If you presume to know the mind of God you presume too much. However, atheists typically think they can explain everything but I ask them if they were present at the big bang.

@Dan:

“The reason for the disagreement is that a whole lot of people decide completely arbitrarily what is good and bad. That is the essence of religion; an arbitrary normative code of behavior.”

Yes. And it’s also the essence of any society — even secular ones.

“If everybody decided what was good and bad through reason rather than religion, I have a feeling there would be a great many fewer disagreements, and those disagreements would be less emotionally charged and compromise would be easier.”

I don’t know. I’ve seen some pretty emotionally charged scientific debate and heated disagreements in the engineering business, and religion had nothing to do with it. Perhaps Vulcans can be completely pragmatic. Humans — not so sure.

“And you think it’s atheists who cause the disagreements?”

Not at all. I think we’re all equally responsible.

I disagree that the norms are arbitrary in a secular state. There are clearly some norms that are more efficacious to a stable society and some that are less so. Consider women’s equality. While there are many religious proscriptions against equality for women, many women possess above average intelligence and ability. By allowing women the same rights as men, a secular state would encourage these women to join the work force and achieve, which would both expand the labor market and improve the quality of the labor market. This would improve the economy.

Although it’s obviously only circumstantial evidence, take a quick look at the GDP figures (preferably minus oil) for countries whose legal systems are secular as opposed to those whose legal systems implement religious laws.

The big two (no killing/no stealing) are obviously essential norms for any stable society, so don’t even start with the “western ethics are Judeo-Christian ethics” nonsense.

Please note that I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be arguments, disagreements, etc. However, I believe that if people believe things for real reasons instead of just reading it in a sacred book that they will be more likely to listen to opposing viewpoints.

First, Jesus is crucified and goes down to Hell for the sins of all humans. While He’s down there He collects all the souls and brings them to heaven when He rises. Then He comes back to earth. Meanwhile, Satan notices that hell has become kinda quiet and goes to pitch a hissyfit at God. God says “Fine! If you’re gonna be a bitch about it you can have earth as your domain, but after death the souls of the humans belong to me.”

So, if we accept this mythology, Earth is Satan’s domain and God is essentially bound to not interfere.

Also a nit pick about answer #3, the question necessitates the answers to assume the existence of God. If you answer with “He doesn’t exist,” you violate the assumption that is proposed in the question: “If there is a God seated on his Royal Throne in Heaven”

what’s it matter if a few million people died anyway? If the were truly faithful people they’d go to heaven, which is what you’re supposed to be focused on if you’re a believer.

“Kill them all; God will know his own”, right?

I’m not. …seriously. …but many, MANY a time have I wished that there were more atheists in this world rather than what is often the alternative.
I don’t why Hitler killed nearly 11 million people. I don’t know why no one got to him first. What I do know is that he was a f**kin’ fanatic about his ideology.

Just, for the sake of argument lets go with…
3. God doesn’t exist
Now… If one consider themselves of strong atheist beliefs, they must ( must!) abandon any and ALL ideas of God, which means any and all blame for all the evils of this world must be directed at the only thing left… Us. Every good atheist should stop and ask why these hellish scenes, like those at Auschwitz keep playing themselves out over and over and over again thought history?!?

Time and time again there comes along an individual or group that feels that they hold a monopoly on ‘eternal’ truths. …or hold the unequivocal right to power or territory. Why do so many of us forfeit our sense of justice and submit so readily to the authority of others?

My short answer: Fear of annihilation… followed by pure ego-centric desires… along with a deep aversion to really THINK.

“I’m an atheist…”

Beforan ye forsooketh…
Be ye heedful of thy renunciation, lest ye be smited-eded. …ed

An atheist that thinks there’s a good chance “that the Christian God left Earth …” nope that’s not a definition of being an atheist I’ve heard before – would you care to enlighten me as to how this works?

And while we’re at it: “There is a pretty good argument that the Christian God left Earth to Satan’s will for a large part,”

1) I’d really like to hear that “pretty good argument”

2) Regardless, it’s Zoroastrian syncretism. Any religion with an independent Satan can not be truly monotheistic. Go and do penance for your brush with heresy.

You are an atheist, yet you say there is a good argument that a character you do not believe in left earth to another character you do not believe in to play around with, and allows bad things to happen in order to demonstrate that something you do not believe in has consequences.

Now, either you are a theist who chose to start his comment with a lie in order to make your words carry more weight, or you misspoke.

Which one is it?

I think the statement that the essence of any society is arbitrary rules is not entirely true. In general the rules of a society tend towards making the society function so aren’t always arbitrary and have been developed over time. Take for example laws on ownership of property – without this society itself would find it very difficult to function. Of course this doesn’t mean they are the best rules just not arbitrary. Yes there are arbitrary values that society holds – a sense of justice and equality could be classed as that – but the rules of a secular society are based, generally, on some sort of reasonable argument which doesn’t include my big book says so meaning it must be true

The difference is that those lacking beliefs in the area discussed can usually get along better than those who’s belief system tells their opponent’s position it’s immoral or an abomination.

I have as of yet not seen atheists / agnostics attempt to impose their way of life on believers. On the other hand those of religious belief can’t seem to sit still without attempting to alter the definition of marriage to fit their current world view.