There are 3 choices, 3 votes for NotAllTearsAreAEvil's debate

Has "God" left us or have we left "God"?

has humanity stopped believing in "God" or has "God" stopped believing in us?

• No...

  I believe that each left each other... I stopped believing in "God" because He never answered my prayers and bacause He never answered my prayers I believe that he stopped believing in me.

  Voted for by NotAllTearsAreAEvil.

  View 23 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    grant
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    great

    because "belief" is bullshit anyway.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    It is one thing to use the word 'belief' in the context of trust, and another to use it to assert truth. From your post, you seem to imply that you 'believe' in the existence of God, yet you don't trust Him.
  • 
    grant
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I just dont think that bitch god is even on the internet. She is a bit behind the times. I mean, have you tried e-mailing her lately?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    is this your new fad, calling 'god' a bitch? Ouch. I mean, that just throws all notions of the christian faith into complete disarray. Great job.
  • 
    grant
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Yes. I'm hoping it will catch on.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Is there a point to your humour, or is it merely being used to supress hidden fears?
  • 
    grant
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    The point of humour is to humour. I think all humour is about fear. Its all part of "the human condition". Welcome to the planet.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "humour is about fear". That's what they say. I was scared shitless, but you don't see me laughing about it. Grant, your warped path towards nihilism only stands as a reminder that the denial of God, in the form of athiesm, eventually leads to such a state. Such is an assumption, so one can only make of it what they will.
  • 
    grant
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    One might as well laugh. We are all going to die afterall. What is best? Being angry or sad through life? or laughing?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "We are all going to die afterall" Prove it.
  • • 
      grant
      October 4, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      They are called cemeteries. Seen any of those lately?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Yeah, I seemingly have experienced visualising cemeteries, but that doesn't prove that I will die. Many assumptions would be needed to get from the former to the latter (observation to realisation).
  • 
    grant
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Lets just face it. Fearing death does not change the fact that we all die. So why should we give a rats arse to our ultimate fate? Surely its about life prior to death. Death is nothing compared to life. When you die you cant experience this life. Proove otherwise.
  • 
    grant
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Well then, go and live forever then, or, live like you are going to live forever. I think it best to live knowing you're going to die, but thats just me.
  • • 
      TeChNoWC
      October 4, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      not knowing, but believing. Choose your words carefully. Because after all, you realise that if you use such a word, you will have forfeited your own, how shall I say this, 'beliefs'.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 4, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "Lets just face it. Fearing death does not change the fact that we all die." I never took you for a rationalist. But yeah, now I see the flaws in your theorems. You can't rely on belief or knowledge, so you're stuck. Ouch. It's not about fearing death. I don't fear 'death' as the commonly held perception of such. I fear the unknown, and hence, the possible, and as unkowability is seemingly so prominent, I fear the plausibly imminent. Stuff like, malevolent beings coming to ass rape me for eternity. A physical example lacks, but you should get the idea - that any concept imagined could be plausible, and therefore, is able to be feared.
  • 
    frndofyaweh
    October 5, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    yes, why care....?

    Because not knowing if death is final, leads to risking eternity. Lets not even bring the Bible into it. Scientifically speaking, no one has ever proven that death is really a death at all. Simply a ceasing to physical existance. Only a fool would not strive to know more about eternity and also find the very best way to preserve it, on a personal level. That is why the faithless who say, "I could care less if I die for good or not," sound truly silly. It isn't even logical to not care about your death or lack of it. ----- I fear not my own death, for *He* is my saviour. I fear for the death of others.
  • • 
      grant
      October 8, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      Please don't waste your precious fear on my death. To say "I fear for the death of others" is still YOUR fear. It isn't anyone elses.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 5, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    frndofyaweh

    the first part was good, then you kind of lost it in the latter. Oh, by the way I like your screen name. I don't think we have ever had a serious debate with each other before. Anyway, my rationale is that if one was to, hypothetically, cease to exist upon death, then this would be an alright outcome, as one cannot feel as though they do not wish to do so once the outcome has become an actuality. So there would be no angst involved, even though some percieve it as though there will be. However, of course a more ideal outcome is a hypothesized utopia, in which one would exist past death. However, if not the most worst hypothesized outcome, is the possible imminence of an everlasting, hypothesized 'damnation'. Sheol, Heaven, Hell. One ok, one really really good, and one really really bad. Ceasing to exist is not an unfavoured outcome. However, yes, saying that one would not care if they go to hell or not, that would be contradictory, as hypothesized hell indicates that it will incur on the recipient bad conditions, and that the recipient very well will, even if desiring not to care, be forced to care. When the unkowable is present, we cannot make demands, plans, or formulate strategies or ways of escape, as the unkowable presents infinite possibilities, and therefore, any control could be enforced. eg. 'If I go to hell, I will just muck up and make the devil feel annoyed' or, as someone said earlier 'If I end up in hell I will just destroy my soul' and if these outcomes cannot be accessed, what then? One would need an infinite number of back up plans to alleviate the problem of infinite possiblity, and even then, hopelessness may invoke a definite, in that, no plan, even out of an infinite possibilities, could in fact be used to ammend the fallen fate.
  • 
    grant
    October 7, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    "preserve"

    Have you seen what was once alive preserved in preservative? It is still DEAD.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 7, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Have you seen what was once alive preserved in preservative? It is still DEAD."* So, firstly, one must assume that the senses are in fact truth bearing. Then, one must assume that we do in fact know that the organism is dead. Then, one must assume that this then relates to the self, and that it accurately depicts the fate of the self. It proves nothing. A supposed, possibly illusory, dead animal in a jar, with some hidden meaning as to indicate the fate of the viewer. Or, to decieve the viewer into thinking what he does see is real, and then in turn convincing him/her that they will in fact die (persuade for purpose). Only belief, conviction, and the acceptation of notion can lead one to such a conclusion. And you being resistant of those things, shouldn't be making such claims.
  • 
    grant
    October 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    You mean the claim that when your organism is dead that it is no longer alive? That is the only proof that is available. The onus is to proove otherwise. Can you disprove gravity by floating off the planet? nup.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Ok, so assumptions and beliefs can be formulated until proved otherwise. Well then, believing in God is justified under your system. Because the onus is to prove otherwise.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: