Does God have a God?

[lightgigantic]

It's not all superficial. See Sarah Palin.

????

[Balerion]

????

No, really, the wasn't enough. I'm glad you added that extra "????", because otherwise, I wouldn't have had any idea what you were getting at.

Sarah Palin is a true believer. That was my point.

[lightgigantic]

No, really, the wasn't enough. I'm glad you added that extra "????", because otherwise, I wouldn't have had any idea what you were getting at.

Sarah Palin is a true believer. That was my point.

...and?

[OilIsMastery]

metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists

Best quote so far.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists

Best quote so far.

How so? What do you think LG is saying with it?

[11parcal]

Can you cite any evidence that shows God does not exist?

Can you cite any that shows he does? It's a never ending circle, the Holy Babble can't be trusted as it could easily be historical fiction. Eventually science will prove God's non-existence, that is what I think until then though I'm happy to sit on the fence.

I don't care for these contrived designations, you are atheist because you don't believe in God, period.

So I must be an atheist because I don't believe but you are free to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish etc. when you do? that hardly seems fair

I don't know, because I don't know all the theists in the world.
But I'm willing to bet you know, because you are atheist (agno-ath for the sake of argument).
I eagerly await your answer.

I don't claim to know any more than you do, in fact i can almost guarantee you know more about the subject than I do, the point is, using these forums as an example there are alot more atheists asking questions than there are theists, but to be fair this is a science board and everyone knows that science and knowledge seem to lower the rate of faith in people...

Yes.
The world is becoming more hellish as time goes by.
Then that's no surprise to those who read scriptures.

Trust me, i've seen the holy babble get brought into these discussions, just leave it alone or someone like (Q) will come in here and tear you apart.

[jpappl]

LightG,

Originally posted from Jan,

"You'd think they'd just decide not to believe it and be done with it."

I responded,

We would but we keep having the god crap shoved in our faces.

For example, the religious litmus test for politicians at the national level.

This is my complaint and it is valid. I have proven this was not part of the original foundings of this country. This country was founded on the seperation of church and state. Freewill !

There are many others I may have, but my response was to Jans statement. The main issue myself and I would imagine most of us have an issue with. We are ok with someone not believing the way we do, but we don't appreciate being proselytized to.

Jdawg,

"It's not all superficial. See Sarah Palin."

My point exactly, they are not choosing this person based on intelligence and an understanding of issues but on whether they perceive this person as a strong christian.

There are several very good Republican and I believe christian women who are superb in my opinion and John McCain made the error by trying to persuade the right. Could have choosen for example, Christine Todd-Whitman, former head of the EPA, very intellegent on the issues, tested and vetted.

No intelligent theist, atheist or agnostic or any combination of thereof, would require such a test.

[Balerion]

JPappl, you have to understand that people like Oil and LG, they don't deal in facts. Light actually said that Metaphysics isn't a strong suit for atheist, which is hysterically since he's implying so many things, including the absurd notion that theists have a scientific strong suit...oh, wow, I laughed until I cried.

[Balerion]

...and?

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're being intentionally stupid, or if it's just the way you are...

[(Q)]

JPappl, you have to understand that people like Oil and LG, they don't deal in facts.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Jan Ardena]

11parcal,

Can you cite any that shows he does?

Typical. You make a point, then when asked to give clarity to that point, it turns out you don't have a point. If you don't make it in science, you'll make a great magician.

It's a never ending circle, the Holy Babble [bible] can't be trusted as it could easily be historical fiction.

You've been quite sensible so far, why have you chosen to use a derogative terminology.

Eventually science will prove God's non-existence, that is what I think until then though I'm happy to sit on the fence.

Your not on the fence, you are clearly in the I don't believe God exists camp.
Just study your quote, and you'll understand what I mean.

So I must be an atheist because I don't believe but you are free to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish etc. when you do? that hardly seems fair

Those are actual designation, yours isn't. You don't believe in God, therefore you are atheist by definition. A theist is a person who believes in Godl

I don't claim to know any more than you do, in fact i can almost guarantee you know more about the subject than I do, the point is, using these forums as an example there are alot more atheists asking questions than there are theists,

It may appear that way if you think trick questions are genuine.

...but to be fair this is a science board and everyone knows that science and knowledge seem to lower the rate of faith in people...

Are you sure about that?
What is your evidence?

Trust me, i've seen the holy babble get brought into these discussions, just leave it alone or someone like (Q) will come in here and tear you apart.

Ahh...that's.
You show remarkable faith, there's hope for you yet youngster.

jan.

[lightgigantic]

JPappl, you have to understand that people like Oil and LG, they don't deal in facts.

and the facts are what?
empirical?
(but then why does empiricism have such a colourful history in determining what is factual?)

Light actually said that Metaphysics isn't a strong suit for atheist, which is hysterically since he's implying so many things, including the absurd notion that theists have a scientific strong suit...oh, wow, I laughed until I cried.

Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists simply means "Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists".
The reason is because they tend to be hopelessly addicted to empiricism.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Jan ----- “ It's a never ending circle, the Holy Babble [bible] can't be trusted as it could easily be historical fiction. ”

You've been quite sensible so far, why have you chosen to use a derogative terminology.
------------------------------------

Stranger ========== For the christian bible, The Holy Babble is truthful, corect & apt terminology.

What is derogatory is the god of The Holy Babble's attitude & treatment of humans & most theists' attitude toward humans in general & nonbelievers in particular.

OH! This is post #1111. What does it mean? It must mean something. Should I pray to find out?

[Balerion]

and the facts are what?
empirical?
(but then why does empiricism have such a colourful history in determining what is factual?)



Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists simply means "Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists".
The reason is because they tend to be hopelessly addicted to empiricism.

Some people just refuse to remove the Bible from their eyes, I guess.

[lightgigantic]

Some people just refuse to remove the Bible from their eyes, I guess.

since my post doesn't hinge on anything scriptural, it appears that others have a problem of removing unresolved anger issues from their angle of vision ....

[greenberg]

11parcal,

Not me in particular but many people have been hurt in many religious affairs,

Many people have been hurt through alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, and the list goes on, why aren't you questioning the origins of these things?

None of those things can hurt one as much as God and ideas of God can.
All those other things are only partial at best, affecting only portions of one's existence. But God, by the very definition, can affect one's whole existence, past, present and future, here, there and elsewhere.
If a person is given the wrong idea about God, this can scar them for life.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

None of those things can hurt one as much as God and ideas of God can.

Given that these are inflicted by the mind, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

All those other things are only partial at best, affecting only portions of one's existence.

I beg to differ. These can have a very negative effect on the individual, affecting there whole perception of life.
Overcoming ones hurt and pain, can enrich life.

But God, by the very definition, can affect one's whole existence, past, present and future, here, there and elsewhere.

Yes, if one chooses (keeping with definition).

jan.

[phlogistician]

Impossible. An infinite regression of causality is logically absurd because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.

Excellent, so God cannot have existed for ever,.... so must have sprung into being at some point. The act of God's creation was the prime mover then, not God!

Hoisted by your own petard, I think!

[greenberg]

None of those things can hurt one as much as God and ideas of God can.

Given that these are inflicted by the mind, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

I am not sure what the "these" in your post is referring to - alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism and so on, or God and ideas of God?

All those other things are only partial at best, affecting only portions of one's existence.

I beg to differ. These can have a very negative effect on the individual, affecting there whole perception of life.

How?
Perhaps it is is just me - but I think that alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, politics, violence and so on are not an instant sentence to eternal doom; it is possible to recover from them at least partly. They can have extremely negative effects on a person, surely.
Whereas being told that since you haven't been baptized as an infant, your life might as well be over right now and you will surely burn in hell for all eternity, starting now, and that there is no land and no time and no help for you to hide from the wrath of God - that, I think, can do more damage than any amount of alcohol or violence.

But God, by the very definition, can affect one's whole existence, past, present and future, here, there and elsewhere.

Yes, if one chooses (keeping with definition).

How do you mean - "if one chooses"? If God wants to doom you to hell for all eternity (starting now), there is nothing you can do against that, or can you?

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I am not sure what the "these" in your post is referring to - alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism and so on, or God and ideas of God?

What causes hurt?
a) infliction from another being
b) natural disaster
c) infliction of ones own mind
d) illness, sickness of the body.

How?
Perhaps it is is just me - but I think that alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, politics, violence and so on are not an instant sentence to eternal doom; it is possible to recover from them at least partly. They can have extremely negative effects on a person, surely.

It depend upon the effect it has on the particular individual.
For instance someone may feel so rotten after drunkenly running over an innocent child, that they become mentally unstable, and suicidal.

Whereas being told that since you haven't been baptized as an infant, your life might as well be over right now and you will surely burn in hell for all eternity, starting now, and that there is no land and no time and no help for you to hide from the wrath of God - that, I think, can do more damage than any amount of alcohol or violence.

Again it depends on the particular person, and how they view it.
But I agree it can be terrible, but no more terrible than the person who is on suicide watch for drink driving.

How do you mean - "if one chooses"? If God wants to doom you to hell for all eternity (starting now), there is nothing you can do against that, or can you?

It depends on whether you are refering to a whimsical god, or God in the scripture.
Whimiscal god, sure. Scriptoral God? I don't see how.

jan.