Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

My outlook changed. I was an agnostic, now I'm a Christian.

But that does not stop you trolling into a thread that is by and for people who think there is no god and evangelizing and preaching at them. Read the title of the thread. It has nothing to do with you. At all.

philologos wrote: »

My faith isn't blind either, it's the result of evaluating the Scriptures, evaluating the evidence, and evaluating the world around me.

Actually it is a result of deciding there is a god, engaging in a campaign of confirmation bias on that point, and then ignoring everyone (or pretending to given you claim they are on ignore then you forget and reply to them and PM them) who points out the never ending multitude of flaws in your argument.

And when they are pointed out you just run away, run away, run away, until you can find another thread to start the cycle in all over again. Like this one.

Less honesty I can not find from any other poster on these fora. And that is a strong field to compete in.

philologos wrote: »

Making absurd claims about people who believe in God being deluded are worth nothing unless you have a reason for thinking so.

You mean like the absurd claims you make about pro choice campaigners and homosexuals and atheists? Your entire approach against such things is to ignore fact and argument and to engage in propaganda ad hominem and straw man against them. You are actually the master of making absurd claims in the absence of real arguments... or at least the master of trying and failing to given your absurd claims are all too often transparent tosh that even embarrass the people who agree with you.

philologos wrote: »

No I don't. God isn't imaginary and there are perfectly sound philosophical reasons for believing in Him as a necessary cause to existence.

So you keep saying. Over. And Over. And Over. And Over.

Would that you would get around to ending the mantra that there is such evidence and instead actually start PRESENTING some of it. Just once. Not likely to happen given you have over 20k posts now and none of them have any evidence, argument, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credibility to the god hypothesis.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Without an objective basis for morality, morality starts becoming rather inexplicable very very quickly.

Only to you. But it seems many things are inexplicable to you. Not only that it seems in your head "I can not explain it... therefore god" is an actual argument.

However morality does not need much explaining. Perhaps it's sheer simplicity is why it escapes you so often despite us explaining it to you in an uncountable number of threads now.

We are a social species who wish to live together. "Morality" is just the label we give to the rules and guidelines we come up with in our attempt to do that living together as best we can.

What is inexplicable about that?

philologos wrote: »

My point was very simply, without a common basis for morality, if someone wrongs you, you have no external reason to object to their behaviour.

We have a common basis as I explained above and in many other threads too. Our wish to live together as a social species and our shared human condition are all the basis we need.

For example lying, which you do often so it is a good example to use, is "wrong" because we have decided it is not conducive to allowing us to leave together peacefully and successfully.

We all decide how we best should live together ourselves. The only difference between you and us however is that we discuss with open intellectual discourse what our conclusions are while you invent an all powerful god in your head to rubber stamp your position with, while backing up that position with thinly veiled threats of hell to the people who do not buy into it wholesale.

gbee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

actually start PRESENTING some of it. Just once. Not likely to happen given you have over 20k posts now and none of them have any evidence, argument, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credibility to the god hypothesis.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe I saw philologos in Ballinspittle last week as I drove past the monument.

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that does not stop you trolling into a thread that is by and for people who think there is no god and evangelizing and preaching at them.

And what are you doing now as an atheist if not evangelizing your particular belief?
Oh but that's different right?

Read the title of the thread. It has nothing to do with you. At all.

I think he's entitled to enter any thread he likes, even if it means being constantly bullied by you and labelled dishonest and a coward.

If you want a talking shop just for atheists why don't you go create a members only blog or something and stop whinging like a spoiled brat every time he has the temerity to join a discussion on faith or lack thereof.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

And what are you doing now as an atheist if not evangelizing your particular belief?

Totally missed the point didn't you. This is a thread about how your outlook has changed since you dropped the god notion. I am pointing out therefore that a Christian Evangelical strolling into it to talk about his god based outlook on life is somewhat off topic and derailing. He did not read the OP title and think "I have not realised there is no god therefore this thread has nothing to do with me" but rather he appears to have thought "This thread will be full of atheists I can preach at."

See the difference now or will I use smaller words next time?

But do you know what? You are right as he does have every right to post here and I do not care that he did really. The only reason I bring it up is because of his own sheer hypocracy. It seems he thinks HE can go around demanding people post things in the right place, on the right topic and the right time... but he himself can derail any thread any way he wishes. If you want to defend a hypocrite then by all means go for it. I doubt you will come out looking clean though.

The Bishop! wrote: »

I think he's entitled to enter any thread he likes, even if it means being constantly bullied by you and labelled dishonest and a coward.

He is labelled dishonest and a coward for being dishonest and a coward. Nothing to do with this thread. As for "bullied" that is just tosh. He is a grown adult and can handle himself. And when he can not handle himself he can just pretend to put you on ignore, when in fact he has not, and run away. So I doubt he feels "bullied" by me. If however he does then there are a range of forum moderators he can contact on the issue and he can speak for himself. He does not need you as his knight to roll in and rescue the damsel in distress.

PopePalpatine

One thing I've noticed after I stopped believing in God is that I've started seeing religious people as living in some sort of "bubble", something which alters their perception. It somewhat reminds me of being a non-Irish economist looking at our property bubble before 2007.

Ush1

You know what the absolute best thing about dropping religion is? All the extra time!

I'm busy and life gives you alot of stuff to do, it's hard enough to get proper stuff done without filling your time with something pointless. It's the same reason I don't play computer games any more, and they can at least be enjoyable.

9959

This really is a very old, argument, debate, discourse, whatever.
I do wish that believers in the paranormal, supernatural, Jesus Christ would stop flirting with logic and 'front-up' as the young folk say.

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides"
St. Ignatius Loyola 1491-1556

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

See the difference now or will I use smaller words next time?

No i don't see a "difference", and i can follow your faulty line of reasoning and attempted excuses for pathetic lowbrow bullying just fine without you having to use smaller words, but thanks for the offer anyway.

He does not need you as his knight to roll in and rescue the damsel in distress.

Oh i'm sure he doesn't.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

No i don't see a "difference", and i can follow your faulty line of reasoning without you having to use smaller words

Clearly you can not given you still can not see the point. I will make it simpler for you in point form perhaps:

1) Thread is about having a no god outlook on life.
2) He came in to talk about a god based outlook on life.

Can not make it simpler than that for you. If you still can not get it then I question the wisdom of your being on a forum at all.

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Clearly you can not given you still can not see the point. I will make it simpler for you in point form perhaps:

1) Thread is about having a no god outlook on life.
2) He came in to talk about a god based outlook on life.

Can not make it simpler than that for you. If you still can not get it then I question the wisdom of your being on a forum at all.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your reasoning, it doesn't mean they have low intelligence.

I "get" and "see" the point you're attempting to make. I just don't agree that it is grounds for your appeal for atheist-only contributors. I just don't accept it as a valid excuse for your constant use of nasty bullying slurs towards that poster.
It's a public forum. If you think a post is derailing or off-topic you can report it no?

Red Pepper

Nozzferrahhtoo, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter because I like the cut of your jib. Excellent posts.

krudler

af_thefragile wrote: »

Well, i'll say its faith more than fact. Yes you cannot use science to prove these things but you just need to beleive them and if it makes your life better, then what's the problem with that?

No, I'm not unnerved about there being no afterlife, although I could say I'ld be unnerved about there be no point to life and morality being completely relative. I wouldn't call my faith blind though. I have my proves. Just because they can't be expressed as mathematical equations doesn't mean they are false.

I do believe if I was born in a different time and place I might have believed in a different religion. I can say there was a point a few years ago where I did have my doubts which lead me to search for answers like most of ye did. The only difference is I found my answers back in religion rather than outside of religion and now I have enough conviction to believe in a God and an afterlife.

lol this is brilliant, you ask for scientific explanations, then say science can't explain it, the old "I don't know, so a wizard did it" argument.

Red Pepper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you keep saying. Over. And Over. And Over. And Over.

Would that you would get around to ending the mantra that there is such evidence and instead actually start PRESENTING some of it. Just once. Not likely to happen given you have over 20k posts now and none of them have any evidence, argument, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credibility to the god hypothesis.

I can't wait for this evidence!

krudler

Red Pepper wrote: »

I can't wait for this evidence!

It doesn't exist, don't hold your breath.

Aiel

If there can be a thread allowed in this forum asking the opposite question then why not this question?I had thought the other thread asking the opposite qs would be moved but since it hasnt i can ask this qs here.
For me i was around 13 or 14 when i began to realise there is a God.I didnt believe in much till then but long story short my Dad was dying in hospital and on the Monday given until the following Friday to live.My mum got myself my brother and sister to pray and by that Friday my Dad had made what the doctor described as a miraculous recovery.Its 16 yrs later and my Dad is still alive and well and that same Doctor still descibes my Dad as a miracle.So it started from that and the Peace and Joy i have in my life now is amazing.You cant see the wind but you can feel it,for me its the same with God!

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

Just because someone doesn't agree with your reasoning, it doesn't mean they have low intelligence.

I do not remember claiming they do.

The Bishop! wrote: »

I "get" and "see" the point you're attempting to make. I just don't agree

That is progress at least for you saying you do not see it. Disagreement is much easier to deal with than you simply not understanding the point. I am not sure what there is to disagree with though. The topic of the thread is one thing, he posted about another.

The point you are missing however is that I am actually agreeing with you. I do not really care that he posted off topic. I do not think it matters that much. The only reason I mention it was to highlight his hypocrisy in that he sees fit to admonish others for what he thinks is off topic posting.... even when it is not.... which is the core of my point which you are missing/ignoring.

If he thinks he has the right to go around declaring other people have posted off topic or in the wrong area of the forum then I think the hypocrisy should be highlighted when he then goes into a thread solely started for people with a godless outlook on life in order to present a god based one.

The Bishop! wrote: »

bullying

You are insisting on hiding behind the Bully mantra you have established. Again if you think anyone is being bullied take it up with the moderators who are there to prevent such from occurring. However to help you along:

bul·ly/ˈbo͝olē/
Noun:
A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Verb:
Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

Are you therefore saying you see me as in a position of power over him, in some way superior to him, or I have the some other strength or influence over him which is giving me some position of superiority from which I am intimidating him?

Or... more likely... are you just on a mission to play your record at me and are therefore throwing out any words that sound good to you regardless of whether they are applicable or not?

nozzferrahhtoo

Red Pepper wrote: »

I can't wait for this evidence!

Nor can I and in many posts he assures us it is forthcoming. Despite having over 20k posts... many of them of no short length... however he has also assured us the reason it has not been forthcoming to date is that he simply has no time.

Red Pepper wrote: »

Nozzferrahhtoo, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter because I like the cut of your jib. Excellent posts.

Alas I do not have one. However I am a founding member of Atheist Ireland which does have one. So you could of course subscribe to them instead

El Weirdo

Aiel wrote: »

If there can be a thread allowed in this forum asking the opposite question then why not this question?I had thought the other thread asking the opposite qs would be moved but since it hasnt i can ask this qs here.
For me i was around 13 or 14 when i began to realise there is a God.I didnt believe in much till then but long story short my Dad was dying in hospital and on the Monday given until the following Friday to live.My mum got myself my brother and sister to pray and by that Friday my Dad had made what the doctor described as a miraculous recovery.Its 16 yrs later and my Dad is still alive and well and that same Doctor still descibes my Dad as a miracle.So it started from that and the Peace and Joy i have in my life now is amazing.You cant see the wind but you can feel it,for me its the same with God!

There's no reason for this not to go in the existing thread.

A new thread will only re-hash the same arguments.

Merged.

Aiel

El Weirdo wrote: »

There's no reason for this not to go in the existing thread.

A new thread will only re-hash the same arguments.

Merged.

Can the title of this thread be changed then since opinions that there is and is'nt a God will be shared here and not in 2 seperate threads?

El Weirdo

Aiel wrote: »

Can the title of this thread be changed then since opinions that there is and is'nt a God will be shared here and not in 2 seperate threads?

I see no reason to do that.

Also, please don't query moderation on thread- if you have a question take it to PM.

Thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is somewhat difficult for me to answer the actual OP question because I was never a believer. I was an avid reader from an early age and when they read the Bible to me in school this was just more "Story Time" for me. I think I was 11 or 12 before it really hit me "Hang on... people believe this crap" and my jaw dropped open in shock and metaphorically has not shut since.

I can certainly guess at how my outlook might change had I lost the idea of god though. Recently I was posting on a thread where someone was citing the "good" works for the awful woman Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu. She seemingly had the opinion that suffering was a good thing as it brought people closer to christ and as such she spent none of the vast wealth she had access to on mediating the pain of those under her "care". Meanwhile we hear awful stories of how people have watched their own children die of easily treated conditions like diabetes solely because they think god is offended by medical treatments.

While not all theists hold these horrific ideas... it is certainly safe to say that losing the idea of god has the potential to increase ones appreciation of the value of life in the here and now. Without this idea of an after life people can lose sight of that importance. Preserving the life we have here and now and doing our best to minimize the suffering of those here and now would likely have become important agendas in the lives of the parents and the awful sister of agony had they been divested of their god notions.

Canis Lupus

Aiel wrote: »

If there can be a thread allowed in this forum asking the opposite question then why not this question?I had thought the other thread asking the opposite qs would be moved but since it hasnt i can ask this qs here.
For me i was around 13 or 14 when i began to realise there is a God.I didnt believe in much till then but long story short my Dad was dying in hospital and on the Monday given until the following Friday to live.My mum got myself my brother and sister to pray and by that Friday my Dad had made what the doctor described as a miraculous recovery.Its 16 yrs later and my Dad is still alive and well and that same Doctor still descibes my Dad as a miracle.So it started from that and the Peace and Joy i have in my life now is amazing.You cant see the wind but you can feel it,for me its the same with God!

I would find it fascinating to see just how many people believe in god because of tragedies/ near tragedies in their life.

My dad died last year. Did my mom not pray hard enough or is your logic flawed?

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not really care that he posted off topic.

Oh i think you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have launched into your latest tirade.

You are insisting on hiding behind the Bully mantra you have established.

I'm hiding behind nothing.

Or... more likely... are you just on a mission to play your record at me and are therefore throwing out any words that sound good to you regardless of whether they are applicable or not?

I'm not on any mission.

Any more questions?

saiint

The real question is
who or what was the first person or thing
to call it GOD? i mean did god tell a person his name was god? or did someone just make up a name for him calling god if thats the case hes no longer called god to me
he will be called jim and jim is real i see him everyday

ejmaztec

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not remember claiming they do.



That is progress at least for you saying you do not see it. Disagreement is much easier to deal with than you simply not understanding the point. I am not sure what there is to disagree with though. The topic of the thread is one thing, he posted about another.

The point you are missing however is that I am actually agreeing with you. I do not really care that he posted off topic. I do not think it matters that much. The only reason I mention it was to highlight his hypocrisy in that he sees fit to admonish others for what he thinks is off topic posting.... even when it is not.... which is the core of my point which you are missing/ignoring.

If he thinks he has the right to go around declaring other people have posted off topic or in the wrong area of the forum then I think the hypocrisy should be highlighted when he then goes into a thread solely started for people with a godless outlook on life in order to present a god based one.



You are insisting on hiding behind the Bully mantra you have established. Again if you think anyone is being bullied take it up with the moderators who are there to prevent such from occurring. However to help you along:



Are you therefore saying you see me as in a position of power over him, in some way superior to him, or I have the some other strength or influence over him which is giving me some position of superiority from which I am intimidating him?

Or... more likely... are you just on a mission to play your record at me and are therefore throwing out any words that sound good to you regardless of whether they are applicable or not?

You should stop bashing The Bishop, you'll go blind.:P

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

Oh i think you do.

You can think what you like of course but I think I am in a better position to tell you what I care about, and not, than you are. Again the point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy involved in the user in question berating others for posting what he (falsely as it happens) thinks is off topic while happily engaging in wanton off topic posting himself.

The Bishop! wrote: »

I'm hiding behind nothing. I'm not on any mission. Any more questions?

Just the ones you ignored. My point stands that throwing out words like "Bully" when they do not apply adds nothing to the conversation. Unless you think me somehow superior, more powerful or in some other position of privilege or power the word simply does not apply.

Since you are a relative newbie here I am happy to introduce my motives to you. I am someone who confronts and calls people on unsubstantiated claims. I think that is a good thing to do. It is not my fault that Philologos has much more than his fair share of unsubstantiated claims. I therefore likely respond to him more often than many other users.

If this is "bullying" in your head then this can... unless as I said you think I am in some superior or more powerful position than him.... only be due to a lack of understanding of the word.

9959

Aiel wrote: »

?.....You cant see the wind but you can feel it,for me its the same with God!

Are you equating belief in God with belief in the wind?
Or are you saying belief in God = a load of 'hot air'?

saiint

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can think what you like of course but I think I am in a better position to tell you what I care about, and not, than you are. Again the point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy involved in the user in question berating others for posting what he (falsely as it happens) thinks is off topic while happily engaging in wanton off topic posting himself.



Just the ones you ignored. My point stands that throwing out words like "Bully" when they do not apply adds nothing to the conversation. Unless you think me somehow superior, more powerful or in some other position of privilege or power the word simply does not apply.

Since you are a relative newbie here I am happy to introduce my motives to you. I am someone who confronts and calls people on unsubstantiated claims. I think that is a good thing to do. It is not my fault that Philologos has much more than his fair share of unsubstantiated claims. I therefore likely respond to him more often than many other users.

If this is "bullying" in your head then this can... unless as I said you think I am in some superior or more powerful position than him.... only be due to a lack of understanding of the word.

or you could just be a little wimp either one is fine though

robp

I know its been mentioned before but should this thread really be After Hours?

nozzferrahhtoo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I would find it fascinating to see just how many people believe in god because of tragedies/ near tragedies in their life.

Quite a few it seems. It is where the "No Atheists in Foxholes" canard stems from too. The theory being that such people will suddenly call out for god when they are faced with death.

It is baffling to me that theists trot out this tosh as support for their cause when what they are actually saying is "I never thought there was a god but suddenly when I hit a point of fear/trauma/illness/oldage when my rationality was at an all time low I suddenly changed my mind".

Trotting out such stories by definition therefore is them telling us their position is irrational nonsense grasped at in a time of need and flurry.

Aiel wrote: »

For me i was around 13 or 14 when i began to realise there is a God.I didnt believe in much till then but long story short my Dad was dying in hospital and on the Monday given until the following Friday to live.My mum got myself my brother and sister to pray and by that Friday my Dad had made what the doctor described as a miraculous recovery.Its 16 yrs later and my Dad is still alive and well and that same Doctor still descibes my Dad as a miracle.So it started from that and the Peace and Joy i have in my life now is amazing.You cant see the wind but you can feel it,for me its the same with God!

This fallacious line of reasoning is not just limited to Religion. People have had conditions that would have gotten better anyway... they took homeopathic medicine.... and they got better. In their heads this is proof enough that the homeopathy was what cured them.

Alas there is no way to test the theory unless you could go back in time... repeat the entire experience without said miracle cure... be it prayer or magic fairy water.... and see if the outcome has changed.

In the absence of that however your line above of "X was sick... I prayed.... X got better... therefore prayer works" is total nonsense and evidences nothing but your own confirmation bias.

Doctors who throw around the word "miracle" (Assuming your tale is true, which I do not) have a lot to answer for. When a doctor says "miracle" all he is actually saying is "Unexplained". It seems a certain arrogance comes with getting the title "Dr." where they think they know everything and if something they can not explain is presented then therefore it must have some god like explanation.

The explanation that they simply do not know it all and the event is merely unexplained simply does not appear to occur to their arrogant minds.

nozzferrahhtoo

saiint wrote: »

or you could just be a little wimp either one is fine though

I would rather see myself as his intellectual equal without assuming either is superior to the other. Alas trying to hold that view in the face of his constant retreats from anything that even remotely challenges his claims has not been easy.

saiint

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would rather see myself as his intellectual equal without assuming either is superior to the other. Alas trying to hold that view in the face of his constant retreats from anything that even remotely challenges his claims has not been easy.

You should really be a preacher
you'd be a good one

nozzferrahhtoo

saiint wrote: »

You should really be a preacher you'd be a good one

I do not think I could maintain the intellectual dishonesty required to do so. I simply do not believe that stuff. I can not pretend I do. Plus when you hear the testimony of people like Dan Barker... or the outputs of the "Clergy Project" you find that people who are pretending to believe and preach that stuff... when they do not... actually undergo no small amount of misery.

Many theists have asked me to attempt to believe it and look at the world as if there is a god so as to see how it all makes sense to them. Despite them clearly asking me therefore to engage in confirmation bias fallacies... I did try all the same. More than once.

I could not do it. The idea there is a god is such unsubstantiated nonsense that I can not even pretend to myself to believe it. Let alone the pretense one would have to maintain in order to preach it to others. Perhaps if the theists could present even a modicum of an iota of evidence, argument, data or reasoning that lends even the smallest ounce of credence to the idea there is a god... then I would have something to work with and I could try again.

gbee

saiint wrote: »

The real question is who or what was the first person or thing to call it GOD? i mean did god tell a person his name was god? or did someone just make up a name for him calling god if thats the case hes no longer called god to me he will be called jim and jim is real i see him everyday

God is a relatively modern term and it was become all encompassing to include spirits and holy-men from other religions who would not be a 'God' in that ritual service [no religion] but misinterpreted as a God.

God for this post is the classic omnipresent, omnipotence.

Today there is a view that there is perhaps one God and there are people who believe that the Catholic God, The Christian God, The Jewish Messiah, Islam's Allah and so on are in fact all the same and praying to one is praying to all.

Classically, beings or forces had defined roles and could represent the Saints in Catholicism where one is the Saint for lost soles and another for lost property and so on, however, in modern interpretation many have been elevated to Gods whereas they would not have been Gods in the particular practice at the time.

Hence, The Goddess of Snow, Khione was not a Goddess at all but the daughter of Boreas who was the God of Winter and he granted her powers to spread snow during winter. And that was all grand like, as long as it pleased the big honcho, Zeus.

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Since you are a relative newbie here I am happy to introduce my motives to you. I am someone who confronts and calls people on unsubstantiated claims. I think that is a good thing to do.

Look, you can dress it up any way you like. Repeatedly labelling someone a coward and dishonest and a troll on numerous threads, not just this one, just because they didn't answer all your questions to your satisfaction some time in the past is not a "good thing to do" in my opinion. It's just pathetic online bullying of the lowest order.

krudler

What bugs the fcuk out of me with nonsensical reasoning such as "I prayed to get better/get that new job/make more money, and I did, so god was watching out for me" is that even when nothing happens, or people's prayers aren't answered, they trot out the "it's a test/god had a different plan for me/it's his will" guff. So basically no matter what happens, good or bad, nonsensical reasoning can be applied and god never comes out as being a bit of a cock.

krudler

The Bishop! wrote: »

Look, you can dress it up any way you like. Repeatedly labelling someone a coward and dishonest and a troll on numerous threads, not just this one, just because they didn't answer all your questions to your satisfaction some time in the past is not a "good thing to do" in my opinion. It's just pathetic online bullying of the lowest order.

Its accurate though, spouting all these statements as facts then running away when challenged, and challenged very well, on them under the pretence of not having enough time to answer them is nonsense.

Shenshen

krudler wrote: »

What bugs the fcuk out of me with nonsensical reasoning such as "I prayed to get better/get that new job/make more money, and I did, so god was watching out for me" is that even when nothing happens, or people's prayers aren't answered, they trot out the "it's a test/god had a different plan for me/it's his will" guff. So basically no matter what happens, good or bad, nonsensical reasoning can be applied and god never comes out as being a bit of a cock.

