Religion: Respect? Ridicule!
A picture, it is said, is worth a thousand words. Yet, we can only understand images (and suggestions and gestures) by relying on words, even if certain images leave us speechless.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 | rick on God does not exist: Proof… |
 | ErickV on God does not exist: Proof… |
 | Shazee on God does not exist: Proof… |
 | Con-Tester on God does not exist: Proof… |
 | soois on God does not exist: Proof… |
| Con-Tester on God does not exist: Proof… |
| Shazee on God does not exist: Proof… |
| soois on God does not exist: Proof… |
| soois on God does not exist: Proof… |
| Shazee on God does not exist: Proof… |
| Con-Tester on God does not exist: Proof… |
| soois on God does not exist: Proof… |
 | Hans Matthysen on God does not exist: Proof… |
| ErickV on God does not exist: Proof… |
| Shazee on God does not exist: Proof… |
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Pew Forum Religion News
You are sugesting that God cauesed the above tragedies. Kindly tell me, how do you come to that conclusion?
Hans Matthysen
November 27, 2008 at 19:46
I’m not saying “God” caused the tragedies… I’m saying the tragedies happened on the watch of the “God” of believers. Clearly, the bastard didn’t do anything to avert the tragedies. Some “God”! Some “shepherd”!
Nathan Bond
November 27, 2008 at 20:53
Hans Matthysen wrote (27 Nov 08 at 7:46 pm):
Assuming for argument’s sake that your god exists and has the properties and attributes believers claim, the answer goes thus: “Simple. When an omnipotent and omniscient uncaused-first-cause creator-god sets about making the world, whatsoever happens in the resulting world is inescapably that creator-god’s fault.” In short, your god’s culpability is a matter of logical necessity.
The fact that your god must have known (because s/he’s omniscient, see?) how things were going to turn out but made things that way anyway (because s/he’s omnipotent, see?) casts doubt on his/her benevolence. Or maybe it’s just one or more of play-play omnipotence or play-play omniscience or play-play benevolence. Or maybe s/he only exists as a figment of believers’ imaginations. Yup, I like the last option most ’cos it’s the simplest.
Con-Tester
November 27, 2008 at 23:19
And what did you and I do to stop evil in this world, Nathan?
Kat
July 20, 2009 at 10:40
As much as we can, I hope! But then again, I do not claim to be a “loving ‘God’”.
Nathan Bond
July 20, 2009 at 17:14
I also try my best, Nathan. I also don’t claim to be a god. I just try to live what I believe in: Love is my God.
Kat
July 20, 2009 at 18:08
As your and that of many believers, perception of God is incorrect. It is understandable that you would come to an incorrect conclusion.
When a lion kills a buck for a meal, for the buck, it is a tragedy and yet, that is nature.
We are all going to die, as that is nature, so don’t confuse yourself because of an incorrect perception.
For you it may be a tragedy to die, as you don’t believe in the afterlife. That is a tragedy.
I wouldn’t base my debate on what others claim.
Hans Matthysen
July 21, 2009 at 21:23
By the way, who created the situation? Should man live according to the will of God, the mentioned tragedies would not have been. Man must take responsibility for their own actions, as only fools blame others.
Hans Matthysen
July 21, 2009 at 21:33
Hans Matthysen, read what I wrote (November 27, 2008 at 11:19 pm) again and try to understand it because it is not that hard to follow: “Your god’s culpability is a matter of logical necessity.” To deny this is to live in a world of dreams. Oh, wait a minute…
Con-Tester
July 22, 2009 at 08:48
Hans
Your comment implies that we have free will! God/omniscience and Free Will are contradictory. One of them must go – and I’m afraid it is God!
Fredericke Adonis
July 23, 2009 at 12:37
Con-Tester, your argument is based on what others claim, who themselves do not know God. Rather base your argument on the things I have shared with you.
Hans Matthysen
July 23, 2009 at 21:10
Fredericke, yes, we all have the choice to who’s will stay’s and who’s will go’s, in our lives. God’s will is that no soul is lost and that we do unto others, as we would do unto ourselves.
Hans Matthysen
July 23, 2009 at 21:16
Surely you joke, Hans Matthysen! The only thing you have shared with me is unverifiable nonsense and fantasy which you have yet to substantiate.
Con-Tester
July 24, 2009 at 08:28
Hans, no we do NOT have the choice “who’s will stays or who’s will go”. As I have it, your god has decided and knows that – even long times before anyone’s birth, not so?
Fredericke Adonis
July 24, 2009 at 16:07
Fredericke, not so, as we are called and those who answer His call, becomes chosen. We therefore have a choice to become chosen. Just answer His call.
Hans Matthysen
July 30, 2009 at 20:41
Answering a call makes one chosen? That’s the kind of comic illogic that makes believers so funny.
Con-Tester
August 1, 2009 at 21:02
I feel a call of nature coming on, one that I am inclined to answer. Yay me! For I am chosen!
Fuck.
Con-Tester
August 1, 2009 at 21:06
“Answering a call makes one chosen? That’s the kind of comic illogic that makes believers so funny.” wrote Con- Tester
I am a comic strip with a touch of pawn into me.
What are you?
Kat
August 3, 2009 at 08:02
Pleased to meet you. I’m a cartoon with an acid punch line.
Con-Tester
August 3, 2009 at 08:44
Hiehie..thank you. We might become very humorous reading to others. Sorry, I have one ability, to destort any topic. I shall try again and concentrate on the topic in hand, from now on: God IS love.
Kat
August 3, 2009 at 09:17
I see you distort words too.
Distort this: If God is love, why do we call it “God” and not love and why do we need “God” if “God” is no more than love?
Nathan Bond
August 3, 2009 at 12:52
Yes, I do, not as well as you, but I admit I am in training.
God is love to me. Therefore, Love is God to me.
I need God to be able to love. I will never claim you need God to love. I don’t know what you need just to love.
Kat
August 3, 2009 at 13:22
Kat! More.
Goed om jou hier tussen al die goddelose bliksems raak te lees.
Daan Van der Merwe
August 5, 2009 at 08:12
Dankie, Daan. Is ons nie maar almal, net ‘n bietjie goddeloos nie, jy weet, sonder Liefde op tye nie…hiehie
In die afdeling van die Liefde, kan die pot nie die deksel verwyt nie. Een leef mos maar net in ‘n bietjie meer dankbaarheid as die ander een…hangaf wie lê bo in die pottelaai.
Kat
August 5, 2009 at 20:42
Con-Tester, should you not answer to that call, daily, you are referring to, you will constantly be in shit.
The call I am referring to also happens to be daily.
Hans Matthysen
August 6, 2009 at 20:21
Kat, daar is ‘n verskil tussen liefde en sex. Jy blyk nog onvolwasse en verward te wees. Jy is op een ding reg en dit is, dat jy maar nog opleiding benodig.
Hans Matthysen
August 6, 2009 at 20:28
Nathan, as liefde God is, hoekom noem ons dit nie God nie? As waarheid God is, …. As lig (verstaanbaarheid) God is, …. As gees God is, ….?
Hans Matthysen
August 6, 2009 at 20:33
Ek ken die verskil Hans. Die Liefde bevry, all round, sex vir eie gebruik, maak almal om jou seer.
Kat
August 7, 2009 at 21:05
But I’m not in shit, Hans Matthysen, constantly or otherwise. Rationlise that one away, but note that “Satan” is an answer alone in your warped world.
Con-Tester
August 7, 2009 at 21:25