Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tackattack]

---

And when it's atached to a word like unconditional surrender does it still hold no meaning? As a peace treaty it by it's nature still has to be accepted as a condition. Is I've never used unconditional groveling anything in my time on this earth nor have I heard it in any congergation I've been in. Are you saying that people have that much of a hard time acepting the term unconditional love? I'm trying to read between the lines KN, please tell me what you're trying to really say.. no inuendo.

Do you know nothing of humans tacky?? Scare people enough with earthquakes, oil spills, damaging weather and the like and you will have any number of 'grovelling individuals' who are ready and willing to sell their souls to your devil just to be spared any inconvenience.

Your 'unconditional' always comes with "CONDITIONS" so it is a word of no or very little worth...to use this as a clear demonstration of this god of yours is a worthless exercise so I would like to you to consider another angle please...

There tacky clear enough for you ??? Or do I have to start using expletives and start vilifying you point of view?? so you will take notice ??

Tacky you are one obtuse mofo...you know this don't you.

---

Innuendo...
That's Italian for suppository isn't it??

---

Sorry for trying to support your point of view as having anything to do with validity next time won't you....

---

I can be dense at time and for that I apologize. No need for needless explicates, things were just cooling off I thought .
Sense only my use of the word unconditional seems to have conditions. Please give me one example of the common use of the word unconditional that has no conditions. Or, if you don't wish for me to continue in this vein I will leave it for someone else and completely agree with you that fear, groveling, and fanaticism are not good grounds for anything productive, unless you're producing more hatred, intolerance and fear.

---

Everything I'm aware of in existence has the basic condition of acceptance. I naturally rule that one out otherwise the word unconditional has no meaning. If you'd like it better, the only condition of recieving god's love is accepting god's love. We can word hack all night but it won't get us any closer to anything.

Everything in existence “exists” whether you accept it or not. And unfortunately, “unconditional” does have meaning – it means “not conditional or limited”, “absolute”, “unqualified” (sorry about all of this “word hacking”). But I think I am clear on your stance: the Christian god loves us unconditionally unless we don’t accept his love, in which case he withholds it. Of course, this means that all people of religions other than yours, who don’t accept the love of your god, are doomed to an eternity in hell.

I have no idea what universalism believes, but the NIV and KJV Bible are actually very vague on what happens exactly after death.

I think this passage from the KJV bible makes it pretty clear what Jesus thinks will happen to unbelievers i.e., people who don’t accept god’s love, after they die:

Mark 9:43-48
43And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry. -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

I think I have a term to designate the followers: Conditional Unconditionalists.

---

1- Where did I say I didn't believe things that existed exist? I was simply pointing out that part of the dynamics of concepts and language require even the most basic use of the word unconditional (when used as a modifier) requires the condition of acceptance. I cited the only 2 examples I can think of unconditional love and surrender. I think an idealistic absolute definition like the one sighted is what I first tried to convey but was rejected, because by it's very nature it must be accepted. I then went with a more practical approach which apparently failed. Let me use your words to express my opinion since I'm failing at it: "the Christian god loves us unconditionally. If we don’t accept his love, he doesn't withhold it, we are just in denial of it. Of course, this has no relevance on people of religions other than yours, because religion is about a concept of God not actually God. You can still reject the love described by one concept of God and still be accepting of God's love. Those who don’t accept the love of God (not concept of God), are doomed to an eternity without it."

2- I didn't say it's unclear about where you'll end up for eternity after the judgment. I said it was unclear as to exactly what happens after death. I'm not sure if you're in limbo, purgatory, Sheol, nothingness, roaming the earth as a ghost, etc. until that judgment. After that judgment day yes it's pretty clear there's 2 lines. Maybe a few millennium in purgatory would make you change your belief in whether God existed or not? A few millennium in nothingness would definitely make me change mine.

[Strongbad]

Let me use your words to express my opinion since I'm failing at it: "the Christian god loves us unconditionally. If we don’t accept his love, he doesn't withhold it, we are just in denial of it. Of course, this has no relevance on people of religions other than yours, because religion is about a concept of God not actually God. You can still reject the love described by one concept of God and still be accepting of God's love. Those who don’t accept the love of God (not concept of God), are doomed to an eternity without it."

Let me use your words, and add a few of mine, to demonstrate how our views differ:

"the imaginary Christian god loves us unconditionally. If we don’t accept his imaginary love, he doesn't withhold it, we are just in denial of the fantasy. Of course, this has no relevance on people of other imaginary religions, because religion is about an imagined concept of God not actually God. You can still reject the imaginary love described by one imaginary concept of God and still be accepting of God's love. Those who don’t accept the imagined love of God (not imagined concept of God), are doomed to an imaginary eternity without it."

[tackattack]

And you are very entitled to the opinion that I live within a delusion. At least you're now rejecting the superiority of God because you feel he's imaginary and you don't believe he loves you and not because he's evil. It's a step forward I believe.

[Purple Rabbit]

1- I agree you can love without reciprocation, but what value is there in loving a flower? Is there more value in loving a child and it's showing it's love in return? You're treating God as a third party when I'm simply stating that God (from a Christian perspective) the initiator of pure, unconditional love. As a Christian I use that as a guide to better my love to my fellow man. I also am thankful for that love from God and reciprocate that back to him through praise and worship. Lot's of atheists claim that worshiping is because God requires us to love him back, I'm saying it's not a requirement (my whole original point I believe)

Here you say that god is the initiator of pure love. I'm OK with that as your belief of a feeling from a virtual being we are unable to verify publicly. And in this part it seems that you don't include the human to human kind of love, since it seems evident that that is intiiated by one or more humans.

2- OK I don't want this to get to a semantic battle. Instead of God's Love, I'll simply use pure, unconditional love. I perhaps got caught up myself in some dogmatic semantics. In attempting to define God, I have found that pure, unconditional love is one attribute of God. Since God is also the originator, any human love would be towards God. Since the originating love perceptually appears more refined than my own abilities to love and fall in the biblical definitions of what love should be, I assume it comes from a higher source, namely God. Since I seek to better myself I attempt as often as allowed to emulate that love.

But here you claim that god is also the originator of any human love and that really is a grossly sick idea to me. This is the dehumanizing I meant before, this denies our human capacity to initiate and sustain love and in fact conclusively cripples the christian message.

[Godscreated]

Welsh Cake thanks for the time you took for the explanation but I've heard that on this site and others as well and I'm sure it will come up again because of my fundimental belief but that's just fine. Now I did not say that you or Purple Rabbit said I was trying to get atheist to believe all I meant was that I did not join this forum for that reason.

Purple Rabbit I did not say that God exists because I believe in Him that would be a very foolish statement to make. However I do believe in God because God does exist and it was my choice to believe, God nor anyone else forced me to believe, I exercised my freewill and chose God just as you exercised your freewll not to believe in His existance. Why would a superior being create others and not give them freewill what could He possibly gain from robotic actions IMO this would be boring for One so powerful. Freewill and love go hand in hand one could not exist without the other. So it's only logical that God gave us freewill because of His desire for us to love Him.

[tavarish]

Welsh Cake thanks for the time you took for the explanation but I've heard that on this site and others as well and I'm sure it will come up again because of my fundimental belief but that's just fine. Now I did not say that you or Purple Rabbit said I was trying to get atheist to believe all I meant was that I did not join this forum for that reason.

Purple Rabbit I did not say that God exists because I believe in Him that would be a very foolish statement to make. However I do believe in God because God does exist and it was my choice to believe, God nor anyone else forced me to believe, I exercised my freewill and chose God just as you exercised your freewll not to believe in His existance. Why would a superior being create others and not give them freewill what could He possibly gain from robotic actions IMO this would be boring for One so powerful. Freewill and love go hand in hand one could not exist without the other. So it's only logical that God gave us freewill because of His desire for us to love Him.

I'll let someone else deal with this pile of donkeyshit. I'm fucking tired tonight.

[tackattack]

---

1- I agree you can love without reciprocation, but what value is there in loving a flower? Is there more value in loving a child and it's showing it's love in return? You're treating God as a third party when I'm simply stating that God (from a Christian perspective) the initiator of pure, unconditional love. As a Christian I use that as a guide to better my love to my fellow man. I also am thankful for that love from God and reciprocate that back to him through praise and worship. Lot's of atheists claim that worshiping is because God requires us to love him back, I'm saying it's not a requirement (my whole original point I believe)

Here you say that god is the initiator of pure love. I'm OK with that as your belief of a feeling from a virtual being we are unable to verify publicly. And in this part it seems that you don't include the human to human kind of love, since it seems evident that that is intiiated by one or more humans.

2- OK I don't want this to get to a semantic battle. Instead of God's Love, I'll simply use pure, unconditional love. I perhaps got caught up myself in some dogmatic semantics. In attempting to define God, I have found that pure, unconditional love is one attribute of God. Since God is also the originator, any human love would be towards God. Since the originating love perceptually appears more refined than my own abilities to love and fall in the biblical definitions of what love should be, I assume it comes from a higher source, namely God. Since I seek to better myself I attempt as often as allowed to emulate that love.

But here you claim that god is also the originator of any human love and that really is a grossly sick idea to me. This is the dehumanizing I meant before, this denies our human capacity to initiate and sustain love and in fact conclusively cripples the christian message.

