Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

by Greatest I am Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.

I see us as just as foolish as germs and the creatures shown in this clip as we act the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4a_uwyY_H4

I can see where at one time it would have been profitable to bend the knee to King/Gods as in the original archetype city states, as used in the original Eden myth written by the Jews, but not today.

That myth I think was written of the following reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Tes

Our present secular systems of governance have bested the Gods in the moral and legal senses and only the really right wing theists would want to live under the laws of the old barbaric Gods.

I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.

I know that there are way more followers out there than leaders but cannot fathom why someone would want to lower themselves to adore even a God unless it is strictly as a self-serving action that we hope God will recognize and reward.

That is hardly being good for goodness sake. God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.

That means that you, even if you pray daily and hard, are likely going to hell along with most of those you know. In a sense, you should feel sorry for those few who make it to heaven as they must spend eternity watching their loved ones in purposeless torture. That would drive any moral person insane.

Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.

The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc

Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?

Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:15 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What qualifies you, or any human to criticise the message of an omniscient and omnipotent being? How can anyone not see how absurd an idea it is that a message is from an omniscient and omnipotent being yet is open to criticism by humans?

JP Cusick First we are all qualified to judge anything and anyone, but the judging needs to be done with truth and justice and sincerity.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I didn't ask you if you thought we were qualified to judge an omniscient omnipotent being, I asked you what qualifies anyone to make such a judgement? It's an absurdly illogical claim that a human could judge a being with omniscience of course, but I still want to know what you think qualifies a human intellect for such a hypothetical action.

JP Cusick Second - the idea that God is some how "omniscient and omnipotent" does not come from me and it does not come from the Bible, and so you are basing your own belief of "omniscient and omnipotent" on your own distortion.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Nonsense, I have no beliefs, the claims for omniscience and omnipotence are traditionally made by adherents of all three monotheistic religions, and there are certainly many claims in the bible made for the god of the bible that would require omnipotence and omniscience, as has been claimed by many expert theologians, so take it up with them as they are not my claims, since I am an atheist and would hardly make any claims about an entirely fictional deity.

JP Cusick Plus even if God were "omniscient and omnipotent" then we all are still free and qualified to judge accordingly.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So now god is omniscient and omnipotent? Or at least may be? You're coming across as very confused again. You also are entirely wrong, as human free will would be entirely negated by a god that was omniscient, that's logically self evident.

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:45 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I didn't ask you if you thought we were qualified to judge an omniscient omnipotent being, I asked you what qualifies anyone to make such a judgement?

We are self-inherently qualified.

All people are princes and princesses as children to the King of Kings, so we have a qualified birth-right too.

God (or life) gives us a brain and we are expected to use it for judging.

We also have our own conscience which qualifies us all.

What in the would do you suppose disqualifies your self? or me? or anyone?

My view is that you are claiming that since you (and others) view God as omniscient and omnipotent then that disqualifies us from judging God, and I see that as a big mistake.

Even if God were omniscient and omnipotent (and I am not saying it is) then God is still a loving caring Father to humanity so God can be judged.

Refusing to be judged is a weakness, and God is not weak.

Jesus actually said that if we do not judge then we our self will not be judged, Luke 6:37, so only the guilty do not want to be judged, while the conscientious people want and need to be rightly judged.

Idea

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:56 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I didn't ask you if you thought we were qualified to judge an omniscient omnipotent being, I asked you what qualifies anyone to make such a judgement?
We are self-inherently qualified.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So you keep claiming, now would you care to tell us what in your opinion qualifies us to judge a being with omniscince?
All people are princes and princesses as children to the King of Kings, so we have a qualified birth-right too.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Risible nonsense...
God (or life) gives us a brain and we are expected to use it for judging.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Are we now, well here's a link to quiet a few biblical quotes that say the opposite..http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
We also have our own conscience which qualifies us all. What in the would do you suppose disqualifies your self? or me? or anyone?
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:We're not omniscient of course, the idea that a human intellect is capable of judging an omniscient one is axiomatically false, ask any knowledgeable theologian.
My view is that you are claiming that since you (and others) view God as omniscient and omnipotent then that disqualifies us from judging God, and I see that as a big mistake.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I am an atheist, i don't view god in any way as no god exists, it's theist who view their gods in that way, you're in a minority of one in denying it.
Even if God were omniscient and omnipotent (and I am not saying it is) then God is still a loving caring Father to humanity so God can be judged. Refusing to be judged is a weakness, and God is not weak.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Laughable stuff....
Jesus actually said that if we do not judge then we our self will not be judged, Luke 6:37, so only the guilty do not want to be judged, while the conscientious people want and need to be rightly judged.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Ample evidence that biblical scripture is a contradictory and ambiguous collection of hocum from a number of entirely human sources.

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:07 pm

JP just one thing that annoys me more than the rest of the drivel you post I am afraid, and that is the way you always put a gap in the middle of your self. Now I know that I may not be the best speller, but yourself is one word if you checked your dictionary out.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:40 pm

jp cusick wrote:JP Cusick Plus even if God were "omniscient and omnipotent" then we all are still free and qualified to judge accordingly.

Make up your mind, man! That is very muddled thinking, JP. According to you an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot save a little girl from a rapist-murderer but has every intention of saving the rapist-murderer's soul.

Bonkers! Bat-poop bonkers!

by stuart torr Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:51 pm

Guess we should be use to him by now even in the short time i've been on this site, but he seems to get worse.!!!

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:05 pm

stu wrote:Guess we should be use to him by now even in the short time i've been on this site, but he seems to get worse.!!!

He appears to contradict himself all the time stu, and his logic escapes me, he thinks he can make claims and when prompted for evidence simply repeats the claim, as if that repetition somehow validates it, bizarre.

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:44 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Are we now, well here's a link to quiet a few biblical quotes that say the opposite..http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html

The way to create a link or a hyperlink on this forum is on the control column just above the "Post a Reply" box.

I do try to make it clear that I am not some traditional orthodox Christian or otherwise, as those quotes can be interpreted in wrong ways or I can interpret any of them into the right way.

If you believe those people are the authority, then you are misguided.

I even found this true of Satan worshipers, in that they base their doctrine by the orthodox Christian perception of the Devil, and as such they are both utterly confused.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:We're not omniscient of course, the idea that a human intellect is capable of judging an omniscient one is axiomatically false, ask any knowledgeable theologian.

Why would you or I ask some Theologian when we can ask our self?

I happen to consider myself as equal to any other person, so I make my own decisions and I do my own judging, and I have learned to trust my own intellect.

=====================================

stu wrote:JP just one thing that annoys me more than the rest of the drivel you post I am afraid, and that is the way you always put a gap in the middle of your self. Now I know that I may not be the best speller, but yourself is one word if you checked your dictionary out.

It does not have to be given as one word - yourself - and I like cleaning up the English language so I do not use the slang or an apostrophe or contractions unless I can not get around it.

For me to write out "your self" in two distinct words gives the due distinction to the "self" without the so personalized "your" dominating the conjunction.

Of course when I do text messaging then all the rules go away.

=====================================

snowyflake wrote: JP. According to you an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot save a little girl from a rapist-murderer but has every intention of saving the rapist-murderer's soul.

It is not the job or the place for God to do such things as that.

That is a part of our job to clean up our own antics and crimes.

Humans are the ones who insist upon rejecting God, so do not cry now that God is rejected.

pharoah

by Shirina Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:25 am

JP Cusick wrote:Humans are the ones who insist upon rejecting God, so do not cry now that God is rejected.

Rejected or not rejected, individual, as well as national lives would be precisely the same. There is no empirical benefit to believing in God or rejecting God.

The thing about atheists is -- the vast majority of them started out as Christians or were wrapped up in some other faith-based belief system. Very few of us were actually brought up in atheist homes. Therefore, we have all tried to do the "communicating with God" routine, believed strongly in God, and very much wanted it all to be true.

But what did we hear on the other end? A dial tone. Silence. Empty space. There was simply no one or no thing on the other end of that communication. Often atheists are very cerebral folks, highly logical, highly skeptical. That is how our minds work ... and we couldn't make ourselves believe in God any more than a paraplegic could just "decide" to get up and run the Boston Marathon.

It is not stubborness or obstinance that causes us to be non-believers. We're simply not able to delude ourselves into thinking black is white and white is black without some sort of proof. Whatever evidence and proof you've supplied for us here isn't good enough.

What would be good enough? Who knows. But if God were really interested in people like myself believing in him, I'm pretty certain that this God could present whatever evidence or proof needed.

But one thing we atheists do know for certain is that believing in God does not come with any fringe benefits. Believers get screwed right along with non-believers. There's no difference -- which is why religion and deity-worship had to convince folks that the real reward was on the other side of death.

The bottom line is that no one is crying about rejecting God. However, if believers are going to make extraordinary claims, well, we would like to see some extraordinary evidence.

by snowyflake Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:58 am

JP wrote:and I have learned to trust my own intellect.

Oh I wouldn't do that if I were you, JP. You have an average intellect and you must concede that there are people with more knowledge and education than you have.

Isaac Asimov wrote:“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

by stuart torr Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:26 am

so snowyflake, JP thinks his ignorance is as good as our knowledge does he?

by Norm Deplume Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:49 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Why would you or I ask some Theologian when we can ask our self?

Your grasp of English usage is tenuous. Since 'we' is plural, 'ourselves' is the standard form.

JP Cusick wrote:

It does not have to be given as one word - yourself - and I like cleaning up the English language so I do not use the slang or an apostrophe or contractions unless I can not get around it.

For me to write out "your self" in two distinct words gives the due distinction to the "self" without the so personalized "your" dominating the conjunction.

The word 'yourself' is not slang, nor does it contain an apostrophe, nor is it a contraction. It is the standard form of the emphatic reflexive pronoun and dividing the word in half does not enhance its meaning. Do you also write 'my self', 'them selves' and 'it self'?

A careful writer works on the principle of conveying meaning as clearly as possible without distracting the reader with pointless personal flourishes.

Incidentally, does your reliance on your own unconventional usages make you self-righteous? After all, you think that without external principles atheists are self-righteous.

And one other point on current usage:

cannot
(ˈkænət)

the ordinary modern way of writing can not

(Source OED 2nd edition)
(N.B., modern in this context goes back to 1400)

by Heretic Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:02 am

I've been off for a couple of days being busy with real life so rather than try and play catch up I will start here.

JP wrote:and I have learned to trust my own intellect.

What a silly thing to do, though I am by no means stupid I do not trust myself in all things. I have people I go to when I have specific problems I go to people that have knowledge, education and experience. For example when I have a programming problem I go to my younger brother most of the time (as he goes to still others when he has a problem). When people have other computer problems they frequently come to me. When I have problems dealing with stress I go to an Aikido Sensai and he helps me meditate through it.

Though I rely on myself I know when I am inadequate to face the task alone and that is a skill you should learn. Perhaps that is why you are here in the first place. in order to see most of your arguments destroyed knowing that any that remain standing might be worth stranding might hold some validity. I think you will find it very productive here in the future as I know that there are people here that are quite capable of ripping up nearly everything you say from this point on.

snowyflake wrote:Oh I wouldn't do that if I were you, JP. You have an average intellect and you must concede that there are people with more knowledge and education than you have.

Isaac Asimov wrote:“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

I like that quote.

Heretic

by Heretic Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:09 am

Norm Deplume wrote:(N.B., modern in this context goes back to 1400)

I guess your computer was hand built by Charles Babbage.

Heretic

by stuart torr Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:27 am

Good to have you back Heretic, I am afraid I have been upsetting a few because I did not realise just how many of the old crowd had gone back to amazon again and use there more than here now

by Norm Deplume Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:31 am

Heretic wrote:
Norm Deplume wrote:(N.B., modern in this context goes back to 1400)
I guess your computer was hand built by Charles Babbage.:arrow:

Heretic

No, that was the Abacus Air. I have the Abacus HD. It works fine but sourcing quills for the printer is not easy.

by stuart torr Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:36 am

mines catching up with yours then Norm, never used the printer so gave it away.

by JP Cusick Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:23 pm

Shirina wrote: But if God were really interested in people like myself believing in him, I'm pretty certain that this God could present whatever evidence or proof needed.

It is the adult child's place to seek out the parent, and not the other way around.

Since you do not believe in God then God has no reason to seek you out.

The real world revolves around God, and not around your self.

Shirina wrote:But one thing we atheists do know for certain is that believing in God does not come with any fringe benefits. Believers get screwed right along with non-believers. There's no difference -- which is why religion and deity-worship had to convince folks that the real reward was on the other side of death.

This is another mistake which I find unsettling.

In many ways being a "believer" of God gives us a much harder life, and Jesus even tells us to take up a cross for our self, and the idea that a Christian or any religion is to have an easier life is not supported by any scriptures that I know of.

I really like the Noble Truths of the Buddha who tells us that all of life is made up of suffering (pain, sorrows, death) so we must accept and embrace that suffering because the suffering is the one and only true reality of physical life - yes amen to brother B.

Shirina wrote:However, if believers are going to make extraordinary claims, well, we would like to see some extraordinary evidence.

I have given lots of real evidence right here on this forum, including the famous empirical evidence, so it has been shown to you.

============================================

snowyflake wrote:
JP wrote:and I have learned to trust my own intellect.
Oh I wouldn't do that if I were you, JP. You have an average intellect and you must concede that there are people with more knowledge and education than you have.

Isaac Asimov wrote:“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

What you are referring to is called self-esteem.

But more precisely is a reference to your own lack of self-esteem.

And I truly mean no disrespect by that, as it is a defect very common in most people of today.

I have worked hard for me to have very healthy self-esteem (note - the high self esteem is not healthy either) and that is why I can trust my own conscience and my own judgement and intellect.

=============================================

Norm Deplume wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:Why would you or I ask some Theologian when we can ask our self?
Your grasp of English usage is tenuous. Since 'we' is plural, 'ourselves' is the standard form.

I really did know that, as I wanted to emphasize that you can do such by your self, as done be one self, and no one else.

It was an attempt to communicate!

deadhorse

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:31 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I have given lots of real evidence right here on this forum, including the famous empirical evidence, so it has been shown to you.

Nope, you've repeatedly claimed subjective opinion as empirical evidence, and it's been repeatedly pointed out that it's nothing of the sort. Now since you've made the claim yet again I'll ask again:

What scientific methods did you use to test the validity of this evidence, and what were the conclusions?

What scientific journal was this evidence and it's conclusions published in?

What was the scientific consensus after the article and it'f findings were peer reviewed?

Take your time....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:34 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I have worked hard for me to have very healthy self-esteem (note - the high self esteem is not healthy either) and that is why I can trust my own conscience and my own judgement and intellect.

I genuinely mean no offence here, but is English your first language?

by stuart torr Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:44 pm

Asimov was a little wrong if talking/quoting about yourself was he not JP, because your ignorance of the subjects that you are talking about is not as good as our knowledge i'm afraid.

by Norm Deplume Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:50 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Norm Deplume wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:Why would you or I ask some Theologian when we can ask our self?
Your grasp of English usage is tenuous. Since 'we' is plural, 'ourselves' is the standard form.
I really did know that, as I wanted to emphasize that you can do such by your self, as done be one self, and no one else.

It was an attempt to communicate!

Why do you imagine that switching from plural to singular enhances communication? Writing 'our self' is not an improvement over 'ourselves' and carries no additional meaning.

I do not believe your claim to understand since you failed to address the question of pronoun agreement and took off at a tangent trying and failing to justify your nonstandard English.

If I am wrong and you do, in fact, know what the standards are, then your flouting of them is simply a silly affectation.

by stuart torr Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:56 pm

his English is awful Norm

by polyglide Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:41 am

To address the subject.

Without religion the world would be in more termoil than it already is.

Even a false religion and there are many false religions, would be better than having none.

However, if we all accepted the true religion of that through Jesus and all the principles set down, then the world, irrespective of any other consideration would be a far, far, better place than it presently is.

by Dan Fante Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:06 am

polyglide wrote:To address the subject.

Without religion the world would be in more termoil than it already is.

Even a false religion and there are many false religions, would be better than having none.

However, if we all accepted the true religion of that through Jesus and all the principles set down, then the world, irrespective of any other consideration would be a far, far, better place than it presently is.

There's no way any of that can backed up though. It's just opinions based on personal belief. I could just as easily counter the world would be better without religion. Again, this comment can be neither proven or disproved.

by polyglide Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:09 am

I would most certainly not want to put your ideas to the test.

by Dan Fante Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:15 am

polyglide wrote:I would most certainly not want to put your ideas to the test.

We have something in common with each other then Wink

by stuart torr Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:59 am

Go on Dan we could at least give it a try for 3 months. Wink

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:04 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Are we now, well here's a link to quite a few biblical quotes that say the opposite..http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
I do try to make it clear that I am not some traditional orthodox Christian or otherwise, as those quotes can be interpreted in wrong ways or I can interpret any of them into the right way. If you believe those people are the authority, then you are misguided. I even found this true of Satan worshipers, in that they base their doctrine by the orthodox Christian perception of the Devil, and as such they are both utterly confused.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Those quotes are fairly unequivocal, you're again just cherry picking which parts of the bible you want to support the religion you've created. The problem is you keep making this claim that you have absolute knowledge and any theists who disagree are wrong, or even satan worshippers now, and of course all atheists are wrong, but you have yet to produce any credible empirical evidence to back up these claims, and when pressed just repeat your claims, and cite subjective experience as evidence, of course all the while dismissing exactly the same "evidence" when it's presented by other theists, and even dismissing scientifically established facts on occasion as well, like evolution. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously after that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:We're not omniscient of course, the idea that a human intellect is capable of judging an omniscient one is axiomatically false, ask any knowledgeable theologian.
Why would you or I ask some Theologian when we can ask our self? I happen to consider myself as equal to any other person, so I make my own decisions and I do my own judging, and I have learned to trust my own intellect.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So what? You can consider yourself a genius unparalleled throughout human history, your posts however paint a different picture, that of a fairly befuddled thought process, and as far as theological knowledge goes you come across as not very knowledgable at all, indeed you seem to make most of your beliefs up as you go along, based on how you feel about it.
Now do re-read my point about omniscience, and try and understand what an omniscient being is, and how absurd it is for anyone to suggest that an individual human could judge such a being. Your claims that your god isn't omniscient have been addressed, as you're clearly not referring to the christian god, or any of the versions of any of the three modern monotheistic gods, but instead some new god that you've personally invented as you go along, cherry picking which pieces of those other faiths you want.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:08 pm

polyglide wrote:To address the subject.

Without religion the world would be in more termoil than it already is.

Even a false religion and there are many false religions, would be better than having none.

However, if we all accepted the true religion of that through Jesus and all the principles set down, then the world, irrespective of any other consideration would be a far, far, better place than it presently is.

So if everyone defers to your beliefs we'll enter a new golden age of harmony and peace?

I have to say I'm very dubious about that claim, nor do I think organised religions are the benefit to the human race you claim. I have often found that when a human tries to claim their ideas are somehow more valid than those of another as they have divine sanction then trouble is inevitable. The best blueprint for a decent moral society is a secular democracy with universal human rights, which ring-fences the rights of any individual to believe whatever they want, but separate those beliefs from government and public office.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:15 pm

polyglide wrote:To address the subject.

Without religion the world would be in more termoil than it already is.

Even a false religion and there are many false religions, would be better than having none.

However, if we all accepted the true religion of that through Jesus and all the principles set down, then the world, irrespective of any other consideration would be a far, far, better place than it presently is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't seem to have responded to my post below, refuting your earlier claim, I wondered if you'd had any thoughts?

polyglide wrote:
If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life

Blasphemer's examples are as you stated, unless you're trying to say that the Roman Catholic church don't believe in Jesus? Or perhaps you're saying that institutional child rape was indicative of living a decent life? Or the consequent cover up by the RCC was indicative of living a decent life?

94% of Nazis Germany constituted people who believed in Jesus, they said so in a census conducted in 1939.

The institutional child abuse prevalent in the Roman Catholic church was perpetrated and covered up by people who believed in Jesus

The inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the crusades etc etc...

Your statement is therefore axiomatically false.

by Shirina Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:17 pm

polyglide wrote:Without religion the world would be in more termoil than it already is.

Show me one war, military struggle, conflict, or act of terrorism that has occurrred within the last 50 years that had atheism at its core. You can even use Wikipedia.

polyglide wrote:However, if we all accepted the true religion of that through Jesus and all the principles set down, then the world, irrespective of any other consideration would be a far, far, better place than it presently is.

Ah yes, theocratic fascism. If we were all the same, there would be harmony! If everyone looked like me, dressed like me, acted like me, and believed like me, there wouldn't be any turmoil! How many church services do I have to attend before you teach me how to goose step ... and are the jackboots free?

by Shirina Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:19 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Blasphemer's examples are as you stated, unless you're trying to say that the Roman Catholic church don't believe in Jesus? Or perhaps you're saying that institutional child rape was indicative of living a decent life? Or the consequent cover up by the RCC was indicative of living a decent life?

(Patiently waits for the No True Scotsman fallacy)

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:32 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Now do re-read my point about omniscience, and try and understand what an omniscient being is, and how absurd it is for anyone to suggest that an individual human could judge such a being. Your claims that your god isn't omniscient have been addressed, as you're clearly not referring to the christian god, or any of the versions of any of the three modern monotheistic gods, but instead some new god that you've personally invented as you go along, cherry picking which pieces of those other faiths you want.

There is lots of proof of the real God and I have repeated a specific list of such evidence and proof of God, but I see no proof of any "omniscient God" and that is why I avoid that claimed aspect of God.

It is possible that God might be omniscient and I just do not know that myself.

I do not claim to know everything.

If your point being that God is so great and deep and extensive that we mortals can not fathom the reality of the God, then that is okay with me.

What I say is that we people have the ready ability inside of our own individual conscience and mind to understand God immensely as God applies to our self and to humanity, even if we can not know it all.

The same is true of other people in that we can know another person very well but still not be able to know their true heart or soul.

Idea

by Bellatori Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:03 pm

"There is lots of proof of the real God and I have repeated a specific list of such evidence and proof of God"

If that were actually true then Tesco would be selling religion at its exit counters along with insurance and broadband... oh and at a discount compared to other religion suppliers I have no doubt. I'm going to Tesco tomorrow so I'll check it out.

by Tosh Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:15 pm

There is lots of proof of the real God and I have repeated a specific list of such evidence and proof of God

Hello JP,

I am trying to fathom what you actually mean by the real god, is this god only real to your SELF?

The reason I ask is you seem to consider the experiences of your Self as proof or evidence of its existence, it sounds like a form of solipsism.

