Spaz

Indeed, and see people, believe in Jabba, for believing in Jabba won't hurt you and if Jabba is the one true god you will be rewarded, don't take the chance of becoming Bantha fodder by not believing.

(unless of course Jar Jar is god, then you're fucked)

Mad Kally

Oh geeze. Next thing you athiests will be telling me there's no Santa Claus.

Damien

Radorth asked:
Even if God exists, that would not change anything. I would still be a Secular Humanist--a believer in Man, not in God.

I was born with men. I grown up with men. I live with men. And, I will likely die in the company of men. Isn't it more appropriate that I should be close with those I have shared tears and laughter with...than with Him whom I have no recollection whatsoever.

I think I have a good simile when I say: the situation is very much like the situation of the orphan. An orphan is much closer, much affectionate to people who was with him all his life, than with the father, who though 'created' him, abandoned him at a fragile stage in life.

Damien

Amie

Hi Damien
well I think the world definitely does need more humanists...
I think its possible to be extremely close to other humans as well as stay close to God. One does not have to make the choice between the two.
you had me up until the *abandoned* part
I don't believe we are abandoned by God. He loves us very much

Radorth

I did no such thing. I asked some sincere questions which you have answered quite cynically. I think the question marks you inserted into my posts are pretty good proof of your attitude- certainly another intolerant first in your crusade.

More FM platitudes to ponder. I asked what difference it would make if there was, a question you studiously avoided, thereby losing the day.

Oh, is that what I said? Well I could see how you might read that. You have quite an imagination. Remember when you imagined everybody would stop responding to me?

Moving on to someone who actually attempted to respond (AIF)

Ok I'll play along even though I know where we will end up. And if he answered that spontaneous abortions are caused by sickness, psychological problems, a screwed up genome, etc all of which were the result of disobedience, you would treat him with any more respect?

Be honest. You would argue with him all day right?

So again, there is practically nothing which would make you fear God, so he has no reason to bother it seems to me. I dreamed a skeptic would say, "Well OK, if I knew he was real and he was pretty much like the Bible says, I would fear and respect him more."

What we are hearing, as I suspected, is that just believing is useless. Seeing a miracle is useless. Seeing him destroy 250 leaders would simply produce more whining, questioning, and tunnel vision bitching about how everything is God's fault. Right? If he is real, all problems are his fault.

One less reason to doubt the Exodus story I think.

Rad

Philosoft

It's a problem of his own making. God can appear on Earth and tell me that the existence of anencephalic babies is due to disobedience, and I might believe him. Then folks like you tell me God loves me and values me as an individual. Now, I'm confused, because God certainly seems to value a system of reward-and-punishment, and a system of thought that ensures some will reject him, more than he values any individual.

You'll tell me God created those systems because he values me as an individual. But the mere existence of anencephalic babies entails either a) God values me more than he values anencephalic babies; or b) God values the system more than he values individuals. Neither one of these is very theologically satisfying.

I'm truly sorry, but at some point you're going to have to deal with all the contradictory attributes you assign to God. You can say, "I believe in a vengeful, jealous, violent God. Read this Old Testament to understand" and I would probably believe that the God described therein is vengeful, jealous and violent. But when you try to claim, in the same breath, that God is benevolent, loving, fair and forgiving, it's going to take more than emotional rhetoric to hold your story together.

lpetrich

Magus55:
You can ask God to make himself real to you and in time he will - tell him you have a hard time believing and ask him to show you the truth.

That alleged being has had a hard time doing so when asked, even though nothing is too difficult for an allegedly omnipotent being.

God doesn't make himself blantantly obvious today because if you knew he existed - not many people would deny him - he wants you to love him without having a flashing neon sign appear saying I Am that I Am. Welcome to faith

I find that extremely stupid -- a big load of bull dung. I wonder if Magus55 takes that approach toward whatever family he(she?) has -- that he runs off and hides somewhere and expects them to believe that he loves them.

Of course, supposedly within the near Future will be the Rapture ...

If it turns out that they were really kidnapped by extraterrestrial visitors who wanted to eat them...

lpetrich

How are they all "the result of disobedience"?

winstonjen

I would treat him with even less respect, if that were possible. I would ask the SOB how punishing the innocent DIRECTLY is supposed to help punish or reduce 'sinful' behaviour. How is punidhing others supposed to stop the criminal? Most likely, it would just encourage them to do even worse stuff.

Jayjay

And conveniently ignored those who do hold that position. Quoting WWSD, Family Man and myself respectively:
Perhaps I am reading into what WWSD and FM are saying, but I doubt it. Much more likely you were just trying to find an emotional atheist to "hate god", then pretend that everyone else doesn't exist so you can keep making your cynical commentaries on how contradictory the skeptics are.

That's just nonsensical. If God exists and wants to kill 250 people, which would be perfectly reasonable given his temper tantrums in OT, he sure can... just like an earthquake or a volcano can kill 250 people without anyone "whining and questioning". But wait, earthquakes don't pretend to be "loving" and they don't pretend that they are punishing the people for "disobedience"! It's God's very nature as a personal being that makes him subject to personal questions, isn't it? If he want to punish a person for disobedience of eating a fruit 6000 years ago, don't you think he should have at least some explanation for it?

If flying saucers showed up and started zapping cities with their death rays, wouldn't you question their motives? Or do you think that would be just an example of "tunnel vision bitching" to assume that our alien overlords are anything but benevolent in their intent? Who knows, maybe the major cities of Earth are in fact invaded by pod people and the death-ray aliens are just here to save us from assimilation...

That's a contradiction of the christian position. You pretend that God cares, and at the same time is causing diseases and illnesses because some guy disobeyed him a couple of thousand years ago. Deists, or more sensible theists are making no such stupid assumptions. Please learn to at least distinguish what the skeptics are saying from your own crackpot beliefs.