I always figured that an omniscient (as in, he already knows what you want or need), omnipotent (as in, he can deliver) god who still waits around for people to pray to him first before possibly granting them whatever they prayed for - or possibly not, who knows? - has to be a prick of the highest order anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

Look, you can dress it up any way you like.

I know. I have been here before you and required your permission for nothing I have done so far. Nor will I require it while you are here or after you have departed.

The Bishop! wrote: »

Repeatedly labelling someone a coward and dishonest and a troll on numerous threads, not just this one, just because they didn't answer all your questions to your satisfaction some time in the past is not a "good thing to do" in my opinion.

I agree. However I am not doing it "just because they didn't answer all" my questions. So the above is irrelevant. I am doing it because the user is consistently acting in such a way as the labels I have used fit. I can give many examples if asked.

The Bishop! wrote: »

It's just pathetic online bullying of the lowest order.

Says you, but clearly you do not even understand the verb "To Bully" so your opinion on this is not entirely relevant. To bully someone one must be in some position of power or superiority over them. I have asked you a couple of times if you are viewing me as such but unsurprisingly you have avoided the question each time.

Perhaps the verb you are looking for is not "bully" but "harass" but as I said if I appear to reply to him more often than others it is solely that my motivation for posting on a forum such as this happens to apply to him more often than most.

gbee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"I never thought there was a god but suddenly when I hit a point of fear/trauma/illness/oldage when my rationality was at an all time low I suddenly changed my mind".

I was interested to see if this would happen to me.

Many years ago my sister-in-law had even stronger views than me and was vehemently anti religion, she got sick. Years passed and happen to visit one day, my brother was delighted at her recovery and said she was going to mass and confession and all and he was really pleased, I started crying. I carried her coffin within months.

I've had by-pass surgery last month and had a bad time in recovery, my thoughts turned to this conversion and it did not happen, yippee I thought, I'm not dying after-all.

corktina

OK, given that God is a thing or a force we don't understand which created everything ( possibly simply by co-incidence) for a reason which we don't understand and The Universe being as mind-buggeringly (to borrow a phrase) big, we are totally insignificant in whatever this plan might turn out to be. To understand that simple people personify God as a nice old man with a beard sitting on a cloud...meh. Jesus was his "son" in the sense that we ALL are , but in truth he was a man who spoke a lot of sense about hoe we should live our lives. The gulf between what Jesus was and what God might turn out to be is immense, we simply can't understand it. Peel away all the crap that has been attached to Christianity (ie celibacy for Priests etc) and you get back to common-sense rules for living,. I guess that makes me a Christian but I sure as eggs don't believe in a God who created the Universe for US and who does nothing to stop the evil which we do,

nozzferrahhtoo

gbee wrote: »

I was interested to see if this would happen to me.

Many years ago my sister-in-law had even stronger views than me and was vehemently anti religion, she got sick. Years passed and happen to visit one day, my brother was delighted at her recovery and said she was going to mass and confession and all and he was really pleased, I started crying. I carried her coffin within months.

I've had by-pass surgery last month and had a bad time in recovery, my thoughts turned to this conversion and it did not happen, yippee I thought, I'm not dying after-all.

There have been many times in my life too when I could have benefited from interference of one kind or another from an interventionism type god. No amount of pressure, duress, stress or desperation has driven me to think there is one yet or to appeal to it for help.

That said I am human and we do as humans have the penchant for personifying things. I have found myself angry at inanimate objects as if it was their fault I stubbed my toe on them. Or I have found myself promising my car in my head a top notch service with all the trimmings if only it would start on a frosty morning.

I am in no way immune therefore to the fallacious thinking that leads theists to god. I am however more aware of it than they it seems and can recognize it as fallacy when it occurs.

norrie rugger

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

It sounds arrogant to say you 'realised' something like this at the age of nine when the existence of God is something that the greatest minds in history have never been able to prove or disprove. You didn't 'realise' it, you just believed it.

Scientests have been trying to figure out where we came from for millenia. For decades the big bang theory has been their best guess, but now many scientists have started to believe that that's wrong.

Even if and when they do figure out what created the universe it won't disprove the existence of God. There will always be more questions.

As for comparing believing in God to believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa (which someone else did) it's ridiculous. Santa apparently leaves gifts under the Christmas tree. Sooner or later children realise that Santa has the exact same handwriting as their mother, or they just see their parents leaving the presents under the tree.

Meanwhile God apparently created everything. No one has ever seen who or what actually did do this. That is unless someone here has witnessed their father creating a planet or something.

You need to prove that someone did it, not the opposite.

Basic position is that everything happened naturally and without intervention. You think different?? PROVE IT. The bible is not proof, it is a book written by bronze age men, with their own agendas and ideas, to describe natural occurances

gbee

corktina wrote: »

but in truth he was a man who spoke a lot of sense about hoe we should live our lives. ,

Much of what he said made good sense and good PR for the Roman Government too [if you believe that part ].

I don't believe in God nor the Bible nor Catholicism as being Christ's Church, nor Christianity; but overall he made perfect sense and anyone following his example, and I believe he was married and his wife was his equal, can't be doing too bad at all.

I wouldn't call myself a Christian as don't believe the son of bit either, but I probably am part Christian part Buddhist in outlook.

nozzferrahhtoo

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

It sounds arrogant to say you 'realised' something like this at the age of nine when the existence of God is something that the greatest minds in history have never been able to prove or disprove. You didn't 'realise' it, you just believed it.

That is because the "greatest minds" have set up a false dynamic that the idea HAS to be proved or disproved. What someone can realize at nine quite validly is that ones default position should be that if an idea is put forward without a single shred of substantiation then we can simply dismiss the idea.

I never thought there was a god. I was 11 or 12 before I really realized that other people actually did and it was not just some game like Santa. I did not so much realize "There is no god" as I realized "There is no reason to think there is a god".

While you might try to paint the first statement as arrogant... and who knows if you try a little harder than you have you might even succeed.... there is nothing at all wrong with the second statement that anyone has yet made me aware of.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

As for comparing believing in God to believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa it's ridiculous.

But the point you are missing it seems is that it is ridiculous for a reason. The point of the comparison between god and Santa or the Easter Bunny is to highlight the facts that:

1) There is no more evidence for god than the Bunny. Actually less so if you want to be pedantic as we at least have precedent to draw on showing bunnies exist, if not the Easter one, and we have no such precedent for gods.

2) You can no more DISPROVE the easter bunny than god and asking anyone to prove the non existence of god is a nonsense. If you have evidence disproving the existence of Santa however then I would love to see you try to present it without looking foolish.

So while yes the comparison is ridiculous... the points the comparison is meant to serve are very much not.

gallag

Every Christian today is asked to believe, believe the word of man, not god. To believe men who rape children, amass extraordinary wealth while God's children starve, who kill in the name of god. Never has a human on this planet seen or spoke to god. All we have to do is believe and give some money. Again, they are believing the word of man.

If I am wrong and get to hevan and god asked me why I did not believe I will answer "how could I?" Believe the hypocritical word of flawed man? Am I expected to give my entire existence to a story with no proof whatsoever. How could an intelligent entity fall out with you for that.

gbee

gallag wrote: »

Never has a human on this planet seen or spoke to god. .

Sorry now but I HAVE to correct you slightly.

On TV, several times, George W Bush as President of The Continental United States of America, has said he spoke to or with God ~ I'd have to look it up now to be pedantic, if it's to or with ~ but he then plunged the world into war again.

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Says you, but clearly you do not even understand the verb "To Bully" so your opinion on this is not entirely relevant.

It seems to be you who conveniently wants to redefine the word.

To bully someone one must be in some position of power or superiority over them.

If you can find a definition of online bullying anywhere that states one must be in some position of power or superiority over them for it to be defined as such, then please post it for us to read.
Last time i looked there are no such caveats. So it seems you're either uninformed or being dishonest about what it means.

old hippy

Internet Hero wrote: »

nobody here realised there is no god ,they just decided they dont believe anymore. you dont know

I know you're no "hero". The proof is in your postings