15 mins worth of critical thinking is enough to totally destroy the Satan hypothesis:

The Implausibility of Satan

I often hear Christians talk about Satan, "The Great Deceiver". When I tell them that I am quite confident there is no such being, they ask me how can I be so sure? Therefore, I decided to write this article to explain why I find the existence of such a being to be extremely implausible.

So who is Satan? Satan is supposedly a powerful, supernatural being created by God. God intended Satan to be good. Yet Satan turned evil. How is it possible that God--from whom only good things come--created a supernatural being that turned evil? Right off the proverbial bat, this seems to make the idea of Satan hard to believe. Note that Matthew 7:18 says, "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit." How could the "bad fruit" of Satan have come from the "good tree" of God?"

Say that God did create this supernatural being that turned evil. How is it possible that an omniscient God would not know that Satan would turn evil? Actually, some have argued that God did know it would happen, so let's look at the question from both angles. If God did know Satan would turn evil, why would God have created Satan? If I made proverbial widgets, and I could tell that one of my widgets wasn't going to meet my needs, wouldn't I be a fool to make it anyway? If God knew his creation would turn evil, and created Satan anyway, doesn't that mean God wanted Satan to turn evil, or that He was at least ambivalent about it?

Some have said that Satan's turning evil was known, and taken into account in God's long-term plan. But why would an all-good God need an evil Satan in His long-term plans? One would think that an all-good God would be able to enact whatever plans He has without need of an evil super-being.

So what if God didn't know that Satan would turn evil? Wouldn't that mean that God is not omniscient? Some argue that because of free will, God's omniscience does not give God the ability to know what decisions will be made by His creations. So perhaps, by giving Satan free will, God did not know what Satan would do. But shouldn't a perfect God at least have considered the possibility and made some sort of contingency plan?

Let's move on and assume that somehow Satan did turn evil--whether or not God knew it would happen. Why did God not immediately destroy Satan? Or, if God doesn't want to destroy his own creations, why did God at least not immediately contain Satan, perhaps lock him up in hell? Or take away his supernatural powers? I think that Christians say that God will do this at the time of judgment. Why wait? Why let Satan do evil in the meantime? If God can stop Satan now, and doesn't, isn't God guilty of allowing evil? Isn't God acting as an accomplice to evil?

Now let's assume that there is some explanation for this. So we have Satan, a powerful being, who is intent on corrupting man. Why does Satan only do things surreptitiously? For example, why doesn't Satan shoot intense pain through every human on Earth until they confess their allegiance to him? I know that Christians say God acts as a "hidden God" because He wants to see if we will freely choose Him. But it seems unlikely that Satan, a pure evil being, would have any such motivation. So why doesn't Satan just come on down and kill everybody or do whatever evil he feels like?

Maybe God wouldn't allow Satan to act so bold? Then why does God let Satan operate surreptitiously? God allows Satan to do surreptitious evil? This doesn't seem to make any sense. One explanation, offered by apologist Dr. Hugh Ross, is that Satan is not allowed to tempt us more than we are capable of withstanding. So I suppose that means that nobody is ever successfully tempted by Satan, right? If they are, then by definition, they have been tempted more than they can withstand, right?

I suppose Dr. Ross is saying that Satan is only allowed to tempt us to the extent that God expects us to be able to withstand. But how could this really work? If Dr. Ross is right and God limits Satan's evil, then is Satan constantly asking God, "hey God, can I, like, shoot massive pain through Joe's body and see if that turns Joe against you?" And God says, "no, Satan, you may not." And then Satan asks, "well--can I, like, kill Joe's baby and see if that turns him against you?" And then God says, "oh, okay, Satan, I guess you can do that." You might think I'm being sacrilegious but the point is that, although some theologies may sound logical when you read them in a book, when you try to take them off the pages of the book and see how they work in actual practice, they are exposed as just being pat answers that have no real value.

[Note: If you think my pretend conversation between God and Satan is sacrilegious, a very similar conversation is depicted in the book of Job where Satan convinces God to allow him to kill Job's family and servants. So, if someone close to you dies, is it because Satan convinced God to let him kill them?]

It seems to me, then, that either option, Satan self-limits his evil for some reason or God limits Satan's evil, isn't very believable. But say I'm wrong, say that one or the other of these explains why Satan's evil is at least somewhat constrained. However, if Satan does anything at all to influence man, how can man be said to have free will, given that Satan has supernatural powers and we don't? How can God really expect us mere mortals to be able to withstand any temptation by a supernatural evil being? If Satan can use supernatural powers--even "a little bit" against us mere mortal humans--how can we truly have free will?

At least a few Christians believe, for example, that Satan placed fossils on Earth to mislead man into believing in evolution. I know that most Christians do not believe this, I simply found this a convenient example. So let's suppose that Satan did leave the fossils. If true, this would mean that we cannot believe anything we see, or any of what our senses tell us--they could just be satanic delusions. How can we have free will if there is nothing that we can know with certainty? Thus I say again, if Satan can use any of his supernatural powers against us, then free will does not exist.

By the way, does Satan not know that God is omnipotent? How dumb could Satan be to think that he could possibly win out against the omnipotent Creator, the Creator of everything including even himself? Some Christians say that Satan does know he will eventually lose, but that he just wants to take as many people down to hell with him as he can. But how could Satan have ever been dumb enough to even consider revolting against God, knowing full-well that he could not possibly win? And how could have a third of God's angels have been dumb enough to join Satan, as they too should have known from the beginning that they have no real chance to win?

Also, what is the reason for God not revealing Himself to us in obvious ways? When a skeptic asks that question, Christians will often answer that God feels that if we were to have absolute proof of His existence, we wouldn't have the free will to reject Him. Yet Satan, even though he had proof-positive of God's existence, was still able to choose to disobey God. So if Satan could have proof-positive of God and still have free will to disobey God, then why can't we have proof-positive of God?

Finally, if Satan could become evil because of free will, how will God ever solve the problem of evil? Couldn't tomorrow, some other creation of God use its free will to turn evil? Couldn't this continue to happen for all eternity? How can heaven be any better than Earth if it is subject to the same problem of free will allowing beings to choose evil?

Let me summarize. I don't believe an all-good God could have created a powerful, supernatural being that turned evil. But even if I am wrong, I don't believe an omniscient God could not have known it would happen, or at least make contingency plans. But if somehow this evil Satan did come to exist, I don't think that an all-good God would let Satan continue to do evil. But if God did let Satan continue to do evil, I don't think an all-evil super-being would be restrained or act surreptitiously--he would use his supernatural powers however he felt like it. But even if this evil being was for some reason at least somewhat restrained, the fact that he, having supernatural powers, could have influence over us mere mortals would mean that we don't truly have free will. So, from start to finish, the concept of an all-evil, super-being Satan is untenable.

"You couldn't make it up, could you? Utah must be run by total morons."

When you find out what Mormons really believe about the universe and how they came to be here you can understand how they could frame such legislation:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/659990/

Donated $100 dollars to DWB. They're a terrific charity to give money to.

Here's an interesting article re: cat intelligence:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/16/psychologist-test-outsmarts-cats

I'm fond of both species.

Those interested in gaining an insight into mindset of posters like Keddaw should check this site out:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Oh dear, time for some words of wisdom:

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming."- Skeptical Science website (http://www.skepticalscience.com/)

Steve, Quetz, Hungarian et al, what do you believe was the main motivation for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld waging war on Iraq in 2003?

Here are some questions for those who supported the 2003 Iraq war:

1.What was the attitude of the US government when Saddam was committing his worst atrocities ie. gassing the Kurds?
2.Who provided Saddam with his biological weapons agents?
3.Why did the US government not retaliate when Iraqi jets attacked the USS Stark killing 37 sailors?
4.Did the U.S. Commerce Dept licence US companies to provide essential equipment (eg vacuum pumps, electron beam welders, mass spectrometers, accelerometers, missile guidance systems, navigational radar, high speed computers and filling systems to load CB agents in missiles) to the Iraqi government for use in its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs?

I know there are people posting on this thread who are reflexively anti-Chomsky but Root2Squared is right to point out that if one should read Hitchens on the Iraq War then they should also read Noam:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080216.htm

I agree with phatblat. Root2squared's postings on AGW leave me scratching my head in confusion.

"Yes, that is the conventional narrative. Is it backed up by any evidence?"

Try this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/

As for Bliar, he's a war criminal pure and simple:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/14/tony-blair-ken-macdonald-deceit
-Edited

Here's some more bleatings from this IDiot:

Have a Very Intelligent Christmas and a Perceptive New Year! 20/12/2005


No, this is not an article about the dangers of over eating or drinking during the festive season. It’s not even about the books you should read or the games you should play over the holiday period. It’s about the essential significance of what Christians celebrate at Christmas.

You may have noticed recently the not-infrequent references in the media to ‘Intelligent Design’, or ID, a new emphasis among some scientists who believe that the natural world shows clear, scientific evidence of design arising from unevolved intelligence. Now to you and me that’s probably no big deal as it may be blindingly obvious to us that a universe as complex and beautiful as this must have a Creator. To think that the life and the universe came about purely by random chance and natural selection is a bit like saying that tornados hitting junk yards can produce functioning 747 aircraft.

But if you’ve noticed ID in the press, you’ll also have noticed that it is regularly dismissed with contempt and derision. ‘Creationist’ is the new politically and socially unacceptable position. It appears that to believe the universe has a Creator puts you in the category of the really stupid. I think not!

It is important to note that the proponents of Intelligent Design – and you’re going to hear a lot more about them in 2006 – argue their case from scientific not religious principles. Information and probability theory are among the approaches they have taken and their work poses a significant challenge to the scientific community. Although not based on religious or Biblical ideas, ID nevertheless has philosophical implications which go well beyond the realm of science. If there is a Designer of the Universe, what is He like and how can we know Him? These questions go well beyond ID, or any branch of science for that matter.

And that’s how we come to Christmas. We can only know who the Designer is and what He is like if He chooses to make Himself known to us. And the way in which God has revealed Himself to us is more wonderful than we could have imagined. He actually chose to become one of us in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. He came into our world to show us that God is loving and, especially through His eventual crucifixion, merciful and forgiving.

So, take time to think about the very special meaning for all of us of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated across the world at Christmas time and across the whole year in Christian churches. And, in doing so, make this Christmas and this New Year, in this particular sense, really Intelligent and Perceptive!

Alastair Noble

Mr Darcy wrote:
What "race" do the Irish belong to that most of Britain doesn't? How is this "race" defined? Red hair and freckles? Plenty of them in Scotland and England and Wales too."

The belief that Scotland, Ireland and Wales are celtic countries and that England is predominantly a germanic country is widespread. It is,however, false:
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/celtsall.txt
Edited for clarity.

The entire underlying theory of chiropractic is BOGUS, pure and simple.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirosub.html

For those not familiar with the racist/bizarre beliefs of the LDS check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nwEGsQM5CQ

Anyone reading this thread who belives that the US is a benign influence in the world and doesn't engage in terrorist activity should read this:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17209

Daftness, I believe you will find the answer to your chiropractic query here:

http://www.chirobase.org/07Strategy/goodchiro.html

I agree with Roman Bridger that the reasons for the hatred of the USA in the Middle East are principally political. Certainly, religion plays a role but this is exaggerated. Palestinian MP Hanan Ashrawi has pointed out that prior to the Israeli occupation of 1967, suicide bombings by Palestinians were unheard of.
The US has a long history of supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Arab world. It has also plotted to overthrow democratically elected governments (eg Iran in 1953) in the region. For an excellent analysis of US foreign policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, check this out:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--.htm

Reading this thread has made me think that maybe it's time to ditch the term atheist:

http://www.skepdic.com/essays/notanatheist.html

Chris Mooney has written an interesting book(I don't agree with his criticisms of RD) about the huge gulf between scientists and the general population in the US. Here's an interview with him:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2693486.htm

Anyone who doubts the bogus nature of chiropractic should read this:

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

This case has certain parallels with the Faurisson Affair of 1981:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm

To paraphrase Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

gbooster wrote:
"JFC it is getting scary here in the USA, I'm freaked out after watching the teabaggers rally and seeing constant comparisons of the Pres to Hitler and all the other ignorant shit they were spewing. Now we find out 1/3 of republicans in NJ think Obama is or could be the antichrist. WTF is going on?"

gbooster,I think you'll appreciate this rant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3XZb02g0TM&feature=popular

Here's an interesting analysis of the Obama/antichrist meme by The Guardian's Michael Tomasky:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/video/2009/sep/17/barack-obama-anti-christ-republicans

Arjen wrote "I hope Obama can get it together and introduce the States to some aspects of the 21st century, because if he fails, I’m afraid it is going to be a long story."

Jimmy Carter has waded in to the debate on Obama:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/jimmy-carter-you-lie-racist

I've posted a link to this op-ed by Johann Hari on another thread but it's just as relevant to this discussion:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-republicans-religion-and-the-triumph-of-unreason-1773994.html

Every year, 18000 Americans die because they lack healthcare. This is equivalent to SIX 9/11s EVERY 12 months. In any other industrialized democracy this would be a moral outrage. To paraphrase the pudding, libertarian Americans scare the shit out of me.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

"...if someone wants or needs health insurance they should get a fucking job and pay for it themselves. If it doesnt work out, tuff shit."
-russkid
Nice guy....

For an intelligent and informed analysis of the US healthcare system check this out:
http://www.zmag.org/zvideo/3233

I note that the above post by ApocalypseTank is his/her first. It seems he/she has created an account solely to criticize RD. Small things.....