Isn't it better to be atheists?

[Faithofchristian]

Where is the objective verifiable evidence? The justification of your belief is highly subjective and anecdotal. Both Theism and Atheism require philosophical/theological assumptions not verifiable by the evidence.

So I take it, that you sir can not prove nor disprove what exactly lays over in the unknown ?
So what we are left with, is the unknown stands there as the unknown. With nothing to prove or to disprove the Unknown.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well it's true, atheists have no clue, what happens when they die, all they say is nothing happens when we die, Just how exactly do they know this for sure ?

When there is no proven evidence to give proof in and about the unknown.

I would rather believe there is God, and cross over into the unknown and find there is God, Than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.

Yeah, and what if I cross over and find there is no God. What do I have to lose, nothing to lose.

But what if Atheist cross over and find there is God, I win you lose Atheist.

I win either way, I would rather believe there is God, than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.

Do believers actually hear the words that come out of their mouth? Why can't believers understand that any atheist would gladly change their position in a heartbeat, if believers would only back up the claims they make. Regarding a life after death, why would you make the ridiculous claim that Atheist do not have a clue? We see our parents, friends, strangers, fur and feathered friends die, and never once do they return for a visit. We see no evidence of any life afterlife. In all of human history, the afterlife has never been added as part of the cycle of life. So YES we do have a clue. A mighty big and consistent clue. Maybe you can demonstrate that YOU have a clue, and why? This absurdity is obvious. We are all going to die, whether you believe, not believe, or any other variation. If you die and go to Heaven or Hell, YOU ARE STILL DEAD! At the very least, you simply don't exist as a living human anymore. To imply that there is any part of death that is a win, is absolutely insane.

Why are you so afraid of death, that you must spend your adult life preparing to die? Death does not care whether you are rich, poor, healthy, Christian or Atheist, famous or unknown. It is truly the ultimate equal opportunity employer. So, if you believe that committing to a life of pious servitude, will earn you the reward of everlasting life, then boy do I have a deal for you.

 

[shunyadragon]

So I take it, that you sir can not prove nor disprove what exactly lays over in the unknown ?
So what we are left with, is the unknown stands there as the unknown. With nothing to prove or to disprove the Unknown.

As far as the existence or non-existence of God this is correct,

Your claim of evidence is not objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I would rather believe there is God, and cross over into the unknown and find there is God, Than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.

Yeah, and what if I cross over and find there is no God. What do I have to lose, nothing to lose.

But what if Atheist cross over and find there is God, I win you lose Atheist.

I win either way, I would rather believe there is God, than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.

Ooops! What if the god you picked, is the wrong one? What if Zeus really hates fake believers, who only believe just in case? What if Odin can respect someone who refuses to believe just in case, but respects honest doubts? (atheists)

But wait! It's worse! Your wager assumes that the god in question is so dumb or worse, such a narcissist, that an obvious dodge like you describes is welcomed, but honest recognition that there is absolutely zero reason to believe in any god, if you examine it objectively, is bad?

That paints a picture of a god who is dumber than a 2 year old, and as vindictive as a maddened hornet.

This isn't a positive argument on your part.

 

[Faithofchristian]

As far as the existence or non-existence of God this is correct,

Your claim of evidence is not objective verifiable evidence.

So what evidence do you have to prove or disprove, in and about the Unknown.

So how do you know exactly if God exists or not, have you got some sort of proof to show whether or not God exists over in the Unknown.

It's like I said, i would rather believe there is God, Than not believe, then get over in the Unknown, and find there is God.

Your analogy will not work, all because by your analogy, If God is not there over in the unknown, you win, but I still win also,
all because I haven't lost a thing.

Which by my analogy, if God is not there over in the unknown, I lose nothing, But if by my analogy proves right, there is God over in the unknown, I win and you lose.

You see by my analogy I win either way.
But by your analogy, you only win one way.

I would rather cover all my bases, than to leave one wide open to failure.

Look I've gambled many times in casino's when I place my bet, I know enough, to cover all my bases, to leave nothing to chance. So I believe there is God over in the unknown, I've covered all my bases, to leave nothing to chance.

Do I believe in God, just to cover my bases,
No it's just common sense.

So as people have said, that it's been proven that the bible has been proven by evidence the bible is not reliable.

So who are these people, that have proven the bible to be unreliable. I can say this, they were already skeptical about the bible, before they even begin.

That's like asking Atheists to believe in the bible, all because Christians has proven the bible to be reliable.

Therefore to ask Christians to believe someone, who is sketical in their minds already against the bible, before they even begin

Now as to why would any Christian believe someone who is already mind set against the bible. To believe anything that they will say.
Now as to why would any Atheists believe someone who is already mind set about the bible is true. To believe anything that they will say.

What you would need to do is, take a baby before they have any knowledge at all.
So nothing gets in their minds.
Whether religious or the disbelief in God gets in their minds.

Then when they are old enough to read for themselves, have them read the Bible and then see what happens.

You can not take a person who is first hand skeptical about the bible. And expect them to give right answers of the bible, without their mind set against the bible, before they even begin.

It's easy to see where such people stand, That they were against the bible, before they even got started.

So take a person who is in everyway skeptical mind set against evolution, but yet your going to believe that person, right ?
So it goes both ways ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Ooops! What if the god you picked, is the wrong one? What if Zeus really hates fake believers, who only believe just in case? What if Odin can respect someone who refuses to believe just in case, but respects honest doubts? (atheists)

But wait! It's worse! Your wager assumes that the god in question is so dumb or worse, such a narcissist, that an obvious dodge like you describes is welcomed, but honest recognition that there is absolutely zero reason to believe in any god, if you examine it objectively, is bad?

That paints a picture of a god who is dumber than a 2 year old, and as vindictive as a maddened hornet.

This isn't a positive argument on your part.

Look, seeing that your not smart enough to figure out which God is which .

So I will just leave you in your dilemma. To figure out Who's, who.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what evidence do you have to prove or disprove, in and about the Unknown.

So how do you know exactly if God exists or not, have you got some sort of proof to show whether or not God exists over in the Unknown.

It's like I said, i would rather believe there is God, Than not believe, then get over in the Unknown, and find there is God.

Again this is Pascal's Wager and not a good reason. I believe in God and would not touch this argument with a ten foot pole.

Your analogy will not work, all because by your analogy, If God is not there over in the unknown, you win, but I still win also,
all because I haven't lost a thing.

Again, if Judaism is true you are a heretic.

Which by my analogy, if God is not there over in the unknown, I lose nothing, But if by my analogy proves right, there is God over in the unknown, I win and you lose.

You see by my analogy I win either way.
But by your analogy, you only win one way.

I would rather cover all my bases, than to leave one wide open to failure.

Look I've gambled many times in casino's when I place my bet, I know enough, to cover all my bases, to leave nothing to chance. So I believe there is God over in the unknown, I've covered all my bases, to leave nothing to chance.

Do I believe in God, just to cover my bases,
No it's just common sense.

Does not cover all bases, because God may exist and your religion may be false and a heresy.

Pragmatic hypocrisy of belief is never a genuine belief.

Now as to why would any Christian believe someone who is already mind set against the bible. To believe anything that they will say.
Now as to why would any Atheists believe someone who is already mind set about the bible is true. To believe anything that they will say.

What you would need to do is, take a baby before they have any knowledge at all. So nothing gets in their minds.
Whether religious or the disbelief in God gets in their minds.

Then when they are old enough to read for themselves, have them read the Bible and then see what happens.

You can not take a person who is first hand skeptical about the bible. And expect them to give right answers of the bible, without their mind set against the bible, before they even begin.

It's easy to see where such people stand, That they were against the bible, before they even got started.

This unrealistically naive, and could done with any scripture in any culture. By far most will believe, humans are most often emotionally committed to the sense of community they are raised in, but of course the reality is a few may be skeptical and not believe in that particular scripture.

So take a person who is in every way skeptical mind set against evolution, but yet your going to believe that person, right ?
So it goes both ways ?

As far as science of evolution goes it is the same as with all sciences there is abundant objective verifiable evidence, research supporting the science, and it is falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no competing hypothesis based on the evidence.

The belief or non-belief in God(s) has no such basis in objective evidence.

 

[shmogie]

So I take it, that you sir can not prove nor disprove what exactly lays over in the unknown ?
So what we are left with, is the unknown stands there as the unknown. With nothing to prove or to disprove the Unknown.

He seems to confuse absolute proof, with evidence, and reasonable and logical conclusions drawn from the evidence.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

WHY do you like the thought of lazy humans?

If Superman and a normal human being are tasked with knocking a speeding train out of the way, which one do I believe will be more successful?

Presumably God might have deemed it desirable to endow creatures with free will.

Not in the bible. Free will is never really a concern of God's until it's time to blame us for something largely outside our control.

He has snide remarks for Job, when Job WAS doing his job and God is trying to downplay the fact He did it because Satan told Him to.

But if we are free then we are capable of horrendous evils.

I don't believe in free will, but that doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't stop criminals as best we can. Take a look at the Austin bombings, accomplished by a home schooled conservative Christian who had dehumanized many parts of society: this is bigger than just jailing him or killing him. Entire social infrastructures created this type of person. One person can't fix it by that point.

Yet, if God is all good then there must be a morally sufficient reason for allowing it.

Or maybe the people claiming God to be all good are lying to justify their own evils.

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.

Chess was the Call of Duty of its day. Its purpose was to play at war to teach war strategies safely without having to have "on the job" training.

God has a great big vending machine in the sky where can fly up to and you put your money in, and you can get whatever you want, because God is obligated to deliver... and none of it had better be evil

If I pay for services rendered, services should be rendered. You are arguing that you can go into a restaurant and be happy when the owner tells you that you won't get any food. AT. A. RESTAURANT.

God has made various covenants and per some people must want out of them.

Atheists, at least, figured out how to nullify the contract: for services not rendered, belief will not be applied.

The fact that the deity is omnipotent just means it has All Power, that does not mean it can intervene in human affairs and fix things.

Those with the power to fix something are morally obligated to participate.

Let's say someone took a nap in their car and are now unconscious and dying of carbon monoxide poisoning. You realize the door is unlocked or are able to break the window to save them. If you do not do so, you are criminally negligent.

Humans also have the power to do so.

Since evil exists, clearly humans nor God have been very effective.

There could be a reason for suffering you do not understand

I'm pretty sure we understand where illnesses, rape, murder, and bad weather come from nowadays. This argument may have worked when people thought staring at a bronze snake would cure snakebite, but now we know we need anti-venom, which isn't something God mentioned was an option. We had to come up with that ourselves. God doesn't get the credit for stuff He was too lazy to do.

That is what they believe it will be like when Jesus returns, the Garden of Eden restored in a flash.

And I think it's stupid too, as Heaven and Eden both had serious events damaging to God's reputation happen in them, so they can't be all that wonderful.

But the more people read the instructions and follow them, the sooner the Kingdom of God on earth will be built.

If prophets can contact God, so can we. As I said, I know I have a relationship with God that includes both me and Him. You don't ever seem to respond to that. I thought we should all be flocking to the "current" prophet or whatever, but like most, you hang on to someone long dead so you don't have to hear them criticize you.

but if the deity is indeed omniscient, don’t you think it knows more than you do about what is good for the humans it created?

Knowing is not the same thing as caring.

And given the way God is frequently portrayed, especially by the Abrahamics, I begin to wonder if God knows more than a kindergartner.

No, God cannot prevent it without interfering with free will. That is impossible.

Om ... ni ... po ... tent.

Let's say I feel a murderous rampage coming on. Instead of just sitting there and letting me do it, God can lead me to one of those rage rooms or something where I can smash some dishes and feel much better and go about my day.

My free will was not suppressed, just redirected to something not as harmful.

How can you know that the rules should be different, given you are not All-Knowing?

But we are smart enough to know when something doesn't add up.

God knows more than any human about how to create and oversee the world.

That has not been established objectively.

This mortal world is a storehouse of suffering by its very nature, it was never intended to be a paradise. But there is also happiness. Why should it be happiness all the time?

Accepting that crap happens is one thing. Actively making it happen is something else. Sure, I believe that cancer and many other conditions are evolution working out the kinks. I believe that bad weather is just the planet working out its natural cycles. However, when God says He's in CHARGE of all that, that makes Him ethically responsible for the outcomes. The only way to make your version of God consistent is to strip Him of any claim to own any part of Creation. You want Him to have all the respect and none of the accountability. To me, those who deny God should be accountable are essentially claiming the same of themselves, for gods are often used as metaphor for political values.

Man has that potential.

Again, if WE do the work, GOD doesn't get any thanks for it.

The best source of information for anything deity-related is the Messengers of the deity.

Wrong. The best source is the deity under discussion.

And this ALL KNOWING GOD IS WELL AWARE OF WHAT IS ABOUT TO GO DOWN.

So god inspires a cop to change his beat, *just* a wee bit-- such that the police person notices the shady behavior of the would-be criminal, and the **human** interferes.

I once had this overwhelming urge to drive down a different road. At the point where I would've been at a particular intersection on the previous road, a car much like mine had been in a wreck, to the extent my brother saw it and thought it was me. My will (I don't believe will is free) was given a nudge and I was okay.

BUT CLEARLY YOUR DO-NOTHING GOD WOULD PREFER TO WATCH Instead. Likely it enjoys watching the pain and suffering?

Hell, I feel guilty killing off Sims. They are not even real (as far as I'm aware).

 

[Faithofchristian]

Again this is Pascal's Wager and not a good reason. I believe in God and would not touch this argument with a ten foot pole.



Again, if Judaism is true you are a heretic.



Does not cover all bases, because God may exist and your religion may be false and a heresy.

Pragmatic hypocrisy of belief is never a genuine belief.

What you would need to do is, take a baby before they have any knowledge at all. So nothing gets in their minds.
Whether religious or the disbelief in God gets in their minds.

Then when they are old enough to read for themselves, have them read the Bible and then see what happens.

You can not take a person who is first hand skeptical about the bible. And expect them to give right answers of the bible, without their mind set against the bible, before they even begin.

It's easy to see where such people stand, That they were against the bible, before they even got started.[/quote]

This unrealistically naive, and could done with any scripture in any culture. By far most will believe, humans are most often emotionally committed to the sense of community they are raised in, but of course the reality is a few may be skeptical and not believe in that particular scripture.



As far as science of evolution goes it is the same as with all sciences there is abundant objective verifiable evidence, research supporting the science, and it is falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no competing hypothesis based on the evidence.

The belief or non-belief in God(s) has no such basis in objective evidence.[/QUOTE]


That's science supporting evolution, But science can not prove that there is anything after a person dies over in the unknown. That's why the unknown stands there as the unknown.

Because no one, including science, can not prove what happens to a person after they die and they enter the unknown.

Once a person is dead after a few days or month or a year, there is no coming back here, So no matter how much technology science has, they can not prove of anything over in the unknown
Once a person dies, everything shuts down.
Like pulling the plug on a light.

There are two Wagers, The one being Pascal's Wager and the other is a gamblers wager.
A gambler that knows how to bet, will cover all their base's, leaving ñothing to chance.
In like manner, as a believer I will cover all my bases leaving ñothing to chance.
Therefore no matter how you want to cut it, I will come out a winner either way.

 

[shunyadragon]

What you would need to do is, take a baby before they have any knowledge at all. So nothing gets in their minds.
Whether religious or the disbelief in God gets in their minds.

Then when they are old enough to read for themselves, have them read the Bible and then see what happens.

You can not take a person who is first hand skeptical about the bible. And expect them to give right answers of the bible, without their mind set against the bible, before they even begin.

It's easy to see where such people stand, That they were against the bible, before they even got started.

Need to clean up post. It is not readable as is.

This unrealistically naive, and could done with any scripture in any culture. By far most will believe, humans are most often emotionally committed to the sense of community they are raised in, but of course the reality is a few may be skeptical and not believe in that particular scripture.



As far as science of evolution goes it is the same as with all sciences there is abundant objective verifiable evidence, research supporting the science, and it is falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no competing hypothesis based on the evidence.

The belief or non-belief in God(s) has no such basis in objective evidence.[/QUOTE]


That's science supporting evolution, But science can not prove that there is anything after a person dies over in the unknown. That's why the unknown stands there as the unknown.

Because no one, including science, can not prove what happens to a person after they die and they enter the unknown.

Once a person is dead after a few days or month or a year, there is no coming back here, So no matter how much technology science has, they can not prove of anything over in the unknown
Once a person dies, everything shuts down.
Like pulling the plug on a light.

There are two Wagers, The one being Pascal's Wager and the other is a gamblers wager.
A gambler that knows how to bet, will cover all their base's, leaving ñothing to chance.
In like manner, as a believer I will cover all my bases leaving ñothing to chance.
Therefore no matter how you want to cut it, I will come out a winner either way.[/QUOTE]

 

[shunyadragon]

He seems to confuse absolute proof, with evidence, and reasonable and logical conclusions drawn from the evidence.

Based on this response it appears you have a problem with the logic, role of proof and coherent argument.

Proof is not logically nor reasonably possible here absolute or otherwise.

Please present your case coherently and respond so I can understand you reasonably and logically.

 

[Faithofchristian]

He seems to confuse absolute proof, with evidence, and reasonable and logical conclusions drawn from the evidence.

So suppose you have absolute proof with evidence and reasonable and logical conclusion, What happens to a person when they die and enters the Unknown.

 

[shunyadragon]

So suppose you have absolute proof with evidence and reasonable and logical conclusion, What happens to a person when they die and enters the Unknown.

Suppose? The fallacy of contradiction of terms 'absolute truth' is not possible if things remain 'unknown.'

 

[Faithofchristian]

The fallacy of contradiction of terms 'absolute truth' is not possible if things remain 'unknown.'

That's absolutely right, that's why the unknown remains the unknown.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do believers actually hear the words that come out of their mouth? Why can't believers understand that any atheist would gladly change their position in a heartbeat, if believers would only back up the claims they make.

Some of us can back up our claims but we cannot produce objective verifiable evidence of an afterlife that is not a physical realm. That is logic 101 stuff. The evidence comes from what was revealed by the various Prophets (I prefer to call them Messengers of God). I know you nonbelievers do not consider that evidence, but that is the best evidence available. Other than that, there are NDE accounts and what has come across from the spiritual world through mediums, but I know you would not consider that evidence either.

So, you will just have to wait until you die to obtain the evidence. I can assure you that you will, but I do not expect you to believe me. I have been down this road before, since I have been posting to nonbelievers daily on various forums for about five years.

Regarding a life after death, why would you make the ridiculous claim that Atheist do not have a clue? We see our parents, friends, strangers, fur and feathered friends die, and never once do they return for a visit. We see no evidence of any life afterlife. In all of human history, the afterlife has never been added as part of the cycle of life. So YES we do have a clue. A mighty big and consistent clue. Maybe you can demonstrate that YOU have a clue, and why? This absurdity is obvious. We are all going to die, whether you believe, not believe, or any other variation. If you die and go to Heaven or Hell, YOU ARE STILL DEAD! At the very least, you simply don't exist as a living human anymore. To imply that there is any part of death that is a win, is absolutely insane.

What you have is evidence that the physical body dies. You have no evidence that the soul does not live on in another form. But why would you believe this? You do not believe what religion teaches.

You said: “If you die and go to Heaven or Hell, YOU ARE STILL DEAD! At the very least, you simply don't exist as a living human anymore.” So are you saying that a part of us is going to heaven or hell, but our body will not be living anymore? Yes, that is true, but the body is not all that we are. The body is just an outer shell, a vehicle that carries the soul around while we are alive on earth, kind of like your car gets you from place to place. Another analogy is that the body is kind of like the house your soul lives in while you are alive on earth. But the body is not the “essence” of who we are. After we die and shed the soul leaves the body and wings its way to the spiritual world and takes on another form, comprised of heavenly elements that exist in that realm. The soul remains fully conscious and remains the sum total of the personality, everything we acquired here on earth... There is not much more we know because we would not be able to understand any more, since the spiritual world is so different from this world.

I know this sounds like a fantasy to you, and you have no reason to believe it, because you are not in my religion.

Why are you so afraid of death, that you must spend your adult life preparing to die? Death does not care whether you are rich, poor, healthy, Christian or Atheist, famous or unknown. It is truly the ultimate equal opportunity employer. So, if you believe that committing to a life of pious servitude, will earn you the reward of everlasting life, then boy do I have a deal for you.

That is a straw man to assume that believers are afraid of death just because we believe in an afterlife. We believe in it because our religions teach us there is an afterlife.

The afterlife is just another stage of our existence, a journey into another world that is not physical. How would you prepare for any journey? You would want to have what you need in your bags, provisions for your journey. If you don’t have them you might be able to acquire some of them later, but it is much better to come prepared. Or, if you prefer, you can eat drink and be merry and live for the things of the flesh and not care how prepared you are, because you are so sure there is no afterlife.

You talk about the afterlife as if you know there is none. How can you know? Granted, I cannot prove what I believe with “objective verifiable evidence” but I do have some evidence that comes from my religion. First of course one would have to believe in the religion, only after that do they accept the teachings.

Have any of you atheists ever entertained the “possibility” that you could be wrong about the afterlife? Do you like the others disregard religion altogether just because you had a bad experience with it in the past? It is not a life of pious servitude that will earn us the reward of everlasting life, it is nearness to God through His latest Messenger and living a noble lifeof good deeds.

705. How to "Get to Heaven"--Is Dependent on Two Things

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by.But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

 

[Trailblazer]

jmt09 said: Presumably God might have deemed it desirable to endow creatures with free will.

Not in the bible. Free will is never really a concern of God's until it's time to blame us for something largely outside our control.

He has snide remarks for Job, when Job WAS doing his job and God is trying to downplay the fact He did it because Satan told Him to.

The revelation associated with the Bible has been abrogated by the “new” Revelation of Baha’u’llah. We now know that there is no “being” called Satan.

Also, the subject of free will has been addressed unequivocally. If people want to keep referring to an older revelation that is their choice; I don’t need to.

Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?

Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.
Some Answered Questions, p. 248

jmt09 said: But if we are free then we are capable of horrendous evils.

I don't believe in free will, but that doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't stop criminals as best we can. Take a look at the Austin bombings, accomplished by a home schooled conservative Christian who had dehumanized many parts of society: this is bigger than just jailing him or killing him. Entire social infrastructures created this type of person. One person can't fix it by that point.

If we do not have free will, how can criminals be held responsible thus accountable for their crimes? That makes no sense at all. Free will has many constraints such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances but we are still responsible for our actions. We have the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. How free they are varies with the situation.

Trailblazer said: God has a great big vending machine in the sky where can fly up to and you put your money in, and you can get whatever you want, because God is obligated to deliver... and none of it had better be evil

If I pay for services rendered, services should be rendered.

What did you put in the vending machine; i.e., what did you do for God?

You are arguing that you can go into a restaurant and be happy when the owner tells you that you won't get any food. AT. A. RESTAURANT.

No, I am arguing that you have to pay for the food you order.

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah

God has made various covenants and per some people must want out of them.

Atheists, at least, figured out how to nullify the contract: for services not rendered, belief will not be applied.

What services were not rendered? God has kept His Covenants with mankind.

No atheists I know have ever said this. They just say there is no evidence that God exists so that is why they do not believe in God. What are these “services” you expect to be rendered?

Trailblazer said: The fact that the deity is omnipotent just means it has All Power, that does not mean it can intervene in human affairs and fix things.

Those with the power to fix something are morally obligated to participate.

Who says they are obligated? Who are you to say that God is obligated to do anything?

Let's say someone took a nap in their car and are now unconscious and dying of carbon monoxide poisoning. You realize the door is unlocked or are able to break the window to save them. If you do not do so, you are criminally negligent.

A human is responsible to help another human. That is what God has enjoined us to do, help other people. God is not a human. God does not have responsibilities, except to keep His Covenants which He has done all throughout history... The latest Covenant is the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.

Trailblazer said: Humans also have the power to do so.

Since evil exists, clearly humans nor God have been very effective.

God has been effective in sending Messengers (in keeping with His Covenants never to leave mankind alone) but when people do not follow the teachings of the Messengers, evil prevails.

Trailblazer said: There could be a reason for suffering you do not understand

I'm pretty sure we understand where illnesses, rape, murder, and bad weather come from nowadays. This argument may have worked when people thought staring at a bronze snake would cure snakebite, but now we know we need anti-venom, which isn't something God mentioned was an option. We had to come up with that ourselves. God doesn't get the credit for stuff He was too lazy to do.

I was not talking about the causes of suffering, I meant that there is a reason people have to suffer, a purpose that is beyond our immediate understanding.

Trailblazer said: But the more people read the instructions and follow them, the sooner the Kingdom of God on earth will be built.

If prophets can contact God, so can we. As I said, I know I have a relationship with God that includes both me and Him. You don't ever seem to respond to that. I thought we should all be flocking to the "current" prophet or whatever, but like most, you hang on to someone long dead so you don't have to hear them criticize you.

No, sorry, it does not work that way. God only communicates to His Chosen Messengers. If you believe you have a relationship with God, that is another thing, but God does not speak directly to anyone but Messengers.

Trailblazer said: but if the deity is indeed omniscient, don’t you think it knows more than you do about what is good for the humans it created?

Knowing is not the same thing as caring.

And given the way God is frequently portrayed, especially by the Abrahamics, I begin to wonder if God knows more than a kindergartner.

And how do you know God does not care. Listening to believers who talk about their God is not a good way of obtaining information about the God. It is best to go to the source, which is the scriptures; in this new age that is the Writings of Baha’u’llah.

Trailblazer said: No, God cannot prevent it without interfering with free will. That is impossible.

Om ... ni ... po ... tent.

Let's say I feel a murderous rampage coming on. Instead of just sitting there and letting me do it, God can lead me to one of those rage rooms or something where I can smash some dishes and feel much better and go about my day.

My free will was not suppressed, just redirected to something not as harmful.

Why should God do that? How can you learn to manage your rage if God steps in and leads you by the hand?

But if you prayed to God, and trusted God, you’d be surprised what God might do. I used to have rage, no more.

Trailblazer said: How can you know that the rules should be different, given you are not All-Knowing?

But we are smart enough to know when something doesn't add up.

Not smarter than God. It is only human arrogance that think they know more than God.... been there, done that.

Trailblazer said: God knows more than any human about how to create and oversee the world.

That has not been established objectively.

And it won’t ever be established objectively because nobody has ever SEEN God, not can anybody know what God is DOING. God works through His Messengers/Prophets who come to earth and do God’s work... It has been this way since the beginning of mankind.

Trailblazer said: This mortal world is a storehouse of suffering by its very nature, it was never intended to be a paradise. But there is also happiness. Why should it be happiness all the time?

Accepting that crap happens is one thing. Actively making it happen is something else. Sure, I believe that cancer and many other conditions are evolution working out the kinks. I believe that bad weather is just the planet working out its natural cycles. However, when God says He's in CHARGE of all that, that makes Him ethically responsible for the outcomes. The only way to make your version of God consistent is to strip Him of any claim to own any part of Creation.

God is responsible for creating what God created and that is all He is responsible for. He created it for humans so what happened after that is human’s responsibility.

You want Him to have all the respect and none of the accountability. To me, those who deny God should be accountable are essentially claiming the same of themselves, for gods are often used as metaphor for political values.

There is something seriously wrong with anyone who believes that God is accountable to humans in any manner shape or form. That is illogical on its face. The Creator of everything is not responsible to what He created.

Trailblazer said: Man has that potential.

Again, if WE do the work, GOD doesn't get any thanks for it.

Who said we have to thank God for the work we do? I only said we have to do the work.

Trailblazer said: The best source of information for anything deity-related is the Messengers of the deity.

Wrong. The best source is the deity under discussion.

The deity does not communicate directly with anyone except His Messengers so you are out of luck.

 

[sayak83]

What you would need to do is, take a baby before they have any knowledge at all. So nothing gets in their minds.
Whether religious or the disbelief in God gets in their minds.

Then when they are old enough to read for themselves, have them read the Bible and then see what happens.

You can not take a person who is first hand skeptical about the bible. And expect them to give right answers of the bible, without their mind set against the bible, before they even begin.

It's easy to see where such people stand, That they were against the bible, before they even got started.

This unrealistically naive, and could done with any scripture in any culture. By far most will believe, humans are most often emotionally committed to the sense of community they are raised in, but of course the reality is a few may be skeptical and not believe in that particular scripture.



As far as science of evolution goes it is the same as with all sciences there is abundant objective verifiable evidence, research supporting the science, and it is falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no competing hypothesis based on the evidence.

The belief or non-belief in God(s) has no such basis in objective evidence.

That's science supporting evolution, But science can not prove that there is anything after a person dies over in the unknown. That's why the unknown stands there as the unknown.

Because no one, including science, can not prove what happens to a person after they die and they enter the unknown.

Once a person is dead after a few days or month or a year, there is no coming back here, So no matter how much technology science has, they can not prove of anything over in the unknown
Once a person dies, everything shuts down.
Like pulling the plug on a light.

There are two Wagers, The one being Pascal's Wager and the other is a gamblers wager.
A gambler that knows how to bet, will cover all their base's, leaving ñothing to chance.
In like manner, as a believer I will cover all my bases leaving ñothing to chance.
Therefore no matter how you want to cut it, I will come out a winner either way.

I remember reading the Bible when young (10) with no prejudice. Found God to be a horrid guy and the book absolutely distasteful. I still don't see how one can find the Bible and its God to be straightforwardly worthy of even a modicum of respect just by reading the Bible. Far more cultural training is needed.

Fundamentally these old religious scriptures are written in a very unattractive fashion and their God's are not edifying. Without actual spiritual experience, no person would consider them even for a moment. It is only after one gains some spiritual experience that these books can be usefully, but cautiously mined for usable wisdom.

 

[MangoJuice]

First, welcome to the Forum, MJ.



The generic "god" is not capitalized.

Hello Sunstone,

I see by your religion that you worship erotic dancing girls, sadly, you seem to have mistakenly capitalised the term. I understand that a generic term is not capitalised, on the other hand, you don't seem to understand it yourself.

 

[MangoJuice]

@MangoJuice, please quit butchering English grammar, for Pete's sake! You are misleading people.

Do You Capitalize the word "God"?

God (Capitalization)

God or god? To capitalize or not to Capitalize

Honestly, this is basic grammar that was taught to every primary level school child in my day. If it was not taught to you, your teachers were incompetent in that specific regard.



[yawn] ignorant atheist-bashing drivel [/yawn]

Yawn, atheists without grammar skills "Do You Capitalize the word "God"?" you don't capitalize the word capitalize, try again...