Question for theists with belief in a personal god.

[brntout]

Lets say this personal god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. The personal god is omniscient, knows that I am ignorant in his eyes, and knows what I want to see in order to believe him. What I want to see is him or an extravagant, obvious happening by him, to save myself from the hell he has made for me if I don't believe. If god is omnipotent, I'm sure he could make this miniscule task possible, and "save" not only myself, but hundreds of millions of others all at once.
Why is it that god refuses to save me, and millions of others from "ignorance", if he knows, what it takes to "save" me and others from "ignorance"? Unless, he already knows his crew which he wants in heaven with him, and damns everyone else to hell, for reasons that are only obvious to the omniscient.

 

[irmerk]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I think I love you.

 

[DarwinsOtherTheory]

well a christian will say that you have to invite christ in your heart, or that he will show himself to you in time, or that he has shown himself but you ignored him and bunch of other bullshit excuses that made no sense.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

"Makes no sense" pretty much covers the whole thing. The blind spot religious people have when it comes to the illogic of their beliefs is only surpassed by the mental gymnastics they engage in to defend those beliefs.

The deity they believe in doesn't even have to be ALL powerful, and ALL knowing... we'd all be convinced by just more powerful and more knowing than we are. I mean, how would we know the difference?

 

[desertedcities]

I definitely agree. This god is a bit of a dick in that way.

Also, quoting ImprobableJoe, "The deity they believe in doesn't even have to be ALL powerful, and ALL knowing... we'd all be convinced by just more powerful and more knowing than we are. I mean, how would we know the difference?"

That's a bit like what I've been building up. A 'god' that really doesn't know everything (or really isn't even a god), and isn't really 'all powerful' in the classic sense. It's also just there, without any power over anything because it isn't a creator, its a product of the universe itself and the life allowed to grow within it. And ImprobableJoe is right about not knowing the difference, especially in what I (tend to) believe. The only way one would really know the difference is after death, because that is when one 'joins' it, and you finally learn that it's just a collective. Eh, I really don't quite know yet (this is all just another man-made deity after all).

 

[Josan]

This reminds me of Th1sWasATriumph's signature.

"An omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God would know exactly why I don't believe in him, but would send me to hell regardless. Have I just described your God?"

Which I just think is fantastic, and sort of sums up the whole "if that is wrong, then I don't want to be right!" part of religion.

 

[infrared]

Here's a jimmy, if god created earth in order to find out which are the "the bad ones", then he i not omniscient.
If god was omniscient, he would not have to test us.
If he was omnipotent, he could just change my mind about him at any second, but he won't do that.
If he was omnipresent he would have known about the visible universe and probably would have told us about the stars in the bible, but he insists on telling us that it is a cape or lanterns.
If god is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent,
he would not be a god.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you can give me a reasonable explanation for these, please let me know.
And if i am wrong, correct me.

 

[brntout]

Here's a jimmy, if god created earth in order to find out which are the "the bad ones", then he i not omniscient.
If god was omniscient, he would not have to test us.
If he was omnipotent, he could just change my mind about him at any second, but he won't do that.
If he was omnipresent he would have known about the visible universe and probably would have told us about the stars in the bible, but he insists on telling us that it is a cape or lanterns.
If god is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent,
he would not be a god.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you can give me a reasonable explanation for these, please let me know.
And if i am wrong, correct me.

There is nothing to correct you on. You have only added to the fallacy and contradiction of the personal god that I was trying to point out in the first place.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

This reminds me of Th1sWasATriumph's signature.

"An omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God would know exactly why I don't believe in him, but would send me to hell regardless. Have I just described your God?"

Which I just think is fantastic, and sort of sums up the whole "if that is wrong, then I don't want to be right!" part of religion.

What's that smell? It's flattery.

Mmm, crunchy

Yeah, it was the first formulated atheist argument I came up with, not that it's unique to me of course, and the easiest to express simply. God would have to know that my disbelief is down to a lack of evidence rather than malice, and would have to know that he could remedy the situation instantly and with ease, but will not. To send me to hell regardless would be the act of a spiteful, malicious and petty God who isn't worth worship in the first place.

Hedge your bets, folks. There's no God. If there is, he can show himself. If not, it's his fault.

 

[GoodKat]

God would have to know that my disbelief is down to a lack of evidence rather than malice, and would have to know that he could remedy the situation instantly and with ease, but will not. To send me to hell regardless would be the act of a spiteful, malicious and petty God who isn't worth worship in the first place.

I think that's why a lot of Christians think we just hate God and are rebelling.

 

[TheJilvin]

Does omniscient God have the omnipotence to change his mind?

 

[Fartoholic]

Does omniscient God have the omnipotence to change his mind?

Does an omnipotent god have the omnipotence to make a rock he cannot carry?

 

[Josan]

Does an omnipotent god have the omnipotence to make a rock he cannot carry?

*Sigh* Not this again

 

[Sasano]

Unless, he already knows his crew which he wants in heaven with him, and damns everyone else to hell, for reasons that are only obvious to the omniscient.

"Makes no sense" pretty much covers the whole thing. The blind spot religious people have when it comes to the illogic of their beliefs is only surpassed by the mental gymnastics they engage in to defend those beliefs.

I definitely agree. This god is a bit of a dick in that way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you can give me a reasonable explanation for these, please let me know.
And if i am wrong, correct me.

To send me to hell regardless would be the act of a spiteful, malicious and petty God who isn't worth worship in the first place.

Hedge your bets, folks. There's no God. If there is, he can show himself. If not, it's his fault.

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=384



I have to say this is one of our problems when debating,discussing,etc against religion we can never stop ourselves from pulling the quick blows and overall cheap shots that would leave any "believer"(to summarize) into thinking all we have our malicious intent against them and is probably one of the reasons they all started screaming "the devils work".

You(all of you) come up to say that.."correct me if I'm wrong","Show me proof and I'll believe","Im open-minded unlike religious folk",etc.And quickly assume the role of this superior intellectual rational being who is not as ignorant & as "anti-social" as these believers but in the same sentence you bash they're beliefs,history and above all God.And sure to us the religion all of its roots are meaningless including the deity itself but we claim to be open-minded and to uphold a moral code that is above this "fanatics"(is the reason we "fight" them,is it not?) yet we can't even refrain from bashing what this people consider sacred while we engage in conversation?

We say religion is part of a barbaric generation that is completely negative yet, we can't help but act as children making fun of each others favorite team.

Now I spent all of my school life in a private religious school(no not catholic) and one of the classes was actually titles "Bible Class".Now I was the "atheist" or the "Satanist" kid, in the school because I questioned everything we we're taught.I've had completely valid points dissipate and ignored purely by peer pressure and simply being outnumbered it got to the point that I realized it was futile that this weren't really looking for debate or logic as they claimed.Why do I tell you this, because this is what I see in this forums; we say "lets debate" but the majority is surely to impose itself everywhere in a rude demeanor without an actual intention of learning but of "PWNING" or converting.

The atmosphere here does not condone, for religious folk to say they're share if anything a beleiver would just end up bullied.Know I was under the assumption that this was the "League of Reason" not an atheist club, I came here with the eagerness to learn from open-minded minds that far exceed the norm that surrounds me, but at this point I see the same actions of "fanatics" with a different color.

 

[IamLegionare]

To Sasano:

Dude! that was deep!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The atmosphere here does not condone, for religious folk to say they're share if anything a beleiver would just end up bullied.Know I was under the assumption that this was the "League of Reason" not an atheist club, I came here with the eagerness to learn from open-minded minds that far exceed the norm that surrounds me, but at this point I see the same actions of "fanatics" with a different color.

I don't believe you. I believe you came here to whine about mean atheists... possibly under multiple screen names.

 

[DarwinsOtherTheory]

I don't believe you. I believe you came here to whine about mean atheists... possibly under multiple screen names.

I agree, the amazing muslim came here and everyone asked questions without problem.

Besides if we want to PWN people, specially creationists we're entitled to, you CANNOT debate with creationists and there's nothing to learn from them.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I agree, the amazing muslim came here and everyone asked questions without problem.

Besides if we want to PWN people, specially creationists we're entitled to, you CANNOT debate with creationists and there's nothing to learn from them.

How do you debate with people who refuse to deal honestly with other people? Why should we coddle them, suck up to them, or give their viewpoint any more respect than it deserves which is none? Why should I pretend that I can learn something from a bunch of liars?

 

[Sasano]

I don't believe you. I believe you came here to whine about mean atheists... possibly under multiple screen names.

This is my only screen name, you can check the IPs,if you're wondering why only have one post is because being new to the forum I was trolling first to learn how the board works.

Instead of defending yourself or replying to the subject planted, you stoop to childish tactics and try to demean me as an inferior, if we can't even speak out among ourselves then..pardon the expression but then; who the fuck are we to judge morality behind people who believe in any religion when we're just as bad but we believe in Theory(s) instead of fairytales?

I agree, the amazing muslim came here and everyone asked questions without problem.

Besides if we want to PWN people, specially creationists we're entitled to, you CANNOT debate with creationists and there's nothing to learn from them.

The point is that there's no moving forward if the religious trash and mock atheist in there social circles and if Atheist trash and mock religious in there social circles.Now unlike them we have a lot of weight behind our reasoning and "beliefs" not to mention were a lot more flexible this is however does not excuse for us to stoop to the level of name calling & petty insults and then accuse them of being close-minded,etc.

Don't you find a bit of futility in debating against religion, but doing so in a morally incorrect way?

 

[Aught3]

@Sasano

Atheists (and scientists) are often accused of being arrogant. It's not that we're arrogant; we just realise we have a better way of working out the truth. Because of this, it often means that we are quick to dismiss other people who claim that they 'know' how things are, by other methods (e.g., divine revelation). The word that is being attached to this type of thought is free-thinker. You don't actually need to be an atheist, but if you apply the same tools to religious beliefs they don't last long.

I would say we (in general) are open minded, but we don't take things on faith. An idea needs to have an evidence attachment to get past our spam filters. I, for one, try to respond calmly to any questions that get asked. I'm sure this means I have feed some trolls, but Joe is pretty good at getting rid of them anyway :lol: I think this is important because even if the troll doesn't believe what they are saying themselves, there may be other people reading who benefit from a calm, rational answer.