I'll admit, I've seen some youtube atheists bring up the idea of the Trinity as some sort of entry level critique on how the bible makes contradictory claims. Not everyone takes it seriously though because an omnipotent god can do anything, so existing in multiple places in multiple forms isn't out of the question by any stretch of the word.
Well, considering that omnipresence is one of God's big 3 omni powers (the others being omnipotence and omniscience), being a mere 1 in 3 in 1 seems rather small fry in comparison
Anyone who uses that line, as an argument against gods, seems to be merely utilising a petty method of attacking/arguing against 'Your particular form of Christianity', rather than engaging in any legitimate discussion against the existence (or lack thereof) of any gods [in general]
There cannot be an argument against the existence of god itself, because you could always claim god exists out of space and time and you will never meet him.
But there is an argument to be made to only believe or worship that kind of idea if it leads to desirable outcomes for yourself or for humanity. I think no current of the big religions can claim that their overall effect on humanity was a good one. All of them have been used (not abused, used, willingly) to subdue or kill people. All of them widen the divide between humans.
There cannot be an argument against the existence of god itself, because you could always claim god exists out of space and time and you will never meet him.
I think if you said "a creator" here instead of "god" it'd be more appropriate. The word "god" obviously has very specific meaning to people depending on their religions. I do believe that there can be a very obvious argument against the existence of the personal God of Abrahamic religions, for example.
There cannot be an argument against the existence of god itself, because you could always claim god exists out of space and time and you will never meet him.
Existence is necessarily temporal. Any time you use signifiers like before, during, after, or synonyms of the like, you're making a temporal claim. Saying that a god created everything places a timestamp on that god's existence (prior to everything that it created's origin), making it no longer outside of time and space. A creator would have to exist inside of time to act as the creator, because it would need to be around to do the creating.
Now there are apologists that'd point to science claiming that time and space both had a beginning, sure. And we don't know what caused it, sure. But big bang cosmology just refers to the instantiation of the current representation of the universe. There's nothing at all that says our universe can't have existed in a different state already. In fact, we have reason to believe that's the case. The hot dense stuff at the center of the rapid expansion would've had to already have been there after all.
I've yet to really see apologist's views on creation with the new ideas about the Big Bang and what might have existed before. They seem to conveniently only engage in discussions of older ideas, like the theory that says time and existence itself just popped into existence in an instant, when more recent theories suggest different ideas entirely. Or perhaps they don't want to contend with the implications that that brings up.
I mean, it's in rather poor taste but it's not necessarily incorrect
Certainly 'being angry' stands [in my mind] to have more chance of stopping that kind of heinous shit from happening again (more than the obligatory 'thoughts and prayers', at least)
Can this kind of point and sentiment still be there even if you disagree with their take on the lack of an afterlife? I would say yes. Their lives were taken from them early, and what would a God have to say about that? Or is this just another "mystery of faith"?
Sunday. I'll offer a topic for discussion. (if anyone wants1)
...
Around 2,000 years ago
Jews: romans are taking away our freedoms & rights with their unlawful taxes on us, what should we do?!
Jesus response:
This was Jesus' response to imperialism of the roman empire which was viewed as an evil and oppressive regime of that era.
It has also been said that Judas betrayed Jesus as he thought if Jesus was captured and His life endangered, God would kill the romans and liberate jews from roman rule. (This is reflected by Judas immediately hanging himself, rather than enjoying the rewards of his betrayal.)
...
Barabbas by contrast was held in custody on charges (something like) robbery, murder and rebellion against rome.
Matthew 27:20
But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death.
Matthew 27:21
But the governor said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.”
Barabbas could be compared to the founding fathers who favor guns, civilian militias and violence as deterrents against oppressive regimes.
While Jesus may be more like Gandhi who favored peaceful protest.
But the incident with the whip in the temple must also factor in. There was a point where Jesus did opt for the militant option. Which could carry interesting implications for those willing to think about and investigate it.
With the current political climate being so polarized and heated. There are many posing the question: what would Jesus do. (WWJD FTL)
Perhaps this gives us some clue as to an answer. Which may not be the answer most expected.
It has also been said that Judas betrayed Jesus as he thought if Jesus was captured and His life endangered, God would kill the romans and liberate jews from roman rule. (This is reflected by Judas immediately hanging himself, rather than enjoying the rewards of his betrayal.)
But the incident with the whip in the temple must also factor in. There was a point where Jesus did opt for the militant option. Which could carry interesting implications for those willing to think about and investigate it.
This is when the apologists would reprimand you for not acknowledging that a lot of the bible is just hyperbole or isn't intended to be taken seriously.
My favorite is when they dismiss the crazy things in the old testament in favor of the new testament despite the fact that Jesus himself states he has come to change "neither jot nor tittle" (giggity) of the word... but to uphold them.
For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
biblehub.com
Ironically, if we dismiss the old testament that would mean dismissing the 10 commandments.
This is when the apologists would reprimand you for not acknowledging that a lot of the bible is just hyperbole or isn't intended to be taken seriously.
My favorite is when they dismiss the crazy things in the old testament in favor of the new testament despite the fact that Jesus himself states he has come to change "neither jot nor tittle" (giggity) of the word... but to uphold them.
For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
biblehub.com
Ironically, if we dismiss the old testament that would mean dismissing the 10 commandments.
You're also not allowed to jokingly imply that Jesus was a leftist either, because modern ideology is too anachronistic, even if it mostly fits.
They can just explain it away as "God's word" regardless of who actually wrote the Bible, what parts they decided to keep in during all of those councils, who "they" are, even though there's plenty of compelling evidence and just common sense suggesting that the God of the Old Testament wasn't a singular deity, it was several different ones renamed and repurposed to fit a monotheistic worldview, despite all existing historical evidence suggesting that religions in the Levant at that time were polytheistic. That's something I'd be interested in seeing an apologist address, certainly much more than their rhetorical musings on physics.
I never really blamed humans cruelty on god, I blamed God himself for being cruel and sadist because that how he constantly portrayed himself in the Quran.
I think you must include disbelieving in Allah among the wrongdoings because most of these verses are for the non believers, Simply any non believer is indulging in wrongdoings according to the Quran because they simply can't accept him as god. Therefore these verses are directed at people like me and puts me in the same boat as murders, racists and thieves.
3. Seems to me you are confused between two paths, good and bad. The good one seems like a chore to do so you opt for the bad one. Now there is a religion that doesn't want you to do bad things so it reminds you of the Judgement. But you, with your heart leaning on the bad side, wants to call God a sadist when you get punishment.
Being a non believer is not a bad thing tho, I call god a sadist because the entire essence of any Abrahamic religion is built around fear, If you don't fear Allah, You are not truly believing in him, And Allah wants you to fear and in return you will get an unguaranteed place in heaven. So yeah thats a sadist behavior. And i mentioned before how detailed the torture verses are and how many they are, You say i lean to the bad side but what can i do when i read these For instance.
(18) Indeed, he thought and deliberated.
(19) So may he be destroyed [for] how he deliberated
(20) Then may he be destroyed [for] how he deliberated
(21) Then he considered [again];
(22) Then he frowned and scowled;
(23) Then he turned back and was arrogant
(24) And said, "This is not but magic imitated [from others].
(25) This is not but the word of a human being."
(26) I will drive him into Saqar ( Hell )
(27) And what can make you know what is Saqar?
(28) It lets nothing remain and leaves nothing [unburned].
(29) Altering [i.e., blackening from burns] the skins.
(30) Seize him and shackle him.
(31) Then into Hellfire drive him.
(32) Then into a chain whose length is seventy cubits insert him."
(33) Indeed, he did not used to believe in Allah, the Most Great,
@Raven Think about how a teacher wants you to study for your exam (good) but you play games all day (bad). In the end, the teacher has warned you about your exam (world), but you still opt for the bad path. In the end, failure is your punishment. It's only fair. You have zero right in calling your teacher a sadist.
Invalid comparison because i can't be put to test without a solid reasoning that makes me believe in Allah, But regardless, Even if you prepare to the test, You still can't make it out with your effort according to this hadith.
" There is none whose deeds alone would entitle him to get into Paradise. It was said to him: And, Allah's Messenger, not even you? Thereupon he said: Not even I, but that my Lord wraps me in Mercy."
@Raven I recommend visiting a l - i s l a m . o r g website and read about these topics because that site is an absolutely amazing source of knowledge. However here's a reminder since most of what is there is from the perspective of a minority sect in Islam (shiism) but it's incredibly enlightening. You may search the topic as you please.
@Raven also I'm sorry if it was a burden communicating with me, I only responded because I was offended you called my God cruel and sadist. I wouldn't have butted in otherwise.
You don't have to be sorry, I respect your courage to come out and defend your believes, It is something beautiful, This passion is something i adore and i can not hate.
I'm sorry if i offended you my friend, but you shouldn't be offended because i didn't attack you personally, I was simply saying my opinion about your god which is something im free to do.
I give you credit for seeing through these charlatans. But many people give money to see miracles like curing cancer. Many give money to adhere to these prosperity gospel principle. To give, so that they themselves can get rich. Very fitting for a capitalist society to be honest.
But I do hope you come to the conclusion that people can develop moral in parallel to whatever religious doctrine. Heck, some people take moral lessons from manga. It was for me from something like Doreamon when I was younger. In the so called communist Vietnam state (it is barely communist), but they have morality classes in elementary school. State sanctioned morality classes if you will. Teaching kids about hard working, not stealing, so on and so forth. Every system has their flaws. Recently I had a few friends with family members passed away. Some of the parents are super religious and found comfort in it. And I will never take something like that from them. To recover from grief and trauma using faith. We developed religions for a reason. To give meaning to this meaningless world. To give a sense of overall impartial, and justice, in a world that is often unfair, and immoral. Even if it is delusion, but sometimes we need delusion to live a healthy life or even have a healthy society. For example, to believe the world has justice (which often people don't got the justice they deserve) is a delusion. But that delusion often keep the majority in line and to do goods, and to avoid bad.
2. Christians pray To God to deliver them from the poop. They refuse to pick it up themselves. They think God is supposed to magically solve everything for them. That God is supposed to give them endless free stuff, as if God were Karl Marx.
3. Dog continues to poop. Eventually the entire yard is full of dog poop.
4. Christians beg God to know why He did not save them from the poop.
5. Apply this to the economy, politics, education and everything else important in the world and everything starts to make sense.
2. Christians pray To God to deliver them from the poop. They refuse to pick it up themselves. They think God is supposed to magically solve everything for them. That God is supposed to give them endless free stuff, as if God were Karl Marx.
3. Dog continues to poop. Eventually the entire yard is full of dog poop.
4. Christians beg God to know why He did not save them from the poop.
5. Apply this to the economy, politics, education and everything else important in the world and everything starts to make sense.
I think characterizing Christians as only being into it for the "free stuff" is a less charitable characterization than most atheists would produce (same with it not even showing an understand of Marx either), and yet you fashion yourself as a "true believer". Rather confusing really.
There's been an update to our forum rules to broaden crediting/sourcing to all series news/announcement, etc. Please read HERE
Oscars Contest 2023 is LIVE! Click HERE for a chance to win your Oscar!
It's back! MH presents a celebration of manga/anime culture; Mangahelpers Awards 2022 is NOW LIVE!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I'll offer a topic for discussion. (if anyone wants1)
