| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> You would be mistaken to form your opinion of God based soley on the
> account of Job,
And you in turn would be mistaken to think I had done so.
I've studied the whole bible (and read a fair bit elsewhence) not just that
one particular OT book. It's just that Job sums up your god quite nicely for
me. Most of the rest is smoke or falsifyable or testamentary.
> which, it seems to me, that you have (conveniently)
> decided to do. God is so much easier to dismiss that way.
>
> If you truly were a seeker of Truth, I would think that you'd investigate a
> little more strenuously.
Not sure you have a firm grasp on what Truth actually means, or how one goes
about finding it, but I'll stack my investigation depth and strenuousness
against all comers. This isn't some idle fancy of mine that I whomped up
yesterday, it's something I've researched in depth and given a great deal of
thought to over the span of many years.
> But it is my contention that you, along with other atheists, will not believe
> in the existence of a Creator God because of pride and convenience. If not,
> maybe you might share why (because I *know* that it couldn't be *proven* to
> you).
I disbelieve in your particular (malevolent in my view) god because I prefer
to think the universe isn't actively evil. I contend that christianity as
practiced on earth has caused much more harm than good, yet most of the
practicioners seem to be convinced they are the real deal.
Maybe they're flawed in their practice because your guy can't, or won't,
make them properly. Maybe I'm wrong and your god is just a terrible
communicator who can't get his point across, not actually malevolent. But
the evidence, such as it is, about his nature points to malevolence. And
I'll go down in flames before I worship that. (although I admit that the
aphorism "never ascribe to malevolence what can adequately be explained by
stupidity" may well apply to your god in this case... maybe he's just
terminally dumb!)
I disbelieve in creators (more generally, as your guy is not by any means
the only possible creator) because of Occam's Razor. But that's not so much
an active dislike as it is merely a healthy skepticism. I'm a teeny bit
shaded toward agnostic (from strict atheist) in this area, because I'm
perfectly willing to accept that there may well be an irrelevant creator out
there as the causative force that got the universe started. I'm willing to
admit that possibility without any need for evidence or proof.
But as soon as you posit any relevance, that is, any effect on reality other
than the initial push that got the system started, you have to have some
proof, some falsifyability, or it HAS no relevance. And that's lacking, as I
just don't take things on faith. I try to be entirely rational, that is,
entirely human. Don't succeed, but I do try.
That you choose to deny your humanity in part is certainly your choice, but
it's not one I choose. That might be a little prideful, yes.
I admit it, I'm proud of being more rational (and thus more human and thus
more successful) than the average joe sixpack. I've never made any secret of
that, have I?
As far as this choice of mine being convenient???
Hardly.
It is much more convenient to believe in the christian mythos, happily
absolved of any need to actually be righteous in this life as long as one
truly believes and truly is sorry for all the murders and sorrows one
causes... much more convenient to just roll over when liberty is taken away
by bible thumpers... much more convenient to accept what is spoon fed to one
on faith.
No thanks, though. I'll take the hard road.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Once again I have to reiterate--there are many knowledgable and well learned folks partaking in these debates. Thanks for the intriguing posts. I uphold a system in which Larry can believe what he chooses to believe, as I uphold a system in (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) I choose the *perception* that He is a tinpot dictator of a god, which is a misperception. God is unchanging, and God's true nature was revealed by Jesus life and teachings. Since that nature is that of a loving and just God, this is how I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
