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.
Well, it's heartening to know that someone is getting some enjoyment from all this back and forth beside Gldn. But I think it should have become apparent to some posters after 2000+ comments that the OP is not always arguing from his personal point of view--that more than often his arguments are from the position of asking why Christians believe God is in control of everything when from all appearances he is in control of nothing. The question then becomes WHY is he in control of nothing--why is he letting the world go to hell in a handbasket when he has the power to do something about it and does not. If he is omnipotent and is doing nothing, then from a practical point of view (and the OP is ALWAYS practical, I can assure you) God is deist and that's in line with the OP's personal view. But from the point of view of an antagonist to the Christian's view it appears he is either omni-IMPOTENT, OR he's in dereliction of his duties, at the very least to Christians all around the world. If the former, he is not God; if the latter then he definitely bears full responsibility for how screwed up the world is simply by virtue of the fact Christians are constantly presenting their god as a hands-on, fully active-in-the-world God when from the looks of things going on in the world, nothing could be further from the truth. Does this give you a clearer picture of where the OP is coming from?
Not really. In part because what you say the question "then becomes" is not the same question that follows for me...
What?!!
Oh, my! There really isn't a "Extant Deist God" guy that created everything and is the Head Honcho who should have made it so that humans couldn't design nuclear bombs, other WMD, and made sure all the Problems of Evil/Suffering were prevented from get-go?!
Well, I have no idea how you are gonna break this to thrillobyte in such a way that he doesn't lose it more than he already has.
Break it to him easy.
If I can find a way to get you to accept the bad news you aren't willing to accept, I might be able to help thrill in the same way, but I'm about as optimistic about any of this as I am that the Head Honcho will be the next one to post in this thread and clear all this up for all of us.
If I can find a way to get you to accept the bad news you aren't willing to accept, I might be able to help thrill in the same way, but I'm about as optimistic about any of this as I am that the Head Honcho will be the next one to post in this thread and clear all this up for all of us.
There is no "bad news I am not willing to accept".. well, beyond what my broker tells me is happening in this market downturn...I am having trouble accepting that.
As far as my Religion and Theistic Beliefs...it's ultra generic & very cool ...well, you know I am not allowed to expound upon it here.
Oh, and...the understanding that most things are subjective and there are very few objective facts and truth that are of any real requirement in anyones life (outside of some mathematics), provides great peace & contentment.
Of all the things that concern me, that many people believe things that are not true, is very low on the list.
Not really. In part because what you say the question "then becomes" is not the same question that follows for me...
What IS the question that follows for you pray tell? And please be specific--as opposed to Gldn, who can spew a thousand words without saying a single thing.
What IS the question that follows for you pray tell? And please be specific--as opposed to Gldn, who can spew a thousand words without saying a single thing.
Question that follows for me after considering all the back-and-forth crazy ideas about what isn't right, what a god could have in mind given all the inconsistencies, all the "good, bad and ugly" man-made versions of what a god should or should not do is this...
Why begin with the assumption a god exists in the first place?
After all, if one doesn't make that assumption, all the rest about our universal reality begins to fall into place and make much better sense...
Why begin with the assumption a god exists in the first place?
It's self evident, unless you want to make the argument that the universe has always existed. But if you do that, you are kind of making an argument that the universe is a god.
Question that follows for me after considering all the back-and-forth crazy ideas about what isn't right, what a god could have in mind given all the inconsistencies, all the "good, bad and ugly" man-made versions of what a god should or should not do is this...
Why begin with the assumption a god exists in the first place?
After all, if one doesn't make that assumption, all the rest about our universal reality begins to fall into place and make much better sense...
Well each person who claims to have the correct definition of god and the correct understanding of his claims on us, claims to have received that directly from god or at least from some approved intermediary. Which is why all of this self-justifying back-and-forth is so crazy-making after awhile.
This is the reason for my emphasis on how religious epistemologies fail to accurately explain or predict one's lived experience. To me if any system of knowledge does not render one's lived experience more, rather than less, understandable and coherent, then it is of no use, if not in fact, of negative value.
Reality has become more explicable, comprehensible and organically consistent with my beliefs, since dispensing with theism altogether. I understand that others happen so far to find various religious beliefs to be sufficiently consistent, which is fine, so long as they don't try to make their beliefs or practices binding on the rest of society, including me.
It's self evident, unless you want to make the argument that the universe has always existed. But if you do that, you are kind of making an argument that the universe is a god.
What is self-evident to me is apparently not the same thing(s) that are "self-evident" to you, and as such, I would suggest the term "self-evident" is not appropriate here...
Regardless what we might know or not know about the universe, there is much that can be argued that in no way involves a god. Those arguments that do nevertheless are theological arguments and in much the same way based on assumptions that religious people are inclined to make that atheists are not. Simple as that, and at a minimum it is important to recognize these distinctions and differences in order to draw proper, accurate and objective conclusions about the truth of these matters.
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.
