Precisely. His whole argument is based on a widespread misunderstanding of God that is based more on Greek philosopy rather than the Bible. Calvinism and Arminism are responsible for creating many atheists.
The call me Fearless...
- Thread starter Fearlessly Express
- Start date
Fearlessly Express
New member
Not emotional, just adding emphasis. Well that depends. Since I have no objective definition of god that I subscribe to, I approach the subject using the definition of those claiming knowledge of god. In this case I would have to ask you the same; do you think god is omnipotent?
I've made my opinions very clear. So clear I received an infraction. In any case, if the battlefield general ordered his troops to wipe out an entire civilian population, including women and children, and included orders to take sex slaves, then yes. I would see that general as equally detestable.
Some things just merit emphasis.
More accurately, not being just cause unnecessary harm. In that respect, yes, it is evil.
Under the authority of the Constitution? Plenty of Native Americans.
An oversight on my part, but hardly a testimony to my sentiments. Why do you feel the need to psychoanalyze anyways? The picture you seem to be trying to paint with water won't materialize.
The second definition is NOT insignificant.
2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
Right. Social and methodological indoctrination.
You're free to declare anything. I'm trying to have a reasoned conversation with you. So you meet another way of seeing the same thing you already said and you just say it again?lain: The history of men is violent. You're even missing what should follow from your own point.
If you're right and God isn't then every act you object to in his name was nothing more or less than what I've been telling you about, that men use any idea as a means to power and if you eliminate one notion from the lexicon, along with every good thing attending it as well, you won't have changed anything other than the sound that sort of man uses to signify.
I am by no means saying that religion does not have its cheery, lovey, feel good side. I am just of the opinion that one can not honestly evaluate the positive without also addressing the negative. I'm sure there are plenty here who accentuate the positive. I'll leave that to them. I will present the contrary.
And why wouldn't man be an atheist naturally? Children know nothing of religion or god from birth, and such notions are imbued into them. There may perhaps be some spiritual nature to people, to this I myself can agree, however religious notions are then imbued into them by their parents, culture, etc. I would argue that as children are more or less empty vessels with a natural ignorance of all things religious they are neither necessarily naturally atheist or theist since they neither reject religious claims nor subscribe to them.
Religion, however, is a man made thing, and that it has cropped up all over human history across culture does not in any way attest to its validity.
It's a very common fallacy among the religious arguing for the existence of god, and in many respects is the reason gods were created by men; to explain things they did not understand.
On the contrary, I do not see an answer. I see the answer being presented, and reject it as illogical, contradictory, and overtly immoral in many respects.
No, I don't. I am not claiming any special knowledge and nowhere have I even insinuated that...
Why do you now feel the need to put words into my mouth? I have said no such thing.
Anything but ambiguous about what exactly? I already do think for myself. That is partly the why and the how I became an atheist, and before you even insinuate some subtext, that is not to say that theists do not think for themselves.
What point would that be exactly? I don't see where you are making one here except to surreptitiously engage in some ad hominem, and perhaps some straw man.
And I will agree with you on this point in some respects. There is value in having religious community and justification in the sense that membership has its benefits, but I'll point out that it also has its unintended consequences, and not necessarily in a positive way.
On the surface of popular perception, perhaps, but I have heard some compelling arguments to the contrary and there is no shortage of examples of the harm that religion does and has done.
The very definition of faith is belief without evidence, and it is demonstrably true that faith alone is not a reliable path to truth or knowledge. While there is arguable rationale argument, what do you posit as a testable hypothesis? I am aware of several studies on the efficacy of prayer that yielded null results. Beyond some psychological benefit, prayer had no significant effect on outcomes, and the psychological benefits could be equally achieved with meditation without need to invoke the supernatural.
On some counts, no there isn't, but as I stated just previously the empirical does have some say. Some claims of religion are testable, and the tests revealed that the claims are unsubstantiated.
You are, but you believe you aren't.
No, I'm not. Not intentionally or wittingly in any event.
I'm not so sure about that without doing the research to substantiate the claim. We'll set that aside for the moment.
I'll concede the point for the moment.
I wouldn't call that an answer. I'd call it a rationalization.
On the contrary I was raised in the church and spent the better part of my life as a believer. I have had many experiences I thought were "God speaking to me." Far more than you realize.
Not at all. It's just my opinion based upon the context of the Bible. Do I have an emotional reaction to the God of the Bible ordering the deaths of whole towns, including the women and children, and the taking of sex slaves? Sure I do. Don't you? It doesn't make me angry at the God of the Bible, but it does lend me to rejecting his moral authority.
If that rationale seems to be fishwrap to you, and you don't have a guttural revulsion to that practice, then you aren't the only one who would hope for better from your fellow human beings.
According to the bible, no, God is not omnipotent. Even people have power to thwart His plans.
Please realize this is the version of God you defend.
Do you know anything about Mars? Or Zeus? Are they just as detestable? Can you list any god's that don't do what you are accusing God of doing?
So that is your definition of evil? That which causes unnecessary harm? Are you going to stick with that?
In order, I'm not and the picture that emerges is of your own making. I'm only a curious observer. I have friends here who are atheists. I'm not someone who has a particular drive to see you as you aren't.
It is for our purposes given the primary controls absent a contextual cue and the primary is just that. It worked in relation to education. So the point stands.
I'm going to leave off much of our "Oh no/Oh yes" bits to get to a couple of issues that are resolvable here. I think the reader has enough on hand to determine that for themselves. I've made my charges and presented my reasons and you've had a response.
It's counter intuitive. Scale, causality, our survival instinct and, I believe our natures compel us to seek God.
Assumptive speculation.
How did they get them?
That's the question. Or, men fashion religion and the question of moment is why.
You mean truth. It's validity isn't in question. But it does indicate something in the human experience that's worth examining.
I know you believe that to be true. I'm asking for an example of a serious Christian theologian making it, of its position in Christian orthodoxy. I haven't seen it. But I might have missed it. At present this feels like a dressed up stereotype.
We're communal. We're made for relation. The more you isolate man the more dysfunctional and dangerous he will become.
I wrote: I think it's fairly obvious that faith in God is an objectively, demonstrably superior posit/context for life, short or eternal.
No, objectively, rationally superior, which is why adherents live longer, happier lives. They give more of their time and material wealth to those in need...Atheists don't even self describe as happily, which makes sense given some of what I've already mentioned. And the wiser atheists understand that and are attempting to cobble a sort of replacement community, though they still can't offer purpose, real value (independent and existent beyond subjective desire) and hope.
They aren't compelling until they're made. They're just someone's big brother. Produce him that I might smite him.
No, it isn't. I don't know why atheists get that wrong all the time. Dawkins, a fine scientist, but low tier theological commentator makes that same mistake.
Not all atheists make that mistake, mind you. Take biochemist Dr. Simon Kolstoe, Centre for Amyloidosis & Acute Phase Proteins, UCL Medical School, London, who wrote to the editors of Philosophy Now:
[Faith] is taking the leap from tentatively believing a theory, to using that theory as a working principle. It is not belief in the absence of logic or evidence; it is a belief based upon ‘good enough’ evidence. Such a definition seems far more useful than the impossible definition of ‘ a belief without evidence’, or the rhetorical use as ‘a belief I do not agree with’.
Faith doesn't exist in a vacuum, so that's an easy statement.
You want the list of Christian theologians and philosophers who've written on the point? Or are you being coy?
Rather, what did Christ? Look to the rich young ruler. What is the prime law of Christianity? And the second which is like it?
So am I. Are you familiar with the methodology employed?
The existence of God isn't among them, but certainly there are empirically quantifiable and testable claims made by every religion.
You take on faith that you exist, that the world around you is real, that logic is reliable. We are creatures of faith from foundation.
I'm sure, having had this discussion more than a few times. It's a simple matter of population. Google an estimation of how many people Stalin's reign is responsible for murdering. It's staggering on its own. Mao, not unimpressive either. Even Pol managed impressive carnage in his reeducation projects. Together? There weren't enough people organized and available to compare to those millions.
I'd agree it's rational. You can call it Susan and claim it's a fantasy, but until you answer it reasonably I'm disinterested.
I didn't say you didn't attend a church. I didn't say you lacked some idea of God or sentiment. I said you have no experience of God. You can't say that you did without establishing the validity of His existence. So either you didn't or you did and rejected Him. I gave you credit, given much of your writing about being unsure as opposed to readily and willfully embracing evil.
Then you have a problem. How can you be sure you aren't delusional now?
I wrote that you were angry.
I'm sorry you're that blinkered, but the small g began that information. Your repeated continuance of that isolated rejection of grammar when it came to the Bible, which you claimed as a typing error then smartly repeated it for the duration.
But set those milder things aside, your last description of the Christian God was emotional and of that "cause God said so" timber. Now it would have been an indicator absent the earlier on a street corner having a conversation. But coupled with them and in a place where you understand the larger audience makeup, it's rather impossible to mistake.That's pride speaking and a want of understanding of the context. In Christian parlance, you approach with a carnal mind. You place your judgement above God and whatever you thought you heard or loved, you obviously reserved the right to judge it.
As for my response, we'll come to it over time, perhaps. But first, let's get to know you. It's the point of the thread, after all.
:e4e:
Fearlessly Express
New member
Then why call him god?
No, it's the version of god I reject just like I reject all other gods.
I'm well versed on the history. They are all imaginary, individual attributes and behaviors is an aside. The respective existence of other gods aside, it is irrelevant to my case against the Bible God, for which I am passing judgement on the text of the Bible itself and the history of religion in practice.
Now you might say, "Well who are you to pass judgement on the Bible as evil?", and I will go ahead and answer this challenge with, "Well who are you to pass judgement on the Bible as good?"
It's a good starting point for an objective definition. Do you have a problem with it?
Everybody is different, and yearns for different things. I prefer practical knowledge.
No more and no less a speculative assumption than thinking that our nature compel us to seek god.
From their culture.
Political agendas are a dime a dozen, and very rarely reflect virtue in primitive cultures with superstitious beliefs.
Perhaps so. Like I said, I don't discount the validity of the spiritual life of people. It has a meaning and purpose unto itself, and fills a psychological need. But this does not to my satisfaction demonstrate why I should subscribe to one religion over another. Having researched and compared several religions, with major consideration given to the TriAxis of Abrahmic Religions, I have concluded they are equally disposable even as they are yet worth studying and understanding while remaining a healthy skepticism.
I've seen the argument made enough times. I suppose you have missed it. Perhaps it is, but I wouldn't be alone in guilt for stereotyping the opposition, would I?
Some people are more communal than others. I suppose if you are talking about torturing and isolating someone, yes, but there is plenty of examples of people leading isolated lives but are otherwise healthy and productive.
That's a dressed up stereotype too.
I've seen studies that suggest otherwise, and I self describe as happy. Another assertion without evidence dismissed without evidence.
More stereotyping that doesn't reflect reality. We've actually got a pretty good community on the internet and I've made many connections with other atheist and had no trouble creating meaningful relationships. Another assertion without evidence dismissed without evidence.
We all judge by our own standard, and there is no escaping it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I mine. In the sum of it, we will draw our own unique conclusions, but we each have passed a judgement one way or the other.
I'm a skeptic.
I reject the Moral Authority of the Bible.
I see no evidence to indicate that a god exists, that the God of the Bible exists, that Allah exists, nor any other god claim. I do not find faith in a god or gods particularly useful, but opinion may differ.
Not really. History rather compels us to see the compulsion, across ages, cultures etc. There are scientists arguing for genetic predisposition. Or, not all speculation is created equal.
From the Wall Street Journal, Why Belief in God is Innate: In his 1871 book, "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin noted that anthropologists conclude that "a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in the reasoning powers of man, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder."
The article sites a few interesting studies that lead to a reasonable assertion that "your culture may dictate which God to believe in, but the belief in a supernatural agent who operates in the world is universal to all cultures because it is hard-wired in the brain."
Now the real question and one I differ with the writer of this article over, is why.
Men come first. Smaller groups first and any time we see evidence of men, supra. Culture first and foremost is reflective, especially in formative stages and among smaller groups. And guess what we find. Yeah, God.
I'm happy to hear it.
Without question. At least in part it satisfies, intellectually, one of our prime directives biologically, to survive. Then it meets our drive for value and our purposeful natures.
That's a pretty big jump. You should start with the more primal question: should I subscribe to any? I think the answer is yes no matter how we come down on the particulars. Theism is at the very least the superior utility, the better contextual fit for man. That at the outset it isn't arguably more or less true makes it the rational one, given its benefits. That it could well be right is so much icing.
Now before you yell Pascal at me, understand that Pascal was gambling and speaking to the afterlife. I'm not gambling at all and the afterlife is gravy. I'm talking about the present, living benefit, a cost/benefit analysis of personal faith.
Re: the ongoing God of gaps presentation
So no particular examples then, no orthodox dogma in any major Christian denomination to point doing that, no Aquinas red faced, as it were. I didn't think so. I've heard it noted too, but usually by anti theists attempting to paint the faithful as knuckle dragging, fear motivated adherents to superstition.
And no, all sorts of stereotyping goes on in any camp. Again, we're pattern seers, which is to say we by nature love to superimpose our sense of order over both the observable and even purely theoretical.
The luxury of civilization, to a large extent. We are pack animals. It's in our natures and works to our advantage on every level.
I don't believe that's mostly true. Even monks live together. Man is not, in his natural and healthy state, isolated from his kind.
Re: faith is a superior context for life.
No, it's a short hand version of a number of studies, not without opposition, of course. We could get into them if you like. And it's reasonable for some of the reasons we've spoken to above. Tight knit, caring communities are emotionally and physically, by impact, better for us. Religious communities don't have a secular counterpart. That's why some atheists have been trying to cobble one.
The Religion & Society Research Program, from the old UK, looked at a number or variables including a 2008-2011 study on happiness using economist Richard Lanyard’s seven key indicators of well-being: secure family relationships, income, meaning and relationships in work, community and friendship networks, health, personal freedom, and personal values and philosophy of life.
The study found that religious belief
1) "has been found to be helpful in maintaining marriages, in the wellbeing of children, and in rehabilitating criminals, because of the strong support religious communities can provide."
2) "tend(s) to have a positive effect on mental health and happiness of individuals, groups and societies."
3) "often leads to reducing social and economic inequality, which in turn increases health and life expectancy."
Lanyard concluded: "People who believe in God are happier."
He didn't conclude that makes the belief true.
It's an interesting thing, but studies in this country, Greeley and Hout (2006, 153) found a distinct advantage where those of faith were concerned and self identified. There are similar studies on health, but you're right that the data is frequently conflicting, with one study after another altering focus and finding.
I was certainly happy as an atheist. I wasn't dissatisfied with my life. But I'm inarguably happier and rationally so, more satisfied with an existence/context that promises more than interesting ways to pass the time before I wink out to no real point. Faith serves our nature and our desires in more than the transient sense, in a way atheism simply can't.
How was that remotely stereotyping? You need to lay off that easy button...There are actually secular elements attempting to cobble a community/alternatives to the sort of communal experience religion offers. That's factual and if you don't believe me Google it. And as I noted, atheism literally can't offer what faith does. It's rationally impossible. It can't promise survival, a larger purpose, meaning in terms of value beyond negotiation or fiat, that sort of thing. Those aren't stereotypical anythings. They're statements of fact. Doesn't prove the foundational question, but it is supportive of the argument from utility and can't be dismissed as you have above.
Setting aside the idea that internet communities can meet the need of our natures, no one said that you couldn't create relationships and you're grotesquely mischaracterizing both my point and what I'm offering in support. Peculiar.
I've noted empirical data, made specific support as well as illustrated, supported argument. So as to your evidence bit, doom on you.
Well sure, the question is predication and conclusion. That is, all opinions and contexts, as with any ideas, aren't necessarily equal. And if you hold one that doesn't serve your interests as well and isn't demonstrably true...it's a peculiar thing to hold.
I gathered. I don't follow links unless data is being presented and I'm suspicious of it or want to read the larger work cited and I never watch videos. I have conversations. Just a point of reference.
Rather, you choose a context that is no less miraculous (eternal being without causality involved and/or infinite regression) for reasons that suit you. You have evidence, both from reason and by witness. You simply aren't moved by it.
Well, that sort of follows from "a [God]" doesn't it?
You don't identify Allah as a god?
So I see, again. :think:
I don't find that particularly rational. It logically is, whatever you think of the reality, which you can't know. Supra.
Yours already has at least three times by reckoning (following your atheist/agnostic in premise).
:e4e:
I guess that would depend on your definition of God. What is your definition of God? In other words, if you didn't have any religious text (assuming you reject them all), what would God have to be like in order to be God?
No, this is a problem you have with English. Let me see if I can explain this in another way. You've decided what God would have be be like if God existed. And after you've decided this, you've rejected *that*. Which is fine if what you are thinking God would be like, if He existed, is correct.
I think you've spoken too soon. How do you know they are all imaginary? Did people ever believe they were real? If you explain why they thought those gods were real, and wrong, is your analysis correct?
And, before you get too committed to the idea of proving a negative, make sure you include the TAG argument.
Of course, but in laying the groundwork for your case against God of the Bible, you have to get into a discussion of the nature of God, if He existed. When you can come to understand the nature of God, if He existed, then you can show how that concept of God does not exist.
And please note. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you've decided what God is like (if He existed), and so far you've defended this concept without fail.
Of course not. First we have to establish that you can account for the existence of evil. I account for it by the existence of God, which is logical if God exists. How do you account for evil, or good, as concepts.
I agree. So let's go further. When you say evil is "unnecessary" harm, how do you determine what is necessary and what is not?