To Atheists - why God does not appear to us

[Carl]

A previous poster, whose name I can’t remember, cited a quotation from Sigmund Freud.

Religion is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.–

To which one might as well reply:

Atheism is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.

And because it does so, it asks such hopeless questions as:

Why does God not appear to us?

But the final question for the atheist is:

Why do you want God not to exist? What intellectual desire (or even emotional need) is fulfilled by denying the existence of God?

 

[Booger]

Carl:

A previous poster, whose name I can’t remember, cited a quotation from Sigmund Freud.

Religion is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.–

To which one might as well reply:

Atheism is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.

And because it does so, it asks such hopeless questions as:

Why does God not appear to us?

But the final question for the atheist is:

Why do you want God not to exist? What intellectual desire (or even emotional need) is fulfilled by denying the existence of God?

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

Why do you want God not to exist? What intellectual desire (or even emotional need) is fulfilled by denying the existence of God?

You just don’t get it, do you? I have never said or thought that I did not want God to exist. I DO NOT deny the existance of God. Quit vomiting bigotry and read what I am writing.

Would it be nice to have a ‘Sumpreme Being’ who looks after me? YES. But what is shown me is a God that has done horrible things. He would punish me for eternity for not believing in him, even though he didn’t think to make the universe look like it is run any other way than way then by natural processes.

The idea that this ‘loving’ God would punish anyone infinitly for a finite crime is sickening.

 

[Booger]

Don’t bother Monarchy, Carl has had his nose buried in anti-atheist literature for so long that he has evolved a disturbingly narrow minded view of them.

 

[Carl]

MONARCHY

*I have never claimed to know anything with certainty. Could God exist?
YES. *

Well now, we are making progress.

Is there any physical proof that he does?
No.

Is this the extent to which your imagination rises when you think of God? Do you expect God to be visible to the naked eye?

*But you would force people to believe in something for which there is no physical proof. *

Who is using force? What kind of force? Please be specific.

 

[Carl]

MONARCHY

*But what is shown me is a God that has done horrible things. He would punish me for eternity for not believing in him, *

No, you would be punishing yourself. God invites you to believe in Him. Most people worldwide take Him up on that invitation, even though their knowledge of Him may be fragile and finite.

You say to God, I don’t want you in my life. God gives you many chances to take that back. You insist. God tells you about hell. You still insist. You are in charge of making the choice, not God. You cannot blame hell on God. He gave you a choice of something better. You refused. You told God you wanted nothing to do with Him. He takes you at your word … forever.

Hell for anyone may well be the eternal realization that heaven was within grasp, and it was hurled aside as garbage by us, not God.

 

[squirt]

Booger:

Don’t bother Monarchy, Carl has had his nose buried in anti-atheist literature for so long that he has evolved a disturbingly narrow minded view of them.

Booger,

That’s why God gave us the ignore function, eh? Or maybe it was a software developer?

 

[Booger]

squirt:

Booger,

That’s why God gave us the ignore function, eh? Or maybe it was a software developer?

That’s a good point.

Carl, the next time you have something nasty to say to me, say it publicly.

 

[Carl]

What I said to you in a private post was to correct your grammar so that you would not make these kinds of mistakes again and reveal your ignorance for all to see. There was nothing nasty about it. It was an act of charity.

Son, you need to learn some manners and learn them fast.

 

[Booger]

Carl:

What I said to you in a private post was to correct your grammar so that you would not make these kinds of mistakes again and reveal your ignorance for all to see. There was nothing nasty about it. It was an act of charity.

Son, you need to learn some manners and learn them fast.

You forgot to mention the part where you threatened to publicly embarrass me.

I find it strange that I’m the only person from this entire thread that you singled out for bad grammar, which wasn’t even that bad. I’ve got manners, but why should I waste them on a Jack Chick wannabe like you? And don’t call me son. I would disown you if you were my father.

 

[Paul_Stephens]

Charity

General Reminder:

This charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Paul Stephens
Moderator

 

[wildlifer]

Carl:

A previous poster, whose name I can’t remember, cited a quotation from Sigmund Freud.

Religion is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.–

To which one might as well reply:

Atheism is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.

Could very well be true. But I would say it derives its strength from the fact it falls within intellectual reality.

And because it does so, it asks such hopeless questions as:

Why does God not appear to us?

I’ve never asked such a question, as I know the logical answer. But who am I to question the “ways” of god, eh?

But the final question for the atheist is:

Why do you want God not to exist? What intellectual desire (or even emotional need) is fulfilled by denying the existence of God?

It has nothing to do with desire.
Now if it was raining outside and I denied it, and said the sun was shining, you might have a valid question.

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

MONARCHY

No, you would be punishing yourself. God invites you to believe in Him. Most people worldwide take Him up on that invitation, even though their knowledge of Him may be fragile and finite.

You say to God, I don’t want you in my life. God gives you many chances to take that back. You insist. God tells you about hell. You still insist. You are in charge of making the choice, not God. You cannot blame hell on God. He gave you a choice of something better. You refused. You told God you wanted nothing to do with Him. He takes you at your word … forever.

Hell for anyone may well be the eternal realization that heaven was within grasp, and it was hurled aside as garbage by us, not God.

God puts a ‘gun’ to my head head. Believe in me or be tortured. That is not a decision of free will. If it is than by the exact same logic if a man grabs a woman and says “Have sex with me or I’ll kill you” when the cops come to arrest him for murder, he can simply say “She had free will, It’s her fault she got killed.”

BTW, You invite me, not god, to believe.

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as “might makes right.” The threat doesn’t have to come directly from the person arguing. For example:

“… Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell.”

“… In any case, I know your phone number and I know where you live. Have I mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?”

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

MONARCHY

*I have never claimed to know anything with certainty. Could God exist?
YES. *

Well now, we are making progress.

It’s also possible that the Loch Ness Monster exists, But there is no proof that he/she does.

Is there any physical proof that he does?
No.

Is this the extent to which your imagination rises when you think of God? Do you expect God to be visible to the naked eye?

If a loving god wants me to belive in him or face eternal torture, He would show some proof. He would know me and know that I can not believe in something simply because I am told to.

*But you would force people to believe in something for which there is no physical proof. *

Who is using force? What kind of force? Please be specific.

I appologize, I didn’t mean you as in you speficaly Carl. I meant christians in general. Try and go out and wear an atheist t-shirt once. The bigotry you’ll face will be very eye-opneing.

 

[squirt]

Monarchy:

God puts a ‘gun’ to my head head. Believe in me or be tortured. That is not a decision of free will.

It’s also not something that is found in orthodox Catholic theology. Non-belief does not in and of itself constitute mortal sin. Although many Catholics would like to believe it, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that those who spent their lives as atheists are in hell.

 

[Monarchy]

squirt:

It’s also not something that is found in orthodox Catholic theology. Non-belief does not in and of itself constitute mortal sin. Although many Catholics would like to believe it, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that those who spent their lives as atheists are in hell.

Where are they then?

 

[trogiah]

“The theist and the scientist are rival interpreters of nature. The one retreats as the other advances.” - Joseph McCabe

I finally found the words I can respond to. Sometimes it takes just the right quote, even if it is one that you disagree with.

I consider myself a theist (actually a practicing Catholic who prays and looks to Scripture for inspiration and guidance) and a scientist (Actually a high school teacher of Math and physical science who has taught - among other things - the theory of evolution) I find no fundamental conflict in being both of those things.

In all these threads on Atheism I have the same thought. After listening to efforts to answer the question “Does God exist?” my answer is this, God is a name I give to existence. It is the term by which I address (or attempt to address) Reality. Sort of makes the question answer itself.

Some would say the Bible is record of God revealing himself to humanity. I would suggest putting the slightly different spin on that by saying the Bible is a record of individuals and groups of people who have sought (and to greater or lesser extants found) how to best have a relationship with God (AKA Reality).

I think the Name Moses heard coming out of the burning bush validates this way of looking at the Bible.

I propose that the scientist and the theist are not rival intrepretors of nature but rather the scientist looks for what happens in nature, for patterns to describe what happens and possibly for ways to control what happens. (though some would say that last activity is what techologists do)

The theist looks for ways to relate to what happens, to find good in what happens.

Reality can be known. The more it is pursued, the better it can be known. Jesus knows Reality the way an only and beloved son knows his own father.

This is how I see it

-Jim

 

[squirt]

Monarchy:

Where are they then?

God knows, not us. Heaven sure ain’t out of the realm of possibility if God exists and isn’t a God that you wouldn’t want to know once you actually saw Him.

Ever read Catch-22? There’s a great little passage with 2 atheists arguing about the ‘true’ characteristics of the god they don’t believe in. Very funny little bit. (I thought it was hilarious when I was an atheist, I still think it’s funny.)