Why do the God-haters persist?

[edthecynic]

Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?

yes according to you you want empirical proof that God does not exist..from a non-believer..
Why do those that believe in God hate other sects that believe in God??

Muslims, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God, yet can't stand each other, not all but some do...

When have I ever asked for anything from a non-believer? I don't know why different religions fight each other, but it has nothing to do with whether God exists.

Ask and you shall receive:

If you have proof that God doesn't exist, or there wasn't an intelligent designer, then present that proof, or stop referring to belief in God as "myth."

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not if omnipotence created logic.

Too vague to be meaningful. Please clarify. Once the omnipotence has created logic, is it forever bound by that logic?

If yes, then the logical contradictions of omnipotence prevent it from being omnipotent.

If no, then it's outside of all logic. Even causality no longer works on it, so you can know nothing about it. If it says "Love your neighbor", it might really mean "devour your neighbor". Once you've put God outside logic, you've turned God into Cthulhu.

I guess I see your point. We were created in the image of God with the ability to think and reason. Logic has always existed because God has always existed. It 's not a contradiction that an omnipotent God created logic because he created man and gave logic to man in the process, so that would be part of the creation. Scientists are limited on their knowledge concerning the brain.

 

[Youwerecreated]

omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.

Not if omnipotence created logic.

That is illogical, there is no such thing as omnipotence! How can something that does not exist create anything?

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

I hope you watch this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE]Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN'S EVOLUTION) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vandalshandle]

Not if omnipotence created logic.

That is illogical, there is no such thing as omnipotence! How can something that does not exist create anything?

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

I hope you watch this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE]Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN'S EVOLUTION) - YouTube[/ame]

Is this guy used to teaching the blind and the deft with hand signing, or is he just full of himself, and want to make sure that you don't fall asleep when he is talking?

 

[G.T.]

Thread premise = beyond retarded.

 

[Boss]

Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...

Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?

Your problem is that the concept of the spiritual only exists in the mind of humans. You must prove that spirituality preexists humans, like in rocks for example.

Nonsense. Lot of things that humans practice didn't exist before humans were here to practice it. Doesn't make them not true.

All we have to do is look at basic biology of animal behavior. No animal exhibits behavior that is not fundamental to the species. Every behavior in every form of life has reason. You may not understand that reason but you don't have to, we know it because we observe it in nature over and over.

Humans didn't create spirituality to "cope with fear of death" because no other living thing has ever had to create something imaginary to cope with it's fears of death. We do not see this behavior in nature. Humans didn't create spirituality to "explain the unexplained" that's why humans created Science. Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species.

To this day, 95% of the species believe in a power greater than self while 5% identify as Nihilist, which is the belief in nothing spiritual at all. It is a 'freak of nature' for humans to not be spiritual. Like the salmon who swim upstream, there is a reason for the behavior.

 

[HUGGY]

Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order. If you steal, you should be punished accordingly. If you murder, you again should be held accountable. For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.

I think you are missing the delineation made between actual Atheists and people who are god-haters pretending to be Atheists. As I said, some people in my own family define me as an Atheist. This is because I am non-theistic in my spirituality. I can certainly relate to Atheists having a sense of morality, but if you honestly feel that laws should never be based on religious ideology, then you should reject almost every law. You would be hard pressed to find any law that isn't based in some way, to some degree, on someone's religious ideology.

Nonsense. No one is beholding to religion to pick whatever moral judgement to create laws frow wherever they find it.

There is plenty of comon sense in the bibles and in the Koran. Kahil Jibran makes sense.

The ten commandments have some worth.

All these words have been penned by real human beings. Some if not most is jibberish.

Proclaiming it is wrong to kill or steal is not privileged information that is OWNED by the religious.

One has no obligation to give credit to any religion when making any law. Thinking so is just stupid.

 

[Boss]

Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order. If you steal, you should be punished accordingly. If you murder, you again should be held accountable. For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.

I think you are missing the delineation made between actual Atheists and people who are god-haters pretending to be Atheists. As I said, some people in my own family define me as an Atheist. This is because I am non-theistic in my spirituality. I can certainly relate to Atheists having a sense of morality, but if you honestly feel that laws should never be based on religious ideology, then you should reject almost every law. You would be hard pressed to find any law that isn't based in some way, to some degree, on someone's religious ideology.

Nonsense. No one is beholding to religion to pick whatever moral judgement to create laws frow wherever they find it.

There is plenty of comon sense in the bibles and in the Koran. Kahil Jibran makes sense.

The ten commandments have some worth.

All these words have been penned by real human beings. Some if not most is jibberish.

Proclaiming it is wrong to kill or steal is not privileged information that is OWNED by the religious.

One has no obligation to give credit to any religion when making any law. Thinking so is just stupid.

The statement was made that he did not believe in laws based on religious ideology. I merely pointed out this criteria disqualifies nearly every law. Now you come in and want to add "qualifiers" which you get to determine based on your own moral constructs. Well sorry bud, but you don't own society. No one has left you in charge of deciding which rules we can follow and which we can ignore, or what is justifiably moral and what isn't.

Last I checked, religious people have just as much right to decide on these boundaries (laws) as you do. I get that you don't like it, but that's life. Move to a place where you can be king and you'll get to decide all by yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.

Not if omnipotence created logic.

Non sequitur!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God




William Lane Craig

Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?


It’s perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for God’s existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but that’s hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.

Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled “Modernizing the Case for God,” which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Time marveled,

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1

According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.

The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for God’s existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?

Well, let’s look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, let’s look at five arguments for God’s existence.

Further reading

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith

Logically there is no omnipotent God since omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself. That meets the criteria of your quote above and logically establishes that an omnipotent God cannot exist. Ergo there is no need to waste any time going any further.

If the truth is important to you,you would definitely go further with the reading. The omnipotent God created all.

Ironic!

Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist. Debunking the illogical nonsense in the rest of that article was a waste of time since it was all based upon a false premise to begin with.

 

[koshergrl]

I love the assertion that man's logic is flawless, and thus to be trusted.

God does exist, and I see people on here every day who declare he doesn't exist..and who at the same time hate him. (If there's a God, then he's an asshole for allowing pain and suffering!) and who absolutely 100 percent hate people who believe in God...while at the same time touting their belief that Christians are intolerant.

It's psychotic, but that's what happens when you choose to reject your creator.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I love the assertion that man's logic is flawless, and thus to be trusted.

God does exist, and I see people on here every day who declare he doesn't exist..and who at the same time hate him. (If there's a God, then he's an asshole for allowing pain and suffering!) and who absolutely 100 percent hate people who believe in God...while at the same time touting their belief that Christians are intolerant.

It's psychotic, but that's what happens when you choose to reject your creator.

The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.

However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist.

But if you agree that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then religion is wrong to claim that God is omnipotent. Perhaps religion should use the term ineffable instead. The only problem with that term is that it confounds the concept of "knowing" God.

None of this equates to "God hating". It is more akin to asking believers to reconcile these contradictions. Since this is impossible given the available terminology it is disingenuous to accuse those asking for the contradictions to be reconciled of "hating God". If anything it is yet another contradiction that believers have no interest in reconciling this cognitive dissonance.

But that is where faith comes into play. Your faith is absolute and as an Atheist I not only respect your faith but I am willing to die defending your right to your beliefs. Because to me your rights are sacrosanct. Without your right to believe as you do, my right to be an Atheist is meaningless.

That is our common ground and while we might have what amounts to logical differences they don't rise to the level of hatred. In that respect the OP is utterly wrong because he is mischaracterizing those who have as much right to ask these questions as those of faith do to their beliefs.

 

[mamooth]

Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species.

Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.

Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News

 

[Derideo_Te]

Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species.

Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.

Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News

The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.

 

[BreezeWood]

Why do the God-haters persist?

Boss: We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.

I understand the Bible very well, I have read the entire thing, and done intensive studies on the Scriptures. I don't mind arguing with someone about what the Bible says or doesn't say, and because of that, I am often labeled a "religious zealot" or any number of other god-hating labels.

I have read the entire thing ...

really, a religious document that is flawed from its onset, Scripturally and Spiritually ?


... interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious

Atheism being a religion - that is a two way street, particularly by Scripturalist who refuse to recognize a work by man as not a Spiritual document.



(persist) - both have no other option, for the Spirit to accomplish admission to the Everlasting, omniscience - omnipotent etc all relate to Purity are the requirements for Remission as commanded from the beginning - not that being incomplete is itself Hatred, being incomplete and realizing a mortal fate may be its source. Purists do not hate.

just getting there is the real issue and if there is a God that does not accept a certain soul, to bad - however reading a falsehood "Bible" may insure the decision by God will never be taking place.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Generally speaking, the folks who insult or rave against God are the ones who are angry that God has given them the lives they think they deserve. Instinctively, they believe that God exists but, like spoiled little children, rebel against Him to get His attention. Many simply don't understand Him and His relationship to His creation. As a result, they blame Him for all the bad things that happen to them or their family members or their friends or the world.

Perhaps they will humbly seek His wisdom one day and come to realize that He holds in His hands a great future for them if only they come to believe in Him and His Son.

Actually, the opposite is closer to the truth.

Those who believe give thanks to their god for giving them junk they pray for and then make up excuses for the really vile crap their god does to them.

Really, don't you have to laugh at that whole "god moves in mysterious ways" and "its god's will" nonsense?

I have a perfect life and really, it just never occurs to me that I don't deserve it or that some magic sky fair gave it to me. I do, however, believe completely that my own actions have consequences and that I am completely, 100% responsible for that.

I also don't hate any of the various gazillions of gods that others believe in. Mostly, I don't think about that either.

Except that I do hate the terrible harm than religions do.

Note that there's a huge difference between gods and the religions humans have concocted for the purpose of taking money away from the gullible.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Boss]

omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.

Not if omnipotence created logic.

Non sequitur!

Big term for such a small mind.

 

[Boss]

The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.

Well we already know you've made a false assumption here. The logic of math doesn't apply inside a black hole. Nor does it apply to "dark matter" or "dark energy." These make up 96% of the universe. If our laws of physics don't apply, then neither does Pi.

However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist.

You keep saying this but I don't see any explanation. The omnipotent force known as God, created logic and the logical universe in which we exist, including the reality in which we realize. It's not hindered and limited by it's own creation.

None of this equates to "God hating".

What equates to "god-hating" is people spending every waking hour on a message board, denouncing, rejecting, ridiculing and insulting a thing they claim to not believe in. Endlessly arguing a position they can never support against those who will never accept their argument. A true Atheist would not give two good shits.

 

[Boss]

Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species.

Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.

Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News

The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.

Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys attending regular church services, I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.