How atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God

[Whitney]

Well, you tell me what is more than that in my concept of the Christian God which you want removed, okay?

vengeful, jealous, killing almost all life with a flood, sacrificing himself to himself (because it doesn't make any sense), punishing people for not believing in something that doesn't reveal itself to them, the quality that makes this god not think of women as equal to men, giving people with no knowledge of good and evil the opportunity to do evil by eating from a tree, thus releasing the knowledge of good and evil onto the world (the quality of lacking rational thought) etc etc.

But I am still telling you that  you have got to know, examine, what you are lacking in, what is that thing you want to be lacking in, in order to be sure that you are not in contact in any way and by any means with what you want to be lacking in.

What makes you think I haven't examined yours and other god-concepts?

Edit:  I was just thinking...if the Christians were to make their God more like the Buddha, then the Christian God wouldn't be so bad.

[Will]

But I am still telling you that  you have got to know, examine, what you are lacking in, what is that thing you want to be lacking in, in order to be sure that you are not in contact in any way and by any means with what you want to be lacking in.

I grew up in a very Christian home (my father is a Lutheran pastor), and I not only went all the way through Sunday School and Confirmation, I took and eventually taught college-level Bible course at the church. I understand the concept of god perfectly, I've just come to the conclusion that it's not compelling enough for me to believe in. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that 98% of people on HAF have an accurate understanding of how Christians view their god, mostly because of theists wanting us to explain our philosophy.

Because the world is predominately religious, most atheists made a conscious decision to be as we are after careful study and consideration. I know the god you believe in, I'm familiar with every bit of scripture and dogma about god. I just disbelieve.

[Kylyssa]

But I am still telling you that  you have got to know, examine, what you are lacking in, what is that thing you want to be lacking in, in order to be sure that you are not in contact in any way and by any means with what you want to be lacking in.



Yrreg

I want to be lacking in false beliefs.  

There's really no need to examine each and every fantasy creature in every mythology to know that they are imaginary beings.  Seriously, did you have to minutely examine all of the myths and beliefs about fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns to figure out that they are just myths and legends, things of the imagination?

Explain why we need to have this discussion about the imaginary being you believe in rather than in some other imaginary being?  Why not Zeus, Shiva, or Quetzalcoatl?  They are all equal concepts, all mythologies.  Why give your mythos special consideration?  

You assume that all atheists are lacking something.  Don't you see how bigoted your assumption is?  It's part of the Christian dogma - just like the casual misogyny you exhibit.  

I proposed most sincerely that we together atheists and theists put up a panel of the most unimpeachable panel of men in regard to impartiality on the one hand and utmost mastery of logic on the other to judge which side, atheists or theists have more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

I understand that your casual bigotry is not your fault.  Just as one raised by racists would not know that racism is wrong until someone else explained it to them, one raised in a patriarchal and nearsighted religion would not know that religious bigotry and misogyny are wrong if they were even able to recognize them at all.

I also would not be surprised if you ignore my post either because of my gender or because of the uncomfortable information I have expressed in it.

[Chimera]

I grew up in a very Christian home (my father is a Lutheran pastor), and I not only went all the way through Sunday School and Confirmation, I took and eventually taught college-level Bible course at the church. I understand the concept of god perfectly, I've just come to the conclusion that it's not compelling enough for me to believe in. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that 98% of people on HAF have an accurate understanding of how Christians view their god, mostly because of theists wanting us to explain our philosophy.

I swear to Baby Jeebus you could be my long-lost twin brother. My dad wasn't a pastor, but I grew up in the Lutheran church and did the Sunday School/Confirmation stuff, Bible teaching, blah blah blah. Weird.

Sorry, I really don't have anything constructive to add...I think anything I would say has already been said.

[Heretical Rants]

Sorry, I really don't have anything constructive to add...I think anything I would say has already been said.

well... you could at least say something like,  "The concept of God should be less chimerical."

[buttercupbaby]

Maybe if you called him Fred......that could work.

[Chimera]

Sorry, I really don't have anything constructive to add...I think anything I would say has already been said.

well... you could at least say something like,  "The concept of God should be less chimerical." roflol

[Will]

I swear to Baby Jeebus you could be my long-lost twin brother. My dad wasn't a pastor, but I grew up in the Lutheran church and did the Sunday School/Confirmation stuff, Bible teaching, blah blah blah. Weird.

I suspect those circumstances are good for atheist conversion.  

[LoneMateria]

I try to remain within the thread which I have started.

If you feel that you have a message or a question for me which is relevant to the thread's topic, and I did not give it any attention, perhaps you want to give me the link to that question or repeat it here.

If your question was addressed to me in another thread, please just give me the link to it.



I cannot be answering every question people bring up here if it is not of any connection to the topic on hand.

If you want to tell me that I am a troll, a preacher, incoherent in English, or uncivil with my language here, please report me to the powers that be here.

