The Ignorance of Atheistic Denial of God

[Willamena]

Re the OP, it is of course nonsense to argue that god could be anywhere in the universe if god is omnipresent.

Not bad rebuttals, though.

 

[Willamena]

How about this:

Does god have any impact on the physical universe?

If yes, it would be detectable - so what is it?

I think they call that "creation.""

 

[Ultimatum]

Greetings of Peace,

Fairies make an interesting topic in their own right but within their respective traditions they serve a function more equivalent to angels than to God. Not to get distracted by a peripheral topic, what would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God?

In Peace,
Desmond

Sufficient evidence... as in physical evidence instead of imaginative "spiritual" evidence..
And the fact of the matter is (using Jehovah as an example) that this God is supposed to love and car for US right? US. As in, he loves the whole world.. but there isn't any evidence of that, is there? Unless, of course, you talk to a believer and they'll try and convince you that God will do the same as He has done to them if you repent/give your life.
If the Message was so important then why not deliver it to humans in a way that we can all understand and respect? And not have different variations of it the world over..

 

[George-ananda]

Does god have any impact on the physical universe?

The physical universe is a creative emanation of God in my school of thought. What greater impact can He have than being the creator and sustainer. God and the universe are not-two (non-dualism).

You are asking to see a God separate from the universe. This will fail. God can only be found in the core of our hearts. Miracles and paranormal experiences do show us though that there is more than the physical.

 

[Willamena]

What was the actual question this was in response to?

He states the questions in the first paragraph.

There is the classic error of presuming atheism is denial of the existence of God rather than lack of belief in the existence of gods. Individuals can indeed deny the existence of a specific god or general god concept, and many atheists do, that that isn't atheism in itself.

I don't think it much of a stretch to understand that denial happens in the moment of rejection, and that that is the classical atheism.

But RF has argued that point to death.

The other common error I feel is the lack of distinction between theism and religion. In reality they are entirely separate concepts, not even reliant on each other. Arguments in favour of theism are not arguments in favour of religion and vice versa. Also, arguments in favour of religion as a concept are not arguments in favour of any specific religions or type of religion.

The stuff at the end about gaining control of your consciousness and using such methods as part of a scientific search for God isn't entirely without merit but has fundamental flaws, primarily that it is missing the initial observation and hypothesis elements of scientific process that precede any practical experimentation. Of course the stated conclusion is that anyone who hasn't been through this process has no place denying the truth of any religion but doesn't it equally suggest anyone who hasn't been through this process has no place proclaiming the truth of any on religion (especially where that involved denying the truth of other religions by definition)?

I agree, that seems implied. And he references three "sages" from various religions to make his point of a commonality.

It seems to be an argument for unassuming agnosticism, which I'm not sure was the original intent or the purpose of it being posted here.

If agnosticism implies doubt, I don't read any doubt in his attitude.

 

[outhouse]

I think they call that "creation.""

Imagination.

Its not in a book the way it went down, so its not mythology. creation is imagination.

And there it will stay unless you can provide some small shred of evidence that has remained elusive so that it looks like perverted mythology.

 

[HonestJoe]

He states the questions in the first paragraph.

No, he reinterprets the question. It appears that a member of the audience asked a question and quoted is his response to it. I was interested in how the questioner actually worded their question since I can't help wondering how much the deconstruction in the first paragraph was legitimate and how much a method of twisting it in to the questions he wanted to answer (politicians do that in interviews all the time).

I don't think it much of a stretch to understand that denial happens in the moment of rejection, and that that is the classical atheism.

Atheism isn't an act, it's a characteristic - something someone is, not something they do. None of the things you describe are necessarily untrue, it's just that they're above and beyond atheism as a concept.

It's a vital distinction given that (often valid) criticism of anti-theism is often used to declare atheism (simply happening not to believe) as fundamentally wrong too, as is somewhat the case in this example.

If agnosticism implies doubt, I don't read any doubt in his attitude.

I agree there is no doubt in his attitude (or at least expressed in his words - what their very existence really say about his faith is a different matter) but that's just ironic given how he is condemning "atheists" for having no doubt in theirs. I agree with the principle that having no doubt it flawed, hence his position is exactly as flawed as the one he attacks. That’s why I feel his strongly theistic position never-the-less inadvertently supports agnosticism.

 

[Willamena]

No, he reinterprets the question. It appears that a member of the audience asked a question and quoted is his response to it. I was interested in how the questioner actually worded their question since I can't help wondering how much the deconstruction in the first paragraph was legitimate and how much a method of twisting it in to the questions he wanted to answer (politicians do that in interviews all the time).

Fair enough.

Atheism isn't an act, it's a characteristic - something someone is, not something they do. None of the things you describe are necessarily untrue, it's just that they're above and beyond atheism as a concept.

It's a vital distinction given that (often valid) criticism of anti-theism is often used to declare atheism (simply happening not to believe) as fundamentally wrong too, as is somewhat the case in this example.

If you want to word it in terms of characteristic then it's having denied god, but that's splitting hairs. I believe it's quintessential and is commonly used that way, and there we may differ.

I agree there is no doubt in his attitude (or at least expressed in his words - what their very existence really say about his faith is a different matter) but that's just ironic given how he is condemning "atheists" for having no doubt in theirs. I agree with the principle that having no doubt it flawed, hence his position is exactly as flawed as the one he attacks. That’s why I feel his strongly theistic position never-the-less inadvertently supports agnosticism.

 

[Iti oj]

They only reason I have to consider that their is a god or that God did it is because some one else said so....not evidence and experience... If no one mentioned it I would never have considered it.

 

[Thruve]

I thought most people came to the conclusion that there won't ever be physical proof of god, ever. If there was, life would be meaningless and null.
Our nature would be redundant. Therefore, since I believe In God, I hope there never is physical proof of him/it/they.

 

[outhouse]

"We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and within themselves till it
becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Does it not suffice that thy Lord is
Witness over all things?" (Quran 41:53)

The koran has no credibility at all.

It helps prove there is no god, because it is obvious plagiarism of Judaism and Christianity.

 

[outhouse]

The Ignorance of Atheistic Denial of God

YOU MEAN? The ignorance of the belief in a muslim god.


When we see islam stealing the mythology of previous religions, and having a pedophile warrior claim his version Is the only correct one, reality gets a bit suspicious.


Man has a long history of defining and creating gods, and your so called prophet is a perfect example of men defining a god out of imagination and plagiarism of others religion and mythology.

 

[HonestJoe]

If you want to word it in terms of characteristic then it's having denied god, but that's splitting hairs. I believe it's quintessential and is commonly used that way, and there we may differ.

I agree that the word is commonly used to refer to denial of a specific god, used being the key word because it's often a tool to attack anyone who doesn't believe the same thing as the attacker. That's why I object to that common misuse of the term (or indeed any other, such as Muslim to mean terrorist or Christian to mean homophobe).

 

[icehorse]

Back to the OP,

James Cutsinger's talk is based on strawman arguments. I would be happy to grant him that there are certain statements that a few atheists *might* make that he could argue.

But most atheists don't make the claims he's addressing... strawman.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm wondering if the OP is likely to return and address the posts he has prompted...

 

[philalethes]

I'm wondering if the OP is likely to return and address the posts he has prompted...

Dear Lewisnotmiller,

Greetings of Peace. I was still waiting for an answer to my original question but looking over this thread and others, it would seems that despite requests to the contrary that there is no kind of proof that an atheist would consider satisfying. The proof in this case is an active engagement in activities that he or she would not consider worthwhile because of the predisposition toward a negative conclusion. I am reminded of Frithjof Schuon's apt analogy posted elsewhere that it is like "the alphabet has become bankrupt in a class where the pupils are determined not to learn it."

In Peace,
Desmond

 

[outhouse]

it would seems that despite requests to the contrary that there is no kind of proof that an atheist would consider satisfying.

To prove something you first need evidence


When you get any of that, even a shred of evidence, please do give us a call.


We are open minded and would love proof.


Unfortunately the mountain of evidence only proves your gods are man made and defined differently by different people. :yes:



We understand that muslims cannot debate these issues and respond to each sentence that shows the weakness of your religion, You really should try debating some time, you could learn something about the religion you follow.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was still waiting for an answer to my original question but looking over this thread and others, it would seems that despite requests to the contrary that there is no kind of proof that an atheist would consider satisfying.

It is hard to imagine what possible convincing proof might be offered.
Many have tried to offer proof, but reasoning & evidence have been lacking.
Do you have anything in particular in mind?

 

[Willamena]

I agree that the word is commonly used to refer to denial of a specific god...

Sometimes. But more often, just god.

...used being the key word because it's often a tool to attack anyone who doesn't believe the same thing as the attacker. That's why I object to that common misuse of the term (or indeed any other, such as Muslim to mean terrorist or Christian to mean homophobe).

 

[columbus]

Dear Psychoslice,

Greetings of Peace. What kind of evidence would you consider sufficient proof for the existence of God?

In Peace,
Desmond

"We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and within themselves till it
becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Does it not suffice that thy Lord is
Witness over all things?" (Quran 41:53)

I've mentioned this many times, although not in this thread.
All I would need is a message from God that doesn't require a human being to deliver and interpret it. If everyone everywhere got it at the same time we'd be all set.
The God described by Abrahamic religion is perfectly capable of such a miracle. No need to interfere with anyone's free will, just give us enough information to make the right choices.

Tom