4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou assert that the Christian God is more reasonable, but you don't explain why.
It's like saying a three-headed troll could fit the part of Rick Blaine in Casablanca as well as Humphrey Bogart did. But the character, Rick Blaine, requires an actor with at least the attributes of a human being (among others). Three-head trolls lack the essential attributes. Likewise, the Flying Spaghetti Monster lacks the essential attributes to b ...[text shortened]... who at least possesses the attributes which it is conceivable that such a being would require.
Why would a God need the blood sacrifice of his own firstborn in order to pay for some long gone ancestor's disobedience?
Why would he send bears to devour children who teased a bald man about his baldness?
I mean come on.
A reasonable God would not be hidden from us. He would not require faith. He would not create fallable beings and then allow them to be tortured for their fallability. The Christian God is a bizaare being that does NOT make sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou assert that the Christian God is more reasonable, but you don't explain why.
You assert that the Christian God is more reasonable, but you don't explain why.
Why would a God need the blood sacrifice of his own firstborn in order to pay for some long gone ancestor's disobedience?
Why would he send bears to devour children who teased a bald man about his baldness?
I mean come on.
A reasonable God would not be hidden ...[text shortened]... ortured for their fallability. The Christian God is a bizaare being that does NOT make sense.
Well, for instance, a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a creature. As such, it could not have been the creator of all things, since it was itself created. Whereas the God of the Bible is not a creature, but an infinite being, i.e., an uncaused/uncreated being, and as such, if He exists, would be a far more reasonable creator God than a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Why would a God need the blood sacrifice of his own firstborn in order to pay for some long gone ancestor's disobedience?
Isn't that a red herring? Whether Christ's sacrifice is reasonable or not is not the point. The God of the Bible possesses certain attributes which make Him Who He is, e.g., He is eternal, omnipotent, etc. My contention is that a God possessing those attributes is a more reasonable creator God than ridiculous parodies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Given that, the ridiculousness doesn't transfer to the God of the Bible at all, IMO; the comparison fails.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungA reasonable God would not be hidden from us. He would not require faith. He would not create fallable beings and then allow them to be tortured for their fallability. The Christian God is a bizaare being that does NOT make sense.
You assert that the Christian God is more reasonable, but you don't explain why.
Why would a God need the blood sacrifice of his own firstborn in order to pay for some long gone ancestor's disobedience?
Why would he send bears to devour children who teased a bald man about his baldness?
I mean come on.
A reasonable God would not be hidden ...[text shortened]... ortured for their fallability. The Christian God is a bizaare being that does NOT make sense.
It isn't necessarily true that a reasonable God wouldn't be hidden from us, or wouldn't require faith, etc. This is your opinion.
Originally posted by rwingettSo polytheists are actually athiests as well?
There are two types of people in the world: theists and atheists. And everybody is one or the other. If you do not self-identify as a theist, then by definition you are an atheist (a-theism = to be without theism). Agnosticism is a modifier to either theism or atheism, as in agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. Despite the popularity of the notion, ...[text shortened]... ated attempt to pigeonhole atheism as being synonymous with 'hard' atheism, which it is not.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think I would support you here, but not exactly.
In truth, there's really no way to be unaffected by the positive statement, "God exists"; you are forced to take a position, one which you are responsible to defend (i.e., you do not share the same non-rational immunity as babies).
I agree that if you assert the existence of a given God, and I deny its existence, then I must defend my position (and so should you). However, that defense may simply be to say that I find your claim unconvincing. Or I may go further and show flaws in your claim (as often takes place on this forum).
However, this is quite different from the general claim 'God exists', which at face value is practically meaningless as 'God' is so loosely defined that it really needs further qualifiers before any form of position can honestly be taken. In general I am merely very skeptical about the existence of 'godlike beings' and have fairly firm beliefs about more specifically defined Gods/gods that I find unconvincing or more often downright illogical.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou may be right. But can you explain why one is ridiculous and the other isn't?
My contention is that a God possessing those attributes is a more reasonable creator God than ridiculous parodies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Given that, the ridiculousness doesn't transfer to the God of the Bible at all, IMO; the comparison fails.
Which is more ridiculous:
1. Invisible unicorns in my fridge.
2. Flying toasters in space.
3. Unknown entities on the far side of the moon with yellow and pink stripes.
4. An omnipotent omni benevolent God for which there is no evidence.
What makes one more ridiculous than the other? The fact that it is based on another known entity? The fact that it conjures up a funny image? The fact that it is highly improbable? If it is the last, then I disagree that God is any less ridiculous, if it is not the last, then can you give an example that you believe is highly improbable, yet not ridiculous as I have attempted to do in 3 ?
Originally posted by epiphinehasYes...and so is your opinion that the Christian God makes sense. You can't understand my perspective, I don't get yours. I'm an atheist, you're not. I thought this was obvious.
[b]A reasonable God would not be hidden from us. He would not require faith. He would not create fallable beings and then allow them to be tortured for their fallability. The Christian God is a bizaare being that does NOT make sense.
It isn't necessarily true that a reasonable God wouldn't be hidden from us, or wouldn't require faith, etc. This is your opinion.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat's your opinion. It's not necessarily true.
[b]You assert that the Christian God is more reasonable, but you don't explain why.
Well, for instance, a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a creature. As such, it could not have been the creator of all things, since it was itself created. Whereas the God of the Bible is not a creature, but an infinite being, i.e., an uncaused/uncreated being, and as ridiculousness doesn't transfer to the God of the Bible at all, IMO; the comparison fails.[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell, for instance, a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a creature. As such, it could not have been the creator of all things, since it was itself created.
Well, for instance, a Christian God is a being. As such, it could not be the model for man's image, since it is itself the concept of image.
Bet you're saying WTF are you babbling about?
That's my response to your post. WTF are you babbling about? A "creature"? You're making all kinds of assumptions about the nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for no reason. Why do you think it's a creature? Why do you think creatures were all created? Why do you think there is a creator of everything that is itself uncreated? Where is all this coming from?
Originally posted by rwingettWe have someone here state they believe children picked their parents,
Unlike a baby, I am not an implicit atheist. I am an explicit atheist. I am aware of the arguments for god, I understand them, but find them unconvincing. I have no idea if a god exists. I don't think it is possible to know. Lacking any evidence for believing in one, however, I am forced to conclude that the hypothesis does not warrant belief. I will theref ...[text shortened]... econsider. Lacking that, however, the verdict is 'not proven and assumed to be false.'
according to their faith. I don't agree with that, but don't care enough
about to debate it, not sure how anyone "KNOWS" what babies do and
do not know or believe either, they may assume, but to claim they know
is a bit of a reach in my opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettAtheism, the cake and eat it too belief system. 🙂
I am not defending any position. I am attacking yours. As I said to KJ earlier, in order for your claim to be believable it must stand up to scrutiny. And I am scrutinizing your claim.
To defend the positive claim that god does not exist would be an untenable position. That's why I do not make it.
KJ
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWe are not our bodies. We are the Spirit that inhabits these bodies. To be born into a physical body means we must first forget all that we know and go through the painstaking process of relearning who we actually are. Amnesia is a part of incarnating into this physical plane. To understand who we really are is to understand God.
We have someone here state they believe children picked their parents,
according to their faith. I don't agree with that, but don't care enough
about to debate it, not sure how anyone "KNOWS" what babies do and
do not know or believe either, they may assume, but to claim they know
is a bit of a reach in my opinion.
Kelly
As far as the God ,(the christian one), that has been referred to in much of this thread, and in most other threads around here, I would have to say I most definatley am a hardcore atheist.
God is everything. God is not a separate entity or a separate presence itslef at all. God is not separate from anything for it is all that is.
When someone hears "God" speak to them it is not God however a God-concious entity. Otherwise known as an angel in christian terminology.