Where is God hiding and why.?

[vivandorron]

I do Not believe in God; despite my education which was in the Bible College of Wales.

Consequently, I say to those who are believers that, he/she is like an indifferent parent who allows its children to completely misbehave without any form of discipline being exercised.

Ron.

[Coldicote]

Yes Birdie, I admit to having some fear of the unknown, but I am not alone in this and thank you for your sensitive comments.
Solvitquick, maybe we are products of chemistry and physics up to a point, but I can't think that science created our sensitivities - to love, to hate and so on, or our ability to learn, think and invent. These characteristics must have originated somehow.

[jomifl]

Coldicote, all science does is to help us understand how we are the way we are. It didn't 'create' anything. Inventing a supernatural phenomenom does nothing to help explain the as yet inexplicable, it just puts off making the effort to explain things. There is no point in being afraid of the inevitable, you probably won't be aware of it when it happens, so make the most of being alive whilst you are.

[vivandorron]

Very early in this thread, naomi was correct in saying.."I don't think Ron wants it both ways. The question is aimed at those who believe - and therefore I assume he is seeking answers from that viewpoint."

Consequently, I now ask all believers to suggest a possible reason for their God having allowed such a position as this to prevail.:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...world-europe-17724535

Ron

[LazyGun]

Just catching up on my reading;
@ Birdie - Thanks for reminding me about Weintraub.
@Naomi - Epricurean Paradox - much more elegantly put than my post ;)

[vivandorron]

Thanks LazyGun for helping to keep this thread going.

In consideration of what I posted yesterday,I am now wondering if all the believers have gone into hiding along with their God.

Ron.

[naomi24]

LG, //Naomi - Epricurean Paradox - much more elegantly put than my post //

Unfortunately, I cannot claim any accolade for writing it - I'm simply bathing in reflected glory. ;o)

[solvitquick]

Good arguments Birdie (and all contributors) but Birdie I do query one small bit of your earlier answers i.e. "if you are a good person (and which
god-fearing isn't)". Surely wrong and perhaps the opposite. God-fearing people have committed awful crimes over millenia. I believe that the best people are atheists who believe in this one and only life so we should TRY do the best we can for others, although we all "sin" many times - selfishness is built into all of animal life. But no atheist has offered human sacrifices to god or "sinned" in the belief that they will be rewarded by their god for doing so in it's name viz crusades, islamlic bombings and so on ad infinitum.

[naomi24]

Solvitquick, sorry I have to take issue with you there. ‘Sinned’? An atheist may commit crimes, or immoral or unethical acts, but it is impossible for an atheist to ‘sin’. Unless I’m talking about religion, the word is stricken from my vocabulary.

[sandyRoe]

"...no atheist has offered human sacrifices to god..."
I wonder how many lives were sacrificed by Stalin and his cronies on the altar of Communism ?

[solvitquick]

I agree Naomi24, I knew sin was a dubious word, that's why I but in in inverted commas. But I can accept the word as an umbrella word covering all crimes/cuelty to our fellow men, women and children e.g the Norwegian maniac now on trial etc. Don't see why it should be in the ownership of theists.

[solvitquick]

Red herring sandyRoe. Communism was never a religion, it's always been an economic system. Stalins works were crimes against humanity by him and his cronies for their own ends.

[naomi24]

Solvitquick, since ‘sin’ equates to a transgression against God’s will, personally I think the word should remain solely in the domain of the theists. It means absolutely nothing to the rest of us.

[vivandorron]

sandy.....I don't know what Stalin has to do with God.!!

Perhaps you are able to answer the question which I posed yesterday.:-

"Consequently, I now ask all believers to suggest a possible reason for their God having allowed such a position as this to prevail.":-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...world-europe-17724535

Ron.

[vivandorron]

Strange..The link doesn't work. I'll try again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...world-europe-17724535

Ron.

[LazyGun]

Sandy has a point. As atheists, we have often pointed the finger at atrocities carried out in the name of religion -mass murder, massacre, rape, pillage, ethnic cleansing and more.

This sentiment is often countered by those of a religious persuasion highlighting the regimes of Stalin, and Pol Pot, alleging an atheist basis for the massacres.I think the reasons for such persecution and massacre within the Bolshevik revolution and PolPots reign of terror in Cambodia were not as simple as repression of religion alone,but it played a part.

We cannot claim that mans inhumanity to man is entirely the preserve of the faithful - only that the schisms between religions provides a more fertile ground for such behaviour, a wider catchment area, and an easy get out clause ("I will defend my god" / "God told me to do it").

We can also point out the hypocricy of such violence and morally repugnant acts on the part of the believers - it is they who claim a higher moral standpoint, who claim a greater spiritual awareness of the universe - and whose followers all claim to follow a god that promotes love, harmony and peace amongst men.Any religion that does not categorically condemn the practice of using suicide bombers, or inciting death through fatwa, or bombing of civilian areas in order to kill some "terrorists" or that do not categorically condemn the random killings by an individual claiming membership of the knights templar stands exposed as morally bankrupt.

[vivandorron]

LazyGun.....I think I can follow what you are saying but, as the believers have a God who is all powerful and supposedly has created man in his own image, it makes one question the sort of being in which they believe.

Consequently it becomes difficult to sensibly discuss matters when the believers dodge the questions which are put (dare I say) in good faith.

Ron.

[solvitquick]

Nope LazyGun for the first time you disappoint me by defending sandyRoes' poor inclusion of Stalin and you adding Pol Pot. I have answered sandy's red herring to my satisfaction. Pol Pot's aim was to drive the country back to the stone-age. There is no evidence that either was driven
by anti-religious beliefs because neither selected against religions. OK Stalin & Cohorts seems to have been involved in Jewish concentratration camps and murder in Poland, hateful cruelty if so. However not sure that this is proven versus German minority of murderous criminals. Anyway we do not know that he or Pol Pot did not have a personal religion. Continued next to allow digestion.

[solvitquick]

Today, Russia and China are offically atheist States but both allow all religions to worship as they wish. I presume they would only crush any religion which acted as a hot-bed of overthrow of the state. Oh if only the UK were officially similar or better: agnostic. Please, theists or agnotics not the obvious space-wasting childish responseof "if you agree with Russian or Chinese states stance why not go and live there?" - usual "argument" by opponents of simple statements of fact (not whole-hearted support).