Are you closed minded?

[shunyadragon]

Great, minimalist and neutral responses. I'll take that as you're conceding in your own way.

. . . and Napolean won the battle of waterloo.

The two quotes above contradict each other. You seem confused. You want to define god yet don't want to define god. I can only pray this is not contagious. I have the feeling you won't even attempt to define your god trying not to look foolish to me, as I suspect you know on some level this is foolish, haha

Btw, my reply was Trailblazer as she seems to think god is not love, does not want a relationship with god, gets angry at god and she doesn't seem to like god, but has to worship it.

God is God, not love, not good, and not bad, and not angry. You are still dwelling on an ancient world view of God,

Please not selectively misquote and misrepresent @Trailblazer nor other postes, our of your anger and disrespect the belief of others.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should you worship a god that's horrible?

Who said God is horrible?

I don't think this god person is real, so I don't think it matters either way.

I think it matters that I get angry at God because God is real, although God is not a person.
I cannot say if it matters to God, but it matters to me.

Why don't you just live your life the way you want to? I do and other atheists do. We don't worry about what any of the millions of supposedly existent gods want. And if a bad god did exist, I wouldn't worship it nor would I join a religion that worships this god.

I cannot live as if God does not exist because I am not an atheist. I do not think God is “supposedly existent” but rather I know He exists. God is not bad, I am bad for thinking God is bad.

 

[charlie sc]

God is God, not love, not good, and not bad, and not angry.

You insult my intelligence. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you cannot define the thing you want me to take seriously? Even the mainstream monotheistic religions have a vague idea what their god is. Yet, you want me to take your god, that's neither here nor there but kind of special, seriously. God can't be understood by mankind, but is somehow is understood my mankind. We can sense it but we can't. I don't know how you want any sane person to reply to that?

Please not selectively misquote and misrepresent @Trailblazer nor other postes, our of your anger and disrespect the belief of others.

The only bit I was selective was my assumption that she thinks god is horrible and I am, at least partially, correct from the Trailblazer quote bellow. She thinks god is, "bad." Anger, as I have interpreted it, is perceived failed expectations that have not been accepted. This is why, for instance, we do not usually get angry at tornadoes or hurricanes, because they never had a choice in the matter and they're not entities. When you're angry at someone, or yourself, you expect something else to happen or the thing in question to choose otherwise. You're also, on some level, unable to accept the alternate expectation. What I find annoying is what I said under the first quote and I expect an intellectual honest conversation, which I rarely get here.

 

[charlie sc]

I am bad for thinking God is bad.

Why are you bad for thinking god is bad?

Who said God is horrible?

Anger is, in my opinion, an expectation gone wrong that's usually directed at some entity, even yourself, and it had a choice to do otherwise. I assumed you think god is horrible because you get angry at god because he could have done otherwise and it doesn't seem like it's an isolated event.

I cannot say if it matters to God, but it matters to me.

I know.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Sith are never closed minded (although, we do get told we deal in absolutes).

.......

I consider myself fairly open minded but I still have progress to make. Uncertain theist

 

[charlie sc]

Sith are never closed minded (although, we do get told we deal in absolutes).

.......

I consider myself fairly open minded but I still have progress to make. Uncertain theist

Only Sith deal in absolutes

 

[dfnj]

With this reply and your last, I'm afraid you don't apply to any of the descriptions

Thanks for the personal attack.

 

[shunyadragon]

You insult my intelligence. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you cannot define the thing you want me to take seriously? Even the mainstream monotheistic religions have a vague idea what their god is. Yet, you want me to take your god, that's neither here nor there but kind of special, seriously. God can't be understood by mankind, but is somehow is understood my mankind. We can sense it but we can't. I don't know how you want any sane person to reply to that?

Here is the problem of your one sided aggressive monologue and not making an effort to understanding what others believe in a sane dialogue which you do not offer.

The only bit I was selective was my assumption that she thinks god is horrible and I am, at least partially, correct from the Trailblazer quote bellow. She thinks god is, "bad." Anger, as I have interpreted it, is perceived failed expectations that have not been accepted. This is why, for instance, we do not usually get angry at tornadoes or hurricanes, because they never had a choice in the matter and they're not entities. When you're angry at someone, or yourself, you expect something else to happen or the thing in question to choose otherwise. You're also, on some level, unable to accept the alternate expectation. What I find annoying is what I said under the first quote and I expect an intellectual honest conversation, which I rarely get here.

That is big bit of selective citation, and your 'assumption are dishonestly misrepresenting @Trailblazer. I do not believe you are offering an intellectual honest conversation, but using the shotgun approach of accusations.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why are you bad for thinking god is bad?

Because God is not bad, and I should not even imply that.

Anger is, in my opinion, an expectation gone wrong that's usually directed at some entity, even yourself, and it had a choice to do otherwise. I assumed you think god is horrible because you get angry at god because he could have done otherwise and it doesn't seem like it's an isolated event.

No, it is not an isolated event. I think God is horrible for creating a world wherein people and animals suffer and die, it is not over any specific expectation I have OF GOD.
But I am really angry at myself because I think I could have done otherwise regarding a specific event.
If you know psychology you would know the anger is really at myself and I projected it outward onto God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because God is not bad, and I should not even imply that.

No, it is not an isolated event. I think God is horrible for creating a world wherein people and animals suffer and die, it is not over any specific expectation I have OF GOD.
But I am really angry at myself because I think I could have done otherwise regarding a specific event.
If you know psychology you would know the anger is really at myself and I projected it outward onto God.

You need to realize that physical suffering is not the reality of the Spiritual nature of Creation, and specifically the journey of the human soul.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If everyone else do not obey, then elevation of obedient set of people is logical.

You, yourself wouldn't like to be surrounded with the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers. Or people who indulge themselves with sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like..

I believe, my God is just.
What people do are things immoral..

Nothing you said, above? Answers your fundamental problem:

Your god chooses, with malice, Special Status for a Select Few.

That's immoral. Your god is immoral.

And being Bob the Unbeliever,
you can't accuse someone whom you do not believe to be immoral psychopath.

Absolutely false! I can-- and have-- discussed the Morality of Lord Voldemort-- a fictional character from Harry Potter.

 

[Trailblazer]

You need to realize that physical suffering is not the reality of the Spiritual nature of Creation, and specifically the journey of the human soul.

Physical suffering is not an issue for me, but psychic suffering is. I know that the material world is temporal and that psychic suffering does not affect the soul, and I know it will be come to an end after I die, but I am not dead yet.

But this is not really about ME, because I am not really suffering most of the time, not anymore. This is about other people and animals who suffer.

I am sticking to my original statement. God created a world in which humans and animals would suffer and die, and we are expected to have faith in God, that there will be no more pain and suffering after we die. Not ONLY does all of that have to be taken on faith, but also we are told very little about the afterlife, so we cannot possibly know if we will even LIKE the afterlife, where we will have to live forever. I do not know WHY people cannot understand why all this is problematic.

I do not blame atheists one bit for how they feel about God. They have some legitimate complaints.

The religious apologetic that suffering is beneficial because it helps us grow spiritually works for some people but not for everyone. To blame those for whom it does not work is lacking in compassion, because not everyone can make use of suffering, some people just cave. I have not caved, but that is because I am very strong willed.

Moreover, if God only gives people what they can handle as it says in scriptures, why do some people commit suicide? I am not into the blame game, people suffer and sometimes it is more than they can bear. We humans are not all the same.

And that brings up another point. Why do some people suffer so much while other people suffer hardly at all? This suffering some people endure is not always because they made bad choices, it is fate and it is God who is responsible for fate. Why not just face it; the buck stops with God. Sure, we all have free will, but it is constrained by many factors.

Even if suffering is beneficial for humans, that still does not explain why animals (who cannot understand that) have to suffer. Then there is death. What kind of God created a world wherein only humans survive death? IF God is loving, the most one can say is that God loves humans. I have no idea why God even bothered to create animals at all. I know God was supposed to have created them for humans, but most humans do not deserve them. Of course there are a lot of people who love animals and care for them, but what about people who neglect and abuse animals and what about the suffering of animals in the wild? What kind of “Loving God” would allow that?

Sorry, but I am not convinced that God is Loving just because it is written in religious scriptures. I have to see evidence of it. Sure, those people who feel loved by God believe God is loving but most of those people seem to care very little about others who are not as fortunate as they are. As long as they are happy that is all that matters. They just do not seem to get it that everyone is not like them

By the way, I wrote a thread about three weeks ago called God and Suffering, but I have not posted it yet because I have not had time to answer all the posts it will probably engender.

 

[MJFlores]

Nothing you said, above? Answers your fundamental problem:

Your god chooses, with malice, Special Status for a Select Few.

That's immoral. Your god is immoral.

The choice is basically man.
If man would set aside his rebellious character
that unbelieving character - then he places himself in the select few

1 Timothy 2:3-4 New International Version (NIV)
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

God wants all people to be saved
However most people don't want salvation

Absolutely false! I can-- and have-- discussed the Morality of Lord Voldemort-- a fictional character from Harry Potter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Physical suffering is not an issue for me, but psychic suffering is. I know that the material world is temporal and that psychic suffering does not affect the soul, and I know it will be come to an end after I die, but I am not dead yet.

But this is not really about ME, because I am not really suffering most of the time, not anymore. This is about other people and animals who suffer.

I am sticking to my original statement. God created a world in which humans and animals would suffer and die, and we are expected to have faith in God, that there will be no more pain and suffering after we die. Not ONLY does all of that have to be taken on faith, but also we are told very little about the afterlife, so we cannot possibly know if we will even LIKE the afterlife, where we will have to live forever. I do not know WHY people cannot understand why all this is problematic.

I do not blame atheists one bit for how they feel about God. They have some legitimate complaints.

The religious apologetic that suffering is beneficial because it helps us grow spiritually works for some people but not for everyone. To blame those for whom it does not work is lacking in compassion, because not everyone can make use of suffering, some people just cave. I have not caved, but that is because I am very strong willed.

Moreover, if God only gives people what they can handle as it says in scriptures, why do some people commit suicide? I am not into the blame game, people suffer and sometimes it is more than they can bear. We humans are not all the same.

And that brings up another point. Why do some people suffer so much while other people suffer hardly at all? This suffering some people endure is not always because they made bad choices, it is fate and it is God who is responsible for fate. Why not just face it; the buck stops with God. Sure, we all have free will, but it is constrained by many factors.

Even if suffering is beneficial for humans, that still does not explain why animals (who cannot understand that) have to suffer. Then there is death. What kind of God created a world wherein only humans survive death? IF God is loving, the most one can say is that God loves humans. I have no idea why God even bothered to create animals at all. I know God was supposed to have created them for humans, but most humans do not deserve them. Of course there are a lot of people who love animals and care for them, but what about people who neglect and abuse animals and what about the suffering of animals in the wild? What kind of “Loving God” would allow that?

Sorry, but I am not convinced that God is Loving just because it is written in religious scriptures. I have to see evidence of it. Sure, those people who feel loved by God believe God is loving but most of those people seem to care very little about others who are not as fortunate as they are. As long as they are happy that is all that matters. They just do not seem to get it that everyone is not like them

By the way, I wrote a thread about three weeks ago called God and Suffering, but I have not posted it yet because I have not had time to answer all the posts it will probably engender.

This is spot on. Not the problem per se, but empathy to people different than me, is hard for me. But to me, that is one way forward, to help those, who got unlucky in the draw. We have a tendency to write them of as not our problem, because of rationalizations of what ever.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The choice is basically man.
If man would set aside his rebellious character
that unbelieving character - then he places himself in the select few

You are making it worse. You worship--literally-- a monster, who is without morals or ethics.

An All Knowing God-- as you claim-- could not allow choice. We cannot "choose" what god already knows in advance of our "choice".

If we chose something god did not know? God is not all-knowing!

So we did not "choose" at all-- we were following a script.

 

[MJFlores]

You are making it worse. You worship--literally-- a monster, who is without morals or ethics.

An All Knowing God-- as you claim-- could not allow choice. We cannot "choose" what god already knows in advance of our "choice".

If we chose something god did not know? God is not all-knowing!

So we did not "choose" at all-- we were following a script.

I don't worship the flying spaghetti monster

I worship the God who is invisible, eternal king and immortal.

It is true that God knows every man's fate
When he will die
How he will die

Luke 12:7 New International Version (NIV)
Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

But why would that stop you from being saved by knowing the truth?
God knows the ending, but you don't.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't worship the flying spaghetti monster

I worship the God who is invisible, eternal king and immortal.

It is true that God knows every man's fate
When he will die
How he will die

You keep proving my points are accurate: The god you believe in? Is immoral. A monster.

Might Does Not Make Right

Luke 12:7 New International Version (NIV)
Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

But why would that stop you from being saved by knowing the truth?
God knows the ending, but you don't..

I cannot choose-- I have no free will, no choice, if your statements are true.

Thus your god has made me an atheist on purpose-- who are you to question?

 

[Ancient Soul]

Concerning god, most atheists are agnostic atheists or soft atheists. Therefore, their belief has some form of uncertainty. I, and I think other soft atheists, believe god(s) are possible, but unlikely.

Contrary to this, it seems most theists are absolutely certain god(s) exist. I’ve noticed, some theists will even say it’s possible their god does not exist but immediately deny what they said with some tangent. Therefore, they’re absolutely certain.

I propose that people who are absolutely certain about a topic, especially one as controversial as this, are closed minded. People who are closed minded cannot accept new information to the contrary; they’ll dismiss it without a thought. Even Socrates understood the immense problems with certainty. Even science does not use absolutely certainty.

Are you absolutely certain god exists or not?
VS Do you believe it’s most likely god exist but possible god does not exist or it’s unlikely but possible?

Here, I’ll go first.

I think it’s possible but unlikely god(s) exist. The end.

Let’s see how open minded or closed minded you are.

As a tracker, I'm going to see how many atheists vs theists answer this question. I'll try update this as much as I can and I won't name people to respect their identity

Atheists: 15 - Theists: 11
Uncertain atheists: 12 - Uncertain theists: 4
Absolutely Certain atheists: 3 - Absolutely Certain theists: 7

This is soooo easy.

I've met God several times, so am rock solid certain that God exists.

And my first encounter with God happened during a childhood NDE/OBE that was years before I even knew about the "God" concept. So nobody will EVER change my mind.

 

[Milton Platt]

Because they’re not.

Experience is empirical, not subjective.

Not quite what I was getting at, but my fault for not being more precise.
Experiences require interpretation, hence you may objectively have had an experience. The subjectivity is in how you interpret the nature of the experience.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not quite what I was getting at, but my fault for not being more precise.
Experiences require interpretation, hence you may objectively have had an experience. The subjectivity is in how you interpret the nature of the experience.

But would you not agree that the degree in which such and of each experience varies dependent on the experience itself?

I just took a sip of my coffee, and it was hot. Though it's not verifiable by another that I just brewed it and took a sip, I would say there isn't much left to interpretation of the experience.

I had a dream last night that my daughter was involved in a deadly car accident after having an intense experience with her boyfriend. Upon waking from the dream, I wasn't sure what it meant, so I texted her to see if she was okay. She had not been in a car accident, but had just had a pretty intense and loud fight with her boyfriend. I can interpret the dream to mean that I was somehow connected to my daughters fight or that the dream was a result of someone I know being severely injured (one of my managers had an accident at work that resulted in him losing his fingertip).

Do you see the difference? Though I am unable to verify my experience with another person, the former is much less open to subjective interpretation than the latter, thought both were very real experiences.