God is "dead"

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Saint, Dec 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Not making itself known would be a form of deception, especially when there are people who desperately wish to believe in such a thing. And considering we see no "fingerprint" of divinity in existence, the belief that there is no such thing is a rational position--again, the result of deception.

    Aren't you? After all, you seem to be arguing that choice is important to God; the very idea that God has a preference means he is a personal god.

    Would you say for the people who have seen "plenty of evidence," that they have no other choice as sane human beings but to believe?

    This is a logical fallacy. Why would someone need to believe in a concept to make claims about it?

    And we make irrational choices all the time, as well.

    Sure they could. One could easily believe that the "unmistakable" public appearance was a hoax. Even if it takes cognitive dissonance, it's possible. We see it all the time with conspiracy theorists, who believe, in spite of blinding evidence to the contrary, that the WTC couldn't have fallen due to the impact of the planes on 9/11. Sure, there are crazy folks among their number, but not every Truther is crazy. They could simply choose to believe what they want to believe.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Saint said "like you know that you have parents," not "like you know your parents are your parents."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    regardless if you want to interpret the question in that manner, it still remains pertinent.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    I interpret the question the way it was written.

    I don't see how. What is your answer to it?
  8. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Would it muck up your atheist beliefs if individual consciousnesses came from some consciousness field that exists everywhere in space, but is very difficult to prove (like the Higgs field). A soul is like the ejected electron from a semiconductor. What is left behind is a hole. When we die, our soul reunites with "hole". Those feelings of love that everyone experiences are just the effect of being attracted to the consciousness field, to God.
  9. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Your take, as an atheist, on Christian themes is irrelevant. Like I told Magical Realist, only those who espouse some belief can make claims about what that belief entails. And the "scriptural evidence" is that the belief was in a single god, to the exclusion of "false gods".

    So you wish to consider scripture as a factual, literal, and historical account then? That seems disingenuous from an atheist who likely considers it wholly myth.

    You are not arguing someone who thinks the Bible is without exaggeration and metaphor. It was written by humans and subject to human context and motivations. In scripture, any show of power is only attributed to God by men, with "miracles" having obviously exaggerated qualities. And unless you are talking about Jesus, God only manifests himself to individuals.

    If a god did not intend to leave doubt then there would both be no doubt and no need for any scripture to address the subject.
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    You might think you need some explanation for NDEs but they aren't valid. No reliable evidence has ever been demonstrated in their favor. It's not a matter of wanting to believe it or not. Therefore, a consciousness field theory isn't required. But it would be vastly interesting if it were true.
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    In other words, God reveals himself as real only to those who already believe he exists. How convenient. What else does this I wonder? Leprechauns? Fairies? The munchkins who hide your carkeys at night?

    Most who espouse a belief in ANY dubious being find plenty of evidence in the world around them for its existence. regardless of whether I limit what I consider evidence to what science is capable of addressing. It's the nature of every delusion to turn the world into a direct confirmation of itself. So what?

    Anyone making any claim about the objective publically-accessible existence of a being should in the very least be able to demonstrate the existence of said being to any other rational human. If they can't do that, then their claim remains spurious. It doesn't matter whether I'm atheist or not.

    So then you're admitting there's insufficient evidence for God? Why do you think that is the case?

    Right. The issue isn't choosing to believe in God's existence though. Even the devils believe and tremble. The choice is choosing to be God's servant and ally. And no one can make that sort of choice without being shown that what their choosing actually exists. Nobody in their right mind would choose to be a servant of someone they aren't sure exists. That'd just be..well nuts! Which probably explains the mindset of most religious people.

    I don't know what you're talking about here. Why don't you try staying on topic for a change?
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    and as I said, even if we want to let you ride with the manner you interpret it, the question still remains valid

    answer to what?
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    I'd love to hear some rationale for that claim. The instructions for proper belief have been passed down via word of mouth and on paper to non-believers for millennia, so I hope you're not expecting us to just take your word for it.

    "God" meaning, in this context, the ultimate being. The Bible is littered with references to other divine beings, even gods.

    1 Corinthians 8
    4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

    I certainly don't think scripture is wholly any one thing, since it's comprised of many works from many authors over many years. I'm sure there are some historical accounts, I'm sure there are myths intended to be taken as literal truth, and there's poetry and metaphor, too.

    Not according to scripture, unless you're saying it is the author of the text who is doing the attributing. In which case, of course, but then if you can't trust the author, how is it you believe ("you" in the general sense, not you specifically) anything they've written?

    Again, not according to scripture. I obviously don't believe God made any demonstrations of power, nor do I believe in miracles, but the texts make it plain that both things happen.

    That would still be a revocation of free will. The person who sees God no longer has the ability to sanely choose to not believe, per your argument, correct?

    Then why is doubt treated as a weakness in scripture?
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    And as I said, I don't see how. Why don't you enlighten me?

    Don't play stupid. The answer to the question you posed. Certainly you had one in mind.
  15. Saint Valued Senior Member

    If God is too great to show himself, he could send a supernatural angel to prove his existence, why not he does this?
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    maybe try answering the question then ... since, you know, all you have said is "I interpret your question in this manner"

    I just said I don't have any problem with the way you interpreted the question ... so , whenever you are ready
  17. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    That assumes a god that is actively participating in the universe. With each argument you narrow the god you are addressing. Believers see evidence of a divine initial cause everywhere, so that "we" is strictly atheist.

    Choice is important to free will. And a god's preference does not necessitate a personal nor active god, only its input at creation. How do you suppose having a preference necessitates being a personal god?

    You have seen the same "evidence" as they have, and you obviously chose not to believe. Again, the evidence is not wholly conclusive, leaving latitude for choice.

    Which specific sort of fallacy are you claiming this to be? As an atheist, you can make any number of completely erroneous claims about a belief you do not hold yourself. This is trivially so. Only someone who espouses the belief has grounds to make claims about their belief. You making claims about someone's belief is nothing but erecting a strawman.

    This is like a string theorist making claims about LQG and expecting the LQG theorist to support those claims. String theorists refute LQG by making their own claims about string theory, and what it says about the natural phenomena both theories address.

    Just another red-herring, as a choice based on insufficient evidence is not necessarily irrational, else all science would be irrational until proven.

    Not according to the definition of "unmistakable".

    1. not able to be mistaken for anything else; very distinctive.

    Sure, because the "sane conspiracy theorists" lack sufficient evidence to know for certain, typically due to their own lack of expertise (ability to understand the evidence via the Dunning-Kruger effect).

    But again "unmistakable", including the "shows of power" you assume, precludes any doubt.
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Again, assuming a specifically personal and active god, which I do not.

    While only foolish theists try to claim there is compelling, objective evidence for a god, it is more foolish to claim that there is compelling, objective evidence for no god. Science itself asserts that you cannot prove a negative.

    Again, if compelling evidence could be given then there could be no choice whether to accept a god's existence or not. And you are free to make judgements on someone's claims of their beliefs, but you are not justified in erecting strawman arguments that you substitute for their beliefs. Where has anyone made a claim of "objective evidence"?

    Free will.

    Non sequitur. Who said anything about a servant or ally?

    Apparently this is only a projection of your servant/ally non sequitur.

    You claimed that an "unmistakeable public appearance" would still allow some choice, so it is fair to ask if you would assume a person sane for equally denying the existence of the chair holding them.

    Very simple. Do not strain yourself.
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Your assumption is irrelevant to the OP. Since it assumes a personal God, I posted and will continue to post regarding that pov and not to some confused personal definition you may have.
    It is not proving a negative to assert a lack of evidence for a God. A fact you yourself agree with.

    And so how would being compelled to believe in God's existence violate freedom of choice? Do people have an innate right to not believe in real things? Does believing in a chair violate my free choice too? You have yet to establish how the universal perception of a reality like a God takes away anybody's free choice.

    The OP presented the possibility of it in wondering why God doesn't present himself to humanity as real. That assumes he is an objectively real being who can be detected by the senses. If you have some other definition of God, it is irrelevant to this thread.

    How does lack of evidence guarantee free will? Does lack of evidence for unicorns enable free will too?

    I did. That's what the choice of religion is about. Serving God or not. Why don't you actually pick up a book on religion sometime before running to its defense as you so often stupidly do?

    Why is there a right to not believe in the existence of a chair? How does not believing in something that is real facilitate freewill in any sense? Freewill is only exercised in the light of clear knowledge of what is real and what isn't. A God pretending not to exist would be a deceiver, only enslaving humans in ignorance about his existence.
  20. arauca Banned Banned


    How should the supernatural angel identifies himself ? You atheist would send him to a psychiatrist and the lock him up.
  21. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Angels got wings, they can fly like Superman, this will make us believe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    It is trivial that you cannot define the claims of a belief you do not hold. Only the believer has any pretense for grounds on which to make such claims. Anything you, as an atheist, claims of another's belief can only be a strawman unless you are arguing someone who freely agrees with some claim you make.

    Wow. Is your attentional bias so strong that you missed "so-called" in the sentence you emphasized? But maybe you really do not see a distinction, since you believe all gods to be equally mythical. That would only prove my point that you are unqualified to make claims about another's beliefs.

    It is trivially obvious that men wrote the Bible, so yes, ANY attribution made in the scriptures is done by men. People believe what is written just as a social-scientist believes self-reported data, and just like social-scientists, people take it with varying grains of salts.

    "Miracles" are only insisted to have happened IF you believe in Biblical literalism.

    Where was there a manifestation to someone who did not already espouse some belief? Even Paul's conversion was self-reported after the fact. The fallibility of recollection and bias are well-documented.

    Just because it is intended to allow for free will does make it a virtue. "Will" is the ability to follow a course regardless of doubt.
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    I only assume it because your premise demands it. A God that purposefully hides its existence for the sake of maintaining deniability and thus free will for its creation is a personal god by definition. I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something here, so fill me in if I am.

    Preference is an anthropomorphic trait. I didn't say it necessitated an active god, only a personal one. A defining characteristic of personal godhood is human characteristics.

    Oh, I thought you were suggesting they had some evidence I didn't. Maybe this tied into your assertion that only believers can say what belief is.

    So saying someone has an irrational belief is a strawman?

    Interesting. I didn't say a choice based on insufficient evidence was irrational, yet you submit the above as if I had. There's a word for that, I think...

    I said we make irrational choices all the time. That is, choices that do not make sense in light of the available information.

    And yet people mistake passenger airplanes for alien spacecraft, and goats for the Chupacabra.

    You must be new here.

    It doesn't take expertise to understand that JFK was killed by a lone gunman, or to understand the principles by which Tower 7 collapsed. It takes willful disregard. It's a choice.

    According to your argument, not mine.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page