If you had one question...........

You assume this exists Hank to fill in the blanks for the things that you cannot explain and don't understand -- but there is zero evidence for any of it. Your point is meaningless to me. It sounds all warm and fuzzy though and I imagine it is emotionally satisfying for you but it doesn't float my boat.

 

OK we get it. You don't believe.
Now go contribute to the board.

 

Studio:Quote: "To see the spirit world You assume this exists Hank to fill in the blanks for the things that you cannot explain and don't understand -- but there is zero evidence for any of it. Your point is meaningless to me. It sounds all warm and fuzzy though and I imagine it is emotionally satisfying for you but it doesn't float my boat."

It floated your boat enough for you to ask the question, Scott. Why can you ask a question premised on the notion that God exists, but I cannot answer that question operating under the same premise? If you were going to remove the premise of your question immediately upon finishing it, why would you waste your time asking it in the first place, and waste my time responding? That is senseless and only indicates that you were not sincere about the question in the first place and that you were only sincere in your desire to flap your yap. That's American for speaking only for the purpose of taking up the airwaves.


Your point was to ask God why He stays invisible. You asked that question. The question assumes God to exist. So when I answer YOUR question, one based in the premise that you established, that God exists, don't come back to me and respond to my answer that God doesn't exist. That's a stupid conversation, pure waste of everyone's time. If that was and is always your point, then state that once. Let it be known, and go out to the pool. To do otherwise, is just a waste of valuable pool time. Heck, I could have been playing with my dog instead of answering your insincerity. At least my dog is sincere.

 

I think your response to this topic has to be in the form of a question not a comment.

 

There's a proverb in the Bible that says "don't cast your pearls amongst swine", and that's probably why alot of people are reluctant to share their answers or stories of faith with you.

 

I'm not interested in stories of faith. I want to see the goods. Plain and simple ... but no one can produce.

 

I don't think this thread was intended to answer that inquiry.

 

I wrote "I want to know why (if he exists) does he remain invisible. Fair question I think."

So, presently, I don't think this entity exists and is simply a mental construct of man ... you could have asked me the same thing about the the Tooth Fairy and I would have answered the same way ... something like "why do you only leave money under my pillow while I'm asleep; why can't we do the deal in person while I can see you?"

 

Again I can't see or grab the wind but I don't need to because..............I can feel it, and I don't need anymore proof of it's existence other than that.

 

I blame it on the non-believers..........

 

I think Scott's question re invisibility is totally valid and one I'd have too, if I were a believer. I can see both points of view on this. Chris has said God is a feeling, invisible and uncatchable, like the wind. That makes sense to me. And then Hank gives some compelling Bibilical evidence in support of that. But on the other hand there is also Biblical evidence that Man is created in God's image. So if we can't see God how can we see ourselves and each other? Also, God sent his son, Jesus, 2000 years ago. So, people could see God then. Why did God send Jesus at that time and not before, or why not now? Why did a group of fairly uneducated and illiterate people in one small part of the world see Jesus for roughly 30 years? Why didn't Jesus appear in Fiji 20 years ago, or Norway last year or in the Sudan in 1850?

So I would have several questions:

1) The existential, all encompassing Why?
2) Why be invisible?
3) Why make a brief appearance in Jerusalem 2000 years ago?

 

Prima Donna made a fleeting reference to the torment of my alleged anger. I'm not really sure what that was in reference to but yes, plenty of things make me angry. Suffering, torture, hunger, poverty, disease, child abuse, disregard for human rights, the environment, terrorism and so much more. I am quite happy being angry about those things. Anger motivates. It makes me vote, it makes me engage with the world, it motivates me to donate to several charities, to discuss these issues with the children in my life and to generally, however I can, try and make a difference. Anger well harnessed is a positive emotion - it effects change for good. That is what I admire in Christians like Chris - I see him struggling to try and be a good person and please God, he is not satisfied merely being a believer without following it up with actions. I can't help but see believers of any faith who are only concerned with their own salvation as being inherintly self centred. I do admire those of (any) faith who reach out and do good works as well.

And here endeth my Atheist sermon. Thanks for reading

 

I said it was a fair question, stated fairly, but it assumes the contingent possibility that God exists. "If he exists" offers a contingent possibility, that possibility that God exists. So the premise of the question you posed, and which followed immediately, is that God exists. Think of it this way, your question makes no sense, in and of itself, if it is posed as, "Since God does not exist I want to know why He stays invisible?" No, under that premise, the premise and the predicate do not match and it is a senseless sentence. Such a sentence is just flapping one's yap. As it is, you offer the very same variety of senselessness, the same yap flapping, it just took two sentences to do it. In your next entry, the one you placed after I answered your question. Your double back and removal of your original premise only indicates to a sincere individual, that your first entry was insincere. You did not want to know the answer to your question, although you said you did. That is insincerity.

And that is why I say, to in the same conversation, refuse to acknowledge that very premise that you yourself established in beginning the conversation, is just a stupid conversation, one begun in insincerity. I hate conversations when I find out that the folks with whom I converse are insincere or have a hidden agenda. Scott, this is one of those conversations.

 

Hank,

Given that I've posed the same question as Scott I'm going to take the liberty of commenting on your post here. I can't speak about Scott's agenda but I can speak about mine. There's nothing insincere or hidden about it. I have a genuine interest. Huge chunks of the earth's population believe in (a) god(s). I would like to understand humanity as best I can as I am not a hermit. Also, while I am comfortable calling myself and atheist I am also comfortable admitting that I may be wrong.

Firstly - I don't think discussing the entertaining of contigent possibilities gets us anywhere. I believe Scott has also said that while he does not believe in God he can't say for sure that He does not exist. So it's entirely appropriate to discuss the possibility. Secondly it is also fine to speak in hypotheticals - it helps us figure out what life is all about. Thirdly, as I said above, there are many non believers who are genuinely interested in what various religions believe and would like to understand why.

So, my own questions stand. The big existential one, but then the more specific ones regarding God
's (via Jesus') appearance on earth. Why then? Why to those people and in that part of the world? I think that's a really really interesting question.

 

Hank, this is a load of bull. I cannot disprove the existence of a god just like I cannot disprove a flying teapot orbiting the dark side of Pluto. And so because the possibility exists, though it's infinitesimally small, the question is askable. If there is a faint glimmer that the invisible man is in fact real but invisible, then why the invisibility cloak? Let's honour Cara's thread and not have you take it down the drain for a change.

 

Just a gentle reminder. The questions are meant for God, not Hank.

 

Like I said before you can't 'produce' in a controlled environment.. Come live with me a while, nothing-nothing is coincidence

 

You better watchi it Sarita.. he may turn your camera off!!!! ahhhhh

 

YAY..

 

Hard boiled or soft boiled?