Why Can’t Some People Feel God’s Existence?

[Mary A. Osborne]

One day, a man went to a barber shop for a haircut. During the haircut, he had a cheerful chat with the barber.
Later, they came up with the topic of whether God exists.
The barber said, “I don’t believe there’s God in the world.”
The man asked, “Why?”
The barber said, “It’s simple. As long as you take a walk on the street, you’ll know there’s no God. Tell me, if there is God, why are there so many people getting sick and so many orphans losing their parents? If there is God, there will be no sufferings and disasters in the world. The loving God will not allow these things to happen.”
The man was quite sure of the real existence of God in his heart, but he didn’t argue with the barber. God’s existence needn’t to be disputed, for it’s an indisputable fact.
He stayed clam through the haircut, and after that, he left that shop.
On the street, he saw a man with shoulder-length hair and stubbly cheeks. Then, he went back to the barbershop and said to the barber, “I find barbers don’t exist.”
The barber, upon hearing his word, cried with a loud voice, “What nonsense you’re talking about! I am a barber. I am here! I gave you a haircut just now. Why did you forget it so quickly?”
The custom said in a calm tone, “There are no barbers in the world, because if there’re, on the street there will be men who wear long hair and long stubble.”
The barber said, “Totally unreasonable! There’re barbers of course. The problem is that man doesn’t come to me to get his hair cut.”
The man continued, “You’re absolutely right in saying that!”
He continued in a approving voice, “This is where the problem lies. God exists indeed. Only man doesn’t seek Him. So, in the world there’re so many sufferings and disasters.”
Man feels that God doesn’t exist, because they never try to find God or understand God, and their heart never accepts God. This is why they can’t feel God’s existence. So if one wants to understand God, he has to take it upon himself to seek God, draw near to God with his heart and honesty, and carefully experience the people, occurrences, and things God arranges for you every day.

[EdwardBernays]

1. And so...

All the suffering only happens to godless people... sounds about right...





oh wait.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. If that's what you believe and it makes you happy.

But there are a lot of suffering people who believe in God and he hasn't done a damn thing for them.

[Linda C. Brazil]

143. Sometimes, suffering is also God's blessing.

[Cartoonist]

3. Let me be the first

Maybe the guy with long hair and stubble wants it that way. Really, WTF

[COLGATE4]

4. Pretty egotistical God, if you ask me.

Sounds like a celestial Donald Trump - "adore me, idolize me or I'll kick your ass."

[SusanCalvin]

52. I believe that is in fact what the Bible says. nt

[COLGATE4]

58. I feel sorry for you.

[SusanCalvin]

63. Huh? I was under the impression I was agreeing with you.

And it is in fact what the Bible says in many places, straight out.

[fleur-de-lisa]

5. I don't "feel the existence" of Santa Clause either.

I did believe in Santa as a child, then I grew up and decided I didn't need a magic man to bring me things I want/need.

Ditto for a magic sky daddy.

[Leftyforever]

30. +1

[Linda C. Brazil]

136. There no relations between Santa and God.

I don't believe in Santa,but I believe in God.I believe everything is created by God.

[fleur-de-lisa]

137. Aren't you precious!

[Linda C. Brazil]

139. I think.

The fear of the Lord is the start of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One gives a wise mind。

[immoderate]

6. Because.... (get ready for it) he doesn't exist!

And you haven't supplied a rationale to think otherwise.

--imm

[nruthie]

7. Huh?

You're entitled to your opinion, but I seriously doubt that God is arranging anything for anyone anywhere. If he is, he is sure overlooking some really serious problems that could use some of his Devine assistance right about now.

[bvf]

8. That would also explain

why my unicorn petting zoo business is tanking, even though I recently re-staffed it with leprechauns and trolls.

Seriously, is this supposed to pass as argument?

[shraby]

9. Why did all the people get killed and slaughtered in the concentration camps in WWII?

I would venture to guess that more prayers were put into the air then than at any other time in history. Still the slaughter continued until MAN intervened by winning the war against Hitler and his allies.
Don't tell me God just let the carnage go on and on and on because people didn't ask for help or try to help themselves...or whatever.

[PatrickforO]

128. You know, your post reminds me - we watched a TV show - a movie - about Jewish inmates at

Auschwitz who put God on trial for breaking his covenant with the Jewish people.

God was found guilty in the movie.

It also reminds me of the movie 'Exodus, Gods and Kings' which depicted the God of the Jews at that time as a petulant child. Which, if you think about a God that's willing to kill the firstborn of EVERY Egyptian to prove a point, that kind of conclusion IS rather unavoidable.



On the other hand, I think this earth on which we live is conscious in its own way. And its in pain right now because of us.

I also think that there is a life force that is both immanent and transcendent, a sort of 'all-there-is,' and that this life force is conscious in its own way. All of us live, move and have our being within the mind of this 'all there is.'

But that's just me...you all can believe whatever you want.

[whatthehey]

10. Why can't some people understand analogies?

We can assume the stubbled man can see and read signs for barber shops, can tell that some people are cleanly coiffed and shaved by both sight and touch, and will know that his family and friends with such hair get it by generally visiting barber shops. He will have seen or felt their hair become shorter after such visits. Heck he may even know a barber himself. His choice is to simply not visit them professionally, at least very often. He is still presented with proof of their existence.

That's because barber shops are immanent, tangible and verifiable. Qualities not generally claimed for God even by believers, and certainly not subject to any positive evidence (as in barber shops) even when they are claimed.

And let's not forget few if any people have posited omnipotent barbers who love all humans and desperately want them to have short neat hair and have the capability to make them so.

Not really very convincing overall.

[trotsky]

11. Wow, thanks for the anti-atheist bigotry.

Our problem is that we just won't seek and accept your god? You should be ashamed of posting this.

[Maedhros]

12. God is, by definition, outside the ability of mere humans to comprehend.

Thus, it is silly to discuss "proof" that God exists or does not exist - there is no possible evidence to cite either way.

However, it is reasonable to assert that God as described to us by religion does not exist, because religion grants God traits that are able to be comprehended by humans and thus open for debate: God is all-knowing, God is all-powerful, God has perfect love for us, etc. This quote by Epicurus is perhaps the most representative of the reasoning behind the refutation of God-as-described:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

While not following from observed evidence, this argument is logically sound.

[Cartoonist]

15. I bet Epicurus had long hair.

And a stubble.

[trotsky]

16. "God is, by definition, outside the ability of mere humans to comprehend."

Well isn't that convenient!

Not to mention blatantly self-contradictory...

[whatthehey]

21. Actually I'm ok with that as a hypothesis.

As a claim? Massively improbable. But let's consider for a moment that IF a putative big G universal infinite eternal deity existed, that would by definition be beyond human understanding.

What believers who make that claim never seem to realize though is that that logically means we can say absolutely nothing true about God, and that the only way that is even possible to do even in theory is if God had granted consistent, inherent and identical beliefs about itself in each and every human regardless of contact by other human groups.

That to me would be proof of divine existence within the limits of our understanding. And of course conspicuously absent.

[DetlefK]

18. I have found a theological proof concerning God's omnipotence, omniscience and prayers.

I wrote it down somewhere, I can post the original version tommorrow if you like.

The gist of it:
God cannot be at the same time omnipotent AND omniscient AND react to prayers.

The proof goes basically like this:
Step 1: God is omnipotent, so he is immune to time. Plus, God is omniscient, so he always has known everything and always will know everything. => God is unchanging. (Baring caveat, see below.)

Step 2: Things happen, because God (in his omniscience) has laid out a plan.

Step 3: If somebody prays to God, can God alter the future of that person? God has a plan and always knew what plan to have and God used his infinite powers to set his plan into motion and keep it on track.

Step 4: Can God still change the plan? Of course, he's omnipotent.
God now uses his omnipotence to react to the prayer.

Step 5: Can God still stick to the plan? Of course, he's omnipotent.
God now uses his omnipotence to make sure everything goes along as planned.

Step 6: see Step 4

Andsoforth.

You have one indivisible, timeless being who at the same time uses omnipotence to do what it wants and to do the opposite of that.




Do you see a solution to that paradoxon? I don't.

[Maedhros]

25. It's circular reasoning.

1: Assume God exists, and has a plan.
2. The plan is followed, because God exists and has a plan.

Essentially, things happen in the universe. Some of us attribute the reason for those things to be God's plan, but the only "proof" of the existence of the plan is our assumptions of God's existence and motivation.

[DetlefK]

61. ??? You completely missed the point.

If God exists, he cannot have all those attributes at the same time. THAT was my point.

This proof isn't about whether or not God exists.

[Maedhros]

67. Yeah, I saw that. My train of thought derailed...[n/t]

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Then the god you are claiming is outside our capability to understand must not be omnipotent.

I am often told god is omnipotent.
I'm also often told (not universally so, but by most Abrahamic-root faiths) that god wants a relationship with me and wants to be known to me.

If god cannot by definition be comprehensible to us, even though it wants to be known to us, then it cannot be omnipotent.

Do we then throw out the 'it wants us to know him' bit?

[Yorktown]

48. God is, by definition, outside the ability of mere humans to comprehend? How do you know?

Who told you, if not humans?
Who created that notion, if not humans?

Back to square one: what is god and how do you know?

[gcomeau]

13. So the lesson we're supposed to take away from this is...

...God doesn't give enough of a crap to get off his ass and help anyone who is suffering himself despite having claimed limitless capacity to do so? He's basically a supernatural Republican? "Those lazy moochers, it's their own fault they're sick and poor and dying and suffering. If they *really* wanted to be better they'd blah blah blah..."

Funny kind of an entity to worship if you ask me.

[DetlefK]

14. Nice feel-good story. As long as you don't tell it from the barber's viewpoint.

Counter-question:
Why can some people feel God's existence?

Only those people who get told by man that God exists feel God's existence.
Isn't that weird?
As if being indoctrinated were some kind of precondition for finding the creator of the universe...

[whatthehey]

17. Actually that's a much more interesting question

I wonder if we would get consistent answers from independent inquiries on what God's presence feels like, when it was first felt, whether it ever changes the recipient's opinions away from rather than toward the accepted teachings of their own religious tradition in which they are content, whether the presence of other supernatural entities is felt by the same person and how their respective sources are identified, or if God's presence is ever felt unsought or unfelt when sought.

I can fairly confidently predict we will get few verifiable examples of God's presence moving convinced and contented lifetime Baptists that they should become Jews, or vice versa.

[SusanCalvin]

53. Well, Dan Barker, of ffrf,

Says in one of his books that when he was a preacher he did feel religious ecstasy. And that he can pretty much will himself into that state. I'd love more detail, and mean to ask him about it if I ever get a chance.

[Cartoonist]

19. Wait a minnit

Why does God have long hair and a beard? Doesn't he know that barbers exist?

[NeoGreen]

20. Just wanted to say Hi and welcome to DU...

...since I noticed your low post count... and to warn you that we are a pretty tough crowd here, on certain (alright most) subjects, but please don't be disheartened or take it personally.

We are all on a journey to understand the world as best we can at our own pace.

[Cartoonist]

24. Just want to add

Try the Interfaith group. You'll get a better reception there.

[gcomeau]

39. If by "better" you mean "nobody will challenge what you say"... -eom

[Cartoonist]

41. I mean

They will love you and praise your wisdom. They will also tell you how bigoted we are here.

[gcomeau]

42. Works too... -eom

[mr blur]

22. We grew up. (nt)

[cleanhippie]

23. Why can't some people stop espousing their absurd beliefs with absurd anecdotes?

Because absurd beliefs and anecdotes most certainly exist.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay!

[jonno99]

29. "Why can't some people stop espousing their absurd beliefs..." . Hmmm...it begs the question:

Who gets to decide what is "absurd"? The majority? The disenfranchised? Those who are the loudest? Those with the longest history? Longest hair?!!

Can't we all just get along?

[cleanhippie]

36. Im using the commonly used dictionary definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd

And yes, religious beliefs and claims are just that, absurd.

Can't we all get along? Sure we can, and already do! One way we can get along better is for believers to stop espousing their absurd beliefs and trying to create policy based on those absurd beliefs, and I will stop criticizing their absurd beliefs.

[jonno99]

40. Chuckling out loud! There are many religious folk who would say EXACTLY the

same thing to you (inserting the word 'atheist' for 'religious').

Have a good one!

[cleanhippie]

44. Apparently, your definition of "same thing" is not a common one.

But you could provide an example of what you're talking about.

But I understand if you don't, saying 'you do the same thing' then retreating is so much easier.

[jonno99]

45. It's not about examples, it's about your use of the word 'absurd'. I simply

pointed out (with some chuckling - I confess) that your exact (previous) statement could be made by a religious person who inserted the word 'atheist'.

Lighten up! it's OK to laugh - especially at the rigidity of thought to which we occasionally subject ourselves.

[cleanhippie]

46. I don't follow your logic regarding substituting 'atheist' for 'religious'.

As an atheist, I lack a belief in a god. I'm m not making any assertions, I'm rejecting the claims made by the religious because said claims are patently absurd.

And I am laughing. Laughing at your false equivalency.

[jonno99]

49. Ok - have a good one! nt

[cleanhippie]

66. I always do.

Especially when I see someone who's only purpose posting was to insert some lame, false-equivalency into the conversation, only to beat feet as soon as they are challenged to support it.

Having a good one? You bet I am.

[jonno99]

68. I'm glad to hear it!

[cleanhippie]

69. I'm sure you are.

Your intellectually powerful arguments are a force to be reckoned with.

[jonno99]

72. You seem intent on picking a fight. Sorry, to dissappoint, but I have no interest. In regards

to "powerful arguments" - I've made no arguments whatsoever - powerful or otherwise.

The closest I've come to making even an assertion is to suggest that your dogmatic approach to your belief system is very similar - if not identical - to some of the religious dogmatism that is bandied about these days.

You wrote:
"And yes, religious beliefs and claims are just that, absurd.

Can't we all get along? Sure we can, and already do! One way we can get along better is for believers to stop espousing their absurd beliefs and trying to create policy based on those absurd beliefs, and I will stop criticizing their absurd beliefs. "

And so my friend, I chuckled because a modified version of your statement could have easily been spouted with equal fervor by the religious dogmatist:

"And yes, atheist beliefs and claims are just that, absurd.

Can't we all get along? Sure we can, and already do! One way we can get along better is for atheists to stop espousing their absurd beliefs and trying to create policy based on those absurd beliefs, and I will stop criticizing their absurd beliefs. "


If you have been offended by this comparison, you have my apologies.

[cleanhippie]

73. You've claimed several times that I have a belief system.

Perhaps you missed where explained that atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Nothing more. There no belief system regarding atheism, it's the rejection of the claim made by religion.

So your argument that my "beliefs", which I don't have regarding a god, is a false equivalency, as I've already stated.

Am I offended? Not at all. But I am frustrated when others try to tell me what I believe, even when I've told them I don't believe at all.

So now that you know that atheists lack a belief in a god, just what are these "atheist beliefs and claims" that I've made that are "just like" the claims and beliefs made by the religious?

[jonno99]

74. I've not used the word "god" in this thread, and yet you keep digging in your heels. My advice is

to just relax, and try to imagine a world where no one takes themselves too seriously...

[cleanhippie]

75. In a thread about belief in a god, you're not talking about belief in a god?

Then what the hell ARE you talking about?

What ARE my atheist beliefs you claim I have?

And the only digging being done here is you trying to dig yourself out of that hole.

[jonno99]

84. I'm simply talking about dogmatism. Whether it manifests itself in

the person who is religious or irreligious, it can have an deleterious effect on one's "personal growth".

IOW - having a certainty about any particular point of fact is rational. However, to claim with certainty that something is "absurd" smacks of dogmatism - if one is merely stating an opinion.

That's it - a call for everyone to fight against our dogmatic tendencies...

[cleanhippie]

85. You don't think believing dead people coming back to life...

Crackers turning into flesh, wine turning into blood, talking snakes, burning bushes, cursed fig trees, worldwide flood, 6 day creation of the universe....

These don't fit the definition of absurd to you?

[jonno99]

87. Chuckles. I can see where someone would think so. But looking at the larger picture,

your examples look like insignificant acts when compared to creating a universe. Don't you agree?

IOW - if a being could create a universe, then crackers, snakes & burning bushes seem like pretty small potatoes.

[cleanhippie]

88. Not only small potatoes, but absurd potatoes.

That's my entire point. These religious beliefs about 'God' and the reality we inhabit are patently absurd, and yet entire swaths of the population not only believe them as true and real, but are encouraged to keep believing that.

And as I said unthread, if believers would stop publicly espousing these absurd beliefs and tryouts my to have them form the basis of policy for all of us, I'd have not a word to say about it.

[jonno99]

90. Ah - but you're missing my point. The religious folk would claim that

the belief that all matter - as well as life itself - generated spontaneously and came from "nothing" is absurd.

Additionally they would say that: "if 'atheists' would stop publicly espousing these absurd beliefs and tryouts my to have them form the basis of policy for all of us, 'they'd' have not a word to say about it."

question: who is more absurd?
Answer: the dogmatist who - without proof - claims his opinions are fact.

[cleanhippie]

92. I'd agree with them that 'something from nothing' is absurd.

And that basing policy decisions on that would be equally absurd.

But I, nor science, claims that 'something came from nothing' at all. THATS what the religious have decided to hear, but it's not what is being said. Id like to think you'd know that already...

And it now seems you are accusing me of being a 'dogmatist'. Just what is the dogma I follow and claim as factual?

[jonno99]

94. Not accusing - simply making making an observation. It's very simple really,

let's use the concept of the "after-life" as an example.

My guess is that most atheists (yourself included?) would declare this concept to be "absurd", while the religious would declare just the opposite - that dis-belief in the after-life is absurd.

Of course we both know that the problem is proof; unless or until we have proof the discussion is academic, as it can't be proven or dis-proven. The dogmatists however - on either side - will claim that they are absolutely right.

What I wonder about though, is how much are the opinions on either side influenced by personal bias? IOW, do the religious truly believe there is a god - or is it more that they WANT there to be a god (made in their image of course). Conversely, does the atheist truly believe there is no deity - or is it that they don't WANT there to be a deity?

I'll leave it for you to decide if you have dogmatic tendencies...

[cleanhippie]

95. Chuckles. Your continued false equivalency btween belief and non-belief is absurd.

You keep saying I 'know' things to be absurd, claim it's just my opinion, claim that I'm dogmatic. I've not once made an assertion about what is or is not true, only that the claims made by the religious are absurd. They are absurd because these claims violate the natural laws of the universe (i.e. Physics), and until these claims can be proven to be factual, they are patently absurd. These claims cannot even be tested because they are ambiguous ideas at best. There's nothing about them that any rational person can take seriously on more than a philosophical level.

After life? Sure there might be, I really don't know. but until such an idea can be tested, the claim that such a thing exists is patently absurd because not one shred of empirical evidence exists to support such an idea. The same can be said for fairies, unicorns, and dragons. Belief that these things are real are absurd, are they not?

[jonno99]

97. "Belief that these things are real are absurd, are they not?" Well,

it probably depends on how "dogmatic" you are!

Have a good one!

[cleanhippie]

100. So you begin with false equivalency and end with circular reasoning.

And never once answered a single question posed to you. And now you run off.

Played like a true believer.

[jonno99]

102. It's obvious that you have strongly held beliefs - kudos to you

for standing so rigidly.

[cleanhippie]

105. Lol. Yeah, I sure do.

I strongly believe, no, I know that you're just playing games and are not interested in meaningful conversation. If you were, you'd have answered my questions instead of deflecting and making false equivalencies.

But that's par for the course when trying to have rational conversation with believers.

Have you tried the Interfaith group? The conversation there is right in your wheelhouse.

Have a nice day.

[Yorktown]

115. Well, without being dogmatic, Truth matters

Where did the Big Bang come from? How did the chain of events amino acids first cell happen? How did conscience/intelligence emerge?

All these are scientific questions. The religions claim to give answers, like they did to many other things. And one by one, the explanations of religions came down crashing.

So, all in all, I'd say religions do not have a good track record at explaining things. And they also do have one at creating mindless violence (Colorado Springs, San Bernardino)

Hope this helps to see why it is possible to have the strongly held belief religions are uselsess and harmful without being sectarian.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. So, we CAN toss the bible? If we're imagining a world where people don't take themselves too serious

ly after all...

[jonno99]

86. Sure. But please note that I'm not suggesting that we take NOTHING serioulsy. I'm

merely suggesting that we should be mindful not to take ourselves (our own opinions) too seriously.

Why? In my experience folks who take themselves too seriously tend to be close-minded and provincial (they miss the big picture).

my two cents...

[trotsky]

89. Do you think some opinions should be taken more seriously than others?

Or is the opinion that the moon is made of cheese equally likely as the opinion that it's made of rock and other minerals?

Do we "miss the big picture" if we assume the cheese theory is full of holes?

[jonno99]

91. I think serious, reasoned opinions should be treated as such. More importantly,

folks should understand the difference between opinions and facts. Too often the former is passed off as the latter...

[trotsky]

93. So are religious beliefs opinions or facts? n/t

[jonno99]

96. It probably depends on who you ask. My understanding of the Christian

tradition is that the the righteous live by "faith". Which sounds like there is the understanding that there are some elements that cannot be proven.

[trotsky]

99. Are those elements 50-50 propositions then?

Equally likely to be true or false?

Like the moon claim - cheese or minerals, 50-50?

[jonno99]

103. "Are those elements 50-50?" I can't help you there. Now you're discussing matters of "faith". You'd

have to explore them yourself to determine their "faith-worthiness".

The moon? Um, ok. I think we're done here. have a good one...

[trotsky]

104. Well I've noticed on this thread you want to define "extremist" groups.

The extreme believers, the extreme non-believers. How neither has "proof" of their position, but are sure of it.

Just trying to probe that logic - you seem to admit that certain opinions/beliefs are much less likely to be true, so I just wanted to see how you decide which ideas you think it's OK to discard, and which you will marginalize those who discard them.

[cleanhippie]

107. Notice how he treats your question about the moon as absurd on its face.

Yet spends post after post after post defending religious claims from the same treatment.




Believers. They never cease to amaze, do they?

[trotsky]

108. Well, have YOU ever been to the moon?

How can you be sure it's NOT made of cheese? You must be some kind of extremist to say it's made of rock.

[cleanhippie]

109. I'm very dogmatic and rigid in my assertion that moon is not made of cheese.

According to him, that makes me a first rate asshole!

[jonno99]

111. It's never been my assertion that "neither has proof". It is my assertion that blanket statements

espousing to hold the totality of truth - be they religious or non-religious - are unhelpful in that rigid dogmatism is an indication of a closed mind.

[trotsky]

120. I understand it's uncomfortable seeing where your train of thought goes.

Do you oppose the extremists who insist the moon is made of rock and minerals?

[jonno99]

121. I don't know what to make of this sentence:

"I understand it's uncomfortable seeing where your train of thought goes."

If you're pointing to yourself - I apologize for having caused you feelings of discomfort.

If you're referring to me, it makes even less sense in that I have not voiced, nor do I feel any level of discomfort about our conversation.

Regardless, I think you well understand the point I've been trying to make. As with most opinions all I can suggest is that if the shoe fits wear it.

[trotsky]

124. Typically when a person (me) uses a 2nd person pronoun (you),

it's referring to the person they are addressing, not themselves. Notable exceptions would be hypothetical sentences, of course. Glad I could help you with that confusion.

So would you care to answer my question? What do you think about the extremists who outright dismiss the idea of a cheese moon, and insist it's made of rock?

[cleanhippie]

106. You treat his question as patently absurd!

"The moon? I think we're done here."

Why? Is it because such a question is absurd to begin with?


Never mind, it seems this discussion is over your head.

[jonno99]

110. Sigh...we've been to the moon CH. Therefore if anyone were to cling to previosuly held

opinions that are contrary to the findings they would be - yes, absurd.

Have a good one CH...

[cleanhippie]

112. Then how about unicorns?

Or fairies, or dragons, like I asked you before but you ignored.

Is belief in these creatures absurd?

[jonno99]

113. Sorry CH - you're going to have to slay your own strawmen. I must say though

that you are an admirable defender of the faith; but you need not keep tilting at this windmill - I'm obviously of no danger to you.

Have a good one.

[cleanhippie]

114. Lol. Phrase it any way that makes you feel better, but the only thing slayed here

Is you.

Have a nice day!

[jonno99]

116. Wait - you didn't slay the straw men too?! You can't just leave them running around you know...

You have a nice day too.

[cleanhippie]

119. Again, end this in any manner that helps you feel better about it.

[goldent]

130. I think all of the straw men left running around could explain the mystery of

the missing mass in the universe. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-466/ch22.htm

[HassleCat]

26. An impotent God

According to the usual description of God, he has to abide by his own rules, one of which involves allowing free will for humans. To regulate the balance of good and evil, it would be necessary to violate that rule. So looking for God in that direction is useless.

[randys1]

27. If believing gives you comfort, then by all means believe.

If eventually you evolve to the point where you dont need this belief to feel comfort, so be it.

if not, feel free to continue your belief, but you might want to not presume anything about it, like it is true or real or rational...

Then we can get along just fine

[Kalidurga]

28. he saw a man with shoulder-length hair and stubbly cheeks.

Who is homeless, it never occurred to the fellow to treat this man to a visit to the barber shop because god in his infinite wisdom will provide if he ever feels that the man is worthy.

[earthside]

31. Logic and reason argue against god.

Philosopher L. R. Hamelin quoted by Jerry Coyne in his new (and most excellent) book 'Faith vs. FACT'.

First, we hypothesize that God is real, with real properties. Second, we create a theory about what a real God and His properties means. A God doesn't just sit there; what does He do? Third, we make this theory testable: we must be able to determine whether it is true or false. Fourth, we must test the theory by observation or experiment. Finally, we ensure the theory is parsimonious: that is, if we took out God, the theory wouldn't explain as much.

Once we have followed all these steps, we have a scientific theory that includes God, which we can test against what we actually observe.

But constructing this kind of theory of God puts believers on the horns of a dilemma. Centuries of scientific investigation show that the best scientific theories, testable by observation, include nothing like a personal God. We find only a universe of blind, mechanical laws, including natural selection, with no foresight or ultimate purpose.

Alternatively, a believer could reject one or more of the criteria for a God theory, but doing that has profound implications.

If she admits that God is not real, she's already an atheist. If she says God doesn't do anything, who cares? If her theory cannot be tested at all, then there's no way of telling if it's true or false. If her theory can be tested only by private revelation, not by observations available to everyone, she unjustifiably claims private knowledge. And if her theory is observationally identical to a theory that does not include God, then she's again an atheist, for a God who makes no difference is no God at all.

The only remaining question is whether some people would find this analysis useful, and I know many people who, applying this analysis, have abandoned their religion.

[Heddi]

32. Nothing says "I'm here with good intentions" like a flame-baity hit-and-run post

in a highly contentious room.

Please, tell us your thoughts about Israel/Palestine, and Guns. I'm very interested in them. But whatever you do, DON'T EVER PARTICIPATE IN YOUR OWN THREAD.

[cleanhippie]

38. And a 19 post newbie, at that.

I can't shake the feeling that somewhere a sock is missing from the dryer.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

33. Not a real good analogy.

I went to church for years and years, sang in a lot of church choirs, and was raised Presbyterian. Presbyterians are pretty liberal and also well educated. My parents went, and I went to Sunday School to try to meet boys and get a date in high school, but they didn't tell me I was going to hell or anything like that. I also tried several other churches. I tried a wide variety of them as I got older.


I prayed and read the Bible like I was told to. Other people said they felt the holy spirit, or God came over them, or God intervened because they prayed, or they recovered from some illness, or whatever, that they ascribed to performing these acts of faith.


I never felt the presence of God. Everything was supposed to get better when I "turned my life over to Jesus Christ", whatever that meant. I never knew what "being saved" was supposed to mean either.


And if I said I didn't get any results from prayer, I was told the insult that "You didn't pray hard enough. You don't have enough faith." I thought that was just insulting. They were telling me the only acceptable religious/spiritual experience I was allowed to have was the same experience that they did.


I never could see these connections and causation with anything that happened in the real world. I came to the conclusion that there is no God, because he's made up (Why does God need a dick anyway?) and these people are probably fooling themselves. If they aren't fooling themselves, then they had an experience that I can't have, for reasons unknown.


So I've been a Unitarian-Universalist for 36 years. It's the only church I've felt comfortable in because atheists, agnostics and the questioning are welcome, and it has NO CREED. It has principles. I also have enjoyed going to Buddhist temples because of the philosophy. Buddha was not concerned with gods. He was concerned with how to end suffering and how we should treat each other. He distilled Hinduism down to dharma (the teaching or the truth), karma and reincarnation and said we didn't need gods to be good decent people.


I always felt stupid sitting in church and reciting the Apostles' Creed, because I didn't believe it. That was a matter of conscience. Life didn't get better because I prayed. Nobody at my church (multiple large churches actually) would help me. I needed some concrete help. I didn't need charity. It got worse because the preachers were telling us what worthless horrible sinners we were from the pulpit. That made me want to crawl in a hole and just vegetate. Not very positive. I'm not perfect but telling the whole congregation that they're filthy horrible nasty sinners, quoting "our righteousness is as filthy rags", is pretty damned sick.


Some people are evil, but I think a lot of people or most people are stumbling through life doing the best they can. We all make mistakes because we didn't know any better. Condemning people for breathing and walking the earth because of a fairy tale about two people and a "fruit" and a woman saying "I was beguiled, and I did eat" is extremely cruel. And yet the other people all rejoiced and thought this was positive and good for people.


I got disgusted at their hypocrisy, their refusal to help me, and left and decided to not set foot in a Christian church anymore. I had loved to sing in choirs because I love music. That made me feel better, and I could enjoy the power of music without singing about God or singing so-called "sacred" music. I think that is an artificial distinction. If it's positive and makes you feel better, then it's sacred music.

The Catholics have most of the good music, written in Latin by great composers, and the good art, because they supported some of the greatest musicians and artists that ever lived. In fact, I love to go into old cathedrals and stare at the artwork and admire the artistry and dedication of the people who built them.


I decided that the only real help people get is from OTHER PEOPLE on EARTH. People doing things for each other in concrete action to help, not just prayer. I think people often use religion as an excuse to duck responsibility for their lives, so they say "it was God's will".


So if any of you Christians want to get on my case for hating Christianity, it's because of my experiences. I don't have the time nor the interest to find Christians that are nice to me, and I am getting up in years.The doctrines are absolutely nonsensical and ridiculous as well. They are not logical at all. I have a problem with "God loves you but if you don't love him you will go to hell. But you have free will." That's not free will, that's duress.
George Carlin explained that one.

I think we make our own heavens and hells on earth.

[Squinch]

34. When the day comes, as it does in every life, that you face a catastrophic illness, or

a disaster, or terrible loss, will it be because you just didn't do a good enough job of seeking God?

I believe there is more than this life, but your reasoning makes no sense, and will inevitably add unnecessary pain to the hardships you will face. When you face those hardships, it will not be because you didn't believe hard enough, or you didn't seek God the right way. It will be because everyone faces hardships.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

56. I don't think your post makes sense. I'm being logical.

Yeah, I already know about hardships and loss. I don't see how belief in God makes a difference.

It sure didn't make things better when times were hard. It made them worse for the reasons I have spelled out. Evil doctrines and unkind people.

[Squinch]

70. So read it again and use a little more logic. You pretty much restated what I said.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

80. So if I don't believe in God, does that mean my crises are worse?

Believing in God makes crises easier to handle? Is that what you are saying or not?

[Squinch]

98. Not even close.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

118. Tell me what you are saying.

Unless I'm just a complete idiot in the "understanding English" department.

[Squinch]

125. Mary is suggesting that the reason there is pain and suffering in the world is

because people don't seek God.

The logical extension of this is that, if she really believes this and if pain and suffering enter her life, it is likely that she will blame herself for the existence of that pain and suffering because her belief suggests that the reason for it is that she did not believe in God hard enough.

I am telling Mary that when that day comes that pain and suffering enter her life, it will not be because of her belief or non belief. The cause of it will not be some religious failing on her part, which is what her belief will suggest to her. Pain and suffering will enter her life because pain and suffering enter everyone's life.

ETA: You are aware that I was responding to the OP and not to your post, right? If you are thinking I was responding to you, that might explain the confusion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

126. Oh all right.

That was complicated. Thanks for the explanation.

[Squinch]

127. No problem

[thereismore]

35. God better don't exist or s/he would have to be a giant vindictive prick, according

to his revealed word, whatever ancient book that is.

[SusanCalvin]

55. Hey, I've not been in this group before, and I like it!

What's the difference between here and A&A, if any?

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Anyone can post anything here about religion, positive or negative, and get free responses

unfettered by SOP's in Safe Havens.

Some people have been banned from A&A for being supreme jerks, but it usually takes a while, and they get a warning. That's as 'safe' a haven as it is.

Interfaith, sometimes you get one post, no warning, or an angry demand to self-delete as anything that even smells remotely critical of religion is bannable.

Not too sure about the other groups, as they are even less used than interfaith.

[SusanCalvin]

79. Gotcha, thanks.

This one sure generates mass quantities of replies!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

81. Yes, A.C.

[Iggo]

37. Because he don't. (n/t)

Also, there ain't no Santa Claus and the Emperor's naked.

You're welcome.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. So you're saying that God arranges people getting sick, but you will be able to understand that

if you try hard enough?

"why are there so many people getting sick and so many orphans losing their parents?
...
So if one wants to understand God, he has to take it upon himself to seek God, draw near to God with his heart and honesty, and carefully experience the people, occurrences, and things God arranges for you every day"

The sickness is arranged by God, but if you're honest, you'll understand why.

Can you explain why?

[edhopper]

51. If, when I die,

I find out I was wrong and God exists. The first thing I'm going to do is kick him in the balls.

[SusanCalvin]

54. .

[SheilaT]

57. A truly stupid analogy.

One man who goes around unshaven, and is then held up to be a (false) proof that barbers don't exist, even though the man in the story has just been to a barber. WTF?

If you want to believe in a god, go ahead, especially if it makes you feel better about all the crap in your life. But I simply cannot reconcile the notion of a loving, all-seeing God with the evil that exists in the world.

Here's the problem: everything and nothing are both held to be proof of God. If you believe, then good things happen. If good things don't happen, then you didn't believe hard enough. Such bullshit.

Similarly, there's a famous fable about walking on a beach, finding a watch, which proves that a watchmaker must exist. Somehow, the actual existence of tool-making is extended to prove that God must exist, because of the complexity of the world around us. Ignorant believers also like to point to things like the eye as proof that evolution couldn't possibly come up with anything as complex as an eye, showing only that they don't know anything about eye-like structures that do exist. This is the "God of the edges of knowledge". I can't quite recall exactly what that should be, but do some reading and watching of Neil deGrasse Tyson. He points out that all too often, when we get to the edge of our knowledge, people like to say, "See! There! That's what we don't know or don't understand, so it's God who is responsible!" And then our knowledge and understanding expands, and people point to the part that is still unknown and say the same thing.

[uriel1972]

59. The Incredible Shrinking God!!!!... nt

[Person 2713]

60. Chain letter mail mentality

[skepticscott]

62. And how does your rather unconvincing analogy

cope with the fact that most people who are atheists were once believers?

Oh, that's right...we won't be getting any actual discussion from you, will we? Makes one wonder about your real purpose in dropping this here.

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. THAT'S what I've been doing wrong?

Shit, I had no idea!

But fear not, good lady, for I have ordered a magnifying glass from Amazon.com! In 3-5 business days, I will commence my search for the LORD. No more living in the dark for me!

[Promethean]

71. This is a representation of the best that theists have.

So every theist claims in some way their god however defined interacts with the world/universe/cosmos/whatever in some way. If its interacting then there would be something that could be pointed to that is clearly explained as their god. If this obvious evidence existed every theist would proudly point to it and declare it so.

Instead we get crappy analogies (see above). Instead we get word salad psudo-philosophical explanations (kalam, pre-sup, etc). Instead we get science denial (Ken Ham). Instead we get declarations of faith (not a synonym of trust) as a virtue.

You cannot demonstrate your god with words alone.

[Linda C. Brazil]

135. hi

Do you believe in God? Or you have other viewpoints?

[Promethean]

138. I thought the context of the post was pretty clear.

If some part of it confused you I am willing to elaborate.

[mindem]

76. what drivel n/t

[RKP5637]

77. ...

[rurallib]

78. As an atheist I jeard on the radio once said

"Man made God in his image and likeness"

I am not here to argue. The gods and then God that man created is specific to man and their needs. You believe in a god, I do not.
As long as we all respect each others beliefs, it can be good.

[Marrah_G]

83. The God in that story sounds like a sadistic asshole.

[elleng]

101. Everyone does, we just call it by different names.

For me, it's NATURE.

[tkmorris]

117. LOL, wut?

This is the most simplistic, childish bunch of bullshit I have read at DU this week. The fact that there are people yet in existence who are so logic challenged as to believe such a bushel of tripe is why we are still light years from being a civilized society.

[Goblinmonger]

122. If you bothered to have one reply in this thread

I'd give a shit about what you think. And then it would be about how stupid the analogy is.

[raccoon]

123. Isn't that begging the question?

God’s existence needn’t to be disputed, for it’s an indisputable fact.

Indisputable fact? Who says?

[doc03]

129. If there is a god why do some of the most evil, dishonest people

have it made all their life? Then you have a person that believes in god, is a good honest person that will go out of his way to help
someone less fortunate and has nothing but struggle and illness their entire life?

[sanatanadharma]

131. Learn how to see God and feel the Infinite Limitless Divine by modifying your android phone

By what means of knowledge, what facility...
...will the limited, finite form of a human, be able to have the vision or experience of the limitless, unbounded, All-in-All?

I do not deny Divine. I deny that God can be known by any of the external or inner senses.
God can only be known by transcending the egoic-knower.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. If you don't know god, you can't claim to be unable to know it.

See, you've made a leap here:

God can only be known by transcending the egoic-knower.

If you can't know god with your 'external or internal senses', then you can't know that god is unknowable. There are three possibilities beyond what you specified; god doesn't exist, you haven't figured out how to see god, or god doesn't currently WANT to be known.

[opiate69]

132. Thank you, MIRT....

for taking out this trash.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. Now if this were proposed as evidence for gods

it would at least give one pause.

MIRT is, to me, a mysterious invisible force.

[skepticscott]

141. I suspect this "trash" is still around

Alert trolling, as they no doubt will on this post, and setting up new sock puppets for the next time they get put on vacation for being an asshole.

[Arugula Latte]

134. This is hilarious!

Did a simpleton write it? The writer seems to be confusing things that go on onside one's mind with a fictional external, supernatural being.



But seriously, thanks for the laugh.

[JRLeft]

142. They don't feel him, because he doesn't exist.

He's no different than a dragon or a unicorn.

[Lordquinton]

144. Dragos are pretty awesome

God is kinda boring as far as mythical beings go. Like a teenage boy's power trip.

[JRLeft]

145. Abrahamic Gods are mass murderers.