93 replies to this topic

[susmariosep]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

[Ben]

I've noted so many logical holes in every atheistic argument I've heard that I've simply given up trying to reason with them.

Usually the atheists who create arguments approaching logical consistency are those that are actually on the edge regarding atheism. Those are the ones I like to speak to.

Who's that wanker on youtube who mentioned that now that we have caffeine donuts we no longer need a higher being? I want to smash his stupid face in. The act would certainly beautify the planet.

Edited by Ben - Aus, 17 October 2008 - 03:04 AM.

[forever freedom]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

Is this for real? Don't make me laugh... oh wait you already did

I've noted so many logical holes in every atheistic argument I've heard that I've simply given up trying to reason with them.

Hm didn't you mistake the word "atheistic" for "christian"? I'm trying to make sense out of this, and this is the only way that what you said will make some sense.

[Cyberbrain]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

Yeah ...

.. you pretty much can't get anymore stereotypical about atheists than that.

Anyway, speaking only on my behalf ..

(because this hate war between certain theists and atheists has grown to such proportions that the fighting has now narrowed to a simple shouting contest - people don't care what the truth is as long as they don't lose)

.. God (in my opinion) can not be known for three reasons. One: theres no set definition for God, everybody has their own views. Two: for the time being we have no way to prove his/hers/its existence. Three: according to the theory of knowledge, reality is relative; any religion can be true, God could be an alien programmer, we could be living in a simulation - there's infinite possibilities to what may be reality.

People are spiritual because they have a desire to be so. And as long as that desire exists and as long as they remain moderate to their beliefs, I have no problem with people being spiritual.

But if you want to know the full extant of my personal opinion, this is it in a nutshell:

The existence of a creator both benevolent and omnipotent in a world of inevitable pain is logically incorrect. The existence of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility. But in the absence of evidence that such an entity either exists, wishes to make its presence known, or plays any part what so ever in our lives, the only logical attitude is to presume we are alone until further notice, and to seek our own "salvation", that is, ever-increasing survivability and well-being, through benevolence and reason, aided by science and technology.

Edited by Kostas, 17 October 2008 - 03:23 AM.

[forever freedom]

You're right about the shouting contest, Kostas. You are aware, though, that your effort in this post will be lost, right? I've given up spending much time and effort arguing logically with christians and other religious people.

[Cyberbrain]

You're right about the shouting contest, Kostas. You are aware, though, that your effort in this post will be lost, right? I've given up spending much time and effort arguing logically with christians and other religious people.

Yeah I know ... my only hope is that both sides will eventually just call it truce. Direct conversions in order to convert one side to another never work due to high self esteem. No body wants to admit they're wrong. I discovered the only affective way is to simply let people decide for themselves.

[RighteousReason]

Holy shit its susma. o_O

Edited by Savage, 17 October 2008 - 04:05 AM.

[RighteousReason]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

I am absolutely in agreement, despite being an atheist myself.


"Righteousness is the ability to stand in the presence of YHWH without a sense of sin, guilt, condemnation, inferiority or fear." - from the bible, both old testament and new

Edited by Savage, 17 October 2008 - 04:07 AM.

[susmariosep]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

Yeah ...

.. you pretty much can't get anymore stereotypical about atheists than that.

Anyway, speaking only on my behalf ..

(because this hate war between certain theists and atheists has grown to such proportions that the fighting has now narrowed to a simple shouting contest - people don't care what the truth is as long as they don't lose)

.. God (in my opinion) can not be known for three reasons. One: theres no set definition for God, everybody has their own views. Two: for the time being we have no way to prove his/hers/its existence. Three: according to the theory of knowledge, reality is relative; any religion can be true, God could be an alien programmer, we could be living in a simulation - there's infinite possibilities to what may be reality.

People are spiritual because they have a desire to be so. And as long as that desire exists and as long as they remain moderate to their beliefs, I have no problem with people being spiritual.

But if you want to know the full extant of my personal opinion, this is it in a nutshell:

The existence of a creator both benevolent and omnipotent in a world of inevitable pain is logically incorrect. The existence of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility. But in the absence of evidence that such an entity either exists, wishes to make its presence known, or plays any part what so ever in our lives, the only logical attitude is to presume we are alone until further notice, and to seek our own "salvation", that is, ever-increasing survivability and well-being, through benevolence and reason, aided by science and technology.

.. God (in my opinion) can not be known for three reasons. One: theres no set definition for God, everybody has their own views. -- Kostas

What about this one, maker of heaven and earth?


If you can't accept that, then please give me your definition of God, because you deny that He exists, you must then have some idea of Him.


Susmariosep

[cathological]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.

I see you’ve read the god delusion. The point Richard Dawkins made with the invisible inaudible intangible unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, and the celestial teapot was one of my favorites in the entire book as well. There’s no evidence of god, and he’s extremely farfetched. I happen to know many people that have used their inborn reason and intelligence and decided to worship the celestial teapot. It truly is an entity much greater than you can imagine, even though nobody has or can ever see it in a telescope. Why don’t you prove that the celestial teapot doesn’t exist? You a-tepotist. I however, don't believe in such nonsense. I know that the beetles were actually right and we all live in a yellow submarine. It is extremely huge mind you; we can't see the walls of it as they're located outside of the observable universe.

[JLL]

The subject of this thread is funny.

[susmariosep]

And so many books and articles and news are concerned with God both from atheists and also from theists.

Anyway, if atheists don't believe in God, they owe it to themselves to find out what it is they are not believing in, because they might not have the same object they disbelieve in which the theists believe in.


And that would be very irrelevant on their part.



So, let atheists think about and study and identify what theists believe in about God, then declare themselves to not believe in God, the One theists believe in.


Susmariosep

[.fonclea.]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

True god is a marketing concept like others. The goal is making monney with a minimum effort.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

I don't call Him/Her/It.....

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

Genius ???? Who ????? (bis repetita - I don't call Him/Her/It.....)

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.

Yep true if the priest could just once use their inborn reason and inborn intelligence, they wouldn't look after our children with such *interests*.

So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.

As said before I don't call Him/Her/It..... and lucky you are i don't speak english because my arguments would be fierce.

[Richard Leis]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

We can imagine many things but whether or not these things actually exist is another matter. God fits perfectly in the list of things imagined but unsupported by compelling evidence.

One simply cannot invoke reason and intelligence and not also require critical thinking, compelling evidence, and peer review. The universe is as it is and we understand it to the best of our models supported by compelling evidence. Unintelligent physical processes have been shown to be quite capable of creating all the wonders we observe in this fantastic material playground. Give me the methane/water ice Earth-analog of Titan, superfluids, the rapid pace toward powerful brain-machine interfaces, plate tectonics, the biosphere under our feet, the "life" and "death" of stars, evolution, complexity theory, the Web, the hard work of my fellow humans, our ImmInst struggle to keep existing. Spare me additional cruft like an Intelligent Designer, the supernatural, or beliefs. These imaginative products of fevered primate brains stuck between not knowing and tools that let them know a little something are vestigial. They are (sometimes) charming reminders of a more ignorant past before science and technology were deployed to better explain our surroundings.

[Cyberbrain]

What about this one, maker of heaven and earth?

Which heaven and what do you mean by heaven?

If you can't accept that, then please give me your definition of God

Which god? Your christian god, the gods of Hinduism, the pantheistic god of buddhism, the countless gods of the ancient world, the UFO gods, or just a general non-theistic higher force or power?

I have no preset definition of the word god.

because you deny that He exists, you must then have some idea of Him.

