Author Topic: How do you get to heaven split from EP129  (Read 81661 times)

Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #50 on: January 14, 2008, 11:25:20 PM
Okay, you've got to realize the difference of perspective here.  You aren't a Christian, so of course the idea that rejecting God is rejecting reality is absurd to you.  We have different idea of what the Universe looks like.  Take my statements in the context of "if God is, then..."  If God is, then rejecting God is rejecting reality.

That doesn't follow. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe exists because your God created it. That means that in addition to everything nice in the universe that everything bad from cancer to poverty to the mess that is the human reproductive system also comes from God. One can appreciate the good in reality without worshiping its creator as perfect an all-knowing. Likewise, one could appreciate reality without an understanding or even with a misunderstanding of its origins.



You've not answered why you find it necessary to believe in a holy book at all, much less the choice of one particular holy book. If you choose not to answer I'll respect that. If you think there is a legitimate reason to consider the bible to be the ultimate truth, then please share it.

Argh!  I'm at work.  I have work to do.  Curse work!

As concise as possible: If God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that.  Any other method you can think of has prohibitive drawbacks.  Personal revelation?  Anybody could lie about their revelation and there'd be no way to tell who was telling the truth.  Revelation to everybody?  Negates free will.  If God said to everyone "Here I am, in the room!  It's me, God!  See!" then the option to disbelieve would not be viable.  We'd be back to being toads.  Endless succession of prophets?  Works to an extent, but a prophet can only speak to so many people, and you've got to watch out for false ones.  A Book that anyone can read for themselves is pretty much a necessity if God wants to communicate with people at large.

Actually, in retrospect a book seems to be a spectacularly bad way of getting the message across. First of all, much of it is allegory which people are free to interpret or misinterpret to reflect their own prejudices (such as bias against homsexuality). Think of the myriad interpretations we have here over short fiction of two to five thousand words and multiply that by the difficulty of communicating much deeper and more important messages through a longer, more difficult work. Secondly, one has to deal with translations, mistranslations, and the mounting errors which occur with even copying - especially before the invention of movable type. Do you know, for instance, that the famous story ending with the line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was added in transcription and not in the earliest texts? It certainly adds a different shade to the meaning of the phrase "gospel truth", does it not?

Also, how long did it take for the Bible to be translated into Chinese, Swahili, English, Navajo, Russian, Japanese, or any other language? If He really thought a book was the only viable way to spread his message, couldn't He have at least supplied simultaneous translations, or are we to believe that God cared more about spreading his word to semitic people than to Swedes, for example?

Why the Bible?  Again, the cop-out "lots of reasons."  But I will admit that it is not primarily objective, verifiable evidence that convinces me on this front.

I respect that and am perfectly willing to let the discussion end on this note if you don't care to argue the merits of various means of revelation aside from books. The only thought I'll add is that if it is not primarily objective, verifiable evidence that leads you to your conclusion than those following other traditions can be just as "right" as you are.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2008, 09:42:30 AM by Russell Nash »

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


DDog

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • Twitter
Reply #51 on: January 14, 2008, 11:59:29 PM
On the surface of the moon, in huge letters legible to anyone with a pair of binoculars, the words "Yo, it's me, God.  This here is my autograph," suddenly appear.  What an interesting idea.  How would people react to that?  And how would people seeing the letters 1000 years after the event perceive the inscription?

Sounds like a story to me.....
Isn't there something like that in a Douglas Adam's book? Only it's in giant neon letters...

Ask a Tranny Podcast
"Watching someone bootstrap themselves into sentience is the most science fiction thing you can do." -wintermute


Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #52 on: January 15, 2008, 12:27:42 AM
On the surface of the moon, in huge letters legible to anyone with a pair of binoculars, the words "Yo, it's me, God.  This here is my autograph," suddenly appear.  What an interesting idea.  How would people react to that?  And how would people seeing the letters 1000 years after the event perceive the inscription?

Sounds like a story to me.....
Isn't there something like that in a Douglas Adam's book? Only it's in giant neon letters...

If I recall correctly it was God's final message to his creation which read "We apologize for the inconvenience".

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #53 on: January 15, 2008, 02:10:02 AM
Apologies to Czhorat and Mr. Tweedy if I botched your quotes; apologies to Thaurismunths for continuing my participation at all (but I'd rather talk about this than do what I'm supposed to be doing right now):

...Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.
... Not recognizing the existence of a maker without proof is not a rejection of reality; just of one possible explanation thereof. Not loving the creator is no more a rejection of reality than not loving ones parents is a rejection of ones own existence.
   (and from another part of the thread)
Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
Okay, you've got to realize the difference of perspective here.  You aren't a Christian, so of course the idea that rejecting God is rejecting reality is absurd to you.  We have different idea of what the Universe looks like.  Take my statements in the context of "if God is, then..."  If God is, then rejecting God is rejecting reality.

I really like Mr. Tweedy's definition of "worship" -- appreciating (etc.) reality does not require a complete understanding of it, fortunately; nor does it require any particularly firm belief regarding the origin of Reality.  I perceive the world around me -- which is not proof that it exists -- and I get a kick out of it.  If there is a creator, and she feels compelled to reveal hirself to me, I'll say Thank you, I've really enjoyed your work.

But my "lack" of faith shouldn't have any bearing on your understanding or appreciation of Reality.  However...


