Ron Singh

You're right. Either God does or doesn't exist. This I also see two possibilities.

One, there is one God and you're wasting your time.

Two, there is a God, and this God will not punish you for misperceiving him (calling him Mel instead of Bob, or giving credit to him in things he did not intervene in per se).

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: sikh ]</p>

Wizardry

sikh,

You have omitted a possibility.

ex-preacher

Since everyone pretty much agrees about Ohio being north of Alabama, we take it as true. Since so many honest and intelligent people disagree about whether or not any gods exist and if so, who exactly they/sh/he/it is, it is a pretty good bet that there is no god.

<strong> Conversely, if it is false, it is false whether you feel it to be or not.

<strong> Three responses.

1. You pray for us, we'll think for you.

2. It's atheists. Learn to spell it.

3. Your god is so merciful and just that he devised a system whereby he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself for having created sinful people himself. And anyone who doesn't believe this will burn in hell for all eternity.

<strong> In Sanity,
Ex-Preacher

Aethernaut

Uh, why would an omnipotent god need us to love and serve him? How could an omniscient god give his creation free will? Why does he need us to even acknowledge him, to feel good about himself? Does god have self-esteem issues? And if he's so full of love why would he even consider sending anyone to an afterlife of eternal torture if they sinned? Sounds more like a petty dictator with a good propoganda ministry to me.

And don't bother praying, nothing fails like prayer.

-SK

Ron Singh

YEa it was on purpose.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: sikh ]</p>

Automaton

You theist trolls are pushovers. This is wrong. Propositions can have a definite truth value, i.e., either true or false, or they can have a probablistic value, for example, do you know with absolute, 100% certainty, that the sun will rise tomorrow? Of course you don't, but it is merely very, very probable. If you want to say that probablistic truth values are simply a result of the limitations of human knowledge (and in most cases they are), please speak to my friend, Mr. Quantum Physicist. So there is at least one other kind of proposition besides the one you have outlined (and indeed, there are still more). Most atheists (strong or weak) would assert that God is not definitely false, just highly improbable.

Thank you for stating (or at least pretending to state) the position that "emotions have no consequence on the truth." This is one of the first steps to freethinking, and indeed refutes a great deal of theistic arguments.

Speaking of arguments, where is yours? You have done nothing but claim that the existence of God is a definite truth claim, but given no reason why we should accept either the true or the false aspect of the claim. Merely blindly asserting God's existence is definitely true is almost precisely the same as using emotions instead of reason to establish a belief.
Please, at least learn to spell the name of our (un-)belief correctly. It's atheist, not athiest. A- the lack of, the- (from theos) meaning God or the divine, and -ist establishes that a person belongs to the preceeding set (lacking belief in God).
Says who? Remember, blind assertions prove exactly nothing. And if God really was just, why would he punish those who simply lost belief in him through the logical faculties that He bestowed upon us? Why would He assume the role of Thought Police, for simple, honest enquiry? As you can see, your definition of God is that of a square with five sides.
This is too, contradictory. Why would a perfect being, that which has everything that satisfies his own existence, create anything? That would imply that God alone is not the perfect Being, but God and heaven and earth together are the perfect Being. A perfect God negates the existence of anything outside himself. Since we obviously exist, a perfect God does not.
Obviously not, because he created brains with the logical capacity to reach the conclusion that he does not exist. If God made us to know Him, then there would not be unbelievers. There are unbelievers. Therefore, God did not make us to know Him (or does not exist.)
What would human love be, to an infinite, transcendental, perfect being? Does he expect those he torments with vicious plagues of incredible suffering, for no apparent reason at all, to still unconditionally love him, especially when he allows evil people to live full, happy lives?
Again, what would an infinite, transcendental, perfect being want with servants, let alone human ones?
Next world? What next world? Remember, emotionally believing something does not make it so!
What does this even mean? I have two interpretations;<ol type="1">[*]The only person who can understand God is God himself.[*]One can only know God by first believing in Him.[/list=a]If 1, then yours is a foolish, self-defeating pursuit, because you are trying to define the undefinable. Nothing could ever be said about God, because God only knows, right? However, if 2, then it is a ridiculous case of special pleading. Can physicists who don't believe that String Theory is an adequate model automatically not know anything about String Theory? Do people who don't believe in Santa not know that he is a jolly old guy in a red suit?

As you see, both interpretations render this statement incoherent.
Then what are you doing here, if not to debate? Simply claiming something is a truth does not make it a truth, if you want us to believe in your God (out of the practically infinite possible conceptions of him/her/it), you have to 1. Give us a solid definition of your God that does not refute or contradict itself in any way. 2. Give us a sound, valid, and convincing proof that the God described in your definition is actually existant.
Don't pray for us, please. Pray for the starving and diseased children around the world, if anyone.

In real love,
Automaton

hezekiah jones

The ones that don't probably believe in god.

Gemma Therese

Automaton,

Thank you for your response.

"You theist trolls are pushovers." Um, can we keep this civil?

"Remember, blind assertions prove absolutely NOTHING." You're absolutely correct. That's where faith comes in.

"What would human love be to an infinite, transcendental, perfect Being?" It means everything. It is the relationship between Creator and creature. God is everything, we are nothing. God does not need our love. We need His love.

"What would an infinite ... Being want with servent?" Ah, you confuse "serving" with "servents." A leader serves his people, but he is not their servent. Again, God does not need us, we need Him.

"What next world!" The one that's after this one.

"God cannot be understood expect by Himself." Do you really think your human brain can totally comprehend God? Such is a sin of pride. (Pride is quite common among atheists.)

"Don't pray for us, please." I will pray for whom I wish. Why do you care if I pray for you or not?

By the way, I am a freethinker. I think freely. Becuase my freethought has brought me to Roman Catholicism, am I any less a freethinker than if it had brought me to atheism?

In God's Love -- all real love comes from God,

Gemma Therese

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Wizardry

Thomas Merton is God?

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Wizardry ]</p>

hezekiah jones

To also prove absolutely nothing?