Theology (Does god exist? Why/Why Not? etc.)

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I can't speak for BP, but for myself, I can tell you that being afraid has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I think it's exactly the opposite.

Before, when I questioned the existence of God, when I questioned whether or not I was living a "Godly" life, or whether even questioning God's existence was a sin, as so many people are brainwashed into believing, I had a lot of fear. Mainly I feared that once this life was over, there would be nothing to show for it. A handful of decades and all that energy wasted for what? If God does not exist, what is the point in our own existence?

I used to fear death. Once I accepted that there is a God I don't fear death anymore. I know it will come when it's meant to come. If there is nothing else afterwards, then so be it. No harm done. Nothing I can do about it anyway. I'm at peace with it, and I can't explain what that peace feels like to someone who doesn't understand what God feels like. It's just not something that can be explained. You either feel it or you don't. If you're meant to feel it, then you will at some point.

I'm going to skip to the last page here. You invented this god simply because of all the things you listed as things that bothered you. I get it. However, your belief is personal insofar as it has nothing to do with the truth value of your claim from an empirical stance, but it has everything to do with it simply being an idea that helps you sleep at night. Your god is an idea, NOT an external agent and until you can actually deliver the empirical goods for your god, it's reasonable for me to assume as such that your god doesn't exist in any meaningful way except as an idea to comfort you in times when you find bothersome situations.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

9/11, creationism being taught in science classes, Rick Santorum, religious child abuse, the GOP, other theocracies, Lisa McPherson, ect.

The crusades, religious leaders admitting that reason and logic is the enemy of faith, anti-intellectualism from faith, the years of my childhood where I was in a constant and permanent state of guilt and sorrow for thought-crime because of religion, genital mutilation (circumcision), the condemnation of homosexuals and women the world over due to religious belief, suicide bombings, the laws being offered to allow bullying of children on the basis of faith, ect....

No, it means that it's not reasonable to assume it exists.

The faithful will ALWAYS insist on believing no matter how much evidence is brought up to prove the contrary. You will always seek to find that little tiny pocket of scientific ignorance because you WANT something to be true more than actually being correct. I doubt science will ever be able to give anyone willing to believe in non-sense any amount of evidence to convince them otherwise. Not because there's a point in their persistence but because they'll always want to be right somehow instead of just being correct.

Even Einstein believed in intelligent design, at least to some degree.

[/quote]

Ashley, all these things you list are not the workings of God, as I see it. They are the workings of man-made religious doctrine.

The Christian God would have you believe that if you don't follow the word of the bible you will go to hell. I don't believe in Christianity for exactly those reasons.

Islam and Judaism, among many others, follow roughly the same structure. That is not God.

That is man imposing his views on how people should live their lives and what will happen if they don't live this way or that way. That's indoctrination. Control. Politics.

That is not God. That is man's perversion of God.

Religious doctrine tries to portray God in a way that humans can comprehend it, assigning a gender and a personality, to equate it with man, consequentially creating some sort of being that can be blamed when things don't go according to promises, also created by man and marketed as the Word of God.

God is none of those things. God is genderless because nature is genderless. God does not have an ego. The Christian God does. The Islamic God does.

By listing all those things, you make it seem as though God is a tangible force that can be praised for the positive and blamed for the negative.

And maybe that would be your interpretation of God, if you weren't an atheist. It's not my interpretation.

I can't say there is no consequence. I can't say there is. Personally, I believe there is, but I don't know how to describe it. Negative energy, I believe, is the best way I can describe it, or example I can equate it to. It's just not as black and white as that.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

I'm going to skip to the last page here. You invented this god simply because of all the things you listed as things that bothered you. I get it. However, your belief is personal insofar as it has nothing to do with the truth value of your claim from an empirical stance, but it has everything to do with it simply being an idea that helps you sleep at night. Your god is an idea, NOT an external agent and until you can actually deliver the empirical goods for your god, it's reasonable for me to assume as such that your god doesn't exist in any meaningful way except as an idea to comfort you in times when you find bothersome situations.

Yes. Now you're closer to getting it. Kind of.

Because no one has definitive proof of God's existence, other than the feeling that the concept of God creates in them, which is different for every individual who believes in God, God is an idea. A concept. You could also say that God is the term commonly used to describe that concept.

And from the opposite direction, you have no definitive proof that God does NOT exist, because science has neither proven nor disproven said existence.

The difference being is that to those who do believe in God, it is more than a concept. It is a state of being. It is a belief. For me it is existence.

For proof, I would say just look back through history at all the things the concept of God has caused and created through the ages, both good and bad.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

And from the opposite direction, you have no definitive proof that God does NOT exist, because science has neither proven nor disproven said existence.

"I'm going to ignore everything that's been said in the last four pages of discussion and repeat the same schtick that has already been addressed at least eight times, because that's how you make a solid argument."


Awesome.

[burningplain]

Alan, that's the thing. Einstein hoisted Light up on a pedestal, making it this "immutable law." I read a theoretical paper about 3 months back that basically stated Einstein didn't need to put light up on a pedestal and make it the fastest thing in existence to prove general relativity.

And actually yes it is how sicence. You miss a key principle of science, you draw conclusions from the evidence you see, by doing so you interpret them to your world view. I have drawn my conclusions based on how I see the evidence.

"The God of Abraham does not exist." *Facepalm* Sweet feth that makes me laugh. You are actually basing everything on the God of Abraham solely off the mishmash that is called the old testament.

Oh and magical hammer... What if Thor's magical hammer is the thing that causes the build up of electrical charge in clouds? We know the cause. But the thing is that most divine beings, by their very nature move outside the human understanding of the universe.

As for the God of Abraham thing, the bible is mostly allegorical. It could easily be interpreted that Yahweh (the God of Abraham) knew the truth of Sodom and Gomorrah. But chose to show a human comprehension in this case? He sends Angels to give evidence to his servant that Sodom and Gomorrah are rotten to the core, that there are no good men. After all, is man not the skeptic?

[burningplain]

Okay. I'll approach this from a brand new Angle.

Let's stick with the Christian interpretation of God here. According to the vast majority of Christendom their God is Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient; i.e. everywhere at once, all powerful and all knowing. Are humans any of these things? We cannot comprehend such a being because its experience of existence would be so far removed from our own. The basis of science is comprehension on an immediate level, but we cannot comprehend it, not truly, because ultimately we are none of those things.

Sodom and Gomorrah... I'll make my case for this one. Humans are by nature sceptics and of limited comprehension. If someone told you 2 whole cities had to be annihilated would you not ask for evidence? would you not ask to be shown evidence? So, though God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient he brings himself to Man's level. To try and make man understand him a little better. Is that not a perfectly rational explanation? Any manifestation to man of such a being would ultimately have to be limited to allow man to understand him. To give humanity the illusion that it can be understood by humanity's limited scope of the universe.

[burningplain]

I think Alan just provided the ultimate blow to the "God is inherently evil and therefore should not exist by the standards set by man."

Religion is a convenient coat hanger for those who are greedy and lust for power. Religion is not inherently evil, it is a structure, as Alan's Tag puts it so beautifully "A concept is a brick, it can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown threw a window." A religion is ultimately a construct of a concept. The concept itself has no inherent alignment towards "good" or "evil". It is in the hands of men that it takes on such an allignment. After all Religion can be used as a system to control and exploit, ultimately I avoid organised religion for the most part. Because it evolved as a mechanism of control and has been used by those who are corrupted by the power such a position offers them to give them more power and control.

It is the corruption of men that causes war, not religion, religion is just the veil used to hide the truth. War is always over resources, but there are those who corrupt religion and use it as a shield for their own selfish motives.

[burningplain]

I have a friend who is, himself a staunch Athiest and utterly opposed to the existence of God for reminding me that religion is just as an entity is not sentient, it is a concept and as with all concepts it is not inherently evil, but nor is it inherently good. It is how the concept is applied and used by humans that gives it such an allignment.

[Alan]

I'm a marxist and even I know wars aren't 'always over resources'

EDIT: By the way, you completely misunderstood my signature quote, but then again, that isn't surprising, as that would be bound to happen with anyone who tries to use Deleuze to justify religion. Deleuze is praising the brick, not the courthouse.

[burningplain]

I'm saying belief is the damned brick. Not the Courthouse. Religion is a concept, which has been used to build an entity which can be turned to a purpose of good or evil.

No, you are right, wars aren't always fought over resources, they are fought for power, for pride, for greed. Never are they truly fought for religion, the foot soldiers might believe they are on some holy crusade that will win them paradise, but the higher ups are just after power and control.

[burningplain]

Marxism... got to love it. You're an idealist then Alan. Marxism cannot be achieved. It is, like the idea of the Utopic society, a false hope.

Human nature is too strong to be over come by reason.

[Alan]

Yeah, you just showed you know nothing about Marxism. How about you stick to one topic you're ignorant about?

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Yes. Now you're closer to getting it. Kind of.

Because no one has definitive proof of God's existence, other than the feeling that the concept of God creates in them, which is different for every individual who believes in God, God is an idea. A concept. You could also say that God is the term commonly used to describe that concept.

That is simply an assumption. I have seen far far too many people become better people because they gave up their beliefs in supernatural agents. The point is, there's no definitive reason to call it "god" beyond trying to imply that it's something more or something that it isn't when you're talking about reality or the human experience. To put it plainly; your assertion that existence IS in fact god, is a useless assertion and an unneeded word to express the real in any meaningful way. You invoke the word "god" because you yourself are trying to turn reality into something more than it is, but you keep proving that this isn't important.

And from the opposite direction, you have no definitive proof that God does NOT exist, because science has neither proven nor disproven said existence.

It. Is. Intellectually. Dishonest. To. Make. A. Positive. Assumption. Without. Proof. Why is this so hard for you to understand? This is exactly like you being CERTAIN that you have cancer despite the fact that your only evidence is flu symptoms. The default position of the negative stance is NOT in the middle of yes and no. It is NO. Like in court, we do not go to court saying that someone MIGHT BE innocent OR guilty (that would actually require to put everyone on trial to prove innocence), but that the negative position is that everyone is INNOCENT until proven guilty. Your god, if you could prove it, would be the realization of guilt.

The difference being is that to those who do believe in God, it is more than a concept. It is a state of being. It is a belief. For me it is existence.

No. Dualism has no intrinsice usefulness in a material world. Again, it's SILLY and unweildy to assume phantasms when you haven't even worked out the simplest explanation first.

For proof, I would say just look back through history at all the things the concept of God has caused and created through the ages, both good and bad.

Religion is capable of good and bad, but for a genuinely good person to do bad, that person would need religion. Seriously, there is NOTHING humanity couldn't have done that was positive if we lacked religion. If that were true, atheists would actually be incapable of doing any kind of good at all. Goodness is independant of religion or belief. But it takes an unfounded belief or a religion to inspire well meaning people to do bad things.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

It. Is. Intellectually. Dishonest. To. Make. A. Positive. Assumption. Without.

And yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing, making a positive assumption that there is no God, without proof that there is no God.

[Alan]

Saying there isn't something isn't a positive assumption BY DEFINITION.

Here, try it yourself.
Show me positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. Try it.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Despanan

You have stated that your God IS nature, and simultaneously has no effect ON nature. Therefore your god is both irrelevant and self-refuting.

I have re-read every post in this thread that I've made and fail to see anywhere that I stated that God has no effect ON nature, or even implied as such. So until you can show where I stated that, everything else you've said is mute.

[Alan]

Dude, please, humor us for the sake of this debate, and try yourself to come up with a 'positive assertion of negativity'

Show us positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

Why is it so hard for you guys to think that maybe you're just wrong? That maybe you don't know everything about the universe?

I ask you the same question.

A belief in God does not claim to know everything about the universe, nor does it imply any such knowledge even indirectly.

My belief in God does not negate anything that science has proven, nor does it negate anything that science will prove in the future.

For you to state absolutely that there is no God means that you claim to know everything there is about the universe.

The ONLY way that you can say that there is no God, would be if science was complete and irrefutable. It is not.

[Alan]

You didn't answer me.
Come on.

Show me positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

Dude, please, humor us for the sake of this debate, and try yourself to come up with a 'positive assertion of negativity'

Show us positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

Santa Claus exists in the minds of every child that believes in him, and every parent that perpetuates that belief.

A belief based on proven historical figures.

[Alan]

You didn't show me evidence that Santa Claus does not exist, you just described Santa Claus.

Show me positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

[x-deviant-x]

In order for good and bad to exist, Ashley, there must be religion.

Evil is a point of view.

Good is a point of view.

Both views are based on religious belief.

Without light, there is no darkness.

Without good, there is no bad.

[Alan]

Show me positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

You didn't show me evidence that Santa Claus does not exist, you just described Santa Claus.

Show me positive evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

No, I showed you evidence that Santa Claus does exist.

It's on you to prove that he does not.

[Alan]

So you believe there's a Santa Claus that actually manifests itself in life?
We're not talking about Santa Claus existing 'as a story', the same waygod exists also as a story, as an imaginary friend.

We're talking about a god that can physically interact with the world, so we're also talking about a Santa that can physically interact with the world.

Do you believe there's a Santa that literally comes down chimneys and eats cookies and gives gifts that are beyond the control of the parents?
No? Why not?