If You Can't Show Me Your God, It's Because You Don't Really Have One.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Only if you think that these two countries are the norm, and the remaining ~194 are exceptions.

I do sometimes think, in all seriousness, that tyranny is the norm for the human existence.

Otherwise there wouldn't be so damned much of it and more people would be fighting groups like ISIS and Antifa.

That's obviously a good point, that normal isn't always desirable. Earthquakes that destroy cities and kill hundreds of thousands are quite the norm, though not desired.

 

[bilby]

I do sometimes think, in all seriousness, that tyranny is the norm for the human existence.

Otherwise there wouldn't be so damned much of it and more people would be fighting groups like ISIS and Antifa.

That's obviously a good point, that normal isn't always desirable. Earthquakes that destroy cities and kill hundreds of thousands are quite the norm, though not desired.

Hardly. Earthquakes that destroy cites are not the norm for earthquakes - the vast majority of which do not destroy any structures at all; Nor for cities - the vast majority of which are not destroyed by (or even slightly damaged by) earthquakes.

Normal doesn't equate to desirable; And historically tyranny has been the norm - but that's further evidence in favour of my point, that things are, on long timescales, tending to improve.

And neither the present day governments of Venezuela and N. Korea; nor the destruction of cities by earthquakes, are examples of normality.

 

[Lion IRC]

....the Universe appears to be absent any god at all and does not operate as we would expect a Universe with an omni-everything God.

By "we" you mean atheists right?

....So in the end, we end up with the problem of trying to explain that away.

No "we" don't.
Because "we" arent atheists.

 

[Lion IRC]

I thought I'd see a post here with the all-purpose Christian 'save' that God will not be tested or show himself to settle a bet. It's the most convenient way to have an invisible friend and explain his invisibility.

You beat me to the post.
We must not put God to the proof. (Even if that was a convenient and lazy way to impress folks who would happily worship a wind-up doll god that performs for atheists on command.)

I wouldn't worship a lower case "g" god that fits in my top pocket like a fob watch on a chain, that I can instantly pull out and show to anyone and everyone who demands proof that I actually have a god in my pocket.

...Should you ever run into this canard, refer your friend to the 18th chapter of I Kings, in which Jehovah shows up in a contest with Baal, as proposed by Elijah to show a crowd of pagans that his god is real and can light a fire. Jehovah comes through and lights a tremendous fire, while the nonexistent Baal pussies out. Jehovah's fire even burns the stones and dirt around the burnt offering...

Oh you poor thing.
You think 1st Kings 18 is God performing on demand?

Did you not read who commanded Elijah to go and smack down Ahab?
God wasn't asked to do something by Elijah.
It was the other way around.

Go back and read it again. It's Gods prerogative to send people a sign.
And no Christian I know would ever say God never proves His own power with signs and wonders.

By the way, add this to your list of bible 'gotcha' verses.

God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Hebrews 2:4

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey, as long as it doesn't say Trump 2020, I'm good with God sending people whatever signs he wants.

 

[Rayschism]

Dammit, now I want to listen to some Rush.

And I want a better candidate than either Trump or Hillary. They both suck muffler fumes.

 

[PyramidHead]

By "we" you mean atheists right?

Only in the sense that if you don't assume God exists beforehand, the universe looks pretty much the way you would expect it to. If you start with the assumption of a personal God with an interest in the lives of a certain species of animal on a particular planet, things don't seem to add up.

 

[bilby]

You beat me to the post.
We must not put God to the proof. (Even if that was a convenient and lazy way to impress folks who would happily worship a wind-up doll god that performs for atheists on command.)

I wouldn't worship a lower case "g" god that fits in my top pocket like a fob watch on a chain, that I can instantly pull out and show to anyone and everyone who demands proof that I actually have a god in my pocket.

...Should you ever run into this canard, refer your friend to the 18th chapter of I Kings, in which Jehovah shows up in a contest with Baal, as proposed by Elijah to show a crowd of pagans that his god is real and can light a fire. Jehovah comes through and lights a tremendous fire, while the nonexistent Baal pussies out. Jehovah's fire even burns the stones and dirt around the burnt offering...

Oh you poor thing.
You think 1st Kings 18 is God performing on demand?

Did you not read who commanded Elijah to go and smack down Ahab?
God wasn't asked to do something by Elijah.
It was the other way around.

Go back and read it again. It's Gods prerogative to send people a sign.
And no Christian I know would ever say God never proves His own power with signs and wonders.

By the way, add this to your list of bible 'gotcha' verses.

God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Hebrews 2:4

Why must we not put God to the proof?

It seems like a fundamental prerequisite before obeying someone's instructions is to confirm that they are qualified.

"We must not put God to the proof" is just another way of saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Only someone who is trying to mislead you tells you not to test him. In this case, the people who established Christianity.

Christians are certain that their God exists; But they are quick to tell you, if you question their claim, that you must not. Why not? Does God want me not to believe that he exists? If so, why are you going against his will and trying to persuade me that he does? If not, what is standing in the way of his demonstrating his existence to me? Is it too much effort for an omnipotent, omnipresent and omnicognisant being to show himself to each and every human?

The only reason such an entity would exist, but would not prove his existence to my satisfaction, is if he doesn't want me to believe he exists.

People with true claims have every reason to welcome testing of their claims. Only people who are lying have a motive to demand that testing not be permitted.

 

[Rayschism]

The only reason to deny people the right to questions others is out of insecurity and emotional immaturity.

Belief in numbers, and all that rubbish.

But this is not a behavior Christians have a monopoly on.

The first sign of tyranny are those who deny people's right to defend themselves or question them.

 

[Underseer]

By "we" you mean atheists right?

Only in the sense that if you don't assume God exists beforehand, the universe looks pretty much the way you would expect it to. If you start with the assumption of a personal God with an interest in the lives of a certain species of animal on a particular planet, things don't seem to add up.

Bingo!

The only way one can find Christianity or Islam true is to begin with the assumption that they are true before trying to figure out of they are true. It's a neat little magic trick. "You can't find God unless you seek him!"

 

[PyramidHead]

The only reason to deny people the right to questions others is out of insecurity and emotional immaturity.

Belief in numbers, and all that rubbish.

But this is not a behavior Christians have a monopoly on.

The first sign of tyranny are those who deny people's right to defend themselves or question them.

Denying it doesn't lead to tyranny unless the denial is backed up by a threat of force. And even then, that's only a problem at the scale of governments forcing people not to question them. Private organizations are basically run like mini-dictatorships in most cases. The question is, does a church count as a private organization when it has a substantial influence on how the government is run?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only reason to deny people the right to questions others is out of insecurity and emotional immaturity.

Belief in numbers, and all that rubbish.

But this is not a behavior Christians have a monopoly on.

The first sign of tyranny are those who deny people's right to defend themselves or question them.

But you are questioning our ability to question religious status quos. How is it even possible to become a different faith or an atheist if questions can't be asked.

 

[Underseer]

Tyranny then, is a better way of life. Those people in North Korea and Valenzuela have it pretty good

Only if you think that these two countries are the norm, and the remaining ~194 are exceptions.

I do sometimes think, in all seriousness, that tyranny is the norm for the human existence.

Otherwise there wouldn't be so damned much of it and more people would be fighting groups like ISIS and Antifa.

Antifa?

Heh.

By the way, not only do I oppose fascism, but I also criticize Nazis without using "both sides" arguments to make the Nazis seem less bad! I'm such an extremist! Oooga booga booga! There, now you can run me over with a car or beat me into the hospital with metal rods and say that your actions were justified because I'm exactly as bad.