Atheism (Do you believe in God? If yes, then why?)

[Dominick_7]

they deserve to be judged exactly on the grounds of that which they say is true and people so firmly believe is true as to cause wars and get themselves killed (Christian Knights, Muslim martyrs...)

sure, once they accept 'we're all wrong' then we can say 'now lets talk about whos wrong system has better ethics' I agree, but until we reach that stage I can't.

Firstly just because one may be wrong morally that doesnt mean theyre wrong philosophically, theologically, or in any matters in terms of truth claims. It also doesnt mean that their own worldview would think all of humans behaviors to be good.

Secondly why do you assume christianity=the crusades or that the crusades was done on the basis of the teachings of the Bible or of Jesus? Anyone who has read the BIble would know that the crusades were done in opposition to the teachings of christ, not done in obedience to them.

Thirdly, while it may be true that all are wrong morally that doesnt mean any or a particular view is correct epistemologically, nor does it show us which ones are incorrect.

Fourthly, your argument instead of arguing against christianity argues for it. One what basis do you judge the crusades as wrong, if there is no objective universal basis upon which to measure right vs wrng behavior. If objective morals exist, then God exists. Your argument implies objective morals exist, therefore God exists. You cant have morals without a moral law giver. You cant prescriptions without a prescriber. Therefore you cannot have a standard of right and wrong, that is universal and transcendant beyond time/timeless ( beyond time and space, for you judged past historical actions of men), and absolute because you seem to imply its really wrong in itself for men to kill one another for unjust reasons.Ie youre not seeming to say its just a preference or your opinion that murder is wrong. You seem to imply that murder (unjust killing) is wrong in itself. Just to keep in mind, this is one of the main arguments, theodicy/argument from evil, that lead CS Lewis to become a Christian, converting from his Atheism.

 

[Dominick_7]

Somewhat related: I love Schopenhauer's thought in regards to Death & The Afterlife.

"If, in everyday life, you are asked about continued existence after death by one of those people who would like to know everything but refuse to learn anything, the most appropriate and approximately correct reply is: 'After your death, you will be what you were before your birth.'"

Yes and he now knows better.

 

[derbeder]

that's only a plausible response if you can overcome the inherent problems with maintaining an infinite regression of contingent beings

1. The objection did not proceed on the (epistemic) possibility of an infinite regression of beings. The possibility that was raised was the possibility of some contingent beings existing before any others. This possibility is indeed incompatible with the possibility of infinite regression. The argument will work only if it motivates the thought that if there are original existents, then they too are caused by something to exist.

2. An infinite regression of contingent beings each one of which is caused by something coming to exist before it is a case where every contingent being is caused by something to exist. So even if we think that every contingent being must be caused to exist, this case provides a problem for original argument as stated, since it shows that every contingent being could be caused to exist without any necessary being causing anything to exist. Whether this possibility is actualized is another matter. Is it really much less plausible than the possibility of a necessary being which is the original cause of all contingent beings?

 

[Dominick_7]

It would be more sensible to argue about whether "God" could do/have done things attributed to His actions or whether "God" could be expected to have certain features such as regards His dimensions, his ability to read everyone's minds simultaneiously and be actually interested in doing so, what God really wants,etc. Just talking about whether "God" exists with no definition of exactly what one is referring to is no more helpful than arguing whether "quantity X" exists.

Quantity X exists - and if you don't believe it you will live your life all wrong and quantity X will dissolve you painfully for all eternity after you are dead. You all had better just beliveve in quantity X now, just to be on the safe side.

Good point. This is why I at very least state that Im reffering to a Theistic God, vs a pantheistic God, Polytheistic, Panentheistic, Finite God etc view of God.

 

[Seditious]

F youre not seeming to say its just a preference or your opinion that murder is wrong. You seem to imply that murder (unjust killing) is wrong in itself. Just to keep in mind, this is one of the main arguments, theodicy/argument from evil, that lead CS Lewis to become a Christian, converting from his Atheism.

this thread's so old I can't remember what this was about, but that is utterly the opposite of what I believe, so chances are I was judging something by its own standards to look at hypocrisy.

 

[Seditious]

Good point. This is why I at very least state that Im reffering to a Theistic God, vs a pantheistic God, Polytheistic, Panentheistic, Finite God etc view of God.

I tend to think of the mythical Gods as nonsense which no one actually believes in these days where we know it wasn't Odin who made the thunder, and pantheism as just a semantic copout, as if saying 'ants are God' was to mean anything at all.

I too, if it isn't clear, in speaking of 'God' refer to the Theistic God, the only one worth speaking of.

 

[Έρεβος]

I tend to think of the mythical Gods as nonsense which no one actually believes in these days where we know it wasn't Odin who made the thunder, and pantheism as just a semantic copout, as if saying 'ants are God' was to mean anything at all.

I too, if it isn't clear, in speaking of 'God' refer to the Theistic God, the only one worth speaking of.

The purpose of "Odin" and his equivalencies were never as literal Gods. He portrays a concept, a value, a [large] facet of the Pagan religion that all the other [non-literal] Gods from the pantheon are also facets of.

Examples:
The value and concept of love in the Norse religion is represented by Freyja.
The value and concept of loyalty in the Norse religion is represented by Þórr.
The value and concept of mercy in the Norse religion is represented by Heimdallr.
Strength by Magni.
Courage by Móði.
Etc...

GOD in the concept of this Pagan religion is at a very basic level Nature, though that is an oversimplified explanation of the Pagan GOD. Each diety and value makes up a facet of GOD, and GOD is not a literal or sentient being, he more of simply "the whole" in a way.


A Theistic god by Judeo-christian concept is much more nonsense.

 

[Seditious]

The purpose of "Odin" and his equivalencies were never as literal Gods.

exactly why they're not worth talking of as we use the word God, otherwise we may as well add Jessica Alba to the discussion of Philosophy of Religion because many people say she's a goddess...

 

[Justin S.]

My, my...

Dominick's proselytizing is fantastically absurd.

Heres to more stubborn attempts at ensnaring that elusive theistic god!

 

[ohiogrinder]

to be honest, I used to not believe in this "Christian" God for a long time. how could someone be so callous as to curse me with an incurable neurological disorder?

I saw myself as a "Athiest/Satanist" type. As in, I did not believe in actual being as "Satan" but instead inverted the teachings of the christian church.

I got to feeling I was being selfish, and long story short, I now consider myself a learning Norse Pagan.

 

[Έρεβος]

A quick formula I came up with recently is the following that kind of goes back to what I was describing.


1) Something contingent exists.

2) Every contingent being has a possibility to not exist

3) Whatever has a possibility to not exist must be currently caused to exist by another

4) If everything has a possibility to not exist, then a total state of nothiness is possible, but..

5) Nothing cannot produce (the) something (that now exists), so

6) Not everything can have a possibility to not exist, therefore

7) There must exist something that has no possibility to not exist ( IE: A being with no possibility to not be/no possibility to cease being=non-contingent= necessary being).

8) Since whatever has a possibility to not exist cannot cause its own existence, but must be caused to exist from beyond itself, it follows that..

9) That which exists beyond what is contingent, namely necessary being, must cause the continued existence of every contingent being that exists, but has a possibility to not exist.

10) This necessary being is what Theists call God, therefore

11) A theistic God exists.

Hahaha.


This reminds me of:

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

 

[Έρεβος]

exactly why they're not worth talking of as we use the word God, otherwise we may as well add Jessica Alba to the discussion of Philosophy of Religion because many people say she's a goddess...

Your opinion, the word God can be used to describe different concepts of God. Only Judeo-Christianity has been ignorant enough to turn God into something so literal and absolute. Why not talk about rational concepts of God along with the irrational literalist ones?

 

[Seditious]

Why not talk about rational concepts of God along with the irrational literalist ones?

because those uses of the word God relate to harmless things. If I say the mints I'm chewing right now are God, no one is going to argue about the existence of God with me, it's a non-issue. However, the rules of the judeo-christian God is something apparently abided by by over 3.1 billion people on Earth. This naturally seems the more important one to discuss.

 

[Seditious]

Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

oh man this one is just spooky

SLATHER'S ARGUMENT
(1) My toaster is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.


I originally said my toast was God. I guess Slather is the Jew to my Christianity

that's going to be engrained in my bookmarks forever

 

[Seditious]

ARGUMENT FROM INVISIBILITY
(1) God is invisible.
(2) I can't see God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


hahahha this site is too funny (especially the ones which are common arguments, but ones like that too)

 

[Έρεβος]

because those uses of the word God relate to harmless things. If I say the mints I'm chewing right now are God, no one is going to argue about the existence of God with me, it's a non-issue. However, the rules of the judeo-christian God is something apparently abided by by over 3.1 billion people on Earth. This naturally seems the more important one to discuss.

Well, I'm talking about serious concepts of ''god'' by actual, and at least semi-major, religions. It goes beyond just something like "the mints I'm chewing right now are God." It's a complex yet simple concept, very spiritual but not supernatural.

 

[Seditious]

Well, I'm talking about serious concepts of ''god'' by actual, and at least semi-major, religions. It goes beyond just something like "the mints I'm chewing right now are God." It's a complex yet simple concept, very spiritual but not supernatural.

sure, and we can say cupid makes people fall in love, and that's a spiritual take on regular things, but it's not really worth talking about as far as God existing n all that. maybe it is cupid that makes people fall in love, and some satan anticupid who makes them break up, but it's really not worth debating about is it?

 

[Έρεβος]

sure, and we can say cupid makes people fall in love, and that's a spiritual take on regular things, but it's not really worth talking about as far as God existing n all that. maybe it is cupid that makes people fall in love, and some satan anticupid who makes them break up, but it's really not worth debating about is it?

That is a supernatural take on regular things, not spiritual...

Debating? Well, I was just stating a concept of a God, that differentiates pagans from atheists.

 

[Seditious]

That is a supernatural take on regular things, not spiritual...

Debating? Well, I was just stating a concept of a God, that differentiates pagans from atheists.

yea. all I'm saying is it's not really a concept of God that matters. they might as well use the word 'nymph' or what have you, any word to represent 'weird thing' since it's not really 'god' as we think of it (supreme, creator, etc).

 

[derek]

My, my...

Dominick's proselytizing is fantastically absurd.

Heres to more stubborn attempts at ensnaring that elusive theistic god!

here here.