November 3, 2006
10:09 PM   Subscribe

Doubt and disbelief on the rise in the U.S. The Harris Poll found that 42 percent of American adults are not “absolutely certain” there is a God. Only 34 percent responded that way three years ago when asked the same question. Online surveys may reveal more accurate numbers than telephone surveys.
posted by Brian B. (80 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: jesusfilter/atheistfilter - please go fight someplace else.



 
WTF? I still don't see how someone can believe in a compassionate, omnipotent diety while babies starve and burn to death every day.
posted by milarepa at 10:35 PM on November 3, 2006


I'm actually kind of shocked that 58% of Americans are absolutely sure. That seems incredibly high to me. But maybe that helps to explain why the nation is so freaking polarized right now.
posted by fenriq at 10:36 PM on November 3, 2006


Online surveys may reveal more accurate numbers than telephone surveys.

In my experience, text message surveys yield the most accurate results, followed at a close second by telegraph surveys.
posted by XMLicious at 10:48 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


Over the last few years, several different surveys have found that more people admit to potentially embarrassing beliefs or behaviors when answering online surveys (without interviewers) than admit to these behaviors when talking to interviewers in telephone surveys. They are also three times more likely to say that their sexual orientation is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. Researchers call this unwillingness to give honest answers to some questions in telephone surveys a "social desirability bias."
posted by Brian B. at 10:54 PM on November 3, 2006


No wonder we're losing the war - it's God's punishment for homosexuality!
posted by orthogonality at 11:06 PM on November 3, 2006


WTF? I still don't see how someone can believe in a compassionate, omnipotent diety while babies starve and burn to death every day.

Its actually very easy, God's mercy is expressed through human hearts and arms. We are an expression of the father and through us he is expressed. In order for god to save those babies we need to save those babies.
posted by Rubbstone at 11:06 PM on November 3, 2006


in a compassionate, omnipotent diety
I don't think compasssion was mentioned in the survey
posted by bunglin jones at 11:09 PM on November 3, 2006


Rubbstone, a clever "out" indeed. Just like heaven exists but you can't experience it until you're dead and cannot relate the experience to those still living. In its way, its a beautiful scam scheme.
posted by fenriq at 11:14 PM on November 3, 2006


This is somewhat encouraging. After-all it's less the believing in God part that's the problem, and more the unwillingness to respect or consider other points of view.
posted by washburn at 11:15 PM on November 3, 2006


With a pure probability sample of 2,010 one could say with a ninety-five percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- two percentage points...This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

Hmm. With a sample that small I will take this with a pinch of salt. And although you're right about willingness to open up in online surveys, it does introduce room for other errors, eg people taking different interpretations of the question and not having an interviewer to explain further details.
posted by greycap at 11:20 PM on November 3, 2006


Maybe if the preachers would lay off the meth then message might get across a little clearer.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 11:21 PM on November 3, 2006


Rubbstone, a clever "out" indeed.

I'm not at all religious, but I think that dismissing Rubbstone's explanation as merely "a clever out" is a little unfair. The question was asked about how, when terrible things happen, people can still believe in a compassionate God, and I think a reasonable answer was provided. Rubbstone outlined one way in people can justify their beliefs. I've known a lot of religious people in my life (I was raised by Catholic parents, have many Buddhist friends and find myself hanging out with a bunch of ..er ... "spiritual" musicians) and one thing I've learned is that the atheist or agnostic often has a very clear idea of the God that he or she doesn't believe in, but has only the faintest concept of the God in whom the religious person has faith.
posted by bunglin jones at 11:30 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]


In my experience, text message surveys yield the most accurate results, followed at a close second by telegraph surveys.

I've always been a fan of Survery By Smoke Signal.
posted by The God Complex at 11:32 PM on November 3, 2006


greycap, actually a sample size of 2000 is highly accurate in terms of confidence intervals. I used to work in market research and we'd get 5% margin of errors with around 600 respondents.

bunglin jones, to an atheist, its all just a clever ruse to get you to put money in the plate on Sundays. My concept of "God" is a process, not a person, based on empirical evidence of the fundamental interactions of matter, cause and effect. Provable, repeatable and without a requirement for my faith to "leap" across a logical chasm.
posted by fenriq at 11:37 PM on November 3, 2006


Over the last few years, several different surveys have found that more people admit to potentially embarrassing beliefs or behaviors when answering online surveys (without interviewers) than admit to these behaviors when talking to interviewers in telephone surveys. They are also three times more likely to say that their sexual orientation is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. Researchers call this unwillingness to give honest answers to some questions in telephone surveys a "social desirability bias."

It is therefore no surprise that in this online survey, more people say they are not absolutely certain there is a God than have given similar replies in other surveys conducted by telephone.

Yeah, no one ever lies on those Internet surveys.
posted by three blind mice at 11:40 PM on November 3, 2006


700+ comments on the Haggard post, and you want to do JesusFilter/AtheistFilter AGAIN?

Can we not do this, just for ONE DAY? ONE?

Ceiling Kitten weeps for the Best Of The Web.
posted by dw at 11:43 PM on November 3, 2006


Phone surveys have become problematic simply because they can't cold-call cell users and fewer people have land lines now. Of course with web surveys there are other selection biases. I would guess that internet users tend to be more secular-minded. I wonder how accurate the correction for the selection bias is.
posted by jam_pony at 11:45 PM on November 3, 2006


I'm not at all religious, but I think that dismissing Rubbstone's explanation as merely "a clever out" is a little unfair.

I was thinking something else, that Rubbstone was opening an ancient can of worms. For example, when people abuse each other, they express God's mercy? Personally, I didn't even think Rubbstone was being serious until you took it so, but aside from speaking for an absent God, and removing his necessity, and excusing natural disasters, I think it would only be fair to note that there are many famous original apologies for the so-called "problem of evil" in the world.
posted by Brian B. at 11:47 PM on November 3, 2006


700+ comments on the Haggard post, and you want to do JesusFilter/AtheistFilter AGAIN?

I never did it the first time. Feel free to abstain.
posted by Brian B. at 11:56 PM on November 3, 2006


Personally, I didn't even think Rubbstone was being serious until you took it so,
Oh. Right. Sorry, I didn't realise it was meant to be ironic or mocking or whatever. Sorry about that. (And for all those out there who are as good at detecting intent as I am: I'm not being sarcastic)
posted by bunglin jones at 12:08 AM on November 4, 2006


Rubbstone, a clever "out" indeed. Just like heaven exists but you can't experience it until you're dead and cannot relate the experience to those still living. In its way, its a beautiful scam scheme.
First for more information on this line of christian thought see: Stranger in a Strange Land by Richard Heinlein ("thou grok god" most formative book of my life) and The God who maybe by Richard Kearney (note his talks on CBC the best of Ideas where he explains this better than I could)

Dude not every christian cares about heaven, I for one could give a rat's ass. Service of god is not a means to an end, it is an end.

As for the scam as you so call it.... look faith in god is not a rational belief. For me it doesn't come from any kind of rational deduction. I could not have you follow the steps I did to believe in god. I just came to the realization that I felt like there was a God and so I believe. My belief serves to help me focus on my purpose on earth which to care for myself and everyone else.

To be frank it doesn't matter mote in a fruit fly’s eye whether you think its a scam or not. I believe because it would be difficult to be true to myself doing otherwise.
Note: rational doesn’t imply correct and irrational doesn’t imply incorrect.
Note 2 ON preview; I'm serous; second I'm sorry if my wording was more poetic than clear 1. Since he created this universe we are an expression of him 2. We can express him through following the words of christ "That which you do for the least of these you do for me" I don't mean to say that all we do is an expression of God. If that were the case god would have slept with alot of people.
posted by Rubbstone at 12:15 AM on November 4, 2006


Its actually very easy, God's mercy is expressed through human hearts and arms. We are an expression of the father and through us he is expressed. In order for god to save those babies we need to save those babies.

Translation: God isn't omnipotent.
posted by spazzm at 12:21 AM on November 4, 2006


Translation: God isn't omnipotent.
So?
posted by Rubbstone at 12:22 AM on November 4, 2006


So it looks like around half of all religious people believe that they are all worshipping the same god, with the exception of the Born Agains or course.

I'm going to choose be encouraged by that, whether online survey takers are representative yet or not.
posted by recurve at 12:22 AM on November 4, 2006


Translation: God isn't omnipotent.
So?

milarepa's point wasn't "God can't be compassionate" it was "God can't be compassionate and omnipotent at the same time."

You can have a divine being that's compassionate, but when he's asked "Why do you let evil happen to innocents?" his answer either has to be "None are innocent!" or "Sorry kiddo, my hands are tied. For me to make <<insert some feature of the universe here>> I have to <<insert specious theological mechanism requiring evil here>>, so the babies hafta roast. And no, you can't hold me accountable for that - it's not like I'm just some guy, I'm God, fer chrissake, my actions aren't comprehensible to human justice!"
posted by XMLicious at 12:53 AM on November 4, 2006


lemme jus' say that for "free will" to mean something it's gotta haf teef.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:00 AM on November 4, 2006


...and also trying to ascribe human reasoning towards a putative beyond-the-infinite divinity is rather infantile.

from what I can tell religions here on earth are in fact the mind virusses as described by Dawkins, but ya gotta cut some slack to these people.

There's no reason an omnipotent power has to be logically consistent. That would confine them into a human-built box, and we are clearly not infinite beings, as far as we know.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:06 AM on November 4, 2006


BTW, isn't the quote from Stranger in a Strange Land "Thou art God"?
posted by XMLicious at 1:08 AM on November 4, 2006


God's mercy is expressed through human hearts and arms. We are an expression of the father and through us he is expressed. In order for god to save those babies we need to save those babies.

Seems to me you could leave god out of that equation altogether and it'd work just as well.
posted by ook at 1:09 AM on November 4, 2006


Yeah, but the point is that when people choose to save babies, they are living up to a version of God that seems good. Whether or not he exists.
posted by recurve at 1:14 AM on November 4, 2006


Can someone explain to me how you can be a born again christian and believe there is no god?
posted by MrLint at 1:15 AM on November 4, 2006


it was the egg!
posted by onkelchrispy at 1:27 AM on November 4, 2006


I'd rather live up to a version of mankind that seems good. But I see your point.
posted by ook at 1:28 AM on November 4, 2006


I've always been a fan of Survery By Smoke Signal.

I've had great results with yodeling. It's near impossible to knowingly lie whilst yodeling. Colleagues at Penn State tell me they've been getting excellent responses using a telephone directory and a bag of bones. It's a fast moving area.
posted by econous at 1:47 AM on November 4, 2006


Dems in 06. Atheism in 07. (Hot ladies tomorrow?) This could truly turn into VulcanMike's cultural revolution.
posted by VulcanMike at 2:10 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]



Its actually very easy, God's mercy is expressed through human hearts and arms. We are an expression of the father and through us he is expressed. In order for god to save those babies we need to save those babies.


Oh, now I get it. WE'RE God, grok? Bit too much Heinlein? Now if someone would just explain that to these preachy types, we could all get along.
posted by IronLizard at 2:25 AM on November 4, 2006


With ourselves.
posted by IronLizard at 2:27 AM on November 4, 2006


We are an expression of the father and through us he is expressed. In order for god to save those babies we need to save those babies.

We are an expression of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and through us He is expressed. In order for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to save those babies, we need to save those babies.
posted by bobbyelliott at 2:52 AM on November 4, 2006


You lot are an expression of me and through you I am expressed. In order for me to stop playing with myself, you need to do it.
posted by econous at 3:21 AM on November 4, 2006


So let's get this straight:

1. A central element of the human experience, inspiring poetry, art, music and philosophy for millenia, devolves into something particularly cheerless and shrill in its post-Industrial American context.

2. Over time, many Americans begin to get tired of being yelled at and begin questioning the basis for that element of human experience.

3. MeFites gather to celebrate this rather than asking what it is about American culture that cheapens that experience.

Is that about it? Good. Natter on, then, by all means.
posted by felix betachat at 3:23 AM on November 4, 2006 [3 favorites]


> We are an expression of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and through us He is expressed.
> In order for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to save those babies, we need to save those babies.

bobby locates a distinction without a difference. The FSM is becoming holier by the hour.
posted by jfuller at 3:24 AM on November 4, 2006


EVERYONE knows God exists. Many try to hide.

Romans 1.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick
posted by bevets at 4:21 AM on November 4, 2006


Re: Romans 1.18.

You cannot use a book as authoritative evidence until both sides accept the book as authoritative.

If I was a christian, I would have to agree with you. But since I am, like the majority of human beings on earth, no such thing, I have no obligation.
posted by milarepa at 4:32 AM on November 4, 2006


God's mercy is expressed through human hearts and arms. We are an expression of the father and through us he is expressed. In order for god to save those babies we need to save those babies.

Seems to me you could leave god out of that equation altogether and it'd work just as well.


ook is EXACTLY right, as I see it. But if people wanted to put God into that equation - and didn't add all the other "he hates fags" and "not THAT god, but THIS one" and "fuck before you're married and you're going to hell" bullshit - then things ought to work out well between those who wanted god in the equation and those who didn't.
posted by bunglin jones at 4:34 AM on November 4, 2006


Oh fuck. Just when you thought it was safe Bevets turns up.
posted by Joeforking at 4:36 AM on November 4, 2006


Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

milarepa

Re: Romans 1.18.

You cannot use a book as authoritative evidence until both sides accept the book as authoritative.

If I was a christian, I would have to agree with you. But since I am, like the majority of human beings on earth, no such thing, I have no obligation.


You have no obligation to believe 2+2=4.
posted by bevets at 4:46 AM on November 4, 2006


You have no obligation to believe 2+2=4.

???

Anyway, this is the part where I realize we have no common ground on which base a discussion or debate. Therefore, there's no point in continuing our little chat. Godspeed, bevets. Godspeed.
posted by milarepa at 4:52 AM on November 4, 2006


Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

milarepa

Re: Romans 1.18.

You cannot use a book as authoritative evidence until both sides accept the book as authoritative.

If I was a christian, I would have to agree with you. But since I am, like the majority of human beings on earth, no such thing, I have no obligation.

bevets

You have no obligation to believe 2+2=4.


milarepa

Anyway, this is the part where I realize we have no common ground on which base a discussion or debate. Therefore, there's no point in continuing our little chat.

I suspect 2+2=4 is just one example of MANY areas of 'common ground'. We disagree on Christianity
posted by bevets at 5:14 AM on November 4, 2006


If you're absolutely sure... it's no longer faith, isn't it.
posted by ruelle at 5:23 AM on November 4, 2006


ruelle

If you're absolutely sure... it's no longer faith, isn't it.

I am not absolutely sure the sun will rise tomorrow, however I believe this is a more reasonable belief than its alternative.
posted by bevets at 5:35 AM on November 4, 2006


You have no obligation to believe 2+2=4.

Did it say that in the Bible? I must have missed it ;^) Unless, of course, you're saying that logic alone is enough, and the revelation, the Testament and the Gospel, aren't needed...

Anyhow, the discussion isn't whether God exists. It's whether, if God exists, He can be both all-powerful and good. And the answer is a definitive no. God would have to be a scoundrel, the intentional and willing author of evil in the world, perhaps for the sake of investing free will in his human playthings or perhaps for other lofty reasons. He's simply the biggest bully on the block - worship of Him is compelled, not deserved. The Bible is a fine testament to that and His nature is further demonstrated by the behavior of His followers, who are apples that did not fall very far from the tree, whether they're slaughtering Canaanites, cutting off hands and putting out eyes, or burning books.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. - Luke 12:47

I mean, what's wrong with beating a slave for not being servile enough? For not glorifying? I think that the Romans reference was entirely germane.

So there's a little 2+2. The impossibility of a benevolent God, worship that is anything more than fearful groveling and self-deception - that is a reality that doesn't go away. Aspersions to piety are nothing more than a self-righteous scramble to be on the winning team.
posted by XMLicious at 5:41 AM on November 4, 2006


XMLicious

Anyhow, the discussion isn't whether God exists. It's whether, if God exists, He can be both all-powerful and good. And the answer is a definitive no

Your faith is not consistent with Reality.
posted by bevets at 6:07 AM on November 4, 2006


milarepa: I still don't see how someone can believe in a compassionate, omnipotent diety while babies starve and burn to death every day.

The survey wasn't about how many people believe in compassionate, omnipotent dieties, just about how many people believe in a diety.
posted by Bugbread at 6:33 AM on November 4, 2006


Online surveys may reveal more accurate numbers than telephone surveys.

Yeah, if they show more people agree with you, they must be more accurate!

There are a lot of problems with online polls, the phone system lets anyone contact anyone, but the Internet lets people do it almost for free. The result: Spam filters, which I imagine a lot of 'poll invitations' end up.

I need to read up about how the poll was actually done, it should be possible.
posted by delmoi at 6:39 AM on November 4, 2006


bevets: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

When you stop believing in a god-concept, it does go away. History is littered with the dead carcases of gods that no one believes in anymore.
posted by jsonic at 6:42 AM on November 4, 2006


bevets
Your faith is not consistent with Reality.

Ah, reality with a capital "R"! Yes, I doubt very much that I'm consistent with that.

To quote from your tract:

An assumption that lies underneath the problem of pain, is that humans are entitled to question God.

This is the hand-waving that takes place whenever someone points out that a human who behaved in the same manner as God would be a despicable criminal: "You totally aren't allowed to point that out!"

What it boils down to is an assertion that God is just so out there that human moral judgement cannot compass him. Things that look wrong to us - like God knowing from the beginning of time that the orphans will be devoured by wolves, and doing nothing about it, in fact having created the universe such that they were doomed from the beginning of time - well, that's just crazy talk. We mustn't worry our little heads about that, it's beyond our ken.

But oddly enough, somehow the faithful are able to make all sorts of cogent judgements of God and God's morality - namely that God is good and benevolent in the first place and can't be responsible for the evil in the world, despite his rather, ah, damning position as the all-powerful creator.

That's the contradiction - by asserting that humans can't judge God, the faithful lose any ability to determine that God is not evil in the first place.

And why exactly are these quite simple determinations of right and wrong suddenly impossible and intractible when it comes to God? Well, that's never quite explained... somehow it's become a question of entitlement rather than reason. When human judgement and logic no longer serve his purposes, Mister 2+2 is quite willing to chuck them out the door.
posted by XMLicious at 6:43 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Hmm. With a sample that small I will take this with a pinch of salt.

The sample size is huge, twice what you get in most phone polls, but they're right in that they don't know the demographics or breakdown of who is actually answering. Heavy Internet users who read their Spam? Like taking quizzes? That's why they can't get a margin of error, not the size.

And although you're right about willingness to open up in online surveys, it does introduce room for other errors, eg people taking different interpretations of the question and not having an interviewer to explain further details.

With phone polls, people can't really explain the answers either; otherwise it would skew the results. Impersonal surveys are way better.

There's a company called Survey USA that does all their polls by 'robot' (you get a computer voice to talk to, rather then a person) I would imagine it actually gets better results on 'sensitive' questions.
posted by delmoi at 6:47 AM on November 4, 2006


Your "Reality" is not consistent.

We should accept God causing pain because we're not allowed to question God? Sounds like bullying to me.

This is the best of all possible worlds because ... we'll get pie in the sky when we die?
posted by bonaldi at 6:48 AM on November 4, 2006


Wow, it's bevets! He's an internet celeberty!

damn img tag ban!
posted by delmoi at 6:55 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Oh well I think I will invest some of my precious time to give an hand to someone, so that the same hand is not torn by an exploiting group
of religious pysocopaths.

--------------

My belief is that nobody have so far conclusively proved the existence of a supernatural being often called "God" , but without an hint of doubt some have exploited, killed, abused, tortured and kept in ignorance millions of human being thanks to people belief in God, to easily achieve their own petty purposes.This must end and if the price is disbelief, I think it is a rather acceptable one.

As Bevets point out, I personally don't have any way to be 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow. Literally, I am faithfull when I believe there will be a sun tomorrow. Some would say I am at least as insane as Bevets when I bother myself with "will the sun rise" shit, still if I asked them to prove that there will be a sunrise tomorrow , most likely they would say
"Obviously there will be , asshole ! Damn you are so stupid, NASA sent the Shuttle up there "..... yeah the damn Shuttle, why not.
If I become "less cosmic" and more "I am keeping it real" and asked them "hey dude, how can you be so sure you will have a work tomorrow ? ", most likey they would say
"Because I am a good workers, I always went in time, did my job, no complain"

Yet they have no way to prove me they will surely have the job , because they don't hold the keys to their position, their boss does ! At best they have a contract, but these days contract are made so that you are NEVER really sure. So I should rather ask their boss.

Still, what these workers are doing is _being faithful_ , believing that they will have a job tomorrow. Similarly when we go the faucet and open it an find there is no water , we are puzzled because we _believed_ water was going to run from the faucet ; many quickly conclude the faucet is broken or the water was cutted somewhere and proceed to fix the problem, or call a plumber.

What has a plumber and God in common ? Nothing, except that when you call the plumber you _believe_ and _have faith_ that he will come and fix the plumbing, but you just can't be 100% sure he will come at the appointment time. Similarly, when you pray God you _believe_ God is listening and _have faith_ that by praying you are doing good and, therefore, you feel better. Clearly if you pray to God , you also necessarily _believe_ God exist, because it wouldn't make sense to speak to something that doesn't exist, would it ?

Still, you don't have any way to be 100% sure the plumber will come, or 100% sure God will listen, nor 100% sure God exists.
----------------

ENTER BLIND FAITH, SATIATING YOUR PAIN, WAR IN IRAQ

It is certainly comfortable to believe that there is an helping hand out there, somebody that will listen, somebody that will pardon, somebody that can "be called on the spot" to help us and that understand us. Desiring that is part of being an human being, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" in showing one can seek the help of other humans, the help could be "just listening" or "just paying attention".

Indeed when we feel strong pain or desperation we will cry. Isn't crying the way a baby obtains attention from the parents ? We forget we _still_ are babies to an extent, we still are humans and still _behave_ like a baby when we feel vulernable, harmed, harrassed. The painful part is that there may not be a parent avaiable, as everybody have limited life time. Even worse than that, there may be no spouse or friend to listen, we could remain alone and that scares the shit out of many, for many a good reason.

Certainly it is nice to think there is such a parental figure, a person that loves us the way good parent does ; why couldn't it be God ? Why couldn't it be immortal and forever looking after us ?

Actually there would be NO PROBLEM with such an idea, it wouldn't matter if we created God or if God existed on its own. Yet there are some problem with exercising _blind faith_ , some BIG serious problems. So we look after proof of the existence of a paternal God, quickly looking away if we find proof it may not exists ; this is exercising _blind faith_ , blind to the existence of evidence that we may NOT like.

Yep indeed one doesn't need to be a religious dude to exercise faith, we do that all the time, as in the workplace example above. Yet a person that exercise blind faith (many do, religious or not) automatically DOEs NOT LOOK or denies the existence of evidence that invalidate their belief.

Clearly, a person suffering for any reason may find a "friend" in God, expecially when they are alone with no friends, relatives et al. So when a Pastor and a group of person start talking about God, preaching to God and so on a very very nice group MAY form , which is a lot better then being a lone preaching to God ! Horray for faith, faith found me friends, other humans LIKE ME ! Horray for GOD !


SO when the pastor, who said that God said that GAY is evil, sinful and bad, turns out to be so very GAY , this sends a double shocking message to the poor people in the group

a) that if the Pastor, the person who speaks a lot about God, tells us what God says, LIED TO US ..then probably he LIED to us about GOD. HORRIBLE ! Their blind faith gets shattered into pieces, like the day momma told you she doens't love you

b) that their TRUST (faith) was broken and they were betrayed AND that maybe they are STUPID in believing that easily. This is even WORSE the horrible, it is self confidence cracking

c) AND if turns out the pastor was playing pastor all along to milk their money out of their pockets, they get an horrible slap on self-confidence AND the pain of losing hard hearned money.

Soooooo you see why I have an issue NOT with God , but with people saying they understand what God said and speak "for God"
--------------

Ops the War in Iraq : same stuff. BUSH (dishonest Priest) says all the War in Iraq is about saving poor Iraquis, toppling Saddam, finding WMD and yadda yadda. The people (faithful) want to believe , but put BLIND FAITH into the effort, you DON'T question the Leader or you are unfaithful , you don't want the group to believe you are a liberal, would you ? SINNER ! OUTKAST !
posted by elpapacito at 7:03 AM on November 4, 2006


bevets: "An assumption that lies underneath the problem of pain, is that humans are entitled to question God."

XMLicious: "That's the contradiction - by asserting that humans can't judge God, the faithful lose any ability to determine that God is not evil in the first place."

Actually, the contradiction is even simpler than that: bevets is right that the assumption underlying the problem of pain is that humans are entitled to question God. However, bevets then follows by making the assumption that humans are not.

However, you seem like an upstanding guy, so I'll just mention that, in case you don't know him, bevets is quite the famous guy on the net, and arguing religion with him is literally just throwing your time and words away.
posted by Bugbread at 7:15 AM on November 4, 2006


Fortunately I'm an expert at throwing my time away.
posted by XMLicious at 7:21 AM on November 4, 2006


Stanks very much for the precis, elpapacito.
posted by DenOfSizer at 7:22 AM on November 4, 2006


and arguing religion with him is literally just throwing your time and words away.

yes if you think you can or should "win" a religious argument, but NOT if you think you are facing Bevets, the imperator of Knorr, Helder of Zion, Maker of Pancakes , he who rode the with the thousand horses of Procter , but he doesn't Gamble !

BE-FUCKING-HOLD !
posted by elpapacito at 7:24 AM on November 4, 2006


I know a christian (born again) who once, during a debate about existence, told me that the dinosaur bones being dug up by anthropologists, were placed there by satan and his minions to get us on the side of evil. This same guy make a killing off of his own flock by selling Y2K kits and installing generators and undergroung bunkers in Southern MS. Once, on a long (very long) ride with this same guy....he told me he did not want to hear a joke because it "was not for god" and he only did "gods service". The god I used to beileve in had a remarkable sense of humor.
Look around you...He would almost have to! I also believe that if this whole god/jesus/religion tripe keeps one more asshole on the straght and narrow, so to speak, then believe on my brotha, believe on! My belief in me has gotten me this far......
posted by winks007 at 7:25 AM on November 4, 2006


elpapacito

Actually there would be NO PROBLEM with such an idea, it wouldn't matter if we created God or if God existed on its own. Yet there are some problem with exercising _blind faith_ , some BIG serious problems. So we look after proof of the existence of a paternal God, quickly looking away if we find proof it may not exists ; this is exercising _blind faith_ , blind to the existence of evidence that we may NOT like.

John 10.37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
posted by bevets at 8:00 AM on November 4, 2006


My point is that religious belief is something outside of my perception and, as such, its not something I can or want to access.

winks007 brings up a good point and a good aspect of religion, if it helps keep people from being douchebags then its not really that bad a thing. But then, if they use it to BE douchebags then its not really worthwhile. The Haggard expose is a perfect example of this, the guy hated being gay enough to become an anti-gay crusader and its caused his downfall (well, that and the meth habit).

To me, religion is a kind of scam to keep people in line. If it works to make the world a better place then its not such a bad thing. But I believe its completely arguable that much of the strife in the world is caused by belief systems bashing into one another and therefore religion on a macroscale is not a good. Belief in a higher power on a personal scale can be a good system of guidance though. Its when the system is applied to large populations that think they have the right to come down on other people's chosen or ingrained beliefs that the trouble starts to occur.

bevets, did God write the Bible? I'm pretty sure it was written by man.
posted by fenriq at 8:02 AM on November 4, 2006


God plays by the rules He made for our universe. He's busy in Andromeda at the moment and it will Him a while to get here, even at a velocity of C.
posted by A189Nut at 8:14 AM on November 4, 2006


it was the chicken!
posted by onkelchrispy at 8:21 AM on November 4, 2006


yes if you think you can or should "win" a religious argument, but NOT if you think you are facing Bevets, the imperator of Knorr, Helder of Zion, Maker of Pancakes , he who rode the with the thousand horses of Procter , but he doesn't Gamble !

I don't even think you should "win" religious arguments. Maybe make people think about things in new ways, or have them show you new ways to think about things. Maybe reevaluate the foundations for your own opinions, find which are weak and should be changed, or which are strong and which you should hold to. But with bevets, none of those apply either.
posted by Bugbread at 8:28 AM on November 4, 2006


Oddly enough, the issue of whether one can question god, call him an asshole, and gripe about his perceived absence in human events appears to me to be one of the critical points of divergence between Christianity and Judaism.

A189Nut: And here I thought that making Kevin Sorbo god was just a plot device.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:50 AM on November 4, 2006


So bevets... are you throwing in the towel on the question of evil?
posted by XMLicious at 9:01 AM on November 4, 2006


Rubbstone : First for more information on this line of christian thought see: Stranger in a Strange Land by Richard Heinlein

Richard Robert Heinlein.

Pedantic. Sorry, carry on.
posted by quin at 9:28 AM on November 4, 2006


I've always been a fan of Survery By Smoke Signal

Now there's a band name just waiting to be used ....
posted by ryanshepard at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2006


Translation: God isn't omnipotent.
So?


Rubbstone, I agree. The common God isn't omnipotent, or he wouldn't be an impotent, angry and jealous impostor--a pagan image derived from the same royalty that has enslaved humans during the evolution of monotheism.

A supreme being doesn't need blind loyalty, or a test for mindless robots, nor would he need to give anyone a "true" shortcut to heaven in the face of hundreds of other false shortcuts. This means that if there is a real God, knee jerk believers who fell for it by assuming faith will be judged in contempt. And if there is no God, they are morally wrong regardless, because they preached cowering flattery as righteousness, which only a jealous impostor would admire, (who therefore is not a supreme being by his insecurity).

It shouldn't be too difficult to imagine that a non-jealous Supreme Being must be functionally absent and would consider atheism a good call. By assuming his presence, many have been led to believe he must be chaotic and violent and therefore needs to be flattered like a dumb idol.

So let's get this straight:

1. A central element of the human experience, inspiring poetry, art, music and philosophy for millenia, devolves into something particularly cheerless and shrill in its post-Industrial American context.


I would remind anyone that Christians destroyed more ancient art than they ever saved. Then came the dark ages, where they forgot the joys of bathing by religious decree.

2. Over time, many Americans begin to get tired of being yelled at and begin questioning the basis for that element of human experience.

Actually, America was the last to get the memo, probably due to the fact that the story of religion and America is so complex from its origins as a religious refuge and a slave colony.

3. MeFites gather to celebrate this rather than asking what it is about American culture that cheapens that experience.

Oh yeah, what is it about religious culture that cheapens the American experience?

Is that about it? Good. Natter on, then, by all means.

If flattering yourself isn't nattering on, I don't know what else is.
posted by Brian B. at 9:46 AM on November 4, 2006


fenriq

bevets, did God write the Bible? I'm pretty sure it was written by man.

2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed

2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

You begin with the assumption that the Bible does not come from God.

If God is omniscient He would know how to communicate with man.
If God is omnipotent He would be able to communicate with man.
If God is benevolent He would want to communicate with man.

God is all three. He has given us His Word

XMLicious

So bevets... are you throwing in the towel on the question of evil?

I don't even think you should "win" religious arguments. Maybe make people think about things in new ways, or have them show you new ways to think about things. Maybe reevaluate the foundations for your own opinions, find which are weak and should be changed, or which are strong and which you should hold to. ~ bugbread

The 'Problem of Evil' is not the subject of this thread. If you believe you have presented a strong case, give yourself a pat on the back. I do not subscripe to the 'Last man standing is the winner' philosophy of argument.
posted by bevets at 9:51 AM on November 4, 2006


XMLicious : That's the contradiction - by asserting that humans can't judge God, the faithful lose any ability to determine that God is not evil in the first place.

God isn't evil. God is indifferent. God doesn't care about starving babies or helping the local sports team win or stopping genocide. If you really believe that God exists, you have to consider the possibility that He abandoned us a long time ago. It would explain a lot.

Your God is dead or doesn't care. Tell me which one's worse
An uncaring God or knowing that you're unheard on this earth?


[Full disclosure: poster doesn't believe in a god, caring or otherwise]
posted by quin at 10:01 AM on November 4, 2006


And, lo, the chicken begat the egg, which held a female chicken within which were hundreds of eggs yearning to be fertilized thus to become chickens again.

It's turtles all the way down.
posted by kozad at 10:01 AM on November 4, 2006


2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed

The Mormons have scripture that say that the bible was corrupted by errors. Therefore you are wrong. So, if you must accept absolutism, you must take the newest form of it because God lives, right? Or is God dead and allows other breathings to establish under his impotent nose?
posted by Brian B. at 10:08 AM on November 4, 2006


All Scripture is God-breathed

If that's what his breath is like, God should probably start brushing and flossing regularly. Maybe some mouthwash too.
posted by boaz at 10:20 AM on November 4, 2006


« Older Doogie Howzaboutdat?   |   So, so sorry. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments