Well I guess you told me. Never thought believing in God made me evil. Interesting concept. I am not going to be angry with you for insulting me to the core, but instead I will be understanding.
I don't care if it offends you. Really, I don't. Perhaps if you're offended by it, you'll take it more seriously. I don't know. Different approaches work on different people. In the end, I'd rather you seriously consider the fact that worshiping a being that has the power to stop immense amounts of suffering and does nothing with it, is inherently bad. Half the problem with Christians is that they lead with their emotions instead of their brains. They don't know how to temper their emotions with reason and logic. They think with their gut and that gets them in trouble.
Yes you could look at it that way, but my path has revealed a much different conclusion. Through my faith I will believe there is a purpose for your revelation as well. I believe that God wants us to take care of each other, not do it for us. I don't believe it is an easy thing for God to do.
It's fine to believe that, but can you prove it? If I said I had faith in the ability of the unicorn in my garage to keep my tires from going flat, what would you think of me? I feel the same way about someone who says 'through my faith I believe there is a purpose for your revelation'. Your faith is absolutely useless. Just as you would say mine is with the unicorn in my garage.
Why is it okay for you not to believe the norm, but for me not to, I am dumb.
Arguments that invoke the beliefs of the masses are fallacious and should not weigh in on the discussion. A long time ago, most people believed the world was flat, that demons caused disease, that lightning was divine anger, etc. The masses are often very, very wrong. You, personally, are probably not dumb. But your belief in the Christian God is dumb. It doesn't matter that you share that problem with lots and lots of people. You all could really be wrong. And I'm quite sure you are.
We were both handed the same information and got opposite conclusions.
No, I doubt that. You were handed one side of a very 2 sided argument and the very core of that argument is what you've held to. I was handed one side (as you) and looked at the other side myself in an honest attempt at learning what the truth was. How much atheist literature have you read, Junebug? How much do you know about how the bible came to be? How much do you know about the authors? How much do you know about the historians during the time of Jesus? How many books have you read about the other gospels that didn't make it into the cannon?
I've read the bible. I've visited countless religious websites. I've read 4 different apologetics books and somewhere near 10 books on atheism. I've been on this website for several years now, listening to people like you present argument after horrible argument and there is only one possible conclusion. The Christian God isn't real. Can you say you've honestly given the other side a fair shot? I doubt you can.
How did I get to a different conclusion than you? Probably because the information might be the same but we are on a different path.
My path uses reason, yours uses faith. In every other area of your life, which of those 2, do you think, is more likely to lead to truth? Now explain to me why it's different with religion.
I was searching for God and you were searching for the non-existence of God.
Quick little story for you Junebug.
I work as a physical therapist. When I evaluate a patient, I start with the diagnosis that the doctor sends me from his office in the form of a prescription. On it, he or she will usually write something to the effect of "lumbar strain" or "rotator cuff impingement". Now, as a therapist, I can either keep the doctors diagnosis in mind during my evaluation, or I can push it to the back and find what's really going on with them. Which, do you think, is a better tactic for me to use if I really want to help the patient? Looking for what's ACTUALLY there, or just looking to confirm that lumbar strain, or rotator cuff impingement that the doctor told me was there? The answer is the first one. You can't bias yourself with someone elses diagnosis when you evaluate a patient, else you seriously run the risk of missing something.
Now, how does that apply to our discussion? You said that you looked for God. That's the wrong way to go about it. You found God because people told you that God is there, much like the doctor tells me what they think is there with their diagnosis. In your own searching, you never allowed yourself, nor have you since, put up for discussion the most rudimentary part of your entire faith... the notion that God even exists in the first place. I looked for truth, and ignored what other people told me was there. In that, I allowed myself to address that very first question that you never allowed yourself to ask. That's the difference.
I wasn't searching for the non-existence of God. I don't even know what the hell that means. I wanted to know whether God existed or didn't exist, and I listened to both sides intently, then made my conclusion.
We both found what we were looking for.
You found God because you were looking for God. I found the truth because I wasn't looking to confirm what I'd been told. I was looking for truth.
We were both comforted by what we found is the only common link between our journeys.
I live in the bible belt. Do you really think its comfortable to be an atheist here? If I were looking for comfort, I'd be a sheep like the rest of you. My comfort lies in knowing I gave an equal ear to both sides before making my decision.
I still don't see how believing how God doing nothing is what is best for the whole human race is evil.
Because you don't really believe that. You don't. How do I know that? Simple. If God came down, right now, and fed 30,000 starving children and brought them all back to good health, would you think of that as a good thing or a bad thing? If you have a shred of decency, you'd think it was a good thing. You know you'd think it was good. You KNOW it. What you are trying to say, however, is that if God did that, HELPING the children would actually be doing something that would NOT be in the interest of the whole human race, and you'd be forced to condemn the action. You said God doing nothing is what's best for the human race, so that means God helping the human race would be awful. Do you really, really believe that? No, you don't.
Truth be told, helping out might not be in the best interest of humanity in every case, but childhood starvation? Good luck with that one.
So I guess I shouldn't have cut my son off from my support when he got hooked on pills.
If your son was starving to death, would you feed him, or would you let him die? God lets them die.
If God fixed our problems it would be no different.
Bullshit. If God got your son of pills with the snap of his fingers, would you be angry with him for not allowing your son to struggle with it? What of those who continue to take the pills and DIE from them? That happens all the time! Is it really better for God to NOT step in and help those people that he knows are going to die?
It's like you have this mantra running through your mind... God is good, God is good, God is good, anything that contradicts that is false, or just a mystery... STOP doing that. Use your head. It is ALRIGHT to admit that if God helped your son, it would be a good thing. It is ALRIGHT to admit that if God helped starving children, that would be a good thing. It is also, ALRIGHT to admit that because he doesn't, he's either not interested in helping, not powerful enough to do it, or better yet, that he's not actually there in the first place.
We would never be on our own to earn and deserve the promise of Heaven.
And what of those who die of starvation before they achieve the rightful age at which they can earn such a promise? What of the babies who die from AIDS every day?
And can you prove that heaven exists? No? Then it's just a claim. One that needs to be analyzed for truth versus rhetoric. Heaven might not exist.
See we just see the small, God sees the bigger picture.
Answer the question... IF God wasn't real, would that explain why God doesn't help starving children? PLEASE answer that.
Oh it's okay to make lots and lots of money while others starve because God will feed those children.
I can't help but wonder what goes through your mind when you say stuff like this. Would you really be all that upset with God if he came down and fed the children? It sounds like you would be upset by it. Is that the person you really are?
I know it's hard to understand but it is not evil.
I'm sorry, but if God was real, and he came down and fed all the starving children, I'd be happy about it. You'd think it was bad for the world if God did that. Your religion has done that to you. It sounds pretty evil to me.
And yet, in the same breath, you say you want people to feed the hungry children instead, as if it would be a good thing. Why is it good if people do it but bad if God does it? Because we learn something? Guess what, Junebug. We haven't learned anything from it. Kids are still dying. They've been dying for centuries. If you are basing the entire process of 'earning the promise of heaven' on humanity's ability to feed the poor, then we're all going to hell. It seems like people, as a whole, aren't getting what you think they should get. But in the end, whether God helps or people help, the children aren't starving anymore, right? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that the deaths of millions of children every year is the wages we have to pay to... consistently fail at taking care of ourselves?
In truth, this whole thing is nothing more than you trying to deflect the focus away from God's ineptitude and capriciousness and onto humanity, but you should stop trying to do that and really look at what we're saying.
I am even surprised to hear an atheist use the word evil, without God is there good and evil?
Good and evil are adjectives used to describe an individual's perceptions of actions, deeds, etc. Good as a 'thing' does not exist, and neither does 'evil'. But I can describe actions as good or evil.
My thoughts, without a God,it is simply human nature and I would not be good or evil I would just be doing what comes natural and have no responsibility for my thoughts or my actions.
It's not the wording I would use, but it's close enough. I would say the first part of your sentence is correct, but saying you have no
responsibility over your thoughts and actions is debatable. And it gets into the discussion of free will, which... if I were you... I'd stay clear of.
People are not inherently good or evil. Their actions
can be good or evil as described by other people's perceptions of those actions. Even the most horrible people in the world did some good things too. So calling them 'evil' to describe them as a whole is wrong.
Why do you think your disapproval of what you've said changes anything about the truth of it? I disapprove of the fact that eating ice cream makes me fat, but you don't see me eating it anyway in hopes that I'll get thin. The truth doesn't care what I think; nor does it care what you think.