Well, I can understand why atheists want a warm and fuzzy God, one who never condemns, is accepting of everything, responds to requests as a genie would, basically, a god created in THEIR image.
Of course you don't see. That's the whole point. Where the fuck did your hope come from. Your whole world view is hopeless. For you God could be the Devil. You don't know anything because you have no proof. Numb is what I would call you.
This is your chosen paradigm...which is fine by me. But consider this, perhaps there is more to the picture than you realize.
Well, I can understand why atheists want a warm and fuzzy God, one who never condemns, is accepting of everything, responds to requests as a genie would, basically, a god created in THEIR image.
Wait, why would that be inherent to atheists? I would think the believers would want that kind of god, seeing as they they think he is real. An atheist view means that you would not care as there is not a god. A compassionate person who is also an atheist might want a nice god, but its not inherent to atheism. Unless you are making the argument that atheists are atheists to get away with things.
Because atheists are the ones who complain about the type of God presented in the Bible. You have some Christians who do to, but in my experience, its prominent in atheists circles.
There's ALWAYS more to the picture than I realize. It's a given assumption.
M
There's always more to the picture than that it's a given assumption. The fact that there is always more to any picture than we understand tells us that we really know nothing. That leads to an empty state, one where one is not attached to opinions. A lack of opinions leads to the possibility of contact with deeper realities in the self that are otherwise occluded by assumptions.
Then I think you misunderstand if its the arguments I have seen.
Its not that atheists want a warm and fuzzy god. It that most theists say that god is warm and fuzzy and does nothing but, but, when you read the bible, that is not true. I know you have said that god does not have to be nice, and I think I remember you saying you don't think he is, but many don't believe that as shown by moonie.
The arguments I have seen is atheists saying god is not nice and that a nice god would not do the things he supposedly done, not that he would need to be nice to be real.
Then how do you know you understand enough about god to really know god? If there is always more to the picture, how do you know anything? Unless you are exempt it seems irrational and I do not understand what you just said.
You seem to be missing the point:Ah, so God is a stupid motherfucker. Nice, I like it. But I didn't tell you that so who the f did?
a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
That's the point...you don't. You must be open to the possibility and let it come to you. There is no proof, no guarantees. Love never has any guarantees, yet we risk everything for it. It's the same with faith in a higher being
M
That's the point...you don't. You must be open to the possibility and let it come to you. There is no proof, no guarantees. Love never has any guarantees, yet we risk everything for it. It's the same with faith in a higher being
M
Then how do you know you understand enough about god to really know god? If there is always more to the picture, how do you know anything? Unless you are exempt it seems irrational and I do not understand what you just said.
When you take from a person everything they were taught to believe, remove all their conditioning, what can't be taken, what is left, is what is real. Find out what that is. There are a million things one can call it, and God is one of them.
So when you know nothing and know you know nothing what you are is awake, present, in the now, a mirror of being, eternal, the source of creation, and so on and so forth.
You seem to be missing the point:
Either
(A) God exists, which means that all sorts of contradictory things are true, or
(B) God doesn't exist, and there are no contradictions.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist. You know, kind of like a reductio ad absurdum argument in logic.
Was that so difficult?
I got stuck on A. Why is A true? I think A is false.
Except for the fact that we can at least prove that the person we love actually exists.
Can you? SInce you only want facts......Can you truly fully know another person, and can you truly prove that they feel the same way? Murder rates and divorce rates tell me otherwise.
M
A contains multiple things. Why not start by explaining the part you got stuck on.
I said that we can prove that they actually exist, you haven't even made it that far.
Ahhh I get it. You missed the first 13 pages of this thread. Understandable.
M
This part: (A) God exists, which means that all sorts of contradictory things are true, or
Maybe I misunderstood you. Were you comparing loving another person to faith in God? You said that love doesn't have any guarantees, yet we risk everything for it. Then you said it's the same with having faith in a higher being. Before I love someone I want to be sure they exist. Shouldn't you also have some evidence that a higher being exists?
The shortened version of most of the thread:
--No proof can ever be devised to prove or disprove the existence of God.
--No proof can ever show how someone truly feels.
--Science and logic are not equipped to deal with faith, since it comes from within.
M