I had the last four days off and was bored. So I decided to whip something up. I do not apologise for its length. But I am fairly certain that most of you who have the time and patience to read it will find it...ummm...hopefully...good?
Are you sure God does not exist?
What makes you so sure that god does not exist?
What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
Why is there god, rather than no god?
Special pleading is special; an argument that rides the short yellow bus. But to answer those questions I would ask a question: What do theist regard as evidence of non-existence? It doesn't have to be just a God: but of anything. But of God, tell me what criteria you use to determine whether or not it exists, how you check its validity, and if valid, how it applies to said God.
The theist has the burden of proof if a positive claim says that god/s exists, or that the evidence warrants the belief that god/s exists. On the other hand, if a strong atheist says god/s does not exist or that the evidence warrants the belief that god/s do not exist, then the strong atheist has also made a positive claim and also has a burden of proof. I do think that strong atheism is reasonable, supported by logic and defensible.
All religions ask these questions. What they really mean is "Are you sure my God does not exist?" I suspect that if you are not a Mormon, you do not believe in the Mormon God. Perhaps you acknowledge that the Islamic God is the same as the Christian/Jewish God, but reject the polytheism of the Trinity, Hindu, Roman and Greek pantheons, the Pagan Earth gods, the Hawaiian, Fiji, American Indian spirits, and all the other gods, goddesses and spirits you've never heard of.
What theists really need to ask is, 'Why does my definition of and belief in God make no sense to someone who doesn't already believe it?' Simply, it takes faith to believe; an act of faith can be used to believe anything at all. Pay particular attention to the last three words of the prior sentence - anything at all. The easy conclusion is that faith cannot be a valid means to truth because it can be used to believe anything at all. "Faith" should be rejected as valid criteria.
I am 100% certain the omni-everything Judeo-Christian-Islamic god does not exist. The reasons are simple, but here is only one:
1) This god is alleged to be the ultimate in love.
2) This god is alleged to have created everything.
1) & 2) are a logical contradiction; ergo, this god can not exist.
The stories about the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God are nonsensical. Equally are all of the arguments in favor of belief and astoundingly flawed as well. People who use bad arguments have no good reason for their belief. What they must do is present evidence of a non self contradictory god.
It is no coincidence that all of the gods worshiped by humans are all too human; products of human imagination. They have human emotions, human flaws, human personalities; human desires...the same imagination as humans with imaginations. But yet we hear from the theist: "God is a natural power like electricity or a magnet but God's natural power is aware of its existence and has power to create and destroy anything he wants." (A real theist assertion)
This makes the Biblical and Quranic God an imagined comic-book character...without the pictures. Are we able to measure Superman's' powers? Can we measure Gandolf's powers? Alas, we can measure natural powers such as electricity and magnetism. But if a god were a natural power we should be able to measure its effects. Why is it that Superheroes remain hidden behind a mask, not unlike Gods that remain invisible? At least, if Superheroes did exist, we would see them from time to time. Not so with Supernaturals.
"You can not measure all the universe or predictions.", say theists. So what? We can measure and predict the effects of natural forces we know of. What are the effects of the natural force they call god? If it is a force, it must have effects, but I see no sign of any. If it uses force, we should see those effects as well. All the gods men describe and worship seem to be powerless to do anything without all too human special pleading; they all need humans to perform actions on their behalf. What kind of a force is that? An imaginary one.
How can theists know "You can not measure all the universe or predictions.?", but yet make assertions of an omni, invisible existing God? Well, THEY have special knowledge and of course, with special knowledge come special pleading and another ride in the short yellow bus. Yeah but, even if one asserts that some omni, yet vague god exists and does not choose to reveal itself, one must also ask, why would a god that chooses to remain hidden care if humans did not notice it?
Why did the Christian God allow the evidence of his grandest miracles evaporate? Why did this God not care to help the so easily confused and superstitious ancient humans, by not helping with a little personal evidence? There are Sumerian trade documents, legal decrees, religious writings, songs, etc., from 4500 years ago. There have been discoveries where communities have recorded eclipses from 5,000 years ago. We have a continuum of tree ring records going back 10,000 years. What do we have to support the beginning of the world, The Flood, or Joshua's day that stood still? Outside of the Tanakh, nothing. Even most Israeli archeologists have come to the conclusion that the Exodus never happened. Why? There is a lot of absence.
God could have visibly written or redacted the Biblical narratives; that they're not so clumsy and unbelievable. God could have physically helped the Egyptians record a few phrases about the Exodus. Maybe God should have helped ancient Chinese astronomers recording the day the earth stood still. How about finding some datable clay tablets that demonstrate that Daniel was written between 200BCE and 600BCE? How about showing a most clarified and defined prophetic prediction?
People claim the existence of all sorts of creatures, beings and entities for which there is no evidence to validate them. The God that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship is just one in a very, very long list of such claimed beings. They just cannot seem to come to terms with this without resorting to more rides on the short yellow bus. One of these rides is the assertion (without providing any rationality, other than, 'because I say so') about all claimed gods being one and the same, or rather, "There is but one God with a million names". The position is absurd; a defense mechanism some have adopted to protect their irrational beliefs. If this position were true, all religions worship the same god but all of them misunderstand the same god. Sadly, there is an implied "except me" at the end.
Perhaps they have not educated themselves of Cognitive Dissonance. Is Thor the same god they have deluded themselves to believe is real? The claim that Leprechauns and gnomes exist is not an unheard of assertion. Perhaps these spirits are the same God or mayhaps, the same demon? But wait, could it be that God and Satan are the same entity? At any rate, what evidence would convince theists that at the end of rainbows pots of gold are guarded by little, pipe-smoking men clad in green and sporting derby's on the top of their head?
If there was a god who existed, that god would know or should know and be able to provide the evidence that would convince everyone of that god's existence. The fact that I remain unconvinced answers all of the questions above. It would seem possible that a god may exist and equally possible not care whether anyone knows it exists. Of course, the functional difference between such a god and no god at all appears to be nil.
Many theists disagree with other theists definitions. The overriding factor, the ultimate similarity between them all is they cannot provide physical evidence for their gods as defined by each but at the same time show why their assertions and presuppositions masquerading as evidence is more compelling than the others evidence. At this time, the theist must simply admit that their definition is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. That's the beauty of believing in a God. The recipe starts with a few basic ingredients and then adds more to create whatever deity fits personal criteria. It's THE ultimate imaginary friend.
It is interesting to see people construct a definition for a term, a concept around their own particular biases and prejudices. It shows up frequently; look how often theists will take a bunch of negative opinions and spin them into a definition of an atheist, for example. They work the same sort of spin into their gods.
Once a person begins to require evidence, belief is no longer the issue. Faith and reason appear to be mutually exclusive. I've never been able to figure out why Allah would appeal to humans via faith, rather than reason. If, as Muslims say, Allah is creator, then Allah created man with the ability to reason. So why abandon reason in deference to faith? Look how many people use these claims of faith to do great evil to their fellow man. If reason were the sole means of apprehending Allah, such people wouldn't find it easy to deceive and hurt other people. From a Muslim's eyes, look at the false gods that have led so many Muslims away from Allah. But from my perspective, if Allah were to appeal to my reason, such that belief through faith was no longer necessary, then I would know Allah rather than just believe I know. The same works for any other deity.
Theists that posit faulty arguments are in my opinion, Ambassadors for Atheism. Their arguments open the door for ridicule and offer skeptics the opportunity to dissect and illustrate the absurdity, destructiveness, hypocrisy, contradictory nature, irrationality, bigotry, separatism and the just plain stupidity of fervent blind faith religious world views. The total lack of evidence that magic actually exists (Gods are magical constructs and wield magical powers) should lead one to the conclusion that Gods do not exist. Evidence of magic would be a good start, though. You know, werewolves, zombies, vampires, superheroes, spells, mind reading, clairvoyance, wands, etc. all the things contrary to nature? Maybe all or some of those would help point to a god. Since there is no evidence of things contrary to nature, i.e.: magic does not exist, therefore gods do not exist – magic exists on the short yellow bus. Belief in god is magical thinking, you may as well worship Saruman for all the good it does.
Isn't amazing that the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is petty and insecure; that one of the biggest things he worries about is what people say about him? He worries enough so that the first few of his 10 commandments are how one is supposed to properly deal with him. And this doesn't set off any mental alarms in Jews or Christians.
The default position for any claim is that it is false until evidence is presented to the contrary. Some would call this the Null Hypothesis - that data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. That goes for the claims of existence for gods, floor lamps, unicorns, paper mache, tooth fairies, snow geese and everything else; even comparison of two groups. The only rational stance is to assume that everything is null until you find evidence to assume otherwise. The more trivial the claim, the more trivial the evidence needs to be. If someone were in Asia and told you it rained yesterday, it should not be beyond credulity. If a horticulture magazine wrote of a Catholic Bishop in Brazil saw a strain of rice which was slightly different than the strains of rice in Asia, it should be sufficient to accept the claim as factual since we already know that different strains of rice or wheat or grain exists in different places. So fairly a trivial claim that Brazil now has a different strain of rice, we wouldn't feel the need to reserve judgment about its existence until after we had gone to Brazil to verify it for myself.
Similarly, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence to validate it would need to be. If someone says that there is a supernatural entity that uses its abilities to affect the universe for anyone who is willing to worship it, that's a fairly extraordinary claim and therefore the evidence required for its acceptance would need to be extraordinary. Given the utter lack of evidence, the rational position is to keep the claim in the null category and give it no potential validity at all because there is nothing that justifies any other stance.
I do not think that Ra, the Egyptian sun god does not exist. Although I see the sun or its light every day and I understand that nearly all terrestrial life depends on the sun and has a huge impact on the Earth's weather and know that it exists and can burn a person to a crisp, I can understand how others might find these attributes of a deity. Call me hard sale but I just don't buy it.
The evidence that there is or is not a god depends on the definition of said god. We have no choice in the matter of defining any god as that which is 'supernatural'. Perhaps some will not agree that all gods have that one attribute in common (but I would argue that is just silly - all gods must be supernatural, or they are not gods, but natural super-smart and powerful aliens (non-human), for example). The strong atheist says, "There is no such thing as the supernatural, therefore there can be no such thing as a god". The justification for the claim that the supernatural does not exist is that all things that exist in this universe are natural - not supernatural, and must follow the natural laws of this universe. Anything "outside of this universe" (if that is even a meaningful statement) cannot interact within this universe, otherwise it would not be "outside of this universe" (it would be within). In short, supernatural means "not in this universe" and "not in this universe" means "does not exist".
Obviously the Christian omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent god cannot logically exist, so, as far as that god is concerned, I am a gnostic strong atheist. I don't just think that it doesn't exist, I know it. The tooth fairy is another matter. On the one hand, it would be absurd to believe in such a supernatural thing without evidence; on the other hand, I can't actually prove it doesn't exist. Therefore, I am fairly certain it doesn't exist with a lack of acceptable evidence even though I don't know it doesn't exist. With regard to the tooth fairy, I am an agnostic strong atheist.
Why do people claim gods exist? What is their evidence? Their evidence is weak and subjective and often laughable. There appears to be no good evidence for existence of gods. Why do people claim gods do not exist? What is their evidence? If they do exist, it seem as if they/it created a universe to intentionally appear as though they did not. Who would know the difference? Therefore, why make up tales and fantasy and pretend it's real and pretend it's actual evidence for something that there has never been any evidence for?
It is abundantly clear that early humans within recorded history invented their own specific notions of god/s; anthropocentric and subject to revision as the community evolved. Since it is evident that humankind is quite adept at inventing explanations for the unknown without a systematic methodology, it is not surprising that those explanations will eventually evolve more and more supernaturally.
Now the more interesting question to me is since humans clearly can invent god/s out of thin air, is there sufficient reason to conclude that there is at least one notion that is correct and not invention? If there is a systematic method that disproves all invented gods, leaving only one notion standing, I would love to hear about it. Otherwise, the most cautious and conservative conclusion is that all god notions were invented by humans and none are true. It is disingenuous to accept the supernatural claims of one religious notion of god while writing off other religious supernatural claims. Since any criteria I have encountered to test supernatural claims ultimately either disqualifies all supernatural claims if sufficiently strict, or none at all if too loose, why should any supernatural claim be held in regard by anyone? Simply put, they shouldn't. It is for cultural and emotional reasons that supernatural claims are accepted by people, not for rational reasons.
Sometimes theists ask me to define god. I cannot and am only able to assume how they define god, and my evidence to its existence is that historically speaking, all gods that have ever existed have only existed in the human imagination stemming from superstition and ignorance. Not much has changed in the last 5000 years, has it?
Theists have such vast and conflicting disagreements about what god/s is/are like, sometimes even within their own denomination. It is in any case clear beyond a reasonable doubt, even to theists if they are honest about it, that if a god exists, we humans do not have a verifiable and reliable way to gain accurate knowledge of a god. What's the difference between an unknowable god and no god? The difference is that an unknowable God can exist in principle. The questions theists should be asking, instead of those at the top of this should be:
"What is the difference between a world with an unknowable God and no God at all?" and
"Should we form our beliefs differently in these worlds?"
Quote from: Gawen on January 16, 2012, 08:03:13 PM
Are you sure God does not exist?
What makes you so sure that god does not exist?
What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
Why is there god, rather than no god?
I'm going to assume these questions are not just for theists.
1. I have no idea whether or not a god exists, the way it's been defined makes it impossible to know (which seems a very convenient save for theists).
2. N/A
3. Well, someone (or something) turning up at my front door, introducing itself as the creator of all things and then creating a tiny universe right in front of me would be a great start. Of course, that would only prove that it was the creator of that tiny universe, not of this larger universe, but as first steps go it would be pretty good.
4. No idea, esp. since things make more sense without a god.
Quote
What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
What is it that makes a god entity unique from non god entities?
That is what I would test for.
At the moment, I have no clue what that would be.
((referring to your last paragraph: ))
I live my life as if there is no god. I believe there is no god, but if there were one, it would be a truly unfit creature for my worship. With all the violence and suffering in this world; humans should see that helping each other is truly the way to DO or change anything!
Prayer and hope don't work, getting off your ass and giving a shit does.
Without this belief in a diety, I think we wouldn't have to deal with so much sexism, hate crimes, and biggotry - (( my god tells me you should die, you unbeliever)) attitude, etc.
If we lived in a world without such pointless belief, maybe the idea of peace on earth MIGHT be possible. :(
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Gawen on January 16, 2012, 08:03:13 PM
Are you sure God does not exist?
What makes you so sure that god does not exist?
What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
Why is there god, rather than no god?
I'm going to assume these questions are not just for theists.
1. I have no idea whether or not a god exists, the way it's been defined makes it impossible to know (which seems a very convenient save for theists).
2. N/A
3. Well, someone (or something) turning up at my front door, introducing itself as the creator of all things and then creating a tiny universe right in front of me would be a great start. Of course, that would only prove that it was the creator of that tiny universe, not of this larger universe, but as first steps go it would be pretty good.
4. No idea, esp. since things make more sense without a god.
These are questions asked of me BY theists over the years. As if they were trying to think outside the box. Whether or not they eventually get out of the box, I don't know. But the entire ...ummm...paper?...dissertation?...post?...was a reply, so to speak, of those questions.
It's interesting, the replies, on a subject that touches on so many tangents, and what you three get out of reading it....I think...*chucklin*
Trying to stay chiefly on special pleading and evidence was quite difficult. I honestly didn't know what to expect in the form of replies, if in fact, none at all. But I am pleasantly surprised by them nonetheless. Thanks.
like you Gawen, I'm sure Yahweh doesn't exist, and that means I know the Christian and Muslim gods don't exist. Personally, I don't like calling Yahweh 'God', he's no more 'God' than Zeus, Odin or Baal.
OP said : I am 100% certain the omni-everything Judeo-Christian-Islamic god does not exist. The reasons are simple, but here is only one:
1) This god is alleged to be the ultimate in love.
2) This god is alleged to have created everything.
1) & 2) are a logical contradiction; ergo, this god can not exist.
REPLY: I fail to see why #1 and 2 are contradictions ; if there is a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) who by volitional choice brought a Universe into existence when it didnt have to exist.... along with providing a very suitable place as Earth for humankind to flourish (being his most prized creative act )... that it would seem to be an exhibit of extraordinary love/care/concern . At least this is what my Theist friends have expressed to me.
Thanks for posting that piece, Gawen. I read through it once, but I think that to give a proper response, I'll have to go through it again with a more critical eye. I do agree that the vast majority (if not all) claims by the religious believers/theists are based in special pleading. It just doesn't seem possible for them to get anywhere without it.
I'll leave it to you to answer Struggling Atheist. ;)
Quote from: Struggling Atheist on January 17, 2012, 03:42:18 PM
At least this is what my Theist friends have expressed to me.
Don't you mean yourself.
Quote from: Struggling Atheist on January 17, 2012, 03:42:18 PM
OP said : I am 100% certain the omni-everything Judeo-Christian-Islamic god does not exist. The reasons are simple, but here is only one:
1) This god is alleged to be the ultimate in love.
2) This god is alleged to have created everything.
1) & 2) are a logical contradiction; ergo, this god can not exist.
REPLY: I fail to see why #1 and 2 are contradictions ; if there is a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) who by volitional choice brought a Universe into existence when it didnt have to exist.... along with providing a very suitable place as Earth for humankind to flourish (being his most prized creative act )... that it would seem to be an exhibit of extraordinary love/care/concern . At least this is what my Theist friends have expressed to me.
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
Quote from: Gawen on January 17, 2012, 12:42:55 PM
These are questions asked of me BY theists over the years. As if they were trying to think outside the box. Whether or not they eventually get out of the box, I don't know. But the entire ...ummm...paper?...dissertation?...post?...was a reply, so to speak, of those questions.
OK, I get it now. I thought those were odd questions to ask of other atheists.
Quote from: Gawen on January 16, 2012, 08:03:13 PM
One of these rides is the assertion (without providing any rationality, other than, 'because I say so') about all claimed gods being one and the same, or rather, "There is but one God with a million names". The position is absurd; a defense mechanism some have adopted to protect their irrational beliefs. If this position were true, all religions worship the same god but all of them misunderstand the same god. Sadly, there is an implied "except me" at the end.
To be fair, I have known some theists who leave off the "except me". They relate it to something like the Blind Men and the Elephant story (in fact, I think a theist was the first one who told me that story) and accept being one of the blind who have only a small, blurry part of the whole truth and practice that part of it (their religion) out of tradition and because that's what is comfortable for their culture and background. But they hold that all the parts are correct in their way, even if they appear contradictory to humans. I have wondered, if all perceptions of god are right, and if god is vaster than all these perceptions together, is the lack of a perception of god also right? Some have told me they think this may be right -- that this ultimate force is both god and not god. I have to admit this level of philosophical thinking is way over my head.
QuoteOnce a person begins to require evidence, belief is no longer the issue. Faith and reason appear to be mutually exclusive. I've never been able to figure out why Allah would appeal to humans via faith, rather than reason.
The reasoning I've heard (most recently we've had a version of it from Ed) is that faith is the greater discipline, the greater test, and is therefore more valued by god in its teacher function. Now, I can see that it is harder to believe things that make no sense than things that make sense, but it seems to me a greater effort to
come up with the things that make sense which would make reason a much tougher homework assignment than faith. I've never gotten an answer on that, other than "it's a matter of opinion", or Ed's "faith is based on reason" which is absurd by definition.
QuoteTheists that posit faulty arguments are in my opinion, Ambassadors for Atheism. Their arguments open the door for ridicule and offer skeptics the opportunity to dissect and illustrate the absurdity, destructiveness, hypocrisy, contradictory nature, irrationality, bigotry, separatism and the just plain stupidity of fervent blind faith religious world views.
Have you ever read any of Karen Armstrong's books? I think it was in "A History of God" that she suggested that until about the 17th century the bible was generally regarded as metaphorical, and then a movement started that insisted it must be interpreted as literally true. She found it interesting that atheism as we know it today began increasing sharply right after that.
QuoteWhy do people claim gods exist? What is their evidence? Their evidence is weak and subjective and often laughable. There appears to be no good evidence for existence of gods.
Some scientists have suggested it's a chemical thing in the brain, that a part of the brain functions in such a way that the perception of certain experiences as supernatural or divine is a by-product. Sort of an odd little gift of evolution, which, if true, is rather ironic.
QuoteSometimes theists ask me to define god. I cannot and am only able to assume how they define god, and my evidence to its existence is that historically speaking, all gods that have ever existed have only existed in the human imagination stemming from superstition and ignorance. Not much has changed in the last 5000 years, has it?
Someone asked Carl Sagan to define god once, and he came up with quite a list, ending with the belief that "god" was the sum total of the physical laws of the universe. He didn't hold to any of them personally, but thought the last at least had the advantage of plenty of evidence, if one was going to settle on that definition of god.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
Is this god in its teacher function again, teaching humans important lessons thru pain and suffering? It's interesting that an omnipotent being can't find any other way of teaching a particular lesson than, say, having a 3-yr old die of brain cancer. I'm not saying it might not be so, I'm just saying it's odd.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
I don't quite understand where you're going with this. Pain, as in the pain one feels when cut, is important. It tells us the stove is hot we should move our hand off it, for instance. Or to avoid hugging cacti in the desert. But cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Alzeimer's Disease? And perhaps more importantly, horrible diseases in young, innocent children? What are we to learn from that? These kinds of situations break people. And to make an innocent child suffer. A child who's too young to learn anything from it? That's just cruel.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 06:38:50 PM
Is this god in its teacher function again, teaching humans important lessons thru pain and suffering? It's interesting that an omnipotent being can't find any other way of teaching a particular lesson than, say, having a 3-yr old die of brain cancer. I'm not saying it might not be so, I'm just saying it's odd.
It is odd when you don't understand it all, isn't it. The "God is omnipotent so he surely can do..." argument is always funny to me. No person ever reflects on that and even relates it back to oneself as humanly possible.
I'm sure there are cases where parents are walking their kids to school are hit and killed by cars or other reasons. Who blames the parent?
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
I don't quite understand where you're going with this. Pain, as in the pain one feels when cut, is important. It tells us the stove is hot we should move our hand off it, for instance. Or to avoid hugging cacti in the desert. But cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Alzeimer's Disease? And perhaps more importantly, horrible diseases in young, innocent children? What are we to learn from that? These kinds of situations break people. And to make an innocent child suffer. A child who's too young to learn anything from it? That's just cruel.
I think where AD is going off track is in the ALL or nothing mindset.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:55:46 PM
It is odd when you don't understand it all, isn't it. The "God is omnipotent so he surely can do..." argument is always funny to me. No person ever reflects on that and even relates it back to oneself as humanly possible.
Yes, I find things I don't understand odd, that's kind of the definition of "odd". So your version of god does not include omnipotence? Your god is powerful enough to have created everything, including humans and diseases, but not powerful enough to control what happens
after creation? Or is simply indifferent to what happens after creation? That's interesting but you must understand that's far from the usual definition of god in this country so it's not going to be the one most people refer to in a discussion of god and disaster.
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
I don't quite understand where you're going with this. Pain, as in the pain one feels when cut, is important. It tells us the stove is hot we should move our hand off it, for instance. Or to avoid hugging cacti in the desert. But cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Alzeimer's Disease? And perhaps more importantly, horrible diseases in young, innocent children? What are we to learn from that? These kinds of situations break people. And to make an innocent child suffer. A child who's too young to learn anything from it? That's just cruel.
Are you suggesting there is good in pain? Just want to be clear.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:57:42 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
I don't quite understand where you're going with this. Pain, as in the pain one feels when cut, is important. It tells us the stove is hot we should move our hand off it, for instance. Or to avoid hugging cacti in the desert. But cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Alzeimer's Disease? And perhaps more importantly, horrible diseases in young, innocent children? What are we to learn from that? These kinds of situations break people. And to make an innocent child suffer. A child who's too young to learn anything from it? That's just cruel.
Are you suggesting there is good in pain? Just want to be clear.
I thought Traveler was very clear about the situations in which pain is useful, even necessary, and can therefore be defined as "good" if you like, tho never agreeable or pleasant. What was unclear to you, unless you're still stuck in the ALL or nothing problem?
Are Animated and SA gonna be bffs now? >_>
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 07:10:20 PM
I thought Traveler was very clear about the situations in which pain is useful, even necessary, and can therefore be defined as "good" if you like, tho never agreeable or pleasant. What was unclear to you, unless you're still stuck in the ALL or nothing problem?
I'm not stuck on the ALL or nothing problem. The problem I have is the apparent ability of *you to KNOW ALL the reasons one may be purposely inflicted with pain...assuming, as *you may, god is the author of pain and suffering.
What exactly does one tell a 10 year old with a brain tumor?
Hm, nothing about an all loving god.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:55:46 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 06:38:50 PM
Is this god in its teacher function again, teaching humans important lessons thru pain and suffering? It's interesting that an omnipotent being can't find any other way of teaching a particular lesson than, say, having a 3-yr old die of brain cancer. I'm not saying it might not be so, I'm just saying it's odd.
It is odd when you don't understand it all, isn't it. The "God is omnipotent so he surely can do..." argument is always funny to me. No person ever reflects on that and even relates it back to oneself as humanly possible.
I'm sure there are cases where parents are walking their kids to school are hit and killed by cars or other reasons. Who blames the parent?
I don't see where you're going with this argument.
I can buy the whole "free will" argument when it comes to evil in the world. "God isn't evil, he just allows humans to be evil because they have free will." I get it. But what about tsumamis and eartquakes and tornados? How are those the act of a loving god?
Not to throw myself a pity party or anything, but I've had a really devastating time over the last year. I had 2 miscarriages of much wanted babies in less than a year. And the thing that strikes me, is that some people have tried to tell me stupid bullshit like "God has a plan." Oh yeah? Your loving god has a plan that involves dead babies? And killing little kids with cancer, and all of the awful stuff that happens that isn't anyone's fault. That's all part of a loving god's plans? Who is this freak show, and why can't he put together a plan that doesn't involve killing innocents?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 07:42:21 PM
Are Animated and SA gonna be bffs now? >_>
Sweetdeath, you know that posts like this don't help contribute to a civil discussion.
Let's all try to play nice :)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 08:01:26 PM
What exactly does one tell a 10 year old with a brain tumor?
Hm, nothing about an all loving god.
Which answer do you want? Is the parent a believer in God or is the parent an Atheist? The deluded answer or the answer *you would give?? Either way is not the child loved?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:13:34 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 08:01:26 PM
What exactly does one tell a 10 year old with a brain tumor?
Hm, nothing about an all loving god.
Which answer do you want? Is the parent a believer in God or is the parent an Atheist? The deluded answer or the answer *you would give?? Either way is not the child loved?
The child is loved by their parent. But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor? From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)
(((Ali)))
If god has a plan its a bad one. :(
Quote from: Whitney on January 17, 2012, 08:04:23 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 07:42:21 PM
Are Animated and SA gonna be bffs now? >_>
Sweetdeath, you know that posts like this don't help contribute to a civil discussion.
Let's all try to play nice :)
Sorry. :x
Ali: i'm really sorry to hear about your incidents. I can't imagine how you feel..
And I felt similarly. After my rape at 14, hearing "god has a plan" from my father made me completely furious with him. I don't believe that shit. I believe it even less that an all loving god could watch a man rape someone or a child be murdered. So yeah, none of that~
I live my life and not dwell on such bullshit.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
The child is loved by their parent. But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor? From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)
God doesn't give brain tumors.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:20:59 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
The child is loved by their parent. But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor? From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)
God doesn't give brain tumors.
God doesn't do anything. o_o
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
Ali: i'm really sorry to hear about your incidents. I can't imagine how you feel..
And I felt similarly. After my rape at 14, hearing "god has a plan" from my father made me completely furious with him. I don't believe that shit. I believe it even less that an all loving god could watch a man rape someone or a child be murdered. So yeah, none of that~
I live my life and not dwell on such bullshit.
Thanks to you and Traveler.
Yeah, it's just amazing to me that people say (and actually believe) things like "God has a plan" when something awful happens. Like, if I actually believed that, I would HATE god. I don't believe it, but it does make me wonder what kind of person could worship a god that has a plan involving rape and loss and all of the bad stuff that happens every day all over the world. I agree with Traveler, if god has a plan, it's a bad one.
So sorry to hear that happened to you. ((hugs))
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:20:59 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
The child is loved by their parent. But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor? From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)
God doesn't give brain tumors.
Fred Phelps says he does. ;D
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:20:59 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
The child is loved by their parent. But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor? From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)
God doesn't give brain tumors.
Well, he sure doesn't stop them or give us cancer resistant genes, does he? ;)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 08:25:22 PM
God doesn't do anything. o_o
I think
Ali is at least trying to have a discussion with me...thanks though.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:20:59 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
The child is loved by their parent. But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor? From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)
God doesn't give brain tumors.
Because presumably brain tumors are the work of Satan or that random chance thing that atheists go on about (possibly even pre-destined, given the events leading upto the development of the tumor), or maybe even a result of sin being present in the world.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:27:02 PM
Well, he sure doesn't stop them or give us cancer resistant genes, does he? ;)
Again, in context of KNOWING and not knowing...on what basis do you make the claim that he doesn't stop brain tumors? This assumes *you know of every case of cancer and that every case has resulted in a non-healing. And how do you know we don't have the cancer resistant gene? Does every person develop cancer?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:31:22 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:27:02 PM
Well, he sure doesn't stop them or give us cancer resistant genes, does he? ;)
Again, in context of KNOWING and not knowing...on what basis do you make the claim that he doesn't stop brain tumors? This assumes *you know of every case of cancer and that every case has resulted in a non-healing. And how do you know we don't have the cancer resistant gene? Does every person develop cancer?
Okay, how about this...even if he stops some brain tumors, he doesn't stop all. I personally know 2 people who died of brain tumors. One was 22 at the time. So maybe the loving god only loves certain people enough to stop their brain tumors?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 07:45:10 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 07:10:20 PM
I thought Traveler was very clear about the situations in which pain is useful, even necessary, and can therefore be defined as "good" if you like, tho never agreeable or pleasant. What was unclear to you, unless you're still stuck in the ALL or nothing problem?
I'm not stuck on the ALL or nothing problem. The problem I have is the apparent ability of *you to KNOW ALL the reasons one may be purposely inflicted with pain...assuming,
I don't see where I've indicated I know anything, much less all the reasons a god might chose to inflict pain and suffering on its creations. What I have done is speculate based on what theists have told me, which . . .
Quoteas *you may, god is the author of pain and suffering.
as mentioned before, is based on the commonly held belief by theists in America that god is the author of all things, including pain and suffering, which are part of its plan. If you're using a different version of god, you need to be clear about that up front and establish why we should use your version as the default instead of the commonly understood one.
The reason I thought you were stuck in an ALL or nothing mindset is this: "And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving", followed by your inability to understand Travelers very clear distinction of useful pain. Maybe you'd like to clarify or revise your "removal of ALL pain" comment?
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:01:57 PM
Not to throw myself a pity party or anything, but I've had a really devastating time over the last year. I had 2 miscarriages of much wanted babies in less than a year.
I don't see why you shouldn't throw yourself a pity party over that, that's a terrible thing to endure. My heart goes out to you and your husband. But I understand you not wanting to derail the thread, so . . .
QuoteAnd the thing that strikes me, is that some people have tried to tell me stupid bullshit like "God has a plan." Oh yeah? Your loving god has a plan that involves dead babies? And killing little kids with cancer, and all of the awful stuff that happens that isn't anyone's fault. That's all part of a loving god's plans? Who is this freak show, and why can't he put together a plan that doesn't involve killing innocents?
This is my question -- granted if there is a god and it's like the one most American Xtians talk about, it's ways are definitely mysterious and it's inability to do in some other way whatever it's doing by inflicting pointless pain and suffering is odd.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:20:59 PM
God doesn't give brain tumors.
So your version of god is that it is not the author of all things, or that it is not omnipotent or omniscient, or that it is simply indifferent to its works after the moment of creation? This is one of the problems Gawen was talking about in the OP about theists having so many different version of their god, even those within the same religion. How is one to know which version is being discussed at any particular moment?
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:38:50 PM
Okay, how about this...even if he stops some brain tumors, he doesn't stop all. I personally know 2 people who died of brain tumors. One was 22 at the time. So maybe the loving god only loves certain people enough to stop their brain tumors?
Or it's VERY rare that God intervenes with the flow of life and the hazards and sufferings therein..
No where is the believer (and likewise the non-believer) promised a life free from pain or suffering this side of salvation.
I'm not talking specifically to you, AD. :x
At this point, believing is things can fate, sin, and destiny is just sort of pointless. Sometimes bad things hapen, the only thing we can do is try to avoid them. Or if unavoidable, try our best to seek out love and understanding from family (doesnt have to be blood related.)
Getting through my mom's recent death was tough, but my best friend and girlfriend made it a lot easier than taking on the burden alone.
I got through it without a diety. Look at that.
Now to you: AD-
when in recorded history has 'god' intervened?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 08:47:53 PM
Now to you: AD-
when in recorded history has 'god' intervened?
One word - Jesus. But then again...he's not real so there's no reason to go any further. If you don't believe or believe the (made up) evidence...then you are in exactly the position you should be. An Atheist.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:45:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:38:50 PM
Okay, how about this...even if he stops some brain tumors, he doesn't stop all. I personally know 2 people who died of brain tumors. One was 22 at the time. So maybe the loving god only loves certain people enough to stop their brain tumors?
Or it's VERY rare that God intervenes with the flow of life and the hazards and sufferings therein..
But then that begs the question - why? Why would a loving god allow these things to happen when s/he/it has the ability to stop them? What's the point?
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 08:54:18 PM
But then that begs the question - why? Why would a loving god allow these things to happen when s/he/it has the ability to stop them? What's the point?
A lot of answers exist. They may all be wrong or some may be more right than others... The point is that it's not what is intended nor will it be forever.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 08:51:50 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 08:47:53 PM
Now to you: AD-
when in recorded history has 'god' intervened?
One word - Jesus. But then again...he's not real so there's no reason to go any further. If you don't believe or believe the (made up) evidence...then you are in exactly the position you should be. An Atheist.
I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<
Pardon me, but I would like to make a conjecture that might take this discussion in a different direction. I would propose that a negative proposition and the positive assertion of a negative proposition are both simply negative propositions.
I give several reasons for asserting this. First: Any assertion is an assertion, which is therefore by default positive, but on the other side of the garden, it is commonly believed that a negative assertion is a denial of an assertion. As in mathematics, the negative of any positive number is positive. This gives cause for pause, as a positive assertion of a negative would have the form of a positive together with a negative positive. Since the negative positive is already negative(I.E. the lack of the positive assertion), combing this negative with another positive has no effect other than to reinforce the lack of the positive assertion.
Another reason is the impossibility of proving a negative assertion. If one takes the above as valid, however, then it seems possible that one can not prove a negative assertion because a negative is not an assertion at all, but a lack of an assertion. Given that a proof must always operate an an assertion, it could be that "true" simply indicates the assertion proven, and "false" indicates a lack of proof. To give then a positive assertion of the proposition's falseness would be equivalent to positively asserting that there is a lack of proof, which can easily be ascertained.
Given this, it is quite possible that agnostic and atheist positions are utterly more equivalent than previously thought.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 09:01:30 PM
I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<
Jesus isn't historical? I wish I could give you the historical evidence...I'm unprepared as a lay-Christian. That...and most Atheists aren't willing to do the ground work necessary to satisfy their own belief or disbelief for that matter. I don't own the "ground work" myself. I don't think you own the "ground work" for the opposite belief either.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:18:10 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 09:01:30 PM
I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<
Jesus isn't historical?
A matter of considerable and ongoing debate. And whether or not he was a god's way of intervening in humanity is completely up for grabs even if one does think it likely Jesus was historical.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:18:10 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 09:01:30 PM
I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<
Jesus isn't historical? I wish I could give you the historical evidence...I'm unprepared as a lay-Christian. That...and most Atheists aren't willing to do the ground work necessary to satisfy their own belief or disbelief for that matter. I don't own the "ground work" myself. I don't think you own the "ground work" for the opposite belief either.
Not much groundwork required for disbelief. I'm sure you're sick of people referencing "proof" required to not believe in unicorns, so I'll save that part.
I wou like evidence in a history book., not the bible or cuz you say so.
Napoleon lost the battle at waterloo.
Nobunaga oda often bedded his page boys, including the well known Ranmaru mori.
Hilter was an artist.
I can provide historic books to back this up.
I'm not talking about jesus, i'm talking about 'god.'
Jesus might of existed, he was just human. I highly doubt he was the son of god.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 09:26:02 PM
Not much groundwork required for disbelief. I'm sure you're sick of people referencing "proof" required to not believe in unicorns, so I'll save that part.
Thank you. I think it's unnecessary to do so since we are both of that same belief.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 09:33:45 PM
Jesus might of existed, he was just human. I highly doubt he was the son of god.
With the internet...it's almost at your fingertips. If even more interested, take a course from someone who believes his/her position and has the documentation that shows they at least have a grasp of what they are talking about. Not that the typical Atheist would even give such a person the time of day. Or look to someone that doesn't have an agenda. A truely Agnostic professor on the matter(s).
I've said candidly, I can't do it. I'm unprepared to do so. I can tell you I do believe, some reasons off the top of my head and have heard others with more reason and further evidence...but I'm not equipped to do so. I'm just a normal guy on a forum that I like, discussing a subject which is near to my heart and that I think I do have a perspective on that may help the average person asking questions.
If you're interested, the information is available. I'm quite certain that it won't be pursued though.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:51:33 PM
If you're interested, the information is available. I'm quite certain that it won't be pursued though.
AD I've pursued the evidence and there is none. Whether or not you want to believe in a historical Jesus is a matter of choice, no-one knows if he existed or not. If anyone tells you there's cast iron proof of Jesus' historical existence they're either lying or just unaware of the lack of evidence.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:18:19 PM
AD I've pursued the evidence and there is none. Whether or not you want to believe in a historical Jesus is a matter of choice, no-one knows if he existed or not. If anyone tells you there's cast iron proof of Jesus' historical existence they're either lying or just unaware of the lack of evidence.
Are you suggesting your experience is Truth?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 11:24:55 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:18:19 PM
AD I've pursued the evidence and there is none. Whether or not you want to believe in a historical Jesus is a matter of choice, no-one knows if he existed or not. If anyone tells you there's cast iron proof of Jesus' historical existence they're either lying or just unaware of the lack of evidence.
Are you suggesting your experience is Truth?
why would you infer that from my statement? I'm merely saying we don't have any cast iron evidence to know whether Jesus historically existed or not. I'm an agnostic when it comes to Jesus' historicity. Maybe your idea of 'evidence' differs from mine.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:51:33 PM
If you're interested, the information is available. I'm quite certain that it won't be pursued though.
Well, I'm certainly glad someone finds the internet putting information right at their fingertips, I find internet searches so exasperating and exhausting that I don't bother using it to pursue topics I find immediately interesting, never mind those I'm only remotely interested in.
I am amazed that this thread took off so fast and so quickly.
I am astounded that the OP dealt with special pleading and evidence and still I see (from AnimatedDirt):
QuoteAnd of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
QuoteGod doesn't give brain tumors.
QuoteOr it's VERY rare that God intervenes with the flow of life and the hazards and sufferings therein..
QuoteNo where is the believer (and likewise the non-believer) promised a life free from pain or suffering this side of salvation.
QuoteIf you don't believe or believe the...evidence...
And 'equivocation', moving the goal posts, strawman, etc, etc, etc:
QuoteI'm sure there are cases where parents are walking their kids to school are hit and killed by cars or other reasons. Who blames the parent?
QuoteWhich answer do you want? Is the parent a believer in God or is the parent an Atheist? The deluded answer or the answer *you would give?? Either way is not the child loved?
Not to be chide, but some of you have been suckered and let AD take you off course because he can't answer the OP sufficiently. Not without special pleading. Honestly, AD must use special pleading due to the lack of providing sufficient evidence. The committing of several fallacies has become rather blasé as well.
Quote from: Recusant on January 17, 2012, 04:16:58 PM
Thanks for posting that piece, Gawen. I read through it once, but I think that to give a proper response, I'll have to go through it again with a more critical eye.
Thanks and I can't wait. I was hoping someone would critique it.
QuoteI do agree that the vast majority (if not all) claims by the religious believers/theists are based in special pleading. It just doesn't seem possible for them to get anywhere without it.
I can't see any way either. I have been remiss, however. I left out wishful thinking.
Quote from: BooksCatEtcTo be fair, I have known some theists who leave off the "except me". They relate it to something like the Blind Men and the Elephant story (in fact, I think a theist was the first one who told me that story) and accept being one of the blind who have only a small, blurry part of the whole truth and practice that part of it (their religion) out of tradition and because that's what is comfortable for their culture and background.
The Blind men/Elephant story fits the same mold as using special pleading. It's like touching the elephant and the conversation goes like this:
BM1: Yep, I touched the "elephant". But it wasn't an elephant. It was a tree.
BM2: Nope, it was a rhinoceros.
BM3: Nope. I agree with BM1 and say it's a tree. And I'll go one step further to say it's a Cypress tree.
BM4: It was an elephant, I felt it move.
Back to BM1: Uh uh....it was a Pine tree and I felt it move too. The wind blew it
BM5: It was an Asian elephant and there's no breeze today.
and on and on and on until it gets so bad that the fundy Blind Man goes so far as to say "It was an invisible Baptist tree and everyone knows that Baptist trees can move by themselves. I know this because I have faith and it more valued by blah, blah, blah." And that takes us to
Quote...is that faith is the greater discipline, the greater test, and is therefore more valued by god in its teacher function.
What better way to describe special pleading?
QuoteHave you ever read any of Karen Armstrong's books? I think it was in "A History of God" that she suggested that until about the 17th century the bible was generally regarded as metaphorical, and then a movement started that insisted it must be interpreted as literally true. She found it interesting that atheism as we know it today began increasing sharply right after that.
No, but I think I have heard of her. And yes, I know the history somewhat.
I'm not sure of the chemical thing in the brain, though. But a meme sure sounds about right.
Even Sagan's definition of God as the sum total of the universe is special pleading. After all, the universe is defined as its own sum total. To call the universe God doesn't define the universe, but only renames the universe...and the universe already has a name. Damn, saying that just made me dizzy... *chucklin*
Quote from: WessikFirst: Any assertion is an assertion, which is therefore by default positive,
Had to stop you right there.
"I do not believe the sky is blue."
"I believe that the sky is not blue."
The above are assertions. One of them is positive...not both. So I'm not understanding you, I guess you need to explain?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:18:10 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 17, 2012, 09:01:30 PM
I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<
Jesus isn't historical?
A matter of considerable and ongoing debate. And whether or not he was a god's way of intervening in humanity is completely up for grabs even if one does think it likely Jesus was historical.
I have a feeling he doesn't want to answer me because there is no evidence to give.
Quote from: Gawen on January 18, 2012, 01:52:11 AM
The Blind men/Elephant story fits the same mold as using special pleading. It's like touching the elephant and the conversation goes like this:
BM1: Yep, I touched the "elephant". But it wasn't an elephant. It was a tree.
BM2: Nope, it was a rhinoceros.
BM3: Nope. I agree with BM1 and say it's a tree. And I'll go one step further to say it's a Cypress tree. [etc]
That's not exactly the version I heard. In mine one man touched the leg and thought an elephant was like a tree, the other touched the trunk and thought it was like a rope and the third touched the ear and thought it was like a fan. They were all right, but they were also all wrong, because all their information was incomplete.
QuoteI know this because I have faith and it more valued by blah, blah, blah." And that takes us to
Quote...is that faith is the greater discipline, the greater test, and is therefore more valued by god in its teacher function. What better way to describe special pleading?
I was trying to demonstrate how each could be viewed as equally difficult, but OK.
QuoteEven Sagan's definition of God as the sum total of the universe is special pleading. After all, the universe is defined as its own sum total. To call the universe God doesn't define the universe, but only renames the universe...and the universe already has a name. Damn, saying that just made me dizzy... *chucklin*
It wasn't Sagan's personal definition of god, just one of those he gave to demonstrate the lack of consistency in definitions, and that when discussing god it's necessary to establish first what kind of god you're talking about.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 18, 2012, 03:09:57 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 09:18:10 PM
Jesus isn't historical?
I have a feeling he doesn't want to answer me because there is no evidence to give.
I think we're supposed to be doing our own reseach, in order to avoid being classed as intellectually lazy atheists. Frankly, I'll accept the label because I really don't care enough -- all the "evidence" I've read to this point has struck me as weak and circular, and I've got other books calling my name.
Ramen to that, BooksCatsEtc. :)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
Bullshit. The removal of ALL pain is death!
Quote from: Struggling Atheist on January 17, 2012, 03:42:18 PM
OP said : I am 100% certain the omni-everything Judeo-Christian-Islamic god does not exist. The reasons are simple, but here is only one:
1) This god is alleged to be the ultimate in love.
2) This god is alleged to have created everything.
1) & 2) are a logical contradiction; ergo, this god can not exist.
REPLY: I fail to see why #1 and 2 are contradictions ; if there is a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) who by volitional choice brought a Universe into existence when it didnt have to exist.... along with providing a very suitable place as Earth for humankind to flourish (being his most prized creative act )... that it would seem to be an exhibit of extraordinary love/care/concern . At least this is what my Theist friends have expressed to me.
Another problem that I have with the idea of a 'loving' creator god is the end fate of the Earth. The Sun's expanding and getting brighter, eventually it will vaporise all water on the Earth and destroy all life here. It will then keep on expanding and most probably vaporise the Earth. That doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a loving creator...
Quote from: Tank on January 18, 2012, 09:17:29 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
Bullshit. The removal of ALL pain is death!
Loving someone too much is a pain as well. Hence the saying "He/she smothered me to death."
Still what did this god love before it made us? How would it love? What frame of reference would it have to even know love? Or hate? Or indifference?
Quote from: Gawen on January 18, 2012, 12:53:45 PM
Still what did this god love before it made us? How would it love? What frame of reference would it have to even know love? Or hate? Or indifference?
I can imagine cool ideas of god if we ditch the omnipotence crap.
Where did that come from?
I did the seven year old argie bargy, I'm superman,
ye your superman x2, well I'm x4, times infinity ya say, well I'm infinity times infinity.
I've been dreaming in the dark for forever, nothing feels, nothing cares, nothing laughs and nothing cries.
My creation screams and asks why, I answer "you" but it doesn't seem to satisfy.
Ye I'm just messing about.
Quote from: Tank on January 18, 2012, 09:17:29 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 17, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 17, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.
And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.
Bullshit. The removal of ALL pain is death!
Are you calling my sarcasm bullshit? lol...
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 18, 2012, 03:38:54 AM
I think we're supposed to be doing our own reseach, in order to avoid being classed as intellectually lazy atheists. Frankly, I'll accept the label because I really don't care enough -- all the "evidence" I've read to this point has struck me as weak and circular, and I've got other books calling my name.
This. When christians tell atheists to read the bible, I'm wondering why I would possibly waste my time. Every passage I've read seems like pretentious bullshit, and that's enough for me to go on. Besides, there are way too many fascinating books out there waiting to be read to waste one's time reading 2000 year old drivel.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 18, 2012, 03:38:54 AM
I think we're supposed to be doing our own reseach, in order to avoid being classed as intellectually lazy atheists. Frankly, I'll accept the label because I really don't care enough -- all the "evidence" I've read to this point has struck me as weak and circular, and I've got other books calling my name.
This. When christians tell atheists to read the bible, I'm wondering why I would possibly waste my time. Every passage I've read seems like pretentious bullshit, and that's enough for me to go on. Besides, there are way too many fascinating books out there waiting to be read to waste one's time reading 2000 year old drivel.
Yeah. I'm reading Arthurian books right now.
I find the bible stories extremely boring to waste my time with them.
Quote from: Sweetdeath
Yeah. I'm reading Arthurian books right now.
I find the bible stories extremely boring to waste my time with them.
Psssst....
Get the Skystone series by Jack Whyte.
Quote from: Gawen on January 19, 2012, 02:28:57 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath
Yeah. I'm reading Arthurian books right now.
I find the bible stories extremely boring to waste my time with them.
Psssst....
Get the Skystone series by Jack Whyte.
Does it have homoerotic undertones? >D
My gf has me addicted to homerotic fantasy stuff at the moment.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 02:50:55 AM
Quote from: Gawen on January 19, 2012, 02:28:57 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath
Yeah. I'm reading Arthurian books right now.
I find the bible stories extremely boring to waste my time with them.
Psssst....
Get the Skystone series by Jack Whyte.
Does it have homoerotic undertones? >D
My gf has me addicted to homerotic fantasy stuff at the moment.
Nope...
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 02:50:55 AM
Does it have homoerotic undertones? >D
My gf has me addicted to homerotic fantasy stuff at the moment.
[/quote]
Homoeroticism is amazing.
Oh, ahem. I mean, it's alright. -hides collection-
Continue with topic, please. :)
Quote from: fluttershine on January 19, 2012, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 02:50:55 AM
Does it have homoerotic undertones? >D
My gf has me addicted to homerotic fantasy stuff at the moment.
Homoeroticism is amazing.
Oh, ahem. I mean, it's alright. -hides collection-
Continue with topic, please. :)
What a great derail this could be. **controls self** What was the original topic? Oh yeah, debating the existence of a god with theists.
When push comes to shove, I'm not sure there's any point in that (other than the intellectual fun of it), even if they bring it up. Most of the theists I know seem to believe what they do for emotional reasons, and those don't change in the face of facts and logic. Sometimes being shown where their beliefs are wobbly makes them cling to those beliefs that much harder, rather than re-evaluate them as you would with a wobbly fact.
Yes, back on topic. Sorry guys :)
I've also observed many theists feel a huge weight or guilt about every decision they make in life. "does this please my god? Is that okay?"
I don't know. It makes me laugh. I don't need to rush to church if I curse or accidently fart in a public place.
(i totally fart anywhere, as long as it isnt smelly >_> )
well,
this is a nice one. Had a tense conversation about it and the professed philosopher won. No, you cannot be sure. it is too tiring to reproduce the logic thread that proves you cannot, and too boring.
The crunch is that you can certainly live and die as if there is none, and furthermore you really do not give a flying f--k if he does, and certainly you cannot afford the time wasted contemplating issues that lie the furthest away from here and now
as you all probably do know:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]
Quote from: pytheasThe crunch is that you can certainly live and die as if there is none, and furthermore you really do not give a flying f--k if he does, and certainly you cannot afford the time wasted contemplating issues that lie the furthest away from here and now
If you live in America, you do not need to give a flying f*ck about what some god does, you need to give a flying f*ck
about the people that believe he does something. Especially during this presidential race.
Quote from: Gawen on January 19, 2012, 11:57:53 PMIf you live in America, you do not need to give a flying f*ck about what some god does, you need to give a flying f*ck about the people that believe he does something. Especially during this presidential race.
Even those who don't live in the USA have a material interest in the outcome of US elections.
Sadly the people who run America are all crazy fundies. >___<
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 AM
Sadly the people who run America are all crazy fundies. >___<
Or at least pretend to be, as to exploit the ones that are.
Quote from: Gawen on January 19, 2012, 11:57:53 PM
Quote from: pytheasThe crunch is that you can certainly live and die as if there is none, and furthermore you really do not give a flying f--k if he does, and certainly you cannot afford the time wasted contemplating issues that lie the furthest away from here and now
If you live in America, you do not need to give a flying f*ck about what some god does, you need to give a flying f*ck about the people that believe he does something. Especially during this presidential race.
That is another issue which I agree more than I can show, but I will try. You have moved the topic into a societal one, about people, compromises, crowd / mob control, civil respect and communal consciense.
Abortion is a womans birth right
Euthanasia is the ultimate expression of Free will
Recreation intoxication is a personal choice that does not excuse any concurrent criminal offense. you can hold a knife but you will not nessecarily stab someone.
Your laws on guns and firearms is Idiotic.
The death penalty is medieval, a pestulance of current moral values
Information and Awakening is the general Purpose
but strictly speaking, in terms of atheism this is off topic.
the subject at hand verges towards Humanism
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 AM
Sadly the people who run America are all crazy fundies. >___<
Some are. I wouldn't call Obama a craxy fundy. However I would say that a lot of air time is given to crazy fundies who would
like to run America. For every nutter there may by 50(?) sane and sensible Americans but the American media ALWAYS shows the nutter/biggot/neo-nazi/homophobe. It gives an awfully bad impression of americans.
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 AM
Sadly the people who run America are all crazy fundies. >___<
Some are. I wouldn't call Obama a craxy fundy. However I would say that a lot of air time is given to crazy fundies who would like to run America. For every nutter there may by 50(?) sane and sensible Americans but the American media ALWAYS shows the nutter/biggot/neo-nazi/homophobe. It gives an awfully bad impression of americans.
I feel the opposite. For every one sane person, there are 50 idiots who think the same way the fundies do. x_x
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 20, 2012, 04:35:03 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 AM
Sadly the people who run America are all crazy fundies. >___<
Some are. I wouldn't call Obama a craxy fundy. However I would say that a lot of air time is given to crazy fundies who would like to run America. For every nutter there may by 50(?) sane and sensible Americans but the American media ALWAYS shows the nutter/biggot/neo-nazi/homophobe. It gives an awfully bad impression of americans.
I feel the opposite. For every one sane person, there are 50 idiots who think the same way the fundies do. x_x
Oh dear! Is it that bad?
It depends on where you live. I don't live in a city that is overly populated with religious nutters, but feel free to use your imagination on how seriously infested my town is with the hippie breed of nutter.
Ugh... I don't want to hear another jam band for the rest of my life.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 20, 2012, 04:35:03 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 AM
Sadly the people who run America are all crazy fundies. >___<
Some are. I wouldn't call Obama a craxy fundy. However I would say that a lot of air time is given to crazy fundies who would like to run America. For every nutter there may by 50(?) sane and sensible Americans but the American media ALWAYS shows the nutter/biggot/neo-nazi/homophobe. It gives an awfully bad impression of americans.
I feel the opposite. For every one sane person, there are 50 idiots who think the same way the fundies do. x_x
You are cute and plant rainbows in your trail
:-*
Oh my, thank you, Pytheas~
Quote from: Genericguy on January 20, 2012, 07:30:58 PM
It depends on where you live. I don't live in a city that is overly populated with religious nutters, but feel free to use your imagination on how seriously infested my town is with the hippie breed of nutter.
Ugh... I don't want to hear another jam band for the rest of my life.
Haha Genericguy, do you happen to live in Boulder CO? (The People's Republic)
I know for an unassailable fact that god doesn't exist because he told me so himself!
Yeah. Noodle that one for awhile.
I do this sometimes, I post something that contributes nothing whatsoever to the discussion. It's like a written form of a drive-by. ;D
No I live in Bellingham wa.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 21, 2012, 04:37:13 AM
I know for an unassailable fact that god doesn't exist because he told me so himself!
Yeah. Noodle that one for awhile.
I do this sometimes, I post something that contributes nothing whatsoever to the discussion. It's like a written form of a drive-by. ;D
Hah xP
Quote from: Gawen on January 16, 2012, 08:03:13 PM
Are you sure God does not exist?
We can't be sure of the non-existence of anything. However, experience, knowledge and reason allow us to take an educated guess as to how confident we can be that a certain entity does not exist.
Consider the degree of confidence that you, the reader, have in the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy. I would guess that for most, the degree of confidence would be very close to certainty. Now compare the claims made on behalf of the Tooth Fairy to those made on behalf of god.
Tooth Fairy: Exchanges teeth for cash
god: Zapped up an entire universe and all life forms with a magic wand.
If you have not done any reading on the size of the universe, take a look at some of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images. God zapped this shit up with his magic wand, apparently.
Now, which of the two claims, Tooth Fairy and god, is more likely to be true? It's the Tooth Fairy, and by a factor of more than hundreds of billions.
So, whatever degree of confidence you have that the Tooth Fairy is fictional, you can be almost infinitely more confident that god does not exist.
Quote from: Gawen on January 16, 2012, 08:03:13 PMWhat makes you so sure that god does not exist?
For the very same reasons which theists use to dismiss the Tooth Fairy.
Quote from: Gawen on January 16, 2012, 08:03:13 PMWhat evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
Today I prayed to god to stop catholic priests from raping children. Let's see if he comes through for me (and for the kids). If he does, I'll start believing.
Quote from: Gawen on January 16, 2012, 08:03:13 PMWhy is there god, rather than no god?
*puts on theist cap* .......duhhhhh, because
something had to create the universe. (but nothing had to create god, coz he's all special and magic and shit)