New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2018, 11:06 PM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  The new way if it is anything new, to engage an atheist on God exists or not, consists in me and an atheist - I am a theist - to first work together as to concur on the concept of what is God.

Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.

OK, I'll play.

I look forward to finding the middle ground between your concept of god and my concept of god.

My concept of god is ... the experience of pain from my upper right molar.

Your move.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
30-01-2018, 11:09 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2018 11:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 11:03 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Don't you think that you are into muddling up the issue, with bringing in all the gods?

No.

Quote:In the year 2018 and for well nigh more than two millennia ago, with intellectuals all the gods have no longer been the intelligent option.

How could you possibly know anything about "intellectuals". You certainly are not one with this nonsense you bring here.

Prove it with peer-reviewed references.

The fact is, you're just ignorant and prejudiced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2018, 11:21 PM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 10:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-01-2018 10:01 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  My concept God is that God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

We know that, (from the last few times you trotted out this shit).
How many times do we have to have this crap repeated ?

Christians love to hear themselves talk.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like dancefortwo's post
30-01-2018, 11:35 PM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
Pachomius, go ask your alleged god to visit Me in person. You cannot just define it into existence, and I do not accept scripture or personal testimony as evidence.

Divine boots on the ground. Now. Do it, mortal, or face My wrath.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Astreja's post
30-01-2018, 11:47 PM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  The new way if it is anything new, to engage an atheist on God exists or not, consists in me and an atheist - I am a theist - to first work together as to concur on the concept of what is God.

Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.

No, this is not new.

My position on the subject is ignostic, which is the position that the proposition attached to the idea conveyed by the word "god" is so ill-defined or incoherent that it can't even be described in terms of true or false. In my particular case, I view the word as having had too many different and contradictory ideas, concepts, and beliefs attached to it over the centuries to any longer convey more than the vaguest of meanings. (I call words like this "dead words". Ergo, "god" is dead. Look, I thought it was funny when I was 16.) To take a position on such an ill-understood proposition is nonsensical.

That said, once I drill down into what a particular person means by the word "God" at a particular moment (and don't even get me started on the equivocations and bait-and-switch tactics I've dealt with over the years), the idea behind that word in that case can obtain such coherence that a position on it becomes possible. It depends on the actual meaning, but I typically lean towards one of four positions.

One, I reject the definition. I typically only do this when encountering word games so bizarre that something like 90% of the population wouldn't recognize the concept as being remotely connected to what most people mean by the word "god". Oprah Winfrey's "Awe and Wonder" definition comes to mind. Another example would be someone who embraces the "god is love" passage so broadly and literally as to mean that every feeling of love, everywhere, and only that, is the god they're referring to. To avoid me rejecting that definition, unless someone starts throwing around words like panentheism, pantheism, or deism around to distinguish their position from theism, the god in question would have to, at the very least, with a conscious mind (including attributes like memories, personality, goals, intellect, and sense of self distinct from the rest of the universe) with supernatural powers (meaning the ability to affect reality in a manner signifying special exemption from the natural order), and who takes active agency in the universe.

Second, strong agnosticism. The god being described is not only unknown, but is by its very nature unknowable. I then wonder how the person I'm talking to claims to know it. Every time I've dug deeper on the subject in these cases, it's usually just wishful thinking, fallacious reasoning, or life experiences that could have been easily misinterpreted.

Third, weak agnosticism. While I might agree in the abstract that there could be some way of proving or disproving the proposed god, I do not at the moment have access to the necessary evidence to do so. This agnosticism is specifically agnostic atheism, because I don't believe that god exists.

And fourth, strong atheism, in which I take the firm position that the proposed god does not exist. Usually this is a result either of some paradoxical element of the described god (eg, an omnipotent god that can't make a rock it can't lift) or some contradiction between the description of the god and observations about reality (eg, a supposedly omnibenevolent god who is notable in its absence when people are dying).

I have not yet encountered a single proposed god remotely akin to what most people mean by the word to describe myself as a believer. Since I do not believe in any theistic god, I have not become a theist, and so I remain an atheist.

Now, regarding your definition, I'm leaning towards my first response: Rejecting the definition. There are several problems with it. First, there is nothing to suggest that such an original cause has any sort of mind. Second, there is nothing to suggest that an original cause would still be existent, much less active, which does not distinguish your theism from deism. Third, there is considerable vagueness about how you are even defining "cause" and "begin" and "exist".

You seem to be referring to Aristotle's agent-cause. If so, I would embrace strong atheism based on your phrasing. For example, I have put together chairs from Ikea. I am the agent who caused those chairs to begin existing. Yet there are a great many things that I did not cause to begin existing. Therefore, there is no one agent that caused EVERYTHING to come into existence, since that agent would have to be me (to account for the Ikea chairs) and also not me (to account for, oh, I dunno, sequin fedoras). This is clearly impossible. However, I suspect that this is less a rejection of what you believe, and more a matter of you having phrased it improperly.

If somehow you got past specific objections of that nature without creating new problems, I'd probably adopt some flavor of agnostic view. How would we know the universe had a beginning, rather than simply existing in one or more other forms prior to the Big Bang? How would we know that a single unbeginning cause rather than a multiplicity of unbeginning causes were behind the origin of the universe? What chain of evidence could exist for any of that? And finally.... why would we care? What, if anything, would be the practical value of sorting through such a debate to arrive at an answer?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 12:01 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
I actually believe in gods. I once told a Rabbi, who had recently lighted a Menorah, that yes I believed in gods, the gods of the rocks and the trees and the streams. He realized that I was a crazed human and then left me alone.

Why do people like Pachomious come in here and spew their god babble. It is offensive. There are theists here who are respectful and thoughtful than there are the others.

I will ask Pachomious to not fuck himself with a hot cattle prod but with a sharp knife.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 12:02 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
"Dear atheist" -- Now where have I heard that before? Anyone else catching a whiff of dirty socks in the air?

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
31-01-2018, 12:09 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 10:01 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  In the year 2018 and for well nigh more than two millennia ago, with intellectuals all the gods have no longer been the intelligent option.

True. But to put it more simply, the intelligent option is no gods.

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 12:12 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
Reltzik, your response if long was quite lovely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 12:36 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  The new way if it is anything new, to engage an atheist on God exists or not, consists in me and an atheist - I am a theist - to first work together as to concur on the concept of what is God.

Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.


This is not by any means a new way of defining god, nor "a new way engage to engage the atheist". It is an ancient and very shop worn, empty claim. What hard evidence, proof, do you have for your assertion? There are so many ways to define God, that a naked assertion like that is not evidence for any possible of the many claims people in the past have made about what sort of God atheists are supposed to believe in.

If you mean the God of the Bible of Bible, the definitions derived from this supposed revelation define a God that cannot exist because the claimed attributes of that God are self contradictory. The incoherent claims about this God demonstrate that this God is impossible and thus not possibly a creator of anything at all.

The age old problems of a God that is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

The Universe has always been here, it had no beginning, no creator. Many ancient myths start with a primal void, chaos, a primal sea that emanates the Gods who create the world we see around us. A concept that long preceeds a Biblical style omni-everything creator God. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that these myths cannot be true?

Back to you. The demand for evidence for your God is in your court.

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”
― Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: