Thank you, DrTerwilliker. Your condolences are much appreciated. I am surprised that I've had difficulty with his death.  There have been others on my route who have passed away recently, some I've talked to on many occasions, however, I sort of looked at my friend as a little brother and I think that is why the impact on me is difficult.

Bulldog, just curious, what did he think about his physical suffering?

I don't think with this question being so personal for you, that it's my place to answer. The suffering question is one very dear to me as well, and it's the reason I was a disbeliever for most of my life. In fact I wrote a blog entry about it some time ago, I'll link the writing here: http://debate.atheist.net/showpost.php?p=12313&postcount=6. When I came to believe it was on that question as well.

There is something ultimately relatable to the suffering in one's life to that of the image of Jesus Christ Crucified, it's been a haunting and unshakable image for me, that elicits disbelief and faith, both despair and hope. In belief, it's hope, that all suffering is ultimately redeeming, in disbelief, its despair, that it's probably not so. 

Was your friend miserable though? Was he a person of despair? Not at peace with his predicament and impeding death? Did he have a sense of joy in his life, or was he completely robbed of it? Do you feel you were more despair ridden by his situation than he was? Do you know why he believed? 

So your gods are not the source of good and ill (despite what the mythologies claim)?

Seems like you're trying to special plead.

They aren't the source of good and ill, and the lore doesn't state that they are.

Oh, of course you can answer his questions. It's just...meh. I guess he did address it to theists. (but he was thinking about Christians!)

Ciarin, in order to better evaluate your response, and I suppose frame the OP's question in a matter that relates more to your beliefes, would you mind telling us what your gods do?  In a great many religions gods are causes for things, possibly everything.  It seems this isn't the case with whatever you believe.  So if you could explain what your gods do, then maybe we could figure how/if this question relates to you.

I admit the OP was rather presumptuous in relating everyone's gods to the causal gods of many but not all religions.  But the question has a basic form that can be applied to pretty much any religion that uses gods to answer questions of causality or purpose.  I don't want to presume that your views of gods do this, but if they do maybe we could rephrase the question in a way that would be more meaningful and insightful to you.

And of course, my condolences to the OP

Thor's relationship with mankind and vice versa was one of the best defined in the old Germanic belief systems since it was Thor who, it was believed, presided over all things agricultural (hence the hammer, by the way). There was no ambiguity at all about his behaviour at any time since it could be divined simply by looking at the day's weather, which it was assumed he controlled, and for this reason of accessibility it was logiially assumed that he was best positioned to act as an intermediary between mortality and immortality as represented by the Norse pantheon. An important function ascribed to Thor was also removing the threat posed by forces which mankind could never counter, personified as "giants" in their own realm, and in which myths he is often accompanied by a fellow immortal representing initiation into warriorhood, the nearest he came to the concept at all.

Outside of Marvel comics, in other words, Thor was never a warrior - despite what "modern" paganism avers. He was however a great facilitator and operated as one of the principal catalysts between mankind and the forces of nature.

Here in Norway much has been written in recent years about the Americanisation of Norse legendary icons, and how restricted the American imagination is in its insistence that all to do with Norse mythology must translate into bellicosity at some primary level. We know that this is based on an equally ignorant understanding of Viking and pre-Viking society and a woeful underestimation of its complexity.

But more importantly, as a representation of how religionists simply make it up as they go along it is seen as a classic case study.

In Marvel comics he might approach the task as a warrior, right enough. In Norse mythology Ragnarak is a time of absolute pathos (Snurrilson used the term "svultsighetsdød" - the death of pomposity) when even the gods' endeavours to resist destruction brought about by humans are proved futile. It is an end-of-the-world scenario as you probably know, and one which lays waste to all hope, even that placed in the gods, which you obviously don't know.  It has its roots, it is believed, in earlier Indo-European mythology and beliefs in which universal destruction leads to the end of aspiration as humanly understood and fulfilment in a way which we cannot - a theme incidentally echoed in judæo-christian myth too.

He "fights" the serpent and dies in the myth, as do all the other gods who attempt to fight for their (and humanity's) survival. The two survivors "life" and "desire to live", portrayed in the legend as a male and female, survive because they do not fight but rather hide in Yggdrasil "the tree of the world". Their pacifist approach ensures a continuity into the next pantheonic era.

Warrior-myth my ass.

If you're going to insist on "adopting" an out-dated belief system's characters as your personal deities the least you could do is credit them with their appropriate character and function. See what I mean about making it up as you go along? I would maintain that attempting to buy into any religion is a retrogressive step intellectually, but attempting to regenerate an obsolete one with inappropriate and arbitrary modern values is even worse and can best be described as anti-intellectual in its wilful disregard for all intelligent sensibilities, both modern and ancient. Whatever flies your kite, I guess.

But I will admit that Tom Raney's artwork is cool.

And by the way, if the weather is warm and dry then Thor might be very displeased indeed - especially if it's the planting season in a land with an extremely narrow window of opportunity for cultivation and you're hoping your seeds germinate. You'd better go off and sacrifice a life form or something!

I have.

Your post raises some interesting aspects to the delusional mindset of the religionist, especially those who have invested their perceived deities with human characteristics. The notion that Thor is "pleased" or "displeased" is probably understandable as a subversion of the will to control one's environment. In a person ignorant of how that environment actually worked, such as pertained at the time your deities were given the pseudo-physical manifestation you have arbitrarily adopted now, such ignorance was normal. However the notion by extension that said deity then "moves around" and otherwise accords to human impulses and mannerisms is where delusion shows itself. Not being ill in that respect myself I of course can't tell you what a figment of your imagination is doing at any time, whether he has "gone anywhere" or whether you are privy or not to his whereabouts. Only you can answer that, but it is very interesting that you think you have made a valid challenge all the same.

Do you know what the word "ragnorak" (more correctly "ragnarøk" ) means by the way? If you say "Twilight of the Gods" then I'll have been confirmed correct in my previous assumption about how you have assimilated the information with which you feed your delusions, and I can recommend you may as well simply continue to inform those delusions with 19th century nationalistic and pseudo-psychological nonsense (or even better, by the swathe of "norse mythology" internet garbage out there) since - as with most religionists - anything more complex which suggests their naive faith in the supernatural is wrong doesn't get beyond the first brain cell anyway.

Which is a pity in your case since you obviously have an intellect, and one which might have been even better rewarded by a thorough and more productive education regarding norse myth and legend, the norse languages, and the insight these lend to better understanding ancient Indo-European cultural roots from which much of our modern language and culture evolved. Getting sidetracked in idol-worship, especially idols which are such pale imitations of the fantastic inventions they once were, is just a tragic waste of time and intelligence. But hey ho - if you get a buzz out of it what the hell.

I neither take it nor leave it that you describe yourself as a heathen. You are deluded, but at least have immersed yourself in a fantasy which - apart from damaging some animals unnecessarily - has very little negative impact on society as a whole. There's worse out there.

Doom of the Powers.

I assume nothing about you, except of course that which you have previously said. You have decided to adopt the Norse gods as your own gods.

You have said twice that I should educate myself, when I already have. Norse mythology is, to me, a much more fecund route of philosophical spore tracking back to the Indo-European root of much of our inherited culture than, for example, the Judæo-christian route, sidelined as it is by an historically attestible minority syndrome. Isolated sub-cultures provide contrast, not explanation.

But I fully understand that Norse mythology requires contextual placement before it can be understood. For that reason alone I would recommend not placing any belief in any of its deities at least before properly understanding why such deities were invented. It is a fascinating study (and informs the study of Old English in the process). But it is an intecllectual pursuit, and any deviation into religious adherence is an obstacle to that pursuit, not an advantage.

If your primary objective is to understand humanity's relationship with the world then you have chosen a good introductory subject. But you are going about it the wrong way if you think it requires that religious conviction is an antecedent to comprehension of the subject matter. You are better than that - and have proved it with your lucidity.

I'm not a theist, but if you're asking for why the christian god would incur this suffering, it's because he either deserved it, or was worthy of being tested by him.

I am reminded of the stories of Job and Joshua.

I'm sorry about your friend.  There is a philosophical answer to your question and a biblical answer.  

The philosophical answer to your question is that God is defined as that which is the greatest conceivable being.  The greatest conceivable being must have all positive properties.  For example, there are rational beings with finite knowledge and then there is omniscience.  Finite knowledge is imperfect while omniscience is perfection of knowledge. God, by definition, would be infinite in perfection (i.e. omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.)

According to Leibniz' law of identity, A is idenitical to B if A and B share the same properties.  Therefore, if the world was perfect, then the world would simply be identical to God himself.  But since the world is a distinct entity, it is imperfect by necessity.

Now you can argue, "Okay, it is not perfect, but could it not have been a little better than this?" Ultimately, you would be begging the question because you are presupposing some standard of good and evil and you would have to justify that position before you could make such an argument.  

The biblical answer to your question is that we live in a fallen creation due to original sin. This is not God's fault.  This was due to the misuse of human volition.  

Anyway, I really do not see that rejecting God would make your situation anymore comforting.  In fact, atheism really cannot offer you anything other than, "This sort of thing happens.  Your friend is dead.  Go see a psychiatrist and she'll help you get over it." Furthermore, nobody is really sorry that your friend is dead since our apologies and sympathies are based on nothing more than the chemistry of our brain and that nothing your friend did was ever really good because he could not have done it any other way.  It was all dictated by determinism.

As a theist, I would actually offer you the same advice but I would also offer you that there is more to existence than what we perceive and that your existence here is merely a blip on the radar of eternity.  Your friend's life is not gone.  He has merely moved on from his physical existence.  

This is the ontological argument. It was debunked centuries ago.

Re-define 'god,' if you please.

And all negative properties, if by 'greatest conceivable being' you mean 'a synonym for an infinite' or 'multi-omni' being. Which it seems like you do.

'Infinite', in this case, means nothing. It's an abstraction that we humans can never understand, and probably never will. And the fact that we can dream it up doesn't make it real- we can dream up any number of beings, states, things, whatever. That we have an idea of 'infinite perfect being' makes it no more true than does the fact that we have an idea of unicorns or Santa Claus.

How do you *know* that 'the world' isn't identical to god 'himself'? Maybe the pantheists are right. And/or; maybe god is immanent. Maybe god is not omni-benevolent (that would explain tapeworms and kandiru fish). Or maybe, just maybe, 'god' is a null category, a filler for the unknown.

This is funny- a god-believer invoking question-begging with regards to good and evil, yet not in regards to an impossible to detect or experience (except through 'revelation' or personal experience *snort*) realm that still HAS to exist because.... er... well, it's just self-evident, dammit! 

No, actually it was god's fault. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, he foresaw with perfect knowledge that humans would fall. He knew, without a doubt, that he would condemn certain people to hell and others to heaven- yet this is supposed to mean something, this is supposed to be justice.

That he then felt the need to come to earth to fix his own mistakes, act like he was doing this big favor for us, and STILL hang this awful threat over our heads after he supposedly made things all right, makes it even more ridiculous.

And even if you want to make the case for god not being the author of evil, he is still the one being who is allowing it to keep happening. At this point, you'll probably fall back on the standard 'it's to test us' or 'it's to prepare us for paradise.' But that's nonsense: with god all things are possible, right? So 'he' should be able to make a world where there is no sin, yet there is a choice; a world where we know, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt, that god exists (and where we can *positively* define what god is) and yet still be free, in some fashion, to be human.

Of course, this is also dependent upon the idea that the Garden story is true. If it isn't- that just throws the whole 'died for our sins' narrative into question.

Ah yes, I forgot- atheists have no morals because god didn't tell them that if they're not moral they're going to a place of eternal unpleasantness, or are at least cut off from god, forever; and that those who are moral get massive, eternal rewards.

Dude, where have you been for the past 150 years?!? Evolution explains where morality comes from. Hint: It ain't god.

We are social creatures because of evolution. We naturally make consensus decisions, we naturally want to get along (at least in our extended social groups- beyond that, it becomes an abstraction, and thus, morality is far more unevenly applied). Even before we were primates, probably, our ancestors survived because they could stick around and not cause harm to the social group. Those that didn't, got kicked out or were picked off at the periphery by predators.

This leads us to today's moral code: a combination of enlightened self-interest and consensus. Together these match up very well to the golden rule, yet they are absent the carrot-stick approach of most god-belief.

Just because it's based in the physical world, doesn't make it unreal. In fact, quite the opposite. All emotions come from the brain; the 'mind,' an abstraction, allows us to make sense of this brain chemistry. That you've got it backwards- that things seem more 'real' to you as abstractions that descend from above/beyond 'this world'- is to your detriment. And it shows your arrogance in feeling that you *know* what people need, what 'atheism' can give to people, and what is 'really' important.

And as a materialist, I would say 'show me.' If you had conclusive proof, it would revolutionize.... well, everything, really. I'd be amazed if you could actually even give a positive ontology for the supernatural.

It's a php based forum. That's what happens. You're just going to have to deal with it.

Also: Yankees Suck!

Wow.  I thought this thread had disappeared into the nether-regions of the net.  Guess I need to check my e-mail more often.  First, I want to thank all of you who have expressed your condolences, they are greathly appreciated.  My reason for the original question was not from the pain of losing a friend.  My anger with christians in particular and theists in general stemmed from comments I heard from believers and have heard too many times  in the past to count.  Comments such as "he's in a better place", "it's god's plan", "god needed him in heaven", "god's ways are too mysterious for humans to understand" and I don't know how many other ways people put such bullshit.  What I asked for was asked from the perspective of a believer, not just of the christian god but any other god or gods purported to care about what we mere mortals here on Earth do, think, say, eat, drink, shit and fuck.  I want to know specifically any good explanations any christian or theist can come up with that does not dismiss my intelligence by giving me platitudes that seem to come up whenever there is no good explanation for anything god does.

Theacrobat, you should have stayed an etheist.  There is little to no credible evidence, contemporary to jesus' time, that is extra-biblical, that he even existed.  My opinion of the writings that were put forth years after his supposed death is that they are merely fictional accounts of a popular idea that spawned a lot of writings on the subject. 

Let me ask you; how is suffering by a person "utlimately relatable to the image of christs crucifiction"?  "Hope, that all suffering is ultimately redeeming" is merely a delusion of those who are unable to accept the reality of the cycle of life and death.  I for one am comfortable with the idea of death being the ultimate end with nothing beyond this life.  I find it liberating to accept that there is no afterlife and that there is no god, gods, daemons, ghosts, angels, archangels that we must contend with not only here in this reality, but in a metaphysical realm as well.  I don't do well with worship and am impressed with very few people in this reality. 

I have met presidents, statesmen, sports figures, actors, and other celebrities and have only been impressed by two; Bob Marley whom I met before he died, and the Reverend Tutu.  Yeah, I know he's a beleiver but that was not what impressed me about him. He is short of stature but stands ten feet tall in his humility and wisdom.  There is a calm demeanor and a certainty in his belief in mankind that has nothing to do with religion.

Was my friend miserable, or a person of dispair?  Not particularly.  He could not understand, even though he believed the bullshit force-fed to children by christians, why god had singled him out and he knew he was missing out on a lot in life.  As I mentioned earlier, he was a big fan of Kiss and he always looked forward to receiving a Kiss catalog each fall.  There was joy in his life but he knew he was missing out on a lot because of his condition but could not understand what he had done to warrant such treatment.  He understood so-called "original sin" but, like me, thought that was so much bullshit.  No amount of logic can justify the idea that we all have to pay for the sins of adam and eve. 

No, I was not more dispair-ridden than he was.  I understand that things sometimes happen during fetal development that turns out badly.  Do I feel badly for those who were dealt a bad hand in life, so to speak?  Of course I do.  But, I don't assuage myself with a delusional belief in an invisible sky daddy who I can say is testing someone or who's reasons for doing what he does are beyond our meager abilities to understand and claim that a person's suffering will be rewarded in a next life for the strenght of his faith in that delusion.  I understand that it is simply something that happens and there is nothing that can be done about it at this stage of our understanding of the world we live in.  Perhaps if fundamentalist christians had not been able to impose their beliefs on the rest of the U.S. over the past eight years through a born-again president of limited intelligence, stem cell research might have found some clues to a treatment or cure for such things.

Ciarin, I don't think a god would be responsible for the suffering of millions of people everyday.  As you eventually noted in your disingenuous way, I am an atheist and do not believe in such bullshit.  However, christians and theists do believe in much of the myth surrounding gods, goddesses, and other metaphysical fantasies.  That is why I worded my question the way I did, so those less astute could grasp it.  And, while I did address the question primarily to christians I also directed it to those who believe in entities other than yahwey.  Now, while the Epicurean argument does not apply to the gods of your particular version of a religion, it does not mean that your version is any less absurd than the christian version.  Evidence of your religion is no different than evidence of the christian or any other religion.  Faith is not evidence, it is a refusal to think.  It is dogma based on nothing more than a desire for something more, something beyond this life, a desire for immortality.

All gods are inventions of primitive cultures with little understanding of the reality of their world.  Gods were invented to explain the unexplainable by individuals or groups who had deep-seated desires to impress his/their fellow primitives with inside knowledge and the power that comes with such knowledge.

BostonRedSox, your philosophical answer is nothing more than a reflection of the so-called biblical answer and does not begin to answer my question any more than any other response so far.  The Epicurean Argument definitely applies to your post.  Original Sin is nothing more than the church's effort to make people feel guilty so they will blindly accept whatever else is fed to them by ecclesiastical authority.  Before you start using the bible as authority you should read it from front to back, word for word and pay attention to what has been written.  First, take a few classes in critical thinking and then apply that to your read of the bible.  More atheists have been "created", if you will, from actually reading the bible instead of simply regurgitating some crap fed to them in church.  Most humans have an innate tendency to seek easy routes to knowledge and in doing so usually end up listening to someone tell them how to think.  This is a singularly pernicious tendency with theists and particularly those theists who believe in monotheistic religions.  Open your mind to reason.  BTW, your post is the same bullshit that set me off to begin with.  You did not answer the question, you simply regurgitated what you have been taught by a preacher/priest who may also have limited knowledge of what the bible actually says because he was indoctrinated as opposed to educated.  Most religious leaders have no more knowledge of the bible than any of their followers.  They can quote scripture out of conext with the best of them.  Re-read my question and then make another attempt to answer it.  This time without all the hocus pocus of the bible and claims of ominiscience, omnipresence, omnipotence.  These and original sin are non-starters.  Oh, and for the record, your brain chemistry may be meaningless but mine and most others are not.

The challenge is still out there.  Explain to my why your god or any god would visit such misery on people who may or may not worship him/her/it.  A solid reason not tired old platitudes that simply avoid to question.

Bull dog I know this is an old but I am sorry.

You are asking a very serious question and I think it deserves a serious answer. I fore warn this is not a nice neat answer, but it is the truth as I see it.

This is a cause and effect universe. There are systems in place that cause good things and bad. Biological systems, cosmological systems, ecological systems, and possibly others yet to be discovered that when interacted with have an effect rather good or bad. So, if we are assuming for a moment that God exist then we are left with the fact that sin has entered the world and we each have our share in the repercussions of that. That leaves us with one question: can we except that God has not shielded us from the effects of our actions and the actions of those who have came before us?

Hehehe.

Hahahahahaha.

Depends on the religion. Christianity is easy. Scientology is hard.

Hahaha.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

If there is a God, and he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, yes.

My own.

He/she is honest. Responsible. Hard-working. Compassionate. Etc.

What do you mean? What if what? Your question is too vague and ambiguous.

...Wait:

Nordmann, Thor's 'agricultural' hammer was, like, Mjollnir, right? The magical hammer that never missed a target when thrown at them? the magical hammer that was used to bust the chops of giants (and incidentally, also went right through a stone slab - a magical stone slab, if I recall - to hit a giant in the face despite his attempt to block the hammer. 'Cuz Mjollnir can't be blocked, 'cuz it's magic... and then Thor got hit by the shrapnel, and that's why he's always pissed-off...)

Norse mythology rocks. Hard.

You think agriculture in Scandinavia is frolicking lambs and bringing in the sheaves on cue? Believe me, you need one of those hammers on your side!

They didn't have capitalization grants and headage counts in those days. Agriculture was more ... well, basic.

Forgive me, Ciarin.  It's been quite a few years since I read any of the stories of the Norse gods I but I seem to remember one or more gods, not demons, who would cause problems, injuries or death to humans.  The Abrahamic god visits problems, injuries and death on humans.  I don't see the difference.  My question was quite specific, if somewhat wordier than this version; what moral reason could any god have for making or allowing my friend to have been born with a serious health problem?  You seem to know a lot about what your gods don't do, what do they do?  BTW, I completely agree with your sentiment that "the best thing we do for our dead is remember them, remember their story".

Blackroseseeker, read my question again then read your post.

BostonRedSox, I know I'm going to regret saying this, I don't hate god I simply do not accept his existence.  I don't see how one can hate what does not exist.  I'm not too thrilled with some of his (I'm talking about the Abrahamic god as I assume you are too) followers and I can think of more than a few who should be in prison (I'm against the death penalty, too) for the rest of thier lives.

I did not refute your argument because it was nonsense and I didn't try.  I simply stated my opinion of you and your post.  Original Sin is christian doctrine, not the word of god.  It is painfully obvious you have yet to read the book you believe in as there is not mention of original sin in any form in the book.  Once again I am suggesting that you take a few classes in critical thinking and then actually sit down and read the bible from the first page to the last, and don't skip the begats they're quite the exciting read.  That alone almost made me an atheist the first time I read the thing.  Ask some of the atheists on this site, a great number of them were christians until they actually read the bible.  It's impossible to not see glaring errors and contradictions throughout the bible, there are thousands of them.

To answer your question about whether the world would be a better place, I'll ask this.  What would be so wrong with a god who stopped all this from happening?  Isn't your god all powerful, loving and good?  Do you think the world is a better place because of famine and thousands of children dying of starvation?  Or do you think there's nothing wrong with that because god did it? You need some serious help.  People like you scare me. 

Correct, to state otherwise would be WILD speculation based on your own wishful thinking.

That's cold dude. I mean really, that's just mean.

The guy is clearly using a personal experience, which he finds emotionally significant, to spur a conversation. He's obviously pissed about the "better place" bullshit, total bullshit, and wants to get it out. The emotion which you conveniently use to demonstrate that he is "angry at god". You implying that he is somehow shitting on the memory of his dead friend is both wrong and really cruel.

On this we agree. Pretending, even for a moment, that miracles and super god powers exist is ridiculous. Until there is some kind of earth shattering evidence to the contrary, the god proposition will continue to get its due consideration... none.

Does God choose not to heal amputees or is he unable to?