TR: Good post, thank you.

I think deism would be the ideal world-view. It allows one to enjoy the splendour and mystery of believing in God – so much more interesting than living locked away in the empiricist box – but without the inconvenience of having to wrestle with God’s opinions and preferences.

Are you a deist? Whether you are or not, do you happen to know how deists arrive at an ethic? For example, do you know how a deist perceives human beings? What is it about them that makes them worth loving and respecting? What makes them special – and not just that, but equally special? I don’t think evolution on its own gives me a reason to love my neighbour. And the God of deism hasn’t done anything more than program evolution, has he?

I realise we are left to work it out for ourselves – existentialist style – but I don’t see how that will result in anything reliable or durable. You will never get consensus on anything, and the rule of the majority will inevitably result in oppression.

You and I may be at the end now, because I can only say I disagree with deism. But, I’ll say something about why. I believe the deity who established everything has personality and is, shall we say, a people person and not a geek. The God of deism is simply a mechanic, or programmer. I believe God is love. This doesn’t mean I’m right, I’m just describing the difference (in a biased way, perhaps). Also, the God of deism appears to have programmed several glitches into the universe, wouldn’t you say? He’s stuck with them, I suppose?

By the way, I didn’t fail to notice your personal ethos regarding your local community, and the modest way you expressed it. Having just praised you for that, it’s awkward to say that I operate along similar lines, but I do. I think this is the strength of a secular democracy – it encourages people to do this even though they have vastly different reasons.

Pax,

Sorry if we are a bit paranoid. We have had to deal with a christian run government since day one and that's bad enough. Last thing we need is to be told what to do by another religion.

The sooner the world can move on from this ancient culture the better. Most religions are against public affection including Muslims but are quite happy to allow public hatred which is messed up in itself.

And the need for an afterlife makes me laugh because if you asked every religious person (Try this out on your friends) "Where do you go when you die" they would describe only Earth like places.

The thing that really makes me paranoid is the fact that Muslim women have to cover themselves so the Muslim men are not tempted to rape them. I feel for Muslim women with men like this around.

Aussies love there women and love there way of life and that is why we don't want people imposing themselves on us with beliefs that are so hateful to the point of disturbing.

Beliefs are good, but because these are our own personal theory's they should not impose to the point of hatred and unfortunately war and governments will decide where we go in the future with this legacy from ancient times. All I can do is protect my family from those uneducated souls.

'You and I may be at the end now, because I can only say I disagree with deism. But, I’ll say something about why. I believe the deity who established everything has personality and is, shall we say, a people person and not a geek. The God of deism is simply a mechanic, or programmer. I believe God is love.'

Where on the earth do you get the idea that 'God is love'? Where is your evidence for that Goodthief? Surely not from monotheism. The Jews of the Torah/Old Testament regularly performed acts of brutality and ethnic cleansing under the happy guidance of a parochial and violent God called Yahweh. The jealous God of the Koran was happy for Muhammad to hack off the heads of several hundred Jewish (Banu Qurayzah) POW and sell their wives into slavery after the 'Battle of the Trench'.

Then we have the ridiculous doctrine of hell whereby God allows the painful suffering of non-Christians or non-Muslims for all eternity. This seems hardly fair given that our lives are measured in mere decades.

Then there is the 'Problem of Pain' which has never been resolved by theologians despite centuries of trying. For example, only a sadistic and callous God would give congenital blindness to an innocent baby. No hands-on omnipotent God of love would stoop so low as to allow such an aweful eventuality.

Sorry Goodthief, but all the evidence points to the fact that there is no such thing as a personal God of love who regularly intervenes in the lives of people. The available evidence implies that God is either impersonal, or if he is not, then a cruel sadist

TR, Difficult points. I’ll attempt a response.

“God is love”. I believe creation (esp of humans) was an act of love. I believe banishment to the present world from Eden (not literally) was an act of mercy. I believe the Old Testament is a story of God’s partisan love for his own people – including his readiness to kill for them. (Cold comfort for everyone else, I realise.) Finally, and most significant (to a Christian), when all else failed to reconcile with humanity, God sent his Son to take the fall for us – so that our return to him would not be blocked by guilt and justice. Wild stuff, but love.

And Jesus’ own life was, from wall to wall, characterised by merciful love – love that sought and found people at the margins of Jewish society (women, poor people, lepers, foreigners, Romans, collaborators with the Romans etc). The fiercely loyal loving relationship previously preserved for the Jews becomes available for everyone – so, since the New Testament, there is no question of God “going in to bat” in the same way as he did for the Jews earlier.

You may not call this evidence, but these are my reasons.

Hell. I doubt that there are many people there because God has been at such pains to restore us to a happy, close, tranquil and permanent relationship with him.

Pain. Yes, it’s a heart-rending planet, and it is tempting to angrily reject the idea of a loving God, or to direct the anger towards God himself. Christians too are often angry or puzzled, but they also believe what I wrote above. Pain is a problem, but it needn’t result in disbelief. Besides -
- I think God grieves more than we do.
- Do you think we deserve a better planet?

You owe me two items of information:
1) Are you deist? I asked you earlier. The deist God is not loving? Just a geek as I suggested?
2) How do you develop an ethic? That is, an ethic that you can recommend to others.

Pax

'You owe me two items of information:
1) Are you deist? I asked you earlier. The deist God is not loving? Just a geek as I suggested?
2) How do you develop an ethic? That is, an ethic that you can recommend to others.'

Hi goodthief,

1) No, I am currently an atheist - although I thought about Deism for some time and could easliy switch to that ethos if compelled. It's the really bad history of the monotheistic texts that I find off putting, not the idea of God itself.

2)Humans are by nature moral. After several million years of human evolution ethical behaviour has been encoded in our genes because it has helped our species to survive and adapt to the environment. It is imprinted in the same way that other mammalian behaviours are imprinted. However, because of our extra intelligence we have been able to take our inate ethical behaviour to higher levels. The same sort of rationale also applies for the problem of human 'evil'.

This short piece underscores the biological origins of human ethical/altruistic behaviour;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm

Therefore, if you want to know how to 'develop' ethical behaviour then I recommend that you study human biology and evolutionary psychology.

Ridley seems typical of the Muslims who open their mouths to spew nonsense and hate, and then claim "taken out of context" or "mistranslated" as some form of defence. Ridley is a native English-speaker, so her words are clear enough. She has said enough in the past to have been banned herself, after all, we have banned Holocaust deniers.

For me, I'm happy for creatures like her to open their mouths. They let the cat out of the bag some time ago. "Religion of peace" indeed. Ridley may be a pathetic example of Stockholm Syndrome, but she speaks plainly of Muslims' attitudes, opinions and desires.

Ridley looked a sight in her tailor-made mediaeval camping tent. Lucky she didn't come across Hilaly or he'd have had something to say about her rather obvious tent-poles.