Why not believe in God?

[Opethian]

Your signature says it all, and I believe that mind set limits you.

I think it focusses me, and has given me a much more realistic outlook on and much more understanding of life. And I have not yet seen anything at all that would suggest that my worldview is wrong. That's why I am so convinced of it. Not because I like it, since I would prefer a world with a loving god, and heaven, and miracles and free will etc..., but I have come to realize that this is just lying to myself and being intellectually dishonest. But I guess there is very little chance of either of us convincing the other. That doesn't mean I will stop debating though, this is an excellent way to structure my thoughts for myself and to gain more insight. There's a lot of things I came to realise and understand during debates on fora.

 

[Æsahættr]

Very interesting! Sorry, I can't give you frubals atm, you make too many good posts!

Why thank you. Although I doubt I deserve frubals for a post that is nothing but a link. I considered actually using some effort to think of something to add myself to it, but meh, couldn't be bothered.

I think you're wrong. I think that humanity could never be reduced to a scientific equation that would satisfy the scope of human experience. We each contain the breath of God that gives us something that goes beyond our capacity to measure.

Are you saying that it would be impossible to get those equations, or that those equations could never satisfy you? I wasn't trying to say that we would definitely be able to get those equations, I was just saying that there is nothing inherently inferior about equations than to observing the things they describe directly. Whether you can be satisfied by equations and see the beauty in them is irrelevent, some people can.

Your signature says it all, and I believe that mind set limits you.

You think because he has expressed his materialistic beliefs, he is "limited"? And yet, when you express your non-materialistic beliefs, as indeed you have throughout this thread, that does not "limit" you? Why is your mind-set superior to his? Someone is not necessarily closed-minded if they express a certain belief. They are closed minded if they refuse to seriously consider any other point of view, and refuse to explain why they believe one thing as opposed to another.

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying that it would be impossible to get those equations, or that those equations could never satisfy you? I wasn't trying to say that we would definitely be able to get those equations, I was just saying that there is nothing inherently inferior about equations than to observing the things they describe directly. Whether you can be satisfied by equations and see the beauty in them is irrelevent, some people can.

I think that the "human equation" is not limited to the science for which we have scientific equations.

You think because he has expressed his materialistic beliefs, he is "limited"? And yet, when you express your non-materialistic beliefs, as indeed you have throughout this thread, that does not "limit" you? Why is your mind-set superior to his? Someone is not necessarily closed-minded if they express a certain belief. They are closed minded if they refuse to seriously consider any other point of view, and refuse to explain why they believe one thing as opposed to another.

Yes, because there's more to a human being than biology. Simple biology cannot, for example, quantify the value of creative art, which humans can express and value.

 

[Æsahættr]

puny humans

Is it just me, or does this sound like something out of a sci-fi movie, spoken by an alien just before they begin to kill people in droves?
Incidentally, it's always nice to see a detailed, thought out contribution to a discussion.

Why does there have to be objective evidence? God doesn't owe us an explanation. To say that God does is the height of hubris.

Bleedin hell, I've been through this twice already. Here we go again then. I am going to present a very clear, logical argument. If you disagree with it, please identify which part of the argument is false, rather than simply restating your position again and again.

Ok, here goes the argument. If you disagree with any of the propostions, or beleive that incorrect conclusions have been drawn, please explain exactly where.

The prepositions are thus:


1) If two things have exactly the same affects on us in every possible way, then any differences between them are irrelevent and unknowable to us, we can treat them as equal.

2) If something affects us (directly or indirectly), then we can obtain objective evidence of its existance.

3) If something does not exist, then it does not affect us either directly or indirectly(note that the idea of it could affect us, but then the idea of it would be something that exists).

By using the principle that the statement "if A, then B" implies the statement "if not B, then not A", then from 2) we get the following statement:

4) If we cannot obtain objective evidence of something's existance, then it cannot affect us either directly or indirectly

Combine 3) and 4) and you get:

5) If we cannot obtain objective evidence of something's existance, then the affects on us are identical to the affects that it would have if it did not exist (namely, no affects at all).

