What kind of atheist are you? (page 9)

BrendaCloutier

Brenda,
To deny existence is to accept that a thing may have existed.

I don't think that's true. There may be some cases where it is, but it is certainly not a general principle. For example, say someone posits the existence of gremlins who hide my car keys every night. You'd probably feel justified in balking at that proposition without giving it much thought. You deny my gremlins exist. Such denial does not indicate anything more than your disbelief that they exist.
SNG

SNG, the operating portion of my sentence is MAY have existed. Gremlins may exist. (I happen to believe my keys take trips without me.) And they may be just a pigment of abomination (sorry, I love wordplay). However, even if the existence is only in faerie tale, it exists in someone's mind. Sorta like god... god exists in bible, and in the minds (and some hearts) of those who believe. To the athiest, god exists in the bible and in the minds of those who believe. Real, perceived, or faerie tale. So, to disbelieve something, someone had to believe it first. Doesn't make it "real". (Of course this is leaving out those who have a belief structure based on unreproducable or unprovable experience as with LT, myself, and others who are "believers" of sorts.) LT I like your "placeholder" concept.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hillary_Step,

I believe this is the crux of the problem: the mistaken idea that God in the OT is violent but in the NT is all love. The acts of war or other violent events in the OT are not the only things recorded there. There are many loving words and acts attributed to God in the OT. YHWH in the OT is also a God of love. That is all too quickly forgotten many times. In the NT God's love is manifested through his son, and through his son a way was opened for a personal relationship of sonship with God. Jesus was the exact representation of his Father. As such his love reflected his Father's love, yes, that love that was evident in the OT was now seen in action right before their eyes. Striking it was! Beautiful it was! But another thing is also forgotten when the NT itself is discussed. And that is that Jesus spoke of something else besides love he also spoke of destruction of the wicked. Jesus also spoke of war in the book of Revelation.

So this idea that the OT God is violent and the NT God is all lovie dovie all the time is not an accurate portrayal of either the OT or the NT

You balk at the idea of AlanF defining God in human terms and using such terms as 'monster' to describe a person who in your view is above such definitions, and yet the Bible itself defines God is such terms,

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. My only objection was to AlanF's claim that if the Christian God is a monster that then means he does not exist. To claim something does not exist simply because we have formed a bad opinion of it, is not logical. It was that line of thinking I questioned. I did not voice an objection to his use of the word "monster" when he referred to God.

God is absolutely described/defined in human terms in the Bible this is not only well known but of course necessary because if he were described in terms or ways not of this world how would we understand him? I have no objection to defining God in human terms. I only have an objection to speaking about God in black and white terms. He is neither always violent nor is he always spreading hugs and kisses to everyone he meets. Jesus didn't and neither does his Father.

Either God is defined in human moral terms and learns to live with the consequences of that, or God then becomes an amoral pantheist ( imho if God exists then it is in an a patheistic amoral guise ) but you cannot have it both ways.

Here's how I think of it. Is a good father good when he gives little Johnny all the toys he wants and lets him do whatever he wants? But then is that same father bad because the next day he tells little Johnny, "No, son. Today I'm not buying any toys. And if you climb on the fence again you're going to get spanked." I suppose then from Johnny's point of view his father is "an amoral pantheist" one day he's all good and the next all bad and Dad is just going to have to live with the consequences of Johnny's moral evaluation of him. It would be better though if Johnny realized that his father cannot be put in a black and white box. And that maybe he does not see the whole picture.

Sabrina

SixofNine

:Here's how I think of it. Is a good father good when he gives little Johnny all the toys he wants and lets him do whatever he wants? But then is that same father bad because the next day he tells little Johnny, "No, son. Today I'm not buying any toys. And if you climb on the fence again you're going to get spanked." I suppose then from Johnny's point of view his father is "an amoral pantheist" one day he's all good and the next all bad and Dad is just going to have to live with the consequences of Johnny's moral evaluation of him. It would be better though if Johnny realized that his father cannot be put in a black and white box. And that maybe he does not see the whole picture.

An analogy about Johnny and toys, vs, Johnny not getting toys, to compare with God directing humans to slaughter other humans and take possesion of their virgin daughters, is a SHIT FOR BRAINS analogy. It insults my intelligence and sense of decency.

frenchbabyface

Calm down Six you smartass ! I'm with you on this one for sure ... Geeez such anology is just a JW's bullshit like

Greenpalmtreestillmine

SixofNine,

An analogy about Johnny and toys, vs, Johnny not getting toys, to compare with God directing humans to slaughter other humans and take possesion of their virgin daughters, is a SHIT FOR BRAINS analogy. It insults my intelligence and sense of decency.

Think and believe what you want. I make no apologies. Look, mankind is a hole. Through one end enters the food out the other comes what's left. Don't give me any higher than thou standards.

As for SHIT FOR BRAINS that is the best description I've seen on this board for mankind him/herself.

See ya!

Sabrina

seattleniceguy

Hey Green,

Here's how I think of it. Is a good father good when he gives little Johnny all the toys he wants and lets him do whatever he wants? But then is that same father bad because the next day he tells little Johnny, "No, son. Today I'm not buying any toys. And if you climb on the fence again you're going to get spanked."

I don't think your analogy is very accurate. An analogy that more closely represents what is in the Bible would be a father that helps his kids kill the neighboring kids, including innocent children who did nothing wrong. The father would indeed punish his own children, but a lot of times he would do so arbitrily and then feel bad about it later.

I have a hard time imagining how you can actually say that the God of the OT is loving. If a human acted like the Bible depicts him as acting, he would be called a psychopath.

Look, mankind is a hole. Through one end enters the food out the other comes what's left. Don't give me any higher than thou standards.
As for SHIT FOR BRAINS that is the best description I've seen on this board for mankind him/herself.

Why all the self-loathing? I think it's preventing you from looking at the issues clearly.

The people with whom you've had the main arguments on this thread, namely, AlanF, HS, and SixOfNine, have all been trying to say just one thing: The OT paints God as about as cruel and arbitrary a figure as we can imagine. There are logical implications to this, but you haven't been able to see them because you can't even allow yourself to come to grips with that simple reality.

Just my two cents.

SNG

SixofNine

: I make no apologies.

No, of course not. The irksome part however, is that you make no sense.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Seattleniceguy,

The analogy was meant to promote a reality check. Humility is a good thing. It was this feature of the analogy that got SixofNine all worked up it seems. I do not loathe mankind, on the contrary I love him. But it does help sometimes to be reminded of our simpleness. We are nothing more than an earthworm with a brain and hands capable of fashioning tools. This is not self loathing so much as the reality of our situation.

Okay, the God of the OT:

The God of the OT makes many, many more pronouncements against the hypocrisy of his own people than he does of those who are not his people. And he also shows his love and tender heart.

Jeremiah 7:31, "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart."

Malachi 2:13, "And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant."

Deuteronomy 10:16-19, "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

A careful reading of the scriptures above yields an interesting comparison with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. Yes, God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Sabrina

Greenpalmtreestillmine

SixofNine,

No, of course not. The irksome part however, is that you make no sense.

LOL, then you are in grand company since AlanF and Hillary_Step agree with you! Congratulations!!

No sense, Sabrina.

SixofNine

: Humility is a good thing. It was this feature of the analogy that got SixofNine all worked up it seems.

How dishonest of you. How VERY dishonest of you.

Go back and read, and see what I made clear is so disgusting to me about your attitude and your analogies. It doesn't have anything to do with humility, though if you had even an ounce of it, you'd think pensively for as long as it takes for you to come to an honest, coherent belief about god. Hell, you're so quick and happy to ascribe disgusting behaviour to him, that I almost feel sorry for any god you choose to represent.

What kind of atheist are you?

Share this