"If there is a god, he will have to beg my forgiveness."

[raccoon]

It was Mauthausen concentration camp.

I just encountered this quote yesterday. Have to say ITA with the sentiment.

[cbayer]

1. Heartbreaking and entirely understandable.

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes... In nearly any other context, the statement would seem

utterly "clueless"... But for this, totally understandable.

[DerekG]

48. Why is it just this context?

Anyone who bears witness to meaningless suffering and the triumph of evil should be expected to deliver a statement such as this.

We live in a hideous world, and any god who would preside over such a creation is undeserving of acknowledgement, let alone worship.

[hlthe2b]

50. "Anyone who bears witness to meaningless suffering and the triumph of evil should be expected to..."

THAT IS THE CONTEXT!

[AtheistCrusader]

79. And why do you disqualify other contexts as 'clueless'?

[calimary]

106. No kidding.

[jambo101]

2. I can see the logic

As if there is a God he certainly is looking the other way when it comes to mans potential for pain death and suffering along with a final judgment that could relegate some one to burn in hell for eternity.
Why didnt he just make us all perfect from the get go or if he didnt know what he was doing why not just forget about creating a sentient species.

[safeinOhio]

3. If there is a God

I think the Universalist have it right.

[roguevalley]

12. if we were perfect from the get go we would not need to be here to learn anything because

we would know it already. Free will is a terrible thing in the wrong hands. I have never believed in hell. Its already here.

[Arugula Latte]

88. Why do we need to learn anything?

Why doesn't a god just make humans knowledgeable from the get go? Why make sentient beings suffer so much? Why kill off children who haven't had time to learn much or practice their free will? ... Many religious people seem to come up with these artificial obstacles humans have to overcome in order for the god/creator/supernatural power thing to make some sort of sense...which, frankly, it never will.

[roguevalley]

89. we have free will to exercise. otherwise, life is pointless. Why come here if we

already know things? I don't lay it off on god. I believe we have the duty to be responsible for our actions. I don't need anyone to tell me that what I do affects others so its my responsibility to take care. IMHO

[cbayer]

90. This is a lovely way of seeing things and one that is apparently growing among evangelical

christians. There have been a number of articles posted here about evangelical groups that are placing environmentalism at the top of their agenda for exactly these reasons.

[roguevalley]

92. I live and die for this planet. I lived in Oregon half my life and the rest here in Alaska.

If I want to be with God, I go for a walk. Its the thinking that will save us if we remember what we do is like a drop of a stone in a pond. I try to be my best, I fail but I keep trying. I don't want to be part of someone's day where they go home and yell at the kids because I was the one who made them miserable that day. Hugs, cbayer.

[cbayer]

94. You are a precious human, roguevalley.

We all fail at times, but it is the trying that counts.

Lately I have been trying to focus on the random acts of kindness and paying for forward.

It's not that hard and it feels really good.

Hope you are well and stocking up for your winter.

Hugs back.

[roguevalley]

99. and you too, cbayer. I find that nothing done for the good is ever

in vain. Winter is coming. I bought sweaters for the dogs.

[calimary]

107. Like this, roguevalley! I find myself talking to God whenever I'm alone.

Often, it's in my car. Just as often, while I'm outside walking our dog. Just passing by some of the most beautiful floral fragrances on earth, the loveliest trees, the most remarkable gardens, twittering birds and singing crickets at night (in the night-blooming jasmine). I find I somehow feel closer to God when I'm doing that (or out in nature in any way), than when I'm inside some church building and slogging through all the hierarchically-dictated worship formulas.

[roguevalley]

110. I agree, Calimary. Our ancestors felt the same way and as I get older, the things that don't

matter fall away so that the greatness of life and love, the world as it is comes to me more clearly. Being in the world, being aware of my place in the world, it is my church. I don't feel it in churches. I feel it in the world outside. I wish we had crickets here. I love them so much growing up in Oregon. Its in the world, in the entirety of the world that I feel god's pleasure. I talk to him all the time too.

[Arugula Latte]

91. We are life forms. Yes, more complex than some other life forms, but still just life forms.

It's not all some grand lesson, in my view.

Life is the point of life. (From a purely biological perspective, the purpose of life is to reproduce.)

We're just multi-celled creatures on some little planet in some little galaxy in a vast universe of billions of galaxies.

I find that beautiful in its own way.

[roguevalley]

93. I do too. what i feel in my spirit embodied by god/the creator/the spirit that lifts and binds all

things is not conflicted by science. they mesh together for me in a personal way that feeds both sides of me, the rational and spiritual.

I do believe is more than just life but that's cool. Its how I feel and I respect and defend how you feel too, arugula latte.

[NeoGreen]

5. There is Auschwitz and so ...

... there cannot be god.

[Prophet 451]

10. That's not true

The statement presumes that because Auschwitz, there cannot be a benevolent god. But if you dispense with the notion that a god has to be benevolent, if you entertain the notion that god is actually not righteous but a sadist who enjoys the suffering of humanity. If you entertain that notion, you find that it makes a great deal of sense.

[NeoGreen]

13. Then why call it...

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

...god?

[gcomeau]

16. Now that is an excellent quote.

Excellent succinct summation of the entire silliness associated with claiming an all powerful benevolent deity exists.

[Prophet 451]

17. What else should we call it? n/t

[NeoGreen]

18. Nonexistent, Absent, Unreal, Fictional, Imaginary (take your pick) (nt)

[cbayer]

19. If you make a claim that god is nonexistent, etc,

then the burden of proof would be on you.

You may with full authority say that you do not believe, but I'm not sure you could provide any evidence that god is nonexistent.

[NeoGreen]

20. I was merely providing synonyms...

...not making a specific claim.

Prophet 451 may choose anyone of them, if any of them, as he pleases.

And make his own claims for himself.

For the record, I only reject the claim that god exists, since most attempts to prove a negative (i.e. prove non-existence) are usually futile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
(keep this as a reference)

On the other hand, claims of existence are usually quiet easy to prove.

I personally would change my tune on the "claim of existence" on this issue, when say, amputees started to spontaneously and "supernaturally" regrow their limbs at the request of one unique set of religious adherents. That might do it for me.

Otherwise, churches are nice for pot-luck dinners, coffee socials and establishing and maintaining group privilege, even if the underlying theology is just a bunch of bunk.

[cbayer]

21. But those aren't synonyms, they are claims.

If you only reject the claim that god exists, that is fine. But if you take the position that god does not exist, then you have the burden of proof.

Claims of existence are not always easy to prove at all. There are many things that we (humans) are searching for that we may never find, but the search continues because some believe in their existence.

You may or may not ever get the evidence that you require, but I would bet that you won't. In the meantime, your position is perfectly reasonable. But it is no more reasonable than someone who has beliefs based on faith.

In addition, your take on what churches are good for and your opinion on theology are also perfectly reasonable, but no more reasonable than those who find value and meaning in their churches and their theologies.

[NeoGreen]

22. Positions (i.e. claims) based on...

...direct and/or falsifiable observations are reasonable.

Positions (i.e. claims) based on faith (i.e. not based on direct and/or falsifiable observations), are not.

And, despite what you may believe, the terms listed in post #18, are synonyms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym
(another reference)


Here endth the lesson.

[cbayer]

23. You have direct and/or falsifiable observations that there is no god?

What would those be?

OMG, you really think you are schooling me. That is freaking hilarious and a sure sign that you've got nothing more.

Nice talking to you.

[trotsky]

28. What a peach you are.

LOL

[EvilAL]

83. Auschwitz, starving children,

War, disease, hate, murder, rape.. What more do people need? Surely that is evidence that the 'loving' God of the bible doesn't exist, at least in the way he is portrayed as the loving creator. The loving creator that will send you to hell to suffer for eternity. Does that mean a hateful god doesn't exist? I'd say no, i don't think either of those gods exist, but if I had to bet, I'd bet on the hateful god existing over the other.

[cbayer]

86. That's not proof of there being no god.

The only conclusion you can draw from that is that if there is a god, it doesn't intervene in the evil acts perpetrated by humans.

There are all kinds of characteristics of a god described in the bible. Bottom line is that you have no proof, just an explanation for why some of the descriptors are likely wrong.

[EvilAL]

95. It's proof enough for me.

If such a god doesn't intervene when children are being tortured what's the fucking good of this 'god'? Where's the loving, caring and just god? We have wait around until these killers and torturers die so God can punish them, instead of God, just ONCE, intervening and letting everyone know he's there. All the attributes of God(s) according to the followers of these different faiths are not present in our lives, at all, that should be proof enough for anybody who reads what god is supposed to be and then looks at the track record. I can't offer up tangible proof, but it is there, in the lack of god doing anything, not one damned thing to help humans.

[cbayer]

96. And that is entirely cool.

Your not believing is better than ok, it's your right and a reasonable and legitimate position to take.

You don't even have to explain your reasons. Your conclusion is reasonable.

But it is just your opinion and your position. The proof you say is sufficient doesn't apply to anyone else.

[EvilAL]

97. Thanks, I just find it odd

that so many people ignore that stuff and/or make excuses for it.

[cbayer]

98. They just see it differently.

Religion being the kind of soup it is is likely to have those that hate all the ingredients, those that love all of the ingredients and a whole lot of people that like parts of it.

[phil89]

51. If you claim there are no vampires or ghosts, there's also

a burden of proof. The default position is that they do not exist until there is evidence of their existence. That is correct. Do you have a claim or do you take the neutral position?

[cbayer]

54. Yes that is correct, there is a burden of proof is you make a definitive claim.

Your idea about a default position is wrong.

I do not have a claim at all. I have a neutral position.

Which is the only reasonable position to take when something is neither provable nor disprovable.

[Prophet 451]

25. No, you were making a claim

There are numerous synonyms for "god". When you choose words that describe non-existence, you are making a claim, regardless of your word games to avoid taking responsibility for that. Whether it's a reasonable set of claims is a different matter.

[Maedhros]

27. One cannot prove a negative, i.e. that God does not exist.

One who claims that God does exist has the burden of proof.

[cbayer]

30. One can certainly prove a negative.

Scientists do it all the time.

Hypothesis: Ebola is not an airborne contagion.

Test hypothesis: Ebola can not be transferred through the air (well, at least for now, but that may change).

Negative proven.

Or lets' make it even easier.

Claim: I am not a man.

Proof: very, very easy.

Anyone who makes a claim has the burden. I agree that anyone that claims that god exists has the burden of proof, but that burden is equal to that incurred when someone makes the claim that god does not exist.

That's why most people talk about what they believe about god. Only those on the edges make a definitive claim either way (that would be gnostics, whether theist or atheist).

[trotsky]

32. Not quite that simple.

There are things for which the negative can be proven, such as the examples you give.

However, what about the claim that no unicorns exist? Or that leprechauns don't exist? Or that Iraq doesn't have WMDs? Are we equally justified believing those things exist just because no one can *prove* they don't? (Keep in mind, Donald Rumsfeld himself employed your logic when asked about the lack of WMDs. Great role model for thought!)

Things aren't quite as tidy as you wish they were.

(BTW, it looks like you're on an edge when you make the definite claim of "Anyone who makes a claim has the burden." Oopsie!)

[Maedhros]

38. Technically, the scientific method would be this:

Hypothesis: Ebola is an airborne contagion.

Experiment: Eliminate other possible vectors for infection other than "airborne."

Observe: Infection does not happen.

Conclusion: Evidence at this time does not support the hypothesis.

One cannot prove that something is not there, because as the old saw goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Science cannot really "prove" the existence of a phenomenon, either - what scientists do is to propose a hypothesis and then work tirelessly to disprove it; if they cannot, then they conclude that available evidence suggests the hypothesis is true. True "proof" is only valid in mathematics.

[cbayer]

40. Don't agree.

I can create experiments that will prove at this time that there is no airborne transmission. I understand the scientific method quite well and agree that true proof is only valid in mathematics.

At any rate, this is a circular argument. The bottom line is that if you make a definitive claim in either the existence or lack of existence of something, it is on you to provide evidence for that claim. You can not claim to know without evidence.

This is true despite the dogma that some embrace when it comes to discussions about the existence of a god.

[Maedhros]

44. I myself would not make a claim that God exists or does not exist,

simply because we have no means of testing such an hypothesis.

ON EDIT: As to the proving of a negative, we're tripping over semantics. When you say you can design a test to prove ebola is not airborne, the means you use to test that hypothesis is to detect the presence of ebola and if you don't find it, you conclude that airborne transmission did not occur. It is not possible to detect the absence of something.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. No you can't.

At best you can demonstrate that no airborn transmission occurred in the experiments you conducted and that the best explanation is that Ebola, or more precisely the tested variants of Ebola cannot be transmitted in this way. You haven't proven anything. You've offered up a hypothesis that explains the evidence.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Your example fails.

Even you had to constrain it to "right now", but the best we can say about Ebola is that as far as we know there are no cases of airborn transmission of Ebola. Kind of like what we can say about Yaweh or Zeus or Santa.

[Jester Messiah]

43. No, the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim.

I can't disprove the existence of purple flying elephants, but would you argue that that confirms their existence? How much more unlikely is the existence of an undetectable yet all-powerful force responsible for the existence of everything which exists?

[cbayer]

46. That is exactly my position.

If one makes a claim that god is a fantasy, then the proof is on them.

I would never make the argument that your inability to disprove something confirms their existence. Far from it.

When it comes to god, the only reasonable position is agnosticism. Those that claim to know one way or another have a burden which can not be met.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Dismissing someone's claim that there IS a god, as fantasy, does not shift the burden of proof.

Still lies with the person insisting god exists.

[truebrit71]

49. How do you prove a negative?

I'll wait.

[cbayer]

53. I'll wait. What a condescending phrase.

[truebrit71]

55. Still waiting...

How do you prove a negative?

[cbayer]

57. I am not a man.

Want me to prove it?

Keep waiting.

[truebrit71]

58. That's not the same argument. But nice try.

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist.

[cbayer]

59. Yes I can. But nice try on your part.

And I must be able to do that if I am going to make the claim that something doesn't exist.

This is BS dogma that has been trumpeted by certain fundamentalists for a long time.

You are best off dropping it.

[truebrit71]

60. Nope.

"You are best off dropping it"...oh but I'm the condescending one?

You are incorrect. The burden of period relies on those making the extraordinary claims, not the other way around. But you knew that.

[cbayer]

62. Well, I would consider the claim that there is no god pretty extraordinary.

But you knew that.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Wait- you think it quite likely that gods exist?

Are you going to go back and apologize to all the new posters in this group who you sprang your "how dare you presume I'm a theist" trap on?

[truebrit71]

73. I'm not the one saying there's a supreme being...

... that created everything... I'm saying there's precisely zero evidence of that being the case...

But please go on about how you can prove something doesn't exist...

[cbayer]

74. No, you are not and I would agree that anyone making that claim

would definitely have the burden of proof.

Saying there is precisely zero evidence is a legitimate position which does not need anything further.

But saying that there is definitely no god requires something further. One would have to provide proof to back up that statement.

Oh, and I will gladly "go on" about how you can prove something doesn't exist.

I will autoclave this petri dish. I will then prove to you that there does not exist any bacteria whatsoever in this dish.

Simple. I can now make a definitive claim that no bacteria exists in this petri dish.

But please go on about how you need not provide anything when you make a claim that something does not exist.

[truebrit71]

75. Again, that's not the argument is it?

It is interesting that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong. It is impossible to prove a negative. But by all means keep trying with your weak examples.

[cbayer]

76. Yes, I am incapable of admitting I am wrong….

or I'm not wrong.

Ad homs - sure sign that one has nothing.

See you around.

[truebrit71]

77. Platitudes and smilies...

Further proof that you have nothing...

[Lordquinton]

102. I thought logical fallacies were a sure sign that one had nothing

Yet here you are claiming one.

[cbayer]

103. M'lord. Your posts are beginning to come across as somewhat desperate.

Now what logical fallacy do you think I am "claiming"?

[Lordquinton]

105. well mrs. bayer

"Ad homs - sure sign that one has nothing. "

That right there.

[cbayer]

109. Yes, that is all I have.

Maybe a long walk and a cool glass of water would help you.

[trotsky]

87. But yet you never - NEVER - jump on anyone making that positive claim...

like you do on someone making the "negative" claim. Why is that? Why do you only view gnostic atheists as an enemy to attack?

[rug]

61. Maybe you should tell him about Santa Claus.

Be gentle.

[cbayer]

63. Shhhh…… He is teaching me here.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. please proceed. Do not use the proof that you are a woman.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Oh here we go. Stuck in a losing argument

The accusations and victim role playing commences.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Surely you hold the same position wrt Santa.

[Lordquinton]

100. you gonna tell roguevalley the same thing?

Or just let your hipocracy flag fly?

[cbayer]

101. Of course I would tell her the same thing….

if she was making a definitive claim, which she is not.

She has her own beliefs and is a person of faith.

What exactly would you like me to tell her?

Do you think you could post one single thing to me that didn't include a personal attack?

I'm not sure you can.

[Lordquinton]

104. pointing out problematic behavior is not a personal attack.

You jumping on atheists for an issue but not believers is.

[cbayer]

108. Yes it is a personal attack.

Not being able to see that is problematic.

I will overlook your typos, but I ask you again what it is you think I should have said to rogue valley.

She made no definitive statement. The member I was addressing did.

It is not a personal attack to challenge those with whom I disagree.

You are another on a witch hunt.

[Prophet 451]

24. I don't feel that's true though

If I didn't believe god to exist, then I wouldn't describe myself as a man of faith. I'd be an atheist. You have to remember that for those of us who believe, we experience feedback in the form of gnosis with our chosen deity (Lucifer, in my case). Now, could we all be suffering from some form of mental illness? Yes, that's possible. But I actually am mentally ill. I know what teh visions and voices that accompany that feel like and religious gnosis feels entirely different.

[Mariana]

69. Look at the second question and answer in that quote.

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

[Mariana]

70. Many people seem to have a very hard time

entertaining the idea that God is not good and loving and benevolent.

[Prophet 451]

78. I can sort-of understand it

Humans have several psychological biases and one of them is the "just world" fallacy. We want to think that, at a macro enough level, everything works out and everyone gets what they deserve.

[NeoGreen]

6. Gott Mit...

...Uns

[AtheistCrusader]

81. That looks like the WWI german army buckle. This is the WWII version.

[NeoGreen]

84. When I did my image search...

... on "Gott Mit", I selected the one without the Nazi symbol, because I was more interested in making a point about the text and didn't want the thread to potentially spiral out into a discussion of the symbol itself.

If I was historically inaccurate with my image, then I stand corrected, it was due to the attempt to focus the discussion on the words.

But it begs the question, if "gott" was "mit uns" (i.e. the Germans) for both the Great War and WW2, then how could they have lost?

If "gott" was not with them, then obviously just making a statement, does not make it so (e.g. Auf Gott Vertrauen Wir).

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Oh, I fully agree.

And not my intent to godwin the thread, by any means.

[NeoGreen]

7. The question is not where god was in Auschwitz....

...but where the Christians were.

http://melindacousins.com/2014/07/14/there-is-never-a-good-day-to-be-in-auschwitz-birkeneau/

[gcomeau]

8. Depends

On the one hand the latter question is obviously the more relevant as that is asking where people that actually exist were. But of course that question is so easily answered it verges on pointless to ask it. Many of them were fighting in the armies trying to break through to said camps, many others were fighting in the armies keeping those other armies from reaching said camps. Or even administering said camps. Etc.

Not a terribly difficult question to answer is it?



But that's missing the point of the question, which is to serve as a rhetorical device to point out the silliness of claiming there is this perfectly good loving all powerful entity that just kind of sits around and does nothing when everything goes to crap. Because if THAT existed there's really no excuse for it not getting in there and doing something rather drastic about the situation.



(But said entity will apparently occasionally intervene in, say, a really important football game or something).

[NeoGreen]

14. If god is for us...

..who can be against us?

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. In charge. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

26. Only of the good stuff, apparently.

See, if a tornado wipes out an entire town, but one person and her dog survive, then He must be thanked for his awesome mercy!

[AtheistCrusader]

82. The christians were in the fucking guard towers. Running the trains. Pointing guns at the prisoners

forcing them, in some cases, to work the ovens and gas chambers.

"Before World War II, about two-thirds of the German population was Protestant and one-third was Roman Catholic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany

Granted, the paltry few Roman Catholics and Protestants that objected, ended up in the gas chambers too, along with another 11 million or so victims, based on certain political, sexual, religious criteria, or even physical or mental disability.

[Prophet 451]

11. God has a lot to apologise for

My faith is built on the idea that god is not a being of love but a spiteful, sadistic tyrant who regards humans as little more than playthings, that he torments us for his own amusement.

[NeoGreen]

15. See Post #13 (NT)

[Maedhros]

29. The basis of my disavowal of religion

is that God cannot exist as imagined by the religious.

[Prophet 451]

31. Depends on the religious

My faith says that, while god exists, he's a sadistic tyrant who should be opposed. That view of god not only can exist but would explain a great deal. That said, if you're happy in your atheism, I'm not trying to unconvince you of that.

[Maedhros]

34. I think it was Vonnegut who said that if there is a God, he is utterly indifferent to humanity.

That would seem to make the most sense.

But I can't believe that there is a perfect, loving God who also demands worship. Worship of anything is just not in my DNA.

[Prophet 451]

35. That's closest to deism

Again, the idea of a malevolent god explains teh demanding of worship. Dictators do that all the time.

[Maedhros]

37. It's my reason for rejecting religion.

I was brought up in the Catholic Church, and at about age 16 or 17 I had an experience that killed my faith.

The existence or non-existence of a God, to me, is irrelevant since we cannot prove or disprove His existence. I'll leave that question open, and base my beliefs on what I can observe and reason for myself.

On Edit: I can dig the Luciferian idea of free will in the face of an oppressive God. I have a friend who is becoming quite the conservative religionist, and I joke with him that the basis of our disagreement is that he is a Christian and I am a Satanist.

[Prophet 451]

41. That's fair enough

It's more important for you to find a way of living that works for you than for us to share a path.

And thank you.

[cbayer]

33. As there are many, many ideas about god, how can

you take the position that god cannot exist as imagined?

[Maedhros]

36. Maybe "as described" would be a better way of phrasing that.

For example, a perfect loving God that punishes arbitrary sin and demands absolute obedience.

In general, humans tend to project their own faults and failings onto the God they worship.

[cbayer]

39. So that is one description of god, but there

are so many others. Do you reject all of them? Do you think you are even aware of all of them?

There may be some truth to what you say in your last line, but I think this is also a broad brush based on assumptions for which you may not have evidence.

Your not believing in a god is perfectly fine, but why the need to make others belief into something rather pathological?

[Maedhros]

42. I try to learn as much as I can about different religions.

I was brought up Catholic, and have researched Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Satanism and Native American religion to varying degrees.

I do reject all of these, because I think none of them present a complete picture. I guess I just find the concept of God to be irrelevant. One can ponder the deepest questions of the universe without needed to invoke as explanation an entity defined as being outside of our ability to comprehend.

[cbayer]

45. It's great that you have learned about different religions.

I think that is key to religious tolerance and acceptance of other POV's.

And your rejection of all of them is not a problem in any way. You have followed your path and found your place.

But it is, of course, just your place and not THE place.

I feel strongly that everyone seeks for and hopefully finds their own place.

[Maedhros]

47. Oh, I agree. I'm not crusading, just explaining why I myself reject religiion. [n/t]

[phil89]

52. Which god?

NT

[cbayer]

56. Exactly. BTW, if you want to put NT in your post, you really need to put it in the subject line. NT

[Warren Stupidity]

71. btw it is really condescending to scold people about typos and other bullshit.

nt.