Isn't it better to be atheists?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Obviously you haven't followed my exchanges with this poster. Your judgement is noted.Go back, reread all the exchanges before you judge. I am not frustrated, dear girl, I am amused. I have an open mind, nevertheless, in an open mind nonsense is nonsense. I suggest you re familiarize yourself with Christ's exchanges with the pharisee's, and see what you think. Yes, humility is of extreme value.

... he says without a trace of irony.....

.... riiiight.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Obviously you haven't followed my exchanges with this poster. Your judgement is noted.Go back, reread all the exchanges before you judge. I am not frustrated, dear girl, I am amused. I have an open mind, nevertheless, in an open mind nonsense is nonsense. I suggest you re familiarize yourself with Christ's exchanges with the pharisee's, and see what you think. Yes, humility is of extreme value.

Your comments are brusk in and of themselves. You can use the word f* (***for example only****)word anyway you want, but that doesnt change thst its a curse word.

There are more humble ways to show your disagreements to, say, Bob. There are ways you can show how you feel about their lack of understanding your view in a assertive way.

For example...

"Go back, reread all the exchanges before you judge. I am not frustrated, dear girl, I am amused. I have an open mind, nevertheless, in an open mind nonsense is nonsense. I suggest you..."

Assumptions are the mother of all evils.

Maybe you talk this way to people in person. I dont know.

Constructive criticsm is different than saying you are wrong or you are silly. Its specifically addressing your mode of conversation not you.

How can I personally understand your points in our conversation when you are frequently "amused" more so than learning and actual conversation?

Your points are masked by sarcasm.

Edit.

 

[shmogie]

Your comments are brusk in and of themselves. You can use the word f* (***for example only****)word anyway you want, but that doesnt change thst its a curse word.

There are more humble ways to show your disagreements to, say, Bob. There are ways you can show how you feel about their lack of understanding your view in a assertive way.

For example...

"Go back, reread all the exchanges before you judge. I am not frustrated, dear girl, I am amused. I have an open mind, nevertheless, in an open mind nonsense is nonsense. I suggest you..."

Assumptions are the mother of all evils.

Maybe you talk this way to people in person. I dont know.

Constructive criticsm is different than saying you are wrong or you are silly. Its specifically addressing your mode of conversation not you.

How can I personally understand your points in our conversation when you are frequently "amused" more so than learning and actual conversation?

Your points are masked by sarcasm.

Edit.

Not really. I respond in kind, when required. Perhaps you consider directness ad succinctness to be brusque, not intended that way. Bob is a different case than most. When told I didn't want to debate, he couldn't accept no. he just kept on, trying, becoming more hysterical and outlandish in the process.If they won't shut up, like a yapping unwelcome dog, I reserve the right to respond. I thought I did well with Bob, satire and sarcasm are useful tools in conveying idea's. Infinitely better than hyperbole, and name calling, Bob's forte"s. You have something you want to talk about, fine. I won't discuss the existence of God, anything else, no problem.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not really. I respond in kind, when required. Perhaps you consider directness ad succinctness to be brusque, not intended that way. Bob is a different case than most. When told I didn't want to debate, he couldn't accept no. he just kept on, trying, becoming more hysterical and outlandish in the process.If they won't shut up, like a yapping unwelcome dog, I reserve the right to respond. I thought I did well with Bob, satire and sarcasm are useful tools in conveying idea's. Infinitely better than hyperbole, and name calling, Bob's forte"s. You have something you want to talk about, fine. I won't discuss the existence of God, anything else, no problem.

As an objective party, both of you (and me and others you speak with) are human. No one is the victim. I dont know if you were getting back to our discussion. Your points are full of sacarcasm. Thats different than directness. Some peoples mode of convo is sarcasm. These I met in person. I tell them the same. I cant understand you if your comments (theirs) are remarks. Thiniing of a coworker now

I wish I understood why christians get so defensive about their god. I know many many christians. Is it a bible thing?

How does it benefit you to see yourself apart from those who disagree with you in religion?

 

[shmogie]

As an objective party, both of you (and me and others you speak with) are human. No one is the victim. I dont know if you were getting back to our discussion. Your points are full of sacarcasm. Thats different than directness. Some peoples mode of convo is sarcasm. These I met in person. I tell them the same. I cant understand you if your comments (theirs) are remarks. Thiniing of a coworker now

I wish I understood why christians get so defensive about their god. I know many many christians. Is it a bible thing?

How does it benefit you to see yourself apart from those who disagree with you in religion?

Lets get back to our discussion, Please point out for me my points made to you that are full of sarcasm, Letś discuss them. Well, they are apart from me, on the issue of religion. However, there is no objectively superior or inferior position, only very different views.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Lets get back to our discussion, Please point out for me my points made to you that are full of sarcasm, Letś discuss them. Well, they are apart from me, on the issue of religion. However, there is no objectively superior or inferior position, only very different views.

Id have to go back and find it. With sarcasm, thats all throughout the thread from the first page talking to others. Its not just you, just I havent found out why christians (and some RF atheists) tend to be defensive of their views.

I honestly dont remember what we were discussing. Most of it was telling you to talk to me directly so I understand your point. When I get a chance I'll go back unless you can remember?

 

[Dantedeven]

As long as mankind exists, there will always be different groups.
Two of them always argue with eachother.
Trying to prove eachother wrong.

One uses his Religious book to make a statement.
One uses the scienctific reasoning that some genius has discovered.
But both act in haughtiness towards eachother.

So isn´t it better to be an atheist?
That is something only you can answer.
For me the answer is no, it is not and it never will be.

Yes, i was an atheist once.
But now i believe in God.
I used to be someone that said: "I won't believe it until i see it."

So what turned me to faith, not religion?
I was commanded to turn to faith.

 

[shmogie]

Id have to go back and find it. With sarcasm, thats all throughout the thread from the first page talking to others. Its not just you, just I havent found out why christians (and some RF atheists) tend to be defensive of their views.

I honestly dont remember what we were discussing. Most of it was telling you to talk to me directly so I understand your point. When I get a chance I'll go back unless you can remember?

We were talking about proving God does not exist, and i pointed out how logic could be used to defend the position, as well as defending the position that God does exist. Also we were talking about the burden of proof in a discussion, and I pointed out that one who initiates the discussion, with the proposition that God does not exist, has the burden of proof tto support the proposition.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

I'm not sure it is better for people to be atheists if they are not able to do that. I don't think it is even possible for a theist to understand what atheism really is if they are a believer. It is like asking them if it would be better to be a Martian. They have no way to comprehend the idea that there is no god. At least when I was a believer I never understood it.

One benefit I have found is the freedom from allowing my mind and thoughts to be stuck in the imaginings and stories of other men throughout history who have created all of the various religions and gods. And once stepping back from the particular ones I followed, it was much easier to focus on the here and now. I could see I was spending time in a thought pattern which could never lead to real answers. It was only then i was able to see I have no need to believe in a higher power to be able to make it through life.

The fact is that all religions, spiritual awakinings, gods, etc are a product of the mind. Always have been. I enjoy the freedom from being stuck in a thinking pattern made up by others. No one can know the answers to the questions religions and mystics claim to answer.

Spending life in the reality of this moment and this life free from storytelling is a positive of atheism for me. It is not easy at first and takes practice to break away from the human instinct of belief but it is possible. Atheism has also led me to a much more compassionate view of humanity. We are all just humans with the same basic needs in the same boat. As a believer I knew I had the answers, my God was the only God, my religion was the only true religion and others who didn't follow what I did were immoral, lacking in intelligence and were certainly destined for hell. It was amazingly liberating to understand that was all just made up stuff in my head.

If I am going to daydream about answers to existence which no one can know, I will use my own imagination to do so.

Fortunately atheism has allowed me to see there are much more fulfilling, compassionate and honest ways to spend my real life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you

We were talking about proving God does not exist, and i pointed out how logic could be used to defend the position, as well as defending the position that God does exist.

How would one defend god exists apart from the people saying he does exist?

Also we were talking about the burden of proof in a discussion, and I pointed out that one who initiates the discussion, with the proposition that God does not exist, has the burden of proof tto support the proposition.

Religion aside, culturally, at least in parts of the states, we believe: if you invite me, you pay the tab. You made the offer to pay, so you pay.

In religion, christians as a whole already made the claim both with the sword and others with a smile. They as one made the first claim "god does exists". Roman catholics back up their claim by explaining the nature of the sacraments before taking it aka explaining the factual nature of god rather than sayin "he exists" and thats it. They offered; they paid the check.

1 The claim has already been made first by christians
2. Non christian are "asking" not forcing christians to support their claim. How do you know; whats your experience.

3. The christians already said first "god exists" why and how would an atheist prove something that does not exist, does not exists?

Is that logical to you?

4. Wouldnt we first have to know what we are saying does not exist before trying to prove disprove it?

Please read this a couple if times. Its my point short and in one post.

 

[Trailblazer]

I will wait. Feel free to go into it when you have time.

Thanks for understanding. I am very busy during the week but I will make time to explain it. It is best I do so when I have had some sleep as this is not an easy subject to tackle. I hardly have time to sleep during the week so probably not till the weekend...

 

[Trailblazer]

From what I can see, that alone makes your deity evil. Allowing Hitler to gas millions of people, even as a 'punishment', is evil.

And yes, I will judge your deity by *at least* the same standards I would a human being. If that deity is all knowing and all powerful, it is already more responsible for evil than any person could ever be.

From what you can see is a good point, because you cannot see much, since God is unknowable. As such, sitting around trying to figure out what God is doing/not doing is an exercise in futility.

You can judge God however you want to. It won’t make any difference to God. You cannot hurt God because God is fully self-sufficient, above the need for any of His creatures.

God is in no way responsible for the evil that humans do just because God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful. There is no connection whatsoever.

One can think of this world as a chess board that God made for us to play on. God, the Maker of the chess board is not responsible for how the players play the game.

That is called passing the buck.

This idea that God is omnipotent so God should prevent humans from doing evil is completely illogical, because there is no reason to think God should ever intercede, just because He can. If God interceded every time people want do anything wrong, there would be no point for humans to even live on this earth. Of course it always helps to know the purpose of this physical existence, why good and evil exists.

It also helps to have the instructions on how to play chess before you play the game. Those instructions come from the Messenger of God in every age. If people do not read the instructions and follow them it is unjust to blame God for their failure to lead a good life.

 

[Trailblazer]

And this is how people justify the evil of a deity. I'm sorry, but child or torture are NOT just the 'absence of God'. They are evil acts whether or not a God exists. making a claim that they are 'for a higher good' is an excuse to justify inaction by a responsible party.

Show me where the deity did any evil.

Why is the deity responsible for the evil that humans do?

How would the deity act to prevent the evil humans do?

Why should the deity act to prevent what humans do?

Because the deity is omnipotent and omniscient is not an answer.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Show me where the deity did any evil.

Negligence is an evil. It is a form of abuse.

Why is the deity responsible for the evil that humans do?

He made a buggy program. He has to do the debugging.

How would the deity act to prevent the evil humans do?

Just role modeling the correct method of reducing evil would be nice.

Why should the deity act to prevent what humans do?

WHY do you like the thought of a lazy God?

 

[Trailblazer]

Empty threats based on a non-existent entity are not a reason to refrain from critique of evil.

Bob the Unbeliever said: Prove me wrong: HAVE YOUR GOD COME DOWN AND SMITE ME OR SOMETHING.

That is the only reason I said what I said: “I'd be careful what you ask for. God is Almighty even if you do not believe that. He is not my God and I do not have any control over Him because I am not Almighty.” I was just pointing out the obvious. If there is an Almighty God, all of us had better be careful of what we do... If not, well, then why even talk about god?

Logically speaking, just because you believe the deity is nonexistent does not mean it is nonexistent. Beliefs do not create reality. A deity either exists or not.

How can a deity that does not exist be evil?

I always wonder, why do nonbelievers talk so much about a non-existent deity? I would never waste my time talking about a deity I do not believe exists. If I did not believe in the deity, I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not 24/7 on forums.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Show me where the deity did any evil.
Negligence is an evil. It is a form of abuse.

It certainly is evil when humans are negligent and they expect God to cover for them.

It is the worst kind of evil imaginable and it shows a complete lack of character.

Trailblazer said: How would the deity act to prevent the evil humans do?
Just role modeling the correct method of reducing evil would be nice.

He did that when he sent Jesus and Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.

Trailblazer said: Why should the deity act to prevent what humans do?
WHY do you like the thought of a lazy God?

WHY do you like the thought of lazy humans?

 

[jmt09]

Negligence is an evil. It is a form of abuse.


He made a buggy program. He has to do the debugging.


Just role modeling the correct method of reducing evil would be nice.


WHY do you like the thought of a lazy God?

I think these retorts are clever but I’m not sure they can withstand scrutiny. It seems to me that you are arguing for the problem of evil—that the extent and amount of suffering makes God’s existence extraordinarily unlikely.

But why think this? Presumably God might have deemed it desirable to endow creatures with free will. If this is the case then he can’t at the same time assure that they always do good (otherwise we wouldn’t be free). But if we are free then we are capable of horrendous evils.

So you might think of some particular instance of suffering—a child with brain cancer. It’s understandable to ask why a “good” God would allow such a thing. Yet, if God is all good then there must be a morally sufficient reason for allowing it. The atheist would need to argue that there is no such sufficient reason for allowing it. But how could the atheist rationally defend such a view? What makes us think we could know what that sufficient reason might be? For all we know it could be something that doesn’t get realized for years into the future. It seems like a significant burden of proof for the atheist to show that God does not likely have a good reason for allowing the instance of suffering.

 

[Polymath257]

Bob the Unbeliever said: Prove me wrong: HAVE YOUR GOD COME DOWN AND SMITE ME OR SOMETHING.

That is the only reason I said what I said: “I'd be careful what you ask for. God is Almighty even if you do not believe that. He is not my God and I do not have any control over Him because I am not Almighty.” I was just pointing out the obvious. If there is an Almighty God, all of us had better be careful of what we do... If not, well, then why even talk about god?

Logically speaking, just because you believe the deity is nonexistent does not mean it is nonexistent. Beliefs do not create reality. A deity either exists or not.

Exactly. And belief also does not mean the existence of the deity. I am convinced enough in the non-existence to not be afraid of threats by that entity.

How can a deity that does not exist be evil?

Of course. Professor Moriarty is evil in the Sherlock Holmes adventures. But the professor does not, in fact, exist.

I always wonder, why do nonbelievers talk so much about a non-existent deity? I would never waste my time talking about a deity I do not believe exists. If I did not believe in the deity, I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not 24/7 on forums.

Well, we are surrounded by people who *do* believe in this entity and give a variety of inconsistent answers to questions about such an entity. If you found yourself surrounded by people that not only believe Sherlock Holmes to exist, but base their morality and politics on the statements of Holmes, wouldn't you engage in conversation with these people about that belief?

 

[Polymath257]

Show me where the deity did any evil.

Negligence is evil. But, for example, childhood cancer is a wonderful example of something that is due only to whatever deity exists (if such exists) and would be preventable.

Why

is the deity responsible for the evil that humans do?

Because that deity has the power to prevent such evil and doesn't do so?

How

would the deity act to prevent the evil humans do?

By using the aspect of being all-powerfulness to stop any evil intent (which would still allow free will) from actually causing harm.

Why

should the deity act to prevent what humans do?

Prevention of preventable suffering is a good thing.

Because the deity is omnipotent and omniscient is not an answer.

But being omniscient, omnipotent *and* omnibenevolent is an answer.

 

[Polymath257]

From what you can see is a good point, because you cannot see much, since God is unknowable. As such, sitting around trying to figure out what God is doing/not doing is an exercise in futility.

You can judge God however you want to. It won’t make any difference to God. You cannot hurt God because God is fully self-sufficient, above the need for any of His creatures.

God is in no way responsible for the evil that humans do just because God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful. There is no connection whatsoever.

if God is all powerful and all knowing, then God not only knows about the evil, but can prevent it without harm to free will. That makes any neglect in doing so evil.

One can think of this world as a chess board that God made for us to play on. God, the Maker of the chess board is not responsible for how the players play the game.

That is called passing the buck.

But he is responsible for the rules of the game. And those rule lead to preventable evils that are not simply the result of human actions (childhood cancer, for example). So the rules themselves are a demonstration of evil.

This idea that God is omnipotent so God should prevent humans from doing evil is completely illogical, because there is no reason to think God should ever intercede, just because He can. If God interceded every time people want do anything wrong, there would be no point for humans to even live on this earth. Of course it always helps to know the purpose of this physical existence, why good and evil exists.

The reason to intervene is to prevent unnecessary suffering. An all powerful and all knowing entity that *doesn't* intervene
is simply evil.

It also helps to have the instructions on how to play chess before you play the game. Those instructions come from the Messenger of God in every age. If people do not read the instructions and follow them it is unjust to blame God for their failure to lead a good life.

Well, that is a claim. It is a claim without any serious evidence in support of it however. Once again, the actual evidence is that the world is filled with preventable suffering that is NOT the result of human action. That alone shows an all powerful, all knowing, and all good entity does not exist.