Hello from a UK Athiest

[Yorzhik]

Not really. Show me the evidence and ill believe.

You've already demonstrated that you believe the nature of God is closed, which was what the highlighting of what you said was for.

I'll agree with you that a timeless omniscient omnipotent immutable God can't exist given our current state of reality.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hi,

If I'm honest I have to say I have no compelling desire to make contact with god. I don't feel any need to connect with god or indeed any compelling reason to consider that a god may exist. Indeed quite the opposite. Everything life has shown me thus far indicates that there is no god nor any good reason to believe that there is one.

Example: Fritzel. God, if he exists could have stopped this evil at any time. Instead these poor women suffered rape and imprisonment for 20 odd years.

Example: Burmah. Murder, rape, brutalisation on a massive scale going on every day.

Example: Cancer. Millions of people dying slow painful deaths.

I could go on and on and on.

None of things are necessary. A divine caring god could stop these things . Yet they continue day after day.

No need to respond, but please note that you defend the closed view of God.

 

[Lon]

How dare you speak against the Great FSM? I have been touched by his noodly appendages and bathed in his Holy Sauce.

I used to be a Spagnostic but my local Pasta convinced me of the truth!

Dripping hubristic irony... depending on your tenor, I hope you weren't one of those who came here introducting yourself as an 'honest' atheist.

If not, perhaps funny stuff in your circles?

Humor=okay

Dishonest comparison= :down:

 

[Lon]

No need to respond, but please note that you defend the closed view of God.

I'm not sure they are ready for Open Theism and I'm fairly sure that a 'closed' God is not a problem for any atheist/agnostic.

 

[Tambora]

And you'd be wrong.

Yeah. There's that!

 

[alwight]

I'm not sure they are ready for Open Theism and I'm fairly sure that a 'closed' God is not a problem for any atheist/agnostic.

Open theism then seems to be of no practical difference to a god or God not existing at all, or at least a god not being involved enough to be noticeable from simply not existing?
Its purpose seems to me to be more about allowing a possibly futile belief despite the many good reasons to think that the opposite of Godly care is the actual reality, a completely natural (un-supernatural) Godless world. I think that some theists have perhaps simply contrived a way to prevent the bad things that they know do happen in a very natural world from being any kind of obstacle to their preferred choice of a belief in a specific God regardless of evidence.
How specifically and with evidence would I be wrong here?
How specifically is your God actually involved in this apparently natural world Lon?

 

[GuySmiley]

Hi,

If I'm honest I have to say I have no compelling desire to make contact with god. I don't feel any need to connect with god or indeed any compelling reason to consider that a god may exist. Indeed quite the opposite. Everything life has shown me thus far indicates that there is no god nor any good reason to believe that there is one.

Example: Fritzel. God, if he exists could have stopped this evil at any time. Instead these poor women suffered rape and imprisonment for 20 odd years.

Example: Burmah. Murder, rape, brutalisation on a massive scale going on every day.

Example: Cancer. Millions of people dying slow painful deaths.

I could go on and on and on.

None of things are necessary. A divine caring god could stop these things . Yet they continue day after day.

I can imagine anything I want, it might even feel good, but that doesn't make it real.

Also why do I have to go to him? Why doesn't he come to me? Perhaps he doesn't like me. I don't want to go back to being a child. I've been there, done that, i grew up and I like who I am.
And i am very happy with how i see the world and interpret it. if god wants me he will have to come to as I am. If that's not good enough for him then my life is no worse for it.

I'm here waiting for him. My door is always open and if he comes in for a chat ill let you know.

Best wishes

Robert

You'd like a god to provide a comfy existence for you and others. What if a god stopped all those things mentioned from happening? Ever thought about it? We'd all complain about stubbed toes and paper cuts. What if god stopped those things? We'd complain about bad haircuts.

How would god stop those things by the way? God would have to interfere with our freewill, making those choices impossible. Without freewill love could not exist. Love is worth the risk.

Like Yorzhik points out, you have a closed view of God. You also reveal a "what can God do for me" attitude, which is the wrong perspective of the creator of the universe.

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm not sure they are ready for Open Theism and I'm fairly sure that a 'closed' God is not a problem for any atheist/agnostic.

I'm not sure there is a time when someone is ready, or not ready, for the open view. However, one thing is for sure; it removes a big argument in the atheist arsenal.

 

[gcthomas]

Without freewill love could not exist.

Interesting statement, Guy. But surely love and free will are separate concepts?

Love is an emotional response and is not susceptible to rational free will choices. You can't "choose" to fall in or out of love. Emotional responses exist without free will, so love does not depend on free will either.

 

[Spectrox War]

Dripping hubristic irony... depending on your tenor, I hope you weren't one of those who came here introducting yourself as an 'honest' atheist.

If not, perhaps funny stuff in your circles?

Humor=okay

Dishonest comparison= :down:

Suffering from an attack of humourlessness again?

On this thread ...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91754&page=7

... you fully supported Angel4Truth's dazzling display of armchair psychology and do-it-yourself phoney logic and challenged unbelievers to find something wrong with it.

I did find lots of things wrong with her No True Scotsman "You were never one of us" approach - yet we were greeted with a deafening silence. From every christian including yourself.

Care to make an assessment of your "honest" approach here?

 

[TheTB]

Stubbed toes.

Stubbed toes.

You'd like a god to provide a comfy existence for you and others. What if a god stopped all those things mentioned from happening? Ever thought about it? We'd all complain about stubbed toes and paper cuts. What if god stopped those things? We'd complain about bad haircuts.

I would rather live in a world where the worst thing that happened to people was stubbed toes and bad haircuts. Are you seriously suggesting it is better to live in a world where people are butchered raped, tortured, maimed, enslaved, murdered, starved etc. than one where we all live in peace, harmony and love and the worst thing we have to worry about is a bad haircut.

Identity check please! Which one of us is the Christian and which is the Athiest?

How would god stop those things by the way? God would have to interfere with our freewill, making those choices impossible. Without freewill love could not exist. Love is worth the risk.

I thought he was all powerful? I thought he could do anything he wants to? He created the universe didn't he? Tell that to Fritzel's victims who's lives were destroyed. Or to the body parts of the Burmese people killed for sport, or the dead 9/11 victims or their families.

Lets take a tsunami or an earthquake that kills and disables hundreds or thousands of people. Surely he could stop these without interfering with anyone's free will. Big earthquake happens at sea, god jumps in to the rescue and stops the tsunami before it kills anyone. Or maybe a plane crash like Lockerbie? He could have held the plane together after the bomb went off and guided the plane safely back down. Or better still just stopped the bomb going off. But no. He was nowhere to be seen that day!

Like Yorzhik points out, you have a closed view of God. You also reveal a "what can God do for me" attitude, which is the wrong perspective of the creator of the universe.

Damn right! If he wants my respect he has to earn it like anyone else.
And if he wants my love, then has a lot of making good to do after all people who have been slaughtered and brutalised at his command.

Have you ever read the bible? Try this:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

And what kind of sick being would dream this one up:

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

So a young girl who was raped perhaps had this to look forward to if any man then ever took her as a wife!

Oh yes. This god of yours has an awful lot to answer for as far as I am concerned.

The fact is bad stuff happens in the world, it always has, always will and god does not get involved one way or another. So what's the point?

Cheers
Robert

 

[TheTB]

Apology.

Apology.

How dare you speak against the Great FSM? I have been touched by his noodly appendages and bathed in his Holy Sauce.

I used to be a Spagnostic but my local Pasta convinced me of the truth!

Please accept my apology if I have offended your god or faith.
I do believe the FSM has never demanded anyone be murdered, tortured, raped or enslaved in his name and is generally a kind peace loving deity.

Tell me though, to you, is the FSM the one true and only god?

 

[PureX]

Not really. Show me the evidence and ill believe.

The evidence is concept-experiential. And you can't experience someone else's concept of God. So, in effect, you're looking for external objective evidence for an internal subjective conceptual experience.

You have rendered yourself incapable of receiving that which you claim to need.

 

[GuySmiley]

I would rather live in a world where the worst thing that happened to people was stubbed toes and bad haircuts. Are you seriously suggesting it is better to live in a world where people are butchered raped, tortured, maimed, enslaved, murdered, starved etc. than one where we all live in peace, harmony and love and the worst thing we have to worry about is a bad haircut.

Identity check please! Which one of us is the Christian and which is the Athiest?

I'm the Christian and you are the atheist.

You missed the point about love. I'd rather live in a world where love is possible, than be a robot. Its apparent that's what God would rather have also.

I thought he was all powerful?

Yet He can't make square circles, you need to come to grips with reality.

I thought he could do anything he wants to? He created the universe didn't he? Tell that to Fritzel's victims who's lives were destroyed. Or to the body parts of the Burmese people killed for sport, or the dead 9/11 victims or their families.

Lets take a tsunami or an earthquake that kills and disables hundreds or thousands of people. Surely he could stop these without interfering with anyone's free will. Big earthquake happens at sea, god jumps in to the rescue and stops the tsunami before it kills anyone. Or maybe a plane crash like Lockerbie? He could have held the plane together after the bomb went off and guided the plane safely back down. Or better still just stopped the bomb going off. But no. He was nowhere to be seen that day!

Again, you'd prefer a god who intervenes in every aspect of life so there'd be no real consequences to anyone's decisions. We'd be robots or we'd be slaves on puppets strings. No thanks. Doesn't sound like a loving god at all. You can have that god.

Damn right! If he wants my respect he has to earn it like anyone else.
And if he wants my love, then has a lot of making good to do after all people who have been slaughtered and brutalised at his command.

Well, that's unfortunate, but you do get the choice, even though you argue that you'd rather not have it.

Have you ever read the bible?

No, what's this bible you speak of?

Try this:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

And what kind of sick being would dream this one up:

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

So a young girl who was raped perhaps had this to look forward to if any man then ever took her as a wife!

Oh yes. This god of yours has an awful lot to answer for as far as I am concerned.

The fact is bad stuff happens in the world, it always has, always will and god does not get involved one way or another. So what's the point?

Cheers
Robert

Try google, you aren't original.

 

[TheTB]

Irrational....

Irrational....

I was wrong. I would have guessed gov't school.

I'm beginning to feel your bias may be too strong to have a reasonable conversation.

Define reasonable. I like to converse. I do of course have a strong bias, I cannot deny this.

You aren't showing any genocide, rape, pillage, murder or human sacrifice with the passages just mentioned. Were the passages supposed to have something to do with your conclusion?

Ooooohhhh don't tempt me there is plenty more where that came from.

That makes no sense in the light of the bible going against our baser natures. Marrying one wife, not lording over others, giving women property, being kind to one's enemies.

Acknowledged. There are a lot of good teachings in the bible along with all the murder, rape, enslavement, etc.

Well then, as science shows, "mutation plus natural selection" cannot be the main driver of evolution. Especially with the time frames claimed to be involved. Every atheist, agnostic, Christian and Muslim can agree on that.

I don't know where you are getting your information from here? 4.5 billion years is a very very very very very (you get the idea, lots of very's) long time for things to happen. And many Christians totally accept and agree that evolution by natural selection is fact.

I
Ok. We can explore that. I guess the initial question to ask is do you assume I believe God exists because I'm irrational?

No. I try not to assume too much. I don't know you. I don't know your background. My experience of most religious people is that they are generally the indoctrinated product of their parent or social group in which they were brought up.

So I am more likely to consider that a religious person is entirely rational to believe what their loving parents have taught them.

The difficulty is how to square the accident of your birth with the real world outside that sphere of faith. When someone has spent their whole lives being brainwashed to believe a particular thing, their mind may simply not be freeable.

Every Muslim child 'knows' absolutely that Allah is the one and only true god and the Qu'ran is his infallible word. Similar can be said about devout Christian, Hindu's etc.

These people are absolutely sincere in their belief's. I find the position they find themselves in completely rational given their backgrounds. Misguided, ill-informed, brainwashed and indoctrinated maybe, but not irrational.

But I don't know you personally so I can't say whether you are a rational person or not.

But I am happy to get to know you.

Cheers
Robert

 

[TheTB]

Internal what!

Internal what!

The evidence is concept-experiential. And you can't experience someone else's concept of God. So, in effect, you're looking for external objective evidence for an internal subjective conceptual experience.

You have rendered yourself incapable of receiving that which you claim to need.

So basically it's what you personally feel? I know what I feel.

 

[PureX]

So basically it's what you personally feel? I know what I feel.

That's not entirely wrong.

My point is that what we call "real" is an idea. And that idea is based on our experiences, and how we conceive of those experiences: what we think they are, and what we think they mean.

But we don't all have the exact same experiences, and we don't all conceive of them in the exact same way. So that we each have a somewhat different idea of what is "real". And you can't experience my reality, just as I can't experience yours. Which is why no theist can give you the "evidence" that you demand. And the fact that you demand it, indicates that you are not cognizant of the subjective nature of your own idea of what is "real", nor are you being respectful of the relative and subjective nature of his. (That's not uncommon, almost none of us are, most of the time.)

 

[gcthomas]

That's not entirely wrong.

My point is that what we call "real" is an idea. And that idea is based on our experiences, and how we conceive of those experiences: what we think they are, and what we think they mean.

But we don't all have the exact same experiences, and we don't all conceive of them in the exact same way. So that we each have a somewhat different idea of what is "real". And you can't experience my reality, just as I can't experience yours. Which is why no theist can give you the "evidence" that you demand. And the fact that you demand it, indicates that you are not cognizant of the subjective nature of your own idea of what is "real", nor are you being respectful of the relative and subjective nature of his. (That's not uncommon, almost none of us are, most of the time.)

Interesting. Do you believe there is an objective reality separate from subjective judgements about that reality, that can be approached with a careful methodology? Or is the subjective all there is?

 

[Spectrox War]

Please accept my apology if I have offended your god or faith.
I do believe the FSM has never demanded anyone be murdered, tortured, raped or enslaved in his name and is generally a kind peace loving deity.

Tell me though, to you, is the FSM the one true and only god?

I forkgive you.

His spaghettiness is the one true god. I know it in my heart. Usually as heartburn.

My only problem with orthodox FSMism is it ignores other types of pasta gods. The blessed tortellini, the omnipotent vermicelli, and the righteous rigatoni are equally pastafarian and yet, sometimes ignored as if the FSM is the ONLY path to sacred heartburn. This type of closed mindedness makes debating the topic difficult. But it tests my faith and strengthens my resolve.

And don't even get me started on marinara, alfredo, and roma sauces!

It seems you can't just have your parmesan spaghetti monster and eat it, too!

Open your hymnals everyone and sing...

"What a friend we have in Cheeses!"

 

[PureX]

Interesting. Do you believe there is an objective reality separate from subjective judgements about that reality, that can be approached with a careful methodology? Or is the subjective all there is?

Our descriptions of objective/subjective reality are themselves intellectualized concepts of reality, and not aspects of reality, itself. Reality is simply what it. And that includes our conceptions of reality, as well that which exists completely beyond our cognizance. The subjective/objective concept of reality is basically an intellectual illusion created by our inability to perceive reality as it is: as a whole.

In a way, the question that you're asking is somewhat moot, as we humans will never be able to perceive or conceive of reality from any perspective except our own. So that reality will always be 'subjective reality', to us.