OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: The Evidential Problem of Evil by Jin Roh

[freeksngeeks]

Tom

I get the strong feeling that my major talking points here are being ignored and/or misinterpreted.

When you are accusing me of being "emotional" in this discussion, it is clear that we are poles apart.

"Afterall, please prove to me that this world came from nothing. That God is uninvolved from creation. That our human goodness is all that we need. Where is the proof?"

I am not claiming that the world came from nothing, but I don't see evidence that it came from an interventionist god who is intimately involved in the second-by-second lives of some 6 billion people. That's your claim - where is the proof for that?

Let's agree to disagree. Your indoctrination does not allow you to consider the possibility you might be wrong and that you are worshipping a made up god and a man - Jesus - who never existed. Let's just leave it at that okay?

Rob

[Religion=Cult+]

Tom

I get the strong feeling that my major talking points here are being ignored and/or misinterpreted.

When you are accusing me of being "emotional" in this discussion, it is clear that we are poles apart.

"Afterall, please prove to me that this world came from nothing. That God is uninvolved from creation. That our human goodness is all that we need. Where is the proof?"

I am not claiming that the world came from nothing, but I don't see evidence that it came from an interventionist god who is intimately involved in the second-by-second lives of some 6 billion people. That's your claim - where is the proof for that?

Let's agree to disagree. Your indoctrination does not allow you to consider the possibility you might be wrong and that you are worshipping a made up god and a man - Jesus - who never existed. Let's just leave it at that okay?

Rob

Rob, probably a smart idea to say "uncle." Your points are spot on, and it is simply amazing to me to watch a christian dance around everything and completely ignore your fundamental arguments, and make counter claims based on absolutely nothing. I watched the documentary Jesus Camp recently, and it drove home for me the reason that people like Tom believe what they believe.

Religious indoctrination is so pervasive in our country, and for many people like Tom they have absolutely no chance to develop the critical thinking skills to realize that it's all made up, and no theist/christian can point to any empirical evidence of the existence of their god. From what you write, you are agnostic when it comes to the idea that we simply don't know how and why we're here, and you don't claim there is no god. I'm with you - but I am a strong atheist when it comes to the "revealed" gods of organized religion. Nice job.

[HELLBOY]

When making a secular argument on the problem of evil, one is forced to define evil using naturalistic, or at least, materialist terms.

The Theist usually has a problem with this, as they cannot imagine an "impersonal" evil (which, it is, ultimately - not).

One must define reality based on awareness. "I exist" remains the foundation of all subsequent perceptions of reality, and necessarily so. Deviating from this premise redounds to the slippery-slope of solipsism, where common ground becomes so abstruse as to make communication a veritable infinite regression of hyperbole.

If I can say with confidence, "I exist" then morality must extend from that premise.

From there, we may see that "other selves" exist, as this is commonly enough perceived as to make it a justified true belief.

How may one define evil from this starting point?

Specifically, I believe the "Golden Rule" follows: Do to others as you would have them do unto you. Far from being a dictum passed down from some transcendental deity, it is merely common sense.

I cannot come up with an instance where this would not redound to the general good - which is evolution in a nutshell. Ultimately, morality is defined by evolution and evil is anything that does not redound to the general good.

By "good" I mean, survival.

Any action that I perform that does not consider "other" is essentially an action that does not consider "self." This is evil.

...and propagation of the species, necessarily considers propagation of life in general.

I say all this to merely explain how "GOD" needn't be in the equation.

I could go further and present how any GOD who existed at all would absolutely be evil.

In pure material/natural fashion, the term "GOD" would have to be re-defined in natural terms, as supernaturalism must be rejected. Therefore, "GOD" would now be "All that is".

This of course, assumes that there is nothing "supernatural".

Living in the material World and basing all things considered "fact" on materialism, to presuppose anything supernatural will inevitably weaken the methods of the default for "fact."

Denying supernaturalism is a necessity for fact. In fact, assuming that there exists a being that is supernatural suggests that this being has no idea where it came from, where it is, and leaves it hanging as a "magic" being, whose basis is that of unknowing.

To know something is to understand it - to understand something is to be able to position it within the scientific method.

If some GOD existed, and created everything, and created beings, how could this not come from a state of dissatisfaction? If a GOD is assumed to be perfect, this GOD would do nothing, for it would be impossible for this GOD to deviate from utter perfection.

If perfection casts a wide net (with a "plan") then the problem of evil must be part of perfection. This is problematic, already on so many levels, but granting the argument, one should soon see that the collateral damage from this experiment is itself evil, which is why many Theists resort to the argument, "God created it - He can do what HE wants with it - who are we to question it?..."

Which no being should accept. This is why, I - an anti-theist, purport that even if it were true, it would be a grave injustice and humanity are nothing more than chattle, slaves... fodder, for a capricious deity's self-worship.

If a deity were true, it would be obvious on a material level, it would only be content with creating "equals" and would not hide from it's creation (excepting Aristotle's primum mobile, in which case, God is no different than those alien "seeders" who fertilized our planet and left us to fend for ourselves - making the "fact" of GOD, irrelevant.

[Paul Almond]

Talk about missing the point. This hardly deserves a reply, but I think you missed the "Given no arguments or issues at all" clause in the sentence.

As an atheist, I am actually prepared to concede the "given no arguments or issues at all" part - but only in a very shallow way which does not really help the God case. This is the only justification I can think of for the "50% probability if there are no issues or arguments at all" statement.

Imagine some statement X. Another statement can be made asserting that X is false. If X is true this statement is false. If X is false, this statement is true. This suggests that half of all possible statements are true and half of all possible statements are false. (There is, of course, an infinity of statements, but this is not an issue if we rephrase things in a more sophisticated way than I am doing here). We should expect this anyway: if we randomly select a statement, from the set of all possible statements, we should expect a 50% probability that we select a true statement, because the set of all statements is not constructed with any preference towards true or false ones.

This seems to support the idea: if we simply take the view that "God exists" is a statement, then viewing it as a randomly selected statement from the set of all possible statements means we should say it has a 50% chance of being true, in the absence of all arguments and issues. This does not mean we really think it is "randomly selected". It means we are saying we have not even looked at the content of the statement, so have no way of being able to say otherwise.

This is the important point: you can only support the "50%" idea by literally assuming that this is a statement, from the set of all possible statements, without any consideration of what it says.

Now, this is where we run into problems. It is not just a random statement, It is a statement about something that exists and something that has a specific relationship with you (it is your creator) and with everything else (it is the creator of everything else). Reality, and the relationships between us and everything else in reality is specific. The minute a statement starts to claim something specific about reality it has gone from "a randomly selected statement from the set of all possible statements" to "one of the statements saying specific things about reality". Most of the statements you could assert claiming specific things in reality, and specific relationships between those things and us would be wrong, because reality is specific. There is one specific reality here and many more imaginary realities. If a randomly selected statement makes a specific claim about reality its chances of hitting the "right" reality - the real one, are very remote.

For this reason, while we can possibly justifying starting with 50% before we consider "other issues and arguments" this is even before we consider that the statement makes a specific claim about reality and about a specific relationship between something and the rest of reality. As soon as it does this, the probability starts to drop: a lot.

This is why the examples that people gave about Easter bunnies, Santa, etc, make the idea look a bit absurd. All these claims are claims about specific things with reality, which have specific relationships with us, and the mere fact that they do that lowers their probability. Those things are not assigned a 50% probability because we have already realized that claims for their existence are not randomly selected statements. A claim for Santa Claus, for example, is a claim that there is a man with magic powers who delivers your presents, etc.

What this means is:

The writer is basically correct on the 50%, but at the same time, it may be misleading if it makes people think that God is 505 likely until you do some significant theological debate about the issue or think about God in particular. As soon as you realize that this is a claim about something in reality which has a specific relationship with you - as soon as you have done the bare minimum of consideration of issues - the 50% game is up - before you even get into any specific debate about God.

This does not, incidentally mean that God does not exist, or is unlikely - although that is my view as an atheist. You could say exactly the same thing about the claim that I have a specific genetic code (assume one is made up for me here), or that I live in the UK. If those statements were randomly asserted they would probably be false on the same basis: they make specific claims about reality and claim a specific relationship. Either claim can still have its probability altered by evidence or argument after this.

Summary: the 50% idea is valid, until you take account of the fact that the claim relates to reality, when its chances of being right drop due to the specificity of reality. This is not an issue for just the God claim, but for any specific claim about reality.

I will qfinally expand on one thing here: when I talked of "specific relationship" people may wonder what I meant. if I say "a pink unicorn exists" it may be out there somewhere - a bigger universe makes it more likely, so it could be argued that that may be a reasonably safe claim if there is enough universe for pink unicorns to turn up in. A specific claim is "Someone is living in your attic secretly" "invisible aliens rule the world" "You live in Paris" "Your house was designed by an architect called Fred". These claims are more specific in that they relate to you and your status "locally" - they don't benefit from a large universe giving a good chance of something existing "out there". I would view God as specific in this sense: the claim is that I was created by him. It is a claim about my status. It is a claim about me - not about something existing "out there" in all that reality. Having "more universe" does not make the claim more likely to be true, any more than it makes it more likely that I live in France or went shoplifting yesterday.

[tomsawyer25]

Tom

I get the strong feeling that my major talking points here are being ignored and/or misinterpreted.

When you are accusing me of being "emotional" in this discussion, it is clear that we are poles apart.

"Afterall, please prove to me that this world came from nothing. That God is uninvolved from creation. That our human goodness is all that we need. Where is the proof?"

I am not claiming that the world came from nothing, but I don't see evidence that it came from an interventionist god who is intimately involved in the second-by-second lives of some 6 billion people. That's your claim - where is the proof for that?

Let's agree to disagree. Your indoctrination does not allow you to consider the possibility you might be wrong and that you are worshipping a made up god and a man - Jesus - who never existed. Let's just leave it at that okay?

Rob

I have addressed each and every of your points, and when I went off on side points, they were for the purpose of making clear one of the main ones. If I have misunderstood, I always invite you to explain how. You yourself have managed to avoid addressing a large portion of what I have said.

It is fairly clear that you are avoiding making any positive assertions about your own beliefs, as your own indoctrination would not be very defensible if you actually did. I repeat my assertion that that is cowardly. If you wish to discontinue for this reason, that's fine. If you wish to continue to think that you don't really need the blood of our Savior, well, that's not fine, but there is little I can do about it. I hope you continue to honestly search the subject, and use all the gifts given to you by a holy God.

[tomsawyer25]

Rob, probably a smart idea to say "uncle." Your points are spot on, and it is simply amazing to me to watch a christian dance around everything and completely ignore your fundamental arguments, and make counter claims based on absolutely nothing. I watched the documentary Jesus Camp recently, and it drove home for me the reason that people like Tom believe what they believe.

Religious indoctrination is so pervasive in our country, and for many people like Tom they have absolutely no chance to develop the critical thinking skills to realize that it's all made up, and no theist/christian can point to any empirical evidence of the existence of their god. From what you write, you are agnostic when it comes to the idea that we simply don't know how and why we're here, and you don't claim there is no god. I'm with you - but I am a strong atheist when it comes to the "revealed" gods of organized religion. Nice job.

Yes, that was "crying uncle". It won't do very much for you intellectually to call everyone indoctrinated who rejects the atheistic philosophy of our society and believes in the God of Abraham and Jesus. Afterall, if you keep calling everyone "indoctrinated", you can actually keep believing that you, yourself, are not.. That of course is false.

I have never been to a Christian camp of any sorts. However I have been indoctrinated by agnostics, atheists and mushy Christians for plenty of years, including during my youth. Over time, my critical thinking skills started to reject this nonesense, and I became more open-minded toward the possibility of our Creator and the truth of the Bible. Basically, God's truth knocked my previous indoctrination right out of the water. It is far better.

[Drewski]

First, I think we need to look at what exactly evil is or rather what it is not. I believe that evil is the absence of good and therfore has it's inherent limitations. Our world points to this in profound ways. For example look at absolute zero. There is a point when absolutely all heat and energy is removed from a space and therefore it has reached a point where it can't get any colder. It is the absence of heat, but you can always go infinitely hotter. Also look at darkness, it is the absence of light, but you can always add infinitely more light. Secondly in regards to evil's existance, as a Christian, I believe that God is love, and we are made in God's image. So in order to make us in his image we have been given free will. Which is the ability to accept or reject good thing. Sin is an archery word that means to miss the mark and essentially in the Christian view it's choosing a lesser good over a greater good. Pleasure in and of itself is good, but to choose pleasure at the expense of another human being is a sin. God became man and took on our sins, the evil that we brought upon Jesus was suffered in his humanity, while at the same time glorified in his divinity. What greater evil can man do then do kill his creator? and yet God brings a greater good out of it. Evil has its limitations good does not.

[freeksngeeks]

I have addressed each and every of your points, and when I went off on side points, they were for the purpose of making clear one of the main ones. If I have misunderstood, I always invite you to explain how. You yourself have managed to avoid addressing a large portion of what I have said.

It is fairly clear that you are avoiding making any positive assertions about your own beliefs, as your own indoctrination would not be very defensible if you actually did. I repeat my assertion that that is cowardly. If you wish to discontinue for this reason, that's fine. If you wish to continue to think that you don't really need the blood of our Savior, well, that's not fine, but there is little I can do about it. I hope you continue to honestly search the subject, and use all the gifts given to you by a holy God.

Oh dear Tom, you have clearly read my posts through the filter of your christianity.

Rather than "avoiding making any positive assertions about your own beliefs", let me once more tell you that I have NO beliefs about a god or gods. I see NO evidence or compelling argument that an interventionist god exists. So I don't have beliefs", I have an absence of such beliefs. This is not as a result of "indoctrination" but rather a dawning realization, after being raised and educated as a catholic, and after reading the bible all the way through 3 times, that it is all obvious nonsense.

I certainly don't "need the blood of our Savior." I don't believe your savior ever existed, and as I have explained to you, the whole concept of original sin, the sacrifice and redemption by Christ, seems to me hopelessly archaic and invented by humans.

It is difficult for me to engage in any serious attempt to have a meaningful conversation with you since much of what you say and argue is based on the premise that your beliefs are valid. Since I reject the fundamental basis for your arguments, there is little in common for us to have a debate about.

But I hope it works for you.

Rob

[tomsawyer25]

Oh dear Tom, you have clearly read my posts through the filter of your christianity.

Rather than "avoiding making any positive assertions about your own beliefs", let me once more tell you that I have NO beliefs about a god or gods. I see NO evidence or compelling argument that an interventionist god exists. So I don't have beliefs", I have an absence of such beliefs. This is not as a result of "indoctrination" but rather a dawning realization, after being raised and educated as a catholic, and after reading the bible all the way through 3 times, that it is all obvious nonsense.

I certainly don't "need the blood of our Savior." I don't believe your savior ever existed, and as I have explained to you, the whole concept of original sin, the sacrifice and redemption by Christ, seems to me hopelessly archaic and invented by humans.

It is difficult for me to engage in any serious attempt to have a meaningful conversation with you since much of what you say and argue is based on the premise that your beliefs are valid. Since I reject the fundamental basis for your arguments, there is little in common for us to have a debate about.

But I hope it works for you.

Rob

I appreciate your letter and your forthrightness. Again, if you really don't wish to have a debate, of course I respect that. However, I don't see that having different "filters" so to speak means that we have no ground to debate on.

To begin with, countless people have found God to be self-evident, without the Christian perspective at all. Secondly, using my perspective to talk about the blood of the Savior may be out of your territory, by I feel it important to communicate it, because I believe your conception of it as "archaic" is based on seriously misunderstanding it.

Hence, though I know some of my commentary is strongly Christian, I do want to get that across anyway. I once had no understanding of it myself, then I had a very weak understanding, and with time a better one. I think if we see what it means through the Bible, and in the lives of believers, we can glean much more.

To put it this way, I believe your disapproval of the blood of atonement is based on the "God wants blood" view of things. I admire that you have read through the entire Bible, however, this is not really a correct view. Naturally I wish to explain more.

You seem to say that you have no view at all in the existence of God, but that you don't believe in an "interventionist" God. I would continue to say that this itself is a positive belief, an assertion that God may exist but apparently cares little for this world. Not being interested in answering the question is as well a belief, one which says it doesn't really matter either way.

My own experience with faith and with understanding the teaching of the Bible versus the philosophies of man, say that yes, there really is a difference, and yes, it really does matter. My common sense nudges me in that direction as well. It's something I have seen in theory and in practice.

I know sometimes these websites are enormously combative, but you know that can get counter-productive a lot of the time. I write to you not to bash heads with you (though I do get an occasional inkling that way), but to really explain myself and my perspective, as well as to answer your serious objections.

I hope that counts for something.

Take care

Tom

[freeksngeeks]

Hi Tom

Appreciate your perspective. Let me comment on one of your statements.

You seem to say that you have no view at all in the existence of God, but that you don't believe in an "interventionist" God. I would continue to say that this itself is a positive belief, an assertion that God may exist but apparently cares little for this world. Not being interested in answering the question is as well a belief, one which says it doesn't really matter either way.

Tom, I feel this doesn't quite summarize my view. I lack belief in god(s) - not quite the same as "have no view." I feel strongly that an interventionist god who cares about each of us individually is so improbable that it might as well be impossible. You can call this a positive belief but I don't think it is. Our life would be the same whether there is or isn't a god. This mitigates strongly against the existence of a god.

Even if you believe in a god, who is to say that the christian god is the correct one? Other religions have scripture and longevity going for them too.

Cheers
Rob

[tomsawyer25]

Hi Tom

Appreciate your perspective. Let me comment on one of your statements.

You seem to say that you have no view at all in the existence of God, but that you don't believe in an "interventionist" God. I would continue to say that this itself is a positive belief, an assertion that God may exist but apparently cares little for this world. Not being interested in answering the question is as well a belief, one which says it doesn't really matter either way.

Tom, I feel this doesn't quite summarize my view. I lack belief in god(s) - not quite the same as "have no view." I feel strongly that an interventionist god who cares about each of us individually is so improbable that it might as well be impossible. You can call this a positive belief but I don't think it is. Our life would be the same whether there is or isn't a god. This mitigates strongly against the existence of a god.

Even if you believe in a god, who is to say that the christian god is the correct one? Other religions have scripture and longevity going for them too.

Cheers
Rob

Hi Rob,

Nice to get your letter. It is good to boil down the questions to a few simple ones, though I suspect eventually they might multiply.

My reason for repeatedly asking you for positive beliefs, is that you are demanding a certain level of proof for Biblical belief. I believe that if you look at your own, you will find an abundance of beliefs which are held without absolute proof. They are held because of faith plus evidence. I believe that if you recognize this in yourself, you may not be so quick to call Christain belief irrational.

Does God care for us is an important question. You suggest that this is "so improbable that it might as well be impossible". Ok. But why is it improbable? Based on what? My own belief that God cares for us yesterday and today and tomorrow is based on various things, one of the most basic is simply that God is Creator, has formed us, has provided for us, and has done this for thousands of years. I also see that God's word in the Bible includes messages that are essentially for our benefit, including God's wilingness to have us return despite our sin. I also see our inner nature as showing that God is concerned for His creation, such as our moral sense, our yearning for God, forgiveness. Having personally experienced faith, I can see this living thing God has given us being "good' and "caring" on a visceral level and a regular basis.

Although I do understand how someone who has gone throuh Job-like tortures might cry out in question of God's love for us, I find it confounding that so many people who have received countless blessings wish to deny God's goodness and care for us.

Furthermore, I also wish to express that God's care for us stands up well in comparison to the possible alternative. I question whether a detached and uncaring God would provide so much for us, not only in creation, but also in our inner being and in teachings which are positive to our life. Again, just as you yourself would throw out the question of pain to those who proclaim a loving God, I naturally throw out the question of love and hope, goodness and forgiveness in question of the alternative, which is that God is so distant as to be asleep.

Your second question is also a good one. Why the Bible? Why the Chrisitan faith? I guess my answer to that is to honestly seek an answer. All religions are not the same, and if you really don't know, please examine their claims and results. To compare to Hinduism, should we care for the poor and needy as the Bible teaches us, or should we accept that they are suffering for past-life sins and treat them like dirt? Should we accept that God can redeem the deeply sinful among us, or accept that they must go through innumerable reincarnations? Can truth be known, or is the universe an illusion? I know you do not believe in the Bible, but they are fair questions, so why not study them?

Faith in Jesus is often called "the crede", in an apparent opposition to "the deed". Somehow it is based upon an act of belief in one thing rather than another thing. However, I would point out the millions of Christians who have been transformed in their life through that act of "belief" that Jesus came from heaven and the Jesus rose from the grave, and who consider it a virtual obligation to build schools, feed the hungry, cure the sick, live in obedience to God. This "belief" is fundamentally connected with actions. So I naturally encourage you, in exploring that question, to compare faiths in theory and in practice.

Shalom and Blessings

Tom

[ShawnPSmith]

It seems clear to me that 'evil' is a tool used by the Father, one of many tools He uses to mature His offspring.

As a tool, 'evil' is not inherently morally evil. No tool is 'good' or 'evil' -- tools are just tools. God is using 'evil' for good ends (where have I heard that before?), but it has no inherent moral value of itself. Let me be clear, moral evil exists -- and when it is used as a tool by God, the use of it is not morally evil. If anything, as it is intended for our ultimate good, it will be seen as beneficial in the long run (though this does not make it morally 'good').

We tend to dislike the use of the tool of 'evil' on us by God. We tend to think of the neutral tool of 'evil' as being, well, morally evil. The Scripture is clear that God causes evil, and it is used to teach us our proper relationship to God:

"It is an experience of evil God has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it." Eccl. 1:13

"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow . . . the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Gen. 2:9

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Is. 45:7

It is evident that 'evil' is manifestly NOT a problem. It is a tool used by God, part of His plan from the beginning, and the solution to the pain it causes Man was provided before the world began . . . .

[Drewski]

Shawn, I'm going to have to disagree with your understanding and interpretation of evil.
In Genesis everything that God created he said was Good. Evil is the absence of good, in the sameway that darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. If evil is understood in this context then it can never be "created". It would be nonsense to take the literal interpretation of Is 45:7 and believe that God created darkness, since it is the absence of light.
There are two aspects to God's will, his ordaining will and his permissive will. All things exist only because God wills them. God permits man to do evil and turn away from him because God ordained man to hava a free will and permits man to choose evil over good. The deeper lesson of Genesis is that man "grasped" at knowing what is good and what is evil, rather than allowing God to give him this knowledge as a gift. The antithesis of this can be found in Philippians 2:5-8;
"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
Our choice to reject God's plan brought evil and death into the world. It caused a great rupture, so to speak. Man from God, man from nature, man from woman, and body from soul. God didn't create these evils, but he permitted them to happen and with all evil he permits it to happen to bring about a greater good.
In Eccl 1:13; "It is an experience of evil God has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it."
God permits evil to happen to bring about the greater good of humility. Jesus, who is God, permitted man to torchure and kill him to bring about the greater good of redemption. Man tends to do the opposite, we choose a lesser good over a greater good. Pleasure is a good given from God, but when we choose to use others for our own pleasure we choose to do evil. We turn our backs on God and push his "light" from our hearts.

[ShawnPSmith]

Drewski, thanks for your thoughts. Adam did not suprise God with his choice; God created the conditions in His creation, and as He intimately knows His creation, He knew Adam would sin when presented with the opportunity to do so -- hence, He provided Christ as the solution to sin before there ever was sin. Man does not have a free will, in that man's will is subject to the circumstances he finds himself in, his prior experience, and so forth. God is controlling all these circumstances, therefore, God is controlling the will of man. This is clear in the Scripture, but the church has diverged from this clear teaching during the past 150 years or so. It is evident that Adam's sin had evil consequences. It is equally evident that God caused -- not 'allowed' -- that sin for His own reasons. God has a 'will' and an 'intention'. Men act contrary to God's will all the time, but no one has ever gone against His intention: "But you will say to me, Why does he still make us responsible? who is able to go against his intention?" Rom.9:18.

[freeksngeeks]

Tom

"My reason for repeatedly asking you for positive beliefs, is that you are demanding a certain level of proof for Biblical belief. I believe that if you look at your own, you will find an abundance of beliefs which are held without absolute proof. They are held because of faith plus evidence. I believe that if you recognize this in yourself, you may not be so quick to call Christain belief irrational."

To the best of my knowledge, I have no "belief" that I hold on "faith". Just as you are atheistic - you lack belief in - Allah, Odin, Loki, Buddha and so on, I lack belief in all those gods, plus yours. Just one more than you!

"My own belief that God cares for us yesterday and today and tomorrow is based on various things, one of the most basic is simply that God is Creator, has formed us, has provided for us, and has done this for thousands of years. I also see that God's word in the Bible includes messages that are essentially for our benefit, including God's wilingness to have us return despite our sin."

You believe that your God cares for us because he created us and provides for us. But fundamentally, I don't believe he exists, so the creation and care and providing and so on are really kind of moot. To me, you might as well be saying that there is a little invisible genie that lives in a bottle in your room who does all these things: I would have the same difficulty accepting these statements if you attributed them to the little genie.

As to viewing the bible as anything more than a series of myths, folktales and letters of questionable authorship, I simply cannot. The old testament describes a violent, angry god and the new testament was cobbled together from a much larger collection of "books" which were whittled down to what we see today. It essentially wasn't settled until the 4th century and not even finally "finalized" as canon until the 17th century.

"I find it confounding that so many people who have received countless blessings wish to deny God's goodness and care for us."

I find it confounding that somebody needs to attribute what simply happens to an invisible bearded man in the sky. Some of what happens to us is beneficial, some is not. Why aren't you blaming god for when something bad happens to us?


As to comparing Christianity to other religions, consider this: your Christianity is most probably the accidental outcome of the country in which you were born and the parents who raised you.

Cheers
Rob