My Problems with God

[Zeda]

Hello all,

I am still real new to these boards, so I hope this is the right place to post this thread.

I am in the process of figuring out what exactly I believe-- I come from a very fundamentalist Christian background, but can no longer believe anything I was taught. I am at the point where I have begun to believe that all religion is man made-- Myths to help us cope with our fears and traditions set up to organize and regulate our society, as well as a system of justice for those who recieve no justice in this world, to feel that things will be evened out on the other side.

My main reason for holding on to God (and believe me it's just by a thread :) are the feelings of hopelessness that no god leaves me with. There is a certain comfort to be found in believing in some afterlife, some justice for the pain and unfairness in this world. The sense that we in fact have no destiny and that there is no end to the story. So I guess what I am really looking for are some answers, and some support as I gather the courage to just let go entirely.

The reasons why I find the idea of God unacceptable have a lot to do with the exact nature of god, as Christians percieve him. How can a all loving God allow the unfairness that surrounds us? Birth- defects? Cancer? abject Poverty? I have this scene in my mind where all the new souls waiting to be born are standing in front of God, who is holding the dice they are waiting to roll. The first soul rolls the dice: continentent--- North America !!! Whooo hoooo. Cheers all around. Country--- America --Yahhhh!!! Race --- Black in Chicago, hmmmm could be worse Class? Lower Health? Sickle cell anemia-- bad eye sight --and childhood onset diabetes. ( Big frown now) Intelligence-- Superior. Looks around well there's still a chance God right? right? (Big Surprise God remains silent)

Next roller approaches--- grabs the dice. Continentent-- hmmm Middle East. "Awww come on is that even a Continent?"
Country--- Sudai Arabia. Hmmmmm. Class---- obscenely wealthy-Prince of the Saudi family. Whooooo hoooo Jackpot!!!!


Well you get the idea. It just seems like a loving, merciful, JUST god would give everyone a fair shot. I mean just think of the poor soul born to the Aids infected mother in Uganda, what's up with that? Talk about Snake-eyes!!!


I also have a problem with the question with the question of religious experience. For a long time I held on to my beliefs in Christianity because of my personal experience of God. As C. S. Lewis would say the sense of being surprised by Joy. I was so happy and so sure, when I was a Christian. I really felt that god heard and answered my prayers. Then I saw that people of other faiths believed just as strongly, and also had that religious experiece of feeling God. For example Muslims, Jehovahs witnesses, Mormans, Buddists, etc.

I will stop there for now as this is getting rather long. but believe me I have lots more questions, when I am sure of the correct manner and place to post them, but I will be hoping to hear from lots of you with your thoughts and feelings.

[dshimel]

Athiesm/agnosticism are indeed unpleasant, on the surface. No afterlife. No cosmic justice. No father figure looking out for you. You have to face up to what you do not know. Scary stuff.

However, look beyond the surface. Without a God, you are not a puppet on a string. You are free to think for yourself. You are free to explore the ture nature of the universe. You are able to judge conclusions on their merit rather than how they fit some out of date magic based superstition.

As for meaning, you get to make up your own meaning based on what makes you feel good and enjoy your life. Expand your knowledge. Work toward creating the kind of world you want to live in. Stay up late Saturday and sleep all day Sunday if that makes you happy.

It is religion that, below the surface, is ugly. The constant guilt for breaking the laws of an unseen big brother. The constant fear of everlasting torture. The intellectual laziness of "because the Bible says" that blocks your ability to reason.

[breathilizer]

Here's what I want you to do, and you have to do it out loud.

Ask youself, "What is my name?"

Answer yourself honestly.

Then ask again, "What is my name?"

This time, lie.

Did you get a funny feeling in your chest right after you finished answering the second time? If so, isn't that feeling somewhat similar to what you may have attributed to "God's presence" in days long past?

If the name thing didn't work, just try different questions and lie on purpose. Pretend that you are taking a polygraph.

[Mageth]

I have no problem with someone holding on to some form of God belief that is free of the unnecessary trappings of religious doctrines and creeds. Atheism isn't for everyone. Study and form your own concept of God. Find God for yourself. Go for a personal, experiential, mystic God from within rather than a dictatorial, creedal anthropomorphic God from without.

Read Joseph Campbell. His books Thou Art That and An Open Life, in particular. You may find that you can accept the transcendant, the "divine", without holding a strong concept of a God.

Study the concept of God and how it evolved. Read Karen Armstrong's A History of God.

Read some John Shelby Spong.

Read up on mysticism and pantheism, mythology, and Buddhism and other eastern philosophies. Campbell is a good source for learning about mythology and Eastern thought.

Read the Tao Te Ching.

Read Herman Hesse's Siddhartha.

Above all, come to your own conclusions. Find your own path. Don't let anyone, not even the authors I listed above, force their beliefs or non-beliefs on you. As Campbell says, "Follow your bliss!"

That said, I've found peace in my nonbelief. It does not preclude me from exploring and wondering at the mysteries of life, and I have no fear of death, nor do I feel the need for an afterlife.

[bookworm14]

"My main reason for holding on to God (and believe me it's just by a thread are the feelings of hopelessness that no god leaves me with."

Read "A Free Man's Worship", by Bertrand Russell, at
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/fmw.html You'll feel better after reading it.

bookworm14

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Mageth
I have no problem with someone holding on to some form of God belief that is free of the unnecessary trappings of religious doctrines and creeds. Atheism isn't for everyone. Study and form your own concept of God. Find God for yourself. Go for a personal, experiential, mystic God from within rather than a dictatorial, creedal anthropomorphic God from without.

No FREAKIN' way. Start with this:

It is better to admit that you do not know, then think you do while being wrong.

I think that I don't know how to "beat the house" at gambling. Admitting that I don't know how to beat the house keeps me from blowing all my money. Those that think they know how to beat the house, throw away vast sums of money in casinos.

It is the same for knowledge. If you accept that you know something that you can't know, then you'll ginore all kinds of things that are true becuase they don't "fit" you already accepted beliefs.

Admit you don't know anything for sure, then construct a solid foundation of knowledge based on conclusions that are highly likely to be correct based on all available information.

Knowledge is power and no one should have their brain trapped in a straight-jacket of religion.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by breathilizer
Here's what I want you to do, and you have to do it out loud.

Ask youself, "What is my name?"

Answer yourself honestly.

Then ask again, "What is my name?"

This time, lie.

Did you get a funny feeling in your chest right after you finished answering the second time? If so, isn't that feeling somewhat similar to what you may have attributed to "God's presence" in days long past?

If the name thing didn't work, just try different questions and lie on purpose. Pretend that you are taking a polygraph. What is that supposed to prove? The Bible says God wrote the law in humans conscience. Having a guilty feeling would fit perfectly with what the Bible describes, so how is your little test actually supposed to work?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zeda

I am in the process of figuring out what exactly I believe-- I come from a very fundamentalist Christian background, but can no longer believe anything I was taught. I am at the point where I have begun to believe that all religion is man made-- Myths to help us cope with our fears and traditions set up to organize and regulate our society, as well as a system of justice for those who recieve no justice in this world, to feel that things will be evened out on the other side. The problem here is that when you're brought up under such conditions it becomes more of a cultural thing and you have to rely on someone else's word for it. Where in fact the experience of God is not like that at all. It has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks, but more to do with discovering -- or, rediscovering as haverbob might put it ;) -- your original self.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by dshimel
No FREAKIN' way.

Following is an example of one person apparently demanding that everyone else think just like him. Dogma, IOW.

Start with this:

It is better to admit that you do not know, then think you do while being wrong.

Right. And one can hold a personal concept of the transcendant or divine, which they may choose to label as "God", while also admitting that they do not know. I'm obviously not talking about "religion" or "dogma" here.

I think that I don't know how to "beat the house" at gambling. Admitting that I don't know how to beat the house keeps me from blowing all my money. Those that think they know how to beat the house, throw away vast sums of money in casinos.

What I describe is not analogous to gambling, IMO. If someone honestly feels the need to believe in some personal concept of an unknowable, indescribable transcendance, one that does not make demands or pose threats, more power to them. I'm not suggesting that anyone "bet" on such knowledge. That's theistic thinking.

It is the same for knowledge. If you accept that you know something that you can't know, then you'll ginore all kinds of things that are true becuase they don't "fit" you already accepted beliefs.

I'm not suggesting that at all. One can be quite rational and skeptical and scientific and still hold belief in some form of transcendance. Once again, I'm not talking about a "belief system" or "dogma" or "religion" here; merely a personal view of the universe and your place in it.

Admit you don't know anything for sure, then construct a solid foundation of knowledge based on conclusions that are highly likely to be correct based on all available information.

Absolutely. And if someone still feels some need for something more, something beyond mere "knowledge", something mysterious, what is wrong with them exploring that area if they don't become dogmatic about it, don't try to foist their beliefs on others, and don't let it affect their rational approach to the physical universe?

Knowledge is power and no one should have their brain trapped in a straight-jacket of religion.

Indeed. And if you'd read my post, I was arguing exactly the opposite of that strawman. I'm not arguing for "religion" at all. I'm not even arguing for "God".

[dshimel]

If you try to disvocer truth based on what "feels right", then you are likely to discover a "truth" that feels good. However, that "truth" is HIGHLY likely to be nothing more than "what feels good".

Is it better to be ignorant but think yourself learned, or be learned and think yourself ignorant. I'd rather know what I don't know than be deluded into ignorance.

Evidence, not feelings, must be the test of all conclusions.

[Iacchus]

Truth is the vessel, of which Good is contained within. :)

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The problem here is that when you're brought up under such conditions it becomes more of a cultural thing and you have to rely on someone else's word for it. Where in fact the experience of God is not like that at all. It has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks, but more to do with discovering -- or, rediscovering as haverbob might put it ;) -- your original self.

I'm almost afraid to admit that I pretty much agree with Iacchus on this! Though I would have to ask him what he means by "God", as I'm sure I don't agree with his definition. To me, if "God" is to be found and experienced at all, it is to be found within yourself, and recognized in others, and not "out there" somewhere in any way, shape or form.

Some will see that as a strange thing for an atheist to say, I reckon. ;)

And compare Iacchus's post with Magus' to see just how the "cultural thing" can adversely affect you.

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Mageth
Originally posted by dshimel
One can be quite rational and skeptical and scientific and still hold belief in some form of transcendance. Once again, I'm not talking about a "belief system" or "dogma" or "religion" here; merely a personal view of the universe and your place in it.

No. No you can't. Once you accept belief without evidence, you are not able to be rational, sceptical or scientific.

Humans use patterns to "filter" input. Having one "belief" that is not justified by evidence, creates a false pattern that will affect the processing of all future inputs.

ALL conclusions and ideas must be subject to a test of probability based on evidence, or the scale will forever be out of calibration.

[Mageth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dshimel
If you try to disvocer truth based on what "feels right", then you are likely to discover a "truth" that feels good. However, that "truth" is HIGHLY likely to be nothing more than "what feels good".

So? And where did I say that the search was for "truth", BTW?

Is it better to be ignorant but think yourself learned, or be learned and think yourself ignorant. I'd rather know what I don't know than be deluded into ignorance.

Good for you. But that again is a strawman of my position. I'm not recommending anyone "delude themeselves into ignorance".

Evidence, not feelings, must be the test of all conclusions.

Great. But I'm not talking about "conclusions", "facts", "evidence" or such. Merely a feeling of personal identity with life and the universe, a recognition that life is mysterious and wonderful, and that it is OK for one to create one's own model to represent those feelings that many if not all of us have.

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Truth is the vessel, of which Good is contained within. :)

Your keyboard is moving but all I hear is Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda....

Science is the ship which treads the waters of possibility and lands us upon the beach of reality.

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Magus55
What is that supposed to prove? The Bible says God wrote the law in humans conscience. Having a guilty feeling would fit perfectly with what the Bible describes, so how is your little test actually supposed to work?
It proves that the feeling in one's chest often affiliated with God's presence by theists may not be God at all. The OP might find that interesting should he/she ever wonder about it while searching for the answers to his/her questions

Bible this, Bible that. The Bible, as well as every other religious document on the face of this Earth, is an excuse of an explanation for ocurrances which could not be figured out through Science (since the scientific method didn't exist). So to tell me that the Bible talks about an actual occurance and attributes it to God doesn't mean SHIT. It does tell me, however, that you use a 2000+ old book to explain natural occurances which can be explained through science.

