And see, I’m taking that last sentence as a gratuitous example of snideness. You know, the kind of things that assholes can resist saying. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your intent, however, because I acknowledge that it’s entirely possible that I got you all wrong. It’s been a long day. (And I also might add that the delusional are probably unlikely to be aware that they are delusional, so they won’t be “doubly” pissed off.)
Argh! It should be—“You know, the kind of things that assholes cannot resist saying.”
undefined
Lord Asthar,
There are different ways to translate the meaning of the word God. One could ask; if the God of Christians,Jews and Muslims is what you mean,then it raises the question of; Who created the place for God to be, Is he both being and place? Before place, it would have to be nowhere. If God is every where (The psalmist says"even if I go into hell you are there" then, God would have to be everything.
Christians pray to Our father in heaven, does that mean heaven is everywhere?
Moses was told.(according to the Old Testament), I am what is. Jesus used the quote from the 82d Psalm,(81st in other bibles), Don’t you know you are gods, sons of the most high", He always said,“I go to your Father an mine”.When accused of Blasphmey when he said God was his father he quoted the pslam and said"How is it you accuse me of blasphmey, when even you fathers were called gods. If you see me yoou see the father" To me it means God is another name for what ever exists.
Monavis
There are no IPU’s. There’s no Santa Claus. There’s no tooth fairy. There’s no gold at the end of the rainbow.
You are of course equally annoyed by me saying these things, aren’t you Othersider?
A bunch of points. While His4Ever is no longer a member here, I wish to reference her, in a way that is not insulting to her. Some of you may remember her – a woman with an interesting past who came here to witness for Jesus, and stayed to argue the morality of homosexuality.
However, AFAICR (and I’ll accept cites to the contrary), I don’t believe she ever herself advocated any coercion or legal sanctions against gay people, though she did defend a couple of the evangelist types who do. She was simply insistent that they were all sinners who were going to Hell, and that she wanted to save them from that by leading them to Jesus and “out of their sinful lifestyle.”
No degree of argumentation was possible to convince her otherwise – she had a stereotype firmly in place, and she was going to do her best to witness to that strawman. Unfortunately Ray Bolger’s been dead for some time now, and no other straw man was a friend of Dorothy.
But it was clear to all and sundry that she was being bigoted in her stance.
Right?
Well, guess what? The exact same stance is being taken here in the name of sweet reason against any and all those who propose to adhere to a belief that they find reasonable.
Aren’t those who do so being bigoted too?
Why or why not? Give reasons for your answer.
==============
Othersider (I think it was who said this – I don’t see it in a quick review of the thread summary) – I am one person who was not “seeking” and whom God came up and hit (metaphorically) between the eyes with a 2x4. And I was quick to give that facile little “seek and ye shall find” thing that you quoted Strober about – and I know a couple of people, whom I have great respect for the integrity of, who did seek and did not find YHWH. Two remain atheists, TTBOMK. One encountered Jesus – and then encountered the Vana whose name he uses as a nick here. (Similar to lel’s experience, as it turns out – something I hadn’t known before.)
So I don’t have any quick-and-dirty “do this and you shall Know God” thingy. I simply point to the Jesus of the Gospels, on the theory that “He who has known Me has known the Father” and you do have a coherent, if historically debatable, account of what He did and said (and yes, I’m quite well aware of the arguments regarding contradictions and questionable historicity there; I’ve made them in other threads).
Finally, DTC, a comment on naturally occurring psychoactive chemicals. I grant the potential for theophanic and other experiences being mediated by chemicals. But nearly everything one feels is in fact chemically mediated. My present depression could be “cured” by a dose of serotonin, or so I’ve heard. Hostility is the result of excess testosterone. And all the other facile biochemical and psychopharmacological explanations.
Or perhaps, since on one model God created humans, body and soul (or however you care to phrase it), or caused them to evolve into what they are, maybe He caused the development of that theophany-inducer, in order to enable people to sense Him. I mean, if you were God, and You wanted people to know and love You (as is claimed of YHWH), and You were responsible for making them as they are, doesn’t it make sense that You would install (or cause evolution to develop) a mechanism by which they could come to know and love You?
On the other hand, if I cannot trust my theophanic perception, because it was chemically mediated, then on what grounds may I trust your careful and thorough analysis of Scriptural origins – since they too were chemically mediated, albeit by different chemicals. (You know this argument; it’s a variant on one Lewis used, but one I’ve never seen refuted.)
But at rock bottom, the argument in this thread is not about whether there is a God, or even whether it can be rational to believe in Him, but about whether it is rational and/or civil to make any assertion about His (or any god’s) presence or absence in a manner that stereotypes and denigrates one’s opposition.
On that note, I see that faithfool is doing a simply wonderful job of carrying on the argument for civil discourse and rational theism, with some good work on the part of yosemite. I respect both women highly, and see that things are in good hands.
Peace.
ISTR (and I looked for the thread where she said this, but I think it’s been archived and I have no idea how to search the archives) that she advocated that Christians who rent property should have the right to refuse housing to those whose practices would interfere with same Christians’ religious beliefs. It’s entirely possible that I have some of that wrong, but I recall - perhaps erroneously - several of us, including you, taking issue with that position.
[sub]I hope the email I sent was uplifting on at least a trivial level…[/sub]
Well, you can’t have it both ways. Tracy Lord wrote, "
I disagree – when I look at the complexities of every ecosystem on the planet, or even just human biology, the way that billions and billions of things come and fit together perfectly, I see evidence of a divine presence," but when it’s pointed out that the natural world does not fit together perfectly, you call that POV “simplistic.”
Exactly, the God hypothesis is not required as an explanation for natural phenomena.
That your beliefs can’t withstand rational scrutiny hardly makes the analysis “facile and childish.”
How precisely is refuting the validity of religious belief “bigoted”? Faith is not reasonable, that’s why it’s called “faith.”
You mean other than anecdotal evidence, right?
I think perhaps the often implied assumption that faith is synonymous with stupidity is the element of your position that appears based on prejudgment of a group of people. Your assertion implies a prejudgment and whether you withdraw it on a case by case basis for those theists you don’t despise, the ones who just turn away from you never hear that part of your message.
Of course you have the right to speak of your disdain for my faith. Assuming that that has some affect on my faith, rather than my opinion of you is an error of at least tactical significance, if not moral importance.
Tris
“The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.” ~ Lao-tzu ~
Wow, thank you. I was beginning to wonder if anyone on this board ever bothered to pay any attention to my posts.
Really, thank you. 
And just where did I say that faith was synonymous with stupidity? Being a Left Behind fan is synonymous with stupidity, but not faith per se. My objection is to people who say that fiath is reasonable, that it’s based on solid, logical evidence.
Nonsense. I’m withdrawing nothing from anyone on any basis. I like Poly, but that in no way implies an obligation to accept his opinions. Being nice isn’t the same thing as being right. Either God exists or He doesn’t. I take one side, and you take the other. I think you are mistaken, in the same way that I think Republicans are mistaken. I like Bricker, but I thoroughly disagree with his politics.
What I find dismaying is that people are so defensive about haiving their worldview challenged. Supposedly, this place is supposed to foster skepticism and inquiry, but it has devolved into a refuge for people who want unanimity of opinion and shelter from serious examination of ideas. I’m willing to be shown that atheism is in error, bring it on. But the theists here merely retreat into sulky defensiveness when faith is questioned. I find it curious that people are afraid to discuss the implications of faith in a God who kills children in a tsunami. Assuming that God exists, what does this say about his nature? Is there a moral justice in the universe, or are we merely subject to random events? But, no we are supposed not to ask these questions and just be faithful.
If your good opinion of me is affected by my refusal to subscribe to your pet theology, then it wasn’t worth having in the first place. It shows a great deal about you that you cannot accept that your opinions are not automatically deferred to.
“There is a God” and “There is no God” are neither facts nor opinions; they are hypotheses.
ITA. There is no proof–there is only belief and opinion. Having just waded thru 6 pages of all this–to me, it comes down to that one is a matter of faith and one of reason. Both sides have merit–neither is mutually exclusive, d/t to the inability of humans to acquire complete knowledge.
To call those who find strength and comfort in faith “wrong” and/or to call those who find the same in reason “right” (or vice versa) is incorrect. To shower disdain and contempt on either party is to demonstrate a lack of empathy, charity and maturity.
To show respect and tolerance for those whose paths are different from yours is to be a better human, regardless of stance. I would hope for this from all here, no matter what their stance.
For the record, since I am fairly new here–I am white, hetero, married, female, 42. I am nominally a Christian, but am increasingly fed to the back teeth with the frank stupidity, intolerance and bigotry present in what passes for Christianity today. Note to all Christians here–the face that our religion shows to the world right now is a rather ugly one, IMO–sorry, OT.
That is not to say that I am all for throwing the baby out with the bath water. Guess I’m trying to say that I can see both sides here and that the answer, IMO, is tolerance and civility.
Question: why must the presence or existance of God be proven at all? Or disproven, for that matter?
What possible difference does His existence or lack thereof, make to anyone? (not trying to be provocative, but if one believes in God, becomes a better person etc–and then is proven “wrong”–what harm has been done? Surely, the acts of a better person are worth something in the world. Take the opposite: true blue, dyed in the wool atheists and God is undisputably found to exist–so what? God loves humans–do ya really think it’s off to the Brimstone factory with those who doubted/denied?)
Christ–I think I just proved that I’m agnostic!
To be technical, that’s not evidence of God (I’ll put a depending on that) because how do you know it was from or caused by God as opposed to some other creature that can do such things (of course, this is if you are referring to miracles)? What you essentially have is anecdotal evidence of an experience. Granted without further delving (not that I’m asking), it’s a little hard to tell what you mean.
Personally I think the question of whether theism is valid is actually skipping a step. Before we can say whether or not God exists we have to know a little something about God-as Diogenes mentioned a few times already.
As it is, it doesn’t make any sense to say whether God either exists or doesn’t exist if there is no meaningful definition of God. Those quasi-definitions of God that have been put forth by theists from time to time are contradictory, and in that sense they are ‘disproven’ because they could not exist in the first place.
I’ve mentioned this before in other threads and I don’t think headway is going to be made in the pit regarding this topic.
My POV on the topic is that when people say that God exists or doesn’t, they are stating their opinion. When they back it up they are expressing the fact.
For instance if I said that an all just and all merciful God existed, someone else could say that such a God can not logically exist and therefore it’s a fact that it doesn’t exist.
As an aside though, I don’t think it’s a good way to convince someone by starting out by an assertion of fact-even if it is a fact. If you do that, then you are being confrontational more then you are being helpful. I won’t deny that I’ve done it myself-as both a theist and nontheist-I’m not perfect.
Although I’m trying.
BTW-I noticed your change too Lord Ashtar. 
You know, I wouldn’t mind finding out that there is a god. I think my own death will be the end of all and every aspect of my self, so I don’t expect there to be a reward in an afterlife. However, I still thinks it’s important to act morally, and I realize that a lot of the things I consider to be moral have been inoculated in me from a code of morality that has been passed down the generations as being Christian.
Now, if there were a god, there would be an afterlife. And even if I think that both heaven and hell would be quite crowded, and containing a lot of surprised people on both sides of the fence, it could be nice. I could try to look up Hitler and give him a hard kick in his one ball, I could sit down and have a brew with Lennon and ask him why he had to put all those awful tracks by Yoko on his albums. And I could go before the throne of god and ask it to explain itself, for all the stupid things that went wrong.
But I don’t believe this will happen. And part of the biggest reason is your quote up there.
So where was this god before the universe was created? For how long? What was it doing? I have a big problem wrapping myself around the scientific concepts of expanding universe, big bang, starting of time. Trying to fit a deity in there is even harder. What did it do? How big was it? If the universe was maller than this . dot, was god inside or outside? Outside, in what.
And the universe is a pretty big place. Maybe the reason ghod hasn’t been around for 2k years, is that he can’t micromanage every planet all the time. He did a driveby, left sloppy instructions and went off to the next place.
For me, the whole thing is as implausible as when we break down how Santa can go to every house on the planet in one night to deliver presents. Someone might argue that god exists outside time, but where’s that?
I don’t consider myself an atheist, mainly because many who do seem so keen on prozelytising (sp?). I consider myself to be religion free. However, I believe in faith and I think it’s quite possible to be a “good Christian”, without actually believing in him and his dad, without kneeling and praying, without going to church. I think parts of the religions coming from Abraham contain useful morality and I think the cultural heritage has been very, even extremely, instrumental in shaping the societies in which we live. Arguing the veracity of the Bible won’t take away the tremendous impact it has had on human history.
But I think the Bible and the church are wholly man made and the good things that came from them, is due to teaching by good humans. Because if there is an afterlife, I hope very much that it’s not ruled by the judgemental, vengeful, vain god that the Christian church tell us about. I think it’s vain and conceited to nullify all bad things a person has done, if that person only embrace the Christian god as the one and only and start praying to him. I think it’s despicable that a person who’s done good deeds all her life, should be condemned to hell, just because she didn’t believe in god.
It’s fun to play sematic and logical games, to an extent, but after a while, it just becomes juvenile.
Originally posted by elanorrigby
You know, I used to think exactly like that; Let people believe what they want. No skin of my nose.
But it is. My nose - and homo-sexual’s noses, women in Arabic countries and goddamn film makers who don’t believe and criticize a religion, ALL our noses are being skinned.
The price of religion?:
Discrimination towards gays.
Stoning to death of women.
Women being sexually mutilated
Beheading of infidels [non-believers]
Murder of intellectuals who criticize a religion.
You can be a good guy, or lady and you might disapprove of the above things.
They happen, though.
In the name of god, or allah.
No, I am not pitting you or rational thought. What I was pitting (the thread has gone in a totally different direction at this point it seems) are the people who state unequivocally that there is no God as if it is a proven fact. It isn’t. Not that us theists have a better track record in this department. Your post merely reminded me of this thread, which I had been meaning to start for a while now, so please don’t take this personally.
I know he debunks YEC, but I don’t yet know if he attempts to debunk Theism. Great book so far. Came to me highly recommended by Meatros.
Lord Ashtar, despite the hornet’s nest you’ve kicked I want to thank you for starting this thread. I think the opinions in your OP needed to be said, and I hope that they will be heard.
There was a time, shortly before I got my bachelor’s degree, when I considered myself an atheist. I knew enough mathematics and just enough science to look around myself and see no need for a divine creator. I took electives in eastern religions and thought of myself as worldly. I knew of Occam’s razor and thought I was oh, so clever.
Then I joined this message board, and was startled at the virulence and bile presented by my “fellow” atheists. The smug condescension and arrogance they exhibited caused me to examine my own beliefs and reasons for denying the existence of the supernatural. And I found those reasons wanting. At their core, they were based on an assumption that was just as arbitrary as any passage from a holy book: that the scientific method is the only path to truth.
I consider myself an agnostic now. It’s possible that someday I will consider myself an atheist again, but I hope that if I do it will be for more honest reasons: that I have actually found “evidence of absence”, as bleak as that would be. In the meantime as I travel my path through life I keep my eye out for whatever scraps of truth should come my way. And I try to focus more of my energy on what is right, not just what can be proven or even what is true.
(Hell, I’m a mathematician. And if a mathematician who lived after Godel should know anything, it’s that “provable” is not always the same thing as “true”.)
The bile and vitriol I noticed years ago clearly hasn’t gone away. A hearty and well-meaning “fuck you” to the cocky sons of bitches on both sides who think they have all the answers, and who think they’re entitled to look down their noses at anyone in the name of God or Reason.
Skin off of your nose or not, the existence of God whether you believe or not, is not provable. Saying God does not exist or that evil is done in the name of god does not make God more or less provable. Any definition would be lacking for starters. One could argue that a perfect being, if one defines God so, cannot be defined by an imperfect language or even comprehended by an imperfect mind. It is all rather useless to try to prove anyway.
In my opinion those who try to prove God do a disservice to God, and to reason. Belief need not be founded on reason.