Religions have succeeded

[Maeght]

I think I have described it before on here. I feel calmer, happier, it increases my sense of self-discipline so I am more productive, helps focus my thoughts, change my perspective if something is upsetting me or if I am worried about something. If I am angry with someone I feel less annoyed after I pray and able to let the issue go without making a big deal about it.

Twice I remember feeling really upset and in emotional pain but felt it was pointless trying to talk to anyone about it and when I prayed (I wasn't expecting prayer to help but I figured I would give it a try) I felt an instant release - best way I can describe it is like the scene in Towering Inferno when the water tanks were blown up and water suddenly cascaded down though the building and extinguished the fire almost instantaneously.

Thanks. Do you think this calming effect is external or internal?

[Maeght]

They get to the crux of the issue without kicking things into the long grass or explaining things away or steering things away from self examination imho.

I can see that they are a better explanation for you but don't really see the issues you see - kicking things into the long grass, explaining things away or steering things away from self examination. You think very differently from me it's clear, and often don't understand where you are coming from - but interesting to chat

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks. Do you think this calming effect is external or internal?

As I have no way of knowing I am open to the possibility of it being either or both.

It can be interesting to speculate about mechanisms but in relation to the brain producing complex or abstract thoughts, there seems to be so much we currently don't know or can't test for that I focus more on the result or effect on me rather than the mechanism. If you allow the possibility of a supernatural element in the mechanism, then not seeing how that possibility can be tested.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Because certain theists claim a god who knows everything, can do anything and is infinitely good but yet horrible things often happen to good people.

please define ‘good’ and ‘horrible’

They’re “wrong” inasmuch as observable reality and their “god of the omnis” claims contradict each other.

The God of the omnis’ is more the God of Greek philosophy isn’t he? Let’s see omnipotent yes he could be all powerful which means he can do what he darn well wants. Funny then how we get statements like “If God were all powerful, he would do this or that”. Omnipresent....no problem with that after all that is what is claimed for the laws of nature. Omniscient and omnibenevolent? Oh no I have a problem here... and the problem is do the definitions lie with you Hillside or do they lie with God

No. If your god could prevent unnecessary suffering, why doesn’t he?

please define unnecessary suffering

What “challenge”? Bad things happen to good people. That’s just what you’d expect to see in an indifferent, godless universe.

But the mystery here is why you think these things are bad rather than merely indifferent. And if the universe is indifferent where does good and bad come from?

[Maeght]

As I have no way of knowing I am open to the possibility of it being either or both.

It can be interesting to speculate about mechanisms but in relation to the brain producing complex or abstract thoughts, there seems to be so much we currently don't know or can't test for that I focus more on the result or effect on me rather than the mechanism. If you allow the possibility of a supernatural element in the mechanism, then not seeing how that possibility can be tested.

I agree that testing for the supernatural is difficult! Have you tried other meditative type practices and if so did you get the same effects?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can see that they are a better explanation for you but don't really see the issues you see - kicking things into the long grass, explaining things away or steering things away from self examination. You think very differently from me it's clear, and often don't understand where you are coming from - but interesting to chat

Morality is hard for everybody I would move, go down one line of thought and the issues remain unaddressed, go down another and you’ve explained it out the door, take another and it affects others but not ourselves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree that testing for the supernatural is difficult! Have you tried other meditative type practices and if so did you get the same effects?

I used to do a lot of Kung Fu / Sholin kick-boxing so part of the training involved Qigong sessions.

I find praying a lot easier than qigong. Both praying and qigong incorporates the idea of something external that is bigger than you, but with praying I find I get a greater sense of my insignificance and mistakes and short-comings both in the actions I perform and the meaning of the words I recite, so prayer feels more introspective. The actions of Muslim prayer probably help get the blood flowing too. 

[Maeght]

Morality is hard for everybody I would move, go down one line of thought and the issues remain unaddressed, go down another and you’ve explained it out the door, take another and it affects others but not ourselves.

I don't see those issues with, for example, the explanation for morality as a human construct due to us being social creatures with empathy for others. I know you do though.

[Maeght]

I used to do a lot of Kung Fu / Sholin kick-boxing so part of the training involved Qigong sessions.

I find praying a lot easier than qigong. Both praying and qigong incorporates the idea of something external that is bigger than you, but with praying I find I get a greater sense of my insignificance and mistakes and short-comings both in the actions I perform and the meaning of the words I recite, so prayer feels more introspective. The actions of Muslim prayer probably help get the blood flowing too.

Thanks. I guess I see prayer as being something different. But since I don't pray, who am I to comment

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Define "unnecessary" and "suffering", given what you perceive as "unnecessary suffering" could be viewed differently by someone else. So what "unnecessary suffering" are you talking about?

What would be the point in defining anything for you given your habit of unqualified “but I interpret these words differently” stock reply?

Anyway, try babies dying painfully of brain cancer when a god of the omnis could have prevented it for just one example.         

I can see you still seem to be having a problem with how the English language works and grasping that all of the above is just your interpretation of a story.

No, you can’t see that at all. Just just assert it because you can't or won't address the arguments that undo you. 

I can say that you will stop making  unevidenced assertions and poor attempts at arguments about the word "will" and then you can still come along and try to assert that your interpretation of the use of English is the only possible interpretation, despite all the evidence of how the word "will" is commonly used in the English language.

Or I could say that we will agree to disagree about the interpretation of the nativity story to give you a chance to see we're going round and round in circles and stop posting on this point as we're clearly never going to agree, and when you decide to continue with your unevidenced assertions, I could decide to respond to your response with my own claim.

Do you see now how the word "will" can be used when writing English?

So the angel can say what "will" happen but if God then wills it not to happen, it won't happen.

You really struggle here don’t you. “Will” means “expressing an inevitable future event”. If you want it to mean something else, rather than just telling us that you want it to mean something else therefore it does mean something else (essentially all you’ve managed to do so far) then you need to justify your interpretation. When you continue not to do that you just open the door to anyone deciding they “interpret” words used  by their interlocutor differently, therefore any argument their interlocutor musty be wrong (you know, the problem you keep running away from).

So, do you or do you not have an argument or evidence to support your alternative “interpretation” of “will”?

If you do then tell us what it is; if you don’t, then all you have is wishful thinking. Your choice.     
           

This is an argument from authority. Some actual evidence for your/ their assertion that there can be no valid consent in an employer /employee sexual relationship would be more convincing.

I’ll add “argument from authority” to the terms you don’t understand then. An argument from authority in the fallacious sense means that if person X is an expert, then what person X says must be true regardless of whether person X is actually an expert, whether person X is expert in the relevant field, whether person X is just one expert in a contentious field etc.

In the non-fallacious sense on the other hand it means grounds for a claim on the basis of one or more experts whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. The opinions of such experts thus provides strong inductive support for the conclusion. While such arguments from authority can only strongly suggest what is true rather than prove it, that isn’t a problem here as there are no proofs in ethics.

The guidance I posted from RAINN satisfy these criteria, which is presumably why they’ve been so widely adopted at lest in the US.

Briefly then as the topic has moved on - no evidence for your assertion about a Western consensus on the issue of there being no valid consent. Ok.

Stop lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Not sure what camping and sailing have to do with introspection,….

Whoosh! NS told you why the god you worship is a murderous thug. Your response was to tell him how much better you feel about yourself when you pray to that god. Members of the Hitler Youth were in thrall to a murderous thug too – and if that had been said to them, the reply “but the camping and sailing is fun” would be analogous to your reply.

In analogies the objects (camping/introspection) are always different (that's the point), but the underlying argument is the same. As an example, in the analogy “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”, a good man doesn’t have anything to do with a needle either, but it’s still a valid analogy.

Why do I have to explain this to you?   

… but given your other juvenile comments at least you're nothing if not predictable.

Wrong again – see above. Still, as ad homs is all you seem to have when you can’t address an argument I guess that’s all we should expect from you right?

I imagine the Hitler Youth also enjoyed making unevidenced assertions that commonly used words and sentences only had one meaning - theirs.

Stop lying. The evidence of standard usage is in dictionaries. The only “unevidenced assertion” here is that you “interpret” inconvenient words differently from their dictionary meanings, but you can’t tell us why.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see those issues with, for example, the explanation for morality as a human construct due to us being social creatures with empathy for others. I know you do though.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Human construct rather than biological necessity or something intrinsically human? I  get the empathy but it rather suggests something constructed because of the failure of empathy.

You see to me that stands as an explaining away.

It seems morality is more fundamental than mere construct.

[Enki]

To answer your post I shall be writing from what I believe.

I appreciate that you are responding from a position of belief. I think I understood that from the start.

First of all who is it who tells us about the Good Samaritan?It is the second person of the trinity incarnate as Jesus. The Good Samaritan exemplifies the highest in how moral a person can act.
Jesus is God identifying with humanity in the most comprehensive way possible...in a human life and he in turn takes the moral line of laying down his life, in his case, for humanity.

Doesn't work. God/Jesus is telling people to help one another to the best of their ability but, as god of the omnis, he doesn't follow his own moral directives. It seems to be a case of do as I say, not as I do. If Jesus is identifying with humanity, as you believe, it seems to be a case of pure hypocrisy and callousness. He has deliberately made himself human in order to show compassion on a human scale but as God He isn't prepared to do anything on the scale which really matters. According to your own holy book, by the way, Jesus only gave up his life temporarily, not such a big deal compared with those who give up their lives permanently.

God of course does not need to do this of course and an evil God would delight in the chaos,misery, death and futility of existence. But of course the universe isn’t like that.

I think you are mixing me up with someone else. I didn't suggest that your God would delight in such things, I suggested that He doesn't take responsibility for his actions. At the very best the Christian God of the omnis doesn't seem to care. In human terms that shows a total lack of concern rather than a delight in inflicting misery etc.

And it is these forces which have given us life and what we do have and our potential to share that. I wonder if you aren’t moved by your prophet Richard Dawkins when he declares the wonder of existing at all or Carl Sagan’s widow when she talks about the kindness of chance. I disagree with the provider here but if you are going to blame God for bad chance then you must credit him with good chance.

So this God is happy that our lives and our potentials are fulfilled in the creation that He has given us, where random chance is the order of the day. Tell that to the parents of the children who died in the 2004 tsunami before their potentials had been realised.  By the way, your incorrect statement about my 'prophet Richard Dawkins' needs correcting. He is not my 'prophet' and I don't view him particuarly as an inspired teacher. I was an atheist long before he wrote The Selfish Gene in 1976 and have not changed my views substantially since my early years. As far as the feelings of wonder and awe at the natural world are concerned, these remain with me still throughout my years on this earth, but as for relating to some form of god or entity, no, I do not feel and I have no reason to feel that this is so. As far the idea of chance is concerned, should I be grateful to a God who randomly decides who will survive and flourish and who will suffer and die? I think not.

Jesus takes sin and it’s ultimate consequences upon himself. That is more practical than taking responsibility which is what Boris Johnson did and Matt Hancock has done

No, taking responsibility, if you are a God of the omnis, means not making mistakes in the first place. If human beings were created with the ability and freedom to sin then it was not a mistake on this God's part, but a deliberate act and He bears ultimate responsibility for all the suffering that ensues. It seems to me that the idea of Jesus taking the consequences of sin upon himself was a failed enterprise. First of all, sin and the ensuing suffering continues apace so it failed in any constructive way, and secondly, the idea of dying to be resurrected doesn't seem a particularly genuine way of taking the ultimate consequences on board. It's a bit like (and you brought up the comparison) Boris Johnson resigning and then at a later date accepting the office of Prime minister again.

God, and especially in Christ has done his duty, he has created a universe which works, he has, through the universe, created a humanity free to love and restored the freedom to love God

And free to hate, and hurt and destroy. This is the humanity he is supposed to have created. And you think that He has done his duty?  Let these humans get on with it. Brilliant if they love, have compassion and especially love the Christian God, but if they hurt, kill and care only for themselves, then His duty has been done, that's their problem. No responsibility for what he has created then.

The universe and human existence a failure? Hopefully, now you have received some of what was missing from your picture of God.
But if you feel you must continue with what is basically not an atheist argument you need to take this up with God.

It fails decisively for the reasons given from the point of view of believing in a God of the omnis. However as I don't have any belief in a God of the omnis, or any other god, then it would make no sense to take it up with a God I don't believe exists. No, I'll simply continue to take it up with those who do believe if and when I so choose.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

What would be the point in defining anything for you given your habit of unqualified “but I interpret these words differently” stock reply?

It's not just me interpreting the words differently from you. It's a common theme in language that words can have different interpretations. Whether you want to accept this or not is up to you.

Anyway, try babies dying painfully of brain cancer when a god of the omnis could have prevented it for just one example.

So nothing to do with Mary and the nativity story then? No claims of unnecessary suffering there?

Regarding the brain cancer, I have already said that I don't know why pain is part of the human experience for babies or adults. We could have all developed in a way where no one will feel pain ever but we haven't. One way I can look at it is that maybe there is some point to the pain or reason for it that I can't appreciate. Another way of looking at is to not believe in a god of the omnis. Given I do believe in a god of the omnis, I'll have to go with the first option.

No, you can’t see that at all. Just just assert it because you can't or won't address the arguments that undo you. 

Stop lying. You haven't made any arguments that undo me. You have made some assertions that you can't support with evidence though.

You really struggle here don’t you. “Will” means “expressing an inevitable future event”. If you want it to mean something else, rather than just telling us that you want it to mean something else therefore it does mean something else (essentially all you’ve managed to do so far) then you need to justify your interpretation. When you continue not to do that you just open the door to anyone deciding they “interpret” words used  by their interlocutor differently, therefore any argument their interlocutor musty be wrong (you know, the problem you keep running away from).


So, do you or do you not have an argument or evidence to support your alternative “interpretation” of “will”?

If you do then tell us what it is; if you don’t, then all you have is wishful thinking. Your choice.

You are really struggling here with the common use and understanding of the word "will", which is that it is a prediction of a future event and that someone's prediction can change after being expressed. A large part of Christian/ Muslim/ Jewish religious teachings is that we will be held accountable for our choices, as opposed to behaviour being inevitable because people have no choice https://prayray.com/god-gives-freedom-choice-prayer/

So not sure what you mean by "inevitable" when you say that an "inevitable future event" is the only meaning of "will". I am surprised that I need to explain this to you and actually provide a link to a dictionary, since this is common usage. I thought you were just being difficult.

It does not need to be "inevitable" as you seem to be interpreting it - as in 'can never ever change once uttered'. The word "will" combined with another verb could be the expression of a future intent or plan or prediction. An intent, plan or prediction that can change.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/will
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/will   

If you want to interpret "will" as  meaning an intent once uttered that can never be changed, that's up to you.
           

I’ll add “argument from authority” to the terms you don’t understand then. An argument from authority in the fallacious sense means that if person X is an expert, then what person X says must be true regardless of whether person X is actually an expert, whether person X is expert in the relevant field, whether person X is just one expert in a contentious field etc.

In the non-fallacious sense on the other hand it means grounds for a claim on the basis of one or more experts whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. The opinions of such experts thus provides strong inductive support for the conclusion. While such arguments from authority can only strongly suggest what is true rather than prove it, that isn’t a problem here as there are no proofs in ethics.

The guidance I posted from RAINN satisfy these criteria, which is presumably why they’ve been so widely adopted at lest in the US.

I didn't realise that we in the UK were now looking to the US for guidance on morality - do you also advocate introducing the ownership of  guns into the UK?

It seems I now also have to correct you on what the term "argument from authority" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

https://proofed.co.uk/writing-tips/fallacies-arguments-from-authority/

So, how do you avoid arguments from authority? The simple answer is to always focus on evidence. If someone is known as an ‘authority’ in a certain subject area, that’s a great starting point. But you need to look at what they argue, not just who they are.

Stop lying.

You are really struggling with the concept of evidence despite the number of times I have had to school you on this. You even linked to an organisation's website that presented absolutely no evidence for its assertion about valid consent in employer / employee personal relationships and then doubled down on your fallacy by claiming that the size of the organisation and the work it has carried out means that its assertions about consent in an employer / employee relationship must be true, even if you can't present any evidence that society has implemented the assertion that "Unequal power dynamics, such as engaging in sexual activity with an employee mean that consent cannot be freely given" into policy norms at work.

I had a moment of hope when you claimed that this assertion has been widely adopted, in the US at least, that you were going to present some evidence of this but you seem to keep running away from linking to any actual evidence to prove that an employee's consent "cannot be freely given" has been widely adopted.

So, do you or do you not have an argument or evidence to support your above assertion?

If you do then tell us what it is; if you don’t, then all you have is wishful thinking. Your choice.   

I don't know why you are doing this to yourself or why you seem so unaware of how out of your depth you are but let me help you out. Why don't you email the organisation in the US that you linked to and ask them for evidence.

I think that covers everything but I may have missed out one or two of your usual shtick.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Whoosh! NS told you why the god you worship is a murderous thug.

Uh no - I don't think NS said anything to me about worshipping a murdering thug god - you must be thinking of someone else.

I believe NS's comments to me were along the lines of:

• The god I worship allows child rape and torture and chooses pain for humans when he could have chosen no pain - presumably meaning humans could not have pain receptors or be aware of pain and yet we do, so that's not very benevolent of the god I worship to not dispense with them
• And, given we have pain receptors, the god I worship chooses not to intervene when humans cause each other pain (Moors murderers) when an all-powerful god should intervene if it is benevolent.

Your response was to tell him how much better you feel about yourself when you pray to that god.

Nope that was a response to Maeght who asked in what way prayer helps me, when I said I have no idea whether God answers prayers. Do try to keep up BHS. When I was responding to NS I quoted him in my replies.

My response to NS was "Having been an atheist, I don't remember it changing anything - almost everyone still feels pain, natural disasters still happen, babies still die of cancer or are murdered, some people still treat others horrendously. Not clear what your point is - my worship or lack of worship doesn't alter the levels of pain and suffering in the rest of the world."

And I finished my response to NS by saying that I try to do what I can to control my choices around inflicting pain on others. And that as I have not been through anything traumatic, I can't comment regarding people who have been through really traumatic experiences and seem to find comfort from their faith in a god of the omnis. 

Members of the Hitler Youth were in thrall to a murderous thug too – and if that had been said to them, the reply “but the camping and sailing is fun” would be analogous to your reply.

In analogies the objects (camping/introspection) are always different (that's the point), but the underlying argument is the same. As an example, in the analogy “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”, a good man doesn’t have anything to do with a needle either, but it’s still a valid analogy.

Why do I have to explain this to you?   

Wrong again – see above. Still, as ad homs is all you seem to have when you can’t address an argument I guess that’s all we should expect from you right?

Stop lying. The evidence of standard usage is in dictionaries. The only “unevidenced assertion” here is that you “interpret” inconvenient words differently from their dictionary meanings, but you can’t tell us why.     

Members of the Hitler Youth also made unevidenced assertions about the world and were convinced that only they were right and probably believed that if they just kept repeating their assertions that eventually those assertions would become convincing to other people - much like you on here it seems.

[Maeght]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Human construct rather than biological necessity or something intrinsically human? I  get the empathy but it rather suggests something constructed because of the failure of empathy.

You see to me that stands as an explaining away.

It seems morality is more fundamental than mere construct.

I mean a sort of agreed pattern of behaviour which forms the basis of our society - behaviour which is seen as good or acceptable by the vast majority due to our nature as social creatures who need to form groups to survive. Possibly the way that we develop slowly into fully independent people is a factor, so caring for our young and working together is more important to us than to some other animals. I don't think it is unique to us but - some animals exhibit behaviours which could be seen as being 'good' i.e. actions which benefit the society more than themselves.

I don't understand the comment about a construction due to the failure of empathy.

Proposing a reason isn't explaining it away surely. You seem to want there to be more to it but there may not be anything more than what I have tried to describe. That could be the explanation. So you would say Explaining it rather than explaining it away. Nothing more fundamental behind it. I see no reason to think there is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I mean a sort of agreed pattern of behaviour which forms the basis of our society - behaviour which is seen as good or acceptable by the vast majority due to our nature as social creatures who need to form groups to survive. Possibly the way that we develop slowly into fully independent people is a factor, so caring for our young and working together is more important to us than to some other animals. I don't think it is unique to us but - some animals exhibit behaviours which could be seen as being 'good' i.e. actions which benefit the society more than themselves.

I don't understand the comment about a construction due to the failure of empathy.

Proposing a reason isn't explaining it away surely. You seem to want there to be more to it but there may not be anything more than what I have tried to describe. That could be the explanation. So you would say Explaining it rather than explaining it away. Nothing more fundamental behind it. I see no reason to think there is.

concensus morality? Not sure making this a purely sociological issue isn't diverting from personal review.

Morality under your scheme seems then to be something invented to cope with the inevitable breakdown of empathy

[Maeght]

concensus morality? Not sure making this a purely sociological issue isn't diverting from personal review.

Morality under your scheme seems then to be something invented to cope with the inevitable breakdown of empathy

What does diverting from personal review mean please? Do you mean the question of personal responsibility for bad deeds?

I wouldn't say it was invented but rather developed, at least initially but then such rules and expectations were more formalised. To some extent it does serve the purpose of dealing with individuals who lack empathy (and who do bad things for the reasons I gave earlier) - putting peer pressure on those to conform. Those who do and who follow societies rules would have had some survival advantages over those who broke the rules and were cast out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does diverting from personal review mean please? Do you mean the question of personal responsibility for bad deeds?

I mean if we take the sociological line we become the observer and this kind of puts us in a remote position. We are of course the subject and the right course is self review rather than study. In terms of taking responsibility what does that actually entail? Saying it? Taking punishment for it? how much? Repenting whatever?Who to ?how often.?

I wouldn't say it was invented but rather developed, at least initially but then such rules and expectations were more formalised. To some extent it does serve the purpose of dealing with individuals who lack empathy (and who do bad things for the reasons I gave earlier) - putting peer pressure on those to conform. Those who do and who follow societies rules would have had some survival advantages over those who broke the rules and were cast out.

A sociological statement with a built in division between those with empathy and those without, those who do bad things and those who don’t. One wonders the process by which those who came up with a way to deal with the imperfect discovered they were empathy positive.

[Maeght]

I mean if we take the sociological line we become the observer and this kind of puts us in a remote position. We are of course the subject and the right course is self review rather than study. In terms of taking responsibility what does that actually entail? Saying it? Taking punishment for it? how much? Repenting whatever?Who to ?how often.?
A sociological statement with a built in division between those with empathy and those without, those who do bad things and those who don’t. One wonders the process by which those who came up with a way to deal with the imperfect discovered they were empathy positive.

Sorry, not much clearer.

As I say, I don't think anyone 'came up with' it but that it developed due to our nature and became part of our society.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't work. God/Jesus is telling people to help one another to the best of their ability but, as god of the omnis, he doesn't follow his own moral directives. It seems to be a case of do as I say, not as I do. If Jesus is identifying with humanity, as you believe, it seems to be a case of pure hypocrisy and callousness. He has deliberately made himself human in order to show compassion on a human scale but as God He isn't prepared to do anything on the scale which really matters. According to your own holy book, by the way, Jesus only gave up his life temporarily, not such a big deal compared with those who give up their lives permanently.

It seems to me that you are taking two lines here. A traditional atheist God as big man line and The God of the omnis line. Did you see my reply to Bluehillside regarding the omnis. Firstly these two approaches are contradictory since God cannot be just a huge superman and the God of the omnis at the same time.
Jesus crucifixion an act of hypocrisy? Why does Jesus die?so we can all have eternal life.So our deaths are not permanent either in terms of not being resurrected or us perpetually dying.
Also he takes on, in his death, the sins of the world. You may not believe Jesus has done these things but if you ignore them in your account of Christianity, you are merely making a caricature.

I think you are mixing me up with someone else. I didn't suggest that your God would delight in such things, I suggested that He doesn't take responsibility for his actions. At the very best the Christian God of the omnis doesn't seem to care. In human terms that shows a total lack of concern rather than a delight in inflicting misery etc.

But this is a caricature since God wants to adopt us into his family and welcome us to eternal life with him as exemplified in the parable of the prodigal son. No murderer can take that offer from a person, neither natural disaster.

So this God is happy that our lives and our potentials are fulfilled in the creation that He has given us, where random chance is the order of the day. Tell that to the parents of the children who died in the 2004 tsunami before their potentials had been realised.

Our potential is only fulfilled when we have been restored to our original design intent or to put it another way it can only be restored once the image of God in us is restored.

  By the way, your incorrect statement about my 'prophet Richard Dawkins' needs correcting. He is not my 'prophet' and I don't view him particuarly as an inspired teacher. I was an atheist long before he wrote The Selfish Gene in 1976 and have not changed my views substantially since my early years. As far as the feelings of wonder and awe at the natural world are concerned, these remain with me still throughout my years on this earth, but as for relating to some form of god or entity, no, I do not feel and I have no reason to feel that this is so. As far the idea of chance is concerned, should I be grateful to a God who randomly decides who will survive and flourish and who will suffer and die? I think not.

I, on the other hand feel gratitude for the God given processes that give life and. Make a world and for the promise in Revelations for the new heaven and earth and the life to come made possible for us by God in Jesus. Once again you may not believe it but if you exclude it from your account of Christianity then your account is a caricature.

No, taking responsibility, if you are a God of the omnis, means not making mistakes in the first place. If human beings were created with the ability and freedom to sin then it was not a mistake on this God's part, but a deliberate act and He bears ultimate responsibility for all the suffering that ensues. It seems to me that the idea of Jesus taking the consequences of sin upon himself was a failed enterprise. First of all, sin and the ensuing suffering continues apace so it failed in any constructive way, and secondly, the idea of dying to be resurrected doesn't seem a particularly genuine way of taking the ultimate consequences on board. It's a bit like (and you brought up the comparison) Boris Johnson resigning and then at a later date accepting the office of Prime minister again.

It’s easy to overlook a paragraph like this as being an actual exoneration of wrong doing. As far as the consequences of sin is concerned we will not find that out until the judgment. If none are saved then it has been a failed exercise and who knows, some May successfully win their rebellion against God and successful reject Gods adoption of them. Again Jesus died and was resurrected so we can die and be resurrected to eternal life. And of course any account of Christianity must include this if it is not to be a caricature.

Has God made a mistake who is to judge. That seems to be God as big man thinking

And free to hate, and hurt and destroy. This is the humanity he is supposed to have created. And you think that He has done his duty?  Let these humans get on with it. Brilliant if they love, have compassion and especially love the Christian God, but if they hurt, kill and care only for themselves, then His duty has been done, that's their problem. No responsibility for what he has created then.

It fails decisively for the reasons given from the point of view of believing in a God of the omnis. However as I don't have any belief in a God of the omnis, or any other god, then it would make no sense to take it up with a God I don't believe exists. No, I'll simply continue to take it up with those who do believe if and when I so choose.

Ah, the God of the omnis
Firstly, The God of the omnis is the God as constructed or envisaged by the Greek philosophers and I think the God of theology is slightly different Anselm introduces us to a God who is maximal rather than “Omni” in short, God doesn’t do the impossible.
But let’s look at the omnis
Omnipotent This mean God does what he likes so there can be no validity to statements such as if God we’re all powerful, he would do this or that
Omnipresent. No problem here
Omniscient If he is in all places at all times then why wouldn’t he know everything.
Omnibenevolent. It is not for us to know what enormously Good plan he has for a universe like ours we do know what Christ’s life death and resurrection promise us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, not much clearer.

As I say, I don't think anyone 'came up with' it but that it developed due to our nature and became part of our society.

I think that by making morality a historical thing you are removing yourself from any role. Morality becomes then, just an intellectual study leading as it does in your post to a simplistic and debateable summary of what morality is about.

[Maeght]

I think that by making morality a historical thing you are removing yourself from any role. Morality becomes then, just an intellectual study leading as it does in your post to a simplistic and debateable summary of what morality is about.

The origin may be historical but it is an ongoing process. What is acceptable and considered moral in society changes overtime.

What do you consider debateable about what i have said regarding what morality is about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The origin may be historical but it is an ongoing process. What is acceptable and considered moral in society changes overtime.

Yes but that’s still merely a sociological statement rather than personal review or reflection of one’s own current moral status...don’t worry I’m not expecting public confession here.

What do you consider debateable about what i have said regarding what morality is about?

It’s suggestion that humanity is divided into empathetic folks, the good.....and the non empathetic folk, the bad.

[Maeght]

Yes but that’s still merely a sociological statement rather than personal review or reflection of one’s own current moral status...don’t worry I’m not expecting public confession here.It’s suggestion that humanity is divided into empathetic folks, the good.....and the non empathetic folk, the bad.

Sorry, not really understanding what you mean in your first sentence.

I haven't said that humanity is divided into empathetic folks, the good.....and the non empathetic folk, the bad. I mentioned lack of empathy as one reason why people may do bad things, and would say lack of empathy is a scale i.e. everyone has different degrees of empathy.

But I repeat, lack of empathy is one cause of bad things but empathy is, in my view, part of the reason why we have developed a consensus moral code.