Tango Alpha Delta said it very well - to reject religion is not to lower oneself to the level of a worm or a toad.
Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
NO NO NO!!  I didn't say that rejecting religion makes you a toad!  Nothing of the sort!  I said that toads and worms have no beliefs.  Humans are not like toads because humans must believe something.  Complete non-belief isn't an option for us.  Rejecting God does not make you a toad: Toads can't reject God.  Only people can.

I understood what you were getting at with the toad thing, but... (to use a phrase I heard once) I don't must nothing!  Many people of faith make the simple mistake of equating a polite "no thank you" to their proposed system of belief -- with all of the behavioral quid pro quos and associated doctrinal baggage -- with a rejection of God.  You've made the mistake of equating my reticence to buy into a particular lifestyle with non-belief.  Why do I need an explanation for Reality, anyway? 

And for those who hold to Atheism... that IS a form of belief.  I won't give them the satisfaction of joining their little club, either, but most of them are cool with that.

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
... if I told you that I think biology points the existence of God, you'd say "Posh!  Biology points to blind evolution!" and that would be it's own (probably ugly) tangent.

I think biology does point to the existence of God.  And I think biology points to evolution.  "Points to" doesn't prove anything, though.  Evidence a few hundred years ago "pointed to" the body being controlled by a balance of Four Humours.  Then we figured out DNA.  Scientific method requires a lot more testing on the origin question, and no one can say for certain either way... there's no reason God couldn't have used evolution as the tool for creating everything; and there's no particular reason to believe in God based on the evidence at hand.  The ugly tangent comes in when people start jumping the gun and insisting on taking sides in the matter.

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
But I'm not calling anybody a toad!  Please don't misunderstand that!

Seriously... my name is "Tad"... do you think I haven't been called a toad before?  And survived?   

I know you weren't calling anyone names, so no worries here.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Windup

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
Reply #54 on: January 15, 2008, 05:03:47 AM

While not explicitly about masturbation the story of Onan has been interpreted by christian scholars to mean that masturbation is bad, because of the "useless" spilling of his seed.


I don't like disagreeing with the Church Fathers, but I have to say that saying Onan is about masturbation seems to require an almost willful misreading of the text.

What Onan is supposed to be doing is impregnating the wife of his dead brother -- his father, Judah, has instructed him to do this as a duty, "...live with her and raise offspring for your brother."  The children of the union will be considered those of his brother, and will inherit his brother's property and name. At least, that's how it works out in the Law, when it gets articulated several books later.  (No word on how the widow feels about all this, though she's got to be socially better off with a son than without; just the way that part of the world worked at the time.)

So, faced with the possibility of raising children that literally aren't his, to inherit property that would otherwise go to his own children, Onan engages in a little Patriarchal-period birth control -- "spilling his seed."  ("Kids, ask your mother to explain...")

"...And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He slew him also." (Gen 38:10)

Now, which would logically seem like a bigger deal in the Old Testament moral framework:
1) Disobeying your father and cheating your dead brother and his widow out of their just inheritence,
OR
2) Making a small mess.

And, no matter HOW you look at this, it isn't masturbating...

(OK, got that out my system for a while...  It's just that those sort of widespread and widely-backed beliefs that aren't supported by the text really bug me.  Don't even get me started on the whole Sarah/Hagar/Jewish/Arab thing...)

(Apologies to the moderator for another potential thread split that probably shouldn't happen.)

(Off to seek forgiveness and rest...)
« Last Edit: January 15, 2008, 05:14:57 AM by Windup »

"My whole job is in the space between 'should be' and 'is.' It's a big space."


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #55 on: January 15, 2008, 06:21:05 PM
But, TAD, you do believe something concerning the nature and purpose the universe, don't you?  ("Something" doesn't have to be limited to the most famous or popular options.)

Before you say "not really," take a minute to think about why you do things, like, say, post in a forum.  If you really ask why and keep asking, you'll find it's really a pretty big question (as are all questions).  For instance, the fact that you bother to write words in response to me shows that you, in some way, care about what I think and feel.  Why do you care?  Probably because you consider understanding and appreciation of persons to be good and know that communication facilitates those things.  Why do you think those things are good?  Probably because you believe that people have inherent beauty and value.  And why do you believe that?  Because...

I would contend that any such line of inquiry, if pursued honestly, will very quickly lead to exclusive assertions about the purpose and nature of the Universe.  (Which is what I call "religion," but I know my use of the term is unorthodox.)  People don't always know that they have these assertions in the back of their minds, and the assertions often don't make any sense on examination, but they're always there.  Every human act stems from a worldview.  (Ayn Rand's got my back on that one, for whatever that's worth.  Smart woman, Ayn Rand.)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe exists because your God created it. That means that in addition to everything nice in the universe that everything bad from cancer to poverty to the mess that is the human reproductive system also comes from God.

Well, no I'd say God is not to blame for the bad.  When God made the world, it was all good.  Since then things have gone south because of sin, whether because of the direct consequences of sin (destruction caused by human misdeeds) or because sin exerts some kind of corrosive ontological influence on the world.  Essentially, good is what God intended and bad is what has been perverted and turned away from His original purpose.  (That's what Christianity teaches; I'm not, at this time, offering evidence that it's true.  Just FYI.)

One can appreciate the good in reality without worshiping its creator as perfect an all-knowing. Likewise, one could appreciate reality without an understanding or even with a misunderstanding of its origins.

Do you have a wife?  Try appreciating the stuff she does for you without acknowledging its source.  Doesn't work very well.  You can certainly enjoy the good stuff she does for you without giving her thanks or acknowledgment, but 1.) that would be very rude and degrading and 2.) you'd miss out on a lot if you only recognized, for instance, sex as something fun for you and not also as an act of love and trust from her.  The ability to appreciate things is greatly limited by not knowing or caring why they are.  That goes for anything, not just God.

Actually, in retrospect a book seems to be a spectacularly bad way of getting the message across. First of all, much of it is allegory which people are free to interpret or misinterpret to reflect their own prejudices (such as bias against homsexuality). Think of the myriad interpretations we have here over short fiction of two to five thousand words and multiply that by the difficulty of communicating much deeper and more important messages through a longer, more difficult work.

I've got to disagree with you there.  People are jerks, but they don't like to admit it, so when they go about their evil deeds they like to attach some noble name to it.  ("I will kill you because doing so protects my personal power and social status!  Er, I mean, because God wills it.  Yeah, that sounds better.  God wills it!")  People will willfully misinterpret any message presented in any way to suit their biases and selfish interests.  (Just look at the Constitution.)  That doesn't mean the message is flawed.

If you actually read the Bible, you'll find almost none of the various evils carried out in God's name over the years find any justification therein.  People pull verses out of context or just make shit up (masturbators go to hell!) and then tack God's name on after the fact.  If you read the Bible, it's really pretty clear on a lot of things.  Like "love your enemies."  Yeah, lots of people supposedly doing God's will have forgotten that one over the years.  And some like to quote Ephesian 5 where it says that women should submit to their husbands while totally ignoring the very next paragraph where it says husbands should love their wives more than themselves.

You can't fault a book because people deliberately, maliciously take parts of it out of context or assign obviously stupid interpretations to it (masturbators go to hell!).

As for it being obscure and difficult: How would you go about creating a book that is intended to be relevant for all people of all cultures at all times and primarily concerns the infinite, the transcendent and the unfathomable?  It's going to be obscure and difficult.  If the Bible were in FAQ format, wouldn't that be proof positive that it was made up?  What you have is something that does not easily lend itself to misunderstanding (if taken as a whole), becomes increasingly comprehensible as one devotes time to understanding it, but retains elements of mystery no matter how much one understands.  Which, I think, is just what you'd expect if it were authentic.

Secondly, one has to deal with translations, mistranslations, and the mounting errors which occur with even copying - especially before the invention of movable type. Do you know, for instance, that the famous story ending with the line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was added in transcription and not in the earliest texts? It certainly adds a different shade to the meaning of the phrase "gospel truth", does it not?

Yes, I did know that.  I learned it in church.  It also says so in my Bible: That particular passage is offset and has a disclaimer in the NIV and most other translations.  Ditto for the last few verses of Mark.  Those exceptions prove the rule, I think, that the text is generally quite faithful to what the originals said.

At any rate, my faith in the validity of the Bible (as I alluded to earlier) is not primarily dependent on empirical data.  I believe that God had His fingers in things, making sure the message was preserved accurately.  But that I obviously can't prove.

Boy, that got long...  You can tell today is a slow day at work.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #56 on: January 15, 2008, 06:38:31 PM
But, TAD, you do believe something concerning the nature and purpose the universe, don't you?  ("Something" doesn't have to be limited to the most famous or popular options.)

Before you say "not really," take a minute to think about why you do things, like, say, post in a forum.  If you really ask why and keep asking, you'll find it's really a pretty big question (as are all questions).  For instance, the fact that you bother to write words in response to me shows that you, in some way, care about what I think and feel.

I think he just likes a good arguement.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe exists because your God created it. That means that in addition to everything nice in the universe that everything bad from cancer to poverty to the mess that is the human reproductive system also comes from God.

Well, no I'd say God is not to blame for the bad.  When God made the world, it was all good.  Since then things have gone south because of sin, whether because of the direct consequences of sin (destruction caused by human misdeeds) or because sin exerts some kind of corrosive ontological influence on the world.  Essentially, good is what God intended and bad is what has been perverted and turned away from His original purpose.  (That's what Christianity teaches; I'm not, at this time, offering evidence that it's true.  Just FYI.)

So people are born into poverty, because they have sinned?  Generations of families and communities have lived without clean water and enough to eat, because some ancestor told Yahweh to fuck off?  I've done that and live quite well.

One can appreciate the good in reality without worshiping its creator as perfect an all-knowing. Likewise, one could appreciate reality without an understanding or even with a misunderstanding of its origins.

Do you have a wife?  Try appreciating the stuff she does for you without acknowledging its source.  Doesn't work very well.  You can certainly enjoy the good stuff she does for you without giving her thanks or acknowledgment, but 1.) that would be very rude and degrading and 2.) you'd miss out on a lot if you only recognized, for instance, sex as something fun for you and not also as an act of love and trust from her.  The ability to appreciate things is greatly limited by not knowing or caring why they are.  That goes for anything, not just God.

So you run out to the curb and hug your garbage man?  Bake cupcakes for the local police?  How many visits have you made to the water treatment plant to thank the folks who give you clean water?  What about your noble Illinois corn growers?

Your examples are always picked just to prove your point, but they are always far narrower than your original statement.  If my wife did all of those things without ever talking to me and never acknowledged my exist, I just might treat her like that.
[/quote]



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #57 on: January 15, 2008, 08:18:08 PM
So people are born into poverty, because they have sinned?  Generations of families and communities have lived without clean water and enough to eat, because some ancestor told Yahweh to fuck off?  I've done that and live quite well.

If by "telling Yahweh to fuck off" you mean that people in their ancestral past made harmful choices, then yes.  Sin is a corrosive cycle and the sins of past generations continue to destroy us today.  If our collective ancestors had all loved their neighbors (as Christ commanded) then there would certainly be far fewer people in the world today without food and water.

If you mean that being born poor is God's vengeance against the children in question, then no.

Do you always tell fictional characters to fuck off?  Seems like an odd habit.   ;)

So you run out to the curb and hug your garbage man?  Bake cupcakes for the local police?  How many visits have you made to the water treatment plant to thank the folks who give you clean water?  What about your noble Illinois corn growers?

Eh?  Are you saying it would be bad for me to hug my garbage man or that I shouldn't be thankful to the people down at the treatment plant?  Seems like the world would be better if we all showed each other more appreciation.  Maybe I should thank my garbage man.

If my wife did all of those things without ever talking to me and never acknowledged my exist, I just might treat her like that.

Heh.  Um...  This is the same wife you've told to fuck off, right?

Nice iguana.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2008, 09:33:44 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


qwints

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
  • A fine idea, but who bells cat?
Reply #58 on: January 16, 2008, 12:59:18 AM
Wow, no south park reference? "Mormons, Mormons were the correct answer"

Philosophy and theology are fun discussion topics anywhere and anytime. That said, how much can really be said about how one gets to heaven. The Catholics are crystal clear (the sacraments), and most protestants are equally clear (No man comes to the Father except through me - Jesus.) The existence and nature of heaven and hell are much tougher questions, but any such talk requires common theological ground to go anywhere.

Mr. Tweedy, I don't think it's fair to say God revealed himself in a book for Christianity - that's Islam's thing. The Bible is a record of the actions of prophets and personal revelations, and only rarely the direct word of God.

"It's a funny thing, but why is it that the heathens and the barbarians seem to have the best places to go when they die"
"A bit of a poser, that. I s'pose it makes up for 'em ... enjoying themselves all the time when they're alive, too? "

The lamp flared and crackled . . .
And Nevyrazimov felt better.


DDog

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • Twitter
Reply #59 on: January 16, 2008, 01:10:19 AM
"It's a funny thing, but why is it that the heathens and the barbarians seem to have the best places to go when they die"
"A bit of a poser, that. I s'pose it makes up for 'em ... enjoying themselves all the time when they're alive, too? "

And to that, all I have to say is:

Quote from: Taylor Mali, "Tony Steinberg: Brave Viking Warrior," http://www.taylormali.com/index.cfm?webid=31
He died with his sword in his hand and so went straight to heaven,
which the Vikings called Valhalla.

Mr. Mali, if that's true, that you would go straight to Valhalla
if you died with your sword in your hand,
then if you were an old Viking
and you were about to die of old age,
could you keep your sword right by your bed
so if you felt like you were going to die
you could reach out and grab it?


I don't know if their gods would fall for that,
but it sounds like a good idea to me.

Ask a Tranny Podcast
"Watching someone bootstrap themselves into sentience is the most science fiction thing you can do." -wintermute


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #60 on: January 16, 2008, 02:14:46 AM
I was trying to be good and not bring the Mormons into this.  Though now you have me pondering Mormons (who allegedly believe we each get our own planet to populate if we sell enough Amway products) battling Vikings in the Afterworld.   :)   

And I won't even address the Divine Exhibitionism qwintz hinted at!

But, common ground being in short supply, I feel I have to call "bullshit" on a couple of things -

1) Just because I am arguing with someone doesn't logically mean I must believe in something in particular.  Think of it as a kind of "peer review"; if you put out a mathematical theorem, and I see a logical flaw in it, I will feel obligated to point it out to you.  That doesn't mean I have to have a better theorem to replace it.  (Don't worry... I do arithmetic about as well as I dance, so your theorems are actually safe from me.)

2) If God is infallible, and created a perfect place... then allowed "sin" to corrupt it... then God is guilty of the corruption.  Sorry.  I always hated it when I did something right and my adult caretakers (teachers, relatives, whatever) would insist on giving God the credit -- because He is the source of all good, and I should not be prideful -- but when I screwed up, it was all me, me, me.

Now, does this mean I think I am not flawed?  Far from it.  But my flaws don't give any human other than me (or my wife) the right to control me.   (SF ref: go here to read ...And Then There Were None by Eric Frank Russell; one of my all-time favorites.)

If it makes you feel any better, I am perfectly happy for you to believe in God or any other explanation for the universe.  As long as it doesn't require you to hurt anyone, or interfere with me in any way, you're more than welcome to explore the wildest reaches of imagination to find an answer that you like.  It's just that all too frequently, belief in any kind of religion tends to require one or both of those things, and a boy can't be too careful.  (Put that sword down, please... bad Viking.)

I want to make this clear, though: I am NOT trying to convert anyone to my worldview.  I'll concede that I must have one, if you adopt a loose definition, but it wouldn't be a "religious" belief, and I don't expect it to suffice for the average person.  (Russell nailed it, though, when he said I enjoy a good argument.)

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #61 on: January 16, 2008, 03:59:06 AM
Oh, no, of course you don't need a better explanation to critique someone else's.  My only point was that you've got to believe something.  Otherwise you're a toad...  Which you apparently are not, despite your name.

As for God being responsible for sin, would the world be considered perfect if you weren't free to make your own choices?  Even if the world were very pleasant, it would just be a guilded cage, wouldn't it?

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #62 on: January 16, 2008, 09:13:09 AM
As for God being responsible for sin, would the world be considered perfect if you weren't free to make your own choices?  Even if the world were very pleasant, it would just be a guilded cage, wouldn't it?

Ok, let me chime in here.

First, if we didn't have free will, we wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with a gilded cage, right? So you really are comparing apples and oranges here. *We* would fine a world without free will unbearable, but that's because *we* have free will. Our free-will-less counterparts would probably find our world unbearable. Ultimately, whether or not giving us free will was the better choice cannot be judged from our point of view, since we are part of the system we would be judging. Whether or not it was a good idea depends on how well it satisfied God's purposes.

Which brings me to my second point: there's a difference between being responsible for something and causing something.

If my dog bites my neigbour's dog, I am responsible. It doesn't matter if I didn't want the dog to attack my neighbour's dog, or if I told him to stop. The dog has some degree of free will - not as free as mine, but it decides how to respond to events such as meeting the neighbour's dog. As his master, it's my responsbility to teach it how to make the right decision - to teach it that attacking another dog is not an acceptable action. But whether or not the dog follows my teaching is up to him.

Even so, I am responsible. If the dog does attack another dog, I can't just say "Oh, I tried telling him not to". If he did so it means that my teaching was not effective. Either because I didn't do it well, or because I should have known that this dog simply cannot be trusted to learn, and kept him away from other dogs.

Similarly with children. If my (hypothetical) 12 year old son sets fire to my neighbour's house, it's my responsibility. He has free will, and at that age he has the capacity to know right from wrong. But he's not independent of me either - I still hold authority over him. And being an authority figure, I am both morally and legally responsible for his actions. If he doesn't know right from wrong, or if he knows and chooses wrong anyway, that is my failure as his parent. That does not diminish his culpability - but I am not absolved because even though he is a rational being, he is still living under my authority.

So, how is the Chistian God not responsible for the evil? True, we have free will to defy Him. But He is the ultimate authority figure. It is from Him that the rules of right and wrong come. If we do evil, we are culpable - but He, as the one who is in charge, is also responsible. He either didn't do a good enough job of teaching right and wrong - which isn't to mean that He didn't try, but He didn't try well enough. Or, if someone is incorrigable and persists in doing evil despite all of God's teachings, that person should be kept apart from innocent victims.

You could say that this is exactly what happens in the afterlife - God seperates the good and the evil, preventing the evil from doing any more harm. But the fact remains that in this world, he does no such thing. Instead, according to your faith, he lets the evil perform evil, and induce others to perform evil, for as long as they are capable of breath. It is their own will - God doesn't make them do evil. But nonetheless, he is responsible for this evil, by permitting it to happen.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 09:20:06 AM by eytanz »



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #63 on: January 16, 2008, 09:53:34 AM
So people are born into poverty, because they have sinned?  Generations of families and communities have lived without clean water and enough to eat, because some ancestor told Yahweh to fuck off?  I've done that and live quite well.
Do you always tell fictional characters to fuck off?  Seems like an odd habit.   ;)
Then you admit Yahweh is fictional.  Then discussion over.  I'll lock the thread.
So you run out to the curb and hug your garbage man?  Bake cupcakes for the local police?  How many visits have you made to the water treatment plant to thank the folks who give you clean water?  What about your noble Illinois corn growers?

Eh?  Are you saying it would be bad for me to hug my garbage man or that I shouldn't be thankful to the people down at the treatment plant?  Seems like the world would be better if we all showed each other more appreciation.  Maybe I should thank my garbage man.

You said it was rude to not say thanks to someone who does so much for you.  I was only asking if you say thanks to the people who do things for you everyday. 

I have thanked my garbage man.  He looked at me stunned and then said I was the only person in twenty years who had said that.  I don't remember my trash cans ever being anywhere other than set nicely back next to my mail box after that.  It means he must have told everyone, because the guy had to go on vacation sometime. 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 05:06:15 PM by Russell Nash »



Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #64 on: January 16, 2008, 11:06:48 AM
Well, no I'd say God is not to blame for the bad.  When God made the world, it was all good.  Since then things have gone south because of sin, whether because of the direct consequences of sin (destruction caused by human misdeeds) or because sin exerts some kind of corrosive ontological influence on the world.  Essentially, good is what God intended and bad is what has been perverted and turned away from His original purpose.  (That's what Christianity teaches; I'm not, at this time, offering evidence that it's true.  Just FYI.)

This feels like a big cop-out. The Christian God was, if I recall correctly, omnipotent. Able to do anything. He is also supposed to be infinitely nice. So why, to take Russell's example, are there people starving in large parts of the world? Why are some people born into poverty? Why are some people born with horrific diseases dooming them to short, painful lives? If man's sinning changed the world to the extent of creating diseases then by what mechanism did this happen? If it did and God couldn't correct it, does that mean that God is less powerful than man? If he can but doesn't then does that mean he doesn't care?



Quote
Do you have a wife?  Try appreciating the stuff she does for you without acknowledging its source.  Doesn't work very well.  You can certainly enjoy the good stuff she does for you without giving her thanks or acknowledgment, but 1.) that would be very rude and degrading and 2.) you'd miss out on a lot if you only recognized, for instance, sex as something fun for you and not also as an act of love and trust from her.  The ability to appreciate things is greatly limited by not knowing or caring why they are.  That goes for anything, not just God.

It's different. My wife directly acknowledges my existence. All the time. She even acts as if she loves me and our child and doesn't demand some form of "worship". God is some mysterious force in the middle of the world who even you acknowledge can't be proven by empirical or verifiable means. He's also been very remote over the past couple thousand years. More like an absent parent than a wife, at least in His behavior to date. As an aside, not that it's relevant, sex is fun for my wife too.

Quote
I've got to disagree with you there.  People are jerks, but they don't like to admit it, so when they go about their evil deeds they like to attach some noble name to it.  ("I will kill you because doing so protects my personal power and social status!  Er, I mean, because God wills it.  Yeah, that sounds better.  God wills it!")  People will willfully misinterpret any message presented in any way to suit their biases and selfish interests.  (Just look at the Constitution.)  That doesn't mean the message is flawed.

I never said that the message is flawed. Well, I did, but that's not the argument against a book. You stated that if God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that. I pointed out that there are plenty of drawbacks to using a book. It was narrowly focused on one small subset of the population. It is easily misinterpreted. It can be mistranslated. If you had a message that you thought was very important, wrote it in a book, and found that literally millions of people were misreading it (masturbation is bad! homosexuality is evil! Slavery is OK!) wouldn't you at least call a press conference to offer a correction? Perhaps write an updated version when society changed to the point that your original examples no longer really resonated? You could do those things without omnipotence. If you were omnipotent, you could simultaneously create translations, have the books annotate themselves to clear up misconceptions, have all of Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' books change overnight into new improved Bibles... The sky isn't even the limit.

Quote
You can't fault a book because people deliberately, maliciously take parts of it out of context or assign obviously stupid interpretations to it (masturbators go to hell!).

I'm not faulting the Bible for that reason. I do think the message, especially in the old testament, leans too heavily on a theme of the virtue of blind subservience but that's another argument entirely. What I'm arguing here is the effectiveness of getting a message across through one book destined to become lost in a sea of competing holy books. As successful as Christianity is, there are literally millions of people who don't get the message and believe things directly contradictory. I'd think that an omnipotent being should be able to get his point across.

Quote
At any rate, my faith in the validity of the Bible (as I alluded to earlier) is not primarily dependent on empirical data.  I believe that God had His fingers in things, making sure the message was preserved accurately.  But that I obviously can't prove.

If we replaced the word "Bible" with "Koran" or "Book of Mormon" or any other holy book your entire argument would be the same. I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

As for God being responsible for sin, would the world be considered perfect if you weren't free to make your own choices?  Even if the world were very pleasant, it would just be a guilded cage, wouldn't it?

True, but if sin is corroding the world to the point of causing all human suffering don't you think he should do something about that? If my daughter broke a neighbor's window it might be her fault and not mine because of her free will, but I'd still replace the window (I'd also be very surprised because she's still only one). It seems that your God is content to leave lots of windows broken.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 05:08:42 PM by Russell Nash »

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #65 on: January 16, 2008, 05:02:36 PM
Russell: I just think it's funny that you (and so many other atheists) seem so angry with someone you claim doesn't exist.  I mean, I'm not angry with Allah.  I don't feel any need to tell Odin to go screw himself.  I don't insist that Galactus keep his hands off me.  That a figment of someone else's imagination has the power to piss you off strikes me as humorous.  Like this:  :D

Your respect for the garbage man well illustrates my point about appreciation.  You 1.) recognize his important role in your life and 2.) express it to him.  This results in greater happiness, deeper understanding and smoother workings for everybody.  Respect is good.  I feel compelled to emulate your good example on this point.

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

Eytanz & Czhorat (how do you pronounce "Czhorat"?), you guys have both got some really good insights here.  Kudos on really thinking about this; most people with opinions haven't.  Your points have a lot of overlap, so I'll address them as a group.

If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

Do either of you have a solution to this problem?  You're God, with all the perks.  Can you conceive a design for a world that includes free will but does not permit evil?  To put the same problem another way, can you conceive of a being that that is incapable of doing evil and also has free will?

I think you'll find that any solution for getting rid of evil or suffering has prohibitive side-effects.

Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

You probably think that I am deluded, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  (And no, I can't prove to you that God has ever communicated with me.  The only evidence I can offer is my word.  A "rational" explanation might be that I have a subtle form of schizophrenia.  I have no empirical proof that that isn't the case.)

This relates directly to Czhorat's very valid complaints about the Bible as a means of communication.  I apologize here, because I think that in my attempt to be simple and concise I gave the impression that the Bible is the only means by which God communicates.  It isn't.  Obvious examples are the many people in the Bible with whom God communicated before there was a Bible.  The book of Romans speaks of nature and conscience being kinds of revelations, and God speaks to people through other means that are not restricted to any category.  The Bible is not the only place to learn about God.  What the Bible is is the authoritative place, and all other supposed information concerning Him has to measure up against it.  To say that the Bible is true and the Word of God does not mean that information cannot be gotten from any other source.  It means information from other sources has to be checked against it.

This probably isn't the best analogy, but my Olympus E-300 camera has a manual.  That manual is authoritative (I know manuals can have typos, but for the sake of argument).  I can learn about the Olypmus E-300 from places other than the manual, but I know that if something I see in the B&H Photographic Catalog conflicts with what it says in the manual, then B&H is the one that's got it wrong.  Conversely, by knowing the manual, I have insight and context with which to understand and interpret the other information I encounter.

The Japanese weren't screwed because they didn't have a Bible.  At a disadvantage, yes, but not screwed.

Again, I apologize, because I think I was unclear before.

And again, I want to disclaim that I'm not really offering much evidence here that any of this stuff is true.  I'm trying to explain what I believe and show that it makes logical sense, which I know is not the same as proving it.

I also want to say that I am really enjoying hearing some of the stuff you guys have to say.  I like to hear thought-out arguments for their own sake, and it keeps me thinking, which is something that can't be said of anything that happens at the office.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #66 on: January 16, 2008, 05:22:07 PM
Russell: I just think it's funny that you (and so many other atheists) seem so angry with someone you claim doesn't exist.  I mean, I'm not angry with Allah.  I don't feel any need to tell Odin to go screw himself.  I don't insist that Galactus keep his hands off me.  That a figment of someone else's imagination has the power to piss you off strikes me as humorous.  Like this:  :D

I can tell someone to fuck off without giving a rat's ass about them and do most everytime I say it.  If I'm telling someone to Fuck off, I'm telling them they are not worth more than two words and five seconds of thought.

I think it's also funny that you don't know that Allah is only Arab for God and that they are both Yahweh.  The funny thing is that most of the world's continuing violence comes from the three groups that worship Yahweh beating on one another.

Your respect for the garbage man well illustrates my point about appreciation.  You 1.) recognize his important role in your life and 2.) express it to him.  This results in greater happiness, deeper understanding and smoother workings for everybody.  Respect is good.  I feel compelled to emulate your good example on this point.

And this illustrates my point that you said we were somehow deficient for not saying thanks to someone who has done so much, but you don't say thanks to people you see every day.  I have great respect for people who really do things.  That's why Yahweh doesn't get anything from me and people who try to tell me I'm wrong get my scorn.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #67 on: January 16, 2008, 05:30:15 PM
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #68 on: January 16, 2008, 06:52:33 PM
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?

So your parents weren't the same religion as you?  If they were, you started with a bias towards believing in Christianity.  Unless you have gone through the religious education provided by each of the other religions, how can you say you really understand what they believe.  Therefore I would say you have devoted your life to the religion you just happen to have been born into and choose to believe it is right. 

I'm sure most Jews, Muslims, and people from other branches of Christianity believe the same about their religion for exactly the same reasons.  No wonder you guys fight all the time.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #69 on: January 16, 2008, 10:06:53 PM
Huh?  That was a total non-sequitur.  You should only use the "quote" feature if your condescension and belittlement are related to the words you're quoting.

Everyone here is already aware that you think I am the dumbest person in the universe.  Simply restating that opinion over and over in thinly veiled forms is not really achieving anything.  If the meaning of your message is nothing more than "Mr. Tweedy is a boob," then kindly write it out concisely: "Mr. Tweedy is a boob."  It would save everybody a little time.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 10:10:08 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #70 on: January 17, 2008, 08:16:18 AM
Huh?  That was a total non-sequitur.  You should only use the "quote" feature if your condescension and belittlement are related to the words you're quoting.

Then let me narrow what I quoted, so you can see the connection.

I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?
…I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I? …

So your parents weren't the same religion as you?  If they were, you started with a bias towards believing in Christianity.  Unless you have gone through the religious education provided by each of the other religions, how can you say you really understand what they believe.  Therefore I would say you have devoted your life to the religion you just happen to have been born into and choose to believe it is right. 

My point was that you choose to devote your life to one religion without shopping around.  You went with what you were given, because it's what you were given.  It's not a non-sequitor.  It was calling you out.  Just like I did with your showing appreciation comment, and just like I did when you claimed there was so much evidence against evolution. 

I don't care if you believe something, because it's what your family has always believed.  Just don't imply you believe it, because you have researched all of modern religion and have made an educated choice.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #71 on: January 17, 2008, 10:56:59 AM
If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

I don't think the engineer analogy is very good. As far as I understand Christianity, God wasn't just involved in the creation of the world. God still influences the world. He just chooses to do it in a subtle way. He is both omnipresent and omnipotent. Why does he wait until people are dead for them to feel the consequences of their actions, rather than address those right away?

Sure, you can say that he's giving people a chance to refore, but it's not as simple as that, since he lets them affect other people. Imagine that there are two brothers. Both are sinners, refusing to accept Jesus into their lives/hearts, and they also are adulters, each of them sleeping with the other's wife (behind the other's back). Lets call them Bill and Fred. After a few years, Bill catches Fred in bed with his wife. He is enraged, pulls out his gun, and shoots them both. He manages to convince the police it was a burglar, marries Fred's widow, and nothing much happens to him. Much later in life, he discovers Christ, becoming a true believer. He repents his past misdeeds, confesses them to the authorities of his own accord, goes to jail but is pardoned, and spends the rest of his life committing acts of charity.

Now, I don't know if you believe that Bill will go to heaven or to hell. He dies a reformed man and true Christian, but he was also a murderer. But that's not the important part. The important part is Fred - he died without accepting Christ, and so is doomed to go to hell. But if he was not shot by his brother, he may also have reformed in his old age. Bill sinned, but he did not deny himself the opportunity to accept Christ, he denied it to his brother.

As Windup pointed out, Christianity argues that we have but a limited time to determine the status of our eternal soul. Why is this time not granted equally? Why is it that God allows murderers to condemn others to eternal damnation who might otherwise be saved? He is omnipotent. Surely he can give people free will to make their own mistakes without giving them the free will to deny others the chance at salvation.

Quote
Do either of you have a solution to this problem?  You're God, with all the perks.  Can you conceive a design for a world that includes free will but does not permit evil?  To put the same problem another way, can you conceive of a being that that is incapable of doing evil and also has free will?

Well, that's not really a fair question, for the simple reason that I'm not God. Being God is not like being president of the US. I can imagine what being president, with all the power that comes with it, feels like and hypothesize how I could do things if I were president. I can't imagine how it is to be God, because God is far beyond anything in my experience.

If your faith presumes that God is constrained by the limits of my ability to imagine his option, then you are not worshipping anything the god I believe in - you might as well be worshipping an idol or Opera Winfrey.




Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #72 on: January 17, 2008, 11:24:39 AM
A few quick points before work.

If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

Do either of you have a solution to this problem?  You're God, with all the perks.  Can you conceive a design for a world that includes free will but does not permit evil?  To put the same problem another way, can you conceive of a being that that is incapable of doing evil and also has free will?

Actually if a bridge collapses it very well may be the fault of the engineer who designs it and he or she should design better bridges in the future. Can one solve all of the world's problems without abrogating free will? No. But could God have done better? In no particular order, here are a few things I would change.

1) The human reproductive system. It's figuratively and, as any female past the age of puberty will tell you, literally a mess. Monthly flows of hormones make it difficult for some women to control their moods. It's too hard for some people to get pregnant and too easy for others. At the very least it would be nice to have a simple "on/off" switch to avoid getting pregnant by accident and then turn ones fertility on when it's child conceiving time. 

2) Disease. This is an easy one. There's no reason for a just god to have created a world in which so many people are, through no fault of their own, painfully and terminally ill.

3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.

4) Redistribution of wealth and power. Take property, money, and land away from the rich and give it to the poor. Do this every generation or two. What about free will, you ask? This could enhance free will. As things stand countless millions of people live hand-to-mouth, barely able to scrape together the bare necessities of life while others live in unconscionable luxury.To take away a bit of the freedom of the super-rich to pass on their riches to their children could greatly enhance the freedom of many others to live lives free of abject poverty.

There's more, but you should get the idea. What I don't understand is what makes you such a panglossian figure who seems to truly believe that this is the best of all possible worlds. Do you lack the imagination to see anything better, or is it because the possibility of a better world would contradict your faith?


I think you'll find that any solution for getting rid of evil or suffering has prohibitive side-effects.

Quote
Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

Impossible to evaluate without knowing more. Are you open to the possibility that you are mistaken or deluded?

Quote
This probably isn't the best analogy, but my Olympus E-300 camera has a manual.  That manual is authoritative (I know manuals can have typos, but for the sake of argument).  I can learn about the Olypmus E-300 from places other than the manual, but I know that if something I see in the B&H Photographic Catalog conflicts with what it says in the manual, then B&H is the one that's got it wrong.  Conversely, by knowing the manual, I have insight and context with which to understand and interpret the other information I encounter.

The Japanese weren't screwed because they didn't have a Bible.  At a disadvantage, yes, but not screwed.

Again, I apologize, because I think I was unclear before.

You were clear. You said that a book was the only viable way for God to spread his message. Are you now backing away from that point? Do you see how the bookshelves full of competing books at the very least make it difficult to decide which message is the "true" one? And why would a just god put some people at a disadvantage just because of where they happen to be born? Any reason, or is he just capricious? Alternatively, you could accept all religions as man-made which would account for local difference. Which solution makes more sense to you?

I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?

I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #73 on: January 17, 2008, 01:36:28 PM
Wow... this is getting hard to keep up with.  A couple of points I'd like to address while I have time:

1) I pronounce "Czhorat" with a sort of throat clearing noise followed by "O'Rat"... sort of a Klingon-cum-Irish sort of name.

2) Atheists aren't angry at God (most of the time); but they do get angry at Followers who insist on using flawed logic to justify their belief.  Since most atheists believe they arrived at their own belief through logic, having theists tell them "I just know it's true" is deeply frustrating.  (NOTE: read that a few times before assuming that I made any value judgment on either system of belief.)

3) Female stormtroopers are incredi-hot... oh, wrong thread.

4) This thread seems to have developed into an "all-against-Mr. Tweedy" kind of thing.  I don't like contributing under those circumstances, so I'm bowing out forthwith.  (I also have a camping trip this weekend, so probably won't have time to get on, anyway.)

Have a fun weekend, and as the Prophets said... "Be excellent to each other!"

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #74 on: January 17, 2008, 04:36:24 PM
2) Atheists aren't angry at God (most of the time); but they do get angry at Followers who insist on using flawed logic to justify their belief.  Since most atheists believe they arrived at their own belief through logic, having theists tell them "I just know it's true" is deeply frustrating.  (NOTE: read that a few times before assuming that I made any value judgment on either system of belief.)

Ok, two responses to this:

A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

B) More importantly, I hope you realize that "I just know it's true" is exactly what Atheists sound like to non-atheists, too. Either that or they're mis-applying Occam's Razor to the real world. I easily understand how logic would lead someone to becoming agnostic (in the colloquiual sense of the word). I can't see how logic will help you outright reject the notion of god (or God) anymore than it will help you accept it. Lack of evidence for something is not equivalent, in a logical sense, with evidence for the lack of something.