Unnecessary Confrontations
- Thread starter kowalskil
- Start date
But the Creator in this case could be nature. I don't think anyone is refuting that it's good to respect other people.
Yes, correct.
Right to be faithful or not because you think it brings happiness to you.
No one is disputing this right, but I am in no way violating that right by suggesting that a person's faith is bullshit.
If they don't bother you in a particular way, then let them to be happy.
Just as they do not exercise psychic pressure on you and affirm that you are damned if you do not have the same religion as them.
I want them to be happy without religion. Sorry, that's my wish. Religions cause many evils in society quite apart from making someone personally happy. Religion causes people to believe in apocalyptic mythology that can lead to nuclear war. It causes people to object to a woman's right to control her body (abortion). It causes people to reject sound science, such as with global warming. It makes people vulnerable to bullshitting politicians that pander to them like George W. Bush and Michelle Bachmann. It causes some people to be violent towards gays or oppose their civil rights.
Even apart from these political concerns, I object to the concept of faith. I think it robs humanity of it's essential strength, which is the ability to reason. Faith is the opposite of reason.
Even apart from these political concerns, I object to the concept of faith. I think it robs humanity of it's essential strength, which is the ability to reason. Faith is the opposite of reason.
Amen Brother
spidergoat,
Bullcrap!
''Reliable'' is a relative term. The ''fact'' is purely a result of your
personal choice and opinion.
Yes, people are subject to illusions and delusions, but they are also subject
to clarity and reality.
How do you know you aren't delusional?
Can you demonstrate your answer with science?
Science is about understanding the ''material'' world, and religion is about
understanding the ''spiritual'' world. The fact that you don't believe in God
or a spritual realm is nothing short of your own opinion, and nothing whatsoever to do with science.
That's dumb SP.
''God'' is in a different category, and you know it.
Regarding Alien abductions, there is evidence, you just choose to regard it
as unreliable. That's all.
jan.
Bullcrap!
''Reliable'' is a relative term. The ''fact'' is purely a result of your
personal choice and opinion.
Yes, people are subject to illusions and delusions, but they are also subject
to clarity and reality.
How do you know you aren't delusional?
Can you demonstrate your answer with science?
Science is about understanding the ''material'' world, and religion is about
understanding the ''spiritual'' world. The fact that you don't believe in God
or a spritual realm is nothing short of your own opinion, and nothing whatsoever to do with science.
That's dumb SP.
''God'' is in a different category, and you know it.
Regarding Alien abductions, there is evidence, you just choose to regard it
as unreliable. That's all.
jan.
Last edited:
spidergoat,
You don't want religious people to be happy, you want them to
be miserable like you.
People, and only people cause evil in society.
How long have humans had nuclear weapons, yet there has been no nuclear
war.
Wtf kind of people create nuclear weapons and other
disgusting weapons of mass destruction?
Is only religious people who object?
I don't think so.
Some, maybe.
I doubt G.W.Bush is anymore religious than you.
Unless of course you believe what he says. That being the
case his bullshit works.
Like you say, ''some people''.
You are full of faith, that is all you have demonstrated here.
You're appeal to science is clearly lip service, as you have convinced yourself
that God does not exist because science says so.
jan.
You don't want religious people to be happy, you want them to
be miserable like you.
People, and only people cause evil in society.
How long have humans had nuclear weapons, yet there has been no nuclear
war.
Wtf kind of people create nuclear weapons and other
disgusting weapons of mass destruction?
Is only religious people who object?
I don't think so.
Some, maybe.
I doubt G.W.Bush is anymore religious than you.
Unless of course you believe what he says. That being the
case his bullshit works.
Like you say, ''some people''.
You are full of faith, that is all you have demonstrated here.
You're appeal to science is clearly lip service, as you have convinced yourself
that God does not exist because science says so.
jan.
So my appeal to science is insincere because... I believe the science? All I believe is the lack of any evidence for the reality of any God related phenomenon apart from religious nuts telling me so. If God were more than an idea, there would be evidence. Not finding evidence where one should find evidence is itself evidence of absence.
Is there any reason why people would be delusional in this way? I can say most certainly yes, since religions fill certain psychological desires for things like certainty in an uncertain world. People can suffer from mass delusions. For instance, in some areas of the world, there are strange psychological diseases, like "Koro", in which the victim believes that someone stole the spiritual essence of his penis, which is perceived to shrink into the body.
It's reasonable to conclude that religion and the perception of miracles are a similar phenomenon. Also see the Tanganyika laughter epidemic
and Dancing mania (outbreaks of dancing in 7-17th century Europe, where people often danced continuously for months until they collapsed of exhaustion).
I don't think I'm delusional because I'm not suggesting any faith based beliefs. There is no objective evidence for God or the supernatural tenets of any other of the thousands of religions that humans have believed in throughout history. Your point that there is evidence, but it can be considered unreliable is true. I think you would have a hard time showing how one would distinguish the truth between different versions of personal testimony. If one person says he saw the ghost of George Washington and another person says he saw Jesus, how do you determine what's reliable? Body language? A lie detector? Your own intuition? I have met a few schizophrenic people who claim to see all sorts of crazy things. There has to be an objective measure of a claim, otherwise we are intellectually lost. You see, you have to adopt the faith first, and then you accept the claims that support that faith. The superiority of science as a means of determining objective truth has already been proven by the products of science, it has transformed our world. It's value is demonstrable.
Is there any reason why people would be delusional in this way? I can say most certainly yes, since religions fill certain psychological desires for things like certainty in an uncertain world. People can suffer from mass delusions. For instance, in some areas of the world, there are strange psychological diseases, like "Koro", in which the victim believes that someone stole the spiritual essence of his penis, which is perceived to shrink into the body.
It's reasonable to conclude that religion and the perception of miracles are a similar phenomenon. Also see the Tanganyika laughter epidemic
and Dancing mania (outbreaks of dancing in 7-17th century Europe, where people often danced continuously for months until they collapsed of exhaustion).
I don't think I'm delusional because I'm not suggesting any faith based beliefs. There is no objective evidence for God or the supernatural tenets of any other of the thousands of religions that humans have believed in throughout history. Your point that there is evidence, but it can be considered unreliable is true. I think you would have a hard time showing how one would distinguish the truth between different versions of personal testimony. If one person says he saw the ghost of George Washington and another person says he saw Jesus, how do you determine what's reliable? Body language? A lie detector? Your own intuition? I have met a few schizophrenic people who claim to see all sorts of crazy things. There has to be an objective measure of a claim, otherwise we are intellectually lost. You see, you have to adopt the faith first, and then you accept the claims that support that faith. The superiority of science as a means of determining objective truth has already been proven by the products of science, it has transformed our world. It's value is demonstrable.
spidergoat,
Your appeal to science regarding this discussion, is lip service. You are using
it to justify your belief that God, and the spiritual realm do not exist.
Your world view has NOTHING to do with science, it is purely your personal choice.
Nutty talk. How can you believe ''a lack'' of something?
Why have you decided there IS no evidence? You've absolutely
no reason for such a belief unless you personally wish it. Just like you
WISH for everyone to be in the same state of mind like yourself.
God IS more than an idea, obviously, so stop talking nonsense.
Admit it, you don't believe in God, and there's nothing more to it than
personal reason(s).
God of the scripture is not some artifact, ancient monument, or gigantic creature whose bones can be found in the ground. Nobody who believes in God
thinks so. God of the scripture is absolute spirit, the origin of all perceptions and then some. What kind of evidence do you think will convince you of that?
You don't believe in God, cool, but don't act like you've got a reason outside of your own personal choice.
So what? That doesn't mean it's delusional to believe in God.
Do you know how idiotic that reads?
You don't know that, your just basing this of what YOU decide is objective
evidence. Can you show me any scientific paper, or theory that show that
there is NO objective evidence for God or supernatural?
Resorting to more lies SP?
I didn't say that.
What if the testimonies were the same, from numerous, and various sources,
over long periods of time?
I don't know, and I don't care.
Those kind of testimonies are of no interest to me whether they are true or false.
If it's true, we'll find a way.
Our understanding goes way beyond the methods you pretend to adhere to
uncover truth. Those methods are okay when we have data, but there are something that don't respond to those kinds of scrutiny. We just have to carry on regardless. The sad thing is you would have us believe that we should just sit on our arses untill scientists come up with something.
That is a most unatural way for humans to be. Nobody, including scientists, do that, and to suggest we do that is kinda low IMO.
You're talking nonsense.
It seems you've been in this bullshit so long, you've forgotton
what it's like to be human.
People have transformed THE world, science is just a part of it.
jan.
Your appeal to science regarding this discussion, is lip service. You are using
it to justify your belief that God, and the spiritual realm do not exist.
Your world view has NOTHING to do with science, it is purely your personal choice.
Nutty talk. How can you believe ''a lack'' of something?
Why have you decided there IS no evidence? You've absolutely
no reason for such a belief unless you personally wish it. Just like you
WISH for everyone to be in the same state of mind like yourself.
God IS more than an idea, obviously, so stop talking nonsense.
Admit it, you don't believe in God, and there's nothing more to it than
personal reason(s).
God of the scripture is not some artifact, ancient monument, or gigantic creature whose bones can be found in the ground. Nobody who believes in God
thinks so. God of the scripture is absolute spirit, the origin of all perceptions and then some. What kind of evidence do you think will convince you of that?
You don't believe in God, cool, but don't act like you've got a reason outside of your own personal choice.
So what? That doesn't mean it's delusional to believe in God.
ou
Do you know how idiotic that reads?
You don't know that, your just basing this of what YOU decide is objective
evidence. Can you show me any scientific paper, or theory that show that
there is NO objective evidence for God or supernatural?
Resorting to more lies SP?
I didn't say that.
What if the testimonies were the same, from numerous, and various sources,
over long periods of time?
I don't know, and I don't care.
Those kind of testimonies are of no interest to me whether they are true or false.
If it's true, we'll find a way.
Our understanding goes way beyond the methods you pretend to adhere to
uncover truth. Those methods are okay when we have data, but there are something that don't respond to those kinds of scrutiny. We just have to carry on regardless. The sad thing is you would have us believe that we should just sit on our arses untill scientists come up with something.
That is a most unatural way for humans to be. Nobody, including scientists, do that, and to suggest we do that is kinda low IMO.
You're talking nonsense.
It seems you've been in this bullshit so long, you've forgotton
what it's like to be human.
People have transformed THE world, science is just a part of it.
jan.
Science does apply to the claims of theists. They claim such things as cosmological fine-tuning, a question to which science can be applied. They claim that prayers are answered, another claim that can be reasonably addressed by science. You have no evidence that my claims are not supported by evidence or the lack of evidence.
I was careful to make a distinction between evidence, which can be anything, and reliable evidence, which is evidence that can be validated by objective methods. Someone saying something cannot be considered reliable. If someone I trust claims something, I might accept it tentatively for practical purposes, like if they claim my house is on fire. When it comes to philosophical questions, we have to be more careful. I already made this point. People can be delusional or victims of mass hysteria. Their beliefs control their perceptions. When you believe in ghosts, for instance, you will hear creepy things in an old house at night. Contrast that to a pet that has no conception of ghosts, but even greater facilities of perception, they will notice nothing unusual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/stenger01.htm
Even so, the possibility of mass delusion, which has been documented over and over in human culture is a more likely explanation than the notion that everything we know about the natural world is wrong.
How can you believe a lack of something? Easily. I'm sure you believe there are no live elephants in your house.
I was careful to make a distinction between evidence, which can be anything, and reliable evidence, which is evidence that can be validated by objective methods. Someone saying something cannot be considered reliable. If someone I trust claims something, I might accept it tentatively for practical purposes, like if they claim my house is on fire. When it comes to philosophical questions, we have to be more careful. I already made this point. People can be delusional or victims of mass hysteria. Their beliefs control their perceptions. When you believe in ghosts, for instance, you will hear creepy things in an old house at night. Contrast that to a pet that has no conception of ghosts, but even greater facilities of perception, they will notice nothing unusual.
The standards of what constitute objective evidence was not determined by me, but by science. The power of that method is self evident in things like computers and space ships. Here is a book that shows there is no reliable evidence for God:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/stenger01.htm
I have yet to see any evidence that God is more than just an idea. I used to be an agnostic and open to the idea of God, but my searching was ignored. If God wanted me to believe in Him, he should have said something. I understand that many believers like Mother Teresa have also experienced the same lack of any feedback from God.
But they actually aren't. There are some threads of similarity within a culture, but if you look at all of human history, the uniformity disappears. If religion was the product of revelations of God, then there would only be one religion. When your culture emphasizes Jesus, you start to see Jesus in every stain. When your culture believes in the secomd coming of John Frum, that's who you see.
Even so, the possibility of mass delusion, which has been documented over and over in human culture is a more likely explanation than the notion that everything we know about the natural world is wrong.
Obviously you don't care about having any method for determining the truth of a testimonial claim. I blame the education system which doesn't teach people critical thinking. You have basically admitted that you only accept testimony that supports your own preconceived theistic notions. For instance, you wouldn't give any credibility to personal testimony regarding the lack of a God, would you? The result of this lack is that you will find "evidence" for any fool thing you want to believe.
Maybe you could do something useful instead of wasting your time praying. It's not up to scientists to find evidence for you. The fact is a world without God looks the same as a world with God.
Logic seems like nonsense to the illogical.
spidergoat,
Science applies to what IT applies to, and I'm sure we don't have
to get the definition to work out what that is.
It determines knowledge from ITS standpoint, and inferences are educated
guesses, not fact.
Science cannot determine whether or not God exists. You claim that there is no scientific evidence for God. What is it about God whyyou can't understand
that he is not material? You may argue that matter is all there is, and therefore God does not exist, but you don't know that mater is all there is, so you don't know that God does not exist. Science cannot determine that matter is all there is, so your claim cannot be based on any evidence, it is based on your belief.
I know there are no elephants in my house, I don't have to believe.
I believe that my judgement is sound in that particular case.
You're touching on something different here.
There are all kinds of reasons why someones statement can be considered reliable. As human beings, we are equipped with the intelligence to discriminate. We may believe some unreliable testimony, but in the course
of time and experience we can learn from our mistakes and come to understand more than science or philosophy could ever determine. Science and philosophy are OUR tools, they work for us, not us for them.
I think you're problem stems from a lack self-belief.
You have to come face to face with yourself at sometime, even if it is
the last thing you ever do.
God is different kinds of personal. You won't ever find him outside of yourself.
Does the term: can't see the forest for the trees mean anything to you?
I know this is not what you want to hear, but this is what you currently lack.
1) How did you search for God?
2) If you were anything like you are now, would you have heard?
3) Atheists often like to take this and run with it.
You, nor I can't even begin to understand the relationship MT had with God.
When she speaks, we recognise the words, but we don't recognise the depth of meaning they contain. Just look at the life she lived.
The scriptures, regarding God, say the same things, to varying levels of comprehension.
There is only one religion, and that is to learn how to love God.
And for this there are many ways.
You guys just love to tar everybody with the same brush don't you?
Have a little more faith in humanity.
I'm not saying everything we know about the natural world is wrong, it just
isn't everything.
I'm just not interested in Elvis sightings, or ghosts. I don't care whether or not they are truthful. Can you understand that?
Sometimes we have to make decisions, we all do. Your faced with something
and you react. Critical thinking is okay in situations where you the time to analyse something, or it can be used in hindsight. But I think you invoke critical thinking because you think it will always work in favour of your worldview. That being said, I don't regard that as critical thinking.
Then you haven't really taken the time to understand what I've said.
I'm not a theist because I joined a group, or because I wanted to make new freinds.
No more than I would give credibility to the personal testimony regarding the ability to love your children unconditionally.
And really, is there such a thing as personal testimony regarding the lack of a God?
That's not how it works SP.
You don't believe in God, but don't think you or anyone is going to change anything. If change is abound it will happen in due course.
But in the meantime you should calm yourself, and just chill, we none of us know how long we have in this world so don't waste your time trying to change it.
Of course, you want theists to be like you. Don't you?
I''m okay with my life SP, how about you?
jan.
Science applies to what IT applies to, and I'm sure we don't have
to get the definition to work out what that is.
It determines knowledge from ITS standpoint, and inferences are educated
guesses, not fact.
Science cannot determine whether or not God exists. You claim that there is no scientific evidence for God. What is it about God whyyou can't understand
that he is not material? You may argue that matter is all there is, and therefore God does not exist, but you don't know that mater is all there is, so you don't know that God does not exist. Science cannot determine that matter is all there is, so your claim cannot be based on any evidence, it is based on your belief.
I know there are no elephants in my house, I don't have to believe.
I believe that my judgement is sound in that particular case.
You're touching on something different here.
There are all kinds of reasons why someones statement can be considered reliable. As human beings, we are equipped with the intelligence to discriminate. We may believe some unreliable testimony, but in the course
of time and experience we can learn from our mistakes and come to understand more than science or philosophy could ever determine. Science and philosophy are OUR tools, they work for us, not us for them.
I think you're problem stems from a lack self-belief.
You have to come face to face with yourself at sometime, even if it is
the last thing you ever do.
God is different kinds of personal. You won't ever find him outside of yourself.
Does the term: can't see the forest for the trees mean anything to you?
I know this is not what you want to hear, but this is what you currently lack.
1) How did you search for God?
2) If you were anything like you are now, would you have heard?
3) Atheists often like to take this and run with it.
You, nor I can't even begin to understand the relationship MT had with God.
When she speaks, we recognise the words, but we don't recognise the depth of meaning they contain. Just look at the life she lived.
The scriptures, regarding God, say the same things, to varying levels of comprehension.
There is only one religion, and that is to learn how to love God.
And for this there are many ways.
You guys just love to tar everybody with the same brush don't you?
Have a little more faith in humanity.
I'm not saying everything we know about the natural world is wrong, it just
isn't everything.
I'm just not interested in Elvis sightings, or ghosts. I don't care whether or not they are truthful. Can you understand that?
Sometimes we have to make decisions, we all do. Your faced with something
and you react. Critical thinking is okay in situations where you the time to analyse something, or it can be used in hindsight. But I think you invoke critical thinking because you think it will always work in favour of your worldview. That being said, I don't regard that as critical thinking.
Then you haven't really taken the time to understand what I've said.
I'm not a theist because I joined a group, or because I wanted to make new freinds.
No more than I would give credibility to the personal testimony regarding the ability to love your children unconditionally.
And really, is there such a thing as personal testimony regarding the lack of a God?
That's not how it works SP.
You don't believe in God, but don't think you or anyone is going to change anything. If change is abound it will happen in due course.
But in the meantime you should calm yourself, and just chill, we none of us know how long we have in this world so don't waste your time trying to change it.
Of course, you want theists to be like you. Don't you?
I''m okay with my life SP, how about you?
jan.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
Jan, sure, but why is it neccesary to take a God Hypothesis leap/position? I don't think Science has an opinion on the subject if your talking about a Supernatural Personal God - but defaulting to that leaves more questions then it gives answers.
Certainly science can speak on the improbability of such an entity or the need for such a deity, specifically in cosmology, biology etc. Does inserting a complex God into the equation really provide an answer?
So the knowledge of the creator of the universe hinges on our own subjective perception of reality and one's own self-belief / belief system?
How is that, when there are a plethora of religions that practice Love and to Love God all with varying attributes to the one the love is directed to.
Why would one feel satisfied in assuming this? Is it not more reasonable to assume or accept that everything we see....is everything and the unexplained is just yet another natural phenomenon that will eventually be explained by the advances in science? The later, IMO, is a strong belief in Humanity.
Critical Thinking is ok? Critical Thinking should be required (specially with answering "The Big Questions"). Isn't it more reasonable to deploy critical thinking skills above all else then to invoke God to define your worldview?
The conflict between religion and science will stop the moment that religion stops intruding in the realm of science by making claims about the way the world and the universe works which is exactly what science seeks to answer.
I'm going to go with Thomas Jefferson on this one.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
If your proposition flies in the face of evidence, or is asserted with no supporting evidence, as every theistic proposition is, then it is by definition unintelligible.
I'm going to go with Thomas Jefferson on this one.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
If your proposition flies in the face of evidence, or is asserted with no supporting evidence, as every theistic proposition is, then it is by definition unintelligible.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
I enjoy TJ quotes
Jan,
Science applies to anything that has an effect on the material world. God has an effect on the material world, so the concept can be studied by science. I don't have faith that the material world is all there is, I just believe it to be the case, based on the evidence that nothing non-material exists, and no evidence has ever been found for supernatural phenomenon. Science rejects any non-testable claims, and the idea of a God that can affect the natural world and remain undetected is non-testable. God explains nothing, since it cannot explain itself, and so leaves all questions still unanswered.
You believe there are no elephants in your house because you can reason that it's an unlikely thing to happen, given that there are few elephants in your area apart from zoos, and there is no reason someone would put one in your house, even if it could support the weight and size. That's the same reason I believe there is no God. It's unlikely because it's unnecessary, it explains nothing, I've never seen it or experienced it, and all sorts of established science about the physical world would be contradicted by it. You may personally believe all kinds of things if it makes you happy, but you can't pretend that it's logical or supported by evidence that is in the least bit trustworthy.
The only A major obstacle to this kind of realization is theism, which I believe mistakenly reinforces our illusion of self by suggesting that it in fact is the essence and most absurdly, eternal. That's why I'm interested in atheism. We don't need to add belief, all we need to do is remove the obstacles of belief. So, please don't try to equate theism with incuriosity or lack of interest in the nature of self.
I do see myself as an agent of change. If Dawkins can do it, so can I. If Buddha can do it, so can you.
Science applies to anything that has an effect on the material world. God has an effect on the material world, so the concept can be studied by science. I don't have faith that the material world is all there is, I just believe it to be the case, based on the evidence that nothing non-material exists, and no evidence has ever been found for supernatural phenomenon. Science rejects any non-testable claims, and the idea of a God that can affect the natural world and remain undetected is non-testable. God explains nothing, since it cannot explain itself, and so leaves all questions still unanswered.
You believe there are no elephants in your house because you can reason that it's an unlikely thing to happen, given that there are few elephants in your area apart from zoos, and there is no reason someone would put one in your house, even if it could support the weight and size. That's the same reason I believe there is no God. It's unlikely because it's unnecessary, it explains nothing, I've never seen it or experienced it, and all sorts of established science about the physical world would be contradicted by it. You may personally believe all kinds of things if it makes you happy, but you can't pretend that it's logical or supported by evidence that is in the least bit trustworthy.
This is an interesting statement. I did quite a but of soul-searching when I was younger. It started with ESP and telepathy in my early teens and branched out into Buddhism and Taoism in my 20s. I read everything I could about these subjects, I was obsessed. I meditated whenever I could, even on my lunch breaks at work. In fact it was during one of these lunch break meditations that I realized the essence of enlightenment. It was almost an accident. I was reading an Alan Watts book intently and being confused, then I turned the page, seeking clarity, but the next page was blank. That's when it hit me, I had been a complete fool. The essence is that firstly- wherever you seek your self you turn away from your self. Secondly- there is no self to seek. Looking for yourself is like looking for your glasses while you are wearing them. This was accompanied by the curious sensation of being weightless, like I was floating about 3 inches off the ground. "I" wasn't controlling my actions, I was observing my brain controlling things by itself. I could question my brain and receive responses, but there was no questioner. For a little while after that I read a bit in my books on the subject, and what was before obscure became perfectly obvious. Then I stopped reading about it altogether.
I do see myself as an agent of change. If Dawkins can do it, so can I. If Buddha can do it, so can you.
Last edited:
@Jan Ardena --
Well that depends on which god we're talking about.
If we're talking about a deistic god which just kick started the universe and then either left it alone or died then you're right, we can obtain absolutely no evidence of it's existence because it's not interacting with the universe. Of course such a god is irrelevant in all matters, just as all unfalsifiable propositions are.
If we're talking about a theistic god that takes an interest in the affairs of humans and actively interferes with the universe then we absolutely can detect such a being. Anything that happens in the universe can be detected either by direct observation or by observation of the effect it has on everything around us. A theistic god, so we are told, actively intervenes in our daily lives, thereby manifesting an effect on the world around us that is detectable. While our continuous failure to detect this manifestation is not ironclad evidence against such a god, it does reduce the likelihood of such a deity existing. Sometimes the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, this happens when the evidence should be there but isn't.
Of course, even if none of this were true, we could still rule out traits which a possible deity can not have through logic and by comparing potential "god-models" to the world we see around us. For example, omnipotence is a trait that is logically impossible, it simply can't exist so no creature which has it can exist, therefore we can logically say that if there is a god it is not omnipotent. Similarly traits which are mutually exclusive with the world we see around us can be discarded as well. Traits such as omni-benevolence are mutually exclusive from the world we live in, therefore no existing deity can be omni-benevoent. Another issue is holding beliefs which are mutually exclusive, such as a belief in an eternal and omniscient deity and free will when such a deity automatically negates the existence of free will.
These are just some of the things we can determine through logic.
If god is not material then god has no energy to do work with and thus can't interact with the world we live in. By declaring, without any reason to do so, that god is not material you declare that he is either nonexistent or irrelevant. I think that you might want to reconsider this argument?
I can tell you without a doubt that if there is a god then there are certain traits that it just can't have, regardless of whether there is anything other than matter. If your god has one of those traits then I can say with absolute certainty that it doesn't exist.
Sure it can. As I said above, absence of evidence is evidence of absence if the evidence is supposed to be there. Besides that though, anyone positing something other than matter is in violation of Ockham's Razor by making unnecessary assumptions, usually without any explanatory power at all.
And they are all, without exception, full of hatred, bigotry, misogyny, homicide, genocide, and injustice. Tell me, why in the hell would I want to worship a being like that?
You mean the life in which she loved suffering so much that she deliberately kept people in a state of agony believing that such suffering was "the greatest gift god has given us"? Or are we talking about the life in which she very much doubted the existence of a god? Maybe we're talking about the life in which she took in tens of millions of dollars in the name of "helping the poor" and used them to found convents and fatten the Vatican coffers? Perhaps were discussing the life in which she opposed the right of women to divorce abusive husbands, as well as the right of women to control their own bodies?
Oh wait...they're all the same life, sorry about the confusion there.
As for her supposed "relationship with god", in her own words she severely doubted his existence but went on because it was the only thing she knew how to do. So, yeah, perhaps not the best example.
Of course it isn't everything. Not a single scientist says that it is. But just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that you get to make up whatever fairytale nonsense you want and expect it to be given credibility. For starters any theistic proposition at this time is unnecessary, hell any supernatural or paranormal proposition at this time is unnecessary. They are just plain not needed to explain the world we observe. Even the origin of the universe can be explained without resorting to special pleading(which is exactly what positing a god is) in a number of different ways. Your(theistic) assertions are both unparsimonious and lacking supporting evidence.
Well that depends on which god we're talking about.
If we're talking about a deistic god which just kick started the universe and then either left it alone or died then you're right, we can obtain absolutely no evidence of it's existence because it's not interacting with the universe. Of course such a god is irrelevant in all matters, just as all unfalsifiable propositions are.
If we're talking about a theistic god that takes an interest in the affairs of humans and actively interferes with the universe then we absolutely can detect such a being. Anything that happens in the universe can be detected either by direct observation or by observation of the effect it has on everything around us. A theistic god, so we are told, actively intervenes in our daily lives, thereby manifesting an effect on the world around us that is detectable. While our continuous failure to detect this manifestation is not ironclad evidence against such a god, it does reduce the likelihood of such a deity existing. Sometimes the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, this happens when the evidence should be there but isn't.
Of course, even if none of this were true, we could still rule out traits which a possible deity can not have through logic and by comparing potential "god-models" to the world we see around us. For example, omnipotence is a trait that is logically impossible, it simply can't exist so no creature which has it can exist, therefore we can logically say that if there is a god it is not omnipotent. Similarly traits which are mutually exclusive with the world we see around us can be discarded as well. Traits such as omni-benevolence are mutually exclusive from the world we live in, therefore no existing deity can be omni-benevoent. Another issue is holding beliefs which are mutually exclusive, such as a belief in an eternal and omniscient deity and free will when such a deity automatically negates the existence of free will.
These are just some of the things we can determine through logic.
If god is not material then god has no energy to do work with and thus can't interact with the world we live in. By declaring, without any reason to do so, that god is not material you declare that he is either nonexistent or irrelevant. I think that you might want to reconsider this argument?
I can tell you without a doubt that if there is a god then there are certain traits that it just can't have, regardless of whether there is anything other than matter. If your god has one of those traits then I can say with absolute certainty that it doesn't exist.
Sure it can. As I said above, absence of evidence is evidence of absence if the evidence is supposed to be there. Besides that though, anyone positing something other than matter is in violation of Ockham's Razor by making unnecessary assumptions, usually without any explanatory power at all.
And they are all, without exception, full of hatred, bigotry, misogyny, homicide, genocide, and injustice. Tell me, why in the hell would I want to worship a being like that?
You mean the life in which she loved suffering so much that she deliberately kept people in a state of agony believing that such suffering was "the greatest gift god has given us"? Or are we talking about the life in which she very much doubted the existence of a god? Maybe we're talking about the life in which she took in tens of millions of dollars in the name of "helping the poor" and used them to found convents and fatten the Vatican coffers? Perhaps were discussing the life in which she opposed the right of women to divorce abusive husbands, as well as the right of women to control their own bodies?
Oh wait...they're all the same life, sorry about the confusion there.
As for her supposed "relationship with god", in her own words she severely doubted his existence but went on because it was the only thing she knew how to do. So, yeah, perhaps not the best example.
Of course it isn't everything. Not a single scientist says that it is. But just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that you get to make up whatever fairytale nonsense you want and expect it to be given credibility. For starters any theistic proposition at this time is unnecessary, hell any supernatural or paranormal proposition at this time is unnecessary. They are just plain not needed to explain the world we observe. Even the origin of the universe can be explained without resorting to special pleading(which is exactly what positing a god is) in a number of different ways. Your(theistic) assertions are both unparsimonious and lacking supporting evidence.
Last edited: