stardustbrain

I'm confused. Is there something I'm missing? Is that a limited of integration?

You know, I would accept this. This, does however eradicate any religion in which god specifically intervened (ie: Zeus and thunderstorms, Christian God impregnating the virgin Mary, etc.). This argument is something I don't have the knowledge to argue as it essentially says that a omnipotent being created everything that can be vindicated by science.

What do yo mean," my god?"...I said "I'm an atheist". I'm not sure if you are a theist and you pathologically assumed that every espoused ideology warrants the existence of god, so you attributed my idea of absolute morality to one, but I by no means believe in any deity. Absolute morality is a word. Like car, fiscal, embracement, work, etc. It is entirely impotent (weak, otherwise voided,empty). A god is omnipotent (if it can be conceived, it can be created.) In your closing statement you say "[the event was horrible]..Which, interventionalist God or not, suggests to me that we all would like to have had a way, to intervene. But we did not. " Is right in its own respect, but this does not answer my question. I am asking about the existence of god (s). I am saying that any posited god is interventionist and or omnipotent., why didn't they intervene. You elucidated on human intervention.I literally KNOW that humans can intervene, as I don't believe in god. I just wanted a tour though the psyche of a theist in moments like this. So, can I leave with this, 1) you are a theist that believes in god (necessarily omnipotent, benevolent) 2) you are saying "Bad, interventionist Gods" exist (eradicating any monotheist argument, in other words you cant believe this if you are Christian) 3.) And Finally "We did intervene. We rushed to hall and were shot, we hid and shielded the children and saved many lives. We lost 20 children, and we mourn the loss, and look for answers, so that we can pre-intervene, and prevent such horror in the future. " This response evades my question altogether, but I can deduce that this means that humans intervene because god cant, because go doesnt exist or else he necessarily would have saved the innocent from being slain as he is a necessarily omnipotent, benevolent, historically intervening god. Correct me if this summary is off.

I meant religious history...Moses parting the sea...the talking burning bush...Zeus is creates thunder....Allah espouses compulsory conversions....I feel like I would be content with the creationist argument if and only if it stopped right there..Meaning that all religions with an intervening god who can help or harm you (all religions) are invalid.

You see, this is perfectly logical and makes sense. But the fundamental problem with this is that the dynamic between worshiped and worshiper is intervention. That is why people pray and repent, that is why some religions slaughter animals..It's to appease the interventionist god. Saying that there is no interventionist god says there is no god. How many people (theist) attribute monstrosity to the individual? Or success to the individual? None. The worshiper does things to facilitate deity intervention (be good, believe,etc.) Further, god is omnipotent and created the world. If he wanted to change it he could, so he is responsible for every aspect of it. No. I am asking why doesn't the interventionist god intervene? No example you gave was tangent to my point. If you are intimating that god allows monstrosity to transpire because to not do so would make the world perfect (that's a problem?) Then are you saying that the interventionist god (ALL GODs are said to be interventionist) exist and it chooses to help or not help because of reasons that transcend human understanding (or something else?) In other words shooting up a school full of children is bad to normal humans but not to god, as he didnt intervene. You see this is the problem with that, without intervention, poly/monotheist religions wouldn't exist. It is implicit whenever someone espouses a religion that god will intervene in your life. Thats why people pray for "the strength", pray for "guidance", pray that their wives and husbands won't get laid off in this economy. So to say that without consequences there wouldnt be free will is fundamentally dishonest to religious truth. So is the only logical point then that god created earth, everything in it, and stopped right there? Leaving us free to do whatever? In which case, most monotheist religions have it wrong then..because god have damn sure been intervening all throughout history.

Hi, I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system. I haven't had much luck with intelligent conversations on the issue so I'll ask here (bad idea maybe). If Any of the many gods that were said to have exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion ) existed, why did they not stop the children from being slain? This is one isolated incident, I know. When I was a theist, I hardly remember asking questions about deity intervention as I was told that it was wrong but as an atheist that is all I ask. If it's free will that killed the children, that's fine, then why not stop the bullets? If it was the fact that religion is removed from schools then why would god(s) enact vengeance on innocent children who literally had nothing to do with it's removal? I feel like I already know the answers to this question. Mass suffering is nothing new to anyone whose ever taken a course on anthropology or macroeconomics. But that is privy to the average American, this incident isnt. I am not attacking religion, I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)? You can troll if you are a theist but remember that (as far as I remember) Christ prayed for his enemies and other poly/mono theist religions advocate conversions. I am totally receptive to the possibility of such a conversion if I have a tenable argument. Thank you either way.