Why did God allow New Orleans to be destroyed?

[Chris OConnor]

NiallThat was an excellent post and I'll respond later tonight. I'm doing dinner with my girlfriend and her sister for the next few hours. For the most part I agree with everything you've said.Originally BookTalk was designed to be that "oasis" or even an "island of sanity in a sea of nonsense." There are variations of that quote all over, but you get the point. BookTalk was meant to be a place for atheists or nonbelievers to mingle with other intelligent like-minded folk. Over time, due to the nature of a public online presence, all sorts of people joined the community. But we were never meant to be a place for theists. This world is filled with what many of us atheists find to be crazy beliefs. BookTalk was a place to get away from it.But that isn't necessarily what BookTalk has turned into. And I'm not necessarily wanting to go back in time and get rid of those that don't hold my views. Theists are welcome here and I've enjoyed their participation immensely.My problem has been that freethinkers just don't participate enough, so that the boards seem to be dominated by theists. I'd like this place to be an uncensored community for people of all beliefs, but things have gone too far in the direction of theismIf you doubt my words scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the "View Active Members List." Almost everyone at the top of the list is a theist. This frustrates me and is making me feel as if this community and my efforts are a complete failure.Out in society freethinkers are a minority. BookTalk was supposed to be a place for us to hang out together, read and discuss books, and form freindships. Now that the years have come and gone I no longer want to restrict this place to just freethinkers. But God I wish things were a bit more balanced.Ok, I have to go have dinner. They're yelling!Chris

[Chris OConnor]

I suppose my last post was really directed at Dissident and not Mad or Niall. Neither of you seem to deserve to be grouped into the same category as Dissident. I suppose I was trying to not target Dissident directly, but in reality my post was entirely directed at him.

[Chris OConnor]

Quote:Likewise, considering how much singing, performing, enjoying, chanting, contemplating and sharing music is part and parcel of a great amount of Religious experience...(simply 'blah blah' according to Chris)...well, I'll leave it at that.No, not blah, blah to me. My point should have been rather simple to grasp - for anyone actually trying to understand me. I used Blah Blah Blah instead of "etc..."I wasn't saying that singing, performing, enjoying, chanting, contemplating and sharing music is "blah blah." I personally do all of the above all the time. My point is that you don't have to believe in an imaginary being to enjoy or participate in any of them. My point is that I don't want to discuss them in relation to whether or not a God exists, because they have NOTHING to do with whether or not a God exists.Why is this so complicated to understand? Is Dissident the only one confused over what I'm trying to say or am I that poor of a communicator? I'm struggling here folks. To me this concept is so simple that I'm a bit shocked to have to continually make posts about it.Let me try a different combination of words and sentences and see if I can narrow the massive gap between what I'm trying to say and what Dissident seems to think I'm saying. Jesus, someone on the theistic side give me an ounce of credit here. Am I really confusing the hell out of anyone other than Dissident?This little exchange is exactly why I get so wound up and start behaving improperly. I'm trying so hard to find the right words and after spending plenty of time and energy and feeling confident I've done a decent job in expressing myself I get a response showing I've failed miserably.Ok, here is the problem I'm having. Dissident seems to be arguing that all of the "good" that comes out of the practice of song, dance, chants, sharing, etc... (I'll be careful not to say "blah blah blah") somehow validates the God theory. Somehow all the positive stuff you get from the belief means the belief must be valid. I can't buy this at all. Can you? I want to hear some theists address this point directly.God isn't responsible for people singing, dancing and loving one another. People do these things because they would DIE if they didn't. Humans depend on one another more and more as a population grows. In this complex world in which we live we're all completely dependent on other people. Nature has selected certain behaviors, such as the expression of love, jealousy, anger, hatred, pride, sadness, etc... They are all important to our species survival and prosperity and communal existence.I am bugged shitless when I see people like Dissident trying to argue the point that these things somehow validate the God belief. I'm embarrassed for our species that we haven't left this theism nonsense back in the dark ages. There was a time when just about everything we experienced was confusing and unknown, but Jesus folks, that time has long passed. We don't need to believe in a God anymore. At one point the entity of God was fabricated to pacify our thirst for knowledge, but now we should be beyond this silliness. Most scientists are indeed beyond it. It is only the people that least understand how the universe operates that cling to magical answers. Nothing in nature points towards a magical cause.And then there are people like Mad who attempt to use philosophy to prove a God exists. Mad, you're too damn bright for this. I get so frustrated when I see bright people twisting things around in an effort to cling to a myth that is ingrained in their psyche. Be bigger than dogma and step back and wipe the slate clean. Would you ever accept such a ridiculous myth (any God myth) if right now someone walked up to you and tried to introduce it to you? Of course not. You believe because of slow indoctrination by people that were slowly indoctrinated by people that were....When and where does it end? My opinion is it can only end with personal strength. You have to be courageous to challenge myths that you KNOW don't make sense. I don't see this strength often enough, but when I do it makes me smile and helps me retain a glimmer of hope for our world.Now that I've typed all this I can only guess how Dissident will respond. Some sort of mocking or subtle jab at my lack of appreciation for X, Y, and Z. The reality is I appreciate X, Y, and Z as much as he does, but I also appreciate and respect complete honesty.Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 9/11/05 7:47 pm

[Izdaari]

You're not confusing me, Chris. You have very strong opinions, but they're very clearly stated.Quote:Ok, here is the problem I'm having. Dissident seems to be arguing that all of the "good" that comes out of the practice of song, dance, chants, sharing, etc... (I'll be careful not to say "blah blah blah&quot somehow validates the God theory. Somehow all the positive stuff you get from the belief means the belief must be valid. I can't buy this at all. Can you? I want to hear some theists address this point directly.Alrighty, I'll grant your wish. I don't buy it either. That a belief has positive social value in no way proves it's true, only that it's useful. Well, useful is all well and good, but it's an entirely different thing than truth.Quote:And then there are people like Mad who attempt to use philosophy to prove a God exists. Mad, you're too damn bright for this. I get so frustrated when I see bright people twisting things around in an effort to cling to a myth that is ingrained in their psyche. Be bigger than dogma and step back and wipe the slate clean. Would you ever accept such a ridiculous myth (any God myth) if right now someone walked up to you and tried to introduce it to you? Of course not. You believe because of slow indoctrination by people that were slowly indoctrinated by people that were....I agree to this extent: I think it's impossible to prove God exists by means of philosophy. Impossible to disprove too. I don't try to prove it, nor do I even attempt to convince anyone like yourself who's certain of the opposite. Trying to hard sell a customer who's not interested is something every good salesman knows is both stupid and a waste of time. My dad was a very good salesman and he taught me that much.Nor do I think I could persuade you even if you were interested. My reasons for believing in God wouldn't be convincing at all to a rationalist, being mostly personal and subjective, and short of a telepathic link, I can't share with you what I've experienced. Same reason I mostly didn't get involved in the old PPTFE threads: I didn't have much to say, at least not that addressed what was being debated.P.S.: Now that I've gone back and read it, I agree entirely with Niall's last post:Quote:1. I don't think that there is any evidence that compels one to believe in a God.2. I don't believe that there is any convincing logical argument that compels one to believe in a God.3. I don't believe in Pascal's Wager's validity.4. I don't think that it is necessary to be a theist in order to live a moral life.5. My belief in God is based solely on my personal experiences which have made the existence of God seem evident to me.And with this point from Mad's too:Quote:Secular Humanism doesn't hold imaginary carrots (salvation) dangling in front of people.I would say that, for many secular humanists, the idea of Progress is exactly that.Exactly. To use Eric Voegelin's phrase, many of them are "immanentizing the eschaton." A secular worldview isn't a religion but it can perform the same psychological role in someone's life as a religion, and it can have true believers and even fanatics. Many people have a need to believe in something, and for them the problem with believing in nothing is that they will then believe in anything. Of course, that doesn't prove God exists either, just that those individuals have a psychological need waiting to be filled. Edited by: Izdaari  at: 9/12/05 4:06 am

[GOD defiles Reason]

Quote:Chris: Secular Humanism doesn't hold imaginary carrots (salvation) dangling in front of people.Mad: I would say that, for many secular humanists, the idea of Progress is exactly that.I don't think the salvation carrot measures up to the Secular Humanist carrot. To me, the salvation carrot is a myth, and is truly imaginary.I see the Secular Humanist carrot as something tangible and obtainable.

[Chris OConnor]

God defiles reasonQuote:Hell, I can get my "what-nesses" and "it-nesses" from cruising down a moonlit country road while digging on a Floyd tune. And if my "whatever" turns into a "whomever," I know it's probably time to get some sleep.Amen! Nice choice too. Nothing like some Comfortably Numb on a warm summer night as you cruise down an open country road with the sunroof open and stereo on high. What a flood of emotions Floyd can bring out with their music. I'm an audiophile in every respect, with over 1500 CD's, a 1710 watt car stereo, and more speakers than you would fine in a quality home stereo. My brother turned me onto Floyd long long ago. They're an acquired taste I think, but once you appreciate their supernatural musical talents you're hooked for life.

[Izdaari]

Quote:I don't think the salvation carrot measures up to the Secular Humanist carrot.To me, the salvation carrot is a myth, and is truly imaginary.I see the Secular Humanist carrot as something tangible and obtainable.Mmmhmm.We certainly don't agree on that. I see both "carrots" as being a matter of faith, and further, the earthly carrot is far worse than mere "pie in the sky, by and by" in that so far all attempts to achieve terrestrial paradise have failed disastrously, resulting in the worst tyrannies and genocides in history, which I should think would make any rational person very, very wary of further attempts. Which is not to say there cannot be technological and organizational progress. Humans can certainly learn better ways of doing things, and that's a Good Thing, which does not however conflict with any of the world's major religions, save extremist variants. But "utopia" is derived from the Greek "ou" + "topos" or "noplace" for a very good reason. Edited by: Izdaari  at: 9/12/05 10:11 am

[Izdaari]

Quote:Amen! Nice choice too. Nothing like some Comfortably Numb on a warm summer night as you cruise down an open country road with the sunroof open and stereo on high. What a flood of emotions Floyd can bring out with their music. I'm an audiophile in every respect, with over 1500 CD's, a 1710 watt car stereo, and more speakers than you would fine in a quality home stereo. My brother turned me onto Floyd long long ago. They're an acquired taste I think, but once you appreciate their supernatural musical talents you're hooked for life.A healthy appreciation for Floyd is definitely something we CAN agree on.

[Chris OConnor]

