Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Ravenshire]

But even if you walked in to a room and a being appeared to you claiming to be God and knew things about you only you would know, would you believe in God or chalk it up to a psychotic episode?  I've always been fascinated by the demand of non-believers that God let himself be known.  I seriously think if any non-believer was to have an experience of a being coming to them and knowing all about them and performing a miracle in front of them, they would probably still not believe.  It's what is commonly referred to as a doubting Thomas.  I think the only meaningful way is to reveal himself to all people at once in the sky so people can have corroboration.  But I guess that's whats described in Revelation.  

An omnipotent, omniscient gawd would know exactly what it would take to convince us, without violating our "free will." Yet, here we are.

[vorlon13]

The serpent in the garden seems to have had a skill the God dude lacks . . .

[robvalue]

If it takes "faith" to believe God even exists, that is an admission that there isn't credible evidence.

God could just appear, as a person, all over the place. He could have multiple conversations with several people at a time, all easily viewable, audible and recordable. He could appear on demand to anyone wishing to talk to him, as a new version each time. Then no sane person would deny that this "being" exists. It could be easily testable that this is multiple incarnations of the same "being" beyond reasonable doubt.

What it would not mean is that this being in any way correlates with any description given to us about "God". It would almost certainly make them all look like ridiculous guesswork and nothing more.

Of course, people keep their "definition" of god (those that even make the effort to try and define it) so vague that they could point to basically anything powerful enough that turned up and say, "I meant that!" The problem is that they'd either have to agree that this thing was the God they meant (in which case they could easily be proved wrong) or else risk accusing this thing of being an imposter when it was actually "God".

I'd love to know what the criteria would be for any theist, if "God" actually showed up, because I don't think they have a clue. How do you distinguish "God" from an arbitrarily powerful non-God? How do you know there isn't more of whatever the being is, either as powerful, or more powerful?

"You'd just know." Right. Then any being powerful enough to manipulate your feelings could fool you into thinking it was God.

[Silver]

In essence, god is just an adult's version of an imaginary friend.

[robvalue]

Yes, exactly. Which explains perfectly why everyone's "God" is different.

It also explains how so many people "know" so much about God and what he wants, without being able to demonstrate how they know this.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ohhh... can always rely on bringing out the fallacies checklist.  I was making statements... particularly about math though. 

You apparently don't know much about fallacies, nor sarcasm. Argumentum ex culo is a sardonic way of telling you you're pulling your argument out of your ass. It's not actually a logical fallacy as much as it is simply an unsupported assertion.

When speaking of "person" in regards to the trinity, we are speaking of three distinct consciences (self identity).   Think of this as a "who" statement.

When speaking of the essence or nature (being)... think of this a "what" statement.  It is the substance of what makes God... God.

This is the ex culo part, because Christianity posits a personal god. He is not a title, he is a being. You're trying to have it both ways when you argue this.

The three persons are all equally, fully, and in unity one God.

So you worship a schizophrenic, then. Got it.

And it is not speaking about bodies... God is spirit and omnipresent.

Yes, I'm aware of that unsubstantiated claim, too. Until I see a basis for accepting it, it too goes into the scrapheap. It's all very convenient to posit a truism that cannot be verified at all -- convenient, but not convincing.

[jenny1972]

And it is still an incoherent explanation. How does one personality inhabit three bodies -- well, two bodies, and, I don't know, some misty fog or whatever this Holy Spirit thingy is?

Oh, and while we're at it, we'll need to define the differences between "person" and "god".

Argumentum ex culo.

Ohhh... can always rely on bringing out the fallacies checklist.  I was making statements... particularly about math though. 


When speaking of "person" in regards to the trinity, we are speaking of three distinct consciences (self identity).   Think of this as a "who" statement.

When speaking of the essence or nature (being)... think of this a "what" statement.  It is the substance of what makes God... God.

The three persons are all equally, fully, and in unity one God.
And it is not speaking about bodies... God is spirit and omnipresent.

so jesus was not aware that he was God ? because jesus said God is his Father just like he is our Father his God just like he is our God . jesus put himself with other humans and made a distinction between himself and God and prayed to his God regularly .

[GrandizerII]

In essence, god is just an adult's version of an imaginary friend.

And a god's version of a narcissistic parent (in the case of Yahweh or Allah)

[robvalue]

And all good parents have to punish their children for things they set up to happen, which they knew would happen. And they have to punish all their offspring too, forever, and hold their eternal happiness hostage in order to obtain blind obedience.

[jenny1972]

And all good parents have to punish their children for things they set up to happen, which they knew would happen. And they have to punish all their offspring too, forever, and hold their eternal happiness hostage in order to obtain blind obedience.

lol yep ( " but Dad didnt you create evil in the first place?   " " dont talk back go to your room ! and then go to Hell ! " )