Happy Atheist Forum

I think the name God is not so acceptable to atheists, because they associate it with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or leprechauns, etc.


I like to ask what names in place of God would you atheists suggest to be more acceptable to yourselves?

What about higher power all in lower case, which is also believed in by some scientists?

And also grand architect of the universe, all in lower case, which is the name for the builder of the physical universe according to Masons.


But I really have to read more about the higher power of a sort from scientists in order to know what they genuinely mean by that term.

And also from Masons about the grand architect of the universe.


What do you guys here, both atheists and theists say, but specially atheists?

Anyway, if you atheists here want to contribute a name to take the place of God of the Christians, please feel free as far as I am concerned.




Yrreg

Atheists do not believe there are deities, whatever words you use to describe them. That's what atheist means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). I personally have no problem with you using the terms God, deity or higher power. Grand architect is maybe a little confusing to me.

Quote from: "Yrreg"I like to ask what names in place of God would you atheists suggest to be more acceptable to yourselves?
...
Anyway, if you atheists here want to contribute a name to take the place of God of the Christians, please feel free as far as I am concerned.

Call him/her/it what you want. A deity by any other name would have the same amount of evidentiary support.

If you want us to participate in the official naming ceremony though, do be sure to let us know when you have some evidence to support your empty assertions.

Edit: Although, pending such evidence, might I suggest "Roy"?

Quote from: "Karras"Call him/her/it what you want.

Or him/her/it/them? Can't go leaving out the polytheists =).

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Karras"Call him/her/it what you want.

Or him/her/it/them? Can't go leaving out the polytheists =).

Point taken.

In that case, might I also suggest that we tentatively reserve the names Larry, Moe, and Curly, in case of this eventuality? Perhaps Stan and Oliver as well, if three names turns out to be insufficient?

Quote from: "Karras"In that case, might I also suggest that we tentatively reserve the names Larry, Moe, and Curly, in case of this eventuality? Perhaps Stan and Oliver as well, if three names turns out to be insufficient?

And Fido and Tiger for dog and cat deities.

And )£*%%&£*"^~@? for the ineffable spirit?

Quote from: "Karras"And )£*%%&£*"^~@? for the ineffable spirit?

Sacrilege! She's the Sublime Ineffable Spirit (with caps).

She? Not quite so ineffable then.

Quote from: "Karras"She? Not quite so ineffable then.

You're right. We know it exists only because it's essence can never be described. My bad.

Quote from: "Yrreg"I like to ask what names in place of God would you atheists suggest to be more acceptable to yourselves?

Yrreg

Atheists don't dismiss god because of the name. Changing the name of god is not going to make the idea of god more acceptable to atheists.

Do you think that if we change the name of "Atheists" it will be more acceptable to christians? Perhaps christians would accept atheism if we called it "Acceptors of Non-existent Proof for the Concept of Invisible Being" or "Certain Humans Who Desire Real Evidence of Invisible Beings."

All those names are too weak to sufficiently describe such an awesome power. I prefer Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.

I prefer sounds Only I can hear.

At this rate, I think Gerry may become a little too emotional to participate in this thread also. Might I suggest, Gerry, that you try a lie down in a darkened room?

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"All those names are too weak to sufficiently describe such an awesome power. I prefer Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.

That would suck ass to say in conversation >.<

I agree you label your imaginary deity whatever you want,  we will put an "a" in front of it when we refer to ourselves.  Changing the name doesn't change the problems with the deity.  Changing the name only adds confusion to groups who share your views.  The Christian god, the Muslim god, and the Jewish god are all the same god but they have different names and very slight differences in their character.  However claiming the god has a different name infuriates many theists.  If you have a conversation with a Christian and refer to god as Allah it will piss a lot of them off.  Tell Muslims that their god is YHWH (Yah-way or however its spelled now) and they will get equally offended.

QuoteI think the name God is not so acceptable to atheists, because they associate it with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or leprechauns, etc.

