You eventually hear those others don't exist, one way or another, and having asked your parents, they confirm it.
Asking them to confirm god doesn't exist is another story.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
You eventually hear those others don't exist, one way or another, and having asked your parents, they confirm it.
Asking them to confirm god doesn't exist is another story.
My question is, why there are churches on every corner if this idea is just as ridiculous as santa, leprechauns, et al.?audible said:
This idea you have that all athiests have clear critical minds is ludicrous. You couldn't possibly believe that.audible said:
Because, your parents never stopped telling you your god was make-believe. And their parents.. and so on...
I would agree with that completely. I've seen YouTube videos from alleged atheists who are complete idiots. They are an embarrassment to atheists everywhere.
The morals and ideas of parents are cast off generation after generation in every country on the planet. Perhaps your parents tell you to save your money, and as you grow up they confirm the truth and necessity of this ideal - yet you decide it is more important to enjoy what you have than save it for when you are too old to enjoy it. Beliefs parents hold and confirm, and the next generation denies, are ubiquitous.
As I was implying earlier, "tradition" is not strong enough to be the ONLY reason a certain idea believed in without reason could be propagated, even if we allowed for it to be say 50% of the reason.
Because people on the whole have lacked the courage to dismiss it. In the past this was often through fear of actual physical harm ("believe or burn" etc).
Also - the idea of a creator is, on the surface, logically sound: Z was caused by Y which was caused by X etc... all the way to the "initial cause". It is only when and, more importantly IF, you look at the underlying assumptions that this actually becomes logically inconclusive. But because most people don't look - the idea is acceptable - that something caused the Universe - and that something is slapped with the label "God".
Gradually, as non-theist views become more wide-spread, the role of the church in society might become less prevalent in society, less involved with the running of governments and the setting of policies, and more sidelined into a "If it doesn't harm anyone, let them continue" type of concept/practice.
Financial planning and indoctrination are two different things.
Do you count the contents of your wallet before every meal? Do you sit listening to an accountant every Sunday morning?
Religion is thicker than blood. Just ask Cain.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
You assume God lives in the present. If God is infinite, he lives in all times. He can see your choices but not a priori, which only makes sense for us living in the present. We can have free will and God can know what we will do and there is no inconsistency. Your argument only works for a God stuck in our dimensions - not higher dimensions.
Last edited:
not at all
I am saying there are different grades of theists and by the use of the term "established on the path of theism" I am meaning a theist who is displaying more characteristics than merely the notion of taking shelter of god
I would say that more than 95% of humanity is taking birth again in the material world (whether that is as an animal or lower or as a human or higher, is a subject of speculation).
Attaining the supreme abode (as opposed to temporary material heavens and hells) is definitely exclusive.
the reason is not because of quotas or god making difficult
as it applies to a theist who is not completely successful in this life time, they begin their unfinished business in the next
the 6 qualities of pure devotional service is split up into 3 categories of practitioners.
The first two are characteristics of persons who are performing religious duties out of an obedience to rules and regulations.
The middle two are characteristics of persons who have actually developed a spontaneous taste for religious duties, and hence obedience is adhered to not so much out of fear but love and attraction to the supreme
The last two are the characteristics of persons who are on the topmost platform and who's love for the supreme is so intense and concentrated that there is literally no room for any sentiment for things not related to the object of devotion (god) - in other words they couldn't fall in to illusion even if they tried
the three categories represent the general likelihood (up to 100%) of one's being successful
basically its a fallacious argument that tries to glean success on the principle "some people got it wrong so everyone got it wrong"
Last edited:
Typical, worthless LG nonsense.
Cole, I shall answer your question in a moment. For now, let it be said that leprechauns do exist. I have personally seen them and interacted with them. That certainly satisfies LG's criteria. Furthermore, LG is "bereft of the required foundations and qualifications etc etc" and thus can't say a word. LG is your typical high school drop out who thinks he knows it all.
No LG do not respond to me. What do we have to discuss when you haven't undergone the theory- practice or realisation? Your own arguments dismiss you from talking.
Right Cole... You asked:
"If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?"
The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.
If there were no such concept as heaven, if the gods just said "well, when you die you cease to exist", nobody would even care if gods existed or not. The reason people hang onto god concepts is because of the rewards.
Likewise santa is quite the famous fellow - because he gives gifts. Alas it doesn't take long before the child works out that the parents are doing the buying. With gods you can't show that there is no reward for you until it's too late - and so people cling onto it just incase.
Leprechauns don't really offer anything, neither do mermaids etc etc. As such nobody cares whether they exist.
for a more elaborate explanation of the principle of "some people get it wrong therefore everyone gets it wrong" please see the above post
:bawl:
Thank you, that is a pretty good idea. I was hoping someone could give me an answer that hasn't already been shown to be insufficient by common experience, i.e. "it's because of tradition".
But doesn't the idea of God sometimes threaten more than it comforts? I propose that it does, even to, or especially to, christians. The way some people describe God, it may actually be an idea that would have been better discarded long ago.
I suppose it is possible that one person may believe from tradition, another from what is offered, but I would like to see if it is actually possible to explain the reason humanity has held on to the idea of God in a way that isn't immediately refutable with regards to large chunks of the population (rebels against tradition, people who are offered comndemnation, etc.).
also,
People who believe in God because they think the universe had to have a creator are not being sensible, i agree - but the idea of a creator can be logically sound. There is a big difference between the perspectives of the possibility of a creator and the necessity of a creator.SARKUS said:
I think the USA had it right to insist on the separation of church and state - unfortunately, in practice, our finest ideals are often left out (the disrepair of the system of checks and balances between the branches of government is another example of that).SARKUS said:
P.S. lightgigantic - it seemed to me that you wouldn't be the type that assumes a 95% failure rate, but thanks for explaining.
Being a Neanderthal (and proud of it), I've often asked myself the same questions.
Hellblade8
Valued Senior Member
That's not true, leprechauns have pots of gold and many sailors thought that mermaids also existed. Not to mention giant sea monsters. All of these have had impacts upon reality, but humans tend to see things as something more mythical than they often are.
So by your logic, people should believe in leprechauns because they have something to offer. And what of demons? People believe that they exist and yet they are often considered as imaginary.
Mythical creatures where created from two things: misunderstanding of what actually happened (sea monsters, dragons, ect.) and why.
Why are we here? Why are we different? Why do we feel this way? Why am I angry? Why am I different? Why are we here? Why does the world orbit around a sun? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Science is not about explaining why. Science is about explaining how. How do I feel this way? How are we different? How am I angry? How am I different? How does the Earth orbit around a star? How?
Can science answer why questions? Yes...to some extent. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Answer: Because of gravity and its effects.
And yet, this doesn't offer up the true, ultimate question as to WHY?
God is the answer to why. The belief in God or any supernatural being is not wrong, and actually seems fairly natural. Do atheists disagree? Yes, they do and they have their reasons based on the way the view life. However, this does not make them correct, as proving the existence of God has failed for many, many years. People only assumed that God was real with what people percieved as evicdence in the dark ages, but in truth they where just seeing something and placing God as the cause, even though this was in fact discouraged by the bible. However, most people where not aware of this as most people did not read the bible, and this is true today. People believe in liars like Sylvia Brown who claim to talk to spirits and then disgraces the name of God by basicly using His good name to win people over. However in truth, she is a lying heretic of which God and the bible have always denounced.
Hellblade8
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, but I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding.
Because God has perfect knowledge or some such does not disprove God or Freedom of Will. Allow me to explain. Lets say when God is weaving the timeline that He offers someone the two hard choices. Naturally, God knows that the person shall choose the wrong one, does that mean that God did not give the human the ability to choose? No it does not. Allow me to explain it in a more understandable manner. Go to a child and give him the option of eating a cake or a carrot. Assuming the child is typical for his age, he will choose the cake over the carrot. You still gave the child a choice, but you knew what the outcome was. This is the same manner of which God works in. He does not offer us only cake or carrot, but both, even if He knows what we will do.
I would certainly stand by your question, yes. But is not the threat in itself enough reason to believe and further the belief?
In the same way that being offered a reward could ensure belief and service, so does the threat - "do this or suffer". Ultimately I would even say that the threat can be more powerful than the offer itself.
