As I've said before, there's nothing to theism to defend either.
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
Of course there is. Consciousness, information, moral and logical absolutes, scriptures, evidences that clearly point to intelligence, testimony, common sense, knowledge, understanding, love, the material creation, the universe, the earth, the celestial bodies, religious practices, life...
jan.
Really?
So if it could have happened naturally, God doesn't exist.
Is that all you've got, because it's pretty weak.
jan.
No. Because there's no reason to think God exists, belief in God is pretty weak.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I can't speak for Sarkus. (He does a very good job of speaking for himself.)
But with regards to me, I do go further than Sarkus and actively believe that the named personalized deities of religious mythology don't literally exist, at least as anything more than fictional characters. That view applies to the Biblical Yahweh, to the Quran's 'Allah' version of Yahweh, and to the whole panoply of Indian deities like Shiva, Vishnu and Jan's Krishna.
At the same time I take a more agnostic view of the various metaphysical functions that natural theology traditionally associates with the actions of 'God', such as the reason why existence exists, first-cause, source of cosmic order, ultimate ground of being and so on. I consider these to be open metaphysical questions and don't have a clue what the answers are. Personalizing the mystery doesn't seem to be a positive step.
What behavioral difference does my disbelief in the personalized deities make in my life?
Well, I don't seek God or think that 'finding God' or having some kind of 'God realization experience' needs to be my ultimate goal. (Of course I do seek deeper and deeper philosophical understanding, which might amount to much the same thing in some theologies.) I don't associate goodness and virtue with adherence to God's supposed will. I don't believe that society should be organized so as to conform to God's will either. I don't believe that the deepest secrets of the universe are to be discovered in "scripture" and I'm largely unmoved when others make arguments from scripture, quoting passages from this or that supposedly holy book.
Last edited:
It's natural for humans to believe in God.
Whereas non belief in God is clearly a construct, in opposition to belief in God.
jan.
On the contrary, non-belief in gods is natural, just as non-belief in the Tooth Fairy is natural. Gods are clearly a construct, as evidenced by the fact that there are so many different ones.
If there's a difference between gods and gods, you have not articulated it very well. You always fall back on a wishy-washy "God" catch-all that has even less meaning than the specific ones.
Don't believe you. I am fairly certain you know the difference. If not, I am certain you can find out the difference.
Jan.
If you can take the time to explain why you're not explaining yourself, you can take the time to explain yourself - unless you can't explain yourself because your postion is empty.
I didn't say that. I said that people claimed "if X happened, God must have done it!" as evidence God exists. They have been proven false; there ARE ways those things can happen naturally. Thus that claimed evidence for God does not exist.
Musika asked for evidence that there was a lack of evidence. Thus, my example where a lack of evidence for God has been shown.
So he is real and he exists and you don't believe in him.
Good summary of the level of logic you are capable of.
Last edited:
Don't pretend to know what you don't know. And don't be evasive.
Cool. So Santa Claus is real and he exists and you don't believe in him. God isn't real and there's no evidence for him and you believe in him. A good summary of your position.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
And there's nothing exclusive to religion about any of those.
The only way to know the nature of reality is to assume that it is in some way accessible to our senses, which would necessitate it’s physicality.
It’s all a matter of perspective. You can look at any process as the sum of it’s elemental processes, or narrow the perspective to the sub-processes.
It’s the hand that nature dealt to us. How else would you expect to describe reality?
Biology is simply one aspect of a physical reality, and the one we happen to be saddled with, so for us it’s presently the only game in town in regards to examining the nature of anything.
You can’t postulate the existence of a god or anything else other than form the perspective of your own biology. Other entities may be slaves to some other form of physicality, but the constraints of biology are the shackles that currently bind us all.
I can't answer that any more honestly the saying that I don't know. It would be a fairly significant shift in my thought processes, that I can not honestly foresee what impact that might have.
I have previously thought that it might have no impact, but the more I think about that the more I realise that that answer stems from the same agnostic mindset I have now, and all I would be doing is giving lip service to the notion of there being no God. Hence no change.
But since believing God to nog exist would be a change of mindset, a change of thinking, I am not sure I can honestly say what changes it would cause.
Perhaps none. But even if none one must still acknowledge the different intellectual paths taken to reach the same practical position,
- Status