Judging God: The Arrogance of Disbelief

Patrick Lamb - [shares link]

Thomas Liebe-Kreutzner - If there would be God. He or she wouldn't allow what's going on on this planet. I can totally agree with Stephen Fry

Muhammad Rasheed - "If there were a God" He would judge us at the end of this finite life based on what we allowed among each other, just like He told us in the message. The point of our lives is accountability for our actions in the Golden Rule.

An amazing lack of insight among the atheist crowd. That's what happens when you confine your thinking to what your 5 senses can prove, I guess.

Marcus Santiago - If there was a God, it's offensive that he's going to judge us (not the other way round) after the fantastically piss-poor job he's done in running the place. What about the accountability for God's actions, or lack thereof? Why allow all this suffering? War, disease, famine, AIDS, birth defects? Acts of stunning cruelty, many done in his name? If I was god, I wouldn't sit around idle while all this happened on Earth, simply saying "I'll judge you for this later, but for now I respect your free will." I guess that's what happens when you confine your thinking to ancient fairytales that got taken too seriously. I'm not the one with a lack of insight.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "If there was a God, it's offensive that he's going to judge us (not the other way round)"

A finite, very limited being is going to judge an eternal, unlimited being, one that established reality itself and all of its laws and rules? That does not compute. By what criterion is the finite being using to judge? The collective finite being's members are notorious for missing the point, failing to understand simple concepts, and rejecting logic because a principle doesn't reflect their preferred socio-political stances, etc. How could such creatures possibly justify believing they have the acumen to take an omniscient/omnipotent being to task, while oddly, ignoring everything that being said regarding the rules upon which society is set up? That would in fact make finite beings very good at strawman arguments, not much at judging.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "...after the fantastically piss-poor job he's done in running the place. What about the accountability for God's actions, or lack thereof?"

God keeps the system running, guiding its courses and systems in perfect harmony. His job certainly isn't to control your actions. He does His job perfectly based on the laws and rules He set. Our best and brightest are still struggling to complete the missing component of the Standard Model, and are quite unequipped to hold God accountable against any checklist, especially when they ignore what God said the reason He created mankind is for.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "Why allow all this suffering? War, disease, famine, AIDS, birth defects? Acts of stunning cruelty, many done in his name? If I was god, I wouldn't sit around idle while all this happened on Earth, simply saying 'I'll judge you for this later, but for now I respect your free will.' I guess that's what happens when you confine your thinking to ancient fairytales that got taken too seriously. I'm not the one with a lack of insight."

You demonstrate the exact lack of insight I was referring to. We are finite beings in a finite realm; the clock of timing is continuously ticking down to the hour of our deaths. God explained that all of this is a training ground, in which you have a set amount of time to build a certain type of character, develop specific skills, and choose a particular mindset and ideology. All that you see, witness and experience along the course of this journey are the tools you need to win at life, and the most important of those tools are God's instructions to you in scripture, and your Free Will. To win you must walk along the Path of God as laid out in scripture, and if we all do so, there will be no wars, AIDs, or other human-inflicted suffering. If we do so successfully we will have no need to fear the death that may come at any time from circumstances outside of our control like disease, famine, birth defects, or death by old age.

Marcus Santiago - And how do you, a finite being, know any of this? God told you so? Or you

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm more interested in why don't YOU know this, yet somehow believe you can take God to account. What are you basing these opinions upon, Marcus, if you don't know the source of my words as a theist?

Marcus Santiago - What ARE your source? Show me some proof or admit you're just blowing a lot of hot air.

Muhammad Rasheed - Everything we know about God comes from His scripture, you don't recognize scripture in what I'm saying, yet are very passionately opinionated about what you THINK God ought to be like, and what you THINK he ought to be doing, at odds with what He actually said.

Please explain this.

Muhammad Rasheed - This stance of yours comes across as unjustifiably arrogant, lacking of any kind of insight on the topic, and is impossible to take seriously.

Why do you think this way?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why do you think you can completely dismiss God's message to mankind, yet also think your opinions about Him are somehow valid?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm genuinely curious about this. Please tell me.

Marcus Santiago - Arrogant? You're the one that said, quote, "That's what happens when you confine your thinking to what your 5 senses can prove" as though it's an insult. Atheists are stupid for trusting reason, logic and proof? I take personal offense to that. I let people believe whatever they want but it makes me mad when religious people insult others for not sharing their delusions, and then have the gall to claim persecution when they're called on it.

If a scripture is proof of god, then Harry Potter novels are proof that Hogwarts is real. Scriptures (whether you're talking about the Bible, Koran or Torah) were written by humans back when we though the Earth is flat, and the proof offered that it was really authored by god is "because they said so." This is called circular logic, and is the kind of argument a child wouldn't fall for.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "Arrogant?"

Yes. You have demonstrated a tendency for making definitive statements about a field of study that you don't know anything about. You don't consider that an arrogant trait?

Marcus Santiago wrote: "You're the one that said, quote, 'That's what happens when you confine your thinking to what your 5 senses can prove' as though it's an insult."

lol It would be an insult to me if someone leveled the charge of being incapable of contemplating concepts that I could not measure with my 5 senses. It would mean I was a dullard. Do you think Einstein, Feynman, et all could've developed the Standard Model if they refused to acknowledge anything they couldn't touch, taste, hear, see, feel? Would they be able to intelligently contemplate and explore aspects of the abstract unseen to develop the fields of science they are famous for?

btw, you don't have to type the word "quote" when you are typing, because you are actually typing actual quotes around the quote, yes?

Marcus Santiago wrote: "Atheists are stupid for trusting reason, logic and proof?"
Atheists are stupid for pretending to trust reason, logic and proof while holding onto a narrow-minded stance that rejects anything that makes them uncomfortable.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I take personal offense to that."

I suggest you convert to an Abrahamic religion then.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I let people believe whatever they want but it makes me mad when religious people insult others for not sharing their delusions, and then have the gall to claim persecution when they're called on it."

Have I claimed persecution or has your limited 5 senses mindset caused you to wander off topic? Tsk.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "If a scripture is proof of god, then Harry Potter novels are proof that Hogwarts is real. Scriptures (whether you're talking about the Bible, Koran or Torah) were written by humans back when we though the Earth is flat, and the proof offered that it was really authored by god is 'because they said so.' This is called circular logic, and is the kind of argument a child wouldn't fall for."

This is a strawman since we weren't discussing the fallacy-laden "proof of God" concept, but how a finite being could qualify to judge a perfect eternal being that creates universes from scratch while being ignorant of the content within that Being's message on earth. Let's work that down to its logical conclusion, and then I'll take you up on the "proof of God" thing.
Marcus Santiago - Actually, it's not a strawman, it's circular logic, just as I explained it. The Bible/Koran/Torah is true, because it itself says so? That's your proof? Seriously? It's not a "definitive statement I know nothing about," it's a perfectly reasonable, logical conclusion. You can't prove there is a god no more than you can prove unicorns, fairies and vampires are real. It's not arrogant to say fire-breathing dragons are not real, because there's no good reason to believe so. That's kind of all I was saying.

And you're making a lot of assumptions here. I spent most of my life a devoted Christian. I traveled to the opposite end of the planet to serve god as a missionary working full time for a church. I studied the Bible till my brains fell out. You have seriously no idea who I am or what I've gone through in my search for God, so I'd appreciate you down to me like I'm an idiot. I respect your POV and beliefs and am trying to be civil. But I actually DO know what I'm talking about. And no offense, but I'm guessing you don't know what you're talking about, if you don't even know the difference between circular logic and a strawman fallacy.

But all that aside: I'm actually open to any new idea and will be the first to admit I was wrong, if you can provide me any real proof that god is real. Are you open to the idea that you're wrong and perhaps, just maybe, there is no god? If not, then all we're going to do is argue needlessly.

And btw, Einstein also valued proof and evidence. It's called science: no matter how crazy it is, you have to actually, you know, prove it somehow. Otherwise, it's called making shit up and insisting it's real. This is why we know unicorns aren't real, but dinosaurs were, and this is why quantum physics isn't in the same category of science as angels and demons.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "Actually, it's not a strawman, it's circular logic, just as I explained it."

What you performed was the strawman. Creating an argument based on what you think I believe, or what you think the subject is about, and then attacking it as if that is what it is.

Marcus Santiago - Cool story bro. But seriously, citing the Bible / Koran / Torah / whatever as proof of God's existence, is one of the defining examples of circular logic. Look it up. I mean, I don't even know why you're arguing this.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "The Bible/Koran/Torah is true, because it itself says so? That's your proof? Seriously?"

I haven't said anything about proof. You may wish to confine your argument to what your opponent is actually presenting, instead of seemingly having a conversation with someone from your past while pretending to discuss this with me.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "It's not a 'definitive statement I know nothing about,' it's a perfectly reasonable, logical conclusion."

Is this a demonstration of the logic you're supposed to uphold? So even though your belief that holding God accountable for what humans do to each other, etc., conflicts with what God said the point of mankind's existence is, you still think you are expressing knowledge of the topic? Nothing about that was logical or reasonable, Marcus.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "You can't prove there is a god no more than you can prove unicorns, fairies and vampires are real."

Who said I'm required to?

Marcus Santiago wrote: "It's not arrogant to say fire-breathing dragons are not real, because there's no good reason to believe so. That's kind of all I was saying."

That's very different from what you were actually saying, and a separate topic altogether. What you were saying was that a finite, very flawed human has grounds to judge God and hold Him accountable for the state of human affairs on earth. Is this you officially attempting to change the subject?

Marcus Santiago wrote: "And you're making a lot of assumptions here."

I'm drawing conclusions regarding your knowledge of scripture based on what you state and what you ask.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I spent most of my life a devoted Christian."

Then why are you ignorant of scripture? Did your sect/denomination not require you to read it for yourself?

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I traveled to the opposite end of the planet to serve god as a missionary working full time for a church."

Did you pick up any bibles along the route then?

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I studied the Bible till my brains fell out."

Please, Marcus. If this is supposed to be a productive meeting in which we each learn something from the other, let us agree to only express truth.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "You have seriously no idea who I am or what I've gone through in my search for God, so I'd appreciate you down to me like I'm an idiot."

What I know for sure about you in this moment is that you lack any insight into Abrahamic religion on even the most basic level.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I respect your POV and beliefs and am trying to be civil."

Bringing up dragons & unicorns would actually be the opposite of that. I guess that's just how you were raised.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "But I actually DO know what I'm talking about."

You're saying you were holding back?

Marcus Santiago wrote: "And no offense, but I'm guessing you don't know what you're talking about, if you don't even know the difference between circular logic and a strawman fallacy."

I was talking about you and what you were presenting, not commenting on your "proof of God" circular statement. It was not yet time to change topics.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "But all that aside: I'm actually open to any new idea and will be the first to admit I was wrong, if you can provide me any real proof that god is real. Are you open to the idea that you're wrong and perhaps, just maybe, there is no god? If not, then all we're going to do is argue needlessly."

God is real, I am not wrong. In the message He established to guide mankind, God said that 'faith' is the activating component to be on His path. A path based on winning at this terrestrial realm training ground so I may proper in the eternal realms on the otherside. His scripture is the only link pin between us and the spirit realms. God does not require earthly academic institutional proofs of me in order to win; He asks only that I believe, trust Him and do as He commands. For you to insist that I provide what the Author of the game Himself does not require again demonstrates your colossal lack of insight into the topic.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "And btw, Einstein also valued proof and evidence. It's called science: no matter how crazy it is, you have to actually, you know, prove it somehow."

I don't think you actually know what 'science' is.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "Otherwise, it's called making shit up and insisting it's real. This is why we know unicorns aren't real, but dinosaurs were, and this is why quantum physics isn't in the same category of science as angels and demons."

Theoretical scientists "make shit up and insist it is real" all the time. If they didn't, they would never get to the next step of their models. The difference between what they and the theist philosophers do, compared to believers in unicorns, is they use logic, and are not afraid to follow the logic trail to its conclusion even when it goes places that don't make sense to the finite being puzzling it out. It's the idiot that throws the whole thing out because it doesn't fit his narrow-minded preconceived concept of life and his personal definition version of "science."

Marcus Santiago - Okay, plainly you're nuts and have no idea what you're talking about, be it science OR religion. You can't just blabber on about whatever you think is real and call it an argument. Anyways, enjoy being deluded and condescending, it must be working out swell for you so far. Tell God I said hi and good job on the Holocaust and cancer.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "You can't just blabber on about whatever you think is real and call it an argument."

That represents everything you've said about religion in this entire thread. So I'm really supposed to believe you studied the bible when you make comments like that about the holocaust and disease?

What does "study" mean in your world?

Marcus Santiago - Believe whatever you want, yo.

You've literally not made one coherent, reasonable point all this while. Once again: give me a halfway reasonable argument for why I should think there is a god, other than "the scriptures say so". If you can't, my point is made and we're done here.

Marcus Santiago - Just pointing out: this all started because you're the one that made fun of atheists, and I called you on it. I was asking for proof your god is real. Still waiting.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "Believe whatever you want, yo."

Did I give the impression that I wasn't? You have my permission to continue to believe whatever Fry and Dawkins spoon feed you.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "You've literally not made one coherent, reasonable point all this while."

That sounds like an admittance of your own mental deficiency to me. Explain to me how a finite human is qualified to take a God to task when he rejects the message of that God. I'm still interested in that question that you've been ducking.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "Once again: give me a halfway reasonable argument for why I should think there is a god, other than 'the scriptures say so.' If you can't, my point is made and we're done here."

Religion operates on faith. If having faith that God is who He claims to be is unreasonable to you, then to you be your way, and to me be mine.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "Just pointing out: this all started because you're the one that made fun of atheists, and I called you on it."

That Thomas Liebe-Kreutzner dude said something about God that made the same amount of nonsense your comments did and I addressed it. His first comment is what started it; the atheist's penchant for strawmen.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I was asking for proof your god is real. Still waiting."

Again, why are you asking for something from me that is not required by my Lord? You don't recognize this as a trait of arrogance? You're attempting to shoehorn a concept within a narrow box it was never intended to fit in. My definition you are demonstrating a narrow-mind with this request.
Marcus Santiago - MRasheed wrote: "Explain to me how a finite human is qualified to take a God to task when he rejects the message of that God."

Because there's no proof that any of it isn't stone-age fairytales made up by people to control other people, and its adherents insist on unleashing their theocracy on everyone else. There's nothing narrow-minded about asking for proof. If you can't provide it, that's fine. I get how faith works. But then don't go mocking me for respecting the scientific method and saying I've been "spoonfed" bullshit. It's incredibly condescending, and you shouldn't be surprised when you get called you on it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "Because there's no proof..."

Again, you're not addressing the point. The point is your concept of holding God accountable for His actions based on what flaws you believe are in the world, and what you think that God should directly address. If you've studied scripture the way you've claimed, why do you fail to see the problem with this view? Please explain.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "...that any of it isn't stone-age fairytales..."

Yes, you referred to my most cherished and sacred belief system this way in the beginning, and then later claimed to be "respectful." lol

Marcus Santiago wrote: "...made up by people to control other people..."

As a believer in the One God, and a subscriber to a world religion, I operate under the Free Will my Lord gifted me, and no one controls me. This is yet another demonstration that you have no idea what you are talking about on this topic. I'm left to conclude that you became a missionary so you could pick up chicks.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "...and its adherents insist on unleashing their theocracy on everyone else."

A link was posted of an atheist saying something crazy about God, another atheist amen'd it by saying something crazy to support it, and I came to challenge what was said. It's pretty clear that the anti-religionists are the ones who insisted upon unleashing their foolishness upon Facebook, not me. I only represented the response.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "There's nothing narrow-minded about asking for proof."
Not if you are asking for proof from items in which asking for proof makes sense. Asking for proof for items that are by their nature matters of faith is illogical and unreasonable.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "If you can't provide it, that's fine."

I'm not supposed to provide it. I'm supposed to believe.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "I get how faith works."

Apparently not.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "But then don't go mocking me for respecting the scientific method and saying I've been 'spoonfed' bullshit."

I respect the scientific method more than you, as I recognize its inherent limitations and use it as the tool it was designed for on the items that are relevant to it. To insist that items that were never designed to conform to materialistic methods of study be thrown away because they can't be shoehorned into that box is a stance that deserves to be mocked. And please don't equate Fry's and Dawkin's foolishness with the scientific method.

Marcus Santiago wrote: "It's incredibly condescending, and you shouldn't be surprised when you get called you on it."

lol Marcus, please continue to "call me out' from your odd viewpoint. In addition to this, please address the other points I've asked of you.