Why don't you believe in a possible God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2016, 01:04 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 12:31 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Holy christ. That is a lot of responses. I'm not sure a better way to handle this so I'm gonna squeeze as many responses with quotes as I can into my next post. Here goes.....

I suggest responding to posts individually. If you make one wall of text no one will read it.

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
18-01-2016, 02:06 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
K as in ketamine, yeah?

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
18-01-2016, 04:38 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
EDIT: I'm not sure how to quote people by name in each individual quote. Can someone help me with that?

Okie dokie, be kind toward grammatical errors please. I'm gonna fire this off as fast as I can or I will never ever get to everyone who was kind enough to respond. Here goes.....

Quote:God(s) claims were made ... I rejected them.

You couldn't possibly of heard all of them to be able to reject them. So by that explanation it's not so much that you don't believe in God is that you see no reason to believe in the Gods you've heard of in the way you've heard them? Furthermore those ideas from highly limited incredibly short lived minds served as a stigma to the concept altogether. But why? History has shown little wisdom in assuming that if a human being can't convince you, then it must not be so. This doesn't strike me as intelligence fleshing itself out, but more so an ego of a bias disguised as deductive reasoning.

Quote:"We don't know what causes 'X'... therefore god done it." ?

No. But just to note, that argument goes both ways. Neither are more valid than either.

Quote:Also, your language and the use thereof seems very (No disrespect intended) 'Classically apologetic'.

I am not sure what I'm to do with that information?

Quote:It isn't disbelief. It is simply a concept without any proof.
a·the·ism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

The lack of proof doesn't discount the existence of a supreme being anymore than the countless misconceptions in history or the countless mysteries of the universe that exist today with seemingly far fetched theories. Dark matter, black holes. Describe these things to a rational man back in the day and you might as well follow up with a tale of the easter bunny. Yet, here we are, describing the "impossible", demonstrating the "impossible". It is rational to assume you need proof that a supreme being doesn't exist. It is not rational to make a decision with so limited access.

Quote:I like to describe myself as ignostic to the word "god," as the term is extremely squirrelly and can mean pretty much anything you want it to.
The internet is my god. I worship him daily.

That is a good answer. Very forward thinking. Theres a good chance the universe is infinite. The question becomes annoyingly moot in that scenario.

Quote:I AM God.

Makes more sense than Jesus.

Quote:Why the disbelief? Cause there is no proof for existence of something called god. It's reason enough.

This is invalid reasoning. Many hypotheses that turned out to be true have been made long before proof/evidence was discovered. Hell, meditating buddhists realized they were waves that rippled through the entire universe the same way a wave does in the ocean. Thousands of years later, we know this to be scientifically accurate.

Quote:Provide a meaningful (i.e. potentially falsifiable) definition of what you mean by 'god', then provide corroborative and verifiable evidence for it's existence.

Sure. I'll make one up for ya. God is the single force that created the entire universe. Hence, God is energy. The evidence is energy. Energy is everything and has always been, and with it, the universe was created. God is omnipotent (because energy is). God is omniscient (because time is an illusion, past present and future exist simultaneously in the blanket of energy according to math). God is omnipresent (because consciousness is energy, and energy is everywhere). And so on and so fourth. So there ya go, a conceptualization convenient for a modern civilization destined for the stars.

Quote:Until such time as that happens, professing a positive belief in such an undefined and nebulous meaning is irrational drivel. So instead we all find ourselves without sufficient reason for said belief, and thus find ourselves to be atheists; those lacking a positive belief in literal existence of 'gods'.

That is invalid reasoning as it goes both ways. You are drawing from a bias my friend.

Quote:God is a word, a proper noun, and a concept that embodies a huge spectrum of beliefs and truth claims. But there's no evidence to support the the existence of an invisible pan-dimensional petulant space wizard that will judge you for thought crimes and at all gives a fuck about what you or anybody else does while naked.

So as I said to the other gentlemen, the concept of God is corrupted to you because the established concepts of God fail your process. This means virtually nothing on a grander scale (a more realistic scale) and is no example of intellect.

Quote:If you examine the history of any given religion you will find that it served a specific function at one point; sometimes many functions throughout varrying time periods. Seeing this history helps one see past the veil of mysticism. All religon is a social construct; created either by the common man to achieve a sense of understanding and control in an unexplainable world - or by the common mans lords, to achieve control over the common man.

