NationStates Jolt Archive

ppl dont want to admit theres a God bc if they believe he exists they mightend up feeling accountable to him

ppl dont want to admit theres no God bc if they dont believe he exists they mightend up having to face the world on their own

ye gods, that's harder than it looks

ppl dont want to admit theres a God bc if they believe he exists they mightend up feeling accountable to him

And people don't want to admit there isn't a God because they might end up feeling accountable to themselves....

ppl dont want to admit theres no God bc if they dont believe he exists they mightend up having to face the world on their own

ye gods, that's harder than it looks

so why do atheist feel the need to steal this away from them?

ppl dont want to admit theres a God bc if they believe he exists they mightend up feeling accountable to him

Look, try to see this from both sides.

When God and I brokeup, it wasn't because we didn't love one another. Quite the contrary, but things are complicated.

As a gay man, I thought we should be more active in public, but God felt like homosexual public affection hurts the movement, that we should give people more time to develop cultural comfort with two dudes tongue kissing in front of Cinnabon at the mall.

What's more, I was far more willing to compromise in our relationship, and not just on issues like living room upholstery, or butt lube flavor. I made all kinds of concessions to that man. Did you know God is Jewish? I'm a committed White Nationalist and most of my friends are also racially aware white people. Do you know how difficult that made things for me?

So, please, don't try to make me feel "accountable" to God. He already laid that guilt trip on me when I refused to return his collector's edition boxed "Best of ABBA" compact discs with embossed liner notes.

You might love God, but I've loved Him in the passenger seat of a Miata with a gear shift sticking me in the ribs, parked in a cramped smelly garage while our friend Nigel's Academy Awards party was going on and we had to stop every time somebody came to get another bottle of White Zin out of the cooler.

He's huge, by the way.

so why do atheist feel the need to steal this away from them?

Who did what for how many cookies?

I was just referencing the other post.


For the most part, the 'atheist attack' is a defence. We're constantly told our atheism is a lie, a self-deceit, a deliberate attack against (someone's) god, a cry for help... etc. We're told that our lives have no meaning (because someone else sees their 'meaning' in something else), and that we must be sad, desparate people.

If you tell me that my atheism is a protection from having to feel accountable to something higher than myself, you probably shouldn't be too surprised if I offer you a reversal... no?

Who did what for how many cookies?

I was just referencing the other post.


For the most part, the 'atheist attack' is a defence. We're constantly told our atheism is a lie, a self-deceit, a deliberate attack against (someone's) god, a cry for help... etc. We're told that our lives have no meaning (because someone else sees their 'meaning' in something else), and that we must be sad, desparate people.

If you tell me that my atheism is a protection from having to feel accountable to something higher than myself, you probably shouldn't be too surprised if I offer you a reversal... no?

Although i am protestant I have never seen anything wrong with atheist. I've never supported them but i've also never sponken out against them and insulted what they believe.

Although i am protestant I have never seen anything wrong with atheist. I've never supported them but i've also never sponken out against them and insulted what they believe.

I had never really had much trouble about my beliefs (or lack of them) when I was still in The Mothercountry. Then I relocated to the US (specifically, Georgia) - and it pretty much changed me. I'm no longer surprised by how militant American atheists can seem, it's a defence mechanism.

The sort of stuff I described in the previous post? That's pretty much every day. And.. to be honest... that's the tip of the iceberg.

Look, try to see this from both sides.

When God and I brokeup, it wasn't because we didn't love one another. Quite the contrary, but things are complicated.

As a gay man, I thought we should be more active in public, but God felt like homosexual public affection hurts the movement, that we should give people more time to develop cultural comfort with two dudes tongue kissing in front of Cinnabon at the mall.

What's more, I was far more willing to compromise in our relationship, and not just on issues like living room upholstery, or butt lube flavor. I made all kinds of concessions to that man. Did you know God is Jewish? I'm a committed White Nationalist and most of my friends are also racially aware white people. Do you know how difficult that made things for me?

So, please, don't try to make me feel "accountable" to God. He already laid that guilt trip on me when I refused to return his collector's edition boxed "Best of ABBA" compact discs with embossed liner notes.

You might love God, but I've loved Him in the passenger seat of a Miata with a gear shift sticking me in the ribs, parked in a cramped smelly garage while our friend Nigel's Academy Awards party was going on and we had to stop every time somebody came to get another bottle of White Zin out of the cooler.

He's huge, by the way.

Appears he's a two-timing bastard as well then, I was dating him at the time of Nigel's Academy Awards, looking all over for him at the party, I knew something was up by the guilty look on everyone's faces as they denied knowing where he was.

I must have drunk 5 bottles of White Zin that night

I had never really had much trouble about my beliefs (or lack of them) when I was still in The Mothercountry. Then I relocated to the US (specifically, Georgia) - and it pretty much changed me. I'm no longer surprised by how militant American atheists can seem, it's a defence mechanism.

The sort of stuff I described in the previous post? That's pretty much every day. And.. to be honest... that's the tip of the iceberg.


Well i can not speak for other religions but i must apoligize that you face hardship for what you believe in American of all places.

Well i can not speak for other religions but i must apoligize that you face hardship for what you believe in American of all places.

"Of all places?"

Heh. It's pretty much par for course here. If you're not an abrahamic theist, then there's something "wrong" with you.

Well i can not speak for other religions but i must apoligize that you face hardship for what you believe in American of all places.

With gratitude. Not wanting to attack anyone, or anything but - to be honest - the whole freedom of religion thing in the US? It basically only extends to protestant denominations.

With gratitude. Not wanting to attack anyone, or anything but - to be honest - the whole freedom of religion thing in the US? It basically only extends to protestant denominations.

Oh, I dunno. Catholics typically get by pretty well, I find, and in certain places Judaism is viewed as okay.

Oh, I dunno. Catholics typically get by pretty well, I find, and in certain places Judaism is viewed as okay.

Count the Catholic presidents. :)

Catholics do okay if they stay in their ghetto, just like Mormons.

If there wasn't a God, no Greater Good would exist. You find that everything has a reason for happening, like (but not relating to) the Law of Cause and Effect. The American Civil War- many, many, many people died, but it united the country to be able to destroy eviler people such as Hitler (later on). 9/11 occured so the US could dethrone Saddam.


Ho, the lulz.

Now, fetch the relatives of the victims of 9/11 and tell them that. I want to see how long you will survive.

Cause and Effect is a principle, not a law.

Btw, Hitler killed himself because the godless commie ruskies were knocking on the bunker's doors.

I think people who don't believe in God are either overriding that instinctive knowledge or do believe it deep down and have an axe to grind.

With all due respect for your beliefs, I have to say that I find your claim highly insulting. I have searched myself and the reality I live in with an open heart, and I have never felt for a moment any sense of a divine being or creator. It is obvious that your search has shown you such a being. Although I don't share your belief, I respect it, and I would not stoop so low as to attribute it to wishful thinking or willing ignorance. Please show me and others who do not believe in god the same courtesy.

I think people who don't believe in God are either overriding that instinctive knowledge ...

I don't see how overriding an instinct can be bad, or lead to false ideas.

He spoke to me once. I tried to ignore it. But I couldn't. Because of Him I'm now a Christian. I used to be like some of you, saying "How could he exist in a world with people like George Bush and Saddam(sp?) Hussein?" Then I realized, he places people like myself in the world to heal it from people like them. If you have never heard Him, then you are deaf. To a world of pain, suffering, and evil. And if you are incapable of hearing him, I weep for you. I know he exists, because I felt him touch a part of me that I thought was unshakeable. He is a force you can block out, but once you are touched by him, it lingers, never leaving your mind.

God touched a part of me once, but I told my parents and they reported him to the cops.

God touched a part of me once, but I told my parents and they reported him to the cops.

Its not his fault. God, by His nature, is everywhere.

Including your bathing suit area.

God touched a part of me once, but I told my parents and they reported him to the cops.

Its not his fault. God, by His nature, is everywhere.

Including your bathing suit area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU1hAlON7DA

:)

Its not his fault. God, by His nature, is everywhere.

Including your bathing suit area.

What a voyeur. The worst thing is, God already knows what you're doing because he's omniscient, but he still feels the need to be everywhere and watch too!

What a voyeur. The worst thing is, God already knows what you're doing because he's omniscient, but he still feels the need to be everywhere and watch too!

Dude, not all the time.

Dude, not all the time.

Really? Can you let me know when he clocks off for his tea break? I have evil to do.

Really? Can you let me know when he clocks off for his tea break? I have evil to do.

That's a trade secret. If you want to know the times and places where His surveillance gaps are, you'll have to become a clown. *nod*

To be honest, I was riffing off the Dogma quote but, despite trade secrets, God does take time off to watch The King of Queens, more out of a morbid fascination for how his beautiful creation could create such filth, but he never misses an episode.

I think we should all pay tribute to the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1945-1991), the only nation in the history of the world to be an officially atheist state. That itself is a great progressive achievement against the reactionaries of religion.

I think we should all pay tribute to the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1945-1991), the only nation in the history of the world to be an officially atheist state. That itself is a great progressive achievement against the reactionaries of religion.

I'm not sure it's particularly progressive or non-reactionary to ban all religious practises, and ship all your clerics off to farms. This is just the sort of thing that gives atheism a bad name!

Of course God exists! And I know from personal experience that He gets POd when you steal from his private stash. *hick*

No he dont exist.
God is just a lie, otherwise he woud do something about illness and about starving to death right.

So you're faith in God would rest on Him abolishing illness and famine?
Just a query here...but do you think that those things live independantly? As in, those are the symptoms of one particularly deep rooted issue...

I would put it to you, that you are the one believing the lie.
Why does God have to rescue us? What exactly does he owe us?

people who believed in god and/or to people who believed in god. without those many of these would never have happend

Hm. So let me try an experiment and see if the way you reacted to my earlier post will work here:

"So you're saying Atheists never start wars?"

Nah, I'll give you more credit than that. That statement is just as ridiculous as yours was to me earlier. Difference is, I see it for what it is.

As for your premise here: Wars aren't started over ideology. Ideology is used to justify war but I assure you without religion, some other excuse would have been found.

What leads you to think most people instinctively know God (specifically the Mormon one(?)), though?
If that were true, would not most people raised in households where God and religion are not mentioned either way instinctively be theists?
I find that most people that aren't specifically raised from birth (I would even say indoctrinated) to be theists tend not to be.

Just by way of clarification: I'm not asserting that people instinctively know the God of a particular denomination, even my own. I'm only saying that the idea of a supreme being is an instinctive one. It appears across almost all cultures and all regions of the world, and developed culturally independently in disparate places.

It's just a pet theory of mine. This isn't coming from any religious doctrine as such.

Just by way of clarification: I'm not asserting that people instinctively know the God of a particular denomination, even my own. I'm only saying that the idea of a supreme being is an instinctive one. It appears across almost all cultures and all regions of the world, and developed culturally independently in disparate places.

It's just a pet theory of mine. This isn't coming from any religious doctrine as such.

A common belief doesn't necessarily prove anything - the whole world believed the sun orbited the earth up until recently.

Also, a common belief only proves something about human nature, not about the object of a belief. For example, belief in the afterlife may be common because fear of death is a common trait, rather than the common belief being some evidence for its existence.

Hm. So let me try an experiment and see if the way you reacted to my earlier post will work here:

"So you're saying Atheists never start wars?"

Nah, I'll give you more credit than that. That statement is just as ridiculous as yours was to me earlier. Difference is, I see it for what it is.


Difference is, DaWoad said 'many' and you said 'all'. Youer "Atheists never start wars" isn't a logical reversal of the comment - "Atheists don't start MOST wars" would be better. Oh, and true, too.


Just by way of clarification: I'm not asserting that people instinctively know the God of a particular denomination, even my own. I'm only saying that the idea of a supreme being is an instinctive one. It appears across almost all cultures and all regions of the world, and developed culturally independently in disparate places.


No it doesn't. 'Fairy' folk are more common. By your logic, we all know there are little people running around, right?

(The problem is - you've assumed that, since a lot of cultures have 'spiritual' beliefs, that means they buy into 'supreme gods', which just shows your theory is based on a lack of knowledge).


It's just a pet theory of mine. This isn't coming from any religious doctrine as such.

Which is good, because it's ignorant rubbish.

A common belief doesn't necessarily prove anything - the whole world believed the sun orbited the earth up until recently.

Also, a common belief only proves something about human nature, not about the object of a belief. For example, belief in the afterlife may be common because fear of death is a common trait, rather than the common belief being some evidence for its existence.

Of course, but then, I'm not trying to prove anything, anyway ;)

Of course, but then, I'm not trying to prove anything, anyway ;)

You mistake "I can't" for "I'm not trying to".

what does someone see, hear, and feel when they die?

what does someone see, hear, and feel when they die?

The question doesn't make sense because there is no "someone" to perceive anything.

Unless your definition of death doesn't negate the self. In which case it's not really death, is it?

I liked what Benjamin Franklin said "Beer is proof the God exists" (I may not have got it entirely right but the gist is there) I mean he gave us barely and hops neither of which has any real use but to make beer.

Count the Catholic presidents. :)

Catholics do okay if they stay in their ghetto, just like Mormons.

I believe one JFK and the amount of crap he got for it was unbelievable.

Your other post about the christians in Georgia, I know what you mean it doesn't do them or the rest of us any favours I wish they would just shut the fuck up sometimes

I prefer Catholics to those... *shiver* ...Evangelists.

I mean, at least Catholics don't think there is a white bearded man sitting up in the clouds and dinosaurs don't exist. (Although I have to admit, those Catholics were pretty nasty to Galileo)

I for one actually think that all religions are correct in some form or another. That would suggest some higher power which we are all innately conscious yet uninformed of. Interesting... :D

So, everyone, just calm down, and go to your respective -pedias.

Freethinkers, lets haul ass back to FreeThoughtPedia (http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Main_Page)

Theists, return to Conservapedia. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)

This is all.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Right dude I haven't heard this amount of BS for awhile, I can't be a theist because I have read Charles Darwin's most influential book and believe in what he wrote and nor do I follow Conservapedia (I always thought it was written as a joke)
:rolleyes: Yes a third time that is the most I have ever done.

Of course your assumption that all Conservatives believe in God is about as ridiculous as the rest of your little banter.

Not necessarily the only options - god may care but deliberately excludes itself from human affairs due to a more important precedent, e.g. the primacy of free will as a moral end in itself

It wouldn't violate free will; on the contrary, without the ability to make an informed choice free will is fairly pointless.

Suppose you saw a man on the street collecting money to feed starving children in Africa. You can choose to do good by giving or to do nothing by not giving. The dilemma is pretty obvious in terms of pros and cons.

Suppose then that the 'feed the starving' charity is secretly a front for an organisation which wants to exacerbate famine in Africa? This means that if you do what you think is the right thing then you'll actually be causing suffering. If we extend the uncertainty to every moral decision then there's little point in trying to choose the 'good' option, as you'd have no way of telling which good causes were genuinely good, which bad causes were really good, which good causes were really bad etc.

Suppose then that all this uncertainty was removed, and you were allowed to make your decision freely but with all the relevant facts needed to tell which causes would do good. Does this harm your free will? Of course not, it actually makes the process of free will far more meaningful. Similarly, having God denounce causes which invoked Him for evil purposes wouldn't detract from free will, as people could continue to make their own choices, it's just that they'd be able to make an informed decision.

I'd also add that the Bible is full of examples of people being free to act against God, even having spoken to Him directly: Adam was able to make his own decision about eating the forbidden fruit despite having been told by God that it was forbidden and Lot's wife was able to make the choice to look behind her after being warned not to by an angel, while the rest of the family were able to choose not to look back. By your logic, the Sermon on the Mount deprived all those who heard it of their free will by indicating what people should do to lead a moral life.

This is clearly nonsense both philosophically and theologically and I maintain that God's silence is evidence of His non-existence or indifference.

I maintain that God's silence is evidence of His non-existence or indifference.

Or maybe he just doesn't give a shit about what we think.

The christian god gave people the freedom to do what they want. It is in no way the christian god's fault that they choose to go against his way but say that it was in his name.

You're missing the point: the issue isn't that they've got the ability to invoke God to support violence, it's that they're able to do so without it being made clear whether they really are acting in accordance with God's will or not, thus making it hard (even impossible) for people to know how they should act to be in accordance with His will.

I believe one JFK and the amount of crap he got for it was unbelievable.

Your other post about the christians in Georgia, I know what you mean it doesn't do them or the rest of us any favours I wish they would just shut the fuck up sometimes

It's not just Georgia (I've encountered the exact same in the Carolinas, etc), and I've met some really cool Christians in Georgia. Georgia is my focus because I really do encounter that kind of stuff (literally) daily... but this country really does seem to have been claimed in the name of Baptists.

Or maybe he just doesn't give a shit about what we think.

That would come under 'indifference', no?

It's not just Georgia (I've encountered the exact same in the Carolinas, etc), and I've met some really cool Christians in Georgia. Georgia is my focus because I really do encounter that kind of stuff (literally) daily... but this country really does seem to have been claimed in the name of Baptists.

Yeah I know what you meant I should have extended my entire piece to cover all of the USofA

That would come under 'indifference', no?

Yes I suppose.

This is clearly nonsense both philosophically and theologically and I maintain that God's silence is evidence of His non-existence or indifference.

What if He isn't silent? ;)

What if He isn't silent? ;)

I certainly don't recall reading any historical accounts of booming, divine voices intervening in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust (although some high-up Nazis dabbled in the occult, the rank and file members of the SS were largely Christian), the Jonestown massacre etc. The evidence suggests that it's possible to do evil, believing it to be God's will.

A timely reminder of the health-benefits of Atheism :p:

At least 50 people have lost their sight after staring at the sun hoping to see an image of the Virgin Mary, according to reports.

Alarmed health authorities in India's Kottayam district have set up a sign dispelling rumours of a miraculous image in the sky and warning of the dangers of looking into direct sunlight.

Forty-eight cases of sight-loss, allegedly caused by photochemical burns on the retina, have been recorded at St Joseph's ENT and Eye hospital in the region since Friday.

Despite warnings, and the potentially harmful effects of their actions, believers are allegedly still flocking to a hotelier's house in Erumeli near where the divine image is said to have appeared.

"All our patients have similar history and symptoms… They have developed photochemical, not thermal, burns after continuously gazing at the sun," Dr Annamma James Isaac, the hospital's ophthalmologist said.

Even churches in the area have disowned the miracle after health officers and doctors approached the clergy.

The house where the miracle is said to have occurred has apparently been the subject of rumours for months.

The hotelier, who has since moved, had claimed that statues of the Virgin Mary in his house have been crying honey and bleeding oils and perfumes.

The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581424/Dozens-blinded-in-India-looking-for-Virgin-Mary.html)

Right, so Religion causes violence, while atheism is full of peace-lovers who want to create a golden age of humanism. Lets just ignore the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, and North Korea.

God exists because of the experiences of mankind. Again, if you look at each personal experience of God throughout history as individual pieces of evidence, there is atleast as much evidence of God as evolution, which is true.

You can find God in pretty much any religion, including atheism. Its just that Catholicism is the easiest way for an average guy to find Him, and I find it the most philosophically accurate.

I certainly don't recall reading any historical accounts of booming, divine voices intervening in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust (although some high-up Nazis dabbled in the occult, the rank and file members of the SS were largely Christian), the Jonestown massacre etc. The evidence suggests that it's possible to do evil, believing it to be God's will.

I never would argue that evil isn't done in God's Will. It absolutely is, every single day. (Although I'm curious as to why you chose exclusively Christian examples) Heck, 9/11 is a prime example from our own experience.

But are you talking exclusively about silence as it relates to interfering in events, or are you talking about His speaking to us in general?

It wouldn't violate free will; on the contrary, without the ability to make an informed choice free will is fairly pointless.

Suppose you saw a man on the street collecting money to feed starving children in Africa. You can choose to do good by giving or to do nothing by not giving. The dilemma is pretty obvious in terms of pros and cons.

Suppose then that the 'feed the starving' charity is secretly a front for an organisation which wants to exacerbate famine in Africa? This means that if you do what you think is the right thing then you'll actually be causing suffering. If we extend the uncertainty to every moral decision then there's little point in trying to choose the 'good' option, as you'd have no way of telling which good causes were genuinely good, which bad causes were really good, which good causes were really bad etc.

As limited beings this is the case, the world is too complicated for us to be able to judge all the ramifications of our actions, we can only choose whatever appears the best option at the time. Why should that mean you shouldn't try? Kant's categorical imperative is an example of the sort of logic you can use to this end.

Suppose then that all this uncertainty was removed, and you were allowed to make your decision freely but with all the relevant facts needed to tell which causes would do good. Does this harm your free will? Of course not, it actually makes the process of free will far more meaningful. Similarly, having God denounce causes which invoked Him for evil purposes wouldn't detract from free will, as people could continue to make their own choices, it's just that they'd be able to make an informed decision.

I am positing that if freedom to make your own decisions was the only moral imperative, then any supreme being telling you what to do will limit your choices, whether through respect or fear of retribution. If good and evil are irrelevant to god, but free will is not, then non-interference would best serve this end.

I'd also add that the Bible is full of examples of people being free to act against God, even having spoken to Him directly: Adam was able to make his own decision about eating the forbidden fruit despite having been told by God that it was forbidden and Lot's wife was able to make the choice to look behind her after being warned not to by an angel, while the rest of the family were able to choose not to look back. By your logic, the Sermon on the Mount deprived all those who heard it of their free will by indicating what people should do to lead a moral life.

This is clearly nonsense both philosophically and theologically and I maintain that God's silence is evidence of His non-existence or indifference.

I disagree. You are assuming I am talking in terms of God who has interfered in the past and now doesn't, having told us what we should be doing in the bible. Firstly, I don't take the bible's contents as a reliable source of how people and god interact, secondly the god I am positing would have never had interaction with the world, meaning that any religious text is man-made and not from god.

This sort of god is essentially irrelevant to us, but he is not indifferent.

I never would argue that evil isn't done in God's Will. It absolutely is, every single day. (Although I'm curious as to why you chose exclusively Christian examples) Heck, 9/11 is a prime example from our own experience.

I chose Christian examples because I know you're a Christian. No exclusivity is implied (in my first post about divine silence in the face of inhumanity I used the Taliban's treatment of women as one of my two examples).

But are you talking exclusively about silence as it relates to interfering in events, or are you talking about His speaking to us in general?

The specific argument I'm making is specifically that of silence relating to atrocities which are carried out in God's name. I'm not suggesting that, assuming Christianity to be true, we should expect intervention to actively prevent, for example, the Crusades as this would interfere with free will, but the fact that a Crusader could genuinely believe they were doing God's will by murdering innocents seems perverse.

It isn't enough to give people a set of writings and expect them to figure out from that exactly what God would want them to do in any given situation, especially when the texts contradict one another and can be hard to interpret. If there was a personal God I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to tell his followers directly when they've got the wrong end of the stick and are about to do harm (by treating Afghan women as second-class citizens for example). They would have the free will to carry on as before if they wanted, but they'd be able to make an informed decision.

As limited beings this is the case, the world is too complicated for us to be able to judge all the ramifications of our actions, we can only choose whatever appears the best option at the time. Why should that mean you shouldn't try? Kant's categorical imperative is an example of the sort of logic you can use to this end.



I am positing that if freedom to make your own decisions was the only moral imperative, then any supreme being telling you what to do will limit your choices, whether through respect or fear of retribution. If good and evil are irrelevant to god, but free will is not, then non-interference would best serve this end.



I disagree. You are assuming I am talking in terms of God who has interfered in the past and now doesn't, having told us what we should be doing in the bible. Firstly, I don't take the bible's contents as a reliable source of how people and god interact, secondly the god I am positing would have never had interaction with the world, meaning that any religious text is man-made and not from god.

This sort of god is essentially irrelevant to us, but he is not indifferent.

I've got to walk the dog and go to the gym so I haven't got time to respond to your post just now. I'll see if I can log in tomorrow.

I've got to walk the dog and go to the gym so I haven't got time to respond to your post just now. I'll see if I can log in tomorrow.

Cool, I have to eat a curry and get drunk, so that works for me ;)

Hmmm, I just realised you are probably going to live a lot longer than I am!

I chose Christian examples because I know you're a Christian. No exclusivity is implied (in my first post about divine silence in the face of inhumanity I used the Taliban's treatment of women as one of my two examples).

Ah okie doke.


The specific argument I'm making is specifically that of silence relating to atrocities which are carried out in God's name. I'm not suggesting that, assuming Christianity to be true, we should expect intervention to actively prevent, for example, the Crusades as this would interfere with free will, but the fact that a Crusader could genuinely believe they were doing God's will by murdering innocents seems perverse.


I agree that it's perverse, to be sure.


It isn't enough to give people a set of writings and expect them to figure out from that exactly what God would want them to do in any given situation, especially when the texts contradict one another and can be hard to interpret. If there was a personal God I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to tell his followers directly when they've got the wrong end of the stick and are about to do harm (by treating Afghan women as second-class citizens for example). They would have the free will to carry on as before if they wanted, but they'd be able to make an informed decision.

You are absolutely correct.

But the thing is, God doesn't generally do the bolt of lightning thunder from the heavens approach. He speaks to people through their conscience, sometimes through others, and yes, sometimes he sends them visions.

The problem is that people don't always listen. I know it seems ridiculous to think that someone could receive a direct message from the Almighty and ignore it but it happens all the time.

There is no doubt in my mind that every single atrocity committed during the Crusades, or any war for that matter, on both sides, happened as a result of someone rationalizing their way through a crisis of conscience. It's not even hard to imagine someone going to their spiritual leader (who was instigating the atrocities) to ask if indeed they were hearing God's voice and that they shouldn't do these things only to be punished, perhaps told they were possessed or something... a heretic, maybe...

People can hear God speak to them IF they're open to it and IF they listen, and the circumstances around those examples all strike me as times and places where human corruption drowned it out.

People can hear God speak to them IF they're open to it and IF they listen, and the circumstances around those examples all strike me as times and places where human corruption drowned it out.

Surprise surprise, I take issue with the implication that atheists are just stubborn close-minded fools, and that's why we never hear God. :tongue:

I know that I was open to it and I listened. In fact, I expected that God would speak to me, and at one point assumed there must be something wrong with me if God wasn't speaking to me like he (supposedly) was to other Christians.

But God never spoke to me. Not once. Now, you can think that I was as close-minded to it as you want, but I assure you that you're incorrect about that.

Surprise surprise, I take issue with the implication that atheists are just stubborn close-minded fools, and that's why we never hear God. :tongue:

I know that I was open to it and I listened. In fact, I expected that God would speak to me, and at one point assumed there must be something wrong with me if God wasn't speaking to me like he (supposedly) was to other Christians.

But God never spoke to me. Not once. Now, you can think that I was as close-minded to it as you want, but I assure you that you're incorrect about that.

God replies on His own timetable, not ours. Keep your ears open :)

God replies on His own timetable, not ours. Keep your ears open :)

Christ, I fell patronised!

(And I mean that as both an exclamation and as someone hoping to get God to speak to him by starting the conversation)

But the thing is, God doesn't generally do the bolt of lightning thunder from the heavens approach.


Then you're worshipping the wrong God.

I've read my scripture very carefully, and that's EXACTLY how God approaches it.


He speaks to people through their conscience, sometimes through others, and yes, sometimes he sends them visions.


Cop out. The recorded version of miraculous communication just isn't happening, so you claim a form of deitic telepathy.


The problem is that people don't always listen. I know it seems ridiculous to think that someone could receive a direct message from the Almighty and ignore it but it happens all the time.


You're right, it seems ridiculous.

But, you can claim it, because you know there's no way anyone can contradict it.


People can hear God speak to them IF they're open to it and IF they listen.

That's not the God I read about - the God I read about doesn't have to be invited in and given tea and cookies. If he knocks and you're not paying attention, he gets medieval on your ass.

That's how God talks to you. I've read it in his own words. If you're not getting THAT communication, it's probably the voice of satan that you're hearing.

Then you're worshipping the wrong God.

I've read my scripture very carefully, and that's EXACTLY how God approaches it.



Cop out. The recorded version of miraculous communication just isn't happening, so you claim a form of deitic telepathy.



You're right, it seems ridiculous.

But, you can claim it, because you know there's no way anyone can contradict it.



That's not the God I read about - the God I read about doesn't have to be invited in and given tea and cookies. If he knocks and you're not paying attention, he gets medieval on your ass.
I know it works for me. :)

But do you get tea and cookies that way?

God simply walks into Mordor.

God simply walks into Mordor.

God is an angst-ridden hobbit obsessed with his ring?


Makes sense.:hail:

Right, so Religion causes violence, while atheism is full of peace-lovers who want to create a golden age of humanism. Lets just ignore the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, and North Korea.

French revolution was caused by peasants pissed off at the king and his absolute power.

Communist revolution was caused by oeasants pissed off at the tsar and his absolute power.

Cultural revolution was caused by Mao Zedong feeling he didn't have a firm enough grip on china.

North Korea (and eastern germany) were caused by the US and USSR having incompatible philosophies.

Do YOU exist?http://www.omglists.com/global/radar/blog_images/40513-4.jpg
The world may never know.

Anyone who says they know for sure either way is lying or crazy.

If he does, it's not in any form we would recognize.

Yes, because the Bible says so. The Bible also says bats are birds.

Anyone who says they know for sure either way is lying or crazy.

Or knows something you don't ;)

Yes, because the Bible says so. The Bible also says bats are birds.

Perhaps, by this logic, we should look towards Satan to really know God?
He was, after all, his favourite at one point, and thus close enough in form of conscience to be relatively indistinguishable in function.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Right dude I haven't heard this amount of BS for awhile, I can't be a theist because I have read Charles Darwin's most influential book and believe in what he wrote and nor do I follow Conservapedia (I always thought it was written as a joke)
:rolleyes: Yes a third time that is the most I have ever done.

Of course your assumption that all Conservatives believe in God is about as ridiculous as the rest of your little banter.

It was a joke? It was meant to be amusing, and not to be taken seriously...I never meant to imply that all Conservatives believe in a god.

My apologies.

It was a joke? It was meant to be amusing, and not to be taken seriously...That there's the caveat, though - people just can't seem to tie humour with absurdity where it sorely merits it most.
Especially if there's legos involved.

well God dose exist but you cant see Him

well God dose exist but you cant see Him
Get thee gone, foul necromancer!

Get thee gone, foul necromancer!

loflcopter u haz weit majiks.

I think my god exists (that's god without the capital "G"), but I don't care if anyone else does, and naturally, no one knows for sure.

Why are we having this silly argument again?