Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[djhwoodwerks]

Wrong again.

If god exists, then god allowed this to happen, and gave us no evidence to believe in him.

Wrong! The evidence is all around you, you just "REFUSE" to see it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yet you compare believing in God to believing in faeries. Oh the hypocrisy! This is simply the pot calling the kettle black and nothing more. If you're feelings are so fragile that you can't stand people thinking less of you for what you believe then you have the right to remain silent as your sig line states.

Again go back and read the sequence of posts.

You are trying to turn the logical observation, that his statement would be no different then someone insisting that fairies exist, - AS BOTH ARE INVISABLE - thus having no real proof, - into a derogatory statement.

That is just bull.

*

 

[Reflex]

I thus TOOK CONTROL, - and left the church.

*

That's your problem: YOU took control. Or, rather, you think you took control. "Control" is an illusion, make-believe for children terrified of life's uncertainties.

Meh. I've grown tired of your childish game.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No problem. But that's not the same faith as what it takes to believe in unicorns or gods.

The second definition refers to that sort of faith.

Actually, there is a good amount of blurring of the lines with many of the definitions. That said, number two has no bearing on my faith in God.

You had better go back and read that sequence of posts.
My meaning was that both God and fairies are invisible, - thus it is belief in them, - rather then any real proof.

I don't believe you. You're trying to cover your *** here. Nothing more. You're no better than the people you decry in that regard. Sad that. And please, spare us from the melodrama where you proclaim loudly that I am calling you a liar. It's nothing of the sort, but you keep trying to shove your opinion about how ignorant theists are down our collective throats. You haven't said a kind word at all in any of your little hissy fits so don't pretend that you think highly of us. We're not as dumb as you think we are.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's your problem: YOU took control. Or, rather, you think you took control. "Control" is an illusion, make-believe for children terrified of life's uncertainties.

Rly? You think taking control of one's life is a problem? While I'll give you that feelings of being in control are illusory, too often people adopt the faith of others as their own. I find that rather intellectually dishonest whether it's a theist or atheist. Part of growing up is learning how to make up your own mind and to develop critical thinking in regards to assumptions that have been spoon fed to us all our lives. Unfortunately, the maturity that allows for deviation from our perceptions and conclusions seems to come much, much later. Still, I don't like corporate faith in anything. It's dangerous and notably unkind to those who dare to disagree.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Wrong as doctors are required to pass a mass medical program at university which grants them certification. They must also pass the standards of the state in regards to medical practices. There is a clear trail of evidence which one can evaluate to see if their doctor is qualified or a quack. Besides if my doctor was shown to be a quack I can get another doctor and sue my old one for malpractice as can the state.

Certification has nothing to do with their mental state from one day to the next.

That is why pharmacist also have medical degrees. There is a chain of authority everyone goes through to receive medication and each has access to medical records. The pharmacist could see an issue thus prevent a doctor from percribing dangerous medicine. Also I can go to a different doctor for another opinion. I can go to 5 doctors if I wanted to. Besides I have an example. My doctor gave me medication for asthma for years that never worked. My pharmacist talk to me about it and found a medication that could work better. He talked to my doctor about it. My doctor later talked to me about it. In the end the new medication worked wonders. As you can see there are checks and balances within the system and check any individual can take themselves.

Again, none of this has anything to do with their mental state from one day to the next.

Which is nothing like you previous example or God since driving involves and accepting that there are other individuals that could hit your car. Everyone accept this risk when they get into their car willingly or unwittingly.

Do you worry and fret about getting hit? Do you think every time you get in your car, "eh, I might get hit today, oh well." Do you have faith that you will make your destination safely?

Tires are limited in use, durability and "lifespan". Getting a flat tire once in your life is to be expected.

Do you worry that today is the day you hit a nail on the highway and have a blow out doing 75 MPH?

Nothing more than fear mongering over trivial points which does nothing to establish your claims.

Only because you cannot admit to yourself that everyone has faith. Everyone lives all their days with some kind of faith.

 

[Ingledsva]

That's your problem: YOU took control. Or, rather, you think you took control. "Control" is an illusion, make-believe for children terrified of life's uncertainties.

Again - you make statements as if they are fact, - when they are NOT.

In fact I would turn what you said around, -

It is "most" religious people that appear to be "terrified of life's uncertainties." Thus they need a God to be in control, and places of future assurance - like heaven, - and places like hell for "sinners" because they see crooks getting away with their crimes, etc.

*

 

[djhwoodwerks]

No I use reason to try to gauge the probability.

LOL! Every time you go to get in your car you use reason to gauge the probability your car is going to start? Do you do that before you get in the car? How long does that usually take? How does that happen? Do you stand outside the car and say, "well, it looks the same as it did yesterday, I think it's probable it will start"?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It is "most" religious people that appear to be "terrified of life's uncertainties."

While I agree that he went OTT here, I must point out that "most" people, religious or otherwise appear to be terrified of life's uncertainties. Most people, again religious or otherwise, crumble when under extreme duress. That's about as self evident a statement as there is. There is no benefit from being a theist or atheist in this regard. It's only wishful thinking to assert otherwise and I would ask you to prove your assertion in any event.

 

[Reflex]

That's your problem: YOU took control. Or, rather, you think you took control. "Control" is an illusion, make-believe for children terrified of life's uncertainties.

Rly? You think taking control of one's life is a problem? While I'll give you that feelings of being in control are illusory, too often people adopt the faith of others as their own. I find that rather intellectually dishonest whether it's a theist or atheist. Part of growing up is learning how to make up your own mind and to develop critical thinking in regards to assumptions that have been spoon fed to us all our lives. Unfortunately, the maturity that allows for deviation from our perceptions and conclusions seems to come much, much later. Still, I don't like corporate faith in anything. It's dangerous and notably unkind to those who dare to disagree.

I should have been more clear. I was referring to the ego.

An excellent book on the subject is The Psychic Grid by Beatrice Bruteau.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I should have been more clear. I was referring to the ego.

Well, we're all guilty of having an ego!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Again - you make statements as if they are fact, - when they are NOT.

In fact I would turn what you said around, -

It is "most" religious people that appear to be "terrified of life's uncertainties." Thus they need a God to be in control, and places of future assurance - like heaven, - and places like hell for "sinners" because they see crooks getting away with their crimes, etc.

*

Again, you make statements as if they are fact, when they are not! You say, "most religious people "APPEAR" to be terrified. That's not "FACT", that's just your observation. That doesn't make it fact! To be correct, you should have said, "in my opinion, I would turn what you said around"

 

[Reflex]

Well, we're all guilty of having an ego!

Oh, absolutely!

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually, there is a good amount of blurring of the lines with many of the definitions. That said, number two has no bearing on my faith in God.

I don't believe you. You're trying to cover your *** here. Nothing more. You're no better than the people you decry in that regard. Sad that. And please, spare us from the melodrama where you proclaim loudly that I am calling you a liar. It's nothing of the sort, but you keep trying to shove your opinion about how ignorant theists are down our collective throats. You haven't said a kind word at all in any of your little hissy fits so don't pretend that you think highly of us. We're not as dumb as you think we are.

Again wrong.

Not only have I never said Theists are ignorant, - I said they are welcome to their beliefs, several times - in this thread.

You don't like my rebuttal - so you say I'm trying to shove my opinion down your throats. Again - I could turn that around - and say that is what you are doing.

This is a debate = proof of God - no proof of God. Asking for real proof is not putting down Theists, - you are just taking it that way.

*

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is a debate = proof of God - no proof of God..

*

There is no point in requiring emperical evidence before 'beliveing' ..
If you don't wish to be convinced, you won't be .. simple. It is between a person and God. There is no compulsion for a person to believe anything .. we all have our own spiritual journeys .. people can advise others but NOT 'show them God'

 

[Ingledsva]

Again, you make statements as if they are fact, when they are not! You say, "most religious people "APPEAR" to be terrified. That's not "FACT", that's just your observation. That doesn't make it fact! To be correct, you should have said, "in my opinion, I would turn what you said around"

I suggest you reread that.

He made a statement, as if it were fact.

"...Control" is an illusion, make-believe for children terrified of life's uncertainties."

I suggested that I could turn his statement around.

And, - I said "most" religious people appear to be...

Appear to be - is an observation, not a statement of fact.

*

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

cackles

So you do not have an example, which make you the liar.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

There is no point in requiring emperical evidence before 'beliveing' ..
If you don't wish to be convinced, you won't be .. simple. It is between a person and God. There is no compulsion for a person to believe anything .. we all have our own spiritual journeys .. people can advise others but NOT 'show them God'

Then why would god punish people with hell?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Deuteronomy 6:5
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Exodus 15:17
Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground(mound/mountain), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Evidence that any of these statements are correct please?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

everything evolves or dies. the poets don't necessarily speak in literals. like song writers don't necessarily use literalism to convey an idea. there are infinite ways of expressing something. why would you think an idea from 5000 yrs ago would be expressed literally the same in a different space and time?

nothing is forever

So with that logic anything can be a divine message if you do not take it literally.

Please I would follow a religion if it contained clear and valid proof.