Which God are you referring too?

Zeus? Artemis? Vishnu? Yaweh? brainbomb?

what Deity are you speaking of exactly. there are alot of them. Anubis?

ok bb, let me simplify it a bit more.

"we can [...] prove [...] that God [...]"

no.

What makes you think the child dying of cancer had anything to do with it's actions? What makes you think the child would have been better off alive?
We can't know these things, but God can.
Regardless, humanity isn't innocent. You might say that some poor person didn't deserve what it got, but you know nothing of that persons life, plus humanity as a whole might very well have been guilty. And just punishment might look very different to our corrupted human eyes.

Also bb, yes. I agree we evolved like everything else living on earth, what why does that mean God didn't put us here?

and Putin, you talk of suffering as if it's a bad thing

"you talk of suffering as if it's a bad thing"

troll of the year award?

well, think about it: how else do you get stronger mentally?, physically?, spiritually?

The origin of suffering is the attachment to transient things, and ignorance thereof.
-Budda

"well, think about it:"

You can't request this once you've surrendered your capacity to make moral judgments with the "humans are corrupted and God's plan is ineffable" argument. Sorry. Pick one.

@halls: so you'd thank me if i punched you in the face? good to know.

@putin
"Reformed theology is so delightfully dour."
I'm impressed that you connected my opinion of Easter with my general theological commitments. I wasn't aware the connection was so widely recognized.

"God is the only 'being' not held accountable to the moral idea of being a good 'samaritan' or preventing avoidable harm."
I think there should be a full stop after the word accountable and the rest of the sentence simply deleted. (I would also insert "able to be" between "not" and "held" but that's more of a quibble.)

"What makes you think the child dying of cancer had anything to do with it's actions? "

I don't. My comment was facetious. I don't believe in collective punishment for humanity's "sins". You on the other hand obviously do so I'm puzzled by the question.

"What makes you think the child would have been better off alive?"

Apparently the irony of this statement is lost considering your previous adherence to an extreme "pro-life" position. I think healthy children are better off than sick or dying children. I think that point is largely self-evident, unless you take the strange view that sick children somehow improve the moral "strength" of people witnessing their painful death.

"You might say that some poor person didn't deserve what it got, but you know nothing of that persons life, plus humanity as a whole might very well have been guilty. And just punishment might look very different to our corrupted human eyes."

There is no circumstance where collectively punishing children via painful disease or natural disasters is a just punishment, imo. Feel free to disagree. You're a walking/talking poster for why religion is increasingly held to be repellent and inhumane.

" I wasn't aware the connection was so widely recognized."

There's a reason why Scotland banned Christmas for 400 years.

"well, think about it: how else do you get stronger mentally?, physically?, spiritually?"

Who is getting "stronger" exactly? Gratuitous pain and suffering doesn't lead to strength, it leads to desensitization and hopelessness.

"There's a reason why Scotland banned Christmas for 400 years."
I'm stunned I didn't know that this had been the case -- well, outside of the century following 1560. It does explain the obviousness of the connection.

"well, think about it: how else do you get stronger mentally?, physically?, spiritually?"
AND
"Gratuitous pain and suffering doesn't lead to strength, it leads to desensitization and hopelessness."
It seems to me that one's reaction to suffering, regardless of its gratuity, is very much dependent on the person. Some find it an obstacle to overcome and emerge stronger (a la our resident Vala); others find it an overwhelming tide to decry and succumb to (a la the average naturalist like Zola); others find it an unsurprising part of life to be borne up and given back to the God who gave it in the first place (a la Monty Williams and several other Christians whom I have known).

Adam and Eve in the garden brought suffering into the world with their free will. So don't think of it as "punishment" so much as a direct result of the sin, HOWEVER, this argument is useless to atheists because you'll deny the original basis of my point. So I tried to leave this part out, and that is why I came off stupid. I can convince you of my point with more evidence if we were Christian, but as an atheist none of it will make sense. So first I would have to convince you to believe in God.

This is the problem when you atheists get involved in moral debates. We can't do a good enough job of explaining ourselves without assuming a pre-knowledge of God

@Hall
That's why I tend to make my goal truth-telling rather than outright persuasion. I won't give up my assumption of God in order to make an argument, and a lot of people here find that to be cause to harden their hearts as usual. But as far as I cab see, that's their problem, not mine. Actual persuasion is God's business. He has both the authority and power to do so (or to skip doing so). My job (and yours) is mostly to be honest and faithful in what we say and do.

why do you say that? I want to help as many souls as I can to Heaven.

it matters not if god exists or if we evolved. Either is a valid point and has little to do with our own morality. It is the human condition to see and interpret as best we can the universe as we see it. In the end we are a part of existence either created or as the universe become sentient and self aware. It is in the appalling loss as well as the mundane and the exquisite beauty that we find out true selves , this does not mean loss is good it is simply another lens we view existence through.

: why do we devote 40 days to a god rather than charity"

simple choice some do some don't..

"We can't do a good enough job of explaining ourselves without assuming a pre-knowledge of God"

I'm not even challenging that 'presumption' for the purpose of this discussion. Suppose I agree that a god in the model of mainline Judeo-Christianity exists, can you prove such a god is moral or provides moral instruction to humans?

What about Satan. havent you are concern for how he feels?

@Hall
"why do you say that? I want to help as many souls as I can to Heaven."
I think I'm primarily leaning on St. Paul on this one.

In the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, we get this: "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Then later in the same book, we get this: "to those who are without law, [I became] as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law." For a picture of what this looked like in practice in St. Paul's own life, consider Acts 17.22-32 (addressing the Areopagos, in which "when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer") and Acts 24.24-25 (speaking to the Roman governor, during which, "as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, [the governor] became frightened" and sent him away).

"Adam and Eve in the garden brought suffering into the world with their free will. So don't think of it as "punishment" so much as a direct result of the sin, HOWEVER, this argument is useless to atheists because you'll deny the original basis of my point."

no, it is useless to atheists because it claims that we are not responisble for our own lives. if your god gives someone cancer because two people sinned a few thousand years ago, that is a unjust god.

OS, HoM, before y'all continue the argument about how best to condescend to unbelievers, consider this. There have been many Christians who have tried to speak the Word to me, either 'persuasively' or as 'truth-telling'. There have been *some* Christians who influenced me to take the idea of believing in God seriously. But there is *no* overlap between those two groups. Trying to live your faith and/or convert unbelievers by evangelism and professions of faith in Internet arguments is like trying to practice medicine with a sledgehammer.

@Leth
"Trying to live your faith and/or convert unbelievers by evangelism and professions of faith in Internet arguments is like trying to practice medicine with a sledgehammer."
Then it's unlikely to be effective for you. And in general, I agree, it's not likely to produce an outright conversion directly (although God has been known to do more unusual things). But I don't see that any of this makes it worthless (or even illegitimate) in se. Or perhaps that wasn't your point.

Producing a conversion outright was not the bar I set. After all, I have not been converted. But if the goal is to (a) live your faith, (b) present a good image of Christianity, (c) persuade others to consider Christianity, or (d) to make the community a better place, getting in Internet arguments with atheists and publicly commiserating with your fellow believers about how hard it is to talk with the unenlightened fails to achieve any of these goals. And I'm not sure what other legitimate goals could be involved here.

Of course, maybe part of the problem is that the arguments are just bad. An omnipotent omnibenevolent deity can't come up with a better way to induce mental/physical/spiritual strength than wiping out infants in natural disasters? (How did wiping out those infants give *them* strength?) Suffering is God's plan to give us strength, but those who succumb to suffering deserve it for being spiritually weak (it must take practice to type 'naturalist' with the right level of derision), and also it only exists because humans are corrupt and defied God? God is not morally accountable, but also we know that human suffering is good and God's punishment is just? I mean, it's not as bad as, say, Anselm's ontological argument ("it would be great if God had to exist, therefore God has to exist!"), but it's pretty bad.

And, hey, maybe *that's* a reason to engage in Internet apologetics: to get your arguments criticized by someone who isn't charitably motivated towards your base premise, so you can improve them. Strength through suffering, right?