The handiwork of God

No thanks to any God, real or imagined.

Perhaps you could thank God for not hitting Haiti with another Earthquake, killing the remaining population along with the American helpers.

Remarks of this sort do atheism a great disservice.

If we are going to blame God and God alone for this disaster (and ignore, for some inexplicable reason, the human involvement in the disaster, ie, hundreds of years of human tyranny on that island) then we must also blame God for everything good in this world, too. It's God's fault, and no one else had a hand in it, that you are safe, secure, with a marvelous machine that allows you to communicate with millions of people all over the globe, his fault that you have a warm, nutritious meal in the evenings should you be hungry or bored, and a comfortable bed at night.

Not that I think that God is this sort of being (considering that God, traditionally, is not a being at all), but if we're going to make such an assertion, at least give Him credit for everything else, too.

The handiwork of God and human efforts to clean it up:





















You can see more pictures (and the above again) starting at:

Haiti earthquake: Photos

The conditions are such that some medical personnel who volunteered to go to Haiti, and have years of experience in U.S. emergency rooms, have begged to be brought back after only three days there, because of the horrific conditions. Things are, however, improving slowly. No thanks to any God, real or imagined.

I think that's reasonable. Consistency.

Remarks of this sort do atheism a great disservice.

No. They piss people off though. But as an argument for atheism they have some merit.

Why worship and pray to a god who allows tens of thousands of innocents to die? Presumable many of them prayed and worshiped.

It at least says something about the nature of god, if you believe in one.

It does atheism a disservice precisely because it isn't a good argument for atheism and because it betrays an unsophisticated conception of god and of god's relationship to the world.

The atheist conception of god is that he doesn't exist.

And the problem of evil, in many forms, has been addressed time and time again. It's to the point where it's really not even a serious objection.

Most of the expressions of the problem of evil rely on God as some sort of being. But God as a being is explicitly rejected by traditional theology.

The atheist conception of god is that he doesn't exist. With the "why would god permit evil" argument, they question the why religious people believe in god. It's an argument with a long history because many people have been driven to some form of atheism by it. So how does it do atheism a disservice?

You can give a more nuanced argument for god's relationship to the world like "he gave us the ability to make our own choices", and "his reasons aren't knowable", but they don't have merit merely because they are more sophisticated. Presumably Pyrrho disagrees with those notions.

It still points out problems with some religious thinking.

Like praying helps? If praying helps, it implies that god would consider getting involved or "helping" to solve your dilemma. Perhaps that is not how people want prayer to be used? Okay so it is not used to protest to god but instead just some kind of reminder to do what exactly? "I'm here god, don't really like what's going on, but hey if you feel this is your plan, then I'm fine with it, but would you mind, seeing it from my point for a second?" No matter how you spin it, no matter the method, you are in fact protesting a situation. That you feel the need to remind god that you exist and don't really like some current experience. I guess you could use it in positive terms too but there is a story about that I'll save for another time.

Alright, god is not a being, then explain what god is in very specific terms because this is very vague to leave it like this. You have to explain it or else no one can arrive at your reasoning. It would be like me saying if you want to get from point A to point B just do something. It's so vague it doesn't give you anything to go on.

Is your definition universal for all gods?

All atheists deny that god exists

And the problem of evil, in many forms, has been addressed time and time again. It's to the point where it's really not even a serious objection.

All atheists deny that god exists, but that doesn't mean that they all conceive of "god" in the same way. Some atheists think of god as a kind of divine puppeteer; some atheists think of god as a divine watch-maker; still others think of god along Spinozist lines, or in Wittgensteinian terms, etc. Some of these conceptions of god are more sophisticated than others. When someone refers to horrible events like the earthquake in Haiti as god's "handiwork," it's clear that his conception of god is unsophisticated.

More nuanced conceptions of god do have more merit than less nuanced conceptions. That's part of what it means to say that the conception of god is more nuanced.

The argument from evil and/or suffering has been around for millenia. Wheeling this argument out argument every time a horrible tragedy happens in the world -- especially by referring to the tragedy as god's "handiwork" -- does atheism a disservice because it makes atheism seem glib. It also makes atheists look predictable and boorish. It's not very interesting or enlightening to hear this same argument over and over, and over.

Most of the expressions of the problem of evil rely on God as some sort of being. But God as a being is explicitly rejected by traditional theology. Sure, you can find "theology" that considers God a being, but that's picking on the lame runner when a world class sprinter is waiting for a real contest.

More nuanced is not necessarily better. Conceptions of god become more nuanced when people have to fit their conception of god to their beliefs about how the world works.

scientist do the exact same thing....as they learn more their conceptions change....as we learn more about God our conception changes. If this is an invalidation of God it's an invalidation of science

It's been addressed time and again, and people's conceptions of god have changed. This is like saying geology isn't a serious objection to christianity, because hardly anyone is a young earther.

See, here I think you guys reveal a misconception of atheists. By and large, we are fine with a god in the gaps type of sophisticated theology.