question to the all the atheists

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by rygoody, Feb 5, 2009.

  1. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    722
    Lots of talk about empirical evidence. There's lots of empirical evidence on atheists side for anyone foolish enough to attempt any definition of God.

    Christian God? Tons of imperial evidence discredit the bible.

    Is God male? If God was sexually oriented as man or woman it could only mean one thing, that more than one God exists and they have sex. That means Gods reproduce, which means Gods are not infinite, which means Gods are not omnipotent, which means Gods are not really Gods, which means there really are no GODS!

    Come on theists, define what it is you believe in if you do not fear empirical evidence.
     
  2. daisymae

    daisymae Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,980
    Likes Received:
    17
    If there really is a god...it won't change the fact that no one knows for sure until they are dead.
     
  3. jumbuli55

    jumbuli55 Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0
    As none-ist I can only say that so far I am not convinced one or another way by any side, be it theists or atheists, or even deists.

    There is much evidence on atheists side, but it lacks consistency and profoundity when it comes to things that no man has yet been able to rationally explain (such as unexplained phenomena in quantum physics, or what was there before the Big Bang and existence of Time, how it all came to be and etc.).
    Not that it implies existence of God, but it implies that there are some major things in Nature for which we don't have rational explanations and it is just beyond of whatever explanation we can so far come up with.

    As to theists, most of them, looking at unexplainable phenomena in Nature, try to inject their own personal beliefs, expectations, desires , emotions and perception into outside world and come up with equally unconvincing projection in absence of ability to explain what really is out there.

    Deists sound most believable of all, but then again what empirical evidence is there to truly be a Deist? Only inferences!


    P.S. Btw, I think that Death is the state of non-existence of consciousness and, consequently, absence of perception of Time , therefore we will never find out what the Nature of Universe is if we can't do so while Alive.
     
  4. RandomOne

    RandomOne Member

    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    4
    I will believe in god once he makes it known to me that he exists, and at such time i will consider the meaning of his existence. Right now I have my own existence to wonder about.
     
  5. RandomOne

    RandomOne Member

    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    4
    so you're an agnostic?

    cool, me too. Let's be non-belief buddies
     
  6. AlexianLibertarian

    AlexianLibertarian Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a god existed, it wouldn't mean anything; life would be as meaningful as it is, as beautiful, as enlightening. But then it depends on what kind of god; it would be very morbid were the Islamic and Judeao-Christian God to exist, though.

    And like someone before me said, if there is a god, it wouldn't change the fact as to whether we know or believe he exists until we die.
     
  7. Indy Hippy

    Indy Hippy Zen & Bearded

    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    9

    Out of interest why would that be morbid? I was raised to believe in Christianity and I am a born Jew. Although I do not believe in the Judeo/Christian God in that exact form anylonger I am interested to hear reasons for such beliefs.
     
  8. AlexianLibertarian

    AlexianLibertarian Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would be morbid because then it would be a form of cosmological totalitarianism into human affairs; the Islamic/Judeao-Christian God is also hypocritical, megalomanical, objectifying, and egocentric. And that would mean we're automatic servants to him and that we must adhere to his commands, even if it is to commit atrocities. It would also disregard human rights and only recognize the right of God.

    Our governments would all be theocratic and/or, if otherwise, would fail by His will rather than by human nature.
     
  9. Indy Hippy

    Indy Hippy Zen & Bearded

    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    9
    A very valid point. And I do not disagree... but in many ways are we not already so many of these things?
     
  10. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    722
    I'm sure in death we will know exactly what we knew as zygotes, nothing.

    I just finished watching the Dark knight, powerful line at the end:
    "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded".

    I might be better off living in a fantasy world, but at who's cost?
     
  11. AlexianLibertarian

    AlexianLibertarian Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, not as a whole.

    I'm talking in COSMOLOGICAL level. A universal cosmological surveillance camera that can be everywhere at once; there are no blind spots, there is no rebellion.

    It's worse, because the rebellion against such a God would be a futile effort, as the God is omnipotent, and you also can't get rid of him, and his power is not authority, i.e. it was not given by anyone, perhaps not even himself. He just is powerful, enough to alter reality.

    Governments and relationships as well as human actions would fail by the arbitration of God rather than theoretical content or practice.
     
  12. Indy Hippy

    Indy Hippy Zen & Bearded

    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    9
    But in order to believe in the fact that a God does not exist then you must believe in absolute truth correct? Because by saying that there is most certainly no God you are stating that to be certain and absolute itself. And even if there is no God out there there is a little god within each of us that continually manipulates and controls us. And in many ways there is an outter god known as the Government. They are almost Omnipotent, no authority was given to them for they too were not asigned it they simply chose to be that which they are. In times long ago men decided to govern themselves thus giving themselves power above others. So no matter what we are all in the same boat with the same problem no matter how we squash it and where we put this god, gods, or nothing.
     
  13. AlexianLibertarian

    AlexianLibertarian Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the Government is not omniponent; and even if it becomes so, it is by the subordination of the people, and it would only be omnipotent in the realm of social affairs.

    God is cosmologically omnipotent, and not only so in social affairs, but in all aspects of the world, and no matter how much you rebel against God, it will be futile. It is not the same case with government; government is by subordination of the people. If the majority rebel, which the majority is the most powerful entity in a society, it's easier to destroy the government by war. No amount of war with God would result in anything, especially since God cannot die if not by His own will, and he cannot change his mind.

    God is more of a problem than government. Government is created and controlled by man while God is ruled by God alone and God alone rules the world.

    And no, I don't believe a God exists; I was not necessarily making a claim of absolute truth, but perhaps of probability that God does not exist. You do not need absolute certainty that God doesn't exists to believe he doesn't, and some would say no certainty is necessary for knowledge, in fact. I do believe in objective truth, though.

    There is no god within each of us in a literal sense of the word god; what we have is a mind. We are not slave to our minds, we are our minds. We would be slaves to a God. And government can enslave the people, but again, God would be worse, because of the things previously mentioned. Because God cannot be changed at all or banished at all, while government can, though sometimes with great difficult.

    And, yes, certain governments are bad, but that doesn't make God any better; in fact, again, God is worse. Yes, things in nature are bad, but having God would be worse. Picking the best out of two evils doesn't mean one of the options is good; they're still both bad, so the information about humanity that you provided for comparison to God is irrelevant.

    I would say essentially that life is good though, and beautiful, and that God would be a black stain in the white shirt of life.
     
  14. Indy Hippy

    Indy Hippy Zen & Bearded

    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    9
    The government is more omnipotent then people are led to believe. More often then not they know what is going on even when we think they do not. Also please note that I didn't say that the government had full omnipotency simply that they are very close to it.

    You seem to be basing your entire belief on what god is by Christian Philosophy. There are many religions where gods have been rebelled against and succesfully overthrown. Take the ancient Greek religion for instance, there is the case there of the Titans. Also there are many cases of gods dying, take the story of Osiris in the ancient Egyptian religion. He was chopped into 14 peices and scattered to the four winds of Egypt. Not by his own will. God has often changed his mind. All you need to do is look at the bible to know that. The Christian God changed his mind so much that he went from being a violent tyrannical God in the old testement to being a loving, redeeming, forgiving God in the new.

    There are plenty of religions where people are not slaves to their gods take Buddhism and Druidism for example. In druidism one is not a slave to Gaia they are a child of Gaia that is simply expected to honor and respect their great mother. If a religion makes you a slave to your god or gods then it is obviously inherently flawed.

    Once again your basis of this theisis that god is worse than government seems to be based on the stories of only one or two gods. There are many cases of gods throught history that were neither harmful nor judging of humanity.
     
  15. AlexianLibertarian

    AlexianLibertarian Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    And, you just admitted that government is only close to omnipotence; well guess what? God is not close, he is. So God is worse then government. Again, just because government is also similar doesn't make the idea of God any better; God remains worse than government, because: God is omnipotent, and God as characterized in the Old Testament, and even some of the new, makes it that it is dangerous he has this innate omnipotence.

    So I would say power in itself, especially limited power, is not bad, but it is how that power is used; even if you take the institution of power and monopoly that we call government away, inevitably their will be some form of power, earned by perhaps class system or those held in higher esteem by society; those would hold tremendous influence. And also the fact that people disagree makes it so that there is social tension and drives competition for power or drives for socialization of an idea/norm through a war, whether it is of words or technology or machine or money, etcetera. The more advantage, the more power. The institution we call government is only a sophisticated expression of this inevitability.

    But with great power comes great responsibility; luckily, the government of our current America was not set in place by force from an elite group, but by this group simply following consent of the states. So I think it's about doing it right.

    But a God such as the Judeao-Christian God that is omnipotent? That's scary. It's like giving Hitler power again.

    And I know I am basing them on the stories of one or two gods; we were talking about the Judeao-Christian God in the first place, weren't we? Stop moving the goalpost.

    If the Judeao-Christian God can change his mind then God cannot be omniscient, or all-knowing, as most Christian folks and some Christian philosophy claim him to be. I am going by the Christian philosophical assumption that God is omniscient.
     
  16. Indy Hippy

    Indy Hippy Zen & Bearded

    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    9
    The topic of the thread was wether god existed and did not specify which god they want to prove or disprove existence of. As to his changes his mind makin him uncapable of being omnipotent lets have a look at that theory.

    om·nip·o·tent (ŏm-nĭp'ə-tənt)
    adj. Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

    om⋅nis⋅cient   /ɒmˈnɪʃənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [om-nish-uhnt]

    –adjective 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.


    No where in either of those definitions does it say that to be these things cancels out the allowance of a change of state and or thought? Hence God, god, gods, or goddess', can all freely change their minds and still be omnipotent, and omniscient.
     
  17. AlexianLibertarian

    AlexianLibertarian Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that's what the topic of the thread was about, but I responded to the topic saying it wouldn't matter, depending on what type of god it is. And I then specified that the Judeao-Christian God existing would be morbid. Then you asked me why the Judeao-Christian God would be morbid, so again, don't shift the goalpost. So our conversation was about the Judeao-Christian God, whether or not the conversation took place in a thread where the god was not specified.

    No, the definition doesn't say He can't change His mind, but the dictionary definition of kill(v.) doesn't say it's immoral either; but by inference, if God is all-knowing, then if he changes his mind, that would mean that his previous knowledge was incorrect. But guess what? If God knows everything, that means he knows whether in the future his knowledge claim would be incorrect or not, or whether he will be proven wrong, which also means that he cannot believe something that is absolutely incorrect to be knowledge, as he already knows it is not by knowing whether or not in the future he will be proven incorrect. So omniscience entails infallibility. So he couldn't change his mind. Any omniscient god would be infallible in their claims, in fact. (though, God's omnipotence contradicts his omniscience, supposing his omnipotence is intrinsic)

    Humans, however, can be incorrect in what they claim to be knowledge because humans do not have knowledge of everything and thus are fallible in their knowledge claims.
     
  18. Indy Hippy

    Indy Hippy Zen & Bearded

    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    9
    I would like to make the point that just because you know everything does not mean you cannot change your mind my good man. Sometimes even knowing something you still must make a different decision
     
  19. AlexianLibertarian

    AlexianLibertarian Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    :icon_bs:

    So you basically just repeated yourself without refuting what I said.

    :beatdeadhorse5:
     
  20. Indy Hippy

    Indy Hippy Zen & Bearded

    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    9
    I simply made the point that your point of not being able to be omnipotent and still change your mind is easily refutable. Any one can change their mind and still know all that there is to know. Any one thats omnipotent or omnscient at least.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice