Thread: Where Do You Stand ?

Originally posted by Kaimelar
Life is beautiful in spite of those horrible things. Its the way its meant to be. Besides, you wouldnt be able to apreciate the beauty of certain things if there weren't horrible things for them to be compared with.

Yes, let's just keep the horrible things around then. More wife beatings! More botulism! More wars!

Think of how much more we would appreciate the beauty?


(So not the drama...)

Universal Mind wrote:
What I have been arguing on this web site is that a simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator could not possibly exist. The issue of whether or not a limited God could or one that is not totally good could exist is something I have not debated here. I have said a few times that it is much more believable, but that I think it is far fetched. I think it is about as probable as the existence of the Tooth Fairy, but I don't know of an argument that proves completely that it is impossible. Same goes for the Tooth Fairy.
[/b]

Well I guess that is where our opinions differ. I think it is much more probable to assume that a creator exists, than to assume that if a creator exists he is automatically supposed to be omnibenevolent. Assuming God's personality is what I find to be about as credible as the Tooth Fairy. To assume that, just because a God isn't omnibenevolent, he is less likely to exist than a God with the option of personality is an....unusual approach to logic, for lack of a better word, that I just don't agree with. But, to each his own, of course.

Although, arguing that an omnibenevolent God doesn't exist doesn't make you an atheist. It means you don't believe in the existence of an omnibenevolent God, not that you don't believe in A God. In that sense, I'm not disagreeing with anything you say you've stated on this site then, because believing there isn't an omnibenevolent God is not the same thing as believing there is no God, and I think it is important for you to distinguish between the two.
Thats just me.

And it is in this sense that you don't necessarily apply to my first mention of disagreeing with the common atheistic philosophy of "I know what existence would be like if there was a God" because your philosophy is that you "know what existence would be like if there was an omnipotent AND omnibenevolent God" which are two completely different worlds.

Originally posted by Oneironaut

Universal Mind wrote:
What I have been arguing on this web site is that a simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator could not possibly exist. The issue of whether or not a limited God could or one that is not totally good could exist is something I have not debated here. I have said a few times that it is much more believable, but that I think it is far fetched. I think it is about as probable as the existence of the Tooth Fairy, but I don't know of an argument that proves completely that it is impossible. Same goes for the Tooth Fairy.

Well I guess that is where our opinions differ. I think it is much more probable to assume that a creator exists, than to assume that if a creator exists he is automatically supposed to be omnibenevolent. Assuming God's personality is what I find to be about as credible as the Tooth Fairy. To assume that, just because a God isn't omnibenevolent, he is less likely to exist than a God with the option of personality is an....unusual approach to logic, for lack of a better word, that I just don't agree with. But, to each his own, of course.

Although, arguing that an omnibenevolent God doesn't exist doesn't make you an atheist. It means you don't believe in the existence of an omnibenevolent God, not that you don't believe in A God. In that sense, I'm not disagreeing with anything you say you've stated on this site then, because believing there isn't an omnibenevolent God is not the same thing as believing there is no God, and I think it is important for you to distinguish between the two.
Thats just me.

And it is in this sense that you don't necessarily apply to my first mention of disagreeing with the common atheistic philosophy of \"I know what existence would be like if there was a God\" because your philosophy is that you \"know what existence would be like if there was an omnipotent AND omnibenevolent God\" which are two completely different worlds.[/b]

I have been adressing that issue because it is what the Christians believe in, and Christianity is what we have been debating. My not being able to prove that there is no God at all does not mean I am not an atheist. If there is a word for people who don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, it applies to me, and I assume to you too. Can you give a completely solid argument that proves that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? Yet you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, right?

Christianity is what we've been debating? Since when?

This thread is entitled "Where do you stand?" Meaning where you stand on your religious views in general, right? If this was a Christianity Only thread, then I'm afraid I missed the fine print. In fact, I stated I was not talking about Any of the mainstream characterizations of a God. I'm talking about the possibility of a Creator. I'm not sure why you assumed, immediately that I was talking specifically of Christianity's God, or that everyone else that replies to this thread is, but if that is the point of this thread, again, I missed it.

No I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, nor would I presume to even Try to give an irrefutable reason as to why. I'm not even really sure what your question has to do with our conversation. You are speaking of not believing in an omnibenevolent God. I was speaking of how not believing in ANY God simply because one "knows what existence would be like if God exists" is not logical. You are speaking of Christianity's God as if it is the only characterization of God that Could be true, though you don't think it is. I'm speaking of the posibility of ANY God, not necessarily the God bound by the benevolent characterization of Christianity's God, which may not be accurate at all.
The two arguements are completely out of context with each other.

I am an atheist. There is no God, and the notion is ridiculous IMO. I suppose I am a humanist too. I believe that humans are beautiful and sacred. It is our duty to e the best we can do for the sake of our race and future and to honor the past.

Originally posted by Ex Nine


Yes, let's just keep the horrible things around then. More wife beatings! More botulism! More wars!

Think of how much more we would appreciate the beauty?


(So not the drama...)

Thats just free will. I didnt say it was good, I just said it allowed people to apreciate beauty a lot better "the sweet isn't as sweet without the bitter". If you dont want those things to happen, you'd have to strip mankind from its free will.

Originally posted by Kaimelar
Thats just free will. I didnt say it was good, I just said it allowed people to apreciate beauty a lot better \"the sweet isn't as sweet without the bitter\". If you dont want those things to happen, you'd have to strip mankind from its free will.

Allowing people to appreciate beauty a lot better isn't good? That's inconsistent.

And that's a huge step of ignorance to lump everything bad into something innocuous as free will. Get rid of free will? You have no imagination.

It's your view of life that is ugly, Kaimelar. You've obviously never seen beauty. And that is consistent with your having no imagination.

Hell, I bet if I scraped off the bitter receptors on your tongue, the sweet would taste just as sweet.

Originally posted by Ex Nine


Allowing people to appreciate beauty a lot better isn't good? That's inconsistent.

And that's a huge step of ignorance to lump everything bad into something innocuous as free will. Get rid of free will? You have no imagination.

It's your view of life that is ugly, Kaimelar. You've obviously never seen beauty. And that is consistent with your having no imagination.

Hell, I bet if I scraped off the bitter receptors on your tongue, the sweet would taste just as sweet.

I find your comments rather annoying. You don't even know me and yet you judge me. Have I judged you? I believe not.

Anyway, you didn't really understand what I posted, as it isn't inconsistent. I said that the cruelty and horrible things that happen are becuz mankind is free to act as they wish, and thats what we call free will.

And yes, I have seen beauty, thats why I believe Life is beautiful. If not, now that would be inconsistent.

Life IS Beautiful...


...its the People living it, that tend to fuck it up.

Originally posted by Oneironaut

...its the People living it, that tend to fuck it up.

Boy ,aint THAT the truth !

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Christianity is what we've been debating? Since when?

This thread is entitled \"Where do you stand?\" Meaning where you stand on your religious views in general, right? If this was a Christianity Only thread, then I'm afraid I missed the fine print. In fact, I stated I was not talking about Any of the mainstream characterizations of a God. I'm talking about the possibility of a Creator. I'm not sure why you assumed, immediately that I was talking specifically of Christianity's God, or that everyone else that replies to this thread is, but if that is the point of this thread, again, I missed it.

No I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, nor would I presume to even Try to give an irrefutable reason as to why. I'm not even really sure what your question has to do with our conversation. You are speaking of not believing in an omnibenevolent God. I was speaking of how not believing in ANY God simply because one \"knows what existence would be like if God exists\" is not logical. You are speaking of Christianity's God as if it is the only characterization of God that Could be true, though you don't think it is. I'm speaking of the posibility of ANY God, not necessarily the God bound by the benevolent characterization of Christianity's God, which may not be accurate at all.
The two arguements are completely out of context with each other.

Christianity is what we have been debating on this site, and the debates that erupted in this thread have also been about the Christian God.

I said that the Christian God could not possibly exist, as proven by simple logic. But I also said that a God that is not supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent is a far fetched concept like the notion of the Tooth Fairy, but I cannot completely disprove the notion with logic. But I can still say with truth that I don't believe in it, as I can with the Tooth Fairy. I brought your belief into the discussion because I figured you too would say that you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, as you just did, yet you would probably claim that you can't logically prove the nonexistence of the Tooth Fairy, as you just did.

Yes, I've seen debate about Christianity on this site, and even on this thread. But I've read nothing that leads me to believe that any of the conversations on this site, let alone on this thread are Strictly reserved for those talking about Christianity.
Someone asked where I stood. I answered. They didn't ask where I stood in relation to the Christain God. If you don't believe in the Christian God, that is one thing, but I don't think it is fair to assume that everyone here that talks about the possibility of a God is talking specifically about the Christian characterization of God. But if that is the conclusion that you've drawn, then so be it.

I said that the Christian God could not possibly exist, as proven by simple logic. But I also said that a God that is not supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent is a far fetched concept like the notion of the Tooth Fairy[/b]

I still don't get how you automatically assume that any being that might have created us would near Have to be omnibenevolent. You deny the Christian God, yet hold their characterization of him as the most likely, and the thought of a God with the option of apathy as ridiculous. I guess, to me, this seems a little odd. However, doing my best to see things from your point of view, I can see how having a very religious background (you Did start off with one when you were younger, correct?) could engrave the concept of an omnibenevolent God into your mind, so much so that, even when you've rejected the idea, it is the only characterization of God that you view as a Possibility, though an unlikely one. So, to this, once again, I say: To each his own. I simply think that it is just as important, if you are going to denounce the Christian God as a possibility, that you might also want to ponder over whether or not their characterization of an unseen God might be wrong as well? I'm sure, as an intelligent atheist, you would be willing to change your lack of theism if you came into contact with God, himself. However, what if this God was not the omnibenevolent God that you remember from your studies? What it be any harder to believe?

God is a kid with an ant farm. He's not planning anything. - Constantine.

Just example of another popular viewpoint about God. (No that idea was not born from the movie. The idea was just worked into it.) A God that is a benevolent slave to man is more easily acceptable than a God that may just be leaving man to make their Own pathways to heaven and/or hell? I dunno, I guess to me, that question deserves a little more consideration. But if you don't think so, like I said, I'm not here to insult your beliefs, and I think you're outside of the scope of the type of atheists I was disagreeing with in my initial post.

No, I couldn't judge you, Kaimelar. I don't know you.

You are, however, committing the logical fallacy of lack of imagination. And doing so about very large things. After all, that's when it's easiest to commit. Lack of imagination is probably the most common fallacy there is. I'm sure you have an imagination (is that a judgment?). You're just not using it.

It's good that you only find my posts annoying. I find the way you parade your ignorance offensive.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
No, I couldn't judge you, Kaimelar. I don't know you.

You are, however, committing the logical fallacy of lack of imagination. And doing so about very large things. After all, that's when it's easiest to commit. Lack of imagination is probably the most common fallacy there is. I'm sure you have an imagination (is that a judgment?). You're just not using it.

It's good that you only find my posts annoying. I find the way you parade your ignorance offensive.

Hehe.. you make me laugh and you also make me realize how pointless it is to argue with you. There you have yet another judgement of yours. Lets just leave it at you don't know me.

More beatings!

Howdy.

20 words huh?

Masonic occultist. Hermetics, Egyptian Magick, aligned loosly with Keysters. Originally Mormon.

Stand in the place where you live
Now face North
Think about direction
Wonder why you haven't before
Now stand in the place where you work
Now face West
Think about the place where you live
Wonder why you haven't before

If you are confused check with the sun
Carry a compass to help you along
Your feet are going to be on the ground
Your head is there to move you around



Your feet are going to be on the ground
Your head is there to move you around
If wishes were trees the trees would be falling
Listen to reason
Season is calling

If wishes were trees the trees would be falling
Listen to reason
Reason is calling
Your feet are going to be on the ground
Your head is there to move you around

So Stand (stand)
Now face North
Think about direction, wonder why you haven't before
Now stand (stand)
Now face West
Think about the place where you live
Wonder why you haven't


Stand in the place where you are (Now face North)
Stand in the place where you are (Now face West)
Your feet are going to be on the ground (Stand in the place where you are)
Your head is there to move you around, so stand.

Atheist. Yet nothing is sure. The worlds religions have screwed the world. There is no soul, no afterlife. Evolution is the only reason we are on this world.

And stuff =D

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
@ Awaken

I still like mine better; and as no one seems to have commented, it must therefore truly be non-debatable...

Actually, I have to agree with you, that is my viewpoint as well, except I've found that knowing the details is important. More information the better choice I make. I like the consequences of informed choice. More comfortable that way.

Originally posted by InTheMoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(InTheMoment)</div>

I'm not spiritual, but I do meditate occasionally.[/b]

ITM, that's like saying that cars don't exist when you are shooting down the freeway driving an SUV.

<!--QuoteBegin-UniveralMind
I said that the Christian God could not possibly exist, as proven by simple logic. But I also said that a God that is not supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent is a far fetched concept like the notion of the Tooth Fairy.

This is silliness. The \"Christian God\" is the Christian God concept that, as taught in churches, has been simplified so that the lowest common denominator (ie. people of very low intelligence, young children) can get a handle on things.

I find it funny that UM feels he has to bring university level logic to a teaching taught to 5 year olds in sunday school. I'd figure he'd get tired of shooting fish in buckets, but he is most insistant. And then he parades around with his arms above his head in victory.

And by the way, I've answered this question \"hermetically\" on another board. The short version is that God is subject to natural law, and that his omnibenevolence is confirmed by his activities in minimizing pain (by sending prophets and saviors like Christ). His omnipotence doesn't mean that he can make 2+2=6 but that he has full control over information, energy and matter within His domain.

Those of you that are \"Christians\" (gosh, I hate that label...perhaps \"Godians\" would be better, maybe), could you help me out on this one. Keep these following lines in your computer's clipboard and post a message to every where where UM \"claims\" to have triumphed over the the \"Christian God\", quote him and put these words under his quote. Only, of course, if you agree with the idea in it.

---
God is subject to natural law, and his omnibenevolence is confirmed by his activities in minimizing pain (by sending prophets and saviors like Christ). His omnipotence doesn't mean that he can make 2+2=6 but that he has full control over information, energy and matter within His domain.
---

This makes sense to the average modern Christian of average intelligence, I'm sure. I can assure you that the redundancy of it will not be any more oppressive than your self-promotion as the pseudogod of the Athiests.

Originally posted by ExNine+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ExNine)</div>

Hell, I bet if I scraped off the bitter receptors on your tongue, the sweet would taste just as sweet.[/b]

Try eating only candy for a month, X9, and come back and tell us this. Also, while your at it remove one of the two connectors to the battery in your cell phone and remotes. Also, post us a picture of a coin with one side. (damned monists)

Let me quote the Prophet of the Athiests once more:

<!--QuoteBegin-UniversalMind
I don't believe in God. I don't think we were put here. I think we grew here like mold grows on old bread...

Wow, its not often you see this extreme of irony. \"mold on old bread\". Who makes the bread? Humans make bread. So UM is saying here that the less advanced life, the mold, grows on the product of the more advanced life, the human's bread. Isn't this the intelligent Christian view on the subject, that the less advanced life, a human being, grows on the product of the more advanced life, God's Earth? I think UM made a freudian slip here admitting that he's a closet Christian

Originally posted by InsaneJester+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(InsaneJester)</div>

it's impossible for anyone to KNOW that[/b]

Naughty, naughty, IJ. Can't disprove a negative. Logic 101, dude.

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(OpheliaBlue)</div>

no god, no afterlife, no nuthin...see how well everyone gets along.[/b]

What do you care then OB? If there's no God to punish me, and you're at the other end of an Internet connection, why not be insulting? No smiting from God or you.

<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut@
There are many reasons for not believing in God.

True, but there is only one good one, and its converse is the only good one to beleive in a God. That you have personally communicated with Him and then know that he exists. An Athiest cannot say with certainty that there is no God, but one who has communicated with Him can say with a certainty that he does exist.

<!--QuoteBegin-ExNine
And unorganized religion is what...?

The occult. I recommend it. Gives you all the benifits of secular humanism, and you keep on God's good side

Ptahsokar,
You provide surface rebuttals for so many quotes yet leave behind
nothing more than shallow quotes of your own. You seem to be in
possesion of a clever mind. You also seem arrogant to a fault.
Namely, the confidence with which you dispatch the logic of others
without actually saying anything of substance yourself. Reversal of
logic is not knowledge. We could all go around, ceaselessly, turning
each others views to fit our own perspective and still no answers would
come. Your approach may be different, and effective, but unless you
actually convey something of depth, born from your studies, forged
in the fires of your life experience, and presented here in a way you
can defend infallibly, you words mean no more to us then ours do to
your ears. Frankly the babble of theists hurts my head. I long for
knowledge. If you can teach, do so.
Atheists, do not be baited.

Originally posted by ptahsokar
The occult. I recommend it. Gives you all the benifits of secular humanism, and you keep on God's good side

Says who, your prophet?

No thanks, I'll just stick to atheism...a non-prophet organization.

Originally posted by ptahsokar+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ptahsokar)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Ex Nine

And unorganized religion is what...?

The occult. I recommend it. Gives you all the benifits of secular humanism, and you keep on God's good side.[/b]

That makes no sense.

I understand your meaning. You were trying to be poetic. But you clearly haven't been around the occult that long.

Originally posted by RCarter+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RCarter)</div>

Reversal of logic is not knowledge. We could all go around, ceaselessly, turning
each others views to fit our own perspective and still no answers would
come. [/b]

Agreed. I'm carpet bombing right now to lay down a defensible position. I shall quickly turn my attention from defence to offence. As Santa Clause, I too will be aslaying before Christmas.

Originally posted by RCarter+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RCarter)</div>

Atheists, do not be baited.[/b]

Indeed, hold fast. Stationary targets are easier to hit. Hiss.

<!--QuoteBegin-ITM@
Says who, your prophet?

An occultist is his own prophet, as you are your own god, Athiest.

<!--QuoteBegin-X9
That makes no sense. I understand your meaning.

This one requires no transmutation to answer it back upon your head.

More drama, as expected.

Originally posted by R.Carter

Frankly the babble of theists hurts my head. I long for
knowledge. If you can teach, do so.