Be a Supporter!

"official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic

  • 105,042 Views
  • 3,661 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Grizzli
Grizzli
  • Member since: Oct. 5, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 10:04 AM Reply

At 12/30/09 08:46 AM, Evark wrote: If God is all-knowing and ever-present, is it possible that his definition is equivalent to the that of existence itself?

Define existence. Cause I not really sure what you mean by it.


"Well shit, Daniel, I just left!"
LOL? LOL LOL LOL

BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 11:57 AM Reply

At 12/30/09 08:46 AM, Evark wrote: If God is all-knowing and ever-present, is it possible that his definition is equivalent to the that of existence itself?

Since he's made-up, you can define him however you want!


BBS Signature
Helicopterz
Helicopterz
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 12:50 PM Reply

At 12/29/09 02:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 12/29/09 02:18 PM, Helicopterz wrote: I think if you guys want to get anywhere close to a mind opening conversation you should throw all of the holy books out as examples of what god might be.
Because those are the only examples of God we have.

That's not true at all.

Helicopterz
Helicopterz
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 12:52 PM Reply

I see you say that. You should be very keen to NOT using the term god then.

I find that it's very obvious that there is no god as described in the books.

TokingFire
TokingFire
  • Member since: Oct. 28, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 01:12 PM Reply

How about a brief lesson in etymology concerning the word "god":

god
O.E. god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.

soul (1)
O.E. sawol "spiritual and emotional part of a person, animate existence," from P.Gmc. *saiwalo (cf. O.S. seola, O.N. sala, O.Fris. sele, M.Du. siele, Du. ziel, O.H.G. seula, Ger. Seele, Goth. saiwala), of uncertain origin. Sometimes said to mean originally "coming from or belonging to the sea," because that was supposed to be the stopping place of the soul before birth or after death. Hence, from P.Gmc. *saiwaz (see sea). Meaning "spirit of a deceased person" is attested in O.E. from 971. As a synonym for "person, individual" (e.g. every living soul) it dates from c.1320. Soulmate (1822) is first attested in Coleridge. Soul-searching (n.) is attested from 1948, from the phrase used as a pp. adj. (1612).

[all italics mine]

So, as far as the word "god" is concerned, it did not so much mean a supernatural being as it meant to call or beseech a force for a specific aim, like healing; or to satisfy the elements of the natural environment to prevent destruction.

Now, to elaborate on the word soul, a biological interpretation can made: provided there are no strong compunctions, moral, religious, political, or otherwise, with biology and evolution, one could say that this is old religious knowledge of the origin of life as humans once knew it. After all, water is the source of all life on the planet Earth, and the fossil record shows how life slowly, but surely, changed to where life-forms could survive in an amphibious manner, and eventually in a reptilian manner, and so forth.

So, basically, the conflict is not really one of existence, theology, or teleology, but one of language. We humans are naturally ritualistic, because life itself is a lengthy process, which is why we seek to exemplify the natural process--the "Circle of Life," if you will--with whatever makes us feel good and whatever makes us feel bad; whatever gives us a sense of full life, and whatever brings us closer and closer to destruction.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 01:22 PM Reply

At 12/30/09 01:12 PM, TokingFire wrote:
So, as far as the word "god" is concerned, it did not so much mean a supernatural being as it meant to call or beseech a force for a specific aim

That's pretty irrelevant.
People who claim to believe are the ones who have to come up with a definition. Whatever they want it to be is alright.

So, basically, the conflict is not really one of existence, theology, or teleology, but one of language. We humans are naturally ritualistic, because life itself is a lengthy process, which is why we seek to exemplify the natural process--the "Circle of Life," if you will--with whatever makes us feel good and whatever makes us feel bad; whatever gives us a sense of full life, and whatever brings us closer and closer to destruction.

I'm pretty sure that made no sense.


BBS Signature
Evark
Evark
  • Member since: Oct. 22, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 55
Musician
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 06:17 PM Reply

At 12/30/09 10:04 AM, Grizzli wrote: Define existence. Cause I not really sure what you mean by it.

All that is. I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. As opposed to whatever isn't. ie: the universe.

At 12/30/09 11:57 AM, poxpower wrote: Since he's made-up, you can define him however you want!

I'm also an atheist. Don't turn my thought into an excuse to litter the topic with an over-zealous 'God's bullshit' diatribe. I was hoping to provoke neutral consideration from all those concerned with whether or not God is real as to how those two opposing views can be seemlingly reconciled.


BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 07:19 PM Reply

At 12/30/09 12:50 PM, Helicopterz wrote: That's not true at all.

Yes it is. Show me an example of "God" that exists outside of those texts, or outside what those texts define "God" to be. Because as I pointed out, when you say the name God, you are automatically referencing the monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. You limit the concept to needing to be a single deity, and you then limit that deity to only a few points of reference. Those points of reference come solely from the holy texts and the organized religions built around those texts, and that purport those texts as the truth. What's untrue in anything I just said?

At 12/30/09 12:52 PM, Helicopterz wrote:
I see you say that. You should be very keen to NOT using the term god then.

I am very keen not to use that term, and if you notice, I use terms like "creator" or "supreme being" I also have said numerous times it could be politheistic as well, many gods and/or goddesses. I only use that term when it seems obvious I'm debating, or think I'm debating, someone with a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, or someone coming from that frame of reference

I find that it's very obvious that there is no god as described in the books.

Without a hint of sarcasm I ask you what you base that on? Also try not to have such short, double post type posts. How many times do you have to be asked about that?


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
TokingFire
TokingFire
  • Member since: Oct. 28, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 30th, 2009 @ 08:42 PM Reply

At 12/30/09 01:22 PM, poxpower wrote:
At 12/30/09 01:12 PM, TokingFire wrote:
I'm pretty sure that made no sense.

Well, in all fairness, the idea of worshipping some supreme entity or creature that created you and is all the more hellbent on destroying you (take Shiva, for instance), doesn't make a fuck-lick of sense either.

SteveGuzzi
SteveGuzzi
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 16
Writer
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 12:13 AM Reply

At 12/30/09 08:46 AM, Evark wrote: If God is all-knowing and ever-present, is it possible that his definition is equivalent to the that of existence itself?

That's one possible definition, sure. That view is generally referred-to as 'pantheism'. From an atheist perspective it would be more in-line with naturalistic pantheism which doesn't actually posit anything 'spiritual' about existence and only uses the terms 'god'/'gods' symbolically.

At 12/30/09 07:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yes it is. Show me an example of "God" that exists outside of those texts, or outside what those texts define "God" to be. Because as I pointed out, when you say the name God, you are automatically referencing the monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. You limit the concept to needing to be a single deity, and you then limit that deity to only a few points of reference. Those points of reference come solely from the holy texts and the organized religions built around those texts, and that purport those texts as the truth. What's untrue in anything I just said?

What's untrue is your idea that the term "God" automatically implies a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. Now, if the person you were replying-to had said "Adonai" or "Jehovah" or "YHVH" or "Elohim" or something along those lines, you'd be perfectly right... but, the person did not actually use those terms. It isn't so much that the person implied a particular point of reference, it's more that you assumed a particular point of reference. Even if it turns out that you assumed correctly, the implication you claim was there was not. In Judeo-Christian scriptures, nowhere does it say that "God" is God's actual name. Even "Hashem" which is also used, isn't the actual name... it's just a reference to it (literally meaning "The Name").

Also, I would disagree with both of you that 1) we should refrain from referring to those books at all, aaaaaand 2) that those books ("those" e.g. this assumption that we're talking about Judeo-Christian scriptures only) are our only available references for what God is or is-not.

########## ########## ########## ########## ##########

Anyway for my own contribution to the thread, I'd like to mention this idea some people have suggests "God is all in your head." To that I'd like to say "GEE, REALLY!?!?!?" aaaand "So what?"

I like to think it's fairly obvious to most people that we're the only species with any particular interest in such a topic as deity, or at the very least, any interest in expressing our thoughts and feelings regarding such a topic as deity. I also like to think it's fairly obvious that it doesn't have anything to do with our arms or our legs, but instead it has to do with what's inside our skulls (as in, our cognitive faculties vis-a-vis our brains).

[If anyone has links to any actual studies that involve asking chattering squirrels or howling dogs or sign-language monkeys what their philosophies regarding God are... well, feel free to share.]

I don't quite understand what would lead a person to say something like "I think the fact that 'God' is an entirely human concept / mental process / etc. is the best evidence against God's existence" which (although just a paraphrase here) is something I've seen suggested on at least several occasions by folks who claim to have thought "very deeply" on the subject. To me, it's kind of like saying that the sensations of seeing, hearing, and smelling are the best evidence against the existence of light, sound, and aroma. Or, perhaps more appropriately, it's like saying that logic (and the related presumptions that existence does in fact adhere to a definite set of laws, is knowable, predictable, and capable of being explained rationally) is just a human concept / mental process, and thus, is itself the best evidence against the existence of logic. It's just... silly.

I don't think the fact that "God" stems from our cognitive faculties / is an abstraction of thought is itself any real proof against "God" being an actual facet of reality. If anything I think it just lends proof to the idea that God may include aspects of -- but is beyond -- any one particular strain of religious or spiritual thought.

I remember reading a neural study on belief (here) which cited a paper (here) which concluded that "a variety of experiments suggest that children are predisposed to assume both design and intention behind natural events - leaving many psychologists and anthropologists to believe that children, left entirely to their own devices, would invent some conception of God."

So, I disagree with the view that belief in God is purely a symptom of religious indoctrination. The fact that a child may be taught the same religious beliefs does not mean that brainwashing or indoctrination is taking place, it simply means that a tradition is being passed-down to the next generation. Leaving any and all religious discussion completely alone (or at least until a child has reached a more mature age) would seem rather unlikely to result in the child never asking questions of a religious/spiritual nature or never inventing their own personal philosophy on life/existence/etc that might include design and intention.

Now it could surely be argued (successfully, at that) that children are naturally very credulous and believe all sorts of things that aren't true due to their immaturity -- but, does this facet of a child's character necessarily lead to all those things actually being untrue? People are certainly capable of changing or discarding their beliefs as they grow older, and they do it pretty often at that. Yet spiritual beliefs still persist into adulthood and old age to the point where they are still more common than completely atheistic/nihilistic beliefs.

What I wonder is, how is our cognitive faculties (which afford us the ability to even conceive of such things) anything BUT a form of evidence of these things' potential to exist in reality? For all this talk about what an universal, all-present consciousness is or isn't or could or couldn't BE... I think maybe we should be looking more inwardly, in more ways, at our own state(s) of consciousness before we go on asserting this or that about what makes up an intelligent being or what an intelligence even beyond the STATE of 'being'/'non-being' could even be defined as. The idea that we come up with such conceptions simply to "feel better" about things like death or that they are simply evolved abstractions whose primary purpose is to bind us to each other in social settings seems like a rather half-baked explanation to me.

It seems like, more than anything else, people are story-tellers. Even more than being inventors and designers. Even the most backwards, unrefined, un-technological societies have rich oral traditions to go along with them. Exponentially moreso for those societies that ARE technologically-advanced. So, maybe, God just happens to be the Ultimate Storyteller is all.

Like a Grandmaster Of Dreams or something.

...

Anyway. Row that boat of yours, be merry about it, life is but an et cetera et cetera.


BBS Signature
supperman2
supperman2
  • Member since: May. 22, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 12:19 AM Reply

This thread sucks.

1. It has nothing to do with politics.
2. Both sides have flaws that can't be explained thus a valid point for each side can't be made.
3. Nobody is going to get converted, you're just yelling at each other.


BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 02:06 AM Reply

At 12/31/09 12:19 AM, supperman2 wrote: 2. Both sides have flaws that can't be explained thus a valid point for each side can't be made.

Your one of those "You can't prove the existence of God nor can you prove he doesn't exist" people right?


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 02:43 AM Reply

At 12/31/09 12:19 AM, supperman2 wrote: This thread sucks.

Then by all means don't post in it.

1. It has nothing to do with politics.

Completely untrue. People's religious views influence they're politics the same as it influences other aspects of their life (morals, ethics, hell even their diet in some cases).

2. Both sides have flaws that can't be explained thus a valid point for each side can't be made.

So? I think it's great to have the free exchange of ideas. It makes us better people.

3. Nobody is going to get converted, you're just yelling at each other.

I'm not yelling at anybody. Also if you really think this thread is so bad, don't fucking post in it then. It serves no purpose for you to just sit here and trash it vs. trying to be a participant in it and join in the exchange of ideas.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
armaggedon21
armaggedon21
  • Member since: Jan. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 07:28 AM Reply

GOD DOES NOT EXIST

Simple.


O_O

BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 09:20 AM Reply

At 12/31/09 07:28 AM, armaggedon21 wrote: GOD DOES NOT EXIST

Simple.

A hi-speed wi-fi connection doesn't exist at my place either. Doesn't mean I couldn't have it if I wanted it enough.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
Grizzli
Grizzli
  • Member since: Oct. 5, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 10:01 AM Reply

At 12/31/09 12:19 AM, supperman2 wrote: This thread sucks.

Then go away.

1. It has nothing to do with politics.

Religion is very much embedded in politics, if not the roots of it.

2. Both sides have flaws that can't be explained thus a valid point for each side can't be made.

When do they dont?

3. Nobody is going to get converted, you're just yelling at each other.

Pretty much, yes. But we arent trying to convert each other. We (or at least, i) are trying to have an INTELLIGENT conversation on the topic of theism and atheism.


"Well shit, Daniel, I just left!"
LOL? LOL LOL LOL

BBS Signature
Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 12:31 PM Reply

At 12/31/09 12:13 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: I don't quite understand what would lead a person to say something like "I think the fact that 'God' is an entirely human concept / mental process / etc. is the best evidence against God's existence" [...]
[...] I don't think the fact that "God" stems from our cognitive faculties / is an abstraction of thought is itself any real proof against "God" being an actual facet of reality.

You're right. It isn't. But that's not what the quote is saying.

You yourself make explicit a quality of existence "in reality," which I assume is half the dichotomy: reality - fantasy. And I'm also assuming you realize there's a difference between being stabbed to death in your dreams and being stabbed to death "in reality."

The quote isn't operating on the principle that: what we think, must not exist, because we think it.

The quote is operating on the principle that: it may be reasonable to assume a thing existent or nonexistent by the level of corroboration beyond solely what we think.

The quote is describing the lack of empirical evidence for God. [And that's the big difference between a belief in God and believing you've experienced light or sound. Logic, specifically our adherence to certain logical clauses and not others, is not empirically determinable. It's often normative. However, the genesis of any particular logical clause is validated by its relationship with reality (outside the individual's imagination).]

Hope that helped.


BBS Signature
Helicopterz
Helicopterz
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 01:20 PM Reply

Because the books were written by man, avie.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 03:55 PM Reply

At 12/31/09 01:20 PM, Helicopterz wrote: Because the books were written by man, avie.

Without question, but the CLAIM has always been the books were written by man as dictated by the big guy either directly speaking to the writer (like Muhammad, or Moses), or through divine vision (things like Revelations). Yeah I don't really buy that without some real evidence, but you're not in fact answering the question. Outside of the holy scriptures and tenents of a faith, what ELSE can we use as evidence for their being a creator, or creators? That is what my fundamental question was Jack my friend.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
SteveGuzzi
SteveGuzzi
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 16
Writer
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 04:10 PM Reply

At 12/31/09 12:31 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: The quote isn't operating on the principle that: what we think, must not exist, because we think it.

The quote is operating on the principle that: it may be reasonable to assume a thing existent or nonexistent by the level of corroboration beyond solely what we think.

The quote is describing the lack of empirical evidence for God.

So if that's the case (and from the context of the discussions I've seen the quote appear in, I would not necessarily agree that it is) what I wonder next is: just what sort of empirically-gathered corroborating evidence do these people expect to find? "If God exists then..." ---- then what exactly??? If they find nothing which they would deem suitable evidence, does that necessarily mean that evidence does not exist, or could that just be a symptom of looking for the wrong kind of evidence or via the wrong means or in the wrong places? The search might be like looking for a needle in a haystack... pretty damn improbable, but surely looking anywhere besides the haystack isn't going to hasten the discovery at all.

Advanced cognitive faculties and the potential (and tendency / overall commonality) for belief in deity is one of the defining characteristic of humans, so what sense does it make to exclude them from relevancy? When "solely what we think" is applied to people on a global scale or in a manner which pertains to how a human being perceives reality independent of their cultural upbringing... then isn't what we think (indeed, HOW we think) entirely relevant here?

Logic, specifically our adherence to certain logical clauses and not others, is not empirically determinable. It's often normative. However, the genesis of any particular logical clause is validated by its relationship with reality (outside the individual's imagination).

Logical clauses are not empirically determinable and are often normative (as in, dealing with ideas of value, right/wrong, good/bad, ought-to-be/ought-not-to-be, etc)... hmmmmmm what does this sound like?

Let's consider those people who have the idea that "if God exists then... there would be no pain or suffering," or the idea that "if God exists then... everyone's prayers would be answered." Well, there is plenty of pain and suffering and plenty of unanswered prayers too. So, what here is being invalidated by reality -- the existence of God, or these particular if-then statements assumed of God?


BBS Signature
Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Dec. 31st, 2009 @ 04:53 PM Reply

At 12/31/09 04:10 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: So if that's the case (and from the context of the discussions I've seen the quote appear in, I would not necessarily agree that it is)

"the fact that 'God' is an entirely human concept / mental process / etc. is the best evidence against God's existence"

what I wonder next is: just what sort of empirically-gathered corroborating evidence do these people expect to find? [...] If they find nothing which they would deem suitable evidence, does that necessarily mean that evidence does not exist, or could that just be a symptom of looking for the wrong kind of evidence or via the wrong means or in the wrong places?

Open potential does not prove an explicit condition. As there is always open potential at any stretch of the imagination, open potential is not a good indicator of whether something may or may not be real.

Advanced cognitive faculties and the potential (and tendency / overall commonality) for belief in deity is one of the defining characteristic of humans, so what sense does it make to exclude them from relevancy?

Because the argument for or against a God is generally not an argument for or against solely what God is imagined to be. There is a duality at play in here that you seem very eager to dance around.

When "solely what we think" is applied to people on a global scale or in a manner which pertains to how a human being perceives reality independent of their cultural upbringing... then isn't what we think (indeed, HOW we think) entirely relevant here?

Yes, we do operate within the limitations of how we think. However, how we think is a lens through which to determine what we think. "How we think," and, "what a particular person thinks about God," are two very different subjects. And this is still not addressing the objective existence posited by most believers in a god.

Logical clauses are not empirically determinable and are often normative

No. One plus one is two. That is positive. Whether an individual adheres to that is not empirically determinable. The individual determines whether they should or should not. Hence, their adherence is normative.

[...] So, what here is being invalidated by reality -- the existence of God, or these particular if-then statements assumed of God?

It depends on what further presumptions or considerations the if-then statements take into account, as well as which particular brand of god they're addressing.


BBS Signature
pr0de
pr0de
  • Member since: Dec. 28, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 08:37 AM Reply

Not necessarily no. It's an undesirable alternate perception of reality because it does not allow people to function properly and can make them dangerous to themselves and others.
Somatoform disorder

none of those even fit the definition of that

..except psychedelics don't cause much danger, alcohol would be more likely, and it isn't undesirable

apparently raised visual acuity and hearing things clearer/ acuity for all senses is undesirable

also start using the word "illusion" in its proper definition, and get some experience with these "alternate perception" instead of using it after being introduced to it through a message board

and i firmly believe you should read up on cognitive science or something, maybe articles such as Creativity and experience

lol Creativity exists so i firmly etc writers utilize Creativity

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 12:49 PM Reply

At 12/31/09 12:13 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote::

"a variety of experiments suggest that children are predisposed to assume both design and intention behind natural events - leaving many psychologists and anthropologists to believe that children, left entirely to their own devices, would invent some conception of God."

;;;
Sorry Steve
That's just wishful thinking by a bunch of over educated individuals.
I read recently in National Geographic about a group of people in Africa who to this day follow along with mankinds original hunter gatherer lifestyle.
THey have lived like this from the when all Africans were hunter gatherers & when other tribes began domesticating animals & others raising crops , they stayed true to their lifestyle to this day.

10 of thousands of years & they have no religion , no religious leaders or any actual 'leaders' of any kind, except older members, or the best hunters etc. teach younger members in loosely allied family groups.

Until recently less than 40 years they didn't even bury their dead, they simply left them where they fell.
These Hadza nomads, are living like they did 10 thousand years ago, & in the article when they were asked about god...they claimed god was exceedingly bright & in fact was the sun. Considering all life on this planet only survives because of the sunlight & our distance from it...not a bad assumption from a stone age people.

Maybe I'm just dense...but doesn't anyone else see that after 10's of thousands of years these people have had very few converts to religions (no matter what missionaries have tried...they've failed) So if as your academic study says has any truth to it...Why , oh why have these people's & many other stone age cultures not 'find god ' ????

Because god is a invention of man to control a large population !
The kind of population you can only find, with people(s) WHO DO NOT LIVE IN SMALL GROUPS !!!!!


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 03:04 PM Reply

At 1/1/10 12:49 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Why , oh why have these people's & many other stone age cultures not 'find god ' ????

1. If (certain types of) pattern recognition and an urge to personify are innate, and we assume they are innate via genetics, then an ancient and insular tribe does not disprove what is innate in humans elsewhere. The extent of this argument would be to claim that anyone who doesn't look like you can't possibly exist.

2. What other stone age cultures are you talking about?

Because god is a invention of man to control a large population !
The kind of population you can only find, with people(s) WHO DO NOT LIVE IN SMALL GROUPS !!!!!

Unless you have more evidence then just respective population sizes, drop the conspiracy theories.


BBS Signature
Helicopterz
Helicopterz
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 03:58 PM Reply

At 12/31/09 03:55 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 12/31/09 01:20 PM, Helicopterz wrote: Because the books were written by man, avie.
Without question, but the CLAIM has always been the books were written by man as dictated by the big guy either directly speaking to the writer (like Muhammad, or Moses), or through divine vision (things like Revelations). Yeah I don't really buy that without some real evidence, but you're not in fact answering the question. Outside of the holy scriptures and tenents of a faith, what ELSE can we use as evidence for their being a creator, or creators? That is what my fundamental question was Jack my friend.

Reproduction. Anything where we see how we create something, and then project that onto a larger scale.

For instance, I build a house and termites appear.

I created those termites in a way.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 04:29 PM Reply

At 1/1/10 03:58 PM, Helicopterz wrote: Reproduction. Anything where we see how we create something, and then project that onto a larger scale.

I fail to see how that in any way suggests a divine creator. Again I think you're deliberately trying to twist my questions away from what I obviously intend them to be to "strengthen" your point.

For instance, I build a house and termites appear.
I created those termites in a way.

No you didn't. Those termites already existed, all you did was provide them with a an easy access to food. You didn't create the termites, you merely created a condition for those termites to want to get into your proximity.

How does that have anything to do with a divine being? This example is completely irrelevant and nonsensical.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Locke357
Locke357
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 04:55 PM Reply

At 1/1/10 03:58 PM, Helicopterz wrote: For instance, I build a house and termites appear.

I created those termites in a way.

I don't think a Worms and the Cheese argument is going to fly here, buddy.

Helicopterz
Helicopterz
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 05:05 PM Reply

If I can build a house I can build a universe.

Is that simple enough for you.

iloveTyler
iloveTyler
  • Member since: Dec. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 05:06 PM Reply

Yes, I am a Christian. I understand that from a scientific point of veiw, God cannot exist. But I have also witnessed miracles. I have seen a teenaged girl with a broken ankle drop her crutches and walk after we prayed for her. Either her X-rays were wrong and she was a liar, or God is real.

OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to "official" Atheism Vs. Theism Topic Jan. 1st, 2010 @ 05:08 PM Reply

At 1/1/10 05:06 PM, iloveTyler wrote: Yes, I am a Christian. I understand that from a scientific point of veiw, God cannot exist. But I have also witnessed miracles. I have seen a teenaged girl with a broken ankle drop her crutches and walk after we prayed for her. Either her X-rays were wrong and she was a liar, or God is real.

That's a very quick conclusion. I wouldn't call that a miracle at all.
What other "Miracles" have you seen?


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature