Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Mr. Hamtastic, May 2, 2012.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I don't totally dismiss the possibility of subjective evidence that is totally convincing to the one that's experiencing it, but imperceptible to everyone else. Religious experiences might satisfy that definition. The problem is that psychotic delusions probably satisfy it as well. Leaving the rest of us without any convincing reason to believe that whatever somebody having a private religious experience is saying is true.
The big problem, once again as I see it, seems to be that a similar argument can be made for whatever it is that the voices that schizophrenics hear in their walls are whispering. That obviously doesn't prove that the religious experience is a psychotic experience, but it does leave the rest of us in a position where we are unable to clearly distinguish them. (The person having the experience might not be totally sure either.)
I don't really have any objection to people expressing some familiarity with or contact from their God. I won't typically object to their expressing their faith. I'm not going to condemn them, unless somebody aggressively gets in my face or threatens the society that I live in. But having said that, I'm unlikely to credulously believe what they tell me either.
It will probably be enough for the person with the belief, unless he or she has some mission to convert the rest of us. It won't be enough to convince other people to join in sharing the belief.
It doesn't. But lack of any convincing reason to believe in something can be a pretty good reason not to believe in it. The more unlikely the belief is on its face, the more that's going to be true.
I think that what often happens is that a religious system kind of provides an interpretive framework in which the seemingly random events of life cohere and gain what appears to be meaning. So life isn't just one damn meaningless thing after another. It acquires a narrative and events like illness or an infant dying turn into tests of faith or opportunities for compassion, or whatever it happens to be.
I made an argument like that, up above. I think that the Biblical God isn't anything like what I would expect the ultimate principle of the entire universe to be. That means that in my estimation, the probability that the Biblical God truly is the universe's creator and ultimate principle, is very low. But that's just my own estimation of the probabilities. Others can and obviously do disagree, and in turn I will think that they are probably wrong.
No, it's not offensive at all. This is a good thread. It's got everyone talking and that's cool. Thanks for starting it.
So in other words, you can't support your claim.
That's funny, because you quoted a passage in which I said "If you believe in this particular iteration of a creator (Yahweh) then you are doing so on faith". So when you said "I am doing so on knowledge" how else was I to take it other than you attempting to say that Yahweh's existence can be proven?
No need to capitalize "ancient," chief. And you're going to have to be a bit more specific than that if you want to be taken seriously.
how does the suggestion that looking into the Ancient past qualifies as not supporting my claim ?
Looking into the ancient past. As in a time-window? Macroscope a la Piers Anthony? Show us.
see your point
the thing is , how do I discuss the Ancient past with anybody that has no idea what I'm talking about
alot that is in the bible has been written down by many civilizations in the past , Sumerian , Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, Canaanite and more
and in these texts , Yahweh has been proven
Yes, Biblical myths are based on more ancient myths, which the Romans admired, being polytheists. How are you an atheist again?
At the beginning. Just saying something is true and then stating no one else can understand it is a bit pompous.
You either have something to discuss, or not.
Because it's as good as saying "Go read a book." What exactly am I supposed to be looking for, and how does it relate to your claim?
By explaining what exactly it is that you're talking about.
Earlier versions of these events, yes.
I capitalize Ancient because OUR Ancient History is very , very important to understanding who we are , what we are and our relation to god
one thing to think about , in the pyramids of Egypt , the three main pyramids , there are no , hieroglyphic writings by any Pharaoh's
What are you talking about?
what I'm talking about
This is bordering on nonsense, river. In fact, it may have already crossed the threshold with responses such as "what I'm talking about."
Well, there are some hieroglyphs inside the Great Pyramid, but not to the extent found in earlier pyramids. Yes, it is unusual. But what's your point?
Remember what the ancient Egyptian gods turned out to be in the old 'Stargate SG-1' series?
Yes. This is why my line of reasoning is that a person who tries to be a theist while not being a member of a religious community is in a precarious position, to say the least.
It's like to trying to be a vegetarian while living among non-vegetarians. One is a foreigner, an alien, one doesn't fit in - and this takes a toll on one's psychological, physical, social and economical wellbeing.
Unless, of course, such an attempting theist maintains their theism as a mere hobby, a personal quirk and not that which they build their whole life on.
I will limit this to atheists in the U.S., but it obviously extends to just about anywhere.
Atheists' common reason for disbelieving God is their observation that this is a character in a fairy tale. The evidence for this view is exegesis, which can be done superficially, like tossing it aside simply because the magical elements are a dead giveaway, to something more detailed, like actually studying scholarly analyses. I would guess the vast majority of atheists fall somewhere in the middle, shifted far to the left.
All of the logic that comes next, that asks whether there's proof for or against God, tends to sidestep this. So in other words we are asked "Assume the Easter Bunny is the Supreme Commander of the Universe. Now prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following...."
It's moot. There is no Easter Bunny. Therefore, God does not exist.
Now, if we step back from the American experience and visit all the other cultures around the world, you can just as easily take the same exegetical position and carve out the sections of their scriptures that amount to fairy tales, arriving at the same conclusion that God therefore can not exist.
That leaves the folks who have no scripture, or mix writings and oral tradition to a degree that you end up having to cull out the fairy tales from their ongoing legend-making, through an effort that's beyond the average atheist's capability or interest. Fortunately many a good Christian scholar has cut a lot of wood toward proving that these outlying religions are all bogus. So we can actually delve into some of their exegesis and societal studies and at least glean snippets of what the Qashqai or macumbistas say. This leaves us with an ontological salad, in a mix of information, opinions and cluelessness about how all of it adds up, leading to the same conclusion that God therefore can not exist.
All the evidence needed is that God is not a creator but a creation, a place to park all unresolved mysteries, a place to invest all universals, especially those dealing with the sense of a tribe, its role in protecting its members, and the cost of membership, rules. And therefore God does not exist.
Unless we begin every analysis and discussion of God with the statement that God is a myth, we are just pursuing bogus reasoning that stands on a foundation of sytrofoam. We are choosing to set aside the truth, that people created God to explain the phenomena for which they had no science, and now that science has confirmed that the world is not flat, that our orbit is heliocentric, that there was no global flood, that humans were not placed on earth in their present form, that there is no kingdom in the sky, no afterlife, no devil or hell, no angels, dragons, monsters, and no magic - now that these are evident, the non-existence of God is evident. But setting aside this truth for the sake of argument is just a way to accommodate the childish mind of the religious believer who refuses to address the myth. Therefore God does not exist.
Thus, beyond a reasonable doubt, God does not exist. Just myth.
Excellent post, but I have a quibble.
Claiming there is no god is largely logical, but it fails, ultimately, because we have no positive proof of non-existence or of the total impossibility of he/she/it existing. Therefore we must at most say that "god probably does not exist". To assert certainty is not supported by the science, though it is equally likely that all the oxygen molecules in the room will rush to a corner and liquify by transferring all their heat to the floor.
As to "beyond a reasonable doubt", I think it more than meets that level of certainty.
GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's all you had to say. The rest of your post doesn't really apply here as fairy tales may be based on fact.
We aren't talking about all gods. We are talking about the God of the Bible specifically and the question is can this one be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt, and I say it can because the Bible gives us enough information about how this god interacts with the world.
Probably the most succinct and accurate summary.
Separate names with a comma.