There is no God

[Lark]

I dont recognise any of the descriptive generalisations about religion that I hear atheists perpetuate, to describe religion as a cult I believe actually attributes greater vitality to it than it actually possesses at this time, I do believe that it has been unable to transmit itself across the generational divide but the same can be said for many other things of importance too.

I do not believe that the money or energy invested in religion has proven a drain upon humanity, human resources or resourcefulness, if anything I believe the opposite and comparison of suicide rates between modern, secular, materialistic societies and others would probably bare that out.

The more I think about it the more it is my consideration that the question is not one of whether or not God exists but what is God's nature or relationship to mankind. If God has abadoned mankind, it is only because mankind has abandoned God and for a long time before now.

 

[reason]

I used to be an atheist before reading this thread. Then I read some of the conversation between the believers and [MENTION=115]reason[/MENTION], and now I'm a super-atheist. That was beautiful.

I was never arguing against theism. I was arguing against tolerating nonsense. One could interpret my arguments as being against theism, but one could also interpret them as an attempt to a establish a non-absurd concept of God. Certainly, I did not refute the existence of God, but merely pointed out that if God exists, then His existence cannot amount to a logical absurdity.

 

[Unique]

I used to be an atheist before reading this thread. Then I read some of the conversation between the believers and [MENTION=115]reason[/MENTION], and now I'm a super-atheist. That was beautiful.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I was never arguing against theism. I was arguing against tolerating nonsense. One could interpret my arguments as being against theism, but one could also interpret them as an attempt to a establish a non-absurd concept of God. Certainly, I did not refute the existence of God, but merely pointed out that if God exists, then His existence cannot amount to a logical absurdity.

Well, you refuted a lot of arguments I've been hearing for years from classmates, teachers, and family members, and it's nice to hear. Sure, some other God could exist, I guess.

 

[Coriolis]

I was never arguing against theism. I was arguing against tolerating nonsense. One could interpret my arguments as being against theism, but one could also interpret them as an attempt to a establish a non-absurd concept of God. Certainly, I did not refute the existence of God, but merely pointed out that if God exists, then His existence cannot amount to a logical absurdity.

This hits the nail on the head. Concepts of God so often seem to reflect the worst of our own humanity, perhaps an inevitable result of our tendency to anthropomorphize. If there is a god, shouldn't he be "above" all that?

 

[reason]

This hits the nail on the head. Concepts of God so often seem to reflect the worst of our own humanity, perhaps an inevitable result of our tendency to anthropomorphize. If there is a god, shouldn't he be "above" all that?

Not necessarily. In fact, more anthropomorphic concepts of God tend to be more coherent, since it precisely the attempt to rise God above all human flaws and limitations that lead to inexorable contradictions. If God exists, then He is a living being of some kind, and, as such, must share fundamental similarities with all other living beings. God must have means and ends, frustrations and failures, hopes and concerns, i.e. He must be a living being with which one can have a meaningful relationship. God may have incredible power and knowledge, but to be a thinking and feeling being He must be bound by fundamental constraints.

In addition, anthropomorphic concepts of God are also methodologically preferable, normally. They tend to be more exposed to critical evaluation e.g. we can literally search the top of Mount Olympus for the gods (btw, they're not there). Deism, on the other hand, is formulated in such a way that it doesn't risk making any testable claims--if it's wrong, then we should have fewer ways of finding out. You see, all else being equal, we should prefer hypotheses that are more likely to be wrong, i.e. are more vulnerable to challenge by argument, evidence, or whatever. A hypothesis is only more likely to be wrong, in this sense, by virtue of saying something more substantive and informative about out universe.

 

[xisnotx]

God, I think, can be defined in so many different way that I can simultaneously be an atheist and a theist depending on what is meant by "God".

More than anything, I think, I'm a hopeful relativist.

 

[reason]

His ways are not your ways. His thoughts are not your thoughts. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than your ways, and His thoughts than your thoughts.

Undoubtedly, but if God's ways are ways and if His thoughts are thoughts, then His ways and thoughts must fundamentally resemble my ways and my thoughts, for otherwise they would not be ways and thoughts at all.

Hand waving isn't a substitute for an argument. I wouldn't expect to understand God's ways and thoughts entirely, but I do expect His ways and thoughts to not make nonsense.

Vacuous rhetoric about God transcending all understanding is ultimately self-defeating. If God is so above us that nothing about him can be comprehended, his ways and thoughts an impenetrable mystery, then God's love is also inexplicable. God doesn't just love us 'more than we can imagine', we cannot comprehend what God's love is: nobody has any idea what it even means for the statement 'God loves everyone' to be true. If we take your comments literally, then, by your own standards, you don't know what you're talking about; all your sentences are just meaningless strings of letters written with a nice fuzzy feeling inside.

Don't mistake accepting brazen nonsense for humility before God.

 

[Mole]

Tragedy and Farce

According to Julian Jaynes in, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", in our bicameral mind we literally heard the voice of God. And so God was as close to us as our own breath.

However when our bicameral mind broke down, we could no longer hear the voice of God, and we were bereft. And we had to explain why God had left us. Was it because we had offended Him? And perhaps if we made sacrifice of our best, including our children and animals, perhaps He would forgive us and return.

But after fruitless sacrifice after fruitless sacrifice, including the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross, God did not return.

And so with heavy heart in the 19th century Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche concluded that God is dead.

And just as history repeats itself as farce, Sigmund Freud in the 20th century told us that God is is dad.

 

[dadapolka]

Don't know if this has already been discussed (I haven't read all 25 pages of this xD)

If mankind has free-will, which is intrinsic to Christian teaching, god cannot be either all-knowing or ever present.. If god was all-knowing, then mankind's future would be predetermined or at least already and there would be no scope for free-will and moral decision making. The only way to avoid this issue is to suggest that god exists outside of time, in which case he would not be able to interact with humanity in the way in which is described in the Bible. (I realise that God is anthropomorphised in Genesis for people to partially understand the presence of god, but the way in which it is described suggests that god has interacted with humanity within time)

The Christian argument against this is that God is like a watchful father etc, who knows what a child will do by how well he knows the child, even if he has no direct influence on the child. The issue with this is that the father is not omniscient/all-knowing; he is making assumptions based on the consistency of his/her behaviour. If the father was all-knowing in a godly sense, he would know how the child would act 100% and all of his future actions as well. If god knows the future actions of humanity, it suggests that they are linear, and therefore predetermined in some sense.

There is also the problem of evil and Mackie's inconsistent triad.

If you don't believe in the anthropomorphic god that is described in the Bible, but believe in a more intangible, Platonic/mathematical concept of god, that's fair enough. But that isn't the god that is described by doctrine and Christian teaching; it is something else entirely.


These may not be very good arguments; I come from a relatively atheist country already and so haven't had a huge opportunity to debate with Christians except in class.

 

[Mole]

A Work of Art

Rather than there being no God, quantum fluctuations tells us there is no need for God because the universe is eternal and so has no need of a Creator.

Of course God is our greatest creation and there has been no civilization not based on a religion.

So rather than there being no God or having no need for God, we find God is our greatest work of art.

 

[Lark]

Rather than there being no God, quantum fluctuations tells us there is no need for God because the universe is eternal and so has no need of a Creator.

Of course God is our greatest creation and there has been no civilization not based on a religion.

So rather than there being no God or having no need for God, we find God is our greatest work of art.

In time you'll know there is a God.

 

[Riva]

In time you'll know there is a God.

And that he's not as powerful as we bragged him to be?

 

[A window to the soul]

And that he's not as powerful as we bragged him to be?

In time you'll know that God doesn't believe in Atheists.

 

[Riva]

In time you'll know that God doesn't believe in Atheists.

I thought God loves everyone, irrespective of what they choose to believe in?

And,

Does he not say to even love your enemies?

If so,

How come he who wishes that you love even your enemies can't even believe in atheist?

(As to put it in your own words.)

 

[LucidLegend1984]

Isn't god the father, the son and the holy spirit/ghost?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't god the Proton, the neutron, and the electron?

 

[A window to the soul]

I thought God loves everyone, irrespective of what they choose to believe in?

And,

Does he not say to even love your enemies?

If so,

How come he who wishes that you love even your enemies can't even believe in atheist?

(As to put it in your own words.)

In life, I concur. Lark and I were talking about the afterlife.

In life, the Atheists suppress their inner testimony concerning the reality of God. In other words, they know, but they don't want to believe...

"By their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them," (Romans 1:18-19).

On judgment day, God will say to them, "I never knew you," just as they said to God in life.

 

[JocktheMotie]

This God fellow seems petty.

 

[Aquarelle]

In life, the Atheists suppress their inner testimony concerning the reality of God. In other words, they know, but they don't want to believe.

I don't think this is true. Maybe for some atheists. But I know for a fact that there are many atheists/agnostics who want to believe, but just can't.

 

[dadapolka]

In life, I concur. Lark was talking about the afterlife, and so was I.

In life, the Atheists suppress their inner testimony concerning the reality of God. In other words, they know, but they don't want to believe...

"By their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them," (Romans 1:18-19).

On judgment day, God will say to them, "I never knew you," just as they said to God in life.

What is it with the idea that atheists will suddenly realise their foolishness 'in time'? That's quite self-assured to be fair It's also nice to think that this benevolent, forgiving god is going to reject me for rejecting the idea of him, when it isn't THAT hard to do to be quite honest!
It's not that all atheists are resisting belief. It's just not there. At all. I don't feel like any god has shown anything to me (this is all huge assumption isn't it?) It isn't like a 'piece missing' or an 'absence' in life. I don't give it a huge amount of thought, apart from in these kinds of debate.
Using a quote from the Bible does not support your claim in any way. Even if the words of the Bible did stem from god, it is still man-made and man's interpretation of god's word. It has been mistranslated and used for political purpose in the past. Also, backing up your arguments with scripture isn't going to win any atheists over. It may mean something to you, but to atheists it holds no water.