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:33 pm

Tosh wrote:I am trying to fathom what you actually mean by the real god, is this god only real to your SELF?

The reason I ask is you seem to consider the experiences of your Self as proof or evidence of its existence, it sounds like a form of solipsism.

There is a case argument that some people are attuned to God while other people have turned that off or have been shut out.

I do not imagine myself as a form of solipsism because I learned my info from other people who led the way for me, just as they are available to anyone else.

As I have pointed out at least this one "The United States and Britain in Prophecy" where it is a very enlightened message which does not come from myself.

And the Bible versions and other scriptures are translated by other people and handed down to me, so that too is not a form of solipsism.

There is a problem with referring to God as the "real God" as if some Gods are not real, and I have searched for ways to get around that distinction but I find no such way.

Idea

by stuart torr Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:09 pm

JP,one does get rather bored with repeating oneself as you must do, earth created 3-5billion years ago, who was there to see it? HOW OLD is the bible? hand written by man? when did man first appear on earth? thou shalt not bear false witness JP so no lies please. many thanks in advance.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:03 pm

Shirina wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Blasphemer's examples are as you stated, unless you're trying to say that the Roman Catholic church don't believe in Jesus? Or perhaps you're saying that institutional child rape was indicative of living a decent life? Or the consequent cover up by the RCC was indicative of living a decent life?

(Patiently waits for the No True Scotsman fallacy)

Well quite, I think his claim implied that to be honest, but I was just lengthening the rope, so to speak.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:17 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Now do re-read my point about omniscience, and try and understand what an omniscient being is, and how absurd it is for anyone to suggest that an individual human could judge such a being. Your claims that your god isn't omniscient have been addressed, as you're clearly not referring to the Christian god, or any of the versions of any of the three modern monotheistic gods, but instead some new god that you've personally invented as you go along, cherry picking which pieces of those other faiths you want.
There is lots of proof of the real God and I have repeated a specific list of such evidence and proof of God,
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You've repeated the claim anyway, you've not provided a single piece of evidence outside of the opinion of people who presuppose the existence of god to be true anyway, that kind of "evidence" speaks for itself.
but I see no proof of any "omniscient God" and that is why I avoid that claimed aspect of God.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Nor do I, but then I don't believe, as you do, that the entire universe was created by a single being. If you think that being is not omniscient then it's an even more illogical claim than those theists who claims it was created by a single being that is omniscient.
It is possible that God might be omniscient and I just do not know that myself.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Well it's always baffled me that theists claim on the one hand that science and empiricism is incapable of detecting or testing anything about god, and then immediately claim to "know" things about that god.
I do not claim to know everything.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I don't believe I said otherwise
If your point being that God is so great and deep and extensive that we mortals can not fathom the reality of the God, then that is okay with me.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:My point is that that is precisely what Christians and most other theists claim, I don't as I am an atheist. So every time a theist claims to know what such a being wants and thinks, and even tries to tell other theists they've got it wrong that strikes me as fairly absurd, and more than a little egotistical.
What I say is that we people have the ready ability inside of our own individual conscience and mind to understand God immensely as God applies to our self and to humanity, even if we can not know it all.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Well again we see a rather spectacular claim, and again I have to say no evidence presented to support it, QED.
The same is true of other people in that we can know another person very well but still not be able to know their true heart or soul.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Exactly my point, since those other people are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and must axiomatically be magnitudes easier to fathom than a being that Christianity claims is both.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:20 pm

Bellatori wrote:
"There is lots of proof of the real God and I have repeated a specific list of such evidence and proof of God"
If that were actually true then Tesco would be selling religion at its exit counters along with insurance and broadband... oh and at a discount compared to other religion suppliers I have no doubt. I'm going to Tesco tomorrow so I'll check it out.

Every little helps. So how many Tesco clubcard points does the purchase of redemption and eternal life give me? I might be able to afford a new 50in plasma tv??

by Sponsored content