It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If He/She/It exists, does God love the atheists/agnostics?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Whether or not it could ever be proved, I would gladly wager the answer is a very big YES, and with proper respect, not in the cold, condescending-elitist version of "love" with which too many religious people identify. It's all about deeds, actions, never mere beliefs and words, and as Archie Bunker would say, "ipso fatso," there are more than plenty of devout believers whom a TRULY Supreme Being would reject or even worse -- in the Judgment (if applicable) sense.

Any legitimately advanced being -- in the monotheistic tradition or not -- would be intelligent enough to recognize that there are many different TYPES of sad and sick puppies (and worse) in this "civilization," and unproved beliefs have screw-all to do with anything.

Alleged punishment for mere intelligence expressed as reasonable doubt, whether or not it's the case, is not at all indicative of any sufficiently advanced being. Any insistence otherwise is strictly the eggshell-fragile egos and psyches that inevitably, most transparently result from cultist brainwashing. Why should worship or love be expected for anyone when there is no proof of existence, thereby implying punishment for simply thinking and feeling? Should one be expected to love a pink unicorn that poops money? And with the more than plentiful litany of human-generated horrors and other moral outrages, what real evidence is there of "His Love for us" on any at least minimally significant scale, if at all?

Speaking of which, I want to offer an alternative to the same old prescribed, predictable arguments of, on the one hand, the religious position of "God exists and loves us all" and the other extreme of "God probably doesn't exist, but if He does, He clearly doesn't give anything resembling a f#*@ about humanity."

The only possible reason I can think of for the lack of intervention by God (if existing) and/or whatever unseen ETs and/or interdimensional beings and/or the like is this: The "Prime Directive" or whatever equivalent is REAL, though at least as far as I can tell, it shouldn't be an absolutely permanent and reactionary policy. Perhaps whoever is out there is just waiting to see how much REAL progress we can make on our own (if ever enough) before any formal Contact or proved presence can occur, before we're ready for the next level. Perhaps they are -- or He/She/It is? -- waiting for as long as REASONABLY possible, or perhaps the "Prime Directive" is so horribly strict and reactionary that we'll just end up destroying the ecosystem and ourselves, and that's just the way it is, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Obviously I hope I'm dead wrong about the latter, or that some kind of strictly Earthly or humanity-generated miracle will happen.

I'm not CONVINCED that's the truth, but to me it makes infinitely more sense than the same old back-and-forth arguments/opinions that are eternally going NOWHERE. As long as nothing is proved in the first place, why not go with something that makes MUCH more sense than the endless conundrum of the popular expressions of mere BELIEFS?
edit on 30-5-2015 by Lightworth because: grammar




posted on May, 30 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

I'll put here one of the lines from my signature in larger print:

"Intelligence seeks to proliferate itself not necessarily via its own kind."

That is the only "Prime Directive" that an intelligence needs as it develops. We do it in an astounding amount of variations that we hardly think about, from teaching our young to training the dog.

The higher the intelligence, the moreso the efforts to reach out to others (both lower and higher) on the scale of intelligence. With intelligence goes a global/cosmic responsibility that cannot be denied. However, it can be largely ignored. The human animal has largely perfected that ability.

If an intelligence cannot ascertain that primal need and make it work for itself, it will not survive especially when it gains technological competence and few other skills.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

Well considering he/she/it is apparently responsible for the creation of everyone, atheists and agnostics alike i imagine he loves us all equally.

You would not love one child over another simply because they choose a different belief system from youself, why should the big dude be any different?

All this do as i say or i will spank you in the next verse is simply a control construct designed by organised religion to retard free thinking individuals.
edit on 30-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Good question.

I like to think that if you live your life in a "moral" manner, as outlined by basic pillars of modern Christianity, then you should have a better shout than someone who goes to church, but does not. In other words, it does not matter what you are. That's my opinion. God (if there is one) is not so callous and vindictive.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Just follow the golden rule. A sheep is a sheep and proves it with it's behavior.
. No need to wear a religion to try to look better for the one who sees thru all deception.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

If you check in the Bible, God loves us all.... and God smites select groups that are loved even more?

God loves us all, especially the babies killed in floods and tornadoes.

Tough question, huh?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I was always taught, take what you do not have, but have what you cannot take, and never to hurt anyone weaker than yourself. The rest as they say is Chicken soup(easy).



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Good question.

I like to think that if you live your life in a "moral" manner, as outlined by basic pillars of modern Christianity, then you should have a better shout than someone who goes to church, but does not. In other words, it does not matter what you are. That's my opinion. God (if there is one) is not so callous and vindictive.

This is what I really like to believe as well. Just because you label yourself as something diesnt make it true. Same thing applies here in my oppinion. If you ask me , God will accept a good person, who lived his/her life doing good things for others regardlrss of religious branding before he accepts a cold hearted person who labels themselves a Christian.
Worth noting, i have met many so called Christians, even those who go to church weekly and have come to see that even these people can be cruel, evil, and un-civil. Where as i have met really nice, kind, careing people who would give you the shirt of their back who dont neccissarily belong to any religion.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: BeyondBlessed

"God will accept a good person, who lived his/her life doing good things for others regardlrss of religious branding before he accepts a cold hearted person who labels themselves a Christian."

That's really the crux of the matter through. Why have rules in the first place that essentially state the only way to heaven and the light is through Jesus Christ but then let others in that somehow managed to meet the entrance criteria through their own endeavors?

Seems like one rule for some and another for the rest how very synonymous with our current existence.
edit on 30-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth




It's all about deeds, actions, never mere beliefs and words


Exactly. I doubt a loving God would turn an atheist away who led a more caring and loving existence than a devout church goer who lead a life of being self-centered, mean, and inconsiderate to their fellow man. I grew up noticing how some people who follow the rules of their religion, and come across as holier than thou, are sometimes the worst people you ever want to meet.

I'm always disgusted by the fact of seeing radical Muslims killing and mutilating their fellow man all in the name of their God. Really? If they truly believe their God is the creator of all living things, why would he condone them for killing his creations? How can they even remotely justify mutilating and killing someone in his name?

Religious teachings are simply twisted, and in some respects, seem like they've originated more to control our thinking, divide us and to be less accepting, than being more Christ like. They simply go by the belief, if you don't believe what I believe, your soul is going to burn in hell.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
What humans refer to as "god" is more likely than not, an anthropomorphisized entity that exists only in our individual and collective mind. Therefore, the only ability it has to distinguish atheist from believer is what we give it.

That's not to say there is or isn't a creator(s). But any personality traits, character, morals, ethics, and divinity we give said creator are conceptualized by the human mind, and have little to do with truth or reality.

"God" only cares about those things we fret and fight over to the degree we say so.
edit on 5/30/2015 by Klassified because: grammar



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Well i suppose if indeed we were apparently created in the image of God it stands to reason that any anthropomorphic version created by our group consciousness would display traits conceptualized by our minds or group mind as the case may be. After all we work with what we have.
edit on 30-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Not enough to stop the way they've (non-believers) been treated by theists over the past few thousands of years in its/their name and because of its/their very existence.

The prime directive type reasoning is far too lazy of an excuse as it/they would have already interfered in the lives of people and made it null and void.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

That's also a good point. What kind of omnipotent being requires subjects in the first place, never mind said subjects to kill others in his name?

And then there is the fact that Gods apparent direct representatives here on Earth always require our cash monies. What do they need our £££ cant there omnipotent benefactor provide them all they require?
edit on 30-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
you have no solid ground to get real understanding because you don't believe there is a preserved word of God so you will only get mens opinions on a god they might believe in being loving or hateful.

the Quaran says, Allah hates the sinner (1934 edition current editions translate it unbeliever) 3:31-32 and 30:43-45. According to the Quran Allah's love is based on ones belief in him.

the Bible says, God commended his love towards us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Romans 5:6-8. According to the Bible God's love is not based on ones belief but on the character of God to love one even while a sinner.

sorry I couldn't find any verse on god loving anyone from the Veda's. there are lots of new Age books written over the last 30 years that say god loves but most of their belief is saturated with forms of Christianity.


edit on 30-5-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


you have no solid ground to get real understanding because you don't believe there is a preserved word of God so you will only get mens opinions on a god they might believe in being loving or hateful.

You have no solid ground to get real understanding, because you believe in an ancient book written by men who told you it was the preserved "word of god". So you will only get men's opinions on a god they might believe in being loving or hateful.


edit on 5/30/2015 by Klassified because: punctuation



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
The prime directive type reasoning is far too lazy of an excuse as it/they would have already interfered in the lives of people and made it null and void.


I disagree. The laziness is in expecting whatever higher unseen power(s) and/or whatever super-politician or "Superman" to swoop down with flapping cape (if you will) and save us.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




You have no solid ground to get real understanding, because you believe in an ancient book written by men who told you it was the preserved "word of god". So you will only get men's opinions on a god they might believe in being loving or hateful.


You read to much into a post that does not support your conclusion.

Do you do this with everything you read?

I simply quoted two religious books on someones supposed god having references to loving and hating people, nothing more nothing less.

You either have to have a source to quote on a god being loving or hating or you are left to opinions of men and reading into post things that are not there.


edit on 30-5-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Klassified




You have no solid ground to get real understanding, because you believe in an ancient book written by men who told you it was the preserved "word of god". So you will only get men's opinions on a god they might believe in being loving or hateful.


You read to much into a post that does not support your conclusion.

Do you do this with everything you read?

I simply quoted two religious books on someones supposed god having references to loving and hating people, nothing more nothing less.

You either have to have a source to quote on a god being loving or hating or you are left to opinions of men and reading into post things that are not there.

I took your initial statement at face value, and responded accordingly. Did you not intend your statement to be taken literally? Do you do this often with what you post?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Klassified




You have no solid ground to get real understanding, because you believe in an ancient book written by men who told you it was the preserved "word of god". So you will only get men's opinions on a god they might believe in being loving or hateful.


You read to much into a post that does not support your conclusion.

Do you do this with everything you read?

I simply quoted two religious books on someones supposed god having references to loving and hating people, nothing more nothing less.

You either have to have a source to quote on a god being loving or hating or you are left to opinions of men and reading into post things that are not there.

I took your initial statement at face value, and responded accordingly. Did you not intend your statement to be taken literally? Do you do this often with what you post?


The OP is the reference to the statement I made. You need to keep the context do you always go out of context on issues at hand in an OP's thread?

I do not wish to engage in any more Sophistry with you, ideally I would assume, because of your sophistic twist on my posts you were educated in a secular public school system and drank their kool-aid up and possibly even into college you are clearly still under its effects.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join