Thank God that you have a life that allows you to physically feel something. (good or bad) Just think of a praying mantis ------- the female kills and eats her mate after sex. Not likely that will happen to you. Aren't you lucky.
Among the major monotheisms —those that observe one god— it is consistently said He created all things. In Isaiah 45:7 He claims to make peace and create evil. In the Qu’ran it says Allah will lead astray whom he will. Judaism claims the devil is His divine agent, sent to put challenges in front if us.
All also concur that no one can know His mind...yet He seems to require adulation and praise at least once a week. Whose side is this God on?
At best it is a capricious, incompetent, disinterested God, at the worst an imaginary one. —just like all the others.
As one who dismisses supernatural claims, I find it unfailingly predictable that gods always reflect exactly the ideals of those who honor them.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 2:41 AM MDT
DB, if "gods always reflect exactly the ideals of those who honor them" is alluding to confirmation bias then surely the same could be said of the world views of atheists, and perhaps your answer comes with more than a slight hint of it.
On a specific point, your reference to the HQ saying "Allah will lead astray whom he will" I'd say that the pronoun could be referring to the created rather than the creator. The more accurate rendering would thus be "Allah will lead astray whoever wills [to go astray. It's your free will. He wont stand in your way]" You might see that rendering as an example of "gods always reflect exactly the ideals of those who honor them", but it makes better sense
edit in an attempt to remove unexplained strikeout through most of the second paragraph
This post was edited by CLURT at October 9, 2017 8:18 PM MDT
Thats what you got from my post, a pronoun usage issue?
I presented my point from all three of the major monotheisms, all of which I would gladly compare my knowledge of with yours. I am an atheist BECAUSE I understand the dogma.
You are in serious error to lump the world views of atheists into a single group.
1. My point wasn't merely about pronoun usage it was about interpretation from different perspectives. That slight change in pronoun changes the whole perspective of the statement.
2. "I would gladly compare my knowledge of with yours." and I'm willing to participate in any open minded mutually respectful comparison that helps us get a better understanding of each other's positions. My comment on your answer could be regarded as an indication of that willingness.
3. "I am an atheist BECAUSE I understand the dogma." that is my understanding of why many turn to atheism
4. "You are in serious error to lump the world views of atheists into a single group." that's why I said "the world views [plural] of atheists" and not "the world view [singular] of atheists"
I too welcome a civil discourse on these topics, but I won’t participate in a discussion of simple semantics.
I would say that all thinking people engage in interpretation when building their own belief structures; as an atheist, my interpretations are not subject to the narrow boundaries of any one faith, but a wider understanding of why they are and how they came about. The deeper histories.
The critical examination of all arguments pro and con, has resulted in my confidence in dismissing ALL theological claims relating to deities, on the basis of obvious contradictions of man’s making, and a complete absence of any tangible evidence of divine existence. In point of fact, the weight of evidence quite robustly refutes claims made in Scriptures.
Therein lies my primary position on this matter, I welcome compelling arguments to either side.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 3:15 AM MDT
1. I don't see anything very contentious in your post.
2. I too would be put off by contradictions which didn't have simple and credible explanations.
3. However, for me complete absence of evidence for the existence of a thing is not conclusive evidence for the non existence of that thing. So I cannot dismiss the possible existence of God just because there is at present complete absence of evidence that God exists
I am familiar with positions such as yours, and it presents as having an open mind, though built largely on wishful thinking. Nothing at all wrong with this, though to me, it leaves one subject to the absolute baloney that is so intrinsic in man’s flawed belief doctrines. I however, choose to hold to what is known, what can be shown, not what is merely hoped for.
Simply, it is my view that man has thus far, in every example, made a very poor case for his god/s, portraying them (Him?) in ways that lay bare our own base prejudices and ignorance.
Every previous deity ever concocted has eventually faded into myth, I have cause to suspect that at some future time, as our species learns more of the nature of life and the world, the current versions will join them.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 3:16 AM MDT
1. To stop us having parallel discussions in two places what I have posted here I have posted also in our other discussion thread under the same main original question posted right on top. Please choose at which of the two places you’d like our discussion to continue and respond only there.
2. I agree that if you venture into religion without your thinking cap on and with your high alert turned off you’re in real danger of taking on board the “absolute baloney that is so intrinsic in man’s flawed belief doctrines” The wealthy pastors, preachers and maharishis are just one outcome of people caught in those errors.
3. I also agree that “man has thus far, in every example, made a very poor case for his god/s, portraying them (Him?) in ways that lay bare our own base prejudices and ignorance.” That is evidence that our general learning curve in this area is very stubbornly refusing to get steep.
4. However, one redeeming factor is that we’re nevertheless still making progress since, as you said, “Every previous deity ever concocted has eventually faded into myth”
5. I also accept the possibility that “at some future time, as our species learns more of the nature of life and the world, the current versions will join them.”
6. Be that as it may, the fact is that everyone needs to have a foundation to lay one’s core principles on. That need is implicit in your question “Is this a sturdy enough Foundation to lay one’s core principles on?” The next question is what should one look for in such an important foundation. Your question identifies the important characteristic too, it should be sturdy. For this crucial foundation to be sturdy enough for me [repeat for me] it would have to:
a] be identifiable, well defined and documented
b] not trample on common sense
c] be rational
d] not glaringly contradict either itself or unanimously accepted verifiable facts
e] not hinder progress
f] offer good practically demonstrated solutions to life’s personal, social and global problems
g] have wide appeal or acceptability and following
h] offer the best and most satisfying answers so far to the unanswered questions about existence.
Kinda seems that way when he can make recipes for toxins that can cause pain, sickness and death for certain species that he created to afflict their victims -and provide the glands or organs to produce it but no recipes or glands to produce effective natural remedies to significantly ease any kind of servere chronic pain and suffering.
This post was edited by Kittigate at October 6, 2018 3:18 AM MDT
Q "Is God so full of himself that he decided to create mankind and abject suffering? All for his pleasure."
1. If some people read an accusation against you I'm sure you'd want them to see what you have to say about it before taking it at face value.
2. You've made implied statements about God in your question so perhaps we should see what this God has to say about it, to be fair.
3. There are many writings allegedly containing the sayings of this God. Let me pick the HQ and see what God allegedly says about the subject.
a] Did God create mankind for His pleasure? The American mathematics professor in the short video clip below finding himself with nothing to read was forced to turn to a gifted copy of the HQ which he, as an atheist, had shown no interest to even look at for a very long time. He had turned atheist in his childhood after the daily trauma of witnessing his drunk father beating up his mother and later learning that man is the most willfully destructive species known to man. Here he is relating the anger he felt at what he found in the HQ
b] Did God create abject suffering for His pleasure? HQ 2:216 says "it may well be that you hate a thing [not realising] the while [that] it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing [not realising] the while [that] it is bad for you. [Rest assured that] God knows [everything], whereas you do not know"
HQ 4:19 adds "it may well be that you dislike something which God might yet make a source of abundant good"
Those are more profound versions of the common and somewhat crude saying, "no pain no gain"
This post was edited by CLURT at October 9, 2017 7:31 PM MDT
Does it elude you how much of the HQ is unsupported presumption?
It speaks of what God knows and what we do not or cannot know. Based on what?
A)Default of ignorance
B)Argument from authority.
C)”Revealed“ word. Is there a less reliable source of information? Consider how many known charlatans have played this card. Joseph Smith comes immediately to mind.
All in all a mighty convenient psychological ploy, not lost on essentially every cult ever. All devolved from the same sun worship origins as the Ancient Egyptian religion.
Lets only touch on the anger and intolerance spewed in the latter surahs of the HQ. Credibility lacking
This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 3:19 AM MDT
1. Hi again DB. I was expecting comments on the specifics of what I had posted but your post reads as if it could have been written by anyone who had not read my answer.
2. I acknowledge and respect your overall position but cannot agree with such broad generalisations. However, I can detect hints of certain things in your post which I would be inclined to agree with.
3. Regarding the specific point about the claim in the HQ that "God knows [everything] whereas you know not" if this claim came from Mohammed then we could ask about the basis on which he makes that claim. However, the HQ claims that the words within it are those of God and not of Mohammed. So although "God knows [everything]" is rendered in the third person it is meant to be understood as God informing/reminding His audience "I know [everything] whereas you know not [everything]" This can be regarded as coming from God's authority or from His attribute of being omniscient.
This post was edited by CLURT at October 9, 2017 9:20 PM MDT
Clurt, you hit exactly on my point, but fail to grasp it at the same time.
You said “ the HQ claims that the words contained within in it are those of God...”, what is this claim supported by? The book must be true because the book itself SAYS it is? You are thus obliged to make a very grand presumption, or the authority for the claim is absent. Is this a sturdy enough Foundation to lay one’s core principles on, a forced presumption?
This is a problem with the Christian Bible as well, and it tells a different tale than the HQ. How can that be if there is but one god? I’m sure you hold that your version is the true one, evidence notwithstandinG.
Not intending to incite furor, just food for thought.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 3:19 AM MDT
1. To stop us having parallel discussions in two places what I have posted here I have posted also in our other discussion thread under the same main original question posted right on top. Please choose at which of the two places you’d like our discussion to continue and respond only there.
2. I agree that if you venture into religion without your thinking cap on and with your high alert turned off you’re in real danger of taking on board the “absolute baloney that is so intrinsic in man’s flawed belief doctrines” The wealthy pastors, preachers and maharishis are just one outcome of people caught in those errors.
3. I also agree that “man has thus far, in every example, made a very poor case for his god/s, portraying them (Him?) in ways that lay bare our own base prejudices and ignorance.” That is evidence that our general learning curve in this area is very stubbornly refusing to get steep.
4. However, one redeeming factor is that we’re nevertheless still making progress since, as you said, “Every previous deity ever concocted has eventually faded into myth”
5. I also accept the possibility that “at some future time, as our species learns more of the nature of life and the world, the current versions will join them.”
6. Be that as it may, the fact is that everyone needs to have a foundation to lay one’s core principles on. That need is implicit in your question “Is this a sturdy enough Foundation to lay one’s core principles on?” The next question is what should one look for in such an important foundation. Your question identifies the important characteristic too, it should be sturdy. For this crucial foundation to be sturdy enough for me [repeat for me] it would have to:
a] be identifiable, well defined and documented
b] not trample on common sense
c] be rational
d] not glaringly contradict either itself or unanimously accepted verifiable facts
e] not hinder progress
f] offer good practically demonstrated solutions to life’s personal, social and global problems
g] have wide appeal or acceptability and following
h] offer the best and most satisfying answers so far to the unanswered questions about existence.
This post was edited by CLURT at October 10, 2017 4:45 PM MDT
If the "millions" are happy with the a-h as their criteria then I'm sure they'd vote for whatever scored the highest on those criteria. It's the only sensible thing to do, I think. Don't you?
1.There is much common ground here, and I will pursue our discussion on this thread
2.and 3.articulate said common ground.
4. From my perspective, I would say the most notable progress that’s been made is winnowing the number of gods down to one. Closer to the correct number.
5. Common ground. We are both prescient enough to recognize inevitability.
6. We agree on all qualifiers here except: g]“have[ing] wide appeal or acceptability and following”. To me, this is lemming-think, and I hold little intellectual concern for popularity. A George Bernard Shaw quote that I espouse is that ”All great truths began as blasphemies”.
So, in the interest of discussion, what brought you to your view of God/Allah? What sold you on this ideal? Are you a line-item true believer, or a more casual follower?
This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 3:20 AM MDT
B.H.Wilson 