For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

The truth is that atheists are actually theists. They know the truth but are engaged in a massive world conspiracy coverup! They don't want the world to know the truth or it would free humanity. And so they act as atheists, pretending there's nothing there, when all the while they know God is real. How else would they know theology so well. Atheists clearly are in the know. They're just trying to hide the truth from unbelievers for some reason. So could some atheist please tell us why you're engaged in this mass cover up???

reply to post by spartacus699


Many atheists were raised under a religious tradition during childhood and only had the opportunity to break away from the influence of organised religion when they reached their adult years. Consequently, many atheists are likely to be relatively well versed in religious concepts and scripture by the time they reach adulthood.

Then let it continue to be artwork, and not a political movement. Not to mention that this is an impractical argument you're making. You are calling technicalities, none of which actually proven useful in the context in which they are most often used. In simpler terms, God as a fictional character of art and literature is just as impractical a modern philosophical basis as his previous incarnations. Shall we worship Harry Potter as well? Or maybe Gandalf the White?

If any of you regard threads like these as pointless word games where believers and disbelievers can strut their stuff without proving (or disproving) anything, then perhaps you may like to examine REAL, HARD, mathematical evidence for the reality of a transcendental intelligence that religions call "God". Evidence so voluminous and irrefutable that it would turn Richard Dawkins into a believer (or perhaps not, as he may not have sufficient intelligence to comprehend what he would be studying). If some of you DO think you are up to the mathematical challenge of understanding this amazing evidence, then go here

Only do not not expect to acquire instant proof. You need to learn the mathematical prerequisites for understanding what has never been revealed before. And you need to make the effort to understand. Those that succeed will discover supernatural wonders.

reply to post by Aphorism

or more clearly—what it exists as

OP... I understand what it is you are conveying, however other deep thinkers may not think as deep. This is what I have found to be the case when sharing my ideas ( expressions) about "God"/ "Creator"

Theists describe "who" created the Universe and atheists attempt to describe "what".

I am more into the what, however I have faith " in what " I've been shown (via the word).. so both sides get me twisted. And don't mistake the "word" for any doctrine... there is no need for a doctrine specifically.

The "what" is an expression of its--spirit/personality. "It" is only reflected by the light.

If the Bible was written by "God" why does the Bible have so many contradictions?

101 Contradictions in the Bible

Aphorism
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Let me guess. You spend your time arguing about nothing? That's what I'm saying is pointless. This at least deals with real facts. What is it you talk about when speaking of god?

Like most atheists, I argue about logical reasoning and the detrimental impact that religion has on man kind. I could care less about arguing if god exists, I already don't see any logical reason for anyone's perception of a god to exist, hence why I'm an atheist in the first place.

I argue against religion, not the possibility of a higher being.

What truly is pointless is making a topic based on your self proclaimed theism due solely to the fact that you believe the word "God" exists, yet the concepts behind that word do not.

reply to post by rupertg


Sorry, but I have to answer your question with questions.

Why is God religions/doctrines?

Why does it express itself through men's spirit/personality and or relationship to it?

Also, what does not express? Think hard on this one? Is there any thing that does not radiate?

It's all about perception of the projection.

Ghost147

Aphorism
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Let me guess. You spend your time arguing about nothing? That's what I'm saying is pointless. This at least deals with real facts. What is it you talk about when speaking of god?

Like most atheists, I argue about logical reasoning and the detrimental impact that religion has on man kind. I could care less about arguing if god exists, I already don't see any logical reason for anyone's perception of a god to exist, hence why I'm an atheist in the first place.

I argue against religion, not the possibility of a higher being.

What truly is pointless is making a topic based on your self proclaimed theism due solely to the fact that you believe the word "God" exists, yet the concepts behind that word do not.

edit on 6/1/14 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

This is the problem I myself was attempting to express. If the idea of "God" is admittedly based in the imagination of the human race, as art and literature and philosophical musings so often are, then what is the point of touting that "God" as the paragon of truth? If it is admitted that fiction is the womb from which God was born, then it must also be admitted that any principles and philosophies engendered therein are also products of the same fiction. Fictional works are hardly the most reliable sources from which to draw absolutism. As such, it seems futile to argue that God's existence as a fictional figment is a suitable device for validating a similarly established approach to real-world problems.

AfterInfinity


This is the problem I myself was attempting to express. If the idea of "God" is admittedly based in the imagination of the human race, as art and literature and philosophical musings so often are, then what is the point of touting that "God" as the paragon of truth? If it is admitted that fiction is the womb from which God was born, then it must also be admitted that any principles and philosophies engendered therein are also products of the same fiction. Fictional works are hardly the most reliable sources from which to draw absolutism. As such, it seems futile to argue that God's existence as a fictional figment is a suitable device for validating a similarly established approach to real-world problems.

edit on 6-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I agree, however, as you know, most - if not all - religious folk do and do not view it as fictional. Hence the need for faith.

They both admit that the existence of a god is %100 fact, and yet also completely unknowable in every way, and so require faith to believe in the unknown and fictional.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Shall we worship Harry Potter as well? Or maybe Gandalf the White?

You would be surprised! People worship anything and everything that is imaginable. Even in the imagination creation is an ongoing process to the unimaginable.

I KNOW a 76 year old woman who has HP tattooed on her FOREHEAD! She doesn't even have to tell e how much she worships Harry. I can see it! lol And for the record, she is a home health nurse. You would NEVER know she was that into HP by looking at her because her bangs hides the tat. She also has one on her wrist and legs.... all HP tats. lol

I think every individual has a philosophy. Some take their own philosophy and create religions, thus the one that has not contemplated his own philosophy piggy backs on another.

Some of us are followers, while others are leaders. With saying that I do not want to lead another on their journey. I would rather others think for them self in regards to which philosophy they choose to live by.

Sure, we can learn from each other.. we can share our story... but to some... it's just another story that means nothing to them or relates with their own story.

HP does not resonate with me like it does my elderly friend but if she finds comfort in it... kudos to her.

reply to post by MamaJ


I'm not big on worshipping anything. Worship involves an inherent denigrative process by means of domination. One element must always lie prostrate at the feet of another, and that strikes me as an unhealthy practice. Those who promote it are either knowingly or unknowingly promoting subversive division, which undermines the progressive potential of division and hinders the evolution of our understanding and relationship with the reality we've been thrust into. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but that's the best way I can express it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yes, it makes perfect sense. There is no need to further divide except for the love of control and conquer. Where is the freedom within that concept? There is none. It's twisted.

MamaJ
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense. There is no need to further divide except for the love of control and conquer. Where is the freedom within that concept? There is none. It's twisted.

And yet, that's precisely the strategy I observe in the tactics of theism. If you are not utterly adherent to the philosophies of a particular god, you are utterly opposed to it. There is no gray. Only black and white. As I said, an unhealthy philosophy.

I can dig it! I will state this, there are some things in this world that can't be proven physical, I.E: God and even moreso Love ~ These items need to be felt by the heart, emotionally and spiritually. The rest is whatever anyone wants to make of it, we all have "Free Will" but even that is debatable.

I do indeed like your postulation!

itsallgonenow
reply to post by Aphorism

 

If I believe in god and you don't and he does not exist, I lose nothing. But If I am right and I believe in god and you don't, you lose everything.

That creates a bad situation where someone is forced to believe due to trying to avoid the consequences. Shouldn't one believe because it is fulfilling spiritually instead of out of fear of going to a bad place when they die?

How about for the sake of argument and redundant threads lets be real and admit he doesn't. And move along with a life just fine without the prince of peace.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Then let it continue to be artwork, and not a political movement. Not to mention that this is an impractical argument you're making. You are calling technicalities, none of which actually proven useful in the context in which they are most often used. In simpler terms, God as a fictional character of art and literature is just as impractical a modern philosophical basis as his previous incarnations. Shall we worship Harry Potter as well? Or maybe Gandalf the White?

Only idiots would worship a fictional character. Only idiots would try to prove it doesn't exist. This reconciles the two idiots to a place where they can understand what it actually is they're talking about.

reply to post by C21H30O2I


He? Why do you imply something that doesn't exist is a male? Do things that don't exist have male qualities?

reply to post by Ghost147

What truly is pointless is making a topic based on your self proclaimed theism due solely to the fact that you believe the word "God" exists, yet the concepts behind that word do not.

I never said the concepts behind the word do not exist. So, as per usual, you seem to be making stuff up so that you can argue about it, just like when you argue about God. It's pure fiction.