comment of the month – what if god exists?
My best blogging buddy Rautakyy made an interesting comment from an unusual angle, for an atheist. We’re all fairly certain that gods don’t exist, but what if there is some kind of god lurking out there, how would the average atheist feel about it?
If we one day find a good reason to believe there actually exists a god and that it is benevolent, it cannot be angry at us for questioning such immoral stories told about it as the religions that are offered to us do.
On the other hand, if it is just as these religions have told us, or any one of them has told us, then we as humans who have questioned that which is immoral have at least kept our integrity and humanity in the face of divine dictatorship, and that is nothing to be ashamed of.
It must be sickening for the all the Christians out there when atheists claim the high moral ground!
This is another tired example of an atheist hallucinating something totally ridiculous, assigning it to his opposition (in this case Christians and Christianity), and then demanding that Christians reasonably explain the ridiculous atheist hallucination.
Christianity teaches that God is benevolent.
The Bible is a story cast over centuries and cultures which sings the praises of a benevolent God.
The claim that God is malevolent is simply the atheist expressing ingrained illiteracy and stupidity, mindless brainwashing and deep bigoted hatred against the life blood of modern civilization (yes, that would be Christianity).
Also, that God exists is nearly obvious to any open mind and to those who study and understand the teachings of modern science…
…the existence of God is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This post proves once again that atheists reside in an isolated, provincial, intellectually and spiritually impoverished island archipelago of the closed and hateful mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Bible is a story cast over centuries and cultures which sings the praises of a benevolent God.”
I see what you mean, but it kind of strikes me more as ignorant people terrified of natural events, ascribing them to invisible forces they are too afraid to name as ‘evil’ in case they offend said invisible forces. “Maybe if we kill some animals for the invisible crazy Ruler/Creator of Everything, we’ll have a good harvest. Look it worked! Sing the praises of the invisible crazy Ruler/Creator of Everything, what great benevolence (please don’t hurt us again), wonderful, wonderful, loving invisible force. Ooops, our village has burned down, we must have done something very, very bad …. etc” I’m sure you can see the pattern. It’s a relief to live in a time with sensible answers, isn’t it? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
You must be referring to another book besides the Bible.
The dietary laws set down by God for the Jews, had nothing whatsoever to with bribing him for a good harvest, for example.
And in the Bible, I remember a Sodom being burned down by God, but he warned everyone to leave.
Ultimately, you are very confused and don’t know the first thing about the Bible.
That’s because you never took the time to study it.
LikeLike
Exodus 29:19-22
“Then you shall take the other ram, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on the head of the ram. “You shall slaughter the ram, and take some of its blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear and on the lobes of his sons’ right ears and on the thumbs of their right hands and on the big toes of their right feet, and sprinkle the rest of the blood around on the altar. “Then you shall take some of the blood that is on the altar and some of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it on Aaron and on his garments and on his sons and on his sons’ garments with him; so he and his garments shall be consecrated, as well as his sons and his sons’ garments with him.
Leviticus 9:3-4
“Then to the sons of Israel you shall speak, saying, ‘Take a male goat for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both one year old, without defect, for a burnt offering, and an ox and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD, and a grain offering mixed with oil; for today the LORD will appear to you.'”
Numbers 10:10
“Also in the day of your gladness and in your appointed feasts, and on the first days of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be as a reminder of you before your God. I am the LORD your God.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramen.
Given the behaviour of US evangelicals in particular, it is perfectly safe to say Hell would be the far better place, with far better (ie. moral, caring, thoughtful, mindful, progressive and proactive) company, to spend eternity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Such fine judgement from your Toilet Thrown.
Why is it that you atheists get to judge everyone, even God, but the rest of mankind must sit quietly by as you Godless marauders destroy modern civilization?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure that’s fair. I expect there are equal numbers of nice religious and non-religious people.
LikeLike
No doubt, but given the available statistics (US federal prison population religious affiliation, for example), and general contact with evangelicals (like the Branyan’s and Colourstorm) and I think its broadly accurate. Hey, after all, you’ll be there… not making sandwiches 😉
LikeLike
You, me and Ark, shrugging our shoulders with hot pokers up our bums. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is that like Hell’s Chicken Dance? Sweet!
LikeLike
Violet,
It’s not about being nice.
It’s about understanding that things just don’t happen all by themselves.
Atheists who believe that everything just happened all by itself, also believe that civilization, justice, human rights and prosperity all just happen by themselves.
So there exists a huge population of people dedicated to delusional thinking (atheists) who compete for power with people who believe in the laws of nature and nature’s God.
Since delusional thinking is easy and feels good, people like you become savagely dedicated to it.
LikeLike
SOM, even on this slightest chance that some kind of creator exists, you really should open your eyes to the fact that the development of the human race in terms of civilization, justice, human rights and prosperity has definitely happened by itself. We call it ‘evolution’. I know this word is threatening for you, but it just means ‘things changing as time moves on’.
LikeLike
Violet,
Thank you for proving my point.
Evolution does not happen by itself.
I recommend that you crack open a biology book for once in your life and learn about all that is needed for evolution to take place.
Your knowledge quest will take you into the study of chemistry and cosmology where cause and effect rule the day.
LikeLike
Yes, because most people who study biology end up convinced that the Christian god exists. Do you think?
LikeLike
Violet,
It was during my first semester intro to biology class at university where I first saw that science has proved the existence of God.
I even authored a mathematical equation that I dubbed, “The God Equation,” which expresses God in the scientific terms of biology.
LikeLike
Oh, I see! You’re referring to ‘science’ classes in basic Catholic education for children. How very enlightened!
LikeLike
Violet,
I am referring to secular, university level science classes.
No religion involved.
The existence of God is purely a matter of reason, not religious faith.
LikeLike
Wow, first year science class at a university, that’s so advanced! 🙂
LikeLike
Violet,
That is so true!
God is so basic that even a college freshman can understand that he exists.
LikeLike
A solid response. I have heard, from atheist lips may I add, that if God existed they would hold their hands up and admit defeat. As if the fact that he exists gives him a right to rule over us? Simply because he can? I would much rather an anti theist approach if God was somehow proven.
LikeLike
If something along the lines of the Christian god existed (in its benevolent form), it would have a hard time explaining how the messages got so confused. It’s an odd psychological phenomenon that in the throes of belief, Christians can’t recognise the absurd contradictions in character. (well, or the absurdity of continuing to follow old superstitions…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! My goodness,you do have issues with authority, Violet. Sheesh, and here I thought I was defiant. What Rautakyy poses I call the Al Capone theory. It’s a common logical fallacy, one that suggests we know better than God Himself, therefore our prideful rejection of Him is somehow justified. I don’t have to believe in God because God is Al Capone, therefore God doesn’t exist.
That is because rejecting a loving God who died to know you and wishes to give you eternal life is not logical, rational, or sane, therefore our brains resist it, forced to forever justify our own disbelief.
Also a bit funny, but if God were Al Capone, and also omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience, what a big and bad little human you are to shake your fist at Him and act as if you are powerful enough to set your divine dictator straight. That is where atheists always reveal the roots of their disbelief, pride and a powerful aversion to authority. In truth when we are genuinely confronted by something bigger and badder than we are, we don’t debate whether or not it is worthy and virtuous enough, we simply comply and live to see another day.
Obviously God is not a dictator because He tolerates not only our questioning,but our disbelief and defiance, too. So the real question to be asking yourself is, why would I reject the love of a perfect Father?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Without layers of increasingly sophisticated excuses to buttress it against every flavour of inconsistency, it is preposterous to contend that this world is the product of a competent and benevolent designer; a good father who is sensitive to prosperity and has the very best interests of all living things forever in the fore.
Could an impossibly good, monstrously skilled, prohibitively capable designer who is mindful of harmony, fond of laughter, pleased by joy, charmed by plenty and delighted by happiness convene a world where every guest is contracted by birth to prey upon the other in order to steal the proteins and fats and sugars they need just to stay alive one more day in what amounts to a daily apocalypse of obliged bloodletting? Indeed, could a designer of extraordinary compassion and unlimited means oversee a world where the very mechanisms necessary to physically experience something beginning to resemble ‘happiness’ (enkephalin and opioid receptors) would not even exist in the world before some 3.5 billion years of terrestrial evolution had passed and untold billions of generations of living things had suffered enormously without as much as the hope of corporeal relief?
To suggest such a thing with even a hint of accidental sincerity is bravely ridiculous.
LikeLike
“To suggest such a thing with even a hint of accidental sincerity is bravely ridiculous.”
Ahh, then a toast to the bravely ridiculous, Zande, to the dreamers and poets who believe in a God who is “mindful of harmony, fond of laughter, pleased by joy, charmed by plenty and delighted by happiness, ” a God who is “a competent and benevolent designer; a good father who is sensitive to prosperity,”and plumb full of “extraordinary compassion.”
You’re quite right though, such things do require quite a bit of courage and bravery. It’s certainly not for the fainthearted. 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed. Requires libraries of Alternative Facts, and a whole lot of wilful ignorance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Curious, though, Inanity. Why would you think your Good Father would wait 3.5 billion years before permitting the existence of the very mechanisms neccessary to experience “happiness”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
It’s all in the math.
Once you understand the math, you can understand the 3.5 billion year wait for human intelligence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, not talking about human intelligence but rather the material required for any organism to physically experience something beginning to resemble ‘happiness.’ It was only 210 million years ago that life stumbled upon the chemicals (enkephalin) and cellular structures (opioid receptors) which made that possible, meaning for 3.5 billion years Inanity’s Good Father oversaw a world where billions of generations of complex living things suffered enormously without as much as the hope of emotional relief.
I find that an odd thing to square with her claim that this being is “plumb full for compassion”.
I guess she finds it impossible to square, too, given the silence.
LikeLike
She puts in her tuppence then floats back off to fairyland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Inanity’s belief is derived solely from her economic position. She needs to believe she’s going to be awarded some palatial hearth in some imagined afterlife because that makes living now, in her state of thorough economic depression, bearable. It’s a palliative measure.
LikeLike
I’m sure it’s more complex than that. I’m beginning to suspect that many Christians had a hard time with validation and love in childhood. It’s a yearning for perfect love and acceptance to fill the hole that was left in key developmental stages. Christianity offers them that, with a good measure of judgement and punishment that they unfortunately identify as a part of love (and also yearn for) from their childhood. Reckon there could be something in it? It fits neatly with some aspects of attachment theory:
https://www.psychologistworld.com/developmental/attachment-theory.php
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most things are a cocktail, so you’re probably right.
LikeLike
John,
If you had the faintest idea what you were talking about, you’d know it’s all about the math.
Math is the language of science, the language of laws of nature and nature’s God.
Math is how we know how things are made (designed).
When mankind uses math to engineer and produce products, he is mimicking God’s creative power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah.
And the emergence of enkephalin and opioid receptors 210 million years ago pertains to this how, precisely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Ask God.
And remember, that just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean you can act like a two year old toddler and wink it out of existence.
LikeLike
No?
Can’t quite think of an excuse for that historically verifiable display of, what might you call it, extraordinary incompetence?
Okay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Again, from your Toilet Thrown.
Who are you to judge the competence of God’s design for the universe.
I mean you, like all atheists are scientifically illiterate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point SOM. Apart from all the scientists (most of whom are atheists).
LikeLike
Violet,
I think you have fallen victim to an urban myth.
LikeLike
Haha, maybe! Better than that urban myth you fell for about invisible creator beings. 🙂
LikeLike
Violet,
The existence of God has been scientifically proven and can be worked out by simple reasoning.
Ironically, it is the atheist who must subject herself to myths and magical thinking.
LikeLike
It’s been ‘scientifically proven’ by non-scientists, oddly enough – are you referring to the goat herders from ancient times? I wish I could immerse myself in myths and magical thinking, do you have any suggestions?
LikeLike
Violet,
I recommend that you immerse yourself in the science.
You’ll get further proving to yourself that God exists than you will by immersing yourself in atheist myth and urban legend.
LikeLike
I recommend you immerse yourself in facts SOM. If science isn’t doing it for you, try the history of religions – and don’t just stick to one.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, now if you know how this scientific proof for your god you mention – of wich I have never heard of – and it really works, why do you not simply present it? If it is indeed such a “simple reasoning” then maybe even a moron like myself could figure it out and be “saved” (what ever that means precisely).
I must say, I am surprized, because if this sort of scientific proof exists, then one would expect it was world class news or common knowledge. If it is not widely known, as it seems to me, presenting it everywhere could change the course of history and the inventor should and most likely could get the Nobel prize. Did you invent it, or if not, who did?
I do realize that nobody is willing to accept even scientific evidence for facts, but try me. I view myself as very scientifically minded, so if the proof is scientific, I am actually among the people prone to accept it.
Please do present it. If it has convinced you, why would it not convince me? You do want to save me, do you not? So, that we can continue these nice chats of ours for an eternity in the afterlife…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have presented it. It’s all over my blog.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, as I gather you claim your most prominent “scientific proof” for your god to exist is in your second to the latest post: “Christianity – Modern Civilizations Critical Ingridient”. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and visited your blog and read the article. Now, I must say I fail completely to find anything in it that would serve as proof for any gods. You did not even discuss the issue of the existance of your god in that post. Did you? So why did you direct us to that post?
Even if what you claim in the post, that Christianity specifically was somehow necessary for the slavery to end, how would that prove a god exists? It is like claiming that forbidding alcohol consumption in the Near East Islam has proven that Allah exists. That simply does not follow. Does it? One cultural movement having positive effects does not mean, that the unnatural elements of their mythos are in any way proven to be true. Does it? Coming up with democracy did by no means prove the pantheon of the ancient Greeks to be true on any level. Did it? Care to explain?
And that was assuming your post was otherwise accurate, wich it is not. I am not going to do a full estimation of your post here, to save you the embarresment (and because this is getting way off topic), but just for example, you say “America is truly the God’s country” wich is a totally separate from the rest of the text and to add a nonsensical assertion at the very beginning of the post. What are you referring to with this?
I doubt you are actually referring to the Latin American countries, that are among the most religious and poorest countries on the face of the planet with an abundance of social and economical problems from pitiful powerty to continuous civil war? All this despite their “beneficial” (according to you) capitalistic economic systems. You seem to imply, that capitalism is one of the benefits of Christianity, but you should know, that capitalism is a phenomenon not at all restricted to Christian religious culture, and in human terms it mostly resembles a major pyramid scheme, than anything actually beneficial.
Northern American countries are among the richest countries and Canada is a fine example of a fairly functional state among countries because there are social and political restrictions to wild capitalism, but I doubt you refer to it either? Do you?
If you are referring to the USA as the god’s country when you later mention Abe Lincoln and the end of slavery, you surely are aware, that the USA was one of the last among western nations to make slavery illegal. The USA is the one last western country, in wich the capital punishment is still being used, while most of the western civilization view that as totally immoral and it is the one western country still famous for applying torture. In many ways such sets the USA among similar moralist cultures as those in the Near East. Therefore the USA is hardly serves as any sort of pinnacle of western civilization.
On the othe hand, the USA is actually the first actual secular nation on the face of the planet and indeed that has prompted some positive ethical development like forbidding supernatural wittness in a court of law. Should that be attributed to Christianity? I doubt such mental gymnastics could be possible. However, that hardly serves as any “proof” to one direction or a nother for the existance of any particular god, even though it could be argued, that the USA has been at the political forefront of showing how arcane, superstitious and primitive some alledgedly “divinely inspired” holy books, like the Bible, are on part of social moral models given in them. To me that seems much like circumstantial evidence to the contrary of any alledgeldy benevolent god to exist.
I have to ask you, if this was all just a gigantic effort to make a red herring to go on a tangent from the topic, that you were actually unable to discuss rationally? No matter, it was entertaining at least…
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
Here I am amidst a shameless effort to recruit atheists to my blog…
…and you folks REFUSE to cooperate.
LikeLike
Well, Silenceofmind, why might that be? I think I have come a long way to co-operate with you, by reading your blog post you specifically pointed as the one to hold the “proof” for your god to exist. I am merely asking you to present the “proof” you claim to be in possession of. Where is it? It was not in the blog post you pointed out. Was it? If it was, you could explain how was that supposed to be the “proof”, because it was not very scientific, nor did it even concern the question at hand. Now did it?
You ask people to come to your blog by the pretense, that you have in your blog the scientific “proof” for a god to exist, and point to a specific post about the benefits you percieve have resulted from Christianity. As I already pointed out, this was nothing even close to a scientific proof for the existance of any particular god. Do you understand why this does not qualify even as evidence, let alone proof, or did you really think it was such? All this makes it seem like you are either a nincompoop, or a little dishonest. Because I do not think you are a total nincompoop (but rather that you are merely mistaken about this issue about the existance of gods, as a result of your cultural heritage), I expect you are aware that you were being a bit dishonest in your attempt. Either way, it does not seem like a very good method of attracting people to co-operate. Now, does it?
Besides, if you had scientific evidence for your specific god, what would all that faith so widely demanded in Christianity amount to? Religious people often conflate religious faith in their strange and conflicting esoteric beliefs with trust, but when are we warranted to trust something? When we have actual evidence. Right? What is the evidence?
LikeLike
@raut
The mere fact that you can process letters on paper or on a screen separates you from hyenas, those snickering beasts who preach common sense to humans.
Then again, maybe you have not discerned that humans have more value than rats.
Gee I wonder why………………..
You can dance all around it with your long convoluted speeches, but its the fact of life, that all life belongs to the Creator, and you are made in the image and likeness of God, try as you may to deny or ignore it.
And no, I need not explain it, for the same proof is available to you; you simply choose to turn a blind eye to what is obvious.
And by the way, the scriptures both confirm and agree with this fact.
LikeLike
Well, ColorStorm, no, you do not need to provide any evidence or proof for your god. That is entirely up to you. Though I do believe one of the Chirstian tenets is to provide “wittness” as to how it is the true religion in comparrison to all the others. Is it not?
Nature is proof of nature. Scriptures are evidence of past ignorant, superstitious and often tribally moralistic cultures. I have no clue as to how you come to the conclusion, that a specific notion of a god exists from these sources, but am I wrong to assume, it very much involves your personal cultural heritage? Can you shed a light on how specifically these have led you to the conclusion that a god exists, or did you hold that opinion before you even tried to prove it by appealing to nature, scripture and if I am not mistaken something you percieve as common sense? I do not have the same assumption in my cultural heritage, so it is sometimes hard for me to understand how you religious people are able to make these jumps from completely indipendend issues to pretend that they serve as some sort of evidence for your particular esoteric beliefs.
Do you agree with me, that the benefits of a particular religion to human wellbeing are not proof, or even evidence for a god to exist? Or do you disagree with me and agree with Silenceofmind, that they are? If you think mere Scripture and nature are proofs enough, why do you think Silenceofmind did not simply refer to them, as you did, but tried to make the case that the benefits of western civilization are the actual “scientific proof” for your Christian god?
LikeLike
@raut
This is the beauty of truth. It has many faces all telling the same source. SoM tells a beautiful truth from another point of view, it’s all a matter of perspective, yet, agreeing completely.
The existence of God is hardly a matter for discussion, but your concern as to WHY Christianity is different, now there is something to digest.
Christianity, as presented in scripture, has no equal. It stands apart, alone, as the magnum opus of God’s revelation. The GRACE of God defines Christianity, in ways that all other ‘religions’ pretend. It is rather simple.
There is no other source on earth such as the word of God. None. It is the monarch or books which has collected every broken hammer against it, as they sit in the scrapyard of irrelevance.
The heavens declare the glory of God. Atheism? Eh, not so much, other than to reveal the absurdity. And Christianity magnifies this glory, as the Christ of God abides His time, patiently, and lovingly, that proves God is true, and every man a liar. Not my words by the way.
And the truth of God makes lies instantly obvious.
LikeLike
Well, that is all fine and dandy, ColorStorm, but you do realize that you have not really provided any connection between nature, scripture or for that matter the benefits of western civilization to your several assertions that they prove a god exists? You have simply made a number of assertions. You do know, that assertions are not evidence as such, do you not?
Did you not understand why what Silenceofmind provided as “scientific proof” for the existance of his particular vision of a god, was not that at all, or did you simply not read what I wrote about it? If I was wrong what is your objection to what I said? Simply asserting that I was wrong is not really going to be enough to convince anyone who bothers to think, is it? Should it be?
As I said, you do not have to provide evidence, or proof for your god. I do not demand such from you, and I do not think you have any obligation to do so, unless you yourself think you have. All I hope is that you learn what actually qualifies as evidence in the real world and how we are warranted to give truth value to any claim or assertion.
Simply making the claim, that something is the truth, does not make it so. Does it? Not even if it was some ancient dude who claimed that what he says comes directly from a creator entity of the world. Correct? The fact that the same book may or may not have helped a particular civilization to build itself provides no evidence at all, that anything super- or otherwise unnatural was behind the book. Right? Inventing a creator entity for the nature that exists, may provide a simple answer to the question where did nature appear, but it does not serve as evidence, that the creator entity is the actual explanation where did nature appear from, nor does it serve as any sort of answer to the question as to why did nature appear. Agreed?
I am wordy, I know and I appoligize for it, but in that sense we are more like each other, than either of us would propably like to admit, are we not?
LikeLike
@rautakyy
I’m laughing at your last sentence,as it is a bit true, but my ‘length’ defends truth, whereas your ‘length’ avoids it. 😉
But you said this:
—-You have simply made a number of assertions. You do know, that assertions are not evidence as such, do you not?———-
Ah, but if assertions are true, then of course it is evidence. That’s the point of truth, it contains and explains itself.
As you suggest ‘nature’ is not proof of God, I suggest it is. An acorn from an oak tree may be natural, but hello? The first acorn? Thank you Creator. Supernatural even.
But I defer to SoM in the area of mathematics and biology, his laying out in lavender the order and design of codes, is confirmed by nature and natures God, and agreed upon by scripture.
LikeLike
Oh ColorStorm, poetic as ever.
Yes, if assertion is true then it is true. But how do we know a particular assertion is true? By assessing it with the scientific method. Why? Simply because it is the only way we have to come to reliable even remotely objective information. Otherwise we end up in a mess of subjective “truths” that do not deserve the label. Am I not right?
Acorn is a nice example. If we did not know anything about genetics, macrofossils, or the theory of evolution, that do explain the biological heritage of an oak, we would still not be warranted to posit any god as an explanation for it. Why? Because we would be equally justified in positing acorn creating pixies. Infact more so, as our assertion about the pixies would better qualify by the Occam’s razor as they are less wondrous claim than any gods are, simply by being less powerfull. The oak existing provides no evidence for acorn creating pixies. Does it? Why not? Because to use it as proof for these pixies would be circular logic, would it not? If we did not know what science has learned and verified about the genetic heritage and ancestry of the oak, we would merely be warranted to say we do not know how the first acorn came to be. Saying a particular god did it would amount to a mere unverifiable guess. Guesses are not truths. Are they?
You have heard of circular logic and how it is a logical fallacy?
LikeLike
SOM’s word for it is surely good enough? He is the all pretentious knowledgeable one no? The absolute authority upon everything scientific and religious. Too bad all he has is hot air and bluster. He should go into the balloon inflating business. Interesting, the word loon is embedded in balloon, how about that?
While I will patiently wait for his evidence to surface, I won’t be holding my breath.
His evidence is probably something like “people go to church therefore god” His mathematical conlusion must surely be a hoot as well. I can’t wait!
LikeLike
Shell,
Please visit my blog and see for yourself.
I can almost guarantee that because almost every atheist here on WordPress is scientifically illiterate, you won’t understand a word of it.
Put briefly, the scientific proof of God in the realm of science called molecular biology, is demonstrated through the production and transmission of coded information.
It is the same science that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) uses to determine if ET is ET or simply a source of natural rhythm (like a pulsar, for example).
LikeLike
A team of horses could not pull me to your blog.
If you have evidence, post it here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which post is it SOM? Your hate-the-pope post is still the most recent.
LikeLike
Shell and Violet,
You people are so incredibly lazy.
That’s why I have quit wasting my time responding to your phony requests for evidence and proof.
You are atheists because you are intellectually lazy.
It takes no effort at all to believe that everything just happened all by itself and that something is true simply because you feel it to be so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re an interaction delight SOM! But if you do ever remember where you put that post, please feel free to pop back and leave the link. 😉
LikeLike
Mmm hmm. And you are a jack ass with some sort of crackpot, crank theory, that upends all of science by claiming to show proof of your dog. And because your proof is soooo smartypants true, and you are sooooo smartypants smart, and the rest of are mere pond scum in your allmighty presence, you won’t bother to show us your evidence.
Not only that you have a crackpot, crank mathematical proof you will not share because of the same reasons.
Hot air, bluster, crackpot. With some sort of superiority complex.
If I/we are wrong show us. All you are showing me now is the famous xian crawdad.
Time to step up to the plate Mr. Biggity Britches. Let’s see what you’ve got.
LikeLike
Digger,
That the existence of God is proven through science doesn’t not upend science.
Yours is just another atheist urban myth that you tell yourselves to make atheism work out for you.
That science reveals the glory of God is natural, expected and rational.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, yeah, yeah, where is your evidence?
LikeLike
Digger,
Study science. You’ll see what I’m talking.
LikeLike
Riiight. I will run along and do that /eyeroll.
Where is your evidence?
LikeLike
Digger,
I already answered that question. And you refused it.
LikeLike
Umm no. I refuse to go to your blog. Not interested. I will not do anything to escalate your blog hits, or your already overextended ego.
If you have evidence, as you claim. Post it here. Or continue playing the x-ian crawdad for all to see.
LikeLike
I just wrote a little lyric to share.
Everybody now!
“Well they make some claims, and claim they are true,
When asked for evidence what do they do?
They do the crawdad….the x-ian crawdad.”
….longer better version coming soon.
LikeLike
Suit yourself, Digger.
LikeLike
Where is your evidence?
LikeLike
Digger,
I gave you evidence in one of my comments.
It went over your head and you completely missed.
That’s why I no longer bother with dummies like you.
LikeLike
Would Jesus want you to speak to someone like that, SOM?
LikeLike
Violet,
I don’t know.
Why don’t you ask him?
LikeLike
I don’t have a personal relationship with him like you do.
LikeLike
Okay… I went back through the comments just to make sure I hadn’t missed all of this very convincing evidence, and still did not see any.
Not that it matters, if you did gather up the cojones to submit your supposed evidence it would be duly shredded with no remorse.
Since no real evidence appears forthcoming, let me gaze into my crystal ball, hmmm, I see many baseless assertions with nothing to substantiate them…possibly a move here that I’d call piggybacking a true scientific effort and claiming that it is your own proof of god… and another baseless assertion or three, and finally some odd claim of victory that everyone of your own immortal intelligence should easily be able to understand.
Only none of us are crackpots.
LikeLike
Violet,
I highly recommend my second to latest post called, “Christianity – Modern Civilization’s Critical Ingredient.”
You won’t have to expend much energy to find it and the post is written with the history lover in mind.
The Silence of Mind does so try to please…
…sort of like a lovable little fur ball cat or dog.
LikeLike
That’s a lovely little post that speaks volumes about the education level of your audience, but I can’t see any reference to scientific proof for the existence of the Christian god?
LikeLike
Violet,
My posts are geared for people with post graduate educations.
That’s probably why you and your atheist comrades have no idea what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
No doubt. The quality of information shines through. 🙂
LikeLike
“why would I reject the love of a perfect Father?”
Because it’s an absurd story written in an ancient text that, although interesting enough from a historical point of view, is very obviously the work of superstitious people in a time of deep ignorance. Much like the ancient written text of any other developed religion. Why do you reject the love of Allah, the love of Lord Shiva, and the love of Pachamama? Oh, I see! They are based on ridiculous superstition but your invisible god isn’t? What folly to reject so much invisible love! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Insanitybytes22, this was not about wether a god exists or not. It was about wether the description given of any gods in human mythology is actually describing something we are warranted to call “benevolent”. Those are two separate issues and I find it curious that you could not make the distinction.
The story of a god who set up the universe in the manner, that it would present itself as dying and resurrecting to forgive the created sentient beings for the manner this god had previously created these sentient beings to exist, does not tell anything of a loving god. Nothing of the sort. Is it just, that you think that represents some sort of love, because you have never stopped to think what love is and you have accepted this to be a representation of love since someone you trusted told you so? A parent that beats their kids may say and even think themselves as a loving parent, but objectively they are the opposite of a loving parent. For the definition of a loving god, or parent, these words must bear some significant meaning in comparrison to something that is not loving, like violence – right?
What we do not know, even if we took the Bible as an historical record and assume the unnatural events did actually happened (and are not just presentations of superstition of ignorant men), is wether if Jesus actually suffered on the cross (since, if he actually was a god, he then logically was also capable of merely playacting suffering), nor wether if he actually died. The so called eyewittness accounts of him dying are flimsy at best and absolutely nobody was even present when he alledgedly resurrected. However, if we do take the Bible as an historical record and assume the unnatural events and characters really existed, the book says, that this god character in it ordered the Israelites to do genocide and drowned entire human populations, that were no different from what this same god had created them to be.
Ad to injury, that to excuse this wanton murder with the free will argument is stupid, because if human beings are able to live without “sin” in them heavens and they presumably have their free will intact there, having free will does not require anyone to do bad stuff. Right?
If one percieves that higher power a god posses provides some sort of justification to use violence against the human beings who are as said created to be as they are by this same god, then one has simply succumbed to the might makes right moralism. If one thinks a god is justified in using violence to punish the disbeliever (an eternity) for not believing something that they did not percieve even to exist, when this god character could have used the alledged higher power to manifest on anybody at any time, then one has accepted to blame the victim and for some twisted reason accepts punishment as rather a form of petty vengeance, than a method to correct the wrongs done. Such a god is not only evil, it is also a smallminded and self centered narcissist. Is that the god you worship?
I would reject the “love” of a father, that reminded me more of a stalker, than a caretaker. A father who hid himself from me, demanded me to follow arbitrary rules, and excused himself for not explaining the necessity of those rules by appealing to me be too stupid to even understand what is best for me? My actual father always had time enough to explain why he thought what was best for me. He certainly did not demand me to murder anyone, nor did he drown anybody, be they good or bad. If you are not willing to bash the heads of babies on rocks and feel happy about it, you have higher moral standards than your god has according to the book commonly referred to as the “word of god”. Do you?
I had a loving father, and he was nothing at all like the monstrous god character in the Bible, or actually any holy book I have ever read. But apparently we have a completely different experience what is a good father like.
After all, the question wether we percieve some particular notion of a god benevolent or malevolent is at best academic, but more about mere mind games, as far as any gods have not appeared, nor even presented any even remotely objective evidence for. What matters is, that there are people who claim to get their morals from these gods, and find justification to their own intuitive sense of justice to act upon rather than to actually stop to think what harm or benefit for the humanity they are causing, or worse act according to some ancient tribal moralism from books based on the superstition of ignorant men and what some demagogue chooses to use from those books the religious masses have hardly even ever read.
LikeLike
Not sickening at all. I seek to be the best human being I can be. I am delighted when others, whatever belief systems they have, seek something similar. Nor am I unique as a Christian- you’ve met Barry!
From high ground, one can see further.
Why is this not true of the Moral High Ground?
Is it surrounded by mist?
Does the rarified air cause delusions?
Or, having climbed the Mountain
do I stare so fixedly down at the Hillock
that I can see nothing but the Molehill
that is mine?
LikeLike
Indeed Clare. Not forgetting the Christians who take the premise of a truly benevolent god and find a way of viewing the Bible in that context. Must be a lot of effort!
LikeLike
Well, to take one example, the Jews took Babylonian creation myths in which humanity is a random byproduct, and made people central, beloved by God who saw we were “Very good”. Post-humanists might find that problematic, but I think it an improvement.
LikeLike
That’s one way to look at it. Most of the Christians here think humans are ‘very bad’. 🙂
LikeLike
You can’t see reality without paradox. We are indeed very bad- My Lai, Brexit, the RSPCA having to prosecute people for cruelty- and very good- the person who paid my bridge toll, the NHS, being able to live in cities without killing each other. This is the race as a whole, and each individual. Hitler loved dogs.
LikeLike
People do bad things. If we believe they are ‘bad’, we make them believe they are ‘bad’ and they will continue to do bad things. And often we do really bad things with good intentions – take the Christians who use physical violence on their children in an attempt to ‘help’ the children develop positively.
LikeLike
However, if we believe we are bad and good, we are not surprised when we do bad things- shadow motivation does not set off cognitive dissonance- but always hold out the possibility of doing good things. I must dig out my Augustine and Calvin quotes saying that the Bible does not contradict science, only ignorant interpretations of it- so we have to learn what is good.
LikeLike
It’s not about being bad or good at all. It’s about making choices, and what affects our choices. Upbringing, culture, education, availability of information, weather, nutritional status, hormones – everything affects what do and what motivates us to do it. Aiming for the path of least perceived harm based on the information available to us is about the best we can ever do.
LikeLike
Don’t you think everyone does that? People have different information.
LikeLike
That’s what I mean. We can sometimes agree on what common good is, but it’s difficult to get the full picture. Morality is made up on the fly. It’s bad to murder but if someone had murdered Hitler would there have been less suffering in the world? Perhaps the atrocities he committed enabled humans to make more sensible choices. Would that make it right to let him live? If gods exist they would have terrible decisions to make! Maybe it’s for the best our information is limited. Path of least perceived harm ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meh, basically Sartre warmed over. The premise is mistaken insofar as it imagines God as being among other beings, a bigger stronger version of ourselves. This is an understandable mistake, we all do it, but still a mistake.
How about this for a starting point: if God exists, he is nothing like we imagine him to be, utterly alien to our categories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I went through that phase in my days of belief. It’s the only thing that drags you over the huge humps. Close your eyes, give up hope of understanding, and wish for the best!
LikeLike
Phase? I can never think of a time when I felt like I knew anything directly about god.
LikeLike
It’s amazing how uninformative a personal relationship with a loving, perfect father figure can be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And information was the point, that would mean something.
LikeLike
Oh, btw. You were excellent on Branyan’s blog and had that whiny little beach on the back foot trying …. and failing to look even remotely intelligent.
I would love for you to really take her to the cleaners.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I quite like them, they really have me thinking about stuff. I like blogs where people are pleasant enough to discuss things without getting shirty, and also make some reasonable points. Thanks for the tip! (I may eat my words within the hour ….)
LikeLike
You truly consider them pleasant?
My goodness! You are amazing!
LikeLike
Got a link to which thread you’re on?
LikeLike
Violet, I just wanted to say thanks for putting up with me. 🙂 Looks like I have run out of usable rope with the SOM. (the old give them enough rope to hang themselves thing)
But looks like he has gone with his tail betwixt his legs. If he ever happens to come back with some of that evidence stuff, let me know I’d love to see it. 🙂
LikeLike
This is an interesting thought experiment.
If God is proven to exist one day, and this being is as benevolent as the historical doctrine of the church has taught us, then those who reject his benevolence will be justified in doing so because of how poorly humanity has depicted this benevolence. In essence this being could say something like “Can you believe this is what they think I am REALLY like, that I would do these horrible things? I don’t blame you for not believing in me!
Is that about right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes!
Leading by example. That’s the ticket!
And obviously this worked out just as planned … look at the amount of blood spilled in the name of ”God”
It is why willfully ignorant fuckwits like William Lane Craig make a living explaining to indoctrinated unfortunates why Divine Command Theory ( and other such niceties) is as sweet as apple pie.
LikeLike
Bit busy today. Please don’t swear on my posts.
LikeLike
Feel free to edit .. sorry.
LikeLike
William Lane Craig…Wow Ark, you have swam in the deep end of the pool!
LikeLike
To me he is one of the most revolting individuals to ever mouth the term ”Christian Apologetics”.
LikeLike
How is this Violet for your comment of the month wrapping up this post and thread:
There are no ‘what ifs’ about it.
Of course God exists. So easy a two year old knows, and not so difficult that an Einstein, Tesla, King Solomon, or even the big dummy Goliath could figure out.
LikeLike
How do you ColorStorm know there are no “what ifs” about it? If your strongest argument (wich it must be as that is the one you presented here) is, that these people you mentioned “knew” or “figured it out”, it is not a very strong argument. Is it? You really need a better one. Do you not?
The two year olds in general are not aware of any gods unless they are taught that there exists one. This can be easily tested, by asking little kids how they percieve gods. It is, without exeption directly linked to their cultural heritage. I, for example, had no idea about any gods when I was two as I was raised in a completely atheistic family unit. So, you must be wrong about the two year old “knowing” there is a god. That is if you really want to posit a two year old person as an expert on anything. Why would you?
I do not know which particular Einstein or Tesla you refer to, but assuming you see the famous physicist Albert Einsten and Nikola Tesla as experts of high caliber in estimating the existance of gods, let us look what they thought about such cultural concepts.
Albert Einstein said he did not believe in a god that was a personal entity, but he was willing to call nature itself a sort of god. He also said, that the bible is a collection of rather primitive stories and described religions in general as embodiment of childish superstitions. He even went to say, that the word “god” was an embodiment and a product of human weakness. In other words he was at best a kind of a pantheist, wich has nothing at all to do with what you percive to be a god, has it? So, you do not get to invoke Albert Einstein to support your belief in a personal god. Do you? But perhaps you were referring to some other Einstein?
What about Nikola Tesla then? I do not know what his religious beliefs may or may not have been, and I doubt if you do, but as far as I would appriciate his opinion in electrical technology and call him very bright on that field of scientific research, it gives him no more weight in evaluating wether a god existed or not, than you or I hold. He was also a bit of a looney in that he had several superstitious phobias, like that he feared the number three. He even named a pidgeon his wife and when it died he said his genious died with it. This does not make him in my book an expert on the existance of gods, wether if he was a Theist or a Non-Theist. Why would you consider him an expert on the issue? Or did you refer to some other Tesla?
King Solomon is not even a historical character per se. There are no contemporary sources about him outside the Bible to confirm his existance, but as legendary characters often are loosely based on actual historical characters, we may assume that someone on whom these stories are based on did existed. Surely anyone in his primitive and superstitious culture would have thought there are gods, so in that the Bible and reality of the actual historical character behind the story probably did believed in a god. But even though Julius Caesar most likely believed Mars existed (and Julius Caesar is an actual verified historical persona, who we not only know existed, but whose life we are warranted to claim to know), you do not believe him believing in Mars – god of war (and war surely exists) – verifies the existance of Mars. Do you? Why not? Is it because historical personas of priestly kings believing, or not believing for that matter, in their gods, is not a very reliable way to verify these gods truly exist? Is it?
Now, Goliath is a mere character in a myth, but let us say, that he was based on a real person, how would him believing one way or the other about gods, affect you or I, nor anybody else today? Why would you even invoke him? As an expert on wether particular gods exist or not?
LikeLike
@raut
Since you have issues with the life and times of King Solomon, there can be no common ground for dialogue.
Your sense of reality is alarming. As to Einstein or Tesla, the point was the exact opposite.
Belief in God is not left in the hands of the ‘smart.’
The human conscience, unlike the mind of a hyena, is distinct, and understands heads from tails, right from wrong, and truth from lies.
God’s word is truth, and nature, arithmetic, the alphabet, scripture, all testify this singular voice of reason and truth.
No PhD’s needed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear ColorStorm, there is always enough common ground for dialogue between two people who speak the same language, unless one party decides they do not want to continue. It is up to you. I am willing to try.
Yes, I sometimes notice it myself, that I have an alarmingly adept sense of reality, but only when I run into people who seem to have difficulties grasping reality. Like with people who think how a two year old, or Albert Einstein could be used as experts to support any theistic beliefs.
Belief in any gods certainly “is not left in the hands of the ‘smart’.” There I agree with you. Beliefs in gods strongly correlate with general ignorance, even though there are a lot of smart and highly educated people who do believe in this or that god. But the causation of why a person believes in a particular god, has more to do with their cultural heritage, than how “smart” they are. Ignorance of other gods, of other world views, of scientific achievement or the scientific method in how to asses what is actually real and what is not, seems not only correlate with taking the god idea without any evaluation for real from the cultural heritage one has, but it also serves as a causation why this happens. Does it not? Has that happened to you, or have you ever questioned the existance of the particular god concept you have recieved as a cultural heritage?
Human mind certainly differs from that of a hyena. But a hyena has a morals of it’s own, typical to it’s species and to the culture of it’s pack. Human mind is way more complex and so are our moral concepts. We are very culturally oriented animals, and as such the cultural influence on our morality may be higher than that of the hyena. But make no mistake, the hyena morals is based just as much on the golden rule concept as ours. The hyena does not hunt the members of it’s own pack, not even when they are small and weak cubbies and thus easy prey. No more so, than we humans kill and hunt our own kind, even small babies. Infact the hyena is less likely to do so, than we are, unless the particular pack has a culture of survival by killing other hyenas. Why? Because for both of our species, the evolution – a logical causation process, with no apparent designer, but emerging naturally from necessity of the reality in wich we and the hyenas find ourselves – defines killing the offspring may help the individual to survive longer, but if it ultimately stops the species from procreating, the species shall stop existing. Correct?
You do realize, that simply stating your gods word is truth is a weak assertion without any weight of evidence to back it up. It is on the level of stating the word of pixies is truth, regardless of the cultural baggage included. Including big words like nature, arithmetic, alphabet, or scripture do not make the assertion any less a mere assertion? These do not testify any particular truth, unless you actually can explain why should they.
Once again I agree whith you, “no Ph’D’s are required for an individual to figure out wether a particular god is a likely suggestion at all. It is you who pulled the Einsteins and Teslas into the discussion as if they were witnesses to your opinion. I merely pointed out, they are not. Do you still think they are. If so, how do you figure?
Any person, who does not take wild assertions from their personal cultural heritage as truth, may figure out that there simply is not much evidence to back up the claim that any particular god exists. And it happens every day, to everyday common people, with and without a Ph’D. However, it seems not many people have the tools for critical thinking, be they smart or not, to figure out wether such fancies as gods are more likely to be the products of human imagination, or somehow unnatural, yet real, but simply untestable. Or even, if they do have such tools, they are sometimes unwilling to use them out of irrational fear, they have been injected as kids, for some unnatural punishment included in the cultural memes (also called religions) for even having doubts about such wild assertions about these gods. Do you have such fears, or do you simply lack the tools to evaluate what is most likely through the scientific method, that as of yet, is the only even remotely reliable method to evaluate what is for real?
You see, we agreed on a bunch of things, why would we not have enough common ground to discuss the issue? Do you not want me to see the “truth”? I certainly want you to come to grips with it. Wether king Solomon is a historical character may be the very least of subjects we even could disagree and for what it is worth, the scientific historic method tells us, that it is unlikely he is more than a legendary character. That does not mean we could not learn from the legend. Does it? For the sake of argument we may even play with the idea, that what if he was a historical character. What would that really change? He was still just one guy imbued within a primitive and superstious culture. Was he not?
LikeLike
If you say there is no God, then you are either guessing wrong, guessing correctly, or you are the one person that has explored all the evidence. If you haven’t explored all the evidence, and still have an open mind, then read my blog.
Or you can keep guessing.
LikeLike
Thanks Jake, I’ll pop over to get that evidence. Baited breath here.
LikeLiked by 1 person