We have no problem seeing the reasons people onced believed Greek 'mythology' to be true other than it actually being true. I, as an atheist, have no problem understanding the same for modern religions. We call an old Greek religion Greek 'mythology' - and in doing so we are implying its non-truthfulness: Nobody alive today cares about this (accurate) representation. Modern religion is not fundementally different than these 'myths,' so why should I represent it as anything other than fiction, perhaps with historical significance? There is none.

This is an excellent response. Yes, uncover the ego of man's devices and you see the delusional commonality inherent in belief systems. We are masters at this, hence why Astrology, what Einstein called a "tenaciously stubborn psuedoscience", simply won't die.

My only issue is once again, you are letting the feeble interpretations and limitations of mankind's philosophies denounce the concept altogether. There is no reason to do this anymore then there is reason to assume the universe can't be infinite. Somewhere a long the way people lose sight of the fact that 5% of a human brain is by no means necessarily equipped to accept or deny what is currently unknown. However, it is not rational to say "well, why believe in God?" in the same way that it is rational to say "why believe in magic?". The possibility of magic is of virtually no use as we understand physics and chemistry well enough. We don't however have the slightest idea that something relatable to a being is responsible for all that is, just simply the notion that one isn't necessary. That is not the process of logic under scrutiny.

Quote:Do you think a mind can exist without matter? If you have evidence that a mind can exist without matter, then I will consider the possibility that a non-material being can exist. However, even if that were true you still have a lot of work to do before you could convince me a deity exists.

99.99% of matter isn't matter. It's empty space. So I'm not sure how to field that question. Everything is vibration and in a cosmos with quantum entanglement, there isn't any knowledgable reason to discredit it. However, I by no means implied that the only concept of god is a non-material one. You are addressing but a few established dogmas in your reasoning and this is a fundamentally flawed line of thinking.

Quote:If there is a possible 'God' he/it obviously could not care less about mankind.

So why should we care?

I'll offer an alternative to that assessment for the sake of argument (Compliments mostly to Alan Watts). If you could dream any dream, forever, then you would eventually have this one. All the joy, all the pain. If you humor the notion that you are a being perhaps trillions of years old, it might become slightly more believable that not only would you dream of such personal love and fear, joy and agony, but you would dream of many of you experiencing this. After all, we suffer because we enjoy it. How peculiar?

Quote:Then they are stupid and blocking the progress of gaining knowledge.
But its a big step from considering something being outside established ideas and religions, and "believing" in this shit immeadiately without further examination and evidence, or even stating this shit is real.
Believing in something you have no good reason for: stupidity/gullability
Stating that shit is true were you have no compelling evidence for: dishonesty
I dont like either of them, particularly the latter (bcause it affects other persons around me directly)

Good answer, thank you.

Quote:And you could have pulled that right out of your ass. We know these things about dark matter until now:
1. It interacts with "conventional" matter and light gravitationally only ( = accelerates matter and bends light)
2. It does not "collide" with conventinal matter to put it simple.
3.It does not emit or absorb light/electromagnetic waves at all

Because of 2 and 3 it is not directly observable...yet.
Please explain what this has to do with consciousness, or pink unicorns for that matter.

It was a random abstraction for the sake of obscurity. A neuroscientist can't explain consciousness to you so I could do no more than supply you theories derived mostly from spiritual communities attempting to scientifically mystify their ideologies. It's a fun idea for fiction though.

Quote:Thanks for demonstrating you dont have a clue what a scientific "law" is.
Hint: Try to google "descriptive" and then "prescriptive", you will notice a difference in content.
Mmmmm.....nope, after double checking I wouldn't re-word that statement. Here's to hoping the rest of your response isn't a needlessly semantical detour.

Quote:Yes, the force is strong with this one...........seemingly not.
So you dont have a clue what you are talking about even (see: dark matter), dont know what point you are even trying to make? Why say anything then? What do you think would happen if we all start babbling around about all kinda stuff we know nothing about. Lets leave that do the people who do know?
If you don't know stuff but are curious/interested, go and educate yourself before you start talking about it.

Welp, not a semantical detour, so I guess I'll be happy about that. You are talking an awful lot about what I don't know...but not actually debating or contradicting it with any information. That is completely useless to me and everyone else involved. On top of that, you are being needlessly condescending. Summon some tact and contribute. All you're doing is the equivalent of harassment. If you somehow understand what our best physicists don't (what is more fundamental than the fundamental forces and particles), do tell. The floor is yours.

Quote:
Quote:Though if we assume design, then the obvious question who designed the designer and so on and so fourth pops up pretty quick
if we assume i just won 1billion in the lottery, the obvious question what do i do with all the cash and so forth pops up pretty quick. Think thats silly and boring and a waste of time? It is!

What in the heck are you babbling about? That same logic would of detoured scientists from discovering quarks. That was a waste of time?


Quote:Now for my favourite: Know the difference between the concept of god and concept of the universe?
The universe is no concept! Facepalm
Really, before speculating about infinite (or not) regresses, you should stop for 1 second and notice the difference between things that are real and thoughts you entertain. I am not even talking about our current state of knowlege, that at the very start of the big bang, time-space breaks down, and words like "time", "space", "causation", etc. become meaningless.
The fact that we may need to add considerably to our general way of thinking, or even completely change it, in order to gain more knowledge about the universe (= "everything there is") does not mean we should, in the meantime or instead of, believe in *insert your favourite delusion/fantasy/speculation here*.

My certainty that there is no god? 99%, based on 100% lack of compelling evidence for a god. Anything wrong with that?

Think i was rude? Really my friend, some of your statments really are silly, lets face it.Big Grin

And then, last but not least, the title alone of this thread: Why belive in any thing possible......like my lottery billion?
I prefer to believe in reality. The one that was (and is in the process of) demonstrated to exist.
You can speculate about god all day long....as much as about gazillion of other things. Why the need to believe in anything you are speculating about?
Isnt that intellectually dishonest and the start of a delusion?

You are answering my "concept of god" quote as if I am the one declaring it. You misread that. The rest of that rant is completely irrelevant to what I said. You are not with me here guy. I don't think you used enough smilies though, can you use more smilies in the future?


Quote:As agnostic, you don't believe either.

You consider it possible that there may be some sort of entity that could be labeled as "god".

So, do you think it possible that any or all of the gods humans worship/have worshipped exist?

If so, which one? Or have you manufactured your own idea of what this "god" would be like?

That's a good question. I rest that possibility on the multiverse theory. If the multiverse theory is true, then I accept the possibility that for some reason all of these gods exist in some part or version of the universe. It's an exhausting mental exercise that doesn't usually go anywhere so I try to avoid it. I can't be 100% positive, but I'm 99% and probably right there was never a Zeus or an Odin. I don't engage in this disbelief in the same way atheists do though, such as this very forum dedicated to not believing something. I find it....peculiar. However, I'm holding out on the possibility that there are some relatively simple ideas and viewpoints that I just simply haven't considered yet. That is why I am here. I ask these questions not to challenge people or out-smart them but to inspire people to communicate ideas I haven't heard of or thought about before. I can't think of a more economical way to learn then that.

Quote:Look, chum. Do you think the universe was created by the God Ug wanking off into his breakfast cereal? If not why not?

It's manifestly something made up. Same with religion. So until religion comes up with a better storyline than the bullshit they currently spout, I'll accord their beliefs the same respect I have for the God Ug's Jizz-Soaked Cheerios.

By all means continue to find new ways to explain how much better *your* belief position is than those stupid atheists, though

I'd say it's probably more the spaghetti monster if anything. But I'm open to the idea that I am the product of Ug's glorious wankings. I am not sure what I said that made you think my belief system is better but that was not the intention. As an agnostic, I do not ask my questions as arguments looking for counter-arguments. I am just an observer trying to help people help me understand in the best way possible where they are coming from.

Quote:From the rational point of view, I don't discount the possibility of the existence of god. I just discount the notion of a god who interacts with mankind, as there is no evidence of such a thing. Calling some first cause god in that case 1) is meaningless (as there is no practical difference between an indifferent first mover god and no god) and 2) encourages the many evils of religion. So I refuse to equate a first cause and god, or to use the terms as synonyms.

But let's say I'm wrong about the evidence, and there is a personal god who has designed the universe and people, demands worship, sends humans who don't worship to hell, etc. I can reject the worship of such a god on ethical grounds. I won't violate my personal ethics and serve an incompetent, rage-filled mass murderer.

And above, I only concede that a personal god exists for the purposes of explaining why I would not change my actions one jot, should god's existence be proved.

I therefore call myself an agnostic/pragmatic atheist, because I have no reason for acting as if there is a god, be it the personal or first mover type. I'm not required to be so fine-tuned in my disbelief about other woo concepts (leprechauns, karma, third eyes), but to spare your hurt feels about god, I've parsed it for you.

Thats a good response. Thank you.

Quote:I don't "believe in a possible God" because I don't believe in anything at all. Nothing that is real requires belief, and nothing that isn't real becomes true merely because you believe in it. Belief= LIE.

In another thread, we have demonstrated that omnipotence is not possible. So I guess we need to define God as not-quite-all-powerful in order for there to be any chance whatsoever for God to exist.

Now then. If God exists but isn't quite all-knowing and all-powerful, can He REALLY know what I'm thinking - know whether I am believing in exactly the right version of ancient mopumbo-jumbo to unlock the gates of heaven for me when I die? Given the vastness of the universe, can it be even remotely feasible that He is paying any attention at all to what we do here - that He is keeping some sort of tally by which to judge our fitness to enter the Kingdom and receive our 73 virgins (I'm greedy)??

So far, every available shred of evidence points to an indifferent Universe.
The interactive God of old tales has not made an appearance since long before the modern age of scientific inquiry.

And to top that all off, He hates gays and demands we do likewise.... sorry, but while gays might be a bit odd I don't see the need to hate them

Great response, thank you. Hoping I can find the that thread about omnipotence not being possible, that sounds like a good read.

Quote:
Quote:Hi. Firstly, disclaimer. I am an agnostic.
*sigh*
That word does not mean what you think it means.

I do wish you would explain as such comments aren't useful. If I am to take the meaning of the word form the dictionary, then I am pretty sure I understand what it means.

Quote:I used to believe in a religion that had a talking snake that convinced a couple of people to eat a magical fruit which pissed god off. God then kicks them out of his garden and acts like a dick for a few thousand years and then sends his son on a suicide mission so he can forgive us for all of the wrongs that we did to him.

His son dies, resurrects, and then vanishes to heaven, never to be seen again except for the occasional appearance on toast.

Why should I believe any of that?

You shouldn't. But isn't it kind of silly for the only alternative of that far-fetched possibility to be atheism? So you hate blueberries, instead of checking out strawberries you say screw the berries?

Quote:I'm as certain that there are no gods as certainly as there's no leprechauns. A total lack of empirical evidence to the contrary proves my position to be correct.

I find that it's not so much the analysis of the subject itself as much as looking at all the things that relate to it that to determine whether it's existence is likely. This has been useful in science for predicting types of plants in a certain area, types of animals in an area, the properties of yet to be discovered elements (in the past), and identifying deeper more transparent parts of the ego that hide by blending within our behavior. Which is probably the most useful skill people could ever learn and helps with seeing the bullshit in the way religion comes about.

Quote:
Quote:Quote:
I notice most people, religious or not, base their opinions of a process of reasoning that doesn't quite hold up under scrutiny.
Nope. Atheist's reasoning stands up absolutely to any/all scrutiny. No theist can successfully invalidate the singular posit of the atheist. Whereas the position of the theist relies totally on faith, and faith is defined as belief without evidence.

This is not so. A man who posted several posts ahead of you has shown this. For him, it was christianity or nothing. So since he learned he couldn't buy into christianity, he resorted to atheism. There seems to be many atheists with this approach. I don't see the wisdom in the philosophy that if one very specific religion you've been exposed to doesn't work for you, then all the others are wrong by default as well. Again, we see the ego at work here. Not to be trusted.

Quote:
Quote:Quote:
For a lot of atheists, they don't seem to consider anything outside of disagreeing with established ideas and religions.
Needs clarification. Is it only atheists that purportedly disagree with "established ideas"? What sorts of established ideas are you talking about? And what do you mean by atheists not considering anything "outside of" disagreeing with religion? Are you seriously suggesting atheists should not be disagreeing totally with the tenets of religions?

Well no. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was saying only atheists. Basically what I am saying is it is reasonable to assume that we are incredibly incredibly uninformed in these matters, and the established religions and related belief systems are quite possibly utterly useless. These are the people of whom you can confidently say represent the axis of creationism on a reliable and universal standpoint? So that if that established jury of god raving lunatics can not inspire a shadow of doubt then with such confidence you declare yourself an atheist? I see that as giving mankind a little more credit then they deserve. Heck, I see that as giving the 5% of the grey matter between your ears a little too much credit. That, to me, seems completely unreasonable. In all modest account we most likely do not know what the F we are talking about. Theists and Atheists alike. The bottom line is both parties declare they are sure about something that there is no acceptable reason for them doing so. Lack of evidence doesn't mean there isn't a god, hence that is not a logical deduction. I repeat, lack of evidence-does not mean-it doesn't exist. You have but to observe history to see that. A supreme being that created us all (or something of a similar fashion) may seem harder to believe, and albeit not necessary, but you know what, existence itself is a pretty darn farfetched.

Quote:
Quote:Quote:
So I wonder, why the disbelief?
Simple. An absolute lack of any empirical evidence supporting the existence of supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena.

The idea of a supreme being isn't necessarily or strictly a supernatural one. There are plenty of new age spiritualists who have worked out ways of looking at it that are a lot more well mannered to the modern world. This is what I mean by a bias of thought. A lot of atheists ideas about what they don't believe in are simple, narrow, limited. The idea of god is a lot more developed, complex and deep to some of the newer ways of thinking that borrow a lot of older eastern ideas. I don't mean to say that validates them, but a lot of people don't have a decent idea on what they are claiming they disagree with. I'm sure if they did their opinions wouldn't change much, but still.......





Alrighty. Sorry guys, that's as much response as I can muster for now. My neck is killing me. I will try to get to more soon. Thank you for your time and writings!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GrandMasterK's post
18-01-2016, 04:54 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2016 04:58 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  EDIT: I'm not sure how to quote people by name in each individual quote. Can someone help me with that?

You click the 'reply' button on each post to which you wish to reply.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:God(s) claims were made ... I rejected them.

You couldn't possibly of heard all of them to be able to reject them. So by that explanation it's not so much that you don't believe in God is that you see no reason to believe in the Gods you've heard of in the way you've heard them? Furthermore those ideas from highly limited incredibly short lived minds served as a stigma to the concept altogether. But why? History has shown little wisdom in assuming that if a human being can't convince you, then it must not be so. This doesn't strike me as intelligence fleshing itself out, but more so an ego of a bias disguised as deductive reasoning.

Yup. I had lots of ego bias when I was 10.

Claims were presented and I rejected them.

Why would I also have to take in to consideration a whole bunch of claims about which I knew nothing at that age?

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 05:08 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(17-01-2016 12:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello! Big Grin

So, basically a "God of the gaps" ?

"We don't know what causes 'X'... therefore god done it." ?

Also, your language and the use thereof seems very (No disrespect intended) 'Classically apologetic'.

I'm happy to call/identify myself as simply a 'Non-theist' along side the quicker to say 'Atheist'.

God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 05:55 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:Look, chum. Do you think the universe was created by the God Ug wanking off into his breakfast cereal? If not why not?

It's manifestly something made up. Same with religion. So until religion comes up with a better storyline than the bullshit they currently spout, I'll accord their beliefs the same respect I have for the God Ug's Jizz-Soaked Cheerios.

By all means continue to find new ways to explain how much better *your* belief position is than those stupid atheists, though

I'd say it's probably more the spaghetti monster if anything. But I'm open to the idea that I am the product of Ug's glorious wankings. I am not sure what I said that made you think my belief system is better but that was not the intention. As an agnostic, I do not ask my questions as arguments looking for counter-arguments. I am just an observer trying to help people help me understand in the best way possible where they are coming from.

What you are doing, old son, is making a meal out of a simple thing. It is obviously possible that you were created by Ug, or the flying spaghetti monster. The thing that you have not done is evaluated *probability*. Since I came up with the idea of Ug about 12-15 hours ago (if I recall correctly), what probability would you assign to his existence? The existence of Santa? The Tooth Fairy?

As soon as you start thinking along the lines of "what are the chances that this is made up?" vs "what are the chances that it is actually true?" religion falls apart. So there's no need to entertain it further.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-01-2016, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2016 06:26 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  I repeat, lack of evidence-does not mean-it doesn't exist. You have but to observe history to see that. A supreme being that created us all (or something of a similar fashion) may seem harder to believe, and albeit not necessary, but you know what, existence itself is a pretty darn farfetched.

So I should believe a magical pink unicorn exists until proven otherwise? The burden of proof is on those making the claims.

Science has reasonable hypothesis' to explain how everything came into existence without invoking the supernatural. As you stated, a supreme being is not necessary.

So, to be clear you are not Christian? You are deist?

If you are a deist, then you'll have to show some type of evidence of the characteristics of this alleged god.

This god concept could have vaporized in the big bang and the universe has been on autopilot ever since.

How would you know this is not the case?

This god concept isn't necessarily omniscient, how would you know it is? Omniscience is a hallmark of something imaginary with no reality.

This god concept could know everything and just doesn't give a shit about life forms on a tiny insignificant planet in this sector of the galaxy. How would you know this is not the case?

Evidence, that's how you would know, falsifiable evidence. Not feelings, not pointing to the universe, rainbows or trees and saying it's created.

What could us humans measure and observe that would verify any of these characteristics?

Even more important, what could we measure and observe that would disprove these characteristics or this god concept? What would make it falsifiable?

Unless you have that, you got nothing.

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
18-01-2016, 06:25 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(17-01-2016 04:14 PM)DerFish Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 03:23 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  A universe with a god must have a god maker Smile

Care to take a guess at who those god makers are ?

It's just turtles all the way down!




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-01-2016, 07:14 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  You couldn't possibly of heard all of them to be able to reject them.
And you know this how? Have you looked at "all" the gods? Are you stating that one has to examine every god concept ever created by humanity in order to make a claim of disbelief?

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  So by that explanation it's not so much that you don't believe in God is that you see no reason to believe in the Gods you've heard of in the way you've heard them?
Every god concept comes down to faith. Despite what has been claimed by clergy, faith is not a virtue.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Furthermore those ideas from highly limited incredibly short lived minds served as a stigma to the concept altogether. But why? History has shown little wisdom in assuming that if a human being can't convince you, then it must not be so. This doesn't strike me as intelligence fleshing itself out, but more so an ego of a bias disguised as deductive reasoning.
This strikes me as typical apologetics. I'm not impressed. IF god existed, that being would be able to communicate it's existence in such a way as to eliminate doubt.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:"We don't know what causes 'X'... therefore god done it." ?

No. But just to note, that argument goes both ways. Neither are more valid than either.
No, it does not go both ways. No educated person would say "We don't know what causes 'X'... therefore science done it."

(I believe this counts as a strawman fallacy. You are making our arguments for us.)

What most science oriented people would say is "We don't know what causes 'X', however there is probably a natural explanation. Let's study it and find out."

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  It is rational to assume you need proof that a supreme being doesn't exist. It is not rational to make a decision with so limited access.
You are 100% wrong. You do not accept anything without evidence. If you believe everything until it is proven false, you end up believing in contradictions.

You also have to accept Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the voices that schizophrenics hear in their heads. None of these can be "proven" not to exist.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Many hypotheses that turned out to be true have been made long before proof/evidence was discovered.
Nope. See above. Additionally, those hypothesis that have been proven correct were proven by the scientific method. Not religion. Not prayer. Not faith.
Are you seeing the pattern yet?

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Hell, meditating buddhists realized they were waves that rippled through the entire universe the same way a wave does in the ocean. Thousands of years later, we know this to be scientifically accurate.
Cite this please.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  God is the single force that created the entire universe. Hence, God is energy. The evidence is energy. Energy is everything and has always been, and with it, the universe was created. God is omnipotent (because energy is). God is omniscient (because time is an illusion, past present and future exist simultaneously in the blanket of energy according to math). God is omnipresent (because consciousness is energy, and energy is everywhere). And so on and so fourth. So there ya go, a conceptualization convenient for a modern civilization destined for the stars.
Where to begin?

We don't know what created the universe, but energy was involved in the Big Bang. Before that, no one can say.

Energy is not Omniscient because "all knowing" requires consciousness. Energy is not a sentient consciousness.

Energy is not omnipotent. Entropy eventually stops energy.

Consciousness is not energy. Consciousness is a condition resulting from the chemical reactions in our brains. No brain, no consciousness.

Omnipresent? Energy may be everywhere (not sure of this) but consciousness is only internal, within our brains. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

One more thing: I'm an amateur at this. The more experienced folks on this site are going to utterly and completely abuse that definition of god.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  My only issue is once again, you are letting the feeble interpretations and limitations of mankind's philosophies denounce the concept altogether.
These are the same limitations and interpretations that created the god concept. If they are good enough to conceive it, they are good enough to discredit it.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Somewhere a long the way people lose sight of the fact that 5% of a human brain is by no means necessarily equipped to accept or deny what is currently unknown.
For fucks sake, the brain usage statistic was disproved decades ago.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  However, it is not rational to say "well, why believe in God?" in the same way that it is rational to say "why believe in magic?".
It is EXACTLY the same thing.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  The possibility of magic is of virtually no use as we understand physics and chemistry well enough.
The possibility of god is of virtually no use as we understand physics and chemistry well enough.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  99.99% of matter isn't matter. It's empty space.

You are using the god-of-the-gaps argument. That tact has been debunked for centuries.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  I don't engage in this disbelief in the same way atheists do though, such as this very forum dedicated to not believing something. I find it....peculiar.

I find it peculiar that you would come into a forum, decide what it's about, decide how and why we think, and what we believe. Everyone on this board is different. No one believes exactly the same thing, no one came to their understanding in the same way and to make the assumptions you make is a discredit to everyone involved.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
18-01-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  EDIT: I'm not sure how to quote people by name in each individual quote. Can someone help me with that?

Okie dokie, be kind toward grammatical errors please. I'm gonna fire this off as fast as I can or I will never ever get to everyone who was kind enough to respond. Here goes.....

Quote:God(s) claims were made ... I rejected them.

You couldn't possibly of heard all of them to be able to reject them. So by that explanation it's not so much that you don't believe in God is that you see no reason to believe in the Gods you've heard of in the way you've heard them? Furthermore those ideas from highly limited incredibly short lived minds served as a stigma to the concept altogether. But why? History has shown little wisdom in assuming that if a human being can't convince you, then it must not be so. This doesn't strike me as intelligence fleshing itself out, but more so an ego of a bias disguised as deductive reasoning.
Yes. No reason to believe. That is atheism. By definition.

And so what if he hasn't heard all claims? Are we required to indulge every stupid claim that we come across? The logical and consistent stance, and the one that has the least amount of pitfalls along the way is to remain skeptical of ALL claims unless there is reason otherwise.

As to the "stigma" yes, the word god has a lot of baggage. Some of this baggage that is traditionally tacked onto the word is, frankly, impossible. Now if you personally don't subscribe to all that baggage then fine, you use that phoneme however you want. But misunderstandings will abound.
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:"We don't know what causes 'X'... therefore god done it." ?

No. But just to note, that argument goes both ways. Neither are more valid than either.

I'm going to call bull shit here. Name one time, just one, where a supernatural explanation was EVER found to be correct. I'll wait.

...

Science has progressed because EVERYTHING we have EVER found has had natural explanations. Every time we have tried to insert god into a gap all it has done is retard progress. We are now at the point where the whole picture is starting to be visible. We don't have it all yet, but the vague shapes are there. Simply inserting a god is unhelpful and unneeded.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:Also, your language and the use thereof seems very (No disrespect intended) 'Classically apologetic'.

I am not sure what I'm to do with that information?

Quote:It isn't disbelief. It is simply a concept without any proof.
a·the·ism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

The lack of proof doesn't discount the existence of a supreme being anymore than the countless misconceptions in history or the countless mysteries of the universe that exist today with seemingly far fetched theories. Dark matter, black holes. Describe these things to a rational man back in the day and you might as well follow up with a tale of the easter bunny. Yet, here we are, describing the "impossible", demonstrating the "impossible". It is rational to assume you need proof that a supreme being doesn't exist. It is not rational to make a decision with so limited access.

"Supreme Being" comes with a LOT of baggage, much of which is impossible. You've described "God" as a force, or energy, that acted as a catalyst for the formation of the universe. Now you are describing it as some conscious agent. Worse, you are EQUATING natural phenomena with a conscious agent. These are not in any way both equally likely, nor are they synonymous. So what is your god idea? Is it a conscious agent? Or no?

And yes, it is possible to say that some things are impossible. I stand by the gods that I say are impossible as well, since the concepts are logically contradictory. A lot of the "supreme beings" that are put forward are just that, logically impossible. If you have one that is not, then fine. But until and unless you can provide a positive reason to believe that such a thing exists then I don't have to consider it to be real. That's how the null hypothesis works.
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:I like to describe myself as ignostic to the word "god," as the term is extremely squirrelly and can mean pretty much anything you want it to.
The internet is my god. I worship him daily.

That is a good answer. Very forward thinking. Theres a good chance the universe is infinite. The question becomes annoyingly moot in that scenario.

Quote:I AM God.

Makes more sense than Jesus.

Quote:Why the disbelief? Cause there is no proof for existence of something called god. It's reason enough.

This is invalid reasoning. Many hypotheses that turned out to be true have been made long before proof/evidence was discovered. Hell, meditating buddhists realized they were waves that rippled through the entire universe the same way a wave does in the ocean. Thousands of years later, we know this to be scientifically accurate.

Just stop. False.

Buddhists believed in a cosmic sort of interconnections of life force. They believed that all life shared a sort of supernatural cosmic life force that flowed through everything. This is NOT the same as stating that all matter is reformed from older matter, or that matter forms in stars and is spread and recycled throughout the universe.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:Provide a meaningful (i.e. potentially falsifiable) definition of what you mean by 'god', then provide corroborative and verifiable evidence for it's existence.

Sure. I'll make one up for ya. God is the single force that created the entire universe. Hence, God is energy. The evidence is energy. Energy is everything and has always been, and with it, the universe was created. God is omnipotent (because energy is). God is omniscient (because time is an illusion, past present and future exist simultaneously in the blanket of energy according to math). God is omnipresent (because consciousness is energy, and energy is everywhere). And so on and so fourth. So there ya go, a conceptualization convenient for a modern civilization destined for the stars.


Your god does not exist.

Ok, I'll step back from that. Ominipotence is logically impossible. Omniscience is logically impossible.

Energy in itself is not conscious. It does not think, it does not know, it does not act. It is exceptionally limited. And depending on the kind of energy it might be extremely limited. So is your god concept an agent? Or no?

And what is this "time is an illusion" crap? Time is simply one manifestation of spacetime, the four dimensional construct in which we reside. It is a very real thing. The past and the future do not exist simultaneously. Time can be stretched, it can be compressed, but you cannot travel through it and you can not see backwards in it.

So we are left with a nonsense impossible definition. That god does not exist.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:Until such time as that happens, professing a positive belief in such an undefined and nebulous meaning is irrational drivel. So instead we all find ourselves without sufficient reason for said belief, and thus find ourselves to be atheists; those lacking a positive belief in literal existence of 'gods'.

That is invalid reasoning as it goes both ways. You are drawing from a bias my friend.

No. Again.

We are not obligated to suspend disbelief in every piece of silly garbage we come across. The default position is to disbelieve in something until we have good reason to consider its existence.

I am not obligated to believe in flying purple unicorns. I am not obligated to believe in fairies who steal socks. I am not obligated to believe in god.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  
Quote:God is a word, a proper noun, and a concept that embodies a huge spectrum of beliefs and truth claims. But there's no evidence to support the the existence of an invisible pan-dimensional petulant space wizard that will judge you for thought crimes and at all gives a fuck about what you or anybody else does while naked.

So as I said to the other gentlemen, the concept of God is corrupted to you because the established concepts of God fail your process. This means virtually nothing on a grander scale (a more realistic scale) and is no example of intellect.

I'm an igtheist. I don't think the concept of god is well enough defined. But I do recognize that the word has a cultural history to it. And that history brings baggage with it. You want to ignore all this baggage and pretend that this means we are being unreasonable, yet in another breath you claim the "omniscience" and "omnipotence" of god, reattaching all that same baggage that we find so objectionable.

Whether or not you like it, the word does have real historical and cultural meanings. It is not unreasonable to reject the ideas that have been put forward, and it is not unreasonable to make judgements of the word based on those precedents.

I'm stopping here. I'm tired, I've been up since 4 am and it's my day off. I'm taking a nap.

My main objection is you seem to think that we have to reserve judgement on EVERY CONCEPT that crosses our plate. We don't. We don't have to wait for every possible concept to come across before we conclude that we don't accept the proposition on offer so far. I have other shit to do with my time than think about every possible god concept that might come up ever. I simply state that I have examined the ones presented so far and most of them either positively do not exist or lack positive reasons for believing in them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like natachan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: