Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Because the word loses all its meaning otherwise?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Athiesm and disproving God
- Thread starter xkatz
- Start date
Because the word loses all its meaning otherwise?
Why does it lose all meaning?
MSizer
MSizer
To all atheist who wish to answers this:
How come so many atheist claim God isn't real because science contradicts with holy scriptures (ie The Bible, Koran, etc)? If you claim these scriptures are man-made, doesn't that make the argument of God existing invalid because what is in the scriptures is written by people and cannot be consider evidence of god? Do you get what I am saying? What other reasons do you atheist don't believe in god and why?
(No trolling please)
I don't ever remember a single person ever trying to use such an argument. If a person tried to tell me that proving the scripture is man-made proves that god doesn't exist, I would absolutely tell them that while it may in fact be so that god doesn't exist (which I think is correct) but your argument is a terrible one.
I'm starting to really get tired of the "Why do atheists say ....?" questions. They're almost never in harmony with what any intelligent person would likely say.
Alceste
Vagabond
No reason at all. I don't object to notions that define "god" as some aspect of nature. I mostly object to notions that define "god" as a factually (rather than metaphorically) existing super-being who is omniscient, not subject to the laws of physics (both known and unknown) and interferes with the natural world we live in. IMO, that's cheating.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Because everything else in nature already has a name. What exactly do you point to and say "that's god?"
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
The synergistic totality.
MSizer
MSizer
...it's O-S-C-A-R
but god is in everything
tall and near and far.
God is in all of us,
he's in the moon and stars
He's in you and he's in me,
God is everywhere
So thank him for your best of days,
your smile, your face and hair.
Because god had a first name...
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Everything then? No need to call it god.
Btw, if I ever start a dance group, I'm definitely calling it Synergistic Totality.
Last edited:
MSizer
MSizer
That's what Spinoza said. I don't agree though, even though he was a really nice guy. Can you believe he was permanently excommunicated from his synagogue? The nerver of them.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I understand what you're saying, but I simply see that as everything. Everything, to me, means every thing, every interaction, every cause, every effect - in short, there isn't anything that isn't a part of everything.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
+1 Couldn't have said it better myself.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Fair enough. But, as I recall, you know something of my beliefs. Is it more clear for me to say "I believe in everything," or "I believe in God?"
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I think you believe that "everything" has attributes which I don't, so naming it god makes sense from your perspective.
You should suggest it to Airborne Toxic Event. They need a name that has less of a "fart" connotation.
No reason at all. I don't object to notions that define "god" as some aspect of nature. I mostly object to notions that define "god" as a factually (rather than metaphorically) existing super-being who is omniscient, not subject to the laws of physics (both known and unknown) and interferes with the natural world we live in. IMO, that's cheating.
I agree, hence why I don't believe in such a god
. But I wasn't asking the question to be difficult, I was just curious as to why so many people jump on the idea of god being supernatural when there are so many god concepts out there that don't define it as such.
Actually everything in nature has numerous names. Even within the same language one thing could have multiple names. ex. "glass", "cup"; both words mean fundamentally the same thing. Is the word glass less meaningful because it means the same as the word cup? How does having more than one word for something make one word less meaningful than another? As for your question I point to nature in general. But if saying that god is nature makes the word god meaningless then one could also say that the word nature is meaningless for the same reason. Aside from that the only reason things in nature have names is because we give them names and as such the only things in nature that have names are those things whose existence we are currently aware of. Now unless you wish to argue that we have discovered everything in nature there is to be discovered you cannot say that "everything" has been given a name. So how does having more than one word to describe something make one word in that category any less meaningful than another word for the same thing? Why must the word god become meaningless and not the other word that could be used to take it's place?
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Lifting a portion of a post I made in another thread:To all atheist who wish to answers this:
How come so many atheist claim God isn't real because science contradicts with holy scriptures (ie The Bible, Koran, etc)? If you claim these scriptures are man-made, doesn't that make the argument of God existing invalid because what is in the scriptures is written by people and cannot be consider evidence of god? Do you get what I am saying? What other reasons do you atheist don't believe in god and why?
(No trolling please
Modern atheism does not so much deny the existence of God as it simply does not affirm the existence of God.
It's a matter of practicality. I live my life giving consideration to those things I know exist. I have neither the time, resources nor desire to consider things for which there is no evidence, and frankly, neither do you (except, apparently, for God). Let me ask you, in your daily life:
- Do you actively seek ways to protect yourself from invisible mind control rays? Remember, you can't prove they don't exist.
- Do you ensure that you read your horoscope everyday so that you will be prepared for what is going to happen to you? Remember, you can't prove horoscopic predictions are untrue.
- Do you refuse to sleep to avoid your body being taken over by pod people at night. Remember, you can't prove they don't exist.
The thing you must remember is that your idea of an omnimax God is no different than any other idea for which there is no evidence. It is an idea that I do not affirm a belief in. COULD there be an omnimax God, or mind control rays or giant, invisible spaghetti monsters out there? SURE there could! Do I affirm a belief in any of that? Why would I?
Alceste
Vagabond
I agree, hence why I don't believe in such a god
I think you might have it the wrong way around. We only jump on supernatural god concepts. We simply ignore the rest, since a "god" that is not immune to the laws of physics (known and unknown) is by its very definition irrelevant to our understanding of the universe.