Atheists: If God existed would God……

[PureX]

Krishnamurti usd a good example of how religious ideas become valuable. He said if a person goes out and finds an ordinary rock, and then brings it inside and sets it on a table, and then the person worships that rock every day for years on end, at some point that rock becomes very valuable. The value isn't inherent, it is what the devotee has assigned to it. To anyone else it's just an ordinary rock. Objectively it is an ordinary rock. To the devotee it has an incredible amount of value.

Now imagine this devotee goes out and tries to convince people that this rock has value.

The problem, of course, is in not understanding that the rock is a representation. What it represents is REAL. Even though as a rock, it is not what it represents. If you cannot understand this, then you have nothing of value to say about theism. If a theist does not understand this, then he has nothing of value to say about theism, either. This is why so many atheists and religious theists simply talk past each other, as nauseum, neither of them understanding anything of what the other is saying. Tere can be no understanding, or meaningful discourse until both parties recognize that the term "God", and all the imagery and religiosity that goes with it, is a representation. Because only then can anyone understand or discuss what is being represented, and why it matters.

Theists adopt ideas for their social experiences and by the presence of these ideas they have been given significance and value, yet the person did not assign it deliberately or consciously.

Some do and some don't. Most don't at first, but then do later on in life, as they become more aware of the choice. And anyway it doesn't matter. Because we are both our conscious and unconscious selves, combined. And ideas come to us from all kinds of places and sources. We accept or reject them as they resonate or don't resonate with who we are and how we see the world at the time. Theism is just an existential paradigm through which billions of humans choose to sift through and structure their worldview. There are other paradigms, of course, but theism is a VERY common one.

The theist knows they believe, they know it feels good to believe, but they can't explain how they arrived at a place in life that they decided a God exists.

Some can and some can't, and it doesn't really matter, anyway. Theists are no more or less cognizant or self-determined than anyone else is. We are all both a conscious and unconscious conglomeration of needs, desires, and circumstances.

What gets transcended is being rooted in reality and reason. The "spiritual" state means rejecting reason and becoming absorbed in fantasy.

Sorry, but that's complete BS. We all have a 'spiritual' nature regardless of how reasonable or fantastic we are. The fact that you think the human spirit is unreasoned and unreal is stupid and insulting. And it's a bias that you really ought to reconsider.

Religion offers a way for humans to withdraw into an illusion and believe there is meaning and significance to life that isn't factually apparent.

It can be. But so can 'scientism'. We humans can run and hide from reality in all sorts of ways. In fact, it's ultimately inevitable if we look at ourselves through the eyes of an absolutist.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wish you read my post that was immediately after my initial post. I said I am not expecting anything from God.

Maybe you are not expecting anything from God since you do not believe in God, but you were saying that if God exists God could do all the things you delineated, and if He does not do them that means that God is evil or incompetent or does not exist.

You said:
It would be trivially easy for a god to give everyone evidence of His existence and give clear instructions and knowledge. If God likes to pretend He's not around and stay out of things, than it's analogous to not being there at all. If God likes to be vague, play tricks, be selective with who has privileges, and allow needless suffering caused by these actions, than what does that say about God? He either can't change this or doesn't care to; so He's either evil or incompetent.

Or does not exist.

There is no evidence for what YOU assert God does. Whatever it is you and your books say he does, has done, is going to do, characteristics, motives... everything. I wish you could get this part right so we can move the conversation along.

No, there is no proof that what I say God does is anything God does because there is no proof that God even exists, but there is evidence, and if we accept that evidence we believe that God exists and we believe what the scriptures say that God has done or will do.

 

[nPeace]

Before there was a pollution problem was there disease?

You missed the point. Please reread.

 

[Trailblazer]

Same thing as above, Im basing everything on what theists assert God does.

So what is your response now that you know this?

My response is, no you are not basing everything on what theists assert God does, you are basing everything on what you want God to do differently from what theists say that God does.

 

[nPeace]

Cancer and disease existed WAY before industrial pollution.
It existed WAY before humans even existed.

So once again, you are wrong.

You missed the point too. Is this what happens when you reject the wisdom from above? Yup. Mental blindness blocks clear understanding.
I'm sure @Trailblazer understood clearly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I could say that, but logically speaking that does not mean that the Essence of God is imaginary.

It means that your god claim is indistinguishable from anything your imagination can produce.

