i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
So you cannot find a better term to define "lack of belief in deities". Just accept that atheism has a broad spectrum of positions towards god. From the assertion that god doesn't exist (a minority; how most theists imagine the atheist position) to those who say "I lack belief in god because there's no compelling evidence for it" (the majority).
But shall we go back to the OP topic?
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
"Lack" imply an "I don't care" attitude.
Wrong: That's not atheism; that's apatheism. Atheism and apatheism aren't mutually exclusive. Just as agnosticism and apatheism aren't. I consider myself apatheist AND agnostic.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
How would you then define someone who lacks belief in deities for lack of sufficient evidence, but stops short of saying "deities do not exist"? Do you have a term for that?
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
Deleted because of repetition.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
i've accepted my agnosticism, but doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.
I would LOVE that a big loving daddy in the sky would welcome me to heaven after my physical death. Why not?
I just don't see any convincing evidence. Actually, all unequivocal evidence supports the contrary. Yet, I leave room for doubt.
And just before you strum the old mantra "you are a follower of scientism because you only accept evidence through the scientific method", that's a strawman argument, because you are misrepresenting my position. Just because I don't accept magical thinking and appeal to supernatural causation doesn't mean I fall into the category you desire to put me in. Another straw man argument is to define "atheism" as denial of god's existence. Most atheists won't subscribe to that statement.
Now, you can chose between making your contribution to the debate, or derail the debate by questioning my worldview. Your choice.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
Please keep in mind my own agnosticism. I'm not taking sides here, merely instigating debate.
I think modern judaism makes a much better job at coming up with a concept of 'god' that is more consistent with the reality of this world. However, by making explicit reference to 'omnibenevolence' and 'omniscience' as traits of the divinity, I am referencing clearly a god that a certain strain of christianity believes in, one that JW's would subscribe to.
I don't see how a divinity allowing a quarter of a million people to be killed by a tsunami and then use that (either on purpose or opportunistically, either way, with variable degrees of accountability) to test the faith of the remaining humanity can still be considered 'omnibenevolent'.
Outlaw - I would have to believe in an "Unintelligent Supreme Being"..
LOL!
t_b_k - Satan challenged God's authority. In order to save face with creation, God accepted the challenge and now mankind suffers to appease God's ego.
So what does that tell us about god's 'omnibenevolence'?
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
Ugh. Spiders. Bad. Evil.
unfolding now - could be terrorist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/man-shot-police-outside-parliament-officer-reportedly-shoots/.
Smiddy:
Consider this: the New Testament writings precede the Quran by 400-500 years.
Christianity is a direct development from OT judaism, whereas Islam is (albeit borrowing some elements from judaism and early Christianity) a new religion from its inception. Its writings reflect the somewhat barbaric society (by our western civilization standards, to which I subscribe) where they originated from. Islam is a problem because nothing within Islam with sufficient authority has superceeded yet those original writings.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
I'll be starting a series "Answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate. Your arguments for and against are most welcome.
I'll start with this:
Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
Think about Adam, Eve, Abraham, Job .... as well as modern examples.
if god is able to foretell the outcome, and can do no evil (notice that not stopping evil when you have the power to do so is in itself evil) then why god put humans through tests of faith - many of them consisting of unimaginable suffering?
follow the story:.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-photographer-iduskbn16t1y5.
