Atheism vs Theism

[columbus]

The only way God could make humans capable of understanding Him is if God recreated humans so that they had a divine mind,

Why is God too limited to do this?
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

If your alleged 'atheist' actually wanted some god to do something, then he would have to be believe that god was there to do things. In which case, he could not have been an atheist.

His position was that if God existed then God would communicate directly to everyone, therefore God does not exist because no God is observed communicating directly to everyone.

Of course this is patently illogical because if God exists we all know that God does not communicate directly to everyone, and that means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone. I explained that that to this atheist many times but he never understood it.

I do. But the thing is Trailblazer, that you started off by saying that your god could not speak to humans.

Show me where I ever said that God could not speak to humans.
I said:

Sorry, the only way God can relay information is through a human because that is the only way we an ever understand that information since we are also human.

Then later I further clarified that and I said:

Sorry, the only way God can relay information such that a human could understand God is through a human because that is the only way we can ever understand that information since we are also human.

And you tried to tell me I was wrong to say that an omnipotent being could.

Show me where I ever said that. I will admit it if you have proof.

Now you have back pedaled on that, and agreed that if your god existed that he could speak to everyone. That is all that I said. Thank you for agreeing that I was right.

No backpedaling was necessary because I never said that God could not speak to everyone.
All I ever said was that nobody except Messengers could understand communication from God.

Do you always have to be right? Do you know what that is called when someone always has to be right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why is God too limited to do this?
Tom

So do you think that God should wipe out the human race and recreate humans so that they have a divine mind just because a few atheists do not like to go through Messengers?

 

[columbus]

So do you think that God should wipe out the human race and recreate humans so that they have a divine mind just because a few atheists do not like to go through Messengers?

God wipes out the human race every few decades. It's called death.

And this isn't about atheists. We're just the humans who recognize that religion is fiction. It's you theists who keep saying irrational things like God doesn't want things this way. But He's incapable of improving things.
Tom

 

[ppp]

His position was that if God existed then God would communicate directly to everyone, therefore God does not exist because no God is observed communicating directly to everyone.

Well, that is not wanting God to do something, That is just saying that if God existed then he would communicate to everyone. Which, I acknowledge would be wrong, if your purported atheist said it. But considering how dishonestly you just misrepresented me in your last few posts, I am not convinced that you are representing your other atheist accurately.

What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.

Of course this is patently illogical because if God exists we all know that God does not communicate directly to everyone, and that means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

Your "that means", does not follow. You are saying that under one hypothetical that God does exist in the current world, that it is clear God does not speak to everyone. That hypothetical is correct. If God exists currently, then he does not speak to everyone But that does not demonstrate your second hypothetical - that in some hypothetical world where God existed that he would not speak to everyone. You have no idea what God would do in some alternate hypothetical world.

Show me where I ever said that God could not speak to humans.

Previous conversation. You said that God could only speak thru Messengers of God because other humans are too limited. See next.

No backpedaling was necessary because I never said that God could not speak to everyone.
All I ever said was that nobody except Messengers could understand communication from God.

Same thing. Communication requires that the communicator has the capability to make herself understood.

Do you always have to be right? Do you know what that is called when someone always has to be right?

Trailblazer?

 

[Trailblazer]

God wipes out the human race every few decades. It's called death.

True, but that dose not help the situation because new people who are born inherit the same traits and as such they will not have a divine mind. The only way that could be different is if God started from scratch and created humans with a divine mind.

And this isn't about atheists. We're just the humans who recognize that religion is fiction. It's you theists who keep saying irrational things like God doesn't want things this way. But He's incapable of improving things.
Tom

If an omnipotent God did not want things this way they never would have been this way. That is logic 101 stuff.
It is not God's job to improve things on earth. God delegated that responsibility to humans.

 

[coconut theology]

Then how come atheists are not getting the message?

Refusing the message is not the same as receiving ("getting") the message. See Exodus 5.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, that is not wanting God to do something, That is just saying that if God existed then he would communicate to everyone. Which, I acknowledge would be wrong, if your purported atheist said it. But considering how dishonestly you just misrepresented me in your last few posts, I am not convinced that you are representing your other atheist accurately.

That is true, that is not necessarily wanting God to do something; it was just saying what he believed God would do of God existed.

Talk is cheap. Prove that I misrepresented you or withdraw the accusation.
You are the one who misrepresented me (see below).

What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.

He said that but he also said what I said he said. If you do not believe me all you have to do is come to the forums where he said it as it is all on the record. Besides that, I saved most if his posts in Word documents so I have what he said word for word.

This atheist insisted that if God existed God would want everyone to know that He exists and this is a bald assertion as well as an argument from ignorance because there is NO WAY that he can know what God wants.

Your "that means", does not follow. You are saying that under one hypothetical that God does exist in the current world, that it is clear God does not speak to everyone. That hypothetical is correct. If God exists currently, then he does not speak to everyone But that does not demonstrate your second hypothetical - that in some hypothetical world where God existed that he would not speak to everyone. You have no idea what God would do in some alternate hypothetical world.

I can hardly believe I am hearing this. There is no alternate hypothetical world; there is just the real world. In the real world God does not speak directly to everyone. That is empirically observable and all we have to do to confirm it is take a survey and ask people if God communicated to them directly.

Some atheists are just so illogical. And they will do anything to avoid reality.

Trailblazer said: Show me where I ever said that God could not speak to humans.

Previous conversation. You said that God could only speak thru Messengers of God because other humans are too limited. See next.

No, that is NOT what I said. That is your interpretation of what I actually said.

I said:

Sorry, the only way God can relay information is through a human because that is the only way we can ever understand that information since we are also human.

Then later I further clarified that and I said:

Sorry, the only way God can relay information such that a human could understand God is through a human because that is the only way we can ever understand that information since we are also human.

In other words, God can speak to humans but God cannot relay information to humans such that a human could understand God except through Messengers.

Trailblazer said: No backpedaling was necessary because I never said that God could not speak to everyone.
All I ever said was that nobody except Messengers could understand communication from God.

Same thing. Communication requires that the communicator has the capability to make herself understood.

NOT the same thing. Your claim was that I said that God could not speak to humans.

Below is the verbatim quote. You said:
“But the thing is Trailblazer, that you started off by saying that your god could not speak to humans.”

Now you try to deflect and obfuscate by changing the subject and talking about communication.

Speak and communicate do not mean the same thing. I never said that God could not speak; I said God could not communicate information. I speak to my husband all the time but often he does not hear me so I have not communicated any information.

You are just trying to save face so you won’t have to admit you are wrong, but evidence is evidence and I just presented the evidence that you were wrong. As I told that atheist on the other forums, who never once admitted he was wrong for six years, "it would not kill you to admit you are wrong." I admitted I was wrong all the time, whenever I was wrong. That is on the record.

 

[Bear Wild]

If an atheist becomes more like Orthodox Christian (atheist becomes closer to Orthodox Christianity), then he becomes closer to any religion, e.g. pantheism, Islam, Catholicism, antropotheism, deism.

Proof:

Atheism is infinitely remote from any religion.

Thus, the Pascal Wager has perfect sense. It is the step to improvement.

The theist thinks, that for any person the step towards God is an improvement. The atheism is infinitely remote from any theism and from any religion. Thus, if any atheist becomes more like a Christian, he becomes more like a Muslim. And if any atheist becomes more like a Muslim, he becomes more like a Christian. That is all message I bring in.


I mean, if an atheist would accept Christianity, he would become closer to Islam than ever before.


You would become "practical theist." You could ask the local church community: "are practical theists in Heaven?" Faith is deeds. Faith is faithfulness.


I have answered the question. The question was: what if an atheist starts to read the prayers, to go to church (and go through all the ceremonies, including baptism), to make good deeds, does he become saved from hell? If all that time he would remain an atheist? He would be practical theist. Hence - theist: "I will judge by deeds" (Jesus Christ).



No. The practicing theism (practical theism) is good as well. Why? Because Jesus has said: "I will judge by deeds." As well Jesus said: "I do not want the death of a sinner."


The faith is the faithfulness. If an atheist would faithfully follow the 10 commandments, including "Love your God", he can go to Heaven through practical theism. How could atheists love a "fictional" character? No problem, in my youth I was loving Robin Hood and took examples from him. It was my "invisible friend."



If there is no hell, then there is no bottom of hell. Hence, hell has no bottom. It is the "bottomless pit" (Bible).


I afraid, that not. They are infinitely remote. All good religions are angry against abortions and suicide. The atheism allows them. Thus, the atheism comes from satan, theism comes from God. "There is nothing in common between good and evil" (cf. Bible).


The atheists have no chance to defeat the logic of a single theist. Why? Because God's names are Truth, Logic, Mindfulness, and Reason. Theists always win the logic battle: "Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11 NIV
If an atheist becomes more like Orthodox Christian (atheist becomes closer to Orthodox Christianity), then he becomes closer to any religion, e.g. pantheism, Islam, Catholicism, antropotheism, deism.

Proof:

Atheism is infinitely remote from any religion.

Thus, the Pascal Wager has perfect sense. It is the step to improvement.

The theist thinks, that for any person the step towards God is an improvement. The atheism is infinitely remote from any theism and from any religion. Thus, if any atheist becomes more like a Christian, he becomes more like a Muslim. And if any atheist becomes more like a Muslim, he becomes more like a Christian. That is all message I bring in.


I mean, if an atheist would accept Christianity, he would become closer to Islam than ever before.


You would become "practical theist." You could ask the local church community: "are practical theists in Heaven?" Faith is deeds. Faith is faithfulness.


I have answered the question. The question was: what if an atheist starts to read the prayers, to go to church (and go through all the ceremonies, including baptism), to make good deeds, does he become saved from hell? If all that time he would remain an atheist? He would be practical theist. Hence - theist: "I will judge by deeds" (Jesus Christ).



No. The practicing theism (practical theism) is good as well. Why? Because Jesus has said: "I will judge by deeds." As well Jesus said: "I do not want the death of a sinner."


The faith is the faithfulness. If an atheist would faithfully follow the 10 commandments, including "Love your God", he can go to Heaven through practical theism. How could atheists love a "fictional" character? No problem, in my youth I was loving Robin Hood and took examples from him. It was my "invisible friend."



If there is no hell, then there is no bottom of hell. Hence, hell has no bottom. It is the "bottomless pit" (Bible).


I afraid, that not. They are infinitely remote. All good religions are angry against abortions and suicide. The atheism allows them. Thus, the atheism comes from satan, theism comes from God. "There is nothing in common between good and evil" (cf. Bible).


The atheists have no chance to defeat the logic of a single theist. Why? Because God's names are Truth, Logic, Mindfulness, and Reason. Theists always win the logic battle: "Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11 NIV

This is a very confusing introduction. It is like an argument within the introduction answering all questions to come.

Pascal's wager is a worthless argument coming from a very brilliant person. The fundamental flaw is simple. Someone presents a scenario with no proof of its existence but the outcome but the outcomes are wonderful or horrific and asks you to believe it or not. To not believe it has terrible consequences so why would you not believe it just to be safe?
So I say if you do not believe in Oden you are definitely going to a horrific hell but if you do and honor him you may go to Valhalla (heaven in Viking terms). So what is your answer? Not believe and possibly go to a horrible hell vs place your bets on Oden and continue in a wonderful place. This scenario has just as much evidence to be true than does a god from the Abrahamic belief. Both do not need evidence or have proof. So what is the answer?

 

[Trailblazer]

Refusing the message is not the same as receiving ("getting") the message. See Exodus 5.

How do you know that God communicates messages to atheists?

I do not believe that God communicates directly to anyone except His chosen Messengers; e.g., Moses, Jesus.

 

[chinu]

The theist thinks, that for any person the step towards God is an improvement.

Of course, even having any kind of "God" debate on "RF" is improvement, no matter against or favour.

This is also a kinda devotion, I believe.

 

[ppp]

His position was that if God existed then God would communicate directly to everyone, therefore God does not exist because no God is observed communicating directly to everyone.

I don't believe that you are accurately communicating what he said. After all, you misrepresent me on a regular basis. Assuming, of course, that he actually exists. What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.

No, that is NOT what I said. That is your interpretation of what I actually said.

Spare me the rambling pedantry. I was talking about an omnipotent god being able to successfully communicate with humans. If you were merely talking about your god merely being able to babble incoherently, then you are not talking about anything pertinent or germane.

Talk is cheap. Prove that I misrepresented you or withdraw the accusation.

You first. Withdraw everything that you cannot prove. Everything about your god. Everything about your Messengers. Everything about your religion. Everything.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't believe that you are accurately communicating what he said. After all, you misrepresent me on a regular basis. Assuming, of course, that he actually exists.

Unless you can prove that I ever misrepresented you, you should not assert it.

If you do not believe this atheist exists I will give you the link to the forums we both posted on for six years and you will see that I am telling the truth. Why would I make this up?

What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.

Yes, that IS what he said, among other things. Isn’t that what I just said?

You said: What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.

I said: He said that but he also said what I said he said.

Spare me the rambling pedantry. I was talking about an omnipotent god being able to successfully communicate with humans. If you were merely talking about your god merely being able to babble incoherently, then you are not talking about anything pertinent or germane.

I am not a mind- reader; I just read what is on the page.

You first. Withdraw everything that you cannot prove. Everything about your god. Everything about your Messengers. Everything about your religion. Everything.

How is this related to the subject at hand? But I will be happy to drop all the he said she said if you will do likewise.

Why should I withdraw everything I cannot prove?

A better question is: Why shouldn’t I believe in what I cannot prove?

Another question is: Does it bother you if I believe in God, Messengers, or my religion?

 

[ppp]

Unless you can prove that I ever misrepresented you, you should not assert it.

That is a rather hypocritical statement.

If you do not believe this atheist exists I will give you the link to the forums we both posted on for six years and you will see that I am telling the truth.

It you are actually going to demonstrate something, demonstrate that your god exists.

Yes, that IS what he said, among other things. Isn’t that what I just said?

No.

Why should I withdraw everything I cannot prove?

Why should I?

I am not going to be held to any demands by you that you are unwilling to meet yourself.

 

[coconut theology]

Pascal's wager is a worthless argument coming from a very brilliant person.

As a Christian, even Seventh-day Adventist, I basically agree with you. Pascal's wager is not a very good, or even convincing, argument, but is useful in a certain sense. It basically has the fundamental flaw of a 'God' that is not in character with the God [JEHOVAH Elohiym] of the Scripture (more of a deistic 'god', for Jesus Christ really isn't mentioned) because it is based in philosophy (Greek thought) rather than Scripture.

 

[Trailblazer]

It you are actually going to demonstrate something, demonstrate that your god exists.

Nobody can demonstrate that God exists to anyone except themselves.

 

[coconut theology]

How do you know that God communicates messages to atheists?

By the nature of "God is love", for if God is not love, you and I would not be here.

 

[ppp]

As a Christian, even Seventh-day Adventist, I basically agree with you. Pascal's wager is not a very good, or even convincing, argument, but is useful in a certain sense. It basically has the fundamental flaw of a 'God' that is not in character with the God [JEHOVAH Elohiym] of the Scripture (more of a deistic 'god', for Jesus Christ really isn't mentioned) because it is based in philosophy (Greek thought) rather than Scripture.

Pascal's Wager does not fail because it is based on Greek philosophy. In fact, considering that its target audience are non-believers, a logical argument would have far, far better chance to persuade than mere scripture. The primary reason that Pascal's Wager fails is that it makes an argument based on a false presumption. The presumption that the choice is only between belief in the Christian god, and no belief in any god. That is obviously a false dilemma. All of the other gods and their hells in all of the other religions are co-equal with Christianity.

 

[ppp]

Nobody can demonstrate that God exists to anyone except themselves.

Don't hold me to standards that you are not willing to hold yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

By the nature of "God is love", for if God is not love, you and I would not be here.

How is that related to my question:
How do you know that God communicates messages to atheists?

In other words, why would a loving God communicate directly with atheists, or with anyone, except His Chosen Ones, like Moses and Jesus?