TED Conversations

Shaheem Carter


This conversation is closed.

This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)

Did you ever thought of this, and if so, please explain to me how does this make sense to you,
Because it doesn't to me.

BTW I'm atheist, but I'm asking this question from a christian point of view.
(I don't claim to no everything, just a truth seeker)

OK, Here we go:

God created you,(Remember you didn't ask to be here,) and then gave you an ultimatum, Worship me and go to Heaven, or You'll burn for eternity in my hell fire.

But...What if i don't want either, why can't i create a third option?
Really, is there any free will in this or is this just free choice?
Besides were ever i was before you created me, am sure i was perfectly fine.
then you decide to bring me here and trap me in your Crappy Options (Heaven or Hell).

Ofcourse if am a believer i wouldn't want to burn in hell, so i'll pick the other option which is heaven.
but am only picking heaven because hell sucks a bit more.

So basically it's worship me or you'll pay. and if i decide not to, Hell awaits me. So, if god really is love why is he so upset and is going to burn me indefinitely, because i think he's a myth that man created to find solace in?
i mean, what type of god leaves no evidence at all, and gets angry because i don't acknowledge him? Let's face it, you can tell me god did it, god created it, god this, god that..but it's all faith based. No matter how much you tell me, you have no proof. So as far as am concerned, if i tell you a pink unicorn in blue jeans created all of this, you can't disprove that.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 1 2012: Adriaan,

    You said "Personally I do not bellieve God cares about what we believe or even what name we give Him. Do the best we can, for the right reason, and everything should be fine with us."

    The last sentence above works well whether or not God exists.
    • Comment deleted

      • Apr 1 2012: Bridget,

        Thank you for your reply.

        A brief synopsis of our exchange of thoughts is:

        * You asked what evidence would be convincing for the other side of the argument.
        * I answered by providing a short list of physical evidence that I would find convincing.
        * You then suggested nonphysical evidence that you would find convincing.
        * I said that nonphysical evidence could be used to support any delusion.
        * You responded by asking for physical evidence that nonphysical evidence could be used to support any delusion.
        * You then called me delusional.

        Did I get the synopsis right?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.