Izdaari & othersQuote:Alrighty, I'll grant your wish. I don't buy it either. That a belief has positive social value in no way proves it's true, only that it's useful. Well, useful is all well and good, but it's an entirely different thing than truth.Thank you! God, this has been frustrating. Having none of your points appreciated gets frustrating.Now think about this a bit further. All along I've been stating that I want to separate the positive (and negative) social impacts of religion from this discussion. This does not mean that the social value of religion is irrelevant or nonexistent. My point is simply that it is derived from deception and ignorance and I don't wish to discuss it PRIOR to acknowledging this very obvious basic truth. Dissident cannot and will not differentiate between the two. To Dissident "God" and the social value of belief in a God are one in the same.Has everyone heard of the Appeal to Emotion? I hate to use such clinical terms in a discussion, but sometimes it is helpful to see how an argument is invalid academically. For instance, it is the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy that Intelligent Designers attempt to use when trying to punch holes in the theory of biological evolution. Heck, both sides use this fallacy now that I think of it. The fallacy, in brief, states that just because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false. The dogmatic "strong atheist," who I certainly am not, argues that because God has not been proven to exist, he doesn't exist. The ID proponent argues that because we're not 100% certain of the mechanics of abiogenesis and speciation the theory of evolution is therefore bunk. Throughout these discussions I have noted the use of at least 10 logical fallacies. This irks me because I do everything I can to avoid using crap thinking. I'm excited and appreciative about being a human, as silly as this sounds, and I fully intend on using my brain to it's highest potential at all times. If I'm using weak arguments I challenge each and every one here to help make me a better person by showing me where I have gone astray.But I sure don't see anyone doing a good job at punching holes in anything I'm saying. Is it because I'm a master debater? We all know this isn't the case. The real answer, I would gamble, is that I know HOW to think clearly. I've practiced this art form my entire life at the expense of my emotions. I have always done everything I can to uncover truth instead of trick myself into accepting a fictitious version of reality that makes me feel warm and fuzzy.The only times I see anyone making headway in this debate (edited to make something clear - by "making headway" I mean invalidating my argument) is when they attribute arguments to me that I have never made. I've never argued that God doesn't exist. Oh, in little emotional outbursts I've made rather strong comments. But I've never presented an actual "argument" that God doesn't exist. I've repeatedly stated my status as an agnostic atheist. I've never used the argumentum ad ignorantiam, or Argument from Ignorance fallacy. NEVER. Not once. Why not? Because I'm a clear thinker. I'm not necessarily brighter than anyone here; although I'd gamble I am quite a bit brighter than some. One individual here is a fairly skilled writer, but has rather pronounced issues with thinking critically. You see above where I used the "#1" and "#2" technique? Linking #1 and #2 as having a causal relationship is a post hoc fallacy. Actually, I could make an argument for this being an example of a few causal fallacies. My point is simply that we shouldn't be talking about singing, dancing, and hugging and hand jobs when trying to figure out whether or not belief in a deity makes sense. We all know that singing, hugging and hand jobs take place independent of faith, so why are we using them as evidence for a God?But back to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy. This example of weak thinking is explained as:1. Favorable emotions are associated with X. 2. Therefore, X is true. Am I wrong? I'd like theists to again consider what I'm saying, and don't assume I'm saying more than I am. My argument here is not that your God doesn't exist, but merely that you cannot support the belief using the Appeal to Emotion fallacy.Dissident doesn't directly use this argument, but then again, Dissident doesn't directly do anything at all. Dissident is all about coating his true underlying meaning with as many flowery descriptive words as possible. Notice the sentences with an average of 5 commas each? Anyone? His goal (and he succeeds) is to overwhelm the reader and make them tingle with excitement completely losing track of what the hell is being discussed. His posts are all about how his version of reality is the more moral and beautiful version, and if you don't accept it you're closed-minded, shallow, and unappreciative of the grandeur of the cosmos. Whatever.Back to the fallacy...1. Favorable emotions are associated with X. 2. Therefore, X is true. 1. Favorable emotions are associated with "BELIEF IN GOD"2. Therefore, "BELIEF IN GOD" is valid.Or is his argument that the favorable emotions associated with belief in God justify the "invalid" belief in a God? Dissident will never admit this second choice. No chance. I've asked him directly and he has never had the courage to admit he is rationalizing self-deception. The ends justify the means. And if he is NOT advocating people accept the God belief, even though it is invalid, and just because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, it must be because he thinks God actually does exist. If this is the case, why use the Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy to convince your audience? Can't your belief stand on it's own two feet without using horrible logic?Izdaari, you said, "I don't try to prove it, nor do I even attempt to convince anyone like yourself who's certain of the opposite. Trying to hard sell a customer who's not interested is something every good salesman knows is both stupid and a waste of time."Not fair. Who said I'm not interested in being sold on the validity of the God concept? Jesus, I'd love to believe and want to believe. I'm just not willing to sacrifice intellectual integrity because belief will make me feel better than non-belief. So you're not wasting your time, you're just trying to sell a bucket with holes in it.And I liked Niall's post too. I guess I made some assumptions about Niall's position. When he sums up his views I'm disarmed. Mad too seems relatively rational. I have a problem with his use of philosophy to justify belief in a deity, but overall his posts are reasonably logical. Dissident, on the other hand, cannot form a single paragraph without committing continual fallacies.God defiles reasonQuote:I see the Secular Humanist carrot as something tangible and obtainable.I agree. Our carrot actually exists and is delicious, nutritious and honest. Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 9/12/05 9:45 am

[Izdaari]

Chris, that all makes sense to me. We still differ on the question of whether God exists, and you're still an impossible customer to sell because even though you may be interested in buying buckets if you can find one that's good enough, you're convinced my product is bad, and though I'm sure it's not, I have no means to convince you otherwise.But no Appeal to Emotion fallacy for me. Never, never will I attempt to argue that anyone should "sacrifice intellectual integrity because belief will make me feel better than non-belief." Never. One lesson Ayn Rand taught me that I've never forgotten: emotions are not tools of cognition. Life would be so boring without them, but you don't know things because of them. The only reason anyone should believe in God is because they're convinced He is real. If believing makes you feel good, that's nice, but it has no bearing on whether He really does exist.I don't much like your carrot on the grounds that historically "immanentizing the eschaton" has had very bad empirical results. You may have missed my reply to GOD defiles reason due to cross-posting, so here it is again:Quote:We certainly don't agree on that. I see both "carrots" as being a matter of faith, and further, the earthly carrot is far worse than mere "pie in the sky, by and by" in that so far all attempts to achieve terrestrial paradise have failed disastrously, resulting in the worst tyrannies and genocides in history, which I should think would make any rational person very, very wary of further attempts.Which is not to say there cannot be technological and organizational progress. Humans can certainly learn better ways of doing things, and that's a Good Thing, which does not however conflict with any of the world's major religions, save extremist variants. But "utopia" is derived from the Greek "ou" + "topos" or "noplace" for a very good reason. Edited by: Izdaari  at: 9/12/05 10:11 am