Next time try: Increase in blood pressure due to accelerated heart rate caused by anxiety. People get anxious when they lie, and they get anxious when they think about an all-knowing being. Why would they get nervous about an all-knowing being? Because we all have secrets, and we get anxious when people find out about those secrets when we don't want them to.

Anxiety is NATURAL, not supernatural..

<me>screams and rips out hair and punches Magus in his fat face</me>

Jesus crap, Magus...

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Mageth
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dshimel
Great. But I'm not talking about "conclusions", "facts", "evidence" or such. Merely a feeling of personal identity with life and the universe, a recognition that life is mysterious and wonderful, and that it is OK for one to create one's own model to represent those feelings that many if not all of us have.

Constructing that model is deluding yourself into ignorance. It is granting attributes to the universe that it does not have. That delusion will forever affect your judgement and how you conduct all future tests of the universe.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mageth

I'm almost afraid to admit that I pretty much agree with Iacchus on this! Though I would have to ask him what he means by "God", as I'm sure I don't agree with his definition. To me, if "God" is to be found and experienced at all, it is to be found within yourself, and recognized in others, and not "out there" somewhere in any way, shape or form. Well, I wasn't expecting to hear anything like that right away, but yeah, that pretty well sums it up. Thanks! :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dshimel

Your keyboard is moving but all I hear is Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda....

Science is the ship which treads the waters of possibility and lands us upon the beach of reality. What point is the truth, if not serve the good? What point is the can, if not to serve the beans? :D

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What point is the truth, if not serve the good? What point is the can, if not to serve the beans? :D
Don't you guys ever say anyhting that isn't based on weak analogies?

[Enigma]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What point is the truth, if not serve the good? What point is the can, if not to serve the beans? :D

What point is the nose, if not to serve the glasses? :p

[Mageth]

Originally posted by dshimel
No. No you can't. Once you accept belief without evidence, you are not able to be rational, sceptical or scientific.

Now there's an unsupported, and unsupportable, assertion if I've ever heard one. There are a lot of people that successfully compartmentalize their beliefs from their "rational, skeptical, scientific" thinking.

Further, you continue to make strawmen of what I'm saying. I'm not saying one should form a concept of God and have "faith" that that concept is correct and that you have some sort of divine knolwedge. Quite the opposite.

One can wonder about the mysteries of life and even form a personal model of that mystery that is satisfactory to you without abandoning rationality, skepticism, or science. Heck, some areas of science (string theory, quantum mechanics, astronomy) open up about as many mysteries as they do explanations.

Humans use patterns to "filter" input. Having one "belief" that is not justified by evidence, creates a false pattern that will affect the processing of all future inputs.

I strongly disagree; there are many examples of people that have successfully compartmentalized their belief/faith. BTW, where is your evidence to support this belief? ;)

ALL conclusions and ideas must be subject to a test of probability based on evidence, or the scale will forever be out of calibration.

Boy, you're sure sounding dogmatic about this. Maybe it's you that needs to look at the "filter" you're using?

For "conclusions", I can agree with you. For "ideas", I think you're pushing it a bit too far. Ideas can be held at least tentatively without being subject to "tests of probability based on evidence." If that weren't so, most of philosophy would be dead in the water.

Even naturalism and atheism would be suspect. How exactly do you "test" to see if naturalism or atheism are true or not? Sure, there's nothing to indicate that there is a God or a supernatural realm, but there are no tests to confirm that there are not. Naturalism and atheism are justifiable philosophical positions because of a lack of evidence for the supernatural, not because of evidence or tests for "only the natural". Naturalism and atheism are, and will remain, tentatively held philosophical positions.

[King Rat]

I also have a problem with the question with the question of religious experience. For a long time I held on to my beliefs in Christianity because of my personal experience of God. As C. S. Lewis would say the sense of being surprised by Joy. I was so happy and so sure, when I was a Christian. I really felt that god heard and answered my prayers.

You haven't lost anything, you have just realized that you were talking to, and getting answers from, yourself. Congratulations, you are FREE.

Originally posted by Magus55
so how is your little test actually supposed to work?

It works a lot like your little faith thing. I believe the brain's natural state is rationality. If you try to trick it, it stresses, then a little shot of adrenalin. That little shot of adrenalin creates a "burning in the bosom." Sound familiar? It should.

[Mageth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dshimel
Constructing that model is deluding yourself into ignorance. It is granting attributes to the universe that it does not have.

Once more, you are arguing against strawmen. I do not propose the model as something one would use to "grant attributes to the universe that it does not have." Merely as one using the model to represent what one's personal experience of life may tell you about the universe and your part in it. No dogma, no religion, no false beliefs; merely a model. If someone needs such a model to understand one's own life, experience, understanding and feelings in relation to the universe, who am I or you to argue against it?

That delusion will forever affect your judgement and how you conduct all future tests of the universe.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to support it. It would seem to be a belief that you hold without evidence. On the other hand, there are many people that succesfully compartmentalize their beliefs, or "delusions" as you wrongly caricature what I'm talking about.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by King Rat
You haven't lost anything, you have just realized that you were talking to, and getting answers from, yourself. Congratulations, you are FREE.

Here, King Rat quite succinctly and eloquently summarizes my position on this thread, my recommendation to Zeda, for those who read my posts correctly. :notworthy

Find the answers for yourself. Don't depend on anyone or anything else to dictate belief, or even non-belief, to you.

If you end up a full-blown, rational, skeptical atheist like me, so be it. If you still wonder about the mysteries of the universe and life like I do (believe it or not, the two are not incompatible), so be it. If you end up somewhere else on the scale, perhaps with some form of belief in the divine or transcendant, or perhaps as an agnostic, so be it.

Just find your own way, follow your own path. That's the only way to find true satisfaction in life.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Mageth

And compare Iacchus's post with Magus' to see just how the "cultural thing" can adversely affect you. Whats that supposed to mean? I wasn't raised in a Christian culture.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by dshimel
No. No you can't. Once you accept belief without evidence, you are not able to be rational, sceptical or scientific.

Here you go again claiming we believe on complete blind faith. There is a difference between no evidence, and evidence no atheist accepts.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
Here you go again claiming we believe on complete blind faith. There is a difference between no evidence, and evidence no atheist accepts.

I'll let dshimel handle that lob. ;)

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
Whats that supposed to mean? I wasn't raised in a Christian culture.

Didn't say you were. But here's your post:

What is that supposed to prove? The Bible says God wrote the law in humans conscience. Having a guilty feeling would fit perfectly with what the Bible describes, so how is your little test actually supposed to work?

The Bible is "culture", Magus, and you appear to be steeped in it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by breathilizer

Don't you guys ever say anyhting that isn't based on weak analogies? But that's a part of understanding it though, through the use of analogies. Which, is something you tend to get good at you see. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mageth

The Bible is "culture", Magus, and you appear to be steeped in it. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you there, but the Bible is also full of truisms. And this I think is where people fail to differentiate, be it Atheists, "Christians" or whatever. :)

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Magus55
Here you go again claiming we believe on complete blind faith. There is a difference between no evidence, and evidence no atheist accepts.
You don't even know what evidence means. There is NO valid evidence of God's supposed existance. NONE

We don't except invalid evidence, why? Because we are, as was put before me, "rational, skeptical or scientific."

If you believe in God based on invalid evidence (you know, the stuff we won't accept), then you aren't any of those things.

BTW, who said anything about blind faith? He didn't. You did. If you call that blind faith, then that's your dilema

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you there, but the Bible is also full of truisms. And this I think is where people fail to differentiate, be it Atheists, "Christians" or whatever. :)

Truisms such as what? Uhh...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Enigma

What point is the nose, if not to serve the glasses? :p Only your nose knows. ;)

Yes, truth and good are interelated. Much as falsity and evil are interelated.

[Hazel-rah]

Hi, Zeda--welcome to IIDB.

While these guys are having their little "discussion," let me just say that you've already passed the scariest and most difficult part--you've discovered that you don't have to believe something just because it's what you were taught to believe. Once you get past that, your brain can take over and just do what it does best.

Mageth gave you some good advice. Read, explore, read the posts here at IIDB (from the scholars to the certifiable nutjobs, there's always something to learn.). Read this thread on atheist testimony (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35947) which will show you that many, many people here have asked the same questions and undergone the same journey you have.

Good luck!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by breathilizer

Truisms such as what? Uhh... For example, "It's not what you put into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out of your mouth that defiles you" ... in reference to the scribes and Pharisees asking Jesus why his disciples didn't wash their hands before they ate. This is just the very tip of the iceberg in case you want more ... :)

[Biff the unclean]

Hi Zeda and welcome
My main reason for holding on to God (and believe me it's just by a thread are the feelings of hopelessness that no god leaves me with.

This will occur to you soon anyway, but let me tell you ahead of time.
God doesn't actually fill any needs. And it's a good thing too because there isn't any God to fill them.
All there is is a bunch of people telling you a story about the character God. Some of them making damn good money off of this story. But you never actually get a God, only a story. And the needs, the holes, that these story tellers tell you that God fills are only part of this same story. You didn't know that you even had these needs until the story tellers offered to sell you the cure for them.

[Angrillori]

In re: Iacchus' 'truisms'

Benjamin Franklin wrote a book filled with such 'wisdom tidbits.' Should we ascribe deity status to him, or his Almanac? How about the Tao Te Qing? It certainly has many 'truisms' in it. Or the Upanishads, or the Q'ran, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, and so on and so on. Aesop's Fables anyone? Aesop was god? inspired by god?

Anyways, all I'm saying is that every culture has learned how to pass wisdom down from parent to child. If you're arguing that the bible is worth reading because it has some good tidbits in it, then OK, but that certainly doesn't give it any more merit as a piece of literature, than an Aesop Fable, or the Q'ran, or Ben Franklin's almanac.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Hi Zeda and welcome

This will occur to you soon anyway, but let me tell you ahead of time.

God doesn't actually fill any needs. And it's a good thing too because there isn't any God to fill them. Scotsman fallacy. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Angrillori
In re: Iacchus' 'truisms'

Benjamin Franklin wrote a book filled with such 'wisdom tidbits.' Should we ascribe deity status to him, or his Almanac? How about the Tao Te Qing? It certainly has many 'truisms' in it. Or the Upanishads, or the Q'ran, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, and so on and so on. Aesop's Fables anyone? Aesop was god? inspired by god?

Anyways, all I'm saying is that every culture has learned how to pass wisdom down from parent to child. If you're arguing that the bible is worth reading because it has some good tidbits in it, then OK, but that certainly doesn't give it any more merit as a piece of literature, than an Aesop Fable, or the Q'ran, or Ben Franklin's almanac. Yes, and maybe it's a good reason why these things are considered good to read, because of the truisms. ;)

[Hazel-rah]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Scotsman fallacy. ;)
Uh... not so much. I think you're looking for "unsupported assertion" or maybe "ipse dixit," but No True Scotsman doesn't really fit here.

(I'm used to helping pro se opponents, can you tell?)

Originally posted by Iacchus
...truisms...
But how do you know they're true?

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and maybe it's a good reason why these things are considered good to read, because of the truisms. ;)

Which, you're right, is what separtaes theists frm atheists. We acknowledge that 'truisms' don't equal divine inspiration. People can in fact, through observation, see what works and what don't.

We read a book with wisdom in, and are willing to accept it didn't need to have a deity as an author.

We also acknowledge that just because you're right when you say "do unto others..." you might be wrong when you say "the man that rapes a woman must be punished by marrying her." (Both 'truisms' from your lovely bible.)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Hazel-rah

Uh... not so much. I think you're looking for "unsupported assertion" or maybe "ipse dixit," but No True Scotsman doesn't really fit here.

(I'm used to helping pro se opponents, can you tell?)


But how do you know they're true? And yet if God does exist, then you would have failed to comprehend Him. By the way, can you define to me what a True Scotsman is?

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Hazel-rah
Uh... not so much. I think you're looking for "unsupported assertion" or maybe "ipse dixit," but No True Scotsman doesn't really fit here.


Yeah it would be an "unsupported assertion" except that all the Atheists support it. Religion is offering you a panacea to fix something that they made up to begin with.
Or, Iacchus, are you saying that I'm wrong about you only telling stories instead of actually producing a God?

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if God does exist, then you would have failed to comprehend Him. By the way, can you define to me what a True Scotsman is?

Oh do you have Him here? Bring Him out and we'll buy Him a beer.

No True Scotsman you set up criteria that do not fit somethings definition

Example: The Church burned witches. No True Christian would harm anyone. Therefore the people who burned the witches weren't really Christians. So the Church didn't burn witches.
It's a way to deny any wrong doing by a group.

[Hazel-rah]

Ah, Biff beat me to it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Yeah it would be an "unsupported assertion" except that all the Atheists support it. Religion is offering you a panacea to fix something that they made up to begin with.Yes, and this is the reality of the Atheist faith.

So, do you guys have anything for saying you just stepped in dog doo? :D


Or, Iacchus, are you saying that I'm wrong about you only telling stories instead of actually producing a God? Does it really matter whether I can prove it to you or not or, prove it to myself? If I can't at least do that, then what's the point? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Example: The Church burned witches. No True Christian would harm anyone. Therefore the people who burned the witches weren't really Christians. So the Church didn't burn witches.
It's a way to deny any wrong doing by a group. So, can you explain to me what a True Christian is then? And who's definition do you intend to use?

[Hazel-rah]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, can you explain to me what a True Christian is then? And who's definition do you intend to use?
Ain't that the $64,000 question? We ask and ask--everybody seems to know what a True Christian isn't, but nobody knows what one is.

[Biff the unclean]

Yes, and this is the reality of the Atheist faith.
When you realize that the claim of God is a fraud you soon realize that it's a complicated claim and it's all a fraud.

So, do you guys have anything for saying you just stepped in dog doo? :D
Odd when I do step in it I don't want to believe that I have done so. But like it or not there it is.
So why do you set higher standards for knowing that dog shit on your Rockports exists than you do for God existence?

Does it really matter whether I can prove it to you or not or, prove it to myself?
Sure it matters, you don't want to tell lies do you?
If I can't at least do that, then what's the point?
You would then understand that the whole thing was a fake and you would be free of it

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, can you explain to me what a True Christian is then? And who's definition do you intend to use?
As far as I can tell the True Christian is the one telling the story.
The False Christians are always other people.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
As far as I can tell the True Christian is the one telling the story.
The False Christians are always other people.
That is, by the way, the point of a No True Scotsman. The person puts their own interpertation on what a "True" Christian means. "True" isn't based on anything other than the speakers personal prejudices.

"What he voted for Bush?! He isn't a true New Yorker"
See? Being a New Yorker has to do only with where you live not who you vote for. But I stuck the word "true" on there and gave New Yorker my own meaning which has nothing to do with the actual meaning.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
As far as I can tell the True Christian is the one telling the story.
The False Christians are always other people. Yes, but what about so-called Christians who don't adhere to the story correctly? Does that make them True Christians or no? :)

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what about so-Christians who don't adhere to the story correctly? Does that make them True Christians or no? :)
They are whatever the Christian who is telling the story wants them to be. It's a fallacy after all. For instance we have several Prods around this site who are more than happy to claim that the Pope is not a true Christian because they have made up rules in their own minds that exclude Catholics from Christianity.
Usually it only comes up when talking about some church atrocity, the Inquisition, the 30 Years War, The Burning Years, The Crusades; even the pedophile priests in the current news. The Christians in question are faslely labeled as not true Christians so that it can be falsely claimed that Christianity had nothing to do with these things

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Sure it matters, you don't want to tell lies do you? There you go again, trying to define who I am ... Scotsman fallacy. ;)

[Hazel-rah]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There you again, trying to define who I am ... Scotsman fallacy. ;)
Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a Scotsman.

[Biff the unclean]

It is pretty nutty the way this Scotsman/Christian thing works.

Christians would never do anything bad
The College of Cardinals had people tortured for saying the Earth goes around the Sun
The Cardinals are not Christians

God would never do anything bad
He drowned everyone and every animal, all the kittys and puppys, except those on one boat.
We can't know that genocide is a bad thing

[Biff the unclean]

Sure it matters, you don't want to tell lies do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you again, trying to define who I am ... Scotsman fallacy.


I stand corrected then. Lie away

[Iacchus]

Religion is really nothing other than what you would put on a can of noodles. You can identify with the label all you want, yet it has very little to do with the noodles inside. ;)

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Zeda
Hello all,

I am still real new to these boards, so I hope this is the right place to post this thread.

I am in the process of figuring out what exactly I believe-- I come from a very fundamentalist Christian background, but can no longer believe anything I was taught. I am at the point where I have begun to believe that all religion is man made-- Myths to help us cope with our fears and traditions set up to organize and regulate our society, as well as a system of justice for those who recieve no justice in this world, to feel that things will be evened out on the other side.


Zeda;

Just one question: what effort have you made to resolve your doubts (besides asking unbelievers), i.e., have you talked to a qualified theologian; have you checked to see how these issues have been dealt with by the church?

Your description of souls "waiting in line" to be born and rolling the dice to see where they'll end up is unscriptural. Where did you get such an idea?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Hazel-rah

Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a Scotsman. Aye captain ... :D Scotty was the engineer by the way. ;)

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by theophilus
Your description of souls "waiting in line" to be born and rolling the dice to see where they'll end up is unscriptural. Where did you get such an idea?
It's okay, we checked. Zeda has a current literary license. She is qualified to write her own allegories so long as she wears her glasses while typing them

[Hazel-rah]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Aye captain ... :D Scotty was the engineer by the way. ;)
Um... is this mike on?
:banghead:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

It's okay, we checked. Zeda has a current literary license. She is qualified to write her own allegories so long as she wears her glasses while typing them Oh, I can see that you're putting words into their mouths too, as if that were the actual story they should tell. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

God would never do anything bad
He drowned everyone and every animal, all the kittys and puppys, except those on one boat.
We can't know that genocide is a bad thing Except that here you have the effect without the cause. You don't know why God did it do you? So how can you say it's bad?

[ObiKenobi]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except that here you have the effect without the cause. You don't know why God did it do you? So how can you say it's bad?

Actually the bible says exactly why he did it. He said he was disatisfied by his creations so he chose to kill everything and start anew. Read Genesis 6:5-7 and it gives exactly why god wanted to kill everything.

Genesis 6:5 - "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually".

6:6 - "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart".

6:7 - "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenthth me that I have made them".

Don't see how you can say you don't know why God flooded the earth as the bible pretty explicitly says it in these passages.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except that here you have the effect without the cause. You don't know why God did it do you? So how can you say it's bad?

What are you complaining about? You are doing exactly the nutty thing I said you would be doing, denying that it is possible to know that killing every human and every animal is a bad thing.

You don't seem to be able to keep in mind that you are talking to Atheists. I know this flood didn't happen and I known that God didn't do it because he's only a character in a work of fiction.
But the problem is greater than you not being able to tell fact from fiction. You see you believe a story about this Being murdering almost everyone in your species, and almost everything in every species and instead of being filled with hate for this monster you turn traitor to everyone and every creature on the planet and take the extraterrestial Monster's POV.
'Gee whiz, maybe He had a good reason to murder countless millions, who knows? But it's okay by me Lord.'

In point of fact it's not so bad, just pretty silly, that you believe a ridiculous Bronze Age myth. But if it were an actual true story it would mean that you would be completely without morals to take the murderer of mankind's side. Are you sure that you have thought your beliefs through?

[Zeda]

Hello again everyone and thanks for the warm welcome. I guess I will talk to Theophilus first. The souls waiting in line story wasnt meant to be scriptual-- It was my personal view of how unfair life is. The idea that a fair, just, loving god could give some people such a horrible shot at life, either there one and only life, or there only life before they arrive at heaven or hell, is one of main reasons for not believing in a god at all, at least the god as protrayed in the Bible.

As far as what I have done for research thus far, I was taught the Bible as the inspired word of God from earliest childhood- In fact the Bible is the book I learned to read from. I attended Moody Bible Institue in Chicago, for 2 1/2 years where reading and studying the Bible daily was a prerequisite. I taught in Awana Clubs, Sunday School, witnessed door to door and in colledge campus ministries. I read Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh Mcdowel and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. I also have read about and studied many other religions, including that of the Mormans, Jehovah witnesses, Catholic church as well as others. I have a harder time with reading and understanding those faiths of Eastren orgin as thier concepts are further away from what I feel comfortable with, but I have tried and I am still trying to understand them.

My break with the fundamental Christian church came more from observing Christians than for any other reason. The failure of many Christians to live thier faith. made me feel that hypocrisy was maybe a bigger sin than any the church preached on. I felt that if I could not live my life according to the church and Bible standards then I didnt belong there. So for many many years, I was a nominal Christian. I still believed the basic doctrines of the Bible, just didnot attend church or fellowship with other believers.

Many years of doubt, and of questions passed. During this time I had three children who I allowed to choose thier own path, making church an available option to them. but not pushing them to attend or discouraging them from attending. The two eldest both became involved in fundamentalist churches, and both made professions for Christ. I was satisfied that If there was a god, they would be going to heaven and if there wasnt, they werent be hurt by thier beliefs.

Then my youngest son. This is my little scholar. He is now 14. He has never been interested in church and outside of a vacation bible school session and a service or two, has refused to go. Fine with me-- his choice.

Then one day he comes home from school and we are talking of general middle school topics, when he tells me, " Mom by the way,
I'm an atheist." To say the least I was shocked. I talked to him to see if he knew what he was saying, and he clearly did, but after some descussion, I convinced him he was closer to an agnostic, as he said, "No one can prove if there is or is Not a god, but so far, I see no sign of him, though I am open to new evidence." I gave him C.S. Lewis's book and he is also reading lots of mythology, (He loves Norse mythogoly) but his questions made me re-examine my own beliefs. I am in fact still searching for answers and I am trying to do this with an open and inquiring mind. I wrote down all the book suggestions (Thank you Mageth):) and I am reading the deconversion stories here, (I started with the one by Coas) but I dont hope to get any quick answers, just lots more question. For instance why do they call it Free thinking when you have to spend so much on the books? :D
I have read and reread the answers on this thread so far, and will continute to do so. All answers both of the Christians and other religious people here, and of the agnostic and atheists here are equally valued by me, and I appreciate a forum that allows me to hear from both sides. And by the way Biff the Unclean I did have my glasses on when I typed my little story. :)

[NottyImp]

"I guess I will talk to Theophilus first. "

Oh, I wouldn't. Theophilus will tell you that everything achieved by science and rational secular thought is just "pure luck", and he will do so without a trace of irony whilst typing it on the scientifically designed computer sitting on his desk.

[Zeda]

Downloaded the Bertrand Russel essay-- really amazing but I am going to have to read it alot more than once before it sinks in.

Went to Amazon and ordered all these books:

The Masks of God: Primitive mythology-- Joseph Campbell

Thou Art that: Transforming Religious Metaphors -- J. Campbell

An Open Life: Joseph Campbell in conversations with Michalel Toms

A History of God-- Karen Armstrong

Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism-- John Shelby Spong

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Bible

The Book your Church doesnt want you to Read-- Tim C. Leedon

The Early History of God-- Mark S. Smith


Looks like me gots me work cut out for me eh?? any other suggestions of books well worth reading will be appreciated, though I may have to wait a bit to order them, as I am now broke for a bit and the possiblility that my library would have them is about null. Thanks again all.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by ObiKenobi

Actually the bible says exactly why he did it. He said he was disatisfied by his creations so he chose to kill everything and start anew. Read Genesis 6:5-7 and it gives exactly why god wanted to kill everything.

Genesis 6:5 - "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually".

6:6 - "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart".

6:7 - "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenthth me that I have made them".

Don't see how you can say you don't know why God flooded the earth as the bible pretty explicitly says it in these passages. So Jehovah was vengeful and Jesus was compassionate. Are we actually speaking about the same God here? Or, perhaps it's just a matter of interpretation? Indeed, God has been different things to different people throughout the ages, much in the way human beings go through different stages of development as they grow and mature. Sounds a bit more plausible than God being two-faced about the whole thing doesn't it?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Zeda
Downloaded the Bertrand Russel essay-- really amazing but I am going to have to read it alot more than once before it sinks in.

Went to Amazon and ordered all these books:

The Masks of God: Primitive mythology-- Joseph Campbell

Thou Art that: Transforming Religious Metaphors -- J. Campbell

An Open Life: Joseph Campbell in conversations with Michalel Toms

A History of God-- Karen Armstrong

Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism-- John Shelby Spong

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Bible

The Book your Church doesnt want you to Read-- Tim C. Leedon

The Early History of God-- Mark S. Smith


Looks like me gots me work cut out for me eh?? any other suggestions of books well worth reading will be appreciated, though I may have to wait a bit to order them, as I am now broke for a bit and the possiblility that my library would have them is about null. Thanks again all.

Sounds like you're on the right path. That list of books looks like a good one - esp. since I have have read 2-4 and have the first and fifth in my "to read pile". ;)

Note that "The Masks of God - Primitive Mythology" is one of a four volume work on mythology by Campbell. My recommendation is that you read An Open Life first to get a general feel for Campbell's philosophy of life, then read Thou Art That, before tackling Masks.

BTW, if you have a used book store in your neighborhood, that's a good place to look for books.

Since you've gotten so many from my suggested list, and have more on there that you haven't gotten yet, I'll let other people make suggestions. However, one that might be suggested is Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith", which I intend to read at some point. It sounds like it might be very applicable to your current position.

Well, best wishes to you. If you run out of things to read in the future, feel free to PM me, BTW.

[NottyImp]

Indeed, God has been different things to different people throughout the ages, much in the way human beings go through different stages of development as they grow and mature. Sounds a bit more plausible than God being two-faced about the whole thing doesn't it?

I think I'll go back to wrestling with fog...

[King Rat]

I think I'll go back to wrestling with fog...

Odd that those who purport to know truth and the mind of god are unable to communicate this truth to those who supposedly need it the most. It constitutes a sweeping and telling failure on the part of xtianity.

Hucksters must gauge their marks well. Use what we value and you will have a sale. Ignore what we value and you will be ridiculed.

[Mageth]

Posted by Iacchus:

Indeed, God has been different things to different people throughout the ages, much in the way human beings go through different stages of development as they grow and mature. Sounds a bit more plausible than God being two-faced about the whole thing doesn't it?

Reply by NottyImp
I think I'll go back to wrestling with fog...

I actually agree with Iacchus on this in principle, but I would say the concept or idea of God has changed over the centuries. Humans mold God to match their needs and to meet their understanding of the world. The concept of God evolves or dies. ;)

That's one reason I think the still too-widely-held concept of the Christian, redemptive, exclusive, heaven-or-hell, morally strict and morally repugnant God derived from a static, literal reading of the Bible is eventually doomed. That God either dies or Christianity as a viable religion dies (not that that would be such a bad thing ;) ).

Karen Armstrong's A History of God describes the evolutionary process of the concepts of the Abrahamic God quite well.

Iacchus, on this forum, has been describing his concept of God, as Magus and others have been describing their concepts of God.

Of course, for many of us, myself included, God is dead. Iacchus et al just don't realize it, or are busy trying to resuscitate the cold corpse. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mageth

Iacchus, on this forum, has been describing his concept of God, as Magus and others have been describing their concepts of God.

Of course, for many of us, myself included, God is dead. Iacchus et al just don't realize it, or are busy trying to resuscitate the cold corpse. ;) The only thing missing here is that the word "God" is used to describe the supernatural. And, while our definition of it may change, due to the way we relate to it, that by no means is to say it doesn't exist or, ceases to exist. God has always been and always will be, most notably in its highest form, the Christian God.

However, that isn't to say we can't relate to it differently, even now, because times have changed. And, since the advent of The Age of Enlightenment -- which, signified the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation believe it or not -- it signifies the development of the Spiritual Bridegroom (as Christ Himself was called the Bridegroom), hence the qualities of the reasoning mind. Which, should only stand to reason I would think.

Thus having developed the full capacity to reason about things, in the rational sense, we have to ask ourselves, "Where is the Bride?" For indeed, without the ability to understand one cannot choose, and without the ability to choose one has no free will. Therefore, the advent of the Spiritual Bride should also coincide with the emancipation of free will, more specifically the woman's will -- in marriage -- and hence the beginning of the engagement period. Which, I suggest are the times in we are living in today.

If you would like more information here, please refer to the first three chapters of my book ... Thanks. :)

http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html

http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html

http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only thing missing here is that the word "God" is used to describe the supernatural.

Umm, not really. "The supernatural" refers to that which is not of the "natural". It encompasses other concepts than god.

And, while our definition of it may change, due to the way we relate to it, that by no means is to say it doesn't exist or, ceases to exist.

Doesn't indicate it does, either.

And what really happens is that our concept of it changes, changing the ways we think we're supposed to relate to it (that which we conceive).

The lack of evidence for the supernatural, or God, makes belief in the existence of either questionable at best. They are concepts, and have no evidence of existence in reality.

God has always been and always will be, most notably in its highest form, the Christian God.

First, the Christian concept of God hasn't always existed. Second, that "highest form" claim is conceited and unfounded. I see the typical Christian concept of God as quite primitive and limited, actually, definitely not the "highest form" of a God concept.

However, that isn't to say we can't relate to it differently,

We don't "relate" to God differently; we think of or conceive God differently, and "relate" according to that concept.

even now, because times have changed. And, since the advent of The Age of Enlightenment -- which, signified the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation believe it or not --

Make that "not" for me.

it signifies the development of the Spiritual Bridegroom (as Christ Himself was called the Bridegroom), hence the qualities of the reasoning mind. Which, should only stand to reason I would think.

Well, perhaps you would, but I can make no rhyme or reason of what you're saying.

Thus having developed the full capacity to reason about things,

Well, maybe that describes some of us. Others are still stuck trying to make sense out of ancient fairy tales, apparently.

in the rational sense, we have to ask ourselves, "Where is the Bride?" For indeed, without the ability to understand one cannot choose, and without the ability to choose one has no free will. Therefore, the advent of the Spiritual Bride should also coincide with the emancipation of free will, more specifically the woman's will -- in marriage -- hence the beginning of the engagement period. Which, I suggest are the times in we are living in today.

But at the stroke of midnight, the carriage will turn back into a pumpkin, right? I've read that fairy tale.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mageth

Umm, not really. "The supernatural" refers to that which is not of the "natural". It encompasses other concepts than god.Merely concepts? If this is all we have, then yes, "God" can be used to describe the supernatural.


Doesn't indicate it does, either.Except it doesn't follow. For I haven't concluded anything.


And what really happens is that our concept of it changes, changing the ways we think we're supposed to relate to it (that which we conceive).How about the relationship with your parents? It's grown and evolved over the years and they still exist don't they?


The lack of evidence for the supernatural, or God, makes belief in the existence of either questionable at best. They are concepts, and have no evidence of existence in reality.Or, perhaps you might want to consider the evidence I've laid out before you? Which, can be construed as evidence contingent upon the fact that He does exist.


First, the Christian concept of God hasn't always existed. Second, that "highest form" claim is conceited and unfounded. I see the typical Christian concept of God as quite primitive and limited, actually, definitely not the "highest form" of a God concept.However, I think with the proper understanding you might conclude differently. Since everything you say is based merely upon the concept or, non-existence altogether.


We don't "relate" to God differently; we think of or conceive God differently, and "relate" according to that concept.Concept again right?


Make that "not" for me.This has actually been well documented, at least in terms of the Book of Revelation having been fulfilled.


Well, perhaps you would, but I can make no rhyme or reason of what you're saying.

Well, maybe that describes some of us. Others are still stuck trying to make sense out of ancient fairy tales, apparently.I'm referring to the most current aspect of the human condition here, more specifically our ability to reason, hence the scientific mind.


But at the stroke of midnight, the carriage will turn back into a pumpkin, right? I've read that fairy tale. What better way to describe the relationship between God and The Church than with Husband and Wife? ...


2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. ~ Revelation 21:2-4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+21)

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This has actually been well documented, at least in terms of the Book of Revelation having been fulfilled.I hope it's well documented. I feel pretty embarrassed about missing the appearance of the seven-headed, ten-horned, flying purple people eater or whatever it was that Revelation described.

WMD

[Biff the unclean]

Merely concepts? If this is all we have, then yes, "God" can be used to describe the supernatural.
Beyond the natural is not the supernatural. Beyond the natural is the fictional

How about the relationship with your parents? It's grown and evolved over the years and they still exist don't they?
No, it's more like the Superman comic books. As new authors arrived they changed the things that Superman can do. He went from leaping tall buildings in a single bound to being able to fly so fast he could go back in time. Since he's fiction, like God, you can make him do anything that pops into your imagination.

Or, perhaps you might want to consider the evidence I've laid out before you? Which, can be construed as evidence contingent upon the fact that He does exist.
You might want to consider that you…or anyone else… never actually produce a God. Only excuses for why you don't.

I think with the proper understanding you might conclude differently. Since everything you say is based merely upon the concept or, non-existence altogether.
That is the proper understanding.

Concept again right?
Of course concept. God's fictional and like every other fictional character (and unlike every real being) concepts are all you have.
It's just a story after all. Never a God, always just a story about a God.

[pope fiction]

{post deleted - sarcasm/insult}

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only thing missing here is that the word "God" is used to describe the supernatural. And, while our definition of it may change, due to the way we relate to it, that by no means is to say it doesn't exist or, ceases to exist. God has always been and always will be, most notably in its highest form, the Christian God.

Step 1: define God to mean anything you want.
Step 2: assert that a word so loosely defined must refer to something that exists.
Step 3: having proven "God" exists, redefine it to mean your own narrow, impossible definition.
Conclusion: laugh at all those atheists who can't appreciate the brilliance of your logic.

Rarely do we see the entire process outlined in a single paragraph...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wayne Delia

I hope it's well documented. I feel pretty embarrassed about missing the appearance of the seven-headed, ten-horned, flying purple people eater or whatever it was that Revelation described.

WMD I'm just saying it's there in case anyone really wanted to do the research. ;)

[NottyImp]

I've decided to give up wrestling with fog - my new hobby is nailing jelly to the ceiling.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Beyond the natural is not the supernatural. Beyond the natural is the fictional.

No, it's more like the Superman comic books. As new authors arrived they changed the things that Superman can do. He went from leaping tall buildings in a single bound to being able to fly so fast he could go back in time. Since he's fiction, like God, you can make him do anything that pops into your imagination.

You might want to consider that you…or anyone else… never actually produce a God. Only excuses for why you don't.

That is the proper understanding.

Of course concept. God's fictional and like every other fictional character (and unlike every real being) concepts are all you have.

It's just a story after all. Never a God, always just a story about a God. Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

[Mageth]

Originally posted by NottyImp
I've decided to give up wrestling with fog - my new hobby is nailing jelly to the ceiling.

After that last post by Iacchus, I think I'll try putting toothpaste back in the tube.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm just saying it's there in case anyone really wanted to do the research. ;) Forget the research. Where's the seven-headed, ten-horned, flying purple people eaters? If you can't point them out, or if they never actually showed up, then all the research in the world won't help you.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ... <blank stare> So! How 'bout them Red Sox?

WMD

[Biff the unclean]

Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?
Are you saying that you can't tell fact from fiction? That would explain a lot.
One way you could tell is to check the details of the stories. I have a story about the time that I built a boat. God has one about the time he built the sky. You can compare our stories against the actual boat and the actual sky. My story is about marine plywood and fiberglass. God's story is about a solid firmament and divided ocean water. By checking the details of the story against the observable facts you can rule out some stories as being fiction right away.

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.
Because you can actually verify the facts of my existence.
But if you couldn't verify that I existed…if no one had ever seen me; if I left no record at all; I never owned anything, I was on no tax records. Then you would have reason to doubt. But if you looked at my life story and were able to recognize that it was a combination of the stories of James Bond and Indiana Jones (or the demigods Mithra and Dionysus in Jesus' case) you would be foolish to think that I was nonfiction.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...
What you are doing here is trying to discredit reality itself to support your God story. And admittedly that is the only way that you can support it, because it simply isn't real. As you have just demonstrated.

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right?
Wrong, illusions spring from the human brain.

But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...
But we are not talking about illusions (Webster's Pocket 1 false idea 2 misleading appearance) we are talking about delusions (delude' v. mislead) You have had the wool pulled over your eyes.
You have not produced God Himself only stories about God which are obvious and poorly written works of fiction. God is just another superhero in just another novel

[pope fiction]

This topic has sprouted its own thread in EoG if you want to post further responses to Iacchus' creativity.