We don't fear something that doesn't exist.
Why it is silly to look for evidence of God
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
You certainly are working yourself up over it.
It's not like you're a happy, shiny daisy.
Don't know that fear of the "religious" among us is the right word - then again, it might be...I've actually been trying to show how atheists are working themselves up over nothing.
If atheists would just consider the usual definitions of "God" (notably: omnipotent, omniscient, all-attractive, all-wise, the Supreme, the source/origin, the controller etc.), they'd see that there is nothing to fear neither from God, nor from theists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's my opinion that it's the theists that are working themselves up over nothing. Literally.
Why would anyone fear something that they don't believe exists?
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
What a douchbag
michael_taylor
Registered Senior Member
That's true, because those examples are things which make an observable and detectable difference to the material universe.
God does not make any observable or detectable difference to the material universe. Only humans believing in a god and expressing that belief through actions can make an observable or detectable difference to the material universe.
It is also silly because people will believe in a god if it makes them feel emotionally satisfied, and they don't really care about observation or detection of effects on the material universe.
It is also silly because the majority of devout believers in a god or gods prize that belief more highly than any other idea, so even if you could offer convincing reasons to doubt a god or gods, the believer will disregard reason itself rather than question their god.
Here's some examples of my own for you;
25+15 does not equal 40, and it's silly to say it equals 40, because no matter how many times you try to explain it to dogs, cats, birds or fish, they will never be able to understand what you're saying. Their minds are incapable of conceiving the idea of 25, or 15, or 40. They're just not wired that way, and there's no way to translate the idea into a form compatible with how they are wired.
It's like trying to put buttons into a coin counting machine. Its entire design and programming is predicated on finding coins and ignoring anything that isn't a coin. It doesn't matter how many buttons you feed it, it will never display the count for buttons on it's screen. It simply doesn't understand buttons, and it never will unless you modify it (make it something other than just a coin counting machine).
And so it is for rational arguments and believers; when their belief is not predicated on observations of the universe, observations of the universe won't sway their belief. The fact that the only thing you can observe is the universe just closes the loop.
You certainly are working yourself up over it.
It's not like you're a happy, shiny daisy.
It makes me happy to argue about it!
....arfa brane said:
arfa brane said:
If you can follow the quotes, you should be able to follow what I'm talking about.
Since you don't know how to prove you aren't God, how do you know "the usual" definitions of God can't be true?
How can you apply anything to your initial argument except ridicule, and of what? Of definitions, that's what. So can you prove that God is a definition, perhaps?
Last edited:
Well, with the possible exception of the earliest Judaism, and that many Christians nevertheless believe spirits did indeed materialize or incarnate physically to their supposed ideological ancestors in the Middle East, one of these takes at least preceded the historical dawn of Abrahamic religions. This stance that the general principles or regulating powers which empirical matter or a sensible world conform to cannot be witnessed as concrete, phenomenal objects and bodies themselves (i.e., not spatial):
Hippolytus... "Wherefore, the universe being divided, as we said, into the intelligible and sensible world [...] Nothing, he [Pythagoras] says, of intelligibles can be known to us from sense. [...] Neither [...vice-versa...] by reason [alone] is it possible to arrive at a knowledge of any of the things discernible by sense." --The Refutation of All Heresies Book VI; Chapter XIX
Kant later added the twist (only in the context of practical reasoning) that even anomalous influences from such intelligible forms, instructional powers, or noumena (as well as human autonomy) would be converted into the order of the natural world by the rule-like synthesis of intuitions and concepts, thus rendered undetectable in our experiences. As a crude and somewhat straying analogy, one might imagine computer games of the distant future containing virtual reality characters so complex that their manipulation by external players has to be kept hidden from these avatars. The authors of such a game would devise a mediating program that translated and blended the "will" of the players into the cosmic rules and organized causal relations of the game world. Possibly even the radical, much-refrained from step of editing memories and past events, when the program could find no other alternative being viable (the latter not necessarily applicable to Kant's view, though).
Atheists are working themselves up over (what they think is) God and/or over theists/theism.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Atheists do not think anything is god. So they don't get worked up over it.
What they do get worked up over are meddlesome arrogant assholes that think they are so much better than you just because you don't believe in their particular fairytale.
If you would read the usual definitions of God and follow them through to their logical conclusions,
you'd see there is no reason to get worked up over those people you mention above.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You'll have to explain that one.
That's what this thread is for.
Read the reasoning I and some others have already provided.
So what if they get worked up over non-believers? Does this mean you must get worked up over believers?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
And those reasonings will somehow shut up the arrogant assholes?
Yes. Exactly. It's not enough for them to entertain their delusions in private, they want everyone to share.
People want all kinds of things. That doesn't mean you simply must go along with whatever anyone wants.
:shrug: