If god wasnt

[sun rise]

The question only applies to

1. People who do not believe in god

I missed that in the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

arguments and sarcasm are not debates. Change your tone.

Yes, but that's a ridiculous analogy since you didn't impart anything like that in your OP or any subsequent responses. You are not presenting the choice between two different colors, you are presenting a choice between two completely identical hypothetical beings. You are asking someone to explain why they are picking between blue and blue. Not blue and red.



Well, that explains the confusion then. You just have no idea what you are talking about.



Judaism and Christianity are not akin to red and blue. I can see how it might seem that way from an atheist point of view, but you are supposed to be suspending that for the discussion, aren't you?



Yes, its much deeper than that. Esoteric, even.



Oh, I see. So you are only very casually asking unclear questions for the purposes of not caring about the answer. [sarcasm]Yes, now I'm totally clear about what your aim is. [/sarcasm]



You can't be serious...



Yes, that's what happens when you post nonsense. People try to figure out what you're babbling about. Listen, hypothetical questions are posed on here all the time that require no particular adherence to anything in order to answer them. I'm not a Christian, it doesn't mean I don't have an idea of what the Christian God is. Now, I'm not under any obligation to learn anything about it but if I expect to pick the brains of those that believe in such a thing I might want to perhaps maybe possibly consider learning the barest details about it so I don't sound like a dumb-dumb. Just solid advice.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I missed that in the OP.

I would have addressed an audience but it seems to put more fuel to the fire. But, yeah, I was just curious if people who see god negatively would follow if he was positive. RFians have a tendency to make threads as if they are building a tower of babel and then wonder why god mixed all the languages instead of keeping to the goal.

In general. Not you. I try not to do many threads about god. Its rediculous.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I missed that in the OP.

To tell you honestly, sunrise, religious are easier to talk to than non-religious. Dont know why. Never had that in person since everyones christian.

 

[Audie]

If you had evidence of God, belief would follow naturally.

Tell the unveiled one.

He cant figure why his q makes no
sense.

 

[Sir Doom]

The question only applies to

1. People who do not believe in god
2. People who see god in a negative life
3. The question: would they change views if god was positive
4. Why or why not

And for some reason you think I don't qualify?

You may have forgotten the part where I answered your question earlier. You even asked a follow-up. Did that not happen? Are we still confused about my answer? Go ahead and re-read if you like.

The rest of you make things complicated. No one needs to reply to a thread that does not apply to them then get upset when the question doestn make sence. If courseit dosnt! its not addressed to that person.

That is absolutely NOT why it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because you do not have a firm grasp on the topic. The reason people nit-pick the OP is because they don't want to answer a question they can't understand. The reason you are getting responses from people it 'doesn't apply to' is because it is not clear in your OP who it does apply to! Hence the questions and the myriad answers and all of that. Take some responsibility for what you have done. Stop blaming the rest of us for being interested against your wishes. The problem is your delivery, I assure you.

Thats like me getting upset because someone asked in their OP if god created heaven what would it look like. I answer the question doesnt apply to me or some other silly thing not related to the question and then I wonder why Im stll confused. If it doesnt cocern me, I do not answer.

As it is, you are the sole judge as to how you spend your time and what does or does not concern you. Similarly, ALL THE REST OF US GET TO DO THAT, TOO. Again, stop trying to shame people for being interested in your thread.

Wich RFians can follow that example. It will save OPs a hundred headaches over questions.

What might save more headaches would be spending more than 20 seconds formulating your question. Consider how it might sound to one person or another. Of course, that would require that you give even the slightest amount of crap as to what other people think.

arguments and sarcasm are not debates. Change your tone.

Oh dear... I'll give you sarcasm (though I have to say there is a pretty fine line between sarcasm and rhetoric) but no arguing in debate? 20,000 posts and you think there is no arguing in debate? Honestly...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And for some reason you think I don't qualify?

You may have forgotten the part where I answered your question earlier. You even asked a follow-up. Did that not happen? Are we still confused about my answer? Go ahead and re-read if you like.



That is absolutely NOT why it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because you do not have a firm grasp on the topic. The reason people nit-pick the OP is because they don't want to answer a question they can't understand. The reason you are getting responses from people it 'doesn't apply to' is because it is not clear in your OP who it does apply to! Hence the questions and the myriad answers and all of that. Take some responsibility for what you have done. Stop blaming the rest of us for being interested against your wishes. The problem is your delivery, I assure you.



As it is, you are the sole judge as to how you spend your time and what does or does not concern you. Similarly, ALL THE REST OF US GET TO DO THAT, TOO. Again, stop trying to shame people for being interested in your thread.



What might save more headaches would be spending more than 20 seconds formulating your question. Consider how it might sound to one person or another. Of course, that would require that you give even the slightest amount of crap as to what other people think.



Oh dear... I'll give you sarcasm (though I have to say there is a pretty fine line between sarcasm and rhetoric) but no arguing in debate? 20,000 posts and you think there is no arguing in debate? Honestly...

Why do you make things so complicated? Instead of pointing out faults, express something productive. The OP isn't static. Debates aren't arguments..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Something must got you on fire over a RF thread. We have a choice to reply or leave it be.

And for some reason you think I don't qualify?

I did not say that.

You may have forgotten the part where I answered your question earlier. You even asked a follow-up. Did that not happen? Are we still confused about my answer? Go ahead and re-read if you like.

You dont have to be sarcastic. State your concern in a respectful way or leave it be.

The reason you are getting responses from people it 'doesn't apply to' is because it is not clear in your OP who it does apply to! Hence the questions and the myriad answers and all of that. Take some responsibility for what you have done.

Its RFian thing. Its a pattern. Dont know how long you been here. I have my settings fixed so I cant see peoples religions and number of posts. Outside of that, you-statements arent productive.

What is your goal for pointing out what you think I did wrong???

Who is it benefiting?

Stop blaming the rest of us for being interested against your wishes. The problem is your delivery, I assure you.

Hm. Youre taking offense for other people?

As it is, you are the sole judge as to how you spend your time and what does or does not concern you. Similarly, ALL THE REST OF US GET TO DO THAT, TOO. Again, stop trying to shame people for being interested in your thread.

Yes.,, And...whats your point?

No need for caps. I can read.

What might save more headaches would be spending more than 20 seconds formulating your question. Consider how it might sound to one person or another. Of course, that would require that you give even the slightest amount of crap as to what other people think.

What would save headaches is putting me on ignore, dont answer the OP, or change your tone os you wont make yourself annoyed. You can control your own emotions (ideally). No one else can make you to continue to be annoyed. Take a break from the keyboard.

Oh dear... I'll give you sarcasm (though I have to say there is a pretty fine line between sarcasm and rhetoric) but no arguing in debate? 20,000 posts and you think there is no arguing in debate? Honestly...

Arguing is making claims and statements (and accusations) against the person you speak with. Its built up on hightened emotions and sarcasm; it is not productive.

Debates are stating our claim, supporting it with our evidence, question the logic of the other persons claim to disprove his claim not the person himself.

Arguments attack the person. Debates attack the information given between two parties of the debate. Asking for clarification and asking for repetition is natural in a conversation (especially online where people come from all around the world with differing values and culture and conversation techniques and english fluency).

Therefore, ideally, you need to be patient with people online. Its not like talking to a friend or a stranger you have some cultural similarities to.

That or just dont address the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you had evidence of God, belief would follow naturally.

I wasnt asking about evidence. The OP assumes there is a god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If that were the case, God would instruct people, tell them what to do, give them healthy desires, comfort, and heal them.

I think everyone would believe in God if he did that!

THANK YOU!

People make things so complicated. Or is it just me

Id think a lot of people probably would turn around to believe in god. If they do, I wonder if they didnt believe in him because of how he is potrayed in the bible rather than the nature of god himself apart from the bible.

Can a person reject god without suffering consequences because he chose something more benificial to his wellbeing than god?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The word 'believe' threw me. Because if I have evidence of God then it's not a matter of believing in something I've not seen. Because in the case you've outlined, my belief has been replaced by the reality of vision.

What do you mean by reality of vision? Like knowledge?

When I think of believe in, I think more trust in something or someone. Believing something exist and believing in something apply it already exists are different. Different context. Wonder if thats what the confusion is about.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If you already had evidence of God, why would belief be required?

I guess evidence isn't necessarily proof.

 

[sun rise]

What do you mean by reality of vision? Like knowledge?

When I think of believe in, I think more trust in something or someone. Believing something exist and believing in something apply it already exists are different. Different context. Wonder if thats what the confusion is about.

In Eastern systems there is a notion of planes of consciousness. The 6th plane is conceived of by some as the plane of sight - the sight of God. Belief in God from this perspective is replaced by sight of God. For example, if we go back quite a few years, I might have believed that North America existed. But when I saw North America with my own eyes, the believe would have been replaced by knowledge (sight).

 

[Sir Doom]

Shockingly enough, debate no longer resembles arguing. Who knew?

Anyway, you asked me why I would follow a perfectly righteous supreme being that I had direct knowledge of...

Because there could be no better thing to do. In what weird universe would anyone choose differently? You are objectively aware of the almighty master-controller of all reality who also happens to love you more than a parent loves their child. That is plenty of reason. I find it unreasonable to suggest any other course.

You've basically removed all possible misgivings typically related to the concept. Namely existence, capability and character. As I said, your giving me 52 cards and wondering why I made a royal flush.

So, that's where we got stuck. I mentioned a lack of confidence in your reported naivete. You began the 'yerdoonitrong' routine.

Want to try again?

PS: This is called 'making an argument' in debate. It's pretty much all you do in debate, actually. They are synonyms. Bonk.

 

[`mud]

hey Artist,
you don't see the possibilty:
"The Cosmos is endless, and the possibility of the existence of gods does exist,..."
Could `God` change ? I think not. I think no `gods` exist...but...notice the `does exist`,
that would take a monumental change in the Cosmos, wouldn't it ?
No other `change` could ever be expected, I'll look when I get to the outer edge !
Oh....I won't have my eyes will I, only my Spirit will know somehow, will it ?
Now...that would be some big change, won't it ?

 

[1213]

A lot of people believe the biblical god is not a nice guy. I have no opinions since I dont know him either way, but Im curious to those who think this, if god were the opposite than they depict of him would they believe why or why not.

I can easily believe that many god’s have existed. I could perhaps believe that the opposite of Bible God has existed as well. The important difference is, I don’t think I would keep anyone else as my God, even if it exists.

Bible God is best and great and acts as the Bible tells that is why I want to keep Him as my God.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The abrahamic god

If you had

1. Evidence of god (Im simple minded; no semantics)
2. God was not like the one in the bible
3. He loves, make present to his creation, and did everything you feel god should do

Would you believe in him?

Why or why not?

I just want to see something.

Real evidence? Yes, sure. Why would anyone not believe in something supported by evidence?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Real evidence? Yes, sure. Why would anyone not believe in something supported by evidence?

Believe in

 

[viole]

The abrahamic god

If you had

1. Evidence of god (Im simple minded; no semantics)
2. God was not like the one in the bible
3. He loves, make present to his creation, and did everything you feel god should do

Would you believe in him?

Why or why not?

I just want to see something.

You got me at 1. The other points are not important.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Fool]

The abrahamic god

the absolute doesn't belong exclusively to an aspect of that absolute.

If you had

1. Evidence of god (Im simple minded; no semantics)

self-evident

2. God was not like the one in the bible

the absolute, or all, can't be found in one book vs another book. that would be like one aspect defining aspects of it's self and another book defining some other aspect of other self

3. He loves, make present to his creation, and did everything you feel god should do

Would you believe in him?

Why or why not?

I just want to see something.

the absolute isn't a him any more than it's a her; again one aspect without recognition of the other.

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.