muddy waters of the god debate (existance of god vs existance of the one true god)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2013, 07:22 PM
muddy waters of the god debate (existance of god vs existance of the one true god)
Hello,
I am a first time poster to this board. I have been listening to the show for a while with interest, but the last episode i listened to (the one with seth's old friend dave) really got me riled up and has prompted me to get some of your feedback on my thoughts.

I think this debate with god believers gets muddy because there is a lack of focus on what the atheist is debating against.
It is clear on the theist's side that they are debating against someone who believes in no god. That means no creator, no guiding hand above us. So they can talk in all manner of generalities and say things such as "a concept of god has been with humanity from the beginning". But when we debate we are not only debating some one who believes in a god(s) we are debating someone who adheres to a religion. the definition i am using for religion is "ones relationship with god", the definition i learned back in jesuit school. so whether one is part of an organized religion or not they have a particular relationship with their deity. am i right to assume that for a person to believe they have a proper relationship with god then they must believe that their religion is true? if the particular claims that the religious person is holding to are true then claims of other religions are by default false.

Presume we are debating against a xtian. first off this person believes in god, then also s/he believes in christ as the one true god-man, and purports to adhere to his teachings. as such s/he should not be adverse to the assertion that all non-xtian god believers are wrong. this puts hir in the precarious position of being on the side of the atheist when the atheist is debating against a muslim, both the atheist and the xtian will agree that the teachings of mohamed are not divinely inspired truths. look it is pretty clear to my understanding of logic that if any religion is true then only one can be. one can say that all religions drink of the same pot, each religion is the same at the core while choosing to worship in different ways. ok, so then all of them are wrong and if a god does exist we cannot know its nature other than with vague symbolism. in that case why call oneself a muslim or a christian or a hindu or a jew if all of them are the same? it seems to me a very empty argument.

anyone have any thoughts on this take?

thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: muddy waters of the god debate (existance of god vs existance of the one true god)
Ah... what?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2013 09:14 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: muddy waters of the god debate (existance of god vs existance of the one true god)
[Image: wha.jpg]

Atheists don't believe in a god/gods, therefore an atheist can argue against the existence of any and all gods or religions. Xians can argue for their particular religion against all other religions or the lack of religion. You can be a theist and not part of an organized religion and argue against all other religions in favor of your personal religion or against the lack of religion. Yahweh and Zeus are not the same guy so you can't use Zeus to prove Yahweh and you can't use Yahweh to prove Zeus.

If you want to debate 'god v. no god' and you bring you own religious texts into it to the argument you can be damned sure that I'm going to beat you over the head with any piece of scripture I feel like from any religion I feel like. The reason a theist arguing that he knows the will of the true god/gods and all others are wrong, but they still worship a god and therefore God exists sounds like a weak position...is because it is a really weak position.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 09:08 PM
RE: muddy waters of the god debate (existance of god vs existance of the one true god)
Ds,
I would agree that every member of every religion believes that theirs is the absolute truth. I've never heard of any denomination, sect, or otherwise claiming that they know that their beliefs are wrong but they're sticking to them anyway (perhaps because of their amazing hymn selection and pot lucks twice a month). So, they must certainly believe that all others are wrong. One of my favorite points toward a theist is simply:
Since the dawn of civilization, humans have believed in, and worshipped, thousands of gods. Of all of them, you only believe in one. I just believe in one less than you.

I'm not quite on the same page with your second assertion. I don't think they're the same. While they may share similar characteristics (e.g.: prayer, guidebook, afterlife, divine intervention) that may simply be a result of universal human needs trying to be filled.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: muddy waters of the god debate (existance of god vs existance of the one true god)
Here's a video that addresses having a relationship with God.









Thumbsup





.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 09:54 PM
RE: muddy waters of the god debate (existance of god vs existance of the one true god)
OP is making two, imo, wrong assumptions, first is that every religion or religious belief claims to be the one and only possible truth. Is my understanding that this is not necessarily true. Granted that most mainstream religions do, so for those cases the assumption stands.
Second, is that in an argument there can only be two positions. While is common and conflicts (taking the word in a very brad sense here) has a "magnetic" or polarizing aspect to it that tends to make it two sided, this is not an static situation and there can be multiple sides on a discussion. In the case of a debate about religion, side 1 will argue for A, side 2 for B and side 3 (atheism) will argue for the inexistence of both A and B.

To put it simple, if you find two people fighting about the colour of the sky,one says it's red, the other one says it's green, you won't side with none of them because the sky is blue (most of the times). If one of them wants to support you to weaken his enemy it will only be a one sided, temporary alliance. But overall the sides are pretty clear.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: