To know there is no god?
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
- Status
Q and Godless.
I wan't you to solidly slap me upside my cyber-head for getting sucked into this whirlpool of insanity.
I'm an idiot.
I wan't you to solidly slap me upside my cyber-head for getting sucked into this whirlpool of insanity.
I'm an idiot.
SSSSLAAAAAPPPP!
Well I'm also quilty of always falling basically in the same trap. But look with whom you are debating with!
LG, believes that since our perception is human, then we are incapable of perceiving reality as is, fact is he believes existence is an illusion, thus no differense between delusional, nor a state of sanity exists in his mind. Because we perceive with our minds, and according to him our minds are faulty and according to him, we are supposedly incapable of comprehending existence with our human perception. So basically you are arguing/debating a nuthead who believes reality is some kind of illusion.
On the other hand, we have somewhat a pseudo intellectual theist called VitalOne, he/she whatever sex this one may be, is under the "delusion" that he knows he god's will, or that he knows what god is, and that his religion/ whatever that may be, is the absolute relegion for him. This one is one that several times contradicts himself/her often times to make one think that perhaps there's a bit of reason in his logic, though very vague and hard to catch. But once you ask him/his reasons why he believes in his god, and not Zeus, or anyother diety in human history, this cat/kitten goes on a bible quoting rampage, about his reasons why he believes. Show him scripture that disagrees with his sence of reason, and he will contradict him/herself yet again. What gives? I suppose it's hard to keep up with non-serquitus mumble jumble, their story changes every few years, as new discoveries in science are made.
Well I'm also quilty of always falling basically in the same trap. But look with whom you are debating with!
LG, believes that since our perception is human, then we are incapable of perceiving reality as is, fact is he believes existence is an illusion, thus no differense between delusional, nor a state of sanity exists in his mind. Because we perceive with our minds, and according to him our minds are faulty and according to him, we are supposedly incapable of comprehending existence with our human perception. So basically you are arguing/debating a nuthead who believes reality is some kind of illusion.
On the other hand, we have somewhat a pseudo intellectual theist called VitalOne, he/she whatever sex this one may be, is under the "delusion" that he knows he god's will, or that he knows what god is, and that his religion/ whatever that may be, is the absolute relegion for him. This one is one that several times contradicts himself/her often times to make one think that perhaps there's a bit of reason in his logic, though very vague and hard to catch. But once you ask him/his reasons why he believes in his god, and not Zeus, or anyother diety in human history, this cat/kitten goes on a bible quoting rampage, about his reasons why he believes. Show him scripture that disagrees with his sence of reason, and he will contradict him/herself yet again. What gives? I suppose it's hard to keep up with non-serquitus mumble jumble, their story changes every few years, as new discoveries in science are made.
Super,
What is being stated isn't accurate for all atheistic positions. Take mine for example:
I accept it as true that every named 'God' asserted by religion doesn't exist AND I accept it as improbable (not true or false) that a generic omnipotent life form exists.
The first part of the position is a result of reality. A named 'God' will be documented to make assertions about reality or perform actions against reality. As long as any documentation is contradicted by reality (and there are many contradictions) then 'God' is proven false. Adding zero supportive evidence to the heap is icing on the proverbial cake.
The second part of the position again is a result of reality. While I don't have enough knowledge and visibility of reality to know whether or not omnipotent life exists, I can certainly say that there is no evidence and my knowledge and visibility suggests such life forms don't exist.
Man what a foolish comment, thats like saying the many-worlds theory is false simply because there is no evidence for nor against it, and right now we are basically incapable of gaining such evidence...And with no evidence whatsoever of god, devils, heavens, hells, yada,yada, are not all these IDEAS!!that have no basis in reality?
Without evidence for nor against something it exists as a distinct possibility, not simply an idea....go learn science they teach that you don't make assumptions about things....
then why are you assuming theres a god. and no it's not a distinct possibility, but distant possibility, with that logic the yellow spotted spidebird from venus has as much crediblity. prostrate youself in front of the spiderbird, it sent it's only begotten egg to die for your sins.
I'm going to have to agree with Lightgigantic on this one:
To claim that God is imaginary or culturally constructed, without proving there is no objective basis for belief in God possible, is a positive claim against his existence. Ergo, a claim is being put forth and demands justification.
To claim that God is imaginary or culturally constructed, without proving there is no objective basis for belief in God possible, is a positive claim against his existence. Ergo, a claim is being put forth and demands justification.
Last edited:
No more valid than my claim that I have direct perception of Lenny the leprechaun. The problem here is that your argument only allows you to debate my claim when you have personally spoken to Lenny the leprechaun. I find it quite disheartening considering it would put me out of a job. Perhaps worth noting that I personally have not seen one of these claims stand up under scrutiny. They say they've spoken with god, you ask what he sounds like and they then state they didn't hear god, but heard an internal voice, (which is not really direct perception). When they say they've witnessed god and you ask what he looks like they change tact and say that they "felt" him - which again is not direct perception.
I'm glad we agree on the worthlessness of 'faith'. Why do you believe in gods again?
Hey theists please stop comparing god to the many-universe model, it is a flawed comparison here is the difference:
Now, the THEISTS have made the comparison themselves, stating that they are similar because they are both based on no real undeniable objective evidence.
The many-worlds advocate stand:
"I believe that there are many parallel universes. I have no observational data or verifiable evidence, however, it seems like a good idea to me, it makes a lot of sense, ties up a lot of looses ends, makes the universe work better. Thus, due to this circumstantial evidence and the overall feel of his idea, I believe that it is correct, but I most certainly can not prove that it is true, for I have no real evidence."
The theist's stand:
"I know that god exists. I have no observational data or verifiable evidence, however, it seems like a good idea to me, it makes a lot of sense, ties up a lot of looses ends, makes the universe work better. Thus, due to this circumstantial evidence and the overall feel of his idea, I know that it is correct, and I most certainly can prove that it is true, even though I have no real evidence."
**Notice they are almost exactly the same, except for the stuff bolded and underlined. Is this finally clear? The many worlds guy believes despite a lack of evidence, the theist knows despite a lack of evidence.
Now, the THEISTS have made the comparison themselves, stating that they are similar because they are both based on no real undeniable objective evidence.
The many-worlds advocate stand:
"I believe that there are many parallel universes. I have no observational data or verifiable evidence, however, it seems like a good idea to me, it makes a lot of sense, ties up a lot of looses ends, makes the universe work better. Thus, due to this circumstantial evidence and the overall feel of his idea, I believe that it is correct, but I most certainly can not prove that it is true, for I have no real evidence."
The theist's stand:
"I know that god exists. I have no observational data or verifiable evidence, however, it seems like a good idea to me, it makes a lot of sense, ties up a lot of looses ends, makes the universe work better. Thus, due to this circumstantial evidence and the overall feel of his idea, I know that it is correct, and I most certainly can prove that it is true, even though I have no real evidence."
**Notice they are almost exactly the same, except for the stuff bolded and underlined. Is this finally clear? The many worlds guy believes despite a lack of evidence, the theist knows despite a lack of evidence.
kerux
Registered Senior Member
there are gods, according to the Bible
You said "Our stance is simply that there is no compelling evidence to support one. " There was, is and always be. Unfortunately the devils won't care to prove themselves to you that they exist. Anyway, what for? They only appear to the important ones.
So, if anyone disregard the authenticity of the declarations in the Bible and/or someone will just declare them as null and void because they compare them to novels, like lord of the rings etc, perhaps these people should keep quiet and go find another life.
You said "Our stance is simply that there is no compelling evidence to support one. " There was, is and always be. Unfortunately the devils won't care to prove themselves to you that they exist. Anyway, what for? They only appear to the important ones.
The bible itself provides enough question to its authority, thus, its "declarations" are null and void. Moreover, there are those that would say it is a duty to publicly debate and inquire the veracity and legitimacy of the bible as a source of guidance and direction for the religiously deluded who believe that this is the only or the best guide to living their lives. I'm sure there are many among the deluded who would wish and hope that these people would "keep quiet and go find another life," but, fortunately, we don't subscribe to that sort of theocratic nonsense.
Devils? More non-evident mumbo-jumbo from an out-dated and superstitious dogma that was clearly the invention of Iron Age misogynistic, murderous, and twisted xenophobes in their efforts to create a propaganda to unite their kind and justify their atrocities. You say "there was, is and always be (sic)," perhaps you'd be kind enough to reveal this evidence so that it might be examined, tested, and reproduced.
No - "imaginary" is the default position of anything for which there is no evidence.
It is up to the claimant of non-imaginary status to provide the evidence.
Using a prior example - would I have to justify the claim that the as yet undiscovered life-form under the Martian soil is imaginary?
No. Of course not.
Those who claim it is non-imaginary would have to provide their evidence.
And, to follow the text Sarkus quoted above, we have very good and testable evidence of perceived gods within human culture as response to forces that were unexplainable. Earliest cultures (Neolithic, et al) and even modern but non-technological cultures have gods to whom they appeal(ed) for rain, war, fertility, health, etc.
Modern monotheists are quick to dismiss these gods as the imagined deities of primitive peoples who use magical thinking to manage their life ways and, thus, no longer relevant in societies where we understand the forces that drive weather, war, reproduction, disease, etc. At least enough that the monotheist can attribute it all to a single god's will since there is still an ultimately unexplainable force (what caused the weather, why disease, why should I steal this society's land and kill them all, why reproduce/not reproduce, why plagues/AIDS, etc.).
There still exists the element of magical thinking, but ignored is the fact that humanity is and always has been good about creating gods and their qualities. Chac, Zeus, Amun, Quetzacoatl, Ptah, Dionysus, Mithra, etc., etc., etc. are all completely different gods with completely different and often contradictory characteristics. The intellectual coward will use the cop-out argument that these are all representations of the same god, but will refuse to legitimately justify why they have different and often contradictory characteristics and whether they are the monotheistic god's intended representation with intended characters or the assumed characters by the society that believes in them. Did the Maya decide to use Chac for one purpose and Quetzacoatl for another? Or did the "one true god" decide to deceive the Maya into thinking there were multiple gods? If the first premise is true, then humans can imagine gods. If the second, god is a deceiver (and thus not a perfect being).
Clearly, the archaeological, sociological, psychological and ethnological evidence reveals that humans are good at creating gods.
Therefore, in the lack of evidence to show that the classic monotheistic god of Christianity (or any other cult) exists, one can safely assume that it is far more probable that the Christian god is an invented one -a god constructed from human need- and not a genuine one.
Indeed, one would expect that, with the human propensity to create gods, even the intended monotheistic religions would have multiple gods emerge.
And they do: Christianity makes no attempt to hide that it has three gods called a trinity; other gods emerge as well such as satan, saints, popes, etc.; Islam has Muhammad who has a divine status as well as other Islamic personalities I'm too lazy to look up right now; and so on.
Surely, Christians and Muslims will argue that these aren't gods, but the rest of the reasoned and thinking world outside of their doctrinal influences recognizes their presence. Try to explain the concept of a trinity to the Fulani of West Africa. Or any other aboriginal society that has never been exposed to christianity. They'll quickly point out three gods.
Modern monotheists are quick to dismiss these gods as the imagined deities of primitive peoples who use magical thinking to manage their life ways and, thus, no longer relevant in societies where we understand the forces that drive weather, war, reproduction, disease, etc. At least enough that the monotheist can attribute it all to a single god's will since there is still an ultimately unexplainable force (what caused the weather, why disease, why should I steal this society's land and kill them all, why reproduce/not reproduce, why plagues/AIDS, etc.).
There still exists the element of magical thinking, but ignored is the fact that humanity is and always has been good about creating gods and their qualities. Chac, Zeus, Amun, Quetzacoatl, Ptah, Dionysus, Mithra, etc., etc., etc. are all completely different gods with completely different and often contradictory characteristics. The intellectual coward will use the cop-out argument that these are all representations of the same god, but will refuse to legitimately justify why they have different and often contradictory characteristics and whether they are the monotheistic god's intended representation with intended characters or the assumed characters by the society that believes in them. Did the Maya decide to use Chac for one purpose and Quetzacoatl for another? Or did the "one true god" decide to deceive the Maya into thinking there were multiple gods? If the first premise is true, then humans can imagine gods. If the second, god is a deceiver (and thus not a perfect being).
Clearly, the archaeological, sociological, psychological and ethnological evidence reveals that humans are good at creating gods.
Therefore, in the lack of evidence to show that the classic monotheistic god of Christianity (or any other cult) exists, one can safely assume that it is far more probable that the Christian god is an invented one -a god constructed from human need- and not a genuine one.
Indeed, one would expect that, with the human propensity to create gods, even the intended monotheistic religions would have multiple gods emerge.
And they do: Christianity makes no attempt to hide that it has three gods called a trinity; other gods emerge as well such as satan, saints, popes, etc.; Islam has Muhammad who has a divine status as well as other Islamic personalities I'm too lazy to look up right now; and so on.
Surely, Christians and Muslims will argue that these aren't gods, but the rest of the reasoned and thinking world outside of their doctrinal influences recognizes their presence. Try to explain the concept of a trinity to the Fulani of West Africa. Or any other aboriginal society that has never been exposed to christianity. They'll quickly point out three gods.
Christianity worships one God, Elohim, who is of three components.
Like I said, its expected that those inculcated to its doctrines will pipe back with the company motto, but from and etic perspective there are many, many gods in xianity. But since you mentioned it, what are those three parts? And why Elohim and not Yahweh? The three parts are Elohim/Yahweh, Jesus, and the holy ghost, right? Yet, Jesus is quoted as saying several times that he is not Elohim/Yahweh. And there is yet another, distinct and separate reference to the holy ghost. Point me to the biblical passage that clarifies how these are parts of the same individual.
Elohim (El plural): Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
True. Elohim is plural, but it refers to the polytheistic traditions of early Israelites and Canaanites. If what you're saying is true, what biblical passage defines "elohim" as father, son, holy ghost? I left some very specific questions, to which you are either prepared to answer or you aren't. If not, feel free to think them over and get back to us later if ever. But don't just plop the one-liners on us. Those are uninformative and useless...
I've deleted several posts following this one because mine are asking the same question over and over to which IAC is not answering. Namely, what biblical verses, specifically, reference Elohim as the trinity. His most substantial reply has been "throughout." If IAC will not answer the question, off-topic one-liners will be considered trolling or spam and deleted. Take some time, review your bible, and get back to us with citations, IAC.
I've deleted several posts following this one because mine are asking the same question over and over to which IAC is not answering. Namely, what biblical verses, specifically, reference Elohim as the trinity. His most substantial reply has been "throughout." If IAC will not answer the question, off-topic one-liners will be considered trolling or spam and deleted. Take some time, review your bible, and get back to us with citations, IAC.
Last edited:
As I explained in another thread, (ignored by theists):
Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"
The very fact that jesus here states that there's something he does not know, shows beyond any doubt that he is not omniscient, and thus not god.
John 14:28 ".. for the Father is greater than I"
Again, jesus shows beyond any doubt that he is lesser than god, not god himself.
The biblical facts:
1) jesus admits that he is not omniscient, (and thus not god)
2) jesus admits that god is greater than he, (god is omniscient, jesus isn't).
While he might be powerful he is not and cannot be god by his very own testimony.
Hebrews 7:20 "God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' "
god here declares that jesus, (not god), is a priest forever, not a god. His function, like melchizedek before him, is to act as a middle man between humans and god. jesus is not god himself, he's a priest without omniscience - a lesser being than god. Hebrews continues to show that jesus role isn't even unique - that there have been "many of those priests", (including melchizedek who is an eternal being himself). It says of melchizedek:
'Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever'..
melchizedek and jesus are on the same standing. Neither one of them is god, both of them are eternally living priests.
Now, I don't hear anyone here stating that it's actually a 'quadrinity' - father, son, holy ghost and melchizedek - and yet melchizedek has exactly the same standing as jesus and is also an eternal being. He is not a god, and nor is jesus by his very own testimony.
Done.
Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"
The very fact that jesus here states that there's something he does not know, shows beyond any doubt that he is not omniscient, and thus not god.
John 14:28 ".. for the Father is greater than I"
Again, jesus shows beyond any doubt that he is lesser than god, not god himself.
The biblical facts:
1) jesus admits that he is not omniscient, (and thus not god)
2) jesus admits that god is greater than he, (god is omniscient, jesus isn't).
While he might be powerful he is not and cannot be god by his very own testimony.
Hebrews 7:20 "God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' "
god here declares that jesus, (not god), is a priest forever, not a god. His function, like melchizedek before him, is to act as a middle man between humans and god. jesus is not god himself, he's a priest without omniscience - a lesser being than god. Hebrews continues to show that jesus role isn't even unique - that there have been "many of those priests", (including melchizedek who is an eternal being himself). It says of melchizedek:
'Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever'..
melchizedek and jesus are on the same standing. Neither one of them is god, both of them are eternally living priests.
Now, I don't hear anyone here stating that it's actually a 'quadrinity' - father, son, holy ghost and melchizedek - and yet melchizedek has exactly the same standing as jesus and is also an eternal being. He is not a god, and nor is jesus by his very own testimony.
Done.
One must also add this satan character, who appears to be omnipotent and omniscent. A quintinity?
Satan is a created entity, didn't you even know that Skin?
- Status