Atheism & the Rationality of Deism
January 28, 2008 by C. M. Grilli
We want to avoid saying beliefs when talking about Atheism. Why are we afraid to label our non-belief as a belief? Because when you label something as a belief or belief system there are some negative connotations that come alongside it:
- The stench of religion
- The erasure of individuality
- Group Morals
- Easily Manipulated Political Agendas
All that being said, I find it illogical to place those without firm beliefs in any category. How can you slap a broad label on millions of individuals with completely different viewpoints? You shouldn’t, but as many of you know; it happens everyday. You wouldn’t label “not collecting stamps” as a hobby or “bald” as a hair color, but it would seem as though many others may not have the same scruples doing similarly. Are there any associations or assumptions that can be made about those which do in fact remove God from the equation of existence? The lack of religious belief is the lack of the Arguments from Supreme Authority which attempt to interfere in even the most personal and private pieces of our lives; instilling guilt and fear. There is no absolute about any group. There are exceptions to everything it seems. Just because one is an atheist does not even guarantee that they accept any scientific explanation of anything.
One could dismiss it all and remain content with the understanding that we cannot know or trust in ill-motivated and government owned men. We can hope at least that there are enough checks and balances and the requirement of verifiable evidence to protect us at some levels from the establishment. There is no way to know at this time what occurred prior to singularity, but surely even this must have originated somewhere. Perhaps it is my limited understanding of this topic that makes this such an unattainable answer. Perhaps it is because it cannot be positively known. And if religions are correct, perhaps it is not for us to know. If you consider this life an experience, and an opportunity to learn the difference of good and evil than philosophically you can rest easy. If you assume that everything will be explained upon death, than the now might just become more important because you realize that you will have eternity for cosmic pursuits. The now could be spent doing good for your fellow humans in the now and for the future. There are a few issues I have with this method of thinking as well.
Whether you admit it or not you are making assumptions. Religions, holy scriptures are all tainted by man. Men with motivations for power and control. As a lowly peon you are not privyed to truth. You are force-fed what is determined you can handle, because you are stupid and irrational; like stampeding buffalo. Who is to know what is real and what is manifested in our best interest? As one who has not researched all areas of discovery first hand, I could not with all honesty tell you I am certain of anything. I have not witnessed the birth or death of a star, galaxy, nebula firsthand. I have not reconstructed the human genome or split atoms in the storage room of my third floor apartment. I accept that I simply do not have the time or ability to encompass all areas of understanding in my lifetime. There are too many societal pressures that do not allow for a life of exploration and understanding. Here in the now we must focus on where we are and where we are going. America could eat you alive. Ask our homless millions. The forgotten and ill-labeled. The used and spent. The erased.
My Christian roots have certainly affected my way of thinking. A total disconnect has certainly not occurred for me. A desire for immortality, the need for greater meaning and importance still haunts me. Perhaps my thinking is too expansive because I require something more. If you consider existence at such an expanded perspective it is easy to feel small. If even our Universe must die than all pursuits are ultimately futile. But we do not exist on a timescale that large. In existence as we know it humans encompass less than 1%. But you could examine things from an alternative perspective. We are the universe. The same particles that have inhabited and explored the universe are within us all. Stardust. Organic elements such as carbon(from methane) carried here on comets whose reach stretch throughout our galaxy and farther are within us. When we die we shall return to such simpler places to perhaps become a piece of something or someone else. We become our parents because we are in some sense our parents, we are but an abberated clone of the combination. No matter how we attempt to disconnect ourselves from who our parents and even our society are we cannot escape because we are at some level, the same.
Deism, the belief in a god outside of religion. A personal relationship with whatever force is responsible for our creation, and what we are ultimately a piece of. To some degree this way of thinking is still illogical, because we cannot know. There is no verifiable evidence or any logical method with known evidence to assume that a creator exists. Where understanding stops, god is born. The problem is where in the chain, the equation, is god necessary? The more we know, the more we realize how little we truly know. The god concept, as far as I can tell, is the imagination of man in full effect. Internal debates wage inside many of us. Logic and desire conflict and struggle to overcome one another. Personally, there is no way to be 100% sure of anything; but as long as we remember to practice altruism and remember that we are just a piece of the whole we may just make our ignorance a little easier to tolerate. Irrationality on a theological or philosophical level is irrelevant unless it leads you to negative interactions with your fellow human. None are valid. All are valid. What’s the difference?
"stench of religion"
then.
"How can you slap a broad label on millions of individuals with completely different viewpoints? "
I stopped reading after this because I couldn't get past the hilarious hypocrisy of what you were saying.
[Reply]
“stench of religion”
then.
“How can you slap a broad label on millions of individuals with completely different viewpoints? ”
I stopped reading after this because I couldn’t get past the hilarious hypocrisy of what you were saying.
[Reply]
it isn't hypocrisy- for example all Catholics are supposed to believe what the church tells to believe. That they don't exact reflect the church and vary is irrelevant- they claim to believe the laundry list when they claim they are Catholic. Protestants make similar theological claims. It is important to note that there is absolutely no evidence to support any of their beliefs, which is why some atheists look down on believers- specifically ones who make comments on forums without understanding why they are saying something silly.
[Reply]
it isn’t hypocrisy- for example all Catholics are supposed to believe what the church tells to believe. That they don’t exact reflect the church and vary is irrelevant- they claim to believe the laundry list when they claim they are Catholic. Protestants make similar theological claims. It is important to note that there is absolutely no evidence to support any of their beliefs, which is why some atheists look down on believers- specifically ones who make comments on forums without understanding why they are saying something silly.
[Reply]
Dude you're not making any sense.
[Reply]
Dude you’re not making any sense.
[Reply]
The Catholics are all taught to believe the same things. I went to a Catholic elementary school as well as a private Catholic college. When I was younger the nuns told me that if anyone ever asked me what Catholics believed in I was supposed to recite the Creed to them (We believe in the Saints, Holy Spirit, etc). Now, whenever I hear that said, I note how it is being said. No matter what church I am in it is always said in the same monotone voice. Come on people! These are the official beliefs of the Catholics! Spice it up a little! Like robots, they are all programmed to recite it, and every Sunday in their mass it is recited. I think it's just practice. Then when you mess up, all of the people sitting around you will stare at you. Humiliation at its finest. I bet you won't forget the words next week.
[Reply]
The Catholics are all taught to believe the same things. I went to a Catholic elementary school as well as a private Catholic college. When I was younger the nuns told me that if anyone ever asked me what Catholics believed in I was supposed to recite the Creed to them (We believe in the Saints, Holy Spirit, etc). Now, whenever I hear that said, I note how it is being said. No matter what church I am in it is always said in the same monotone voice. Come on people! These are the official beliefs of the Catholics! Spice it up a little! Like robots, they are all programmed to recite it, and every Sunday in their mass it is recited. I think it’s just practice. Then when you mess up, all of the people sitting around you will stare at you. Humiliation at its finest. I bet you won’t forget the words next week.
[Reply]
You obviously need to improve your comprehension.
[Reply]
"That they don’t exact reflect the church and vary is irrelevant"
No it isn't. What you so describe as a laundry list that stinks could hardly be described by most as bad things to believe in. Justice, mercy, love etc. Thus to talk about the stench of religion you're doing a baby and bathwater thing because you personally have something against it rather than being objective and recognizing that there are things that are good about religion whether or not you belive in it. The reason you're able to do it so easily is that there are very few that will point it out here because everyone tends to think the same way and pat each other on the back and say things like "LOL Christians".
"It is important to note that there is absolutely no evidence to support any of their beliefs"
Well it didn't take long to bring up something completely irrelevant to the discussion.
"which is why some atheists look down on believers- specifically ones who make comments on forums without understanding why they are saying something silly."
Ha.
[Reply]
"Then when you mess up, all of the people sitting around you will stare at you. Humiliation at its finest. I bet you won’t forget the words next week."
That sucks. For what it's worth Jesus didn't like religion just as much as you do. Actually probably more.
[Reply]
You obviously need to improve your comprehension.
[Reply]
“That they don’t exact reflect the church and vary is irrelevant”
No it isn’t. What you so describe as a laundry list that stinks could hardly be described by most as bad things to believe in. Justice, mercy, love etc. Thus to talk about the stench of religion you’re doing a baby and bathwater thing because you personally have something against it rather than being objective and recognizing that there are things that are good about religion whether or not you belive in it. The reason you’re able to do it so easily is that there are very few that will point it out here because everyone tends to think the same way and pat each other on the back and say things like “LOL Christians”.
“It is important to note that there is absolutely no evidence to support any of their beliefs”
Well it didn’t take long to bring up something completely irrelevant to the discussion.
“which is why some atheists look down on believers- specifically ones who make comments on forums without understanding why they are saying something silly.”
Ha.
[Reply]
“Then when you mess up, all of the people sitting around you will stare at you. Humiliation at its finest. I bet you won’t forget the words next week.”
That sucks. For what it’s worth Jesus didn’t like religion just as much as you do. Actually probably more.
[Reply]
Aaron,
The stench of religion is faith. "Belief despite the absence of proof" - or as Twain put it: "Faith is believing something you know ain't true."
Religion takes simple faith and pollutes it further: Religious faith is belief despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.
It stinks. Bad.
Have a tic-tac,
Rival
[Reply]
Aaron,
The stench of religion is faith. “Belief despite the absence of proof” - or as Twain put it: “Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.”
Religion takes simple faith and pollutes it further: Religious faith is belief despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.
It stinks. Bad.
Have a tic-tac,
Rival
[Reply]
Aaron,
As you can probably guess from my name on here I am conflicted about faith, mine especially. That is why I am here, really. You are right. Justice, love and mercy are wonderful things. I, however, don't see how they link to religion. Someone can believe all of those things without believing in a higher power. I have been a recovering Catholic now for over a decade, and I think that I have shown all of those things. I don't show love and mercy because I am afraid that if I didn't I would be put in Hell for all of eternity. I do it because the people I meet deserve it because they are people. Not Catholics or Baptists, but people here on Earth that might need a little love or support. If the only reason someone might share those gifts with other is because he/she is afraid of the wrath of a god then they are missing the whole point, are they not?
[Reply]
Aaron,
As you can probably guess from my name on here I am conflicted about faith, mine especially. That is why I am here, really. You are right. Justice, love and mercy are wonderful things. I, however, don’t see how they link to religion. Someone can believe all of those things without believing in a higher power. I have been a recovering Catholic now for over a decade, and I think that I have shown all of those things. I don’t show love and mercy because I am afraid that if I didn’t I would be put in Hell for all of eternity. I do it because the people I meet deserve it because they are people. Not Catholics or Baptists, but people here on Earth that might need a little love or support. If the only reason someone might share those gifts with other is because he/she is afraid of the wrath of a god then they are missing the whole point, are they not?
[Reply]
"If the only reason someone might share those gifts with other is because he/she is afraid of the wrath of a god then they are missing the whole point, are they not?"
Yes this is true. And sadly enough if that's what you think the Gospel was about nothing could be further from the truth.
[Reply]
@Rivalarrival
"The stench of religion is faith. “Belief despite the absence of proof” - or as Twain put it: “Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.”"
The fact of the matter is that you're never going to have definitive proof one way or the other no matter how much you quote Wikipedia on quantum physics. You and I both have faith, it's just different.
"Religion takes simple faith and pollutes it further: Religious faith is belief despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary."
You started off saying something that I agreed with and then you had to spoil it by saying the same jargon you had already said twice in your post.
[Reply]
“If the only reason someone might share those gifts with other is because he/she is afraid of the wrath of a god then they are missing the whole point, are they not?”
Yes this is true. And sadly enough if that’s what you think the Gospel was about nothing could be further from the truth.
[Reply]
@Rivalarrival
“The stench of religion is faith. “Belief despite the absence of proof” - or as Twain put it: “Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.””
The fact of the matter is that you’re never going to have definitive proof one way or the other no matter how much you quote Wikipedia on quantum physics. You and I both have faith, it’s just different.
“Religion takes simple faith and pollutes it further: Religious faith is belief despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.”
You started off saying something that I agreed with and then you had to spoil it by saying the same jargon you had already said twice in your post.
[Reply]
Aaron,
Well, I apologize for not fitting the nice, neat mold you built for me.
<blockquote>The fact of the matter is that you’re never going to have definitive proof one way or the other no matter how much you quote Wikipedia on quantum physics. You and I both have faith, it’s just different.</blockquote>
You are correct in that faith to you is different from faith to me. For me, faith is a trivial matter. I have faith that DNA is responsible for the biological differences in humans, yet I have never seen a strand of DNA, nor have I personally tested the process. The nature of logic, reason, and science tells me I should be skeptical of things I have not personally tested, yet I rely on faith alone for my understanding of genetics.
For the theist, faith is not so trivial: faith can move mountains; with god, all things are possible; ask and you shall receive.
Despite the lack of mobile mountains, and the logical impossibility of certain events, the theist maintains his faith. Doubting and denying God are the worst offenses a theist can commit, and testing these claims is indicative of doubt.
For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means "God works in mysterious ways".
Rubbish. When you can differentiate between God and the Dragon in my Garage, let's talk.
Rival
[Reply]
Aaron,
Well, I apologize for not fitting the nice, neat mold you built for me.
You are correct in that faith to you is different from faith to me. For me, faith is a trivial matter. I have faith that DNA is responsible for the biological differences in humans, yet I have never seen a strand of DNA, nor have I personally tested the process. The nature of logic, reason, and science tells me I should be skeptical of things I have not personally tested, yet I rely on faith alone for my understanding of genetics.
For the theist, faith is not so trivial: faith can move mountains; with god, all things are possible; ask and you shall receive.
Despite the lack of mobile mountains, and the logical impossibility of certain events, the theist maintains his faith. Doubting and denying God are the worst offenses a theist can commit, and testing these claims is indicative of doubt.
For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.
Rubbish. When you can differentiate between God and the Dragon in my Garage, let’s talk.
Rival
[Reply]
Part of the problem, I think, is the fact that mountains cannot be moved, as I am sure Aaron would agree. I am married to an atheist, a strong one at that. He does understand, though, that faith isn't always about literal things, such as moving mountains (even though I would LOVE to see that!). One thing that I have a conflict with is whether or not we are supposed to use the brain that "God" gave us-knowing that mountains cannot literally be moved-or our faith in that it's just a figure of speech. I have had way too many experiences with the translations that priests have made when it comes to the figure of speech issue. Someone on here has told me that the priests are just people too. True, but if we are all following the same religion then shouldn't all of the answers from these trusted people of the church be the same? That is why I tend to lean toward the literal. That is easier to understand. It's something that can be seen. I guess that's why I took advanced biology instead of chemistry, right?
[Reply]
Part of the problem, I think, is the fact that mountains cannot be moved, as I am sure Aaron would agree. I am married to an atheist, a strong one at that. He does understand, though, that faith isn’t always about literal things, such as moving mountains (even though I would LOVE to see that!). One thing that I have a conflict with is whether or not we are supposed to use the brain that “God” gave us-knowing that mountains cannot literally be moved-or our faith in that it’s just a figure of speech. I have had way too many experiences with the translations that priests have made when it comes to the figure of speech issue. Someone on here has told me that the priests are just people too. True, but if we are all following the same religion then shouldn’t all of the answers from these trusted people of the church be the same? That is why I tend to lean toward the literal. That is easier to understand. It’s something that can be seen. I guess that’s why I took advanced biology instead of chemistry, right?
[Reply]
"Doubting and denying God are the worst offenses a theist can commit, and testing these claims is indicative of doubt."
Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn't threatened by doubt, what you're talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. Also why do you use the term "theist" as if all beliefs are the same?
[Reply]
"For the theist, faith is not so trivial: faith can move mountains; with god, all things are possible; ask and you shall receive. "
Did you ask God for something and he didn't give it to you? He's not a genie.
"Despite the lack of mobile mountains, and the logical impossibility of certain events, the theist maintains his faith. "
Yes because it is in the quiet moments and the dark night of the soul when God isn't speaking and he is silent that faith is genuine. Who hopes for what he already has? I for one have encountered God in many ways and in many places that for me are just as concrete and convincing as looking up at the stars at night. The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won't listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.
I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn't listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, "Stupid Christians" as loud as you can.
[Reply]
@Recovering Catholic
"One thing that I have a conflict with is whether or not we are supposed to use the brain that “God” gave us-knowing that mountains cannot literally be moved-or our faith in that it’s just a figure of speech."
In light of this question if you believe that a Creator being actually does exist does it really matter? I mean if there really is a supernatural being out there that spoke things into a Big Bang and counts the stars as easily as the hairs on the top of your head isn't probably within the realm of possibility that mountains would do the can can if he told them to?
There's a bigger question that it sounds like you need to answer first. The fact that mountains are big doesn't mean much in a universe that is 15 billion light years and growing.
[Reply]
"Someone on here has told me that the priests are just people too. True, but if we are all following the same religion then shouldn’t all of the answers from these trusted people of the church be the same?"
This sounds like a loss of faith in Catholic clergy (people that let you down) and not God.
[Reply]
“Doubting and denying God are the worst offenses a theist can commit, and testing these claims is indicative of doubt.”
Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?
[Reply]
“For the theist, faith is not so trivial: faith can move mountains; with god, all things are possible; ask and you shall receive. ”
Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.
“Despite the lack of mobile mountains, and the logical impossibility of certain events, the theist maintains his faith. ”
Yes because it is in the quiet moments and the dark night of the soul when God isn’t speaking and he is silent that faith is genuine. Who hopes for what he already has? I for one have encountered God in many ways and in many places that for me are just as concrete and convincing as looking up at the stars at night. The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.
I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.
[Reply]
@Recovering Catholic
“One thing that I have a conflict with is whether or not we are supposed to use the brain that “God” gave us-knowing that mountains cannot literally be moved-or our faith in that it’s just a figure of speech.”
In light of this question if you believe that a Creator being actually does exist does it really matter? I mean if there really is a supernatural being out there that spoke things into a Big Bang and counts the stars as easily as the hairs on the top of your head isn’t probably within the realm of possibility that mountains would do the can can if he told them to?
There’s a bigger question that it sounds like you need to answer first. The fact that mountains are big doesn’t mean much in a universe that is 15 billion light years and growing.
[Reply]
“Someone on here has told me that the priests are just people too. True, but if we are all following the same religion then shouldn’t all of the answers from these trusted people of the church be the same?”
This sounds like a loss of faith in Catholic clergy (people that let you down) and not God.
[Reply]
Aaron,
When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.
<blockquote>Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. </blockquote>
Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I'm familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist's well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.
<blockquote>Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?</blockquote>
While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.
You've adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you've selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you've created god in your image. You've hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references - which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)
While I don't necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?
<blockquote>Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.</blockquote>
Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this "God" you refer to?
Perhaps you forgot that I said this:
<blockquote>For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.</blockquote>
I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god's existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god's existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.
<blockquote>The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.</blockquote>
First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent's position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2 2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin's law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )
Second, I've asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit <a href="http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_drago...rel="nofollow">This link</a>.
If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.
At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.
<blockquote>I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.</blockquote>
The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can't judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.
The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent's position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent's position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.
I've said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction "delusional".To date, the arguments I've seen used to demonstrate God's existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?
[Reply]
Aaron,
When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.
<blockquote>Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. </blockquote>
Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I'm familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist's well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.
<blockquote>Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?</blockquote>
While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.
You've adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you've selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you've created god in your image. You've hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references - which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)
While I don't necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?
<blockquote>Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.</blockquote>
Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this "God" you refer to?
Perhaps you forgot that I said this:
<blockquote>For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.</blockquote>
I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god's existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god's existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.
<blockquote>The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.</blockquote>
First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent's position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2 2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin's law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )
Second, I've asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit <a href="http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_drago...rel="nofollow">This link</a>.
If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.
At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.
<blockquote>I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.</blockquote>
The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can't judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.
The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent's position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent's position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.
I've said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction "delusional".To date, the arguments I've seen used to demonstrate God's existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?
[Reply]
Aaron,
When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.
<blockquote>Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. </blockquote>
Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I'm familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist's well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.
<blockquote>Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?</blockquote>
While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.
You've adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you've selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you've created god in your image. You've hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references - which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)
While I don't necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?
<blockquote>Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.</blockquote>
Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this "God" you refer to?
Perhaps you forgot that I said this:
<blockquote>For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.</blockquote>
I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god's existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god's existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.
<blockquote>The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.</blockquote>
First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent's position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2 2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin's law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )
Second, I've asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit <a href="http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_drago...rel="nofollow">This link</a>.
If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.
At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.
<blockquote>I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.</blockquote>
The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can't judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.
The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent's position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent's position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.
I've said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction "delusional".To date, the arguments I've seen used to demonstrate God's existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?
[Reply]
Aaron,
When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.
Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I’m familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist’s well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.
While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.
You’ve adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you’ve selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you’ve created god in your image. You’ve hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references - which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)
While I don’t necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?
Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this “God” you refer to?
Perhaps you forgot that I said this:
I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god’s existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god’s existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.
First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent’s position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2+2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin’s law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )
Second, I’ve asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit This link.
If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.
At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.
The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can’t judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.
The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent’s position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent’s position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.
I’ve said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction “delusional”.To date, the arguments I’ve seen used to demonstrate God’s existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?
[Reply]
Aaron,
I am sorry that I haven't responded right away to your comments to me on this post. I have a hard time articulating what it is that I am feeling, and one of the things that you said really made me angry. I didn't want to take it out on you, however, because you meant it in a different tone than another person did on here. You stated that God isn't a genie. I think you actually told that to Rival, but on a different post I had someone tell me that if something had happened to "ruin my perfect little life" and I needed someone to blame I chose God. What I am trying to look for on here are people who can challenge me and my beliefs. I am a fence sitter, I know, and I have been for over 10 years now. I still want to hang on to the comfort of religion yet I cannot rationalize it in my head. If you would like you can click on my name and see other posts I have done. Maybe you would understand more of what it is that I am looking for. I do thank you, however, for continuing to answer me. It's nice to have someone respectfully answer my thoughts and questions instead of putting me down and stating that my beliefs that I did have were all for show. Also, I am enjoying the conversation that you are having with Rival. Keep it up!
[Reply]
Aaron,
I am sorry that I haven’t responded right away to your comments to me on this post. I have a hard time articulating what it is that I am feeling, and one of the things that you said really made me angry. I didn’t want to take it out on you, however, because you meant it in a different tone than another person did on here. You stated that God isn’t a genie. I think you actually told that to Rival, but on a different post I had someone tell me that if something had happened to “ruin my perfect little life” and I needed someone to blame I chose God. What I am trying to look for on here are people who can challenge me and my beliefs. I am a fence sitter, I know, and I have been for over 10 years now. I still want to hang on to the comfort of religion yet I cannot rationalize it in my head. If you would like you can click on my name and see other posts I have done. Maybe you would understand more of what it is that I am looking for. I do thank you, however, for continuing to answer me. It’s nice to have someone respectfully answer my thoughts and questions instead of putting me down and stating that my beliefs that I did have were all for show. Also, I am enjoying the conversation that you are having with Rival. Keep it up!
[Reply]
@Rival
I don't have time right now to respond to everything you've written however I would say this. I am a very simple person and don't know much about philosophy and Ad Hominems. What I do know is that never at any point in my life have a looked up at the stars or into the face of a newborn infant and said, "Wow….. matter…."
The universe is amazing, physics is astounding, humans are hilarious, my girlfriend is beautiful, pain and suffering are real and not an illusion, the Big Bang had a start and so on. I tend to look at these things and say holy crap, and something within me says there has to be more. Atheists always want to be rational and logical and explain things away until there's nothing left to explain. I fail to see how the things I've listed can't be described as evidence of a creator. The fact that we exist at all blows my mind on a daily basis… because… logically and rationally speaking…. we shouldn't.
You can't see through things forever. I don't have a lot of fancy answers but what I do know is this. There's only one question. Is it possible that there is a God? Everything else depends on this.
My answer is yes.
I'll write more later but just wanted to respond.
[Reply]
@Rival
I don’t have time right now to respond to everything you’ve written however I would say this. I am a very simple person and don’t know much about philosophy and Ad Hominems. What I do know is that never at any point in my life have a looked up at the stars or into the face of a newborn infant and said, “Wow….. matter….”
The universe is amazing, physics is astounding, humans are hilarious, my girlfriend is beautiful, pain and suffering are real and not an illusion, the Big Bang had a start and so on. I tend to look at these things and say holy crap, and something within me says there has to be more. Atheists always want to be rational and logical and explain things away until there’s nothing left to explain. I fail to see how the things I’ve listed can’t be described as evidence of a creator. The fact that we exist at all blows my mind on a daily basis… because… logically and rationally speaking…. we shouldn’t.
You can’t see through things forever. I don’t have a lot of fancy answers but what I do know is this. There’s only one question. Is it possible that there is a God? Everything else depends on this.
My answer is yes.
I’ll write more later but just wanted to respond.
[Reply]
Aaron,
<blockquote>What I do know is that never at any point in my life have a looked up at the stars or into the face of a newborn infant and said, “Wow….. matter….”</blockquote>
Neither have I. I've experienced incredibly strong emotions in numerous situations, including the two you've outlined. Isn't it good enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are faeries at the bottom of it too?
You've sidestepped the issue. I have asked you the same question (in various forms) at least 6 times.
PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN "REAL GOD" AND "FICTITIOUS CREATURES".
I don't think I can make myself any clearer. Show me a method that, when applied to God returns a positive result, and when applied to a fictitious creature returns a negative result.
<blockquote>The fact that we exist at all blows my mind on a daily basis… because… logically and rationally speaking…. we shouldn’t.</blockquote>
What seems illogical or irrational about our existence?
<blockquote>Atheists always want to be rational and logical and explain things away until there’s nothing left to explain. I fail to see how the things I’ve listed can’t be described as evidence of a creator.</blockquote>
Maybe I can offer some insight into this matter.
Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a creator, and He has a purpose for all of us. Given this reality, my main question would not be "Why" but "How". How was I created? How does the sun rise and set? By discovering the How, the answer to Why becomes much less enigmatic.
Back to this reality - "God did it" doesn't answer my questions. "Lightning is one of God's tools to punish the wicked" was a seemingly legitimate theory, but in the 1700s, with the advent of the Lightning Rod, this theory had mortal Man telling omniscient, omnipotent God to stick his whip up his ass. Clearly, the pre-lightning rod theories of lightning were bullshit.
If there is a God, we should be open to his works, rather than relying on the opinions and theories of ancient people who didn't even know the earth was spherical.
If there is no God, then this reality is what it is or what we make it. The more we know, the more changes we can make. The more we delude ourselves, the less truth we can discover.
[Reply]
Aaron,
Neither have I. I’ve experienced incredibly strong emotions in numerous situations, including the two you’ve outlined. Isn’t it good enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are faeries at the bottom of it too?
You’ve sidestepped the issue. I have asked you the same question (in various forms) at least 6 times.
PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN “REAL GOD” AND “FICTITIOUS CREATURES”.
I don’t think I can make myself any clearer. Show me a method that, when applied to God returns a positive result, and when applied to a fictitious creature returns a negative result.
What seems illogical or irrational about our existence?
Maybe I can offer some insight into this matter.
Let’s assume, for a moment, that there is a creator, and He has a purpose for all of us. Given this reality, my main question would not be “Why” but “How”. How was I created? How does the sun rise and set? By discovering the How, the answer to Why becomes much less enigmatic.
Back to this reality - “God did it” doesn’t answer my questions. “Lightning is one of God’s tools to punish the wicked” was a seemingly legitimate theory, but in the 1700s, with the advent of the Lightning Rod, this theory had mortal Man telling omniscient, omnipotent God to stick his whip up his ass. Clearly, the pre-lightning rod theories of lightning were bullshit.
If there is a God, we should be open to his works, rather than relying on the opinions and theories of ancient people who didn’t even know the earth was spherical.
If there is no God, then this reality is what it is or what we make it. The more we know, the more changes we can make. The more we delude ourselves, the less truth we can discover.
[Reply]