Instead of changing the name to attempt to solve this made up problem lets look and see where the problem is.  Lack of evidence backed up by impossible claims.  If there was evidence for a god then it would become an accepted scientific theory.  Its really that simple.  Doing some name change isn't going to fix this.

Quote from: "Yrreg"I think the name God is not so acceptable to atheists, because they associate it with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or leprechauns, etc.

I like to ask what names in place of God would you atheists suggest to be more acceptable to yourselves?

What about higher power all in lower case, which is also believed in by some scientists?

And also grand architect of the universe, all in lower case, which is the name for the builder of the physical universe according to Masons.

But I really have to read more about the higher power of a sort from scientists in order to know what they genuinely mean by that term.

And also from Masons about the grand architect of the universe.

What do you guys here, both atheists and theists say, but specially atheists?

Anyway, if you atheists here want to contribute a name to take the place of God of the Christians, please feel free as far as I am concerned.

Yrreg

Finally, a question not framed as a double negative or a litote!

Very easy to answer, but you already know the answer. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods, period. Doesn't matter what name you give the god or gods. They simply do not exist. There is no need to prove they don't exist. The burden of proof is on those who say that a god or gods exist.

You don't mind any name for God, just that it be supported by evidence.


That is very good.

But I do have a problem, who is or are to decide that the evidence presented by theists are relevant and sufficient for the ascertainment of God's existence?

Because in human affairs of certain kinds unless some persons also fellow humans acceptable to contending sides make a final determination that is binding on both sides, the conflict can go on and on and on endlessly though all the grounds have been covered and all angles and nooks of the issue have been dealt with, so that theists can claim that insofar as humans can be certain God has been established to be in fact existing, while atheists till insist there is no relevant and much less sufficient evidence.

That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, 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.

As usual no atheists want to even show favorable regard to my proposal, instead they put up only objections; and when one of them, curiosityandthecat, was willing to discuss with me about the grievances of atheists, I did not see him any further lending his presence to that thread, after posting his message about being amenable.



Yrreg

'Imaginary being' or 'imaginary beings' would be better than the word 'god'.  That's why people equate god with invisible pink unicorns, etc, because they are also imaginary beings.  Perhaps 'fantasy being(s)' or 'fantastical being(s)' would be better.  Some might prefer 'mythological creature(s)' or something similar.

Quote from: "Yrreg"theists can claim that insofar as humans can be certain God has been established to be in fact existing

Yrreg

Since you are a theist, offer your proof of god's existence.

I nominate myself as the leader of the impartial and impeachable counsel. I will decide.

1, 2, 3...GO!

Quote from: "Yrreg"But I do have a problem, who is or are to decide that the evidence presented by theists are relevant and sufficient for the ascertainment of God's existence?

We want evidence, not feelings.  This means no post hoc and no "I once was lost,  but now I'm found."

After that, you really just have the watchmaker argument, which is basically a blind shot-in-the-dark hypothesis that doesn't even support any specific God, just the deist god.

Ancient scriptures and self-fulfilling prophesies also do not count, nor do vague passages that could be interpreted to mean anything.

Example:
And [I swear] by the night when it draws in, and by the dawn when it breathes in. (Qur'an, 81:17-18)

This supposedly describes the process of photosynthesis.

Quote from: "Yrreg"That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, 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.

First of all, don't respond to this or any other comment till after you have addressed McQ's comments towards you in the other thread.  This is red so you will see it.

That said, why do we need to create a panel?  This is a topic that has been discussed amongst philosophers ever since people started thinking about a god (obviously the discussion has grown more sophisticated over time).  It is more than obvious that agreement on who has the most reason is unlikely.  However, the more reasonable theists and atheist alike don't tend to care about what others believe as long as they aren't pushing their views on society.

Quote from: "Yrreg"But I do have a problem, who is or are to decide that the evidence presented by theists are relevant and sufficient for the ascertainment of God's existence?

Generally, people with a given education or expertise is to decide. Most people on this forum have much more than a passing knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics, sciences that are verifiable. From my experience, when someone presents evidence for god or gods, it's entirely unscientific. Everything from "Look at the trees" to "the Earth is 6,000 years old" really can't stand up to the scientific method, which is itself verifiable.

Please don't take it personally that we don't believe, it's not much different than you not believing in Zeus (I'm assuming you don't believe in Zeus).

Quote from: "Yrreg"Because in human affairs of certain kinds unless some persons also fellow humans acceptable to contending sides make a final determination that is binding on both sides, the conflict can go on and on and on endlessly though all the grounds have been covered and all angles and nooks of the issue have been dealt with, so that theists can claim that insofar as humans can be certain God has been established to be in fact existing, while atheists till insist there is no relevant and much less sufficient evidence.

I am only bound to my understanding of the universe and the facts at hand, as are you. Interpretation need only be independently and objectively verified to determine if some bias is in play.

Quote from: "Yrreg"That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, 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.

Hold on a second. Is the argument about objective facts or about reasons to be atheist/theist? The former means nothing but science and logic, the latter can certainly include subjective experience and interpretation.

Quote from: "Yrreg"As usual no atheists want to even show favorable regard to my proposal, instead they put up only objections; and when one of them, curiosityandthecat, was willing to discuss with me about the grievances of atheists, I did not see him any further lending his presence to that thread, after posting his message about being amenable.

Yrreg

Oh come now, you must realize that this forum is bombarded with preachers and trolls masquerading as people wanting an open dialogue almost daily. Any mistrust or defensiveness is based on our experience. With all due respect, your OP has in it a fundamental misunderstanding of atheismâ€"that we don't like the name god. It's not that at all. We simply find no compelling evidence to believe in the concept. You could call god whatever you want, but as long as you're speaking of an omniscient, omnipotent creator, it's the same thing. A rose by any other name.

Another quality post Will. It might be directed to a deaf ear but I'm listening.

Quote from: "AlP"Another quality post Will. It might be directed to a deaf ear but I'm listening.

I agree with both statements.  Yrreg was posed a lot of questions in the last thread which he just ignored (By both me and others).   He seemed like was just looking for a post that would agree with him, when he realized that a post wouldn't he'd stop reading it.  I've covered this flawed concept of letting truth be decided by committee in the last thread and he obviously didn't read it.  At least Whitney is on our side and doesn't want this to turn into the last thread.  w00t go Whitney!!!

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Yrreg"I think the name God is not so acceptable to atheists, because they associate it with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or leprechauns, etc.

I like to ask what names in place of God would you atheists suggest to be more acceptable to yourselves?

What about higher power all in lower case, which is also believed in by some scientists?

And also grand architect of the universe, all in lower case, which is the name for the builder of the physical universe according to Masons.

But I really have to read more about the higher power of a sort from scientists in order to know what they genuinely mean by that term.

And also from Masons about the grand architect of the universe.

What do you guys here, both atheists and theists say, but specially atheists?

Anyway, if you atheists here want to contribute a name to take the place of God of the Christians, please feel free as far as I am concerned.

Yrreg

Finally, a question not framed as a double negative or a litote!

Very easy to answer, but you already know the answer. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods, period. Doesn't matter what name you give the god or gods. They simply do not exist. There is no need to prove they don't exist. The burden of proof is on those who say that a god or gods exist.

I am responding to you, McQ, because I have received a request from Whitney to respond to you before I respond to him on his post.

You see, McQ, I am into the concept of God, and you people keep on harping on the existence of God.

Can we just keep to the concept of God?

There, that is my response to your post.

Now, is that a violation of the agreement that I want to talk about the concept of God as understood by Christians, but you and every atheists here want to talk about the existence of God which they insist does not exist, is that a violation of the agreement I accepted on registering here to be a member of this forum?

It is very clear to me that you people are insisting that I don't even talk about the concept of God as understood by Christians.

Is that being scientific?



Yrreg

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Yrreg"That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, 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.

First of all, don't respond to this or any other comment till after you have addressed McQ's comments towards you in the other thread.  This is red so you will see it.

That said, why do we need to create a panel?  This is a topic that has been discussed amongst philosophers ever since people started thinking about a god (obviously the discussion has grown more sophisticated over time).  It is more than obvious that agreement on who has the most reason is unlikely.  However, the more reasonable theists and atheist alike don't tend to care about what others believe as long as they aren't pushing their views on society.

Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

-------------------------

Whitney, I must commend you, because I think you are the most powerful person in this forum, some kind of a Christian God here insofar as being banned here is concerned or being to put it in concrete terms, thrown out...

Still you have conducted yourself in a manner which shows that you have been throughout my presence and participation here acting rationally instead of passionately against me.

Thanks, and I must say kudos to your scientific mind and heart and attitude toward me, testimony of which is I am still here and still writing at this very moment.



Yrreg

Quote from: "Yrreg"Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

Do you live under a rock Gerry?

You can hardly miss some representatives of Christianity pushing their views. Here's a few examples:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Not that it is restricted to Christianity, though it does seem to be largely them and Islam who are so aggressive in their recruitment tactics. Jews typically seem to be happy as a more exclusive club and you don't tend to hear much out of Sikhs or Hindus either, at least not outside of their native communities.

Okay, shall we now go or return to the topic of this thread, "How atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God?"

And remember I am just into the concept of God, not into the factual existence of God.

I mentioned that scientists, some of them, which some can be many or few, accept the concept of a higher power.

And I also mentioned that Masons accept the concept of the grand architect of the universe.

What do scientists understand by a higher power?

I have not read on them writing about their concept of a higher power, but from my knowledge of the English language it is obvious that it is a power (search English dictionaries please if you have to on what is power) that is more than any humans know about, say, like the Christian God or perhaps lesser, but still higher than any power above the powers atheists know and live under, for example, the law of universal gravitation.

About the grand architect of the universe of the Masons, again I have not read on what they with great precision mean by that designation, but I am sure anyone with a knowledge of English that enables them to read newspapers intelligently know what it means, namely, to put it in simple concrete English, builder of the universe (see universe in English dictionaries for people who don't know what other peoples using English are talking about with the word universe).

Okay, tell me, atheists here, what do you think about the higher power accepted by some scientists and the grand architect of the universe accepted by Masons.

Remember, I am talking about the concepts, not the presence of anything in factual existence corresponding to the concepts.


Please also contribute your ideas on how to revise the concept of the Christian God, okay?

So that it will be acceptable to you as atheists, that is namely the concept only, please, but not the existence to be corresponding to the concept.


You will tell me that atheists as you are you don't have any belief in God or gods.

But you still have a brain which can think about what kind of a concept you want for a Christian God, if you don't like the concept of the Christian God known to every Christian who knows his Christian faith.

You want me to repeat again what is the common concept of God for all Christians?

Here:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

You don't like that concept of the Christian God? Then tell me what concepts you want of the Christian God or how you would like to revise it.





Yrreg

Let me ask you this, do you really think that Christians would accept their God being redefined into something else, just to pander to atheists?

You seem to be so keen on focusing on the "creator" part of the God concept but how about this one: "genocidal"?

The God of the Bible both commits and encourages genocide in several biblical stories. That all manner of hand waving apologetics have been used to justify this does not really help. The God described in the Christian Bible is a pretty unpleasant character. Now even if you can find enough Christians willing to redefine their God into something more palatable, this can only really be accomplished by removing vast swathes of the Bible. Do you honestly think this is likely to happen? More to the point, do you honestly think atheists could make it happen, even if we want to?

It could also be argued that Allah is more problematic than your Christian God, though I expect Muslims would be even more resistant to any attempt (either from without or within) to redefine him.

Quote from: "Karras"

Quote from: "Yrreg"Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

Do you live under a rock Gerry?

You can hardly miss some representatives of Christianity pushing their views. Here's a few examples:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Not that it is restricted to Christianity, though it does seem to be largely them and Islam who are so aggressive in their recruitment tactics. Jews typically seem to be happy as a more exclusive club and you don't tend to hear much out of Sikhs or Hindus either, at least not outside of their native communities.

I am in the Philippines, as I said of Chinese ethnicity but Philippine nationality.

We have a democracy here and I learned in school that in a democracy people can talk about anything that is not libelous on other people, but don't touch anyone's nose without his permission, and about political, religious, moral, whatever, artistic, even how to raise kids, they can talk until their lungs get exhausted or write until their fingers get numb, and get their views published any ways and means they can command, but the moment anyone starts kicking any other person to get his views put into practice, he is going to get arrested and put behind bars, for the safety of society and yes the preservation of democracy in our country.

And we in the Philippines try to emulate Americans in the practice of democracy, though we put more emphasis on demos and less on kratia, that is the trouble with our peoples here I grant you that.




Yrreg

Quote from: "Yrreg"Okay, tell me, atheists here, what do you think about the higher power accepted by some scientists and the grand architect of the universe accepted by Masons.

Remember, I am talking about the concepts, not the presence of anything in factual existence corresponding to the concepts.


Please also contribute your ideas on how to revise the concept of the Christian God, okay?

So that it will be acceptable to you as atheists, that is namely the concept only, please, but not the existence to be corresponding to the concept.


You will tell me that atheists as you are you don't have any belief in God or gods.

But you still have a brain which can think about what kind of a concept you want for a Christian God, if you don't like the concept of the Christian God known to every Christian who knows his Christian faith.

You want me to repeat again what is the common concept of God for all Christians?

Here:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

You don't like that concept of the Christian God? Then tell me what concepts you want of the Christian God or how you would like to revise it.





Yrreg

Don't conflate something like physics with an anthropomorphic god.

Also, don't pull that M5 modal logic crap about how if you can imagine something as being true in a possible universe then it must be true.

Also also, it doesn't matter what atheists want for the concept of a Christian god (if that even makes sense). It'd be like discussing what a reader wants about an author's characters: not his or her responsibility or place. If Christians want to worship a toaster and consider that god, fine. They're still wrong.

You're concerned with pointless details.

The best way atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God is to make them atheists.

[/thread]

Quote from: "Yrreg"Okay, shall we now go or return to the topic of this thread, "How atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God?"

I don't know that we should have any say, to be honest. It's your creator, do with him as you wish. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable if a Hindu person asked you to help shape the definition of Shiva? The way atheists conceptualize god is very similar to the way most Christians would conceptualize Shiva: it's a deity that someone else worships.

Quote from: "Yrreg"I mentioned that scientists, some of them, which some can be many or few, accept the concept of a higher power.

And I also mentioned that Masons accept the concept of the grand architect of the universe.

What do scientists understand by a higher power?

Your syntax is interesting.

About 8% of scientists in the US are Christian, if Neil deGrasse Tyson was correct. As to how their faith and knowledge interact, you'd have to ask them. Maybe they've found a method of compartmentalization, maybe they've found a way for them to even compliment each other, or maybe they live in turmoil, I really don't know. I suspect it's a combination.

Quote from: "Yrreg"I have not read on them writing about their concept of a higher power, but from my knowledge of the English language it is obvious that it is a power (search English dictionaries please if you have to on what is power) that is more than any humans know about, say, like the Christian God or perhaps lesser, but still higher than any power above the powers atheists know and live under, for example, the law of universal gravitation.

About the grand architect of the universe of the Masons, again I have not read on what they with great precision mean by that designation, but I am sure anyone with a knowledge of English that enables them to read newspapers intelligently know what it means, namely, to put it in simple concrete English, builder of the universe (see universe in English dictionaries for people who don't know what other peoples using English are talking about with the word universe).

Okay, tell me, atheists here, what do you think about the higher power accepted by some scientists and the grand architect of the universe accepted by Masons.

