use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.(and 'dog' reddit:'aww' site:'imgur.com')
(and 'dog' reddit:'aww' site:'imgur.com')
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
To Theists: what wwould it take for you to abandon theism? (self.DebateReligion)
submitted 3 months ago by lemursteameratheist/practical materialist
Please, before you respond, please be specific. Do not say vague things like, "go over to the other side and come back." Say what you need, exactly.
Also, if you can, explain why it is important.
[–]TaqwacoreSecular Sunni Muslim, Ex-Buddhist monk, Simulationist 21 points22 points23 points 3 months ago
It would take an act of God for me to abandon my theism ;-)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
[–]tripleatheistPresuppositional Pastafarian 23 points24 points25 points 3 months ago
So... nothing?
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 10 points11 points12 points 3 months ago
........well played.
[–]avd007pantheist 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
dude, your flair is amazing.
[–]Chronophiliaagnostic atheist 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
I have him RES tagged as "overly long flair" just in case I see him outside /r/DebateReligion.
[–]TaqwacoreSecular Sunni Muslim, Ex-Buddhist monk, Simulationist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I like my overly long flair ;-D
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Give me overly long flair
Overly long flair
Shining gleaming streaming flaxing waxing
Flair, flair, flair, flair, flair....
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago
For fear of what fury this answer might bring: I think (think, not know) that I would abandon theism if there was some kind of proof for the creation of matter being an unintentional and natural (and or some other provable explanation).
qualification: not saying that this is the only reason that I am a theist, simply saying that this would probably do it for me.
[–]TheFeshyIgnostic Atheist | Secular Humanist 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
the creation of matter being an unintentional and natural
You mean if we found some sort of way for matter to be created from energy or something? Okay, that's too snarky; what I mean is in what way would such a theory differ from the already existing theories of relativity and the Big Bang?
[–]NeilBlackchristian 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago
Big Bang theory doesn't discuss how matter came to exist, only when and what happened immediately after.
[–]DrJorneyBrongusagnostic atheist 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
No, it explains the origin of time. Before that there was nothing, because there was no time. "Before the beginning" is a fallacy. Also, theism doesn't explain it more than science and reason does, because it only adds another origin you need to explain (God).
[–]NeilBlackchristian 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
I like how you lump "science and reason" together, implying that theism negates reason.
I also like how you ignore most of the arguments for God being the origin of the universe, which don't leave open the question of God's origin.
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago
I feel like neither relativity nor the Big Bang attempt to explain initial existence. They don't explain the origin of matter (as far as I know).
[–]BarkingToadagnostic atheist, anti-religionist, theological non-cognitivist 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
neither relativity nor the Big Bang attempt to explain initial existence.
Quantum physics does, though.
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
explain?
[–]CopaceticMan 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Not yet. Sorry bro.
[–]CopaceticMan 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
You're correct the BBT does not explain the initial state. Relativity has nothing (or little) to do with it.
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
ok, we can work with this.
What makes you think matter needs to be created since there is no indication that it can be destroyed?
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
correction: hasn't been destroyed yet.
Although I recognize that "the arrow of time" isn't an aspect of physics - It seems prudent that a "comes from" seems necessary for existence.
For example, stars produce many a useful element, some of which come together to form amino acids and then life. Now I recognize that stars aren't God and I recognize that there can be such an explanation for matter but it seems like "matter always existed" is a cop-out that ignores a need for an initial spark of creation.
[–]thallazaranti-theist 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
What about God? who created him? God Always existed seems like a bit of a cop out that ignore a need for an initial spark of creation.
[–]hondolor 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Nobody created God:
Atheist or not, you admit an ultimate, uncreated, reality and you've only 2 options:
A brute fact that "happens not to have a cause". Eternal, finite, inexplicate, imperfect, mindless. (Like... Quantum void? Multidimensional p-branes (?).
Theistic God (see comment series on Aquinas). Eternal, infinite, perfect, mind. He not only "happens not to have a cause" but is shown by rational reasons that in principle could not have had or needed a cause and in principle could not have not existed.
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
So you can postulate that God was always there and needed no creator, yet could not fathom the same conclusion for matter? Seems like special pleading to me.
I disagree however, it isn't as simple as just 2 options. It could indeed have a natural cause that we have just not figured or possibly never will figure out yet.
Please pray tell, what rational reasons lead to a world that could not have merely existed, that needed to be created by something who then did not need to be created himself.
[–]hondolor 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
it isn't as simple as just 2 options.
That hypothetic natural cause yet to discover would still be option 1), of course.
what rational reasons lead to a world that could not have merely existed
A world that "merely existed" too is option 1), except that it's even more unsatisfying, in a way, because while our research and science usually tries to explain things in terms of few, simple laws ("brute facts"), you would see in this case a whole, complex, universe as a "brute fact".
For why, on the contrary, God is a rational reason you can see Hammie's explanation of Aquinas for one of the classical examples.
I can give you the gist of it: our logic and comprehension requires that a first (not necessarily in time), most fundamental cause, explanation, cause of change of the reality exists.
If one develops the idea enough, the attributes compatible with this root of reality is that it must be unchanging, beyond time, perfect and actual in itself, and so on.
Immagining something imperfect, contingent that is there eternally just doesn't cut it. If I say "immagine an eternal cup of hydrogen happens to exist", what's your immediate reaction?
you ask: why? How can it be? Why hydrogen?
Because your mind actually knows that nothing contingent has in itself its reason to exist. The universe in this perspective would be no much different from a handful of hydrogen.
So let me get this straight, you are arguing that god is in no form some guiding and sentient being who controls our lives, but rather just the sum potential of every single choice, every single outcome of every single event that could ever or has occurred? Doesn't sound like something that should be worshipped. In fact it sounds merely like an immensely complex branch of statistics.
Doesn't sound like something that should be worshipped. In fact it sounds merely like an immensely complex branch of statistics.
Not sure from where did you take this one.
For what we understand, God has no parts, He's purely simple and actual, the being and existence itself. ("I am He who is").
Nevertheless, everything else is rooted in Him at every single instant of time (not just at the start), our minds included. Why shouldn't we long for knowing and loving (worshipping) this absolute "Source" that keeps us in existence? If we fully realize that, it seems the most natural thing to do.
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago*
From the very link you gave me. His convoluted reasoning never makes headway into the sentience of a "being of pure actuality". Merely states that it would be the sum potential of everything that could ever happen, but never stating it is the cause to the effect. It would know everything that could happen and where it could happen. If, given sufficient technological advancement, we built a computer that could model the universe in its entirety, would you call that god as well?
EDIT: Furthermore, he states that the being can never be actual, only potential. If he can never be actual, then how could he affect the world if he wanted to.
Also, rereading through this, I'd have to correct you again on a minor unrelated issue.
My first thought towards an infinite cup of hyrdogen would immediately be, "whats the catch",(which is a conditioned response after coming across too many 'infinite chests of gold' in a dnd gaming group i attend, only to have it bite me in the ass later) then "how can I use this to better my current situation".
The idea was immagining the existence of an eternal finite small amount of hydrogen (a cup) existing by itself. It's contingent... Why a cup? Why hydrogen? We understand that an explication, a reason for it, is missing.
Anything that is finite, imperfect can't be an adequate eternal and self-sufficient reason that stands complete in itself, without needing anything else...
If you were not alluding to an infinite cup of hydrogen then I do not understand what you are attempting to prove, being a stable atom, hydrogen is already theoretically eternal so asking me to imagine that would be no great feat.
Well God, or the scientific substitute, is the initial think - the thing that always was. But having "no beginning" is not enough because I could simply say that "matter always existed" and leave it there - nothing really stops this explanation. What I ponder is what is the thing that has always existed and began existence itself.
We may be getting abstract (as the nature of this thing is) when we say this but we have to understand that for something to exist, the concept of existence has to be created as well.
Why would existence need a beginning. Using an extremely simple example, the mobius strip has no beginning nor end. What is to say it hasn't just always existed?
The concept would have to be created, I agree. However I would not attribute that to a all powerful being but natural selection giving us enough intelligence to ponder such queries. Other animals would not ponder "existence" like we do, they merely just go on with what their brains and bodies are trained to do.
Although the mobius strip has no begining or ending once constructed, it still needed constructing. It did not exist until it was made.
And I have no idea what natural selection has to do with this.
I assumed you meant the concept of existence as we as humans put forth which is how our human intellect interprets it in our mind to make sense of the world, which can vary immensely from person to person. Whether we understood the concept of existence or not, the universe would not suddenly disappear because we could not.
The Mobius strip is not limited to human creation and occurs in nature.
Although you are right that there is a human functional definition for the concept of existence, and our understanding of it colors our very perception of things - it still does not mean that the concept disappears without us: thus requiring its creation dependent of us.
Mobius strip still has to start existing in order to exist - thus having a beginning. Although it may have a visual beginning it still has a conception one.
I don't see how it requires creation if it has always been. Either hypothesis has no evidence and is merely speculation.
I could argue using your reasoning that god has to "start existing" in order to exist, which requires a beginning, which requires he be created by something or someone.
Matter can be destroyed. Who says it can't? It can become energy.
[–]BarkingToadagnostic atheist, anti-religionist, theological non-cognitivist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
And energy can become matter. But neither can be destroyed, it's still there just in a different form.
[–]Pastasky 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
You need to clarify what you mean by matter. If we take say hydrogen, and anti-hydrogen, and slam them together, we get photons which are generally not considered matter.
We don't have "matter" in a different form. We don't have matter period.
That is certainly true (although I'd argue that the energy of the photon is equivalent, but I'm not strong enough in quantum physics to go into that, honestly). But the claim that matter converted into energy is "destroyed" simply because it does not necessarily revert into matter is not.
Matter can most certainly be destroyed. You can convert matter into photons, and you won't have matter anymore.
But this really depends on what you mean by "matter." Stuff like photons are not generally considered to be matter.
[–]Londron 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Matter pops into and out of existance constantly...just saying.
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Go on..
[–]the_timmer 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Virtual particles
thank you for the link, however, perhaps you could explain some things to me.
A. how are we scientifically defining existence. And then, how are we proving it once we define it?
B. correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be saying that matter is both created and destroyed - which boggles my mind.
Now forgive me for skimming but I am not getting the impression that these "particles" that are being created aren't actually particles. Am I wrong?
[–]the_timmer 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
A - Something having mass, I suppose. Or maybe having mass or momentum; B - Matter can be converted to energy, or you can create matter and anti-matter. As long as it all adds up to zero I think anything's game :)
I'm not sure if they really 'exist' in our sense of the word. Not a physicist, so I'm just along for the ride, too.
Here's another article that covers how they relate to the big bang. They're not proof of anything, just showing something can come from 'nothing'.
I guess my problem with "something coming from nothing" is that these virtual particles don't actually come from "nothing." They are results of "something" (energy, as I gather it).
The article is a little bit more helpful but it simple begs more questions. For example: although it answers "How can something come from nothing" it begs the question "how can something happen from nothing happening"
Also
The proposal is not that the entire universe appeared in one shot, but that a quantum vacuum fluctuation served as the seed for a local expansion of spacetime, which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect
how are we getting "which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect"?
I guess these questions are better suited for quantum physicists.
Thanks for the tips!
No worries. I think it's a fascinating area of study and I wouldn't presume to know more than the barest minimum about it. Have fun investigating, it blows my tiny mind everytime :)
I think it's the crack in the door that allows an explainable material hypothesis for the big bang, not that without it the only recourse would be supernatural.
Not sure if anyone else mentioned it, but there's a great talk by Lawrence Krauss that's worth a listen.
[–]DrPhillySecular Humanist|Atheist|Antitheist|Social Democrat|Batmanism| 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
On a quantum level, yes, but it's not totally fleshed out yet. For all practical reasons, it can be assumed that, in a macro universe, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed: only converted.
[–]EmpRupusSecular Atheist | AntiEssentialist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I think (think, not know) that I would abandon theism if there was some kind of proof for the creation of matter being an unintentional and natural (and or some other provable explanation).
So you believe God as the "first cause", if the first cause is explained properly by natural sciences, you will begin to doubt your belief?
I think that my view of God is open to the possibility of God being an ambiguous primordial mist, if you will - and as I said before, my belief in God is not because of this single "lack of knowledge" but were this to be conclusively proven (as much as science is able to do so) then I would almost be forced to accept atheism (as would everyone else, I think).
In short, yes. Explanation of "first cause" would undoubtedly settle the issue.
[–]RabornFluttershyism 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Wouldn't the lack of an explanation for said first cause be sufficient to not substitute one?
Not sure I understand: are you trying to say that I shouldn't believe anything because there is no evidence for anything?
If so: no. I don't choose to live life with a protective apathy for the unprovable. But I assure you that the consequence of a God being a "first cause" does not prevent me from living life in a reasonable way devoid of religious delusion.
I mean an answer without evidence for it does nothing to advance the knowledge. Substituting an answer because it feels good instead of following the evidence trail does not put you on a track to truth.
I guess I'll re-iterate. My evidence for God is not simply as an explanation for the origin for matter. I have other reasons that I believe in God. However Those bits of evidence are of such a nature that they might be easily trumped with an explanation for the origin of matter/ aka first cause.
If you have evidence for a god, can we see them? If a god (I assume the christian one since you type God?) does exist, i'd like to know.
If you can't, then I maintain you're making assertions or have faulty premises.
I didn't come here to debate my own reasons for thinking God exists. That's not the issue at hand. I came here to answer the question proposed.
I maintain that you're looking to "prove" that I don't have evidence. So what may constitute as evidence for me will simply be hogwash to you.
If it's good evidence it's good evidence. There's not "evidence for me" and "evidence for you".
Good evidence would be something that you could demonstrate to someone else. If you can't it's worthless to anyone but you and there's no way of everyone else knowing if it's evidence for what you assert.
This is relevant because it's important to why I'm not a theist. I rely on evidence for everything. YOU have evidence for a god, I don't. Why not?
[–]zerobotatheist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
You're applying a god of the gaps argument as to why you're a theist, which is a common logical fallacy.
What you're doing is basically this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent regarding what it would take.
As I said before, I don't fit in to the "God of the Gaps" because this is not the only reason that I believe in God. But evidence that solved this dilemma would probably trump any kind of evidence that I could bring in.
Edit - thank you for the link.
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
I know you said it wasn't acceptable, but reviving the dead and having constant experiences of nothing after death.
That or prove all possible gods don't exist. You don't need to to make atheism reasonable, but that would pretty much seal the deal.
Finally, proving there are large amounts of multiverses would seriously cast doubt onto God. If that's the case, then it's not so remarkable that the constants of physics are in the range that allows for life.
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago
reviving the dead and having constant experiences of nothing after death.
The majority of people who die and are revived report no experiences. Those who claim to have seen a bright light are fairly few, and those who claim to have seen relatives or other things in heaven are far fewer.
It's also perfectly reasonable to think that these near-death experiences are simply the brain shutting down and trying to cope with the body dying.
prove all possible gods don't exist
Being as many gods are claimed to have properties such as being impossible to detect when they so wish they are thus unfalsifiable through scientific methods. It's like leprechauns. They're supposed magical beings who use said magic to remain hidden from humans. That makes them unfalsifiable, but I doubt you have nearly as high requirements to disbelieve in them than you do gods.
proving there are large amounts of multiverses
It's VERY speculative at this point, but there is some evidence that there could be other universes. http://io9.com/5714803/does-our-universe-show-bruises-where-it-collided-with-other-universes
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
They weren't really dead, just close to it.
some evidence that there could be other universes
Some evidence that there could be is not enough. There's some evidence that there could be a god. Why are we even postulating things we cannot observe even in principle? Is it just trying to explain away the fine tuning argument?
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
So you're talking about reviving people who have been totally dead for long periods of time. That would probably require scifi technology so there's not much point discussing it.
Some evidence that there could be is not enough.
I didn't intend for that to be definitive proof, just letting you know that there is some physical evidence out there and the multiverse theory isn't just some physicists sitting around playing with math.
Why are we even postulating things we cannot observe even in principle?
This really sounds more like a question that would be better directed at theists...
Is it just trying to explain away the fine tuning argument?
The fine-tuning argument doesn't need to be explained away because it's bunk. OF COURSE the laws of physics in our universe seem fine-tuned for life as we know it. We arise in this universe and so to survive we have to fit those laws.
If some of the universal constants were different, for example if gravity were twice as strong, then the sun would have used up it's fuel and burned out already, probably destroying the earth in the process. But jupiter would itself be a tiny sun with a mini-solar system orbiting it. If life arose there then they would wonder at how fine-tuned the universe is for them because if gravity weren't as strong their sun would never have started burning.
For further explanation of why you shouldn't use the fine tuning argument, I direct you to Douglas Adams:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.
Life is not fluid. It can only exist in a slim margin of variables, and most life that exists is single-celled. For you to say "life will form regardless of constants" is presumptuous, since we have no way of knowing if there would be life in alternate universes.
It seems like you've assumed the multiverse exists and used that as proof that our constants are nothing special.
Life is not fluid. It can only exist in a slim margin of variables, and most life that exists is single-celled
This is demonstrability not true. Life exists almost everywhere on earth. From the upper reaches of the atmosphere to miles underground locked inside rocks. From boiling deep-sea vents to things that live and even remain active while frozen inside ice. Life adapts to the conditions it finds itself in, that's the very definition of 'fluid'.
Unless you actually mean that life is not literally a liquid like water. In which case you're correct but being deliberately obtuse.
I have no idea what most life being single-celled has to do with the discussion at all.
For you to say "life will form regardless of constants" is presumptuous, since we have no way of knowing if there would be life in alternate universes.
I of course cannot guarantee that any possible combination of universal constants will result in life. But I can promise you that life is possible under constants different than the one's we're familiar with. Life is nothing more than self-replicating chemistry. Any universe with conditions that allow for that to exist has at least the potential for life.
Multiverse theory is interesting and perhaps even compelling, but its far from proven. I'm trying to work without assumptions.
It seems to me that you're the one assuming that because we couldn't live in a universe with vastly different laws then therefore nothing could possibly ever live there and you're using that as proof that are constants are special.
If life is as probable as you think it is, why haven't we seen more of it in the Universe? Outside Earth, all we've seen are bacteria.
I'm... honestly not sure what you're talking about now.
We've never found alien bacteria. Some of the shuttle missions have found living earth bacteria and fungi that have been blown out of the earth's atmosphere by the solar winds, but that's it.
But to answer the question of why we haven't found alien life, it's because we haven't done much looking yet.
We've explored one other planet in the solar system, mars, and even that only in a very limited way, and we've done flybys of a half-dozen moons circling jupiter and saturn.
Mars is a dry dustball. There could be something living there, but some of those moons I mentioned are much better prospects for life.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Thanks for the link. It's an interesting notion. I just like to point out that from the link:
Still, the absence of alternative theories isn't by itself proof of other universes.
That one sentence wraps up why science is better than religion.
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
To further expand on why science is better, not only does no one claim that these anomalies are proof of other universes, but they actually came up with and are performing experiments to try to figure out what they are.
The European Space Agency's Planck satellite should be able to pick up on the polarization of the photons and possibly prove or disprove the theory. Its first maps are due in 2012.
[–]timoumdAgnostic Atheist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
For the last dont forget that we can only contemplate the odds of being here if we are here. Simple example, imagine the immense odds of you existing. Every parent and parent's parent for millions of years had to meet at just the right time for you to be who you are. Remove one link of the near infinite and you arent here. But objectively its not unusual that someone is here.
large amounts of multiverses would seriously cast doubt onto God.
Don't think so: it is a double-edged sword. :)
In fact it would become almost certain that in one of these universes an omnipotent Being exists capable of traversing the universes and coming here as Jesus. ;)
Not really orthodox, but anyway...
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Good point.
[–]ElgauchoLoco 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago
I really do think this is a harder question to answer for a theist.
When going from nothing anywhere to something somewhere, it's far easier to find the evidence.
When going from something somewhere to nothing anywhere, it's unfeasible that we will see everything (outside of revelation).
But really evidence rarely changes peoples minds. It's how we FEEL about that evidence that makes the difference. Really it's a horrible feeling to go from some perfect being that loves and gives you intrinsic value to there existing nothing.
[–]MarinP 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Nice try Richard Dawkins!
[–]ShakaUVMIdiosyncratic Christian 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
An archeologist turning up the minutes from a meeting of the apostles talking about their plan to go around bullshitting people about seeing Jesus again.
[–]bjeanesatheist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
purposeful bullshitting isn't the only source of mistruths, though. I know this doesn't add weight to the validity of the apostles' production, but it's conceivable that they did actually believe the things that were written but were just wrong (i.e. came from old wives tales, folk lore, or misinterpretation of fiction).
I'm not trying to make a statement or judgement either way. However, I wonder why older historical texts (e.g. Egyption mythology, paganism) with very similar stories (if not identical) as those in the Bible don't strike you as a possible source for the apostles' inspiration (as opposed to divine inspiration).
Sure, but seeing the apostles die for their believes lends credence to the notion that they believed in those beliefs very strongly.
To back up for a second, even though we all believe certain facts, we believe some facts more than others. If I tell you that the American Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865, and you say, very firmly, that such was not the case, I'd back off a bit on my belief. If you bet me, in all seriousness, $1,000 that it didn't last between 1861 and 1865, I'd probably back off even further.
People willing to die for a belief demonstrate an even stronger degree of belief in a fact than that. So if there was doubt or uncertainty as to the actual events that took place up to and after the crucifixion, I don't think you'd see the apostles willing to die for it (after all, the Bible clearly states they were actually about to give up after Jesus' death).
So I see that as evidence against the claim that they believed Jesus was raised from the dead, but simply misled.
[–]meezerman 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I hear this point so often, but I never see the evidence backing it up. What makes you believe that the apostles did die for their beliefs? Certainly not the Bible.
Would you accept evidence that the bible was created as a marketing and promotion peice from a vast aray of sources with the specific intent to grow christianity?
Depends on the actual evidence, but sure.
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
I have a curious notion that humanism and theism do not have to be incompatible, that there is a blurry area where liberal theists and tolerant humanists look very much alike. Call it pantheism if you like, or spiritual naturalism.
If I am right about that, then perhaps it is not necessary to abandon theism in order to embrace humanism. So, if you were to put your question in a more positive light -- "what would it take for you to embrace humanism?" -- my answer would be that I already have. And that there are many theists -- and anti-theists -- who would already accuse me of having abandoned theism.
I never said you would have to embrace anything else. This is only about abandoning thiesm.
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Well, "abandoning" sounds so negative. But I would still say that many would accuse me of having already abandoned theism.
What would it take for you to "abandon" your friends? You wouldn't, would you? But what about embracing a family and spending less time with your friends? Then it sounds less negative, and more reasonable. I think that if you want honest answers, you should phrase it differently.
Flowery speach masks the truth. I want to know what it would take for people to reject their beliefs in a god or gods. I didn't want confusion, or people arguing over definitions, which does happen a lot.
I think you posed a trick question. If they say they might abandon their beliefs, then how strong are those beliefs? If they say nothing would make them abandon their beliefs, then they look irrational.
[–]MrLawlietgnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I doubt that's what he meant. I think what he's trying to say is he wanted to know whether the theists here are open-minded about possibly being completely wrong and what it would take to change their minds or whether they have complete blind faith regardless of anything.
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Yes, if there is literally nothing that can say you from your theism, then please do not try to make it into laws. I, for example, am open to evidence a god exists. As soon as I am presented with it, and it subject to the same system to determine fact from fiction that I use for everything else in my life, if it still holds up as being true, i will become a theist.
Unfortunately this is not the case with most theists. Just look at the posts...
For my gods to die Concrete evidence I am wrong An archeologist turning up the minutes from a meeting of the apostles talking about their plan to go around bullshitting people about seeing Jesus again. can't think of anything other than a profound sense of nothingness in my life, but i'm not sure that would do it either... I hope my ramblings make sense
For my gods to die
Concrete evidence I am wrong
can't think of anything other than a profound sense of nothingness in my life, but i'm not sure that would do it either... I hope my ramblings make sense
None of these are particularly rational, nor do they follow any system I have ever heard to determine fact from fiction. Alas, such is life.
I agree with you completely, but then as an atheist you understand that I understand. The question is, what do we do about it?
That is what I have been trying to find out for a long time. So far, my results are not so good.
Well then, ask it that way. Yes, I'm open minded. I don't know what it would take to change my mind because I haven't seen it yet. What about you?
My views align with the evidence that is available, currently none of what I've seen from Christianity, Judaism, Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism, UFO abductees and Buddhism have not been enough to sway my views.
As far as I can see, I don't see any reason to believe in anything supernatural.
Neither do I. Read my original response.
[–]avd007pantheist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
pantheist here. yes there can be a blurry area between atheist and theism.
I have a curious notion that humanism and theism do not have to be incompatible...
Humanism classically was theistic.
Atheists tend to be anti-humanists, as widely showcased in this forum.
Interesting point.
Can I answer this one too? What it would take for me to affirm atheism is a sound argument for atheism.
[–]RizukenAtheism|Anti-theism|Determinism|Epicureanism 7 points8 points9 points 3 months ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatible-properties_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
Did you want to discuss the topic at all?
[–]RizukenAtheism|Anti-theism|Determinism|Epicureanism 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago
What it would take for me to affirm atheism is a sound argument for atheism.
i gave you 14
lol wut?
You did no such thing. You Gish Galloped a bunch of Wikipedia pages.
[–]RizukenAtheism|Anti-theism|Determinism|Epicureanism 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago
those are 14 arguments for atheism. so what if they are also wikipedia pages?
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago*
You didn't explain any of them. Putting up a bunch of arguments with no further explanation and then running away because nobody's going to refute all of them and acting like that proves you right is terrible argumentation.
Either way, those aren't arguments for atheism, just arguments against theism.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago
I'll take that as a no.
i thought since i am not a theist i cannot answer the OP, but since i am an atheist i can reply with reasons to be an atheist as you've requested. I don't understand what else you wanted from me.
[–]korvanos 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
why should you expect a non-expert to try and convince you when there are many far more learned experts who understand the logic better that are easily available?
If I have a theological question do I ask the children in sunday school or go do research on the actual information from theologians?
why should you expect a non-expert to try and convince you
If you mean to ask why I posted a comment here stating what it would take for me to affirm atheism, I did that because the post asked people to do that.
If your suggestion is that I shouldn't expect anyone here to be able to give me a sound argument for atheism, I'm inclined on the basis of experience to agree with you. Although there seems to be some disconnect on this point, as many people will say it's trivially easy to give a sound argument for atheism.
A sound argument for atheism is easy. Religion has no proof. Thus, atheism.
Regardless, he pointed you to a number of sources which he felt explained his point of view better than he could. I think that's an acceptable response.
That's not even a valid argument, let alone sound. Would you like to give it a valid formulation, or would you prefer that I try to discern what it would look like if it had a valid formulation?
[–]Sitral 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
If that's not a sound reason for atheism, what else do you believe in that has no physical evidence to support it?
[–]korvanos 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
So, do you have any religions which do have proofs? Because I will stand by my statement that there is no conclusive proof of any supernatural occurence justifying the belief in any kind of supernatural entity currently on record.
Burden of proof lays on anyone positing such a thing, and therefore the default stance is atheism until proof is presented.
[–][deleted] 3 months ago*
[deleted]
Where do you consider the null hypothesis falls on this issue and why?
I'd affirm whatever position on this is established by sound argument
However, we know god is an unfalsifiable concept.
I don't grant that.
From that we now know the superior position is to use a default null hypothesis that no god(s) exist, and try to falsify this position by providing evidence of a god.
Well, your argument fails without that previous premise, but I'd be willing to grant your conclusion as a premise, for the sake of discussion.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago
Then you should agree, using atheistic side the null hypothesis "God does not exist." is a sound argument. I have laid it out.
You mean the argument whose premise I denied? No, I don't agree that that's a sound argument.
However, I'd be willing to grant its conclusion as a premise for the sake of discussion.
Well then, I certainly love to see your proof for proving a universal negative.
I assume you mean my proof that it's not plainly true that god is unfalsifiable. Here would be an obvious place to start: if it's plainly true that god is unfalsifiable, any attempt to disprove god in principle would be plainly incoherent; there can be attempts to disprove god in principle which are not plainly incoherent; then it's not plainly true that god is unfalsifiable.
Perhaps, do you have any evidence you think qualifies?
The positive arguments theists offer for God plainly qualify as putative supports for god's existence.
[–][deleted] 3 months ago
[–]placey07atheist 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago
Unfortunately, logical argumentation only works if both sides are using logic
I yield the rest of the debate.
I accept your concession.
Maybe someone else has a sound argument for atheism.
[–]llluminate 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago
Atheism is the default. The burden of proof lies on the theist. Do I really need to bring up the teapot analogy?
Atheism is the default. The burden of proof lies on the theist.
That seems to be the premise which Pombo and I agreed to for sake of discussion.
[–]llluminate 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Okay... Well excuse me if I'm missing something, but for what reason did you switch to theism then?
[–]ben120 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
I'd like to point out fyi that you won't get a proper discussion, Pombo tried and you have said that something which is true, actually isn't. You don't get to pretend to use logic and have a logical discussion with people at the same time.
I'd like to point out fyi that you won't get a proper discussion
You're mistaken, I'm happy to have a proper discussion.
Pombo tried and you have said that something which is true, actually isn't.
If you have an objection to something I have said, I encourage you to offer it.
You don't get to pretend to use logic and have a logical discussion with people at the same time.
You seem to think that "us[ing] logic" means "never saying anything which ben120 might object to", which of course it doesn't.
You were given a sound argument and rejected it based on your chosen premise that a god exists.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
You're mistaken, I never did anything like that.
If you have an objection to something I said, I encourage you to give it.
So you agree that the non-supernatural premise is the null hypothesis in a discussion about the supernatural?
[–]ColdShoulderanti-theist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I'd like to think I have a few for atheism in regards to the omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omniscient god of Abraham. Is that the god that we are discussing?
I don't have any particular god in mind.
I think the atheist case is likely to be stronger attacking the notion of god in general, as the risk with the alternative is that the target becomes some specific god rather than god. And I think the former target may also be easier, as the latter increasingly involves specific theological issues which the critic may be less equipped to argue/interested to argue. So I tend to think of the first route as the more significant one, for these kinds of reasons, but that just my opinion.
[–]ColdShoulderanti-theist 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Look, for me to represent my points, I need to know which god we're discussing. If we're discussing Zeus, Thor, or Apollo, I would likely use different arguments than if we were to discuss the Christian god. After all, there are reasons to believe that Zeus never existed that might not stretch to Allah.
The specific theological issues are of central importance. I don't even understand how we could discuss the nonexistence of god by simply discussing the notion of god, unless your referring to some nonsense such as Anselm's ontological argument.
