From an ex-fundy, why give up on "God" altogether?

[faithevoloved]

15 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Firstly you need to clearly define god.  Some people use a very loose definition that is little more than a force of nature, but if your definition can apply to gravity as much as god then it isn't really a supernatural being we are talking about.  The more common idea is a personal god, one who interacts with the physical world, one who wants us to know Him and one who is a powerful, loving, father figure.  Once you start attaching such real world characteristics to the being, then we can absolutely look to test those claims.  Would suffering exist if god was loving and powerful?  Would prayers be answered?  Would the followers of one particular religion show divine protection from real world problems?  Would a global flood leave tell-tale signs of its passing?  Would we be able to communicate with god/angels/demons or other supernatural beings?  Would people be lead by unseen powers to the correct answers so that we had one world wide religion with no debate?

 

While we can't see god directly, we should be able to see His actions and changes to the world.  We don't.

 

Good point. Define God? That's tough but let's assume God is to mean the entity responsible for our existence... e.g "creator"...this assumes absolutely nothing about his/it's character besides the fact we were created by him/it. I think that would be a barebones definition. As far as proof of his existence, there is ZERO direct proof. This is because he/it is outside his creation...we are in a closed-system, if you will. However, indirectly, there is proof everywhere...e.g. the complex human body, cells, DNA code, etc.

[Wertbag]

2 hours ago, faithevoloved said:

 

Good point. Define God? That's tough but let's assume God is to mean the entity responsible for our existence... e.g "creator"...this assumes absolutely nothing about his/it's character besides the fact we were created by him/it. I think that would be a barebones definition. As far as proof of his existence, there is ZERO direct proof. This is because he/it is outside his creation...we are in a closed-system, if you will. However, indirectly, there is proof everywhere...e.g. the complex human body, cells, DNA code, etc.

Using the complexity of the natural world as proof generally relies on incredulity.  You would be saying "I can't imagine how else this can be" or "I can't think of any other way", which is a limitation of our imagination not a limitation on what nature is capable of.  You would be taking something that is complex and filling that gap in our knowledge by proposing an even more complex super being as the solution, which is really moving the goal but not providing an answer.

 

It really makes you think of a god of the gaps, where we used to have whole pantheons of gods controlling everything and everyone.  Then they get toned back to an invisible, other worldly being, but still in control of nature.  Then as our understanding of nature increases, god retreats to ever smaller pockets of complexity.  We used to say the gods controlled lightning, tides, seasons, disease, pregnancy and any other natural event.  Now days we understand those events to such a degree that we no longer need to insert the supernatural to fill our lack of understanding.

Imagine trying to explain germ theory to a peasant of medieval times: "Yes, you are sick because of tiny invisible creatures, which cover everything, fighting with the invisible defence cells in your body...", after he finishes telling the authorities that you are crazy he speaks to a priest who says "Oh, its demons.  You can prove it, just pray for a couple of days and god will drive them from your body" and sure enough the fever breaks which proves prayer works...

 

If you reduce god to merely a non-personal, non-interactive, non-caring and non-present being, then you make Him irrelevant to everything and everyone.  If He is nothing, does nothing and doesn't care, then His existence would make no difference to anyone and equally anything claimed of Him could be nothing more than pure guesswork.  To even say He must exist in another dimension means you can have no knowledge of anything about Him.  We can't even tell other dimensions exist, let alone make any claims about how or where.  But for arguments sake lets say we accept that He exists outside of the universe, the claim is still being made that He directly influences our physical reality, whether as a nebulous force that started the big bang, or if you want to take it further you can think He created life, directed evolution and influenced history.  Where do you draw the line and how do you know that point is correct?  Which gaps do we need god to fill and which do you accept as able to be naturally created?

Once you know what real world interaction is being claimed then we can examine those ideas.  If god continues retreating before natural answers, soon He is reduced to nothing more than a force of nature that lit the fuse on the big bang.  If His definition can be swapped out for a force like gravity, then is He even a being at all?

[florduh]

I'm still always amazed at those who posit a god/creator/whatever that is beyond our realm of experience. Not only is that god unable to be verified by its very definition, it would be irrelevant to us by that same definition. So why are we talking about it?

[sdelsolray]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

I'm still always amazed at those who posit a god/creator/whatever that is beyond our realm of experience. Not only is that god unable to be verified by its very definition, it would be irrelevant to us by that same definition. So why are we talking about it?

 

Many claim their God is not definable, not knowable, etc., yet in the very next breath make claim after claim of how they "define" and "know" their particular sky fairy, or set of sky fairies.  Of course, they also claim they have a special access, a privileged observing position, etc.

 

They're full of themselves, and full of shit.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Many claim their God is not definable, not knowable, etc., yet in the very next breath make claim after claim of how they "define" and "know" their particular sky fairy, or set of sky fairies.  Of course, they also claim they have a special access, a privileged observing position, etc.

 

They're full of themselves, and full of shit.

I've heard that any god small enough to be understood or explained is not big enough to save anybody.  Made me wonder what's the use in any of the gods we already have.

[nontheistpilgrim]

11 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Many claim their God is not definable, not knowable, etc., yet in the very next breath make claim after claim of how they "define" and "know" their particular sky fairy, or set of sky fairies.  Of course, they also claim they have a special access, a privileged observing position, etc.

 

Was anyone else taught 'God said it (did it), I believe it, that settles it' ?

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

3 minutes ago, nontheistpilgrim said:

 

Was anyone else taught 'God said it (did it), I believe it, that settles it' ?

 

 

Yes, I heard that expression quite a bit. I also heard it said that it should just be, "God said it & that settles it" (implying that it's not contingent on whether one believes it).

 

The reality, of course, is that they're simply elevating the writings of men to the status of God. It's pure poppycock. 

 

Regarding the OP, I didn't "give up" on God any more than you gave up on Santa Claus. The problem isn't with those of us who grow up and see the light. The problem is with the fairy tale.

 

[freshstart]

14 hours ago, florduh said:

I'm still always amazed at those who posit a god/creator/whatever that is beyond our realm of experience. Not only is that god unable to be verified by its very definition, it would be irrelevant to us by that same definition. So why are we talking about it?

 

I think some people merely want to remain curious and open to possibilities.  Is that a bad thing?  And in what way does such speculation have to be "relevant?"  A lot of things we do in life have no relevance.  Some things are just fun to think about or fun to do.

Clearly the human race has gravitated towards a belief in the existence of something more powerful and more intelligent than humans.  Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for that that remains to be discovered?  I don't believe in specific deities.  But I do find it hard to believe the "universe" (for lack of a better term) lacks any intelligence, particularly when it produces intelligence, even if it took billions of years to do so. 

[florduh]

3 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

I think some people merely want to remain curious and open to possibilities.  Is that a bad thing?  And in what way does such speculation have to be "relevant?"  A lot of things we do in life have no relevance.  Some things are just fun to think about or fun to do.

Clearly the human race has gravitated towards a belief in the existence of something more powerful and more intelligent than humans.  Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for that that remains to be discovered?  I don't believe in specific deities.  But I do find it hard to believe the "universe" (for lack of a better term) lacks any intelligence, particularly when it produces intelligence, even if it took billions of years to do so. 

Fine, but my question remains as to the point of proposing something that can't be seen, understood or even detected.

[TruthSeeker0]

5 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

I think some people merely want to remain curious and open to possibilities.  Is that a bad thing?  And in what way does such speculation have to be "relevant?"  A lot of things we do in life have no relevance.  Some things are just fun to think about or fun to do.

Clearly the human race has gravitated towards a belief in the existence of something more powerful and more intelligent than humans.  Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for that that remains to be discovered?  I don't believe in specific deities.  But I do find it hard to believe the "universe" (for lack of a better term) lacks any intelligence, particularly when it produces intelligence, even if it took billions of years to do so. 

I think it's just the human tendency to give meaning to things, life included. Combined with the tendency to try gain power or influence over others. Those who want power or influence say "here's your meaning" to those who can't find such on their own, and ta da, you have religion. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

This was probably said above ( I'm to lazy to read it all ) but If there is a more intelligent being, or creator, where did he/she/it come from?    And if it has always existed, perhaps everything has always existed in some form or another.  Have fun figuring it out!

[PurpleLilac]

On 11/12/2019 at 3:36 PM, faithevoloved said:

Sure, I get wanting to throw your hands up and give up religion. I'm one of those guys who begged for years to be healed of my mental health issues and speak in tongues, or otherwise have a major conversion experience, but that never happened. However, I just don't understand why people completely give up on God because they've had bad experiences in the church. Why is the only option atheism when you don't get what you want from God? Why can't the options be:

 

1) Atheism

2) Maybe Christians are wrong/have only part of the truth...so I'll make it my life mission to figure this out for myself.

 

Sure, I gave up on going to fundamental Christian churches myself. However, I still believe in a higher power/source/God. Why can't your disillusionment with God/church lead you into a least exploring other options e.g. new age or something?

 

 

For me, leaving my fundy church did lead me to exploring other ways to have a belief in god. I went to an episcopal church for awhile. And now,I’m content to live my life without god or religion altogether. 
I can always try something later if I want to. Freedom is a beautiful thing. 

[older]

On 11/12/2019 at 1:36 PM, faithevoloved said:

Why can't your disillusionment with God/church lead you into a least exploring other options e.g. new age or something?

First, personally, I wasn't disillusioned. I just looked at the facts and came to a conclusion. As to substituting something else, religion is sort of like acid indigestion. You know when you have it. When you don't, you aren't always aware of not having it, and you don't go looking around for a substitute such as irritable bowel syndrome or kidney stones. I didn't explore something else because I'm perfectly satisfied with nothing.

[Joshpantera]

On 11/13/2019 at 3:17 PM, faithevoloved said:

Wow, thanks for all the replies. I appreciate the points of view and the candid yet respectful manner in how you all answered me.

 

It seems to come down to lack of evidence in God that makes someone come to the conclusion there is no God. Ok, yes...I'm captain obvious.

 

Here's my best evidence:

 

Recently, I discovered a guy named Tommy who is blind from birth who has a YouTube channel called "The Tommy Edison Experience". Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJC56zsfl0M

 

After watching that, I thought to myself...how in the world could I EVER convince this guy that seeing is real. We all know seeing is real, but this guy has no reference point because his brain is not capable of processing sight. Then I related this to the idea of God...what if we as humans just don't have the capacity to prove God's existence anymore than Tommy can prove sight exists EXCEPT by some outside source that he must have faith to believe in? He essentially has to take our word for it that seeing is real even though he may never experience it himself.

 

There's been mention of phases one can go through. Common thoughts that a lot of people tend to ponder. The above is an example. I'll tell you how a lot of people move from the phase of thinking above into further phases of looking at it. The reasoning above can be applied to anything from fantasy, fairy tale, or improve imagination. 

 

How about the celestial tea pot? 

 

What if we as humans don't have the capacity to prove the celestial tea pot's existence any more than Tommy can prove sight exists exept by some outside source that he must have faith to believe in? He essentially has to take our word for it that the CT is real even though he may never experience it himself.

 

Now this example is where some people claim to have experienced the CT. And everyone else has to take them at their word. We haven't personally experienced the CT. Or we can use Santa, Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, and YHWH just the same. Almost any claim can be made that something exists transcendent to your knowledge and understanding. That's an important take away here. Just imagine how many claims you can make about something transcendent and how impossible it is for someone to prove a negative, that is, prove that what ever you make up and place in a transcendent realm doesn't exist. 

 

At some point, a bigger issue can start to come into focus.

 

There's no way to prove a negative, first of all, and there's no reason to every try. Because it's not up to someone who's skeptical of an extraordinary claim to disprove the claim. It's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to prove the positive claim. If they can not, well then they had better consider not making the positive claim because it's untenable, and therefore not worth making to begin with. Right? 

 

It's not worth claiming that a CT, Santa, Tooth Fairy or YHWH exist. It's entirely pointless. And just because you may think that maybe out of all of these untenable claims, one of them may really exist, doesn't matter very much in the grand scheme. Because you can't prove it even if it were so. What's meaning or purpose of something that might exist, which can not be proven to everyone? If it can be proven, that's one thing. But we're talking about something that can not be proven, which, people claim to have experienced anyways even though it can not really be proven? 

 

These phases can go on and on.

 

Here's where I'm at, to make it very simple. I don't know if any gods exist. I don't know if any make believe assertion really exists. And I don't care that I don't know for sure. It doesn't bother me. It's all very pointless even in the event that any do exist. What does it matter if something exists transcendent to the universe? Whatever it is, we obviously don't know what it is, because, it's TRANSCENDENT or beyond the universe, therefore beyond the capacity to actually know. If it's not actively interactive here, now, then what does it matter? 

 

I don't believe that anything does exist out there far away in the cosmos, just outside of our observation, which comes from the world of human mythology, folklore, fairy tales or make believe because why should I? I have no good reason to positively believe in things that (1) are obviously coming from the realm of human assertion (mythology and religion) and (2) are not provable to begin with.

 

If they are provable, then I'll take up positive belief no sooner than when they have been proven. Why should I positively believe in any unproven assertion or claim, whether about gods, fairies, a CT, or some cosmological model asserting what exists beyond the universe? The fact is that we truthfully don't know, and in not knowing, I could be positively believing in something that's just plain wrong. And it's not all that critical as to whether or not I believe in things which haven't been substantiated. If they're real but beyond knowing or proven, how are they relevant to life right here and now? 

 

This thinking can progress even further, with further questions arising. But I'll leave it there for now. That's a guide to some popular ex christian oriented critical thinking for the time being. 

[faithevoloved]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There's been mention of phases one can go through. Common thoughts that a lot of people tend to ponder. The above is an example. I'll tell you how a lot of people move from the phase of thinking above into further phases of looking at it. The reasoning above can be applied to anything from fantasy, fairy tale, or improve imagination. 

 

How about the celestial tea pot? 

 

What if we as humans don't have the capacity to prove the celestial tea pot's existence any more than Tommy can prove sight exists exept by some outside source that he must have faith to believe in? He essentially has to take our word for it that seeing is real even though he may never experience it himself.

 

Now this example is where some people claim to have experiences the CT. We haven't personally experienced the CT. But we can take others at their word that they have experienced the CT. Or we can use Santa, Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, and YHWH just the same. Almost any claim can be made that something exists transcendent to your knowledge and understanding. That's an important take away here. Just imagine how many claims you can make about something transcendent and how impossible it is for someone to prove a negative, that is, prove that what ever you make up and place in a transcendent realm doesn't exist. 

 

At some point, a bigger issue can start to come into focus. There's no way to prove a negative, first of all, and there's no reason to every try. Because it's not up to someone who's skeptical of an extraordinary claim to disprove the claim. It's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to prove the positive claim. If they can not, well then they had better consider not making the positive claim because it's untenable, and therefore not worth making to begin with. Right? 

 

It's not worth claiming that a CT, Santa, Tooth Fairy or YHWH exist. It's entirely pointless. And just because you may think that maybe out of all of these untenable claims, one of them may really exist, doesn't matter very much in the grand scheme. Because you can't prove it even if it were so. What's meaning or purpose of something that might exist, which can not be proven to everyone? If it can be proven, that's one thing. But we're talking about something that can not be proven, which, people claim to have experienced anyways even though it can not really be proven? 

 

These phases can go on and on. Here's where I'm at, to make it very simple. I don't know if any gods exist. I don't know if any make believe assertion really exists. And I don't care that I don't know for sure. It doesn't bother me. It's all very pointless even in the event that any do exist. What does it matter if something exists transcendent to the universe? Whatever it is, we obviously don't know what it is, because, it's TRANSCENDENT or beyond the universe, therefore beyond the capacity to actually know.

 

I don't believe that anything does exist out there from the world of human mythology, folklore, fairy tales or make believe because why should I? I have no good reason to positively believe in things that (1) are obviously coming from the realm of human assertion and imagination and (2) are not provable to begin with. If they are provable, then I'll take up positive believe no sooner than when they have been proven, not sooner. Why should I positively believe in any unproven, whether about gods, fairies, a CT, or some cosmological model asserting what exists beyond the universe? The fact is that we don't know, and in not knowing, I would be positively believing in something that's absolutely wrong.

 

This thinking can progress even further, with further questions arising. But I'll leave it there for now. That's a guide to critical thinking for the time being.  

 

The difference between the celestial teapot and sight is that seeing is part of the shared "illusion" or "hallucination" (as some would call it) of humanity. i'm sure 99.9% of humanity has never witnessed the celestial teapot.

[older]

Joshp. gets the trophy for this thread. I'm copying that one to my permanent file.

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, faithevoloved said:

 

The difference between the celestial teapot and sight is that seeing is part of the shared "illusion" or "hallucination" (as some would call it) of humanity. i'm sure 99.9% of humanity has never witnessed the celestial teapot.

 

Let's go on with this, shall we? 

 

Nor has 99.9% of humanity witnessed credible evidence of a god. And yet that amount of humanity is apparently theistic (or so the meme goes, I'm not sure the percentages are correct). Without the hard, credible evidence. So that means that 99.9% of humanity are possibly: 

 

1) fearful of death.

2) tend to personify the unknown, or unknowable.

3) follow in the foot steps of ancient beliefs and customs without critically examining the beliefs. 

 

I'd say those 3 possibilities are enough for the time being. Not only do I think that these are very possible about 99.9% of the world population, but I'm as certain as I can be that this is the case. So when I'm faced with questions of what seems more likely, that 99.9% of the worlds population has it wrong or some other option, I tend to gravitate towards the majority being wrong in this case.

 

But not without reason.

 

I come to this opinion based on decades of reading and researching through world mythology and religion, philosophy, science, history, biblical criticism and other relevant areas of interest. How do I know the people were making up mythology as they went along? Because there's ample evidence that shows how these concepts grew bit by bit, through time, from simple to more complex ideas and beliefs over time. It's all mapped out. It's not mysterious or speculation driven as if we have no idea how these theistic beliefs began to show themselves in primitive mythology. 

 

And why would it be real, when you understand the details that went in to people making it up, gradually, over time, and adding complexity to former simplicities?

 

For instance, the dead were not always buried with attention to detail or evidence of an afterlife belief. There were times when the dead dropped where died. Then the dead began to be buried in the ground by others. Objects were placed into graves hinting at the idea of afterlife journeys. Then afterlife journey's became mapped out and detailed through mythologies and writing. Those mythologies became world religions and "sacred scripture." And more editions were added along the way. A simple fear of death and yearning for the notion of a journey beyond the grave is something that can start very simple, and abstract, and then grow with complexity over time as people continue to add more and more imagination. Much later, there's vivid visualization, streets of gold, pearly gates, jeweled crowns, etc., etc. 

 

It's something universal to humanity. People tend to frown at our own mortality and coming to terms with it. Is it all that mysterious as to why we can find a 99.9% theistic world population of human beings? Or is it rather obvious once clued in on? 

[florduh]

I think we're just talking about the puddle that is going on about how the hole was created to fit him exactly.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 minutes ago, florduh said:

I think we're just talking about the puddle that is going on about how the hole was created to fit him exactly.

 

I always wonder when people say "oh its all so fine tuned" why they find it so much wonder that they can live in a world they can live in. I mean if they couldn't live in it they wouldn't be marvelling about it would they? I don't find it particularly amazing that life arose in a situation that's suited for life.

[Margee]

On 11/12/2019 at 5:36 PM, faithevoloved said:

Why can't your disillusionment with God/church lead you into a least exploring other options e.g. new age or something?

 

 

 

Welcome to ex-c faithevoloved. So glad you joined us. Your question is not an unusual one when we first land up on this board. I asked the same question myself.

 

I have been searching for 10 years for 'something' that makes sense to me.  One month I am an atheist and the next month I am agnostic. I think i have dabbled in just about everything trying to find something to have 'faith' in again. But yet, that 'faith' that I am trying to find has got to make sense to me.... so I find an interesting 'spiritual' path and then my same questions of 'suffering' come into play and i can't seem to follow it. No one, so far has been able to answer this question of suffering for me. Except the atheists of course because it's so simple to them and it's just all part of evolution. And when I am in my atheist frame of mind, I totally,100% agree with them...that suffering is here and it is normal in the course of things in evolution. For instance car accidents, sickness and horrible deaths, animals eating animals alive, rapes, murder, war, torture, people starving to death and on and on. Humans are just  more evolved than animals and can be horrible to each other. You get the picture. Well this is what I can never get past so I completely agree with my atheists friends when I'm so angry that these actually happen.

 

I just went through hell on earth in the month of October. I lost 3 people whom I loved very much. One was a girlfriend who died of a very rare disease where her body turned to stone and then one week later, someone I knew for many, many years ( she was a mentor to me) died also. Once week later, my girlfriends husband (who died) committed suicide because he literally  could not bare his wife's death. We had traveled with these people for quite a few years. We were devastated and still are. Then I learned my son could die at any time. (I cannot go into those details)  This was even more stress then I care to mention. So if you are going to look for a god or to the 'Universe', you must find one and you will have to agree, 'it', he/she' does not take a personal interest in us.( I am back in my atheist mood right now but I still look all the time for something to hold on to.) But again, I ask why would any loving 'entity' allow his children to suffer on earth so much? 

 

I  tell you some of my personal story because I am mostly anonymous on this board. I continue to send foolish memes and happy smiles on Facebook. Nobody on Facebook even knows my friend committed suicide. Nobody knows the depression i have been through. I do not mean to dis-in-heart you, but to search honestly, you are going to have to ask why suffering exists or you will be disappointed. I still stick to positive affirmations because they help me so much. I  might start searching again in awhile because I stay open to anything that might make sense to me. I once was filled with faith in a loving, caring god and there are definitively aspects of that which i miss dearly.

 

I did not mean to get into talking about me, I was just trying to show you some of the stuff (and the day-to-day suffering) that humans have to go through.  I understand completely why you want 'something'. But even If you come to like the topic of reincarnation  like I did,  you will have to ask the  hard question of why you would choose to be burned alive at the stake or be tortured to death in a past life?? These are things that you will have to face. I'm sorry if I was a bit too graphic (I'm normally not because I hate any kind of suffering) but if we are to follow a path, we have to ask these questions.

 

Right now, I just try to be as loving and kind to everyone that I can. I have to be satisfied with the unknown. . Don't be afraid to come here and ask all these questions. I drove the board crazy when i first arrived here and they did everything in their power to help me. I wouldn't have made it without Ex-c.

 

The very best to you in your journey and I truly hope you find something that will give you peace......

[LogicalFallacy]

3 minutes ago, Margee said:

 One month I am an atheist and the next month I am agnostic.

 

I solve this problem by being an agnostic atheist  

 

The terms are not mutually exclusive and its a logical position to hold... at least according to me.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I solve this problem by being an agnostic atheist  

 

The terms are not mutually exclusive and its a logical position to hold... at least according to me.  

I consider myself an apatheist more than anything else; because I really don't care if a god exists or not.

[LogicalFallacy]

39 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I consider myself an apatheist more than anything else; because I really don't care if a god exists or not.

 

You could be an apatheist agnostic atheist?

 

You don't know if a god exists and you don't care, and you don't believe one exists?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

29 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You could be an apatheist agnostic atheist?

 

You don't know if a god exists and you don't care, and you don't believe one exists?  

I think I'll just stick with "John;" it's easier to spell and most people call me that already, anyway.

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, Margee said:

This was even more stress then I care to mention. So if you are going to look for a god or to the 'Universe', you must find one and you will have to agree, 'it', he/she does not take a personal interest in us.( I am back in my atheist mood right now but I still look all the time for something to hold on to.) But again, I ask why would any loving 'entity' allow his/he/it children to suffer on earth so much? 

 

I see people on facebook constantly praising god that they got out of an accident alright, or just narrowly missed some bad thing. And all I can think is how foolish they are to even go there.

 

So a god saved you from a car accident, but then allowed some teen girl to be abducted into sex slavery? Or allowed some baby to die of cancer? Or some one to commit suicide over being grief stricken because the same god allowed their spouse to die? People are so ONE SIDED and ego obsessed in these theistic beliefs that they can hardly think out their words one step ahead of themselves. They can't think about what they're saying or how it might play out before praising god online for saving them, while at the same time obviously screwing how many other people over? How many millions of people were not so graced by the same god? 

 

And further, when something bad does happen to that same person, which it always will eventually, it's just mysterious and let's leave it alone. Something lucky happens, praise the lord. Something bad happens, it's too mysterious to think about so leave it alone. 

 

I refrain from getting into it on social media. I usually just let it go. I save the raw, reality checks for here in the forums where it's in context and probably a more appropriate place to deal it out. The rest of the time it's fist palms, and letting it go, over and over again. That's why I tend to lash out here on the apologists from time to time.