Why doesn't God just show himself?

[DoctorNO]

You, also, don't understand the difference. How many times does it have to be said before you understand it? Atheism is a lack of belief in God,

Wrong. Read...

• 
  www.webster.com
  
  Main Entry: athe·ism
  Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
  Function: noun
  Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
  1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
  2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Athiesm is not the "lack" but the ABSENCE of belief in God. As it is the belief that there is no God. The lack for belief in God holds true for theistic agnostics, or agnostics with theistic inclinations.

and agnosticism is a position concerning our knowledge about God, namely, that we cannot have any.

Somewhat inaccurate but quite acceptable. Check webster for the more accurate definition.

They are not mutually exclusive. They don't lie on different positions on some sort of belief spectrum, with atheism 'one step furthur.'

No, they have one thing in common. Both views dont believe in God. Because athiests say there is no God and agnostics say they dont know any God.

 

[wesmorris]

LOL. Dude I went through this same argument. You are wrong. Webster is wrong, they are not philosophers. Read that damned thread!

 

[DoctorNO]

My friend just as there are many types of Theism there are also many types of Athiesm and Agnosticism. I think Webster is referring to Strong Athiesm. The complete belief in the non-existence of God.

And Webster had been the standard of english linguistics for many decades. To say that it is wrong is quite foolish.

 

[DoctorNO]

The "lack of belief in God" statement holds true for two types of people:

1. Theistic Agnostics (Agnostics with theistic tendencies)
2. Weak Athiests (new athiests who are trying to convince themselves that there is no god)


Strong/Strict Athiests have crossed the line from the lack of belief to the complete absence of belief in Gods.

 

[wesmorris]

Yeah good enough, wrong is too strong. I'll leave it with this somewhat embarrassing link to ConsequentAtheist's thrashing of my ignorant commentary.

 

[wesmorris]

The "lack of belief in God" statement holds true for two types of people:

1. Theistic Agnostics (Agnostics with theistic tendencies)
2. Weak Athiests (new athiests who are trying to convince themselves that there is no god)

Strong/Strict Athiests have crossed the line from the lack of belief to the complete absence of belief in Gods.

Argh. I was going to leave it, but what about those who think the question of god is irrelevant? That leads to atheism in the sense of "lack of belief". Okay, now I'm leaving it though, as the label debate is quite tiresome!

 

[TheERK]

Yeah good enough, wrong is too strong. I'll leave it with this somewhat embarrassing link to ConsequentAtheist's thrashing of my ignorant commentary.

Don't take back your word, Wes: you are right on target.

Webster is wrong, wrong, wrong. Dictionaries are supposed to convey the meaning of words as popularly accepted by the relevant population, unless perhaps you're Webster himself, who's favorite book (or one of his favorites)was his own version of the Bible.

However, that definition conveys a mere subset of atheism, namely (as already stated), strong atheism.

Wake up, people: any philosopher who knows what they're talking about defines atheism as the mere lack of belief in God. A majority of atheists, I would guess, also hold this position. Webster is wrong.

Read Wes' linked thread. Also, Doctor NO, how is it possible that you misspell atheism so many times right after quoting several dictionary entries of it?

 

[wesmorris]

Well I know I'm right within my context... however as you tweak the pertinent concepts I do think you could see it alternatively. I just mean to take into account that one's context can lead to a valid alternate reality.

For instance christians are inherently right, because there is a god as far as they are concerned, so as far as they are concerned how can you tell them any differently? Fat chance, as we see here. Within their context they reach valid conclusions. I choose a different context and reach valid but different conclusions. If our values (which result from our (percieved context resulting from stimulus) context) clash and we are sifficiently convicted in our beliefs, we become mutually exclusive.

Our assumptions, be they choices or simply reflections of our capacity to manipulate and/or adapt to context - seed those values. So IMO, it comes down to the number of assumptions you make and I've narrowed (perhaps far too generally) down to one: I have faith in reason. I think the direct logical consequence is that I have only suspsicion of knowledge. I think the faithful serve the evolutionary advantage that tiassa mentioned: zero doubt of knowledge. Either position comes at the expense of the other, yet each are valid. I suppose it just depends where you're standing in the room.

EDIT:

In meandering thinking about it it seems like the position of "reason over knowledge" yields a position that would, if not pushed to it, not be able to mutually exclude the other, however if the position of conviction of knowledge is taken, you assume the role of the instigator don't you? I mean, it is your conviction that pushes you to take your values so seriously as to kill for them. However, survival is an equivalent conviction, and nothing precludes an agnostic from fighting to survive, so if his values are correlated with his survival instinct, he could be considered the instigator if the values of the theist were non-convicted.

For example if a religious text ordains that swimming sucks, but the agnostics statistically correleate swimming with drowning, weight the risk to society and adopt the value that 'swimming is bad'.

Oh holy crap I think that example is all logically twisted. LOL. Okay I'll bow out with uhm.. know what i mean?

Hmm. I was thinking that verifies what I was saying before. It just depends on where you're standing and how it looks from there, however since the example sucked I have nothign to say but goodnight.

 

[Neildo]

That's a tough spot and I can tell you as a husband and a father, I'd do either in a heartbeat to save their lives. Perhaps that isn't moral justification for the endeavor, but it does shine some light on the nature of demand associated with the potential supply. I'm sure at some point the two will likely be almost impossible to keep separate.

Go ahead and clone that heart for your wife; I would. Morals is all just bullshit politics. Morals are for people not ready to deal with reality so they limit themselves. Morals change as time goes on. If there was a true such thing as morals, there would be one set of laws that would have existed since the begining of time yet there isn't. Laws change just as our opinions change and that's all morals are -- temporary laws and opinions of what some people think in the now.

I'm all for cloning. It's inevitable for the advancement of our human race.

- N

 

[Neildo]

Sorry but Erk and Wes are right in regards to the definition of an athiest and agnostic. Also one thing to keep in mind is that all dictionaries are different. While they may have the general jist of a definition, they do not all agree for various reasons such as Erk and Wes said. Even a one word difference can be a huge change in the meaning of something as we can see in these definitions, heh.

- N

 

[RawThinkTank]

God is the root cause of all evil. When he programmed the universe the buthead could not program this :

Whenever some one is tortured in a prison, the after the entire process is complete , the victim should become well and alive again and then all then pain mental and physical should be transferred to the American who did it. This will automatically stop all wrong doings. Hey God , U idiot , this technique can be used for all sin. U Mother ******.

 

[Jenyar]

Whenever some one is tortured in a prison, the after the entire process is complete, the victim should become well and alive again and then all then pain mental and physical should be transferred to the American who did it. This will automatically stop all wrong doings. Hey God, U idiot , this technique can be used for all sin.

Strange, when Christians point to divine justice, we get reminded of the impossible horribleness associated with hell, the inherent problems of having a Judge, and the apparent exclusivity of heaven.

RTT, people resent automatic judgment - they demand the freedom to sin.

 

[invert_nexus]

RTT, people resent automatic judgment - they demand the freedom to sin.

I think that what bothers people about this judgement is that the definitions of sin were first laid down by primitive tribesmen then rehashed a bit by primitive catholics. We don't like the fact that people that lived thousands of years ago are dictating to us what is right and wrong. We see the world far more clearly than these people did. If anyone should be able to define morality, it is us.

 

[the preacher]

you ask I'm here what do you need to know

 

[invert_nexus]

you ask I'm here what do you need to know

Who ask? The thread is a question itself. Maybe you could start by answering that.

 

[water]

RTT, people resent automatic judgment - they demand the freedom to sin.

Ah! in what a monstrous moment of pride and passion he had prayed that the portrait should bear the burden of his days, and he keep the unsullied splendour of eternal youth! All his failure had been due to that. Better for him that each sin of his life had brought its sure, swift penalty along with it. There was purification in punishment. Not 'Forgive us our sins,' but 'Smite us for our iniquities' should be the prayer of a man to a most just God.


Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
***

But on the other hand: If there is no freedom to sin, then this means that people have no free will. If you want the insitute of free will, you must admit the freedom to sin.

 

[Jenyar]

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life..." (Romans 6:23)

You might consider it unfortunate that God does not punish sin immediately - but if Adam was finally punished for his sin, all of humanity would have in effect received that punishment: by not being born. God's mercy ensures life, that's why He reserved punishment until after we have chosen life or death.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

I have a question for those who say there is no proof that God is. What proof? What would it take? In this day of superb technology and skepticism, (which is okay, but it does exist), what would it take? A sign? Like what? A wonder? Then what kind of wonder. A vision from the clouds with a loud voice... You are kidding; someone would haul you away, for sure. If you have no proof now, then no proof would work.

My thoughts, and you are most welcome. pmt

 

[VAKEMP]

This might be considered off-topic, but I can't help comparing two posts:

M*W (in this topic):

M*W: That's the unfortunate impression humans have. We can't see god because we have been taught that we are so lowly and beneath god. We tend to think that god exists "somewhere," but not where we can see god.

I believe what we call "god" is a force of pure positive energy. The energy that created humanity and all creation. The life-giving energy that dwells with us -- our spirit which is the One Spirit of God.

God does show itself (it's not a "him") to the eyes of humanity through EACH OTHER as we are all interconnected and the physical body of god. The body of humanity contains the One Spirit of God which we are all a part of. To see god, just look in the mirror.

Coolmacguy (in a Pseudoscience Thread)

“

Originally Posted by spidergoat
If this is true, we should go to war against these aliens!

”


They have the power to completely disable nuclear missiles. Something tells me we wouldn't get far.

I just thought it was amusing how people express their personal beliefs as factual without supporting evidence.

No offense to anyone involved. I find religious discussion interesting. Although I think M*W's idea of 'god' is interesting, I think most people use the dictionary's definition of God (and the topic is discussing God, not 'a god'), which is used when referring to the being that may or may not have created us and the universe.

 

[VAKEMP]

I have a question for those who say there is no proof that God is. What proof? What would it take?

pmt

How about a prophet that can turn water into blood, like in the Bible? If the ocean turns to blood I think many people will believe.