God is "dead"

[Syne]

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

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.

Where does the OP specify a personal god?

God is dead, he is fictitious, fake!
No such thing called God that really exists,
if he is true, why not he shows up himself?
An omnipotent God can show himself to be true in many ways, we do not need to teach him,
but he simply could not, therefore he is fake.

Are you saying that the OP is not about the nonexistence of a god, but merely about the nonexistence of a personal god? The OP seems to be a claim of the nonexistence of a god in general, and only assumes that if a god can do something (such as show itself) that it necessarily will (which would mean that this god would have not free will itself, which is contrary to the common attributes of a god).

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.

It is not proving a negative to assert a lack of evidence for a God. A fact you yourself agree with.

I did not say it was, only that lack of evidence is not proof, which you seem to agree with.

Again, if compelling evidence could be given then there could be no choice whether to accept a god's existence or not.

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.

If you are a sane adult, believing in your chair is not a real choice. And just by definition, being compelled (forced) is antithetical to freedom.

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"?

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.

The OP author is obviously not a believer, although I do agree that any god can be detected by the senses, as any believer "sees" god in the world around them with the same senses you possess.

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

I never said "guarantee", but certainly a lack of compelling (forcing) evidence allows for a freedom of choice.

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

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?

Again, as an atheist, you are definitively the least qualified to make claims of what a "religion is about". Even within one religion and its scripture, there is a gradient of understanding, from what is taught to children to what a theologian learns in seminary, or the like. You consistently argue from the perspective of a child, so I assume the books you read had pretty pictures.

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.

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.

Who said anything about a "right to not believe in the existence of a chair"? Seems you keep evading the question. Can a sane person deny the existence of a chair? It is a simple question that really should not vex you so. If something is proven to be real, there is no rational choice.

So no one had free will until we had "clear knowledge of what is real and what isn't"? Since science is always advancing, do you then assume that no one has free will?

A God pretending not to exist would be a deceiver, only enslaving humans in ignorance about his existence.

So you insist that a god must be personal and that you must be a slave. Sounds like you have some pretty definite beliefs about a god.

 

[Balerion]

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.

This is a claim, not supporting argument.

Let's narrow it down: Why is my take on Christian themes irrelevant? What makes it so. Remember, I already know what you think; now I need to know why you think it.

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.

I see the distinction. He's creating a hierarchy of gods. He's saying he's not alone up there, which is the whole point.

That would only prove my point that you are unqualified to make claims about another's beliefs.

Wait, so now the qualifications are merit-based? I thought you said it was solely because I lacked belief.

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.

Man, you're in love with using the word "trivially."

But okay, at least I know what you meant now. My question is then why believe in the grandest claim of all--God was here--if you're not going to trust the men to report other significant details correctly? Such an interpretation of the Bible doesn't seem to lead to belief.

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

Not necessarily. I don't believe everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. But some of it was, including a lot of the silly stuff.

Where was there a manifestation to someone who did not already espouse some belief?

Not that I know of, though God does give Abraham quite a test. (Oddly, showing a lack of omniscience there, huh?)

The fallibility of recollection and bias are well-documented.

Of course. You're not talking to someone who believes the Bible is an historical document.

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.

I'm curious: where do you get the notion that free will is important to God?

 

[wynn]

We have to make choices all the time based on insufficient evidence, so that argument is a red-herring.

If a god made an "unmistakeable public appearance" then no sane human could deny its existence, any more than you can sanely deny the existence of the chair you may be sitting in. I.e. no choice whether or not to believe it exists. Or would you like to claim that you can wholly disbelieve your chair exists and still manage to be sane?

It comes down to the definition of the term "God" that one works with.

Given some definitions of the term "God," God is making an "unmistakeable public appearance" 24/7 already anyway.

Take, for example, "Maintainer of the living beings in the universe." It is evident 24/7 that the living beings in the universe are maintained 24/7, as it is evident that they cannot maintain themselves since for their living they need numerous requisites that they themselves cannot provide for themselves.

Here are two lists of names and titles of God that can be used as definitions of the term "God" (definitions as actually used by actual theists) - a Hindu list and an Islamic list.

Some may sound a bit odd, some not so much.

Consider this one, for example:

Janardana -- One Who Bestows Boons On One And All
So, as far as definitions go, if you have ever received a boon, or know someone who has (and you probably have and do), then, as fas as definitions go, those boons were bestowed by God.

Or another one:

Al-Muṣawwir -- The Fashioner, The Shaper, The Designer
So, as far as definitions go, if you have ever seen anything fashioned, shaped or designed, (and you probably have), then, as fas as definitions go, those fashions, shapes and designs were done by God.

Meaning that, according to those definitions, God is making an "unmistakeable public appearance" 24/7 already anyway.


Again, it comes down to the definition of the term "God" that one works with. Most disputes between atheists and theists essentially come down to atheists refusing to use theistic definitions.
Which is like using a word from a foreign language and refusing to use it with the meaning of it in said language, but insisting on creating one's own and claiming that that's the right one.

I think the choice isn't in whether we believe in God or not, but which definitions of the term "God" we choose to work with and how.

 

[Capracus]

If a god made an "unmistakeable public appearance" then no sane human could deny its existence, any more than you can sanely deny the existence of the chair you may be sitting in. I.e. no choice whether or not to believe it exists. Or would you like to claim that you can wholly disbelieve your chair exists and still manage to be sane?

The faculties necessary to validate the existence of a chair would not be adequate to validate the existence of a supreme being. Any being able to operate beyond the limits of our knowledge and perception could appear to be God and be nowhere near the real thing. There could be an endless string of entities able to successfully masquerade as God in our eyes, just as we could to lesser beings ourselves. As mere lords of the primates we are in no position to judge these matters, so there’s no point in pretending to be.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Fraggle: Speak for yourself. I have a certain amount of respect for various aspects of various religions. Also, to the extent that it is possible, I try to keep my respect or lack thereof of people separate from my respect or lack thereof of their particular beliefs.

You can afford to be tolerant of religionists. You don't live in a country that experienced the Religious Redneck Retard Revival in the 1980s.

• We now have a Creation "Science" Museum in the state of Kentucky.
• The legislature of the state of Kansas enacted legislation requiring creation "science" to be taught in its public schools. (Fortunately this was eventually overturned by the courts.)
• Members of the Westboro Baptist Church heckle the funerals of members of our armed forces because their deaths are God's punishment for the USA's growing tolerance of homosexuality.
• Several states with Religious Redneck Retard majorities have imposed rules on abortion clinics so extreme that most of them will have to close down, effectively making abortion unavailable to all but the rich.
• The "freedom of religion" rule in the U.S. Constitution is interpreted to allow churches to pay no taxes, even on their lucrative profit-making enterprises. This amounts to $100,000,000,000 in tax-free income per year.

Religion is such a strong force in the USA that it affects nearly everything we say and do. And the amusing thing about that is that it only applies to the two leading religions: Christianity and Judaism. Christian holidays are enshrined in our legal system and everyone gets the day off. Many school districts also shut down on Jewish holidays, but even the others allow Jewish children to take the day off without providing a written excuse. But the children of Muslim, Hindu, etc. families are left out in the cold. When they complain, the bureaucrats reply, "We have to draw the line somewhere or we'll end up with only four days of school every week.

Be grateful that you live in one of the many progressive countries in which Christianity is withering away. And pity us in America, which in many ways is a theocracy.

We have to fight them, every moment of every day.

 

[James R]

Fraggle,

I sympathise, of course.

We now have a Creation "Science" Museum in the state of Kentucky.

I know. That would be high on my list of "must see" places if I ever went to Kentucky. It's a pity that you have to give money to creationists to get in, but it's a small price to pay for some fun, I think. I think that they must get half of their income from "evolutionists" who just have to enjoy the sheer brainlessness of it all, along with the amazing kitchness of the religiosity of the place.

The legislature of the state of Kansas enacted legislation requiring creation "science" to be taught in its public schools. (Fortunately this was eventually overturned by the courts.)

Yeah, and Kansas isn't the only state that has done that. I'm aware this is an ongoing battle. The Dover, Pennsylvania court case was a nice nail in the coffin of "intelligent design", though.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church heckle the funerals of members of our armed forces because their deaths are God's punishment for the USA's growing tolerance of homosexuality.

The British documentary maker Louis Theroux did 2 docos on the family at the centre of the Westboro Baptists Church. That family seems to suffer far more from the hatred they bring on themselves than the people they target do from their offensive picket lines. Interestingly, several members of the family have completely disassociated themselves from the church and the rest of the family (and, sadly, have been disowned by their parents as a result).

Several states with Religious Redneck Retard majorities have imposed rules on abortion clinics so extreme that most of them will have to close down, effectively making abortion unavailable to all but the rich.

Yes. There's still a long way to go on the right of women to control their own bodies. Bigoted men still hold sway in many places.

The "freedom of religion" rule in the U.S. Constitution is interpreted to allow churches to pay no taxes, even on their lucrative profit-making enterprises. This amounts to $100,000,000,000 in tax-free income per year.

The situation in Australia is similar. Churches here pay no taxes either.

Religion is such a strong force in the USA that it affects nearly everything we say and do.

Yes, I know. Although how much of those effects you feel varies a lot from state to state.

The US is an extreme outlier among developed nations in that it retains a high religiosity.

Be grateful that you live in one of the many progressive countries in which Christianity is withering away. And pity us in America, which in many ways is a theocracy.

We have to fight them, every moment of every day.

In Australia, about 80% of the population still self-identifies as religious. But our religious sensibility is quite a bit different from yours. Religion is mostly considered a private matter, so to make a big deal about one's religious beliefs in public is considered somewhat uncouth here. That's not to say that religious organisations don't influence politicians and other powerful people.

 

[Magical Realist]

Where does the OP specify a personal god?

​

The OP refers to God with the personal pronoun he. It ascribes to him the logic of an intelligent and will-driven person who can reveal himself to humans. It even says God is teachable. These are all attributes of personhood.

Are you saying that the OP is not about the nonexistence of a god, but merely about the nonexistence of a personal god? The OP seems to be a claim of the nonexistence of a god in general, and only assumes that if a god can do something (such as show itself) that it necessarily will (which would mean that this god would have not free will itself, which is contrary to the common attributes of a god).

No it doesn't assume a loss of freewill by God. It simply asks why God doesn't reveal himself, assuming he is capable of reasonable actions and seeing religious theists place so much importance on believing he exists.

I did not say it was, only that lack of evidence is not proof, which you seem to agree with.

Lack of evidence isn't proof. It's lack of proof. So why should anyone choose to believe in God when there is lack of evidence/proof for his existence?

If you are a sane adult, believing in your chair is not a real choice. And just by definition, being compelled (forced) is antithetical to freedom.

What freedom is lost in knowing a chair exists? Does freedom entail some right to choose what exists and what doesn't exist? And if that is the case, what distinguishes that state from a dreaming solipsist who chooses what is reality based on his own whims?

The OP author is obviously not a believer, although I do agree that any god can be detected by the senses, as any believer "sees" god in the world around them with the same senses you possess.

Theists can "see" God? What do they say he looks like? Where was he sighted? How big was he? Etc..

I never said "guarantee", but certainly a lack of compelling (forcing) evidence allows for a freedom of choice.

Lack of evidence for a real object allows for choosing what? Choosing to believe the object is unreal? The choice to be deluded and ignorant of the reality of that object? You have a very strange notion of what freedom is.

Again, as an atheist, you are definitively the least qualified to make claims of what a "religion is about". Even within one religion and its scripture, there is a gradient of understanding, from what is taught to children to what a theologian learns in seminary, or the like. You consistently argue from the perspective of a child, so I assume the books you read had pretty pictures.

I was a fervent religious theist for 22 years of my life. So that makes me preeminently qualified to make claims about what religion is about. I studied Christianity in diverse manifestations from a literalist interpretation of the scriptures to the heady theological versions of C.S. Lewis, Soren Kierkegaard, G.K. Chesterton, and George MacDonald. By 25 I had rejected it all as delusional thinking. There is little in life I am so sure about than this.

Who said anything about a "right to not believe in the existence of a chair"?

You are. You are saying freewill demands we be able to not believe the chair, and by extention God, exists. That's nonsense. Noone has the freedom to be deluded. Delusion is the absence of freewill fostered by a situation of ignorance.

Seems you keep evading the question. Can a sane person deny the existence of a chair? It is a simple question that really should not vex you so. If something is proven to be real, there is no rational choice.

Only an insane person, a person with no choice, would deny the existence of a chair. The chair itself proves it's own existence thru our senses, giving us the knowledge to be able to make free and informed choices. We can now sit in the chair, or paint it, or move it to the attic, etc. Knowledge ENABLES freewill. Delusion takes it away. God showing us he exists, which I assume a God could most ingeniously accomplish, enables us the freewill to either choose him or reject him.

So no one had free will until we had "clear knowledge of what is real and what isn't"? Since science is always advancing, do you then assume that no one has free will?

Not as much freewill. There was time when we had less freewill because we were ignorant of what is real and what isn't. Science continues to liberate us from this state with the manifestation of reality and the exposure of delusion. Knowledge is infinitely accumulative, therefore freewill is infinitely accumulative as well.

So you insist that a god must be personal and that you must be a slave. Sounds like you have some pretty definite beliefs about a god.

I insist God is personal and must be served unconditionally along with 99% of the religious theists on this planet. This is just standard religious doctrine. Your ignorance of this fact appalls me. Do you know anyone who believes in God in any other way?

 

[wynn]

***

 

[wynn]

The faculties necessary to validate the existence of a chair would not be adequate to validate the existence of a supreme being.

But why should that be a problem?

Why is there a need to validate the existence of a supreme being - especially the existence of the most supreme being?

Can you explain?

 

[eyegodit]

Hello, here I am!
It´s just a role-playing-game, is everybody in?
I´m just the one & my best friend mu´, so don´t call me fool...
I believe in the "big ONE" and the all together.
Religiion isn´t stupid after all, we ALL might laugh FOREVER, inside a future-virtual-reality...

 

[dumbest man on earth]

You can afford to be tolerant of religionists. You don't live in a country that experienced the Religious Redneck Retard Revival in the 1980s.

• We now have a Creation "Science" Museum in the state of Kentucky.
• The legislature of the state of Kansas enacted legislation requiring creation "science" to be taught in its public schools. (Fortunately this was eventually overturned by the courts.)
• Members of the Westboro Baptist Church heckle the funerals of members of our armed forces because their deaths are God's punishment for the USA's growing tolerance of homosexuality.
• Several states with Religious Redneck Retard majorities have imposed rules on abortion clinics so extreme that most of them will have to close down, effectively making abortion unavailable to all but the rich.
• The "freedom of religion" rule in the U.S. Constitution is interpreted to allow churches to pay no taxes, even on their lucrative profit-making enterprises. This amounts to $100,000,000,000 in tax-free income per year.

Religion is such a strong force in the USA that it affects nearly everything we say and do. And the amusing thing about that is that it only applies to the two leading religions: Christianity and Judaism. Christian holidays are enshrined in our legal system and everyone gets the day off. Many school districts also shut down on Jewish holidays, but even the others allow Jewish children to take the day off without providing a written excuse. But the children of Muslim, Hindu, etc. families are left out in the cold. When they complain, the bureaucrats reply, "We have to draw the line somewhere or we'll end up with only four days of school every week.

Be grateful that you live in one of the many progressive countries in which Christianity is withering away. And pity us in America, which in many ways is a theocracy.

We have to fight them, every moment of every day.

Fraggle Rocker, open up, vent, hold nothing back and let us know how YOU really feel.

Again, you use the word "we" - only this time you seem to indicate that the "we" encompasses more than just the Mods/Admins of SciForums and you delude yourself that you are speaking for a nation of people.

Fraggle Rocker, should you not be honest, and show enough spine to use the word "I" when spewing your bigoted elitist diatribes.

Your misuse of the word "we" has been pointed out by at least one other member of this Forum. :

Fraggle:
Speak for yourself.

I have a certain amount of respect for various aspects of various religions. Also, to the extent that it is possible, I try to keep my respect or lack thereof of people separate from my respect or lack thereof of their particular beliefs.

We have two Religion forums here. If it were true that we had no respect for religion here, it would probably be best to delete those forums completely and dedicate this site solely to science, politics, arts etc. Unless the aim was simply to point and laugh at religious people, or something similar.

We have rules against that. One possible justification for that, I think, is that so often the kind of proselytisation we get from believers is of such poor quality. I could do and have done a better job defending religion than most of the believers here.

Again, count me out of that "we". I would like to think the Religion forum is valuable for a number of reasons other than that.

Fraggle Rocker, would you care to supply any details of exactly how YOU, Fraggle Rocker, "fight them, every moment of every day."?

Fraggle Rocker, I realize that you believe yourself to be Superior to myself and many others in a myriad of ways - but do YOU realize that at the center of the word "believe", protected on both sides, is the word "lie"?

Fraggle Rocker, YOUR use of the word "we" is, regardless of YOUR own puerile delusion, nothing less than a lie!

Fraggle Rocker, I am, still, SO LOOKING FORWARD to your response to my Post #8!!! Since You claim/boast of having to "fight...every moment of every day", I would have expected one before now.

Meh!! Maybe YOU are just the same as too many other "Superior Manly Men"...

 

[Mazulu]

But why should that be a problem?

Why is there a need to validate the existence of a supreme being - especially the existence of the most supreme being?

Can you explain?

I'm not the first person to say that You and I are part of God and that God is part of us. I've even committed physics blasphemy to suggest a way it might really be true. But I think that when we observe injustice in the world, we are moved to action by the part of us that is God.

 

[Yazata]

You can afford to be tolerant of religionists. You don't live in a country that experienced the Religious Redneck Retard Revival in the 1980s.

The what?

We now have a Creation "Science" Museum in the state of Kentucky.

We have this thing called 'free speech'. I think that that's a good thing. Countless people say all kinds of things, and probably nobody agrees with all of it. (They would be idiots if they did.) Atheists are free to create a museum of atheism if they like. Maybe they have, I'm not interested enough to search for one.

The legislature of the state of Kansas enacted legislation requiring creation "science" to be taught in its public schools. (Fortunately this was eventually overturned by the courts.)

The University of Kansas has one of the United States' (and the world's) best doctoral research programs in evolutionary biology.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church heckle the funerals of members of our armed forces because their deaths are God's punishment for the USA's growing tolerance of homosexuality.

And they are complete and total assholes. Having said that, I don't think that it's intelligent to dismiss all of religion and all of religiosity because some religious people are assholes. After all, the political left and labor unions are notorious for disrupting other people' gatherings and political events, and that presumably doesn't entirely discredit labor and the left.

Several states with Religious Redneck Retard majorities have imposed rules on abortion clinics so extreme that most of them will have to close down, effectively making abortion unavailable to all but the rich.

There is a real difference of opinion about abortion. I support it, but many people are deeply opposed to it. They consider it murder. The question here is whether, in a democracy, it's right for elite minorities to force majorities to fund activities that the majority feels are morally abhorrent. I'm inclined to think that it's important to continue to support the democratic principle, even if the majority doesn't always agree with me.

The "freedom of religion" rule in the U.S. Constitution is interpreted to allow churches to pay no taxes, even on their lucrative profit-making enterprises. This amounts to $100,000,000,000 in tax-free income per year.

In the United States the courts have defined the Constitution's 'free exercise' and 'establishment' clauses quite strongly, as a 'separation of church and state'. I think that's a good thing. It keeps religious instruction out of the public school curricula. The United Kingdom has a state church (actually different ones in England and Scotland) and religion is part of the British state school curriculum. (It's generally pretty lightweight, well-intentioned and innocuous, but it's there.) That's not true in the United States. The United States doesn't have the church-related political parties that one sees in a number of countries. American public universities don't feature Christian divinity schools and theological seminaries.

Religion is such a strong force in the USA that it affects nearly everything we say and do.

It's easy enough to live your life as if religion doesn't exist, if that's what you want to do. Just pass by the local church without going in.

And the amusing thing about that is that it only applies to the two leading religions: Christianity and Judaism. Christian holidays are enshrined in our legal system and everyone gets the day off.

People like holidays, even atheists. Christmas is celebrated all over the world, not just in the United States. I remember being surprised to observe that Christmas is a legal holiday in Singapore, where only a relatively small fraction of the population is Christian.

Many school districts also shut down on Jewish holidays, but even the others allow Jewish children to take the day off without providing a written excuse. But the children of Muslim, Hindu, etc. families are left out in the cold. When they complain, the bureaucrats reply, "We have to draw the line somewhere or we'll end up with only four days of school every week.

So are you complaining because holidays are observed, or because they aren't? I believe that most school districts will excuse members of smaller religious minorities to go observe their holidays, even if they aren't closing the schools for everyone else on those days.

Be grateful that you live in one of the many progressive countries in which Christianity is withering away. And pity us in America, which in many ways is a theocracy.

We have to fight them, every moment of every day.

Creating militants, fighters, unwavering evangelists for their own religious (un)belief. (Please don't strap bombs to your body.)

I'm an American and I haven't observed anything even remotely like what you describe. In my experience the vast majority of the people around me don't care the least bit what my religion is or isn't. I rarely discuss religion with anyone, outside a few specialized contexts like this board. I feel completely free to pursue whatever religious path I choose, or no path at all. The US is actually pretty successful at dealing with a large and religiously diverse population, while preserving everyone's freedom to believe and practice as they choose, as long as it's consistent with public safety and order. Inevitably, that means that some people will choose to believe things that I don't believe and might even embrace political views different than mine.

It's the nature of the beast.

 

[arauca]

The what?



We have this thing called 'free speech'. I think that that's a good thing. Countless people say all kinds of things, and probably nobody agrees with all of it. (They would be idiots if they did.) Atheists are free to create a museum of atheism if they like. Maybe they have, I'm not interested enough to search for one.



The University of Kansas has one of the United States' (and the world's) best doctoral research programs in evolutionary biology.



And they are complete and total assholes. Having said that, I don't think that it's intelligent to dismiss all of religion and all of religiosity because some religious people are assholes. After all, the political left and labor unions are notorious for disrupting other people' gatherings and political events, and that presumably doesn't entirely discredit labor and the left.



There is a real difference of opinion about abortion. I support it, but many people are deeply opposed to it. They consider it murder. The question here is whether, in a democracy, it's right for elite minorities to force majorities to fund activities that the majority feels are morally abhorrent. I'm inclined to think that it's important to continue to support the democratic principle, even if the majority doesn't always agree with me.



In the United States the courts have defined the Constitution's 'free exercise' and 'establishment' clauses quite strongly, as a 'separation of church and state'. I think that's a good thing. It keeps religious instruction out of the public school curricula. The United Kingdom has a state church (actually different ones in England and Scotland) and religion is part of the British state school curriculum. (It's generally pretty lightweight, well-intentioned and innocuous, but it's there.) That's not true in the United States. The United States doesn't have the church-related political parties that one sees in a number of countries. American public universities don't feature Christian divinity schools and theological seminaries.



It's easy enough to live your life as if religion doesn't exist, if that's what you want to do. Just pass by the local church without going in.



People like holidays, even atheists. Christmas is celebrated all over the world, not just in the United States. I remember being surprised to observe that Christmas is a legal holiday in Singapore, where only a relatively small fraction of the population is Christian.



So are you complaining because holidays are observed, or because they aren't? I believe that most school districts will excuse members of smaller religious minorities to go observe their holidays, even if they aren't closing the schools for everyone else on those days.



Creating militants, fighters, unwavering evangelists for their own religious (un)belief. (Please don't strap bombs to your body.)

I'm an American and I haven't observed anything even remotely like what you describe. In my experience the vast majority of the people around me don't care the least bit what my religion is or isn't. I rarely discuss religion with anyone, outside a few specialized contexts like this board. I feel completely free to pursue whatever religious path I choose, or no path at all. The US is actually pretty successful at dealing with a large and religiously diverse population, while preserving everyone's freedom to believe and practice as they choose, as long as it's consistent with public safety and order. Inevitably, that means that some people will choose to believe things that I don't believe and might even embrace political views different than mine.

It's the nature of the beast.

Yazata . I love you even you are an atheist ( Platonic love )

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I'm not the first person to say that You and I are part of God and that God is part of us.

!?!? Which is it, Mazulu? If you were "part of God", then "God" would not just be a "part of" you - would "God" not be ALL OF YOU?

Mazulu, your Foot or your Hand, in their entirety, are a "part of" you. You, Mazulu, in your entirety, are not a "part of" your Hand or your Foot.

I've even committed physics blasphemy to suggest a way it might really be true. But I think that when we observe injustice in the world, we are moved to action by the part of us that is God.

Mazulu, YOUR powers of observation are Legendary (as you observe them!!)! Those powers allow you to observe most anything as "injustice".

Mazulu, why do YOUR/those Powers fail to observe reality...or even possibly...sarcasm?

Anyway Mazulu, wasn't it you who Posted the following hours ago? ;

I think I should stop coming to this website. I like my beliefs in an afterlife. It's not my fault that medical science and physics are trying to sterilize everything magical, everything inspiring about the world; I've fought this battle and I'm losing..

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@Yazata - Post #73

Yazata, great Post!! I hope you don't mind if I say that I am in full concurrence.

 

[Syne]

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.

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.

Where have I asserted the premise that it must be a personal and active god? I have explicitly stated the opposite.

A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god​

While a very wide definition of a personal god could be one that is simply attributed human characteristics, we already have a word for that...anthropomorphism. Humans anthropomorphize all kinds of things, including pets, cars, ships, etc.. That does not make them personalities.

And you are the one insisting that some sort of active intent to "hide" exists, which is ridiculous coming from an atheist. How can you seriously insist on characteristics of a god you do not espouse?

A narrower interpretation of a personal god is a deity who takes a personal interest in the world in general and worshipers in particular. This view is intended to challenge a deistic outlook.

A still narrower definition would be a god whose personal interest in worshipers is so great that the deity communicates directly with them and actively intervenes in their lives through miracles. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#Deism​

If you were not so busy trying to promote your belief of a god, you would realize that this is the definition I am using, as I specifically said not personal or active.

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?

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.

The preference for free will could just as likely have been factored into the laws that govern our universe, the clockwork of the natural world being "wound-up" and left to unfold on its own. Neither currently active nor personal. People anthropomorphize things all the time without that act of attributing human characteristics changing the thing itself in any way.

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.

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.

They just draw different conclusions from the same quandaries even science has no answers for.

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.

So saying someone has an irrational belief is a strawman?

Uh, I asked you a question. Am I to assume you do not wish to support the accusation of fallacy? Irrational belief? That is a non sequitur, as we are discussing your strawman that a god is purposefully hiding. I also gave you an example of such strawman arguments:

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.

You have insisted on a "hiding" god and then insisted that I defend that claim as if it were my own.

We have to make choices all the time based on insufficient evidence, so that argument is a red-herring.

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

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

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.

But in this case, where available information is scant, at best, the only criteria for "not mak[ing] sense" is wholly subjective. So either this is a trivially non sequitur argument, or you did intend to relate insufficient evidence to irrational choices in some concrete way. I will just assume the former, which warrants no further address.

Not according to the definition of "unmistakable".

un·mis·tak·a·ble
1. not able to be mistaken for anything else; very distinctive.​

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

Hence not "unmistakable". Do you seriously not see the ridiculous contradiction of claiming the unmistakable can be mistaken?! Did you misplace your helmet?

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).

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.

You must not know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is. The physics of both are very much subject to individual understanding, unless you simply appeal to authority.

But again "unmistakable", including the "shows of power" you assume, precludes any doubt.

According to your argument, not mine.

No, according to simple definition. The "unmistakable" cannot be mistaken. If you cannot be mistaken, how can you have any doubt?

Or should I take this foolish argument as an indication that you are willfully ignorant? Considering the discussion here, I would definitely agree that you are willfully ignorant of belief in a god. But since that trait is definitive of atheism, it would seem that the only barrier to you understanding is your own willful disregard.

 

[arauca]

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

How old are you. An angel is a messenger , did your mother told you that ?

 

[C C]

Just show to us his existence, if God is true, why let us guess?

There's hardly a shortage of answers for that in both Biblical accounts and apologetics. So it's instead a matter of those reasons confronting the cynic's disparaging of them as too convenient.

But still: "Just because that's your excuse for being absent doesn't mean that you aren't sick with the flu."
(Joseph Heller [Yossarian]; Not!) oke:

 

[Balerion]

While a very wide definition of a personal god could be one that is simply attributed human characteristics, we already have a word for that...anthropomorphism. Humans anthropomorphize all kinds of things, including pets, cars, ships, etc.. That does not make them personalities.

Anthropomorphism is the practice of attributing human characteristics to (especially) gods, so it certainly doesn't stand in contrast to the term "personal god." In fact, "anthropomorphic god" is a synonym of "personal god." You even referred to it as "him!"

And you are the one insisting that some sort of active intent to "hide" exists, which is ridiculous coming from an atheist. How can you seriously insist on characteristics of a god you do not espouse?

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm simply describing the image based on the outline you provided.

If you were not so busy trying to promote your belief of a god, you would realize that this is the definition I am using, as I specifically said not personal or active.

You specifically say many things you later contradict, to which anyone who has interacted with you can attest, so I'm not really all that concerned with your preamble. What I'm "promoting" is what God must be given your description.

The preference for free will could just as likely have been factored into the laws that govern our universe, the clockwork of the natural world being "wound-up" and left to unfold on its own. Neither currently active nor personal.

Again, an anthropomorphic god is a personal God. Your insistence that you only mean "personal" in the narrowest sense does not mean that your description of god must therefore equate to "impersonal." That's not how the language works, homie. What you describe is a personal god, just in a broader sense than the convenient parameters you set for yourself.

People anthropomorphize things all the time without that act of attributing human characteristics changing the thing itself in any way

That's a weak strawman. We're not talking about objective characteristics of god, we're talking about your description of it.

They just draw different conclusions from the same quandaries even science has no answers for.

Such as?

Uh, I asked you a question. Am I to assume you do not wish to support the accusation of fallacy?

What, exactly, was unclear about my assertion? Are you looking for a specific name for the logical fallacy? I can't help you with that.

Irrational belief? That is a non sequitur, as we are discussing your strawman that a god is purposefully hiding.

Uh, I asked you a question. Am I to assume you do not wish to support the claim that one cannot make assertions about beliefs they do not themselves hold?

I also gave you an example of such strawman arguments:

Talk about strawmen. No one is making any claims about God except you, who made the claim that God left its existence impossible to prove so as to preserve free will. Not only does your argument that such a thing is necessary to maintain free will, but you haven't even addressed where you got such an idea.

You have insisted on a "hiding" god and then insisted that I defend that claim as if it were my own.

It is your claim:

A god could not show himself without removing the free will to choose.

In the immortal words of lightgigantic....:shrug:

But in this case, where available information is scant, at best, the only criteria for "not mak[ing] sense" is wholly subjective.

What do you mean "in this case?" We were discussing the ability of a person to disbelieve in the existence of God if God were to make a public showing of himself, since your claim that he can never do such a thing without removing free will hinges on it. It was you who argued that in such a case the information available would be so overwhelming that insanity would be required to reach a different conclusion.

So either this is a trivially non sequitur argument, or you did intend to relate insufficient evidence to irrational choices in some concrete way. I will just assume the former, which warrants no further address.

This is apparently one of those cases where you forgot to take your Centrum Silver, and forgot what the hell you were talking about.

Hence not "unmistakable". Do you seriously not see the ridiculous contradiction of claiming the unmistakable can be mistaken?! Did you misplace your helmet?

You realize that nothing is actually unmistakable, right?

You must not know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is. The physics of both are very much subject to individual understanding, unless you simply appeal to authority.

Of course, but that doesn't explain intelligent people who know the physics and yet still believe the myth.

No, according to simple definition. The "unmistakable" cannot be mistaken. If you cannot be mistaken, how can you have any doubt?

Because "unmistakable" isn't really unmistakable.

I'm curious: where do you get the notion that free will is important to God?

Uh, I asked you a question.