A disgraceful god

[Silver]

God is supposed to be the penultimate father figure. Perhaps to those who invented him. After all, we always create that which we most desire, that which will have the most positive influence on society, and only through the ages as we progress does it become most apparent that what used to be popular has found itself floundering amidst the waves of societal change.

Anyone intelligent enough to spell a word properly should also be capable of understanding that a god which should exist cannot disgrace us with messages that only come from believers full of overwhelming acclaim that overshadows logic.

Dishonor fills the theistic world on too many levels for any of their apologetics to be taken seriously. Be a true believer and own up to your abhorrent silliness or forfeit the illogical faith for reality.

As the idea of god is a disgrace to any sensible individual, unwarranted belief is not above reproach.

After all, a true god would not be the kind of disappointment that cannot prove his existence to anyone except those who profess through ill reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

If gods are personal and intervening, the central claim of theism, there's no logical reason that they couldn't be as disgraceful and horrid and bankrupt as any other personal and intervening being - aka us. The faithful will give you all sorts of superstitious and religious explanations, ofc.

This isn't a reason to disbelieve - but it is a reason to disregard any such god as authoritative exactly as we would disregard such a person. If god were a tiger or an asshole or both - it might help to know how to avoid being eaten by a tiger, but you're not exactly taking life lessons from the tiger.

[ignoramus]

How very dare you insinuate that I'm not real!
Without getting too technical, because I live in a different realm, I need to use an intermediary to communicate with you mere mortals.
This is also why I sent my dropkick son to you guys ages ago.

I haven't actually bothered to check on him. I trust he's doing well.

Your unconditional friend: Yahwey. (ps, for just $10/week I can come and visit you in hell every now and then)

[Belacqua]

God is supposed to be the penultimate father figure. 

"Penultimate" means "next to last." So if God is penultimate, then something else is last, or ultimate. Who would be ultimate, in this case, if god is penultimate?

Perhaps to those who invented him. After all, we always create that which we most desire, that which will have the most positive influence on society, and only through the ages as we progress does it become most apparent that what used to be popular has found itself floundering amidst the waves of societal change.

This is a bit like Feuerbach's argument. People create the idea of God to depict what we think we ought to be but aren't. 

Anyone intelligent enough to spell a word properly should also be capable of understanding that a god which should exist cannot disgrace us with messages that only come from believers full of overwhelming acclaim that overshadows logic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a god which should exist." Does this mean the kind of god you would approve of? The kind of god which, if it existed, would be worthy of our respect? I don't see how our idea of "should" here has any bearing on what really does exist. 

Second, just because a god's believers are jerks doesn't mean that the god is bad. The fact that the believers say stupid stuff is no indication that the stupid stuff came from god. Similarly, people used to attribute social darwinism and other bad things to Darwin, but he didn't really say those things. Marxists say a lot of dumb stuff which Marx didn't say. A person's followers don't prove that the person himself is bad. So I don't know why it would be so of a god. 

Third, "believers full of overwhelming acclaim" seems odd to me. "Acclaim" means praise. So believers full of acclaim would be people who should be praised, yet this praise "overshadows logic." Is this what you mean to say? Or do you mean that they are full of claims (assertions of what they think is true) which in your opinion are not logical? It sort of looks as though you didn't spell the word properly, which is ironic, given the beginning of the sentence. 

Dishonor fills the theistic world on too many levels for any of their apologetics to be taken seriously. Be a true believer and own up to your abhorrent silliness or forfeit the illogical faith for reality.

Again, the fact that most people behave badly doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the existence of God. A lot of apologetics is too silly to take seriously, but even if the person making the claim is morally bad, we have to evaluate the sentence as a truth claim independently of his moral qualities. To say that his claim is false because he is morally bad is a pure ad hominem argument. 

Also, some believers spew abhorrent silliness, as do some atheists. But some are intelligent people, and their faith is reasonable given their time and place and situation. It's not fair to just say that every believer everywhere is abhorrently silly. Unless you have some way to demonstrate this, you are full of a claim which isn't necessarily so.

As the idea of god is a disgrace to any sensible individual, unwarranted belief is not above reproach.

How do you demonstrate that the "idea of god is a disgrace to any sensible individual"? This is a truth claim, so I think the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate it. 

And I would agree with you that "unwarranted belief" is reproachable. The question is whether the belief is warranted or not, and you'd have to prove that in each and every case it isn't. This would be a tall order. 

After all, a true god would not be the kind of disappointment that cannot prove his existence to anyone except those who profess through ill reason.

I often hear that if there were a god, we know exactly how it ought to act, and since no one is acting that way there can't be a god. This indicates that you know very precisely what the non-existent god would be like if it existed. How do you know this?

First, we have no idea whether a god has a duty to prove its existence to us. How do you know that a god would be interested in doing that? Second, I am not convinced that all believers only believe due to "ill reason." Do you have a way of demonstrating these claims?

[The Grand Nudger]

It hardly matters whether a disgraceful god does or doesn't have some duty to prove itself to human beings - it wouldn't matter if it did, didn't..did prove itself, or didn't prove itself.

[Drich]

God is supposed to be the penultimate father figure. Perhaps to those who invented him. After all, we always create that which we most desire, that which will have the most positive influence on society, and only through the ages as we progress does it become most apparent that what used to be popular has found itself floundering amidst the waves of societal change.

that's not true. when the bible was translated from the greek to latin and local bibles were being translated from the Latin God did change, and even today in the catholic church god changes all the time.. or didn't you hear there is no hell, homosexuality is ok and sin is not 'in?' it is only in the original text which if you read it was very counter culture back then as it is now if not more so as it demanded right be given to women and slaves alike. This shows God to be and always has been the antithesis to man's culture and man's expression of freedom.

Anyone intelligent enough to spell a word properly should also be capable of understanding that a god which should exist cannot disgrace us with messages that only come from believers full of overwhelming acclaim that overshadows logic.

an anyone not preprogrammed to think one way or another about God would have read his bible and come to understand that the God of the bible is not the God of perfection but the God of redemption. and in order for one to be redeemed one must be prone to making mistakes, yes even the mistakes of offending the precious snowflakes that find him and his followers offensive as we do not align ourselves with the righteousness of this world.

Dishonor fills the theistic world on too many levels for any of their apologetics to be taken seriously. Be a true believer and own up to your abhorrent silliness or forfeit the illogical faith for reality.

Dishonor fills the Atheistic world on too many levels for any of their apologetics to be taken seriously. Be a true believer and own up to your abhorrent silliness or forfeit the illogical faith for reality. one letter and i fixed your statement to read true again. or can't you see that you have no base line, no absolutes to make such an assessment?

As the idea of god is a disgrace to any sensible individual, unwarranted belief is not above reproach.

why because he allows us to make our mistakes and gives a life time to seek atonement for them? take a sec.. reread what i just said... do you full understand how this simple statment applies to your whole argument and uproots everything you are at odds with?

After all, a true god would not be the kind of disappointment that cannot prove his existence to anyone except those who profess through ill reason.

to you.. God has not proven his existence to you... and who are you that God must court and peruse you separately? or did you not read enough of his word to know God has a path spelled out for us to find him? a billion ++ have just in this generation... 90 some odd percent believe is some kinda of God and or spirituality and less than 2% of the world think as you do, and if you look through out time atheism has always been about 2% plus or minus a few point from time to time. kinda like people being born blind.. that percentage has been about 2% + or - a few point in man's history. maybe you and people like you are missing a spiritual receptor/sense that everyone else on the planet has..

https://www.gordonconwell.edu/center-for...y-2021.pdf

[no one]

....Or, we just see through the horseshit, and aren't complete gullible fools.

[Astreja]

....Or, we just see through the horseshit, and aren't complete gullible fools.

"Complete gullible fools" who still haven't gotten the memo about argumentum ad populum, no less.  

[Jehanne]

 to you.. God has not proven his existence to you... and who are you that God must court and peruse you separately? or did you not read enough of his word to know God has a path spelled out for us to find him? a billion ++ have just in this generation... 90 some odd percent believe is some kinda of God and or spirituality and less than 2% of the world think as you do, and if you look through out time atheism has always been about 2% plus or minus a few point from time to time. kinda like people being born blind.. that percentage has been about 2% + or - a few point in man's history. maybe you and people like you are missing a spiritual receptor/sense that everyone else on the planet has..

https://www.gordonconwell.edu/center-for...y-2021.pdf

Let God heal an adult amputee, restoring his/her lost limb, and I will believe, renouncing any and all of my non-belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

If a ferret healed an amputee, would we bow down to it? Does buying a kid a lollipop mean that an asshole isn't an asshole? Belief isn't really an issue in conflicts of principle like these. A person convinced of this sort of god is a maltheist, a believing antitheist - as opposed to the majority of the same, who are atheists.

The irony being that most believers are both maltheists in the general, and atheists in all but a single set of specifics.