Why do we need a God?

[wellwisher]

We need a concept of God so atheists can differentiate themselves. If atheism suddenly stopped using the concept of God, in any way or form, including negativity and denial, there would be nothing left within atheism that is unique to atheism. God provides a canvas on which they can differentiate themselves.

As an analogy, say you had a small flashlight powered by one AAA battery. If we go out in the dark, that little light can seem to cast a lot of light, allowing you to see way down the trail. But at high noon, when the sun is bright, the little flashlight does not even seem like it is on. It is washed out by the sun.

The portraying of God as the curse of science and culture, shuts off the sun of the mind, so the mind is dark and that little flashlight of atheism seems so much brighter. Whatever floats the boat. If you go in the sun, by staying only positive, the little light of atheism looks like it is out since there is no contrast.

Those who believe in God are not trying to contrast themselves with darkness, but with a brighter light. They don't need to make god dark so they can appear to exist as a bright light.

The religious might say we are all sinners since the little light sees itself near the big light and it has less lumens. But this at least is objective. The atheist see sin as relative to the irrationality of their little light, that is so bright in the darkness of their mind where the sun if down. So much for the rational atheist.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Well if you stop acting in a ridiculous manner then I'd happily stop ridiculing you. Until then I'll continue treating your actions and statements with the ridicule that they by definition deserve.

However in this case I merely noted that while I don't like, nor do I frequently make, black and white statements, you have a rather well documented history of not only making such statements but then trying desperately to defend indefensible positions. If it weren't so sad it would be hilarious, but I know that you're capable of better than this.

 

[spidergoat]

Surely you've noticed that no lasting happiness is to be found in the pursuit of pleasures that are inherently fleeting?

Is the silence that follows permanent pleasures any more fleeting? Did it do us any good? Did we settle for the unchanging comfort of death? It's time to feel alive.

 

[wynn]

Is the silence that follows permanent pleasures any more fleeting? Did it do us any good? Did we settle for the unchanging comfort of death? It's time to feel alive.

There can be no silence after permanent pleasures.

 

[wynn]

@wynn --

Well if you stop acting in a ridiculous manner then I'd happily stop ridiculing you. Until then I'll continue treating your actions and statements with the ridicule that they by definition deserve.

However in this case I merely noted that while I don't like, nor do I frequently make, black and white statements, you have a rather well documented history of not only making such statements but then trying desperately to defend indefensible positions. If it weren't so sad it would be hilarious, but I know that you're capable of better than this.

You must have had a tough childhood, eh?

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Irrelevant.

 

[river]

We need a concept of God so atheists can differentiate themselves. If atheism suddenly stopped using the concept of God, in any way or form, including negativity and denial, there would be nothing left within atheism that is unique to atheism. God provides a canvas on which they can differentiate themselves.

yet if the concept of god was not here , atheism would not exist

As an analogy, say you had a small flashlight powered by one AAA battery. If we go out in the dark, that little light can seem to cast a lot of light, allowing you to see way down the trail. But at high noon, when the sun is bright, the little flashlight does not even seem like it is on. It is washed out by the sun.

led light

The portraying of God as the curse of science and culture, shuts off the sun of the mind, so the mind is dark and that little flashlight of atheism seems so much brighter. Whatever floats the boat. If you go in the sun, by staying only positive, the little light of atheism looks like it is out since there is no contrast.

atheism is both

Those who believe in God are not trying to contrast themselves with darkness, but with a brighter light. They don't need to make god dark so they can appear to exist as a bright light.

if there is no contrast , why compare

The religious might say we are all sinners since the little light sees itself near the big light and it has less lumens. But this at least is objective. The atheist see sin as relative to the irrationality of their little light, that is so bright in the darkness of their mind where the sun if down. So much for the rational atheist.

atheist see the destructiveness of religion towards Humanity

not only in History but now

 

[Arioch]

yet if the concept of god was not here , atheism would not exist

It depends on the definition of "atheism" you're using. If the definition is a rejection of theistic claims then you're right. However if the definition is merely a lack of belief in a god, then the lack of the concept of god merely changes the word you use, the underlying behavior is still the same and thus still exists.

 

[river]

“ yet if the concept of god was not here , atheism would not exist

It depends on the definition of "atheism" you're using.

not really

If the definition is a rejection of theistic claims then you're right.

of course

However if the definition is merely a lack of belief in a god, then the lack of the concept of god merely changes the word you use, the underlying behavior is still the same and thus still exists.

no it doesn't because the concept of god doesn't come up

 

[Arioch]

But if the concept of god didn't exist then everyone would, by necessity, lack a belief in god, and would therefore be atheists under the second definition.

 

[river]

But if the concept of god didn't exist then everyone would, by necessity, lack a belief in god, and would therefore be atheists under the second definition.

yes

 

[Arioch]

So atheism would exist even though the need for the classification wouldn't.

 

[river]

So atheism would exist even though the need for the classification wouldn't.

atheism wouldn't even be a concept

atheism only exists because the concept of god does

 

[Arioch]

Wrong. The behavior that is known as atheism is called atheism because of the existence of theism, the behavior would still be there if the concept of god were to vanish, we'd just have to define it differently. The loss of a word does not equate the loss of what that word describes.

 

[Arioch]

Or we simply wouldn't define it because it would be the norm across the species. Either way atheists wouldn't stop being atheists, they just wouldn't call themselves atheists.

 

[river]

Wrong. The behavior that is known as atheism is called atheism because of the existence of theism, the behavior would still be there if the concept of god were to vanish, we'd just have to define it differently. The loss of a word does not equate the loss of what that word describes.

we don't have to redefine at all , because atheism is irrelevent

 

[Arioch]

Hence my very next post.

 

[river]

Hence my very next post.

I'll await

 

[Arioch]

Sorry, I meant post number 295.

 

[river]

Or we simply wouldn't define it because it would be the norm across the species. Either way atheists wouldn't stop being atheists, they just wouldn't call themselves atheists.

because they don't have to

because there is no god