Why did God allow New Orleans to be destroyed?

[Niall001]

Why is it silly Chris? You seem to have a habit of misrepresenting people's views. I doubt that it is intentional but, it is pretty destructive. If by a loving God, you mean a God that turns up left, right and center in order to save people's lives and right wrongs, then hell no, I don't believe in a loving God. It's like as though you believe that those who believe in a loving God think that bad things don't happen to good people. Now that would be a 'silly' belief. Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard MathesonThere are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

[Chris OConnor]

DissidentThanks for making my point. You weren't using the word "embrace" as any of those passages. You said, "embrace faith in the God of Love." As I said before you talk in vague ways to avoid being accountable for your words. Your last post was a waste of pixels and borders on preaching. Why not answer questions directly and stay focused? The answer is because you don't want to be held accountable.Chris

[Dissident Heart]

Chris,You are the least imaginative and most dogmatic character on this board; the supreme irony is that you are the one who makes this community of freethinkers possible. You've admitted to never carefully investigating any religious tradition, yet alone any open comparison across geography and history; nor have you spent any substantial time participating within a particular religious community sharing in their rituals or communions. Yet, you say you have no evidence for God or gods. It's clear you are unwilling to challenge your convictions and actually experiment within these communities to learn what these terms mean and how they are applied. What you have is a preconceived notion you are unwilling to let go of...and considering your penchant for insult, which you have been apologizing for, it is more of an obsession.So, show me some evidence that you are openly and critically and carefully engaged in a study of religion; attempting experiments with various techniques, methods, and in communication with those in the field...then I will take your questions seriously. You are the one who doesn't want to be held accountable Chris. You are the one who will not venture into uncharted territory and experiment within belief systems and traditions you have already apriori rejected. I am very willing to engage the critique of the Atheist, learn from them, and adapt to their truth, if I see they have arrived at their conclusions fairly and reasonably. I know that you havent and continue to prove so.You have nothing to learn from those you disagree with; and have proven that on many ugly occasions. Your lack of literary imagination is only matched by your hunger to insult, and the bravado with which you swagger across the board claiming some sort of hearty masculine courage betrays a fear of all things relating to feeling and female...which is why your emotional outbursts as of late are so pronounced.So we go round and round and round.

[MadArchitect]

Chris OConnor: What you see going back and forth between Dissident and me is exactly why I tend to stay out of these little discussions.Chris, from conversations that I've held with you in chats, I have at least some inkling of why you avoid these discussions, and I respect you for staying out of arguments that you feel are prone to achieve little more than putting you off your lunch. And I understand that you want to use BookTalk as a forum to talk about more than just the question of theism. Personally, I'd love to see more in depth discussion about science, history, sociology and so on. And it is in light of all of that -- in light of the one-on-one conversations that we've had -- that I find it curious that you've started this whole thread. So I'm reminding you, as someone who does from time to time try to behave as a friend to you, that conversations like these seem to effect you more than they effect the theists and Christians whose eyes you are attempting to open.There aren't enough other quality discussions happening on the forums right now...And I think your stomach and your concern for BookTalk would have been better by trying to start one of those, rather than drag up this old argument. Mr. P: Whoever Panglos is - he was dead wrong. This is a typical irrational statement that I hear from people lacking the ability to differentiate between fact and fantasy.Pangloss is a character in Voltaire's "Candide", and he's meant to serve as a satirical parody of certain schools of philosophy, particularly those of Leibnitz, et al, against which the Enlightenment humanists reacted.

[Mr. P]

Quote:Mr. P: Whoever Panglos is - he was dead wrong. This is a typical irrational statement that I hear from people lacking the ability to differentiate between fact and fantasy.Chris said this, not me Mad...I was captioning a exchange between Chris and lawrencedestin.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[MadArchitect]

Sorry for the false attribution, Mr. P. And I must have misunderstood Chris' comment, as I'm almost certain that I recall him saying once that "Candide" is among his favorite books.

[Chris OConnor]

DissidentQuote:You've admitted to never carefully investigating any religious tradition...Wrong. I spent my entire childhood in Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, Pentecostal and other Christian churches. I carefully investigated them and they are complete bullshit.Quote:...nor have you spent any substantial time participating within a particular religious community sharing in their rituals or communions.Wrong again. I was completely immersed in every aspect of these religions and more. I traveled door to door with a group of Mormon Missionaries, went from one church to the next simply to learn about what they believe, and even visited the homes, prisons, and burial sites of certain religious figures. You're full of shit.Quote:Yet, you say you have no evidence for God or gods.And neither do you or any other human being in the history of human civilization.Quote:It's clear you are unwilling to challenge your convictions and actually experiment within these communities to learn what these terms mean and how they are applied.Again, complete bullshit. I've spent my entire life wrapped up in religion. I've just come to a different conclusion than you, which is that God is a myth for weak and/or uneducated people. My experiences in various religions led me to this awareness. I've challenged my "convictions" my entire life. You have offered nothing - absolutely NOTHING of value to my religious education.Quote:What you have is a preconceived notion you are unwilling to let go of...Total bullshit. Preconceived? I was a THEIST half of my life - probably more religious than you will ever be. You don't know me and are failing miserably at psychoanalyzing my motives. My "preconceived notion" was that there IS a loving God looking out for me and for all that have faith and love and worship him. My long and painful path of investigation, experience and education made it crystal clear that a God does not and cannot exist.Quote:...and considering your penchant for insult, which you have been apologizing for, it is more of an obsession.I insult you because you represent everything I can't stand about religion and the majority of extremely religious people.Quote:So, show me some evidence that you are openly and critically and carefully engaged in a study of religion...At this point my study of religion is academic, as I'm no longer naive enough to get sucked into the myths and evil history of Christianity or ANY other religion. Me stating that I was a theist and slowly transformed into an atheist should hold some weight.Quote:...attempting experiments with various techniques, methods, and in communication with those in the field...then I will take your questions seriously.Should I also experiment with Satanism or Wicca? Should I sacrifce doves, goats and even virgins? You would get forcibly expelled from a critical thinking course. I don't have to attempt "experiments" Dissident. Do you have any clue how stupid this sounds?Quote:You are the one who doesn't want to be held accountable Chris.You've NEVER met anyone more accountable than me.Quote:You are the one who will not venture into uncharted territory and experiment within belief systems and traditions you have already apriori rejected.I'll say it again and again and hope that it sinks into your head. I progressed from being a theist to an atheist. I "ventured" into atheism, not the other way around. And it took balls and an open mind to challenge everything I had been taught my entire life. I reject all religions because they have a foundation on imaginary superheroes. I'm not rejecting the good deeds that many of them do, but I've no interest in singing, dancing, and embracing people that can't think effectively. My interest in them is in figuring out how they could be so damn gullible and naive.Quote:I am very willing to engage the critique of the Atheist, learn from them, and adapt to their truth, if I see they have arrived at their conclusions fairly and reasonably. I know that you haven't and continue to prove so.Again, a complete waste of pixels. I've spent my entire life thinking deeply on these issues. The problem is you actually believe that anyone that doesn't accept your imaginary floating father theory MUST NOT have an open mind.Quote:You have nothing to learn from those you disagree with; and have proven that on many ugly occasions.Jesus, every sentence is bullshit. I learn from people I disagree with all the time, and regularly find myself changing my stance as they make strong arguments or expose the weaknesses of mine. But YOU suck at arguing for theism. There is no way around it. You're not able to teach me anything, because you're not a very good teacher. Your logic is poor and you commit so many logical fallacies that having a discussion with you is extremely tedious.Quote:Your lack of literary imagination is only matched by your hunger to insult, and the bravado with which you swagger across the board claiming some sort of hearty masculine courage betrays a fear of all things relating to feeling and female...which is why your emotional outbursts as of late are so pronounced.My emotional outbursts have been so pronounced because I think YOU are bad for BookTalk. And I'm not the only one. I have received at least 10 emails in the past few months about YOU and a few other theists on this board. I'm taking heat like you don't know.Our numbers have dropped from 46 daily posts to 16. Yes, we had a hacking problem that contributed greatly, but from what people are telling me they have lost interest in BookTalk because this place is swarming with irrational theists. I haven't known what to do. Some people suggest banning you guys, while others suggest everyone just ignore you. I just don't know what to do.The past few days I have spent $300 and at least 15 hours advertising BookTalk in an effort to attract some new people. I've been losing sleep trying to stay focused on this project. I'm frustrated Dissident.Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 9/9/05 2:38 pm

[Dissident Heart]

Chris,Your childhood and youth experiences within these Religious communities do not reflect an adult's choice to enter freely and experiment openly. I can only encourage you to expand your adult willingness to learn and grow to include religious experiences that, through more mature eyes, could provide entirely different conclusions. How exactly does one spend an entire childhood in Pentecostal, Mormon, Methodist and other Churches? I mean, was it a result of parents who were moving from Church to Church, taking you with them; or was it a kind of survey journey taken of your own volition? Why the strongly conservative flavor of selection? Have you ever spent time working with an Open and Affirming Church community, or Social Service organization, or Non-Profit community where theology and service coincide? Have you ever been a part of an inter-religious dialogue between folks of different faith communties, which included shared worship and communion activites?As I see it, my conclusions regarding damned near everything have changed profoundly since High School and even into College...politics, literature, religion, gender relations, kinship, economics, sports, art and music...Jesus, what would be the point of growing up, exploring the world, engaging education opportunities if it didn't change my mind. So, you're willing to rest assured that your childhood, adolescent and young adult experiences were sufficient in settling your accounts regarding God, gods, and all things Religious?As for my ability to argue about Theism, I agree. I'm not, nor have I ever, made it a point to argue that my form of Theism is the only way to understand God, nor that everyone should agree with me. I have offered one perspective on the issue that reflects influences from many philosophical and religious traditions. I have and still do experiment with varieties of religious practices, some I find fruitful, some I leave for others to make better sense of. I am not finished in my exploration of the subject.You don't approach it the same way I do. I am constantly looking for new ways to understand and experience these traditions.

[Chris OConnor]

DissidentQuote:How exactly does one spend an entire childhood in Pentecostal, Mormon, Methodist and other Churches? I mean, was it a result of parents who were moving from Church to Church, taking you with them; or was it a kind of survey journey taken of your own volition? Why the strongly conservative flavor of selection?I lived in foster homes, institutions and with distant family throughout my childhood. Whatever religion they practiced I practiced. Why those religions? I have no idea. Those were the religions I was exposed to - but I went out on my own and explored many others.I had a thirst to make sense of a brutal and indifferent world. Nothing made sense to me and I wanted answers. Religion answered nothing. I'm not willing to say anything else about this subject on BookTalk as it is too personal.In fact I'm done with this discussion.

[Niall001]

You know, I love booktalk. Just not at times like this. See, I like a good debate. I'm not here on a mission to convert everyone else to my world view. I'm here to enjoy myself. I know that many of you enjoy discussing matters like those we discuss on these forums in 'Real Life'. The problem with those discussions is that they become heated, fast. Here on booktalk, things don't become heated quickly, which generally makes for a better debate. Alas, that is not to say that things don't become heated. There is a build up and an unfortunate compensation for delayed ejaculation, in increased heat and bile.The problem is that things become personal. Heck, I think that it might just be inevitable that things become personal. Dissident gives Chris a terrible time and vice versa. Honestly, if for no other reason than keeping a thread on target, I'd rather not read that Dissident thinks Chris unimaginative or that Chris thinks that I'm whatever illiterate in regards science. (I especially despise Chris' tendency to tell me what I think/know, but that's just personal I'm sure everybody has their pet hates).Dissident, honestly mate, you have no tact, so I reckon you really should just lay off the personal attacks. Do you really consider your recent behaviour Christian? I don't (though really if you disagree, I'd be interested to hear your justification).You have opinions of each other, fine. That's your right. But it just isn't good manners to start expressing those opinions unless the person in question invites you to. Yes, there are situations where such manners aren't necessary. I've often started a conversation with the line 'You know what your problem is....' But I only offer those kind of opinions to friends. People like Chris and Dissident, they just aren't friends.Chris, I think that in making this site you have taken upon yourself certain burdens. Like it or not, you are the leader (or at least you're close to it) of this board and I suggest that you lead by example. Would you be happy if every thread had exchanges like the one you just had with Dissident. I don't see that kind of thing as constructive. (which is not to say that I don't regularly fuck up and do similar things, just that I don't think it's the right thing to do).I think that if people want to play Freud and peer into the souls of their fellow booktalkers, then they need to ask that person's permission before starting and more importantly (for the sake of the debate) they need to start a new thread. For example, Mad Architect has a thread dedicated to examining his personal beliefs. Otherwise, I figure that we should just stick to discussing topics and arguments in general terms. A song is not its singer. For example, this thread (though a mistake from the beginning) was a confusion of song and singer. In general, it was about how people can believe in an all knowing, all powerful, loving God when so much suffering occurs in the world. This is perfectly acceptable subject which could generate a great deal of valuable and enjoyable debate. Is that what happened?Personally, I would have enjoyed discussing the various theistic views of suffering. Alternatively, I would have enjoyed a discussion of the psychological aspects of such a belief. Obviously, the great unwashed (who for the most part seem to be theists) rarely pay attention to theological and philosophical arguments. A view in a loving god might be partially explained and at least better understood by examining attribution biases and the like. Instead, we ended up with name calling. If anyone here actually enjoys childish bickering then I offer to them a piece of advice: BECOME A SCHOOL TEACHER. At least then, you'll be paid for enjoying your hobby. Now, there is another issue that has been raised here. Chris mentioned that he'd been asked to take care of the theists who'd been causing problems on the board. When I say 'take care' I don't mean in a Julie Andrews sense. Think Tony Soprano, Al Pachino or Dougal McGuire. This touches on a wider issue for booktalk, namely what is it.I've mentioned before that when I first stumbled across booktalk, I like the sound of it. It was a 'freethinkers'' society. I didn't know that it had anything to do with atheism. I thought it was about the free discussion and examination of philosophical and political subjects. You see, the term freethinker is problematic. It implies that those who are not atheists are not good thinkers. Judging on this and other threads, that is what Chris thinks. (I'll divert here for a moment to justify bringing Chris into the discussion. He is important because he made the site and he continues to finance and organise it. Really, he has the power to make this whatever he wants it to be.) So what is booktalk then? Is it a club for atheists where the expression of views that are not consistent with the ideology is banned (or at least discouraged)? Is it a tool for the promotion of the ideology where the discussion of theistic views is only permitted as a means to an ends? What it comes down to is, is Booktalk political. Is its aim to promote atheism or is it simply about intellectual discussion as an end in itself. Maybe it's supposed to be some sort of virtual oasis where atheists can get some peace away from vile theists. I dunno.There really aren't all that many theists on the site. And really, if there is something that we are doing that breaks the rules, I'd like to be notified. Personally, I think that the site is better off without those who would propose banning people based on opinion, especially when they haven't the balls to post their reasoning in the community forums. Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard MathesonThere are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes