Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (angel, hell, America)
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.
Considering that Project Mohole was taking place about 60 years ago, and we haven't made much progress on it since then, I doubt this discussion is very productive to determining whether atheism is a rejection or disbelief in an evil god.
I got in trouble at work one time when a co worker said the dinosaur bones where put there to test us. and I laughed at him.
I was young and stupid and thought this god discussion was independent of personal emotional attachments to god claims and not guided by anti-religion sentiments, I said, why isn't he in trouble for preaching that kind of stuff in the lunch room?
That's the scheme of things here, keeping it personal and lashing out strangers for things you could not address in person with whomever, instead of actually discussing religion and spirituality.
I don't think that you understand the 'scheme of things' here. You still seems to have the same anti-atheist prejudices that prevent you from even understanding the rationalism behind it, as we saw with your furious rejection of atheism being logically based on agnosticism. presumably because you wanted to reserve 'agnosticism' as a sweet -reasonable position for non -believers that was better than the 'New Atheist' gnostic denial which anti atheists (whether Theist or not) have to impute to us as part of the atheist -discrediting agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
Do you know why?
Because, overall, it is not good for us. I have read, with some sadness, your excusing of a situation that we have to accept as being bad, because the universe does not care about our welfare; only we as a species, do.
But in your view, the bad is good in the end because of god -belief. Anything no matter how bad, is ok, because God knows what He is doing. Even if there was a god behind al this, it would be appalling. Since we do not believe that there is or could be, a god behind all this, never mind one with a brief for a particular religion, the whole mindset is worse than appalling.
I would guess that even you know that as I would imagine that you react with empathy and consideration to people as much as we goddless do, and never mind that it might be cutting across God's plans. because that's all part of God's plans, too. Presumably the growing tide of irreligion is also part of God's plans. If so, have you considered that seeing the situation rationally rather than with a faith -based mindset, might also be part of the plan?
(cue...oh no, losing Faith is never part of the Plan')
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-23-2020 at 08:54 AM..
Seems like this entire thread is about rejecting or accepting the Christian God , like that is the only choice.
I accept a possibility of there being a God but a high improbable that the Christian one does and even less that the Bible is literal.
What I totally reject are the lengths that Christians will go to defend their God from what their Bible claims he said or did. Not from accusations from non believers but what their actual book states.
The Christian (and sometimes the Muslim god - claim is indeed the major discussion. A Deist or Pantheist - god isn't really the problem. The only time we get into arguments about a creator of some sort is when it is "Assumed" to be Biblegod. So, while the First cause argument is actually academic, not to say pointless, it has to be opposed on Tactical grounds, because Bible - believers use it as a tactic; make a case for some sorta -god, and then battle to hang the Biblegod -claim onto that particular hook.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-23-2020 at 09:49 AM..
Seems like this would be a good resource for this thread
A response to misunderstandings about prayer
***Before people complain about the length, it's over an hour so simply don't watch it if that's too long. You don't have to read or watch anything I post unless you're interested.
A Christian Response to statements about prayer made by CosmicSkeptic, JaclynGlenn, Penn Jillette, & Matt Dillahunty
I see it as a off topic and would have reported it as a derail if it had not already survived three pages.
We do not need lectures from you about the benefits of prayer, any more than you want advice from me about Mindfulness-meditation.
Hang on though, aren't those all atheists? Let's see what it's all about.
Nope. We are familiar with all the arguments, including the one that prayer does not work. Thus the idea pf dragging in 'Biblical' and 'New Testament' material as support is truly pointless, as we (atheists) don't credit anything that the Bible says just because it says it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
You define yourself as a pantheist, Mystic but you seem to have a rabid devotion to Jesus. Or as your post indicates, you never use the word "Jesus" per se but instead always say Christ. "Christ" means the "chosen one" so are you referring to Christ, the chosen one as someone being in the same company as Buddha and Krishna?
I'm going to leave this one be, though it looks off topic. because I'm interested in seeing you follow up Mystic's 'sortagod' that he has nevertheless linked with Jesus, while tossing the 'Barbaric' OT in the bin. *spoiler* he will tell you that knows this is the god of Jesus because his head told him so. He believes that this was Jesus talking to him (I suppose) but I think that he wanted it to be Jesus, no matter what he claims (p.s, I've learned Never to believe Any claims of his, because he never knows himself whether he telling the truth or not)..
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-23-2020 at 09:08 AM..
I don't think that you understand the 'scheme of things' here. You still seems to have the same anti-atheist prejudices that prevent you from even understanding the rationalism behind it, as we saw with your furious rejection of atheism being logically based on agnosticism. presumably because you wanted to reserve 'agnosticism' as a sweet -reasonable position for non -believers that was better than the 'New Atheist' gnostic denial which anti atheists (whether Theist or not) have to impute to us as part of the atheist -discrediting agenda.
Your social crusades are irrelevant to questions of origins. It's as though you purposely act as a hindrance to various discussions to lean towards your ready made framework.
You have all of the answers but you can't enjoy your accomplishments because somewhere, someone thinks differently.
I put "better from it" in quotes deliberately. It doesn't mean that anyone experiencing any kind of pain will come through that pain and physically and/or emotionally be "better". However, their soul could be better. Some of us may end up suffering HERE and NOW so we don't have to suffer later on (in hell)
Now, you may think, "But the child is innocent! Why would God make an innocent child suffer?" I have two schools of thought on this.
First of all, God knows our future. It's possible that without the suffering, that child may have grow up to be a horrible person. Not necessarily an axe murderer, but perhaps a selfish, narcissistic a**hole, having no empathy for anyone. That pain, my be necessary for the child not to become that. Perhaps that pain draws that child closer to Christ. The child may be "innocent", and God wants the child to stay that way.
Second, the child's pain may cause the parent(s) to also feel pain. The child may have physical pain, while the parent may feel an emotional pain. Perhaps the father is overbearing, and never really appreciated the child. Or the mother was self-absorbed, and never really paid much attention to the previous complaints of the child.
My schools of thought do not intend to minimize anyone's pain. Believe me, when it comes to pain, I'm a huge coward and a woos. I don't want to see anyone go through pain.
Not sure what to call these "schools of thought," but if anything need be put in quotes...
Believe me, if I wanted to come up with a good God explanation for any outcome in the way your schools of thought have taught you to do, I could do the same thing very easily. If suffering now is to prevent suffering later, if dying young is because God believes your time to join Her in Heaven can't wait, if having someone suffer from Alzheimer's for many years is to avoid going to Hell instead, before going to Heaven..., then yes of course. We can reconcile absolutely any circumstance, any suffering, any scenario or course of events in such a way to make God sense out of it.
I could play the God coin very well too. Heads we're right. Tails everyone else is wrong.
Again, my school of thought doesn't allow me to think that way, so although I get how you can easily do what you do, reconcile all things in the name of God like you do, I simply cannot. For that reason I know we cannot reconcile our different perspectives about God and all that demonstrates God's existence.
Good for you that you can do what you do as no doubt it must be comforting. I suspect I would too if I could think like that, but again I am just not able. Additionally, what is comforting for me does not necessarily determine for me what is true. I'm interested in the truth above all else. What is actually going on around us as best I can understand given the best my mental capacity can determine.
Regardless how I end up feeling about what I am able to establish as truth vs fiction.
So, I understand you. Do you understand me as well?
Last edited by LearnMe; 05-23-2020 at 09:38 AM..
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.
) fell for it. 
to be Biblegod. So, while the First cause argument is actually academic, not to say pointless, it has to be opposed on Tactical grounds, because Bible - believers use it as a tactic; make a case for some sorta -god, and then battle to hang the Biblegod -claim onto that particular hook.
though it looks off topic. because I'm interested in seeing you follow up Mystic's 'sortagod' that he has nevertheless linked with Jesus, while tossing the 'Barbaric' OT in the bin. *spoiler* he will tell you that knows this is the god of Jesus because his head told him so. He believes that this was Jesus talking to him (I suppose) but I think that he wanted it to be Jesus, no matter what he claims (p.s, I've learned Never to believe Any claims of his, because he never knows himself whether he telling the truth or not)..
I don't want to see anyone go through pain.
