To My Fellow Atheists...

by Pika_Chu 77 Replies latest social humour

  • SweetBabyCheezits
    SweetBabyCheezits

    [email protected] pikachu. Raptor Jesus loves you but also demands your praise and adoration.

    fadeout: When "God's" definitions of "good" and "evil" are used, entirely new standards are created for good and bad. Suddenly, rape and genocide may not be evil anymore, but good or even necessary.

    Eloquently put, sir. The frustration with the argument that "god's ways are higher than our ways" (or "who am I to question GOD") is almost more than I can take.

    cofty: Just be honest god is your sockpuppet.

    Should we read some sexual connotation into that?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Well, I wouldn't say I IGNORE God, so much as I would say I legitimately do not hear him TALKING. Having said that, though, I suppose the miscommunication error COULD be on my end, with God talking on the other end. But "could-have-beens" are not proof to me. They are possiblities, but not likelihoods and certainly not definites.

    I know that for me, and we can only speak for ourselves, there were times I ignored God, I heard His voice clear, telling me what I OUGHT to do, How I shouldn't do this or that and I ignored him, I can be honest about that.

    I don't know if that is the case with you or anyone else and I can't ever know that, only you can.

    I know that for the longets time I was angry at God and even indifferent ( which is worse) and it was because I didn't hear God or see any of the signs that believers keep saying I should have seen, "they are all around' you they would say, "you just need to listen to God" they would say.

    Well guess what? I was fucking listening and I never heard shit !

    Yeah, I can sympathise my friend, I really can.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    But how does one differentiate God speaking vs that person's own internal thoughts/subconcious? Why is god so ambiguous that some of us can't tell the difference or don't recognize it? I want my kids to know I'm here for them, without question. I don't care if they aren't ready to hear it or don't want to hear it.
    If god exists, he deserves the ultimate hide-and-seek award.

    Tell me about it !!

    How many horrific things would be avoided if God just simply "spoke up" ?!?!

    The problem is that while we speak to our kids and we want them to know that we are there for them, without question or conditions and that our love is unconditional and we CAN do that DIRECTLY, the reason we can do that is because we do NOT effect their freewill in doing those acts.

    Let's be honest, God is not US, IF God is truly THE GOD, omnipotent and omniscient, would not God's every word be an order? woudl not God's every whim be Law?

    God leads us not by orders nor by demands, but by love and love can never be forced, it can never be used to coherce, it can't come crashing in and forcing itself.

    Of coruse this is simply my view and I may be wrong and as you know I try mu best to never force my view or say that I am right and everyone that disagrees is wrong, I just put out my opinion, like we all do.

    But I know that, for me, if God came crashing in to your lives and said "THIS IS HOW IT IS", that is NOT a God I would want, would you?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Eloquently put, sir. The frustration with the argument that "god's ways are higher than our ways" (or "who am I to question GOD") is almost more than I can take.

    Actually, we are all quite capable of "judging God", we are mad ein God's image as such, we do know right from wrong, we do know the difference between what we do and what we ought to do and that goes for God too.

    I think it is right to question a God that kills and slaughters animals and children, lives that has yet to do anything to deserve being destryoed.

    I do think it is right to use reason and rational to try reconcile God with the acts attributed to God.

    If one believes that God is a God of Love and that in God there is no darkeness then one must reconcile that with the acts attributed to him.

    You can't walk around that 3000lbs gorilla in the room.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    The site is not worth tackling. The whole point of the site is that God cannot be disproved, even just logically, because the rules and the philosophies and the science don't apply to Him. Whatever you point out, they will just say God is above that, you cannot understand God.

    I know that the God of the Bible has clearly been disproven "beyond a reasonable doubt." But they will argue that "reasonable doubt" to death.

    If God needs to be proven by anecdotes and philosophy and dismissing of logic, then that's because there is no real proof. But you are on one side of a fence and believers are on the other. Save your energy.

  • glenster
    glenster

    "How to Think About God (a Guide for the 20th Century Pagan)" by Mortimer Adler

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler#God
    http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-God-20th-Century/dp/0020160224

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    The whole point of the site is that God cannot be disproved, even just logically, because the rules and the philosophies and the science don't apply to Him. Whatever you point out, they will just say God is above that, you cannot understand God.

    God can't be disproved, this is true, neither can different dimensions, paralell universes, dark matter and a slew of other theoritical stuff.

    Of course we can't prove any of those things either but that doesn't stop scientists from believing in them.

    I have never been a fan of the "can't disprove" argument, it seems rather pointless.

  • Pika_Chu
    Pika_Chu

    God can't be disproved, this is true, neither can different dimensions, paralell universes, dark matter and a slew of other theoritical stuff.

    Of course we can't prove any of those things either but that doesn't stop scientists from believing in them.

    I have never been a fan of the "can't disprove" argument, it seems rather pointless.

    Hi, PSac. Sorry I disappeared there. I would have to disagree that God can't be disproved. Well, it depends on what kind of proof we have in mind. I mean, I can't DIRECTLY disprove the existence of God just like I can't directly disprove that teapots are orbiting Jupiter. But the fact that such things lack POSITIVE evidence, indicates, to me, that there's no reason to believe it anyway. Not enough evidence to warrant such conlusions. It's just the philisophical side of things, if you ask me, that disproves certain gods. I mean, there's no such thing as a square circle. If God has self-contradictory traits, that doesn't make sense. No matter how much he's supposed to transcend our knowledge and our universe. That's just making excuses by saying "God is not restricted to x," "God doesn't exist in dimension y," "God is not contingent upon physical law z." There's an infinite number of ways we can refute atheological arguments by using "God is not..." type arguments, but a God who exists should leave some positive evidence behind. At best, these negative-trait comments are saying "you can't DISPROVE God." And that is not proof. It saves God from impossibillity, but it adds nothing to his possibility.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Hi, PSac. Sorry I disappeared there. I would have to disagree that God can't be disproved. Well, it depends on what kind of proof we have in mind. I mean, I can't DIRECTLY disprove the existence of God just like I can't directly disprove that teapots are orbiting Jupiter. But the fact that such things lack POSITIVE evidence, indicates, to me, that there's no reason to believe it anyway. Not enough evidence to warrant such conlusions. It's just the philisophical side of things, if you ask me, that disproves certain gods. I mean, there's no such thing as a square circle. If God has self-contradictory traits, that doesn't make sense. No matter how much he's supposed to transcend our knowledge and our universe. That's just making excuses by saying "God is not restricted to x," "God doesn't exist in dimension y," "God is not contingent upon physical law z." There's an infinite number of ways we can refute atheological arguments by using "God is not..." type arguments, but a God who exists should leave some positive evidence behind. At best, these negative-trait comments are saying "you can't DISPROVE God." And that is not proof. It saves God from impossibillity, but it adds nothing to his possibility.

    Our relaity is base don our perception of reality as we know it, as we expereince it.

    We can't know anything outside our perception of reality, everything we know, we know by experience.

    But you make a valid point when you say that IF God does exist we must have SOME positive evidence for this.

    Now I ask you, what positive evidence would work for you?

  • Pika_Chu
    Pika_Chu

    @Psac, like I said before, if he spoke to us, and I'm not talking about personal revelation. I mean, if he talked to all of us, directly, we would have a degree of objectivity. I know that you exist because I interact with you on the Internet, and others do as well. If someone asks you a question, you answer it. I'm going to bet that you exist because I am not the only one who hears you. Normally, people don't have to try very hard to prove someone exists; it's usually much easier. If God wants people to believe in him, why hide away in another dimension, invisible, imperceptible, and speaking to us indirectly by giving "signs" and "his word" and only talking to SOME of us? The mere fact that so many atheists exist in the world (and given that their atheism is based on rationality), raises serious questions as to why God only talks to people selectively, especially people WHO ALREADY believe in him. What we expect shapes what we see.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit