Why believe in "a" God?

[QUOTE=Mapache]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Then may we take it that you don’t buy into the argument by many atheists that Christ never really suffered or sacrificed, since He knew that He would be resurrected and come into eternal life in a few days?
[/QUOTE

Who are these “many atheists” that make that argument? If someone believes that Christ would be resurrected and come into eternal life, then by definition they aren’t atheists.[/QUOTE]
You’ve misunderstood or misrepresented the argument. It is given for the sake of argument that He is divine. Atheists are not precluded from stating a premise for the sake of argument. They do not actually believe He is God; they are merely saying, “Let’s say for the sake of argument that He is God.”

As for who the people are who make the argument, people on this very board have made it. I’m surprised that a member of your longevity has missed threads like How did Jesus sacrifice himself? and Jesus gave up a weekend for your sins, not to mention the various and sundry independent posts, especially by Gobear and others, made through the years which you can search for if you like.

It’s not a false trichotomy, since the chance of him or anyone being a god is so low as to be unworthy of consideration.

As far as your question goes, no. If he had a human body and mind, suffering is suffering. If he had a divine body/mind, then he’d be beyond such human limitations as pain from wounds; otherwise, he’d hardly qualify as a “god”. He obviously did not have divine powers with a mortal’s weaknesses, or he would have lashed out with the pain and leveled the planet.

The whole crucifixion myth doesn’t make much sense, so it’s hard to use in rational arguments beyond pointing at it as an example of religious silliness.

But attitude and perception does have something to do with our level of suffering doesn’t it?

Atheism is perfectly rational. However, it is not what you think it is, among all your straw men.

I tell people I do not believe in god. However, what I mean is not that I claim that I can prove its nonexistence.

No,what I can prove is the nonexistence of a god, baised on the evidence offered so far, of the chices offered thus far. Sure, I have not proven that nonexistence of a hypothetical do-nothing, but I have reviewed the evidence for Jealous, YahooWahoo, Zeus, Jesus, Athena, Nike, Asteraha, Zoroaster, etc, and found them to be impossible, lacking, self contradictory, etc.

Anyway, just my two cents. Sorry for the hijack.

If that is so, then things believed in by faith and the truth are far, far apart. How can you call something true if you can neither confirm nor deny it?

You’re not getting me. It is not being dead that’s the problem, it is what some people have to go through to get there. What is your definition of real harm? In mine, real harm is not being dead (to the dead person) but pain we might go through in the process. Do you think it is okay if some very rich person tortures someone, and then makes up for it by giving them enough money and luxury to be happy?

This is the problem of natural evil. You can explain the general problem by saying that god must allow evil people free will. But what free will is involved in a tsunami? If god is anything at all, he causes the tsunami by commission or omission. I don’t care that the dead people go to heaven, as in my example, he could get them there without torturing them.

And you missed my main point - why doesn’t god make himself evident to us all? The usual explanation is that this somehow removes free will, but that is only if he is being a type 1 parent. Since he’s acting like a type 3 parent, he is either nonexistent or abusive. Take your pick.

That is a good point. However would you agree that many people throughout history have suffered a lot more? He was on the cross a short time, relatively speaking, and his torture was not as great as suffered by many Christians by non-Christians and non-Christians by Christians. (Or Christians by other Christians for that matter.)

Your definition of proof is kind of lacking something. It appears that you can’t even give good evidence for the existence of god. Why exactly do you think god exists? The birds chirp? A bear shits in the woods? Does he chat with you? (If he does I have a question for him.)

You might try understanding the argument. People have no responsibility for the tsunami happening, but god does. Did the victims not believe in the right god? I bet many were a lot more devout than me, and I’m high and dry? And no one said there would be no suffering if god existed. If god existed, and he is not a cruel psychopath, he would not create terrors that have nothing to do with free will. How is free will connected to the tsunami anyway?

And what is it when you continue to hold the belief in the face of contradictory evidence? A guy who has faith in his wife is a good guy. A guy who continues to have faith despite continued absences and motel receipts is a fool.

Try searching for one of the two gazillion discussions on the meaning of atheism. Few if any atheists claim they can prove that god does not exist. In the first place, we’d need a solid definition of god to disprove, and such does not seem to exist. (And it is a theist’s responsibility to provide it.) We just say we have no belief in any god, since there is no good evidence for one, and much evidence against. Some hard atheists may believe there is no god, but that is different from claiming to prove it.

Your stupid atheist is pure strawman.

So you think someone with a good attitude going down for the third time, spitting water out of his lungs, is suffering less than someone with a bad attitude?

Interesting.

I never denied the suffering of others, I merely offered my perspective on it. It is my belief that those who had faith in God had a certain sort of peace when the hurricane came through as they knew it was not the end for them, whereas those who did not know this suffered immensely for it was the end of everything they had as far as they could see.

The Human condition is a never-ending drama, we are one collective consciousness that exists in all things, of which our experience is a part. As for Jesus being God, of course he was God, as are you, as am I.

Scott plaid: It is rational for you to say that the evidence is overwhelming for the non-existence of God, and that based upon the evidence you do not believe in God. On the other hand, it is not rational to tell another who’s experience tells them otherwise that they are irrational for believing in a God. You were presented with different evidence from the evidence that I was presented with. One of us is right and one of us is wrong, or more likely, we are not sharing our definitions, and both of us is correct and choosing different words to describe it. That is what I find irrational about atheism. It is this constant attempt to prove rationality that is completely irrational. To me, I feel God in my connection to the world around me, I feel that I am a thought moving aroudn in a great consciousness, I place my will into a larger pool, and then a consensus is reached, and from that we determine the action of the universe. I don’t see how one can say that only particular parts of the universe are consciuos. In my mind either all of it is, or none of it is. The very fact that we are having this conversation is proof to me that one “God exists”, because we are discussing this at all, and two we are conscious. What I find irrational about the atheist argument is that it narrows the definition of God in ways that make it easy to disprove. In my opinion the narrow Gods atheists are constantly disproving are inaccurate representations of God, and thus disprove nothing. I feel that most people having these arguments have given little to no consideration to the mystic tradition yet are arguing vehemently about something for which they have no education. They don’t even know what other people mean by the word “god” yet they argue vociferously against it.

Voyager: Tsunamis are not “evil” they are amoral. Good and Evil are relative terms that can only be applied to the individual and the individuals attempt to preserve itself. Evil can be most easily applied as that which is not beneficial to the individual. A Tsunami is merely a process within the corpus of the Earth. People do and behave as they will, and they bring upon themselves that which happens to them. For instance, if society had been different in many ways, fewer people would have died in New Orleans. A number of things could have been done to prevent it, like not building a city in marshland in a delta in a hurricane corridor, or fixing the levees, or evacuating people, or responding more quickly or many other things. Most of the carnage in these cases is caused less by the damage of the event, and more by the ineffectiveness of humanity to cope with it.

People constantly concern themselves with the Christianization of the Government. However, if our Government were more in touch with Christian Charity, then we wouldn’t have our national guard stealing oil from other countries, we wouldn’t have poor neighborhoods being ignored, and we wouldn’t have Halliburton winning no-bid contracts to rebuild the neighborhoods that were destroyed. In fact the best thing that has occurred is the sense of charity that America has displayed on the individual levels. It is the individuals who went down there to help, who sent aid, who helped organize relief benefits in the aftermath that are truly the salvation of the people in New Orleans. Charity is one of the core virtues of Christianity, and it has been displayed quite well by the American people. America while a secular country of many beliefs has at its core a value system based upon Christian values. In my opinion if people who claim to be Christians truly were acting like Christians then this country wouldn’t be nearly as corrupt as it is, and we’d all be living with abundance.

Tsunamis and Hurricanes happen, people die, and they suffer, but that doesn’t make me anymore cruel because I don’t suddenly drop my faith in God every time someone suffers or dies. To me it’s tragic when people do not see their interconnection with all other living things. I truly believe that is the source of all suffering, and the ability to see that interconnection is what we call “Love” and that is what I call “God”, yet for some reason you are able to twist this into seeming heartless and cruel.

Pain and pleasure are subjective interpretations of the sensory input our nerves transmit to our brains. That’s why a lot of people derive pleasure from electric shocks, spankings and genital mutilation. Suffering is completely subjective.

If this country actually WERE christian rather than the perversion we see today, people in New Orleans would have walked away from their homes knowing that the rest of their civilization would have their backs when it came time to rebuild, and wouldn’t have decided to tough it out in the path of a Hurricane out of fear that what little they have would be stripped from them. They would have had nothing to fear from loss of physical property. There wouldn’t have been sheriffs of neighbouring counties turning people back at gunpoint when they tried to WALK OUT of New Orleans. None of the TRUE tragedy would have happened. The people who suffered and caused suffering here are the godless ones. I am not cruel for believing in God and having faith. It is those who do not have faith, and feel the need to hold onto a tiny little bit of property through some insane fear of loss that are the cause of such suffering.

And I am of the opinion that when people truely step into the Grace of God, and they know what I know, that property is replaceable, that people WILL help you when you are in need, then we will see a decrease in suffering. We are all one, as long as any of us suffers, all of us suffers. It is this that is the reason I care whether or not others believe in God. That is the essence of faith. Faith is trust, it is trust in yourself, it is trust in your society, but it is not a blind trust, it is the trust that comes with having one’s eyes opened so that they can see the gifts of the world presented to them rather than taking what is given to them without any respect or reverence for the blessings they have received.

God is not a tyrant sitting on a throne somewhere torturing you for his capricious amusement. God is a sentient force that permeates us all, that knows that the bounds of time and space are eternal, who knows that all moments in time exist simultaneously, that if you ever existed at all, you always have and always will. Time and Space measure scale and scope, not permanence and impermanence.

Should my body give out and fall to the Earth to decompose, it will nourish the worms and the flowers and the bees, and the cows, and the humans and the birds and the sharks and everything else that is alive, this is no horrible fate, this is a beautiful thing. This is not a fate that is my first choice for myself, but if it becomes my fate, it is not so horrible.

I’d imagine that if I can let go of my fear when I am lifted off the ground by that hurricane that it would probably be quite exhilirating. As I have already experienced eternity in a moment.

We measure time in terms of celestial events, how can you not consider these events as pieces of a consciousness?

Erek

Now that I’ve thought about it for a while, this sounds a lot like the bad old advice for rape victims : “Lie back and enjoy it”.

I have communications with my Cats consistently. I have communications with insects in the woods from time to time. They don’t communicate to me in “English” however.

I have not received such evidence.

As I said in my last post it is the atheist claiming a higher rationality that is irrational. There is nothing that is more rational about not believing in God than there is for me believing in God. We can speak for hours, (as we have) about why each of us believes as we do. And you are mistaken, it is not for a theist to give a definition of God, a static definition of God leads to stagnation, the definition of God is as transient as the moment in which one defined God. It is up to the individual to define what God is. The only point that I have been making is that it is not rational to tell a theist that God does not exist when the atheist does not know what the theist means when they say God.

Der Trihs believes that his synapses firing are evidence of consciousness, yet I do not see how these are any less or more random/ordered than the movement of stars, or the composition of rocks.

Also, the “That’s rapist logic” argument is really tired. We’d have to get past the argument of whether or not God exists, and you’d have to show a willingness to suspend disbelief for long enough for someone to explain to you the concept of denial and the devil inside each of us that draws the painful lessons that some of us are forced with. I saw my Mother die when I was 4, yet I still believe in God, it has been a source of great suffering for me as I had a step-mother who seems to have hated my guts as I grew up, who tortured me both physically and emotionally, yet I still believe in a God. I did not enjoy what happened to me as a child, and my adulthood has been defined by something of a frivolous attempt to capture joy I feel was denied to me as a child. I don’t recommend that one “lie back and enjoy it”, but I do recommend that one learn from the experience, become more sensitive to the cosmic forces that rule ones life, to be more aware of the energy flows that we tap into that help us think, feel and move, in order to increase our ability to facillitate our will and end our own personal suffering.

If demagoguery is really the path you want to take, I could easily say that you are cruel and wish for a rape victim who found salvation in faith to drop the thing that has released her from her suffering, because as you say, nothing good has ever come from such a pursuit. However, I do not think this is true, I do not think you wish for her to continue to suffer, that would be a stupid argument to make, just as it would be for you to make the argument that you have made comparing us to rapists.

Erek

“Feelings” are not evidence.

One doesn’t “prove” rationality; it’s a basic assumption one need to make; an axiom. If the universe were not rational, there would be no point in trying to understand or accomplish anything at all; by definition we’d fail.

There is no evidence that anything but humans and some animals are conscious. There is no evidence that anything else even can be conscious, much less is. Your feelings are both irrelevent and in this case silly.

There is nothing to be educated in; the “mystic tradition” is a useless collection of garbage. It’s a collection of lies, delusions and mistakes.

Amoral, corrupt and predatory behavior are just as common among Christians as anybody else. I see no evidence that religion has every provided any form of moral leadership. Instead, it serves as an excuse for tyranny and atrocities. That is the heat and purpose of religion; not this imaginary “Christian charity”.

Besides, the few studies I’ve ever seen on the subject always show the same results; the only religious catagory more altruistic than average is…atheists.

So now you’re claim Bush and his fellow fundie scum are “godless” ? The one problem this country does not have is “godlessness”, unfortunately.

Do you have evidence for any of this ?

So basically you’re saying theists can’t be argued with, because they make up and shift their definitions as they find convenient ? Sounds like “lying con men” to me; that’s rather more insulting that I would be to the religious folk of the world.

Tsunamis are not. In a godless world, they are morally neutral. In a world with a god who either makes them happen or can prevent them, the god who lets them happen is evil. I’m talking about god, not the water.

Don’t you think someone who lets other people be injured through inaction has some explaining to do?

I didn’t use New Orleans as an example since there is some doubt about who has moral responsibility for what happened. So I don’t disagree with you about that, necessarily. In the tsunami, the people who died had no warning, and beside the forbidding of anyone from living near the beach, there was nothing any human could have done. The tsunami victims in no way bear responsibility, and saying that they do is rather sick and heartless.

Maybe we’re not getting each other. I think I understand your objection. What I’m suggesting is that the pain we go through should not be blamed on God. Remeber the prodigal son. His father was a rich person. Should he be blamed for the bad experiences the son had after he chose to leave?

I know natural disasters and illness are hard to reconcile. I don’t pretend to have the answers. In perspective though, if we are eternal spiritual beings then what you describe as torture isn’t much more than a brief bad dream. I understand thinking that a loving god would never let people go through the horrible things some people go through. If a parent tries to sheild his child from unpleasent experiences what kind of person does that child grow up to be?

I don’t think those are the only alternatives. What if we’re adults and peers as well as children? {even though I object to any parent child analogy} What are my responsibilities to my adult children? The prodigal son had to choose to return home and accept what his father said was his all along.

If someone had absolutely no fear of physical death, that might change the experience somewhat.

You have, actually. But there are none so blind as those who cannot see.

If you can’t define, god, then what are you worshipping? This is not a request to fully define and measure god, but to give some of the characteristics of god’s interaction with the world. The deist’s god is different from that of the fundamentalist Christian. For instance, if someone’s god is that of the inerrant Bible, we can show that this god does not exist through archeological and scientific evidence. If the god is the tri-omni god, we can show this god is logically contradictory.

If someone says that god is the universe, we can only say “so what?” We can say, sure that god exists, but does not have the characteristics (such as consciousness) commonly associated with deities. I knew someone who said that because the Romans deified Augustus, and Augustus existed, then god exists. Sure, but the godlike properties of Augustus were not real.

This is what rationality is all about.

BTW, the movement of stars is not random. Not all non-random things are conscious.

Not what I’m suggesting at all. Who would we admire more, someone who turned a bad experience into something positive and meaningful. or someone who could never had the emotional courage or mental toughness to recover?

I’ve got no fear of death. It is blackness, like before I was born. Dying in my sleep is no problem. Dying with water in my lungs, or in pain, big problem. I’m for physician assisted suicide for that very reason - death is far better than the alternatives at times.

When did these people choose to leave? I’m not saying that a good god would eliminate all suffering - some is self-induced, and some is inevitable, and some comes from free will. But he could eliminate unnecessary suffering, caused by natural events and diseases.

Letting a child skin his knees while learning to ride a bicycle is far different from letting him play in a busy street, or starving him for three days to build moral character.

Face the facts: God directly or indirectly causes people to suffer in horrible ways, and doesn’t seem to give a crap.

In this case, the father moved and left no forwarding address. This parable really has no bearing on the case. The son knew the father was there. The father was not gone for the son’s entire life. I didn’t leave god - there is nothing there to leave.