Originally posted by josephw
Don't you get it?

God doesn't reveal Himself to some and not others.

Romans 1:20 [b]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Those who think "there is no God" are in denial. Nothing would exis ...[text shortened]... if God had not created it. Therefore, all that exists is evidence for the existence of God.[/b]

Nothing would exist if God had not created it.

But you also think that God exists and that God is not nothing. So, God would not exist if he hadn't created himself?

See, this is one thing that relates to why this argument sucks so much. You can say "nothing would exist if God had not created it", but then God himself represents a counterexample to that claim from within your very own perspective. So, you are more or less just contradicting yourself.

On the other hand you can say, well, God is eternal, which may solve the aforementioned problem. But, then, if God can be eternal for someone like you, why couldn't a God-free universe be eternal for someone else? So then you are left with this dialectic symmetry.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Nothing would exist if God had not created it.

But you also think that God exists and that God is not nothing. So, God would not exist if he hadn't created himself?

See, this is one thing that relates to why this argument sucks so much. You can say "nothing would exist if God had not created it", but then God himself represents a counterexa ...[text shortened]... ee universe be eternal for someone else? So then you are left with this dialectic symmetry.[/b]

Exactly.
I cant understand why these christian theists dont get that.
If God is a separate entity, "He" ceases to become God because "he" becomes created.
The only workable idea of God has to start with certain premises, like God is pre-manifestation. Another would be that God is everything, a paradox,non-existent and unprovable by any repeatable methods.

In fact, you can have a perfectly rich spiritual life without any "god" in your life.
Words are just words. Sometimes they point to somehting else, sometimes they dont...

Originally posted by bbarr
EDIT: Unless you never really thought about the evidence, or subjected your beliefs to serious and rigorous scrutiny. In that case, you're not like me, but more like a child repeating whatever inanity plagued his parents.

See, the difficulty here is that on one side we have those who can see a universal truth and can place their faith in an entity higher than themselves and on the other side we have those whose only god IS themselves.

Originally posted by Suzianne
See, the difficulty here is that on one side we have those who can see a universal truth and can place their faith in an entity higher than themselves and on the other side we have those whose only god IS themselves.

But you cannot 'see a universal truth' without first placing trust in your own perceptions and ability to reason. In doing so you place your own powers of observation and deduction at the highest level of trust. You cannot logically (or sensibly) place a higher trust in the information you received from a lower trusted source.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you cannot 'see a universal truth' without first placing trust in your own perceptions and ability to reason. In doing so you place your own powers of observation and deduction at the highest level of trust. You cannot logically (or sensibly) place a higher trust in the information you received from a lower trusted source.

This is the main thing I don't get about Atheism.

Atheists all seem to be completely and absolutely unable to conceive of any higher entity deserving of their worship. This seems like the ultimate in egotism.


To answer you, though, all I can say is that starting with a false premise renders your whole argument moot.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is the main thing I don't get about Atheism.

Atheists all seem to be completely and absolutely unable to conceive of any higher entity deserving of their worship. This seems like the ultimate in egotism.


To answer you, though, all I can say is that starting with a false premise renders your whole argument moot.

We can conceive it, but just think it's implausable.

I hardly think that's the ultimate in egotism.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is the main thing I don't get about Atheism.

Atheists all seem to be completely and absolutely unable to conceive of any higher entity deserving of their worship. This seems like the ultimate in egotism.

I agree with what Proper Knob says.
To illustrate, your avatar shows a picture of "Super girl". You can conceive of her, but that does not mean you worship her or even believe she exists.

To answer you, though, all I can say is that starting with a false premise renders your whole argument moot.
Exactly. If you incorrectly believe in the existence of a higher power, then you are wrong to worship said higher power, so you must first trust your own senses and reason. Hence your senses and reason must ultimately be what you primarily trust.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Atheists all seem to be completely and absolutely unable to conceive of any higher entity deserving of their worship. This seems like the ultimate in egotism.

Scientists can very well be religious.
Religous people can very well belive in science.
Science and religion is two different domains. And you can be in both at the very same time.

But do not try to mix them, then you will fail.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is the main thing I don't get about Atheism.

Atheists all seem to be completely and absolutely unable to conceive of any higher entity deserving of their worship. This seems like the ultimate in egotism.


To answer you, though, all I can say is that starting with a false premise renders your whole argument moot.

This isn't very fair view on your part. An atheist may risk their life to save another, donate money and time to cure cancer and house or feed homeless and a number of other things that put other's needs ahead of their own.

They're just not ready to believe in a man in the sky wearing a robe who's going to send people to hell for eating pork or shellfish.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
They're just not ready to believe in a man in the sky wearing a robe who's going to send people to hell for eating pork or shellfish.

P-

I don't believe in that, either, MacGruber... lol.

I'll have to continue this tomorrow, it's past my bedtime.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is the main thing I don't get about Atheism.

Atheists all seem to be completely and absolutely unable to conceive of any higher entity deserving of their worship. This seems like the ultimate in egotism.


To answer you, though, all I can say is that starting with a false premise renders your whole argument moot.

I agree with Phlabibit here. It seems that, on the subject of egotism, it would in this description be God himself who would be a bit egotistical. Why should he who has created this universe demand worship from his subjects? Would a parent demand the same of his or her child?

I feel that the largest point of controversy is not in the existence of a God, but of the form in which he takes. Humans, atheists and theists alike, cannot conceive of a truly random universe, come from nothing. Theists attribute this problem by assigning it to a human-friendly being that can be comprehended, with human feelings and senses of justice. Atheists simply reject this philosophy, though without a solid philosophy for some other explanation. Perhaps there is no explanation at all--although I hardly think an atheist would claim to know why or how we came to be.

Originally posted by abejnood
I agree with Phlabibit here. It seems that, on the subject of egotism, it would in this description be God himself who would be a bit egotistical. Why should he who has created this universe demand worship from his subjects? Would a parent demand the same of his or her child?

I feel that the largest point of controversy is not in the existence of a God, ...[text shortened]... anation at all--although I hardly think an atheist would claim to know why or how we came to be.

========================================
I agree with Phlabibit here. It seems that, on the subject of egotism, it would in this description be God himself who would be a bit egotistical. Why should he who has created this universe demand worship from his subjects? Would a parent demand the same of his or her child?
========================================

When we see the very first man created, as representative of all man, where do you see God demanding him worship God ?

Before the fall of man into sin I can only see God instructing man about his eating and warning him not to eat the wrong thing or he will die.

Of every tree of the garden he may freely eat. But if he eats of this certain tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die. There is also a "tree of life" in the middle of the garden.

We see no command for Adam to prostrate himself, bow down, or even pray. There is no instructions about worship. There is only a "tree of life" in the middle of the garden for eating and a warning to eat from any of the trees except "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

Where is the demand for man to worship God in the initial creation of human beings?

When we follow the concept of a "tree of life" through the rest of the Bible it seems to indicate man taking into himself as "food" God Himself to live by God. Man was designed by God to live on God by taking God into himself.

I don't see this a matter of egotism. It is a matter of the design of man being being dependent upon God. Adam was not instructed to worship the tree of life. He isn't even commanded to eat of it. It is simply there in the middle of the garden showing its centrality. For his enjoyment he is to take into himself the divine life of God signified by the fruit of the tree of life.

Your concept is that God created man and demanded worship. The Bible's view is that God created man and warned him about taking into his being the wrong thing.

I reject the concept of God's egotism in the creation of man.

An illustration might be made in the making of a refrigerator. The serviceman installs a refrigerator and even fills it with food. Then he shows the plug to the user and tells him that for the refrigerator to operate properly he has to plug it into the electrical socket in the wall.

Failing to do so, the user notices that in about two weeks there is a foul smell of rotten food coming from the machine. He calls the serviceman and complains bitterly. The serviceman asks "Did you plug the regrigerator into the electrical socket?" The user replies that he did not. He further adds that he thought it was egotistical for the designer of the machine to demand of him that he plug it into the wall socket.

Man was created by God and is dependent upon taking God in. If there is any worship in the initial creation of man it is in man taking in the divine and eternal life of God for his enjoyment.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I don't believe in that, either, MacGruber... lol.

I'll have to continue this tomorrow, it's past my bedtime.

Either way, to say if someone does NOT believe in God they must worship themselves is erroneous. Think about it. They just don't believe their is a higher being demanding our worship.

Is God hooked on praise? What about the other religions outside your own? Will they go to Hell?

Who goes to Hell in your mind? Let me know.

I myself got VERY lucky. My family is long time Catholic. My father married my mother and she was left handed. She had her left hand tied behind her back and slapped with a ruler when she tried to use it to write and use scissors. All based on religious beliefs.

My mother said, "Our children should make their own decisions about religion, it's all around through friends and family and they can decide for themselves". The conclusion I came to is this:

There are many religions, and they all are perhaps based on the same idea. Perhaps even the same higher being. There may not be one at all, but if there is He is not tied to the rules of one religion. If there is a God, he doesn't need us to believe one religion. He will not burn us in Hell if we are bad. He certainly doesn't want us believing EVERYTHING written in a Book that has been translated several times from culture to culture and polluted by kings and governments who hand picked what should stay or be added to this Book.

I would call myself Pagan. Atheists who live a good life and are kind to their fellow man will do fine also. It's just that some religion and some religious people want to say their path to Heaven is better than others.

What you've done is say Atheists must be self centered. What I say is they just don't believe it, but will put others ahead of themselves.

Think about that.

P-

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
I agree with Phlabibit here. It seems that, on the subject of egotism, it would in this description be God himself who would be a bit egotistical. Why should he who has created this universe demand worship from his subjects? Would a parent demand the same of his or her child?
=============================== man it is in man taking in the divine and eternal life of God for his enjoyment.

[/b]http://www.gotquestions.org/God-demand-worship.html

God certainly demands we worship Him. If this is true, that is too bad.

Perhaps you are keeping God alive for Pagans like me and Atheist as well... I appreciate that. But to say if we do not worship him we are doomed is silly. No great power as wise as God should be punishing those who do not worship yet still lead a positive and helpful life.

P-

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, all that exists is clear and undeniable evidence for the existence of fairies. You are just in denial.

Simply put God shows Himself to all the same way, there are those that acknowledge
and follow after God and those that do not. One piece of evidence will cause one
to believe the same piece will cause another to offer up excuses.
Kelly