Why I Believe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2017, 05:47 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 12:43 PM)SeaJay Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 11:46 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It's perfectly natural to have the fear lurking within you. That's what indoctrination often does to people.

I'll say it for you: Christianity is a huge pile of complete arse! I've been saying it my whole life and there has been zero consequences.
Thanks Rob

That cushion on your head and the way you knocked it off Big Grin I didn't get the meaning behind it but it was funny!

You're welcome, thanks for checking it out!

There was no meaning behind the cushion. I just like to throw silly things into my serious videos to stop them being too dry Smile

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
07-04-2017, 06:55 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 03:56 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Wow! What a thread. Hello SeaJay all I can say is your OP has truly opened the door to many responses. I too am new to the forum and as a Christian I too came here seeking answers and although somewhat different to yours I am seeking answers just the same - mainly the thinking processes using logic and reason as to how atheists support their position that there is no God and how they justify that claim.

Pay close attention: there is no evidence of a deity.

You claim there is a deity, present evidence. You bear the burden of proof for your claim.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
07-04-2017, 07:20 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 04:51 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 04:40 PM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  A being would not know if they were omniscient so could easily not be but still think that they were
Also because omnipotence and omnibenevolence restrict each other they are mutually incompatible
A being who does not know just ONE thing is NOT all knowing. So ... a being who doesn't know it's omniscient, is not omniscient by definition.

I would actually say that omnipotence and omniscience are far more overlapping. If you don't know everything, you can't have all power, by definition. Knowledge IS power.

I don't think being all powerful suggests anything than the ABILITY to do anything, it doesn't get negated by voluntarily DECLINING to do anything.

I would think omniscience is tied to omnipresence, otherwise how would this being know everything? It would have to be everywhere to know everything. Omnipresence is just incredibly stupid though, scalability is a big unknown, would it be present at the super-filament level of billions of light years, the stellar level of a few thousand light years, the human level of a few meters, the atomic level, etc.

It suffers from infinite regress because of this, but also if god is omnipresent, then that means god is right there inhabiting the very space where anyone is committing the most heinous sin imaginable. Not just in the room, but actually on the sexual organs or on the tip of the knife about to kill someone.

It is a colossally stupid concept, this god literally becomes an intimate part of every sin committed.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
07-04-2017, 07:54 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 05:15 PM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  An omnibenevolent being could not also be omnipotent because it would be compelled to only do moral good and so would not be choosing to so
Declining to do moral bad would not be an option available to it for it could not be omnibenevolent if it could do or even think of doing moral bad
Well I don't have any skin in this game anymore so whatever ... but in my view you're assuming too much by saying an omnibenevolent being is compelled to do only good. It is not. It chooses to do only good. That doesn't change that it is fully capable of doing evil, and completely free to choose to do evil.

In fact one can argue that if one doesn't choose to do good, in the face of ability to do evil and quite possibly evil being the easier course ... you are not fully good. Choosing to do good when you don't have to demonstrates how good you actually ARE. There is no virtue in doing good if it's the easy way or if you have no choice.

That's okay, though, because as I said, I'm no longer a believer so I have no interest in arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (or how many attributes an invisible god can possess without becoming self-contradictory). Besides, there are so many profound logical problems with the tri-omni god concepts, the fact that you haven't found one isn't a problem in debunking them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
07-04-2017, 08:59 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(05-04-2017 05:40 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  I feel trapped and as I see it, there are only two ways out for me.

1. To be convinced there is no hell (not possible – as we cannot say either way for sure)

Perhaps the answer may not lie in being convinced either way, but rather in understanding the situation for what it actually is? Let me demonstrate ...

Compare your statement of ...

"To be convinced there is no hell (not possible – as we cannot say either way for sure)"

To ...

To be convinced there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster (not possible – as we cannot say either way for sure)

So what you are left with in evaluating the validity of those two comparisons above is your ability to apply reason. So let's look at what we can reason.

1. We know that neither hell nor the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) have any kind of evidence to support their existence.

2. We know that both are stories that originated either in written form, and/or from the imaginations of those who propagated them.

So, look at the FSM and ask yourself, "Why should I believe in such silliness?"

Now look at hell and ask yourself the same question.

It's not a matter of fear, really. It's a matter of reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GoingUp's post
07-04-2017, 10:42 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 04:12 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 03:56 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  as a starting point some quotes I find interesting and what some of the members responses might be:
“I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.
Carl Sagan
I completely agree with Dawkins and Sagan. It is a common misbelief that atheists are, in the main, "strong" atheists who take the knowledge position that there are no deities. This allows us to be mischaracterized as "arrogant" -- which is just one of the many ad hominem critiques used against us.

