Topic: The non-existence of God

[TryingtoConvert]

That shows the spirit of a catechumen!

So explain exactly why the soul would have to endure 'spiritual' tests before being accepted into Heaven, so you get all the way to the final tollhouse and then somehow you don't pass and your soul gets dragged into Hell.

That's not the God of love that I know of.

People judge God because of hell's very existence. The particular and final judgments exist because of free will. It is not for you, as a catechumen, or for me as a communicant, to edit the teachings of the Church, whether they relate to dogma or are theological opinions taught by the saints, simply because they do not square with our own opinions of how we think things are or should be. Rather, we need to show some humility before the Church, our mother and teacher, and if there is something we cannot grasp or understand, instead or rebelling against it or calling it stupid, we should remind ourselves that we, by ourselves, do not have all the answers, and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

Isn't that **** convenient? I've always been bothered by the "God Logic" b.s. and how God's ways are above man's ways blah blah. It's always brought up right around the point that the circular argument has come full. Seems like a cop out to me.

If ever I were tempted to hold up my fingers in front of me in the sign of the "A" (for atheist) to ward off the demonic, it would be now, being faced with the proposition that I surrender my mind - for to surrender my mind is to surrender my life



Blasphemy removed from post  -PtA

I've already had to modify one of your posts to edit out a profanity, which makes this the second offense. I also don't care what you think of our religion; we do not permit such blasphemous use of God's Name on this forum. As such, you are receiving this warning to last for the next two weeks. If you continue to use such obscene and blasphemous language on this forum, further disciplinary action will be taken against you, to include post moderation, muting, or banning. If you feel this action wrong, feel free to appeal it via private message to Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut

[Jetavan]

If ever I were tempted to hold up my fingers in front of me in the sign of the "A" (for atheist) to ward off the demonic, it would be now, being faced with the proposition that I surrender my mind - for to surrender my mind is to surrender my life

You wouldn't happen to be a fan of Rush (the band), would you?

[Cognomen]

Isn't that **** convenient? I've always been bothered by the "God Logic" b.s. and how God's ways are above man's ways blah blah. It's always brought up right around the point that the circular argument has come full. Seems like a cop out to me.

If ever I were tempted to hold up my fingers in front of me in the sign of the "A" (for atheist) to ward off the demonic, it would be now, being faced with the proposition that I surrender my mind - for to surrender my mind is to surrender my life

Can you please go away now? Do you think you've impressed anyone or caused anyone to doubt their faith because of your arguments?  

The mods and many posters have been tremendously lenient with you, allowing and responding to your hostile questions/responses.  While you may have fleeting moments of coherency, this post wasn't one of them.  Either you are intoxicated, or you've decided your antagonizing comments need to be ratcheted up a few notches.  Go troll somewhere else.



Blasphemy removed from quote box  -PtA

[TryingtoConvert]

I haven't listened to them in years.

There is nothing wrong with judging God based on Hell's existence.

The particular and final judgments exist because of free will.

A statement as if it is fact, that is not supported by facts.

It is not for me to edit the teachings of the Church, whether they relate to dogma or are theological opinions taught by the saints, simply because they do not square with our own opinions of how we think things are or should be.

How about, because they do not square with how things are? Empirical evidence not something to just dismiss, while concepts that have no empirical evidence to back it up can just be dismissed.

I do not need to show humility before the Church, your mother or teacher. It's not simply a rebellion against any church, theistic concept or person in particular...it's not even a rebellion. I merely do not accept anything as true without understanding it and the evidence that backs it up. The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

[NicholasMyra]

I haven't listened to them in years.

There is nothing wrong with judging God based on Hell's existence.

The particular and final judgments exist because of free will.

A statement as if it is fact, that is not supported by facts.

It is not for me to edit the teachings of the Church, whether they relate to dogma or are theological opinions taught by the saints, simply because they do not square with our own opinions of how we think things are or should be.

How about, because they do not square with how things are? Empirical evidence not something to just dismiss, while concepts that have no empirical evidence to back it up can just be dismissed.

I do not need to show humility before the Church, your mother or teacher. It's not simply a rebellion against any church, theistic concept or person in particular...it's not even a rebellion. I merely do not accept anything as true without understanding it and the evidence that backs it up. The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Calm down. This isn't a youtube comment box.

[Ortho_cat]

Beloved in the Lord,

Just a reminder that the purpose of the Convert issues forum is to provide a a place on the OC.Net where inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted could ask their questions about the Orthodox Faith in a safe and supportive forum without retribution or recrimination. Many of those posting in this area are ignorant of Orthodox teachings and are using this forum to understand what are the basic teachings and practices of the Orthodox churches. Due to the simplicity of many of their requests and responses, direct and simple answers with sources if possible are most helpful.

The convert forum is not a place for combative debate or arguement, however it is a place for the new convert or catechumen to discuss issues that are causing them problems in their assimilation into the Orthodox Faith. Feel Free to continue to ask these questions.. 

Thank you for your following these guidelines to the edification and spiritual growth of the forum inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted.

In Christ,
Thomas
Convert Forum Moderator

Again.

[Father H]

The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

[Father H]

^A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.   

[TryingtoConvert]

The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

[ialmisry]

The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

except His existence, for starters.

[TryingtoConvert]

The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

except His existence, for starters.

Except his purported existence, which is reason only to postulate existence, nothing more. Although not mentioned in the previous post, postulation of existence woud not be considered evidence for existence of any god.

[Ortho_cat]

Can we please continue this argument outside of this thread and return back to the initial question asked by the OP?

[TryingtoConvert]

As requested by Ortho Cat:

Except his purported existence, which is reason only to postulate existence, nothing more. Although not mentioned in the previous post, postulation of existence woud not be considered evidence for existence of any god.

Discuss.

[TryingtoConvert]

Can we please continue this argument outside of this thread and return back to the initial question asked by the OP?

Will do. Made the thread here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32196.new.html#new

[CRCulver]

Postulation of existence would not be considered evidence for existence of any god.

The ontological argument, which has risen from the dead in recent decades, does hold that the thought of God's existence does imply his existence.

[Father H]

The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots. 

Um, actually the odds of existence in any form are very low. 

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?    There is no reason to exist as opposed to non-existence.  Non-existence makes more sense.   Does that mean therefore things do not exist?

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

[Father H]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

I am assuming nothing and you are WRONG in saying that I am.   He stated that there is no reason to bring up God as a hypothesis.   I contradicted this statement, as the multiverse theory must be weighed against other probabilities.  To some the multiverse hypothesis is absurd.  To others the God hypothesis is absurd.  But to state that there is no REASON to even bring up God or any other causal or anti-causal hypothesis is unfounded.  It is simply seeking to eliminate the competition so that there is less work.  It is simply intellectual laziness. 

[Papist]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy.

[Father H]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy. 

Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God. 

[Shiny]

I think it's particulary funny that when Science finally hit that point where it had to delve into metaphysics, concepts like the multiverse and super string theory, you kind of have to ask yourself how in the world did this even get created. Atheism is losing ground by all the recent scientific discoveries, and even more so with our exploration into certain cosmic events (like dark matter for example).

It's even more baffling when someone asserts that this was all just created out of nothing. Like there is no purpose to anything, it just happened and that's it. Now that assertion must be put into question, not God.

[minasoliman]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

Whether or not we live in an infinite multiverse (which I doubt that can actually be "tested"), to assign God to the naturalistic world is no different than deistic or pantheistic at best and has ultimately no different purpose than atheism, but a personal God is one that which someone prays to, and develops a relationship with.  It's only proven through this relationship, I believe, through works.  If infinite and cyclical is something that the human mind can actually conceive of, then God by definition is much bigger than that.

I've been stressing works as an important component of our faith, that is humanitarian and at the same time ascetic lifestyles.  The problem I feel is that among us Christians, we believe, but we don't act or show the effect of our beliefs.  I think discussing this is useless if we don't "walk the talk" so to speak.  How can I show you how God exists through these words on a computer if I can't show you how God exists through my actions?  I believe we, Christians, reap atheism from what we sow, that is do essentially and collectively when we do nothing, as if God doesn't exist, we give birth to those who believe that God doesn't exist.

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

^A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.   

"Gotta play your hand, cuz sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay em down.." truckin

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Jetavan]

Even cycles have a beginning. Someone has to spin the wheel to get it going.

[minasoliman]

Even cycles have a beginning. Someone has to spin the wheel to get it going.

Brilliant!

[sainthieu]

The only mystery I see is 'why are you here' in this forum? Clearly, you're interested in nothing more than venting your ill-informed and juvenile hostility toward those who have never done anything to provoke you.  Why don't you toddle off to a Muslim forum and entertain them. Oh, sorry; you wouldn't have the nerve.

[GiC]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy. 

Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God. 

If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms. A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain. Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.

If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.

[ialmisry]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy.  

Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God.  

If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms.

That's why one is called Creator, and the other creation.  If the First Cause was just a cause like all the rest, then at best you would have deism, but more likely monism.

A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain.

Why explain Him? We can know Him, while watching the cosmologists entertain us with their tales of big bangs, strings, dark energy, and other theories du jour.

Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.

Yes, what would we do without you to tell us what to think. Who needs revelation when we have Greeki's assertions?

If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.

Then we would end up chasing our tails with the monists. And the cosmologists.

[Father H]

If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms. A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain. Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.
If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.

I disagree.  The proposed multiverse is still part of a bounded system and therefore cannot be eternal.  The problem of the multiverse theory is that the explanation of cause is still within the system itself.   God predates the system.   The gods of Hinduism or other religions are concurrent with the system and part of the system of nature, therefore, they have a need of causality, as the system has bounds, therefore one could propose “everlasting past” but not eternity, as the system is bounded.   If our current universe did not have bounds including physical laws and time, space, energy/mass, etc. then it would require no causal explanation whatsoever.   Likewise, the God of Christianity requires no explanation of cause as he is unbounded, unlike the bounded system of universe or even multiverses, even if we exponentiate them, they still can only draw nearer to infinity, but cannot reach it.

[Jetavan]

God predates the system.   The gods of Hinduism or other religions are concurrent with the system and part of the system of nature....

True, because the gods, or devas, of Hinduism are more analogous to the angels of Christianity. The God of Christianity is analogous to the Brahman of Hinduism, Brahman being that which transcends the fields of causality.

[Father H]

Also, multiverse theory still does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.   It simply seeks to explain how something rather than nothing can exist without the need for a transcendent creator. 

[Alveus Lacuna]

It's even more baffling when someone asserts that this was all just created out of nothing.

Isn't Creatio ex Nihilo a dogmatic teaching in the Orthodox Church?

The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature.

[Father H]

It's even more baffling when someone asserts that this was all just created out of nothing.

Isn't Creatio ex Nihilo a dogmatic teaching in the Orthodox Church?

The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature.

1.  Yes ex nihilo creation is a dogma.   Also, twice in the Liturgy every week we acknowledge that God "brought us from non-existence into being..."
2.  Right, if we are speaking of existence as what we know as existence (circumscribed, bounded, etc.) or anything relative to it, we cannot apply such existence to God, and therefore He is beyond existence in such a context.   

[GiC]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy.  

Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God.  

If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms.

That's why one is called Creator, and the other creation.  If the First Cause was just a cause like all the rest, then at best you would have deism, but more likely monism.

So you don't have to explain the system because you gave it a different name, wow! Do you even read this dribble before you post it? A monkey throwing feces at a keyboard could have come up with a better response.

A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain.

Why explain Him? We can know Him, while watching the cosmologists entertain us with their tales of big bangs, strings, dark energy, and other theories du jour.

Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.

Yes, what would we do without you to tell us what to think. Who needs revelation when we have Greeki's assertions?

Who needs 'revelation' when they have half a brain and even the tiniest shred of common sense?

If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.

Then we would end up chasing our tails with the monists. And the cosmologists.

So instead you just bury your head in the sand?

[GiC]

If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms. A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain. Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.
If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.

I disagree.  The proposed multiverse is still part of a bounded system and therefore cannot be eternal.  The problem of the multiverse theory is that the explanation of cause is still within the system itself.   God predates the system.   The gods of Hinduism or other religions are concurrent with the system and part of the system of nature, therefore, they have a need of causality, as the system has bounds, therefore one could propose “everlasting past” but not eternity, as the system is bounded.   If our current universe did not have bounds including physical laws and time, space, energy/mass, etc. then it would require no causal explanation whatsoever.   Likewise, the God of Christianity requires no explanation of cause as he is unbounded, unlike the bounded system of universe or even multiverses, even if we exponentiate them, they still can only draw nearer to infinity, but cannot reach it.

How does being bound imply not infinite? Furthermore, please define these bounds. Are you suggesting finite bounds or infinite bounds? If the latter, to what degree are these bounds? From my reading of the theory, if true the multiverse would encompass unbounded uncountably infinite time...sounds a lot like eternity to me.

Furthermore, something being unbounded hardly gets you out of an explanation; if it did it would have made my math classes easier, but it would have also been cheating.

[GiC]

Also, multiverse theory still does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.   It simply seeks to explain how something rather than nothing can exist without the need for a transcendent creator. 

Why, as a meaningful question, is simply 'How did this become'. Now, when it's construed to be asking for 'purpose' or 'intent', then it's a simply a meaningless question because the response is tautological: there is none.

[TryingtoConvert]

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.

If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent. Christianity is a joke. An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do, so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place. Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

Fortunately I don't live in an aggressive theocracy like Saudi Arabia, the USA or Pakistan. I don't have to put up with being abused by nasty, self-centred, arrogant, proselytising, delusional God Botherers. The fun thing about that is that when accosted by well meaning street missionaries I can take the piss out of them mercilessly and have a real laugh at their ignorance. My kids are all normal people and completely superstition free. With the birth of my child another generation of the superstition free has arrived and they may actually be able to deal with the real issues humanity faces rather than worrying about what an imaginary, mythological issues like going to paradise or hell.

[Shiny]

Actually man chose death.

I don't recall the banishment of Eden as an act of "punishment", God did us a favor because in the Garden was the Tree of Life and had Adam and Eve eaten from it, they would have been immortal in their corruption. So God had to save His people from their falliness; Christ is the way.

[John of the North]

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.

If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent. Christianity is a joke. An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do, so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place. Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

An old story is told about a drunk who fell into a pit. The sides of the pit were so steep and he was so inebriated that he could not get out. He cried in alarm to anyone who would hear him.

A Jew walked by, stopped, took out the Psalms and quoted:-

“I am reckoned among those who go down to the pit; I am a man who has no strength” (Ps 88:4)

“My son,” he said, observe God’s Law and you will not stumble.” With that he walked on by.

A Muslim walked to the edge of the pit, peered over and declaimed: “You are a drunk, an unbeliever. First submit both Allah and to his laws, then you will know Paradise.” In disgust, he also walked away hurriedly.

A Hindu approached, a sage. “Your karma is now set by this deed. There is nothing you can do. Accept death and on your next rebirth perhaps your soul will make more progress.” The sage calmly walked away.

A Buddhist monk approached and with compassion he looked down on the man and tried to teach him to meditate. “Try to extinguish your desires … for earthly freedom, even for life itself. With desire comes suffering. With the right mental attitude you too can attain nibbana.” The monk retreated from the pit with a beatific smile on his face.

The drunk man grumbled noisily to himself in the pangs of his pain that all men were the same. With much difficulty he slumped and forward and fell into a fitful sleep.

Suddenly he was rudely awoken by a rough fellow gently shaking him. This man had let himself down into the pit with a rope.

The descent was so difficult beset with sharp stones, briars and obstacles that his hands and body were bleeding.

He took a spare rope, tied it round the drunken man’s waist who fell silent in disbelief. The drunk felt himself dragged to the side of the pit whereupon his rescuer strapped them both together and raised them up on a pulley fixed into the edge of the top of the pit for that purpose.

As they both stood out of the pit into the sunshine, unshackled, the drunken man, who was now a little more sober, looked round. The stranger had gone but there was a rather odd charge that lingered on in the air. He did not feel alone.

He looked back into the pit and thought thankfully about the great sacrifice this Man had made to save him.

[sainthieu]

"I don't have to put up with being abused by nasty, self-centred, arrogant, proselytising, delusional God Botherers. The fun thing about that is that when accosted by well meaning street missionaries I can take the piss out of them mercilessly and have a real laugh at their ignorance. My kids are all normal people and completely superstition free. With the birth of my child another generation of the superstition free has arrived and they may actually be able to deal with the real issues humanity faces rather than worrying about what an imaginary, mythological issues like going to paradise or hell."

Trying: Why don't you just change your moniker to "ProudLeftyAtheist" and have done with it? You're toxic, and you're full of nothing but vitriol and lies. (Reading Andrew Sullivan will do that to you.) You're here under false pretences, and I suggest you be banned.

[ialmisry]

Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?

You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.

All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy.  

Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God.  

If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms.

That's why one is called Creator, and the other creation.  If the First Cause was just a cause like all the rest, then at best you would have deism, but more likely monism.

So you don't have to explain the system because you gave it a different name, wow!

Since you can't get past the superficial, depth being beyond your reach, I can see how names confuse you. As for explaining the system, you would have to be weaned first before serving that up.

Do you even read this dribble before you post it? A monkey throwing feces at a keyboard could have come up with a better response.

Was that a Freudian slip? I've always suspected that you spend time here to prove that a monkey banging on a typewriter can't produce Shakespeare.

A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain.

Why explain Him? We can know Him, while watching the cosmologists entertain us with their tales of big bangs, strings, dark energy, and other theories du jour.

Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.

Yes, what would we do without you to tell us what to think. Who needs revelation when we have Greeki's assertions?

Who needs 'revelation' when they have half a brain and even the tiniest shred of common sense?

If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.

Then we would end up chasing our tails with the monists. And the cosmologists.

So instead you just bury your head in the sand?

Why would we do that?  Christ is risen, and we don't need fossils.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.

If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent. Christianity is a joke. An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do, so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place. Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

An old story is told about a drunk who fell into a pit. The sides of the pit were so steep and he was so inebriated that he could not get out. He cried in alarm to anyone who would hear him.

A Jew walked by, stopped, took out the Psalms and quoted:-

“I am reckoned among those who go down to the pit; I am a man who has no strength” (Ps 88:4)

“My son,” he said, observe God’s Law and you will not stumble.” With that he walked on by.

A Muslim walked to the edge of the pit, peered over and declaimed: “You are a drunk, an unbeliever. First submit both Allah and to his laws, then you will know Paradise.” In disgust, he also walked away hurriedly.

A Hindu approached, a sage. “Your karma is now set by this deed. There is nothing you can do. Accept death and on your next rebirth perhaps your soul will make more progress.” The sage calmly walked away.

A Buddhist monk approached and with compassion he looked down on the man and tried to teach him to meditate. “Try to extinguish your desires … for earthly freedom, even for life itself. With desire comes suffering. With the right mental attitude you too can attain nibbana.” The monk retreated from the pit with a beatific smile on his face.

The drunk man grumbled noisily to himself in the pangs of his pain that all men were the same. With much difficulty he slumped and forward and fell into a fitful sleep.

Suddenly he was rudely awoken by a rough fellow gently shaking him. This man had let himself down into the pit with a rope.

The descent was so difficult beset with sharp stones, briars and obstacles that his hands and body were bleeding.

He took a spare rope, tied it round the drunken man’s waist who fell silent in disbelief. The drunk felt himself dragged to the side of the pit whereupon his rescuer strapped them both together and raised them up on a pulley fixed into the edge of the top of the pit for that purpose.

As they both stood out of the pit into the sunshine, unshackled, the drunken man, who was now a little more sober, looked round. The stranger had gone but there was a rather odd charge that lingered on in the air. He did not feel alone.

He looked back into the pit and thought thankfully about the great sacrifice this Man had made to save him.

what a wonderful story!  thanks for that!  God Bless!

[minasoliman]

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.

If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent. Christianity is a joke. An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do, so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place. Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

Fortunately I don't live in an aggressive theocracy like Saudi Arabia, the USA or Pakistan. I don't have to put up with being abused by nasty, self-centred, arrogant, proselytising, delusional God Botherers. The fun thing about that is that when accosted by well meaning street missionaries I can take the piss out of them mercilessly and have a real laugh at their ignorance. My kids are all normal people and completely superstition free. With the birth of my child another generation of the superstition free has arrived and they may actually be able to deal with the real issues humanity faces rather than worrying about what an imaginary, mythological issues like going to paradise or hell.

I like how you singled out Christianity as your punching bag of all religions, calling all others "self-consistent" but Christianity worst of garbage.  I'll take that as a badge of honor.  I will take crap from you any day in the name of Christ.  On behalf of whatever you experience, all Christians seem to you "abusive, nasty, self-centered, arrogant."  And to that I say, if that's what you saw, then it's understandable why you're an atheist.  When you're this angry, let's face it, you're simply in denial of your reasons for atheism.  You think it's because of your intelligence that you're atheistic, but really it's because of what you see around you.

Perhaps, you'll never believe.  But from what I understand, you children being raised in an atheist environment may tend to be very open to the idea of God later on, perhaps because he/she might also experience "abusive, nasty, self-centered, arrogant, delusional" atheists.

[ialmisry]

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.

If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first

No, they weren't.

so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet

No, they don't.

so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive

No, they aren't.

so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent.

No, they aren't. But since you display no knowledge of any of them, assUme that an assertion must be taken at face value, and have yet to explain why being first, last or inclusive has any relevance to the Truth, I'm not sure you learning any facts on Judaism, Islam or Hinduism is going to make your thinking any more coherent.

Christianity is a joke.

Although your credentials as court jester may be in order, your "expertise" has failed you here.

An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do,

Only the seriously deranged condemn the gift of free will as a curse.

so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do

He did not say "I will kill you." He said "You will die by death."

and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place.

He created them, not the problem.
God pity your children.

Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

Earth to TtC!....Earth to TtC!....Earth to TtC!

Even the secular benefits of Christianity have been amply been recognized and secured by history.

Fortunately I don't live in an aggressive theocracy like Saudi Arabia, the USA or Pakistan.

What part of paradise do you call home again?

I don't have to put up with being abused by nasty, self-centred, arrogant, proselytising, delusional God Botherers.

Oh? is that why you come here, seeking abuse?

The fun thing about that is that when accosted by well meaning street missionaries I can take the piss out of them mercilessly and have a real laugh at their ignorance.

If you posts are any indication of your skills, they must be piss poor missionaries for you to get the better of them.  I should think that even the dumbest JW could knock you down a notch.

My kids are all normal people and completely superstition free.

So are all the children in our Sunday School.

With the birth of my child another generation of the superstition free has arrived and they may actually be able to deal with the real issues humanity faces rather than worrying about what an imaginary, mythological issues like going to paradise or hell.

Hopefully your family is better than the "Murray's" (in quotations, because no Murray family, with married husband and father, ever existed:

In 1941, she married John Henry Roths. They separated when they both enlisted for World War II service, he in the United States Marine Corps, she in the Women's Army Corps. In April 1945, while posted to a cryptography position in Italy, she began an affair with an officer, William J. Murray, Jr. Murray was a married Roman Catholic, and he refused to divorce his wife. Mays divorced Roths and began calling herself Madalyn Murray, and gave birth to a boy she named William J. Murray and nicknamed "Bill."

In 1949, Murray completed a bachelor's degree from Ashland University.[7] In 1952, she completed a law degree from South Texas College of Law; however, she failed the bar exam and never practiced law.[4] In later writing for American Atheists, she referred to herself as "Dr. O'Hair," likely with regard to her law degree (a juris doctorate), although it is not standard practice for individuals in the United States with law degrees to do so. On November 16, 1954 she gave birth to her second son Jon Garth Murray, fathered by her boyfriend Michael Fiorillo.[3]

She and her two children traveled via ship to Europe with the intention of defecting to the Soviet embassy in Paris and residing in the Soviet Union. The Soviets denied them entry.[4] Murray and her sons returned to Baltimore, Maryland in 1960.[8]

Murray stated that she worked for seventeen years as a psychiatric social worker, and that in 1960 she was a supervisor at the Baltimore city public welfare department.[7]

Worked 17 years as a psychiatric social worker. Says a lot about the system.

There is a ray of light though: William, the one for whom she sued in the US Supreme Court to ban prayer in school, received baptism:

William J. Murray is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C., active on issues related to aiding Christians in Islamic and Communist nations.

William is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair,[1] an United States atheist activist who came to national attention in Baltimore, Maryland when she filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of the United States, saying that compulsory prayer and reading of the Bible in schools was unconstitutional.

Murray converted to Baptist Christianity in 1980. His mother reportedly stated, upon learning of his conversion, "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times ... he is beyond human forgiveness."[2] He felt similarly negative toward her in his first book, My Life Without God, as he made allegations such as: "She was just evil … She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance."[3] Bill also repudiated his mother upon the occasion of her death, saying "I used to ask people to pray for my mother's salvation. I don't do that anymore…. My mother was an evil person."[2]

William J. Murray is the author of several books including Let Us Pray and The Church Is Not For Perfect People. His most recent book is The Pledge: One Nation Under God, for which the foreword, "A Washington, DC insider", was written by Congressman Todd Akin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Murray

[ialmisry]

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.

If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent. Christianity is a joke. An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do, so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place. Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

An old story is told about a drunk who fell into a pit. The sides of the pit were so steep and he was so inebriated that he could not get out. He cried in alarm to anyone who would hear him.

A Jew walked by, stopped, took out the Psalms and quoted:-

“I am reckoned among those who go down to the pit; I am a man who has no strength” (Ps 88:4)

“My son,” he said, observe God’s Law and you will not stumble.” With that he walked on by.

A Muslim walked to the edge of the pit, peered over and declaimed: “You are a drunk, an unbeliever. First submit both Allah and to his laws, then you will know Paradise.” In disgust, he also walked away hurriedly.

A Hindu approached, a sage. “Your karma is now set by this deed. There is nothing you can do. Accept death and on your next rebirth perhaps your soul will make more progress.” The sage calmly walked away.

A Buddhist monk approached and with compassion he looked down on the man and tried to teach him to meditate. “Try to extinguish your desires … for earthly freedom, even for life itself. With desire comes suffering. With the right mental attitude you too can attain nibbana.” The monk retreated from the pit with a beatific smile on his face.

The drunk man grumbled noisily to himself in the pangs of his pain that all men were the same. With much difficulty he slumped and forward and fell into a fitful sleep.

Suddenly he was rudely awoken by a rough fellow gently shaking him. This man had let himself down into the pit with a rope.

The descent was so difficult beset with sharp stones, briars and obstacles that his hands and body were bleeding.

He took a spare rope, tied it round the drunken man’s waist who fell silent in disbelief. The drunk felt himself dragged to the side of the pit whereupon his rescuer strapped them both together and raised them up on a pulley fixed into the edge of the top of the pit for that purpose.

As they both stood out of the pit into the sunshine, unshackled, the drunken man, who was now a little more sober, looked round. The stranger had gone but there was a rather odd charge that lingered on in the air. He did not feel alone.

He looked back into the pit and thought thankfully about the great sacrifice this Man had made to save him.

what a wonderful story!  thanks for that!  God Bless!

Indeed! Amen! Amen! Amen!