---

1-Ok
2-Ahhhhhh, I see where the problem was. Big miscommunication. That was not my intended meaning. I think the problem lies in the phrase, "Since God is also the originator, any human love would be towards God." Allow me to rephrase: Since (with regards to love between God and myself) God is the originating point and I am the reciever, God's love is foreign to my definition of love. The love I then reciprocate and show to God would be human love. I try and make my use and function ofemotional love as pure as I percieve the love god shows to me.

[Welsh cake]

1-"your dumb argument is dumb".. :S.. well excuse the fuck out of me..

I also can't see the point in being blunt either ;D Look I wasn't addressing or insulting you as a person but your argument, please understand my frustration at the lack of clarity here, you seek to redefine love as a concept but the new definition is vague and mystified at best and then you present that as an attribute of god.

a- The initiator of said love is incorporeal

No argument here. The definition of your god concept is often presented without the nature of a body or substance, though the Biblical account of Moses seeing God's bum contradicts that belief but that's off-topic anyway, I do fail to see how this is a differentiation of the concept of God's love from the concept of man's love.

b- The love being received is unconditional

Again, you keep on asserting that inane drivel of a phrase inspired by the 60s LSD drug culture, and not recited from the Scriptures in either Old or New Testaments. It is taught that God's love is unfailing and unilateral but never is it professed to be unconditional because love is conditional. The Bible teaches sinners have to be a worthy reciprocal of God's love and grace, they must love him first by keeping his commandments and/or accept his son's (Jesus) 'sacrifice'. Should a sinner reject these conditions, they lose God's love forever and there is only the damnation of his stored-up wrath left for them:

John 3:36 (NIV) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

c- The love being received isn't mercurial

Love like emotion is mercurial, because for better or for worse we are liable to be erratic around each other, that's life for you Tack, its essentially unpredictable by nature, if God's love was constant Hell wouldn't exist.

d- The love being received is eternal

You saved the most absurd premise for last.

Luke 13:3 (DVP) [Jesus:] "...If you do not repent, then you will all perish..."

The Biblical God doesn't demonstrate the "eternal love" you speak of for two reasons:
1. He's a monstrous power-mad tyrant who demands to be loved under penalty of death/destruction/suffering.
2. Eternal love, like Unconditional love, is a nonsensical statement.

Eternity (infinity) like absolute certainty is a man-made concept; you can't measure it, you can't achieve it, you can't demonstrate it, and worse, you can't even falsify it if you had to. It would be far more credible for you to state its love with regards to longevity is Transfinite.

3- I do appreciate you're living in a state of denial of God

Dude, don't make erroneous assertions about me, just get back to your argument; an atheist has a lack of belief in god or gods - I believe there is no irrefutable or sufficient evidence for disproving or proving the existence of god(s). I specifically fall into the category of weak atheism/ empirical agnosticism.

Only when there is empirical evidence for god's existence would I then be denying him/her/it by not believing, which is something theists have never once presented or demonstrated.

To answer your question, what he has planned for you is an eternity of his love unless you actively deny evidence that God exists.

I rest my case. Even you can't accept there's such a thing as love without conditions.

I don't believe God eternally punishes someone unworthy of that, it far more likely that it's simply oblivion.

Do I deserve oblivion at the hands of your God-concept for simply being an atheist? For existing? For simply cherishing this one-and-only-life we have together, and thereby trying to promote a cooperative society?

4-I have no idea what universalism believes, but the NIV and KJV Bible are actually very vague on what happens exactly after death.

As I thought, you haven't read your Bible. It gives a detailed account on what will happen after this world, the old heaven and current order have all but passed away.

It's quite obvious you don't feel God's love. Just like with interpersonal relationships though, how can you possibly expect anyone to love you when you're spitting bile out of your mouth at all times.

I'm disappointed you resorted to this fallacious appeal to emotion when the Invisible Pink Unicorn loves you so very much Tack, yet you stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge her. Do you really want to make her holy pinkness' spirit sad? She loves you so much she'd rather end your miserable existence than see you carry on another moment living on this planet without her. I'm praying for you brother! A-horn.

[Ace Otana]

Can't be fucked with most of these debates but had to pop into this little part that I didn't like.

I do appreciate you're living in a state of denial of God

Why can't theists get it into their very think skulls that it's not denial. As an atheist I don't deny god's existance, because I really don't believe in his existance. Lack of belief isn't denial. Otherwise lack of belief in santa can be considered denial.

Anyway saying an atheist really does believe in god is no differant from an atheist saying a theist doesn't really believe in god.
So cut that shit out. Seriously.

[Godscreated]

ACE they are great musicians and they are burnt out druggies who lived outside of reality most of their lives. Yes they were at one time my favorite musicians so I do know something about them. By the way not to very long ago Paul invited Phil Kegey to a party and they sat down and played together for a while, this shows that an atheist and a christian can have a mutual respect for each other in life, just thought you might find that interesting.