I think it's based on an ancient archetype, I think there are common traits, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, along with the role of "Creator", which suggests massive complexity and supernaturality (I know it's not a word, but say it out loud a few times). The concept really doesn't matter all that much to me personally.

Quote from: "Yrreg"Please also contribute your ideas on how to revise the concept of the Christian God, okay?

I think that pantheism is an interesting way to conceptualize the Christian god. Pantheism is the belief system that god is the universe; every bit of matter, energy, and scientific principle in existence is god. But it doesn't necesarily make the concept any more or less palatable, speaking as an atheist.

What would be your goal of re-conceptualizing god for atheists? Wouldn't that be like re-conceptualizing Zeus for Christians? Would revising the concept of Zeus do anything for you personally?

Quote from: "Yrreg"

Quote from: "Karras"

Quote from: "Yrreg"Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

Do you live under a rock Gerry?

You can hardly miss some representatives of Christianity pushing their views. Here's a few examples:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Not that it is restricted to Christianity, though it does seem to be largely them and Islam who are so aggressive in their recruitment tactics. Jews typically seem to be happy as a more exclusive club and you don't tend to hear much out of Sikhs or Hindus either, at least not outside of their native communities.

I am in the Philippines, as I said of Chinese ethnicity but Philippine nationality.

We have a democracy here and I learned in school that in a democracy people can talk about anything that is not libelous on other people, but don't touch anyone's nose without his permission, and about political, religious, moral, whatever, artistic, even how to raise kids, they can talk until their lungs get exhausted or write until their fingers get numb, and get their views published any ways and means they can command, but the moment anyone starts kicking any other person to get his views put into practice, he is going to get arrested and put behind bars, for the safety of society and yes the preservation of democracy in our country.

And we in the Philippines try to emulate Americans in the practice of democracy, though we put more emphasis on demos and less on kratia, that is the trouble with our peoples here I grant you that.




Yrreg

I assume you have rocks in the Philippines, Gerry?

I am fully aware of freedom of speech and that concept does allow people to try and push their view onto others. Unless you are living under one of your Philippino rocks, you cannot miss the fact that Christians and other religious denominations often do try and push their views onto others. If you think that this will get you arrested, you clearly do not understand freedom of speech at all.

Quote from: "Karras"Let me ask you this, do you really think that Christians would accept their God being redefined into something else, just to pander to atheists?

[...]

I am a rational theist and a Christian.

To be honest I am rational first, theist second, and Chrsitian third.


So, will you just as an atheist give me some ideas how you want the Christian God to be revised as to the concept?



Yrreg

Quote from: "Yrreg"

Quote from: "Karras"Let me ask you this, do you really think that Christians would accept their God being redefined into something else, just to pander to atheists?

[...]

I am a rational theist and a Christian.

To be honest I am rational first, theist second, and Chrsitian third.


So, will you just as an atheist give me some ideas how you want the Christian God to be revised as to the concept?



Yrreg

Do you speak for Christians, Gerry?

Yrreg, well, I really wanted you to respond to McQ's comments in the other thread so that we know you understand why you were issued previous warnings.  Anyway, just make sure you read over the rules and avoid making assumptions about what atheists do and don't believe (being that the only thing all atheists have in common is non-belief in a god).

Quote from: "Yrreg"

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

You don't like that concept of the Christian God? Then tell me what concepts you want of the Christian God or how you would like to revise it.

Well, the Christian God is so much more than that...what you described above is more like the deist concept of god.  Christians (and any other religion) have to tack on various qualities and actions to their gods.  The Christian God is also claimed to be loving, jealous, vengeful, the creator of good and evil, a part of the "trinity," etc. etc.  Its these details that make the Christian God not only nonsensical but also something which could be considered to be very anthropomorphic (a quality we would expect for a god concept which is created by humans) and unjust.  If you chop down the Christian God to being only your above mentioned definition, it wouldn't be the Christian God concept, it would just be what the word "god" is intended to refer to.

I get the impression here that as atheists you have the commitment to not even think about how you can revise the concept of God of the Christians?


Is that being scientific?

Suppose you try the scientific method on the concept, just- the concept, and see how far you will get to the analysis of the concept of God from Christians.

Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Yrreg

Quote from: "Yrreg"Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Your definition is woefully lacking as a description of the Christian God, Gerry.

Now, please answer my question. Do you speak for Christians?

Quote from: "Yrreg"I get the impression here that as atheists you have the commitment to not even think about how you can revise the concept of God of the Christians?


Is that being scientific?

Suppose you try the scientific method on the concept, just- the concept, and see how far you will get to the analysis of the concept of God from Christians.

Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Yrreg

Did you not read my post? In this thread and the others you've participated in, you have conveniently ignored any post that may answer your questions, and instead simply moved on to another, similar question or claimed to want to start over.

I speak for myself as a rational theist Christian.

Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Whitney, you say that the Christian God is more than that.

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

And I know your self-description as atheist, you lack belief in God or gods whatever.

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

Quote from: "Yrreg"I speak for myself as a rational theist Christian.

Then Gerry, perhaps you can tell us what value there is in discussing it with you when you only speak for yourself and have already repeatedly demonstrated that you are not looking for a rational discussion?

Quote from: "Yrreg"And I know your self-description as atheist, you lack belief in God or gods whatever.

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.

And there we have it.

Everyone should recognize this for what it is.

Here are my revisions.

God is a paradox; He is nothing. The paradox is that nothing actually exists.
As nothing, He is Invisible.
As nothing, He is Omnipresent. Nothing exists everywhere.
As nothing, He is a cause of every event. He is the only cause that does not affect the outcome.
As nothing, He is Eternal and Immortal. He has existed and will exist for all time.
As nothing, He is the only thing that existed before time began.
As nothing, He is Immutable. His essence does not change because, paradoxically, he has no essence.
As nothing, He is Love. Love is also nothing.
As nothing, He is Spirit. Spirit is also nothing.
As nothing, He is Truth. He is incapable of infidelity.
As nothing, He is Infinite. It is meaningless to ask how many nothings there are. He is beyond counting.
As nothing, He is Holy. As in hole.

Thanks.

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

Quote from: "Yrreg"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

Oh, drop the martyr syndrome!

You (for the most part) refuse to engage other posters in discussion. You seek to set the rules for your threads, yet forums such as this do not work that way. You occasionally preach. Need I go on?

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.  

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "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."

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

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "Chimera"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.  

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

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.

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

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

QuoteCritical 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.  

QuoteAnd 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

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

Quote from: "Yrreg"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?

Quote from: "Yrreg"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

Quote from: "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.

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.

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

There is no evidence that there is an invisible purple chaffinch is sitting on my left shoulder, even thought absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I'd say that a complete lack of evidence makes the likelihood of an invisible purple chaffinch on my left shoulder so low that I do not attempt to look for evidence of such.

Quote from: "Arctonyx"

Quote from: "Yrreg"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.

There is no evidence that there is an invisible purple chaffinch is sitting on my left shoulder, even thought absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I'd say that a complete lack of evidence makes the likelihood of an invisible purple chaffinch on my left shoulder so low that I do not attempt to look for evidence of such.

We can't, faith is faith, unless some pricks decide they want to stick their beliefs in my face I really don't care.

Why do atheists feel the need to help someone revise their concepts?

The same groups complaining about pushy religious types trying to convert them, actually do the same damn thing, so why is it alright for you to try and convert people but not religions?

Quote from: "Grizzly"Why do atheists feel the need to help someone revise their concepts?

The same groups complaining about pushy religious types trying to convert them, actually do the same damn thing, so why is it alright for you to try and convert people but not religions?

Doublethink my friend...doublethink

Quote from: "Grizzly"Why do atheists feel the need to help someone revise their concepts?

The same groups complaining about pushy religious types trying to convert them, actually do the same damn thing, so why is it alright for you to try and convert people but not religions?

Quote from: "-43-"

Quote from: "Grizzly"Why do atheists feel the need to help someone revise their concepts?

The same groups complaining about pushy religious types trying to convert them, actually do the same damn thing, so why is it alright for you to try and convert people but not religions?

Doublethink my friend...doublethink

You both should take the time to actully read the entire thread befre you comment on it. It's obvious from your statement that you haven't

Nope, my internet's sketchy right now.

I might go back and read the whole thing, but probably not. I was just asking a question I was too lazy to make a thread for.

Quote from: "Grizzly"Nope, my internet's sketchy right now.

I might go back and read the whole thing, but probably not. I was just asking a question I was too lazy to make a thread for.

The question is not in tune with the rest of the thread. The original post was made by a Christian NOT an atheist, like you seem to think. Who then proceded to ignore all responses like they hadn't been made the repeatedly ask the same quetions over and over while making some pretty wild and ignorant acusations.

Sounds about right for the internet.

Quote from: "Grizzly"Why do atheists feel the need to help someone revise their concepts?

The same groups complaining about pushy religious types trying to convert them, actually do the same damn thing, so why is it alright for you to try and convert people but not religions?

Why is it considered Atheists trying to convert people by writing on a forum called the 'Happy Atheist Forum', when it takes going door to door by a religious person to be considered trying to convert people?

It's the same thing with 'militant' behaviour, to be a militant religious person I have to blow something up or shoot one. I've been called a militant Atheist because I told some religious people to stop calling at my house early on a Saturday to try and get me to go to church.

Quote from: "Arctonyx"It's the same thing with 'militant' behaviour, to be a militant religious person I have to blow something up or shoot one. I've been called a militant Atheist because I told some religious people to stop calling at my house early on a Saturday to try and get me to go to church.

Your not the only one.  I think they try to use the term "militant atheist" as a derogatory term to get us to shut up when their proselatyzing and preaching doesn't get us to "see the light".  It's basically a a last ditch effort to get us to be quiet about our atheism.  Christians want to reserve the right to preach to us and threaten us with eternal hell fire and say how stupid we are for not believing, but don't want us to say how stupid their beliefs are back.  Last time i was called a militant atheist it was amusing because I quoted the bible to the person and told them if they didn't read their own bible then they are a hypocrite to say that I need to read it and are making shit up saying its the truth since they never read it.  Maybe i'm just an asshole I don't know :-p.

By the way Grizzly if you read more then the title of the thread before posting your opinion you won't look like a jackass. ^_^

Quote from: "Grizzly"Why do atheists feel the need to help someone revise their concepts?

Hint: this thread was started by a theist.....

Quote from: "Yrreg"

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

You don't like that concept of the Christian God? Then tell me what concepts you want of the Christian God or how you would like to revise it.

god is the maker of humans whom humans made up before they had enough intelligence to understand that they made god and god did not make them.

If that doesn't work:

god is an imaginary asshole. Which I don't understand since we have enough real assholes to deal with.

If that doesn't work:

god: the original penal system

If that doesn't work:

You think big brother is bad? Let me introduce you to my god...

I think that if your god existed, this is a very good way of describing it:

Quote from: "Richard Dawkins"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

There ya go. Question answered. You're welcome.

It really doesn't matter whether we like or dislike a particular concept of god.  Our liking or disliking a concept of god makes it no more real.  There are scads of other fantasy things I adore the concept of - fairy godmothers, superheroes, elves, etc. - but it makes them no more real simply because they are pleasing concepts.

Quote from: "-43-"We can't, faith is faith, unless some pricks decide they want to stick their beliefs in my face I really don't care.

Faith is not faith.

Interpersonal faith is the faith that we have with real people and real objects in real environments based on our own experiences. These are the assumptions that James Randi speaks of in his "search for the chimera" speech that he gives.

Religious faith is the trust people have with an invisible sky genie based on events no one can show to have ever existed. The reality is religious faith is nothing more than voluntary schizophrenia.