Hard to believe?

[Fraggle Rocker]

How about the billions of people living in China and India that have never been informed about you "god"? Since they never heard of it then are they condemned somehow in your view?

You don't seem to know much about the world. The Hindus believe in God just as much as the Abrahamists (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baha'i and Rastafarians) do. Westerners are misled by their myriad images, but these are just God seen from different perspectives under different conditions. Ask any Hindu and she'll assure you that there is only one god and everyone (except us atheists) believe in him. He's just too big to capture in a single visual image.

For the atheist there is no soul and physical dangers present real issues for survival. If atheists ruled the world it would seem unlikely there would ever be wars - life is simply too precious and priceless to risk.

What makes you think that anger or genuine injustice can't provoke us into irrational behavior as easily as the theists?

Not all wars are fought over conflicting fairytales about gods and angels and leprechauns and the rest of the preposterous supernatural beliefs. Some of them are fought over economics, social injustice, and plain old ethnic hatred.

The objective of Christianity is to achieve eternal life and that is only possible through a belief in Jesus as a savior. That is the reward for obeying the rules of Christianity. But what if you do not obey, what then? Does God punish? It would seem that is not the case, he remains simply absent and takes no role in protecting your immortality. We can argue that that is punishment by omission. The argument that God can do no harm then becomes somewhat lukewarm.

We have some friends who are devout Christians, but they insist that we are more "Christian" than they are because somehow we manage to obey the Commandments better than they do. (Probably because life is easy when you don't have children so you have the energy and other resources to be kind to people. And obviously that doesn't include the commandments about honoring God. ) They asked their preacher if they would meet us in heaven and he assured them that they would not.

They thought that was outrageous and started going to another church.

Reminds me of Will Rogers's famous line, "If dogs don't go to heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."

 

[Cris]

Frag...,

What makes you think that anger or genuine injustice can't provoke us into irrational behavior as easily as the theists?

Not all wars are fought over conflicting fairytales about gods and angels and leprechauns and the rest of the preposterous supernatural beliefs. Some of them are fought over economics, social injustice, and plain old ethnic hatred.

I agree, but my perspective is one of attitudes towards life, whatever the dispute. If you consider your life to be all you have then you will be less likely to risk it in ANY type of dispute. It would act as a slowing action towards seeking life threatening confrontation. But when you feel you have a safety net in the form of a protecting god or other afterlife concept then you will tend to be less inhibited by your own potential physical death. All the time you believe, even if halfheartedly, that you have an immortal soul and that death is not the end then physical life becomes instantly of less value. So many disputes include "for God and Country", or God will protect me, etc. Even Nazi soldiers in WW2 had "God With Us" ("Gott Mit Uns") on their belt buckles. And WW2 was essentially a massive land grab and not overtly religiously inspired, yet there were massive religious undertones on both sides. Would all those soldiers have been so prepared to die had the soul concept not been so prevalent?

The downside is in disputes where you believe you are invulnerable and have the power to prevail easily, then you might choose to kill to prevent a potential threat to your longer term physical survival, e.g. ethnic cleansing. The spiritual perspective might prevent that due to a perceived threat of risking eternal punishment, e.g. hell concepts.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If you consider your life to be all you have then you will be less likely to risk it in ANY type of dispute. It would act as a slowing action towards seeking life threatening confrontation.

Political leaders get to be political leaders by the power of their rhetoric. They convince us that our way of life is endangered by the soldiers of the other country. Perhaps even our very existence is at stake! The Americans' treatment of our native peoples, the Germans' treatment of the Jews, and other only-slightly-less horrifying genocides show that this cannot always be casually dismissed as hyperbole.

Who would not risk his life for his children's future? The percentage of a population who would risk their lives to maintain merely their way of life for their children is less than 100%, but it's still high enough to put together an army.

I suppose Heaven is a comforting promise, but even without it most of us want those who come after us to have lives that we see as safe, free and fulfilling.

People run into burning houses, dive into floods, and step in front of hungry carnivores every day in the hope of saving the life of one child. Of course we're not the only species whose brains are programmed this way by evolution, but its one of the many traits that makes us so strong as a species.

As you point out, belief in a fictitious supernatural power might actually work against peace. Do you think all of those lunatics in the Middle East would be quite so ready to blow themselves up if it weren't for the promise of the 72 virgins?

 

[gmilam]

Never understood the appeal of 72 virgins... I'd rather have one woman who knows what she's doing.

 

[Yazata]

I take it that you do know God?

I don't think that Waiter_2001 was suggesting that.

The implication is that knowledge of god is a tragedy, and that only the journey of ascending is of value.

Right, that's how I read it.

But once acscedence is completed then what? According to your reasoning the only thing left is down.

I think that's why Waiter_2001's post started off by suggesting that's why we are born into a "Godless world".

It would seem that the way up is ultimately a waste.

At least it's a way up, and that's something.

I guess that one conclusion that might be drawn from this is that religion can sometimes be thought of as a path that extends indefinitely off into the distance, rather than as some destination that people reach and then stop. The value might be more in getting up and walking the path than in finally arriving somewhere.

The best course here appears to remain atheist and not bother with the yoyo journey up and down.

If 'God' is symbolic of perfection, then the 'path to God' might be symbolic of making things better than they currently are.

 

[Enmos]

I don't think that Waiter_2001 was suggesting that.

I don't know either. So I'm asking him.

 

[Cris]

Frag...,

Quote from nativeweb.org - When Christopher Columbus first set foot on the white sands of Guanahani island, he performed a ceremony to "take possession" of the land for the king and queen of Spain, acting under the international laws of Western Christendom. Although the story of Columbus' "discovery" has taken on mythological proportions in most of the Western world, few people are aware that his act of "possession" was based on a religious doctrine now known in history as the Doctrine of Discovery. Even fewer people realize that today - five centuries later - the United States government still uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.

And of course Hitler justified the extermination of the Jews also on religious grounds.

But I agree that throughout history, leaders, political, kings, dictators, etc, all use varying degrees of propaganda to achieve their aims, and all will atempt to claim "right" is on their side. In the distant past Kings would depend on having the most powerful god on their side. And that certainly most seem to justify their position as self defense and even attacking first is the best form of defense.

And thoughout all of known history with endless conflicts the soul concept has been present - that ever present feeling that this cannot be all there is to life, there must be something more.

So while your examples of bravery and altruism are quite true, there remains the problem that there has never been a mass atheistic position on both sides of a conflict large enough to say - hang on - wait up - a lot of us are likely to become non-existent if we fight each other - perhaps there is a better way?

Curent stats suggest that some 85+% of the world population believe in some form of soul concept. Or in other words most people everywhere believe they have some form of safety net and that in effect causes a widespread devaluation of physical life.

Every major dispute appears to revolve around a charismatic leader who convinces masses of people to fight and kill for a particular cause. And some of these leaders were clearly evil, but without a mass belief that physical life is final and priceless, then people will be prepared to let themselves be killed willingly. I am reminded of the song - Universal Soldier - by Buffy Sainte-Marie - without soldiers willing to die there would be no war and leaders would have no power to wage war.

And the phrase - there are no atheists in foxholes, reminds us that many see a refusal to fight as cowardly. I'd say that if everyone truly valued physical life as our only life, then it would not be that you won't find atheists in foxholes but there simply wouldn't be any foxholes.

When life is truly seen as valuable and priceless then the risks of losing it will force a sea change in mortal conflicts. But for now and for the past several thousands of years there remains and has been that underlying belief of some type of spiritual afterlife and that in turn devalues life sufficiently to allow widespread conflict. And that is where religions present the greatest evil mankind has ever had to face. If there was a devil then the invention of religion would be his first best creation.

 

[Cris]

Frag...,

As you point out, belief in a fictitious supernatural power might actually work against peace. Do you think all of those lunatics in the Middle East would be quite so ready to blow themselves up if it weren't for the promise of the 72 virgins?

Haha - for sure. But the fear of eternal punishment is quite powerful as a way to prevent conflict, and the history of Christianity seems to show that this aspect of fire and brimstone was preached far more over the past 2000 years than the more recent, love thy neighbor aspect.

The problem of course is that while the reluctance to kill is a good thing I'm not sure that it is sustainable based on fear of punishment. I guess doing the right thing for the wrong reason has the same end result. It would be better to not kill simply because it is the right thing to do rather than resist out of a threat of punishment. The latter seems to be where religion imposes a morally questionable attitude.

 

[Cris]

Yazata,

I guess that one conclusion that might be drawn from this is that religion can sometimes be thought of as a path that extends indefinitely off into the distance, rather than as some destination that people reach and then stop. The value might be more in getting up and walking the path than in finally arriving somewhere.

If it is an infinite path upwards then of course the OP fails with the proposal that down is the only remaining path since the top can never be achieved, and hence upwards will always be possible.

The OP also has a problem with descending being evil. It seems to me that the process of trying to understand or striving to know something is simply a gathering process. It doesn't follow that if you do not know something then you are evil. The absence of knowledge is simply ignorance, and doesn't imply any other traits.

Perhaps the reason for atheism is because we are all born into a "Godless world." We are not born in the presence of God, but to know God is something to ascend to!

Atheism, or in this case, the absence of god belief, is the default starting position, since at the start nothing is known, that is why it exists. Each person then follows his/her own path depending on their intellectual and emotional abilities to think and analyze. The path to a god is simply a choice to consider imaginative speculation as truth, while to remain as atheist suggests a path of skeptism towards topics that have no justification.

There is no ascension in either case, just different approaches to what each perceives as approaches to truth and knowledge.

If 'God' is symbolic of perfection, then the 'path to God' might be symbolic of making things better than they currently are.

I'd question the "if" part. I suggest that the god concept is simply symbolic of the illusion that perfection is definable and achievable.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

To Bells, Balerion, Cris: You guys are hilarious. I mean, I knew Balerion was playing with me and the OP from the start, and is just picking a senseless fight without really listening to anyone in his usual fashion, but can you all really believe the things you say? It’s like some sort of self-mocking ironic, post-modern Eastern European street theatre you’ve got going?

To Balerion: It’s as if I were to go on the math subforum and spout off whatever nonsense and elementary school class clown questions I felt like. You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? :bravo:

Just saw that another noobie (Waiter_2001) had the audacity to post something spiritual on this websites ‘for pretend’ religious forum, and decided to have at him as SciForums roaming marauders for atheism always do, am I right?

To Bells: So much for your ‘civilized’ discussion on how best to handle the Religion sub-forum… :runaway:

To Balerion: Have you ever read your own posts once you’ve typed them? Try it some time, just for laughs.

Here’s the funniest bit:

Waiter_2001 (OP): Perhaps the reason for atheism is because we are all born into a "Godless world." We are not born in the presence of God, but to know God is something to ascend to! *sings* "The only way is up!" Should we be born knowing God then that surely would be a tragedy since then we could only descend, and everyone would be evil.

Arne: What I think the OP means is that God is pure goodness.

Balerion:What would ever make him think that?

To Chris: I apologize for including you in this fellowship of fools, I have no quarrel with you, and I understand you are no troll, or certainly not a self-righteous moderator, but man you crack me up!

The implication is that knowledge of god is a tragedy, and that only the journey of ascending is of value. But once acscedence is completed then what? According to your reasoning the only thing left is down. It would seem that the way up is ultimately a waste. The best course here appears to remain atheist and not bother with the yoyo journey up and down.

Similar to Bells' remark:

If bad things happen anyway, what's the point of repenting?

Are you two serious? Do you go on the physics sub-forum and say that you don't think a capital E can really be equal to a square Big Mac (E=mc 2)? That's how you all sound to me! There aren’t enough hours in a day to explain Christian theology to you guys, especially since in B&B’s cases, I already know they have no interest in learning anything and their minds are made up.

Really, why do you spend so much time on the religion forum if you are such dead-set atheists? What is it you are trying to prove? I really wish I had the time, energy and expertise to deal with your spiritual angst. You really ought to go see a priest or a pastor to settle your anti-religion issues. I think it’s a deeper-seated problem than you know.

Here are some more of your remarks: (I have foregone names to protect the asinine.)

You just said that war and disasters are a natural consequence of sin. Yet you don't think that a disease can be the result of individual sin? Isn't that a contradiction? Or are you just being picky?

LOL, like you even read what I just said!

How can you say God is purely good when you don't know his motives?

God's "motives"? Who do you think you're dealing with, a river boat gambler? (I'm picturing Jesus in a ten-gallon hat, string tie and a cigar in His mouth)

Setting aside for a moment the hugely ridiculous assertion that wars and natural disasters are a consequence of sin (let me guess: it's the gays, isn't it?) you need to be reminded, apparently, that as the creator of existence, God set the "karmic" parameters, and necessarily devised the negative outcomes.

He guesses it's the gays! Priceless bit of troll-bait, that! Who ever said anything in this thread about "the gays"? He brought it up all by himself.

That God has caused many physical deaths and allowed natural disasters to kill many more, is really irrelevant when immortal souls simply continue afterwards unaffected.
For the atheist there is no soul and physical dangers present real issues for survival. If atheists ruled the world it would seem unlikely there would ever be wars - life is simply too precious and priceless to risk. In a spiritual model physical life has little value and where if killed in war it is of little consequence since true life exists only in spiritual form.

Whoever said this ought to be writing for the new politically correct Family Circus. I love it!

 

[Balerion]

Well, at least we know there's no reason to take Arne seriously.

One more troll to the ignore list.

 

[Bells]

To Bells: So much for your ‘civilized’ discussion on how best to handle the Religion sub-forum… :runaway:

I did not realise I could not question your posts or contradictions in your posts.. How is that uncivilised?

Are you two serious? Do you go on the physics sub-forum and say that you don't think a capital E can really be equal to a square Big Mac (E=mc 2)? That's how you all sound to me! There aren’t enough hours in a day to explain Christian theology to you guys, especially since in B&B’s cases, I already know they have no interest in learning anything and their minds are made up.[/FONT][/B]

Well you said that bad things are going to happen regardless, after telling people they needed to repent because of natural disaster's and the like. So if bad things are going to happen anyway, since life is inevitable and natural disaster's and disease are just facts of life, what good is repenting since it can't protect you from any of it as you seem to claim it would (in cases of natural disasters which you equated as being connected to sin)?

Really, why do you spend so much time on the religion forum if you are such dead-set atheists? What is it you are trying to prove? I really wish I had the time, energy and expertise to deal with your spiritual angst. You really ought to go see a priest or a pastor to settle your anti-religion issues. I think it’s a deeper-seated problem than you know.

I could ask you the same question. What are you trying to prove? You already know God exists. You already apparently know that sin is connected to natural disasters and that disease is just a fact of life... Sooooo, what do you wish to prove?

LOL, like you even read what I just said!

Yes I did. Would you like me to post them again for you?

By not adhering to goodness we have made our own bed and have had to sleep in it, so to speak. War and disaster and whatever are the natural consequences of sin. Think of it as karmic law, if that helps. God wisely allows us to make mistakes in order that we may learn.

I think it is very ignorant when people say things like so and so got cancer as a punishment from God for his sins. What nonsense! It's like saying 'pure goodness caused his cancer'. How can such a thing be? Poor diet, life in a capitalistically run, polluted environment, genetic inheritance may cause cancer, but it's a pretty complicated soup, is it not? No human being knows the why and how of our existence.

I have had a cold this past week that I got from being caught in the rain a short time. My resistance to disease was lowered because I became cold and wet, and perhaps I haven't been eating right. Cold virus germs , which need to make a living too, saw an opportunity... I don't like it,, but there you go. While, I have surely sinned recently, as well as not so recently, I don't think my cold is a punishment from God. The universe is more complex than that.

