Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Ernie Sandal,
"You've used the "if God is loving why does he allow bad things?" argument. I probably should have expected that. But you haven't justified that as a valid argument. You haven't explained how a loving god would not allow bad things to happen."
Just for the sake or argument suppose that there is a God. You as an observer see all sorts of bad things happening to people. But why would you assume that those people who are suffering are real like you are? The God could be putting on a drama with you as the main character to see how you react to people's apparent suffering and misfortune. Are you doing anything to improve the situation or are you just sitting on your butt whining? Maybe you are in hell but don't realize it (the "Matrix" thing). That could be possible because the claim is that God exists and that he created everything. So why wouldn't he create the illusion that everything exists just to see how you will react to various situations. Remember what happened to Job.
If you believe in God how can you be sure that you are not suffering from a delusion? How can you really know what's real when God has the ability to deceive you to see how you will react to various circumstances?
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (NOG) = "9 The man of sin will come with the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous and wonderful signs. But they will be lies. 10 He will use everything that God disapproves of to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. 11 That’s why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie. 12 Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned."
That's a very convoluted and time consuming (for you) way of avoiding my question.
And why have you not answered your own question? Given that you probably do not believe in every god, that must mean there are properties you do not consider possible.
Ernie Sandal,
According to the biblical fairy tale God deludes people so that they will believe lies. He also tests people and make bets with Satan to see how they will react. So how do you know that I'm not God (or his buddy Satan) testing you to see how you will react to answers that you get to your questions on the internet? Do you need some major disruptions in your life? Will you follow Job's example or will you go bananas? If all things are possible with God why would you doubt something like this?
Re: Ernie - "That's a very convoluted and time consuming (for you) way of avoiding my question."
Well now.... That's interesting.... Hmmmm.... Anybody else catch that? The "(for you)" remark referring to Dio? According to ol' Ernie's profile, this is supposedly his first time on the site, and his first debate. Yet that remark seems to indicate a bit of incongruous familiarity with Dio's debate methods. Almost as if dear Earnie has been here before under a different persona? *pondering*
@Ernie Sandal: It may be more useful if you didn't limit yourself to one particular religion.
If you go back and look at my first response to your post, you'll find the following words: "Be sure to stipulate which god you're talking about." I went on to list several well-known deities.
@Ernie. Re: "I see no one wants to answer the question. Instead, you all want to ask me questions or otherwise avoid the topic one way or another."
Wow, dude. And all this time I thought it was AB who had ADHD. Then came you. Sheesh! Multiple people have answered your....um... "question". Wake up. Pay attention. There may be a test after.
Believers can not get over the fact that their belief system is not the default one. LOL!
Given that "god" does not exist, obviously, the property of existence would be advantageous to making me inclined to believing in "god"'s existence.
Given that we have no concept of the "god" that Ernie Sandel refers to, which property would make you believe in the "god" that Ernie Sandel refers to?
@Sapporo Re: "...which property would make you believe in the "god" that Ernie Sandel refers to?"
His god would have to ride a multicolored unicorn that eats rainbows and poops butterflies. Even then, I might still be a bit skeptical. (But only because he could potentially falsely dye the unicorn's hair.)
Well it wasn't the definition that made me skeptical. My initial skepticism was from the stories in the bible I was being told. So I can't really answer your question. However:
Having been told the attributes of god, I'm even more skeptical. I mean stuff like all knowing, all powerful, etc. Best I can do to answer the question.
@Ernie Sandal or whatever you call yourself.
It isn't a valid question. It is a push poll question. You have to assume that by only redefining a god will make that god real and that is just idiotic. If you asked a valid question you would get real responses.
I could ask YOU, Ernie Sandal, What definition of Harry Potter would make you believe that Harry Potter is real?
That is essentially what you are asking. Of course, you think you are clever by asking a question with a predetermined outcome, or an answer that you can twist to make it seem that we actually believe in the god bullshit, but you aren't. In fact, you are very stupid for making such a childish attempt. I hope you are a drive-by because it will save you a lot of grief.
I'm sure every atheist is just chomping at the bit to take you to task. It can actually be quite fun burning you little morons down. You're too stupid and uneducated to cope with logic and intelligence. Sobeit, you want to stay and get your feelings hurt go ahead.
All you're achieving by reacting in that emotional way is upsetting yourself, and mildly amusing me. But I suppose that's my fault, right?
@Ernie Re: "All you're achieving..."
LOL.... Hey, pal, if you think YOU are mildly amused by US, you should see it from OUR perspective toward YOU. "Mildly amusing" is a grand understatement. Oh, and you have YET to specify a particular god, but you still have the audacity to wonder why you aren't taken seriously? Well.... Alrighty then...
No, Ernie, it is not an emotional reply, it is an honest one. You may be amused but children are easily amused. The fact is that asking for a definition is utterly stupid. Atheists don't believe in what has never been proven. What good is it to ask for a definition? how fucking stupid! You didn't explain how I could "redefine Harry Potter that you would believe that he is a real wizard!
I could answer your OP with a long dissertation that you wouldn't even understand. As could most of the atheists here could do easily.
The problem is that you haven't the mental capacity to comprehend the fact that god isn't a definition, it's a fantasy.
Let's examine your feeble attempt here.
For over 2,000 years believers have been trying to force an idea that their god is real. They have made numerous attempts that have all failed.
They have tried using the bible and that is just illogical since the bible is basically a joke when it comes to logic or proof. Hearsay and folklore are not factual. Unsubstantiated testimony is not even worthy of consideration.
They have used "intelligent design" which is in itself a failure mainly because it is based on a false narrative, defies logic and has a huge gap and doesn't actually prove a god, only suggests that there may be a god.
There are many more but all fail in any attempt to prove a god. So just redefining a god is nothing more than revising language to fit your fucking narrative. It isn't based on anything but a childish attempt to suppress any question of a god.
So you can take a condescending tone but that is just an attempt to deflect YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE YOUR FUCKING GOD!
You're getting more upset.
Anne Rice wrote amazing descriptions of Vampire lifestyles, culture, and survival techniques. She truly upped the standard for Vampire fiction. I still do not believe in Vampires , but after Anne Rice I wish I could be one. Perhaps Christianity needs a retelling by a talented female. Instead of bragging about being born of a virgin, Jesus could advocate for female control of the reproductive cycle and small loans to women to start their own business enterprises.
I find the OP and its objectors interesting.
To the OP: I think definitions of God can be approached in two ways: a revelatory top-down approach; or a theoretical bottom-up approach. The top-down approach is open to interpretation but not modification: you can analyse Scripture but not alter it. Whereas the bottom-up approach can be modified and amended; it seeks to discover or arrive at God through philosophy or scientific ventures, not revelation.
To the objectors: I do think that if I'm going to object to something, its because I know what I'm objecting to. I´m not going to object to the existence of Wums, if I don't know what a Wum is. So I´m not sure why those of you that think God doesn´t exist, don´t know why you object to His existence. I object to the existence of the multiverse for example, because its descriptions simply seem unrealistic to me.
@John 61X Breezy: descriptions simply seem unrealistic to me
That's as good a reason as any. Which is why I provided that summary of the Christian narrative in my first post. All the stuff about the garden, Adam & Eve, the talking snake, the apple, the flood, the virgin birth, and the resurrection sound completely unrealistic to me. After you reach that level of disbelief, you can start to think about the problem of evil, god's immutability, and so on.
@ Breezy
"So I´m not sure why those of you that think God doesn´t exist, don´t know why you object to His existence." I cant think of any atheist I have encountered on these pages that would object to a god or gods existence. The fact that there is insufficient evidence to convince me that there is a god or gods does not mean I have any objection to such a thing existing.
You've just used a tiresome variation of the old "why are atheists angry at god". Fail.
As I have explained elsewhere if sufficient proofs of a god or gods existence were presented then if I did not accept them and accept the reality of a god or gods existence then I would be a Contrarian.
I cant think of any atheist I have encountered on these pages that would object to a god or gods existence.
Oh goodie, although, they do seem to put a lot of constant effort into countering my claims.. imagine if they actually objected to such existence.
Perhaps because your claims are without foundation?
This one is actually fairly simple. Your God needs to be self-evident.
An entire book written about an all-powerful jealous god seems like evidence that such a being doesn't exist.
Only one of you has even attempted to answer my question. The rest of you are desperately trying every trick in the book to put me on the spot instead. Sorry, that won't work. I'm the one asking the questions here, not you.
Mr. Sandal has gone and gotten himself banned from AR, so don't expect a response from him.
Yes I saw his avatar. Not surprised.
I missed that. What was it?
Swastika flag...and not the buddhist one.
OIC. The traditional I'm-a-moron-with-nothing-to-be-proud-of-but-my-skin-color symbol.
Pages