Most atheists (nearly all, really) will, at least when pressed, acknowledge that no one can make a justifiable knowledge claim for OR against the existence of deities. Why? For the simple reason that invisible deities as posited are inherently not falsifiable, and therefore not (dis)provable. What most atheists do, is they do not afford belief to any deities because they think the likelihood of any such thing existing are so vanishingly small. In other words the preponderance of evidence is very much against it.

And that is just our opinion of the concept of deities generically. The more specific you get about a deity (such as, for instance, arguing for your particular one), the more difficult your burden of proof.

This issue cuts both ways; if I cannot disprove your god, neither can you prove it. Gods are the stuff of bare assertions which we are asked to "just believe" via the failed epistemology of religious faith. The burden of proof is squarely on believers, yet their deities are invariably not falsifiable and therefore not provable. Since the burden of proof is not on me, I as an atheist simply await proof that, invariably, never comes -- and is never going to come because as I said, inherently, no justifiable knowledge claim can be made about any deity.

Thank you for a very insightful reply, one with much that I agree with. I totally agree this issue does cut both ways, agreed science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. I also agree that yes at times atheists are characterized as arrogant, that they are "mis" characterized is debatable based on many of the previous posts on this thread Shy But in fairness arrogant would well define the behavior of some theist's in their responses. I would also say the ad hominem critiques comments also cuts both ways i.e. the leprechaun/Flying Spaghetti Monster etc. comparison as the same as God. I do not believe that is rationally comparing apples to apples.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Yogi_Bear's post
07-04-2017, 11:07 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 10:42 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  I would also say the ad hominem critiques comments also cuts both ways i.e. the leprechaun/Flying Spaghetti Monster etc. comparison as the same as God. I do not believe that is rationally comparing apples to apples.

Only because you were raised to see your apple as more special. If you were raised from birth in a faith that treated the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn with the same undeserved reverence as Yahweh or Allah, it might seem unfair to compare all those other heathen faiths to the One True Faith™ that is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They're all apples, there are just less people who think the FSM is more special than the other apples on offer. That you do not see, or rather or do see and resent, the parallels being drawn is sorta the point.

To a nonbeliever, nothing is holy or reverent, so both the FSM and Yahweh are equally irreverent.

I have just as much authority as the Pope, there are just less people on Earth who agree with me. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-04-2017, 11:26 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 06:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 03:56 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Wow! What a thread. Hello SeaJay all I can say is your OP has truly opened the door to many responses. I too am new to the forum and as a Christian I too came here seeking answers and although somewhat different to yours I am seeking answers just the same - mainly the thinking processes using logic and reason as to how atheists support their position that there is no God and how they justify that claim.

Pay close attention: there is no evidence of a deity.

You claim there is a deity, present evidence. You bear the burden of proof for your claim.

For what it's worth it seems Carl Sagan is attributed with the quote "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" referencing his Cosmos.

I believe that rereading my post you will see I did not make the claim that there is a deity. I did state that I was seeking answers as to the thinking processes using logic and reason as to how atheists support their position that there is no God and how they justify that claim.

I will state I do believe as a theist in the Creator God and that to do so is not irrational nor without grounds for belief.

I also acknowledge mordant did an excellence job of rationalizing the claim "deities do not exist" while lacking the ability of "proof" of the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2017, 11:29 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 10:42 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Let's just be clear however that the existence of God is of equivalent probability with the existence of the tooth fairy. Yes we can't *disprove* God, but until your evidence is more than a book of fairytales, there's no reason to put your theistic woo beliefs on an equal standing with the vast body of tried and tested hypotheses and theory that make up modern science.

A *lot* of theists (and indeed others like "alternative medicine practitioners", i.e. charlatans) use this excuse to try and pretend that their religion is "just a different worldview" out of many worldviews all of which have some degree of "correctness". Many paths up the mountain that leads to God and all that jazz. It's crap.

ETA: Oh dear Rolleyes I'm being one of those terrible arrogant atheists.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
07-04-2017, 11:32 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(07-04-2017 11:26 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  I will state I do believe as a theist in the Creator God and that to do so is not irrational nor without grounds for belief.

Claims require evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you are positing the positive existence of a supernatural being, that is an extraordinary claim.

So please make with your extraordinary evidence in support of it.

If you cannot produce such evidence, then your belief is unsupported and irrational.



Good luck with that. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: