Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?

My former Christian belief system viewed God as a sort of Divine Police Officer who never allowed anything into the life of a believer ( referring to myself ) except by his divine will.  There are no accidents; all circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant, were permitted by God. 

My question to theists is this:  Why would God allow me to encounter skeptic resources, atheist web-sites, books, etc when he knew that doing so would destroy my faith ?   If he is truly the engineer of circumstances why did he allow me as a Christian to discover arguments that completely decimated my belief in him ?

If it was a test, was it really worth the the destruction of my faith and the loss of my "eternal soul" ...especially since he supposedly already knew the outcome in advance ?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hi Eloise , I really can

Hi Eloise , I really can relate to alot of what you write, because of my good luck of knowing Alan Watts. Seems you would really enjoy knowing him too. Yes yes, about the "Self" is fiction, Alan is great teacher regarding this, as makes it all so very simple, as all really is ONE.

  I would write more now, but the music band here is needing some help .... Alan is a favorite helpful friend of mine ....  and maybe your good luck too. Thanks for caring.

The fella's here say hi too, pretty one .... damn these wild animals are out of control, again!


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Loc,

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Loc, just ignore Paisley.  He just can't let go of his bitterness toward atheists so he must yet again take up the battle against our materialist, meaningless, absurd, lurking god-belief, pointless existence, blah blah blah.....

The primary source of atheism is anger - anger directed at the so-called "non-existent" God. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Even if this is

Loc wrote:
Even if this is so,the primary difference is atheism does not claim to give you this freedom,where as christianity very much does.

Then the atheist is a hypocrite because he professes to be a "free-thinker."  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hey Paisley, From atheist

Hey Paisley, From atheist RRS fan static_  (a happy buddha head)  Umm, did atheist Jesus Christ get pissed ?    

On Atheists & Nihilism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6pshdUL9M

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Loc wrote:Even

Paisley wrote:

Loc wrote:
Even if this is so,the primary difference is atheism does not claim to give you this freedom,where as christianity very much does.

Then the atheist is a hypocrite because he professes to be a "free-thinker."  

Not quite. Atheism makes no claims about making people free. People discover atheism and then find their freedom of thought.

Christianity, on the other hand, promises the believer freedom but stifles it at almost every turn (or says you can have it after you die and go to "heaven&quotEye-wink.

Then again, you're a panentheist (if I recall rightly). If you look at God as naught but an animating force and a/the source of truth, do you really have a dog in this fight?

Panentheism has some interesting ideas but it still seems much like you're saying, "I don't know...so god!"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Hey

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Hey Paisley, From atheist RRS fan static_  (a happy buddha head)  Umm, did atheist Jesus Christ get pissed ?    

On Atheists & Nihilism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6pshdUL9M  [/quote]

Nihilism is the belief in nothing and as such, it is inherently self-refuting.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I AM GOD AS

Paisley wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Hey Paisley, From atheist RRS fan static_  (a happy buddha head)  Umm, did atheist Jesus Christ get pissed ?    

On Atheists & Nihilism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6pshdUL9M  [/quote]

Nihilism is the belief in nothing and as such, it is inherently self-refuting.

Nihilism is the belief that nothing has value, and there is no objective truth. It is not a 'belief in nothing', but rather a colossal 'why bother?'. As such, it's not necessarily self-refuting, but it is pretty self-defeating. Subtle difference... and given your track record of being incapable of grokking those, I won't expect you to this time, either.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:So, for all

totus_tuus wrote:

So, for all practical intents and purposes we're back to the point where one chooses theism or atheism out of free will, since the existence of free will is the assumption we must operate under.

Not quite. We're at the point where for all practical purposes, we must act as though we choose theism or atheism out of free will, because if there is no free will, we'll be forced to act like it anyway. Eye-wink

Quote:

Then isn't my point of view just as valid as yours?  As a matter of fact, living under such a system, can there be any beliefs which aren't valid?

Your point of view is of course as valid as mine, so long as it provides you with the answers you need in order to interact with the universe as you perceive it without going stark raving mad... or at least without knowing you've gone stark raving mad. However, living under such a system, no beliefs are valid, as a belief is an assertion of knowledge, and any assertion of knowledge beyond the mere existence of the observer (which is not a belief, as it is an unimpeachable fact without which there would be, after all, no existence) cannot be demonstrated even to be more likely to be real than to be an elaborate delusion, perhaps a defense mechanism of a mind fighting to stave off insanity, and so cannot be trusted.

Quote:

I don't think so.  I think that one can begin with acknowledging nothing other than one's own existence and still come up with a pretty convincing case for the existence of a deity.

One can begin acknowledging nothing other than one's own existence, and still come up with a pretty convincing case for anything, given that the only things you can build your case out of are the perceptions of reality provided to you by the very mind attempting to form the 'pretty convincing case'.

Quote:

I didn't mean to take the discussion "biblical" with this comment.  While I believe the Bible is illustrative of much of objective truth, and contains many of those, it is certainly not the complete revelation of objective truth.  My contention is that a natural law exists which is the objective truth.

And mine is that since nothing you perceive can ever truly be trusted, there is no natural law you can be aware of which can be stated to be in any way objective beyond (and IAGAY will love this...) "I AM".

Quote:

Furthermore, I wholeheartedly believe that science has as much to say about the nature of reality as metaphysics does, but in my estimation a "sola ratia" approach to existence is just as flawed as the "sola fide" approach brought about by the Reformation (forgive my Latin here, I'm no Latinist).  Separating faith and reason degrades both.

But while both can be useful, in the end, neither can be trusted, separately or in conjunction, as both are simply the perceptions being presented to your mind by your mind. Which is why belief itself, from my point of view, is a fatal error. Accept, if you wish... interact, as you must... but Believe? There wait dragons.

Quote:

As far as my views on the literal interpretation of Scriptures, suffice it to say that I am opposed to such an approach, but to delve much further into my beliefs about Scriptural veracity and interpretation would seriously degrade the track of this thread even further than we have.

It might, it might not. It's a relaxed conversation though, so I'm good with whatever you choose there.

Quote:
Quote:
Indeed. And while you can demonstrate that gasoline dependence is accurate knowledge of the nature of your care, you cannot demonstrate the same about your choice of deity. So then it must be asked: why assume you know? why not continue to search?

Again, I think it can be reasonably done starting from the single simple point upon which we agree, that is, that the only thing of which we can be sure is our own existence.

But again, the flaw with your method is that the only source you have for your data is that which is attempting to prove a pre-biased view. Isn't it better to say 'Right now, this seems to be true... but if future evidence provides a more compelling case for another explanation, I may decide to accept that one, instead' than to reach one conclusion, then cut off all further inquiry?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
   This thread is fast

   This thread is fast approaching the literary equivalent of abstract art.  

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   This thread is fast approaching the literary equivalent of abstract art.  

 

Look, a Jackson Pollack!:

 

                                                            

                                                          

                                                 .        

 

 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
An apt analogy .    Oh

An apt analogy .    Oh well, everyone have fun...


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
(and IAGAY will love

(and IAGAY will love this...) "I AM".  

 Btw, P added his to the me quote above , the last sentence there (Just to be honest)

  Goosh , people really hate life, and I understand , in the sense that we are, what we are , slaves of this the raging river where all our boats are a float, as we try to navigate,  knowing the water fall is coming .... FATE , as if we even deserved to exist in the first place, with no clue of a beginning, or WHY,  pretending we have an extra special purpose ..... anger management or dogma lies ..... ?   How bout a bottle of RUM and a song .... to ease this pain and abstract .... we call LIFE  ....    

    row row row your boat  , ((( here is the song !  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB31YummgAI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iheqOW4pf6U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-bCF2kJ-qM

 

 

 


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
It seems, BMcD, that they've

It seems, BMcD, that they've started a thread concerning our free will versus determinism discussion.  Perhaps I'll see you there.  I think, though, that we've reached the point where we've stated our respective cases pretty well in this thread.  I, at least, don't have many more arguments to support my contention that we have free will, nor that the universe is what we percieve it to be.  Now I'm off to chow down on my laptop, on the off chance that my perception is askew and it is actually a pepperoni pizza.

