BF2S Forums My Atheism Is Not A Rejection Of Your God

Stingray24 wrote:

Make a choice.  Default position pfffff

He tried to make atheism the default position, by forcing an obviously impossible burden of proof on faith.

I had high hopes for the thread from the title, but Docta seems to have eloquently put how this one turned out.

Who cares...as long as the person I'm having a beer with is a good cunt, I don't give a fuck what god(s) they do/don't worship.

There is a god for everything, including and especially video games

If you don't pray and make sacrifices, you ain't winning shit

Also:

Uzique wrote:

People need to read Huxley and learn the real definition and categorical difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a Dawkins-Hitchens style "Bright". All fundamentally nontheistic belief systems with varying levels of rationalism and spiritualism.

this

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-01-10 04:59:35)

Dilbert_X wrote:

If there is a god I'm pretty sure there would only be the one god.
In which case all the christians, jews, moslems etc are worshipping the same one.
That or there is no god.
Either way they all need to STFU.

They aren't all worshipping the same God. If there is one 'real God' (say, for Christians) then Muslims are worshipping an idol. And that'd be a sin to the 'real God'.

Uzique wrote:

kylef wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If there is a god I'm pretty sure there would only be the one god.
In which case all the christians, jews, moslems etc are worshipping the same one.
That or there is no god.
Either way they all need to STFU.

They aren't all worshipping the same God. If there is one 'real God' (say, for Christians) then Muslims are worshipping an idol. And that'd be a sin to the 'real God'.

Err, he understands each theology Kyle. What he's saying is that (in his opinion) there is truly only one deity and Lord (if he exists), and as such in his own hypothetical all the major world religions are all worshipping the same ubiquitous omnipotent geezer. In which case, they all need to stop their petty quarrels and recognizeee, bitches.

Didn't understand his point then but my point is still in effect - if someone worships the 'wrong' God the effect will be the same of worshipping no God (assuming the God we're talking about is specific to one religion).

Uzique wrote:

kylef wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Err, he understands each theology Kyle. What he's saying is that (in his opinion) there is truly only one deity and Lord (if he exists), and as such in his own hypothetical all the major world religions are all worshipping the same ubiquitous omnipotent geezer. In which case, they all need to stop their petty quarrels and recognizeee, bitches.

Didn't understand his point then but my point is still in effect - if someone worships the 'wrong' God the effect will be the same of worshipping no God (assuming the God we're talking about is specific to one religion).

No, it invalidates your point because (indirectly) each ju-ju traditional-organised body of religion are all appraising the one, true Lord. Just they don't know it, they each think they're on the mark when really they're all addressing the same guy. Not a 'false God' or a 'false idol' (an idol isn't a God, especially within a biblical and religious context)- but all true and proper reverence. To take the eponym of the thread-starter, playas' need to wreckognize and stop fightin', realize that there's only one true God and only one true love for all y'all, every holy text and prophet is spreadin tha' word of the same Lawd!

Pedantics aside, who gives a fuck. God isn't on the periodic table, therefore he does not exist on this planet. Irrefutable solid empirical proof right there. Boom.

That's where you and I differ. And even if they were all praising the same Lord, each religion has different ethics as how to praise God - and what they even praise for. Worshipping God in an act of killing 30 people in a suicide is not what another God wants. Heaven / Hell and whatever all other religions think of afterlife, it would be variable.

I am thinking outside of the box of my religion when I write about "even if there is only one God". All that is outside the box is hypotheticals. I was saying that the fundamental flaw, even if there is only one God, is that the results of afterlife would change.

Who said God existed on the planet? Because I didn't. And if you want to specific I can turn around say "in my religion Jesus existed on the planet." If you really want.

Last edited by kylef (2009-01-10 05:54:05)

Christianity isn't monotheistic.

God
The Virgin Mary
Jesus
Saints
Apostles
The Father
The Holy Ghost

All of the above are prayed too, and I know I'm missing some.

Uzique wrote:

kylef wrote:

I am thinking outside of the box of my religion when I write about "even if there is only one God". All that is outside the box is hypotheticals. I was saying that the fundamental flaw, even if there is only one God, is that the results of afterlife would change.

Who said God existed on the planet? Because I didn't. And if you want to specific I can turn around say "in my religion Jesus existed on the planet." If you really want.

Jesus isn't God and yeah, you're right... Jesus did and does exist, there's fuckloads of them in Spain and Latin-America.

You're thinking outside the box of your religion when you consider the possibility of only one true God? Isn't Christianity monotheistic? Missed that memo, was probably out of the office. The results of the afterlife would change now? You're seriously being way too over-complicating and off-the-point on the original comment; we get it, you're vaguely into all that ju-ju tripe- I'm pretty sure he didn't care to talk about the implications of his spiritualism in this extent.

And holy Jesus F Christ on a shit-stick-set-on-fire-by-Southern-men-in-white-pointed-suits, you missed the point of my proving-God-through-chemistry lulziness. Are you a Catholic perchance? Acrimonious isn't even the word for it.

Christianity is partly monotheistic (yes in the sense that God:Jesus:Spirit are quintessentially the same and in worshipping Saints is a degree of worshipping God), and I would consider myself thinking outside the box when I decide to contemplate the hypothetical situation that there could be other Gods. I think you misunderstood my (admittedly overly-complicated) view of afterlife. I am saying that even if everyone is in the end preaching the same Lord, what is seen as an act of goodness in one religion is an act of sin in another. Therefore the preaching of God doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will end up in the same place in afterlife (if that makes it easier - I'm almost confusing myself, sorry).

God can't be proven through chemistry. It's an act of faith. And no, I'm not Catholic.

Last edited by kylef (2009-01-10 06:39:56)

Uzique wrote:

As far as I knew the 'monotheistic' term applies to number of immortal/supernatural deities worshipped, of which through all the separate Christian nutjob circles God is the constant reappearing numero uno.

Well most of them can't separate Jesus and God. In one instance He is the son of God. Others will say he is God in the form of a man. Both are prayed too and worshipped.

In comparison to Hinduism certainly Christianity is monotheistic. But for an even more monotheistic religion you only have to look at Buddhism, which goes so far as to say no God but yourself.

kylef wrote:

Uzique wrote:

kylef wrote:

I am thinking outside of the box of my religion when I write about "even if there is only one God". All that is outside the box is hypotheticals. I was saying that the fundamental flaw, even if there is only one God, is that the results of afterlife would change.

Who said God existed on the planet? Because I didn't. And if you want to specific I can turn around say "in my religion Jesus existed on the planet." If you really want.

Jesus isn't God and yeah, you're right... Jesus did and does exist, there's fuckloads of them in Spain and Latin-America.

You're thinking outside the box of your religion when you consider the possibility of only one true God? Isn't Christianity monotheistic? Missed that memo, was probably out of the office. The results of the afterlife would change now? You're seriously being way too over-complicating and off-the-point on the original comment; we get it, you're vaguely into all that ju-ju tripe- I'm pretty sure he didn't care to talk about the implications of his spiritualism in this extent.

And holy Jesus F Christ on a shit-stick-set-on-fire-by-Southern-men-in-white-pointed-suits, you missed the point of my proving-God-through-chemistry lulziness. Are you a Catholic perchance? Acrimonious isn't even the word for it.

God can't be proven through chemistry. It's an act of faith. And no, I'm not Catholic.

Ding ding! Enter the obvious farce and mock-tone, with alarm-ringing obvious comical salutations to Richard Dawkins and the crazy "Brights" demystify-religion-through-empirical-science brigade. I'm surprised you're not a Catholic because you betray an ineptitude and a characteristic dimwittedness that is wholly papist.

And I think you over-complicated yourself purposefully (and contrivedly too?) to talk about the afterlife and the consequences of clashing/contrasting ethics and morality. The simple point he was trying to make - I will reiterate again - is that in his view there is just one general God and all world religions are indirectly or inadvertently paying respect and homage to him. Now if there was one God and one God only, there's nothing to say he would conform to the rules and 'commandments' laid down in any current organised religion, i.e. there's nothing to say he would get pissy and smack down a few people to the metaphorical/allegorical 'Hell' just because they worshipped false prophets. He would just feel the love of all of them and not regard the silly and arbitrary dogma invented by each profit driven human business church. Get it?

Kyle wrote:

My personal thesis was that by believing and trusting in Jesus he will lead you to God.

"Was that"? You've seen the light and become rational nowadays? Thesis? Did you forward it in a clearly-laid out synthesized and logically progressing argument? Did you reference appropriately? etc.etc.

Last edited by Uzique (2009-01-10 06:45:53)

kylef wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ding ding! Enter the obvious farce and mock-tone, with alarm-ringing obvious comical salutations to Richard Dawkins and the crazy "Brights" demystify-religion-through-empirical-science brigade. I'm surprised you're not a Catholic because you betray an ineptidude and a characteristic dimwittedness that is wholly papist.

And I think you over-complicated yourself purposefully (and contrivedly too?) to talk about the afterlife and the consequences of clashing/contrasting ethics and morality. The simple point he was trying to make - I will reiterate again - is that in his view there is just one general God and all world religions are indirectly or inadvertently paying respect and homage to him. Now if there was one God and one God only, there's nothing to say he would conform to the rules and 'commandments' laid down in any current organised religion, i.e. there's nothing to say he would get pissy and smack down a few people to the metaphorical/allegorical 'Hell' just because they worshipped false prophets. He would just feel the love of all of them and not regard the silly and arbitrary dogma invented by each profit driven human business church. Get it?

Kyle wrote:

My personal thesis was that by believing and trusting in Jesus he will lead you to God.

"Was that"? You've seen the light and become rational nowadays? Thesis? Did you forward it in a clearly-laid out synthesized and logically progressing argument? Did you reference appropriately? etc.etc.

Well there's a direct relationship between God and afterlife so I felt it was relevant to talk it about like that. Will is a powerful tool and in my opinion people were given the choice. My physics teacher used to debate the same point "he'd love us all if he exists" and I just believe that. We're given the choice and it is up to us and only us whether we accept it or not. Oh, and I'm glad to see you understood my point about even if there is one God (not being sarcastic). Like I said before, believing is for men of faith not science.

Have I seen the light? Yes. Athiestic or agnostic? I sure as hell hope not. It was a thesis because I can't prove it (nor can you disprove it). Referencing never was my strong point

That's an hypothesis, the idea of a thesis is that it is something you formally and rationally try to prove- or at least attempt to justify to a reasonable degree.

I kinda lost your first paragraph in semi-'wool over the eyes' religious babble. You say with an insulting edge that you sure as hell hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, when your spiritualism and ju-ju hoo-hah has led you so far down so many completely irrelevant and pointless tangents in this thread that I'm starting to question your logic (and sanity). He made a very very simple postulation in his first post, one that wasn't even meant to be dwelt or pondered upon, and now we have a digression on the afterlife, on ethics and religious ceremony even at one point. You say you're thinking out of the box but even reading your posts makes me think I'm taking a fly-on-the-wall position in a confession box. Put down the Bible and stop spouting this madness.

Why, if there was a God, would it be just a Christian god, I do not know.