OK, I want the atheists on this board to reflect on how they feel every time someone says, "so, you deny God exists then?"
Even Webster's Dictionary misdefines atheism in this manner. Think about how you feel as you have to, once again, patiently explain that atheism isn't the "denial" of God (and "denial" is a loaded word anyway, since the burden of proof isn't on you). It's the lack of belief in any god or gods.
That's exactly how I feel every time I hear the "so you think God created everything and then abandoned the universe".
And yes, "abandoned" is often the loaded word theists use.
As a deist, I see no reason to believe in a personal god. Given the multi-billion year time scale (of which humanity has existed for maybe 200K years of that) and the massive scale of space (of which we're a tiny blue speck), it seems reasonable to conclude that our relationship with God would be something along the lines of a bacteria cell in a petri dish to the human scientist that cultivated it (at best).
The human scientist is not cruel or amoral for ignoring the plight of the bacteria cell (OK, the cell isn't really sentient but just bear with me on this analogy). It's a matter of scale. The human scientist can't relate to or empathize with the individual bacteria cells. By this analogy, I would argue that it's not reasonable to expect God to empathize with us on an individual scale.
As far as human suffering is concerned, this is relative and our sensibilities adjust to the environment. Remember the 80's movie line, "what you call Hell, he calls home"? If human suffering were cut by half, our sensibilities would adjust until we got used to the new standard.
This is one of many reasons I reject the idea of Heaven or Hell. After a thousand years, you get used to being on fire all the time.
Even Webster's Dictionary misdefines atheism in this manner. Think about how you feel as you have to, once again, patiently explain that atheism isn't the "denial" of God (and "denial" is a loaded word anyway, since the burden of proof isn't on you). It's the lack of belief in any god or gods.
That's exactly how I feel every time I hear the "so you think God created everything and then abandoned the universe".
And yes, "abandoned" is often the loaded word theists use.
As a deist, I see no reason to believe in a personal god. Given the multi-billion year time scale (of which humanity has existed for maybe 200K years of that) and the massive scale of space (of which we're a tiny blue speck), it seems reasonable to conclude that our relationship with God would be something along the lines of a bacteria cell in a petri dish to the human scientist that cultivated it (at best).
The human scientist is not cruel or amoral for ignoring the plight of the bacteria cell (OK, the cell isn't really sentient but just bear with me on this analogy). It's a matter of scale. The human scientist can't relate to or empathize with the individual bacteria cells. By this analogy, I would argue that it's not reasonable to expect God to empathize with us on an individual scale.
As far as human suffering is concerned, this is relative and our sensibilities adjust to the environment. Remember the 80's movie line, "what you call Hell, he calls home"? If human suffering were cut by half, our sensibilities would adjust until we got used to the new standard.
This is one of many reasons I reject the idea of Heaven or Hell. After a thousand years, you get used to being on fire all the time.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
