Is Pain And Suffering The Only Way To Convince Atheists That There Is A God

[Stevicus]

Maybe I have to explain further in that I meant convincing ALL atheists that God exists. They would have to be forced because their faith is no God exists. One could just continue to disavow God for any reason.

Or, God could simply just show Himself and that would end the argument right then and there.

Of course, this isn't the way God designed it. He gave everyone free will and they make their own choice. At first, he gave a negative warning with the Tree of Knowledge. This time, he's giving a positive warning with John 3:16.

If God appeared before someone and said "I exist," then it would only be up to the individual(s) to whom God appeared to either believe or not believe. If someone from down the street tells me that he heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who read in a book that "God exists," then I don't see how this obligates me to God in any way, shape, or form.

It was different with Adam and Eve, since they ostensibly were told by God directly to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. And they disobeyed anyway. But God hasn't said anything to me directly, so I have no such obligation or clear instructions from God on the matter.

It's not a question of believing in God, but more a matter of believing in what other people say about God, which makes a huge difference. I have no way of knowing that any of this is truthful or not. People tend to lie and make stuff up all the time, so why should I be put in a position where I have to believe it - or else? If God wants to tell me something directly, He's certainly free to do so, but as for what human beings tell me, I take it all with a grain of salt.

>>but the same could be said about a faith based on indoctrination. It's not a mature faith, and perhaps it's even less mature than a faith based on actually witnessing miracles.<<

I wasn't referring to indoctrination I wasn't referring to conversion. I agree that I wasn't talking about a mature faith either. A mature faith is one who finds faith for themselves. The topic I was talking about is convincing all atheists that God exists. Just making them all realize an unproveable God is here.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? The very concept of "God" is so ill-defined and nebulous that proving it or disproving it is impossible. No one knows exactly what it is they're setting out to prove or disprove anyway, so the whole question is an exercise in futility.

It's also not just a matter of proving whether God actually "exists." If someone is claiming to be able to speak as God's representative on Earth (either as a clergyman or a dedicated believer), then they also have to prove that and anything else they might say about God.

We could even skip over the question of proving God's existence, yet believers would still have an uphill battle trying to prove anything and everything else associated with religion and their views on God. We have no proof that Adam and Eve ever existed or that there was ever such a thing as the Tree of Knowledge. We have no proof that any of the events depicted in the Bible ever really happened.

 

[Quetzal]

Or, God could simply just show Himself and that would end the argument right then and there.

Bingo! That is all it would take.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you have to open any argument by saying that you'll understand something better once you accept it as true, that's the very definition of circular logic.

Agreed.

Of course, nothing else needs to be believed to be understood. In fact, belief in the Bible distorts understanding of it, since is forced to alter it to make sense and be consistent. We probably all understand very well what meekness is, and why it is not a virtue. The believer will convert meekness to some related idea like humility, willingly submitting to authority as on the job or on a ball team, politeness, or some other deferential behavior, but will not abide meekness, which is weakness of spirit. After all, the Christian god couldn't possibly be commending door-mattery.

One may be bold and intrepid while humble, but not bold and intrepid while meek. Humility

Recently, on another RF thread, a poster did exactly this. After I made the case that praising meekness was bad advice, she immediately wrote, "A humble person cannot be humiliated. Humiliation comes from pride....a trait God hates."

I noted that meekness is not the same as humility. Meekness is, "being submissive by nature and easily imposed upon. The meek are used by others because they don't stand up for themselves. They're fearful and weak in spirit. They just get whacked in the cheek again. If you saw Office Space, Milton, the fat guy with the stapler whose desk kept being moved into bleaker places and who was terminated without even being told, was meek, not humble."

She refused to deal with this, instead, continually morphing meekness into something else. "God hates pride," she continued.

That was a typical example of how believers modify the meanings of the words in the Bible to scrub them of the moral and intellectual errors, self-contradictions, errors of science and history, etc.. The unbeliever has no need to do that, and simply interprets the words at their face value. He has no agenda to sanitize them.

So who has the best chance of understanding what the scriptures say - a believer fitted with a confirmation bias that will not let him see those scriptural intellectual and moral errors, or an disinterested unbeliever with no need to try to may the meanings of the word make sense or be correct if they aren't?

********

To the Christians reading along:

Would you trust the apologetics of a zealous Muslim telling you that his scriptures don't mean what they say, or his admonition that you cannot understand them because you don't believe them. Probably not. I wouldn't. As I said, nobody else makes this claim about any other textual material, and nobody would accept it if they did. Similarly, the skeptic rejects it regarding the Bible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is it just me that hope non-believers get the consequences? ... We all have this morbid curiosity if someone is going to be executed

No, you're far from alone, and far from alone in taking pleasure in the thought. Here's something I assembled a while back that I call "Jeers in Heaven." Don't fail to note Jonathon Edwards reference to reprobate infants getting their comeuppance in hell in the 7th item:

• "In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned ... So that they may be urged the more to praise God ... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens ... to the damned" - Thomas Aquinas

Apparently, the Christian god and the angels will be rejoicing at the suffering of souls in hell:

• "The door of mercy will be shut and all bowels of compassion denied, by God, who will laugh at their destruction; by angels and saints, who will rejoice when they see the vengeance' by their fellow-suffer the devil and the damned rejoicing over their misery." - Bishop Newcomb

Delighting in the suffering of others is part of the happiness of heaven:

• This display of the divine character will be most entertaining to all who love God, will give them the highest and most ineffable pleasure. Should the fire of this eternal punishment cease, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed." - Samuel Hopkins

Does this seem confusing? Maybe this will help:

• "Non-Christians often ask the Christian, "But how can the God of love allow any of his creatures to suffer unending misery?" The question is, how can he not? The fact that God is love makes hell necessary." - Christian Theology in Plain Language, p. 219

So don't worry if all of this seems a little horrible to you now. This famous preacher is letting you know how happy torture will make you as well once you have gone to heaven:

• "The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardor of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven ... The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever ... Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell ... I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss." - Jonathan Edwards

This early church father is certainly planning on having a good time watching others suffer and even laughing at them:

• "At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause." - Tertullian

Does this include infants?

• "Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell, in the tongs of his wrath, till they turn and spit venom in his face!" - Jonathan Edwards

But what about your own children? This one from the Catholic Truth Society is as beautiful as a mother's love for her child:

• "What will it be like for a mother in heaven who sees her son burning in hell? She will glorify the justice of God." - Catholic Truth Society

One might ask just how all of these people in heaven laughing at the suffering of strangers, former friends, and even former loved ones that didn't make it would make them any different from Satan and the demons below, who presumably will be laughing along with them. Good question, don't you think?

 

[Quetzal]

Is it just me that hope non-believers get the consequences?

Of course not. Many devout Christians believe this because it would ultimately validate their belief. I find it interesting you wish suffering on other people to satisfy your... "morbid curiosity". I think you may have missed the message all together.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For what it is worth the Bible is not, nor will it ever be, considered evidence in this context.

This is just wrong. Just sayin'.

The Bible is evidence of nothing except that some people wrote what became a bible. It has little value to the skeptic except in a naturalistic sense. It is literature and a cultural icon of historical interest, but nothing more.

My father was a bright and funny guy. One of the funniest memories I have of him came when I was trying to proselytize to him as a recently converted Christian (our family was atheistic). He wasn't really interested in my new religion, but I was trying to find a way to reach him. I gave him a Bible, and without looking at it, he set it down on the lamp table beside him.

I said, "Dad, that is not something to toss aside lightly or cavalierly." He said, "You're right son. My mistake." He then heaved it full force across the room into a wall. "It's a something to be flung using all available force."

"I don't care who you are, that there's funny. Lord, I apologize for that one there, and please be with all the starving Pygmies down there in New Guinea."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, what I'm saying is how does one prove an unprovable God? One can only force atheists to believe if all atheists are to believe. And I'm not referring humans causing other humans pain, but divine pain and suffering.

Divine pain and suffering?

Given how many gods are available to worship, why would somebody in the market for one choose that god?

 

[Twilight Hue]

>>You certainly do need faith because that's all there is.<<

This is where I think your thinking gets weird. Instead, faith led me to God and I realized one needs God and that all that he gave us is here now and then forever. God's love is sublime. It's everything to make us happy.

I'd say you led yourself into thinking that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is it just me that hope non-believers get the consequences?

Of course not. There are PLENTY of butt-hurt theists who absolutely relish the idea that all those godless heathens who questioned their beliefs will receive some dastardly form of punishment. There have even been a number of theists who believe its their job to be the punishers of atheists in this very life.

When you do this, isn't it your own thinking and doing and not God, the believers or I?

My lack of belief has to do with all of the above. It has everything to do with God, because "God", to me, is nothing more than the concept invented by man that has all of the believers in said "God" going around doing all of the crazy things that they do and proving to me time and again that I DO NOT EVER WANT TO EMULATE THEIR BELIEFS. This includes you.

To paraphrase my question, isn't being forced to believe the only way all atheists will believe in God? They have free will, but choose not to believe, so they can only be forced if all is to believe.

Do you honestly believe that forcing belief on atheists would make sincere believers out of them? As an example, if you were to somehow foist the beliefs on me and somehow get me to proclaim that I was Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. - I would really only be biding my time until the moment I could escape the imposed tyranny, or turn the tables on you in some way in order to put a halt to the depriving of liberty that you're describing.

It's like they have to be turned into programmed robots.

And this would please God by your estimation? Man, I tell ya... I am liking this God character less and less every time I hear more about Him.

>>That's the kind of believer you are. Vindictive, sadistic and judgmental, yet delusionally considering yourself sincerely pious.<<

I dunno.

The part in bold, underlined and italics above is extremely telling. Not a denial of my accusations, not a confession - very noncommittal. And not at all unexpected.

Do I wish to see or hear the sinners receive their punishment? I don't think so and I don't think we will. The believers have another destination and will be busy preparing for it.

For the sake of every being in the universe, I hope (and personally believe) that you are wrong.

 

[james bond]

If your target audience is an atheist, why are you going to solely rely on a document they actively reject? I would imagine that is the very definition of insanity.

>>If your target audience is an atheist, why are you going to solely rely on a document they actively reject?<<

That's a really strange assumption. My target audience is everyone. Pain and suffering is huge in medicine, so that's why I put it under science. The most prescribed as well as the best selling non-prescribed medicine is for pain relief far and above beyond anything else.

 

[james bond]

Or, God could simply just show Himself and that would end the argument right then and there.



If God appeared before someone and said "I exist," then it would only be up to the individual(s) to whom God appeared to either believe or not believe. If someone from down the street tells me that he heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who read in a book that "God exists," then I don't see how this obligates me to God in any way, shape, or form.

It was different with Adam and Eve, since they ostensibly were told by God directly to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. And they disobeyed anyway. But God hasn't said anything to me directly, so I have no such obligation or clear instructions from God on the matter.

It's not a question of believing in God, but more a matter of believing in what other people say about God, which makes a huge difference. I have no way of knowing that any of this is truthful or not. People tend to lie and make stuff up all the time, so why should I be put in a position where I have to believe it - or else? If God wants to tell me something directly, He's certainly free to do so, but as for what human beings tell me, I take it all with a grain of salt.



But that's the whole point, isn't it? The very concept of "God" is so ill-defined and nebulous that proving it or disproving it is impossible. No one knows exactly what it is they're setting out to prove or disprove anyway, so the whole question is an exercise in futility.

It's also not just a matter of proving whether God actually "exists." If someone is claiming to be able to speak as God's representative on Earth (either as a clergyman or a dedicated believer), then they also have to prove that and anything else they might say about God.

We could even skip over the question of proving God's existence, yet believers would still have an uphill battle trying to prove anything and everything else associated with religion and their views on God. We have no proof that Adam and Eve ever existed or that there was ever such a thing as the Tree of Knowledge. We have no proof that any of the events depicted in the Bible ever really happened.

He has. We know that a huge hand and arm does not come down from the sky, but we do know that Jesus came down and walked with mortals. For this, he was crucified. Then we know God destroyed all of humankind in a global flood. We know our lives were cut short by cosmic rays after the flood and we aren't as healthy anymore compared to Adam and Eve's descendants. Yet, you do not believe.

 

[Quetzal]

That's a really strange assumption.

Why? Atheists are in the title of your thread.

 

[james bond]

I'd say you led yourself into thinking that.

Wrong again. My finding God has led me to knowing that.

 

[james bond]

Why? Atheists are in the title of your thread.

So? My post is still for everybody. Anyway, I'll be leaving as this is getting us nowhere.

 

[Quetzal]

So? My post is still for everybody. Anyway, I'll be leaving as this is getting us nowhere.

Buh bye!

 

[james bond]

Of course not. There are PLENTY of butt-hurt theists who absolutely relish the idea that all those godless heathens who questioned their beliefs will receive some dastardly form of punishment. There have even been a number of theists who believe its their job to be the punishers of atheists in this very life.


My lack of belief has to do with all of the above. It has everything to do with God, because "God", to me, is nothing more than the concept invented by man that has all of the believers in said "God" going around doing all of the crazy things that they do and proving to me time and again that I DO NOT EVER WANT TO EMULATE THEIR BELIEFS. This includes you.


Do you honestly believe that forcing belief on atheists would make sincere believers out of them? As an example, if you were to somehow foist the beliefs on me and somehow get me to proclaim that I was Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. - I would really only be biding my time until the moment I could escape the imposed tyranny, or turn the tables on you in some way in order to put a halt to the depriving of liberty that you're describing.

And this would please God by your estimation? Man, I tell ya... I am liking this God character less and less every time I hear more about Him.



The part in bold, underlined and italics above is extremely telling. Not a denial of my accusations, not a confession - very noncommittal. And not at all unexpected.

For the sake of every being in the universe, I hope (and personally believe) that you are wrong.

Again, I don't think we'll see what happens to atheists in the afterlife. All I know is there are no atheists in the afterlife, so something does happen to convince them, i.e. they are forced to believe. By then, it doesn't matter anymore, does it? That's why this thread.

>>My lack of belief has to do with all of the above.<<

Ha ha. That's YOUR faith and fate. Do you want a medal?

As for the rest, all I can say is this is not all there is and all that there will be.

 

[shawn001]

More bizarreness. I didn't mention Elon Musk at all in my post. I understand colonization very well and support the moon as a refueling station and colonizing space stations such as in Elysium.

The earth is 6000 years old and the truth does not hurt society. In fact, I think the creation scientists should radiocarbon date objects to show that the earth is indeed within their timeline. They do it for many things already.

>>Enjoy the illusion of Free Will you have now because there is no free will heaven<<

Ha ha. One of the most ridiculous beliefs of all. Atheists are wrong again.

No it's a quote on your sig.

"I understand colonization very well and support the moon as a refueling station and colonizing space stations such as in Elysium."

Not when you think the Earth is 6000 years old.

"The earth is 6000 years old and the truth does not hurt society."

Yes it does because it's a complete fabrication. The entire solar system is 5 billion years old.

Grab a Drink Inside a 6,000-Year-Old Baobab Tree at South Africa’s Sunland Bar

Grab a Drink Inside a 6,000-Year-Old Baobab Tree at South Africa's Sunland Bar

Funny they were building houses before the Earth existed in Jerusalem.

10,000-year-old house uncovered outside Jerusalem

10,000-year-old house uncovered outside Jerusalem

"there is no free will heaven"

Will you have free will to do Bad things in Heaven?

Why do you keep calling me an Atheist, I am not?

 

[Stevicus]

He has. We know that a huge hand and arm does not come down from the sky, but we do know that Jesus came down and walked with mortals. For this, he was crucified.

Since it's unproven, it doesn't count. It would have to be an appearance right now, not 2000 years ago.

Then we know God destroyed all of humankind in a global flood.

How do we "know" this?

We know our lives were cut short by cosmic rays after the flood and we aren't as healthy anymore compared to Adam and Eve's descendants. Yet, you do not believe.

There's no reason to believe. These are just stories, no more believable than stories about Zeus or Thor. If someone told you that Zeus was the true God and that your God was an impostor (which would make you just as much of an "unbeliever" as I am), how would you be able to prove otherwise?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wrong again. My finding God has led me to knowing that.

That's cool. I used to think that i found God too. I wouldn't expect any less a response.

 

[james bond]

Since it's unproven, it doesn't count. It would have to be an appearance right now, not 2000 years ago.


How do we "know" this?



There's no reason to believe. These are just stories, no more believable than stories about Zeus or Thor. If someone told you that Zeus was the true God and that your God was an impostor (which would make you just as much of an "unbeliever" as I am), how would you be able to prove otherwise?

>>Since it's unproven, it doesn't count.<<

You are wrong. I do know being right in this situation is important in that it will determine our destiny. You claim it is unproven and that is clearly wrong. The most important part of Christianity is The Resurrection. Why don't you investigate that for yourself? If you can prove that it is wrong, then you destroy Christianity and will become world famous.

This is where I conclude there is no point in discussing further. The Greek myths were proven false because there was no Mt. Olympus. None of those locations could be found.