If we take God out of the picture, it is safe to assume that everything is pretty much random, and that nothing really happens for a reason. Atheists see a totally random and cold universe; the believer sees God's wisdom in everything. Indeed, the believer sees God's actions through the latter's creation. All things that happen happen for a reason, even if they don't seem to make any sense, and regardless of how much negative feelings they elicit. The believer is thus required to put his emotions aside and use his reasoning in determining why God does what He does. This is unlike the atheist, who can't seem to put his emotions aside when considering the creation. The whole "problem of evil" is a perfect example of this. Atheists like to say they are all for reason, but talk is cheap in this case. The atheist is constantly reinforced with his disbelief by his very own perception of life. The more stubborn he is to God's subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) nudges, the more his standard perception of things- and in turn his disbelief- is cemented. Sometimes, the atheist eventually gives in and breaks free from his delusion. But some are stubborn to the end.
Which sneaky god are we talking about here? They're all so quiet and subtle. It's strange how they all have the same exact habit of pretending like they don't exist.
So what are you going to do about it? People will believe what they will believe, and all the hair-pulling and shirt-tearing won't change that one bit. Here is a far more interesting question: why do you even care what an atheist believes?
I think it bothers religious people that someone can possibly reject what must seem so obvious to them. Maybe it subconsciously unnerves them? There's also the proselytizing aspect of certain religions, so maybe they need to fight atheism to maintain their religion's credibility.
Oh, you know exactly the God I am referring to. - - - Updated - - - If that's the case, why are you on a debate/discussion forum? Why are atheists sooo defensive?
I don't know which god. I presume that it's an Abrahamic god. The Jewish god? The Muslim god? The Catholic god? The Protestant god? (Catholics and Protestants have very different gods and very different theologies. Some Protestants are closer to Islam in their thinking than to Catholicism, even.) The Ba'hai god?
Cosmology is something for scientists to deal with, the "problem of evil" is for philosophers to sort out. Neither are a concern for this atheist.
Well, the Loch Ness Monster is not considered to be the origin of everything.... It would nevertheless be cool if such a creature existed. - - - Updated - - - All those religions, and many others, assert that an eternal power is the origin of everything- in other words, God.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a god, then? But in all seriousness, adherents of those religions would disagree with you. Some Jews consider the Christian god nothing more than a Gentile pagan bastardization. Some televangelists, like John Hagee, call Allah a false god. I'm just like...
I have to be honest and say I hardly give my atheism a thought, I can understand how a devoutly religious person who spends a lot of time thinking about his religion might be surprised how little thought I give it. I do not wonder about the meaning of life or creation I get on with creating a meaningful life for myself. So I give as little thought to my atheism as I do the Loch Ness Monster, and I too think it would be cool if Nessie existed just as I think it would be cool if a god existed. By the way, welcome back Goomba, though we do not often agree I do find your perspective interesting.
I can talk about a lot of different things, sometimes just for goofs. It's not a big deal, I'm just mildly curious. It seems to me to me (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that people have believed all kinds of things throughout history. It never has made much of a difference - people are well-behaved or poorly-behaved based on their disposition and the way they are brought up. Monotheism hasn't been around that long, and even theism had to compete with animism and other beliefs. Japanese religion doesn't refer to a creator, and they get along with each other just fine. Really, I'm quite puzzled what your argument really is. I can't parse the significance of 'putting emotions aside,' for instance. No one particular belief about creation or origin is more emotional than another. Even 'athiesm' is way to vague for me. My take: nobody knows and nobody can find out. Call it what you will
Such as the fact that he gave us an organ that serves no useful purpose but can still burst and kill us?
The above is just your inaccurate interpretation of atheists. Many people, including theists and atheists see order in astrophysics. "Seem" = assumption in the context of the above quote. The more you write the more evident it becomes that you have no objective grasp as to what atheism actualy is. Of the irony.
"Flying" is a creation; "spaghetti" is a creation. You need to make the distinction between creation and the creator. Sure, but they all nevertheless believe in God, regardless of their various conceptions of Him.
Astrophysics is a far cry from real world events and issues. Point me out the irony. - - - Updated - - - Or perhaps we haven't yet found the purpose for the organ in question.
You're one theist who says they're all the same god, and John Hagee is another theist who says they're different gods.
What's your point here? It's more of an observation than an argument. Atheists claim they are all for reason, but their reactions to nasty events are devoid of any intellect and reasoning. It's always: "how could God allow such a thing?!" It all depends on your perception of things. - - - Updated - - - They're all God in the sense that they are all believed (by their individual adherents) to be the origin and reason behind everything. This applies to non-Monotheists religion as well. You are talking religion, I am talking God.
I'm not surprised. No offense, but individuals like yourself have been covered in my religion. On the contrary, I'd be kinda surprised if you did contemplate on the existence of God and whatnot. Cheers!
Moot point as the quote was in context of your saying "Atheists see a totally random and cold universe". But what of real world events... what is your point? You speak of the stubbornness of atheists while stubbornly holding onto inaccurate views of atheism. You speak as if you understand atheism when it is clear to myself and the atheists on the forum that you do not. You stubbornly hold onto your theist views while criticizing atheists for holding onto their atheistic view.
How do you reconcile the above with the below? If you all believe in God then why have the above divisive signature?
But not every theist agrees with your "umbrella god." What is your definition of "God" anyway? And why must your definition be assumed a priori? You arrogantly presume too much.
The Abrahamic God is presumed to be a person. Why? Is this an inherent feature of the God concept? Why would God communicate with us, or hear our communications? Again, is this an inherent feature of the God concept, ar just an add-on? There's a lot of random stuff associated with the concept of God, and it gets carried over into our discussions. Nobody knows what anyone else really means, there are too many unstated assumptions.
Because we are nevertheless part of different religions, and thus, mutually exclusive identities. My signature simply reflects the reality of things.
They are free to disagree. Like I said, God is the origin of everything. We can keep it at that for now.