The Paradox of Atheism and God

[viole]

We don't know. God is not knowable. God is beyond the grasp of human knowing. God is the source, sustenance and purpose of all that is. And that is not something we can know, or understand, or manipulate. God is beyond that.

So we can only trust and hope in that great mystery. Or not.

So, that would render any specific form of worshipping a sort of lottery. A totally irrational endeavor indistinguishable from mere supersticion. Like knocking on wood.

A rational theist would, according to this, refrain from any form of worship that is predicated on a certain version of God. Praying to Jesus? nonsense, we cannot possibly know whether God has a Kid to start with.

After all, if I do not know what God is, how can I possible worship Her.? And why do I worship Her? Maybe She despises worships.

Why do you keep insisting that we must know? There is much we humans don't know. There is much we humans can't know. And will never know. Surely you understand this. So why are you insisting that we must know God's nature, name, and intent? Or to whom and how God chooses to express itself?

Of course I understand, but in my experience, the ones who say God can take different forms, do not assume that it is another God, with a different form, they are believing in. They all believe their God is true, and that are the others who experienced different versions of Him. Which is clearly logically ridiculous.

We both know that such a position is logically untenable. And, again, any form of belief in a specific form of God, for instance the Christian one, is completely irrational, if those unknowable premises would be true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

I am asking you what makes you think the Torah has not been inspired by Thor, instead.

This is the first time you have asked this question.

I am tempted to put you on ignore due to disrepect, and disengenuous discourse.

If you have a question ask it.

I mean, they are almost one the anagram of the other. A possible sign, LOL.

Not based on the defintion you brought. That's not true. They are not an anagram.

You are being dishonest. I hate dishonesty.

If God likes to take different forms, to different people, and for different reasons, then, well, why not? How do you know?

I did not say "likes" I said capable. Exodus 3 is your answer. That is how I know that the God of Abraham can take different forms. Also Judges 13.

Ok, can you name me an alternative God what could have done that? Shall we go with Allah, instead, or do you have a better candidate?

I don't know enough about any of the other gods described in other religions to answer this question. You will need to describe them for me.

I asked you a question. If you do not answer it, I will conclude that you are being dishonest, disrespectful and I will happliy flush your screename into the ignore-list.

If you define Thor, arbitrarily, using a non-standard ddefintion, so that it automatically matches the description in the Torah, then, it is the same god, different name. That's semantics.

If you arbitrarily define Pagan, such that it matches Judiasm. Then that is the same theological position with a different name. That's semantics.

Are you defining "Thor" and "Pagan" in this way? If not, then it's not the same god, not the same theology.

Question: ARE you using a non-standard arbitrary definition for "Thor" such that it matches the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Torah?

Question: ARE you using a non-standard arbitrary definition for "Pagan" such that it matches Judaism?

Failure to answer will confirm you are making a silly semantic argument: same-god, same-theology, different names.

 

[viole]

This is the first time you have asked this question.

I am tempted to put you on ignore due to disrepect, and disengenuous discourse.

If you have a question ask it.

What disrespect? Am I disrespecting your Scriptures because they might have been inspired by Thor, or am I disrespecting Thor for having written them? Since God can take different forms, both possibilities are open.

You said yourself that God can take different forms, manifest Itself to different people, for a variety of reasons.

So, how do you know that it was not Thor, Allah, or the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, who decided to manifest Himself to ancient Hebrews as Jehovah, and inspired them Scriptures?

Once you postulate that God can take different forms, manifest Herself in different ways to different people and for different reasons, then all bets are off. Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

What disrespect? Am I disrespecting your Scriptures because they might have been inspired by Thor, or am I disrespecting Thor for having written them? Since God can take different forms, both possibilities are open.

You said yourself that God can take different forms, manifest Itself to different people, for a variety of reasons.

So, how do you know that it was not Thor, Allah, or the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, who decided to manifest Himself to ancient Hebrews as Jehovah, and inspired them Scriptures?

Once you postulate that God can take different forms, manifest Herself in different ways to different people and for different reasons, then all bets are off. Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

Ignore. Bye.

Your argument is clearly semantic. You cannot define the terms you are using. Everything about what you're saying is sloppy and dishonest.

You can play arguing-atheist with someone else. There is nothing, absolutley nothing, redeeming about conversing with you.

 

[viole]

Ignore. Bye.

Good decision. Anyone would have done the same in your shoes.

Who's next?

Ciao

- voile

 

[Heyo]

I believe you can say that all day and twice on Tuesdays but without a rational it is just blowing smoke.

