Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (Commandments, after life, atheist)
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.
is their view any more or less skewed because of their position?
Mystic's position has EVERYTHING to do with his extremely good fortune he's not in a wheelchair totally paralyzed from ALS and and using eye-tracking technology to type his answers. Think I might have a point, Mystic? Try to put yourself in this guy's position and then tell us you'd still feel Jesus is the most loving, merciful wonderful everything in your life. With that kind of love, give me good old fashioned hate every time.
Mystic's position has EVERYTHING to do with his extremely good fortune he's not in a wheelchair totally paralyzed from ALS and and using eye-tracking technology to type his answers. Think I might have a point, Mystic? Try to put yourself in this guy's position and then tell us you'd still feel Jesus is the most loving, merciful wonderful everything in your life. With that kind of love, give me good old fashioned hate every time.
yeah, like I said, you have point. I can go look up people that are handy capped and praise god? or just really spiritual.
so I am stuck between all loving and all hating.
I just dont see either as the best conclusion we have.
Mystic's position has EVERYTHING to do with his extremely good fortune he's not in a wheelchair totally paralyzed from ALS and and using eye-tracking technology to type his answers. Think I might have a point, Mystic? Try to put yourself in this guy's position and then tell us you'd still feel Jesus is the most loving, merciful wonderful everything in your life. With that kind of love, give me good old fashioned hate every time.
Do you have serious medical issues yourself, or are you just referencing such conditions to make your point?
Just me or does that make no sense at all? Perhaps some clarification is needed...
To put it another way, if man ultimately manages to figure out how everything works, including what it is and why, say like we did Earthquakes, is not the God exists because we don't understand rationale seriously undermined if not lost altogether?
You completely avoid the point in any case. If we're to believe in God because we don't understand what is going on around us, why continue scientific efforts to understand what is going on around us? Why waste the time if instead we're to assume we can't understand let alone that this is reason to claim a God exists?
It does and it doesn't. (Theist apologetics often use the tactic of taking a valid point and tweaking it in hopes to make it look like it supports an invalid one).
It is true that there are unknown questions. It is Axiomatic that these are not gaps for a god (never mind a particular one) but are simply Unknowns.
The tweak is that how we are here is not entirely known - only as far as the Big Bang Rather like my old granny refusing to accept that I flew to Burma because I didn't know who made the aircraft). And Why we are here is in any meaningful way, based on the how. But of course Mystic is doing a faith -based Tweak assuming that there is a Reason for Life, the Universe and Everything. Of course the How in not the Why in the sense of a planned intent and the assumption of a planned intent is of course a faith -claim.
A priori Godfaith is the common fallacy that screws all Theistic thinking, by in Mystic's arguments, the illogic is particularly glaring, and is all the funnier because he is the only one who can't see it, and it becomes side -splitting when he gets on his high horse, starts boasting of his own expertise, deprecating everyone else, when pretty much everyone has seen though him.
It does and it doesn't. (Theist apologetics often use the tactic of taking a valid point and tweaking it in hopes to make it look like it supports an invalid one).
It is true that there are unknown questions. It is Axiomatic that these are not gaps for a god (never mind a particular one) but are simply Unknowns.
The tweak is that how we are here is not entirely known - only as far as the Big Bang Rather like my old granny refusing to accept that I flew to Burma because I didn't know who made the aircraft). And Why we are here is in any meaningful way, based on the how. But of course Mystic is doing a faith -based Tweak assuming that there is a Reason for Life, the Universe and Everything. Of course the How in not the Why in the sense of a planned intent and the assumption of a planned intent is of course a faith -claim.
A priori Godfaith is the common fallacy that screws all Theistic thinking, by in Mystic's arguments, the illogic is particularly glaring, and is all the funnier because he is the only one who can't see it, and it becomes side -splitting when he gets on his high horse, starts boasting of his own expertise, deprecating everyone else, when pretty much everyone has seen though him.
What gets me angry about all this, Trans, is if there is no God then what have we lost except a few hours bantering back and forth here in CD, which is actually kind of fun--at times. But if there is a God, then He is the supreme game player--playing games with people's emotions and affections as He hides behind clouds and planets and laughs maniacally watching us suffer down here.
What gets me angry about all this, Trans, is if there is no God then what have we lost except a few hours bantering back and forth here in CD, which is actually kind of fun--at times. But if there is a God, then He is the supreme game player--playing games with people's emotions and affections as He hides behind clouds and planets and laughs maniacally watching us suffer down here.
Yes. If it were not for three aspects to posting here (fun, value, learning and message) I might have gone long ago. While Theists (and others) might not understand what I get out of it, I do, though I have doubts at times (no, not atheist doubts , sorry, god - botherers, put away your tracts). While we may disagree on the case for a possible non -religion -specific - Creator (and there is a case, I have never denied; Dawkins has never denied it) we agree on the problems that the world as it wags raises in respect of an intervening god.
Theists know this very well, because they have two notebooks, a Blue onre and a Red one. One contains "Evidence" of god's intervention (I won't give examples as I'm having lunch), and the Red one contains the excuses for when such intervention (when badly needed) is not forthcoming.
1. I no longer believe in "a god".
2. I definitely don't believe in biblegod, but perhaps there is some other god that operates differently than the bible indicates, and who may be deistic.
3. I could be wrong, but none of the dimwitted christian posts I see on this forum are convincing me, and in fact, they push me further and further away from remaining open-minded about it.
Okay, this is the best laugh I've had on City Data today. You get a rep
I just can't wrap my head around there being any kind of after life after your brain ceases to function and you no longer have a vehicle to process a conscious thought. No amount of spin and magical thinking has been able to convince me otherwise yet. Besides, who wants to spend eternity bowing to a dictator.
The difference is the scope of our perspective. You operate in a "separate things" perspective and I operate in a Oneness perspective. Even if we learn how everything within our Reality works, we still will not know What it IS or why it exists. That IS the central God issue.
I think the difference is something else altogether, but how many times can the same thing be explained?
Whatever it is you want to insist we will not know does not mean we must fill that void of knowledge with a God. That is the central issue far as I'm concerned anyway...
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.
Rather like my old granny refusing to accept that I flew to Burma because I didn't know who made the aircraft). And Why we are here is in any meaningful way, based on the how. But of course Mystic is doing a faith -based Tweak assuming that there is a Reason for Life, the Universe and Everything. Of course the How in not the Why in the sense of a planned intent and the assumption of a planned intent is of course a faith -claim. 
But if there is a God, then He is the supreme game player--playing games with people's emotions and affections as He hides behind clouds and planets and laughs maniacally watching us suffer down here.
(no, not atheist doubts 
, sorry, god - botherers, put away your tracts). While we may disagree on the case for a possible non -religion -specific - Creator (and there is a case, I have never denied; Dawkins has never denied it) we agree on the problems that the world as it wags raises in respect of an intervening god.
