God cannot exist...sue me!

[radicalaggrivation]

Why is it that so many atheists do not firmly commit to a disbelief in God? I guess what I am asking is what is the issue with being a strong atheist? If I just went by the definitions that most people use to describe a god, I have no issue with saying that I know it is false. It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole. I have been baffled by the idea that it is somehow intellectually dishonest to flatly say there is no god. In the same breath people are willing to disbelief other myths with a firm degree of certainty. Am I more intellectually honest if I assert that there is no evidence for the existence of the Jolly Green Giant or can I just say that the damn thing don't exist?

I understand that we do not have all the answers to life and that some people would like to leave this possibility open just in case. If the universe or multi-verse was banged into existence because of some ultimate source of infinite information it still would not lend credence to the popular myths people believe today. So aren't we really giving such irrational beliefs too much middle ground to work on by not simply calling it what it is? The only time there should be any uncertainty is when we are dealing with some none popular or metaphysical prime mover. As it stands there should be no philosophical seesawing on the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim God. It's a fairy tale. I don't need to reserve my judgment on flying reindeer and I don't need to do so for the current iteration of the god myths. They are not real.

[Stevil]

Is your stance proof based or is it a belief?
If it is proof based then please present the proof. I feel the vast majority of people on this site would be happy to finally have some decent proof then they too can become strong atheists, really I feel alot of people want to get to strong atheist position they just haven't learned of the proof necesary for them.

[radicalaggrivation]

I think Epicurus' argument shows the logical impossibility of the Judeo-Christian god. Since the majority of believers subscribed to some version of that, it is safe to use this argument to discount their claims. Even if your position is not strong atheism, my point is that we lend too much credibility to the idea of god by pretending that we have some responsibility to prove it wrong. I do not need proof that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. I don't need a special branch of flying spaghetti monster strong atheism to discount the idea with a certainty.

I guess my complaint revolves around the confusing nature of refuting god claims. There can never be proof that something does not exist. But do we really need to have material proof to be certain that the sky god/eternal father figure myths are untrue or do we just need enough common sense?

[Will]

The Jolly Green Giant actually exists. I can prove it with verifiable, testable evidence and repeatable testing. I'm not joking. There's a man living outside of Stockholm with gigantism who also has a melanin mutation which makes his skin appear to be a shade of green.

Here is an article about him from the Guardian, and here is a link to the study on gigantism of which he was a volunteer.


Did you click on the links? Did you, for one second, realize that there may be evidence for something which you were simply unaware of? That's because you also understand the concept that one cannot disprove a negative.

[Inevitable Droid]

It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

[Tank]

It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

Nicely put and well said.

[Achronos]

"But if you say, "Show me thy God," I would reply, "Show me yourself, and I will show you my God." Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing, and the ears of your heart able to hear; for as those who look with the eyes of the body perceive earthly objects and what concerns this life, and discriminate at the same time between things that differ, whether light or darkness, white or black, deformed or beautiful, well-proportioned and symmetrical or disproportioned and awkward, or monstrous or mutilated; and as in like manner also, by the sense of hearing, we discriminate either sharp, or deep, or sweet sounds; so the same holds good regarding the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart, that it is by them we are able to behold God. For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also thou, O man, hast the eyes of thy soul overspread by thy sins and evil deeds. As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity. All these things, then, involve you in darkness, as when a filmy defluxion on the eyes prevents one from beholding the light of the sun: thus also do iniquities, 0 man, involve you in darkness, so that you cannot see God. "-St.Theophilus of Antioch

[Velma]

"But if you say, "Show me thy God," I would reply, "Show me yourself, and I will show you my God." Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing, and the ears of your heart able to hear; for as those who look with the eyes of the body perceive earthly objects and what concerns this life, and discriminate at the same time between things that differ, whether light or darkness, white or black, deformed or beautiful, well-proportioned and symmetrical or disproportioned and awkward, or monstrous or mutilated; and as in like manner also, by the sense of hearing, we discriminate either sharp, or deep, or sweet sounds; so the same holds good regarding the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart, that it is by them we are able to behold God. For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also thou, O man, hast the eyes of thy soul overspread by thy sins and evil deeds. As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity. All these things, then, involve you in darkness, as when a filmy defluxion on the eyes prevents one from beholding the light of the sun: thus also do iniquities, 0 man, involve you in darkness, so that you cannot see God. "-St.Theophilus of Antioch

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like a combination of "You can't see god because you don't want to" and "You can't see god because you are evil."

I think the first is refuted by the fact that most atheist are quite open to evidence that such a thing exists - we just don't accept a self-contradictory text that shows little understanding of how the real world works.  The second should be refuted by your own holy book - isn't that why Jesus supposedly came to earth in the first place?

[Recusant]

But if you say... you cannot see God.

From the same work of polemic:

A fluent tongue and an elegant style afford pleasure and such praise as vainglory delights in, to wretched men who have been corrupted in mind; the lover of truth does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the real matter of the speech, what it is, and what kind it is.

In examining what "the real matter" of the quote supplied by Achronos is, it's hard to escape the conclusion that it's nothing more than preaching, but let's go ahead and look at it anyway.

The obvious absurdity of "eyes of your soul" and "ears of your heart" can be most charitably overlooked as poetic language, though it's possible that writing in the second century of the common era as he was, Theophilus might have thought he was speaking of real parts of the human anatomy.

This passage seems to be describing a type of Catch-22.  One cannot see the Christian god "unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity."  However, according to Christian doctrine, the only way to be cleansed of impurity is to be "washed in the blood of the Lamb" (accept Jesus as your personal savior and ask forgiveness from him).  If you haven't accepted Christianity, you can't see their god, but if you can't see their god then why accept Christianity rather than any number of other religions, or none?

[Stevil]

However, according to Christian doctrine, the only way to be cleansed of impurity is to be "washed in the blood of the Lamb" (accept Jesus as your personal savior and ask forgiveness from him).  If you haven't accepted Christianity, you can't see their god, but if you can't see their god then why accept Christianity rather than any number of other religions, or none?

It seems to me that a great deal of effort in the bible and in the preachings of Christians (such as Achronos) are with regards to training the audience to accept the bible, the Christian god and Jesus and not to expect or look for proof. The audience will be rewarded for their conviction to their belief without needing the burdon of proof. A huge amount of effort is to get the audience to make a giant leap of faith and then of course the book becomes the word of truth and once that becomes the centre point of logic anything contrary can never make sense.

[Inevitable Droid]

However, according to Christian doctrine, the only way to be cleansed of impurity is to be "washed in the blood of the Lamb" (accept Jesus as your personal savior and ask forgiveness from him).  If you haven't accepted Christianity, you can't see their god, but if you can't see their god then why accept Christianity rather than any number of other religions, or none?

It seems to me that a great deal of effort in the bible and in the preachings of Christians (such as Achronos) are with regards to training the audience to accept the bible, the Christian god and Jesus and not to expect or look for proof. The audience will be rewarded for their conviction to their belief without needing the burdon of proof. A huge amount of effort is to get the audience to make a giant leap of faith and then of course the book becomes the word of truth and once that becomes the centre point of logic anything contrary can never make sense.

Well said - both of you.

Enter the mouth of the dragon, breathe his exhale, and you will know his scent.  And then he will close his mouth, and you will know his belly.

On another thread I accidentally misspelled denomination as, demonination.  I corrected it via the edit function, but not before noticing the irony of it, and contemplating the insightfulness of it.

[Gawen]

More crack pottery:

You will say, then, to me, "Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God." Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable.

Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve..., but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe.

I think what radicalaggrivation wrote was well done.

[Inevitable Droid]

I think what radicalaggrivation wrote was well done.

To some extent I agree, which is why I've changed my worldview designation to Anticreed.  With regard to the Deist's God I remain agnostic and apathetic, but with regard to theistic creeds I am neither of those things, as I declare theistic creeds to be false and I declare them to be dangerous.  I've decided that what I'm adamantly against matters more than what I'm apathetic toward.

[Stevil]

But do we really need to have material proof to be certain that the sky god/eternal father figure myths are untrue or do we just need enough common sense?

I think the majority of atheists put the burdon of proof onto the theory side of the equation, we are not really in search for proof that there is no god although if this proof comes along we will embrace it, just as some of us will embrace proof of god if some should come along instead.

In the realities of life, what is the real difference between being strong atheist and weak atheist? It is not like there is a book of morals and how tos that strong atheists live by but weak atheists don't. The only difference I can see is a personal declaration of a label. Yes, strong atheists do have a belief where as weak atheists don't. Yes it would be hypocritical for strong atheists to ask theists for proof behind their beliefs. But ultimately beliefs can and do change. If all of a sudden there was some irrefutable proof that a particular god or group of gods exist then the weak atheists will become theists and say, here is the proof we have been waiting for. Strong atheists will become theists and say their previous beliefs were misguided.

Really I don't see any differing consequence between people taking strong and weak atheistic stances. Theists would deem us all as immoral.

[radicalaggrivation]

It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

Even with the minimalist approach that Deists take I believe there is still no need to treat it with an agnostic point of view. We do not know what began the universe but even if we say that a god did it, there is no logical way to say a god did it knowingly or with purpose. If the prime mover is just an initial spark to set things off then why call it god? The term god refers to a deity that is in control of the universe or directly invested in the universe. If that is the case a Deistic view of our origin is irrelevant to the question of a god. If they posit anymore attributes to this entity then we can talk, otherwise we could just call this idea the "source".

"But if you say, "Show me thy God," I would reply, "Show me yourself, and I will show you my God." Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing, and the ears of your heart able to hear; for as those who look with the eyes of the body perceive earthly objects and what concerns this life, and discriminate at the same time between things that differ, whether light or darkness, white or black, deformed or beautiful, well-proportioned and symmetrical or disproportioned and awkward, or monstrous or mutilated; and as in like manner also, by the sense of hearing, we discriminate either sharp, or deep, or sweet sounds; so the same holds good regarding the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart, that it is by them we are able to behold God. For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also thou, O man, hast the eyes of thy soul overspread by thy sins and evil deeds. As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity. All these things, then, involve you in darkness, as when a filmy defluxion on the eyes prevents one from beholding the light of the sun: thus also do iniquities, 0 man, involve you in darkness, so that you cannot see God. "-St.Theophilus of Antioch

It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel. First off this whole, overly long, quote is not appropriate to the conversation at hand and secondly, you have just insulted the majority of the people in this forum. We come to this forum to get away from the preaching madness and sweaty sermons, by charletens veiled as conduits of the Lord. It truly baffles me that Christians are convinced that everyone should buy their snake oil with no proof of its effects. Here is a news flash for you- THE MAJORITY OF NON-BELIEVERS WERE ONCE BELIEVERS! Now there is some shocking revelation for you. We did look sincerely and we did seek with open minds. Looking deeply into your false religion is what converts people. It certainly played a huge role in my renunciation of faith. So to be blunt, please take your self serving arrogance and ignorance of atheists and shove it were God won't see.