I suppose it's a reason why superstitions persist the way they do, (from the threats such as broken mirrors equalling bad luck to 'knocking on wood' equalling the hope for good luck).
Well, leprechauns are said to own pots of gold, but it isn't really offered - not so much as "knocking on wood" whereby leprechauns would give you luck. It's interesting to note that the latter is still quite commonly said today.
Magpies 'threaten' bad luck unless they're saluted, (dependant upon amount of magpies), and so people in this country at least still dilligently salute magpies. It's obviously ludicrous but people still do it because they don't want to risk being victim of the threat.
You have rabbits feet, horseshoes etc etc that are still commonplace in modern day society, (because they offer luck), and equally the avoidance of breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, (because of threats).
Yes, we could look at vampires and say that being bitten on the neck is a threat and therefore should be believed in - but it isn't a direct threat. It's not a case of "I will bite you on the neck unless you hang garlic out every night". Because there is no direct threat, (or offer), I would assert that humans have little overall interest in it and after time it becomes yet another scary campfire story and little else.
As for mermaids, they never were going to last long given that they are so confined, (something for the sailors only), and yes - largely stemmed from encounters with unknown sea creatures.. But again they are not so much 'direct threat'. Some sailors would hear their song and crash into the rocks etc but it wasn't personal like "do this or die".
What I am asserting, (as an opinion I should state), is that gods and other such things making direct offers/threats will outlive that which doesn't offer/threaten anything. It is quite typical behaviour even in normal life - that's why "buy one get one free" works so well.
Indirectly people still do, (at least saying "touch wood/knock on wood" frequently). The supposed pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow.. that complicates the issue.
Some do, some don't yes.. you'll never get 100% agreement on anything.
And here is the thing.. Some see the question as moot, some see the question as essential. I suppose that's where we differ.
However, if it is of any use in the future.. I heard this story, (probably utterly untrue), about a young guy doing a philosophy exam. A question cropped up that asked: "why?". His fellow students went to lengths to explain the things that you yourself have written on your post. This gentleman wrote: "why not?" and left.
Personally I find the response-question as valid as the original question.
All due respect, but that isn't an answer. 'god' is merely a substitute for those that are too afraid to hear the words 'no good reason'. Of the world's most worthless copouts, "god did it" has to rank first place - and it ultimately doesn't answer anything. All those "why's" still exist along with countless other questions: which god, why did it create us, why do we sin, why blah blah blah. god did it, god did it, god did it.. what has been answered other than nothing at all?
It seems 'quite natural' for man to believe in many non-existant things - mostly stemming from early days when man knew very little about the planet. This even includes mermaids that are found throughout literature and even dating back to 5,000 bc. From Babylon to Greece, from Cameroon to England. This in itself is not an argument for existence.
What you do tend to notice with gods is that they are culture specific. You don't, for instance, find any hedgehog gods in India. They're elephants and other such animals. You don't find badger gods in Egypt, they're vultures and jackals. You also tend not to find fox gods in South America - they are generally snakes. The question I ask is whether perhaps there are many gods, or one god that likes to play dress-up or perhaps whether people would notice what was around them and elevate it to worship status because of it's power, it's infamy, (poisonous snakes etc), or simply not being too well known. We could also then look at specific stories and see if those places where the land was more prone to disaster have gods that were more prone to handing out punishments, (yhwh certainly liked plagues). A British god would be a good example because we have no dangerous animals or disasterous weather. All I can personally think of right now are druids, (meaning 'oak tree') - yes, there's shitloads of oak trees in England. The problem of course is that there's very little known about druids so I can't really use it as a good example.
While contemplating this I decided to have a cigarette. During my smoke I thought of other gods that I am not personally aware of that I could perhaps use as an example. For some reason, (probably because I mentioned Cameroon), I started to think of African gods and what we would expect to see from them. After some consideration I came to the idea that we would expect to see mentions of drought most certainly and perhaps rain if they were good and obeyed. So anyway, I did some google searching and found this for starters which certainly reflects Africa quite well:
Abiku: is a term used to describe a type of evil spirit in Yoruba mythology. They are reportedly constantly hungry and thirsty, and prefer to prey upon children. The name is also applied to spirits in the form of children who must repeatedly die and be reborn.
I hadn't factored this into my equations but I don't think we can sit and argue the parts I have bolded as being reflective of Africa. In fact when I read it my mind instantly conjured up those images we always see on TV of some scrawny, starving African child.
I am currently going through the a-z of African gods and it is certainly going well so far. You have Abuk, mother of the god of rain and fertility who is symbolised by a snake. This had me worried to begin with.. but Abuk was a god to the Dinka - a tribe that live in swampland.
Again the question is: Is there a god/s that play dress-up or is it perhaps more likely that early cultures worshipped that which was around them? (also worth mentioning that one of, if not the most, worshipped thing in early cultures was the sun and or moon - something seen by everyone).
Ciao for now.
Hellblade8
Valued Senior Member
True, it does tend to convert alot of people, very much so in such an area of importance to humans, however its actually very interesting. I actually don't believe someone's stay in hell is eternal if they don't worship God. If you recall, the Jewish belief is that someone is punished for their sins, but only what fits the deed. No more, no less. Now, there is in fact some conflict here as to what the Catholic Church claims. You see, some of Jesus's quotes doesn't make it sound like a black and white system that the CC makes it out to be. On top of this, I noticed that what Jesus does to "help" human souls would actually make it worse for more than it does help, as the CC claims that all non-believers go to hell forever.
But what Jesus was sent down to do was to *reunite* use with the Father, as Jewish worshipers before would just go to a state of limbo, not heaven or hell. After you are punished in hell for your crimes, you would ascend to limbo (if I recall). However, human souls are seperate of God. Now, when Jesus's death did was break that wall and allow souls to be cleaned and enter heaven.
So basicly before it was:
Hell for said amount of time then go to Limbo
or
Go to Limbo
Now it should be by logic:
Heaven for those who worship Christians
Hell and then go to limbo
In fact, hell as often stated by Jesus was for the wicked, and he clearly stated that not all will go to hell, some will just be seperated from the father and still others will actually die (cease to be I think-he wasn't too clear).
I suspect that given the early CC's main target where Jews, they would have changed it to accomidate that group, sure what they did is lie about the after life, but in their view they thought it would unite more Jews with the Father. At least, that's my take on it.
True.
True, and yet all of these things where believed, more often to subsitute an explination with what they had at hand.
Granted.
Interesting.
Well, some of those I can answer.
Why do we sin? Because we can. Simple answer. We have a free will and this allows us to chose as to what we want to do. Its not that we do bad things that makes it a sin, but because we understand good and evil. Intent, that is sin is based on.
True.
True, and its actually true that there is more than one 'god', as stated in the bible there are many gods, but only Yahweh is the one true God.
Actually its ironic that evil spirits seem to be closer to reality than most people think. Someone once asked me why Jesus didn't say how false some ideas where, like a flat world or some such. I pointed out that if he had explained a disease as not being caused by a demon, but rather a very small creature that enters the body, people would still have called it a demon.
A demon is in fact, a virus.
Likely a little of both. Early bible passages suggest that there was alot of say, supernatural activity going on around the early world, likely a war between 'gods' for the right over humanity. Some people worshiped animals, some worshiped Yahweh, but used the animals of symbols of his might, thus turning to idols eventually, and of course some where just pagans.
Its odd that as the bible goes onto later events, there is less and less divine attacks on the other gods, though I'm sure there would be more if the Christians hadn't decided to kill more pagans...even after Jesus told them not to kill.
Actually, one must ask if God is at all possible, and I do think its a very high chance of it being true. We know our universe isn't all there is to existence, so its likely we're in a bubble of our own reality with Lord knows what on the outside, its perfectly possible that some more powerful entity set off the big bang and molded everything over many years. Actually makes sense, since heaven is said to never be reachable by humans, God claims to have existed outside of time, thus likely out of our universe. Or I could be grasping at straws from a babbling priest of eons past who's words just tend to be easy to understand in many ways.
Possible? Yes.
Proven?
No.
I suppose if someone wanted to be perfectly frank, we worship who we see as our creator.