What is the best argument for an atheist?

[0zyzzyz0]

The best argument for atheism is to simply let theists make their arguments for god. Reason and honesty handles the rest.

Kilgore, I think that might just be the most practical approach I've come across yet.:bow:

 

[connerb]

howabout the atheists make their arguments against God and God handles the rest

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The best argument for atheism is to simply let theists make their arguments for god. Reason and honesty handles the rest.

Actually the best argument for an atheist is to grab your particular deity by the hand and introduce him/her/it to the atheist.

-Q

 

[0zyzzyz0]

a] You have got to be kidding [kidding as in sarcasm].

b] "imagined divinity and familiar" ---2+2 is the same for kindergarten Students and for rocket scientists.

When a thief holds a knife to you while demanding your wealth ---"Guess who your daddy is then?"
Maybe you have avoided this occurence "to kow-tow to brutality iron grip" ---But any one can approach you and declare they are your lord & master . . . and you will salute when they do so . . . lest you establish the proper ground work for democratic rule.

Don't be fooled by the theocracies ---they are actually mafiosi commercial enterprises in religious garb.

We just have to establish which is which.

c] Your welcomed. My Pleasure to be of assistance to you.

It seems we're maybe not sharing the same universe. Either that wasn't sensible or it's a failure on my part to make sense out of what you've tried to share here. Sorry.

Enlightenment, admittedly either a delusion or a somewhat mythical state of mind, seem more likely to come from questions than answers. I do not understand the answers you offer. I only have questions about them.

0zy

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The atheist position is the more logical of the two sides. There are many arguments for atheism, and the "prove it!" argument is not an illogical position to take. As has already been stated, it's the job of those positing that there IS a god to bring forth the evidence in their favor. Reality and logic stand against there actually being a god. However, there are several problems with using the word "proof." The main issue is that, due to the nature of 'god', it is basically impossible to "proove" one way or another whether it exists or not. A second problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative statement. This would require knowing absolutely everything about everything. Therefore, the best position a person can take, as another poster here already said, is that of an agnostic. However, if you're going for logic, then the atheist position is the more logical. But, you would have to define what you mean by 'god', because the arguments might change depending on exactly what is meant by that term. If you're going with the classical Judeo-Christian definition that god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, then you would have the argument that reality shows that this cannot be the case. At least one of these would have to at least be modified, if not done away with outright, in order for said being to exist logically. If you're going with the "first cause" of Aristotle, then the argument changes. You would have to prove that this "cause" is any kind of god to begin with, and not just some abstract force of nature. An atheist simply cannot have that "one argument" that defeats all theists, because said argument does not exist. If you're going for logic, then things need to be analyzed, and the OP was too vague in his approach.

 

[Orias]

The atheist position is the more logical of the two sides.

I disagree, logic is a standard of being. It's all dependant on bias and the foreknowledge of one's argument.

No one looks at it from a psychological standpoint.

If decimals exist then so does a "God".

There are many arguments for atheism, and the "prove it!" argument is not an illogical position to take. .

Then it's just as logical for a theist to say, "prove that there isn't a God".

As has already been stated, it's the job of those positing that there IS a god to bring forth the evidence in their favor.

Why does there need to be evidence?

Reality and logic stand against there actually being a god. .

I disagree. Can you provide some examples?

You could be talking to one right now.

But then again, it all depends on how you define a God.

However, there are several problems with using the word "proof." The main issue is that, due to the nature of 'god', it is basically impossible to "proove" one way or another whether it exists or not..

Man seems to have two natural drives, find comfort, gain knowledge.

Consisting of the "comfort" side lies theism and atheism, whatever makes one most comfortable will obviously be more likely to be followed.

Now, the nature of God is reflective upon the nature of man, for the very being of Gods is defined in a humanly characteristic way.


But alas, in order for a God to exist, a greater nature would have to have allowed, making the "supernatural" existences inconsistant with the subjective views of the world.

A second problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative statement. This would require knowing absolutely everything about everything. .

Define a negative statement.

We already do know everything about everything, its just a matter of comming to terms and pooling perception.

We are not only part of the Universe, we are the Universe.

The very existences of the Universe are built within us, the foreknowledge of Life, instinct.

It is what brought us here after all.

Therefore, the best position a person can take, as another poster here already said, is that of an agnostic. .

Any position is the best to take, as long as you can defend and attack yourself .

However, if you're going for logic, then the atheist position is the more logical. .

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to back that up.

I disagree.

But, you would have to define what you mean by 'god', because the arguments might change depending on exactly what is meant by that term..

Exactly

The separation of divine will from carnal knowledge.

If you're going with the classical Judeo-Christian definition that god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, then you would have the argument that reality shows that this cannot be the case. .

Again, that is all dependant on how you view it.

It's only not the case if you chose to see the less than conducive part of nature (though it is still conducive to the Opposition).

At least one of these would have to at least be modified, if not done away with outright, in order for said being to exist logically..

Logicality is just a formality. It has limits, because apparantly ignorance is derived from an essence of totality. Making logic less than what it is.

We label things that "exist".

Claiming "knowledge" and "fact" over perception.

If you're going with the "first cause" of Aristotle, then the argument changes. You would have to prove that this "cause" is any kind of god to begin with, and not just some abstract force of nature. .

Then is it a concrete force of nature?

An atheist simply cannot have that "one argument" that defeats all theists, because said argument does not exist. If you're going for logic, then things need to be analyzed, and the OP was too vague in his approach.

I don't think the OP was too vague in his analysis.

After all you said it, it's about analysis and perception.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I disagree, logic is a standard of being. It's all dependant on bias and the foreknowledge of one's argument.

No one looks at it from a psychological standpoint.

If decimals exist then so does a "God".

Logic is the science that investigates a particular method of reasoning. It's the principles by which we make inferences. And Jung and the Buddha would disagree that no one looks at it from a psychological standpoint. Define "exist". What does it mean to exist? To exist is to have being. A decimal exists because we can show proof of it's existence. Unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they have being, regardless of whether people believe they exist or not. God falls into this latter category.

Then it's just as logical for a theist to say, "prove that there isn't a God".

Prove that unicorns exist. If there were bones, or a live specimen, we could say that it does. Prove unicorns don't exist. That would require having negative proof, which is impossible. Again, God falls into this latter category. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim of the existence of a being, not on the one who denies it's existence.

Why does there need to be evidence?

Because then the belief would be just as absurd as believing in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. Without evidence, there is nothing concrete or objective that shows that such a being exists, much less deserves worship and commitment.

I disagree. Can you provide some examples?

You could be talking to one right now.

But then again, it all depends on how you define a God.

We'll use the classic Judeo-Christian concept of god as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. Reality itself is evidence that such a being does not exist. The very fact that there is suffering shows that either 1. said god is not all-loving, 2. said god is not all-powerful, or 3. said god is not all-knowing. Such a god that knows all, is all-powerful, and all-benevolent would not, and could not, allow the suffering that takes place daily almost everywhere.

Man seems to have two natural drives, find comfort, gain knowledge.

Consisting of the "comfort" side lies theism and atheism, whatever makes one most comfortable will obviously be more likely to be followed.

Actually, man has one primary natural drive, and that is self-preservation. Finding comfort and gaining knowledge comes from this. And, in the Buddhist philosophy, finding comfort can only come from gaining knowledge.

Now, the nature of God is reflective upon the nature of man, for the very being of Gods is defined in a humanly characteristic way.


But alas, in order for a God to exist, a greater nature would have to have allowed, making the "supernatural" existences inconsistant with the subjective views of the world.

In your first statement, is that the same as saying "man created god, so that god could create man?" And the second statement should be reversed. Supernatural existence is a subjective experience, not an objective one. So, the supernatural and subjectivism are compatable, while objectively, supernaturalism is not compatable with.

Define a negative statement.

As I stated above, a negative statement would be to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist. It's like asking for someone to disprove the existence of unicorns, or fairies, or some such. You cannot have evidence, which is something concrete and objective, that something does not exist.

We already do know everything about everything, its just a matter of comming to terms and pooling perception.

We are not only part of the Universe, we are the Universe.

The very existences of the Universe are built within us, the foreknowledge of Life, instinct.

It is what brought us here after all.

I disagree. How do we know everything? We barely know anything about anything in astronomy. The only science we can say we know fully is math. And science changes as new data comes forward. From a flat earth to an oval earth; from a geocentric model of the solar system, to a heliocentric one. And science generally doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. The role of science is to explain the natural. But, as we learn more about our natural world, we're finding that there's less need for supernatural explanations, which might have been necessary 3000 years ago, but not today.

Any position is the best to take, as long as you can defend and attack yourself .

That all depends on how defendable a particular position is.

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to back that up.

I disagree.

See above.

Exactly

The separation of divine will from carnal knowledge.

Then how does one arrive at what exactly "divine will" is? If it is separate from carnal knowledge, then we cannot use our knowledge to arrive at divine will. It has to be supernatural in nature, i.e., divine revelation. Let's take it further. There are several religions that claim divine revelation. How do we know which is right? Since they all disagree with each other, then one has to be right, while the others are wrong. But how do we judge which is right? If we cannot use carnal knowledge, then there is no way possible for mankind to judge what is divine revelation and what is not.

Again, that is all dependant on how you view it.

It's only not the case if you chose to see the less than conducive part of nature (though it is still conducive to the Opposition).

I'm unclear on what you mean by this. Please clarify further.

Logicality is just a formality. It has limits, because apparantly ignorance is derived from an essence of totality. Making logic less than what it is.

Logic does have it's limits, I agree totally. But, if we're going to go by what's a good argument for an atheist that god does not exist, then logic is a great tool. Why believe in something that cannot be comprehended by the human mind, much less proven to exist by human knowledge? It's absurd. And, even if we could show that a god exists, then which one? How many? What gender? What is it's nature, it's characteristics, etc.?

We label things that "exist".

Yes, and it's done so we know what differentiates something from something else. Classification is a necessary tool.

Claiming "knowledge" and "fact" over perception.

Sometimes subjective experience goes against objective reason. This does not mean that a subjective experience is supernatural, which is required for the existence of a god.

Then is it a concrete force of nature?

It might very well be nothing more than natural law.



I don't think the OP was too vague in his analysis.

After all you said it, it's about analysis and perception.

Hopefully that helps clarify my position.

Edit: And apparently I've done the quotes thing wrong.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I wanted to make another point.

Consisting of the "comfort" side lies theism and atheism, whatever makes one most comfortable will obviously be more likely to be followed.

It's actually more comforting, regardless of personal beliefs, to believe in a god, that is in control of everything, that loves us and cares for us, and that wishes the best for our lives, and has the power to make it happen. The atheist position is less comforting, because it teaches that we have no one to rely on but ourselves, that there is no afterlife, and no rewards for good deeds. And yet, there are atheists, primarily because it is the more logical position.

 

[PolyHedral]

I disagree, logic is a standard of being. It's all dependant on bias and the foreknowledge of one's argument.

No it's not.

If decimals exist then so does a "God".

Is God defined to be true?

Then it's just as logical for a theist to say, "prove that there isn't a God".

But that isn't a logical position at all; If it was, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a rational proposition.

Why does there need to be evidence?

You want your beliefs to match up to reality, don't you?

Man seems to have two natural drives, find comfort, gain knowledge.

To add to what mattmcneal31 said, man has two natural drives: self-preservation and self-reproduction. Everything that doesn't acheive one of those is arguing how many angels can dance on a pin.

We already do know everything about everything, its just a matter of comming to terms and pooling perception.

Nobody has the Theory of Everything. Nobody knows the shape of the universe, or when it will end. (Though there are some good and some not-so-good guesses) Nobody knows how to build FTL machinery, or whether it's even possible.

We are not only part of the Universe, we are the Universe.

You've missed the unimaginably vast clouds of inanimate matter, then.

 

[Orias]

No it's not.

Then what is it?

Last time I checked, logic is required for survival.

Is God defined to be true?

God is defined.

So does a label make it true?

But that isn't a logical position at all; If it was, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a rational proposition.

Again, and the atheist's argument of "prove it" is just as illogical as saying decimals exist.

You want your beliefs to match up to reality, don't you?

How can you rationalize my standpoint if you just want to bash it the whole time?

We don't need evidence that we exist, or that molecules exist.

They exist because other people tell us they do, not because every single person has concrete evidence of it's existence.

To add to what mattmcneal31 said, man has two natural drives: self-preservation and self-reproduction. Everything that doesn't acheive one of those is arguing how many angels can dance on a pin.

Why would man live uncomfortably?

Thats what belief is, its part of the natural born drive to preserve the self (with no doubt self preservation is the highest law).

Nobody has the Theory of Everything. Nobody knows the shape of the universe, or when it will end. (Though there are some good and some not-so-good guesses) Nobody knows how to build FTL machinery, or whether it's even possible.

Hmm...I though I remember something about scientists using a laser to determine the shape of the Universe, and it happens to come back to Earth in a triangular shape.

It is from my understanding that the Universe is a four dimensional projection of a two dimensional space.

And again, if you cared to understand what I mean, of course we have the knowledge for everything, we have the knowledge for need and survival. I find repeating myself is getting a bit redunant.

You've missed the unimaginably vast clouds of inanimate matter, then.

You obviously don't understand the concept which I am trying to get across.

Our minds are as complex and inconsistant with law as the Universe is.

Remember when I said what makes up most of the Universe?

It's dust, and you came from it.

 

[Orias]

Logic is the science that investigates a particular method of reasoning. It's the principles by which we make inferences. And Jung and the Buddha would disagree that no one looks at it from a psychological standpoint. Define "exist". What does it mean to exist? To exist is to have being. A decimal exists because we can show proof of it's existence. Unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they have being, regardless of whether people believe they exist or not. God falls into this latter category.

Ok, exist is to have being, prove that a decimal exists.

Then we will try this, is something existing if it is not an entity?

You say a decimal exists because we can prove it exists, yet the word "unicorn" obviously has some irrefutable proclamation to its existence, otherwise the label, "unicorn" would not exist.

Would a unicorn exist if I drew it on paper, or a computer (just as much as a decimal)?

Prove that unicorns exist. If there were bones, or a live specimen, we could say that it does. Prove unicorns don't exist. That would require having negative proof, which is impossible. Again, God falls into this latter category. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim of the existence of a being, not on the one who denies it's existence.

Wait, so what I got from the bolded/underlined sentences is...you can't prove or disprove it?

And what I got form the italic sentence is that, it is a burden trying to prove the existence of something, not to deny it.

Isn't that a bit narrowminded?

I guess, it's easy to deny something that has never been thought of before.

Because then the belief would be just as absurd as believing in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. Without evidence, there is nothing concrete or objective that shows that such a being exists, much less deserves worship and commitment.

I would go as so far as to say, what if we are the evidence?

But that would be nonesense then wouldn't it?

We'll use the classic Judeo-Christian concept of god as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. Reality itself is evidence that such a being does not exist. The very fact that there is suffering shows that either 1. said god is not all-loving, 2. said god is not all-powerful, or 3. said god is not all-knowing. Such a god that knows all, is all-powerful, and all-benevolent would not, and could not, allow the suffering that takes place daily almost everywhere.

Thats how you interperate it

I'm not one to find comfort in the Judeo-Christian proposition, but I can tell you this much, you should do some more research before referrencing their belief as an example to your perception.

Suffering happens because people allow it to happen, not because some God from above smitted them for their sins.

It is a saying I have often heard, "God helps those who helps themselves".

God is not "all-benevolent" because it has been quoted often, the vengeance is the "lords" duty.

But no worries, I'm not going to throw scripture at you, I'm not a silly Christian.

Actually, man has one primary natural drive, and that is self-preservation. Finding comfort and gaining knowledge comes from this. And, in the Buddhist philosophy, finding comfort can only come from gaining knowledge.

Self preservation is the highest law indeed

Are you so sure it's Buddhism that your looking at, sounds like you've been reading some of Anton LaVey's work.

In your first statement, is that the same as saying "man created god, so that god could create man?" And the second statement should be reversed. Supernatural existence is a subjective experience, not an objective one. So, the supernatural and subjectivism are compatable, while objectively, supernaturalism is not compatable with.

No, its not.

Man created God to show himself.

Do you realize that I am not arguing for the side of the supernatural?

As I stated above, a negative statement would be to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist. It's like asking for someone to disprove the existence of unicorns, or fairies, or some such. You cannot have evidence, which is something concrete and objective, that something does not exist.

So does it exist because it has a label? Or does it not exist because it is not a physical entity that we have seen?

Oh yeah, then I would consider a statement negative or positive, its just a statement, used to argue a side of "logic".

I disagree. How do we know everything? We barely know anything about anything in astronomy. The only science we can say we know fully is math. And science changes as new data comes forward. From a flat earth to an oval earth; from a geocentric model of the solar system, to a heliocentric one. And science generally doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. The role of science is to explain the natural. But, as we learn more about our natural world, we're finding that there's less need for supernatural explanations, which might have been necessary 3000 years ago, but not today.

Hm...perhaps the only reason why we can fully understand the science of "math" is because we created it!

Maybe this is a point I have been trying to get across to so many people for so long, "knowledge" is evident as we "know" it, because all we "know" is man perceived, man reasoned, man made!!!!!

That all depends on how defendable a particular position is.

Defense is the best offense

Then how does one arrive at what exactly "divine will" is? If it is separate from carnal knowledge, then we cannot use our knowledge to arrive at divine will.

Sure we can, divine is a label used to describe something, and it could be us

It has to be supernatural in nature, i.e., divine revelation.

No it doesn't.

You cannot exceed nature

 

[Orias]

Let's take it further. There are several religions that claim divine revelation. How do we know which is right?

Well lets see here, what makes a society powerful?

Since they all disagree with each other, then one has to be right, while the others are wrong. But how do we judge which is right? If we cannot use carnal knowledge, then there is no way possible for mankind to judge what is divine revelation and what is not.

Or how about, they are all right, because they all express a natural side of man.

Though, they disagree, because they were made for power and control, not spirituality (of course in a sincere sense, they were).

I'm unclear on what you mean by this. Please clarify further.

If you're going with the classical Judeo-Christian definition that god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, then you would have the argument that reality shows that this cannot be the case. .

And I said, it's only not the case if you chose to see the "less" than conducive part of this philosophy.

Or, you only see it the way you see it, because you chose not to see it the way others do.

Logic does have it's limits, I agree totally. But, if we're going to go by what's a good argument for an atheist that god does not exist, then logic is a great tool. Why believe in something that cannot be comprehended by the human mind, much less proven to exist by human knowledge? It's absurd. And, even if we could show that a god exists, then which one? How many? What gender? What is it's nature, it's characteristics, etc.?

Let me clarify something here...

God has obviously been comprehended, hence the label of "God" or "Divine Being".
The same argument could go with the silly unicorn argument.

If the label God had not been fathomed, then the characteristics of a God would not be.

But this refers back to what I was saying, man created God in his image, for what it is to be a God, is to be what man desires (of course this does not apply to everyone).

Why must a God have a gender? Because we do?

Why must God have a nature? Because we do?

Let me put this simply, God's nature is evident, it's everywhere.

Yes, and it's done so we know what differentiates something from something else. Classification is a necessary tool.

You just proved a thousand of my points (thats an exaggeration).

Sometimes subjective experience goes against objective reason. This does not mean that a subjective experience is supernatural, which is required for the existence of a god.

Again, you keep relating supernatural to God, which is irrelevant to what I am trying to say.

But I agree, you can't tell someone what they experienced, and just because they chose to give meaning behind their experience or life does not make it easy for someone else to belief.

But then again, thats why they are beliefs, and not "truths".

It might very well be nothing more than natural law.

Well you said here, that the cause behind any motive has to be proven as having any kind of God behind it, and nothing more than some abstract force of nature.

You know this, nature already is abstract. But everything needs a foundation, I guess thats why there is narrow minded people around. (this doesn't apply to you of course)

Hopefully that helps clarify my position.
Edit: And apparently I've done the quotes thing wrong.

Heh, you did a good job.

And yea, you did the quoets wrong, I took some time to re-organize it though.

Gl

 

[eman resu]

The thing is, an atheist doesn't need an argument to not believe what religion is selling. It's the theists job to present compelling evidence to convince. However, there are much better arguments than the "prove it" argument.

i dont necessarily agree with this. its assuming that everyones "starting" point of view is that of an atheist, so unless proven otherwise there is no god. but the fact is some people see it the other way around (i.e. there is no proof against god's existence, so unless proven otherwise, there is a god).

 

[PolyHedral]

i dont necessarily agree with this. its assuming that everyones "starting" point of view is that of an atheist, so unless proven otherwise there is no god. but the fact is some people see it the other way around (i.e. there is no proof against god's existence, so unless proven otherwise, there is a god).

That's what Occam's Razor is for.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ok, exist is to have being, prove that a decimal exists.

Then we will try this, is something existing if it is not an entity?

You say a decimal exists because we can prove it exists, yet the word "unicorn" obviously has some irrefutable proclamation to its existence, otherwise the label, "unicorn" would not exist.

Would a unicorn exist if I drew it on paper, or a computer (just as much as a decimal)?



Wait, so what I got from the bolded/underlined sentences is...you can't prove or disprove it?

And what I got form the italic sentence is that, it is a burden trying to prove the existence of something, not to deny it.

Isn't that a bit narrowminded?

I guess, it's easy to deny something that has never been thought of before.





I would go as so far as to say, what if we are the evidence?

But that would be nonesense then wouldn't it?





Thats how you interperate it

I'm not one to find comfort in the Judeo-Christian proposition, but I can tell you this much, you should do some more research before referrencing their belief as an example to your perception.

Suffering happens because people allow it to happen, not because some God from above smitted them for their sins.

It is a saying I have often heard, "God helps those who helps themselves".

God is not "all-benevolent" because it has been quoted often, the vengeance is the "lords" duty.

But no worries, I'm not going to throw scripture at you, I'm not a silly Christian.



Self preservation is the highest law indeed

Are you so sure it's Buddhism that your looking at, sounds like you've been reading some of Anton LaVey's work.



No, its not.

Man created God to show himself.

Do you realize that I am not arguing for the side of the supernatural?



So does it exist because it has a label? Or does it not exist because it is not a physical entity that we have seen?

Oh yeah, then I would consider a statement negative or positive, its just a statement, used to argue a side of "logic".





Hm...perhaps the only reason why we can fully understand the science of "math" is because we created it!

Maybe this is a point I have been trying to get across to so many people for so long, "knowledge" is evident as we "know" it, because all we "know" is man perceived, man reasoned, man made!!!!!



Defense is the best offense



Sure we can, divine is a label used to describe something, and it could be us



No it doesn't.

You cannot exceed nature

I was going to argue point by point, but I decided just a few words would do for now. First, it took me a minute to figure out what type of theism you were arguing for, and, while I'm not absolutely positive about it, I'm going to say you're a pantheist. If that's the position you're arguing for, why call it god at all? Buddhists have a similar concept, it's called tathagatagarbha, literally, the 'Buddha-womb', but it's the essence and mind of Buddha that resides within all, that all have the potential to achieve. No god concept is necessary, just the idea of transcendence, which doesn't exactly work in a pantheist framework. I have read LaVey, and I find him to be boring. Crowley was much exciting to read. But again I'll ask, if your concept of god is not supernatural, then why call it god? If you believe that you cannot go past nature, then why use god terminology? If the only concept you have is god being all, and that all things are interconnected, then the god language is unnecessary. Of course, like I said, I could be wrong about what type of theism you are arguing for. If I am, then I have one question before I continue further: define god, what the term means to you.

 

[Orias]

First, it took me a minute to figure out what type of theism you were arguing for, and, while I'm not absolutely positive about it, I'm going to say you're a pantheist.

To cover up my Satanic background, I would say.

If that's the position you're arguing for, why call it god at all?

Because it is, in my view, the greatest existence conceived.

Buddhists have a similar concept, it's called tathagatagarbha, literally, the 'Buddha-womb', but it's the essence and mind of Buddha that resides within all, that all have the potential to achieve.

Buddhism and Satanism don't stray from each other.

No god concept is necessary, just the idea of transcendence, which doesn't exactly work in a pantheist framework.

I agree.

But I was arguing the side the God is relative to moral obligation.

I have read LaVey, and I find him to be boring. Crowley was much exciting to read.

Why did you find him boring

Alistair Crowley wasn't a Satanists, so you know.

But again I'll ask, if your concept of god is not supernatural, then why call it god? If you believe that you cannot go past nature, then why use god terminology?

Because it is both an achieved and ascribed status.

We make of the Universe what our will desires.

If the only concept you have is god being all, and that all things are interconnected, then the god language is unnecessary. Of course, like I said, I could be wrong about what type of theism you are arguing for.

I would disagree to a point that "God language" is unnecessary, but the engimatic meanings that so many put behind it, may be.

But this is a self evident truth to me, which you and many others may assume is false.

If I am, then I have one question before I continue further: define god, what the term means to you.

You and I.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

To cover up my Satanic background, I would say.



Because it is, in my view, the greatest existence conceived.

But not the only one.

Buddhism and Satanism don't stray from each other.

There are many similar concepts, at least as you've presented it. But, I'm also aware that there are many strains of satanism, including theistic and non-theistic.

I agree.

But I was arguing the side the God is relative to moral obligation.

A unique position, but one I won't argue against.

Why did you find him boring

Alistair Crowley wasn't a Satanists, so you know.

LaVey seemed insincere in his beliefs. And I'm aware Crowley was not a satanist, his form of occultism wouldn't necessarily be considered LHP.

Because it is both an achieved and ascribed status.

We make of the Universe what our will desires.

I won't disagree with the concept, but the terminology I find is unnecessary.

I would disagree to a point that "God language" is unnecessary, but the engimatic meanings that so many put behind it, may be.

I can agree with that.

But this is a self evident truth to me, which you and many others may assume is false.



You and I.

I find is disconcerting that some people feel that humans are 'little gods'. Of course, this is on moral grounds, which you have argued against.

 

[Orias]

But not the only one.

Of course not.

But to generalize it, Gods.

There are many similar concepts, at least as you've presented it. But, I'm also aware that there are many strains of satanism, including theistic and non-theistic.

Indeed, there is more beyond that as well.

Though, many Satanists are capable of understanding a phsycological view point, and not necessarily accepting it, but not denying it either. (not saying that others arn't as capable, I guess you could assume that it's Satanic arrogance )

Its the basis of, "I think therefore I am."

Same thing as, it is, therefore denial is hypocrisy.

Of course this is my view and can just as easily be argued against...

LaVey seemed insincere in his beliefs. And I'm aware Crowley was not a satanist, his form of occultism wouldn't necessarily be considered LHP.

I could see how you would think that, mostly because of his harsh realizations and depictions of deception.

That, "all men are deceivers" (something I also agree with).

But you know, he spent his whole life on his philosophy, and if he wasn't sincere about it, I don't think he would of done it.

But who knows, he may have been as sincere as Jim Jones, Jesus, God, or any other religious "icon".

I mean, with projecting your perceived images of divine, morality, etc. etc., you'd have to realize the harm that comes with that (deception of others beliefs).

It's basically just a big friggen knot.

I won't disagree with the concept, but the terminology I find is unnecessary.

Well what terminology do you find unnecessary?

I find is disconcerting that some people feel that humans are 'little gods'. Of course, this is on moral grounds, which you have argued against.

Whys that?

Think of it this way, where would God be, if man were not? (I'm sure this would be a blast for many theists).

I don't view humans as being "Little Gods" in the Aspect of supernatural or even being the "pinnacle" of existence.

Rather the architect of the mind and the enviroment and perception around us.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

\I guess what I'm find problematic is that you take an almost completely naturalistic viewpoint, but instead of using scientific or philosophical terminology, you use religious terminology. I don't see anything in your views that would be considered religious, and you have already denied the supernatural. I'm wondering what the point of doing that is. What you're describing is no more satanism than it is natural pantheism.

 

[Orias]

\I guess what I'm find problematic is that you take an almost completely naturalistic viewpoint, but instead of using scientific or philosophical terminology, you use religious terminology. I don't see anything in your views that would be considered religious, and you have already denied the supernatural. I'm wondering what the point of doing that is. What you're describing is no more satanism than it is natural pantheism.

Arn't all views naturalistic?

What religious termonology do I use?

Isn't religion of philosophy?

Isn't supernatural of natural?

Heh, whats the point in anything besides amusement?

Maybe I should of described my more Satanic view point to you.

I find Satanism everywhere.

You could ask Polyhedral

He know quit a bit about my views