Hope to talk with you again soon.  Thanks for the polite and challenging conversation.  I quite enjoyed it.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, I think our specific

Well, I think our specific discussion pretty much reached concensus where it concerns how much the question of 'do we or don't we?' should affect our daily lives: It shouldn't. We simply have to try to do our best to be our best. But yes, the other thread(s? two of 'em now?) may provide some more interesting discussions. And I do look forward to more engaging conversations in the future. After all, we don't always have to be rabidly foaming at one another.

Good luck w/that laptop, btw... IBM's Thinkpad 600-series made for reasonably good Sicilian pies..

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

My former Christian belief system viewed God as a sort of Divine Police Officer who never allowed anything into the life of a believer ( referring to myself ) except by his divine will.  There are no accidents; all circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant, were permitted by God. 

My question to theists is this:  Why would God allow me to encounter skeptic resources, atheist web-sites, books, etc when he knew that doing so would destroy my faith ?   If he is truly the engineer of circumstances why did he allow me as a Christian to discover arguments that completely decimated my belief in him ?

If it was a test, was it really worth the the destruction of my faith and the loss of my "eternal soul" ...especially since he supposedly already knew the outcome in advance ?

Why does an atheist attempt to indict a non-existent God?

 

You accept someone's premises in order to show that their conclusion is false.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:It seems,

totus_tuus wrote:

It seems, BMcD, that they've started a thread concerning our free will versus determinism discussion.  Perhaps I'll see you there.  I think, though, that we've reached the point where we've stated our respective cases pretty well in this thread.  I, at least, don't have many more arguments to support my contention that we have free will, 

 

Free will would be moot in a universe with an omnipotent creator... the creator would be responsible for all the parameters of existence that affect your choice, rendering it moot. Additionally, said creator would be responsible for the existence of the free will itself, with full knowledge of the outcome of your choice (seeing as, again this creator creates both your character and every facet of existence that shapes your choice.)

I think the Calvinists have the only answer that theists can turn to... conceding that there's no way around a omnipotent being's perfect responsiblity.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Putting the hurt on Iraq

Putting the hurt on Iraq persons    CAN ANYONE FUCKING THINK ?

         RATIONAL ?  

       

        

 

       

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Paisley

todangst wrote:

Paisley wrote:

 

Why does an atheist attempt to indict a non-existent God?

 

You accept someone's premises in order to show that their conclusion is false.

 

Thank you for reiterating my point.  I can assure you, based upon prior experience, that Paisley already understood this method of debate. 

It's just his silly way of expressing his contempt for us.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
While we're on the free will

While we're on the free will thing,what do theists make of this verse:

Phillipians 2:10-11 wrote:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This seems to remove any pretense of free will, since in the end we will serve god wether we want to or not.Why even pretend we have a choice then?

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:totus_tuus

todangst wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

It seems, BMcD, that they've started a thread concerning our free will versus determinism discussion.  Perhaps I'll see you there.  I think, though, that we've reached the point where we've stated our respective cases pretty well in this thread.  I, at least, don't have many more arguments to support my contention that we have free will, 

 

Free will would be moot in a universe with an omnipotent creator... the creator would be responsible for all the parameters of existence that affect your choice, rendering it moot. Additionally, said creator would be responsible for the existence of the free will itself, with full knowledge of the outcome of your choice (seeing as, again this creator creates both your character and every facet of existence that shapes your choice.)

I think the Calvinists have the only answer that theists can turn to...conceding that there's no way around a omnipotent being's perfect responsiblity.

Calvinism totally sucks and fortunately there is another option for theists, it is not necessary to assume a causal universe. Paisley's views almost fit in that loophole - at least a non-causal metaphysic is part of the mention.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Free will

todangst wrote:
Free will would be moot in a universe with an omnipotent creator

It's amazing to me how much this comes up. Especially when that conclusion is so easy to reach.

todangst wrote:
I think the Calvinists have the only answer that theists can turn to... conceding that there's no way around a omnipotent being's perfect responsiblity.

... so work harder, dammit!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence