NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you reject Eris? Is it because you fear freedom?

No, apricots.
It's okay though since "Jesus" had a weird problem with figs.

If God, under any form or interpretation, is worthy of worship, He/She/It/Them doesn't demand it.

If God demands worship, He/She/It/Them isn't worthy of it.


No. That's wrong.

Either "god" exists or it doesn't. If "god" exists and demands worship, who are you to go against the word of god?

On the other hand, if god doesn't exist, you are free to make all the judgments about morality you wish.

Your preferences in respect of god's ego problems are irrelevant.

There is nothing above good circular temporal reasoning. :p

Telling myself that regularly while 12 Monkeys and the Back To The Future Trilogy is on. :p

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not really after you.I was only correcting the spelling... I wasn't saying anything. Except wow.

I grew out of the imaginary friends phase. :)

Imaginary friends are fine. As long as you remember they are imaginary.

Imaginary friends are fine. As long as you remember they are imaginary.So being nuts is OK if you know you are?

I reject god because its all a joke. Religions are an escape from reality. Now this is just my opion to say, but does it matter who made this earth? No. People should not have to worship someone just so you dont burn in some fake place.
Now I could go on a longer rant but I have elsewere to go.

So being nuts is OK if you know you are?

Then, ipso facto, you are not nuts.

The problem with chirstiany today is the chirstians think all they have to do is accepted him. They do not go any farther. So you see a lot of people calling themselfs chirstians but are just as bad as sinners. This causes conflict and people start looking down on what they see.See, that's just it ... that's not just a problem of "today" ... you should consider what the church had to do with government for how long.
Buying back your graces? :rolleyes:

God wants us to love everyone
There is direct scripture to the contrary, and/or at least examples of how much of a double standard "God" holds in that regard.


God is just such a loving God, Even if there was not heaven or Hell and God was was still God.Erm, no.
I would still choose him because the joy and love he gives in now day life is worth it. If you look at the world and really look at it from a outsider point of view.You can't. You're *not* an outsider. In all likelihood, you have the *EXACT* same problems everyone else does with control and meaning and purpose. You have made yourself a statistic, though, and opted for an easy and self-contradictory explanation for the way things are, with a completely ego-centric ruling principle to it.
You see that humans naturaly do evil. Think about it, all the things people do. almost non of the thinngs they do is truthly for other people. There is some reason there doing it, something that they might benift.As much as someone else could benefit by acting as though they have answers/power over the well being of another?
This world needs a savior.Oh really? Been around, have you? Stop looking outward and start with first base, the home and hearth.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.

Then, ipso facto, you are not nuts.

Didn't someone *just* bring up Catch-22?
:D
http://www.sadiron.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/catch1.jpg

Then, ipso facto, you are not nuts.How so?

Didn't someone *just* bring up Catch-22?
:D
http://www.sadiron.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/catch1.jpg

Indeed Sir. But that is not the point here.

But SOME THING HAD TO MAKE IT.

Yes, impersonal forces that, in my times of despair, i've internalized and convoluted. Now i feel all better, having projected my insecurities and delusions unto the very reason and persuasion of creation/destruction. Yay for me!

Indeed Sir. But that is not the point here.

Page 18 = point? :p

I felt Yossarian needed an entrance, and there weren't a better time, imnsho.

SPELLING! SPELLING, dammit! And for fuck's sake, learn the difference between 'there' and 'their'. Lord and Lady, how can you expect anyone to take your seriously if you can't communicate your message well?

Sigworthy!

How so?

Because you know they aren't real. You could 'invent' some imaginary friends as part of a creative process: say painting a picture or writing a play.

Or, and this is probably more mundane, you might hold an internal dialog with yourself about a problem. It's a completely natural thing to do; but a dialog requires two parties, and one of them therefore has to be imaginary.

The important thing to remember is that they are no more than a figment of your own imagination/consciousness.

Naturally, if you lose sight of that fact. you are completely cuckoo.

Either "god" exists or it doesn't. If "god" exists and demands worship, who are you to go against the word of god?

I am me. And that's more than enough.

Thank You! That cannot be said enough about the NS forums! (Or religious fanatics who think the KJV of the Bible is the most beautifully written thing ever, yet have barely any ability to articulate themselves)

Cool nation name. Welcome to NS. *bows*

Yes, impersonal forces that, in my times of despair, i've internalized and convoluted. Now i feel all better, having projected my insecurities and delusions unto the very reason and persuasion of creation/destruction. Yay for me!

It never ceases to amuse me that there are people would think the world diminished in beauty if it were an accident, a natural, random occurrence, than if it was sculpted by some unseen hand.

Which is more beautiful: The redwood, or the bonsai?

Because you know they aren't real. You could 'invent' some imaginary friends as part of a creative process: say painting a picture or writing a play.

Or, and this is probably more mundane, you might hold an internal dialog with yourself about a problem. It's a completely natural thing to do; but a dialog requires two parties, and one of them therefore has to be imaginary.

The important thing to remember is that they are no more than a figment of your own imagination/consciousness.

Naturally, if you lose sight of that fact. you are completely cuckoo.I would consider conversing with one's other self pretty cuckoo.

Which is more beautiful: The redwood, or the bonsai?

Depends on which is rendered better and edited better in my computer with the best graphical edition programs.

Either "god" exists or it doesn't. If "god" exists and demands worship, who are you to go against the word of god?Who is god to make demands?

The universe is an amazing place all on its own without me having to create fictional characters to manipulate it. I will take what I CAN know about it over what someone wants me to worship that I CAN'T know about any day.

Excelsior, mon amis.
*bows*

Who is god to make demands?

Someone who needs to be taken behind the woodshed and introduced to a few iron chariots.

I would consider conversing with one's other self pretty cuckoo.

After a chat with my imaginary friends I agreed with them that you're right.

It never ceases to amuse me that there are people would think the world diminished in beauty if it were an accident, a natural, random occurrence, than if it was sculpted by some unseen hand.

Which is more beautiful: The redwood, or the bonsai?

Redwood. :p

But, yes, I agree with you completely.

The world is what it is, regardless of how it got like this. I never understood why people argue so much over creationism/big-bang or whatever other scientific theory. How does it make a difference to us today exactly? We should all be focused on the problems in religion that cause people to suffer today and find out what we really all stand for anyhow. How we got here is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

Excelsior, mon amis.
*bows*You've been bowing a lot recently...
Excelsior, mon amis.
*bows*wood wool?

I was only correcting the spelling... I wasn't saying anything. Except wow.

No worries, it was connotative reflex on my part. :)

God is all that matters to me.

It never ceases to amuse me that there are people would think the world diminished in beauty if it were an accident, a natural, random occurrence, than if it was sculpted by some unseen hand.Agreed. I find a dangerous mentality behind someone deciding that all purpose of existence is to completely ignore (or worse, destroy and decimate) creation for sake of psycho-emotional contentedment of egotistical focus.

see:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13132138&postcount=279


Which is more beautiful: The redwood, or the bonsai?

Couldn't tell you. I hate all lesser life forms equally :p

In my opion it's not the whole "no proof;invisible man in the sky;I can't see him" thing.It's more looking at Darfur,Iraq,AIDS,etc.It says in the Bible God loves us.People have trouble with that.That's the answer I see.

God is all that matters to me.Poor you. And silly too.

You've been bowing a lot recently...
It's his way. *shrugs*

wood wool?
M'kay, ya got me. Quo?

Redwood. :p

But, yes, I agree with you completely.

The world is what it is, regardless of how it got like this. I never understood why people argue so much over creationism/big-bang or whatever other scientific theory. How does it make a difference to us today exactly? We should all be focused on the problems in religion that cause people to suffer today and find out what we really all stand for anyhow. How we got here is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

I wouldn't say completely irrelevant. There are things we can learn from understanding our origins that we can use to better our lives today. We see this all the time with technological breakthroughs borne of physics research into cosmology and high energy physics.

Though I do get what you mean.

And the fact that we are STILL learning new things about both where we came from, and where we are, is amazing. Just today I read an article citing a paper coming out in the Astrophysics Journal in late December, about data from the 2 Micron All Sky Survery suggesting that we didn't start out in the Milky Way Galaxy, but rather were in the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, which is presently in the process of being consumed by our adopted galaxy.

I'd link the original article, but I'm about to make a thread on it anyway :p

Who is god to make demands?

God, obviously.

The question isn't about worthiness.

I wouldn't say completely irrelevant. There are things we can learn from understanding our origins that we can use to better our lives today. We see this all the time with technological breakthroughs borne of physics research into cosmology and high energy physics.

Though I do get what you mean.

And the fact that we are STILL learning new things about both where we came from, and where we are, is amazing. Just today I read an article citing a paper coming out in the Astrophysics Journal in late December, about data from the 2 Micron All Sky Survery suggesting that we didn't start out in the Milky Way Galaxy, but rather were in the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, which is presently in the process of being consumed by our adopted galaxy.

I'd link the original article, but I'm about to make a thread on it anyway :p

Cool, I wasn't aware of that. But, I am not 'in with the scientific community' as you could say. Plus, I rarely read any news. NSG is practically my New York Times. :p

So I see. :)

God, obviously.

The question isn't about worthiness.

Not even a god can force worship out of someone through power. A mugger may rob you, but you won't worship, love or respect him. Feelings can't be extorted.

God, obviously.And that authorizes him to do what? Just because someone is omnipotent does not license him to be a complete butt.

The question isn't about worthiness.Did I say that?

And that authorizes him to do what? Just because someone is omnipotent does not license him to be a complete butt.


Might makes Right. Natural order of things?

Just today I read an article citing a paper coming out in the Astrophysics Journal in late December, about data from the 2 Micron All Sky Survery suggesting that we didn't start out in the Milky Way Galaxy, but rather were in the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, which is presently in the process of being consumed by our adopted galaxy.

I'd link the original article, but I'm about to make a thread on it anyway :p
You know, the idea for that has been around about a decade. Neato though!

Might makes Right. Natural order of things?

Not really, no.

Unless your vision of God's Kingdom is The Lord of the Flies.

Not even a god can force worship out of someone through power. A mugger may rob you, but you won't worship, love or respect him. Feelings can't be extorted.
There's the story of Job in the Bible, but aside from that, I know of no instance DURING THE LIVES OF ALL THE THEOLOGIANS who have promulgated this "worship or else" viewpoint when God actually used force on anyone to get them to do what he wanted. It's these people who are the spiritual muggers and extortionists, not any god. And their force does not get people to believe, it only gets them to conform and pay tithes. Remembering the deist thread, I sometimes wonder if the deists are right -- if so, then God may have no idea what these people are getting up to in his name.

Not even a god can force worship out of someone through power. A mugger may rob you, but you won't worship, love or respect him. Feelings can't be extorted.

If god can't force you to worship it, then it's not omnipotent, so why call it god?

I haven't actually rejected God, but he and I are going to have a VERY long talk when I get to the other side. I could have handled the disability, but honestly, was it really necessary to pile on clincal depression and abusive parents on top of it? And I'm not too happy with the cancer he's seen fit to give me now, either. :mad:

There's the story of Job in the Bible, but aside from that, I know of no instance DURING THE LIVES OF ALL THE THEOLOGIANS who have promulgated this "worship or else" viewpoint when God actually used force on anyone to get them to do what he wanted. It's these people who are the spiritual muggers and extortionists, not any god. And their force does not get people to believe, it only gets them to conform and pay tithes. Remembering the deist thread, I sometimes wonder if the deists are right -- if so, then God may have no idea what these people are getting up to in his name.

Let me make it clear that I'm perfectly aware of the fact that it all boils down to interpretation.

Just because someone is omnipotent does not license him to be a complete butt.


No: that's exactly what omnipotence does.

Might makes Right. Natural order of things?No. Once you incorporate morals into your faith and claim god to be a moral being then there is no way for a mono-god to force his will on humans and still be worthy of worship.

If god can't force you to worship it, then it's not omnipotent, so why call it god?If god can't manage to make you worship it without force, then it's not omnipotent, so why call it god?

No: that's exactly what omnipotence does.You ask Q.

I'm cool with God.
He's saved my life more than once.

I'm cool with God.
He's saved my life more than once.

Page 20 of this "argument" and all you bring me is *Light* Jerusalem?
:p

I'm cool with God.
He's saved my life more than once.But maybe it was Ninhursag who saved your life?

I'm cool with God.
He's saved my life more than once.

Sounds like a nice enough fella to me. *nods*

If god can't manage to make you worship it without force, then it's not omnipotent, so why call it god?

An omnipotent god could do that too.

The preference of the individual is irrelevant.

You ask Q.

Yah, but he wasn't omnipotent.

why do you use god to make money for he dont need it

PRIEST - Come to this the fatal hour when at last from the eyes of deluded man the scales must fall away, and be shown the cruel picture of his errors and his vices - say, my son, do you not repent the host of sins unto which you were led by weakness and human frailty?

DYING MAN - Yes, my friend, I do repent.

PRIEST - Rejoice then in these pangs of remorse, during the brief space remaining to you profit therefrom to obtain Heaven’s general absolution for your sins, and be mindful of it, only through the mediation of the Most Holy Sacrament of penance will you be granted it by the Eternal.

DYING MAN - I do not understand you, any more than you have understood me.

PRIEST - Eh?

DYING MAN - I told you that I repented.

PRIEST - I heard you say it.

DYING MAN - Yes, but without understanding it.

PRIEST - My interpretation -

DYING MAN - Hold. I shall give you mine. By Nature created, created with very keen tastes, with very strong passions; placed on this earth for the sole purpose of yielding to them and satisfying them, and these effects of my creation being naught but necessities directly relating to Nature’s fundamental designs or, if you prefer, naught but essential derivatives proceeding from her intentions in my regard, all in accordance with her laws, I repent not having acknowledged her omnipotence as fully as I might have done, I am only sorry for the modest use I made of the faculties (criminal in your view, perfectly ordinary in mine) she gave me to serve her; I did sometimes resist her, I repent it. Misled by your absurd doctrines, with them for arms I mindlessly challenged the desires instilled in me by a much diviner inspiration, and thereof do I repent: I only plucked an occasional flower when I might have gathered an ample harvest of fruit - such are the just grounds for the regrets I have, do me the honor of considering me incapable of harboring any others.

PRIEST - Lo! where your fallacies take you, to what pass are you brought by your sophistries! To created being you ascribe all the Creator’s power, and those unlucky penchants which have led you astray, ah! do you not see they are merely the products of corrupted nature, to which you attribute omnipotence?

DYING MAN -Friend - it looks to me as though your dialectic were as false as your thinking. Pray straighten your arguing or else leave me to die in peace. What do you mean by Creator, and what do you mean by corrupted nature?

PRIEST - The Creator is the master of the universe, ‘tis He who has wrought everything, everything created, and who maintains it all through the mere fact of His omnipotence.

DYING MAN - An impressive figure indeed. Tell me now why this so very formidable fellow did nevertheless, as you would have it, create a corrupted nature?

PRIEST - What glory would men ever have, had not God left them free will; and in the enjoyment thereof, what merit could come to them, were there not on earth the possibility of doing good and that of avoiding evil?

DYING MAN - And so your god bungled his work deliberately, in order to tempt or test his creature - did he then not know, did he then not doubt what the result would be?

PRIEST - He knew it undoubtedly but, once again, he wished to leave man the merit of choice.

DYING MAN - And to what purpose, since from the outset he knew the course affairs would take and since, all-mighty as you tell me he is, he had but to make his creature choose as suited him?

PRIEST - Who is there can penetrate God’s vast and infinite designs regarding man, and who can grasp all that makes up the universal scheme?

DYING MAN - Anyone who simplifies matters, my friend, anyone, above all, who refrains from multiplying causes in order to confuse effects all the more. What need have you of a second difficulty when you are unable to resolve the first, and once it is possible that Nature may have all alone done what you attrubute to your god, why must you go looking for someone to be her overlord? The cause and explanation of what you do not understand may perhaps be the simplest thing in the world. Perfect your physics and you will understand Nature better, refine your reason, banish your prejudices and you’ll have no further need of your god.

PRIEST - Wretched man! I took you for no worse than a Socinian - arms I had to combat you. But ‘tis clear you are an athiest, and seeing that your heart is shut to the authentic and innumerable proofs we receive every day of our lives of the Creator’s existence - I have no more to say to you. There is no restoring the blind to the light.

DYING MAN - Softly, my friend, own that between the two, he who blindfolds himself must surely see less of the light than he who snatches the blindfold away from his eyes. You compose, you construct, you dream, you magnify and complicate; I sift, I simplify. You accumulate errors, pile one atop the other; I combat them all. Which one of us is blind?

PRIEST - Then you do not believe in God at all?

DYING MAN - No. And for one very sound reason: it is perfectly impossible to believe in what one does not understand. Between understanding and faith immediate connections must subsist; understanding is the very lifeblood of faith; where understanding has ceased, faith is dead; and when they who are in such a case proclaim they have faith, they deceive.

You yourself, preacher, I defy you to believe in the god you predicate to me - you must fail because you cannot demonstrate him to me, because it is not in you to define him to me, because consequently you do not understand him - because as of the moment you do not understand him, you can no longer furnish me any reasonable argument concerning him, and because, in sum, anything beyond the limits and grasp of the human mind is either illusion or futility; and because your god having to be one or the other of the two, in the first instance I should be mad to believe in him, in the second a fool.

My friend, prove to me that matter is inert and I will grant you a creator, prove to me that Nature does not suffice to herself and I’ll let you imagine her ruled by a higher force; until then, expect nothing from me, I bow to evidence only, and evidence I perceive only through my senses: my belief goes no farther than they, beyond that point my faith collapses. I believe in the sun because I see it, I conceive it as the focal center of all the inflammable matter in Nature, its periodic movement pleases but does not amaze me. ‘Tis a mechanical operation, perhaps as simple as the workings of electricity, but which we are unable to understand.

Need I bother more about it? when you have roofed everything over with your god, will I be any the better off? and shall I still not have to make an effort at least as great to understand the artisan as to define his handiwork? By edifying your chimera it is thus no service you have rendered me, you have made me uneasy in my mind but you have not enlightened it, and instead of gratitude I owe you resentment.

Your god is a machine you fabricated in your passions’ behalf, you manipulated it to their liking; but the day it interfered with mine, I kicked it out of my way, deem it fitting that I did so; and now, at this moment when I sink and my soul stands in need of calm and philosophy, belabor it not with your riddles and your cant, which alarm but will not convince it, which will irritate without improving it; good friends and on the best terms have we ever been, this soul and I, so Nature wished it to be; as it is, so she expressly modeled it, for my soul is the result of the dispositions she formed in me pursuant to her own ends and needs; and as she has an equal need of vices and virtues, whenever she was pleased to move me to evil, she did so, whenever she wanted a good deed from me, she roused in me the desire to perform one, and even so I did as I was bid. Look nowhere but to her workings for the unique cause of our fickle human behavior, and in her laws hope to find no other springs than her will and her requirements.

PRIEST - And so whatever is in this world, is necessary.

DYING MAN - Exactly.

PRIEST - But is everything is necessary - then the whole is regulated.

DYING MAN - I am not the one to deny it.

PRIEST - And what can regulate the whole save it be an all-powerful and all-knowing hand?

DYING MAN - Say, is it not necessary that gunpowder ignite when you set a spark to it?

PRIEST - Yes.

DYING MAN - And do you find any presence of wisdom in that?

PRIEST - None.

DYING MAN - It is then possible that things necessarily come about without being determined by a superior intelligence, and possible hence that everything derive logically from a primary cause, without there being either reason or wisdom in that primary cause.

PRIEST - What are you aiming at?

DYING MAN - At proving to you that the world and all therein may be what it is and as you see it to be, without any wise and reasoning cause directing it, and that natural effects must have natural causes: natural causes sufficing, there is no need to invent any such unnatural ones as your god who himself, as I have told you already, would require to be explained and who would at the same time be the explanation of nothing; and that once ‘tis plain your god is superfluous, he is perfectly useless; that what is useless would greatly appear to be imaginary only, null and therefore non-existent; thus, to conclude that your god is a fiction I need no other argument than that which furnishes me the certitude of his inutility.

PRIEST - At that rate there is no great need for me to talk to you about religion.

DYING MAN - True, but why not anyhow? Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian’s sun or Moses’ Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply.

PRIEST - Can it be doubtful?

DYING MAN - Then ‘tis egotistical.

PRIEST - No, my son, ‘tis as much out of love for thee as for myself I urge thee to embrace my creed.

DYING MAN - And I wonder how the one or the other of us can have much love for himself, to deign to listen to such degrading nonsense.

PRIEST - But who can be mistaken about the miracles wrought by our Divine Redeemer?

DYING MAN - He who sees in him anything else than the most vulgar of all tricksters and the most arrent of all imposters.

PRIEST - O God, you hear him and your wrath thunders not forth!

DYING MAN - No my friend, all is peace and quiet around us, because your god, be it from impotence or from reason or from whatever you please, is a being whose existence I shall momentarily concede out of condescension for you or, if you prefer, in order to accommodate myself to your sorry little perspective; because this god, I say, were he to exist, as you are mad enough to believe, could not have selected as means to persuade us, anything more ridiculous than those your Jesus incarnates.

PRIEST - What! the prophecies, the miracles, the martyrs - are they not so many proofs?

DYING MAN - How, so long as I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights if I am Skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not a stratagem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime?

As for your miracles, I am not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I’d be persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous; and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the precise point where it is infringed upon?

Only two things are needed to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons; tush, there’s the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents to a religious sect have wrought some; and more extraordinary still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them.

Your Jesus’ feats do not surpass those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you need but to have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe one better than the other, but rather very much inclined to consider all of them pitiable.

Ah my friend! were it true that the god you preach did exist, would he need miracle, martyr, or prophecy to secure recognition? and if, as you declare, the human heart were of his making, would he not have chosen it for the repository of his law? Then would this law, impartial for all mankind because emanating from a just god, then would it be found graved deep and writ clear in all men alike, and from one end of the world to the other, all men, having this delicate and sensitive organ in common, would also resemble each other through the homage they would render the god whence they had got it; all would adore and serve him in one identical manner, and they would be as incapable of disregarding this god as of resisting the inward impulse to worship him.

Instead of that, what do I behold throughout this world? As many gods as there are countries; as many different cults as there are different minds or different imaginations; and this swarm of opinions among which it physically impossible for me to choose, say now, is this a just god’s doing? Fie upon you, preacher, you outrage your god when you present him to me thus; rather let me deny him completely, for if he exists then I outrage him far less by my incredulity than do you through your blasphemies.

Return to your senses, preacher, your Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucius, who did after all have some wise things to say while the others did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all mere frauds: philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them, and justice ought to have hanged them.

PRIEST - Alas, justice dealt only too harshly with one of the four.

DYING MAN - If he alone got what he deserved it was he who deserved it most richly; seditious, turbulent, calumniating, dishonest, libertine, a clumsy buffoon, and very mischievous; he had the art of overawing common folk and stirring up the rabble; and hence came in line for punishment in a kingdom where the state of affairs was what it was in Jerusalem then. They were very wise indeed to get rid of him, and this perhaps is one case in which my extremely lenient and also extremely tolerant maxims are able to allow the severity of Themis; I excuse any misbehavior save that which may endanger the government one lives under, kings and their majesties are the only thing I respect; and whoever does not love his country and his king were better dead than alive.

PRIEST - But you do surely believe something awaits us after this life, you must at some time or another have sought to pierce the dark shadows enshrouding our mortal fate, and what other theory could have satisfied your anxious spirit, than that of the numberless woes that betide him who has lived wickedly, and an eternity of rewards for him whose life has been good?

DYING MAN - What other, my friend? that of nothingness, it has never held terrors for me, in it I see naught but what is consoling and unpretentious; all other theories are of pride’s composition, this one alone is of reason’s. Moreover, ‘tis neither dreadful nor absolute, this nothingness. Before my eyes have I not the example of Nature’s perpetual generations and regenerations? Nothing perishes in the world, my friend, nothing is lost; man today, worm tomorrow, the day after tomorrow a fly; is it not to keep steadily on existing? And what entitles me to be rewarded for virtues which are in me through no fault of my own, or again punished for crimes wherefore the ultimate responsibility is not mine? how are you to put your alleged god’s goodness into tune with this system, and can he have wished to create me in order to reap pleasure from punishing me, and that solely on account of a choice he does not leave me free will to determine?

PRIEST - You are free.

DYING MAN - Yes, in terms of your prejudices; but reason puts them to rout, and the theory of human freedom was never devised except to fabricate that of grace, which was to acquire such importance in your reveries. What man on earth, seeing the scaffold a step beyond the crime, would commit it were he free not to commit it? We are the pawns of an irresistable force, and never for an instant is it within our power to do anything but make the best of our lot and forge ahead along the path that has been traced for us. There is not a single virtue which is not necessary to Nature and conversely not a single crime which she does not need and it is in the perfect balance she maintains between the one and the other that her immense science consists; but can we be guilty for adding our weight to this side or that when it is she who tosses us onto the scales? no more so than the hornet who thrusts his dart into your skin.

PRIEST - Then we should not shrink from the worst of all crimes.

DYING MAN - I say nothing of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by misfortune we do commit it even so, let’s not cry over spilled milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd to beat one’s breast, more absurd still to dread being punished in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this. God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime, no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately steadfast soul.

Reason, sir - yes, our reason alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands. There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart.

But I feel my strength ebbing away; preacher, put away your prejudices, unbend, be a man, be human, without fear and without hope forget your gods and your religions too: they are none of them good for anything but to set man at odds with man, and the mere name of these horrors has caused greater loss of life on earth than all other wars and all other plagues combined. Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. -

My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized them all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs.


NOTE


The dying man rang, the women entered; and after he had been a little while in their arms the preacher became one whom Nature had corrupted, all because he had not succeeded in explaining what a corrupt nature is.

------------"Dialogue Between A Priest and A Dying Man,"

Marquis de Sade

An omnipotent god could do that too.

The preference of the individual is irrelevant.
...

Your preferences in respect of god's ego problems are irrelevant.Starting to sound remarkably Borg-like.
:eek:

An omnipotent god could do that too.

The preference of the individual is irrelevant.This is not about preference, this is about morality. If the only god there is a genocidal maniac he is not worthy of worship. That has nothing to do with who is there to worship that god.

PRIEST - Come to this the fatal hour when at last from the eyes of deluded man the scales must fall away, and be shown the cruel picture of his errors and his vices - say, my son, do you not repent the host of sins unto which you were led by weakness and human frailty?

DYING MAN - Yes, my friend, I do repent.

PRIEST - Rejoice then in these pangs of remorse, during the brief space remaining to you profit therefrom to obtain Heaven’s general absolution for your sins, and be mindful of it, only through the mediation of the Most Holy Sacrament of penance will you be granted it by the Eternal.

DYING MAN - I do not understand you, any more than you have understood me.

PRIEST - Eh?

DYING MAN - I told you that I repented.

PRIEST - I heard you say it.

DYING MAN - Yes, but without understanding it.

PRIEST - My interpretation -

DYING MAN - Hold. I shall give you mine. By Nature created, created with very keen tastes, with very strong passions; placed on this earth for the sole purpose of yielding to them and satisfying them, and these effects of my creation being naught but necessities directly relating to Nature’s fundamental designs or, if you prefer, naught but essential derivatives proceeding from her intentions in my regard, all in accordance with her laws, I repent not having acknowledged her omnipotence as fully as I might have done, I am only sorry for the modest use I made of the faculties (criminal in your view, perfectly ordinary in mine) she gave me to serve her; I did sometimes resist her, I repent it. Misled by your absurd doctrines, with them for arms I mindlessly challenged the desires instilled in me by a much diviner inspiration, and thereof do I repent: I only plucked an occasional flower when I might have gathered an ample harvest of fruit - such are the just grounds for the regrets I have, do me the honor of considering me incapable of harboring any others.

PRIEST - Lo! where your fallacies take you, to what pass are you brought by your sophistries! To created being you ascribe all the Creator’s power, and those unlucky penchants which have led you astray, ah! do you not see they are merely the products of corrupted nature, to which you attribute omnipotence?

DYING MAN -Friend - it looks to me as though your dialectic were as false as your thinking. Pray straighten your arguing or else leave me to die in peace. What do you mean by Creator, and what do you mean by corrupted nature?

PRIEST - The Creator is the master of the universe, ‘tis He who has wrought everything, everything created, and who maintains it all through the mere fact of His omnipotence.

DYING MAN - An impressive figure indeed. Tell me now why this so very formidable fellow did nevertheless, as you would have it, create a corrupted nature?

PRIEST - What glory would men ever have, had not God left them free will; and in the enjoyment thereof, what merit could come to them, were there not on earth the possibility of doing good and that of avoiding evil?

DYING MAN - And so your god bungled his work deliberately, in order to tempt or test his creature - did he then not know, did he then not doubt what the result would be?

PRIEST - He knew it undoubtedly but, once again, he wished to leave man the merit of choice.

DYING MAN - And to what purpose, since from the outset he knew the course affairs would take and since, all-mighty as you tell me he is, he had but to make his creature choose as suited him?

PRIEST - Who is there can penetrate God’s vast and infinite designs regarding man, and who can grasp all that makes up the universal scheme?

DYING MAN - Anyone who simplifies matters, my friend, anyone, above all, who refrains from multiplying causes in order to confuse effects all the more. What need have you of a second difficulty when you are unable to resolve the first, and once it is possible that Nature may have all alone done what you attrubute to your god, why must you go looking for someone to be her overlord? The cause and explanation of what you do not understand may perhaps be the simplest thing in the world. Perfect your physics and you will understand Nature better, refine your reason, banish your prejudices and you’ll have no further need of your god.

PRIEST - Wretched man! I took you for no worse than a Socinian - arms I had to combat you. But ‘tis clear you are an athiest, and seeing that your heart is shut to the authentic and innumerable proofs we receive every day of our lives of the Creator’s existence - I have no more to say to you. There is no restoring the blind to the light.

DYING MAN - Softly, my friend, own that between the two, he who blindfolds himself must surely see less of the light than he who snatches the blindfold away from his eyes. You compose, you construct, you dream, you magnify and complicate; I sift, I simplify. You accumulate errors, pile one atop the other; I combat them all. Which one of us is blind?

PRIEST - Then you do not believe in God at all?

DYING MAN - No. And for one very sound reason: it is perfectly impossible to believe in what one does not understand. Between understanding and faith immediate connections must subsist; understanding is the very lifeblood of faith; where understanding has ceased, faith is dead; and when they who are in such a case proclaim they have faith, they deceive.

You yourself, preacher, I defy you to believe in the god you predicate to me - you must fail because you cannot demonstrate him to me, because it is not in you to define him to me, because consequently you do not understand him - because as of the moment you do not understand him, you can no longer furnish me any reasonable argument concerning him, and because, in sum, anything beyond the limits and grasp of the human mind is either illusion or futility; and because your god having to be one or the other of the two, in the first instance I should be mad to believe in him, in the second a fool.

My friend, prove to me that matter is inert and I will grant you a creator, prove to me that Nature does not suffice to herself and I’ll let you imagine her ruled by a higher force; until then, expect nothing from me, I bow to evidence only, and evidence I perceive only through my senses: my belief goes no farther than they, beyond that point my faith collapses. I believe in the sun because I see it, I conceive it as the focal center of all the inflammable matter in Nature, its periodic movement pleases but does not amaze me. ‘Tis a mechanical operation, perhaps as simple as the workings of electricity, but which we are unable to understand.

Need I bother more about it? when you have roofed everything over with your god, will I be any the better off? and shall I still not have to make an effort at least as great to understand the artisan as to define his handiwork? By edifying your chimera it is thus no service you have rendered me, you have made me uneasy in my mind but you have not enlightened it, and instead of gratitude I owe you resentment.

Your god is a machine you fabricated in your passions’ behalf, you manipulated it to their liking; but the day it interfered with mine, I kicked it out of my way, deem it fitting that I did so; and now, at this moment when I sink and my soul stands in need of calm and philosophy, belabor it not with your riddles and your cant, which alarm but will not convince it, which will irritate without improving it; good friends and on the best terms have we ever been, this soul and I, so Nature wished it to be; as it is, so she expressly modeled it, for my soul is the result of the dispositions she formed in me pursuant to her own ends and needs; and as she has an equal need of vices and virtues, whenever she was pleased to move me to evil, she did so, whenever she wanted a good deed from me, she roused in me the desire to perform one, and even so I did as I was bid. Look nowhere but to her workings for the unique cause of our fickle human behavior, and in her laws hope to find no other springs than her will and her requirements.

PRIEST - And so whatever is in this world, is necessary.

DYING MAN - Exactly.

PRIEST - But is everything is necessary - then the whole is regulated.

DYING MAN - I am not the one to deny it.

PRIEST - And what can regulate the whole save it be an all-powerful and all-knowing hand?

DYING MAN - Say, is it not necessary that gunpowder ignite when you set a spark to it?

PRIEST - Yes.

DYING MAN - And do you find any presence of wisdom in that?

PRIEST - None.

DYING MAN - It is then possible that things necessarily come about without being determined by a superior intelligence, and possible hence that everything derive logically from a primary cause, without there being either reason or wisdom in that primary cause.

PRIEST - What are you aiming at?

DYING MAN - At proving to you that the world and all therein may be what it is and as you see it to be, without any wise and reasoning cause directing it, and that natural effects must have natural causes: natural causes sufficing, there is no need to invent any such unnatural ones as your god who himself, as I have told you already, would require to be explained and who would at the same time be the explanation of nothing; and that once ‘tis plain your god is superfluous, he is perfectly useless; that what is useless would greatly appear to be imaginary only, null and therefore non-existent; thus, to conclude that your god is a fiction I need no other argument than that which furnishes me the certitude of his inutility.

PRIEST - At that rate there is no great need for me to talk to you about religion.

DYING MAN - True, but why not anyhow? Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian’s sun or Moses’ Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply.

PRIEST - Can it be doubtful?

DYING MAN - Then ‘tis egotistical.

PRIEST - No, my son, ‘tis as much out of love for thee as for myself I urge thee to embrace my creed.

DYING MAN - And I wonder how the one or the other of us can have much love for himself, to deign to listen to such degrading nonsense.

PRIEST - But who can be mistaken about the miracles wrought by our Divine Redeemer?

DYING MAN - He who sees in him anything else than the most vulgar of all tricksters and the most arrent of all imposters.

PRIEST - O God, you hear him and your wrath thunders not forth!

DYING MAN - No my friend, all is peace and quiet around us, because your god, be it from impotence or from reason or from whatever you please, is a being whose existence I shall momentarily concede out of condescension for you or, if you prefer, in order to accommodate myself to your sorry little perspective; because this god, I say, were he to exist, as you are mad enough to believe, could not have selected as means to persuade us, anything more ridiculous than those your Jesus incarnates.

PRIEST - What! the prophecies, the miracles, the martyrs - are they not so many proofs?

DYING MAN - How, so long as I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights if I am Skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not a stratagem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime?

As for your miracles, I am not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I’d be persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous; and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the precise point where it is infringed upon?

Only two things are needed to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons; tush, there’s the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents to a religious sect have wrought some; and more extraordinary still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them.

Your Jesus’ feats do not surpass those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you need but to have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe one better than the other, but rather very much inclined to consider all of them pitiable.

Ah my friend! were it true that the god you preach did exist, would he need miracle, martyr, or prophecy to secure recognition? and if, as you declare, the human heart were of his making, would he not have chosen it for the repository of his law? Then would this law, impartial for all mankind because emanating from a just god, then would it be found graved deep and writ clear in all men alike, and from one end of the world to the other, all men, having this delicate and sensitive organ in common, would also resemble each other through the homage they would render the god whence they had got it; all would adore and serve him in one identical manner, and they would be as incapable of disregarding this god as of resisting the inward impulse to worship him.

Instead of that, what do I behold throughout this world? As many gods as there are countries; as many different cults as there are different minds or different imaginations; and this swarm of opinions among which it physically impossible for me to choose, say now, is this a just god’s doing? Fie upon you, preacher, you outrage your god when you present him to me thus; rather let me deny him completely, for if he exists then I outrage him far less by my incredulity than do you through your blasphemies.

Return to your senses, preacher, your Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucius, who did after all have some wise things to say while the others did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all mere frauds: philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them, and justice ought to have hanged them.

PRIEST - Alas, justice dealt only too harshly with one of the four.

DYING MAN - If he alone got what he deserved it was he who deserved it most richly; seditious, turbulent, calumniating, dishonest, libertine, a clumsy buffoon, and very mischievous; he had the art of overawing common folk and stirring up the rabble; and hence came in line for punishment in a kingdom where the state of affairs was what it was in Jerusalem then. They were very wise indeed to get rid of him, and this perhaps is one case in which my extremely lenient and also extremely tolerant maxims are able to allow the severity of Themis; I excuse any misbehavior save that which may endanger the government one lives under, kings and their majesties are the only thing I respect; and whoever does not love his country and his king were better dead than alive.

PRIEST - But you do surely believe something awaits us after this life, you must at some time or another have sought to pierce the dark shadows enshrouding our mortal fate, and what other theory could have satisfied your anxious spirit, than that of the numberless woes that betide him who has lived wickedly, and an eternity of rewards for him whose life has been good?

DYING MAN - What other, my friend? that of nothingness, it has never held terrors for me, in it I see naught but what is consoling and unpretentious; all other theories are of pride’s composition, this one alone is of reason’s. Moreover, ‘tis neither dreadful nor absolute, this nothingness. Before my eyes have I not the example of Nature’s perpetual generations and regenerations? Nothing perishes in the world, my friend, nothing is lost; man today, worm tomorrow, the day after tomorrow a fly; is it not to keep steadily on existing? And what entitles me to be rewarded for virtues which are in me through no fault of my own, or again punished for crimes wherefore the ultimate responsibility is not mine? how are you to put your alleged god’s goodness into tune with this system, and can he have wished to create me in order to reap pleasure from punishing me, and that solely on account of a choice he does not leave me free will to determine?

PRIEST - You are free.

DYING MAN - Yes, in terms of your prejudices; but reason puts them to rout, and the theory of human freedom was never devised except to fabricate that of grace, which was to acquire such importance in your reveries. What man on earth, seeing the scaffold a step beyond the crime, would commit it were he free not to commit it? We are the pawns of an irresistable force, and never for an instant is it within our power to do anything but make the best of our lot and forge ahead along the path that has been traced for us. There is not a single virtue which is not necessary to Nature and conversely not a single crime which she does not need and it is in the perfect balance she maintains between the one and the other that her immense science consists; but can we be guilty for adding our weight to this side or that when it is she who tosses us onto the scales? no more so than the hornet who thrusts his dart into your skin.

PRIEST - Then we should not shrink from the worst of all crimes.

DYING MAN - I say nothing of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by misfortune we do commit it even so, let’s not cry over spilled milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd to beat one’s breast, more absurd still to dread being punished in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this. God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime, no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately steadfast soul.

Reason, sir - yes, our reason alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands. There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart.

But I feel my strength ebbing away; preacher, put away your prejudices, unbend, be a man, be human, without fear and without hope forget your gods and your religions too: they are none of them good for anything but to set man at odds with man, and the mere name of these horrors has caused greater loss of life on earth than all other wars and all other plagues combined. Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. -

My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized them all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs.


NOTE


The dying man rang, the women entered; and after he had been a little while in their arms the preacher became one whom Nature had corrupted, all because he had not succeeded in explaining what a corrupt nature is.

------------"Dialogue Between A Priest and A Dying Man,"

Marquis de SadeYAY!


Now THIS thread delivers!!!

Imperial Brazil...to be honest. I rejected God just to piss you off. ;) (The fact that he doesn't exist is irrelevant)

God is all that matters to me.

Too bad your fellow man means nothing to you. This is what I dislike about Fundamentalist Christians.

Not really, no.

Unless your vision of God's Kingdom is The Lord of the Flies.

:p

Would Jesus be Piggy?

No. Once you incorporate morals into your faith and claim god to be a moral being then there is no way for a mono-god to force his will on humans and still be worthy of worship.

Ah.. assuming God exists, I don't think it would give a damn what we incorporate into our faith. So, theoretically an omnipotent god could make us do whatever it wants. We may be doing so right now, with no knowledge, of the fact.

Too bad your fellow man means nothing to you. This is what I dislike about Fundamentalist Christians.

These people must really exist, but I have yet to meet one. :)

Ah.. assuming God exists, I don't think it would give a damn what we incorporate into our faith. So, theoretically an omnipotent god could make us do whatever it wants. We may be doing so right now, with no knowledge, of the fact.Is the biblical god a moral being? Does he know right from wrong at all?

This is not about preference, this is about morality. If the only god there is a genocidal maniac he is not worthy of worship. That has nothing to do with who is there to worship that god.

And again, who are you to judge god? If it's actions are contrary to your perception of worthiness there are no circumstances under which your preferences outweigh that of an omnipotent entity.

Either "god" exists or it doesn't. Railing against god's morality or lack thereof is pointless.

Is the biblical god a moral being? Does he know right from wrong at all?

What? Why are you asking me? It hardly matters if it does or doesn't. Since being omnipotent is having control over everything, if it wants to make up its own morals and then blow up the Earth. It can do so.

And again, who are you to judge god? If it's actions are contrary to your perception of worthiness there are no circumstances under which your preferences outweigh that of an omnipotent entity.

Either "god" exists or it doesn't. Railing against god's morality or lack thereof is pointless.If morality exists as such then there is no need for a judge or weighing of preferences. If the biblical god chooses to kill off humanity then he's not a god worthy of my worship. A god does not stand above me in any way and there is no way to force me into any allegiance.

What? Why are you asking me? It hardly matters if it does or doesn't. Since being omnipotent is having control over everything, if it wants to make up its own morals and then blow up the Earth. It can do so.Not if that contradicts the morals it has created.

If morality exists as such then there is no need for a judge or weighing of preferences. If the biblical god chooses to kill off humanity then he's not a god worthy of my worship. A god does not stand above me in any way and there is no way to force me into any allegiance.

Well your entitled to your own personal beliefs I suppose.

But I for one, will not subscribe to the supernatural: absent further evidence.

If god can't force you to worship it, then it's not omnipotent, so why call it god?
Only the Abrahamic god claims omnipotence with any seriousness. So, as long as it's not that god, it doesn't have to be omnipotent to be called a god.

And anyway, that god does claim omnipotence, yet has no ability to make me worship him, so...well, I guess even gods can claim anything they like.

Let me make it clear that I'm perfectly aware of the fact that it all boils down to interpretation.
Oh, I know that. :) My remark was actually directed to the same audience your remark was.

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

I got several reasons, but I'll only name a few


#1 God has never done anything for me, the miracle of life is a biological process, not something from a higher plane

#2 Its seems like the only thing you can do to avoid going to hell is to devote yourself utterly and absolutly to the "almighty and powerful lord"

#3 Most religions are actually oppressive tyrannical rules where you must devote evrything to one person, your life, your food, family etc. And the punishment for not following the "right path" is death

#4 If god really does love us, why does he strike countless dozens of non-belivers dead in the bible and annhilate old religions?

#5 Religious people annoy the hell out of me. Not being religious is a major way to get back at their "spreading the truth" bullshit

Well your entitled to your own personal beliefs I suppose.

But I for one, will not subscribe to the supernatural: absent further evidence.What? We are discussing within the biblical concept of god. There is no need to believe in anything supernatural to play with morality vs omnipotence and asking whether an (imagined) omnipotent god who is said to be moral can kill off the planet's entire life and still be a leader of humans. And I say that if morality exists then even a (possibly existing) god is bound.

What? We are discussing within the biblical concept of god. There is no need to believe in anything supernatural to play with morality vs omnipotence and asking whether an (imagined) omnipotent god who is said to be moral can kill off the planet's entire life and still be a leader of humans. And I say that if morality exists then even a (possibly existing) god is bound.

I know your not one for god, but let me adress an issue so common among the "born again" soceity. If god is so moral, why does he regularly threaten to extinguish all life from the face of the planet? A moral person would save it for the good of the saved, not to prove some point about "I'm omnipotent, die."

What? We are discussing within the biblical concept of god. There is no need to believe in anything supernatural to play with morality vs omnipotence and asking whether an (imagined) omnipotent god who is said to be moral can kill off the planet's entire life and still be a leader of humans. And I say that if morality exists then even a (possibly existing) god is bound.

Interesting observation, and one that if right, means Lucifer might have actually been a good guy in standing up and telling God to stop fucking around with humans and tell him to let them do as they please instead of bullying them into obedience.

Because if God exists as depicted in the ancient testament, full of anger, vengeance, pettiness and brimstone, then I'm definitely siding with the rebels here. Bullies don't get my worship vote.

:p

Would Jesus be Piggy?

No, he'd be Simon.

http://www.rit.edu/~sjg2490/lotf/characters.html

Modus ponens.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Light
I'm cool with God.
He's saved my life more than once.
Sounds like a nice enough fella to me. *nods*

Then why don't one of you go talk to him about Maineiacs' problems?

Interesting observation, and one that if right, means Lucifer might have actually been a good guy in standing up and telling God to stop fucking around with humans and tell him to let them do as they please instead of bullying them into obedience.

Because if God exists as depicted in the ancient testament, full of anger, vengeance, pettiness and brimstone, then I'm definitely siding with the rebels here. Bullies don't get my worship vote.


Same here. I'd rather be eternally damned then be forced to follow someone that uses extreme force to keep his followers in line. (Not that I'm religious, just saying side with the forces of right over might)

I know your not one for god, but let me adress an issue so common among the "born again" soceity. If god is so *moral, why does he regularly threaten to extinguish all life from the face of the planet? A moral person would save it for the good of the saved, not to prove some point about "I'm omnipotent, die."

There is a clause at the bottom of the page in small print.

*What I say goes. You are subject to destruction by common occurences such as fire, brimstone, floods, meteors, etc... or any other whim that falleth upon Me. Morals are for you to follow, for Me to conveniently ignore because I am Omnipotent. Ha. And Ha to your mother. I had fun 'creating' her. All your base belong to Me.

There is a clause at the bottom of the page in small print.

*What I say goes. You are subject to destruction by common occurences such as fire, brimstone, floods, meteors, etc... or any other whim that falleth upon Me. Morals are for you to follow, for Me to conveniently ignore because I am Omnipotent. Ha. And Ha to your mother. I had fun 'creating' her. All your base belong to Me.

Wow, I bet most (read: all) people didn't even look at that. They were all. "OMG! FAIRNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And god laughed, and annhilated them for fun.

What? We are discussing within the biblical concept of god. There is no need to believe in anything supernatural to play with morality vs omnipotence and asking whether an (imagined) omnipotent god who is said to be moral can kill off the planet's entire life and still be a leader of humans. And I say that if morality exists then even a (possibly existing) god is bound.

That assumes that there is some form of absolute morality. Which is simply not the case.

And I'm not suggesting that morality is purely subjective either; just that there are no moral absolutes anywhere or at any time.

That assumes that there is some form of absolute morality. Which is simply not the case.

And I'm not suggesting that morality is purely subjective either; just that there are no moral absolutes anywhere or at any time.

Well yeah, but in the bible somewhere god states he's fair, then turns around and kills someone for little to no reason. What does that tell you about morals?

That assumes that there is some form of absolute morality. Which is simply not the case.

And I'm not suggesting that morality is purely subjective either; just that there are no moral absolutes anywhere or at any time.So the biblical god does not know the difference between right and wrong?

So the biblical god does not know the difference between right and wrong?

Didn't you ask that already?

Didn't you ask that already?Maybe. Did I get an answer?

If an omnipotent monotheos knows right from wrong then morality does exist, right? Now if this omnipotent god chooses to behave against this morality then he is a bad god, right? Now since humans also know right from wrong and this god is a bad god, is it right to worship him?

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

Perhaps you accept God because you need a crutch for your sinful life.

Because I refuse to believe anything that bases itself on ancient traditions and folk tales. Read the epic of Gilgamesh and the book of Genesis at the same time, you'll find it...interesting.

That and the fact that, until we humans are able to create a universe within a universe, I disbelieve the notion that sentience can be artificially created.

Same here. I'd rather be eternally damned then be forced to follow someone that uses extreme force to keep his followers in line. (Not that I'm religious, just saying side with the forces of right over might)

See you in hell for the revolution then, old chap! ;)

Because I refuse to believe anything that bases itself on ancient traditions and folk tales. Read the epic of Gilgamesh and the book of Genesis at the same time, you'll find it...interesting.

That and the fact that, until we humans are able to create a universe within a universe, I disbelieve the notion that sentience can be artificially created.

Exactly. Sentience is unique. (Sentience is most easily defined as a concience and the ability to reason and think for yourself, to put it simply) It can only be created through biological means, such as evolution, not some higher power that decided one day to make something smart.

So the biblical god does not know the difference between right and wrong?

No. Obviously he would, because anything he did would be moral. Your problem is that you are viewing it through the lens of your own parochial ideas of what is right and wrong and assuming that they apply at all times and in all places.

What is genocide today might be a moral imperative tomorrow.

No. Obviously he would, because anything he did would be moral. Your problem is that you are viewing it through the lens of your own parochial ideas of what is right and wrong and assuming that they apply at all times and in all places.

What is genocide today might be a moral imperative tomorrow.

So mass murder is justified in the future as saving humanity? Wow, you're pretty screwed up.

So mass murder is justified in the future as saving humanity? Wow, you're pretty screwed up.

Yah, which is pretty much my point.

But bring it up with the Carthaginians. If you can find one.

No. Obviously he would, because anything he did would be moral. Your problem is that you are viewing it through the lens of your own parochial ideas of what is right and wrong and assuming that they apply at all times and in all places.

What is genocide today might be a moral imperative tomorrow.Why would anything he does be moral? So killing humans can be morally good?

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

Actually, it's my experience that other Christians are more likely to deny responsibility for the state of the world by claiming God works in mysterious ways or blaming God for their prejudice and fear.

Starting a debate with an irrational position regarding your opponents is a losing position. Good luck with that.

*Reads rest of thread* See what I mean.

Actually, it's my experience that other Christians are more likely to deny responsibility for the state of the world by claiming God works in mysterious ways or blaming God for their prejudice and fear.

Starting a debate with an irrational position regarding your opponents is a losing position. Good luck with that.

*Reads rest of thread* See what I mean.

Hasn't the point of this thread been debated to hell and back? (Literally?)

Here's how the thread works.

Atheists: God doesn't exists

Random Religious guy: Burn in hell
*repeat until the sun goes nova*

Why would anything he does be moral? So killing humans can be morally good?

Yes. Of course it can. Unless you subscribe to the fantasy where killing humans is always wrong.

Yes. Of course it can. Unless you subscribe to the fantasy where killing humans is always wrong.

Not all killing is bad, your right on that. Killing for the right ideas is a good thing, but sensless slaughter of the scale this so called "god" could unleash is pointless and evil. All it would get would be the extermination of all life on earth.

Not all killing is bad, your right on that. Killing for the right ideas is a good thing, but sensless slaughter of the scale this so called "god" could unleash is pointless and evil. All it would get would be the extermination of all life on earth.

Well has god unleashed that? Obviously not, since we are still talking.

I assume that its killing - since we can both agree not all killing is bad - is justified.

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

Rejecting God would be the stupidest thing anyone could ever do and I shall explain:

Chuck Norris is God.
You reject God.
You reject Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks you so hard, you fly so fast that you rip off Satan's horns and tail.:p

Well has god unleashed that? Obviously not, since we are still talking.

I assume that its killing - since we can both agree not all killing is bad - is justified.

Okay... an omnipotent being picking people off? Not good, nothing justifies random killings. Absolutly nothing. Not even Chuck Norris.

Rejecting God would be the stupidest thing anyone could ever do and I shall explain:

Chuck Norris is God.
You reject God.
You reject Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks you so hard, you fly so fast that you rip off Satan's horns and tail.:p

I can feel the warm light of born-again conversion changing my life!

All Hail God! Praise Chuck Norris our Lord and Saviour! :D

Okay... an omnipotent being picking people off? Not good, nothing justifies random killings. Absolutly nothing. Not even Chuck Norris.

Again, assuming that god is omnipotent and you are not, they only seem random to you.

Still going on? Wow.


If God is truly loving and omnipotent, then he would eliminate evil as he does not wish us to suffer. Yet he does not. No matter how you answer this, it will contradict God's very existence. Yay for Epicurus.

Also gotta love the whole 'Every animal that ever existed lived within walking distance of Noah' and the 'God's supposed genocide of the entire human race besides Noah's family' things.


Seriously. Why do people believe things so utterly inane?

Seriously. Why do people believe things so utterly inane?Because a rather depressingly impressive number of people are, as you say, utterly insane.

The problem, I think, is that we're highly organised social critters, and usually deal with harmful levels of insanity accordingly; we have fairly concrete guidelines for just when someone's sufficiently fucked in the head to be forced into treatment. Only, religious insanity is exempt. Consequently frighteningly large minorities of raving loons run wild in our societies, destroying whatever they can and oppressing the fuck out of everyone and their dog's cat's uncle. And they always have. It's socially acceptable.

It is not socially acceptable, on the other hand, to suggest that it might not be a good idea to consider a Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps or whatever, to be of sound mind, and in fact, that such persons might need rather a lot of intensive psychiatric help, to become sane, functioning adults (again?).

Disclaimer: if you're gonna flame me, do it right. I did not say religious people are by definition any more sane or insane than non-religious people. I said a depressingly large minority of them are. If you don't know the difference between "all" and "not even half", you probably shouldn't respond.

Rejecting God would be the stupidest thing anyone could ever do and I shall explain:

Chuck Norris is God.
You reject God.
You reject Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks you so hard, you fly so fast that you rip off Satan's horns and tail.:p
I thought Ray Charles was god from the old chestnut-

God is Love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind
Ray Charles is God...

If God is truly loving and omnipotent, then he would eliminate evil as he does not wish us to suffer. Yet he does not. No matter how you answer this, it will contradict God's very existence. Yay for Epicurus.


I'm an athiest myself, but I'm not sure that being loving means you don't want to ever allow somebody to suffer (although not "Hell" type suffering). Some believe you can learn from suffering, or become stronger from it. Its hard for a parent to see their children suffer, but if they keep them from all suffering, they're being denied an experience that might give them some kind of character.

Then again, I would hope that a truly clever God would be able to come up with a way to achieve those ends without suffering, but if suffering is necessary as some sort of frame of reference in which to judge other experiences, maybe Brahma or L.Ron or whoever allows it to provide that perspective.

Course, that leaves no excuse for hell, since hell is just endless suffering with no educational merit (unless they have online classes, or correspondence motorcycle repair or something).

Maybe God punches himself in the nuts every so often so he knows how great the rest of his day is by comparison.

Anyway, for those religions without a hell, I can see where conceivably a higher being might allow us to suffer during life if we somehow gain something by the experience.

I personally think its more likely that suffering is our mind reacting to what it considers negative stimulus, and we have developed the evolutionary response of wanting to avoid it. Except for those people who are kind of into pain, with the clamps and whips and such. They seem to get something out of it.

Maybe God is just into the leather scene...

Still going on? Wow.


If God is truly loving and omnipotent, then he would eliminate evil as he does not wish us to suffer. Yet he does not. No matter how you answer this, it will contradict God's very existence.

I'm going to play devil's advocate (no pun intended :D) and disagree with you there.

Polymath and co-inventor of calculus Gottfried Leibniz wrote a wonderful, beautifully thought-out argument that asserts that god, since it is a perfect being, must produce only perfection; and thus we live in the "best of all possible worlds" (a phrase that is hilariously skewered in Voltaire's Candide).

So, all the "evil" in the world (a concept that no one has ever satisfactorily defined, by the way) is, in the infinite wisdom of the infinite god, conducive to perfection; e.g., it may bring about a sort of "balance" or "harmony."

When rejecting "god," be sure your reasons for doing so are philosophically sound.

I don't, by the way, believe that anything Leibniz said is true; but it does bring up the salient point that the "evil in the world" argument against god is a dangerous one.

but it does bring up the salient point that the "evil in the world" argument against god is a dangerous one.

Because it inspires ludicrous counter-arguments from theistic philosophers? How is that a "danger" worthy of mention?

Actually, it's my experience that other Christians are more likely to deny responsibility for the state of the world by claiming God works in mysterious ways or blaming God for their prejudice and fear.

Starting a debate with an irrational position regarding your opponents is a losing position. Good luck with that.

*Reads rest of thread* See what I mean.

Jocabia! :) Can't believe it took to page 24!

Well has god unleashed that? Obviously not, since we are still talking. The flood was a (ig)noble attempt. Besides, god could repopulate or something at a whim.

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

I don't reject God, how can I reject that which doesn't exist. What I reject is the notion of established religious/spiritual beliefs. How insufferably arrogant is it to enforce compliance with spurious supersticious notions that have the gall to tell me and others how we should live our lives.

It is far better to be a seeker of knowledge within life. To do that succesfully, you need to free your mind of drivel and establish a proper scientific approach to an understanding of life, the universe and everything......innit?

I haven't actually rejected God, but he and I are going to have a VERY long talk when I get to the other side. I could have handled the disability, but honestly, was it really necessary to pile on clincal depression and abusive parents on top of it? And I'm not too happy with the cancer he's seen fit to give me now, either. :mad:

No-one else seems to have replied to this, but you totally deserve a fluffle: :fluffle:

Hope everything works out ok :)

1) I don't like being told what to do.
2) I don't like being threatened.
3) I'm not going to waste the life I'm assured trying to get more.
4) Eternity is boring.
5) I have no reason to.

Here is my beliefs on God. And I am not saying these to make anyone feel offended or to get into a debate with anyone. I believe people spend time thinking that God can save them, that if they are nice people, God will let them to anything. And, that God is responsible for all their achievments. I do NOT believe this is so. I believe you are the only person responsible for your actions and achievments. Only you can make good things come of your life. With hard work and passion (not prayer) will you go far. I believe people pray to God in times of need to feel strength, where I believe they find this strength in themselves. Also, do not spend your life thinking once you get to Heaven you can live. That once you get to Heaven everything will be wonderful. This Earth, this life is all we have. Make the most of it!

I believe in the power of peace and love

It is my opinion that God is an dick at best, and an asshole at worst. Who wants to worship an dick or asshole?

That is a question you ought to ask a liberal, not me.
I am a liberal and I believe in God, why should Posi ask that question of me?

BTW, do you think that God is a conservative? :p

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

Nah, it's the nonexistence.

Nah, it's the nonexistence.

That non-existent bit is quite important. ;)

Hasn't the point of this thread been debated to hell and back? (Literally?)

Here's how the thread works.

Atheists: God doesn't exists

Random Religious guy: Burn in hell
*repeat until the sun goes nova*

Um, that's pretty accurate, but it's not debate. One side makes a claim they've got no evidence for, the other side makes a claim they've got no evidence for and then both sides mentally masturbate. See the last page for examples. This is and never was a debate, thus the reason I waited 24 pages to comment.

If people want to have rational discussions, it would be better to reside in threads that start out with something rational to discuss. This one didn't.

No-one else seems to have replied to this, but you totally deserve a fluffle: :fluffle:

Hope everything works out ok :)

Thank you. I should point out that I don't know for certain yet; I still have more tests to go through, but so far, it isn't looking good.

Why do people reject God? Because it is fools like you who condemn them to hell for not believing. And the fact that they can probably has something to do with it.

Why do people reject God? Because it is fools like you who condemn them to hell for not believing.
I guess that by your own standards (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11059655&postcount=4763), you are also a fool?

Who cares if some random idiot comdmns you to hell for not believing? It's God's decision, not the random idiots.

I guess that by your own standards (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11059655&postcount=4763), you are also a fool?

So you are trying to use something that I said over a year ago against me? Um yea...

Who cares if some random idiot comdmns you to hell for not believing? It's God's decision, not the random idiots.

Actually...that's pretty much true.

Ah, you're forgetting something fairly obvious : some people can and do think for themselves, and don't need some other entity to do it for them.
That doesn't take any time at all to explain.
And, you forgot Nietsche on your idolatry litany. ;)

Nietsche had a really particoular role - he said "God is dead!", but this was a consequence of what Feuerbach, Marx and Freud did. And he didn't look happy for this.;)

Anyway, people can think for themselves, but is far more easier for them to follow someone else who looks sure enough of what he is saying. This can be applied to our thinkers or to the preachers.

WTF? So you're saying without those three men there wouldn't be atheism in the world? Or at least popular atheism?

I think that, without them, the West would be mostly protestant, and not mostly agnostic. Their opinion had a great strenght, and I cannot imagine atheism to reach such a diffusion without them.

Hardly.

Anyway, Epicurus was beating the atheist drum two and a half millennia before any of those three. (Not to mention he managed to do it in less than 500 words).

Epicurus did not deny the existence of gods. Simply, he said they were in perfect atharaxy, so that they would not care about mankind. Between "There is no God" and "Gods exist, but this does not have to interest us" there is a slight difference.

I add that there is also a "poetical" reason for atheism in the West (while the previous was the "philosophical" one), the so called "Rebellion in the name of Suffering". t derives from the fact that, if Gods exists and allows such evil things as those which happen, is useless or horribly cruel, and then unworthy of worshipping. Some of those who brought forth this theory: Camus, Dostoewskij, Benjamin (who supposed the ineffecency of God's omnipotency).

Who cares if some random idiot comdmns you to hell for not believing? It's God's decision, not the random idiots.

Kinda takes the wind out of a lot of people's sails, don't it?

Anyway, people can think for themselves, but is far more easier for them to follow someone else who looks sure enough of what he is saying. This can be applied to our thinkers or to the preachers.
Absolutely. Charisma sells, every age and every season, if if there's no substance. Case in point, this fella name of "United States Earth" or something seems to be trying too hard with the charisma in the same fashion.

Actually...that's pretty much true.

Tag team, yo.

Kinda takes the wind out of a lot of people's sails, don't it?

*suddenly hits the doldrums*

Uhm.. I wasn't even following the common religious trade-winds.

*blows into sail* Come on...Going to be late to an athiest hangi..er...singing..party.

*suddenly hits the doldrums*It's Sunday here, maybe the doldrums are people away from their posts, scrabbling desperately to save their decrepit souls.

Uhm.. I wasn't even following the common religious trade-winds.
If you ever need 'em, follow the sounds of people singing praises ... kinda like Ulysses and the Sirens.

*blows into sail* Come on...Going to be late to an athiest hangi..er...singing..party.Ah, i've got all eternity, or at least limbo, to get there.

:D

Who cares if some random idiot comdmns you to hell for not believing? It's God's decision, not the random idiots.But the gods don't send people to hell out of despotism but because people deserve it. The others are set to sail over the great Abzu home into the Old East. :)

Because god is a douche.

Absolutely. Charisma sells, every age and every season, if if there's no substance. Case in point, this fella name of "United States Earth" or something seems to be trying too hard with the charisma in the same fashion.

Yes, which would be effective, if he didn't lack for it.

Any existence trivial enough to demand worship does not deserve it

Any existence trivial enough to demand worship does not deserve it

Well that pretty much ends all religious debate.

Well that pretty much ends all religious debate.

Or added water to the grease fire.

Or added water to the grease fire.

Most likely that.

Well that pretty much ends all religious debate.That would be supercalifragilisticexpialidocious...

That would be supercalifragilisticexpialidocious...

Or, as the kids say these days say: sizupizercizalizifrizagizilizistizicizexpiziizalizidizocizious.
Oh shi-

Or, as the kids say these days say: sizupizercizalizifrizagizilizistizicizexpiziizalizidizocizious.
Oh shi-

Is it just me or were things simpler in the old days?

Is it just me or were things simpler in the old days?

Possible.
You don't even want to know what they call pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

Possible.
You don't even want to know what they call pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

Is it even possible or will it be like John Madden imagining two teams of Bret Farves playing each other?

Or added water to the grease fire.

Knowing NSG...you are more likely right.

Is it even possible or will it be like John Madden imagining two teams of Bret Farves playing each other?

John Madden imagining two teams of Bret Farves playing each other.

John Madden imagining two teams of Bret Farves playing each other.

I'm not even going to try, I like my head.

John Madden imagining two teams of Bret Farves playing each other.

Are they naked...?

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

I don't reject god. Why do you reject her?

Are they naked...?

Nope. Just a little something that could kill the most annoying sports caster ever.

I don't reject god. Why do you reject her?

For the same reason she rejects me.
Long distance relationships rarely work out, even with *omnipotent women.
*nods*


*as opposed to the other kind of women?

So you are trying to use something that I said over a year ago against me? Um yea...
Why blame me for what you stated before? Besides, if you are condemning someone for stating the exact same thing that you believed was true before doesn't make too much sense now does it?

BTW, how about something that you stated (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12743729&postcount=68)only a few months ago?

Yes, which would be effective, if he didn't lack for it.

I know. S/he really, really does try too hard with too little.

Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam.
'Cause sunbeams are not made like me.
Don't expect me to cry
for all the reasons you had to die.
Don't ever ask your love of me.

Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die for thee.

Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam.
'Cause sunbeams are not made like me.
Don't expect me to cry
for all the reasons you had to die.
Don't ever ask your love of me.

Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die for thee.

Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam.
'Cause sunbeams are not made like me.
Don't expect me to cry
for all the reasons you had to die.
Don't ever ask your love of me.

Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die.
Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die for thee.

For the same reason she rejects me.
Long distance relationships rarely work out, even with *omnipotent women.
*nods*


*as opposed to the other kind of women?

That was directed at the OP, but that's a good response, ha ha.

Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam.
'Cause sunbeams are not made like me.
Don't expect me to cry
for all the reasons you had to die.
Don't ever ask your love of me.

Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die for thee.

Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam.
'Cause sunbeams are not made like me.
Don't expect me to cry
for all the reasons you had to die.
Don't ever ask your love of me.

Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die for thee.

Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam.
'Cause sunbeams are not made like me.
Don't expect me to cry
for all the reasons you had to die.
Don't ever ask your love of me.

Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die.
Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die for thee.

Hmmmm ....

honourable mention of "Judith", if i may, from APC.

Why should I believe in an invisible dude that created everything, is able to control everybody and anything but still is doing nothing?

Why should I believe in a gay-hating thing? Why should I adore a being that’s spreading diseases above entire populations just for fun?

Why should I like a guy who’s mean for women and is approving slavery?

Why should I worship a dumb, dark, disgusting animal that destroyed almost entire humanity?

Why should I listen to a spoiled child?

Look, goth doesn’t exist. Why should it?

By reading bibles, there’s just one conclusion for goth:

He’s an compulsive-obsessive serial killing psychopath terrorist. According US laws he would receive the death penalty for his deeds.

Christianity isn’t the oldest religion around, still they claim to be the only right one… And so do the 4000 other religions.

I am glad he’s not real. But I don’t understand why people adore such a demonic sick creature.

the only thing i reject is the collectively egotistical notion that anything has to be known to one or more physically living earth born humans in order to exist. and that whatever does, is under any sort of obligation to bear the slightest resemblence to what they think, or want to think, or believe as some coercively choose to call it, they 'know' about it.

one or more gods are perfectly welcome to exist in their own unknown, mysterious, and in all likelyhood, utterly wierd ways, to their own content, and loved by the average cameroi, in our own, somewhat exotic ways, with deep and abiding spiritual huggs.

=^^=
.../\...

Why blame me for what you stated before? Besides, if you are condemning someone for stating the exact same thing that you believed was true before doesn't make too much sense now does it?

BTW, how about something that you stated (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12743729&postcount=68)only a few months ago?

Um...I never said that for LancasterCounty is not even my nation.

I don’t understand why people adore such a demonic sick creature.

Gotta be the cologne.
*nods solemnly*

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

To return to the OP: Intruiging notion actually.

If one embraces the Christian god one also embraces the thought that every good deed one does should simply be "normal" behaviour. Nothing to be proud of. Doing bad things however is failing your superior designer.

I personally much prefer something where I can take pride in all the good things I do, not be proud of things of lazyness and sloth but not considering them the source of all evil either, and can condemn my bad stuff. Much more carrot than stick.

Much more carrot than stick.

This thread's gotta lot of flogging of it either way.
*retch*

For that joke, I should just drop dead.

I rejected God because his credit history was bad.

I just wred this entire thread, not from any sense of duty but simply because it was funny early, and miraculously didn't get too badly stuck on Abrahamic assumptions.

Well, my eyeballs skidded a bit on Larien's stuff and I skipped the de Sade quote.

Larien, if you're still reading:
"There" has the word "here" in it. Here and there.
"Their" is the one with an "i" in it, the possessive. Their manners were bad.
"They're" is like any contraction, the apostrophe goes where the letter has been left out. They're = they are.

"Look there! They're taking what isn't theirs."

So just this one answer to the OP. I'm not debating with anyone, call this mental masturbation if you like. I just post.

I do not reject god, nor God. I am lucky enough never to have been preached to, nor threatened, nor nagged to believe in the existence of any god ... so I have the luxury of not needing to reject god. I do not need to close my mind to the possibility of god, because I don't fear god's existence.

I may become aware of the existence of god. I may already be aware of the existence of god and simply not recognize that what I am aware of IS god. It seems to me that the best approach to this, as to all knowledge, is to take my beliefs as fact until they fail in the explanation of some new experience.

I suspect that finding god would be an experience which would cause all of my beliefs to fail. I look forward to that possibility happily, but try to contain my enthusiasm to avoid deluding myself. If I seek an experience which will cause all of my beliefs to fail, I may find it yet not know I have experienced god. Or enough of my beliefs might fail that I no longer know what it was I was seeking, leaving me damaged yet still unsure of the existence of god.

I'll put that another way. Since I have not found it necessary to believe in god, all my beliefs up 'til now are godless. To seek god while still believing those things would be futile, since all my actions are informed and directed by my beliefs. God is precisely that which I cannot know while believing what I do, and therefore God must come to me, not the other way around.

The second question is moot. I do not need a reason to not know god, and in any case have not rejected god.

I reject God because he demands worship. That's just too needy. God needs to play it cool and be all "whatever" when you grovel before him.

I reject God because he demands worship. That's just too needy. God needs to play it cool and be all "whatever" when you grovel before him.
The OT God and the Muslim one do, Jesus is a little different, he is the deity of social action imho, he viewed helping the poor and needy in actions as above petty worship, fasting and sacrifices.

I reject God because he demands worship. That's just too needy. God needs to play it cool and be all "whatever" when you grovel before him.

It's so strange that you seem to know what God needs. When was the last time you talked to Him? Have you actually grovelled [wouldn't recommend it, it's not a good look] and have first hand experience of Him being all "whatever" towards you? Sounds more like what happens after a nasty break-up.

I find it curious that there are so many on this forum who seem to have the definitive word on what God is, what He needs and what He says. I was pretty sure that God is a tad beyond being put into a box. What would I know?? OH, apparently everything, I'm a human being and we're never wrong, are we??:D

Look, I know I said I'd just make the one post. This is another one. I have no discipline ...

That Hubble Ultra-Deep Field pic (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg) is quite extraordinary. If you'd put that on the cover of Amazing Stories in the 50's, with one of those fish-shaped rockets they went for back in Buck Rodgers's day ... the fans would have scoffed. "Too many galaxies! Too many different shapes. It's totally not realistic!"

Yep, I'm lumbering towards the subject. Remember when the Hubble got up and it didn't work properly? It had a nasty case of spherical abberation, a common fault in cheap reflecting telescopes. It was useful to an extent, but no good at deep field, and it took some cunning and a service mission to fix it.

There was an enquiry into how this goof could have happened, which sheeted the blame down to the contractor who made the primary mirror. Actually, there was a bit more to it than we ever worked out, and from the Hobos Outrageous Lies Factory I am now proud to present to you the truth.

It was God's fault.

God is not quite omnipotent. He's getting a bit old, and things are more of an effort these days. God was a bit lazy doing the stars for us to look at, back about 7000 years ago, and just scattered a few distant galaxies around after doing the Milky Way and Andromeda in proper mechanically-plausible detail.

Another thing you have to understand about god, is that being incredibly clever and all, he finds us a bit boring and occasionally phases-out a bit. He likes rocket-launches though, and one day in 1990 he's just watching to see what silly bit of frippery comes out of this latest one (think christmas bon-bons) "la-di-da ... uh ...

"OMGG! It's a whopping big telescope! Panic!!" Not enough time to do proper stars and galaxies as far as that thing can see, even a silly human will get suss if it gets hit by an asteroid right away, what to do?

Well, like I mentioned, god is pretty clever. He came up with a cunning plan in no time, and did a tiny miracle to the main reflector of the Hubble. Another little miracle in a technicians brain, mess with the testing equipment which was supposed to shape the mirror properly, fiddle the paperwork ... OK, four miracles isn't that deft a solution, but the beauty of it is that the humans are very good at blaming themselves when anything goes wrong ....

Then god had a few years to make the rest of the universe like he should have done properly the first time, sweep the piles of antimatter into one of the collapsed dimensions, and get the whole place looking plausible.

Now this deep-field thing? Mate, I'll tell you what that is. That is a big mess of scraps. That's what's left over when you've finished making fifteen universes and you weren't that sober when you started.

I'm starting to have serious doubts about this god of ours. Who knows what other shonky work will come to light? Fossils of Eye mark II, the one that was so much better at seeing but too much trouble to make plausible? Records of the price-fixing deal with satan? The other earth? I'm worried I tell you...

I reject God because he rejects me.

Can God give you a wage rise?

I reject God because he rejects me.

God does not reject anyone. He does embrace all of us regardless of lifestyle.

God does not reject anyone. He does embrace all of us regardless of lifestyle.

So, basically, you're saying that God isn't a fundie. That's nice!

God does not reject anyone. He does embrace all of us regardless of lifestyle. That's comforting, now if only he'd come down here and tell me that in person. :p

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

Actually, I think a better question is this: How is "Imperial Brazil" going to feel when God smacks him/her over the head for acting like a jerk? :headbang:

It's so strange that you seem to know what God needs. When was the last time you talked to Him? Have you actually grovelled [wouldn't recommend it, it's not a good look] and have first hand experience of Him being all "whatever" towards you? Sounds more like what happens after a nasty break-up.

I find it curious that there are so many on this forum who seem to have the definitive word on what God is, what He needs and what He says. I was pretty sure that God is a tad beyond being put into a box. What would I know?? OH, apparently everything, I'm a human being and we're never wrong, are we??:D

I'm not saying God isn't a decent fellow, I just have very high standards. I'm rejecting him now, but I'll keep an open mind. If he can come up with some new material... show some real progress... I'll certainly reconsider.

Actually, I think a better question is this: How is "Imperial Brazil" going to feel when God smacks him/her over the head for acting like a jerk? :headbang:

Well he'll have quite a headache.

Well he'll have quite a headache.

^
lol

Well he'll have quite a headache.

LMAO!!!

I'm not saying God isn't a decent fellow, I just have very high standards. I'm rejecting him now, but I'll keep an open mind. If he can come up with some new material... show some real progress... I'll certainly reconsider.

This progress bit is intriguing. What would be this 'progress' of which you long to bear witness?

Well he'll have quite a headache. LOL. :p

If he can come up with some new material... show some real progress... I'll certainly reconsider.
Kind of like parole? Or when you're on notice at work?
Hey, if you hire low, gotta expect poor performance, like you said.

I don't reject God.

Because one can't reject, or do anything else to, something that doesn't exist. "I reject God." What silly nonsense.

I don't reject God.

Because one can't reject, or do anything else to, something that doesn't exist. "I reject God." What silly nonsense.

Do you "reject" "intelligent design"? :p

Do you "reject" "intelligent design"? :p

Nope.

All I know about reality is what I know through my senses. "Senses" are just electrical signals interpreted by my brain. Thus, "reality" is naught but a design created by my mind.

And I'm frickin' brilliant.

Nope. I'll pen you as "advocate" next ID argument, m'kay? :p


All I know about reality is what I know through my senses. "Senses" are just electrical signals interpreted by my brain. Thus, "reality" is naught but a design created by my mind.Weirdly enough, i share in this "sense" matrix concept, apparently. Can you create a better design of the world, where it rains donuts? :p


And I'm frickin' brilliant.Is this the follow up to the last sentence? :p

I'll pen you as "advocate" next ID argument, m'kay? :p


The truth is what it is.


Weirdly enough, i share in this "sense" matrix concept, apparently. Can you create a better design of the world, where it rains donuts? :p


Your Creator prefers garlic bagels.



Is this the follow up to the last sentence? :p

It's the primary flaw in intelligent design theory.

Because there is no logic in believing that a God actually exists. I respect others decision if they want to believe in such an idea but I see no reason to do so myself. :)

The truth is what it is.
.... no matter who tries to paint it otherwise, eh? ;)

Your Creator prefers garlic bagels.That's doable. I've a lot more humiliating criteria for My Creator than that.

It's the primary flaw in intelligent design theory.Your brilliance is the primary flaw? o.9
There might be something arguable there.
Unless you created it?

Your brilliance is the primary flaw? o.9
There might be something arguable there.
Unless you created it?

In a spat of infinite improbability, I managed to create my own intelligence. Behold, thy God:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg/250px-M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg

**insert Handel's Hallelujah chorus here**

why do fanatics assume, everyone who doesn't aggree with them rejects anything?

=^^=
.../\...

I'm not saying God isn't a decent fellow, I just have very high standards. I'm rejecting him now, but I'll keep an open mind. If he can come up with some new material... show some real progress... I'll certainly reconsider.

my point was not what you think of God but that you, amongst others, use language tht suggests you have the definitive answer on who, what, he is...........and how do you define this 'progress'? Kind of hard to know how someone is progressing in any context if you don't have an actual connection :) and where will this new material turn up? Front page of the newspaper? Local news station?

I'm teasing you a little ;) but, as a Christian, it seems odd to me that sweeping statements are made so comfortably about something a lot of people have nothing more than an academic understanding of, at best. Be that as it may, it's good to see discussion - whatever belief you choose, critical thinking is vital to forming a view.

why do fanatics assume everyone who doesn't agree with them rejects anything?

True fanatics are impossible to agree with. Any attempt to do so is taken as a challenge to their fanaticism, quickly crushed by proclaiming something so gobsmackingly bizarre as to wash the memory of it from everyone's minds.

Ooops, gotta answer the question. Fanatics don't need a reason to assume anything. Assumptions are more precious to them than life itself.

In a spat of infinite improbability, I managed to create my own intelligence. Behold, thy God:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg/250px-M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg

**insert Handel's Hallelujah chorus here**

*worships*

In a spat of infinite improbability, I managed to create my own intelligence. Behold, thy God:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg/250px-M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg

**insert Handel's Hallelujah chorus here**

BLASPHEMY! How dare you insult his Lordship? You forget yourself, sir! Now atone to our Lord by playing in our sacred mud puddle.

In a spat of infinite improbability, I managed to create my own intelligence. Behold, thy God:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg/250px-M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg

**insert Handel's Hallelujah chorus here**

*notices*
Can I see the other side of that please? I want to see where it is joined.
Oh, and my sound's out. :(

why do fanatics assume, everyone who doesn't aggree with them rejects anything?

=^^=
.../\...

They want everyone ELSE to suffer as much (or maybe more) for their art, of course.

In a spat of infinite improbability, I managed to create my own intelligence. Behold, thy God:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg/250px-M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg

**insert Handel's Hallelujah chorus here**

So .... i should be working on my choral arrangements everytime i unwrap a broccoli bundle from the grocery store?
o.9

So .... i should be working on my choral arrangements everytime i unwrap a broccoli bundle from the grocery store?
o.9
They put mobius strips on broccoli at your grocery store? Where the hell do you shop?

They put mobius strips on broccoli at your grocery store? Where the hell do you shop?

To be fair, they're red, not green.
*shrugs*
One of the local outlets up here in AK.

To be fair, they're red, not green.
*shrugs*
One of the local outlets up here in AK.Are we talking about the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobius_strip)?

Amazing! For me it's asparagus.

I don't reject God. I'm a Hindu. I do, however, reject the Abrahamic Yahweh/Allah mainly because of the whole one-life crap (people living on an uncharted island and harlequin fetuses feel that this is unfair).

Is it because you sin so much you want to absolve yourself of all the responsibility? Well?

For the same reason that you reject Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Buddha, Bhagavan, etc. You see no reason to believe in all those "false" pantheist and nature religions, some of us see no reason to believe in any false monotheist religion either. They're *all* human narratives, built up by embellishing or mythologising or anthropomorphising actual events and people and aspects of the natural world-- which is why they all look 'real' when looked at in a certain context, by someone looking to find the confirmation they want to see. All religious beliefs are a choice, based on the suspension of disbelief.

Are we talking about the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobius_strip)?

I was going on images, not intangibilities. :p

Makes me think of ants, though ... and what's left of the asparagus/broccoli.
http://qlink.queensu.ca/~4lb11/ants.jpg

Alright...this seems to be going a little off topic....

Lets hear some REASONING why God (and I'm assuming the God of the Bible) can't or doesn't exist.

Alright...this seems to be going a little off topic....

Lets hear some REASONING why God (and I'm assuming the God of the Bible) can't or doesn't exist.

No particular empirical evidence that the "God" of the "Bible" exists, but "can't" or "doesn't" isn't entirely provable.

No particular empirical evidence that the "God" of the "Bible" exists, but "can't" or "doesn't" isn't entirely provable.Depends. If you accept the assumption that reason works, which I'd argue is necessary for assuming the Bible says anything about God to begin with, and you define the God of the Bible as the Bible does, then all you need to disprove the existence of God with absolute finality, is to date something more than - let's be large here - 50,000 years old.

I'm not saying this actually disproves anything. In my subjective opinion, it does so rather resoundingly, but I could be wrong. Mainly I'm of that opinion because I've only ever seen the falsification addressed in two ways:

1. Attacking the reasoning, which is perfectly fine and easily doable.

2. Move the yardsticks, typically by claiming the Biblical God isn't actually anything like the Biblical God.

Unfortunately both of these also happen to destroy the basis for the Biblical God, and thus leaves one no better off than one was when it became apparent the Biblical concept of God explicitly contradicts this thing we call reality.

If you accept the assumption that reason worksWinner of sentence. :D
, which I'd argue is necessary for assuming the Bible says anything about God to begin with, and you define the God of the Bible as the Bible does, then all you need to disprove the existence of God with absolute finality, is to date something more than - let's be large here - 50,000 years old.

I'm not saying this actually disproves anything. In my subjective opinion, it does so rather resoundingly, but I could be wrong. Mainly I'm of that opinion because I've only ever seen the falsification addressed in two ways:

1. Attacking the reasoning, which is perfectly fine and easily doable.

2. Move the yardsticks, typically by claiming the Biblical God isn't actually anything like the Biblical God.

Unfortunately both of these also happen to destroy the basis for the Biblical God, and thus leaves one no better off than one was when it became apparent the Biblical concept of God explicitly contradicts this thing we call reality.Reminds me of a David Lee Roth song, really. :p
You rock. *bows*