I am an atheist

[montanaman]

I expected you’d say something like that. I’m actually very sympathetic to your impression because I loathe arguments from personal, subjective experience. Suffice it to say I didn’t make an argument. I just suggested you try something new–actually desiring God.

If you don’t see him, you don’t see him. Christianity is for people who know they’re “sick.” If you don’t think you are, well, so be it.

 

[Pax]

What Yahweh wants, according to his stated characteristics, is what he gets.
Omnipotence. This means that he has the power to do anything.
Omniscience. This means that he knew just how many abortions he would be causing - even before the parents were born.
Omnibenevolence. Well, I find it laughable. Why does he keep causing all those abortions? I guess the church should re-evaluate their opposition to theraputic abortion. Yahweh does it regularly, and so it must be benevolent.

A quote from the internet…
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)

Either you did not read what I asked you to review or you are simply ignoring it rather than responding to it.

 

[Armor_of_God]

For me, the fact that this is the only life there is.
If you read the poem I have been posting, and get in the mood of it (that there is nothing more to the world), you may start to understand why I treat people well, and why I find it so much more impressive without a god in it.

I’m glad you brought the Silverlock poem up, as I had just re-read it this morning before my earlier posts, and I was curious about you and was going to bring it up. You said that you found it uplifting and empowering. Yet, several times you have discarded what someone said on this post as merely “poetry” (i.e. implying something without real substance). I think that poetry actually has a lot of merit in expressing concepts and thoughts. That one poem has summed up what you have been spending 76 pages saying. I think poetry can be pretty powerful stuff.

Here is a poem (set to music) that I find very uplifting:

**How Can I Keep From Singing? (Robert Lowry)

My life flows on in endless song;
Above earth’s lamentation
I hear the sweet though far off hymn
That hails a new creation:
Through all the tumult and the strife
I hear the music ringing;
It finds an echo in my soul -
How can I keep from singing?

What though my joys and comforts die?
The Lord my Savior liveth;
What though the darkness gather round!
Songs in the night He giveth:
No storm can shake my inmost calm
While to that refuge clinging;
Since Christ is Lord of Heav’n and earth,
How can I keep from singing?

I lift mine eyes; the cloud grows thin;
I see the blue above it;
And day by day this pathway smoothes
Since first I learned to love it:
The peace of Christ makes fresh my heart,
A fountain ever springing:
All things are mine since I am His -
How can I keep from singing?**

 

[Pax]

Less impact on the environment? The flood (would have)had a huge impact! And god could place the gas, and then take it away. It would be done in a manner of minutes. If there was any damage by gas or by the flood, god could easily fix it. I don’t see the point here.

Oh by all means, there are probably problems with a lot of them. But the point is that if I, a lowly human, could see so many other ways that would have been better, to say that this terrifying method was the best god could come up with does not seem logical. And to dismiss every other potential solution out there is just as illogical.

Again, it is by far quicker, and less terrifying way to go. Tell me, would you rather take minutes - hours to drown or have 0-5 seconds of consciousness before death? Which seems worse to you? As I’m not a chemist, there are probably even quicker ways to gas someone than I’ve found with my precursory research.

So why didn’t he vaporize the world instead of a slow death by flood? THAT is the immoral quandary, the abuse of power, since he had an option to vaporize the world, or cause each person to drop dead, or turn into salt or whatever, but chose a way that caused massive suffering.

I know it escapes you, because you are in the mindset that anything god does is good, even if it doesn’t seem fit with the Catholic idea of good. I used to be of that mindset too. It all boils down to this: Option A: Kill with lots of suffering. Option B: Kill with no suffering Option C: other. Option A was chosen and initiated and followed through personally by god.

Your options are simply your ideas and they may have unforeseen consequences. I would guess that the law of unintended consequences would probably ruin your best layed scenarios. You are consistently placing your mindset and your thinking above the Creator’s. You seem to think that this is a virtuous approach to understanding God and His actions. You will never understand God or ask yourself the right questions by doing this.

I’m just another human being and I immediately saw some pitfalls with your scenarios. You apparently did not see these when you first proposed them. I do the same thing myself all the time. I’m sure everyone else does too. You have an admirable sense of how you should treat your fellow man. You have no sense, however, of how God should or should not treat man. The moment you think that you are in a position to make God like decisions and judgments you have left the realm of your own humanity. You work from the assumption that God’s actions, as you understand them, are wrong because of your human understandings of what man is supposed to do vis-a-vis man. This is illogical. God relates to man as a Supreme Being to a mere creature of His creation. Man is not God’s peer.

You are hung up on pain involved in punishment. There are many that would say that a painless death would not be punishment at all. Why are your human demands any more valid than theirs? Our own system of justice uses progressive forms of punishment. The idea is that the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Those that are incarcerated can face progressive punishments for violations they commit inside prison. This can include but is not limited to solitary confinement without any privileges. This is extremely unpleasant. That having been said I do not think that we should, therefore, just give them a painless injection and put them to sleep for thirty days at a time while they are in solitary. This would eliminate all of their pain and suffering due to solitary and it would no longer be a punishment.

If you think that the evil doers swept away in the deluge should not have suffered than perhaps you need to consider a revision to any and all punishments that have any unpleasantries associated with them. Do you really think that punishments should all be painless and free of any and all physical and psychological suffering? Somehow, I don’t think that anyone would rightly agree with that idea, but it is a logical extension of your views.

 

[Aleii]

Pax:

Personally, I do not think that you grasp just how bad things are around the world today. Nor do I think that you fully grasp the horrors of the 20th century in terms of what man has done to man. Likewise, I do not think that you have a grasp of what ancient-primitive peoples were like. You once again brought up rehabilitation. Try rehabilitating a child molester. Look at how successful all the rehabilitation efforts have been within our criminal justice system. Look at all the failed efforts by psychologists and psychiatrists. Weigh all of those against the small number of success stories.

It is the success stories which create the requirement to try everything possible. I am not blind to the horrors of the past. But being in healthcare I have had the great fortune to have been able to experience working with a variety of people, and seeing such incredible human strength through adversity.

You claim that children and teenagers swept away in the flood were innocent. There is no evidence from the biblicl text that anyone lost in the flood was innocent. There is direct evidence that says none of them were innocent.

I don’t agree that the Bible statement is direct evidence that says babies and children were not innocent. The alternatives are: the flood should be read as a story, and, Catholicism is wrong. I see the alternatives as far more logical. A story is not direct evidence. As I wrote before, I have a very hard time seeing how any society can be 100% evil. Work would not be done, there would be mass killings and theft, the ark would have probably been damaged or destroyed, no marriages would take place, even though the Bible talks about marriages, etc. How about responding to that? Marriage is good, and the Bible also talks about marriages taking place, so how is it that the society is 100% evil when marriages are occurring? Do you see how this contradicts? Please respond to these specific points instead of just writing a few paragraphs which happens to miss these points, and then saying I have been soundly defeated, when many of my points are still up in the air.

Saying a child or especially an infant is evil is illogical, especially those under the age of reason. No, I don’t think a young child should ever suffer, especially by the hand of god. There is no purpose for a painful punishment when no good will come of it.

Do you really think that punishments should all be painless and free of any and all physical and psychological suffering? Somehow, I don’t think that anyone would rightly agree with that idea, but it is a logical extension of your views.

Punishment is for the ultimate purpose of teaching/rehabilitating. I do not agree that all punishments should be painless and free of suffering. I don’t see a strong case for physical punishment, but I can see a case for punishment which causes some mental suffering, such as taking away a toy, making a child go to bed early, taking someone away from society for some time to reflect and rehabilitate (yes it’s the goal although not always soundly accomplished, we still have further to go in perfecting the methods used)

No matter how evil someone is, I’d rather them be killed by lethal injection than be slowly burned alive, even though a small part of me would want them to be burned alive for the terror they’ve placed on the earth. The purpose of killing is to kill, and it should be done in the quickest way possible to get the job done. Punishment should be done based on the benefit to the person and society, and yes, may involve some psychological discomfort. I do not see the point in putting someone to sleep for their solitary confinement. What will that teach them? But, I know society’s methods can be, and continue to be, improved. We are far from perfecting our technique. Solitary confinement is under debate right now, it can be seen as a form of torture, and may not be very productive in the end.

 

[Aleii]

Really, you have not explained well enough how there are pitfalls with every one of my scenarios. For example, I gave an example of a formula for gas to knock a person unconscious within 0-5 seconds, rather than minutes to hours of torture by drowning. You never responded to which you would prefer, only stating that it might not be much different, but not backing up how it would not be so much better than drowning. Or, again, it could be sudden death for them all, or death in sleep, or many other instant ways. I would far prefer being vaporized or having a quick gas death than the agony with drowning. You never elaborated on how your drowning experience was so much different than my experiences with it either, though, I’m guessing it was because you were unconscious and didn’t consciously experience the drowning at all. I really don’t understand your point of view in dismissing all of that without more solid reasoning than “it just is”.

I’ve tried to give explanations as to why your other issues are not issues as all, like the environmental impact. I recognize that of the many solutions I can offer, some will probably have pitfalls. Really though, you state with certainty that every alternative situation has pitfalls which render it useless, though I have not seen you solidly disprove them, just speculate, and then fail to respond to my counters, or, place us in a deadlock on things.

You have an admirable sense of how you should treat your fellow man. You have no sense, however, of how God should or should not treat man.

Better than man treats man. Its that simple.

You work from the assumption that God’s actions, as you understand them, are wrong because of your human understandings of what man is supposed to do vis-a-vis man. This is illogical.

God is supposed to be better than man. Its that simple. So I try to find the best case scenario that man could come up with, and god should easily beat that. Simply stating that this is illogical does not make it so. My human understandings of what man is supposed to do vis-à-vis man comes from from Jesus, not some random understandings.

If you think that the evil doers swept away in the deluge should not have suffered than perhaps you need to consider a revision to any and all punishments that have any unpleasantries associated with them

They will suffer enough in hell. Torturing a person right before they die does not seem moral to me. I don’t see the good that comes of it. Why would we rip off a man’s fingernails before we kill him? Why would we inflict more on him than death? Isn’t death enough? What good does torture before death do? If a purpose is only to hurt, then that is not a moral purpose.

Good people die with pain all the time from natural causes.

There’s a difference between pain caused by biology, and pain caused by god.

You accuse me of assuming that God is always 100% right. Well, that is part of the definition of a Supreme Being. Likewise, you will admit that we as human beings are ignorant of many things, but you will not concede that our ignorance sufficiently extends into the realm of what we are discussing.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. My issue is with religion, not with god. I am a former Catholic now agnostic. I am not an atheist. This Bible story does not fit with the idea of a perfect god.

 

[kell0618]

First, we have to get you to say which god you mean. I will guess, for several reasons, that you mean Yahweh of the old testament. That is a ridiculous theory which could not be true, so I reject it. All the other gods which I have investigated are similarly flawed. I am an atheist.
I don’t believe in a god or gods. If there is ever evidence presented to me which suggests it would be more likely to operate under the assumption that there is a god, then I will likely change to operate that way.
Most reasonable people don’t believe in the tooth fairy, either. Yet they cannot offer disproof of such a being. I leave gods in this category.
If you cannot disprove the tooth fairy, it has as much evidencial weight as Yahweh, or any gods I have heard of to date.
I tried to be clear, but if something doesn’t make sense, please feel free to ask.

KIDS, DON’T READ THIS

We know the tooth fairy is fake. This has never been in question. The tooth fairy is easily disproved.

Why is the notion of Yahweh absolutely ridiculous in theory and definitely untrue?

God is found in the heart. When a young person asks ‘how do you know when you are really in love?’ the adult in question can’t really describe it and usually gives a lame answer. If your heart is completely closed off to God, you cannot know Him.

Everything you stated tells me that you are agnostic. Peace be with you.

Kelly

 

[_A]

I expected you’d say something like that. I’m actually very sympathetic to your impression because I loathe arguments from personal, subjective experience. Suffice it to say I didn’t make an argument. I just suggested you try something new–actually desiring God.

If you don’t see him, you don’t see him. Christianity is for people who know they’re “sick.” If you don’t think you are, well, so be it.

Just why would I desire him? I have, in the past, desired him (remember I was raised catholic). This didn’t bring him, but the reason I don’t want to now is that everyone suspiciously keeps avoiding my question -
What steps have you taken to differentiate between the two, knowing that you hallucinate regularly, and knowing that you have a strong desire for just this sort of hallucination?
You are suggesting to me that I try making myself hallucinate so that I will be able to believe. No thank you. Why don’t you answer this question?

 

[_A]

Either you did not read what I asked you to review or you are simply ignoring it rather than responding to it.

I didn’t go back and review. I have been reading all along. If you would like to direct me to a post number, I will look, but I am not going to browse 70-odd pages because you don’t want to repeat yourself. Sorry, but I have a hard enough time keeping up as it is.

 

[_A]

You work from the assumption that God’s actions, as you understand them, are wrong because of your human understandings of what man is supposed to do vis-a-vis man. This is illogical.

You work from the assumption that Yahweh’s actions, as you understand them, are right because of your human understandings of what Yahweh is supposed to do vis-a-vis man. This is illogical.

Frustrating when your own logic messes with you, eh?

 

[_A]

KIDS, DON’T READ THIS

We know the tooth fairy is fake. This has never been in question. The tooth fairy is easily disproved.

Go ahead and disprove it, then.

Why is the notion of Yahweh absolutely ridiculous in theory and definitely untrue?

Among other examples, if he were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why is there still evil? (see the internet quote from earlier for more info)

God is found in the heart. When a young person asks ‘how do you know when you are really in love?’ the adult in question can’t really describe it and usually gives a lame answer. If your heart is completely closed off to God, you cannot know Him.

Again I am told I am simply not wishing hard enough.

Everything you stated tells me that you are agnostic. Peace be with you.

Kelly

I don’t know what YOU are reading, but I have said over and over that I am an atheist. I have been saying it for over 70 pages now. Perhaps you have confused me with Aleii,

 

[kell0618]

Go ahead and disprove it, then.
Among other examples, if he were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why is there still evil? (see the internet quote from earlier for more info)
Again I am told I am simply not wishing hard enough.

I don’t know what YOU are reading, but I have said over and over that I am an atheist. I have been saying it for over 70 pages now. Perhaps you have confused me with Aleii,

There is still evil because there are still humans. Humans are the source of evil, not God.

God is not about wishing. If He resides within you, you will know. If He does not, He simply does not. If you choose to not consider Him, He will not reside within your heart. This is the precise reason you do not know Him.

I know you said you are an atheist. I have you confused with no one.

I can prove there is no tooth fairy. Have a child. They lose a tooth. They put the tooth under the pillow. Wait and see what happens when you don’t put something under their pillow while they are sleeping.

Peace,

Kelly

 

[montanaman]

Just why would I desire him? I have, in the past, desired him (remember I was raised catholic). This didn’t bring him, but the reason I don’t want to now is that everyone suspiciously keeps avoiding my question -
What steps have you taken to differentiate between the two, knowing that you hallucinate regularly, and knowing that you have a strong desire for just this sort of hallucination?
You are suggesting to me that I try making myself hallucinate so that I will be able to believe. No thank you. Why don’t you answer this question?

Because the question doesn’t apply to me, not to mention it’s just as condescending as if I asked why you’re so blind. You might as well ask me if I’ve stopped beating my wife.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is way over the 1000 post limit, and is now closed. Thanks to all who have participated, and anyone is welcome to start the thread again if they wish!

God bless-

Rachel