-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: does God exist?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not believe that God punishes anyone. I believe that we punish ourselves by rebelling against God.Free from punishment!
Most folks from most religions believe they were sent here on earth for learning experience or as a test or to recognize the Creator and be grateful to the Creator.
While all those could be true - you also have to make sure you are free from punishment when you fail.
"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.”
I agree.
Who are the Angels according to your religion?So, I believe - God sent us here to show the Angels what we do (with our free-will).
So, on the judgment day - if the Angels demand -the "failed ones" could be punished!
That is what people need to do but it is easier said than done!Use his open-mindedness and search through all the confusions, cultural diffusions, false infusions and any possible contamination.
And then the "truth" will reveal itself!
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Court judgments are not based upon eyewitnesses unless those eyewitnesses can testify in the court.You made it very clear that you only acknowledge what you can see or experience with your own eyes or what could be proven with verifiable data. You do not accept testimonies of other eyewitnesses from our time or from the past - unless those testimonies can be verified with modern tools that you currently possess.
However judgements can be made based on testimonies of witnesses. Even in our modern court systems - if 20 people say they witnessed a crime but there is no other physical evidence - would a Judge deny their testimonies and set the criminal free
You decide what is acceptable to you.
The problem with expecting people to believe testimonies of eyewitnesses written in a holy book is that anyone can write a story, but there is no reason to believe that story is true.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I am similarly inclined. Eyewitness testimony has shown itself to be incredibly unreliable. Are you aware that when new DNA evidences proves that an incarcerated person is innocent, they were almost always convicted by eyewitness testimony.
In addition to people who are outright lying, there are a number of reasons for false memories. The list is pretty long, but I'll mention just a few.
Memories naturally alter themselves over time. As they become foggier, our minds often fill in the missing details with things that are not factual. It is also quite common that as we retell these stories to ourselves, we embellish them, and the new story becomes the memory. I myself have a vivid memory of being 2 and visiting the model homes in the neighborhood we would move to. I clearly remember my brother and I playing on a large triangular shaped wooden frame that looked like a slide. This was in an area where construction was still going on, and my much older sister was supervising us. The biggest problem here is that if I was two, my brother would have been an infant, unable to play with me. In addition to this, how likely do you think it is for my sister to allow us to play in dangerous construction site? And yet the memory is very strong.
Memories are notoriously hijacked by our expectations, as well as questions we are asked afterwards. When I was a psychology student, we watched a video illustrating this. The lecturing professor had arranged for someone to come running in and out in an alarming way. When asked about the person's race, many students remembered him being black when in fact he was white. When asked if he had a gun, a lot said yes, when in fact there was no gun.
Memories can be concocted entirely out of whole cloth by suggestion (this increases exponentially if truth serum or hypnosis is used). In the classic "Lost in the Mall" study, the researcher told the participant, "We've been talking to your parents about when you were five and six. We'd like to ask you to share what you yourself can recall." They discuss a few things that had genuinely happened. THEN they ask the participant what they remember about the time they got lost in the mall at the age of six -- something that NEVER happened. 25% of the time, participants "remembered" incredibly rich details.
All of this has special significance in criminal cases, where police are notorious for asking suggestive questions, or repeating over and over that someone else said they saw this other thing. Something I find most disturbing is this: Witnesses routinely assume that the actual perpetrator is in the line up or the photo array. They pick out the person who most nearly resembles what they remember. THEN the memory of person in the lineup or photo replaces the original memory. They go into court and testify with enormous confidence that the man who raped them or who killed someone is the defendant, when in fact the poor guy is completely innocent.
A particularly horrifying example of false memories was the McMartin Preschool case in Newport Beach, CA in the 1980s. The story begins when Judy Johnson (a woman with a history of mental illness) accused Ray Bucky, a preschool teacher, of molesting her child. The police subsequently interviewed the child over and over, asking leading questions, like did he touch you here, was it Ray, had they seen him do it to any other kids, etc. Hundreds of children were interviewed. By the time the police had finished, a full blown story had developed of underground tunnels and a Satanic cult that ritually abused children and sacrificed babies. Ray and Peggy Bucky were eventually exonerated, because IT NEVER HAPPENED.
So what can we conclude? That we should keep a red flag up in the back of our minds when something is based only on someone's memory, even when it is our own.
Last edited:
You should read original, and not what arm-chair atheists have propagated about it without even reading it themselves.
You presume way too much, sorry to say.
Also, I am an atheist myself. A solid one at that.
He has a whole section for not deceiving yourself and not tricking yourself of something to make you at ease with hell and paradise results. He says, a person has to make sure to be truthful about this to themselves and not deceive themselves into believing in God or religion based on the want to go to heaven and avoid hell. A whole section deals with this.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don't think that's what he is doing. There are genuine problems with Pascal's wager:
- It assumes there is only one god and one right religion.
- Believing out of self-interest rather than genuine conviction lacks moral integrity.
- It bypasses the need for evidence in belief systems.
None of these are true about the original argument.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There is only one version of Pascal's wager. Either it is valid, or it has inherent problems.
Yes and you are only parroting false things about it.
That may well be.
None of that is worth of any attention.
The very premise is... let's charitably call it very dysfunctional indeed.
No can do. I would feel offended by the suggestion were I not certain that you mean well.
YellowFeather
Member
Believing in God is where Faith works in us. When our Faith is true to God we have a close connection to God. Our Faith gives us the power to believe in what we cannot see. Without Faith one cannot please God. Hebrews 11:6
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I would argue that an atheist who is good, kind, and moral is far far closer to God than someone who says, "I believe in God" and then turns around and abuses others.
YellowFeather
Member
Atheist means that you do not believe in God. You can be good kind person, but if you do not believe in God, then God does not know you. That is where Faith works. One has to have Faith in God. without Faith one cannot please God. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is real, and that he rewards them that seek him.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
An atheist does not know God, but I believe that God knows everyone, whether they are a believer or an atheist.
Yes, I agree with all of what you said above. Without Faith it is impossible to please God, and that is why God does not offer the kind of proof that atheists want, because if God did that there would be no need for Faith.
No. There is no reasonable evidence that god exists.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Atheists: does God exist?
Of course I exist. And you asking me questions reveals that you acknowledge I exist.
yes.
At least it can be.
That is their claim, yes.
McBell said: vide #436
correct.
However, you are not the only one communicating with them.
we are all here not only communicating with them but all others here are witness to the communication with them.
So it is not merely you communicating with them with no one else privy to the communication.
Regards
F1fan said:
Of course I exist. And you asking me questions reveals that you acknowledge I exist.
McBell :
yes.
At least it can be.
McBell :
That is their claim, yes.
McBell said: vide #436
correct.
However, you are not the only one communicating with them.
we are all here not only communicating with them but all others here are witness to the communication with them.
So it is not merely you communicating with them with no one else privy to the communication.
Kindly elaborate use of "them" in one's #436 as to what persons are included in it, please.
Regards
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What is reasonable evidence is a subjective determination so ....
What is REASONABLE evidence to one person is not REASONABLE evidence to another.
Case in point: I believe I have reasonable evidence but you don't think it is reasonable evidence.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
God knows everyone.
There are several way that we can know God. Studying sacred texts. Prayer and worship. And acts of loving kindness. That means that atheists who do acts of loving kindness do in fact have a relationship with God, even if they are unaware of his existence.