Taking the fight to the real issue

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, and there is where many atheists seem to lack intellectual honesty:

We each have a measure of faith placed somewhere, and we each then in-faith act upon whatever we might happen to believe.

none of course is proof.
and acording to one theory god is real and we are not, based on quantom physics and a grainy space

it seems that many attempts to disprove existence any type of dieties fall in

1. using ones of simular strengths of those used to prove in a dieties existence
2. absence of proof=proof of absence
3. this religion is wrong so all must be wrong
4. if i was god it wouldnt be like this
5. if it can be done without divine intervation. it must have been done without it.

Just because you can't observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Neutrinos were only discovered in the last 10-20 years. That doesn't mean they didn't exist until they were discovered, they existed all the time, we just couldn't observe them.

If God exists and created the universe, then he created the laws of physics too. Quite frankly he can choose whether or not to reveal himself at any time that is what being "all powerful" means.

He can choose to do anything such as bringing people back from the dead, but just because he can do it doesn't mean he should do it. Yes he could stop evil people, and there are stories if you choose to believe them that he sometimes does. Does that mean he should always do so, excuse me but would you like your every action every movement being dictated to you. He generally let's us handle things and if an evil person escapes the consequences here on Earth, then I imagine they won't escape the consequences after they die.

leejosepho, you went through a program designed to specifically remove the tendency to drink in individuals. What makes you think that a set of psychological manipulations weren't in effect here?

Even further, leejosepho, what kind of answer are you looking for? A systematic study of the neurological impacts of going through AA? A study comparing AA to secular programs? I mean, my response is also pretty simple:
The brain can do strange things, particularly if put in the right context. However, the idea of a God that goes around curing alcoholics who use a certain program, but does not cure global hunger, a lot of diseases that we can easily treat, and so on, is just absurd. It sounds more like a fairy or a component to a magical ritual, but not a realistic appraisal of a supposed person.

Or he could have turned to God and prayed for the strength to resist the temptations to keep drinking and God answered his prayers.

There are a few problems:
1) Lack of rituals.
2) Lack of scriptures.
3) Lack of holy men
4) Lack of supernatural entities
and so on.

I suppose we can use a looser sense of the name "religion", but in doing so we end up reducing everything into religion to a degree that many find unacceptable.


Well, except that you are wrong in saying we both would be wrong. It is correct that there is no god.

@ Awesomelyglorious

You're still not being intellectually honest it takes just as much belief to believe there is no God as it does to believe in God.

are you being sarcastic or serious?

I don't see the conclusion as escapable within mainstream Christian theism. Just so long as God knows what choices we would make given every divine choice he make, God can plan out every action and every movement, just like a mathematician can manipulate variables to solve a problem.

As I pointed out, just because he can do something doesn't mean he should do something.

You know, given that I put forward arguments against the notion of your god, and the general notion of god at the beginning of the thread, I am not sure that your reasoning actually makes sense. If the basic objections I put forward at the beginning are in any sense correct, then it takes less belief to not believe in the notion of god.

The problem is that in setting up creation, and creating a plan for it, he creates a framework in which he necessarily has total control over everything, in which minor changes he makes will control the entire schema of reality.

I don't think your objection works for this reason. I am denying that there is a "God decided to take action" in his controlling everything. I am saying that by God's mere decision to interact with reality, he exercises massive planning and control. The decision to do X, and the massive consequences of each X to be chosen, whether it is answering a prayer, or designating a prophet, or even the kind of tree in the garden of eden are so closely tied together, that any rational decision-maker in his position would be in this controlling most of the outcomes to an extreme extent.

In order to do that, you'd have to completely ignore the definition of religion:

religion
re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Which could also mean a set of behaviors done regularly. For example: he exercised religiously, meaning he never missed a day of exercise.

ruveyn

Atheism fits that definition esp. doesn't mean it must include such and such in order to be a religion.