God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder what's harder to do? Being a god, and revealing yourself to nonbelievers or revealing yourself to believers?

Just about every entity that self-identifies as a deity in Star Trek is rejected. I'm not entirely sure how Picard manages to meet an omnipotent, omniscient being who has no limitations beyond a short attention span and declare "You're no god!" but it's almost a running gag.

In other places, Elizabeth Hurley, Morgan Freeman and George Burns meet doubters who are eventually convinced of their status as powerful, inhuman beings. Kinda like Johnny Smith in Dead Zone, convincing skeptics that he's psychic...you just keep doing psychic (godly)(satany) shit until they run out of objections.

On the third hand, lots of cartoons and discussion holds that modern Christains would not recognize Jesus if he came back. Or agree with his stance on many topics. They're far more invested in a belief that Jesus is watching AND APPROVING of their lifestyle and choices than atheists are in the gods not being real.

Like the pastor in this thread: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2948-Fundy-pastor-visits-Scandinavia-head-explodes , if Jesus came back and said homosexuality was not a reason to go to Hell, he'd be labeled a false messiah by all too many, simply because they've invested so much into that interpretation.

Frankly, i think God could prove himself to me far more quickly than to my grandfather. Cure my diabetes, my amputation, and the blood leaking into my eyeballs, you're god. Grandpa would ask a string of questions about the Divine stance on abortion, contraception, government, gun control, drugs, girls in skirts, boys in skirts, Scottish independence, draft dodgers, are the Baptists in Hell, are the Catholics Christains, why are avacado pits so fucking big and just how much did the President know about the Pearl Harbor Attack? Wrong answers to any of these questions would risk His being rejected as a fake...

 

[another1]

Joedad You're right but non-intellect is swimming against the tide too. Look around... humans are dumb and superstitious by nature. Do you seriously think that your own view (if taken seriously by enough people) wouldn't be scrambled into some kind of God figure in time? Would you get off on the fact that you were right when you're sitting on a cloud or inside a spaceship in a thousand years? Your self confidence is your Deity if you confidently believe there is no God. There is simply no escaping God, be it in your own doubting mind or outside in the faithful world you reject. Non-intellect??? Look around and consider your own situation. Your view is depressing and does not promote inner peace for yourself or the ones around you. Being realistic while submitting to the fantastical is pro-intellect?

 

[Rhea]

Your self confidence is your Deity if you confidently believe there is no God.

That's kind of a queer definition of "deity". I suppose if you were heavily invested in believing that lack of belief was wrong you might contort yourself into thinking that...

Look around and consider your own situation. Your view is depressing and does not promote inner peace for yourself or the ones around you.

Depressing to whom? Not to me. To you? I suppose if you were heavily invested in believing that lack of belief was wrong you might contort yourself into thinking that...


But I am relentlessly cheerful and upbeat. A far cry from depressed or depressing. All my Christian friends will tell you so.
(Kharakov's assertions that I'm pissed or in a huff or whatever are kinda funny 'cause I'm actually laughing. But, if he's heavily invested in defending his lack of response, I can see how he might contort himself into believing that.)

 

[another1]

I was referring only to Joedad's comment about an "uncaring universe" and I don't lump all of you heathens together like you seem to think. You're not a Godless team and I only meant Joedad. I respect Joedad and agreed with him in my first sentence. We all contort to believe or not believe something and in that contortion we faithfully find faith in faithlessness or faith. There is no escaping God, Rhea. Contort and misunderstand what people say, even yourself all you want. I joked when I made the point to Joedad because words are limited and stupid. You can't admit that you don't feel the presence of God when you deny God, hence there is no escaping God. No escape; no exception and no reasonable argument. Why did the spirit move you to respond to that garbage? I respect what you say and like your comments but thinking you are free of a God when you apparently must associate other Godless members that I didn't mention makes you a part of a faith and a half cocked religion unto yourself and that is painfully ironic. Praise God, whatever it may be to you. I will elaborate after you deconstruct this. The fact that you can not escape God is fun to point out.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You can't admit that you don't feel the presence of God when you deny God, hence there is no escaping God.

Wrong.

 

[another1]

I agree but thinking I'm wrong because what I said was something about and God and that makes you a part of God when you are considering God in your Godless, yet faithful state of faithlessness, so the spirit just moved you as well, Keith. I can agree and still be right when you said that I'm wrong. The polar is the same in any case when it comes to God. You have to believe something is higher, be it a thing you learned in your academia phase, a semi truck on the highway or a bee hive. Something has power over you. That isn't literal and it isn't the point but I said it. I love Atheists who are curious about God and I adore non theists who know more about God than many Christians I know. The expressiveness I see just spells it out and spills it out like warm honey and I love it. You're awesome and I like you Keith. You're so close to God. I haven't had the pleasure of Rhea but by her own reasoning you are all the same, so I approve of her also. You are all so cute. The outspoken ones I mean... not the people who are confident enough to just sit still and ignore Godshit all together. Let us pray together now.

Is the image forming that you can't escape a God in life yet? You have to be faithful to be faithless and in that you make your God.

 

[bilby]

I agree but thinking I'm wrong because what I said was something about and God and that makes you a part of God when you are considering God in your Godless, yet faithful state of faithlessness, so the spirit just moved you as well, Keith. I can agree and still be right when you said that I'm wrong. The polar is the same in any case when it comes to God. You have to believe something is higher, be it a thing you learned in your academia phase, a semi truck on the highway or a bee hive. Something has power over you. That isn't literal and it isn't the point but I said it. I love Atheists who are curious about God and I adore non theists who know more about God than many Christians I know. The expressiveness I see just spells it out and spills it out like warm honey and I love it. You're awesome and I like you Keith. You're so close to God. I haven't had the pleasure of Rhea but by her own reasoning you are all the same, so I approve of her also. You are all so cute. The outspoken ones I mean... not the people who are confident enough to just sit still and ignore Godshit all together. Let us pray together now.

Is the image forming that you can't escape a God in life yet? You have to be faithful to be faithless and in that you make your God.

So can I take it that recreational marijuana is now legal in West Virginia?

 

[another1]

At the end of Obama's term probably. Funny fact that Marijuana is WV's largest cash crop and it is illegal!

 

[Kharakov]

Ohh, wait a second, the same group that said they were the ultimate authority figures on God also said they were the ultimate authority figures on cosmology and science! Ohh, wait a second, does this mean they might have been incorrect on various assumptions they made about God as well as the incorrect assumptions they made about cosmology and science? No, couldn't be.

Your error here is in assuming that science - specifically in this case, chemistry - relies on authoritative statements written in books, that people are expected to accept without question.

Bibly- your error here is missing the point entirely.

The point is that a group presented themselves as an authority on science and God. They made claims about both science, and God. It does not follow that God is non-existent if the claims they made are incorrect, or simply appear incorrect to you.

Chemistry does not work like this

Neither does acquisition of knowledge of another being.

There is nothing authoritative about the rejection of God by science;

God isn't rejected by science. God is rejected by those who do not apply the scientific method to authoritarian claims about attributes of God.

Trying to maintain that the God hypothesis has not, in fact, been falsified, requires first that you either agree that the definition of 'God' that is in common use is the one that you will also use; Or that you first provide a complete and clear statement of the properties that you claim God to have.

The existence or non-existence of God does not depend on you knowing God's attributes, or you being provided a clear definition of God. In fact, trimming away incorrect concepts about God is a very useful starting point to education about God.

One of the primary misconceptions of atheists is that God does not exist because theists make claims about God that are not true.

In other words bilby, you do not exist because you are an invisible pink unicorn. God doesn't have to convince you God exists. God exists whether you pick up on God's existence or not. I have no power over the situation- I don't know whether or not God will teach you. I do know that bunnies are happy with clover.

If you talk about God, but are not using the word in the common way, and have not provided any clear definition of your own, then people are never going to comprehend you.

If you talk about someone you're getting to know, and people are saying things you know are untrue, you can tell them that what they are claiming is not true. You can point out illogical statements they make, you can point out when they are letting emotions about what others have said overshadow their good judgement (in the case of claiming that they are applying scientific standards to the existence of God).

Illogical claims about someone can pretty much be eliminated. The claim that someone does not exist because illogical claims have been made about them is one of the illogical claims that can be eliminated.

If God is not all knowing, you need to tell us what the limits of Gods knowledge are.

No I don't. I don't know the limits of God's knowledge.

In other words; Define exactly what YOU mean when you say 'God', or just stop posting about God, because nobody else can possibly understand what you are saying in the absence of a definition.

That's bullshit. You can understand when I tell you things about my personal experience of God. I don't have to define everything about God, because God is a dynamic being and I cannot predict exactly how God is going to act at all times.

I don't know that God will always act the exact same way. I do infer that God exists from my experiences. At this point, while sometimes I get caught up in bullshit, I'd be an idiot to claim God doesn't exist.

 

[Rhea]

There is no escaping God, Rhea. Contort and misunderstand what people say, even yourself all you want. I joked when I made the point to Joedad because words are limited and stupid.

well jokes are fun. I like jokes.

You can't admit that you don't feel the presence of God when you deny God, hence there is no escaping God.

I do not deny a god. I fail to see a god.
It's not rejecting something that I see/feel/hear/sense. It's failure to detect anything.

I s'pose I do deny particular god(dess)(es) when their descriptions are ridiculous. The the whole concept of any god? Just living my life and nothing detectable impinges in any way. Not looking for it, not denying it. Just living. If it wants to impinge, it'll have to do that. Nothing has impinged so far.

Why did the spirit move you to respond to that garbage?

Entertainment. Same reason I would discuss the plot development of "Lethal Weapon," which does not include thinking Mel Gibson is a cop.

I respect what you say and like your comments but thinking you are free of a God when you apparently must associate other Godless members that I didn't mention makes you a part of a faith and a half cocked religion unto yourself and that is painfully ironic.

We're a community that has done a lot together. You'll notice from my mini profile
<=== over there
that I've been hanging with this crowd for a good many years. I do like to associate with other people who are free from god-speak. Don't confuse my opinions about god with my opinions about god-believers. The god-believers are real and impact me very directly and materially. So we talk about them and their beliefs. It's like having that friend who is always speaking of Pokemon as if it's really. Constantly. In every conversation. Thos of us who don't think Pokemon has ever shown any signs of being real wi;ll tend to kind of laugh at the contradictions in the PokeClaims. The PokeLess among us! We godless have much in common that makes our life experiences connect. Not everything, certainly. But enough to have that in common. Like I have in common with my knitting group and my race car club.

Praise God, whatever it may be to you. I will elaborate after you deconstruct this. The fact that you can not escape God is fun to point out.

Well have fun. Can't seem to escape the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster and, sweet merciful crap, Santa Claus None of us can escape Santa Claus, can we?

 

[another1]

Nope Satan Claus is all around us. You're right about the rest. I'm definitely right, but you are right as well. Funny how that works. You may be a lost cause but the spirit of God definitely lives within Keith. I'm not discounting you but outwardly you're being too difficult. I don't click on profiles, sorry. The crickets are chirping and the triptiminial hum is whispering God loves me so I think I will go sit outside now. I'd bring you with me but I don't have a laptop. Faithfully faithless one enjoy your evening or afternoon. I don't know where you are, maybe just in my imagination. I think we did well today. Good times

 

[Rhea]

I haven't had the pleasure of Rhea

There is no escaping the pleasure of Rhea.

but by her own reasoning you are all the same, so I approve of her also.

No, you got that all mixed up. YOU are all the same, so our reaction to you is unsurprisingly similar. We're all pretty different from each other. Except in how we view people being all godfulllichkeit. It's entertaining in its sameness. So no big surprise that many of us view it the same.

 

[bilby]

Your error here is in assuming that science - specifically in this case, chemistry - relies on authoritative statements written in books, that people are expected to accept without question.

Bibly- your error here is missing the point entirely.

The point is that a group presented themselves as an authority on science and God. They made claims about both science, and God. It does not follow that God is non-existent if the claims they made are incorrect, or simply appear incorrect to you.

Chemistry does not work like this

Neither does acquisition of knowledge of another being.

There is nothing authoritative about the rejection of God by science;

God isn't rejected by science. God is rejected by those who do not apply the scientific method to authoritarian claims about attributes of God.

Trying to maintain that the God hypothesis has not, in fact, been falsified, requires first that you either agree that the definition of 'God' that is in common use is the one that you will also use; Or that you first provide a complete and clear statement of the properties that you claim God to have.

The existence or non-existence of God does not depend on you knowing God's attributes, or you being provided a clear definition of God. In fact, trimming away incorrect concepts about God is a very useful starting point to education about God.

One of the primary misconceptions of atheists is that God does not exist because theists make claims about God that are not true.

In other words bilby, you do not exist because you are an invisible pink unicorn. God doesn't have to convince you God exists. God exists whether you pick up on God's existence or not. I have no power over the situation- I don't know whether or not God will teach you. I do know that bunnies are happy with clover.

If you talk about God, but are not using the word in the common way, and have not provided any clear definition of your own, then people are never going to comprehend you.

If you talk about someone you're getting to know, and people are saying things you know are untrue, you can tell them that what they are claiming is not true. You can point out illogical statements they make, you can point out when they are letting emotions about what others have said overshadow their good judgement (in the case of claiming that they are applying scientific standards to the existence of God).

Illogical claims about someone can pretty much be eliminated. The claim that someone does not exist because illogical claims have been made about them is one of the illogical claims that can be eliminated.

If God is not all knowing, you need to tell us what the limits of Gods knowledge are.

No I don't. I don't know the limits of God's knowledge.

In other words; Define exactly what YOU mean when you say 'God', or just stop posting about God, because nobody else can possibly understand what you are saying in the absence of a definition.

That's bullshit. You can understand when I tell you things about my personal experience of God. I don't have to define everything about God, because God is a dynamic being and I cannot predict exactly how God is going to act at all times.

I don't know that God will always act the exact same way. I do infer that God exists from my experiences. At this point, while sometimes I get caught up in bullshit, I'd be an idiot to claim God doesn't exist.

Well one of us is missing the point; but I don't think it is me.

I am not claiming that your God doesn't exist because illogical or untrue claims have been made about Him; I am claiming that your God does not exist because there is not one shred of reliable evidence for his existence - you refuse to even discuss any of his attributes, and when pressed, you say you don't know what they are.

I do claim that God as defined by the major Christian, Jewish and Islamic sects does not exist - He is the fictional character at the head of the Abrahamic religions. I know he is fictional, because their description of him is internally inconsistent. He has combinations of traits that cannot exist in a single entity. Clearly you DON'T mean that guy, when you say 'God' - that guy is omnipotent, but your God apparently is not - so then the question is, who or what DO you mean?

If I say 'Steve does not exist', then you can prove that I am wrong by finding a guy called Steve. So far, so banal - lots of Steves exist.

Now perhaps I say 'Steve Jobs does not exist'. You can prove that wrong too - by finding a guy called Steve Jobs. There are likely several of them. It is a pointless debate; we haven't determined who, exactly, I am talking about.

So then I narrow my claim further and say 'Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple, does not exist'. Now we can have a real discussion - I have defined 'Steve' such that only one possible Steve fits my description. You can find evidence for a Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple; and I can find evidence that he is now dead; and we can discuss things about him.

Right now, your 'God' is just 'Steve'. You refuse to say which 'God' you are discussing - presumably you have a specific God in mind, but I don't know which. You need to be more specific; If I say 'Lightning is caused by the electrical properties of clouds, not by God', then you can counter by saying 'I am not talking about the God Thor, or any of the lightning, thunder or storm Gods', and we are back talking about Steve again, having only ruled out the Steves with red hair.

When you say "You can understand when I tell you things about my personal experience of God", you are mistaken; I cannot understand. That's why I am asking for clarification.

You don't have to define everything about God, any more than I have to define everything about Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple. I could give you more details about him; but once we agree that we are both talking about the same person, it is not necessary. We can debate whether or not Steve wears black turtlenecks. But we cannot determine which side of the debate is right, if you are talking about Steve Smethwick, the welder from Barnsley, and I am talking about Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple.

If we talk about God, and I say, "God is described as omnipotent, but you agree he is limited in his power, therefore God does not exist", you can then say 'Oh, I am not talking about that God; I am talking about a God who isn't omnipotent', which is all well and good, but you could have saved a lot of wasted effort discussing Steve's liking (or otherwise) for black turtlenecks had you pointed out from the beginning that it was the South Yorkshireman with the welding goggles you were on about.

To have a sensible conversation about a person, fictional or otherwise, first we need to know who we are talking about. Right now, you are using the name 'God', which usually in these parts refers to the creator and manager of the universe as described by the Abrahamic religions; but which might refer to quite a wide range of other characters who have been called 'God' by various people at different times.

Unless you can give us a clue about who this God character is, rather than just dismissing assumptions that he is similar to the God as described in the Bible, Torah or Quran, you are wasting your time. A claim for the existence of a God with unknown characteristics isn't true or false - it is meaningless.

 

[Rhea]

I don't click on profiles, sorry.

You don't have to click. It says "Join date 2001" right there under my name. Just FYI.

The crickets are chirping

I love the sounds of outdoors. My neighborhood is quiet enough to hear them all. The crickets, frogs, birds, coyotes, even the deer (they make sneezy noises) and turkeys.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I agree but thinking I'm wrong because what I said was something about and God and that makes you a part of God when you are considering God .

But i'm not considering God.
I'm considering that you offer zero reason to think that you're correct, thus can be dismissed entirely on your own merits. I'd say 'wrong' if you offered just as much an incoherent ramble on the Picard vs. Kirk debate, or the spit/swallow debate.
Garbage in, garbage judged.

 

[another1]

Sure it is Garbage so file into whatever religion you like. The religion of Atheism has a prayer according to The Simpsons' episode Sunday night. I revisited it just to memorize it.

Oh nobodies father who art nowhere
I know you can't hear me
Completely ignore this prayer
Nothing thou art
and nothing will ever be
Jesus was just a man
A-Man

I found that ironic and funny because of obvious reasons. I've Got it committed to memory just in case things start to go wrong in my life and God doesn't pop out of a genie or Coke bottle to fix them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The religion of Atheism has a prayer according to The Simpsons' episode Sunday night.

1) The Simpsons is satire, not Theology 101.
2) Even if Farnsworth's prayer was sincere, as well as his identification of 'atheism' as a religion, there's no reason to think that opinion applies to me.
3) Lame.

I've Got it committed to memory just in case things start to go wrong in my life and God doesn't pop out of a genie or Coke bottle to fix them.

Yes, that's exactly right. We're all atheists because we're disappointed in the actions of a deity we actually believe in. Go on telling me, and the others, what atheists believe, feel and accept. it does wonders to maximize your credibility.
I mean, if you amaze me by showing that you're not dismissive or completely wrong, but rather that you're so terribly accurate about my motives, i have no reason not to accept your babbling bullshit about the invisible deity what done made us all and benefits even from my most poisonous scorn.
You do wonders for spreading your beliefs, another1, truly.

 

[Rhea]

I'm not discounting you but outwardly you're being too difficult.

Too difficult for your god? LOL. That answers the OP question, eh? You believe in a god which can't communicate. That's so weird.

AS Keith said, you are making the mistake that atheists are people who are angry or unhappy about the message you bring about a real thing.

You're just completely self-centered on that.​

The reality is, the message you bring makes people say, WTF are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense!
And you aren't listening to the reply at all. You keep thinking of yourself without actually trying to understand the reply. So then you file the reply as "they are angry about this" when in fact no one ever said that at all. Which piles nonsense on top of nonsense.

Then you go on about "why do you hate god!?" and miss the reply, "Which god? What god? There's a god?"

It is kind of predictable, because I think it is scary for theists to face the actual reality of the reply. What does it do to you when you realize for real that the message you are giving makes no sense at all. How do you face that? How do you face your god when you realize your message about her/him/they/it is incoherent to your audience.

Your god is not bad or mean or whatever, it simply makes no sense at all. It's incoherent. Not believable.

Go back to your god and tell her/him/they/it that you have this problem. See what s/he/it says.
Does it scare you to realize that the message of your god is incoherent to the people you claim your god made?
Does it make you wonder why your god relies on humans to incoherently spread an incoherent Word?
Do you ever wonder why s/he/it doesn't spread the word itself, coherently?
Do you ever wonder why different believers can't even agree on the same meaning of the same Word?

Wonder no more. It's because the place you get your description of the god is incoherent. it makes no sense at all. It's not believable.

 

[another1]

HA Keith thank you, I do my best to spread the wonder. Can't you feeeeeel it!
I feel as if a God is speaking to me, a mere human. Thank you for getting back to the point of the thread oh great one.
I've been meaning to ask you... do you utter the word Atheist when someone asks you what Religion you claim to be? Like out in the world when you're doing paperwork at some agency. I always say "Southern Baptist" and I see a little bounce on their head and a pupil change at times. When saying the word Atheist in those situations, does the recipient scowl or show any signs of disapproval? I'm just wondering because I have always had a faith. My brain just doesn't work like yours supposedly does. That doesn't mean we can't get along... just because you're possibly lacking a few chemicals up in the noggin. I'm not making it a VMAT2 discussion again because that gets me infractions. I was just asking on a personal level because I'm concerned.
Back to the thread... do you seriously have no Goddy feelings when a misty eyed puppy licky your facey? When you bite into a salty, heavily buttered corn cob? When you wake from sleepy time and twiddle your toes then stretch and make that noise that ultimately says "hello God, thank you for this day"? Do you not feel any magic in this suspiciously perfect bubble we swarm genes in? Come on man... at least once this week you tasted or fornicated with something that made you say hmmm thank you.

 

[Kharakov]

Well one of us is missing the point; but I don't think it is me.

It is you, apparently. I can say someone does not have certain qualities and point to reality to show evidence of this. I can tell you various reasons why you would believe someone else is interacting with you, other than God, but you probably already know these, and haven't thought things through completely.

Once again, one does not have to specifically define God's positive attributes in order to tell someone that illogical claims about God are incorrect.

I am not claiming that your God doesn't exist because illogical or untrue claims have been made about Him; I am claiming that your God does not exist because there is not one shred of reliable evidence for his existence - you refuse to even discuss any of his attributes, and when pressed, you say you don't know what they are.

Of course I don't know all of God's attributes. I don't know many of my bodies attributes. I can say I have a nose, brown hair, etc. Probably have an appendix, and whatnot, but in generally, I don't know many specifics about what is going on in my body. So, when you ask about a being as great as God, I'm like- WTF is wrong with bilby- doesn't he know how hard it is to nail down someone's attributes? Say God acts differently around different people, I know I do- based on the persons preferences.

You don't like seeing God, so God acts naturally around you. This doesn't mean God does not exist. It means God tailors God's actions to your personal preferences, because ultimately, God thinks natural beings (who think they are carving out a piece of reality with their own power) are cute.

If you control various structures in reality, and can influence beings towards certain ends, what are your specific attributes? If you can control technology, control life, organize events, have a direct connection to one's inner thoughts in such a way that you can lead conversations around a person to match their inner dialogue, lalalalalah.. what are your specific attributes? That you try to serve others, and sometimes serving others involves hiding your presence?

So, sometimes when you are in the service of others, or, for example, you are preparing a surprise for them, you hide your presence. It's not like playing a video game is rewarding if you know someone is deliberately losing to you, unless, of course, they make you lose just enough so that the game is rewarding, because they only let you win if you do the correct actions (which can also be fun).

I do claim that God as defined by the major Christian, Jewish and Islamic sects does not exist - He is the fictional character at the head of the Abrahamic religions. I know he is fictional, because their description of him is internally inconsistent.

Ohh, so politicians don't actually exist because political parties describe them in different ways? I'm glad you're here to teach me, otherwise I'd think various political figures have actual existence.

You know what, since if I say something untrue about you, you will stop existing, I better be careful. Ohh, wait a second, me saying that you will stop existing if I say something untrue about you is untrue, so you must no longer exist!!!!

Bilby, where are you? Have you stopped existing? What am I going to tell gmbteach?? That it's my fault that you stopped existing because I said something untrue. Now I feel like an asshole, and if you do not reply, I will assume that you stopped existing like everyone else anyone has ever said anything untrue about.