zamboniavenger

While it might not be true, can we at least agree that many people are NOT getting the message right with other methods like holy books or whatever? Forget about us poor, deluded atheists and agnostics. Even forget about those misguided muslims, hindus, jews, etc. The different sects of christianity are pretty decent evidence of this confusion.
Do you mind if I ask you to describe your personal encounter with god? Just so I'll know what to look for.

lpetrich

I can't speak for Devnet, but an omnipotent being would have no trouble making Itself known to me in a completely unambiguous fashion. Otherwise, that entity would not be omnipotent. Except, of course, if that is mathematically impossible, something like 2 + 2 = 5.

Seems more like Hillary Clinton conversing with Eleanor Roosevelt than anything else.

Also, medieval saints had worked lots and lots of miracles; nowadays, the Vatican has to scrounge around rather desperately for miracles it can attribute to candidates for sainthood. Where did all the miracle-working saints go?

However, George Washington was not anywhere close to being an omnipotent being. Thus, he was unable to tell Parson Weems "No, I didn't chop down that cherry tree." Jesus Christ was supposedly God, Son of God -- which would make him omnipotent.

First off, Xtianity started off a Jewish heretical sect; the mainstream of Judalism left it behind.

Also, what makes Islam the "product of a single individual of dubious credentials"; the same could be the said of Xtianity, though it would be the product of several such individuals.

Tom Paine is right -- an omnipotent being would have no trouble revealing Itself to everybody, avoiding the risks of such transmission.

Also, he was a Deist, and I'm sure that Theophilus thinks that the "real" god is not the god of Deism.

However, those miracle accounts are most likely pure fiction; is there anything which distinguishes them from the numerous miracles of other religions?

Simple reasoning, theo. One thing that helps me is an interest in science fiction, because that interest has given me a lot of practice in imagining exotic possibilities. Another thing is my abundance practice in being a creator of computer programs.

emotional

Theists: one word you seem to overlook when speaking about communication with God:

BIDIRECTIONAL.

I prayed a lot when I was a theist. It was me speaking to God. But it wasn't God speaking to me.

One cannot communicate with God through scripture or nature, any more than one can communicate with Mozart through his music or with Shakespeare through his poetry. I like Mozart and Shakespeare (their works, not the dust they've become), but I don't have any relationship with them. Your God, if he confines himself to the unidirectional show of works, such as scripture and nature, is dead in practice; to be alive, there needs to be bidirectional communication, as those books say people once had with him freely.

The secrets of nature are hidden from us only because of lack of trying hard enough, or because of the limits of our technology; but the lack of communication with God is not for lack of trying, but rather because of God's mean, spiteful, hateful, horrid, nasty intent of hiding himself and "giving" a plethora of exclusive "ways" to reach him.

HRGruemm

I was sarcastic in the first part of your post (when I characterized the apologists' trick). I fully agree with you.

Regards,
HRG.
It's impossible to tell the players without a score card ....

HelenM

devnet

Hmmm...how to say this; I think that atheism does protect against some things that there is insufficient protection against, within theism.

Like, atheists can't spiritually abuse and intimidate other atheists because there's no threat of eternal punishment if you don't believe what the leader says or do what he says.

So in that way there are practical benefits to atheism, I'd say.

And there are others, such as, sometimes theism raises false hopes in people or enables them to avoid the truth or distracts them from 'real life'.

I could easily rant here or say things I don't want to get into...so I'll just leave it at agreeing that sometimes atheism has the edge over theism. Because I don't want to sound more anti-theism than I really am...just because I got caught up into thinking about what bugs me about it

love
Helen

emotional

If God exists, then atheism is entirely His fault. He is called personal, but His total absence makes a mockery of the very word "personal". I don't see how God has a right to proscribe any sort of paganism when He's the one causing it by hiding Himself all the time. I prefer to worship created things rather than the Creator, Who is forever hidden and elusive, amen. God be damned, damned be this hider, the one who does everything to make atheists out of people.

The non-existence of God is clear to everyone, and it is only by sheer wishfulness and make-believe that people see Him; therefore those who believe in Him are without excuse for their belief. They have believed in the Non-Existent despite the innate, perspicuous and obvious knowledge of His non-existence.