Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it is you who is missing the point. A god could give us free will AND put things right. If a god gives us free will AND wants us to worship it, then it should give us evidence it exists AND give us a reason for us to want to worship it. The threat of hell (or non-inclusion in heaven) is coercion, and a loving god would not require threats.
No, because we are not rejecting this god, we do not believe in it. That is one of the arguments why the free will argument fails.
Except the bad things happen because of free will argument is not coherent. Bad things do not just happen to people, so it does not explain why our local pigeons are still alive as our local Frau Sperber rips it's feathers off.
Yes, we have no idea, and therefore can not make any claims. Fortunately we have superior intellects like you who can explain the mind of a god.
It is not us being unwilling, it is that you have given us no reason to believe in your specific god. Yet you insist on blaming us for a god that behaves as if it is not there.
Great post, as usual. In terms of the section I bolded, I no longer believe in god. But IF some poster is going to insist that there is one, then I reject it.
You're right. And, there's probably some vague bible verse about that, that SOME will adhere to.
Thing is, that *I* like *you* don't believe that the bible (whatever "the" means) has ALL the specific answers. Hence, my OP about Sola Scriptura and faith alone.
Resorting to name calling and insults always rubs me the wrong way. Even if I wasn't Christian, it would STILL rub me the wrong way. Having spoken to you before, I KNOW that's not usually your style. But it IS for a few others. Leave it to the few to influence the many...
...not that some Christians here aren't doing the same thing. I mean, I have my faves among atheists here. You, Mordant, NorthSouth, Guy303 (when he was here more often) and a few others. Same with some Christians.
LOL! This could probably be a whole 'nuther thread! So, I'll shut up now!
Free will is important in the whole 'scheme' of things. To me, it IS all about love. TRUE love can't be had WITHOUT free will.
Well...lemme ask you...just for jollies. When you read "the" bible? did you also read the Apocrypha? Reason I'm asking is because, while it may not be in the KJV, it MAY be in the Catholic Bible. What was interesting to me, was that the 7 books that were omitted from the KJV, MOST of them had to do with wisdom . I've heard many a non-Catholic Christian proclaim that free will isn't in the bible.
Well, yeah. It is. It's in one of the 7 books that Protestants dismissed.
Fair, yes. But again, what KIND of evidence would convince you? I think about the movie 12 Angry Men They all gathered together in a jury room and were ready to convict the perp...and go home.
It was ONE person who declared (in so many words) 'wait a moment...a man's life is at stake...can't we at least TALK about this?'
There IS evidence of Jesus out there. But it depends on what *you* consider to be evidence.
Just as a sign off point...IF you were alive during the time of Jesus...heard all what he had to say...was one of the 5000 who ate...etc....would you be FOR him, or against him?
Getting about that time again that I am running out of time, so real quick like...
I have read the Bible and perhaps just as importantly quite a bit about the Bible as compared to the average person I think. Also other religious books and about other religions, to the point where now I have to conclude there is nothing new to read that makes much a difference to the conclusions I have come to make about all of them. I'll never forget one of many examples when upon getting employed with a new company later in my career, the VP asked me to read and seriously consider the book, "The Celestine Prophecy," by James Redfield. Have you read that one? Interesting, and I suspect you would enjoy it as did I. I could probably suggest three reads for every one you would recommend in similar fashion, but did it have the affect on me that the VP expected or hoped for? I'm glad he didn't ask...
Don't get me wrong. I'm always willing to read whatever you or anyone else wishes to suggest is somehow more worthy to consider, but to do more research about this or that Biblical passage or verse like so many posted in this forum, I've just not got the time for that. There is just too much other reading and/or learning I feel is more worthy of my time, and I've hardly got enough time to do all that as I wish I could. If you might explain why any such reading is more compelling far as you are concerned and why, that might inspire me to do see what more there is to learn there for me. I hope this makes sense to you, or how do you decide how to spend your time learning whatever subject is of interest or importance to you?
Resorting to name calling and insults always rubs me the wrong way. Even if I wasn't Christian, it would STILL rub me the wrong way. Having spoken to you before, I KNOW that's not usually your style. But it IS for a few others. Leave it to the few to influence the many...
...not that some Christians here aren't doing the same thing. I mean, I have my faves among atheists here. You, Mordant, NorthSouth, Guy303 (when he was here more often) and a few others. Same with some Christians.
LOL! This could probably be a whole 'nuther thread! So, I'll shut up now!
I won't belabor this point - but I do wish to ask something of you.
What, exactly, do you consider "name calling?" The reason I ask is because any sort of overt name calling is usually squashed pretty thoroughly by the mods.
I won't belabor this point - but I do wish to ask something of you.
What, exactly, do you consider "name calling?" The reason I ask is because any sort of overt name calling is usually squashed pretty thoroughly by the mods.
Mink isn't so bad in this regard but for some of the usual suspects around here, my take is:
* Disagreement = attack
* Pointing out logical inconsistencies = mean
* Any degree of frankness regarding certain things taboo for a theist to even question = vulgar
* Unbelief = hatred
* Not pearl clutching over some dogmatically horrible "sin" = rebellion
* Even implying moral equivalence between some Christian (mal)practice or other and that of some other religion = insulting
* The whiff of a suggestion, however nuanced, that some aspect of Christianity is harmful or causes harms = bigotry
* Less than completely flattering / fawning term for believers = name calling
If someone is talking actual name-calling, it's a fine line. I, too, would be curious to see specific examples. If it is simply puncturing the vainglorious or triumphalist ways some believers are used to thinking of themselves ... as members of The Elect, or joint-heirs with Christ, etc. ... if it is something a reasonably mature adult would not take personally, then I have no problem with it.
I would not object to someone characterizing me as "godless" for instance even though it may seem pejorative to the person wielding the term -- because it's accurate enough. It's inherent in the word "atheist", even. If you're going to be an atheist, then own it ... but it cuts both ways. If you're going to embrace being a "fool for Christ" then don't wonder that someone might remark on some of your foolishness -- and yes, sarcasm or parody are valid tools in the toolbox. Short of stereotyping of personal characteristics one has no control over or doing some truly over-broad characterization ... labels aren't inherently evil.
On the other hand I'll defend myself as not, say, a "god-hater" because that's a completely false and stereotypical label. It assumes a GREAT deal to be true of EVERY SINGLE unbeliever. When in fact, animus isn't really a major factor for most of us, and often isn't any factor all ... and any hatred isn't misplaced onto / wasted on a being that we don't even believe exists, or on a moral code we may have few to no quibbles with in broad practical terms ... it is for the great harms we see in religion, and that many of us have personally endured. If a person came out of Christian fundamentalism or the JW world for example, we may be very abreactive to something we had to fight for personal agency and independence from and that was very toxic for us. Even a devout fundamentalist or JW ought to be able to understand that and, even while seeing us as misguided, the primary emotion should be compassion and regret at having caused any pain -- because of course, that wasn't intended, now, was it?? Also one would think they would take that feedback in to improve their future actions ... unless of course they think there's no room for improvement because god approves of them in every way, and besides, any needed adjustment might be contrary to dogma, which is infallible.
In some Kafkaesque way I suppose some believer somewhere found the previous two paragraphs triggering, though ... and so it goes. What they really want, often, is to NEVER experience an uncomfortable question or observation. It kind of goes back to the old saw, "If you can't think of something nice to say, don't say it" -- which I believe to be a pseudo-noble but actually terrible value to have. Because it feeds right into the "don't you dare ever question authority" mindset often held by the religious. And we see a lot of manifestations of that in this and adjacent fora -- for example, the "Who do you think you are to question God" thread, wherein a poster unironically asks a question designed to encourage people to accept any random treatment from another -- even abusive or neglectful treatment -- so long as the perp is sufficiently powerful or has a particular relationship to you (e.g., creator, and by extension -- husband, parent, older sibling). It just carves out a total exemption from the supposed moral code for specific individuals and contexts, based on a factor that's irrelevant to the moral question at hand.
...for some of the usual suspects around here, my take is:
* Disagreement = attack
* Pointing out logical inconsistencies = mean
* Any degree of frankness regarding certain things taboo for a theist to even question = vulgar
* Unbelief = hatred
* Not pearl clutching over some dogmatically horrible "sin" = rebellion
* Even implying moral equivalence between some Christian (mal)practice or other and that of some other religion = insulting
* The whiff of a suggestion, however nuanced, that some aspect of Christianity is harmful or causes harms = bigotry
* Less than completely flattering / fawning term for believers = name calling
If someone is talking actual name-calling, it's a fine line. I, too, would be curious to see specific examples. If it is simply puncturing the vainglorious or triumphalist ways some believers are used to thinking of themselves ... as members of The Elect, or joint-heirs with Christ, etc. ... if it is something a reasonably mature adult would not take personally, then I have no problem with it.
I would not object to someone characterizing me as "godless" for instance even though it may seem pejorative to the person wielding the term -- because it's accurate enough. It's inherent in the word "atheist", even. If you're going to be an atheist, then own it ... but it cuts both ways. If you're going to embrace being a "fool for Christ" then don't wonder that someone might remark on some of your foolishness -- and yes, sarcasm or parody are valid tools in the toolbox. Short of stereotyping of personal characteristics one has no control over or doing some truly over-broad characterization ... labels aren't inherently evil.
On the other hand I'll defend myself as not, say, a "god-hater" because that's a completely false and stereotypical label. It assumes a GREAT deal to be true of EVERY SINGLE unbeliever. When in fact, animus isn't really a major factor for most of us, and often isn't any factor all ... and any hatred isn't misplaced onto / wasted on a being that we don't even believe exists, or on a moral code we may have few to no quibbles with in broad practical terms ... it is for the great harms we see in religion, and that many of us have personally endured. If a person came out of Christian fundamentalism or the JW world for example, we may be very abreactive to something we had to fight for personal agency and independence from and that was very toxic for us. Even a devout fundamentalist or JW ought to be able to understand that and, even while seeing us as misguided, the primary emotion should be compassion and regret at having caused any pain -- because of course, that wasn't intended, now, was it?? Also one would think they would take that feedback in to improve their future actions ... unless of course they think there's no room for improvement because god approves of them in every way, and besides, any needed adjustment might be contrary to dogma, which is infallible.
In some Kafkaesque way I suppose some believer somewhere found the previous two paragraphs triggering, though ... and so it goes. What they really want, often, is to NEVER experience an uncomfortable question or observation. It kind of goes back to the old saw, "If you can't think of something nice to say, don't say it" -- which I believe to be a pseudo-noble but actually terrible value to have. Because it feeds right into the "don't you dare ever question authority" mindset often held by the religious. And we see a lot of manifestations of that in this and adjacent fora -- for example, the "Who do you think you are to question God" thread, wherein a poster unironically asks a question designed to encourage people to accept any random treatment from another -- even abusive or neglectful treatment -- so long as the perp is sufficiently powerful or has a particular relationship to you (e.g., creator, and by extension -- husband, parent, older sibling). It just carves out a total exemption from the supposed moral code for specific individuals and contexts, based on a factor that's irrelevant to the moral question at hand.
One of the best posts I've read here in a long time.
There's very much the "how dare you?!?" attitude among some of the christians (especially) on the forum. As you point out, we even have a thread right now entitled something like "Who are you to question god"?
That I agree with, but the central "theme" (rather than figure) is -- in my view -- using being a "good christian" as a way to confirm to themselves that "I'm special".
One of the best posts I've read here in a long time.
There's very much the "how dare you?!?" attitude among some of the christians (especially) on the forum. As you point out, we even have a thread right now entitled something like "Who are you to question god"?
Although not raised in an authoritarian or even particularly religious environment, my FIL often uses the phrase "how DARE you" with anyone who remotely questions or just doesn't grovel before him -- and even when he doesn't say it out loud, it's always a strong subtext. He's the sort of guy who frequently narrows his eyes when he thinks you even MIGHT be ABOUT to say something he doesn't like, then relaxes when he realizes it wasn't an "attack". It's a sort of "watch out now where you're going with this" warning.
So this phenomenon is not totally unique to authoritarian religion; it's more that authoritarian religion promotes, reinforces, and justifies lording it over others to maintain personal control. My FIL apparently didn't need religion as he was a prominent physician, a father to his children, etc. so he had dominant roles to play where there was a certain amount of default deference to him and built-in authority, and he intended to keep it that way. Ironically he's a very weak man, and after my MIL died, he married a couple of very domineering wives who put him up to a lot of his fulminations. So he's afraid of his partner as well as of being remotely accountable to anyone other than her.
This is the thing about "how dare you" that such people don't understand; it isn't a position of strength, but of weakness and fear. You get to browbeat and terrorize children and small animals and perhaps employees, but that doesn't make you strong. Real strength is evidenced by leading without threats and intimidation, by actually inspiring people to WANT to follow you.
And this brings us to why the fundamentalist deity is so execrable: it is weak, insecure, fearful and abusive and ultimately cruel -- the very definition of those things. But they don't see it. They don't want to see it. And they resent it being seen by anyone for what it actually is.
One of the best posts I've read here in a long time.
There's very much the "how dare you?!?" attitude among some of the christians (especially) on the forum. As you point out, we even have a thread right now entitled something like "Who are you to question god"?
Agreed (I don't seem to be able to rep anyone just now) and there does seem to be an element of the Theist side being free to name call the atheists as they like (though on my Other board, they are collecting a heap of red warnings before they vanish) and pointing out where they are doing their reasoning wrong is taken as a personal attack. It's a different mindset. Atheism approaces data as evidence and are grateful to be corrected or updated.
Theism approached data with Faith and any suggestion that what they accept and what they reject could be mistaken is a personal attack on their Faith, and thus themselves.
Trust me, I'm an atheist
as to browbeating small animals...I'm sure no Christian would do such a thing...but they might try to preach to them.
Well ... pedantically speaking, we are story-telling APES. But monkeys are cuter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
