Agree or Disagree?
I wouldn't say that. A distant star is still a star even though it is billions of light years away. But we can see that distant star, so it is a real thing. A god that is distant or unknowable cannot be proven, therefore why should I say that it is real. The concept of god amongst the religious is that he is knowable. They also say that he is not distant, but actively participates in their lives. I say go to the evidence. Evidence does not show a distant god, and why would a god be unknowable? This is a big philosophical knot to untie. I'm in no position to unravel it.
Any concept of "gawd" presupposes that there is something out there superior to us, and alleviates our responsibility to make things better. No thanks!
“You haven’t answered his question. What does god need with a starship?”
In a sense it is, ya. The Bible will even tell us that "God" does not want worship sacrifices--which are not necessarily dead animals--but "mercy."
@atheist the point being that one should not suppose that since religion has been given the field of the Bible that means they are qualified to read it, or interpret it, etc., and there are even passages that outline this, too. God pretty much hates what you hate, whether you call yourself an atheist or not is irrelevant, it is what one does (mercy) that matters to God, not what one says they believe (sacrifices)
@atheist "Why not everything?" ha well you might not hate some things that God might simply due to lack of maturity, say. "Does god hate killing, slavery or rape? Not according to the record!" i understand why you say this, and all i can say is that the contexts for these can easily be misrepresented. Yes, God surely hates all of those things. You know borrowing money at a high rate of interest is "bad," but you might do it anyway, right. Just bc the Bible deals with controversial subjects does not necessarily mean "God approves" anyway. "Paul says we are saved by faith apart from works & James says faith without works is dead! Which is it?" to this i would say that their definition of "saved" took consideration of "Understand I AM," and that they had no intention nor desire to postulate some "heaven" in an imaginary afterlife (Mithraism, cult of Sol Invictus), ok, like the religious do now. [abarim-publications.com] is likely a much better perspective of their understanding of "faith," fwiw. "Beliefs" do not make the grade iow, and, contrary to what most ppl..."believe," lol, the Bible puts no stock in "beliefs." Also, "works" is a really gummed-up term now, too.
@atheist "Paul says we are saved by faith apart from works" could = "i would starve to death in the presence of oysters, if i did not believe you when you told me that even though you hate oysters, they are edible (iow refused to actually show me) "James says faith without works is dead" might = "if you trust that oysters will keep you from starving, and your whole village is starving, then why would you refuse to take them some oysters?" But pls note that i am simplifying here ok. Surely better examples, etc
@atheist ok, the Bible is not the Word anyway, as It will tell us, and if you hate Christians so much then why be informed by them on the Bible anyway? Doesn't the Bible agree with you that they are mostly "twice the sons of hell as" their teachers are? And they have "seven worse spirits?" Then why are you accepting their definitions, which are a lie?
An unknowable or distant God is very similar to what agnosticism is all about. So yes ,I do believe it's the same thing as a belief in no God. It is the rejection of the Living God of the Christian and most other abrahamic traditions
so you say, but the Bible forwards "the Unknown God" over gods that are known, and even acknowledged (and have all already fallen)
Disagree -in the 1st premise there is a God, the 2nd there isn't - can't be the same.
What's your definition of God?
There is no definition of God. God is not a person ,God is not a thought, God is not a thing ,God is not an action and God is unknowable.