If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2013, 04:55 AM
 
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(26-09-2013 03:05 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I suggest the OP read the scriptures and highlight all the passages which portray God as merciful, kind, giving and loving. If you focus on these positive aspects of God it might help to even out some of your bias.

Then why are we all considered "sinners" - why doesn't God focus on the positive aspects of our personalities? Consider
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Philosoraptor's post
26-09-2013, 04:58 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(26-09-2013 04:55 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 03:05 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I suggest the OP read the scriptures and highlight all the passages which portray God as merciful, kind, giving and loving. If you focus on these positive aspects of God it might help to even out some of your bias.

Then why are we all considered "sinners" - why doesn't God focus on the positive aspects of our personalities? Consider

'Cause there ain't no positive aspect to your personality. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 05:43 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(26-09-2013 04:34 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In case you had not noticed Thor, Zeus, Osiris were gods who people believed created the universe. The existence of emotions some of which we attribute to good and others we attribute to evil are specific evidences of a moral force in the universe which can define what is good and what is evil. We can call this moral force god for the sake of convenience, but we can know for certain that the material forces of atheistic evolution do not provide any moral force. In fact atheists have no argument to explain how good thoughts of joy, love and peace exist. How is it that men can delight in the beauty of music, rainbows, sunsets and art? Atheism has no answer and the only answer is that these are all privileges of created mankind granted by a profound moral force which we may as well call God. Having established that there is a God who has given us these things it is then an additional question to discover the exact nature, motivation and name of this God/gods.

There is no evidence of a 'moral force'. And atheism doesn't explain anything as it is not a philosophy or scientific theory, merely a lack of belief in gods.

However, evolutionary theory does have explanations for emotions and other mental processes. If you would learn some science, you would understand that and possibly stop making such ignorant statements.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-09-2013, 05:58 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 06:33 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
Hello X-Cubed. I'm pleased to see that you stopped ignoring me like a 2 year old toddler because I was "blasphemous."

Ok, fine. How about if I don't focus on passages of the Bible at all then. That way I can't be accused of "focusing" on the negative. Lets just look at the universe around us as evidence of god's "kind and wonderful nature" shall we? If god exists, he has abandoned you and me.

Jt Eberhard describes this perfectly. As well as an article Why God Won't Heal Amputees. Christians are left to constantly defend god's apathy.

If you passed a starving child on the streets of Vietnam, you would stop what you were doing, and do everything you could to feed that child. yet god is either unwilling or unable (or both) to feed that child. Every HUMAN innovation, every invention, every advancement of technology is a testament to god's apathy, or his incompetence. You see, either god intervenes or he doesn't. You can't say, "well thats free will....." and then go on to tell me that unexplained medical recoveries are "miracles". Because thats counting the hits, and ignoring the misses.

Why won't god heal amputees? There are children who are born without arms, and they haven't sinned, why not?

For every unexplained medical recovery, there are unexplained medical sickness and death.

for a god to make me how I am, with a brain that is unable to chose beliefs, and than make heaven and hell continent on doing just that is a god that opens doors to hell - instead of closing doors. and that is a god that has abandoned you.

I can admire the beauty of a rainbow all day, or the sunset, or the complexity of the world all day, and I do! The world can be beautiful! There can be geniune kindness and cooperation of the universe. Usually that kindness comes from tangible things.

but if god takes credit for the beauty of the world, he must take credit for the climatic knife edge by which it was built upon. We can have 1,000,000,000 raindows. It doesn't negate the deaths of children from bone cancer.

I believe that you are sick. only a sickness and virus of the mind like this would allow you step your ass into a pediatric cancer ward and out of the 50 children in there, focus on the one child that is getting better (by human hands I might
add) and see the beauty of god's hand in that instead of seeing him as culpable.

I know that feelings of love, feelings of fear, and feelings in general, are nothing more than the correct balance of chemicals and hormones in your brain. There are people who have every reason in this world to be happy, but are sad instead. Why? They have clinical depression and don't produce enough serotonin and beta blockers to feel happiness. I'm sorry if my clinical approach to looking at happiness takes the mystery and the wonder out of it for you, but its not a negative point for me if my answers don't make you happy.

Ironically, i am happy when i look at the reality of the world. It gives me a tangible explanation for things instead of that stupid, "its god's plan." No, my child didn't die because heaven needed an angel. My child died because he was strangled by the umbilical chord in utero. He wasn't strangled as a part of god's plan. He was strangled because he moved around as he was suppose to and it got wrapped around his neck. That is infinitely more comforting for me to know the truth of what happened, then to speculate on something that just isn't true.

Now - you have made the mistake of assuming that all atheists only focus on the negative aspects of the world. Nope. thats not it at all. we focus on the positive, but we give credit where credit is due. We marvel and applaud the HUMANS that accomplish this. When I see someone being carried out of a burning building in NYC, or a fire that is contained and doesn't spread....I do not see god's hand, I see the FDNY.

Your kind of virus is what makes good parents, who genuinely want their sick child to get well, pray instead of calling 911. The parents of Kara Neumann, for example, loved their child. They had a bad idea of how the universe works, though. And their virus of the mind did not allow them to attribute medical advancement to the people actually responsible for it, but rather it allowed them to attribute medical advancement to god instead. and god failed. Kara died a horrendously painful death at age 11 from a treatable medical condition because her parents opted to pray. Now you may say that those people aren't real Christians, but if belief in god and jesus christ by definition simply makes you Christian. Even the liberal Christians who don't buy into 100% of every thing, are still promoting the mechanism that creates people like Kara's parents.

Why do you focus only on the negative arguments of atheists? Why do you not see the good despite not believing in god. Do you applaud Doctors Without Borders? You see not believing in god to be a negative thing...but what if thats actually a positive thing?

Like I said originally, if simply not believing, despite all the good charity work I do (I run a Search and Rescue K9 team that is considered a charity because its a free service provided to the community), is what buys my ticket to hell, irrespective of any morally good life I've lived, then god is a dick.

Thats blasphemous for me to call god an asshole, right, X-cubed? But - if god exists - thats exactly what he is. He chose not to make belief in him innate...as innate as hunger and thirst. That makes him culpable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Cathym112's post
26-09-2013, 05:58 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(26-09-2013 04:34 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 03:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There mere existence of these emotions that we enjoy is not any more proof for your god, than they are proof for the existence of Thor, Zeus, Osiris, or Cthulhu.
In case you had not noticed Thor, Zeus, Osiris were gods who people believed created the universe. The existence of emotions some of which we attribute to good and others we attribute to evil are specific evidences of a moral force in the universe which can define what is good and what is evil. We can call this moral force god for the sake of convenience, but we can know for certain that the material forces of atheistic evolution do not provide any moral force. In fact atheists have no argument to explain how good thoughts of joy, love and peace exist. How is it that men can delight in the beauty of music, rainbows, sunsets and art? Atheism has no answer and the only answer is that these are all privileges of created mankind granted by a profound moral force which we may as well call God.

The existence of emotions are evidence of... wait for it... the existence of emotions! Everything else beyond that needs additional evidence and justification. Emotions in and of themselves is not sufficient evidence for what you are claiming, it is a simple non sequiter. Also, fuck your disingenuous bullshit. Your don't really believe that your god, the god of the Bible, is just a fluffy metaphor for emotions. I'm am not going to let you argue for a vague deistic or pantheistic amorphous god-concept, just so you can latter pull a William-Lane-Craig and swap out that simple concept for the specific god of the Bible and all the trappings that come with it (Hell, salvation, Jesus, etc.). If you want to argue for a deist or a pantheistic god, then you need to drop all of the anthropomorphic bullshit and the entirety of the Bible, because the god of the Bible is not a deistic or pantheistic god. If you want to argue for the god of the Bible, then we're dealing with a traditionally anthropomorphic omni-max being that intervenes in the world and passes judgement in the afterlife; it is NOT simply 'emotions'.

Also there is an evolutionary explanation for morality, you just don't care enough to go looking for it. Not that I'd expect you to understand it, as science generally requires a rudimentary education and a grasp on logic to understand.







(26-09-2013 04:34 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Having established that there is a God who has given us these things it is then an additional question to discover the exact nature, motivation and name of this God/gods.

You have done no such thing, you have merely asserted the existence of your god concept (that you've never consistently defined). Assertion does not a fact make. If you really do think you've actually 'proven' anything, then all you have 'proven' is your own intellectual ineptitude.



(26-09-2013 04:34 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 03:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The lack of any evidence is also a HUGE part of it.

This is a ridiculous answer. My point bucko is that atheists trawl through the Bible picking out all the negative aspects of God and ignore all the good descriptions of God in the Bible.

Our point being, that no amount of good deeds negates the bad ones. If you want to posit a omni-benevolent god, than any single evil act or deed negates that claim. Simple as that. A person who spends hours everyday volunteering at a homeless shelter when they're not developing a cure for cancer, will still be prosecuted and jailed if they are found to be a murder. No amount of altruism negates or absolves the responsibility for the killing. There is no reason that your god should get a pass, in fact we should expect better from a god. 'Better' is not what we see when we examine the Bible as a whole, which shows your supposed god to have many of the same attributes of a typical alpha male dictator or desert chieftain.



(26-09-2013 04:34 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 03:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Good to see your religious blinders are equipped and operating perfectly fine.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
"He has also said:
"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it (also) seems pointless."
So for all his learning his final conclusion at the end of all his study and as he contemplates with empty eyes his darkening world he concludes that there is no point to it all.
Typical atheist. Good one for your banner lads. "There is no point". Give up religion we can offer you the ultimate in all knowledge "There is no point".

There is no point delivered from on high, we are not merely marionettes on strings dancing before our puppet master. We can find our own purpose in our own lives, we find and give meaning in our lives. Only a slave thanks his master for making decisions for him without his input. You are a sad mental slave to your own delusion. I imagine this is why atheist bother you so much, we chip away at your delusion by simply not sharing in it, making it harder for people of weaker faith (like yourself) to maintain the illusion.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 05:59 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(26-09-2013 05:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 04:34 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Having established that there is a God who has given us these things it is then an additional question to discover the exact nature, motivation and name of this God/gods.

There is no evidence of a 'moral force'. And atheism doesn't explain anything as it is not a philosophy or scientific theory, merely a lack of belief in gods.

However, evolutionary theory does have explanations for emotions and other mental processes. If you would learn some science, you would understand that and possibly stop making such ignorant statements.

Now who's the one pondering the miraculous? Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
26-09-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
Some ask excubby there how he disproved gravity.

I just get more and more curious the longer he doesn't answer me.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
12-10-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
I think any being that requires worship must have less than desirable personality traits.

Including, but not limited to being a narcissist, full of himself, low self-esteem.

The dictator of North Korea comes to mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 11:37 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 11:42 PM by excubitor.)
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(26-09-2013 12:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Some ask excubby there how he disproved gravity.

I just get more and more curious the longer he doesn't answer me.
I'm not sure what you mean by disprove gravity. I attest and confirm that gravity exists because when I drop something it falls to the floor.
I suspect that what you are referring to is my disbelief in the theory that gravity and inertia are the forces which cause an object such as a planet to orbit the sun.
I cannot prove that this is not the case, nor do I find it necessary to do so. It is perfectly possible to construct a geocentric model using the conventional theory of orbits caused by gravity and inertia. This is done by considering the centre of mass of the entire universe (ie. the barycentre of the universe) to be the same location where the earth is). What this means is that if we were to look at the solar system as an isolated system, then the the earth would be orbiting the sun, because of the suns greater mass. However, the solar system is not a closed system, it is affected by the gravitational forces of all the objects in the universe. The net effect of all these motions is that the entire solar system is caused by gravitational and inertial forces to orbit the barycentre of the universe which brings the location of the earth back to its central place.

So in other words, the motion of the orbit of the earth around the sun is exactly offset by the orbit of the solar system around the barycentre of the universe, which results in the earth being held into place in that exact location of the universes barycentre.

Personally, I do not believe this scenario but I do not reject it out of hand. In fact I am happy for others like Sungenis to hold this opinion and they may just be right. Any model or theory which places the earth at the centre of the universe is permissible for the pursuit of further research, however any theory or model which does not put the earth at the centre of the universe is heretical and should be avoided and utterly rejected by all faithful Catholics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 11:42 PM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
Start here, excubitor.



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: