Why ought I follow?

[MarsCydonia]

From the "The silence of God" (a.k.a the poorly worded and deformed argument from non-belief) thread:

So God wouldn't make you a follower just coming to you, just by coming to your door and doing a few miracles?

Why should it?

Have you ever asked this question to a christian:
"If convinced that god exists, why ought I follow"?
And have you ever obtained an answer that made any sense to you?

Take the quote above: should anyone follow god simply because he established his existence? Or because he performed miracles?Are these two criterias how they decide a being should be followed?
1. You are convinced of the being's existence
2. The being can perform miracles

The existence of Hitler is pretty well established (criteria 1.). Had Hitler performed miracles (criteria 2.), are these christians saying they would have become nazis?

An answer I've often heard is that the "creator" should be worshipped because he's the creator but why would being the "creator" mean being worthy of being worshipped?

 

[leroy]

From the "The silence of God" (a.k.a the poorly worded and deformed argument from non-belief) thread:

So God wouldn't make you a follower just coming to you, just by coming to your door and doing a few miracles?

Why should it?

Have you ever asked this question to a christian:
"If convinced that god exists, why ought I follow"?
And have you ever obtained an answer that made any sense to you?

Take the quote above: should anyone follow god simply because he established his existence? Or because he performed miracles?Are these two criterias how they decide a being should be followed?
1. You are convinced of the being's existence
2. The being can perform miracles

The existence of Hitler is pretty well established (criteria 1.). Had Hitler performed miracles (criteria 2.), are these christians saying they would have become nazis?

An answer I've often heard is that the "creator" should be worshipped because he's the creator but why would being the "creator" mean being worthy of being worshipped?

that is the point that has been made on that thread,


even by knocking your door and making his existence obvious, you would not follow God, so why would God do something like that?


most people follow God because they had an internal experience and found God in that experience................from Gods point of view it is more efficient to create these kind of experiences than knocking doors, the first alternatives seems to be better in producing followers.

 

[MarsCydonia]

hat is the point that has been made on that thread,

even by knocking your door and making his existence obvious, you would not follow God, so why would God do something like that?

most people follow God because they had an internal experience and found God in that experience................from Gods point of view it is more efficient to create these kind of experiences than knocking doors, the first alternatives seems to be better in producing followers.

You really cannot stay on point, can you?

 

[thenexttodie]

From the "The silence of God" (a.k.a the poorly worded and deformed argument from non-belief) thread:

So God wouldn't make you a follower just coming to you, just by coming to your door and doing a few miracles?

Why should it?

Well...it wouldn't. That was my point. Some people in thread posited the idea that God could make more "followers" by coming to everyone's door and doing miracles for them.

Most of the miracles God did for people in the Bible, did not result in "gaining followers", quite the oppostite it seems actually.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Well both of the christian trolls left a comment and neither of them could tell us why, once god's existence is established, why we should follow.

 

[Bango Skank]

Well both of the christian trolls left a comment and neither of them could tell us why, once god's existence is established, why we should follow.

Because what God would do to a person if he doesnt follow, threats and apply of violence.

It all boils down what are the consequences of not following.

 

[thenexttodie]

Well both of the christian trolls left a comment and neither of them could tell us why, once god's existence is established, why we should follow.

Well should and would sorta have different meanings.

You should follow God because he is good and he loves you and he died for your sins so that you can have an everlasting relationship with Him.

 

[MarsCydonia]

You should follow God because he is good and he loves you and he died for your sins so that you can have an everlasting relationship with Him.

How is he good? Does he condemn slavery? Does he asks people to accept homosexuality?

Does he "love" with a beneficial love, a love that is selfless and undemanding or does his love demand adoration and worship under the threat of punishment like an abusive spouse or parent?

How could he "die" if he is eternal?

What are my "sins" except a condition he inflicted on us.

If you can't answer this in a way that make sense, you haven't given me reasons I should follow, you have given me reasons why you shouldn't.

 

[Steelmage99]

Well both of the christian trolls left a comment and neither of them could tell us why, once god's existence is established, why we should follow.

Well should and would sorta have different meanings.

You should follow God because he is good

I see no indication of that.

and he loves you

I don't see any indication of that either

and he died for your sins

Demonstrably not true, assuming that you believe he still exists.

so that you can have an everlasting relationship with Him.

Oh goodie. And what happens if you have been good?

 

[Sparhafoc]

even by knocking your door and making his existence obvious, you would not follow God, so why would God do something like that?

The subtext, which you have unwittingly admitted, is that God WANTS to have a relationship with us - that's what you folks are always bleating about, right?

If I wanted to have a relationship with my neighbour, hiding from him is surely not going to encourage such a relationship. Quite the contrary, the neighbour doesn't and can't know I exist. So assuming your god is real, then I see no logic in explaining away its absence - convenient, of course, because it does represent a failing of 2000+ years on the Christian's part to provide a single mote of empirical evidence for its existence - but not a serious, rational line of thinking. Isn't your god supposed to be the font of rationality too?

Now, it might be that if I go and knock on the door and do my best to impress my neighbour, they'd still be uninterested in a relationship, and simply being aware of my existence doesn't mean they are obliged to enter into a relationship with me.

As such, I don't think a thing you wrote above was thought out at all. It's all baloney and it's the type of baloney the religious mind-virus has the believer working overtime to produce. Christianity can't defend itself from reason, evidence and logic.... Christians could theoretically, but they never do. Instead they try to warp reason, upend logic, and take a steaming crap on the evidence.

That's why it's such a joke religion. It has to be the most stupid and self-defeating religion humans have ever made. Together with Islam, it's like a comedy duo where both are the fall guy. I can only imagine that an actual god would be far more competent in ensuring its followers were informed and capable.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well both of the christian trolls left a comment and neither of them could tell us why, once god's existence is established, why we should follow.

Well should and would sorta have different meanings.

You should follow God because he is good and he loves you and he died for your sins so that you can have an everlasting relationship with Him.

Aside from that being a masturbationary fantasy handed down to you by your ancestors - like a traditional cum rag used by your grandfather, and his grandfather before him - it's also just plain bonkers.

Even if God were good and loves me and died (? no, death isn't a temporary shift in location) for me.... I owe "him" precisely fuck all as I asked for none of it.

The picture you paint is of a stalker who tells you they love you and demands you love them back. No. Not how an adult relationship works.

Seems fine for the emotionally infantile minds though. Sad that they always touch themselves about their special relationship with god when it really only amounts to a relationship with their hands.

 

[leroy]

As such, I don't think a thing you wrote above was thought out at all. It's all baloney and it's the type of baloney the religious mind-virus has the believer working overtime to produce. Christianity can't defend itself from reason, evidence and logic.... Christians could theoretically, but they never do. Instead they try to warp reason, upend logic, and take a steaming crap on the evidence.


.

Have you ever seen a debate between educated Christians and educated Atheist? usually Christians are the ones that sound more reasonable honest and open minded.

usually Christians present testable and positive arguments for God or Christianity, and typically atheist don't provide any argument for atheism, sure there are exceptions and I am not implying that these proves that atheism is wrong, but it is unfair and unjustified to accuse Christians for not defending their view with reason.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Have you ever seen a debate between educated Christians and educated Atheist?

1) What does 'see' a debate mean? Are you asking if I've watched one on TV? If so, no. I couldn't imagine anything more tiresome and fruitless than joining a fantasist in a discussion about the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

2) Educated or not, they're still debating children's stories. One might wonder why they'd want to do that publicly, to be honest.

3) I've instead engaged in many thousands of debates with Christians myself, so I would guess that means a kind of 'yes' with respect to your question.

usually Christians are the ones that sound more reasonable honest and open minded.

1) Subjective qualitized value judgment asserted as if it were universal. You think X, so? Why do I care what you think about it? I care whether what you think is valid, justified or true only insomuch as it impinges on reality. I don't care if your favourite colour is blue or your favourite debater was Christian. It offers no explanatory power whatsoever.

2) Sound honest and open-minded =/= honest and open-minded.

3) Are you not aware of the concept of bias? Do you know nothing about the advances in the neural sciences over the last 2 decades? Are you completely ignorant of the way confirmation bias works? How we routinely accept information we agree with and employ no scrutiny when we do so, but when faced with information we don't a priori accept then we suddenly grow some skepticism? If not, there's a body of work you should read before making such naive statements.

4) The most important thing for you to understand is that debates are a human social phenomenon, they are not arbiters of truth, but rather more like a fashion parade. You can win a debate while being a complete cunt, similarly you can win a debate while never saying a single thing on topic so long as you have a sympathetic audience on your side.

5) Given all the above - so fucking what?

6) Rudeness is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't care if you want to obsequiously shake my dick for me after I've finished urinating, no matter how outrageously polite you are, if you believe in bullshit it remains bullshit. Perhaps they were so nice, honest, gentle, glorious specimens of superhumanity because their arguments were shit and that's the only hope they had.

/shrug who knows? And more importantly, who cares? I don't need to make explanations for something I don't even know actually happened anywhere outside of your mind. I can just say: quantify honest, quantify reasonable, quantify open-mindedness and then when we've got clearly formalized definitions of what they mean to you, then you can share the links of all those debates and I can see if your rubric is consistent. Note that it wouldn't mean I agree with either your definitions or your interpretation, but it's one of the obstacles we'd need to cross to turn your subjective value judgment into anything potentially empirically quantifiable.

usually Christians present testable and positive arguments for God or Christianity, ...

Leroy, go fuck with someone else rather than me. I do not like bullshit. No Christian in the history of humanity has offered a TESTABLE argument for the existence of God. NO HUMAN HAS DONE THAT! in the HISTORY OF HUMANITY FFS! So don't fucking lie to me or I will become an awful lot franker in our exchanges than you might appreciate.

And this brings the whole notion of being a nice guy back under the spotlight. I don't care if you're reasonable, kind, sweet, and charitable if you are prepared to bullshit when the only worthy universal value in life is truth.

We have a special rule for people like you who put style over content. It's called Goldenmane's 3rd Rule. You should go and fucking read it.

and typically atheist don't provide any argument for atheism,...

Duhhhhh that's because, as has been explained to you just by me several times already in the past 2 days (and consequently I imagine it's been explained to you dozens of times before by other people), atheism is the non-acceptance of the theism claim. There is no 'argument for atheism' other than that there is no fucking evidence of the existence of fucking gods. If you can't grasp that, you have forgone any right to expect to be taken seriously by anyone with a clue.

sure there are exceptions and I am not implying that these proves that atheism is wrong, but it is unfair and unjustified to accuse Christians for not defending their view with reason.

Because you assert so? Bollocks. I will go with my thousands of hours of experience before I will lend you trust that what you claim you saw actually happened, or that you are an acceptable arbiter of things I should believe because you say so.

I am genuinely boggled by the terminal lack of understanding of skepticism you bring to the table here. You actually think your paragraph above warranted a triumphant final conclusion which just so happened to make the point you could have simply asserted in the absence of all the other contrived assertions.

Pro-tip: nothing personal, but I don't believe a single word you say. If you want me to accept anything you declare to be true, then you're going to need to furnish sources that I can independently peruse. I shan't be genuflecting my individual intelligence to the altar of your unwarranted confidence, thanks all the same.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The existence of Hitler is pretty well established (criteria 1.). Had Hitler performed miracles (criteria 2.), are these christians saying they would have become nazis?

An answer I've often heard is that the "creator" should be worshipped because he's the creator but why would being the "creator" mean being worthy of being worshipped?

that is the point that has been made on that thread,


even by knocking your door and making his existence obvious, you would not follow God, so why would God do something like that?


most people follow God because they had an internal experience and found God in that experience................from Gods point of view it is more efficient to create these kind of experiences than knocking doors, the first alternatives seems to be better in producing followers.

:docpalm:

Yet another in the long list of reading comprehension fails from dandan/leroy. Beyond the fact that you refuse to justify your claim that a deity wants followers, the point beyond that is why should one follow your deity even after it demonstrated itself?

Have you ever seen a debate between educated Christians and educated Atheist? usually Christians are the ones that sound more reasonable honest and open minded.

usually Christians present testable and positive arguments for God or Christianity, and typically atheist don't provide any argument for atheism...

 

[thenexttodie]

How is he good?

How is God good?

You might prefer one social policy over another. You might prefer socialism over communism. You probably think it is good to euthanize certain people. You seem say your standard of evaulating whether or not something is good is dependent upon whether or not it reduces pain and suffering. Is this correct?

 

[thenexttodie]

Even if God were good and loves me and died (? no, death isn't a temporary shift in location) for me.... I owe "him" precisely fuck all as I asked for none of it.

Oh poor fucking Sparhafoc! He never asked to be born! If God was good He would turn him into a tampon so he could get shoved back up his mommy's vagina.

Gimme a fuckin break, pussy.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Even if God were good and loves me and died (? no, death isn't a temporary shift in location) for me.... I owe "him" precisely fuck all as I asked for none of it.

Oh poor fucking Sparhafoc!

What an odd retort to what I posted.

Doesn't seem connected to anything I wrote.

Ohhh hold on... it's projection and you feel hard done by because I dared to critique your silly little belief system, so now you're going to pretend it's me who's upset.

Knock yourself out. From what I can see so far, you have a firm reputation for abject fucking idiocy and a complete unwillingness or, more likely, a complete incompetence which makes your relies unable to retort to the content, and instead you feel the need to make it all emotional.

Unless you enjoy looking like a drooling moron, you should probably try to offer something substantive, rather than the typical dreck you churn out.

He never asked to be born! If God was good He would turn him into a tampon so he could get shoved back up his mommy's vagina.

Gimme a fuckin break, pussy.

Yep, exactly. All this represents is you whining and lashing out because you can't contest the point in a mature or competent fashion. Throw all your toys out of the pram, chap - be my guest. Creationists always show why they're Creationists. One doesn't even need to lift a figurative finger. However, I do have a finger to lift to you if you need the affirmation.

 

[Sparhafoc]

How is he good?

How is God good?

You might prefer one social policy over another. You might prefer socialism over communism. You probably think it is good to euthanize certain people. You seem say your standard of evaulating whether or not something is good is dependent upon whether or not it reduces pain and suffering. Is this correct?

So you repeat the question, fail to answer it, and instead obfuscate.

Job done! Creationist M.O. in play.

 

[Steelmage99]

How is he good?

How is God good?

You might prefer one social policy over another. You might prefer socialism over communism. You probably think it is good to euthanize certain people. You seem say your standard of evaulating whether or not something is good is dependent upon whether or not it reduces pain and suffering. Is this correct?

Blatant burden shifting.

YOU claim that your god is good. YOU demonstrate the truth of your statement!

This intellectually dishonest idea is trotted out all the time.

"X cannot be true, therefore I am right!"
"Please demonstrate that you are right"
"I am right because you are wrong!"

Replace X with whatever - morals, reason, evolution, cosmology, take a pick.

 

[thenexttodie]

So you repeat the question, fail to answer it, and instead obfuscate.

Job done! Creationist M.O. in play.

All I did was ask him a question. Sometimes you have to ask questions before you can give your best answer.