there is NO God as you do that there IS a God..

The most one can do is say he is an agnostic, sitting on the fence. “I know nothing” was a favorite phrase for Socrates, and I think it is apt for all of us.

Even if god exists, he’s pretty much restricted to curing minor little issues that aren’t well understood anyway, like cancer for example.

Chirp chirp.

FL | June 11, 2013 7:49 AM | Reply | Edit
Even if god exists, he’s pretty much restricted to curing minor little issues that aren’t well understood anyway, like cancer for example.

A lot of cancer patients won’t mind that “restriction” at all, Ogre. Gives far more hope than your atheism!

You could say the same about laetrile. But that's unfair to laetrile; it probably doesn't work, but it doesn't have millenia of negative results behind it either.

billmaz said: Now, here’s the rub. I can’t imagine how this whole complex world could have come about without some ultimate being.

'Just Bob', heh, wonderful!

Besides that, even if it could be established that some sort of being caused space-time in the first place, that by itself would not establish that said being micromanaged (or even observed) any of the details in or on any particular planet (or other location) in that space-time.

Henry J said: Besides that, even if it could be established that some sort of being caused space-time in the first place, that by itself would not establish that said being micromanaged (or even observed) any of the details in or on any particular planet (or other location) in that space-time.

TomS said: What is there about God and "man" that dictates the human body plan?

FL said:

Even if god exists, he’s pretty much restricted to curing minor little issues that aren’t well understood anyway, like cancer for example.

A lot of cancer patients won't mind that "restriction" at all, Ogre. Gives far more hope than your atheism!

FL why does your god only seem to cure things that can't easily be seen with the naked eye in front of a congregation like, for example an amputated leg or a gouged out eyeball?

What about a bullet hole or a large skin growth? Why is it always something that can't be verified or even seen?

Cabal said: FL why does your god only seem to cure things that can't easily be seen with the naked eye in front of a congregation like, for example an amputated leg or a gouged out eyeball? What about a bullet hole or a large skin growth? Why is it always something that can't be verified or even seen?

Just Bob said:

billmaz said: Now, here’s the rub. I can’t imagine how this whole complex world could have come about without some ultimate being.

Can you imagine how some "ultimate being" came about? No? Then why bother with that extra imaginary step? Why not just be unable to "imagine how this whole complex world could have come about"? Then you'd have one fewer thing that you can't imagine.

"God either exists, or He doesn't exist" is a bit simplistic, too. What do you mean by God?

Billmaz is making the argument from ultimate cause, but the argument from ultimate cause, even if it is accepted, defines God as "that which is the ultimate cause". But that is defining something in circular terms. God is ultimate cause, because ultimate cause must be God; and that is useless. It merely regresses infinitely. It's the equation at the end of the attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, the infinity to which the calculation reduces. It implies that God is necessarily unknowable. The result is classic agnostic deism.

Which is, like the argument from ultimate cause itself, bootless. As well have no God at all.

Less than 2,000 years ago, his minions were curing blindness, regrowing limbs, healing people from being dead.

Just Bob said: Low percentage of atheists in foxholes? Hmm... I doubt it. But I know where you can find a very high percentage of 'born-again' Christians. Death Row. Guys (mainly) hoping for that escape clause that allows them forgiveness for their sins of rape, murder, torture, kidnapping, pyromania, etc. So they won't have to be in hell with all those children born into families with the wrong religion. And biology teachers.

Isn't this all indicative of cognitive biases? Let's take aside the fact that anecdotes are not statistics - one story sounds great, but clinical trials are better - the story about the Buddhist and the Pastor sounds like Availability Heuristic at work. If 1000 people pray for a sick person and 1 person heals - we tend to forget the 999 people who didn't heal and tells stories about the 1 that did. (Meanwhile, a few hundred people healed naturally without any prayer intervention - although its possible that medicine helped.)

Frankly, the story of the Buddhist and the Pastor sounds like a folk tale to me. Too good to be true. And certainly, nothing approaching statistical validity that would get me excited about the healing power of prayer. Its less likely someone was healed by prayer and more likely it was the dose of antibiotics they received the night before that worked. If someone were to pray "Please God - let those antibiotics work" and guess what, the antibiotics DID work - who deserves the praise? God - or the pharmaceutical company that helped develop the medicine?

phhht said:

FL said:

You’ve shown no evidence that the claim that the prayer caused the cure. In fact, the only thing that can be accurately said is that the two events are correlated.

Okay. Correlated.

But how about those dead kids, Flawd? You know, the ones you and your ilk say your gods will miraculously heal? Except they don't, do they, Flawd. They just leave them to die. BTW, that stuff on your hands? That's blood.

Joe American said: If you believe in an afterlife, the children are healed.

phhht said:

FL said:

You’ve shown no evidence that the claim that the prayer caused the cure. In fact, the only thing that can be accurately said is that the two events are correlated.

Okay. Correlated.

But how about those dead kids, Flawd? You know, the ones you and your ilk say your gods will miraculously heal? Except they don't, do they, Flawd. They just leave them to die. BTW, that stuff on your hands? That's blood.

Let's reason together.

Being A knows 1% of everything.
Being B knows 2% of everything, twice as much as Being A.
Being A can not understand half of anything Being B says, misinterprets half of what Being B does, and half the time goes against the good advice of Being B (even though it would benefit Being A to do so).

Being C knows 3% of everything. Being A understands only a third of C's motivations, intentions and refuses to trust his own faulty instinct, (even tough it would benefit Being A to do so).

Now continue on with progressively more intelligent beings. Assuming there is no limit on the intelligence and knowledge that a single being might have (in fact, we have no proof that there is actually a limit), could it be that such a being, who knows 100% of everything exists? It would indeed be irrational to think that such a being does not exist if your only proof to refute the idea of an all-knowing being was an irrational faith without evidence that such a being does not exist. Indeed it is more likely that such a being DOES exist, or at least more rational to place faith that one does rather than place faith that one does not, since there is at least observable evidence of increasingly knowledgeable beings and no proof of a limitation on knowledge.

ogremk5 said: But that's not what God is about dude. Less than 2,000 years ago, his minions were curing blindness, regrowing limbs, healing people from being dead. Now, he's reduced to SOMETIMES curing a disease that we barely understand.

Joe American said: Let's reason together. Being A knows 1% of everything. Being B knows 2% of everything, twice as much as Being A. Being A can not understand half of anything Being B says, misinterprets half of what Being B does, and half the time goes against the good advice of Being B (even though it would benefit Being A to do so). Being C knows 3% of everything. Being A understands only a third of C's motivations, intentions and refuses to trust his own faulty instinct, (even tough it would benefit Being A to do so). Now continue on with progressively more intelligent beings. Assuming there is no limit on the intelligence and knowledge that a single being might have (in fact, we have no proof that there is actually a limit), could it be that such a being, who knows 100% of everything exists? It would indeed be irrational to think that such a being does not exist if your only proof to refute the idea of an all-knowing being was an irrational faith without evidence that such a being does not exist. Indeed it is more likely that such a being DOES exist, or at least more rational to place faith that one does rather than place faith that one does not, since there is at least observable evidence of increasingly knowledgeable beings and no proof of a limitation on knowledge.