What is God?

Homepage Forums Theism What is God?

This topic contains 130 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  Dang Martin 4 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 131 total)
  • Author
  • #3699

    Kyrani Eade

    BTW do you really believe you are to become an immortal?

    Yes, because I believe that God exists, though unknowable through intellect and reason.

    I believe that God is the Ultimate Reality. And I believe that we are made in the likeness of God, that being primarily consciousness. So when we awaken fully, i.e., reach the highest level of consciousness, we reach a stage where the soul (conscious being), which is eternal, gains eternal life, i.e., immortality.



    It’s a huge leap from Deism to Theism.  That there could have been a sentient creator is a conceptually feasible idea. That this creator then gave a shit about a tiny blue dot in its massive creation is highly questionable.  That human beings are then imagined not only to be the reason for the creation, but also involved in regular communication with the primal force is yet another non-sequitur.


    Simon Paynton


    That this creator then gave a shit about a tiny blue dot in its massive creation is highly questionable.

    regular communication with the primal force

    – to be fair, I think these are reasonable propositions given the frame of reference.  It says in the Bible that God loves every little sparrow, and knows every hair on your head.


    Simon Paynton

    @Kyrani – how does Intelligent Design account for cancer? Was that a smart move? What about the river worm that burrows into the back of people’s eyeballs? Why did God Design that? What does Intelligent Design amount to, apart from Goddidit? Presumably, its explanatory power, when you come to a new situation, is limited to Goddidit.



    @simonpaynton you have to be kidding me, right?  You’re using the Bible to support your theory?  So on this tiny blue dot, in a nano-moment of time, in a tiny corner of the tiny planet, a bunch of men collected the musings of another bunch of men, then selectively bound them and called them “The book” and this is your evidence?  I had to check twice to see whether it was you posting this.


    Simon Paynton

    @strega – I don’t agree with it, obviously, since I’m a confirmed atheist.  I’m just saying that it’s consistent: if you want to be a Christian, or whatever, then these ideas don’t contradict.


    Hitchens once said that this is what you must believe if you are a Christian. For over 100,000 years Homo sapiens were born, very often dying in the process or killing their mother in the process; life expectancy was probably not much more than 20, 25 years, dying probably of the teeth very agonizingly, nearer to the brain as they are, or of hunger or of micro-organisms that they didn’t know existed or of events such as volcanic or tsunami or earthquake types that would have been wholly terrifying and mysterious as well as some turf wars over women, land, property, food, other matters. You can fill in—imagine it for yourself what the first few tens of thousands of years were like.

    And we like to think learning a little bit in the process and certainly having gods all the way, worshipping bears fairly early on, I can sort of see why; sometimes worshipping other human beings, (big mistake, I’m coming back to that if I have time), this and that and the other thing, but exponentially perhaps improving, though in some areas of the world very nearly completely dying out, and a bitter struggle all along.

    Call it 100,000 years. According to the Christian faith, heaven watches this with folded arms for 98,000 years and then decides it’s time to intervene and the best way of doing that would be a human sacrifice in primitive Palestine, where the news would take so long to spread that it still hasn’t penetrated very large parts of the world and that would be our redemption of human species.

    Now I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that that is, what I’ve just said, which you must believe to believe the Christian revelation, is not possible to believe, as well as not decent to believe. Why is it not possible? Because a virgin birth is more likely than that. A resurrection is more likely than that and because if it was true, it would have two further implications: It would have to mean that the designer of this plan was unbelievably lazy and inept or unbelievably callous and cruel and indifferent and capricious, and that is the case with every argument for design and every argument for revelation and intervention that has ever been made.

    But it’s now conclusively so because of the superior knowledge that we’ve won for ourselves by an endless struggle to assert our reason, our science, our humanity, our extension of knowledge against the priests, against the rabbis, against the mullahs who have always wanted us to consider ourselves as made from dust or from a clot of blood, according to the Koran, or as the Jews are supposed to pray every morning, at least not female or gentile.

    And here’s my final point, because I think it’s coming to it. The final insult that religion delivers to us, the final poison it injects into our system: It appeals both to our meanness, our self-centeredness and our solipsism and to our masochism. In other words, it’s sadomasochistic. I’ll put it like this: you’re a clot of blood, you’re a piece of mud, you’re lucky to be alive, God fashioned you for his convenience, even though you’re born in filth and sin and even though every religion that’s ever been is distinguished principally by the idea that we should be disgusted by our own sexuality. Name me a religion that does not play upon that fact. So you’re lucky to be here, originally sinful and covered in shame and filth as you are, you’re a wretched creature, but take heart, the Universe is designed with you in mind and heaven has a plan for you. Ladies and gentlemen, I close by saying I can’t believe there is a thinking person here who does not realize that our species would begin to grow to something like its full height if it left this childishness behind, if it emancipated itself from this sinister, childish nonsense.


    If your God is “unknowable through intellect and reason” then you cannot have any evidence for believing. You must accept it all on faith alone. The human brain does not have a built-in “supernatural detector”.

    If we are made in the likeness of God are you saying God is a primate? Do you accept we are an evolved species or do you think we are designed by “the Ultimate Reality?

    I find it interesting that theists often tell me that I lack humility for not believing a word of what they say yet two minutes later will tell me that they are designed to look like their God and will become an immortal just like “Him”. No airs and graces there then.


    On the immortality bit – Do you consider yourself to be an Immortal already? What I mean is as you are alive now and will be alive again after you die, you are already immortal. Is this not the case? Is there a length of time before you go to Paradise after you die or is it immediate?

    I know Christians that say they will go straight to Heaven after they die because they are already “saved” but others tell me that they stay in the grave until the Day of Judgement. I am not sure when that is but even if it not for another 10,000 years I suppose it won’t matter because as soon as God resurrects them they won’t notice the “missing time”. Then they will have the rest of their lives ahead of them.

    I know immortality is a very long time, especially after halfway, but I find it difficult to understand how we could really look back on this moment in 3245 billion years’ time. Can you explain it further to me please.



    As eloquent, intelligent, comical, and deeply thought through Hitchens is, and the many ways I have analyzed his words, it took me a very long time to come to terms with the fact that he himself is severely misguided. It is as if he read the story but never fully understood it. Much like how you can study a book of verb conjugations but not be any closer to speaking a new language.


    Simply put – he’s wrong. And his ability to try to shrink down the content to suck simplicity and then destroy it speaks volumes to his inability to comprehend the very central message that he and all atheists miss….or dismiss….or deny….or whatever….


    And that message that we atheists are missing is what exactly?



    Do you really want me to go there? I mean site rules and all….Just sayin’



    The central message is really simply that we are meant to have communion with God. Personally. Directly. And that God loves us. The way a good healthy father loves his own children.

    Hitchens completely….skips over anything to do with love. That is why he is wrong.


    Well maybe explain why you think Hitchens is just “plain wrong” or “severely misguided”. I don’t think it is a case where he read the story but never fully understood it but rather that he read it and did not believe it. I assume you mean the Christian god here as he read books on many different gods and I am sure he had the intellectual capacity to understand what they meant. He did not believe in any of the other gods he read about, just as you don’t.



    Hahahaha well for example: he talks about “God folded his hands for 100,000 years and then only intervened 2,000 years ago…”….Um….no that right there is a mis characterization, (and therefore an exaggeration to try to sound intelligent- and it does.)…..but it’s wrong.

    That is probably one of the largest cruxes of how I believe he is misguided in your quotes of him from this discussion.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 131 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.