Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not so unusual. If someone starts from a position of understanding, they will be more sucessful at reading and interpreting a technical manual.

Granted, but the technical manual should enable one to come to understanding anyway, with some patience and work. But he did not say "understanding," he said "belief" (or "faith," I forget which). And no amount of reading the Bible -- which I've done more of than a lot of Christians I know -- has got me to an interpretation and acceptance that Christians have.

Think about this for a moment. SonofaSon said, and therefore apparently believes, that since I did not grow up learning about and being indoctrinated into faith in Christ, that God will therefore make it henceforth impossible for me to learn. Like, my birth and upbringing were my fault, and it for that I am to be punished. Do you see the problem? This isn't ME choosing, it's GOD choosing, and God choosing evilly and cruelly -- according to SonofSam's belief. Oh, and by the way, while God is doing this, he also believes that God is the very epitome and definition of "love."'

To believe these things simultaneously is not something I can do. And I rather suspect it's not something SonofSomebody can do either. He merely holds one belief until he sets it aside, forgetting it, and believes something completely contradictory. In my version of reasoning, this isn't a feat I can perform -- nor would I want to.

 

[Sonofason]

And God is not a fictional character?

Ciao

- viole

No, God is not a fictional character. A lot of fictional stuff has been written about Him by people like...well you for example. But God is very real.

 

[Sonofason]

Granted, but the technical manual should enable one to come to understanding anyway, with some patience and work. But he did not say "understanding," he said "belief" (or "faith," I forget which). And no amount of reading the Bible -- which I've done more of than a lot of Christians I know -- has got me to an interpretation and acceptance that Christians have.

Think about this for a moment. SonofaSon said, and therefore apparently believes, that since I did not grow up learning about and being indoctrinated into faith in Christ, that God will therefore make it henceforth impossible for me to learn. Like, my birth and upbringing were my fault, and it for that I am to be punished. Do you see the problem? This isn't ME choosing, it's GOD choosing, and God choosing evilly and cruelly -- according to SonofSam's belief. Oh, and by the way, while God is doing this, he also believes that God is the very epitome and definition of "love."'

To believe these things simultaneously is not something I can do. And I rather suspect it's not something SonofSomebody can do either. He merely holds one belief until he sets it aside, forgetting it, and believes something completely contradictory. In my version of reasoning, this isn't a feat I can perform -- nor would I want to.

Why do you suppose it is evil if God were to decide that you are not fit for His future kingdom. I understand your gnashing of teeth here, but it is to be expected. It has been predicted. But why do you think it is evil for God to bring only the people He wants in His Kingdom to His future eternal Kingdom? Those of us who love Him are loved by Him. Do you invite people into your life that hate you?

 

[Sonofason]

You can buy very realistic-looking plastic rocks. Some of them have a little hole to hide a spare key.

How is it that you're sure you felt the Holy Spirit?

I have no reason nor desire to share my most precious experiences with faithless people. It's personal.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my view, not-statements provide nothing at all in the absence of some prelimary positive definition.

You do realize this is a not-statement about not-statements, yes?

Gotta shorten our dialogues down a bit. Nobody reads long essays anymore (I'm old, and so an exception).

Not quite. While the sentence structure is inverted, it certainly contains a positive: "in order to describe something, you must begin with some positive framing which provides context for paring down using not statements.

I could have provided a great many positive statements about pomegranates (a fruit, red, seeds, juicy, edible but why bother?, used to make sickly-sweet syrup grenadine, etc.)

Oh, so you're talking about strawberries. Got it. Or is it raspberries?

See? Once I provided a little positive context, you quickly homed in on an immensely smaller universe of possibilities to consider in understanding my meaning.

Now, let's consider snurzzles. Do I believe in them or not? Would it be helpful if I learned "you cannot hang snurzzles on your wall?" Well, not very much, no! I can hang 99 bottles of beer on the wall. I can hang my enemies testicles on the wall. I can hang paper on the wall. Nope, not getting much closer. How about, "snurzzles don't taste like turnips?" Once again, almost everything that isn't a turnip doesn't taste like a turnip, so my field of consideration isn't narrowed at all.

So, am I a snurzzlist, an asnurzzlist, or agnostic about snurzzles? None of them! I am ignorant about snurzzles, so far, and therefore have no opinion, and nothing to base an opinion on. If I get no further information, I'll drop the issue altogether and never think of it again.

So, let me tell you about this idea of "God/god." I am an atheist about all of the various notions of God/god that I have so far heard enough about that I can form some sort of picture. I am ignorant of any God/god that has never been defined for me so that I can picture it. I am agnostic as to whether there might be a definition of God/god that might somebody be provided me that I might believe -- I only know that none has been so far.

But the "definition" of God/god -- that it somehow equates to "love" -- is meaningless to me, for the reasons I gave. Love is an emotion felt by creatures for reasons of evolutionary success. It binds where binding is needed. Where binding is not needed, neither is love. The fern that spreads spores on the wind has no love for its offspring.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why do you suppose it is evil if God were to decide that you are not fit for His future kingdom. I understand your gnashing of teeth here, but it is to be expected. It has been predicted. But why do you think it is evil for God to bring only the people He wants in His Kingdom to His future eternal Kingdom? Those of us who love Him are loved by Him. Do you invite people into your life that hate you?

Gosh, I wish I could untangle or unpack the stuff you tuck into this sort of post!

• What "future kingdom" if God is timeless/outside time?
• If a Muslim man's sperm meets a Muslim woman's egg, and the resulting offspring is brought up Muslim, who the heck's fault is that? What, precisely, do you think it is that makes that Muslim offspring "not fit?"
• And turn the question around! If Muslim's are correct, what is it about your parent's bringing you up Christian that makes you unfit for Allah's kingdom? How are you to blame for your parent's ignorance, and the fact that you are programmed by nature (God?) to believe them?
• I have to exist every day in a world in which there are people who love me, who hate me, who are indifferent to me, and who don't even know me. If I can manage, then surely your omnipotent and all-loving God can. Or is He not quite up to my standards?

 

[McBell]

Where you can see that he left out "Ignorant much?" which was a part of my post. The irony is that you actually called your pic whole post proving he didn't quote my whole post.

It is there for all to see.
That you cannot is somewhat revealing.
No pun intended.

 

[Sonofason]

I Can't say that I am hopeful, But I think it will be one of the greatest discoveries we have made so far.
Besides that, It will be very interesting hearing how it was Gods intention to create life on other planets too and that the bible is not really about earth but it represents all planets LOL

I dona't really think there is anything in the Bible stating that life only exists on earth. But many of us believe that might be the case. We could be wrong. It is a subjective opinion, not something the Bible strictly tells us.

So, if we do find life elsewhere in the universe, say thousands of years from now, you won't see me squirming. I'll be okay with it.

 

[Sonofason]

You appear to be

1. speaking for God (you say he has tried to reach me),
2. Speaking for me (I rejected him),
3. Speaking for science (everything around me is explainable without god),
4. Speaking for God (again, since you just condemned me to Hell),
5. And finally, confirming my own opinion about Christian ideas of God -- which is a monstrous evil that will mete out infinite punishments for trivial things like not believing what isn't obvious.

I do not "reject" anything at all, except possibly this very unlikable trait of so many religious persons to presume so much while pretending to love that very fellow who told you not to judge. 'Twas ever thus.

Oh, so you believe that a God might exist. Sorry, I didn't realize that. I thought you were an atheist, but your not an atheist. You're agnostic. That is great. I have a lot more respect for agnostics than atheists. Actually, I have zero respect for atheists.

 

[Sonofason]

Who? Please read: https://askanatheist.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/334/

Actually, this website is not giving truthful information in my opinion. Why do you believe people that tell you the Gospels were written down so many years after they were actually written down. What is the reasoning for this claim, and why do you believe it?

 

[McBell]

Oh, so you believe that a God might exist. Sorry, I didn't realize that. I thought you were an atheist, but your not an atheist. You're agnostic. That is great. I have a lot more respect for agnostics than atheists. Actually, I have zero respect for atheists.

Humpty?
Humpty Dumpty?
Is that you?

 

[Sonofason]

"All those who say “God told me,” are dangerous." ... "The ubiquitous rabble of “God told me” that we keep hearing so much in America, is both extremely evil and dangerous. If you really believe that God is talking to you, then you esteem yourself a prophet, one who has a salvation that cannot be taken away. With this mindset one could commit all sorts of evils, and think nothing of it because God is with them, they are a “prophet,” a mouthpiece for God."
http://shoebat.com/2015/08/12/all-t...-home-in-houston-takes-an-entire-family-of-e/

I'll tell you something prophetic. If you ever see a real prophet, you should be very afraid.

"And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. They are "the two olive trees" and the two lampstands, and they stand before the Lord of the earth. If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want." (Revelation 11:3-6")

 

[Sonofason]

Can you give one example of a piece of evidence for God that's "all around us" and explain how it implies that God exists?

I give you ever single piece of matter as my evidence that God exists. He created all of it from nothing.
The physicists and mathematicians who traced the Big Bang concur. According to their theory all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point. Remember, a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small. Infinitesimally small, is not really really small. It was infinitely smaller than that. Infinite is endless. Infinitely is endlessly. That point was endlessly small. That is, that point was so small no one could ever calculate it. That's because there was nothing there to calculate. Because at the center of it all was the Originator of it, not a piece of matter, but a non-physical being from which all matter emanated by His very word.

But you will reject this evidence. Not because the reasoning is unsound, but because the evidence does not convince you. Not being convinced by evidence says very little about the evidence. But it says a lot about the person who is considering the evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh, so you believe that a God might exist. Sorry, I didn't realize that. I thought you were an atheist, but your not an atheist. You're agnostic. That is great. I have a lot more respect for agnostics than atheists. Actually, I have zero respect for atheists.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but if you read into what I wrote a belief in God, then you really are less intelligent than I supposed you were (and don't ask what my supposition was!).

Just for the record, though, what you wrote is nothing more than a diversionary tactic, meant to fool people into thinking you're answering answering my points. You are not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually, this website is not giving truthful information in my opinion. Why do you believe people that tell you the Gospels were written down so many years after they were actually written down. What is the reasoning for this claim, and why do you believe it?

Here, I agree with you. The website in question really does provide dates for the Gospels that are seriously out of line with current scholarship.

(That doesn't change my opinion of them, but I don't like untruth on either side of an argument. If you can't fight fair, take the gloves off and go home!)

 

[Sonofason]

1. I do not have an active belief regarding any god (for or against).
   1. Capitalization, though important to you, does not make any difference where evidence is concerned
   2. none of the "isms" concerning theology change my lack of belief
2. I have not seen, heard, etc. any evidence which convinces me a god exists
3. I accept the possibility, regardless of how small, that one or more gods might exist
   1. I have no problems re-evaluating my position whenever new information is discovered, revealed, presented...
   2. My re-evaluation is mine, not anyone elses.
4. I have a pet peeve with people, usually non-theists, moving the "evidence" goal post..
   1. asking for "evidence" and then dismissing the evidence presented by modifying after the fact the type of evidence is moving the goal posts
   2. If you want empirical object evidence, then say so.
5. The person making the claim holds the burden of proof
   1. The person claiming god exists holds the burden of showing god exists
   2. The person claiming god does not exist holds the burden of showing god does not exist
   3. lack of evidence does not "prove" lack of existence

Why do you assume that the possibility is small. If God exists without you knowing it, the possibility of God existing is 100%. The possibility of something existing is not something we can reasonably place odds on. Either the thing exists, or it does not. There can be no 50% chance of God existing. He either exists or he does not. There are no odds, there are no probabilities of his existence. It's either all or nothing. And you not knowing has zero affect on that reality.

People making claims do not have a burden of proof, unless it is their desire to convince someone that their claim is true. I am perfectly happy making claims and providing what I believe is evidence. Proving something to someone means absolutely nothing to me. If you should burn in a hell because you did not believe me, it honestly is not my problem, but yours.

 

[McBell]

I give you ever single piece of matter as my evidence that God exists. He created all of it from nothing.
The physicists and mathematicians who traced the Big Bang concur.

source please.

According to their theory all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point. Remember, a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small. Infinitesimally small, is not really really small. It was infinitely smaller than that. Infinite is endless. Infinitely is endlessly. That point was endlessly small. That is, that point was so small no one could ever calculate it. That's because there was nothing there to calculate. Because at the center of it all was the Originator of it, not a piece of matter, but a non-physical being from which all matter emanated by His very word.

But you will reject this evidence. Not because the reasoning is unsound, but because the evidence does not convince you. Not being convinced by evidence says very little about the evidence. But it says a lot about the person who is considering the evidence.

Actually, I suspect you are misrepresenting what was actually said.

Please see my Signature....

 

[Sonofason]

Wow, that's harsh. Inaccurate, and harsh.

Explain why you think it is inaccurate. I am harsh, because it is my nature to be blunt. I'm sorry if that offends you.

 

[McBell]

Why do you assume that the possibility is small. If God exists without you knowing it, the possibility of God existing is 100%. The possibility of something existing is not something we can reasonably place odds on. Either the thing exists, or it does not. There can be no 50% chance of God existing. He either exists or he does not. There are no odds, there are no probabilities of his existence. It's either all or nothing. And you not knowing has zero affect on that reality.

Now you reveal your gross ignorance of statistics and probability.

People making claims do not have a burden of proof, unless it is their desire to convince someone that their claim is true. I am perfectly happy making claims and providing what I believe is evidence. Proving something to someone means absolutely nothing to me. If you should burn in a hell because you did not believe me, it honestly is not my problem, but yours.

Bold empty claims remain bold empty claims until supported.
You sound like someone who wants to make unsupported bold empty claims and not be called out for it.

Bold empty threats are just as worthless as bold empty claims.

 

[Sonofason]

Gosh, I wish I could untangle or unpack the stuff you tuck into this sort of post!

• What "future kingdom" if God is timeless/outside time?
• If a Muslim man's sperm meets a Muslim woman's egg, and the resulting offspring is brought up Muslim, who the heck's fault is that? What, precisely, do you think it is that makes that Muslim offspring "not fit?"
• And turn the question around! If Muslim's are correct, what is it about your parent's bringing you up Christian that makes you unfit for Allah's kingdom? How are you to blame for your parent's ignorance, and the fact that you are programmed by nature (God?) to believe them?
• I have to exist every day in a world in which there are people who love me, who hate me, who are indifferent to me, and who don't even know me. If I can manage, then surely your omnipotent and all-loving God can. Or is He not quite up to my standards?

He is the potter, and we are the clay.