HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » God lets babies die … so ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:59 PM

God lets babies die … so popular atheist and artist creates humanitarian fundraiser

By D. Beeksma
On November 25, 2012 At 1:30 am

"DarkMatter 2525" is a popular atheism channel on YouTube, featuring original cartoon works depicting basic criticisms that atheists have about theism. Dark Matter has over 73,000 subscribers on YouTube and his videos have been viewed almost 10 million times.

In his latest video titled God's Priorities 2 (embedded below), the talented artist points out that while many seek superficial help from their god, such as God helping them get hooked up with a romantic partner via ChristianMingle.com, 19 infants and toddlers die every minute, suffering pointlessly while an omnipotent god does nothing to help. His video also points out that all of the prayers beseeching God to make Republican Mitt Romney win the U.S. presidential election were useless and that given the Republican platform's opposition to the Affordable Health Act, it should be noted that the United States ranks 50th in the world for infant mortality, lagging behind the countries which offer universal health care.

"They did nothing wrong," DarkMatter says of all the babies who have died, including his own child who died in 2009. "Such suffering only makes sense when we realize that nature is indifferent and that either there is no god or at least there is no personal, omnipotent god."

Viewers can watch DarkMatter create a sketch of President Obama as he discusses the commitment that he and his wife have in donating to the March of Dimes, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to improving the health of babies.

http://www.goddiscussion.com/104495/god-babies-march-of-dimes/

Why would suffering make sense if nature is indifferent?

21 replies, 1631 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply God lets babies die … so popular atheist and artist creates humanitarian fundraiser (Original post)
rug Nov 2012 OP
gtar100 Nov 2012 #1
rug Nov 2012 #2
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #3
redgreenandblue Nov 2012 #4
rug Nov 2012 #6
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #10
gtar100 Nov 2012 #11
rug Nov 2012 #12
gtar100 Nov 2012 #20
dmallind Nov 2012 #13
rug Nov 2012 #14
dmallind Nov 2012 #15
rug Nov 2012 #16
dmallind Nov 2012 #17
rug Nov 2012 #18
dmallind Nov 2012 #19
rug Nov 2012 #21
JKingman Nov 2012 #5
rug Nov 2012 #7
JKingman Nov 2012 #8
rug Nov 2012 #9

Response to rug (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:27 PM

1. Nature is not indifferent if we are not.

It's up to us to bring consciousness and compassion to this world. No amount of prayer is as effective as an act of kindness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gtar100 (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:29 PM

2. EIther way, it's anthropomorphizing inanimate objects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:54 PM

3. It couldn't be that anthropomorphy is the correct moral/philosophical view?

Quantum theory seems to indicate that the universe may be here because we are able to observe it, if that is the case then why not anthropomorphy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:15 PM

4. I think that is a mis-characterization of quantum theory.

We do not in fact now what constitutes an observation in quantum theory. Whether a conscious entity is necessary is not certain. Some authors suggest that an observation is an interaction between a quantum system and a semi-classical system (a quantum system with large complexity carrying many energy quanta), in the limit that the back-reaction of the smaller system on the larger system is negligible.

Requiring consciousness as a pre-requisite for reality seems very anthropocentric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:24 PM

6. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:58 PM

10. Your argument is convincing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:09 AM

11. You appear to be separating yourself from nature.

You are as much an expression of nature as anything else natural around you. Because we ourselves have compassion and a longing for justice, it is in nature. We didn't invent these things and we aren't the only species to have them. Our uniqueness is in our expression of them, not that we are the sole carriers of them. So unless you're saying that I'm anthropomorphizing people (?) I'd say you're missing my point. If we try to project these things onto mythological characters and then say they are the source, then we're looking for answers in the wrong place (I think you would agree). Our desire for justice is in our nature. That is my assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gtar100 (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:16 AM

12. No, but I'm not attributing my characteristics to the universe either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:54 PM

20. Nor am I being so generic. But, to coin a phrase or two,

"You didn't build that!" and "we stand on the shoulders of giants." I'd be little more than a troglodyte (if even that much) if it weren't for all the influences around me that have grown through history from a very ancient past. Same for all of us. I didn't make "compassion" per se, or that "sense of justice" we share. That wasn't me, though I can partake in them (or not... damn that concept of freewill).

My main point is that we are not separate from nature and what we do is as much an expression of nature as is the wind. So if nature seems indifferent to our concerns, we have the power in us to change that... or be indifferent ourselves. The original post I think reflects that. It didn't take a religion to inspire this person to action, just his own sense of wanting to do good (I'm sure there's more to the story, but that's the gist of it) . I think that's pretty cool. And though nature seemed indifferent, by his very actions he has proven otherwise.

I believe we make a fundamental mistake when we separate mind from nature, though it does help us in discussing the matter. But that's hardly an original thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:09 PM

13. Indifference is unique to neither humanity nor animate objects

Indifferent refers to a lack of concern, or partiality. Pretty much definitive of anything that has no ability to have concern or partiality.

How is claiming such an attribute anthropomorphism? Tautology I could accept maybe. But how can he be assigning human qualities to an object by using a word that means the lack of...a very human quality?

Is your concern perhaps instead with using nature as a singular noun? That's just a semiotic habit no more indicative of assigning an agency to the natural world than saying "it's raining" means there is an entity referred to by "it".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 06:04 PM

14. Really? How is a rock indifferent?

in·dif·fer·ent


adjective

1. without interest or concern; not caring; apathetic: his indifferent attitude toward the suffering of others.

2. having no bias, prejudice, or preference; impartial; disinterested.

3. neither good nor bad in character or quality; average; routine: an indifferent specimen.

4. not particularly good, important, etc.; unremarkable; unnotable: an indifferent success; an indifferent performance.

5. of only moderate amount, extent, etc.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indifferent

I am particularly amused by the first definition as applied to a rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:46 AM

15. How is it not?

For a rock to not be indifferent it would have to have bias or concerns interests, from your own cite.

A rock has none of those things. Really can't see how it could be anything but indifferent myself.

The meaning used in the article is contained in the first two usages listed. Every single word applies to rocks. More germane, the words also apply to diseases, bacteria, and other causes of infant death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:19 PM

16. To be indifferent, something first have to know things differ.

Rocks don't know anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:54 PM

17. Utter tosh. Does a baby need to understand differential diagnosis to be asymptomatic?

There is nothing implicit or explicit in any relevant meaning of the word that necessitates a choice being made to be indifferent, or the ability to not be indifferent.

Again, the very worst accusation that can be leveled at the article is the redundancy of the phrase from a naruralistic point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:58 PM

18. Utter tosh? I'm not the one claiming rocks can be indifferent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:54 PM

19. It's utter tosh to claim they can be anything BUT - and your own cites bear that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:31 PM

21. I must stop now. The lamp is glowering at me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:59 PM

5. So raising money for charities disgusts you?

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic here, (never have found much of any), but you are objecting to a professed atheist showing the fallacies of religious thinking in a cartoon as part of an effort to raise money for a charity?

Again, what is your objection here? Fund-raising for charities, or thinking and motivational efforts that are different from your own?

By the way, this clip was posted yesterday in another forum. Have you given credit to that post? Or are you simply offended that an atheist attempts to raise money for charity by means other than those you would choose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:25 PM

7. To the contrary, people who try to put words in my mouth disgust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:31 PM

8. Then perhaps you could attempt to explain the purpose of this thread

 

in plain English?

I don't see a purpose, other than the highlight a group of people who think differently than you do, and to bring public shame upon them simply for their different ways of thinking.

Your motivations are questionable, but I respect your rights to be disgusted by anything you voluntarily choose to be disgusted over.

If one did NOT see the glaring differences between a supposed "Christian" who hid his religious beliefs in order to gain the Presidency and the overt efforts of Obama to live a Christian-like life, and the intentional spoofing (by a Brit) of Obama over the Twinkies, (all to raise a few dollars for innocent children whose lives include suffering), then I'm afraid your sense of humor is a bit stunted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:58 PM

9. Two reasons.

First, some atheists do more than simply not believe (dare I say they have atheism plus something?). Sorry if giving that publicicity causes your knee to jerk. Why don't you donate or bid on his art once your knee settles down?

Second, his attribution of a human quality to nature struck me as odd.

And you are the last person to question anyone's motives. BTW, your capital letters are showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread