With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

okinrus: we are never to doubt God

sounds alot like a cult to me. I have some purple Kool-Aid for you.

And why never doubt God? Because that is just what you were told? This is why Faith is not knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup, to both parts.

I don't see anything wrong with being able to not doubt God. If anything, that's the most logical thing and stance ever said by religion. Why do I say that? Because what is one doubting about God? We know nothing of God, except for our personal beliefs. Anything a religion tells us about God can go ahead and be doubted because those are not words or actions from God. Everything to do with religion is all someone else's thoughts, theories, and philosophy as to what they think God is, does, has done, and the like.

Go ahead and doubt religion all one wants but don't doubt God, not because it's not good to doubt but because it's silly since there is absolutely nothing you can doubt about him since we know nothing about him, lol. Any doubt would all be mere assumption and speculation so you'd be doubting yourself, not God.

- N

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This statement indirectly asserts as true that 'God' exists, and there is no
evidence to date supporting such assertion. Sorry, but to be taken as
anything beyond fiction, the assertion has to supported by fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

§outh§tar
Defender of the faith

§outh§tar
I WANT TO BELIEVE

§outh§tar
Defender of the faithless

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SouthStar, the problem I think you need to grasp, is that Christianity and many religions have many adherents because there is at least a bit of truth in them. I hate to tell you this, but if you truly have been raised a Christian, I doubt you will ever fully "throw off the shackles" of this faith. With as much information as there is in the Bible and related history, there are certain things which appear, at the least, coincidentally true, and despite the amount of apparently contradictory texts and apparently immoral teachings within Christianity, those few things which actually DO seem right and true will probably keep you in the lingering doubt, and having you say to yourself "What if it IS really true? What if there IS an eternal hell?" I think the only way you will ever overcome this, is if you accept that there are coincidences and patterns in this life, even amazing ones, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're inspired by the "all powerful" deity. There usually is at least something true, and perhaps AMAZINGLY true about a religion. Why else are there followers of religions? Are they all just completely delusional without a shred of truth at all? Who would follow such a religion? I will almost say that such a religion does not exist.

I'm assuming this is why you still have doubt. You can't absolutely prove that Christianity is false. Millions upon millions of people usually don't believe in things which are obviously and demonstrably completely false. You will never get the assurance you're looking for. Christianity can not be proven absolutely false. But, do you want to believe in a deity which eternally tortures most of humankind for not following the correct religion (Christians will say it's for unforgiven sin, but this concept of hellfire is also in the Islamic religion)? Even IF there are truths in Christianity, and things which can't be explained, where did they come from? Maybe they're just coincidences, even AMAZING coincidences? Did these "truths" come from "The true God"? Or a demon/evil alien? Or unexplained powers of nature? For instance, what was said about Apollonius of Tyana? He supposedly did a bunch of miracles, but attributed them to the powers of nature. I'm serious. Think about it. If there came to you a complete undeniable proof of supernatural influence, but yet it said, "Kill everyone", would you follow it? Or would you think, well, maybe it's some evil influence I can't explain? Not that all of the Bible is bad or evil. But, there contains things in it that seem repulsive, at least to me, and difficult to believe a good deity could have inspired it.

Sorry if this seems rambling, but I don't think you will ever be 100% assured that Christianity is completely false. Since human knowledge is not infinite, that proof just can't be had.

 

Well I worded it that way to indirectly assert that God exists because the person was referring to Christians telling people not to doubt God. So that goes on their belief of God being real so I worded it with them in mind.

But as for what you said, that's kind of the point. Since we don't know anything about God, we don't even know if he exists period. Having no knowledge of is the same as not existing, outside of faith. What can you doubt about God since he's made nothing known of himself? And even assuming there is a God, one still can't doubt God due to everything that was said about God is man's thoughts on him so they would be doubting that person's thoughts, not God him/her/itself. Only man has defined God. So anything one reads or hears about him is all out of the mouth of man, not God.

If one doubts God's omnipotence, that's because man said God was omnipotent. If one doubts God's existance, that's because man said God exists, etc. Nothing can produce the knowledge of an object but the object itself. And well, I've yet to read an autobiographical book written by God or hear a speech given by him. Doubting God is doubting man, not God.

But as for God existing or not, we have no proof either way. The atheists nor the thiests know if they're correct. It's merely a 50/50 choice, so just go ahead and pick which side of the fence ya wanna sit on, believing there is a God or not believing. No point in arguing for or against since neither side has any proof to back their claims. So just have your beliefs, be humble about them, and live your life. Pretty simple.

And yes, Matrix, you are correct in using my words. Go ahead and substitute "God" for anything else as silly as you want, and there will be no way to refute that or prove its existance. Just because something may be silly does not mean it does not exist, it only makes it that much harder for someone else to believe it. But this is about personal belief so the opinions of others don't really matter since there is nothing one can say or do that will sway a person's opinion when it comes to not being able to prove or disprove the existance of something other than just believing the person.

Who knows, God could be an invisible pink unicorn and while I wouldn't believe it, it doesn't mean it might not be possible. In that sense, I would choose not to believe in it and if I was sent to Hell or something else, it'd suck big time but hey, I made the choice.

And just so you know, you're making a tragic error in trying to use my argument against me. Every person that likes to substitute a whacky phrase in the place of God to make it sound silly and unbelievable, it doesn't work. Not because you're not changing my, or others, opinion on the matter but because your argument is flawed by actually defining "invisible pink unicorns". When "God" it used, it is a totally generic blank word as to what it could be since we have no idea what the creation of all is. If we find out that God is the universe or something, then we know. But you do not know what the begining of all creation is, I don't know, so a generic "blank" term is used, as opposed to trying to define it which you're doing.

- N

 

This all coming from a guy who thinks the Matrix is real.. hmm.. heh..

Actually I did say that wrong, it should be "Any doubt would be *OF* mere assumption and speculation, so you'd be doubting yourself, not God".

The assumption and speculation are the philosophical thoughts of a person. That's what religion is. Since we have no way knowing anything about God, it is up to us to define him. Everything one reads or hears about God is those assumptions and speculations from someone else trying to think of how God might look like, act like, and be like. When one says God is omnipotent, we have no idea. When one says God is about love, we have no idea. When one says God is justice, we have no idea.

So what we do is try to think up the fairest and most grand of things and equate them to God. Since love is the most pleasureable thing a human can experience, obviously one will say that is one of God's attributes. Since/if God created all, it seems like he would be most powerful so people will say he is. If the idea of God was created today, we would probably say God had diamond-encrusted teeth and a phat platinum medallion with a sweet G-O-D knucklering and one of his special abilities is his spittin flow which would woo all the ladies and he'd impregnate them through divine means and dayum, wouldn't even have to pay any child support either as that's what the Devil chump is for. Who knows.

So yes, if one has any doubts about God, they would be doubting all the ideas of man since man is the one who defined God and said who and what he is, how he acts, and the like. Man has many expectations now because of all the grand attributes God now has which they couldn't possibly know. So if one of those expectations do not come true, blame it on the people who wrote all the holy texts and said God was this and that.

Anyways, that's that and quit being a tool in a thread not intended for it, Matrix.

- N

 

Doubt of God it would follow that God exists. But from not doubting God, it does not follow that God exists.

 

okinrus:

Convincing logic.

 

Xev, ignoring the gramatical errors above, it's called a <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Vacuous-truth" >vacuous truth.</a>

 

§outh§tar,

“Defender of faith” sounds good an all, but what does it actually mean, why would you defend it, and who/what are you defending it from???

What else have you done to find reasons to believe?

This is a good starting point and a sign of progression, but don’t think you have to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

So what do you think of Jesus now?

Jan Ardena.

 

§outh§tar

It's a big step you've taken, one that took much courage I would imagine.
Even if your wrong (and your not IMHO) no God will condemn you for following your heart.

Welcome to the world.
Dee Cee

 

This thread has almost turned into an elegy for SouthStar. He isn't dead you know.

 

He's ALIVE! and better than ever! REBORN! Only this time smarter and better looking

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am guessing you meant Eulogy....as in speech for departed. I hate that word...putting two vowels at the beginning of word is always a recipe for typos.

Jenyar, If Southstar never again accepts Christ as his savior is he dead to you? If so, why? And if not , why not?

 

I meant eulogy, but elegy isn't too far off: "a lament for the dead".

Dead to me? I didn't give him life. He's as alive to me as he is to you. I know: I'm talking about physical death. On purpose, because you're asking a loaded question. What other kind of death could you mean?

Did you mean spiritually dead? That's something you should ask him, since only he will know. You don't lose your spiritual recogniztion of God because of doubt. And you certainly don't lose God's recognition by doubting.

Doubt is overrated because people think it's 100% scientific and 0% spiritual. Atheists hack away at faith thinking that every victory is a percentage of someone's reason restored - hoping for 100% "recovery". That's assuming reason is 100% rational.

What SouthStar gave up wasn't God, it was his certainty. The only certainty one can have. It's choosing a self-affirmed life instead of a God-affirmed life. But he isn't dead until his dead, so I think we can do away with eulogies and elegies altogether. Faith isn't as fragile as everybody thinks, and doubt isn't as all-powerful as everybody thinks.

 

Sorry I may have been ambigious with my question. I am not asking him. I am asking you. Here mulitple choice choose all that apply:


If southstar never again accepts Jesus as his savior he is

1) still my friend
2) no longer my friend
3) was not my friend when he was Christian so not applicable

4) not in my circle of influence
5) still in my circle of influence
(circle of influence being one whose opinion have weight on yours or having ablity to alter or sway yours).

6) none of 1-5 are applicable

 

I really liked the Invisible Pink Unicorn one.

 

Still my friend, as little as we knew each other through the forums, and still in my circle of influence, as much as anybody who knows right from wrong is. I'm not Amish, you know.

And does his decision say what he thinks of me? Does it mean he thinks I'm delusional? Indoctrinated? Of everything he might have rejected, it wasn't me, or my friendship, I should hope. I'm careful not to make such assumptions, and you should be, too.

You want to know whether I'll reject a man on principle, regardless of who he is, was or will be. How am I doing? Do I fit the stereotype? Let's say he finds his faith again, and that things that don't make sense to him now makes more sense later in his life. Will you still be his friend? Will you treat him any differently? There are some here who would, and they're not Christians.