If God exists, why doesn't he come right out and show us?

[Plunkies]

I guess he has reservations about being a shit magnet

Then perhaps he should stop taking dumps?

If he created us with free will it could also be an error of our free will

So he isn't omniscient?

Wll there are scriptures , but since they require sincerity I guess thats another mistake he made huh?

Evidently. Which scriptures are to be taken seriously, and how far should they be taken? Should I be stoning children or just following the ten commandments? Should I be following the bible or the quran as well? God doesn't seem very good at this whole "communication" thing.

If you actually investigate the circumstances where he did come down they tend to reveal the normative values required by practioners to be innvolved in such situations

Gee wiz you sure do need to use a lot of big words to say absolutely nothing...

I am worried that if I did you would be even more insulted

Try me. Feel free to start any time now. I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat here.

 

[c7ityi_]

*************
M*W: Well, c7ity_, you have many hallucinations, and your vision of god is just one of them. Tis better to believe in reality than to hope for a god who isn't there.

no you don't get it. god is [another word for] life. you know that life exists, so you know that god exists. faith in yourself is the same as faith in god.

 

[sderenzi]

God can't show itself because this entire concept is only humanity's desire it's not real. If humans didn't exist then there wouldn't even be the idea of GOD. It's ridiculious to believe in something that cannot scientifically exist, even if a being had made the universe what right do we have to call it GOD, what if we had more humanity then it did?! It might not care what lives or dies, could you call that GOD.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

no you don't get it. god is [another word for] life. you know that life exists, so you know that god exists. faith in yourself is the same as faith in god.

*************
M*W: I have faith in myself. What's god got to do with it?

 

[Plunkies]

*************
M*W: I have faith in myself. What's god got to do with it?

Nothing. You can replace "god" with anything and his sentence would be equally meaningless. He's just a guy who has run out of ideas and has no logical arguments to fall back on. He's arguing such a weak, flimsy notion that that crap is actually the best defense he can come up with.

 

[c7ityi_]

When I talk with atheists I try to convince them that God exists,
and when I talk with theists I try to convince them that God does not exist.
This is a religious subforum in an atheistic forum.

*************
M*W: I have faith in myself. What's god got to do with it?

Your God has nothing to do with it.
People generally think God is a personal entity in heaven.
It's natural to lose faith in such picture of God when you evolve and become more self-aware.

God and the self are the same thing.
What people and religions call God is our higher self.
That's what religious people subconsciously pray to, when they pray to God.

When we change, our picture of God changes, because they're the same thing.

It's good for some people to believe in something higher than themselves, because otherwise they become too proud of themselves and think they are are the best (God/truth). People often confuse God/self with ego/person. I am not a person. Personality is my creation.

In some cultures people could understand that there are no gods.

In Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) we are united with God,
and in Western religions (Christianity and Islam) we are separated from God.

In East, they go alone, in West, they go together.
East and West will unite.

God is self/life/consciousness/nothing/everything/zodiac.

 

[VitalOne]

Lets see you basically got 3 Options:

1. God doesn't exist, so he cannot show himself

2. God doesn't care about us, we're really insignificant to him

3. God exists but we are unable to percieve him

 

[hug-a-tree]

I think it has something to do with Him testing us. Good question. I'll ask some Christians for you!

 

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

I suppose the angle you are aiming for here is that the atheist dismisses religion/god/scripture etc despite the fact he/she has not properly studied those things.

More than study there is the question of practice

This assumes that extensive study in religion, astrology and other belief orientated systems, would reveal supporting evidence for that belief.

Theory is not everything, although for most it would be a good starting point, particularly if they insist passing off their opinions in religion and astrology as credible

Just out of interest, there must be atheist professors in theology, right?

Exactly - my case is proven
There's a difference between a theist reading a scripture and an atheist reading a scripture - can you guess what that difference is?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

*************
M*W: I believe that if a god existed, he would be obvious, and there would be no doubt in believing in him. For those of you who believe in him without any proof, why is he not showing himself to each and everyone of us? We all can't be that bad. What's your theory?

I am coming to think that the ontological question of whether God exists is the wrong question to be asking. God isn't like the electron, or dark energy etc. which are things giving rise to objectively observable phenomena. God is not primarily perceived, but believed.

Why would I want to believe in God? One reason is because people I instinctively trust say there is something good to be found there. I seek a worldview that is not just intellectually coherent with the facts, but which is also "spiritually" nutritious.

"The truth is more important than the facts." (Frank Lloyd Wright)

 

[lightgigantic]

Plunkies

Then perhaps he should stop taking dumps?

On the contrary its our crap that we are choosing to roll in, not god's

So he isn't omniscient?

At the very least he has a keen sense of smell

Evidently. Which scriptures are to be taken seriously, and how far should they be taken?

This is part of the problem - if you walk in to a pharmacy without professional advice, and take what ever pills you fancy, there is a good chance that not only will you not cure your sickness but you will make yourself a good sight worse - in other words you presuppose that your intelligence and experience is sufficient to negotiate te difference between principles and details of religion

Should I be stoning children or just following the ten commandments?

The ten commandmants would be a good starting point

Should I be following the bible or the quran as well?

Highschool has its merits - so does adult college - university is better, and amongst uni's havard is ranked as one of the top - but unless you actually apply yourself to one of the curriculums there is no benefit in puzzling over the myriad of options available in curriculum guidelines

God doesn't seem very good at this whole "communication" thing.

Comminication innvolves two things - one is clear speech from the speaker - can you guess what quality the hearer is expected to have?

Gee wiz you sure do need to use a lot of big words to say absolutely nothing...

In other words I used some words that you couldn't be bothered looking up in the dictionary?

 

[lightgigantic]

Diogenes' Dog

I am coming to think that the ontological question of whether God exists is the wrong question to be asking. God isn't like the electron, or dark energy etc. which are things giving rise to objectively observable phenomena. God is not primarily perceived, but believed.

I strongly disagree - if god is not an objectively observable phenomena there is absolutely no way to determine the distinction between a correct realisation of god from an incorrect one since any subjective notion of god would be just as good as any one elses - this view point forces one to place any nutcases perception of god on the shelf next to the testimonies of great sages and saints.

Why would I want to believe in God? One reason is because people I instinctively trust say there is something good to be found there. I seek a worldview that is not just intellectually coherent with the facts, but which is also "spiritually" nutritious.

This is the sort of posts atheists love - you can drive freight trains of criticism through the gaps of logic and unsubstantiated claims.

"The truth is more important than the facts." (Frank Lloyd Wright)

Doesn't mean the absence of facts indicates the truth however

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I strongly disagree - if god is not an objectively observable phenomena there is absolutely no way to determine the distinction between a correct realisation of god from an incorrect one since any subjective notion of god would be just as good as any one elses - this view point forces one to place any nutcases perception of god on the shelf next to the testimonies of great sages and saints.

I am surprised at what you say LG. There IS no objectively observable evidence for the existence of God (unless you do know of any - publish it now and get famous!). Our evidence can only come from our own and other people's subjective experience, some of which has inspired the writing of the various teachings and scriptures - the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Qur'an etc.

If you find what they wrote wise and inspiring, and your belief helps you to lead a more loving, more authentic, more mindful life - your inspiration probably comes from God. If it leads you to hate or kill, or become tormented - it probably doesn't! We can only judge the tree by it's fruit: A tree grown from a nut produces only nuts!

This is the sort of posts atheists love - you can drive freight trains of criticism through the gaps of logic and unsubstantiated claims.

We have a choice of worldview - the atheist proposes that his "scientific" worldview is the best - it is the simplest one based on the facts (occums razor). My argument is that as a worldview, it is inadequate as a guide to eudaimonia - 'living the good life'. Something is missing, and that something is a spiritual dimension i.e. God.

Evidence seems to show that people who have a spiritual belief are generally happier and more resilient in adversity. However, there are plenty of fanatical, dangerous and plain nutty religious beliefs about! You don't have to abandon all discernment.

Doesn't mean the absence of facts indicates the truth however

Quite right - it doesn't! It means that the truth is more than (and more important than) bare facts.

 

[Plunkies]

Plunkies

On the contrary its our crap that we are choosing to roll in, not god's

Yeah it's our fault "god" created us poorly.

At the very least he has a keen sense of smell

Way to dodge the question.

This is part of the problem - if you walk in to a pharmacy without professional advice, and take what ever pills you fancy, there is a good chance that not only will you not cure your sickness but you will make yourself a good sight worse - in other words you presuppose that your intelligence and experience is sufficient to negotiate te difference between principles and details of religion

Which is usually when a doctor or pharmacist tells you what you actually need. If you're not following, the analogy is that the pharmacist represents god. Yet god isn't saying crap. Something he has in common with all other fictional creations I might add....

The ten commandmants would be a good starting point

So how do I know when to stone children and beat my slaves?

Highschool has its merits - so does adult college - university is better, and amongst uni's havard is ranked as one of the top - but unless you actually apply yourself to one of the curriculums there is no benefit in puzzling over the myriad of options available in curriculum guidelines

Wow you sure do love irrelevant metaphores. The colleges and universities aren't fighting with each other about which is the truth without any proof and accusing the others of being liars and infidels, are they? Nor does going to the wrong school damn us for eternity.

Comminication innvolves two things - one is clear speech from the speaker - can you guess what quality the hearer is expected to have?

Again the blame is placed on the creation, and not the all powerful creator that should be able to communicate with us no matter what.

In other words I used some words that you couldn't be bothered looking up in the dictionary?

Go look up circumlocutory. If you actually said what you meant without the blather you would have looked like a fool. "God needs people to be a certain way". Oh wow, how freakin convenient, you mean they need to be liars and frauds? Why don't you explain why no one fits the criteria today? Why god is restricted from speaking to everyone at once? Or why we only hear about god talks through biblical hearsay.

 

[KennyJC]

Exactly - my case is proven
There's a difference between a theist reading a scripture and an atheist reading a scripture - can you guess what that difference is?

What case? It only proves that you need faith/gullability/delusion/insecurity/superstition and not knowledge with religion as that is the only difference between the theist and atheist.

I have knowledge of the magpie riddle, but haven't concluded that the riddle is true as a result of my knowledge.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yeah it's our fault "god" created us poorly.

On the contrary it was our decision to roll in our own crap - thats what free will means - the ability to make an ass of your self

“ At the very least he has a keen sense of smell ”
Way to dodge the question.

Its just another way of saying he is omniscient -

Which is usually when a doctor or pharmacist tells you what you actually need. If you're not following, the analogy is that the pharmacist represents god. Yet god isn't saying crap. Something he has in common with all other fictional creations I might add....

Actually the point of the analogy was that it is not suffcient to approach scripture - the pharamacist represents scripture - the doctor's advice represents professional advice - in other words if you cannot accept that the scripture must be directed by professional advice, it is the same as refusing to accept that the benefits of approaching a pharmacy are derived from consulting with a doctor

“ The ten commandmants would be a good starting point ”

So how do I know when to stone children and beat my slaves?

After you are socially stabilised on following the ten commandmants I guess

Wow you sure do love irrelevant metaphores. The colleges and universities aren't fighting with each other about which is the truth without any proof and accusing the others of being liars and infidels, are they? Nor does going to the wrong school damn us for eternity.

Well actually schools tend to only talent scout for their own enrollments and there is the opportunity of being enrolled in a bogus curriculum - I didn't tell you to sit on your brains - I told you that if you don't actually apply yourself to any process of religion you are just left with your groundless ideas on what they actually innvolve

“ Comminication innvolves two things - one is clear speech from the speaker - can you guess what quality the hearer is expected to have? ”



Again the blame is placed on the creation, and not the all powerful creator that should be able to communicate with us no matter what.

And what if we didn't want to listen to him - should he then do it by force?

Go look up circumlocutory. If you actually said what you meant without the blather you would have looked like a fool. "God needs people to be a certain way". .

Actually what I was saying is that we need to be in a certain way to see god - in other words the best way to see god is to act in such a way that he wants to see you

 

[lightgigantic]

What case? It only proves that you need faith/gullability/delusion/insecurity/superstition and not knowledge with religion as that is the only difference between the theist and atheist.
QUOTE]

I think you missed the question

There are atheistic persons stufdying scriptures
There are theistic persons studying scriptures

Just like there are medical professionals who read medical journals
And there are non medical professionals who read medical journals

What do you think the difference is?

 

[lightgigantic]

I am surprised at what you say LG. There IS no objectively observable evidence for the existence of God (unless you do know of any - publish it now and get famous!). Our evidence can only come from our own and other people's subjective experience, some of which has inspired the writing of the various teachings and scriptures - the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Qur'an etc.

So the question is, do you think the various scriptures of the world are in response to the same phenomena?

