No such thing as God.

@Solace,

Quote:

Allow me to also add that Christian documentation also teaches against blind faith. Paul said to believe a doctrine if it is sound. So believe it if it makes sense to you. He didn't say believe it just because someone said it, and much of Christian doctrine is based on Paul's writings.

And this advice is found in other Christian sources as well.

Quote:

Heh heh, I never said it was a generalization over all Christianity, believe me when I say that I am not arguing on behalf of Christianity, cause I'm not. All I am saying is that it is written in the Bible. (Oh no, Solace used the B word! :-p) Paul, nor people who take his good advice to heart, can be faulted for the fact that, generally speaking, Christians don't take his advice. As I said, it is part of Christian documentation... so maybe more Christians ought to read it.

Unfortunately, there are ministers with large congregations who admit to having never read the entire Bible.

But you're right, we cannot generalize about all Christians in such a way. Just like we cannot say, given the Paul's teachings, that all Christians have a healthy degree of skepticism regarding religious notions, we also cannot say that no Christian has a healthy degree of skepticism. This is the sensitivity I mentioned earlier in the thread.

We have to watch our criticisms and not be too liberal with our accusations.

Quote:

Furthermore, I can't say that religion is the cage I speak of, because some notions of the religion may not be outwardly be discriminating at all, or even limiting in thought.

Absolutely. And what's more, there may even be (I would argue there is) religious teaching that advises against discrimination and promotes learning and skepticism. Of course, there is also religious teaching that promotes ignorance and hatred.

But you've got it absolutely right. We cannot condemn all because of the mistakes of some.

0 Replies

@Solace,

the threads closed because i'm leaving it. there's no point trying to convince you of soemthing you just won't see. thanks for the lesson. think about what it means, as we appraoch upon a number of global issues we need to cooperate to address, that you dug your heels in so deep when there was nothing at stake. you free me from the burden of this task - for i see now there is no prospect of preventing the self-fulfilling propehcy of your fate.
goodbye.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

icono,

you came here professing to have nothing in mind but pure intentions to save the species, when the truth is all you are is a frontman for atheism. You point the finger at religious people who say, "Give up what you believe, believe what I tell you to, or else (you will go to hell, etc...)" and say that this way of doing things is doing all the damage. Then you say, "Give up what you believe, believe what I tell you to, or else (we're all going to die, etc...)" I see no difference between you and them.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

the threads closed because i'm leaving it. there's no point trying to convince you of soemthing you just won't see. thanks for the lesson. think about what it means, as we appraoch upon a number of global issues we need to cooperate to address, that you dug your heels in so deep when there was nothing at stake. you free me from the burden of this task - for i see now there is no prospect of preventing the self-fulfilling propehcy of your fate.
goodbye.

*In Yoda voice*

Come now, padawan. Don't let your emotions get the best of you.

The next response out of either of you better be constructive. If you want to bash on people, throw rocks at the a nearby evangelist. But here...here we must advance. Icon, it's a bit childish of you to say "This thread is closed". Why is it closed? There are differences in ideas here, and they are being expounded upon in an intelligent manner - do not get upset! If you wish to share more of your views, we are open ears, I just as much as anyone. There is point in sharing ideas. Instead of trying to CONVINCE, just focus on SHARING. Your goal shouldn't be to push your views on others, but to enlighten them. They are the only ones that can take the next step. Furthermore, to even better and refine your own thinking, I think it's imperative to converse with others. We, all of us, posting from different parts of the world, sharing, for the most part, well thought out intelligible ideas.. Isn't that beautiful to you? Hell, even if you don't find it beautiful, don't you find it the least bit practically helpful?

And no, I don't believe you can say that just because someone believes in a God, they are "passing off their responsibilities". In your eyes everyone must have the same line of thinking, and never stray from things that aren't practical, and, if someone does, they are supporting the destruction of humanity? Let's please not act like any one of us has all the answers, or that any one of us is constantly helping humanity's survival Smile

We are all in this together, so let's not point the blame.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Isn't this like every third discussion on this forum?

The problem is that non atheists still can't get it in their head that there is just no such thing as god so wecontinue to have this discussion. I'm afraid that it will go on and on forever. Unless they start realizing that the belief in god is a delusion which is what I think it is. But ofcourse that will never happen.:sarcastic::brickwall::poke-eye:

1 Reply

@MITech,

Those darn religious people. Trying to account for unexplained phenomenon. I mean c'mon, we can completely explain everything in the universe right now, so why do we need to provide a variable for the unexplained and supra-phenomenal.

Ironically, when atheists posit the existence of no God, they in fact underline the assumption that something like God exists. Even the negation of God has the concept of God within it. If atheists were true atheists, they would be agnostic.

4 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;25575 wrote:

Ironically, when atheists posit the existence of no God, they in fact underline the assumption that something like God exists. Even the negation of God has the concept of God within it. If atheists were true atheists, they would be agnostic.

Hunh? I would think that if atheists were true atheists they wouldn't even trouble themselves to engage in the debate. They'd just smile and go about their day without giving it a thought.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

Quote:

Those darn religious people. Trying to account for unexplained phenomenon. I mean c'mon, we can completely explain everything in the universe right now, so why do we need to provide a variable for the unexplained and supra-phenomenal.

Yes, it's a shame when religious people do not understand the literature they cling to.

Quote:

Hunh? I would think that if atheists were true atheists they wouldn't even trouble themselves to engage in the debate. They'd just smile and go about their day without giving it a thought.

To never even engage the question would be rather close minded of the atheist.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Those darn religious people. Trying to account for unexplained phenomenon. I mean c'mon, we can completely explain everything in the universe right now, so why do we need to provide a variable for the unexplained and supra-phenomenal.

Scientists do not know everything. Even some of the things scientists do know about, they do not fully understand or fully explain. Take for instance Dark matter which composes more than 80% of the universe but yet we don't know what it is. There's also a conflict between the classical worldview given to us by Classical Physics and compared to that given to us by Quantum Physics.

A true scientists will never claim to be able to explain everything because that would imply he or she would know everything, which is not a true claim.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;25734 wrote:

To never even engage the question would be rather close minded of the atheist.

Very true. Very true.

I was just responding to VideCorSpoon's post, which suggested that the Atheist who debates the non-existence of God becomes, by default, an Agnostic. I didn't agree with/didn't understand his statement. But then again I'm not terribly bright.

0 Replies

@Angel phil,

Angel wrote:

Scientists do not know everything. Even some of the things scientists do know about, they do not fully understand or fully explain. Take for instance Dark matter which composes more than 80% of the universe but yet we don't know what it is. There's also a conflict between the classical worldview given to us by Classical Physics and compared to that given to us by Quantum Physics.

A true scientists will never claim to be able to explain everything because that would imply he or she would know everything, which is not a true claim.

Angel, I think VCS was being sarcastic in his post about science providing all the answers. He prolly should've used the :sarcastic: icon, but oh well.

0 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Those darn religious people. Trying to account for unexplained phenomenon. I mean c'mon, we can completely explain everything in the universe right now, so why do we need to provide a variable for the unexplained and supra-phenomenal.

Ironically, when atheists posit the existence of no God, they in fact underline the assumption that something like God exists. Even the negation of God has the concept of God within it. If atheists were true atheists, they would be agnostic.

Yes. The ontological argument. I find that non-believers impose their beliefs more than believers do. Many believers aren't right-wing nutters, nor do they belong to Catholicism or Anglicanism.

1 Reply

@Robert Drane,

If one debates whether unicorns exist or not, does this mean that those who take take the negative prove that "something like" unicorns do, in fact, exist?

What the debate shows to be assumed is that the concept of god has meaning, not anything about the concept's actual existence apart from that, and that both sides use (very roughly) the same conception of godhood in their discussion.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

Quote:

If one debates whether unicorns exist or not, does this mean that those who take take the negative prove that "something like" unicorns do, in fact, exist?

At least some things like a unicorn - maybe horses and rhinoceroses, for example.

Quote:

What the debate shows to be assumed is that the concept of god has meaning, not anything about the concept's actual existence apart from that, and that both sides use (very roughly) the same conception of godhood in their discussion.

You are right about the first assumption, but I'm not sure about the second. How often do two people debate the matter without any agreement over what the concept of god does mean?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Guys, I'm no atheist, I think everyone here knows that by now, but I've got to say that this idea that atheists denying the existence of God somehow supports the existence of God is just about the silliest thing that I've ever heard. I don't care what spin you put on it, it really just doesn't make sense, and all it serves to accomplish is to further alienate atheists from any discussion that involves theists. Frankly, I think if I were an atheist, I'd be so downright insulted by anyone who throws the ontological argument in my face that I wouldn't even bother to talk that person anymore. When theists bring up the ontological argument they're basically saying to atheists that it doesn't matter what you say, whether or not you or I make any sense, cause in the end I'm going to walk away and say that you, the atheist, has proven that God exists. It's akin to babbling and it's little wonder that atheists groan and roll their eyes whenever a theist enters a discussion.

2 Replies

@Solace,

Solace, I do not buy that argument, either. My point is not that denying the existence of God is somehow evidence of God's existence, but rather that denying God's existence is only denying that a particular thing, with certain attributes compiled together under one heading, actually exists as described. The attributes man applies to God must have some source.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

That's all well and good, DT, but if an atheist says he does not believe in the existence of God, no matter what particular attributes you ascribe to God, then why can't we just leave it at that? I mean, do you really think there is any manner in which you can describe God that an atheist will accept? That is without eliminating the word God, and therefore the concept of God, altogether from the equation, in which case you wouldn't be talking about God at all.

0 Replies

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

... but I've got to say that this idea that atheists denying the existence of God somehow supports the existence of God is just about the silliest thing that I've ever heard...

Yea I've heard this from time to time as well. It's so completely backwards - and so seemingly obviously so - that frankly I'm blown away that it can make sense to anyone. But that's all well and good[1]. The only part that I wish I could understand, is how someone with some apparent sense of reason can say something so blatantly false, "... denying X proves X". Wow

But I am an atheist - I can't really say I'm 'proud' of it, but I'll happily admit it in forums like this[2]. But I think it important to note that by definition, by nearly all dictionaries, an atheist as one who doesn't believe (which is to say "disbelieves" or hasn't any belief) except wikipedia, which also tosses in "... affirms the nonexistence of". I've done a lot of research into this over the years and I think it important to keep our definitions straight. What defines an atheist is the "... I don't believe there is"; not necessarily "... there isn't", although a certain flavor of atheist claims this knowledge (which is preposterous, unless they know all things everywhere throughout the entire cosmos).

The only difference between an atheist and the agnostic is the "knowable" aspect. The agnostic believes this knowledge isn't "known" factor - that is is either unknown or cannot be known and therefore "makes no stand" so to speak. These definitions, which one can find in hundreds of definition-sources, do have overlap and in some cases could reasonably be called ambiguous. But let's not get mired in the muck and mud - most sources support the paraphrasing I've done here. The theist says "I believe", the atheist says "I don't believe" and the agnostic says "I neither believe nor disbelieve".

As far as the "why convince" sentiment Solace brings up - it's a great question. I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy these exchanges. I find it fascinating; the immense diversity of rationale folks employ. Dug down deep, it seems to all come back to hope, but that's another issue.

Yea, I'd really like to hear someone flesh out the ".. denying X actually proves X"-type of logic.

-------------
[1] And this acceptance is how it should be; as solace implied, "convincing" isn't something that comes from someone pontificating to another. Whether or not theological systems adhere or bounce off someone has much more to do with the individual's life-experiences, value systems or even significant emotional/intellectual events that can alter. Arguing doesn't help, preaching damn-sure doesn't help. Sharing views can

[2] I can't speak for other cultures, but I can stay that admitting such a thing publically - in a work place for example - generally has very negative consequences. Thus, unless I perceive an open and non-judgmental environment, I'll generally keep this to myself (even outright lie if I think it necessary).

1 Reply

@Khethil,

It might be useful to this discussion to avoid the distinction between atheist and agnostic completely, since the lines between the two are often unclear, and substitute a more generic term such as non-theists however awkward this might be initially. Its use would also lend itself to avoiding the use of misleading words such as "faith" or "belief" in favour of "holding a position." Wouldn't this approach allow a concentration on the arguments themselves in the spirit of philosophical dialogue rather than a casual dismissal by classification?

2 Replies

@jgweed,

Quote:

Wouldn't this approach allow a concentration on the arguments themselves rather than a casual dismissal by classification in the spirit of philosophical dialogue?

Yes, precisely. With Khethil I take the stand that I much enjoy these theological discourses with both atheists and theists included, and not with one side blurring the stance of the other.

0 Replies

No such thing as God.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know