A God We Know Nothing About

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by PsychoticEpisode, Apr 4, 2009.

  1. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Wait a minute, the means I take work for me. Hitler invaded, Ted Bundy killed, and they were thrilled about it. Any purpose assigned me by God is no different than yours, be happy. Yet for some reason I can't be happy if I do it a certain way? Then happiness is not mine or anyone's purpose. You just gave a purpose for God, which is to give us a purpose, not a happy situation at all. If God wants us to be happy then is it safe to say He is not? Or should we strive to be as happy as He is?

    If I have two nations full of happy people fighting each other for the right to maintain their happiness then I, the unhappy one, may have to pick up a gun one day and use it just to keep you and your fellow revelers happy. Would your band of merry men be so inclined to return the favor to someone so unhappy as I? Happy is so subjective, so different for everyone. What kind of god gives a shit about a little bag of water's happiness?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797

    No 1 assigns any purpose to me. No gods, devils, spirits, aliens or babbling buffoons.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    I see where purpose is being argued about on another thread as I type. If LG and his ilk believe God assigns purposes to our lives then why question the atheist? Unless atheism has no divine purpose. If theists do question the atheist then they are questioning the will of God, are they not? By the way atheists are exempt from not questioning theists in the same way since we have no god to assign us this task. Thus believing in God means you cannot argue against an atheist unless your purpose is to question atheists or God's will.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
    -=-

    They want it both ways. And in their desperation, they either can't see or can't admit the contradiction or both. And they are compelled to condemn those who are not caught in the wake of their absurd cruel fantasy.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    not really

    as I mentioned before, the pursuit of happiness is a given.
    the means you take to fulfill that propensity is your responsibility

    An obvious hierarchy exists.
    Not even your most dogmatic liberal would suggest that Ted Bundy's means for happiness are just as valid as anyone else's.
    perhaps if you also assign that the purpose of the conditioned world is the best god has on offer for the pursuit of happiness
    not at all

    Of the many distinguishing aspects between god and the living entity, god can lay claim to being fully independent. Regardless of whether we are conditioned or liberated, our scope for life/happiness is always involved in issues of contingency
    We should strive to be as happy as he is. Meaning that we both share the same nature (eternal, blissful and cognizant). If we take it that happiness requires that we impersonate god (ie possess opulence with a mood of being the independent enjoyer) we lose scope of our constitutional position (aka temporary, distressed and full of ignorance)
    conflict is inherent to the material world since.
    You might have noticed that the BG is set on a battle field
    If fighting is your nature, you will act according to that nature.

    BG 18.59 If you do not act according to My direction and do not fight, then you will be falsely directed. By your nature, you will have to be engaged in warfare.

    Sure that's the material world for you - no scope for co-operative living. You can't even eat a cake without some ant trying to rain on your parade by eating it before you.

    Depends on what scope one has for happiness. If you're looking for happiness in the pursuit of propriety, distinction etc then sure, god doesn't give a shit about that (or more specifically, he assigns the laws of the conditioned world to facilitate such futile pursuits).
    If one is looking for happiness in the pursuit of re-instating one's spiritual nature then he will walk 10 000 steps for every one of yours.
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    then I guess that just leaves you with your tongue, belly and genitals
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Meh

    tell that to someone who speaks french

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I did a thread about that a while ago
    as the OP from the thread indicates however, atheism remains somewhat shy of fulfilling Dostoyevsky's maxim.

    The real picture however is that you see theists situated on a variety of levels of realization
     
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
    “Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
    No 1 assigns any purpose to me. No gods, devils, spirits, aliens or babbling buffoons. ”



    As usual, it leaves you with nonsense.
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    actually it leaves you with baboon (et al) life
     
  14. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797

    You wouldn't answer it then & you won't answer it now.



    Atheism doesn't fulfill anything.



    The real picture is you can't support your assertions.
     
  15. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797




    Actually, saying something like that without facts shows you to be a fool.
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If one's first question about god is "does he have a penis" it tends to indicate that one's genitals (and also one's tongue and belly) are the guiding force of one's life.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
    -=-

    Bullshit.
    You can't tell an indication of something from a refutation.
    That certainly wasn't my 1st question about god. Even if it were, it was simply a question. Which you won't answer.
    That wasn't, by far, my 1st question to you about god. That wasn't even my 1st question in that post.
    Creepy how you focus on that question rather than the 1st in that post, which is obviously the main thing I was asking.
    98% of your posts indicate the guiding force of your life is bullshitting people.
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    /facepalm
     
  19. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    No, they are all the same. If by that you mean some tend to dwell on God a bit more than others then yes. I really don't know if what they realize other than a god(s)is that important.

    Do I care if a leprechaun has a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? No, once you get to believing in leprechauns without evidence then no need for me to take the extracurricular stuff seriously.
     
  20. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797
    -=-

    Rainbows don't have ends that a pot of anything could be at.
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    yes that's what I mean
    given that even atheists are capable of launching into debate on the topic, I guess it simply requires a bit of reading on the subject

    :shrug:
     
  22. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    What I meant by the leprechaun comment was that if you were to tell me they exist, yet you are without any proof to back up your claim, then anything else to do with leprechauns is too pointless to mention. Bibles or whatever text you're reading or living by are no different.

    I don't think there is any doubt that religious text is not the word of gods. I don't even have to get into it because right now no one can show me exactly what they know of god. No matter what you claim you know about God, written text means nothing unless the Almighty makes some open honest public attempt at communicating with us personally. Not in our minds but in real time, real space. Enough of this charade, it's time for God to put up or forever go away.

    You know, through this whole debate no one has explained why or whether indoctrination is necessary. Is this the way to knowing God? Without it, would people know God just as easy? Is it necessary for religion to teach us about God this way because our natural instinct is to either not seek religion or discard it altogether? Left to our own devices would we care to know God?
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  23. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,797



    Is that your proof of souls?
     

Share This Page