I was just affirming your right to religious freedom. When you preface an assertion with "I believe", there is no arguing and no rational required.

 

[PureX]

So, that would render any specific form of worshipping a sort of lottery. A totally irrational endeavor indistinguishable from mere supersticion. Like knocking on wood.

Worshiping God is not about God. We don't do it for God. We do it for ourselves. To maintain a position of humility and wonder. We don't need to know God, or worship the right God to do this. So it has nothing to do with luck or superstition. Those are just your own biased projections.

A rational theist would, according to this, refrain from any form of worship that is predicated on a certain version of God. Praying to Jesus? nonsense, we cannot possibly know whether God has a Kid to start with.

Why? Worshiping God is both good for and necessary for some people. It's only your own bias that makes you ignore this.

After all, if I do not know what God is, how can I possible worship Her.?

Why do you think you have to know? Why can't you worship the great mystery of all that is?

And why do I worship Her? Maybe She despises worships.

It's not about what God wants. It's about what people need.

Of course I understand, but in my experience, the ones who say God can take different forms, do not assume that it is another God, with a different form, they are believing in. They all believe their God is true, and that are the others who experienced different versions of Him. Which is clearly logically ridiculous.

How people choose to imagine the great mystery is their choice, made for their own reasons. And we are all free to do this because none of us can know God. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

We both know that such a position is logically untenable.

I don't see anything logically untenable about it. The great mystery is real. People call it God. And because it is a mystery, and is so important to us, we want to envision it in some way. Even worship it. So we do.

And, again, any form of belief in a specific form of God, for instance the Christian one, is completely irrational, if those unknowable premises would be true.

All "belief" is irrational. But you do it, and so does everyone else. So good luck stopping it.
Faith, on the other hand is not irrational, because it works. And we all engage in acts of faith, too, whether we admit it or not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You made a claim that you studied tthe bible, both the OT and NT for years.

Yes, I did. I also claimed that I don't consider you or any other believer an authority on the Bible in areas where I disagree with them. Go ahead and tell me how well your prophecies have been fulfilled, for example, and I'll answer, "Nonsense" authoritatively.

your claim, your burden.

What burden? I don't care whether you believe me or not.

online-atheist's do not know the bible eventhough this more complete knowledge is part of their theology.

I don't have a theology. You do.

Therefore, any confidence you have in theism, is woefully exaggeratted.

I have no confidence in theism. I also have no idea what you're interested in discussing here. I've been discussing whether the skeptic should defer to the self-claimed expertise and authority of the believer in scriptural matters. I have no other interest in this subject. Scripture is meaningless to me as a source of knowledge or advice.

Worshiping God is not about God. We don't do it for God. We do it for ourselves. To maintain a position of humility and wonder. We don't need to know God, or worship the right God to do this.

Feel free to worship if that centers you or meets some other need. What you don't seem to understand is that there are many people with no such need. They don't need a god concept to center themselves or to determine what is true and what is good, nor for instructions on how to live or anything else. Also, for the atheistic humanist, love of and respect for nature is a more appropriate relationship with reality than worshiping imagined gods.

Worshiping God is both good for and necessary for some people. It's only your own bias that makes you ignore this.

Why should that matter to her or anybody else who doesn't need a god?

Why can't you worship the great mystery of all that is?

Why can't you just respect reality without debasing yourself in worship? Worshiping is a primitive notion. What you don't seem to understand is that there are minds that don't want or need gods or religions or holy books.

The great mystery is real. People call it God. And because it is a mystery, and is so important to us, we want to envision it in some way. Even worship it. So we do.

Then go for it. She doesn't have that need. Neither do I. And we're both telling you that your way of framing reality is not only not necessary for many, and I'd add that I prefer it this way. Why on earth would anybody prefer to be caught up in all of that than be independent of it?

All "belief" is irrational.

Nope. A belief is an idea one considers true. Irrational means absent reason. Beliefs derived by the proper application of reason to evidence are rational by definition. Beliefs arrived at by other methods which altogether comprise faith - insufficiently justified belief - are irrational. Belief in gods is irrational, meaning that there is no sound argument that concludes, "therefore, God." But the argument that concludes, "therefore, agnostic atheism" is sound, that is properly reasoned, which means rational.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, I did. I also claimed that I don't consider you or any other believer an authority on the Bible in areas where I disagree with them

When discussing the bible, the authority is the bible. In order to have any discussion of any story, the plot points need to be established. The conflict between the online-atheist and the religious-adherent-who-studies-the-story is, at its root: What is the plot?

The online-atheist, in all cases I have ever observed, ignores the details of the plot, even when the plot is in their face. When confronted with this, they deny-deny-deny just like any science denier.

The problem is, IF you claim to have studied the bible, and yet, simulatenously don't actually know what's in it, then there is no reason to trust your own conclusions about it. The self-confidence is completely irrational. On the other hand, someone who studies it historically, currently, continuously, repeatedly, has a strongly rational reason for self-confidence of their conclusions. And, denying this rational advantage is itself extremely irrational.

Because of this, the typical online-atheist is extremely irrational in the context of any scriptural discussion. They aslo tend to be extremely ignorant of theology that does not match a cartoonish characture of a white-man-in-the-clouds.

 

[dybmh]

What burden?

You said you had studied the bible for years, I asked for evidence of this by asking a simple question, which should produce a single verse. You did not answer the question, whch indicates, usually, the original claim is false, and the speaker has been virtually cornered in the debate, with no other option other than admit they were wrong.

In truth, even if you do not know the answer, do not have it memorized, like I do, if you had studied the bible you would know how to find the answer.

This is common online-atheist mythology. What was happening was probably not actual "study". That's a myth. This is no different in form and function from the more extreme lie which is told: "I know what's in the bible because, I read the bible cover to cover X number of times".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When discussing the bible, the authority is the bible.

The Bible is a book. It has no authority. I am the authority in my life of what its words mean.

The problem is, IF you claim to have studied the bible, and yet, simulatenously don't actually know what's in it, then there is no reason to trust your own conclusions about it.

I'll be the judge of that. I have no reason to trust YOUR conclusions when they differ from mine. Did you want to address that or go on trying to disqualify opinions you don't like with irrelevant arguments? That will be a futile endeavor then as it has been to date.

Because of this, the typical online-atheist is extremely irrational in the context of any scriptural discussion

Yet you produced no examples of this. What's irrational is thinking that you knowing biblical trivia should matter at all to the skeptic.

They aslo tend to be extremely ignorant of theology that does not match a cartoonish characture of a white-man-in-the-clouds.

Theology is already a cartoon. It's based in the premise that a god exists, which makes its conclusions meaningless to those who don't share that premise, meaning that it's no more an academic pursuit that the study of Harry Potter or Game of Thrones from the perspective that their fictional characters actually exist.

You said yyou had studied the bible, I asked for evidence of this by asking a simplle question, which should produce a single verse.

You don't get to decide what constitutes evidence there nor to limit it to an irrelevant question.

Furthermore, as I've explained, it doesn't matter to me whether you believe me or not. Nor is it even important that it be true. I would still trust my own judgment over a believer's wherever they contradict one another. Why? I'm literate and have excellent reading comprehension. I can tell you what words mean and I can judge the claims of believers and unbelievers alike regarding their meaning. You seem to disapprove, but sorry about that. Your dissenting opinion carries no weight with me.

 

[dybmh]

The Bible is a book. It has no authority.

FALSE. The book is the authority of the plot. The details of the plot are being ignored.

I am the authority in my life of what its words mean.

But not which words are chosen. And not the sequence of the words.

We can stop here since you are drifting into la-la-land, and setting up a pulpit to preach an atheist-sermon. Old habits die hard.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We can stop here since you are drifting into la-la-land

Pigeon chess is it then? Frustrated at your inability to control the discussion, at having your games and gimmicks ignored, and by my refusal to defer to you as a biblical authority, you kick over the board and fly off muttering a gratuitous insult. You might not be the player you think you are.

 

[dybmh]

Pigeon chess is it then? Frustrated at your inability to control the discussion, at having your games and gimmicks ignored, and by my refusal to defer to you as a biblical authority, you kick over the board and fly off muttering a gratuitous insult. You might not be the player you think you are.

No. If you read what I wrote that would be clear.. You were drifting into la-la-land and starting an atheist sermon. Below is the topic, please try to stay focused. If you need a break, please take one. But perhaps avoid intoxicants several hours before posting.

The Bible is a book. It has no authority.

FALSE. The book is the authority of the plot. The details of the plot are being ignored.

I am the authority in my life of what its words mean.

But not which words are chosen. And not the sequence of the words.

 

[viole]

Worshiping God is not about God. We don't do it for God. We do it for ourselves. To maintain a position of humility and wonder. We don't need to know God, or worship the right God to do this. So it has nothing to do with luck or superstition. Those are just your own biased projections.

So, at the end of the day, you are worshiping yourself? Or what you think is good for yourself?

Why aren't I surprised?

Why? Worshiping God is both good for and necessary for some people. It's only your own bias that makes you ignore this.

Yes, but my objection here is not about the therapeutical properties of worshipping X. We know people would believe any absurdity if that makes them feel better. One of my friends still believe that me being a Gemini is what determined my nature.

My Muslim friend also seems to find high comfort in worshipping Allah.

Do you think he is not deluded in doing that?

Why do you think you have to know? Why can't you worship the great mystery of all that is?

Let me try.

Deep mystery, I worship you. You are really amazing. I have no clue what you are, obviously, for being a mystery, but I really like you.

Really? How is that not the same as insanity?

t's not about what God wants. It's about what people need.

Exactly.

How people choose to imagine the great mystery is their choice, made for their own reasons. And we are all free to do this because none of us can know God. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

Exactly. They make things up. They worship a figment of their imagination, which is nothing but a consequence of their wishful thinking.

I have no quarrel with that.

I don't see anything logically untenable about it. The great mystery is real. People call it God. And because it is a mystery, and is so important to us, we want to envision it in some way. Even worship it. So we do.

Yes, but people do not worship a neutral God. They do not worship a mystery, whatever that means. They worship Jesus, Zeus, Allah, the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea. And all the other thousands. And they follow rituals which are very specific. Mysteries do not have rituals.

Why do they do that, if they cannot possibly know which one of the thousands is true, and might just operate under false flag?

In other words: how do you know you are not worshiping Zeus, Who just happened to manifest Himself to you as the God of the Bible?

All "belief" is irrational. But you do it, and so does everyone else. So good luck stopping it.
Faith, on the other hand is not irrational, because it works. And we all engage in acts of faith, too, whether we admit it or not.

Do I?

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

So, at the end of the day, you are worshiping yourself? Or what you think is good for yourself?

I didn't post anything even remotely implying that.

Yes, but my objection here is not about the therapeutical properties of worshipping X. We know people would believe any absurdity if that makes them feel better.

But what you don't know in this case is that it's absurd. This is what you bias just can't seem to accept.

My Muslim friend also seems to find high comfort in worshipping Allah.

Do you think he is not deluded in doing that?

Why would I? I am not in charge of what anyone else thinks of God.

Deep mystery, I worship you. You are really amazing. I have no clue what you are, obviously, for being a mystery, but I really like you.

Really? How is that not the same as insanity?

It was dishonest.

Exactly. They make things up. They worship a figment of their imagination, which is nothing but a consequence of their wishful thinking.

Some people recognize that their idea of God is not actually God, and some don't. Like some people recognize that their idea that no gods exist is just an idea, and some don't. People really like to pretend they know things that they don't actually know, because they are frightened by the unknown, or because their ego tells them they are far more knowledgeable than they are. Yet here you are whining about human nature, when you are exactly as human as everyone else is, and exactly as ignorant. So what does this tell us about you? That perhaps YOU are as blind to your own intellectual failures as the people you are trying so hard to condemn for being exactly that?

Yes, but people do not worship a neutral God. They do not worship a mystery, whatever that means. They worship Jesus, Zeus, Allah, the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea. And all the other thousands. And they follow rituals which are very specific. Mysteries do not have rituals.

All of those "gods" are creative representations of the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that is. Is it really so difficult for you to understand creative representation?

Why do they do that, if they cannot possibly know which one of the thousands is true, and might just operate under false flag?

Because they are human. Creative representation is one of the ways we humans deal with the complex mysteries of life.

In other words: how do you know you are not worshiping Zeus,

Why can't you understand that it makes no difference what name we call it? And that there is no one "right" way to conceptualize it?

 

[Eli G]

It is evident that any human activity begins with a mental process. Believing and worshiping God do ... and ALSO disbelieving; there is not more merit in the last than in the first in this sense. Any boast of atheists about it is nonsense.

 

[MikeF]

How people choose to imagine the great mystery is their choice, made for their own reasons. And we are all free to do this

Are all people free to do as you suggest? I would suggest any freedom in that regard is a relatively recent phenomenon historically and certainly not for the overwhelming majority.

 

[PureX]

Are all people free to do as you suggest? I would suggest any freedom in that regard is a relatively recent phenomenon historically and certainly not for the overwhelming majority.

I can't think of any reason why any human could not choose to conceive of God in any way they like. Nor why they would not have been able to do so at any time in the past.

 

[MikeF]

I can't think of any reason why any human could not choose to conceive of God in any way they like. Nor why they would not have been able to do so at any time in the past.

Hmmm ... seems like an obstinate denial of a sad truth. You're much to smart for it to be otherwise.