You do understand that ‘no interaction’ means no interaction at all at any level?
What would be the point of worshiping something that cannot interact with you?
If God does interact with you, then you can measure that interaction, the measure might be subjective or objective. If subjective such as ‘I feel God’s presence’ then it needs further collaborative evidence before anyone can be sure the interaction is occuring. If we find that many people feel the same way, then we have evidence, but we still cannot tell what we have found. Is this evidence of God interacting, or evidence of some psychological need within the human psyche? This we do not yet know.
An atheist would be arrogant to say ‘God Does Not Exist’
A theist would be similarly arrogant in saying ‘God Exists’
To avoid arrogance the atheist should say ‘I believe God does not Exist’ or ‘I believe there is no evidence for God’s existance’
A theist similarly should say ‘I believe God Exists’ or ‘I believe there is sufficient Evidence to show God exists’
I suggest you read the thread, “Any BREAKTHROUGHS in theology lately?” and others like it. I’d call that “stomping around.” As for “horribly mauling” religious thinking, I don’t even think I need to defend that point.
Well, as I said in my original posts, some theists are arrogant, some atheits are arrogant.
That was immediately leapt upon by an atheist as proof that theists are more arrogant because I said all atheits are arrogant, which with a careful re-reading of my sentence clearly points out that I said neither.
In other news, I’ve written the letters “theist” so much today that the “ei” bit looks “wrong”. Hm.
I don’t think I said most. If I did, I was incorrect. I meant many, and specific to the subset of those who went through paganism.
I never said all atheists. I said some. You are now making the case that “all atheists are not arrogant,” which is, if I may say so, a rather arrogant statement.
If you say so. I gathered your point; I just said it was wrong. My statement of “I have nothing against atheists, but I do with some atheists who…” has nothing to do with saying something like, “I have nothing against atheists, but all atheists are Hitler’s gay children.” Surely you can see the difference between the use of “I have nothing wrong with atheists” in the two examples above?
No, I do not think it is arrogant of me. I do not claim to suggest what god does or does not suggest. Nor do I claim that what “billions of people” believe that god cares about is wrong. I am merely suggesting that though I I do not believe one way or the other, that any god I could believe in could possibly care what I believe. If he/she/it does then I think he/she/it is just a more powerfull resident of this universe (And vain to boot) not a deity. I believe that if GOD does exist then he/she/it would care less whether or not we worshiped he/she/it. If he/she/it did care whether we did Right or Wrong, without giving us more than hearesay contained in the bible, the torah, the koran, or any other book written by men, claiming to be the word of god, without any evidence, then I say FUCK GOD, he/she it is a DECEIVER!
Hehe. This is my favorite red herring of all. It is by far the most amusing, particularly when used to flush out logic… Logic can be such a slippery thing. :rolleyes:
I believe I have been more than accomodating to your statements. I have not complained when you completely mischaracterize what I said, I have merely corrected you.
If you want to give up and call me a troll, go ahead. I’m sorry your “buttons” got pressed before you could explain to me how scientific observation works on metaphysical principle. Take care.
Belief? Respect? Interaction is not required for religious belief. Many cultures held and hold trees, plants, animals, important sites, and planetary systems as worthy of worship, and not always because they believed that they would interact with them.
Take the case of “God is dead” attributed to Deism. This does not necessarily mean “ignore God’s word.” You may still worship, respect, and follow God with the knowledge that he is either dead or not interacting.
This is where we get into philosophy. How do you measure a metaphysical force?
For the record, I do not interact with “God.” I interact with a god force. There is a distinct difference between the God of the Christians and the generic use of god.
You see, this is where Atheist arrogance comes into play; "sticking ones head in the sand when faced with a choice. " So not only am I stupid for believing in God, but it seems I am a coward, and refuse to face reality!
Why is it surprising to you that maybe I did apply critical thinking, and I still arrived at the same conclusion? Why must I draw the same conclusions you did to be smart? or rational?
Not quite true; there are a large number of Satanists who consider themselves pagan.
The term “Satan” originates in the Abrahamic faiths, yes; however, the practices thereof rarely have anything to do with it or of Christian statements about what they do. (Except in the cases of those people who adopt Satanism as a means of causing shock and outrage, of which there are a fair number. Most of those are engaging in the Christian heresy, rather than the variety of paths mostly derived from the philosophy of LaVey.)
(Of course, I think a fair number, perhaps a majority, of LaVeyan Satanists are atheists. . .)
But this is not the standard of proof. Dreams, the spacetime continuum, the weak atomic force, etc etc – plenty of intangible realities can be discovered and verified. The human belief in god… that also can be understood. An objectively existing god… comes up snake eyes. If one could support a plausible reason for objective observers to believe that your experience of god were caused by an actual god, that would be a starting point for investigating god as an actuality.
And yet, if one looks at the evolution of religious thought around the world, there is an undeniable trend of retreat from advancing scientific and rational thought. To take the Judeo-Christian example, first there was one god among many who was the god of the Hebrews. He tabernacled with his people. Then Ezekiel perceived the spirit of god, and behold, he was no longer physically bound, but could be with his people in exile. He became the only god. Heaven has retreated, until now, as evidenced here, it is commonly accepted that god should be impossible to verify, although no one seems able to explain why.
I do not do so lightly. I understand the enormous implications of asserting that god is not real.
Tell me, why should it be untrue that we delude ourselves? If deluding oneself makes one a survivor, then there will be creatures who are built to delude themselves.
I disagree. I believe I am still participating in serious discussions with a number of other people. Is it arrogant of you to believe that the only serious discussion to be had is with you? I would not reach as far as to say it pains me to be denied the right of a serious discussion with a scholar such as yourself, but what happens, happens.
I suppose, given the loose definition of “pagan” as “not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim,” that is true. However, I must point out that Satanism necessarily requires the belief in both God and Jesus, as these are the sources of Satan.
Let it be said that Satanists aren’t generally the most theistic of religious groups.
Ooops, Sorry MEBukner, I did not realize that this was a debate between believers and atheists. I thought it was open to all points of view, not just “god is real” “No god is not real” I failed to realize that those who claim not to know one way or the other were not worth addressing. By all means, all of you who have no evidence, keep shouting eachother down, it makes little difference to the truth, whatever that may be, what you BELIEVE. My only question is if god really wanted us to believe in him/her/it why require us to take the word of other fallible humans? Why not appear to us and show us the error of our ways, and teach us the way?
Well, you clearly have very definite opinions about the nature of God, for which opinions you have no more proof than do atheists (or theists, for that matter) for their opinions. Why are atheists (or theists) necessarily “arrogant” for holding their opinions, while you are not?
I believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn was originally intended to make a point not merely about belief in things for which there is no proof, or which cannot be proven, but about belief in things whose definitions are internally contradictory or about which contradictory assertions are made. (How can the IPU be both invisible and pink?) To flatly state that God has been definitively shown not to exist (for all definitions of “God”) might be kind of arrogant, but few atheists actually make that claim. To assert that a particular well-defined concept of God is logically impossible (and, for example, Christian theologians have spent quite a few centuries wrangling about the definition of their God) is another matter. Of course, disproving one definition of God to ones own satisfaction doesn’t automatically disprove the existence of other definitions of God, or gods, and one person might well be a “hard atheist” with respect to some Gods, and a “soft atheist” or “agnostic” with respect to other Gods or gods–in fact, this is usually the case.
Who said it was a debate only between conventional atheists and conventional theists? I just get tired of the claim I see made sometimes that “Well, those theists and atheists are just two sides of the same coin, and they’re both equally arrogant!” Having a strong opinion about something, on a question which you may well have thought about quite a lot, doesn’t automatically make you “arrogant”, whether that opinion is that the existence of God (for all the well-defined definitions of God you’ve yet come across) is “absurd”; or that the non-existence of God is “absurd” (in light of whatever line of reasoning or evidence has convinced you of God’s existence); or that the question of God’s existence is unknowable, but any claim that God wants to be worshipped is “absurd”.
Lots of reasons. To do so would make us slaves, and rob of us our free will. It would also grow a whole new crop of wackos who would then interpet what God said and make life even more miserable for everyone else. You may think God coming and saying “hello” would make a difference, and your right, it would make hell on earth.
People are not ready for that, we couldnt handle it. The world would collapse in chaos. Also, I dont think there is “a way”, or if their is a way, we need to find it ourselves, or else it means nothing. No one treats a gift the same way they treat somthing they earned.
