Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[SnakeLord]

That is a cop-out, you know it, and I know it.
You have no reason for your dogmatic attitutude other than and emotional dislike to God or the concept of God. Period.

Lol, are you on crack? You made the daftest of assertions that a flower is evidence of the existence of a god or two. I explained to you that it is no more evidence of a gods existence than spaghetti is evidence of the fsm's existence. You know exactly why that is the case but seemingly get enjoyment talking nonsense. You even then come up with the statement that I must hate gods because flowers are not evidence of their existence. That's the most idiotic childish crap I've heard in a while. However, I'm willing to overlook it.

Here's the question again: Do you consider spaghetti evidence to the existence of the fsm? If not, why not? (Apparently it must be because you hate spaghetti monsters rofl).

*yawn*

Oh come now jan, you asked me what the difference is between gods. To answer the question I would need to know what gods you're talking about, now wouldn't I? Duh.

A world where everything has the characteristics of to some degree or other of the said spagetti monster?

You mean like... mops, shoe laces, octopus legs etc that have some characteristic to some degree of the flying spaghetti monster? I don't get it.

What are the characteristics of whichever of the hundreds of thousands of gods you believe in and where are such characteristics found?

Needless to say, doesn't your "evidence" require that one already seemingly have full knowledge of this entity thus rendering the need for that evidence moot?

As for me I am as of yet unsure exactly what kind of evidence would convince me, but again that will vary from god to god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

audible,

A being who sustains itself only by killing, sometimes in extremely cruel ways to completely harmless sentient beings is an imperfection that calls for a explanation.

What do you mean by "sustains itself only by killing"?
Do you understand what the point of religion is (scriptoral based).

A world free of such evil, one that does not involve having the kinds of beings that are obliged to kill for survival, this is the sort of world a loving creator would create.
don't you think.
see above answer.

From my understanding, there are worlds like that, but its not this one of them.
I understand your sentiment, and maybe the point of this evil is natures way of saying "wake the f--k up this is not your home". You can't stay here.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do atheists give their children exposure to theism?

Offer them the choice to believe in God?

Any athiests with theist children here?

In todays climate, I doubt it.
Dawkins couldn't even bring himself to acknowledge Francis Collins as a true scientist. Secular humanism is the new institutionalised religion of the day, an they do not accept any notion of God, and I would add to that, regardless of whether God is true or not (from their perspective).

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Lol, are you on crack? You made the daftest of assertions that a flower is evidence of the existence of a god or two.

I asserted nothing of the sort, I merely asked why a flower is not evidence of God, a point, you made.

I explained to you that it is no more evidence of a gods existence than spaghetti is evidence of the fsm's existence.

That is not an answer, but an attempt to dodge a sticky situation.
Just answer the question; why do you claim that a flower is not evidence of God. Or to put it another way, what evidence do you have to make such a bold claim.

You know exactly why that is the case but seemingly get enjoyment talking nonsense. You even then come up with the statement that I must hate gods because flowers are not evidence of their existence. That's the most idiotic childish crap I've heard in a while. However, I'm willing to overlook it.

That's interesting. Maybe you can show us where I made such a statement.
It's very sad when people feel the need to resort to making stuff up, to give value to their own lack of reason.

Here's the question again: Do you consider spaghetti evidence to the existence of the fsm? If not, why not? (Apparently it must be because you hate spaghetti monsters rofl).

It is a nonsense question designed to divert attention away from answering serious questions, which ultimately, will reveal your true position. Which is one of misplaced emotion, IMHO.

Oh come now jan, you asked me what the difference is between gods. To answer the question I would need to know what gods you're talking about, now wouldn't I? Duh.

The one whom it is claimed in every scripture, that is the cause of everything.
Now can you answer?
Or are you going to evade the question with further nonsense?
In what way is God different in the scriptures, to the point where we can say these are different beings (fictional or not)?

You mean like... mops, shoe laces, octopus legs etc that have some characteristic to some degree of the flying spaghetti monster? I don't get it.

That's my point, neither do I.

What are the characteristics of whichever of the hundreds of thousands of gods you believe in and where are such characteristics found?

*yawn*
What! More nonsense?
Enough with the cop-out already.
Answer the question, or not. Its up to you. But please refrain from these nonsensical replies.

Needless to say, doesn't your "evidence" require that one already seemingly have full knowledge of this entity thus rendering the need for that evidence moot?

I don't know what you're talking about. Is this the same category question as the FSM ones?

As for me I am as of yet unsure exactly what kind of evidence would convince me, but again that will vary from god to god.

If you have NO idea what would constitue as evidence, how do you know it would vary?
Or do you prefer to be in that position because ensures (in your own mind) that you never have to believe in God?

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

I asserted nothing of the sort, I merely asked why a flower is not evidence of God

That certainly seemed to be the indication but, as it apparently isn't and you recognise that a 'flower' is not evidence of the existence of any god entity I can only wonder why you're even asking me. Just ask yourself. :bugeye:

So please, clarify the issue. Would you contend that a flower is evidence for the existence of a god? If yes, then your "I merely asked" is quite meaningless. If no, why waste my time when the answer should be apparent even to you?

That is not an answer, but an attempt to dodge a sticky situation.

Actually it is an answer. Nor is this a 'sticky situation' as much as it is a stupid one. What exactly in that flower constitutes as 'evidence' for any beings and how? Hmm?

Just answer the question; why do you claim that a flower is not evidence of God.

Because it isn't. Your question and any claim that it is are simply nonsensical. That is the problem.

That's interesting. Maybe you can show us where I made such a statement.

- You have no reason for your dogmatic attitutude other than and emotional dislike to God or the concept of God. Period.

So, according to you, my attitude that flowers are not evidence of gods, (that's what we were talking about), is because I dislike gods. Lol. It's stupidity.

It is a nonsense question

You're right. Now you're learning. I've been telling you that for a couple of posts now.

In what way is God different in the scriptures, to the point where we can say these are different beings (fictional or not)?

What constitutes a different being in your little world? Different gods vary in every way imaginable - they look different, act different, created things in different ways, deal with different aspects of existence, (underworld gods, sea gods etc), some are omnipotent - some are not, some are omniscient - some are not, some are omnipresent, some are not. So on and so forth.

If you have NO idea what would constitue as evidence, how do you know it would vary?

I said I was unsure, I didn't say I had no idea - there's a difference. I can think of many different things that might be acceptable - if a person prayed to a specific god and grew their leg back straight away, if a god came down to visit me for a chat etc etc. It's all a matter of how convincing it is.

Or do you prefer to be in that position because ensures (in your own mind) that you never have to believe in God?

Lol seriously. Look, I frankly don't care if a god exists or not. I'll "believe" in whatever you want me to if you can provide evidence for it, be it leprechauns, mermaids or gods. Stop being silly.

 

[audible]

audible,
What do you mean by "sustains itself only by killing"?
Do you understand what the point of religion is (scriptural based).

exactly the point of the sentence, read your bible, and perhaps learn about biblegod.
doesn't that creature lust over torture, and death, burnt offerings etc...(sustains itself only by killing)

From my understanding, there are worlds like that,

is there, where.

but its not this one of them.
I understand your sentiment, and maybe the point of this evil is natures way of saying "wake the f--k up this is not your home". You can't stay here.Jan.

I don't know about natures way, nature is inanimate, but it's quite normal for the biblegod, well according to the said bible it is.

 

[KennyJC]

I accept nature, as evidence of God, and the fate of that creature is in accordance with nature. I hope that answers your question.
Now,I would like you to answer my questions.
Thanks in advance.

Jan.

Ok... so when you claimed that flowers where evidence for god, it's no different to say the same thing about a smelly rectum?

Don't make me sing the Monty Python version of All Things Bright and Beautiful to you!

 

[KennyJC]

You mean like... mops, shoe laces, octopus legs etc that have some characteristic to some degree of the flying spaghetti monster? I don't get it.

What are the characteristics of whichever of the hundreds of thousands of gods you believe in and where are such characteristics found?

That's all the proof I need.

 

[KennyJC]

In todays climate, I doubt it.
Secular humanism is the new institutionalised religion of the day, an they do not accept any notion of God, and I would add to that, regardless of whether God is true or not (from their perspective).

Jan.

You are right about one thing, I would still be atheist even if god did actually exist. But can you blame me? The odds are firmly in my favor.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That's all the proof I need.

Me too, this spaghettimonster (may red sauce be upon him) is the true lord!

 

[superluminal]

"The desperate cries of help to an imaginary father figure show just how far we have yet to go in overcoming some of our basest and most self destructive behaviors. It is sad and pathetic that so many find so little of wonder in what the human intellect has discovered about the reality of the cosmos and our deep connection to it. Sad and frightening."

 

[Balerion]

To the original question...some 24 pages ago...

I have no children, but I would not stand in their way of finding religion. I wouldn't see it as my place to dictate to them what belief system they follow, except for the basic concept of what is right and wrong--something that does not require a god to understand, by the way.

I would hope that my kid (or kids) had a grasp on morality, had an understanding of their place in this world. If that led them to Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, then so be it. But I would not support those beliefs, because they would require my offspring to be devoid of the ability to reason, which is something else I would hope to have instilled in him or her during his or her formative years. If my child found a comfort in spiritualism, whatever the denomination, fine. I would prefer something a little more enigmatic than an organized religion, because, well, the idea of that is much easier to swallow.

I mean, it would put me more at ease to know that my child came to their spiritualism through a desire for some sort of inner peace, which was brought about by a yearning for it, rather than the total shutoff of the human brain, which is what belief in organized religion requires.

So yes, I would let my kid freely choose whatever spiritual path in life he or she wants, but I'd make damn sure they knew the truth before they went out and got themselves duped into blindly believing something--which is exactly what every single believer in the world does. Each and every one of them. There are no exceptions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Just answer the question; why do you claim that a flower is not evidence of God.

Because it isn't.

Phew!
That was hard work, but I finally got an answer, and it is nothing more or less than I expected.
Now, was that so hard?

- You have no reason for your dogmatic attitutude other than and emotional dislike to God or the concept of God. Period.

So, according to you, my attitude that flowers are not evidence of gods, (that's what we were talking about), is because I dislike gods. Lol. It's stupidity.

This subject is over, you have given me your answer.

What constitutes a different being in your little world? Different gods vary in every way imaginable - they look different, act different, created things in different ways, deal with different aspects of existence, (underworld gods, sea gods etc), some are omnipotent - some are not, some are omniscient - some are not, some are omnipresent, some are not. So on and so forth.

Question dodging again?
Never mind, I've got what I wanted.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are right about one thing, I would still be atheist even if god did actually exist. But can you blame me? The odds are firmly in my favor.

Do as you see fit.
Why are the odds firmly in your favour?

Jan.

 

[Balerion]

Jan,

Care to explain how a flower is evidence of God?

 

[phlogistician]

Jan,

Care to explain how a flower is evidence of God?

Because she imagines God sitting on his little fluffy cloud attaching all the petals and the image makes her feel all warm and fuzzy and loved.

 

[SnakeLord]

Phew!
That was hard work, but I finally got an answer, and it is nothing more or less than I expected.

Once again there is absolutely no point in going into a long answer because you already know, (unless you do think a flower is evidence of a god, but you've changed tactic and implied otherwise now).

Question dodging again?

If you scroll back you'll see I answered the questions you asked although did ask for further information in certain areas. If you scroll back you'll find you didn't answer my questions.

Further to that you made the accusation that I was making things up and asked me to show you where you had made such a statement. I did exactly that but instead of an apology you just avoided the whole thing. I also showed you the difference between gods as requested - you just ignored it. And, once more just to make the point: You didn't answer what I asked of you. Hmm..

 

[greenberg]

Why would you think that God has only I type of character?

You mean why I think God has only one type of character?

If God would be anything - from wrathful killer to passive bystander - then what is the point of believing in such a God, worshipping such a God? I see no point in that. One might as well worship then "the way things are".

Theistic scriptures strike me as too versatile to be all about the same God.

What do you mean?

The way they describe what they call God - sometimes described as a father, sometimes as a wrathful avenger; sometimes described as a person, other times as an ever-present spirit; sometimes as loving, sometimes as hateful, sometimes as indifferent; sometimes it is said that all a person needs to do to know God is to wish to do so, other times it is said that God initiates contact and chooses the elect who will know him; sometimes God is described as condemning people to eternal hellfire, sometimes as giving them eternal heaven, other times as leaving it all up to karma.
This is what I mean by versatility.

Surely this can't be all true for the same entity, some of it is mutually exclusive.
While a person might display a wide range of behaviors, from killing in wrath to loving, and this might be true of God as well; it is the issues about eternity, judgment and condemnation that make me wonder whether all scriptures really speak about the same God.

Does Krishna condemn people to eternal hellfire? Jehovah is said to do it.
Are Krishna and Jehovah two aspects of the same God?

Perhaps I still believe too much in Jehovah (not that I like believing in Jehovah) to seriously open myself to other possibilities and view issues of condemnation and eternity in a different light. I resent the idea that God should have made me just to throw me into eternal hellfire if I don't blindly believe what some people -like many Christians- tell me.

But I would not assume myself competent to judge which scriptures or which passages truly speak about God, and which do not.

You create a problem, then you judge your position by what you create. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Are you pretending to be humble?.

I didn't create the problem. The problem I am referring to has centuries of tradition in human history; I merely picked it up while I was growing up in this society. I don't know whether to take this problem seriously or not; given the potential consequences, I should - but they are also just that: potential consequences, not certainties.

Better to err on the side of caution.

You mean sit on the fence?

This is rude of you.

But alas, any endeavor that, in order to be accomplished, depends on the goodwill and compassion of other people, is doomed to uncertainty.
So I won't depend on your goodwill and compassion anymore.

 

[KennyJC]

Do as you see fit.
Why are the odds firmly in your favour?

Jan.

When claiming the existence for something that has never before been heard, seen or detected by any means whatsoever (ie. from our imagination), the skeptic will always have a near 100% chance of being correct.

 

[Jan Ardena]

audible,

...doesn't that creature lust over torture, and death, burnt offerings etc...(sustains itself only by killing)

Such as.

is there, where.

All over the universe, for a start.
The way I see it, if you're going to talk about religion, then you must look at all aspects of religion.

I don't know about natures way, nature is inanimate, but it's quite normal for the biblegod, well according to the said bible it is.

So you don't see animation as natural. Very interesting.
What do you see it as then?

Jan.