Atheists also contribute to religious based charities. The suggestion that ataheists are any less likely to contribute to disaster relief is utterly baseless.
GD is also the forum for witnessing. Even for atheists.
I was going to post something similar, but what you have said so well here captures my mindset exactly.
I do wish that the Dope’s lesser atheists, who are so quick to congratulate themselves on the cleverness and lack of credulity, might actually put a little fucking effort into this and read any of the hundreds (thousands?) of works written on theodicy, rather than indulge the fatuous fantasy that they are the first in the world to stumble upon this ancient chestnut.
Alas, neither those works nor, I fear, your post will be taken seriously by this board’s mutual admiration society and its commitment to vapidity.
Look, believers, I just need to know one thing on this. How can any believer-- devout or non-practicing-- not get together with the rest and tell Pat Robertson to quit this.
He uses your faith and religion and beliefs to make enough money to invest in diamond mines, lear jets, etc., blames Haiti for making a pact with Satan, and the Haitian Ambassador to the US has to address at a time like this…
Get rid of him. Faith should tell you this is absolutely right. He embarrasses you. He gives me enough ammunition alone to call religion the root of all evil. Organize a rally, make it a headline. “People of Faith Call For Pat Robertson To Resign!” Then stem onto the rest of the televangelists and don’t forget about radio with Dr. Laura.
Do it. I have faith in you. 
Great! Fortunately I feel no like need to reexamine my thoughts on how many angels can dance on pinheads.
Golly! I’m so confused. First, the atheists were complaining how the Haitian Earthquake established once and for all the non-existence of God. Having dispatched with that, we may turn our efforts away from helping the survivors of that tragedy in order to satisfy a grudge they have against teevee personalities on extended cable!
No wonder there are so many atheists!
Seriously, in a list of the top issues that people (of faith or not) need to address, organizing a rally to call Pat Robertson an idiot is not in the top ten million. And frankly, the fact that you seem to think that he is some sort of standard bearer for religion in general, Christianity, American Christianity, or even American Evangelical Christianity only makes me suspect further that the “atheists” of this board are really just adopting a political pose against a lazy and unsophisticated generalization of their opponents.
What makes you think anyone thinks they are the first? It keeps coming back, because it underlines how contradictory to reality the standard benevolent and all powerful version of God is. Regardless of all the squirming by believers trying to come up with excuses.
Because this:
is retarded.
So, if you are aware that you are far from the first person to bring up, how about trying to advance the conversation by addressing their responses rather than this junior college “survey of world religions” caliber argument about “ZOMG! Earthquakes in Haiti!”.
For instance, if I reject any of the three horns of the standard theodicy trilemma (omnipotence, benevolence, existence of suffering), then a lot of the facile atheists in this thread don’t seem to have a comeback, do they?
This isn’t to say atheism is wrong, just that it has some very daft exponents here on the Straight Dope.
Of course we do; the response is that you are moving the goalposts. Conveniently choosing a non-standard definition of God to deflect criticism. And later, when God comes up in another context it will likely be back to the old tri-omni god. Believers tend to be very casual about changing the definitions of words like “God” to suit whatever justification they’ve come up with at the moment for their delusion.
I guess all I can say is that I disagree that it is a “non-standard” definition. There are plenty of people who do take the omnipotence and benevolence as two necessary attributes of the Supreme Being, but there are perhaps as many who do not. When it comes to religious belief, scarcely anything is standardized.
And of course, other have made apologies for theodicy that do not proceed by rejecting any of the three premises.
If you are worried about shifting goalposts, you could ask your interlocutor to articulate his/her theological commitments from the getgo. I’m not interested in settling the argument. I am interested in having a better argument, which isn’t served by someone disdainfully broaching the topic of theodicy as if it were some great discovery. I think I encountered its serious treatment in middle school. I do not come to this message board to have middle school level discussions.
The OP decided to use the Haitian Earthquake as a disproof of any religious belief in all its manifold forms. It’s a pretty jejune argument, and it’s startling to see it taken to be as clever and trenchant as a lot of posters seem to be doing.
I think it should be one of your TOP priorities. Some millionaire who frauds faith turns a national tragedy (Haiti) into a ridiculous, childish claim, and more childish believers send him money. Meanwhile, the Haitian Ambassador makes a statement to refute this childish broadcast.
How much press did this get? Enough to show Haitians with loved ones stuck under a building what the powerful “christian” nation has to say about them.
My “generalization” may have seemed lazy, I’ll admit that. But I’d hardly call it a generalization of believers. How many Facebook posts did I get from people today asking me to pray for Haitians? Plenty. Praying=lazy. It does NOTHING for anyone. According to Patty, praying AND sending him money is the solution.
And if the Haitian quake DOES NOT “establish once and for all” that a god-- ANY god-- doesn’t exist. For me, it’s number on the reason list would be over 30 million. It only adds to it.
By getting him and others off the air completely, you might gain some clout for once. Since the religious right is allegedly “powerful” in the US, send Beck and Palin after him. I’d actually mull a moment of respect for Beck and Palin if that happened…
It is when it comes to the omnimax conception of the Abrahamic God. I assure you, you are quite mistaken in your suggestion that there are anything close to “just as many” Christians, Jews or Muslims who do not believe in an omnimax God, but just so you’re very clear. The POE only contradicts an omnimax God, and there is no claim made by atheists that it disproves a non-omnimax God, so your objection is neither here nor there. If you want to believe in a God who is either not all good, not all powerful or not omnsicient, knock yourself out. You don’t need a theodicy for that one. You’re welcome to it. It’s not a standard Abrahamic view of God, though, so it’s not especially relevant to the conversation. Your argument essentially boils down to saying that the POE doesn’t exist if God isn’t God. You are correct. You don’t seem to realize you’re conceding the argument, but you are absolutely correct. You’re basically arguing that cow would be able to swim if it was a penguin.
And if/when they do, they’ll change it later as proves convenient. That’s what shifting the goalposts means.
Then you probably shouldn’t be posting in a thread about religion, then. Religion doesn’t have good arguments; it’s an intellectual garbage heap. It’s where people shove all the utter nonsense they want to believe but have no good reason to. If something have a good argument in its favor, it isn’t likely to get the religion label slapped on it in the first place.
No, it only argues against the tri-omni god that the great majority of believers claim exists. Not of “any and all” religious belief. And the reason that the argument keeps coming up is because it is such an effective one.
I don’t know what they are saying…
As for me, I see it as an exellent example of natural selection.
This reminds me of that bollocks after The Tsunami, where a church still standing amid the devastion was deemed as a sign from god.
No it wasn’t - it just meant that more money was spent on building the church, than was probably spent on the rest of the township.
Don’t be a jerk, What the … !!!.
(post deleted)
Would a have helped?
[quote=“PandaMom, post:30, topic:524936”]
If Mrs Hitler knew ahead of time that her son would turn out as he did Yes, in that sense she would be responsible for all Hitler’s evils but, then God would be responsible for letting her, or all the Hitler generations procreate.
I can give general answers. There is a female aspect, that is creation, mother earth, or Gaia is the female aspect, sometimes worshiped as a goddess, sometimes as a universal female goddess. We are her children, she is imperfect, and sometimes her children perish. It is dependence on our heavenly Father, and trusting in Him means even if she does make a mistake, and that mistake takes lives that He is above all that and will rescue His children.
She is allowed to make mistakes, God will restore all things, God Loves her and us, God does not stand in judgment of her even when her children die because of her actions, as we are being conformed to the likeness of Jesus, she is being likewise conformed and will be restored to paradise.
So it is a learning process for her, as our mistakes serve as a learning process for us.
As for the devil, yes he could have influenced it, as a woman may be influenced by a man to hurt or even kill her own child. God allows this as she has the right to chose who she will follow, and if she does follow the devil the devil must be able to lead her, or else there is no choice.