And add 1) to this to get:

6) If we cannot obtain objective evidence of something's existance, then the differences between it existing and it not existing are irrelevant and unknowable to us.

Therefore, if we cannot obtain objective evidence of God's existance, then the difference between Him existing and Him not existing is irrelevant to us.

You must therefore either accept that God's existance is irrelevant, or that it is possible to obtain objective evidence of His existance.

 

[Opethian]

I think that the "human equation" is not limited to the science for which we have scientific equations.

I'm pretty sure it is limited to the science for which we have scientific equations. The only problem is that we don't yet know everything about the human body, and even if we have completely unraveled our own structure, it would take an insane amount of time and effort to be able to mathematically translate something as incredibly complex as the human body and what goes on inside and outside of it. It is very much theoretically possible though, yet the practical side of it is nearly impossible, because of the complexity, and principles like the Heisenberg uncertainty.

Yes, because there's more to a human being than biology. Simple biology cannot, for example, quantify the value of creative art, which humans can express and value.

Yes it can, but creative art is a concept created by man, so the value you would give it depends from person to person. Also, creative art is a complex concept, and would be the product of a lot of different genes in a person, and it would be very hard to make an equation for this. But again, theoretically it is possible.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

It seems to me that several pages ago I was told something to the effect that I was talking out of my arse by saying that neither I nor myself had perceived anything which had to be from God rather than from some natural process. I have read and re read this thread since then, and have yet to see anything resembling said proof.

So who is talking out of their arse?

B.

 

[Booko]

did u see god? Did u snap a picture? Can you show me a video?

Your wish is my command...

btw, the Orthodox Christian church here on Clairmont Ave has some great icons created by an artist in Greece, and it's absolutely true and I can comfirm this....Jesus looks just like Eric Clapton.

:guitar1: :guitar1:

 

[ashai]

Ushta harry

Hey Harry, i reached the same conclusions too . In fact Epicurious reached them in 250 BC , it is an unanswerable dilemma for the Abrahamics.

Ushta te
Ashai

 

[ashai]

Ushta All

O athyeists , you are a riot, barre3ls of fun! Believers have evidence irreftrable evidence, its called personal religious experience. But you do not accept that as evidence do you? You want an invisible being who dewlls in multidimensions to be perceived by us physically? We who dwell in limited dimensions? When you can use
science to badger the religious, then you do. When science comes out and hints that that there can be other dimensions of reality that there is a transcendent 'there' et al you do not even want to talk about it or claim that we do not understand the 'science ' involved, When we quote the Physiscists that are talking about a Self Aware Universe, a reality depending on observers etc you yell against them as well. So be it! You refuse to admit evidence because you have defined what evidence means as if you were the arbiters of human knkwledge and experience. Its OK, go ahead. But do not claim impartiality , or intellectual honesty, not to us!

Ushta ve
Ashai

 

[Sunstone]

Believers have evidence irreftrable evidence, its called personal religious experience.

An experience is compelling to the person who has it, but it is not compelling to others.

Moreover, it is juvenile to insist that ones own experiences, no matter how profound, are necessarily universal truths simply because one has had those experiences.

It is quite possible that not all religious experiences are identical.

It should also be noted that humans can be poor observers. Ask twelve people who have witnessed the same accident for their descriptions of it and you will get twelve often conflicting versions. In some ways, this is even more true of religious experiences.

Lastly, the experience is one thing, but the interpretation of it is another. Humans often mistakenly interpret their experiences, and their interpretations of religious experiences are no exception to this. That is, religious experiences do not come pre-packaged with a correct interpretation of them.

Aside from those qualms, and perhaps a few others, I agree: religious experiences are irrefutable.

 

[sojourner]

Is it just me, or does this sound like something out of a sci-fi movie, spoken by an alien just before they begin to kill people in droves?
Incidentally, it's always nice to see a detailed, thought out contribution to a discussion.