If you find what they wrote wise and inspiring, and your belief helps you to lead a more loving, more authentic, more mindful life - your inspiration probably comes from God. If it leads you to hate or kill, or become tormented - it probably doesn't! We can only judge the tree by it's fruit: A tree grown from a nut produces only nuts!

Moralistic behaviour is only advocated by scripture to enable people to come to the platform of applying the process to know god - unless one comes to the point of kowing what god is, they are stabilised on an unsatisfactory level of performance, even if they are authentic, loving, mindful etc etc

We have a choice of worldview - the atheist proposes that his "scientific" worldview is the best - it is the simplest one based on the facts (occums razor). My argument is that as a worldview, it is inadequate as a guide to eudaimonia - 'living the good life'. Something is missing, and that something is a spiritual dimension i.e. God.

Therefore the perfection of religion is to know god, not to be talented in the mundane sphere of morality - and further more there is a scientific process to know god - inother words there are things you can and can not do which will make approaching god more easier/difficult

Evidence seems to show that people who have a spiritual belief are generally happier and more resilient in adversity. However, there are plenty of fanatical, dangerous and plain nutty religious beliefs about! You don't have to abandon all discernment.

Therefore religion without philosophy is fanaticism - philosophy pertains to an objective understanding of the absolute

 

[Plunkies]

On the contrary it was our decision to roll in our own crap - thats what free will means - the ability to make an ass of your self

Ugh. He supposedly created every aspect of us and knew what we would do. Where is this free will you speak of?

Its just another way of saying he is omniscient -

Oh I see. He knows he took the dump but instead of being upset with himself for doing it he blames the poop. I'm sure you can see my confusion.

Actually the point of the analogy was that it is not suffcient to approach scripture - the pharamacist represents scripture - the doctor's advice represents professional advice - in other words if you cannot accept that the scripture must be directed by professional advice, it is the same as refusing to accept that the benefits of approaching a pharmacy are derived from consulting with a doctor

Again you continue to blather while saying nothing, you really have a knack for that. I suppose when arguing such a weak position you get used to simply filling in space. Back to the point....

God isn't telling us which scripture is right. Infact he isn't telling us squat.

After you are socially stabilised on following the ten commandmants I guess.

And the contradictions? Why are the commandments more important than the rest of the bible and who decides which "word of god" is more important than the other? Obviously god isn't doing it...

Well actually schools tend to only talent scout for their own enrollments and there is the opportunity of being enrolled in a bogus curriculum - I didn't tell you to sit on your brains - I told you that if you don't actually apply yourself to any process of religion you are just left with your groundless ideas on what they actually innvolve

The god damn schools aren't contradicting each other and basing their teaching on unprovable mythology you retard.

And what if we didn't want to listen to him - should he then do it by force?

Isn't that what he's doing already? If you don't obey me you go to hell. Sound familiar? At least now the threat could be taken seriously.

Actually what I was saying is that we need to be in a certain way to see god - in other words the best way to see god is to act in such a way that he wants to see you

In other words you have to believe in god to convince yourself you see him? Isn't that a bit backwards? Do YOU see god? How do you know about this way? What does he say about all of this?

 

[KennyJC]

I think you missed the question

There are atheistic persons stufdying scriptures
There are theistic persons studying scriptures

Just like there are medical professionals who read medical journals
And there are non medical professionals who read medical journals

What do you think the difference is?

Your scientific parallels with religion are really starting to get on my tits.

You are assuming therefor that because medical professionals have expertise and have studied practices based on material principles within the real world that this also means theists are experts in something based on rationale and evidence. There are no qualifications needed to be a theist - a simple superstitious notion immediately qualifies you.

The difference therefor between an atheist studying scripture and a theist studying scripture is that one doesn't see proof for the far-fetched claims it makes and the other has blind faith that what they are reading is true.

Before you counter my last paragraph with one of your immensely stupid analogies like; "...well some people won't believe what they read in a medical journal either"; a religious book is one of fabrication to propell myths in order to entice people into their religion and the medical journal is a succession of applied principles in the material world which are known by experiment to solve medical problems in the body. If someone say's they don't believe a word of the medical journal, clearly they say so out of ignorance of the fact that the medical journal has a physical effect on millions of people who are in hospitals today. To compare this lack of belief with that of people who use common sense to judge the thousands of far-fetched myths as being false in religious literature is dishonest and demonstrate just how much of a thread your argument hangs by.