Posts by slimboyfat

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

slimboyfat

There's something gone wrong at the end of this thread.

The opneing post seems to demand a number of specific things from God in order for us to believe in him: 1) nature shouldn't be full of death and destruction 2) mass extinctions 3) parasites and predators 4) Bible prophecy should be specific and true 5) the Bible should be clearly ethically superior 6) ahead of its time 7) miracles should be happening with proof 8) no natural disasters 9) prayers would be answered.

But it strikes me that a God could easily exist without doing any of those things. Why not? This list speaks no so much to the probability of a God existing, but his likability according to a set of criteria which are culturally conditioned by our religious background. (Why on earth should clear provable "prophecy" be an essential characteristic for God? Why can't he supply obscure and ambiguous prophecy if he wishes? Other than we would prefer otherwise, I can see no logical reason why a God who provides frustrating prophetic statements is therefore a God who cannot exist.)

And beside all the demands for prophecies and healing and a world without predators and so on. What about the extraordinary things that do exist in this world? What about consciousness and the appearance of beings who can contemplate their origin and fate? What about the very fact that anything exists at all? Are not these things miraculous? In some sense more miraculous than anything in the gospels?

102

Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

by kpop in

jw
friends

alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

slimboyfat

Well I went to the library today and looked up a few commentaries on Luke and they all said Jesus was saying that people who suffer "natural calamities" (the term used by I. Howard Marshall) are not singled out because they are especially sinful. But that everyone is sinful and all need to repent if they want to survive in the end.

At which point I forgot how or why you even disagree with that. It seems pretty obscure to me now.

Anyway I ended up coming away with a book on congectural emendation. So all's well that ends well.

Something I find interesting about the approach of yourself and some other atheists to the problem of evil. There seems to be a lot of anger, resentment and even contempt directed toward a God you claim you are sure does not exist.

There is a similar phenomenon in the famous clip of Stephen Fry explaining what he would say if he could confront God.

You would think that if you are committed to the idea of a universe that sprang from nothing, no higher intelligence or divine being, or at least no personal God. In that case you'd think an atheist would be adjusted to a world without purpose or a divine being providing meaning and explanation. In this scenario the universe is not evil or capricious it is just indifferent. You'd think in this case the most natural response to the question: what would you say to God? Would be simply to say there is none, the universe just exists and doesn't care, so there no point investing emotion in the hypothetical scenario.

Yet many atheists such as Fry and yourself, seem to invest a tremendous amount of thought and emotion into the question of how evil God would be if he really created this world, and that you would give him a piece of your mind if you ever met him. To be honest, such sentiments don't really sound like you have really fully given up on a world without a supreme being.

Which reminds me of the sarcastic (but somewhat true) remark that "atheists are boring because all they ever talk about is God".

And Jean Paul Sartre's contradictory complaint: "God doesn't exist, the bastard".

Believers and atheists are much closer than either often admit. As Derrida put it, true believers experience atheist all the time. Apparently the converse is also true.

11

Picture worth 1000 words

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

(matthew 25:41-46) 41 “then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, ‘be on your way from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 for i became hungry, but you gave me nothing to eat, and i got thirsty, but you gave me nothing to drink.

43 i was a stranger, but you did not receive me hospitably; naked, but you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but you did not look after me.’ 44 then they also will answer with the words, ‘lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ 45 then he will answer them with the words, ‘truly i say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of these least ones, you did not do it to me.’ 46 and these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”.

slimboyfat

That's clearly an apostate trying to make the Witnesses look bad.

In fact I dare someone to dress like a homeless person and sit down next to the cart with this sign:

"Luke 18:22 Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."

102

Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

by kpop in

jw
friends

alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

slimboyfat

I guess believers might view the situation a bit like this:

You have a trusted friend that you know very well. Some event happens and some money goes missing. In their absence everything seems to point to the conclusion that your trusted friend stole the money. The people present discussing the situation point out that all the evidence shows your trusted friend stole the money. There is simply no other logical conclusion that can reasonably be drawn. And you have to admit that you can't think of any other explanation either. Yet you insist that you don't believe your trusted friend stole the money because you trust them, and you believe they wouldn't do that. The other people mock you and insist there simply is no other explanation and demand that you explain what other explanation can there be. You rack your brain and you can't think of any other explanation. Yet you still trust your friend, and even if you can't think of the explanation, you believe that there must nevertheless be some explanation.

102

Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

by kpop in

jw
friends

alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

slimboyfat

1 - A tower collapsing is NOT a natural disaster.

It could or it could not be depending on your definition. If it was because of an earthquake I think most people would call it a natural disaster. If it collapsed because of human intervention of carelessness I guess most would say that's not a natural disaster.

On the other extreme you get some believers who insist that even earthquakes are not natural disasters and claim they are man made.

I am not sure the distinction is terribly meaningful or helpful anyway. In as much as, in either case, people suffer, and an almighty God could stop it if he wished.

2 - The Galileans did not die in a natural disaster; they were murdered by Herod.

I never said otherwise.

3 - Jesus gave an explanation for the death of the men in the tower. They were unrepentant sinners.

Jesus pointed out that they were no more sinful than others. And Matthew Henry comments: "He [Jesus] cautioned his hearers not to blame great sufferers, as if they were therefore to be accounted great sinners." Which is the basic point I am making to you.

4 - Jesus said his hearers would similarly perish UNLESS they repent.

Yes Jesus said they would perish if they didn't repent.

5 - He never said a single word about natural disasters.

I counted the collapse of the tower as a natural disaster. But as you point out it's the indiscriminate nature of such events, rather than whether they are "natural" or not, which is the main focus here.

6 - Natural disasters kill people indiscriminately including repentant sinners, babies and infants.

Jesus' point was precisely this. The people who died in the tower collapse were not more sinful than others.

7 - Jesus taught a god who is love

Yes and this apparently was compatible with Jesus' belief that people who die in disasters are not being punished for being especially sinful but that such events can happen to all sinners.

8 - The god who created a world that randomly kills millions of its inhabitants would be a evil god.

That does seem like a reasonable conclusion. And I don't know what the answer is. And none of the answers to the problem of suffering I have seen are satisfying. But that doesn't mean there is no answer or there can't be something about the situation I am not aware of or don't understand properly.

People who believe in God on other grounds often don't have an answer to this question either. But they trust that God is more perfect than their own minds,

Every post you have made in the past few pages is nothing but obfuscation. But you already know that. As usual it's all a dishonest game to you.

I make my arguments honestly and with sincerity. Cut out the snide rhetoric it does you no credit.

18

If you had the opportunity to create religious doctrine from scratch,what rule would your church or nation have?

by Chook in

would you teach a heaven , hell, jesus , paradise.

what rule structure for discipline ect ,ect,.

slimboyfat

Water
If I were called in
To construct a religion
I should make use of water.
Going to church
Would entail a fording
To dry, different clothes;
My liturgy would employ
Images of sousing,
A furious devout drench,
And I should raise in the east
A glass of water
Where any-angled light
Would congregate endlessly.

Philip Larkin

102

Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

by kpop in

jw
friends

alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

slimboyfat

I don't know if Jesus had any good reasons for reconciling his belief in God and disasters, but it appears he accepted both, is all I'm saying. Therefore it's misleading to say disasters are incompatible with Jesus' God when Jesus himself acknowledged disasters.

It's like how sometimes atheists will imply you can't be a scientist and believe in God. And all you have to do is point out the many prominent scientists who believe in God, which refutes the claim.

If you say you can't believe in the God of Jesus in light of suffering from natural disasters. It is of course relevant to point out that Jesus himself apparently believed in his God despite natural disasters that he spoke about.

,

102

Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

by kpop in

jw
friends

alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

slimboyfat

Jesus thought he was God?

I think it is relevant to point out that Jesus was aware of natural disasters and that it didn't dent his belief in God in the context of a claim that natural disasters are incompatible with Jesus' God.

102

Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

by kpop in

jw
friends

alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

slimboyfat

The point I was making is that Jesus was well aware of natural disasters and it apparently didn't stop his faith in God. Therefore your claim that natural disasters are incompatible with Jesus' God is at the very least problematic.

102

Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

by kpop in

jw
friends

alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

slimboyfat

I think Jesus was promising salvation if they repent, not simply avoiding death in this or that disaster. He was using the two disasters to make the point that disasters can befall anyone but that the only way to be saved in the end is to repent.