A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

i was just goofing around

GoshisDead wrote:

so if I'm simply skeptical of atheism am I an aatheist?

To the extent that you're making any sense at all, yes you are. Though I don't see what it could possibly mean to be skeptical of skepticism.

Thomas wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

so if I'm simply skeptical of atheism am I an aatheist?

To the extent that you're making any sense at all, yes you are. Though I don't see what it could possibly mean to be skeptical of skepticism.

It means you don't wholly subscribe to skepticism.

You're occasionally aaaskeptical.

I can be both skeptical and skeptical of my skepticism several times before breakfast.


I think I started all this aaaaaa cleverness, and I want royalties, by the way.

From the other thread, I've C&P one of Finn's posts...

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A common theme within the justification of atheist thought is the inability to reconcile human suffering with a God of any sort, let alone a just and loving one.

Why does a Atheist have to justify that they are unconvinced?

They don't, but you will have to ask the ones who try why they do.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

dlowan, apparently, is faced, on a daily basis, with the evil of which mankind is capable and she has somehow connected the belief in God with a victim's belief that his or her suffering is deserved. Labelling both irrational.

She could also be thinking that the suffering is NOT deserved.

Perhaps, but if I recall correctly she drew a very clear comparison between belief in God and the belief of abused children that they were somehow responsible for their abuse. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you take the time to quote her and prove me so.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Unfortunately, to a child, drawing a cause and effect relationship between their abuse and their conduct is entirely rational. They are, after all, children.

Not entirely wrong Finn. Children do make false associations, but adults specifically train children to have many of those associations. In the case of the welfare of mankind (the "abuse") being linked with the actions (the "conduct") of mankind, this is a religious association, not a atheistic one. An atheist addressing this view is addressing the illogic of a theistic position, not the other way around.

Not sure what you are arguing here.

A comparison between belief in God and an abused child's belief that their abuse is their own fault is entirely specious. (It might also be considered quite offense by some, but then that other thread was about how atheists were being offended so I guess the point is irrelevant). Dlown, clearly, was making the point that both beliefs are irrational and my argument was that the one she was relying on for her comparison was in fact not. My argument had nothing to do with atheistic or theistic positions.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Similarly, it is the residue of this child-like perspective that directs many aetheists to their position of denial.

A failure to be convinced of something because no compelling case can be built is hardly the fault of atheists. It's not like Theists are eagerly presenting a overwhelming body of evidence. Quite contrary really.

You are being overly defensive. I am not faulting atheists, I am merely pointing out that many have reached their conclusion based on a perceived contradiction between a supreme being and eartly suffering. One need only read the posts in this forum to know I am right.

By the same token, there are many believers who have come to their conclusion through a child-like perspective.

I don't know what other believers intend, but I'm not going to try and prove to you God exists.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As adults, we can see that the child's behavior can never be the justifaction for abuse, but some of us are locked into this very human calculation when it comes to consideration of the devine.

Again, this is a religious association that you are making, not an atheistic one. Atheists didn't say god punished Haiti with a earthquake. Atheists didn't think that Haiti fate was "justified." Atheists understood it was a natural event, and nothing more.

Perhaps you (and other atheists) did not, but many people lose their faith or belief in God because of tragedies like the Haitian earthquake, and many atheists offer the Hatian earthquake (and other examples of earthly suffering) as proof there can be no God.

If this doesn't describe you, I won't argue it does.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A just and loving father would never abuse his children no matter what their behavior, and yet a just and loving God seems to. Therefore they must either excuse the abusive father or deny the abusive God.

Who created this father-god claim you keep talking about? It wasn't atheists.

You have this notion that atheists are all part of a club, and have all come to their conclusion about God from the same place. Many atheists were once believers. If you disagree with this contention, so be it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The fallacy here, of course, is that the imagery of God the Father is entirely the creation of humans and their narrow perspective, and it is child-like to insist that God demonstrate the behaviors of the best of earthly human fathers.

All details about all gods are the creation of humans and their narrow perspective.

True

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

These are atheists who do not deny God so much as they deny the facile Christian version of God, and, unfortunately, they seem to be unable to consider God through anything but a facile Christian perspective.

Only one of us is attempting to make a discussion on this monotheistic. It is not me. I was raised with a very diverse exposure to many religions.

Shinto
Buddhism
Native American Shamanism
Protestant Christianity (Baptist, Lutheran, and a slew of others...)
Catholic Christianity
Mormonism (RCLD)
Wicca
and in a lesser sense the Greek and Roman Pantheon.

I make no special case for Christianity in my argument. It is but one of many religions, that in no way are any less false.

How did you come to the conclusion that my comments were directed specifically to you?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Take it a step further though and you can see how truly child-like many atheists perceptions of God are. What child ever accepts that the punishment he or she receives is an act of love? They are certainly capable of of connecting punishment to behavior, but incapable of the reasoning behind the desire to manage behavior. This isn't something you can bring a child to understand through reasoning. They will never associate punishment with love, and they will always associate punishment with displeasure or dissapointment.

What punishment are you referring to here?

I am following on the Dlowan comparison. While I don't believe it to be the case, many believers turned non-believers see earthly suffering as punishment

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm not a Christian, in part because the common practice is too desperate to reduce God to human terms, but I do believe that a Christian of thought understands that we can only hope to perceive God's plan, and trusts that he is not insane.

That's a lot of assumptions to make. I've seen nothing to convince me to believe the same.

Good for you Diest. I said it was my belief, not a fact.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Of course this is not to say that all atheists are the disappointed adult children of a Christian God, but it's hard to understand their insistence, or the professed understanding behind that insistence, that God, in any manner, can[not] exist.

I think you made a typo? See my edit above in square brackets.

You're right

I do not have any obligation to prove something does not exist. Until any gods are proven to exist, it does not make any sense (daresay I--it is irresponsible) to assume they do.

Of course you don't, but why do you (if in fact you do) have to insist that God cannot exist?

If you'd like to propose any specific god or gods and provide proof/evidence for their supposed acts, you may do so. However, making some nebulous there must be some sort of singular male deity (you've only referred to one and it has been addressed as male) but not putting up the ante to prove it...

Well...

A
R
That's rather unconvincing.

I'm not trying to convince you that God exists, and I have freely admitted over and over again that I cannot prove he exists. As for my use of the male pronoun...please spare me and don't go there. It is simply a matter of convenience. The notion that God is either male or female is ridiculous.

hey people,

when i people ask for proof of God, i am astounded.....

has anyone here read the quran??

u might think its the book of satan or something like that, but plz....just for once read it by urself and not go by what preachers ( even islamic ones) and the media says.....do some research by urself.....plz people this is a request...

there's plenty of scientific facts in the quran which are being discovered now...

considering that these facts are written in a book 1400 years old, dont u think its too much of a coincidence???

dude krumple,

have u even read the quran??
even once with proper meaning??

One verse that instructs man to travel through the earth, make his own observations and use such surveillances to reflect on how creation was originated (29:20).

God tells to find us own way to the truth, he is here to guide us....

just read the book for once before criticizing it....

God has given u a brain, use it!!

read it and tell me if u have another meaning for the verses u said can be explained in different ways...

From the other thread, I've C&P one of Finn's posts...

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A common theme within the justification of atheist thought is the inability to reconcile human suffering with a God of any sort, let alone a just and loving one.

Why does a Atheist have to justify that they are unconvinced?

They don't, but you will have to ask the ones who try why they do.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

dlowan, apparently, is faced, on a daily basis, with the evil of which mankind is capable and she has somehow connected the belief in God with a victim's belief that his or her suffering is deserved. Labelling both irrational.

She could also be thinking that the suffering is NOT deserved.

Perhaps, but if I recall correctly she drew a very clear comparison between belief in God and the belief of abused children that they were somehow responsible for their abuse. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you take the time to quote her and prove me so.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Unfortunately, to a child, drawing a cause and effect relationship between their abuse and their conduct is entirely rational. They are, after all, children.

Not entirely wrong Finn. Children do make false associations, but adults specifically train children to have many of those associations. In the case of the welfare of mankind (the "abuse") being linked with the actions (the "conduct") of mankind, this is a religious association, not a atheistic one. An atheist addressing this view is addressing the illogic of a theistic position, not the other way around.

Not sure what you are arguing here.

A comparison between belief in God and an abused child's belief that their abuse is their own fault is entirely specious. (It might also be considered quite offense by some, but then that other thread was about how atheists were being offended so I guess the point is irrelevant). Dlown, clearly, was making the point that both beliefs are irrational and my argument was that the one she was relying on for her comparison was in fact not. My argument had nothing to do with atheistic or theistic positions.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Similarly, it is the residue of this child-like perspective that directs many aetheists to their position of denial.

A failure to be convinced of something because no compelling case can be built is hardly the fault of atheists. It's not like Theists are eagerly presenting a overwhelming body of evidence. Quite contrary really.

You are being overly defensive. I am not faulting atheists, I am merely pointing out that many have reached their conclusion based on a perceived contradiction between a supreme being and eartly suffering. One need only read the posts in this forum to know I am right.

By the same token, there are many believers who have come to their conclusion through a child-like perspective.

I don't know what other believers intend, but I'm not going to try and prove to you God exists.[/color]

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As adults, we can see that the child's behavior can never be the justifaction for abuse, but some of us are locked into this very human calculation when it comes to consideration of the devine.

Again, this is a religious association that you are making, not an atheistic one. Atheists didn't say god punished Haiti with a earthquake. Atheists didn't think that Haiti fate was "justified." Atheists understood it was a natural event, and nothing more.

Perhaps you (and other atheists) did not, but many people lose their faith or belief in God because of tragedies like the Haitian earthquake, and many atheists offer the Hatian earthquake (and other examples of earthly suffering) as proof there can be no God.

If this doesn't describe you, I won't argue it does.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A just and loving father would never abuse his children no matter what their behavior, and yet a just and loving God seems to. Therefore they must either excuse the abusive father or deny the abusive God.

Who created this father-god claim you keep talking about? It wasn't atheists.

You have this notion that atheists are all part of a club, and have all come to their conclusion about God from the same place. Many atheists were once believers. If you disagree with this contention, so be it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The fallacy here, of course, is that the imagery of God the Father is entirely the creation of humans and their narrow perspective, and it is child-like to insist that God demonstrate the behaviors of the best of earthly human fathers.

All details about all gods are the creation of humans and their narrow perspective.

True

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

These are atheists who do not deny God so much as they deny the facile Christian version of God, and, unfortunately, they seem to be unable to consider God through anything but a facile Christian perspective.

Only one of us is attempting to make a discussion on this monotheistic. It is not me. I was raised with a very diverse exposure to many religions.

Shinto
Buddhism
Native American Shamanism
Protestant Christianity (Baptist, Lutheran, and a slew of others...)
Catholic Christianity
Mormonism (RCLD)
Wicca
and in a lesser sense the Greek and Roman Pantheon.

I make no special case for Christianity in my argument. It is but one of many religions, that in no way are any less false.

How did you come to the conclusion that my comments were directed specifically to you?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Take it a step further though and you can see how truly child-like many atheists perceptions of God are. What child ever accepts that the punishment he or she receives is an act of love? They are certainly capable of of connecting punishment to behavior, but incapable of the reasoning behind the desire to manage behavior. This isn't something you can bring a child to understand through reasoning. They will never associate punishment with love, and they will always associate punishment with displeasure or dissapointment.

What punishment are you referring to here?

I am following on the Dlowan comparison. While I don't believe it to be the case, many believers turned non-believers see earthly suffering as punishment

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm not a Christian, in part because the common practice is too desperate to reduce God to human terms, but I do believe that a Christian of thought understands that we can only hope to perceive God's plan, and trusts that he is not insane.

That's a lot of assumptions to make. I've seen nothing to convince me to believe the same.

Good for you Diest. I said it was my belief, not a fact.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Of course this is not to say that all atheists are the disappointed adult children of a Christian God, but it's hard to understand their insistence, or the professed understanding behind that insistence, that God, in any manner, can[not] exist.

I think you made a typo? See my edit above in square brackets.

You're right

I do not have any obligation to prove something does not exist. Until any gods are proven to exist, it does not make any sense (daresay I--it is irresponsible) to assume they do.

Of course you don't, but why do you (if in fact you do) have to insist that God cannot exist?

If you'd like to propose any specific god or gods and provide proof/evidence for their supposed acts, you may do so. However, making some nebulous there must be some sort of singular male deity (you've only referred to one and it has been addressed as male) but not putting up the ante to prove it...

Well...

A
R
That's rather unconvincing.

I'm not trying to convince you that God exists, and I have freely admitted over and over again that I cannot prove he exists. As for my use of the male pronoun...please spare me and don't go there. It is simply a matter of convenience. The notion that God is either male or female is ridiculous.

the philosophical problem you have is that the nature of reality itself is unknown to us.

It does not consist of atoms - they have been shown to be mostly empty space, describable only in terms of mathematical functions with very dubious substantiality.

All they have is a tendency to exist. So what is everything made of? Empty space, meanwhile, is teeming with potential energy, and physical cosmology can account for less than 10% of the physical universe. And what we think of as reality has been shown by cognitive science to be mainly the activity of neural networks which create the montage or matrix within which we apparently exist.

So before you start ruling god in or out, how about figuring out where we actually are.

I think you will find reality is far stranger than any religion, most of which is stuck in the medieval ages, as are your thoughts about it.