God's love is an absurdity

[Charles_Darwin]

**First of all, there is an intelligence behind it. There is observable integrity in all natural systems. If you break a physical law, you aren’t going to live that long. If you break a civil law, you’ll be imprisoned. If you break divine law, you go to hell. It isn’t that simple in reality. You might try to jump off a building to fly and just break your leg. You might get community service instead of jail time. You might end up in purgatory instead of hell.

The point is that the law is not biased towards any one person. It’s purpose is to maintain the integrity of the system. In the case of divine law, the integrity is love between God and humanity. Your lack of knowledge (“zero evidence”) of the law does not mean the law doesn’t exist. If you didn’t know murder was against the law, you couldn’t use your ignorance as a defense for murdering someone.

But you do know the law, the evidence is written on your heart. If you murder, steal, lie, you know you have done something wrong. No one needs to tell you. The question is: how do you get back on the right side of the law once you have committed an offense?
Your faith is not necessary for the law to exist, it is necessary for your forgiveness.**

I don’t murder, i don’t steal. I sometimes lie but lying is not always immoral. My question is why should i be punished for not believing, that is immoral.

Your question or comment was about original sin. To you, God is punishing us for what someone else did. The reality is that Adam’s sin creates the propensity for sin in you. A child who has been abused is likely to abuse his children. A woman who has been beaten is likely to seek out aggressive men. The child of a criminal is likely to become a criminal himself. Jesus pointed out this chain reaction… for example, with divorce:

Err no, its not likely. It might be more likely, but it is not likely. Anyway should we not wait to see if the child does abuse his children before condeming it?

"It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Yeah lets just all stay in unloving marriages. That is also immoral.

**Original sin is a universal form of this chain reaction. We still have free will-- that’s why I used the word “likely”-- but all of us have this propensity based on original sin.

And what is that sin? It is a sense of pride. Thinking you know more about how to run the universe than God and defining everything according to what pleases you. It blinds people to the truth. A person’s natural premise is that he or she is God or a god and so the universe should run the way they see it.**

I can’t think i know more about the universe than something that i don’t think exists.

 

[tonyrey]

The default position is a lack of belief, until you prove otherwise i still lack believe.

You keep making this statement without explaining what your lack of belief applies to. Presumably you believe that you exist, that you are thinking, that you make decisions, that you can control yourself, that other people exist, that human intelligence is responsible for the success of science and that the universe exists. Is that correct?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You keep making this statement without explaining what your lack of belief applies to. Presumably you believe that you exist, that you are thinking, that you make decisions, that you can control yourself, that other people exist, that human intelligence is responsible for the success of science and that the universe exists. Is that correct?

Its the default for everything.

 

[Cbailey2]

I dont believe there is NO creator. I lack a belief in one due to the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. The default position is a lack of belief, until you prove otherwise i still lack believe. That goes for life, the laws of the universe, and all posited gods.

My friend you are trying to straddle a fence that isn’t there. This isn’t a question that you can say “eh, too tough for me, pass…what’s the next one?” on. It frames the way you live everyday of your life. You “lack a belief in one” means “I do not believe in God,” except it is a more cowardly way of saying it. If you are going to be an atheist, at least be proud of it, instead of making the ridiculous claim that you really haven’t thought enough about it before to have an opinion. A lack of belief is the default position for a cynic, a pessimist, and a skeptic. You didn’t ask your dear old Dad for a DNA test before accepting him as your biological father. You accepted it on the default position of faith.

Whether or not you can admit to yourself that you don’t believe in God (not that you lack believe), you are already living the life of an atheist: you have based your life on the assumption that God does not exist. Or rather, if you’d prefer I put it this way, that the Judeo-Christian God doesn’t exist. We are in agreement on Zeus, Odin, Kalima, Ra, etc.

We are an accident

Nope **and, as such, have no purpose. ** Nope

Accident: 1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b: lack of intention or necessity : chance . If there is no God, and we were not created by that God, then we are an accident by definition. Perhaps you don’t like the negative connotation. How about “happy accident?!” To be unintended is to be accidental.

Purpose: 1 a: something set up as an object or end to be attained. I’ll grant you that if by purpose you mean continuation of the species (again, assuming no God - only the natural system), then, you’re correct. We still have a purpose - although it is no more lofty than the purpose of a tape worm, ebola, or scabies. If you are comfortable with that I’d tell you to either a) stop killing scabies or b) start killing humans. If you are looking for something more, then I’m sorry: without God, there is nothing more that has been “set up (in our creation) as an object or end to be attained.”

Why would it be illogical for me to deny a conclusion to life it it were not created? Seems like a contradiction to me? You conclude god created life, i deny that conclusion because there is not one shread of evidence to suggest life was created. Whats illogical about that?

We exist. The universe exists. That’s a whole lot - trillions of threads of evidence to suggest that we were created. Given that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, you find it more logical to believe that the most logical hypothesis as to where all that stuff came from (a Prime Mover) is better to be ignored because you don’t see any evidence. Evidence: look in the mirror, take a walk outside.

I can agree with this to a certain extent, there are no absolutes.

Isn’'t that an absolute, Mr. Darwin? Wouldn’t that statement alone invalidate any reason to think that statement valid?

There are different types of intelligence. For example i am good with numbers, yet awful at spelling. You dont just get cleaver people and stupid people. However i do believe you are not as able to critically review the evidence as i am. But then was brought up to think critically from day one, where are most religious are not brought up to think critically about religion.

Ah, of course, you were brought up enlightened - which is really only a funny way of saying you did as your parents raised you to do - which is also funny because that’s the same weakness you accuse people who are raised religious of having. You haven’t ventured out of the nice little “thought silo” you were brought up to inhabit and then you have the gall to insult those of us who have by flat out stating you can critically review evidence better than ALL Christians? I’m sorry, I have a very hard time taking you seriously if that’s what you really think. To insist that ALL Christians are only Christians because they have an intellectual “blind spot” (because they don’t see things the way you see things) goes further than folly and closer to crazy.

I can’t become a whale if there is no god. A fish can’t grow into a man.

You’ve missed my point entirely - I’m sorry I didn’t explain it clearer. You agreed before that each person can, because there is no God, determine what they think the purpose of a human being is. That is to say, they can say what they think man to be. If there is a God, people who still believe this - that they can choose the purpose of their life and still feel fulfilled - are saying that they, a man, can become a fish if they want to. Obviously, they can’t. If they were made by their Creator to love one another and to love and serve Him, then there is no way they can decide to reinvent themselves as something else.

free will is a myth.

And what proof do you have for this belief that free will is a myth, Mr. Darwin? You are overstating your personal belief as fact.

 

[tonyrey]

Its the default for everything.

In that case how did you reach the belief that lack of belief is the default for everything?
By accident?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

In that case how did you reach the belief that lack of belief is the default for everything?
By accident?

No reason tells me that is the best default position. Its either that or i must start off believing in EVERYTHING, and i must still believe EVERYTHING i can’t prove wrong. So i now believe in every god ever posited, plus another infinite possiblities… Reason tells me this would be absurd.

 

[tonyrey]

No reason tells me that is the best default position. Its either that or i must start off believing in EVERYTHING, and i must still believe EVERYTHING i can’t prove wrong. So i now believe in every god ever posited, plus another infinite possiblities… Reason tells me this would be absurd.

You misunderstand my question. I’m not referring to the default position when you were born but your default position now. How did you arrive at your present beliefs?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

My friend you are trying to straddle a fence that isn’t there. This isn’t a question that you can say “eh, too tough for me, pass…what’s the next one?” on. It frames the way you live everyday of your life. You “lack a belief in one” means “I do not believe in God,” except it is a more cowardly way of saying it. If you are going to be an atheist, at least be proud of it, instead of making the ridiculous claim that you really haven’t thought enough about it before to have an opinion. A lack of belief is the default position for a cynic, a pessimist, and a skeptic. You didn’t ask your dear old Dad for a DNA test before accepting him as your biological father. You accepted it on the default position of faith.

No im telling you my position. It’s not my fault you don’t like it. Your correct “I do not believe in God” but that does** NOT** mean “I believe there is NO god.”.

Why on earth would i be proud to be an atheist, that is absurd. Emotion has nothing to do with it.

Different claims require different standards of evidence. Anyway even with a DNA test i could not be ABSOLUTELY sure my father is my father.

Whether or not you can admit to yourself that you don’t believe in God (not that you lack believe), you are already living the life of an atheist: you have based your life on the assumption that God does not exist. Or rather, if you’d prefer I put it this way, that the Judeo-Christian God doesn’t exist. We are in agreement on Zeus, Odin, Kalima, Ra, etc.

Oh are we? Why is that? You are just denying zues, if only you could open your heart to him you would come out of the dark and stop lying to yourself. Open up to zeus let him in, deep down you know he exists.

Accident: 1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b: lack of intention or necessity : chance . If there is no God, and we were not created by that God, then we are an accident by definition. Perhaps you don’t like the negative connotation. How about “happy accident?!” To be unintended is to be accidental.

LOL again you don’t need to add happy, emotions have nothing to do with truth. Evolution is no accident. The fact you think it is shows your lack of understanding of the subject.

Purpose: 1 a: something set up as an object or end to be attained. I’ll grant you that if by purpose you mean continuation of the species (again, assuming no God - only the natural system), then, you’re correct. We still have a purpose - although it is no more lofty than the purpose of a tape worm, ebola, or scabies. If you are comfortable with that I’d tell you to either a) stop killing scabies or b) start killing humans. If you are looking for something more, then I’m sorry: without God, there is nothing more that has been “set up (in our creation) as an object or end to be attained.”

Humans have purpose without god.

We exist. The universe exists. That’s a whole lot - trillions of threads of evidence to suggest that we were created. Given that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, you find it more logical to believe that the most logical hypothesis as to where all that stuff came from (a Prime Mover) is better to be ignored because you don’t see any evidence. Evidence: look in the mirror, take a walk outside.

I understand these things without need for a god. It is common knowledge that god hides at the edge of ones understanding (if you let it). You don’t understand these things so you think “god did it”. You are not alone in that aspect. However “god did it” just means “i don’t know”, how did god do it? I realise to explain the things i don’t understand with god did it, is just the same as saying i don’t know. The difference between me and you is i can admit i don’t know.

Isn’'t that an absolute, Mr. Darwin? Wouldn’t that statement alone invalidate any reason to think that statement valid?

lets not argue about semantics.

Ah, of course, you were brought up enlightened - which is really only a funny way of saying you did as your parents raised you to do - which is also funny because that’s the same weakness you accuse people who are raised religious of having. You haven’t ventured out of the nice little “thought silo” you were brought up to inhabit and then you have the gall to insult those of us who have by flat out stating you can critically review evidence better than ALL Christians? I’m sorry, I have a very hard time taking you seriously if that’s what you really think. To insist that ALL Christians are only Christians because they have an intellectual “blind spot” (because they don’t see things the way you see things) goes further than folly and closer to crazy.

Not really i was brought up to critically examine cliams, that is nothing like being raised to except dogma.

You’ve missed my point entirely - I’m sorry I didn’t explain it clearer. You agreed before that each person can, because there is no God, determine what they think the purpose of a human being is. That is to say, they can say what they think man to be. If there is a God, people who still believe this - that they can choose the purpose of their life and still feel fulfilled - are saying that they, a man, can become a fish if they want to. Obviously, they can’t. If they were made by their Creator to love one another and to love and serve Him, then there is no way they can decide to reinvent themselves as something else.

I have no idea what you are talking about, how could a man become a fish if there is no god?

And what proof do you have for this belief that free will is a myth, Mr. Darwin? You are overstating your personal belief as fact.

Ok, free will is illogical.