Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015
vexen

Assumptions that theists make about God

"The Assumptions about God and Creation, of Both Theists and Atheists" by Vexen Crabtree (2002)

I announced a version of this page on the LiveJournal Atheist Community and some good debate followed.

  • 1

Christianity

(Anonymous)
Quite a good essay but it attacks monotheism rather than Christianity. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate, so most of your arguments (God doesn't necessarily have emotions, isn't necessarily good etc) break down. Jesus certainly had emotions, is generally acknowledged to have been a good man.

Unfortunately it's a moot point, because the existence of Jesus is doubted.

Secondly, if Jesus *did* exist, the belief that he was the son of a god is probably a mistake. Just because people believe it, doesn't make it true.

Also, why would a god have human emotions? Why wouldn't it have the emotions of a cow, or an alien, etc? Saying it has human emotions is a result of our ego, of us not being able to see the bigger universal picture. It's an "error of homocentricity":
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homocentricity.html

Re: Christianity

(Anonymous)
It amazes me how many people are incapable of understanding the point of the Empirical method. I wonder if you have heard of a disturbing trend in my home country called Scientific Creationism (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). It's a last ditch attempt by the Christians to incorporate scientific facts that they can no longer ignore into the events of the Bible (a process only possible by eliminating those branches of science that are wholly incompatible with the Bible, such as Geology and Biology). The whole concept would be quite humorous except for the fact that these loons want this crap taught in Science classes alongside true Science. My guess is they're hoping that Science will be reduced to a 5 minute class taught thusly "Well, God made everything and all other thought in the matter is unprovable conjecture. Now take a 4 minute break and report to Bible study". The scariest part is that there seems to be a lot of support by parents (none by the teachers of course) for this to happen.... faced with this school system, I guess I'll have to expatriate myself

It's also called (more modernly and more subtly) "Intelligent Design".

Re: Christianity

(Anonymous)
i just want to point out that their is no such thing as true "Atheism". i say this because if you claim to be an atheist you are really just saying you don't like the idea that there maybe a God who has control over you and instead you want to be in control of yourself so truly you are saying you are God. But how can you be god when you don't know all, or have all power. You are just an ordinary person who can only improve on what God has allowed you to know you can't even create. the other thing i want to say is that it takes a lot more faith for you to be an atheist than for me to be a Christian because even after you state you believe in no god you still have to wrestle with how did i get here, what is the point of my life, and what is right or wrong. while i now have the answers to those questions in the Bible (God's inspired word)
my prayers are with you while you are trying to decide b/w the 1 true God and yourself.

An "atheist" is a person without a belief in God. This includes anyone whose belief system or worldview does not contain a god. So, although extreme solipsists who think themselves are God are in affect God's themselves, most atheists are not extreme solipsists.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/solipsism.html

Atheists are not "really just saying" we don't the "the idea" of things having control over us. Lots of people and things have control over us, it's a fact of life.

Some atheists are atheists because they've never been taught or told about Gods, some are atheists because they think God is a silly theory or is an illogical belief; i.e., it doesn't seem necessary in their world-view.

Everyone has to wrestle with the big questions in life, no matter what faith you are.

Brief introduction to Atheism & its history:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/atheism.html

God omniscient?

(Anonymous)
I like your arguments, and though I may be mingling thoughts from a couple of your essays, I thought I'd take the time to point out two things. One point in your essay is that an omnipotent being can obtain omniscience, but my thought is that in order to be omnipotent one would need to be omniscient by definition (one cannot exercise meaningful control over something that one has no knowledge of). Another point you made in another essay is that any omniscient being would have no free will, but I would further that to say that the creation of any omniscient being erases the free will of everyone in the universe (If an omniscient being knows that I will commit some act in the future, then I have no choice but to commit that act. To do otherwise would mean that that being is not omniscient.)

Based on this argument, it is impossible for an omniscient god to exist, and for that god to have given us free will.

Hope you'll take the time to consider my arguments, whether or not you do I'll probably continue to read your essay's, they are very refreshing

Re: God omniscient?

I agree that you can't be omnipotent without first being omniscient.

Try:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/goddeniesfreewill.html
which is a page saying what you've said... that the existence of an omniscient being denies free will.

List of essays on free will:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/freewill.html

Re: God omniscient?

(Anonymous)
yeah, I found that page on my own shortly after writing the reply (you can imagine how much of an ass I felt) ;)... Well, if I can't think originally, at least I can copy someone who does..lol


Re: God omniscient?

Imagine how I felt when I uncovered one of my arguments in a book (this has happened many times -- it is hard to do anything original). In this case the text was some 3000 years old. I was quite amazed :-) It was Epicurus (341-270bce) on the Problem of Evil and how it casts doubt on the existence of a God.

illogical sense

(Anonymous)
"There is no proof that the Universe was created by a god, therefore the assumption that the most-powerful-being in existence is as powerful as omnipotence is an assumption"

These are your comments the nature of which extend through your essay. If you stood back to try and assess what you were writing, you probabaly would have realised that your argument is illogical. You use the very beliefs and system of beliefs that you deny, in order to make your own argument.

EG> How do you know that there is no proof that the universe was created? Just cause you haven't come across it, or perhaps appreciated it does mean that there is no proof. For you to make such a statement, you have to be all knowing which you are not.

I would be happy to deal with each and every single point that you make but perhaps you would not want this or i might simply be wasting my time. You can email me on tasmin_minsat@yahoo.com if you want this discussion.

Re: illogical sense

(Anonymous)
Just in passing, I would add one other point which is that the if your arguing about proof, then the onus is upon you to disprove the existence of God, not the other way round. It would help to establish common ground if you state what you consider to be valid proof. For instance, if you belive in evolution (arguably the main argument used as an alternative by atheist to disprove the existence of God) what standard of proof have you accepted to belive in the theory.

Re: illogical sense

There are self-contradictory elements in the white light idea of "God", therefore it is not true.

But:

The existence of God is superfluous to the explanation of the Universe AND it is the duty of people who propose the existence of an (invisible!) being to prove it, not the duty of others to disprove it, otherwise we'd spend all our times disproving other crackpot beliefs all day.

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God!!!!! Only American fundamentalists would think that! Most atheists I know don't believe in God because they weren't brought up to believe in God (I'm in the UK, from the sounds of it you're American), and because they don't see the point, so it's pretty mute for them to try and disprove something that they don't take seriously in the first place. (I on the other hand actively enjoy such debates)

For a theory to be proven (for me: this is not a technical definition I'm making) there has to be some evidence of the conclusion, *or*, a logical argument that supports the conclusion.

With God, there is no evidence and there is no logical argument.

Re: illogical sense

You are free to point out an example of something that is illogical, but, I do not believe that your assertion that the text is illogical is true. The assumptions stated on the page are assumptions that would need to be proven by a theist in addition to proving that a God exists at all.

What belief systems are you saying I "use", and "deny"? I am merely pointing out assumptions, not confirming or denying much at all.

When I say "there is no proof" I could not mean that "there will never be proof", merely that there is no proof now. I do not claim to be omniscient. History is on my side, though, when I say that the existence of God has had no historical proof that has held. If there was proof, we'd all be theists.

Don't forget, however, that the proof of a Creator does not mean we can assume that any particular religion is true partially or at all in any respect other than that there is a Creator. Could be an evil, unconscious creator for all we would know.

I don't advise going against every single point at once, but it would be nice if you'd give an example (say, one particular point) of what is "illogical". Normally, starting at one point a debate gradually expands to cover all others.

Re: illogical sense

(Anonymous)
"Our emotions are a result of our brain chemistry and hormones (we know this because if we alter these chemicals, our emotions alter accordingly)."

This is an example of the illogical sense. Have you altered chemicals in the brain and observed teh al;terations in emotions afterwards.. has anybody.. how do you know. the fact is that you don't know but you make the assumption because it is reasonable to do so in a society which accepts science as fact and often without question nad certainly without firsthand knowledge. The illogical part is that you use this to make your argument to deny people the right to make a similar assumption about the existence of GOD.

The evidence for the existence of GOD and his nature is far greater than what you may find in any laboratory determining the ,ost advanced aspects of science.

Lets put things into a bit of perspective.

Assuming that age of the earth is accepted as being over 4 Billion Years (4,000,000,000). Consider that this 4 Billion years is a period of 1 day. A man who lives to be a thousand years old, in the conext of the 1 day, would have spent 0.0216 of a second on the face of the earth.

Now if something like that happened in a normal day, i.e. existed for a period of 0.0216 seconds, we would not say that it had the opportunity to learn everything about itself let alone it's surroundings, or that it knew what preceded it or what was to follow it and so on... The point of this is that we spend so little time on earth in the context of things, we KNOW nothing. Mankind is keen to follow speculation and conjecture. His arrogance pushes him to make bold statements which has no right to make.