The fallacies of hasty generalization and jumping to conclusions come to mind.

Really? I think it smells more like the double standard.
And not really understanding how the burden of proof works.

 

[Trailblazer]

It means that your god claim is indistinguishable from anything your imagination can produce.

Indistinguishable FOR YOU.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is useful to remember the wonder and magnitude of this mystery. And that it has a transcendent nature (and thereby a divine nature). These are complicated ideas and "God" is as good a term to use to represent it as any.
This is just selfish gibberish. You have no idea what's better for others or what other people need. And instead of asking them you're just stupidly presuming whatever serves your own bias.
That is neither here nor there, nor is it anything you would have the capacity to know. It's just more self-serving gibberish.
Again, this is all just selfish speculation. You have no idea what anyone else would be or do if they did not view the world as they do. This is all just nonsensical bias. Theism, and the advantages of engaging in it as an ideal are the same phenomenon. For the vast majority of humans these are not divisible.
You mean they haven't sacrificed their humanity to a soulless, meaningless, ideology based on random circumstance? How "immature" of them!
I know you do, and that's why I feel so sad for you, and for the world if we humans are ever stupid enough to sacrifice our souls to a mindless, mechanical existence based on the glorification of physical functionality.
God! You sound like those 'futurists' back in 1930s Europe that were so drunk on the idea of science turning men into demigods that they lost all sense of humility and morality.

So you, a theist, are taking the position that theism is a benefit to man - how grateful and courageous theism makes theists. I, a secular humanist, rebut it with a counterargument demonstrating how theism creates a dependency that actually leaves them worse off, and argue that they would be better off if allowed to mature outside of such beliefs, as in secular humanism.

Your reaction to that is an array of stupids and selfishes, but failed to address the rebuttal offered. Instead, you call mine a soulless, meaningless ideology, then patronize me with smarmy condescension about how sad you are for me.

You make my case about such beliefs retarding healthy maturation with your emotional reaction and inability to maintain a dialog. You did that at eight years old when disagreed with. So did I, but I've outgrown that.

 

[nPeace]

Do you believe Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God?

No. I'm sure there is a reason you asked.
Is this where the argument about different beliefs comes in?
In which field of study do all 'scholars' agree? I know of none.
Yet, no one says, "Because there is disagreement, that renders the study false". True?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Maybe you are not expecting anything from God since you do not believe in God, but you were saying that if God exists God could do all the things you delineated, and if He does not do them that means that God is evil or incompetent or does not exist.

You said:
It would be trivially easy for a god to give everyone evidence of His existence and give clear instructions and knowledge. If God likes to pretend He's not around and stay out of things, than it's analogous to not being there at all. If God likes to be vague, play tricks, be selective with who has privileges, and allow needless suffering caused by these actions, than what does that say about God? He either can't change this or doesn't care to; so He's either evil or incompetent.

Or does not exist.

No, there is no proof that what I say God does is anything God does because there is no proof that God even exists, but there is evidence, and if we accept that evidence we believe that God exists and we believe what the scriptures say that God has done or will do.

Could you briefly outline what you think God has done in the past and what you think his intentions are?

Sorry, I don't have time to read through hundreds of posts to get that info

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently you think that everything can be proven, but if something cannot be proven there can be no burden of proof. That is what I was saying.

And I told you that you don't understand what the burden of proof is about, and this statement of yours is just more evidence of that.

It means that it's upto the one making the claim to support it with evidence. Almost nothing can be proven. Such "proof" is for things like math.

I know what the burden of proof is

Apparantly not.

, but nobody has the burden of proof to prove that God exists

If somebody claims that a god exists (explicitly or implicitly), then that person takes on a burden of proof. So when that statement is challenged it's upto that person to support said claim. Not upto the challenger to disprove it or support the opposite claim.

Claims carry a burden of proof.

except people who want to believe in God.

They certainly do their best to avoid their burden of proof or try and shift it.

It is our own burden and we can prove that God exists to ourselves.

The patient in room 6533 can also prove to himself that he is the reincarnation of Elvis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and I rule God as guilty of existing.

But you can't properly motivate the verdict.

The motivations you instead bring forward, would make a precedent which would cascade into having to rule the same for alien abduction, bigfoot, fairies, just about all other gods and basically really anything anyone's imagination can produce and how someone believe it.

 

[F1fan]

The problem, of course, is in not understanding that the rock is a representation. What it represents is REAL. Even though as a rock, it is not what it represents. If you cannot understand this, then you have nothing of value to say about theism. If a theist does not understand this, then he has nothing of value to say about theism, either. This is why so many atheists and religious theists simply talk past each other, as nauseum, neither of them understanding anything of what the other is saying. Tere can be no understanding, or meaningful discourse until both parties recognize that the term "God", and all the imagery and religiosity that goes with it, is a representation. Because only then can anyone understand or discuss what is being represented, and why it matters.

A lot of words here, nothing about what it represents that IS real as you claim.

So finish your thought, what is REAL that is represented by the rock?

I know what is represented, and it is the self's ego. Do you agree? If not, then offer your explanation.

 

[PureX]

So you, a theist, are taking the position that theism is a benefit to man - how grateful and courageous it makes them. I, a secular humanist, rebut it with a counterargument demonstrating how theism creates a dependency that actually leaves them worse off, and argue that they would be better off if allowed to mature outside of such beliefs, and your reaction is an array of stupids and selfishes, but failed to address the rebuttal offered. Instead, you call mine a soulless, meaningless ideology, then patronize me with smarmy condescension about how sad you are for me.

You make my case about such beliefs retarding healthy maturation with your emotional reaction and inability to maintain a dialog. You did that at eight years old when disagreed with. So did I.

Your depiction of theists is insulting, and denigrating. And your reasoning is then based on it as if it were fact. If you were black, and having a conversation with someone about race that was continually talking about how blacks are lazy and stupid and criminally inclined because they are black, how would you react?

And the amazing thing is that you really don't see the comparison, here, at all. And not only that, when I bring it up, you will fight to deny it and act all butt-hurt about it. And then you'll call yourself a HUMANIST! When clearly you see yourself as being far superior to the many BILLIONS of weak-minded, irrational, fantasy-addicted theists on the planet, that you disdain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And in your opinion only atheists have reason.

Not at all.
You should refrain from trying to tell what people's opinions are.

That is just your personal opinion and it is egotistical, as I said.

And you argue strawman and misrepresent, as I said.

You cannot have it both ways.

I don't need to.

If you say that Messengers of God are not strong evidence for God

They are about as strong evidence for god as alien abductees are for alien anal probings in flying saucers.

, then you have to say what would be strong evidence for God - if God exists.

No I don't.
You'ld have to define god in such a way that it actually becomes falsifiable. From that definition we could derive what would be evidence for it.

Unfalsifiable things can't have evidence due to being unfalsifiable.

It is now a closed case unless you have some kind of evidence that would be better than Messengers of God.

It is indeed a closed case, but not for that reason.
I can't tell you what would be evidence of god, just like you couldn't say what would be evidence of "whoeblodobokkie" if I didn't properly define it first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do I say about atheists that suggests the exact opposite?
What do atheists themselves point out that I ignore?

My previous post just pointed out an example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said the deity is supported by objective evidence, but that does not mean it is imaginary.

The same can be said about alien abductees, fairies, unicorns, all other gods you don't believe in,... And whoeblodobokkie.

 

[lukethethird]

Your depiction of theists is insulting, and denigrating. And your reasoning is then based on it as if it were fact. If you were black, and having a conversation with someone about race that was continually talking about how blacks are lazy and stupid and criminally inclined because they are black, how would you react?

And the amazing thing is that you really don't see the comparison, here, at all. And not only that, when I bring it up, you will fight to deny it and act all butt-hurt about it. And then you'll call yourself a HUMANIST! When clearly you see yourself as being far superior to the many BILLIONS of weak-minded, irrational, fantasy-addicted theist on the planet.

Theism is a primitive, tribal mindset based on primitive tribal beliefs, and it's a choice unlike the colour of ones skin which is totally lost on you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Could you briefly outline what you think God has done in the past and what you think his intentions are?

Sorry, I don't have time to read through hundreds of posts to get that info

That is much too general. God has done lots of things. Could you be more specific?

The same applies to the future. God has willed many things for humans and I can only tell you very generally what I believe God's purpose is for humans.

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it............” The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

Read more: God’s Purpose

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Indistinguishable FOR YOU.

Indistinguishable for anybody.

You can't tell the difference either.
You only have beliefs.