I think there are 2 questions here -
Argument against the presence of a deity (higher being)
Argument against the presence of an omniscient, omnipresent and more impoertantly omni-benevolent single God.
(1) deals with null hypothesis, non-falsifiablity and Russel'd teapot and the default on this is agnostic atheism.
(2) deals with the paradox of suffering - (2a) existence of suffering (2b) randomness of suffering as opposed to justice.
Where exactly do you find a sound argument lacks?
Pardon me?
I mean to ask if you find available arguments lacking against the "presence of a non-specific higher deity" or the "presence of a kind-loving-father-like-all-powerful-monotheistic god" ? Which area specifically?
Aha. Well I'm interested to hear whatever arguments there might be. I think the atheist case is likely to be stronger taking the first route, as the risk with the second is that the target becomes some specific god rather than god. And I think the case may be easier taking the first route, as the second increasingly involves specific theological issues which the critic may be less equipped to argue/interested to argue. So I tend to think of the first route as the more significant one, for these kinds of reasons, but that just my opinion.
[–]RabornFluttershyism 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
If you're not going to have a specific quality about a "god", then what is there to argue for at all?
[–]RabornFluttershyism 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
If your deity is non specific, what exactly can you argue for?
Nondescript abstract amorphous deity concept has qualities you can consider and argue for/against?
What deity?
If we are to argue for the presence or lack of a "non specific higher deity" wouldn't we need some specific qualities to pin them down in order to argue for them at all?
[–]demoncarcassagnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
God makes absolutely no sense. None of the creation stories or miracles or attributes ascribed to gods/god/a god/your god make any reasonable sense at all. It all appears to be contrived by humans. It appears this way because there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a god, and scripture generally sounds like fairy tales. You don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns I'd bet, so why god?
Is there supposed to be a sound argument in there for atheism? If so, I can try to guess what it might be, or you can make it clear. Whichever you'd prefer.
The problem here is you're viewing atheism as some sort of belief system, or at least it seems that way. Atheism isn't a belief in unnatural gobbledygook, it's disbelief in your unnatural gobbledygook. There doesn't need to be an argument for atheism when I can present so many arguments against theism.
Point is, theism makes no sense, so I choose not to believe in it when there is no evidence to support it (hence atheism). Atheism is a lack of belief, it is not a religion.
The problem here is you're viewing atheism as some sort of belief system
No, I'm not making any premises about atheism.
Well, other than assenting to the premise that it should get treated as a null hypothesis.
There doesn't need to be an argument for atheism
There certainly does, at least insofar as it's to be something affirmed on the basis of reason, which was the premise of my initial comment.
Is there supposed to be a sound argument in there for atheism?
There certainly does, at least insofar as it's to be something affirmed on the basis of reason, which was the premise of my initial comment. Is there supposed to be a sound argument in there for atheism?
I'm going to ask you a question. Do you believe in unicorns? If not, then I will call you an a-unicornist (someone who does not believe in unicorns). Since you will most likely be an a-unicornist, I have to ask you what your valid argument for a-unicornism as opposed to unicornism?
Want a sound argument for atheism? There is no evidence of god, therefore I won't let ancient scripture run my life on an unfalsifiable premise.
Do you believe in unicorns?
Nope.
I have to ask you what your valid argument for a-unicornism as opposed to unicornism?
No one has offered any evidence for the existence of unicorns, if no one has offered any evidence for the existence of unicorns I should be an a-unicornist, therefore I should be an a-unicornist.
Want a sound argument for atheism?
Yes.
There is no evidence of god, therefore I won't let ancient scripture run my life on an unfalsifiable premise.
That's not even a valid argument, let alone a sound one. Would you like me to try to guess what a valid argument would look like if it looked vaguely like that, or would you like to clarify what valid argument you intend to give? Whichever you prefer.
No evidence has been presented for god (or at least no evidence that would convince a free-thinking individual above the age of 10). So my point still stands - no evidence for god, no belief in it.
You are either a troll or a moron at this point. Can't tell which. If you'd like you can present me with the "evidence" for god and I can review it.
[–]NeilBlackchristian 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Refutation of the various arguments for God.
[–]ben120 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago
I would be interested in hearing your arguments for God, they any are particular long then just do one or two, least we get bogged down in too much text.
Regards.
I like the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a cause.
Also the Cosmological Argument from Contingency
1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) The universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 3).
5) The explanation of the universe's existence is God (from 2 and 4).
There are a number of other arguments, but I like these two the most.
[–]Psy-Kosh 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago
I'm curious which strong arguments you consider not to have been refuted?
The Kalam Cosmological argument is my favorite.
[–]Psy-Kosh 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
*blinks* You consider Kalam to be valid/non flawed?
every argument for God so far has been refuted. This is very obvious when you notice that when countering these refutations, theists will simply regurgitate the same argument, sometimes in different words, sometimes word for word, while atheists will try different ways of refuting it (most of which succeed in refuting the argument)
This is very obvious when you notice that when countering these refutations, theists will simply regurgitate the same argument, sometimes in different words, sometimes word for word, while atheists will try different ways of refuting it
What is very obvious to me, when I see this happening, is that the atheist has utterly failed to provide a refutation but is insisting that he has.
[–]TheOneFreeEngineer 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
ummm tough question... ummmm I see things like proof of the randomness and naturalness of creation on this thread that sounds like the Big Bang Theory and I already accept that, I believe science is good and mostly correct until it finds a more correct explanation (i.e. science advances). I believe a divine being worked within the framework of Physics so any scientific discovery most likely won't change my theist views
I can't think of anything other than a profound sense of nothingness in my life, but i'm not sure that would do it either... I hope my ramblings make sense
[–]Psy-Kosh 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
*blinks* why would a profound sense of nothingness or lack theirof be relevant? ie, for that to be relevant would seem to first require that humans come with built in god-o-meters that measure the existence or lack theirof of god, right?
just because, Science isn't isn;t going to stop me cause I agree with science so I would need something not of science to convince me, so possibly a feeling of empty. Have you never felt empty or that something was missing in life? that is what I mean.
You are going to neeed to be specific if you want a reasonable answer. In my post, I requested people be specific, not just throw a random phrase together and use it as a reason.
a feeling of empty
Has no meaning. Please tell me what you are talking about.
Nope, you haven't said what it would take for you to abandon thiesm. If the answer is, "nothing", then we are done here.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago
I wwould as on the internet.
I'm sorry, it was just too perfect.
I know, typing on a smmart phone is hard.
[–]mynunameex-atheist Christian 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
I would hope that I would abandon theism if I came to the conclusion that it was more likely than not that God does not exist. Currently, I have come to the opposite conclusion through all my investigations (which would explain my theism).
What is your reason for thinking this way?
Like I told MrNat, it is very hard to simply "sum up", given that it is an enormous topic. If you have a specific question, I would be happy to answer it for you.
What would make you think a god exists?
[–]mynunameex-atheist Christian 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I'm afraid you didn't make it much more specific. Even the process of coming to this conclusion is extremely broad.
Can you give me one reason, your best reason? I did ask you to be specific in my post. Otherwise you shouldn't have posted anything, as it would be a waste of time.
I'm sorry I wasted your time then.
I feel like describing one aspect of why I believe in God (among many) would inherently seem like a weak argument, since of course it is not the entire argument.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you want me to give you one reason, so that you can refute that reason. I doubt you are simply wanting to learn more about theism. Because of this, I believe that I would need a lot of time (or ink) to comprehensively explain my conclusions, and this is hardly the forum to do so in.
Fair enough, but I would only try to refute things that were false.
[–]lord_of_vaderbuddhist 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I think theists can't afford to give up their gods, otherwise what do they have to stand on?
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
If the Catholic church overturned an infallible teaching. That's all it would take for me.
What about the 7 day creation? Pope John Paul II said that was wrong, overturning a teaching that was thought to be infallible.
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
Oh, I don't know about that. Early Christian writers that I have some familiarity with, Origen and Augustine, held Genesis to be largely if not entirely allegorical. I have no doubt it was a popular idea, but I don't think it was ever formally defined as doctrine.
It's like limbo. In some places, it was taught as though it was official church doctrine even though it was only a very popular speculation. Where the church is silent, the laity is free to speculate, so long as their speculations don't contradict existing teaching. Several years ago, the church convened a group of theologians to examine this speculation, and their conclusion was that it is not compatible with what the church teaches about the afterlife.
So it was considered true, then it was overturned. You said catholic, not another sect like lutheran or morman. The catholics said it was true, then they said they were wrong. Where are you confused?
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "it." A literal interpretation of Genesis? While many Catholics may have held to this, it was not an official teaching of the church. If you claim that it was, I invite you to show me an official church document demonstrating as much.
It is hard to do researsh on a smart phone at work. I will respond, but it'll take me a while. Hold fast until then!
You are right. The Catholic church refuses to take any sides on the matter. They are fine riding the, "Well, we don't know and we won't tell you what we think, because if we told you the bible was 100% true, we would look like insane sociopaths, and we won't tell you were the line between the correct and incorrect stuff is, we'll just use apologetics all over the place once some finds a fault in the Bible, but the Jesus thing is right and that's our story and were sticking to it." I actually thought they would have the balls to come out and say what they think, but alas, one of the most powerful organizations on the planet can't be bothered to have an opinion on how batshit crazy their book is. So now I must move on to a darker time.
What about the Inquisition? It used to be OK to torture Jews for not being christian. That has clearly changed. The Pope's set up this system for "dealing with" heretics. Why do they not still do this if the Catholic Church has never changed it's doctrine?
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I disagree with your claim, but a more central point is that it has nothing to do with my stance. Individual popes and other clergy have done many horrible things over the centuries, but their actions do not constitute a moral teaching. Even some practices that are universally enforced do not carry the weight of infallible dogma. For example, though Catholic priests are not allowed to marry, this could change tomorrow, if the church decided so.
Then please define "doctorine" as you and the church have different definitions.
Doctrine is that which the church teaches to be true and which all members are required to accept. It is a body of formally defined teachings that are explicitly laid out in documents like the catechism which have been approved and/or published by the church. Has the church formally pronounced a definition of doctrine that differs in substance from what I just said?
[–]explanatorygapdualist | syncretist | apophatic 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
I'm working my way through some Plantiga, so I'll throw some reformed epistomology out there: if my theistic belief is properly basic, I can hold it and still be rational. I don't think, then, that counter-evidence or argument could dislodge a foundational belief from my noetic structure.
[–]Coraonpagan 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
For my gods to die.
[–]Coraonpagan 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
We would know. I know, I know, How would I know, all I can say without breaking any oaths is that we would not be able to initiate new priesthood.
What would have been better than you being this cryptic, is saying nothing at all. You have added nothing to the conversation. You have not been specific. You have not done anything but waste our time.
Reddit in general is a waste of time.
Then begone and reduce the waste.
[–]3pict3tuscatholic 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Well, it is impossible to prove, definitively, at least, a negative assertion (cf. The celestial teapot, r/atheism's banner). So nothing could really make me abandon theism. If Christianity were proven to be false then I would default back to Judaism. If Judaism were proven to be false I would default back to some other theistic religion or just deism. But I would never be an atheist. Not enough good evidence xD
[–]JonoLith 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago
I will need someone to explain to me the songs and music that I personally have produced that I simply cannot say come from myself. There is a bubbling need to write and sing, and the more I do so the more in tune I become with a force that I simply cannot explain in any other capacity but to call it "God".
Then I will need an explanation as to the effects of this music that I see upon people who hear it, and the transcendent communication that happens between the player and the listener.
Then I will have to be convinced that the hundreds of moral documents that have been written by several cultures throughout the world are worth discarding in favor of nothing but the hope and belief that Science will make us moral, when it is incapable of doing so.
Then I will need to be convinced that people like Martin Luther King were insane for their beliefs, rather then shining examples of Theism during incredibly dark times.
And after all that, I will still have to be convinced that thinking and debating on the concept of God is a horrific thing to do, when I have experienced nothing but Beauty and Love by meditating and praying on the idea of God.
Finally, after all that, I will need to be convinced how a group of monkeys have any hope of maintaining any form of peaceful structure without acknowledging forces that exist outside of themselves, or their own understanding. It strikes me simply that all systems that are bereft of the idea of God eventually devolve into "Might makes right."
[–]EmpRupusSecular Atheist | AntiEssentialist 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago
music, moral documents, Martin Luther
All of these arguments rest on the idea that anything "good" has to come from God and there cannot be any good without a "god", and you paraphrase this very well in your closing sentence. Therefore, in essence, you are "defining" God to be the source of all goodness and by showing the existence of goodness, you are saying that proves God. Isn't this a bit circular? Or is there anything more to your definition of God?
[–]JonoLith 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I think "proves" is a bit strong. God's not really a concept that can be proven. He's not math. Not really a "He" either, but we use that word because our language sucks.
Atheists get stuck on this. God isn't Science, he's Religion, and Religion bears more resemblance to Art then Science.
I agree with you that our "language sucks".
However, this rather dubiously bolsters the case for God. You see probably 9 out of 10 people would say they believe in a God, which makes it seem like it is a universal idea. However, when asked to explain what they really mean by God, each person has a different definition. One would say "God is all the beautiful things in nature", some would say "God is the human soul and human goodness", some would say "God is the ultimate truth that has been eluding mankind" etc. which really means God has become a very generously used word and this creates a false illusion that there is some sort of a universal agreement on a single idea - rather "God" is an umbrella term that can used for anything positive that each person experiences personally in their lives.
This throws up the question "Are all good things connected to a single source?" which has an additional question "Are all bad things also connected to a single source?"
What do you think?
I tend to see humans as just being lazy with the word "God". We don't honestly talk about the concept, at all, in this society. It doesn't benefit our corporate owners to have us talking about any kind of high minded concept, least of all ones that say "You can't serve both God and Money". And they very much want us serving money.
In the end I think we HAVE to have different ideas of God, simply because we're all just different people. The current motto of the day is "Express yourself" but I would say that it is far more beneficial to "Express something outside yourself."
So, your god is the subconscious?
It strikes me simply that all systems that are bereft of the idea of God eventually devolve into "Might makes right."
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because Sweden is such a hell hole for being 85% atheist.
Hrm... the subconscious.... I've never thought of it that way. Might be worth investigating. I have been finding alot of interest in the philosophy of the mind recently.
I can't speak to Sweden. My understanding is that they're doing very well because they've demolished their upper class.
So...... is that a maybe? And sweden is evidence that your statement "can't be good without a god" is absurdly false?
That's a "I'm reading up on it." The subconscious is a fascinating subject, and seems to fit in very nicely with the idea of humans sharing a common link with one another.
And to Sweden, You mischaracterize my position. I specifically said "bereft of the idea of God." There's a sharp difference to be had between your man-god, and the concept of God.
[–]SicTimagnostic theist 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Concrete evidence that I am wrong.
[–]Lord_of_PotatoesPotato Deity 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
Have you've heard about the burden of proof? We've found it! It was lying on top of a pile with theists.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]TaqwacoreSecular Sunni Muslim, Ex-Buddhist monk, Simulationist 21 points22 points23 points ago
[–]tripleatheistPresuppositional Pastafarian 23 points24 points25 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]avd007pantheist 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Chronophiliaagnostic atheist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TaqwacoreSecular Sunni Muslim, Ex-Buddhist monk, Simulationist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TaqwacoreSecular Sunni Muslim, Ex-Buddhist monk, Simulationist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]TheFeshyIgnostic Atheist | Secular Humanist 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]NeilBlackchristian 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]DrJorneyBrongusagnostic atheist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]NeilBlackchristian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]BarkingToadagnostic atheist, anti-religionist, theological non-cognitivist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CopaceticMan 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]CopaceticMan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]hondolor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]hondolor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]hondolor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]hondolor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thallazaranti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]hondolor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BarkingToadagnostic atheist, anti-religionist, theological non-cognitivist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Pastasky 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BarkingToadagnostic atheist, anti-religionist, theological non-cognitivist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Pastasky 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Londron 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]the_timmer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]the_timmer 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]the_timmer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DrPhillySecular Humanist|Atheist|Antitheist|Social Democrat|Batmanism| 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]EmpRupusSecular Atheist | AntiEssentialist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RabornFluttershyism 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RabornFluttershyism 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RabornFluttershyism 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RabornFluttershyism 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]zerobotatheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeepBopBoop123Angel Headed Hipster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]blacksheep998Strict Rationalist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]timoumdAgnostic Atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]hondolor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ElgauchoLoco 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]MarinP 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ShakaUVMIdiosyncratic Christian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bjeanesatheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ShakaUVMIdiosyncratic Christian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]meezerman 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ShakaUVMIdiosyncratic Christian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MrLawlietgnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]MrLawlietgnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MrLawlietgnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]avd007pantheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wjbcagnostic mainline protestant naturalist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RizukenAtheism|Anti-theism|Determinism|Epicureanism 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]RizukenAtheism|Anti-theism|Determinism|Epicureanism 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RizukenAtheism|Anti-theism|Determinism|Epicureanism 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]inyouraeroplanechristian 3 points4 points5 points ago*
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]RizukenAtheism|Anti-theism|Determinism|Epicureanism 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]korvanos 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]korvanos 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Sitral 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]korvanos 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] ago*
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] ago*
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]placey07atheist 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]llluminate 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]llluminate 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ben120 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]the_timmer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]the_timmer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ColdShoulderanti-theist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ColdShoulderanti-theist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]EmpRupusSecular Atheist | AntiEssentialist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]EmpRupusSecular Atheist | AntiEssentialist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]RabornFluttershyism 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RabornFluttershyism 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RabornFluttershyism 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]demoncarcassagnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]demoncarcassagnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]demoncarcassagnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]demoncarcassagnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]demoncarcassagnostic atheist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]NeilBlackchristian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ben120 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]NeilBlackchristian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Psy-Kosh 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]NeilBlackchristian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Psy-Kosh 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]NeilBlackchristian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TheOneFreeEngineer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Psy-Kosh 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TheOneFreeEngineer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mynunameex-atheist Christian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mynunameex-atheist Christian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mynunameex-atheist Christian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mynunameex-atheist Christian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lord_of_vaderbuddhist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Bounds(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]explanatorygapdualist | syncretist | apophatic 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Coraonpagan 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Coraonpagan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Coraonpagan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]3pict3tuscatholic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JonoLith 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]EmpRupusSecular Atheist | AntiEssentialist 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]JonoLith 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]EmpRupusSecular Atheist | AntiEssentialist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JonoLith 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JonoLith 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lemursteameratheist/practical materialist[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JonoLith 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SicTimagnostic theist 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Lord_of_PotatoesPotato Deity 1 point2 points3 points ago