Bleedin hell, I've been through this twice already. Here we go again then. I am going to present a very clear, logical argument. If you disagree with it, please identify which part of the argument is false, rather than simply restating your position again and again.

Ok, here goes the argument. If you disagree with any of the propostions, or beleive that incorrect conclusions have been drawn, please explain exactly where.

The prepositions are thus:


1) If two things have exactly the same affects on us in every possible way, then any differences between them are irrelevent and unknowable to us, we can treat them as equal.

2) If something affects us (directly or indirectly), then we can obtain objective evidence of its existance.

3) If something does not exist, then it does not affect us either directly or indirectly(note that the idea of it could affect us, but then the idea of it would be something that exists).

By using the principle that the statement "if A, then B" implies the statement "if not B, then not A", then from 2) we get the following statement:

4) If we cannot obtain objective evidence of something's existance, then it cannot affect us either directly or indirectly

Combine 3) and 4) and you get:

5) If we cannot obtain objective evidence of something's existance, then the affects on us are identical to the affects that it would have if it did not exist (namely, no affects at all).

And add 1) to this to get:

6) If we cannot obtain objective evidence of something's existance, then the differences between it existing and it not existing are irrelevant and unknowable to us.

Therefore, if we cannot obtain objective evidence of God's existance, then the difference between Him existing and Him not existing is irrelevant to us.

You must therefore either accept that God's existance is irrelevant, or that it is possible to obtain objective evidence of His existance.

You're assuming that we're able to "stand outside God" and judge God objectively. That assumes that God lives in our world.

When God became human, we were able to stand back and see God objectively, because God was one of us, living in our world. We called him, "Jesus."

But, we live in God's world. Therefore, it's impossible for us to be objective about God, because our very being is in God.

 

[D.L. Dallman]

You're assuming that we're able to "stand outside God" and judge God objectively. That assumes that God lives in our world.

When God became human, we were able to stand back and see God objectively, because God was one of us, living in our world. We called him, "Jesus."

But, we live in God's world. Therefore, it's impossible for us to be objective about God, because our very being is in God.

In response... (to your arguments from most recent, backward.)

God is an infinite being. Infinitism requires an absolute lack of linearity, meaning that fictional event A, and fictional event B would, logically, occur simultaneously in an infite complex, no matter the circumstances of their instantiation, as chronological progression requires a finite scale by which to make comparisons. An infite complex would not allow this... henceforth, there can be made no differentiation between the "non-beginning" or "self-justification" of God, and His creation of the universe. Here lies the main issue. If the universe has existed for exactly as long as God, He can not have created it. It must have been another, more powerful God! (Perhaps I can grow up to write this one!)

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that Christ ever existed.

According to Biblical definiton, God does live in our world, or rather, His world, in which we also exist. God is defined as being both transcendant (existing apart from reality), and omnipresent (existing at all points of time-space in reality.) Don't attempt to claim that the concept of God can not be proven logically false in language. If God can be made rational in language, God can be made irrational in language.

And... in regard to the original post:

You have made some keen observations, but I disagree with your narrow definiton of "Atheism". Linguistic analysis of the term "A-theism" does not result in "One who believes God does not exist", but rather "One who does not believe in God". As would be argued by George H. Smith or Frank Zindler.

This wider assertion would propose that anyone who does not have a belief in God can be considered an Atheist. This, of course, obfuscates the definiton of Atheism, allowing for negative Atheism, the lack of belief in God, and positive Atheism, the belief in a lack of God, and in turn, antiquates the term "Agnostic". This term, though, is really of no use... It is simply an escape for those non-believers that wish reprieve from the social negativity of the term "Atheism." Such is cowardess. (If one possesses the positive assertion that the truth of existence of God can not be determined by secular means, they should be called an "Ignostic".)

Anyhow-- This positive, and narrow definiton of Atheism is one commonly used by Theists, such as William Lane Craig, to corner Secularists, and force them to make positive assertions, rather than the general Atheistic position of making no positive claims. I, personally, hold myself as a positive Atheist, meaning that I feel I am just in saying that there is *no* God, but, most do not wish to make this assertion, and it is redicilous to assume that great freethinkers such as Bertrand Russell should not be considered Atheists merely because they do not comply to the Theistic philisophical classification of an ideal they took part in the modern actualization of.

 

[sojourner]

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that Christ ever existed.

There are sources outside the scope and agenda of Biblical literature that corroborate the existence of Jesus. We're certain that Jesus actually existed.

 

[D.L. Dallman]

"We" may be sure of Jesus' historical manifestation, through faith, but there is no empirical evidence of His existence.

The primary "proof" of Jesus' existence, cited by many Christian theologians in their battle to rationalize their faith, is this passage from Josephus, in "The Antiquities of the Jews":

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."

There are a number of issues with this. First, the language used in the pre-translated text is completely out of whack with that used in the rest of the text, and is more comparable with the language of the 7th century than that of the era during which "The Antiquities" was written (Approximately 95 C.E.) ... In addition, there are a few blatent errors in logic. Whoever forged this passage obviously had very little historical knowledge. Josephus was a Jew, who never went to Christianity, and was quite devoted to his faith, and as such, would never have called Jesus "Christ". There was most definitely not a "tribe" of Christians in Josephus' era, and even the words "To this day" imply that the passage was added much later.

Around 117 C.E., the Roman writer Tacitus claimed that "Christ" was executed on Pontius Pilate. This is likely where the myth of the execution began. Nowhere in his writings, though, does he mention the name "Jesus", and it is a far more logical assertion that he was referring to another, more local "Christ" (which was a common noun, referring to a messiah)... There are various recordings of a "Christus", who was most definitely not Jesus. Tacitus also speaks of a band of Jews, following "Christ", who were tortured and executed by Roman emperor Nero. There is actually no historical justification for any of the Christs having been in Rome during that era, though... especially not leading a "great crowd" of followers, as Tacitus puts it, and so it is quite possible that he was just confused over the whole issue.

There are various other pseudo-arguments for the existence of Jesus. Another phrase from Josephus states that a man named James, a supposed brother of Jesus, was stoned to death by sentence of court. This event in particular is not mentioned in the Bible, and is likely a confusion of, or a later augmentation of an older text explaining the death of a man named James, who may have been mentioned by Paul in Acts, in a riot. Hegesippus wrote a more believable account of this around 170 C.E., but certain details of that text, as well, appear rather altered.

Historians have not been able to come up with anything justifying the assertion that a man named Jesus, a spiritual leader, existed during the early first century. We certainly have accounts of the myths inspired by his assumed existence, but there are no personal witnisses to his existence outside of the Bible. Philo of Alexandria wrote an extensive examination of first-century Palestine, and did not once mention a man named Jesus. Throughout the years, many, many historians wrote about that geographical and chronological pin-point, and there is not even one mention of a man named Jesus.

There is no reason to assume that there was any real world instantiation of Jesus. Do we assume that Dionysus or Attis had real world counter-parts? The story is the same... why should the logic change?

If you are interested in getting a more extensive look in to this, you can check out some literature by G. A. Wells. I consider him to be very even-minded, and unbiased, but sometimes my... fact-dependancy... you know... pulls me to one side of the bill. You could also back-purchase this edition of "Freethought Today", and check out Dan Barker's article on this same subject. I feel that the piece sums up the argument against the myth of Christ's existence very, very well... Much better than mine, and it also has a very useful literature reference for extended reading. I used the article to refresh my memory on certain bits, as that I could thoroughly pose this argument.

Cited: Dan Barker "Debunking the Historical Jesus" Freethought Today March 2006

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

D.J.

Howdy neighbor, and welcome to the forums. Awful lot of Texans hereabouts. Very well thought out and articulate post, congrats. I am familiar with some of these arguments, but you brought some new information to my mind, and I definately would like to follow up with some of your mentioned readings.

B.