Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[ppp]

That's like saying don't argue using the tenets of your religion on a religious forum.

Not at all. Feel free to argue your tenets. But facts are facts. You only know how god is described by the Bible. No more.

 

[ppp]

It didn't fail.

If he wanted different result, it failed.

 

[F1fan]

"Good" "Bad"

Kindly tell us as to what is good and what is bad and give compelling arguments to substantiate one's stance, please??
Right?

I can't write an essay on what good and bad is and the best was to assess it. But briefly, there will be disagreement from my opinion at some level about what good and bad is. For example conservative Christians might think it's good to cut taxes for the wealthy and they will hopefully invest in the economy and the economy gets better for everyone, and this means the federal government should cut or eliminate social programs for the poor because they need to pull up their bootstraps and find jobs where they can afford healthcare. They also think it's good that government has little ability to help provide healthcare for the poor. Personally I would find all of this bad. As an atheist I find it immoral that a wealthy nation avoids helping the poor access healthcare while it remains a commercial product for the most part.

So, are conservative Christians who believe this just bad people and their religion reinforces the bad ideas, or are they good people who were negatively influenced by a religious policy that is heavily related to republican politics?

So we can debate whether allowing the poor to go without healthcare while the wealthy get richer is a good thing or not. It is complex and fuzzy.

To my mind these greedy beliefs of conservative Christians suggest morally compromised people, and they could be bad people who found bad religion or good people whose bad religion tainted them.

And of course we have the obvious bad theists like the Westboro Baptist Church, the 9-11 hijackers, ISIS, the Taliban, those televangelist frauds who swindle money from poor believers, etc.

Also, kindly let us know one's compelling arguments or the Methodology one adopted that forced one to join one's now "none-ism", please. Right?

What is "none-ism"?

One may like to google for the denominations/types of Atheism, and others please::

• 7 different types of non-believers | Salon.com
• The six types of atheist | Andrew Brown | The Guardian

"Organized around skepticism toward organizations and united by a common belief that they do not believe, nones as a group are just as internally complex as many religions. And as with religions, these internal contradictions could keep new followers away."
The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion
Right?

The atheists I engage with aren't terribly concerned with what category they fall into. I don't really care what category I fall into. Most tend to be weak atheists which is the most simple version, that being a thinker who isn't convinced that theists make valid claims about their religions.

 

[F1fan]

You don't know if killing for fun is better than killing for a reason?

I suggest both are killing for reasons. Fun is a reason. I just find the idea of killing animals for enjoyment disturbing. If a hunter eats the meat to survive that is a natural reason that is prevalent all around us.

 

[F1fan]

According to your frail human logic maybe.

What kind of logic do you use? There is only one type of logic.

But there's nothing that says the original humans were designed to fail, that's just your opinion. God knowing doesn't equal causing.

We all have our interpretations of Genesis, but one thing for certain, it's not true and factual. As a story it describes a perfect God that created humans that were given rules to follow. Yet those humans failed to obey. As you assert this God knows everything so knew they would disobey the rules. If God really wanted them to be obedient why didn't God give them adequate knowledge and discipline to say "no" to temptation? God even sent the serpent to tempt them, and knew they would be tempted. That's a setup.

 

[rational experiences]

After the ice age science of man said animals new life emerged two by two each pair. Then mother father came into life as first parents multiples in their own countries land.

Direct out of the eternal spirit.
Direct into land inheritance.

As the man's thesis origin of science was on origin earth as destroyed life.

Then dinosaurs inherited life on earth.
Then dinosaurs inherited life on earth.

Twice.

The ice age.

Then new animal human life emerged and was paired and was equal.

So saying man was first in life after the ice age is a known false theism.

Old memory said earth father quotes origin science. It's heavens. Sun blasted attack cooled. Nature garden then man first woman second woman left most men left and only the scientist men remained.

As earth garden kept a body of men life manifested.

So they tried to store the heavens light mass inside the crystal of earth. To return earths heavens to the immaculate only. So they could leave.

As they had in fact emerged direct out of the eternal. And who cares if science doesn't agree.

Is the human story why they originally blew up earths crystal mass by pyramid.

So the earth opened its seams as the crystal ground mass was removed. Filial ground mass strata around rivers the proof. It rained yet didn't fill up places like the grand canyon as earth was cooled only.

New pyramid ice age advice was heard only after star fall irradiated man's brain.

Which isn't science and technology. It was brain change first.

So when dust conversion began on the ground it took from every nations ground mass. Sand.. dirt..mud..clay..various stones.. volcanoes..sea water...fresh water til a sin hole opened. Virtual machine body removed.

So the machine would overheat as notification mass out of its body was taken also. As it took from every nation.

How a sink hole equals the machines mass time shifted without leaving. To begin as the hole of their thesis.

As cooling wanders and can't be machine controlled.

As the theist advice when thinking atmosphere is direct ...as the atmosphere... about the atmosphere and is not a machine thesis.

Lightning for example is atmospheric reacted then goes way and is not a constant held. Atmospheric controlled.

If a human today keeps thinking I want dark. The original man scientist also only wanted dark evening sky. For the light energy to only be stored in the crystal.

Yet evening sky he only knew with the daylight existing.

So you can't pretend just one status and no light.

Proof the scientist today is mind possessed by the original man theist yet he just wanted an all immaculate sky cold clear gases.

You include all the destruction since that science of man caused. The burning portion. Equals his minds answer today as just science. The science that only men practiced the science that only men knew.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If he wanted different result, it failed.

What does it mean for an all powerful being to " want"? He needs nothing so his wants can't be the same as humans wants.
God said he wanted his people to obey him and did everything necessary for that to happen. But it's not as if he failed, as Romans tells us.

"Well then, has God failed to fulfill his promise to Israel? No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God’s people! ....
This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children."
God gets what he wants, he just doesn't have any reason to be in a hurry about it. He knows the end from the beginning.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I suggest both are killing for reasons. Fun is a reason. I just find the idea of killing animals for enjoyment disturbing. If a hunter eats the meat to survive that is a natural reason that is prevalent all around us.

How about to save money? Steak is expensive these days, cheaper to shoot a deer and cut your own steaks.

 

[ppp]

What does it mean for an all powerful being to " want"? He needs nothing so his wants can't be the same as humans wants.
God said he wanted his people to obey him and did everything necessary for that to happen. But it's not as if he failed, as Romans tells us.

This is just double talk. If the word want as you are using it means something special and specific, then define it. If you don't have a definition to go with your claim you're not saying anything.

God gets what he wants, he just doesn't have any reason to be in a hurry about it. He knows the end from the beginning.

One's not become angry when one gets what one wants.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What kind of logic do you use? There is only one type of logic.


We all have our interpretations of Genesis, but one thing for certain, it's not true and factual. As a story it describes a perfect God that created humans that were given rules to follow. Yet those humans failed to obey. As you assert this God knows everything so knew they would disobey the rules. If God really wanted them to be obedient why didn't God give them adequate knowledge and discipline to say "no" to temptation? God even sent the serpent to tempt them, and knew they would be tempted. That's a setup.

According to your faulty human logic perhaps it appears that way. Or perhaps you don't know everything. God gave them what they needed but they made the wrong choice. And it never said God sent the serpent, he also had Free will.

 

[Wildswanderer]

One's not become angry when one gets what one wants.

One can be angry in the moment because of the stubbornness of men's wills, but still win in the end.

 

[ppp]

According to your faulty human logic perhaps it appears that way. Or perhaps you don't know everything.

Or perhaps this is just something that you are making up to sound like you know what you're talking about. Can you demonstrate any other type of logic?

 

[ppp]

One can be angry in the moment because of the stubbornness of men's wills, but still win in the end.

One only becomes angry in such a case where one is frustrated. One is not frustrated when one is not in a hurry, and knows that things will come out the way one intends.

 

[ppp]

One can be angry in the moment because of the stubbornness of men's wills, but still win in the end.

Neither Adam nor Eve were capable of making moral judgements before they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How could they know that what they were doing was "wrong" prior to an understanding that there was such a thing as "wrong"?

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is just double talk. If the word want as you are using it means something special and specific, then define it. If you don't have a definition to go with your claim you're not saying anything.

The traditional theological view that God does not change and thus is not affected by actions that take place in the world. It's called impassibility. Now this is debatable to a point. God certainly has experiences as a man, but that from his humanness not his godhood.
There can be no internally caused suffering since that would imply weakness and imperfection in God. Since God is not a material being, any suffering attributed to him cannot be of a physical kind. We are left with possible suffering that can be caused due to his emotions.

Of course, we do not know exactly how God experiences emotions, and we have to understand that scriptural revelation concerning God is for the large part, a condescension for our understanding....since God is so completely-other than what we are, the revelation of God found in Scripture must be lowered to our level.
God has to reveal himself in terms that we can understand. His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways. To say God wants doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to a human want.

 

[Wildswanderer]

One only becomes angry in such a case where one is frustrated. One is not frustrated when one is not in a hurry, and knows that things will come out the way one intends.

Nonsense. Even I can be angry at things that I know God will eventually make right.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Neither Adam nor Eve were capable of making moral judgements before they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How could they know that what they were doing was "wrong" prior to an understanding that there was such a thing as "wrong"?

Be being told...my dogs can even understand that kind of wrong and right.

 

[ppp]

The traditional theological view that God does not change and thus is not affected by actions that take place in the world. It's called impassibility. Now this is debatable to a point. God certainly has experiences as a man, but that from his humanness not his godhood.
There can be no internally caused suffering since that would imply weakness and imperfection in God. Since God is not a material being, any suffering attributed to him cannot be of a physical kind. We are left with possible suffering that can be caused due to his emotions

I have heard this before. But until someone can reconcile God becoming angry at things in the Bible I don't give it much credit. There is no logical through line to support that contention.

Of course, we do not know exactly how God experiences emotions, and we have to understand that scriptural revelation concerning God is for the large part, a condescension for our understanding....since God is so completely-other than what we are, the revelation of God found in Scripture must be lowered to our level.
God has to reveal himself in terms that we can understand. His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways. To say God wants doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to a human want.

I think it's more likely that the Bible was simply written by humans trying to make sense of the world. And like most humans anthropomorphizing the world to make it seem more comprehensible.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

@Wildswanderer
based on what I have seen in this thread you are passionate about Christian apologetics. If I may, you might want to research apologetics, logical fallacies, Christian doctrine, history, and atheist views ( know thy enemy ) to avoid time wasting back-and-forths, circular conversations, and generally losing arguments.

 

[ppp]

Nonsense. Even I can be angry at things that I know God will eventually make right.

That's only because you're not in control. If you were in control you would not feel that frustration.