That's the whole point! I don't have any idea about "Him". I have nothing against the existence of a higher being, if anything I would love it if there were some sort of higher force watching and protecting me. But like I said before, given the lack of evidence, I personally find it more fulfilling to pursue my own salvation through my own means through science and technology. I can not say that I believe in "god" in the same way I believe the sky is blue or that one plus one will always equal two. Religion revolves around the concept of faith - belief in something without evidence. Well I need evidence. For most people in this world, faith is fulfilling. Religion works for most people and that's fine, I got nothing against that!

[Cyberbrain]

I see you’ve read the god delusion. The point Richard Dawkins made with the invisible inaudible intangible unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, and the celestial teapot was one of my favorites in the entire book as well. There’s no evidence of god, and he’s extremely farfetched. I happen to know many people that have used their inborn reason and intelligence and decided to worship the celestial teapot. It truly is an entity much greater than you can imagine, even though nobody has or can ever see it in a telescope. Why don’t you prove that the celestial teapot doesn’t exist? You a-tepotist. I however, don't believe in such nonsense. I know that the beetles were actually right and we all live in a yellow submarine. It is extremely huge mind you; we can't see the walls of it as they're located outside of the observable universe.

Exactly my point! Btw, welcome to imminst cathological!

Three: according to the theory of knowledge, reality is relative; any religion can be true, God could be an alien programmer, we could be living in a simulation - there's infinite possibilities to what may be reality.

You'd really ought to address whole posts susmariosep

Edited by Kostas, 17 October 2008 - 01:36 PM.

[Luna]

Are you even going to still bother with this discussion?

As you might have seen from the start, this is a non-logical debate but rather the "they are like this, we are like that" and vice versa type.
No reason to start saying how everyone is wrong if no one is actually reaching the actual subject.

And even if someone somehow does finally say something constructive and direct on the subject itself, it will not help anyone as the other side will simply keep arguing with their own unpeneratable opinion on the subject or they will just keep on with more illogical reasoning and personal/stereotype attacks.

[jackinbox]

And so many books and articles and news are concerned with God both from atheists and also from theists.

Anyway, if atheists don't believe in God, they owe it to themselves to find out what it is they are not believing in, because they might not have the same object they disbelieve in which the theists believe in.


And that would be very irrelevant on their part.



So, let atheists think about and study and identify what theists believe in about God, then declare themselves to not believe in God, the One theists believe in.


Susmariosep

If you claim that something exist, it's your job to define what this thing is exactly and the burden of proof of its existence lies on the shoulder of the one making the claim.

[forever freedom]

Are you even going to still bother with this discussion?

As you might have seen from the start, this is a non-logical debate but rather the "they are like this, we are like that" and vice versa type.
No reason to start saying how everyone is wrong if no one is actually reaching the actual subject.

And even if someone somehow does finally say something constructive and direct on the subject itself, it will not help anyone as the other side will simply keep arguing with their own unpeneratable opinion on the subject or they will just keep on with more illogical reasoning and personal/stereotype attacks.

Yea, exactly.

[susmariosep]

I have already given a definition of God:*

Maker of heaven and earth.

What is heaven? It is the whole universe or everything and anything man can see from the earth.

What is the earth? It is the place where I am now staying and writing this post.

What is a maker? Some entity like for example the leather worker who cobbles shoes, called a shoemaker.

Another example of makers, the people who made a planetarium.

If atheists cannot believe in a maker of heaven and earth, perhaps they have another idea of who made heaven and earth.



Susmariosep



*See

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

Yeah ...

.. you pretty much can't get anymore stereotypical about atheists than that.

Anyway, speaking only on my behalf ..

(because this hate war between certain theists and atheists has grown to such proportions that the fighting has now narrowed to a simple shouting contest - people don't care what the truth is as long as they don't lose)

.. God (in my opinion) can not be known for three reasons. One: theres no set definition for God, everybody has their own views. Two: for the time being we have no way to prove his/hers/its existence. Three: according to the theory of knowledge, reality is relative; any religion can be true, God could be an alien programmer, we could be living in a simulation - there's infinite possibilities to what may be reality.

People are spiritual because they have a desire to be so. And as long as that desire exists and as long as they remain moderate to their beliefs, I have no problem with people being spiritual.

But if you want to know the full extant of my personal opinion, this is it in a nutshell:

The existence of a creator both benevolent and omnipotent in a world of inevitable pain is logically incorrect. The existence of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility. But in the absence of evidence that such an entity either exists, wishes to make its presence known, or plays any part what so ever in our lives, the only logical attitude is to presume we are alone until further notice, and to seek our own "salvation", that is, ever-increasing survivability and well-being, through benevolence and reason, aided by science and technology.

.. God (in my opinion) can not be known for three reasons. One: theres no set definition for God, everybody has their own views. -- Kostas

What about this one, maker of heaven and earth?


If you can't accept that, then please give me your definition of God, because you deny that He exists, you must then have some idea of Him.


Susmariosep

[cathological]

I have already given a definition of God:*

Maker of heaven and earth.

What is heaven? It is the whole universe or everything and anything man can see from the earth.

What is the earth? It is the place where I am now staying and writing this post.

What is a maker? Some entity like for example the leather worker who cobbles shoes, called a shoemaker.

Another example of makers, the people who made a planetarium.

If atheists cannot believe in a maker of heaven and earth, perhaps they have another idea of who made heaven and earth.



Susmariosep

And who made the maker Susmariosep?

[Cyberbrain]

If atheists cannot believe in a maker of heaven and earth, perhaps they have another idea of who made heaven and earth.

I don't know what 'they' believe in, but personally I think science provides a much better explanation to how the heavens and the earth came to be. The big bang theory, string theory, cosmology, quantum physics ... its all on the internet if you want to look into them.

Fundamentalists may point out that there are holes or gaps in science and that science doesn't explain everything. Well of course science currently doesn't explain everything; we've only begun our journey to exploring the macrocosmos of the universe and the microcosmos of the subatomic world. Just because every time there is a crack in a theory doesn't mean we have to revert to superstition in order to fill it. We're a young species that have only begun to under stand our surroundings.

Edited by Kostas, 17 October 2008 - 10:33 PM.

[jackinbox]

I feel perfectly comfortable with "we don't know". Why do you feel so compelled to create for yourself the illusion of knowledge about the Big Question? The Big Question is quite simple: why there is something instead of nothing. God doesn't provide any answer. Even if science managed to explain a lot about the development of the universe, it's quite possible that we will never answer that question. Still, science is our best bet.

[jackinbox]

Susmariosep, I invite you to debate that question on the forum of richarddawkins.net.

[susmariosep]

Susmariosep, I invite you to debate that question on the forum of richarddawkins.net.

I am a member there; but I can't get in a word because of the what to me obviously is obstructivistic behavior of posters there, starting with impolite language.


If you just want to maintain that we humans don't know whether and who the maker of heaven and earth is, then you don't rule out the maker -- it just that you don't know.

You see, there are times when a human have to make an educated guess whether something is existing or not and what it is.

For my own part, my reason and intelligence enable me to know that on human capacity for certainty of the human kind, that God exists who is the maker of heaven and earth.

You want to ask me who made God.

Here is my answer: He belongs to a category of being which is not made by anything or anyone, but is self-existing, and He is the only one of the category.


What about you, if you cannot accept a self-existing maker of heaven and earth and you care to make an educated guess as to what or who, then please make an educated guess on what or who made heaven and earth.



Susmariosep

[Cyberbrain]

If you just want to maintain that we humans don't know whether and who the maker of heaven and earth is, then you don't rule out the maker -- it just that you don't know.

Exactly.

[jackinbox]

Susmariosep, I invite you to debate that question on the forum of richarddawkins.net.

I am a member there; but I can't get in a word because of the what to me obviously is obstructivistic behavior of posters there, starting with impolite language.

Learn to take the heat. Most people there are quite polite anyway. Debating is tough sometimes, especially when you lack good arguments.

If you just want to maintain that we humans don't know whether and who the maker of heaven and earth is, then you don't rule out the maker -- it just that you don't know.

You see, there are times when a human have to make an educated guess whether something is existing or not and what it is.

Why should we have to guess on that matter? Why is it so important to provide some kind of unsusbstained explanation?

For my own part, my reason and intelligence enable me to know that on human capacity for certainty of the human kind, that God exists who is the maker of heaven and earth.

What's are the facts you base your reasoning on? You might well be very smart and your reasoning might be correct but based on flawed premises. What process do you use to validate those facts?

You want to ask me who made God.

Here is my answer: He belongs to a category of being which is not made by anything or anyone, but is self-existing, and He is the only one of the category.

What's your reasoning to come to this conclusion? What's are the facts you base this reasoning on? How you obtained them?

What about you, if you cannot accept a self-existing maker of heaven and earth and you care to make an educated guess as to what or who, then please make an educated guess on what or who made heaven and earth.

I studied the scientifc method and had a close look at how the scientific community works. The scientific community has a proven track record. I came to trust the scientific community for factual information. About the origin and development of the universe I trust physicists to have to most accurate model available. Sure, they can't explain everything and I feel no need to fill the gap. I leave that to the physicists themselves whom hypothesis can be useful to direct research. My guess is of no value because this kind of physic is well above what I can understand.

[susmariosep]

If you just want to maintain that we humans don't know whether and who the maker of heaven and earth is, then you don't rule out the maker -- it just that you don't know.

Exactly.

In which case I would presume that you don't have any educated guess to contribute in this thread, but you are just a witness to the messages transmitted here by people who do care to engage in a spirit of dialogue on the question what or who made the universe, at least earth and heaven known to man.



Susmariosep

[cathological]

You want to ask me who made God.

Here is my answer: He belongs to a category of being which is not made by anything or anyone, but is self-existing, and He is the only one of the category.


What about you, if you cannot accept a self-existing maker of heaven and earth and you care to make an educated guess as to what or who, then please make an educated guess on what or who made heaven and earth.

Why not cut out the middle man and just say the universe is "self-existing"? Why do you need to have an explanation for how the universe came about but feel totally satisfied with the rationale that god always existed? (hint: it's because you've been brainwashed since birth to think that way)

[susmariosep]

Why not cut out the middle man and just say the universe is "self-existing"? Why do you need to have an explanation for how the universe came about but feel totally satisfied with the rationale that god always existed? (hint: it's because you've been brainwashed since birth to think that way)

Why can't the universe, the one we know, be self-existing?

Because there was a beginning of the universe, the one we know, and we know it has a beginning.

Why then can't things which have a beginning not be self-existent?

Because there was a time or a point between non-existence and existence when things having a beginning belong to the non-existence camp, they were still nothing but at most possibilities.

Then some entity that is existing prior to these non-existing things except as possibilities turns them from nothing but possibilities into really existing things and not only possibilities, and this is the beginning of their real existence, for which they owe it to the prior to them existing entity.

And the ultimate prior existing entity that starts the the chain of prior existing entities bringing about the beginning of posteriorly existing things, the ultimate last most anterior and end prior existing entity is the one and only self-existing entity which is God.

That is why I say that God belongs to that category of being which is self-existent, and God is the only member of this category.


As a concrete example, every man was nothing but a possibility until a man and a woman prior to him conceive him and the woman bears him in her womb so that at full term she gives birth to him.

The man from his mother and father has a beginning and therefore it cannot be a self-existing entity.

Now everything in the universe we know has a beginning for owing their existence to some prior agents, which prior agents have a beginning and thus are also not self-existing beings.

Until the chain of prior entities giving rise to posterior entities, reach the ultimate end anterior entity which is self-existent and is the only one agent that is self-existent, that agent is God.


Susmariosep