Originally posted by @xyyz
And you have not given me any proof of God. Epicurus wrote: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? If a God is responsible for everything, why does He stay so silent, so indifferent?

Well since we have not talked about evil up till now, you are correct. If you read scripture,
you will see that evil sprang up in this world, because we brought it into the world, by our
desires. God gave us the ability to do whatever it was we wanted, and we broke faith with
God, because we wanted too, and did. So God could have ended us right there on the
spot, instead He choose a way to save us. So right now evil is still in the world because
we are still in the world, doing evil things, while God is saving as many of us as possible,
turning us away from evil. The time of evil is coming to an end, and I cannot help but feel
it is coming very soon, and when it is done, judgment will settle all accounts.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
This is not the case according to the Jewish tradition, and I apply this view as I already explained you. For further information you can look here:
http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
😵

It's good that you want to show respect of course but what you are doing is not necessary. "God" is not the name of the Jewish God and writing God without the o is a modern phenomenon eminating from the US. Furthermore it's written in English not in Hebrew.

"The bulk of Jewish legal opinion agrees that the law applies only to the written name of God when written in Hebrew and not when written in other languages."

https://reformjudaism.org/practice/ask-rabbi/why-do-some-jews-write-g-d-instead-god

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Well since we have not talked about evil up till now, you are correct. If you read scripture, ...

Did you just say we don't know right from wrong until we are told by authority? I think you did.

Originally posted by @apathist
Did you just say we don't know right from wrong until we are told by authority? I think you did.

quote me

Originally posted by @kellyjay
quote me

Scroll up one post. To talk about evil, you need some scripture.

This explains why your camp doesn't recognize the evil your own god represents.

Originally posted by @divegeester
It's good that you want to show respect of course but what you are doing is not necessary. "God" is not the name of the Jewish God and writing God without the o is a modern phenomenon eminating from the US. Furthermore it's written in English not in Hebrew.

"The bulk of Jewish legal opinion agrees that the law applies only to the written name of ...[text shortened]... ges."

https://reformjudaism.org/practice/ask-rabbi/why-do-some-jews-write-g-d-instead-god

I know there are as many views about this matter as the traditions that project them. However by the time of the Talmud the Jews were in fact using substitute names for G-d. To an atheist like myself it does not matter at all what exact name or sound is used by the religious friends of ours when they intend to refer to the entity they conceive as G-d; it solely matters that, to them, this entity is sacred. So I care not for the exact name under which this entity is acknowledged by the believers of each religion. If I wanted to talk about Native Americans' Great Spirit, I would still refer to that entity as G-d instead of, say, Adonay, simply because, for one, the lingua franca of our era is English and, for two, I do not want to refer particularly to the Jews's supposed creator of all G-d but to every entity regardless of religion with this supposed property😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
To an atheist like myself it does not matter at all what exact name or sound is used by the religious friends of ours when they intend to refer to the entity they conceive as G-d; it solely matters that, to them, this entity is sacred. So I care not for the exact name under which this entity is acknowledged by the believers of each religion. If I wante ...[text shortened]... osed creator of all G-d but to every entity regardless of religion with this supposed property😵

This is a similar line of thinking behind my use of the phrase "god figure".

Originally posted by @apathist
Scroll up one post. To talk about evil, you need some scripture.

This explains why your camp doesn't recognize the evil your own god represents.

Quote me I have said many things so be specific.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I know there are as many views about this matter as the traditions that project them. However by the time of the Talmud the Jews were in fact using substitute names for G-d. To an atheist like myself it does not matter at all what exact name or sound is used by the religious friends of ours when they intend to refer to the entity they conceive as G-d; ...[text shortened]... osed creator of all G-d but to every entity regardless of religion with this supposed property😵

If the theist actually was your friend you would care enough about them to try to not to be insulting.

Obviously they are not your friend and you'd prefer it if such people were to be wiped from the face of the earth.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Did I say that whatever the Hindus believe about the gods of their pantheon is in accordance with whatever the Christians believe about their supposed creator of the universe? I said not such a thing.

I pointed out to our sonship that the countless so called divine manifestations of the Hindu pantheon are, according to this religion, different manif ...[text shortened]... them as viable theories of reality.

So I cannot see what exactly you try to articulate;
😵

I went back to read our exchange and I have to say sorry, I missed a key piece of the
conversation early. I missed you were speaking of only Hindus, and thought you were
suggesting all gods were part of the same, which was NOT what you said. So, sorry my
bad.

Originally posted by @eladar
If the theist actually was your friend you would care enough about them to try to not to be insulting.

Obviously they are not your friend and you'd prefer it if such people were to be wiped from the face of the earth.

This assumption of yours has nothing to do with me, it is a product of your own mind. If you think I insulted someone because of his religious beliefs, kindly please quote my post or posts that prove it.

I do not insult persons. I evaluate opinions, thoughts and views in order to see whether they are in my (subjective, sure thing) opinion accurate or not. My best friends are theist. They do not feel insulted when I discard specific religious views of theirs as scientifically untenable theories of reality due to the fact that they are grounded strictly on faith. They know it alright, and we both know that this does not mean that they should discard their faith, because one does not need to defend one's faith. Faith is faith, it is always accepted blindly, otherwise it would not be faith but concrete, validated herenow knowledge. Faith is acceptable when causes no harm, and in my tradition is honored and accepted as the first necessary level of the sensemaking process.

If you are still unable to see the difference, methinks the only cause is your assumption that I "insult" you because I reject as products of a non-tenable theory of reality Your religious concepts and Your perceptions about the supernatural entity You acknowledge as G-d😵

Originally posted by @fmf
This is a similar line of thinking behind my use of the phrase "god figure".

Yes, FMF😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I went back to read our exchange and I have to say sorry, I missed a key piece of the
conversation early. I missed you were speaking of only Hindus, and thought you were
suggesting all gods were part of the same, which was NOT what you said. So, sorry my
bad.

Very often I too miss key pieces of a conversation, it's only natural, no bid deal Kellyjay. Enjoy a perfect Sunday😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The singularity by definition is not where everything came from, it is everything supposedly

"by definition" ???
What are you on about?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
This assumption of yours has nothing to do with me, it is a product of your own mind. If you think I insulted someone because of his religious beliefs, kindly please quote my post or posts that prove it.

I do not insult persons. I evaluate opinions, thoughts and views in order to see whether they are in my (subjective, sure thing) opinion accurate ...[text shortened]... r religious concepts and Your perceptions about the supernatural entity You acknowledge as G-d😵

If you insult their beliefs, you insult them. If you refer to their God in an insulting way, you insult them.

In other words, you insult the, but then you don't care. As long as you don't think you are offending your friend, then according to you, you don't.