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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did he say what he would call an entity with godlike powers, but limited to the planet? I keep hearing people say that nothing less than an omnimax universal creator deity would be a god, and would not be worthy of worship. I've never seen/heard any explanation of why, nor of what we should call such entities that are godlike, but not universal omnimax creators...
But weren't you the one that objected to comparing "god" to humans because the idea of god was not "well-defined" whereas humans are (questionable assumption actually but lets pass on)...You: There's a feather about to land on your head!
Me: (After a large rock just misses me and lands on the ground next to me) Why didn't you warn me about the rock?
You: I did, "feather" is how I refer to rocks.
Words have meanings and sometimes it's important to use the generally accepted word.
It's often the same god though, certainly across all the Christian and Jewish sects and arguably all the Muslim ones too. Even if it isn't, the core arguments for the existence of a god are very similar.
Wont they'd have already rejected all the other theologies in practicing their specific religion, so rejecting that one too leaves them believing in none. They could well be convinced by another religion with a different view on god, but that wouldn't be automatic or necessary.
It is indeed perfectly possible that they're being irrational but not necessarily the case. Leaving a religion could well be the key event that put them on the path to atheism, but that doesn't mean it's their only basis, and if they're posting here, they're certainly being challenged by all sorts of believers from all sorts of different faiths.
It's the default in the situation of someone who previously believed in one exclusive god but then stopped believing in that god. Believing in some other god, even some kind of deistic "something" would still be another active step that an individual might take or might not (and rationally or not).
Sure, but monotheistic religions are obviously based on a concept of theism, and that is the basis on which they're typically presented to atheists.
The referent in my sentence was any of the things that people have interpreted as "god/gods" and would include things like polytheism, animism, pantheism...as well as the preferred and much more easily refutable omni-everything monotheistic creator deity of classical theism.
"The term" means many different things to different people...and who said anything about a "single source"...many physical sources, many gods?
Oh really? I had no idea you were on the appointment committee for deities...but in any case if the characteristics of a deity cannot be found in the physical realm how come the Pharoahs and Roman Emperors were deified? How come some indigenous religions involve ancestor worship...of course their stories are exaggerated...but I already said the stories are not what I'm talking about...what in physical reality was/is it that those deities and their stories represent/point to...but as you say...there are many...but perhaps there is some commonality?
Yes...but why?
Further evidence of what? That humans seem to have a natural propensity for believing in deities? That's a given.
I don't think that was me. I think if I have to sum up my limited contribution it is that without a definition it's difficult to talk about anything. It's not that "god" is not well defined, it's that there are too many definitions.
Humans are clearly defined, are they not? Some gods are very clearly defined (by those that believe in them), others less so. The content is the point certainly, but if we use a label we have to say which definition of whatever we are talking about we are referring to.
That would be the "god of the gaps" crowd, where god inhabits an ever decreasing space as science expands. Then there's "my definition is correct despite being refuted by logic or science".
No, though I'm not trying to represent all atheists. Typically, theists make some claim about a particular god and atheists try to show that the description fails in some way. Really it's illogical to say I don't believe in gods then go on to define a particular god. I leave it to theists to supply the definitions.
That's fair enough. But at some point there has to be some kind of definition or we are left with very little to think about.
Only after they had been made aware that they need a definition from somebody outside of the conversation.
Indeed. To say that much of our experience of the world is illusory, is not the same as saying it’s not real. It’s just that objective reality, to the limited extent that we can ever hope to grasp it, is seldom what it seems. I wish more people would understand that.
Like your strawmen.
Using different definitions again?
The problem is that what he's consistent in, is arguing strawmen by pretending every "atheist" is an "Atheist".
I agree. But the problem here is that they want to define God by their belief, instead of by logical reasoning (philosophical process). So they never actually address the philosophical proposition at all. They merely argue over their respective personal conclusions.
But that's irrelevant since theism is not proposing that God's existence exclusive of any other.
No. Choosing door #1 does not eliminate all the other possible doors one could choose. And again, you keep focusing on the individual choice, and not on the logic affording them.
I agree, but it's the only basis they ever seem to articulate (no evidence, religion bad).
Again, you keep belaboring one person's belief. One person's belief is irrelevant to the logic of the theist proposal, and to the logic of it's rejection.
I never see religious theists presenting god in any way but through their religiosity. Never. I've participated on these sites for years and never see it. They "believe in" the theist proposal that God exists, but that belief is shaped and defined by their religion. Not by philosophical reasoning. So that's how they present it. We never see them present the proposition that god's exists via philosophical reasoning.
Theism doesn't do anything because it's an abstract concept, and it's one that can't really exist in isolation (just like atheism in that way). Nobody proposes just theism, that there is something that exists, but without any explanation of it's nature or characteristics. Every proposed god is distinct (often even when they're proposed by people of nominally the same faith).
You can only go through one door at a time though, and if you leave that door, you don't need to automatically choose another one, immediately or ever. If someone believes in a specific god but then looses their belief in that one god, they move to believing in zero gods. Even if they quickly shift to believing in a different god, the "no gods" step is still there.
Because you can't understand why people do things if you don't understand what they're actually doing. Also, I want you to focus on the real human beings you're talking about, rather than an amorphous blob of "others" to criticise.
"No evidence" is a pretty good reason not to believe something
. A religion being "bad" isn't necessarily, but if the proposal is that the religion is fundamentally good because of the god which inspired it (as many do), that religion being bad would raise significant challenge to it's validity.What do you imagine is the theist proposal (remembering that we're now beyond just monotheism, but covering polytheism and pantheism too)?
I agree, which is why atheists are only seen rejecting individual religions and specific gods, and given that most of the commonly encountered religions present very similar (if not the same) gods with a lot of the same logical and theological arguments, anyone who doesn't accept those arguments for that kind of god is going to dismiss all of them.
