Atheists: What would you consider credible communication from God?

Trailblazer said:

How could expect that to happen, logically speaking? Only if God took over everyone's minds and made them all believe in the same God could that ever happen. Why should God do that?

Does it even matter to people what what is logical, reasonable and rational or does it just matter what they want? This is insane.

Go ahead blame God for the failure on the part of humans to recognize Baha'u'llah, who explained that there is only one God. It is your choice to blame God for human failure because you have free will.

Click to expand...

You asked in the OP what atheists would consider reliable communication from God. This atheist here think that a communication that unites them would impress me. And as long as hundred of millions believe God wants humanity to be divided in castes at birth, while hundred of billions believe that God created all humans equal, then I cannot possibly take the communication issue seriously.

Lacking this sort of basic agreement, I will fall back on the most obvious alternative. That all prophets just made things up.

And there is no other rational way, really. Evaluating the claims of prophet X just because we assume that God Y must have certain qualities is circular. It is for instance incorrect to say that Christianity is superior to Hinduism, because all humans are cleary all equal. That only the true God would say that all humans are equal is an assumption that begs the question.

Ciao

- viole

Trailblazer said:

So, God does not care if you choose not to hand over your belief. It won't hurt God, it will only hurt you. The only reason God cares is because God cares about you. I hope I cleared that up.

Click to expand...

You do realize, I hope, that you have just said two diametrically opposed things: God does not care if I am hurt; and God cares about me. Between you and your God, one of you is a tad confused.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

For the record, there is also no argument. You have just made a long list of assertions about the nature of something which you cannot possibly demonstrate to anyone, ever. You may as well claim God is also pink and blue, 23 feet tall, an apple or an orange, and thoroughly bisexual for all the good it will do. None of those things is any more nor less demonstrable about God than anything in your list.

Click to expand...

Remember though, im not making claims to knowledge or proof, just evidence, inferences and logic.

So, that said, everything i said in my post still stands unrefuted.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

False Dichotomy Logical Fallacy. You appear to think there is no middle ground-- that it's 100% or 0%. That your god is so inept, so clumsy, that it cannot Communicate To Everyone without blasting everyone to dust or some such.

Not much of a god-- it's like a Parent who has but ONE (1) method of punishing his children: Blast'em with a Shotgun.

"Jimmy! I told you to clean your room!"
"But Dad! Spongebob was on TV!"
"I don't care. Now come here-- it's time for the Shotgun."
"Awwww."

Click to expand...

I dont think its a false dichotomy fallacy.

Let me explain more.

If God communicated to everyone and let us all have perfect knowledge on everything, without confusion, where then is responsibility on our part to learn, figure out, ponder, work through? In addition, no one would need to interdepend on one another because wed all have everything figured out individually.

So, not only would knowledge and work be devalued and depreciated, but also our relationships and respect for others expertise and skills would become vertually none existent.

What a very WEIRD world that would be. The repurcussions of a God designing a world like that is fantastically weird.

Let me illustrate using a parable. When a human leader, king or president makes a policy or law, such a thing has to be done very carefully and solemnly because of the aftermath or domino effect that ripples through society by this law. If the law is bad, then the ripple effect will be bad. If the law is good, the ripple effect is good. And sometimes its good in one area and bad in another.

Well, in the same way, God, the leader of the universe, if he tweaks the laws of the universe just by a razar hair, that is going to have a massive ripple effect that will be like an earthquake through the whole universe. Such tweeks must be done with the utmost wisdom. God, not only has all knowledge, but has ALL WISDOM. More wisdom then you or i or even more then all humans combined.

If YOU wer God, tell me, would you do in a heartbeat what you propose God should do now? Or.....would you think about the repercusional aftermath first?

Still arbitrary. What is so "special" about humility? Your god certainly never displays any! What about lead by example?

Click to expand...

I disagree there. I think God does display humility. The Christian God, he comes down in the form of a man to experience what we go through. Thats humility. But, hey, even apart from that, in the old testament, God is shown to listen to peoples cries. Hes shown to express compassion and mercy. Those things have humble overtones to it. Anytime God appears to people in the OT and the people are afraid of his power and majestic presence, he says "dont be afraid". Proud beings wont say that. Proud beings want you to fear them. So, i think God is humble.

But anyway, what is so special about humility? Alot. First off, humility displays an open mind. It also displays honesty. It displays respect. It is a vertue God loves. And it makes sense that he would because any leader in any part of the world likes people working close or under them more who are humble. You start acting proud before your boss and youl see how fast your boss likes that. Youl **** him off. Well, God the boss of the universe also gets pissed at pride. Remember lucifer? It was pride that caused God to throw him down. Humility puts ones self in the shoes on the leader. It asks itself, what do they go through? What do they got to deal with? How can i make there work easyer?

Dont confuse humility with being an a s s kisser either. Its not the same thing. A s s kissers are people who know (truely know) wrong is being done by the leader and yet they still submit either out of brainwash or out of terror and fear.

False dichotomy logical fallacy. Again.

Click to expand...

So God should not grant freedom of choice? Why not?

So. For some, he takes Special Effort? And we are back to Special Favorites, again. EVIL

Click to expand...

No, you misunderstand. Everyone has different talents and weaknesses. This includes people who are spiritual SENSETIVES. Some people have a talented singing voice, but everyone can harness the ability. Just some will be better singers then others. Some are gifted with brute strength, and if they work on building it more, it builds very rapidly, while others dont have that gift, so any work they do, yes it will build, but no where near as much as the person who has a gift of good genes for it. The list can go on an on with different talents, abilities and skills. Well, soiritual sensetivity to the spirit realm is one such gift. Everyone can harness it if they work on it, but some will just be better then others due to the talent.

It has nothing to do with God favoring them more, it only has everything to do with God designing everyone with different skills or talents. He does this so we interdepend and respect and relate to eachother.

Furthermore, my point about humility still has to be MET by a spiritual sensetive. Just because there sensetive to the spiritual world dont mean they cant have pride.

Look at balaam in the bible as an example. Spiritual sensetive, but full of pride. because he was sensetive God talked to him, but he **** God off so bad that God was almost ready to kill him.

Then it's not actually verified, IS IT?

Click to expand...

Niether is everyones dreams verified, but we all have them. An ESP experience, just like a dream experience, can only be verified by the experiencer. Just because i cant show you my ESP experience ive had in the past dont mean im lying, no more then im lying when i say my last dream i had was a snake bit me on the heel.

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT MORAL FAILURE. Ooops!

Click to expand...

Put yourself in Gods shoes.

See? It's quite possible to eliminate the very ludicrous idea of faith-- replace it with knowledge.... and keep Free Will.

Click to expand...

Good point. But, you missed something. I had said the angels just have MORE knowledge then humans, they dont have ALL knowledge. Likewise SOME humans do have SOME knowledge. I AM one of them based on some of my spiritual experiences. Which i cannot prove them to you. But i have proof for myself, given that there MY experiences. Some humans have more knowledge then me. It varies through the human race.

But your god absolutely refuses: It prefers Special Favorites instead. EVIL.

Click to expand...

If he did not refuse to some extent, then he would be crippling the human race. But, he has trickled his revelations just enough to not disrupt the interdependence and the value, respect, apreciation paradigm.

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT MORAL FAILURE.

Click to expand...

Your god is absolutely immoral, unethical and nothing short of a monster. Based on your depictions of him, alone.

Click to expand...

Or, you are simply seeing what you see because the mud of a false perspective has smudged your glasses. Wipe off the mud, and youl see something wonderful.

Jollybear said:

Remember though, im not making claims to knowledge or proof, just evidence, inferences and logic.

So, that said, everything i said in my post still stands unrefuted.

Click to expand...

No, everything you said does not "stand unrefuted." Everything you said stands as merely claimed, without any substantiation at all.

I can just as easily claim that Ents still shepherd the trees in the forest, but we just never know about it because that's the way the want it, so they disguise themselves perfectly as trees. Since the disguise is perfect, by the way, you can't prove me wrong.

Trailblazer said:

God wants does not mean God expects.

Click to expand...

Except the want is followed by methods for accomplishing that want ie claimed scripture ergo an expectation. This expectation need not be an absolute conversion expectation.

God wants everyone to believe in Him for their own sakes, not for His sake. So the results do matter to God only because God wants what is best for us, not because it matters to Him for Himself.

Click to expand...

Ergo this is still an expectation just not one of an absolute such as 100% conversion rate.

Moreover, God does not expect everyone to believe in Him or His Messengers.

Click to expand...

Never claimed this.

God is omniscient so God knows we won’t all believe.

Click to expand...

This runs counter to said want of "their sake" as claimed knowledge exists.

I cannot speak for God

Click to expand...

You have been this entire thread.

but the results might matter because God might feel sad for us, not because God needs us all to believe in Him or His Messenger. God needs nothing from humans.

Click to expand...

This merely undermines your own argument as there is a motivator, sadness, and a failure of scripture to solve this issue.

Sorry but you lost me. I just clarified my position so maybe that will help address your issues.

Click to expand...

Simple method to result comparisons ie an evalutation.

Results do not matter because they do not prove anything about the truth of any religion.

Click to expand...

You are misinterpreting my point. You claimed your religion is not involved but you continuously reference your own religious view all the time. Without you religion you can not claim there are Messengers.

There is only one God. So, they have the wrong understanding of God, but they still believe in God.

Click to expand...

Nope. They believe in a God not God. You are merely playing parallelism words games in which similarity of beliefs equate belief about the same thing. Ergo some belief are going to be false.

The religions might be wrong but they still worship the God.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that mutually exclusive views render this not the case. For example a deist's God is incompatible with a revelation theist .

That matters more than anything else, how they relate to God.

Click to expand...

Seems like many religions care about which God is believed over basic belief otherwise punishment would not be include to due a lack of belief in a specific religion.

Yes, that is why most people believe in their religion.

Click to expand...

Environment more often than not dictates which religions are taught, supported, oppressed, etc. Hence why when one looks at various nations you can easily see with religion is the majority and why. KSA's is Islamic. It is taught by the state. The state suppresses other religions and does not teach anything about those religions in state schools. An individual may believe the religion is true but they have been primed for that conclusion before they were born.

I did not say that my religion does not matter.

Click to expand...

you are flip/flopping again

I said that it does not matter if everyone believes in it right away. It takes time for people to change their religions, a lot of time.

Click to expand...

This was not the point I was addressing. I was addressing your uses of your own religious view in your argument yet you rejection of any evaluation of your religion by me. You talk about Messengers but said people only hold this title according to your religion and nothing else.

Unveiled Artist said:

Hm.


So you dont want evidence for god in general but the anthropomorphized god?

The anthropomorphism is a human thing not a god thing. Christians say that god is just, etc, because they are strongly anthropomorphising scripture in a person and interactive sense. One christiam says the bible Is god's words, his voice. He cant speak outside the bible. Its just bring alive the bible to interact with it. Ask a christian anything outside, the bible. He or she would say you are wrong. For some reason they only consider truth whats in a limited amount of pages. The evidence of their anthropomorphism is the bible; that is their source. If you want something supernatural, there is none. Its a total experience, wholeness, understanding, source of passion, etc that creates and develops love within that christian.They call it spirit.



Thats a strong claim against christians faith. Thats like a christian claiming another christian isnt a real one based on what they believe christians should act like. Have you heard a christian speak about gods wants and needs apart from the bible?

If you have, I get your point. I havent, so your question for evidence doesnt make sense. Maybe take another approach?

Click to expand...

That's the approach I have to take when it's what I'm approached with. If a Christian mystic comes along and wants to talk about the esoteric inner spirituality underlying Christianity, we will be in the same page, but mystics are very rare in mainstream religions, and in Christianity and Abrahamic religions as a whole.

Sunstone said:

You're misrepresenting my position. I never said anything remotely like "God does not exist because if he did he would tell me so". Nor did I say anything remotely like, "ANY visit from god to me personally telling me he exists would be an hallucination because god doesn't exist". In fact, I argue against the first premise in another post in this thread. Obviously, the views and reasoning you ascribe to me are not my views.

As for the rest of your post, it's pretty much in the same vein as the part I just quoted, so I won't trouble myself with it. If you want to convince me of something -- anything -- you should begin by not misrepresenting my views. As it is, you have only demonstrated to me that you're pretty good at going off half cocked and misrepresenting my views.

Click to expand...

...whether your beliefs run this way or not, that is the fallacy you did use.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

No, everything you said does not "stand unrefuted." Everything you said stands as merely claimed, without any substantiation at all.

Click to expand...

Im not approaching it from a proof/knowledge level. Im approuching it from a evidence/inference/logic level.

If i was approuching it from a proof/knowledge level, then you would be correct, that its just a claim without substantiation (e.g proof). But, thats not what i did. Therefore, my points still stand unrefuted. You dont even have proof/knowledge of your position that nothing/chance made the universe. You also have to use "evidence/inference/logic".

The key is, whos view has MORE evidence/inference/logic then the other? I think mine does for reasons ive given to you in the other posts.

I can just as easily claim that Ents still shepherd the trees in the forest, but we just never know about it because that's the way the want it, so they disguise themselves perfectly as trees. Since the disguise is perfect, by the way, you can't prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

Lol....this is simply another apples to oranges. Its like the parrallel planet.

masonlandry said:

That's the approach I have to take when it's what I'm approached with. If a Christian mystic comes along and wants to talk about the esoteric inner spirituality underlying Christianity, we will be in the same page, but mystics are very rare in mainstream religions, and in Christianity and Abrahamic religions as a whole.

Click to expand...

Just think of anthropomorphizing mystic definition and experiences. That's all it is. Taking mystic experiences (holy spirit) and interacting with it by making it a deity in relationship of and from scripture. That's the source. Christian claims wrap around that source.

You will hear the same thing from christians. It's easier to just find what they have in common and see it from a mystic perspective. Then you see their claims or their beliefs a personification of mystic and cultural experiences.

How do you personally define mystic?

Each supernatural religion defines it differently.

dianaiad said:

...whether your beliefs run this way or not, that is the fallacy you did use.

Click to expand...

Quote where I used the fallacy you accuse me of or admit you are mistaken.

Jollybear said:

Im not approaching it from a proof/knowledge level. Im approuching it from a evidence/inference/logic level.

If i was approuching it from a proof/knowledge level, then you would be correct, that its just a claim without substantiation (e.g proof). But, thats not what i did. Therefore, my points still stand unrefuted. You dont even have proof/knowledge of your position that nothing/chance made the universe. You also have to use "evidence/inference/logic".

The key is, whos view has MORE evidence/inference/logic then the other? I think mine does for reasons ive given to you in the other posts.

Click to expand...

Yes, that may be an appropriate key, so let's look at it:

You see a world, the origin of which you can't explain, you see "design in nature," and have no knowledge of how that could be, and you therefore infer "God did it" and then go on and try to do logic from there.

I have a (very) small knowledge and appreciation of quite a variety of sciences, and I can understand, in my own limited way, something about how the universe got to where it is from just a few moments after the Big Bang, and I can understand, again in my own limited way, how completely natural events, acting only through well-understood physical and chemical process, may have created life. And I can understand how evolution could have (indeed, must have) been responsible for the wondrous variety of life that now exists. Including us.

I have worked very hard to acquire what little knowledge I have of how the world actually works, from the scientific viewpoint. You do not appear to have much of that knowledge available to you, and so must work with what you've got as the basis of your "inference" and "logic." If, through some effort, you ever acquire some of that other knowledge, and then use your inference and logic starting from much more solid foundation, you too might see the world just a little differently.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Yes, that may be an appropriate key, so let's look at it:

You see a world, the origin of which you can't explain, you see "design in nature," and have no knowledge of how that could be, and you therefore infer "God did it" and then go on and try to do logic from there.

I have a (very) small knowledge and appreciation of quite a variety of sciences, and I can understand, in my own limited way, something about how the universe got to where it is from just a few moments after the Big Bang, and I can understand, again in my own limited way, how completely natural events, acting only through well-understood physical and chemical process, may have created life. And I can understand how evolution could have (indeed, must have) been responsible for the wondrous variety of life that now exists. Including us.

Click to expand...

Let me you ask you this: what does your "limited knowledge" say on evolution designing everything, our bodies, animals, ect?

I have worked very hard to acquire what little knowledge I have of how the world actually works, from the scientific viewpoint. You do not appear to have much of that knowledge available to you,

Click to expand...

Oh i do have it available to me. I have read science stuff, science videos, ect. Even living life, we can all do our own experiments on things. Availability is not the problem, what we both need to do, and both of us do in fact do this, is critically think through this limited knowledge (data) to find what it all means.

and so must work with what you've got as the basis of your "inference" and "logic." If, through some effort, you ever acquire some of that other knowledge, and then use your inference and logic starting from much more solid foundation, you too might see the world just a little differently.

Click to expand...

This other knowledge is merely the data, discovery that is available to all of us. But even that needs explanation.

When you break it all down, at the core, all we have are 3 views of why the universe is here. Theres variations to these 3 views, but, theres just 3 views.

1: either the universe was always here in one form or another.

2; the universe had a begining. Something came from nothing and became everything by pure chance over billions of years.

3: or a conscious, intelligent entity created the universe.

Thats it. There are no other options.....and....never will be. Its inconceivable for there to be another option to pick from.

But like i said, theres variations of each 3, but, there all within the 3 options.

So, what view do you go with? I know its not the third, so, is it the first or second?

Jollybear said:

Let me you ask you this: what does your "limited knowledge" say on evolution designing everything, our bodies, animals, ect?

Oh i do have it available to me. I have read science stuff, science videos, ect. Even living life, we can all do our own experiments on things. Availability is not the problem, what we both need to do, and both of us do in fact do this, is critically think through this limited knowledge (data) to find what it all means.

Click to expand...

If you have it all available to you, and you have to ask me the question in the first paragraph, then you have not actually studied what is available to you. Because it's all there...far too much for me to even outline here.

This other knowledge is merely the data, discovery that is available to all of us. But even that needs explanation.

When you break it all down, at the core, all we have are 3 views of why the universe is here. Theres variations to these 3 views, but, theres just 3 views.

1: either the universe was always here in one form or another.

2; the universe had a begining. Something came from nothing and became everything by pure chance over billions of years.

3: or a conscious, intelligent entity created the universe.

Thats it. There are no other options.....and....never will be. Its inconceivable for there to be another option to pick from.

Click to expand...

You see, you just quit one step too early. Let us assume, as I'm sure you would very much like to, that your option 3 is correct...a conscious, intelligent entity created the universe. But it fascinates me that you simply stop there.

You see, I then have to ask say just what you did:
1. either the conscious, intelligent entity was always there in one form or another
2. the conscious, intelligent entity had a beginning (or came from nothing and became a conscious intelligent entity by chance over billions of years, or
3. some other conscious, intelligent entity created this conscious, intelligent entity.

So you see you just added a step. I was happy to stop with your number 1, the universe has always existed in some form or another. You can't accept that, so you imagine something that is actually more complex, more unlikely, and then suppose that IT must have always existed in one form or another.

As it happens, my argument is simpler, and by Occam's Razor, ought therefore to be the winner.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

If you have it all available to you, and you have to ask me the question in the first paragraph, then you have not actually studied what is available to you. Because it's all there...far too much for me to even outline here.

Click to expand...

It being available and me asking you does not mean im asking to be educated, it means im probing to see your understanding of that available knowledge/data.

You see, you just quit one step too early. Let us assume, as I'm sure you would very much like to, that your option 3 is correct...a conscious, intelligent entity created the universe. But it fascinates me that you simply stop there.

You see, I then have to ask say just what you did:
1. either the conscious, intelligent entity was always there in one form or another
2. the conscious, intelligent entity had a beginning (or came from nothing and became a conscious intelligent entity by chance over billions of years, or
3. some other conscious, intelligent entity created this conscious, intelligent entity.

Click to expand...

I go with number 1, that the concious intelligent entity was always here in one form or another.

So you see you just added a step. I was happy to stop with your number 1, the universe has always existed in some form or another. You can't accept that, so you imagine something that is actually more complex, more unlikely, and then suppose that IT must have always existed in one form or another.

As it happens, my argument is simpler, and by Occam's Razor, ought therefore to be the winner.

Click to expand...

So, you think the universe was always here in one form or another is the most logical explanation over the other 2 options?

Ok, so why in your view does the universe always being here in one form or another a better explanation then the other view that says the something came from nothing and became everything by chance over billions of years?

Also, seperate question: isnt your view somewhat similar to mine in that there is an eternal energy that always existed in one form or another? Just you think this energy was not concious or intelligent and i do.

How is your view more logical, given the fact that we know the universe has produced intelligent life (us)? So, how is it illogical that i say a eternal intelligence has always existed?

Jollybear said:

I dont think its a false dichotomy fallacy.

Let me explain more.

If God communicated to everyone and let us all have perfect knowledge on everything, .

Click to expand...

Stop! There you go! ALL OR NOTHING. Apparently your god is so inept he cannot moderate his output/teaching. It's like 100% or 0%-- there is no moderation possible, in your picture of god.

Unlike an ordinary kitchen faucet....

Jollybear said:

... without confusion, where then is responsibility on our part to learn, figure out, ponder, work through? In addition, no one would need to interdepend on one another because wed all have everything figured out individually. .

Click to expand...

See above. Apparently you think of god like a Fire Hose: Spewing God Stuff at max flow, with absolutely zero ability to moderate himself.

Must be god's massive ego, that he cannot dial it back some?

Oh Look! WE FOUND ANOTHER THING your god is incapable of! And does not know how to do either: not all powerful, not all knowing.

Not god. (or more likely, not real...)

Jollybear said:

So, not only would knowledge and work be devalued and depreciated, but also our relationships and respect for others expertise and skills would become vertually none existent. .

Click to expand...

Argument FAIL: You remain stuck on 100%/0%.

Jollybear said:

What a very WEIRD world that would be. The repurcussions of a God designing a world like that is fantastically weird..

Click to expand...

Indeed: Your god has such a massive ego or something, that he cannot dial it back...
`

Jollybear said:

Let me illustrate using a parable. When a human leader, king or president makes a policy or law, such a thing has to be done very carefully and solemnly because of the aftermath or domino effect that ripples through society by this law. If the law is bad, then the ripple effect will be bad. If the law is good, the ripple effect is good. And sometimes its good in one area and bad in another..

Click to expand...

Rabbit Trail-- has zero application to your 100%/0% fallacy.

Jollybear said:

Well, in the same way, God, the leader of the universe, if he tweaks the laws of the universe just by a razar hair, that is going to have a massive ripple effect that will be like an earthquake through the whole universe. Such tweeks must be done with the utmost wisdom. God, not only has all knowledge, but has ALL WISDOM. More wisdom then you or i or even more then all humans combined..

Click to expand...

Yet? Your god had zero problem halting the SUN in the SKY that one time, so his hero can keep slaughtering people.

And your god had zero problem magicking up mass quantities of water, so he could drown the whole forking WORLD that other time.

It seems your god is incapable of TWEAKS-- but instead -- MASSIVE OVER EFFECT.

No WONDER your god cannot be ... convincing. He is absolutely inept, as a god.

All the subtlety of a giant bolder rolling down a round tunnel....

Jollybear said:

If YOU wer God, tell me, would you do in a heartbeat what you propose God should do now? Or.....would you think about the repercusional aftermath first?.

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not god-- but I'm capable of dialing it back for the audience: I don't give quantum physics lectures to 3 year olds, for example.

And? That makes me MORE capable than your god: who is stuck on 100%/0%

Jollybear said:

I disagree there. I think God does display humility..

Click to expand...

Right. When he drowns all the kittens on the planet, in a fit of pique, because people were behaving exactly as he made them to behave... real humility... NOT!

Jollybear said:

The Christian God, he comes down in the form of a man to experience what we go through. .

Click to expand...

Nope. That's a JOKE: An immortal being cannot comprehend what it means to face death-- because being immortal? He cannot actually die.

The whole "crucifixion" was a massive joke on people-- who can die, and who do suffer.

Jollybear said:

Thats humility. .

Click to expand...

Not really. It's actually making fun of us mere mortals-- an immortal god pretending to be "human", while not actually being human.

Jollybear said:

But, hey, even apart from that, in the old testament, God is shown to listen to peoples cries.

Click to expand...

Except when he doesn't, and murders all the first born babies-- more than once.

Jollybear said:

Hes shown to express compassion and mercy..

Click to expand...

Except when he doesn't, and has his Minions murder everyone, all the men, boys and boy-babies. All the non-virgin women too. Only the virgins are kept as sex slaves. That's neither compassion nor mercy...

Jollybear said:

Those things have humble overtones to it. .

Click to expand...

Except that they do not. All Powerful God cannot be humble, and isn't. It's all "worship me or be tortured". That's about the max level of arrogance you can be...

Jollybear said:

Anytime God appears to people in the OT and the people are afraid of his power and majestic presence, he says "dont be afraid". Proud beings wont say that. Proud beings want you to fear them. So, i think God is humble..

Click to expand...

Except that the bible also says "the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom", so god demands FEAR in his followers.

Naturally: If you don't bow down like a slave? Torture. The opposite of 'humble'.

Jollybear said:

But anyway, what is so special about humility? .

Click to expand...

I would not know-- your god certainly is none of that. And I am done with this post, since you failed to make your point.

Bottom Line: Any being who demands adoration or gives torture if you do not?

IS PURE EVIL. That describes your deity: Evil. Terrorist.

Good thing it's also: Myth.

Jollybear said:

Im not approaching it from a proof/knowledge level. Im approuching it from a evidence/inference/logic level..

Click to expand...

Except, you use no evidence, no logic and I have no idea what you thought you inferred.

Fail.

Jollybear said:

If i was approuching it from a proof/knowledge level, then you would be correct, that its just a claim without substantiation (e.g proof)..

Click to expand...

But that's exactly what you did! You list a buncha claims, without even the support of your bible!

Jollybear said:

But, thats not what i did. Therefore, my points still stand unrefuted. .

Click to expand...

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means, I expect-- none of your arguments were successful.

Jollybear said:

You dont even have proof/knowledge of your position that nothing/chance made the universe. You also have to use "evidence/inference/logic"..

Click to expand...

That's not MY position! I absolutely do not claim "something from nothing" or "random chance"!

That would be... silly! In fact? Neither do modern astrophysics make either claim.

Straw Man.

Where's your evidence of god? What's that? You got ... nothing?

Yeah.

By the way? It's the bible that claims "something from nothing"-- literally Gen 1.1 states that.

Jollybear said:

The key is, whos view has MORE evidence/inference/logic then the other? I think mine does for reasons ive given to you in the other posts..

Click to expand...

Again? You have provided nothing of the sort-- not even one fact in support of your claim.

Jollybear said:

Lol....this is simply another apples to oranges. Its like the parrallel planet.

Click to expand...

Not really.

YmirGF said:

Try to bone up on your humor then, it needs work.

Click to expand...

Probably so, but I was in such a rush I did not think that through since I had about 50 posts to answer yesterday.

YmirGF said:

In many respects that's all humanity is doing anyways. It's just the finger paintings of small children, really. I don't intend that in a mean way, it's just so bloody apt.

Click to expand...

True, anyone who thinks that can know anything about God other than what is revealed in scriptures is shooting in the dark. I do not trust what is in the Bible as far as when it says “and God said or did x y and z.” Men wrote these things and they had no way to know what God said or did, because they were just men. End of story. I do believe what Baha’u’llah wrote about God because *I believe* He was a Manifestation of God who had knowledge of God no ordinary human can have.

YmirGF said:

Full Disclosure: Earlier today I got some upsetting news that I am wrestling with involving the ongoing drama with one of my sisters. In my frustration, I was a bit sharp and rude to you. For that I am truly sorry. You deserve better. Plus, I am entering day 32 without a cigarette and am occasionally testy as a result of that.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted. I know what sit is like to be under stress because I am under it constantly. Most of my stress involves my rental houses and tenants and contractors but I also have 10 Persian cats to take care of and a job. One tenant has an attorney and he is making accusations against me right now. At another rental my furnace died so I have to buy a new one. That is not half of it. When it rains it pours.

Both my parents smoked and my husband was a smoker so I understand. My dad died when he was 52 of a heart attack, but my mom lived to be 93. She quit smoking in her 70s. She had no lung damage but her smoking caused clogged arteries in her legs that led to heart disease. My husband quit in his 50s but he has severe asthma from the lung damage. Keep plugging away.

YmirGF said:

Without meaning to jab a large stick into your eye I was rather intrigued by your comment, "Moreover, it is nobody's right to speak for another person." I found that striking and also has direct bearing on the topic. You might remember those wise words the next time you wax on about what god wants/like/whatevers...

Jus' sayin'

Click to expand...

What I meant by that is that nobody can know what someone else is thinking or their motives unless they share that information. I think one of the main causes if relationship problems is when people speak for others instead of allowing others to speak for themselves. My husband taught me that. Baha’u’llah wrote that every one of knows his own self better than he knows others, and I believe that. Only if someone is very psychologically disturbed would someone know things about them that they might not know. It is so arrogant to think you know someone better than they know themselves, especially someone on a forum you hardly know. I sensed you are not that type of person so your comments kind of caught me off guard. Now I understand. We all have bad days and some of us have more bad than good. People who have stable lives cannot understand that.

It is not that same to say that a person should not speak for another person as to say that a Manifestation of God should not speak for God, because God is not a person and a Manifestation of God is not just a person. Both are above human and both are beyond our understanding.

YmirGF said:

Well, if you are still reading, I am truly happy to hear that. I won't question this again. I could have phrased my response a tiny bit more diplomatically.

Click to expand...

That’s okay. People have misunderstandings on these forums just as we do in our other lives. What is important is that we can forgive and move forward and try to understand each other.

YmirGF said:

You never did answer one of my questions though. Are you one of those folks who does not believe it is possible to see god face to face?

Click to expand...

I do not know if you read my longer post to you, but I answered this question in that post #174.
You might want to read that post if you want to know more about my background and where I am coming from regarding God and religion.

“...God has no face. Baha’u’llah wrote that after its separation from the body the soul will continue to progress until it attains the presence of God, but I have no idea what that means. I do not generally even think of what I will be doing tomorrow, let alone that far down the road.”

adrian009 said:

I haven't read through the responses. Its an interesting question. I hope you don't mind me answering as I'm not an atheist. I tried atheism for about year but it didn't work out. Agnosticism was a good fit when I was younger. Then I became open to the idea that God may exist and he seemed to make Himself known to me. Then I wondered if He had been trying to communicate with me all along. Maybe there's an option #4. God does communicate with everyone AND sends Messengers. Perhaps He communicates in a way that requires reading between the lines. Maybe some have the capacity to perceive Him better than others and/or recognise His Messengers.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing. I did not mean to exclude believers from this thread and I am glad you and some Christians showed up. It makes me realize that Baha’is are really on the same page as Christians when they present their arguments for God and Messengers.

I do not know how one “tries out atheism” after they have been a believer. I can however understand how someone can lose faith in God and then become an atheist. Often, my husband says I should just become an atheist, the way I sometimes talk about God, and I told him I wish I could become one but I cannot because I believe God exists. I suppose the main reason I believe that is because of Baha’u’llah, as I never even thought about God before I was a Baha’i. It is not as if I was searching for God or a religion. It just kind of found me. But God and I have never been on really good terms.

How does God make Himself known to people on a personal level? I am not saying it is impossible, I just have not experienced it myself.I understand when a Christian says that because of their beliefs, but I do not understand when a Baha’i says that. According to my understanding of what Baha’u’llah wrote, we cannot ever approach God or be partners with God, so I cannot buy this idea that we can have a “relationship” with God:


God is too far above humans to ever relate to us on a personal level. That is why we have Messengers. However, I think it is possible that God might be able to somehow communicate with our minds and I think maybe I have experienced that by way of getting guidance I asked for on certain matters.

Maybe God does communicate to everyone’s mind in some way and some people have the capacity to perceive Him better than others. Of course the same applies to recognizing His Messengers.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

False Dichotomy Logical Fallacy. You appear to think there is no middle ground-- that it's 100% or 0%. That your god is so inept, so clumsy, that it cannot Communicate To Everyone without blasting everyone to dust or some such.

Click to expand...

We are talking about an ALL-Powerful God Bob, not someone I would want to run into in a dark alley.

Blasting to dust is pretty much what would happen Bob. Baha’u’llah said so.


Is that what you want, to be reduced to utter nothingness?

If you knew more about God you would know why God does not communicate with ordinary people... It is for our own good that God keeps His distance.