Emphasis mine.

War and natural disasters are a consequence of sin, but diseases like cancer is not.

Isn't that a contradiction?

Does that also mean that if you were hit with war or a cyclone, it would be because you sinned recently?

Your font makes it nearly impossible to read your posts as the text is so small and thick.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

I did not realise I could not question your posts or contradictions in your posts.. How is that uncivilised?

No, I was referring to that attempt of yours and the other moderators' toward civility in the Religion Forum a couple weeks ago. I mean it hasn't come to much, if a new person like Waiter_2001 cannot make a simple, positive and religious statement without fear of reprisal.

Well you said that bad things are going to happen regardless, after telling people they needed to repent because of natural disaster's and the like. So if bad things are going to happen anyway, since life is inevitable and natural disaster's and disease are just facts of life, what good is repenting since it can't protect you from any of it as you seem to claim it would (in cases of natural disasters which you equated as being connected to sin)?

Partially, my bad. A paragraph or two later I write:"Much of the trouble in the world is man made." So, you see I was referring to man made troubles, like bad storms and flooding due to global warming, which is due to pollution, which is due to industrial carelessness and greed - that sort of thing. Nevertheless, bad things do occur just the same due to natural disasters.

'Repent' is a word I never used except in quotation of the Gospel. I dislike it, because I know the atheists react negatively to the term. I myself think in terms of being closer to God, which means doing one's best to follow His positive teachings. In old 'Bible speak' the concept comes out as 'repent'. I understand what is meant, but unfortunately the average SciForum scoffer does not. It puts them in mind of street preachers ranting in the park., and I understand that.

However, another misconception you all seem to have is that God is Santy Klaus. Many devout Christians also believe this. I know it does not satisfy any one to say the issue is more complicated than I, or anyone really, can explain. However, that is actually the case. Christian scholars, rabbis and, I suppose, Muslim clerics debate endlessly about why 'bad things happen to good people'. Do we really need to open that can of worms here and now?

I could ask you the same question. What are you trying to prove? You already know God exists. Sooooo, what do you wish to prove?

Me? Originally, I was only agreeing with the OP and trying to explain his post to all the people pretending to be too dense to understand. Apparently, I have to point out yet again that every time a sincere believer in any religion at all comes onto this Religion sub-forum he is hounded so mercilessly he never dares return - and this despite your stab at reform a short while back. Every poster with the exception of Fraggle, Yazata, me, and I guess we can count you, Bells, has challenged Waiter. You can say that it is what we do here, but that doesn't explain why the same small band of master baiters P) pile up immediately they see someone use the word 'God' in other than a sarcastic manner.

Is this a religion sub-forum or is it not? There is debate and there is bullying. I have only ever witnessed bullying.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Never understood the appeal of 72 virgins... I'd rather have one woman who knows what she's doing.

I thank the 72 virgin thang is myth;;; ive been told that its 1 virgin 72 years old :huh:

 

[Randwolf]

No, I was referring to that attempt of yours and the other moderators' toward civility in the Religion Forum a couple weeks ago. I mean it hasn't come to much, if a new person like Waiter_2001 cannot make a simple, positive and religious statement without fear of reprisal.

Reprisal? I submit that no one can make any statement without inviting reprisal, especially here on Sci. I mean that's why we're here right? As to whether Waiter fears reprisal or not may be a different story. Do you "fear" verbal comeback Arne?

Partially, my bad. A paragraph or two later I write:"Much of the trouble in the world is man made." So, you see I was referring to man made troubles, like bad storms and flooding due to global warming, which is due to pollution, which is due to industrial carelessness and greed - that sort of thing. Nevertheless, bad things do occur just the same due to natural disasters.

So, in summation, "bad" things happen because people do "bad" things and then on top of that sometimes "bad" things just happen naturally because God wills it so? How comforting...

'Repent' is a word I never used except in quotation of the Gospel. I dislike it, because I know the atheists react negatively to the term. I myself think in terms of being closer to God, which means doing one's best to follow His positive teachings. In old 'Bible speak' the concept comes out as 'repent'. I understand what is meant, but unfortunately the average SciForum scoffer does not. It puts them in mind of street preachers ranting in the park., and I understand that.

The average SciForum "scoffer" [read "Sci poster that disagrees with Arne] can not understand what is meant by "repent". What a lowly opinion you have of your neighbors. Allow me to return the favor:

re·pent
riˈpent
verb
feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin​

Now what's so hard about that? Oh, yes, that bothersome word "sin".

sin1
sin/
noun
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.​

Which leads us to "divine", which leads us back to Bells' point... I guess the average Sci "believer" (that's the antonym for scoffer in case you want to check) can not understand simple logic...

However, another misconception you all seem to have is that God is Santy Klaus.

Why would you think Bells or any other poster here conflates the two? Links please?

Many devout Christians also believe this.

Links please?

I know it does not satisfy any one to say the issue is more complicated than I, or anyone really, can explain. However, that is actually the case. Christian scholars, rabbis and, I suppose, Muslim clerics debate endlessly about why 'bad things happen to good people'.

Wow, something we can actually agree upon.

Do we really need to open that can of worms here and now?

Probably not, why are you doing so?

Me?

Oh, the "innocent me" approach...

Originally, I was only agreeing with the OP and trying to explain his post to all the people pretending to be too dense to understand.

Who, exactly, was "pretending to be too dense to understand"? Further, understand what precisely?

Apparently, I have to point out yet again that every time a sincere believer in any religion at all comes onto this Religion sub-forum he is hounded so mercilessly he never dares return

No, apparently, you don't. You choose to make an attempt to portray the believers as victims - in need of some sort of special exemption from reprisal on a forum more or less designed for just such interactions. You wear your agenda on your sleeve Arne.

Every poster with the exception of Fraggle, Yazata, me, and I guess we can count you, Bells, has challenged Waiter.

How dare they! The audacity...

You can say that it is what we do here...

I already did, several times, before I even got to this part of your post. Hmmm... Maybe, that's because "that it is what we do here"

...that doesn't explain why the same small band of master baiters P) pile up immediately they see someone use the word 'God' in other than a sarcastic manner.

I'm so sorry that the "true believers" seem outnumbered here on this Science Forum.

Is this a religion sub-forum or is it not?

Yes, quite obviously. That fact does not negate the rules and philosophy of the rest of the forum. This is not some sort of "safe harbor" for fundamentalists.

There is debate and there is bullying.

Yes - debate is where those support Arne against the infidels, bullying is where the members disagree with Arne. We get it....

I have only ever witnessed bullying.

What does that tell you?

 

[Bells]

No, I was referring to that attempt of yours and the other moderators' toward civility in the Religion Forum a couple weeks ago. I mean it hasn't come to much, if a new person like Waiter_2001 cannot make a simple, positive and religious statement without fear of reprisal.

Ermm.. I haven't said a word to Waiter. I was responding to your comments.

And from what I can see, everyone was perfectly polite to Waiter.

Partially, my bad. A paragraph or two later I write:"Much of the trouble in the world is man made." So, you see I was referring to man made troubles, like bad storms and flooding due to global warming, which is due to pollution, which is due to industrial carelessness and greed - that sort of thing. Nevertheless, bad things do occur just the same due to natural disasters.

Bad things happen regardless of whether you believe in God or not, correct?

Why did you say that disasters and wars happen because of sin?

'Repent' is a word I never used except in quotation of the Gospel. I dislike it, because I know the atheists react negatively to the term. I myself think in terms of being closer to God, which means doing one's best to follow His positive teachings. In old 'Bible speak' the concept comes out as 'repent'. I understand what is meant, but unfortunately the average SciForum scoffer does not. It puts them in mind of street preachers ranting in the park., and I understand that.

If natural disasters happen because of sin and some sort of godly karma and then you quoted scripture about repenting.. I'm pretty sure we aren't all so collectively stupid as you seem to believe we are.

However, another misconception you all seem to have is that God is Santy Klaus.

Made up and commercialised for shops to fleece people in December?

Many devout Christians also believe this.

No doubt, if the carpark at the local shopping malls are any indication.

I know it does not satisfy any one to say the issue is more complicated than I, or anyone really, can explain. However, that is actually the case. Christian scholars, rabbis and, I suppose, Muslim clerics debate endlessly about why 'bad things happen to good people'. Do we really need to open that can of worms here and now?

We could ask you the exact same question, since you were the one who brought up the belief that sin causes natural disasters. Which was why I asked if that was why tornadoes always happen to hit the most devout bible belt in the US..

Me? Originally, I was only agreeing with the OP and trying to explain his post to all the people pretending to be too dense to understand.

By making comments about sin and natural disasters, etc?

Apparently, I have to point out yet again that every time a sincere believer in any religion at all comes onto this Religion sub-forum he is hounded so mercilessly he never dares return - and this despite your stab at reform a short while back. Every poster with the exception of Fraggle, Yazata, me, and I guess we can count you, Bells, has challenged Waiter. You can say that it is what we do here, but that doesn't explain why the same small band of master baiters P) pile up immediately they see someone use the word 'God' in other than a sarcastic manner.

Contrary to what you may believe, this is a discussion forum and yes, people will respond to your posts and ask questions and clarification and give their opinion. No one has hounded Waiter. In fact, they were very polite and respectful in their responses to him.

The only person who has been insulting has been you, when you apparently deemed the people who post here too stupid to understand simple words or concepts and accused us of hounding him when we did nothing of the sort.

Is this a religion sub-forum or is it not? There is debate and there is bullying. I have only ever witnessed bullying.

Yes, it is the religion sub-forum. So why are you offended when people actually try to debate you on religion and scripture and your interpretation of it?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Perhaps the reason for atheism is because we are all born into a "Godless world." We are not born in the presence of God, but to know God is something to ascend to! *sings* "The only way is up!" Should we be born knowing God then that surely would be a tragedy since then we could only descend, and everyone would be evil.

Funny how you drop a kind of sanctimonious bomb and run for cover while controversy and even bickering flares up in the aftermath. Actually I have no idea if this was a drive-by or whether you just lost interest. Hmmm.

In a word, the logic you've applied here is in my mind something like denial. In order to explain the world, when confronted by the overwhelming evidence--that God was created by superstitious people of antiquity to explain phenomena for which they had no science (actually a syncretic evolution away from animism toward the "warm fuzzies" of the so-called "personal God")--it becomes necessary to rationalize the ideations you hold sacred, almost a rebuttal to that evidence. But it's not. The two grand ideals of an insane mind--one, that you will cheat death :bugeye: and two, that the Sky Daddy really cares about you :bugeye: are indeed hard to support without an equally insane rationalization such as the one you've given: the natural world is NOT controlled by Sky Daddy (check), yet all people ARE biological organisms belonging to the natural world (check), therefore to get to Sky Daddy all we need is a Stairway to Heaven (nice song, but no). What the--? :bugeye:

Darwin was not the first person to wonder why God created so many sentient creatures as prey for the blood lust of the predators. If I'm not mistaken, he reflected on the torturous death of the screaming mouse who is the cat's toy for -- an hour? - before eventually dying from exhaustion. Just as Sky Daddy doesn't care about the poor mouse, he doesn't care about the suffering infants born with diseases and genetic anomalies, or the ones victimized by afflictions later to develop, or from later exposure to some pathogen. Consider all victims Sky Daddy filled the children's burn centers with, those who would spend years in wheelchairs as their bodies slowly deteriorated, those in the children's wards of the cancer hospitals, those victimized by other lunatics--often religiously fed psychopathic personality types--from the gas chambers of the Holocaust, where people scratched the concrete walls trying to "ascend" to something much more fundamental than Heaven--to the millions upon millions of innocent child victims of wars and genocide who died for lack of a teaspoonful of potable water--enough to carry them for perhaps one more day.

"Ascending" means feeling good about yourself, because you've galvanized yourself against all of the horrors of reality all around you, and put yourself in the infantile state of mind, back in diapers with a powered butt, where Sky Daddy is gently rocking you to sleep. It's a return to some childhood position of comfort and safety. But it's simply an escape, nothing more. The horrors go on unabated--but wait: no, that's not exactly right. Because you can get up off your lard ass and stop feeling sorry for yourself. Stop pretending to live forever in the infantile state. Get up and kick some butt: go become an assassin against terror and genocide. Devote yourself to charity work, food relief, humanitarian aid. Become a crusader. You've only got so much time left on the clock, and then it's all over. Instead of retreating to that position of the pampered child, spend what time you have left trying to keep the cat's fangs out of the little mice's necks. You're not more special than them. And Sky Daddy obviously doesn't care about them, so, no, he doesn't give a rat's ass about you either.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but isn't about time for everyone to grow up?

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

I wish I could address all of your remarks individually, but who has the time? And some of them are just more examples of masterly baiting, and I won't bite at them.

Many of your comments are quite amusing. Randwolf, I enjoyed your post.

But I wish to address this question/statement seriously, because it is in essence Bells' same question:

So, in summation, "bad" things happen because people do "bad" things and then on top of that sometimes "bad" things just happen naturally because God wills it so? How comforting...

That's right; except for the part that it is God's will. Earlier someone in this thread seemed to think God 'set the parameters of good and evil'. No, the law is the law. There cannot be some other universe where it is right to be selfish or greedy or double-crossing. Just as a 'right' angle is ninety degrees and no other will do. Earthquakes and tornadoes are bad from our POV, but they are just the natural consequences of natural laws.

I find it telling is that you, the atheist, if I may assume so, are looking for comfort from God. This is what I meant about so many people perceiving God as Santa. (You don't really expect me to provide links for that, do you? You may as well ask for links proving that cats have tails - you can see it all around you for yourself).

With respect, if you had received proper and complete Christian religious training, you would understand this old joke, and not find it at all surprising.

A rabbi and his friend, a Catholic priest, attend a boxing match. One of the contenders makes the sign of the cross over himself as the bout begins. The rabbi asks his good friend what it means. The priest says, "Not a damned thing if he doesn't know how to box."

I have to go. More later

 

[Yazata]

A similar thought: According to C.S. Lewis, God did not create a race of automatons who would sing His praises night and day because where would the value lie in that?

So what's up with heaven? Perhaps Waiter_2001 might reply to that question by saying 'nothing'. (I don't want to put words in his/her mouth, I'm just kind of running with the ball.)

If people ever manage to ascend to heaven, to God's beatific presence or however it's imagined, then there would seemingly no longer be any 'up'. We would finally be in the presence of perfection and would have achieved everything attainable by human beings. From that lofty perspective there could only be 'down', namely the terribly flawed state of real life, and presumably hell, the grave, or whatever we call the state (or oblivion) where people like me would be found (or not).

Interestingly, if any resident of heaven still harbors any kind of goal or aspiration, it could only be the aspiration to be God himself, which would seem to have been Satan's sin according to tradition and a mighty big one at that. So definitely, no more goals or aspirations once you have arrived in heaven.

Rather he created a race with intelligence and free will that might choose to praise His name.

I didn't know that God had a name. (Lloyd?) What would be the point of a name if you are a totally unique being, one of your kind? Even if God had a name, why 'praise' it? (That seems pointless.)

Returning to what may or may not have been Waiter_2001's point, is that all that heaven is supposed to be, a bunch of mindless sycophants chanting 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy...' for eternity? Is there nothing... better... than that? (It seems like even God would get tired of it eventually.)

Our love for God is only valuable if freely given.

That's certainly one of the more traditional answers to the problem of God's hiddenness. I think that Waiter_2001's idea is more interesting though.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Satan left heaven because he wanted a place of his own.