Knowledge = Power and we have very little of either.

I feel sorry for the heart that has no belief in GOD. I feel sorry for he who denies his creator. Deaf Dumb and Blind.

Re: illogical sense

1. Chemicals and emotions.

Here are some drugs that have precisely the affect that you think doesn't exist:

Anti-depressants, histomines, anti-psychotic drugs, many standard medications, valium, many other drugs. The medical world and psychiatry relies on the fact that drugs change emotions.

Also:

Neuroscience gives us detailed information over which neurotransmitters in the brain stimulate which emotions. Oxytocin, adrenaline, etc. Removing neurotransmitters prevents people from feeling whole sets of emotions.

Also, brain damage changes peoples' personalities and emotional structure.

My "assumption" (it was an "assertion", not an "assumption" by the way) has behind it rather a lot of science and evidence, not least including medical science, psychology, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psychiatry and human biology.

Re: illogical sense

Many of these drugs have known, tested and demonstratable affects on ECG scan results, on chemicals associated with emotions and a direct visible affect on the emotions of the patient.

Also, chemical and hormonal imbalances have direct affects on peoples' character and emotions, because the chemicals and hormones are the CAUSE of peoples' character and emotions.

2. What is this evidence for God that you allude to?

3. Yes, we have an endless amount to learn. It seems that the more we learn, the less scope and need there is for a God. God no longer pushes the planets round, creates life, makes thunder and lightening, makes Earthquakes... the more science we know, the less there seems to be room for a God. We have a "God of the gaps", an "unknown" where some people merely place all the unkowns and say "It's because of God!". God is shrinking, and without direct evidence, the unknowns of the world are very likely to be results of natural law, not of a conscious creator.

Re: God of the gaps but really this is still illogical

(Anonymous)
1
Sorry your missing the point. You are wrong.

Are you telling me that things like love hate etc are chemical reactions, balances or inbalances??. If you are you not making sense.

When you are being so scientfic then stick to your rules. e.g you can not say for instance that a drug such as antidepressants caused a particular result. All you can say is that afer the drug was consumed, you noticed a particular affect. You can not make the link between chemicals and behaviour in the manner in which you are attempting. That would mean, and if it were true, that every occassion that we took a particular tablet, we could expect a particular result. This as you well know, does not happen. Often patients complain of no effect and no change at all. Miost doctors, and I know a few, would accept that medication is on the basis of trial and error.

What your saying is a bit like saying a litre of petrol drove me 30 miles down the road. I mean petrol is important for car but theres this small thing called an engine, or even wheels, perhap the starter motor and so on, the absence of any one will make the 30 mile journey impossible but the inclusion of one item on it's own does not account for the end result being the 30 mile journey.

SO your still no further in making your assumptions. You can not make the links that you like cause frankly you just don't know. You do not have the knowledge so lets not pretend that we do. You liek teh rest of them follow conjecture so why dont you just be up front and say it.

Re: God of the gaps but really this is still illogical

(Anonymous)


2

The evidence of God is in his creation. I can not believe that you, who sounds well read, can not or has not come across evidence that there must be a creative force in the Universe.

3 Heres QUOTING you

"Yes, we have an endless amount to learn."

Ta, Ill have that


"It seems that the more we learn, the less scope and need there is for a God".

It seems!!! It may seem to you. Your life may be fair seeming to you but your not the standard to judge against are you now. I mean we have to consider all the people around the world and all the people that have ever existed and will ever exist because the Issue of God relates to them all. I would amend your statement as follows:-

"It SEEMS that the more we learn, the more we realise, how little it is that we actually know".


"God no longer pushes the planets round, creates life, makes thunder and lightening, makes Earthquakes... the more science we know, the less there seems to be room for a God."

There you go again, a wild statement. God creates and defines the laws of nature that we experience. For there to be no God/creator or even many Gods, then we would have seen great disharmony in teh Universe. WE DO NOT, IN FACT WE SEE DESIGN (from the molecular level to the gallatic level we see repetative design) and design requires a Creator.



"We have a "God of the gaps", an "unknown" where some people merely place all the unkowns and say "It's because of God!"."

It is preferable that we know our limitations and stop before we dwell into the unknown. The risk is that we could all end up thinking like you. (I am serious). It is better to say God knows best, because he does.

"God is shrinking"

No He is not.

"and without direct evidence, the unknowns of the world are very likely to be results of natural law, not of a conscious creator."

This is the worst part of your argument lets go through it slowly.

"and without direct evidence"

Meaning without any evidence really. this means, that if you have no evidence, then you can not make assumptions or draw defintaive conclusions.

AND FINALLY

"the unknowns of the world are very likely to be results of natural law and not of a conscious creator."


What is NATURAL LAW. WHERE DID THIS NARURAL LAW COME FROM. was it automatic. who decided that magnetic fields should have two poles and not three. Why does gravity pull down and NOT UP. Why do we grow old. Why do we have to. Why do we drink water and not say acid to digest our food. whyt why why. Sorry your in toruble here. DO not try to divorce God and Natural Law's. He sets them, he defines and creates them. You have no other possible explanation.


Read this, take a deep breath, sit back, chill out and rethink your life and your thoughts. Are you man enough to face up to the possibility that you as part of the .00000000000000000000001% of the human race have got it wrong and the rest of us are right.

If not, chill out, have a coke and a smile, and make sure you got plenty of pain killers.

AND YOU JUST GOT DONE AND YOU KNOW IT

Re: God of the gaps but really this is still illogical

2. There are some argument, but, as you say, I am well read and have also come across the counter-arguments. As there is no evidence for god, most arguments do not rely on any physical or logical evidence, but on emotional appeals and rhetoric.


You are right that without evidence, assumptions are pointless. Assuming that God exists, for example, despite a lack of evidence, is an invalid assumption. As I do not know any arguments for the existence of God, it would be a complete lie for me to pretend (even for emotional reasons) that a god existed. It doesn't.

"God creates and defines the laws of nature that we experience"

THIS is the God of the gaps that I am talking about. God USED to be said to (as I alluded to) push the planets around ITSELF, not by "creating laws". The more "laws" we discover, the further God has retreated from doing anything directly: Hence, a shrinking god, gaining in abstractness, has lost any vital realism.

In the modern world, God is merely a "first cause", an idea, and not directly involved in creation at all. In fact, it may as well not exist. Without an argument FOR its existence, it is wrong to say god exists.

You have mentioned an argument for the existence of God, you said simply "Creation" is evidence. I'll deal with that in another response, I'm not ignoring it. I'll deal with it as I deal with your next bit of text:

"What is NATURAL LAW. WHERE DID THIS NARURAL LAW COME FROM. was it automatic. who decided that magnetic fields should have two poles and not three. Why does gravity pull down and NOT UP. Why do we grow old. Why do we have to. Why do we drink water and not say acid to digest our food. whyt why why. Sorry your in toruble here. DO not try to divorce God and Natural Law's. He sets them, he defines and creates them. You have no other possible explanation"

See response...

Re: God of the gaps but really this is still illogical


Theistic belief:

That an uncreated God created the natural laws. You have 1 uncreated force (God), which you assume created natural laws.

Atheist belief:

Natural laws were not created.

Note which one has fewer assumptions? Atheistic and theistic theories of creation both rely on a single uncreated thing, but, the atheist ones have far fewer assumptions. In additon to a single uncreated object, the theist also assumes:

That this thing is conscious, has a will, is "loving", can think straight, wants to create the universe, and did so, is all-powerful, etc. All of these assumptions are just emotional constructs, results of homocentric thinking, because some people find it hard to imagine that the first cause wasn't a thinking, living being like ourselves.

As such, creation itself, if you follow Occam's Razor (the guideline that states that theories with fewer assumptions are more likely to be true than ones with more assumptions) then creation itself is evidence for atheism, simple because of a lack of evidence to support any theistic theories. (Evidence in this case meaning both scientific evidence or logical arguments).

God is not the logical creator of the universe:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html

Covering different subjects, this page compares the assumptions of atheists and theists and notes that they are very similar:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/faith.html

But notes many additional assumptions that theists make about their first-cause (some of which I listed above):
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/assumptions.html

Re: God of the gaps but really this is still illogical

"Read this, take a deep breath, sit back, chill out and rethink your life and your thoughts. Are you man enough to face up to the possibility that you as part of the .00000000000000000000001% of the human race have got it wrong and the rest of us are right."

I don't know how many people you think have existed throughout history, but your % of atheists seems to be way off! Atheism isn't some new, modern fad, it's been around for as long as we have written records. But, you are right (as you imply) to say that theism (well, polytheism at least) has been much more common.

If you are arguing that it is sum-total common beliefs that are more common, why are YOU not a polytheist?


"If not, chill out, have a coke and a smile, and make sure you got plenty of pain killers."

I don't drink coke, but I'll have a glass of water... but not with painkillers, I never take painkillers! Ick!

"AND YOU JUST GOT DONE AND YOU KNOW IT"

Does "got done" mean "lost the argument"?

Pagan philosophers and atheist greek philosophers have gone through ALL of these debates that we are going through. We are very unlikely to come across some novel argument that hasn't already been covered... I do not believe either of us are actually capable of winning.

The absolute end of the line (which we are approaching) is when we get to the "You can never disprove god as first cause" versus "You can never disprove universe/natural laws as first cause". There really is no way onwards from that impasse.

But I would like to add that even if you could (against the tide of history) prove the existence of a conscious first cause, you'd be a LONG way from proving any of the assumptions listed http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/assumptions.html and that if you define god as including many properties (such as "caring" or "loving", or "omniscience") you start running into problems that make it an inconsistent, self-contradictory idea and therefore false.

Re: God of the gaps but really this is still illogical

1. Yes, that is what I am saying. It is the consensus of the medical world (and our medicines, psychiatry and sciences *are* both amazing, wonderful and accurate, are they not?) that this is the way it is. Emotions are hormonal and chemical. Neurotransmitters and brain cells (both completely chemical) are the only cause of emotions - there has been no other discovered cause of them. Unless you know of one?

2. Science
It is science itself to measure cause and affect and as such we know that many emotions are chemical and can be controlled with drugs. The affects of serotonin (love, sadness, happiness), dopamine (excitement, paranoia, rational thinking), norepinephrine (anxiety, willpower), are all well known and well researched. If a person cannot produce these chemicals (due to a disease, defect, etc), very specific emotional pathways are denied to them.

Medication is *not* trail and error: We know how emotions work, we use accurate drugs.

However our brains *are* very complex mixtures of huge amounts of glands, chemicals and states, so that what you observe, that the same drug doesn't always have the same affect, is a truism because the brain is never in a constant state.

The Car Anology:
Let's say the car is an emotion. "Petrol", a specific chemical, one of a few, causes that emotion. With that chemical, your brain is on the road of experiencing that emotion. Without petrol, you can't go down that road no matter how much you want to. What your "will" wants, is irrelevant. Can't be done. With the petrol, you can curb it's affect through willful methods. (For example, we curb the affects of pain by hyperventilating, and we curb the affects of excess serotonin by whipping ourselves up).

But, such willpower and wishes are themselves the results of our cycles of thoughts, which are also chemical.

Such is the state of the human mind!

Scientific topics that cover all this include cognitive psychology, medicine, neuro sciences, human biology, medical psychology, etc.

So... what is YOUR theory on where emotions come from? Far from making an assumption, I am relying on the only known truth. If you can come up with a coherent or better theory (i.e., one with evidence to back it up), I will entertain it!

Heres an assumption about you

(Anonymous)
In your heart, you know that God exists.

You may be opinionated and extremely so but really, your no different to the rest of us. When your time comes to die, you will also call out for help. In your heart you know that he does exists.

I don't know what sort of upbringing you have had, or what your experiences have been or why indeed you think the way that you do.

With respect, I find nothing more then intellectual crap in your arguments.

If you are truthful in what you say,that there is no God, then create the like of an ant or of a fly. Why is it that when posed with a task like this you become intellectually defeated.

Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, upon your death, you will know the truth which already manifests in your heart.

You can quote theolagists, and philospophers and scientists and who ever you like, it makes no ounce of difference to the fact that you will Die and you will learn the truth.

In the history of man, you are amongst the first to claim that there is no God (the idea being relatively recent).

I pity you and people like you. You are so screwed up in your head, that you cant recongnise a basic fact.

What happened in your life that left you like this? WAKE UP.




Re: Heres an assumption about you

I'm met your type before - normally American, sometimes an insolated European... a person who can't possibly imagine that someone hasn't been brought up with the same theistic beliefs as yourself.

There is no basic fact that God exists... there are no gods... none of them are true.

Perhaps, if you gave me a billion years of evolution, I *would* create an ant. What's your point? That because YOU don't know how things work means there must be a god?

I think in YOUR heart, you know there is no God, and your desperate arguments and head-in-the-sand approach to the world, denying even that others' don't believe your superstitions, are an emotional block on your brain. Can't deal with the fact that there's no God? Well fine, continue to think there is one... but you're delusional, friend.

There are no logical arguments for the existence of god.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/atheism.html
And... atheism is not "new", or even "fairly new". There are (for example) atheist world religions such as Buddhism (hardly "new"), but older ones such as various Greek philosophers (these are the ones who debated with the early Christian "forefathers" about their theology and theism, 2000 years ago).

Christianity is newer than atheism, especially the closed-minded "I can't possibly even imagine how people can believe anything else but what I believe!" type of theism that you suffer from.

"What happened in your life that left you like this? WAKE UP"

What happened? I was brought up to believe in REALITY, not invisible best friends, that's what happened, and it's about time you grew up and discarded such dreams, too.

Occam's razor and faith

(Anonymous)
Theistic belief systems often require more assumptions to be made about the nature of the universe than current physics and related disciplines require. The principle of Occam's razor is usually interpreted to mean that an argument requiring fewer axioms is more likely to be correct than one requiring more and hence implies that the scientific model of the universe is more likely correct than the theistic one. This does not however mean that it is correct.

Essentially, my point is that a system of belief or logical argument can make as many assumptions as it needs to without harming its rigour, provided it is self consistent. Whilst the standard model of physics has yet to be proved self consistent, the supposition of an omnipotent being can be used to gloss over pretty much any inconsitency in a theistic system. Thus, while theism may require more assumptions (thereby making itself the less favourable model according to Occam) it does have the rather attractive property of self consistency.

Despite this, I'm an atheist.

In a grain of Sand

(Anonymous)
If in a grain of Sand holds the key to all thats in the world, Then how can you say there is no God, For from nothing came love for us.

Every thing moves and exist through God, God is space and every thing it's self. The word became flesh means, your very own body is the living God. That does not mean you are God. But rather you borrow your body from God. Thats why we must not sin. For when we sin we use God to do it.Then the Holy Spirit leaves those that sin, while yet the father stays with you even while you are sinning, because if he left you, you would fall to the ground as dust. When you sin against the body you condemn your self, because you hurt God. And in the end when you die, and when you see God face to face he won't even see you because you were not able to see him your whole life. But Satan will, and you'll be the one suffering in the end. If you only knew what I have seen, and what I know and what I could show you. You wouldn't be writing what you have been writing about. And you would be much happier not because of scripture, but because what I have is real.

Space wasn't created, It has always been, for from nothing came something. Look at how a star is made in space. A bunch of gases of all different colors start mixing together, and when they implode they make a star.This is the very beginning of any thing.

Every thing in the universe is made up of what?
ATOMS.

When you separate atoms what do you get?
You get vibrations and different colors.

So you get sound and light! If you start looking at nature you will discover that in the Bible there is explanations that match what science is telling us. When your heart is closed you will not experience God. But when your heart is open to God you will experience him,and you finally come to know him, and you will know that he is good and that he loves you and he doesn't want you to be confused any longer and that he has emotions.

quick question

(Anonymous)
Hi there.

I just stumbled onto your website and found your writing very interesting. It seems like you are very much against a God who might love you...am I right? And I am curious about what you think about the Bible helping us know more about who God is, what He is like and how He wants to relate to us.


Re: quick question

I believe in truth... I'm not "against" any God, I just don't think there *are* any Gods, whether they happen to be ones that love us or not.

GRR

(Anonymous)
This entire conversation makes me sick. How dare you go against my God!

Also, just because something has "fewer assumptions" does NOT make it any more or less true. Do you realize that the theory of evolution is toppling, scientists are second guessing themselves every day, and you are still blindly believing it all?

Talk about blind faith. sheesh. It's not like science comes to one conclusion and sticks with it for eternity. Well I guess God has changed... oh wait, NO HE HASN'T!

Re: GRR

(Anonymous)
This entire conversation makes me sick. How dare you go against my God!

YA OMG HOW DAER YOU BELIEF DIFFRNT THAN ME!?!1 WUT UR PROBLEM!?

Also, just because something has "fewer assumptions" does NOT make it any more or less true. Do you realize that the theory of evolution is toppling, scientists are second guessing themselves every day, and you are still blindly believing it all?

Prove it.

Talk about blind faith. sheesh. It's not like science comes to one conclusion and sticks with it for eternity. Well I guess God has changed... oh wait, NO HE HASN'T!

Again, prove it.

-RZephyr07@gmail.com

  • 1
?

Log in