About my incoherency in English, I sympathize with you whoever you are who have this complaint.

Perhaps you can suggest to the powers that be here in this forum, that people aspiring to write here should first pass a test on minimal skill in regard to coherency in written English.




Yrreg

Lol hes all upset.  Yrreg i'm not going to go back and rewrite every question you skipped I guess you need to reread the thread.  Pay attention to the people who said you ignored their question(s) they are the ones who expected some sort of answer that you didn't provide.  Even if you don't find it relative to the topic they do.  

Let me be clear before I say this, in no way shape or form am I discriminating against you because English isn't your primary language.  Though your unfamiliarity with this language sometimes makes the intention of your posts difficult to grasp, you are still doing a better job then I would be trying to talk to you in your language.  Saying that, this is an international forum which is in English.  Knowing English or being able to translate to and from English is kind of a prerequisite especially if you are arguing a position and are trying to convince others.  I've taken basic Spanish courses but I'm nowhere near good enough at it to go to a theist forum website that is in Spanish and try to convince them to change their position.  I wouldn't even try no matter what translation software I have or how many Spanish to English dictionaries I own.  The language barrier would be horrible to cross and a lot of the meanings of the posts will be lost in translation.  Hopefully I've cleared this up for you.

Now if you want someone to pose a question about the title I can do it for you.  First off i'm going to be referring to the god of Christianity because in your title you used the capital "G" which refers to a specific god.  Now I personally think that Christians should revise their concept of God to an imaginary being created by bronze age barbarians.  The only way that he shouldn't be considered imaginary is if there is testable evidence to support him.  Can you provide such evidence?  Otherwise this is an exercise in futility.

[Arctonyx]

Why are you even asking us this question? It's redundant, revising the image of God would not make it any more palatable to those of us who have already looked at the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that any kind of supernatural deity is extremely unlikely. Asking me to revise my view of leprechauns to see if I'd be more likely to believe in them then, would have a similar effect. No matter how much you modify your deity, the fact that it's a deity is what bothers us, not because we don't like the idea (although some might) but because it is extremely unlikely. And the evidence for such a being, frankly, is lacking completely.

[Yrreg]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion that any evidence for the existence of God is unlikely.

I just want to share with you the idea that lack of evidence on your part is not any definitive evidence of the absence of God.

Critical thinking says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


And I also just want to share with you that man's resources are not sufficient to know everything exhaustively as to declare with complete certainty that there is no God.

If I were an atheist I would be amenable to the impasse between me an atheist and others who are theists, namely, that for me as an atheist it is already justified for myself that there is no God, but for theists it is also justified for them that there is God.



Yrreg

[iNow]

I just want to share with you the idea that lack of evidence on your part is not any definitive evidence of the absence of God.

Critical thinking says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quite right, but... from what I can tell... nobody here has posited any such thing.  The position is merely that the absence of evidence causes us to question the rationality of those who have belief.  We find the evidence in favor of existence for god to be rather lacking, conspicuously absent, and hence choose to move on with our lives as if there is no such thing as god... that it's existence is little more than a popular myth based on wishful thinking and nothing more.  Now, to be clear, most of us are perfectly willing to revisit the idea of existence if quality evidence is put forth,  but we're not willing to waste a bunch of time regarding the possibility... or changing our lives to please this supposed omnipotent entity... until said evidence is proffered.

In my estimation...  Critical thinking says that those who choose to believe in god and who choose to ascribe him/her/it with all sorts of powers and causative abilities are the ones with the weakest position... a completely baseless, empty, and hollow position at that... precisely because of this absence of evidence which you've so openly conceded above.

[hismikeness]

Critical thinking says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Uh, I'm not sure who this Critical Thinking dude is, buy I'm pretty sure Carl Sagan said that.  

And I also just want to share with you that man's resources are not sufficient to know everything exhaustively as to declare with complete certainty that there is no God.

And neither are your (or anyone's) resources sufficient to know everything exhaustively as to declare with complete certainty that there is a God.

Hismikeness

[LoneMateria]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion that any evidence for the existence of God is unlikely.

Its not really an opinion.  When theists say God, they define their god with certain qualities, characteristics, and acomplishments.  When science, logic, and critical thinking dispose of those qualities, characteristics, and acomplishments then any evidence to the contrary becomes even more unlikely.  This is because you are making a claims about what your deity does, says, and will do.  We can test most of these.  Theists once said god made the universe in 7 days, the universe is still changing to this day 14 billion years later.  Theists once said god made man in his image, well we evolved and continue to evolve thus our "image" is changing.  Theists say the bible is inerrant and it proves their god both of which are false.  After enough of these positive assertions you make about your god are disproved then the probability of that god existing becomes negligible.  Thus any evidence for the existence of your particular god becomes unlikely.

I just want to share with you the idea that lack of evidence on your part is not any definitive evidence of the absence of God.

Critical thinking says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So are you saying that because there is a lack of evidence for Thor or Zeus that they become more probable?  There is a lack of evidence against magic gnomes living under my house does that make the claim that they do live under my house more probable or lend any credibility to the claim?

And I also just want to share with you that man's resources are not sufficient to know everything exhaustively as to declare with complete certainty that there is no God.

If I were an atheist I would be amenable to the impasse between me an atheist and others who are theists, namely, that for me as an atheist it is already justified for myself that there is no God, but for theists it is also justified for them that there is God.



Yrreg

I agree with hismikeness that you can't declare with certainty there there is a god.  That second statement I doubt your honesty because you are violating that from the other side of the argument.  By the way we're still waiting to see the evidence you claim for the existence of a god.  You claim its an opinion that there would be no evidence for a god.  Prove us wrong show us some evidence.  Many atheists adhere to the scientific method and the god department is no exception.  Most of us would believe in a god if there was sufficient evidence.  Show us some evidence.  If your claim is true and your god exists then there would be evidence for him.  Oh and if you present evidence (I don't think you will you've ignored everyone whose asked for it) present it in a way that argues for your god and not anyone else's ^_^

thanx,
your friend LoneMateria ;-p

[Zenrage]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion that any evidence for the existence of God is unlikely.

I just want to share with you the idea that lack of evidence on your part is not any definitive evidence of the absence of God.

Critical thinking says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, Carl Sagan said that and he was wrong. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence when the lack of evidence excludes an alternative possibility without supporting evidence. For example, if a man is shot to death and the forensics show that he was killed with a .38 handgun, then the lack of evidence for the usage of a .45 caliber handgun becomes evidence for the absence of any .45 caliber handgun being used in the event. Scientists usually don't make a mention of this lack of evidence and what it excludes because its A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.

As for evidence against the existence of G/god. We have two biggies.

1. I'm sure many on this site have heard of that all too used painting argument that Ray Comfort likes to upchuck every time he's brought to forum. Its the idea that because we know a painting has a painter that we can deduce that the universe has a creator. The reason this argument fails is because we know HOW a painting is painted. We know how paints, paintbrushes, easels, and other tools are used in the creation of a painting. So why is this relevant in showing God does not exist?

Because for any event in observable history there is a HOW and only after the knowledge of HOW is obtained can we move on to assigning a WHO to the cause of the event, assuming the event did not happen by natural sequences. After the WHO is established can we then learn about the WHY. This is how science, logic and reason work. As opposed to religion which works in the exact opposite direction by first answering "WHY are we here?" and then anthropomorphizing the universe to answer WHO and finally manufacturing mythologies and reinterpreting them regularly via apologists to answer HOW.

As of now, there is no evidence in the HOW the universe was established to suggest any conscious direction either could or even should be involved in the process.

2. We may not have the creation of other universes to compare our own to, but what we DO have are other mythologies and defunct religions to show exactly how man invents gods and other anthropomorphic entities to explain that which it does not understand. And modern day religions (Christianity especially) is no different than any of them.

• Creation myth
• anthropormophized cosmic entity
• deluge myth
• lords and kings having direct relations with the cosmic entity
• heroes of divine lineage performing miraculous acts
• artifacts of divine power
• posthumous immortality myth with rewards and penalties
• end of the world myth

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck inside and out, flies like a duck, craps alike a duck, lays and fertilizes eggs like a duck, any opposition better have some substantial evidence to show that it is not a duck we are dealing with.

And I also just want to share with you that man's resources are not sufficient to know everything exhaustively as to declare with complete certainty that there is no God.

If I were an atheist I would be amenable to the impasse between me an atheist and others who are theists, namely, that for me as an atheist it is already justified for myself that there is no God, but for theists it is also justified for them that there is God.

While I'm sure many agnostics would like to agree with that, you would still be wrong. Mankind's resources are more than capable to provide enough evidence to give a rational conclusion and with the evidence available, the conclusion is there is no G/god. Any "gap" you might might try to bring up that would otherwise lay between rational, theoretical conclusion and 100% mathematical proof is, quite literally, nonsensical.

The reality is agnosticism only applies to hypothetical and theoretical conditions where previous evidence exists to suggest a rational alternative to the proposed notion and establish the requested ambiguity within the answers of either "I don't know" or "I can't know". Agnosticism simply does not apply to conjectural notions where there is no evidence to establish any rational ambiguity (as opposed to the evidence against the existence of G/god I listed above).

As of right now, there is more evidence to suggest that there is no G/god than there is to suggest there is. As such the only rational conclusion is: There is No G/god.

PS. If any agnostics would like to show me that your position is somehow valid, all you have to do is provide rational evidence that God exists to match the rational evidence that he does not in order to establish your sense of ambiguity.