Is the Concept of God Necessary To Explain Anything?

[Godfather89]

Atheism is as old as theism there were those who believed in no deity but still thought spiritually. So to be an atheist isn't as bad as some think. Theres a difference between Materialist Atheist V. Spiritualist Atheist. We seem to associate the need for a God in order for anything spiritual at all to occur. I find that debatable... I could be spiritual by nature... I could be forever and not even know it... Hell I could be God and not even know it that would explain why an atheist doesnt believe in a God, because, we could be.

 

[Francine]

Hell I could be God and not even know it that would explain why an atheist doesnt believe in a God, because, we could be.

No, because a God is omniscient, and that includes knowing the fact that he is God.

 

[logician]

No, because a God is omniscient, and that includes knowing the fact that he is God.

""But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. "

If Jesus is god, and god is omnscient, how come Jesus did not know when the second coming was?"

Is this a cop-out?

 

[Francine]

If Jesus is god, and god is omnscient, how come Jesus did not know when the second coming was?"

Because the Father is also Omnipotent, and he exercised his power to keep the date of the Second Coming a total secret.

 

[McBell]

Because the Father is also Omnipotent, and he exercised his power to keep the date of the Second Coming a total secret.

Seems to me there is a term for that....


Selective Amnesia

 

[Scuba Pete]

we as a species are struggling to rid ourselves of the chains of myth and delusion,

You have yet to demonstrate this struggle by our species. You have yet to prove atheism as any less delusional than theism. You have yet to prove that God is a myth.

 

[Godfather89]

Well according to the Gnostic myth... God goes mad when it loses Sophia (wisdom) and falls to a lesser God (The Demiurge) and under the Demiurge control we are made to forget who we are and where we came from until (In Christian Gnosticism at least) Christ Came Down to remind us of our true home called Pleroma or Fullness.

Now as for the second coming. You may see it as a specific point in time but that is only doctrine of orthodox Christianity. According to Gnostic Christianity You Are The Second Coming and Revelations is a myth written by John of Patmos expressing the story he went through to become as Christ. Hence why he says at the end that Good Wins over Evil. So Gnostic Christianity always adheres to the belief that you are always in a process of (Genesis) Becoming and Being (Revelation).

 

[logician]

You have yet to demonstrate this struggle by our species. You have yet to prove atheism as any less delusional than theism. You have yet to prove that God is a myth.

I've made many posts proving theism is a mythical creation of man. Atheism by definition is less delusional than theism, because it is based upon rationality and freethought, not "faith". You have given no coherent definition of god to prove mythical.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've made many posts proving theism is a mythical creation of man.

Rubbish. Where is this masterful proof? You distort both 'theism' and 'myth'. Theism in an ontological stance and no more deserves the characterization "mythical position" than does String Theory. You embarrass yourself and do a disservice to atheism by such thoughtlessness.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I've made many posts proving theism is a mythical creation of man. Atheism by definition is less delusional than theism, because it is based upon rationality and freethought, not "faith". You have given no coherent definition of god to prove mythical.

More sheer flights of fancy. Please give us links to these posts of yours that "prove" theism as a mythical creation of man. I think these are myths in and of themselves.

By "definition" atheism is only based on faith. You have no proof that God does not exist: only suspicion. You need to learn the logical differences between "proof" and "evidence".

Here is God's definition of himself: "I am". That's pretty coherent to me. But in reality, you have no proof and very little evidence that God does not exist. Your entire premise is based on ego (I don't believe in myths) and atheistic mythology (God does not exist). It IS a faith, and your blind acceptance of all things atheistic is the best evidence we have so far. Faith is action based on beliefs and you have PLENTY of action and unevidenced beliefs to prove your anti-Christian bias. Go figure.

The more you deny you have faith, the clearer it becomes how much you rely on it. It's pretty funny actually. Comical even.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Rubbish. Where is this masterful proof? You distort both 'theism' and 'myth'. Theism in an ontological stance and no more deserves the characterization "mythical position" than does String Theory. You embarrass yourself and do a disservice to atheism by such thoughtlessness.

What we have here Jay, is a real example of faith-based atheism. Thanks for joining the party!

 

[Godfather89]

You know there is a difference between KNOWING and BELIEVING. Agnosticism says we don't KNOW and Gnosticism says we CAN KNOW. Faith is still part of knowing, knowing that your part of a plan and having faith in that plan. Atheism does not exist its called Strong Agnosticism or a strong view that the existence of (a) God(s) is very unlikely, but again by definition ATHEISM is Disbelief in a God. Any religion found by faith as its main doctrine is what is called weak agnosticism or the weak view that the existence of (a) Gods(s) is unlikely. Either way Atheism or Faith-Based religion is two sides of the same coin called Agnosticism to what degree is what defines a secularist from a fundamentalist and everything in between.

 

[Willamena]

Agnosticism says we don't KNOW and Gnosticism says we CAN KNOW.

Agnosticism says we cannot know, and Gnosticism knows what it is that we cannot know.

 

[rojse]

You have yet to demonstrate this struggle by our species.

I would say the recent rise in prominence in regards to atheist thought and ideas would be evidence of this, typified by prominent people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and so forth.

These are people that are not famous for their work, but for their vocal support of atheism.

I would also say institutions such as The Discovery Institute are an excellent example of conservative Christians trying to get religious ideas into the general public consciousness.

You have yet to prove atheism as any less delusional than theism.

How many threads on here have disintegrated into a debate on seemingly differences in an omniprescent and omnipotent God? How many discussions have there been about scientific evidence which is disregarded to conform with someone's personal views on religion? How many times have we argued which books need to be disregarded when considering God?

You have yet to prove that God is a myth.

To whose satisfaction are you talking about? People who are unwilling to reconsider their own personal ideas, or to people that were already examining their faiths?

 

[rojse]

Rubbish. Where is this masterful proof? You distort both 'theism' and 'myth'. Theism in an ontological stance and no more deserves the characterization "mythical position" than does String Theory. You embarrass yourself and do a disservice to atheism by such thoughtlessness.

There have been many posts on here, by theists, that state that some of the bad events in the Bible did not have God, (particularly the wars) and that man added them in himself to support his views.

From this, it could be argued that religious people have turned what may have been real events, that had some initial grounding in reality, and sexed these stories up by incorporating a deity, and changing, or greatly embellishing the original details. In that sense, then, it could be argued that these stories are "mythical creations of man".

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would say the recent rise in prominence in regards to atheist thought and ideas would be evidence of this, typified by prominent people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and so forth.

So, using your logic, Rush Limbaugh's rise in rhetoric clearly indicates that we will have a Republican President? Extremists with agendas don't constitute a "struggle by our species". You may revere these people, but they just want all of us to believe their schlock. Thanks anyway, but my schlock is much more believable.

These are people that are not famous for their work, but for their voca support of atheism.

So is Rush. I don't think that support for these extremists registers more than a eensy weensy tiny fraction of our entire population. Feel free to render my assumption useless with actual figures of their fans compared to the global population.

I would also say institutions such as The Discovery Institute are an excellent example of conservative Christians trying to get religious ideas into the general public consciousness.

This means what? Extremism begets equal and opposite extremism.

How many threads on here have disintegrated into a debate on seemingly differences in an omniprescent and omnipotent God? How many discussions have there been about scientific evidence which is disregarded to conform with someone's personal views on religion? How many times have we argued which books need to be disregarded when considering God?

And how many times must a cannonball fly, before they're for-ever banned?
The Answer my friend is blowin' in the wind!
The Answer is blowin' in the wind!

It sounds like you are trying to write another verse about the futility of such questions. Surely they have no bearing on the subject at hand. Good job in trying to create a strawman!

To whose satisfaction are you talking about? People who are unwilling to reconsider their own personal ideas, or to people that were already examining their faiths?

Well it's true that many atheists are unwilling to reconsider their own personal ideas and that many theists examine their faith on a daily basis, but don't you think that over-generalizations like this are dangerous? Someone might try and read it opposite of this, and that would truly be laughable!

 

[Scuba Pete]

, then, it could be argued that these stories are "mythical creations of man".

Painting the roses red is not only futile, but disingenuous. It was said that GOD is a mythical creation of man. This slight of hand redirection does not fool anyone, let alone Jay.

 

[Willamena]

There have been many posts on here, by theists, that state that some of the bad events in the Bible did not have God, (particularly the wars) and that man added them in himself to support his views.

From this, it could be argued that religious people have turned what may have been real events, that had some initial grounding in reality, and sexed these stories up by incorporating a deity, and changing, or greatly embellishing the original details. In that sense, then, it could be argued that these stories are "mythical creations of man".

"Stories that incorporate a deity" is one definition of myth. In that case, there is nothing mythical about the story's creation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"Stories that incorporate a deity" is one definition of myth. In that case, there is nothing mythical about the story's creation.

While the God concept of creating heaven and earth is hard for some to handle because it requires faith, these same folks that doubt, cannot create life from nothing or even provide an alternate theory that does not require faith in their theory as well.

 

[Francine]

While the God concept of creating heaven and earth is hard for some to handle because it requires faith, these same folks that doubt, cannot create life from nothing or even provide an alternate theory that does not require faith in their theory as well.

Life does not have a sharp boundary of complexity where we can say "this is alive" or "this is not". The logic of descent with variation applied to non-living chemical polymer evolution which preceded "life".