God & Purpose

Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
God & Purpose

So far I've seen a lot of tossing around of assertions by both sides (including myself) of their reasons for believing in x, y, or z. It's all getting pretty boring in a lot of areas since morals can be used to justify absolutely anything.

 

I just have two questions and I'd like a structured response.

 

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

(I'm not talking about any context of having respect for something that might have created me, that in of itself is not purpose imo)

Why is that purpose valid above all others?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote:What

Di66en6ion wrote:

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

 

It doesn't.

 

Quote:

Why is that purpose valid above all others?

 

It isn't.

 

 

Why do you need purpose?


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 I know it doesn't, I just

 I know it doesn't, I just figured there were some on here that would argue the affirmative.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Di66en6ion

Ciarin wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

 

It doesn't.

 

Quote:

Why is that purpose valid above all others?

 

It isn't.

 

 

Why do you need purpose?

Oh, hey, are you a nonstandard theist who doesn't always conform to stereotypes about what people who are obviously not you believe?  Huh.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Ciarin

Kavis wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

 

It doesn't.

 

Quote:

Why is that purpose valid above all others?

 

It isn't.

 

 

Why do you need purpose?

Oh, hey, are you a nonstandard theist who doesn't always conform to stereotypes about what people who are obviously not you believe?  Huh.

 

If by "nonstandard theist" you mean "not christian", then yea. I am a stereotypical heathen theist though.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I am a

Ciarin wrote:
I am a stereotypical heathen theist though.


There's a stereotype for that?


Which gods are you into, anyway?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Ciarin

HisWillness wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
I am a stereotypical heathen theist though.

 

There's a stereotype for that?

 

Which gods are you into, anyway?

 

germanic gods mostly.


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:germanic gods

Ciarin wrote:


germanic gods mostly.

LMFAO, not trying to be insulting but seriously Sticking out tongue


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:LMFAO, not trying to

 

Quote:
LMFAO, not trying to be insulting but seriously Sticking out tongue

It's ok, Lenny.  I thought she was an atheist mocking theists for several weeks after she joined the site.  I had no idea thoughtful people actually believed in things like that.  It took me cyber stalking her and finding her myspace page before I believed her.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

and again....

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
LOL, I remember that

LOL, I remember that comic.

 

btw, you didn't need to cyberstalk me, my website is http://ciarin.com and it says it right on the page. Plus I'm on http://www.heathenplaces.com/ and http://www.heathenpersonals.net/ and http://www.paganspace.net/ as Bathilde. And, you could've just asked me.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Subdi Visions wrote:Ciarin

Subdi Visions wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

 

germanic gods mostly.

LMFAO, not trying to be insulting but seriously Sticking out tongue

 

At least we don't evangelize or sue people if they insult our religion.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The way I see it,

The way I see it, Christianity and Judaism just have more followers. Genesis, taken literally, isn't really any less ridiculous than Germanic Gods.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:The way I

butterbattle wrote:

The way I see it, Christianity and Judaism just have more followers. Genesis, taken literally, isn't really any less ridiculous than Germanic Gods.

 

Not nearly as awesome though.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Di66en6ion

Ciarin wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

 

It doesn't.

 

Quote:

Why is that purpose valid above all others?

 

It isn't.

 

Why do you need purpose?

 

Hi Ciarin.  

 

I've been quite torn on a few of your posts recently.  On one hand I agree with your position that the broad term 'theist' is often lazily applied to a topic title or discussion when the members involved have really been focusing on christian or abrahamic theism.  On the other hand you seem not able to appreciate the fact that the majority of people only deal with these branches of theism and, when discussing the subject, conversation will obviously be biased by an Abrahamic framework.  In short I admire your demand for linguistic clarity but am disappointed in your acceptance of implicit convention.

 

Why do I bring it up?  No offense, but it seems to me that quite a lot of your contribution of late has been to stick your head round the door and say "This doesn't apply to me!".  This is fine but it doesn't really contribute anything to proceedings does it?  What are you hoping to acheive by continually pointing out that you're not involved in the conversation?

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:Ciarin

MichaelMcF wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

 

It doesn't.

 

Quote:

Why is that purpose valid above all others?

 

It isn't.

 

Why do you need purpose?

 

Hi Ciarin.  

 

I've been quite torn on a few of your posts recently.  On one hand I agree with your position that the broad term 'theist' is often lazily applied to a topic title or discussion when the members involved have really been focusing on christian or abrahamic theism.  On the other hand you seem not able to appreciate the fact that the majority of people only deal with these branches of theism and, when discussing the subject, conversation will obviously be biased by an Abrahamic framework.  In short I admire your demand for linguistic clarity but am disappointed in your acceptance of implicit convention.

 

Why do I bring it up?  No offense, but it seems to me that quite a lot of your contribution of late has been to stick your head round the door and say "This doesn't apply to me!".  This is fine but it doesn't really contribute anything to proceedings does it?  What are you hoping to acheive by continually pointing out that you're not involved in the conversation?

 

M

 

Your assessment isn't accurate. I don't post to point out that this doesn't apply to me, I just happen to answer the questions asked of me. If the questioner wants only christian answers then he/she should make that known and I won't answer. My answers should show the questioner a different perspective than they are used to.

 

If you ask theists a question, this theist will answer. I have a god belief just like every other theist. Why should I not answer just because I'm not in a majority theist religion?


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Your assessment

Ciarin wrote:

Your assessment isn't accurate. I don't post to point out that this doesn't apply to me, I just happen to answer the questions asked of me. If the questioner wants only christian answers then he/she should make that known and I won't answer. My answers should show the questioner a different perspective than they are used to.

 

If you ask theists a question, this theist will answer. I have a god belief just like every other theist. Why should I not answer just because I'm not in a majority theist religion?

 

I'm not trying to suggest that you don't answer any questions put towards theists.  All I was saying was, given the inherent bias you know exists towards Abrahamic religions, that some consideration could be given toward the context of the question or thread.

 

In this thread, for example, it seemed clear to me from the title and the post that the OP was referring to god (singular) as well as the recent waffling on the morality that supposedly comes from this God (singular) - generally an abrahamic argument.  As someone who has a non-abrahamic, polytheistic faith it might have been more constructive to ask for clarity from the OP on whether he was exclusively talking about a monotheistic god or if the creator god from a polytheistic pantheon could be included, and then go onto explain why, in your faith, the creator god and other gods don't assign purpose to human beings - you know, like you did in the "Is God Infinite?" thread.

 

I'm just saying there are more constructive ways of getting your point across than the "This doesn't apply to me!" approach.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:I'm just

MichaelMcF wrote:

I'm just saying there are more constructive ways of getting your point across than the "This doesn't apply to me!" approach.

 

Except I didn't post "This doesn't apply to me!", I merely posted my answers to his questions. I don't have a creator god, btw. Not all theists get a purpose from their god belief. The purpose or meaning of life is more of a philisophical question and will vary by person regardless of religious or theistis belief(or lack thereof). I don't even see a need for someone to have a purpose. For me, the meaning of life is to live, why does it have to have a purpose?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:butterbattle

Ciarin wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

The way I see it, Christianity and Judaism just have more followers. Genesis, taken literally, isn't really any less ridiculous than Germanic Gods.

Not nearly as awesome though.



On this, we agree. Ignoring the possibility of existence given undefinable creatures, the Germanic gods are indeed much higher on the awesome scale than a single, petulant-baby god. For one thing, they have axes and hammers. +5 to the awesome scale. They also make mistakes, giving them a much more entertaining quality than a supposedly infallible jerk. Bo-ring.

It's worth keeping in mind that the view of gods and goddesses seems to have been much more interesting and convoluted in antiquity. Gods from other lands were considered legitimate, and simply part of the pantheon. Call it religious tolerance, if you like. For instance, the Romans identified the Gauls as worshiping Mercury, a god in their pantheon. Despite being "foreign" in some areas, Mercury was an important part of Greek and Roman mythology, but like the other gods, he had a cult following, and so was a character in stories involving the gods. Sometimes the gods represented a shorthand for people's values, like Pallas Athena's odd collection of traits, or as expressions, like such-and-such a group "worshiping Mars", meaning they were war-like.

The Germanic gods inherited many traits from their Greek and Roman predecessors, unsurprisingly. From what I remember, the stories are largely like Norse myths, which are fun stories, and fit more with an attitude of play than an attitude of serious belief. I mean, one wouldn't follow the example of a Norse story, in the "what would Jesus do" sense, it's just an entertaining story. A comparison of polytheisms and monotheistic religions can't be made in any proper way for that reason.

So a pagan isn't really required to believe as hard as s/he can, unlike what seems to happen with monotheisms. You can just go to the party. That definitely puts it higher on the awesome scale.

I also have a soft spot for the religion of my ancestors, who were crazy bastards.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote: What

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

 

Life. Experience.

 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

What purpose does your god's existence give me?

Life. Experience.

What kind of an answer is that? You're saying that you know there's a god giving Di66en6ion life and experience? Or life experience? Or ... what are you saying?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:What kind

HisWillness wrote:

What kind of an answer is that? You're saying that you know there's a god giving Di66en6ion life and experience? Or life experience? Or ... what are you saying?

 

 

The question was "What purpose does your god's existence give me?"

 

I read that as " what's the point of your God?"

 

My answer was that God gave life, and hence the ability to experience the creation.

 

 

So I guess God gives him a whole new reason to experience life.

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:My

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

My answer was that God gave life, and hence the ability to experience the creation.



Where did you get that God gave life?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Where did

HisWillness wrote:

Where did you get that God gave life?

 

Wouldn't that be in the definition of God?

 

The creator and sustainer of life?

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Well, I don't think that a god of metalworking would give life.

 

So I don't see how that would be in the definition of a god.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Indeed.There have been FAR

Indeed.

There have been FAR more gods in history that *haven't* created or sustained human beings than have.

So sure, pineapple's god. The other monotheistic faiths' gods. But that's a given. If it's a one-man/woman/weird intersexed or asexual being's show, of COURSE it's going to be explicitly in the definition.

What happened to that thread that Will started about definitions of god, anyway? That was a fun thread.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Where did you get that God gave life?

 

Wouldn't that be in the definition of God?

 

The creator and sustainer of life?

That is not the definition of God. Otherwise we could equally legitimately label the laws of physics and the flow of energy in the Universe as 'God'. 

God is what many people believe created and and sustains life, but God is not the only thing that could fill those roles. It is begging the question to assert that those attributes are exclusive to the God concept.

God is defined as a supernatural sentient entity of some sort, otherwise it is just a mythical, poetic, or allegorical label for some aspect of reality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Where did you get that God gave life?

 

Wouldn't that be in the definition of God?

 

The creator and sustainer of life?

 

 

HAHAA!

 

No.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Ciarin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Where did you get that God gave life?

 

Wouldn't that be in the definition of God?

 

The creator and sustainer of life?

 

 

HAHAA!

 

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Ciarin

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Where did you get that God gave life?

Wouldn't that be in the definition of God?

The creator and sustainer of life?

HAHAA!

No.



First: theist girl fight? Is this a dream?



Second: The creator and sustainer of all life is chemistry. If you want to call chemistry "God", go right ahead, but I'm pretty sure most people would be confused by that overcomplication.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That is not

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not the definition of God. Otherwise we could equally legitimately label the laws of physics and the flow of energy in the Universe as 'God'. 

God is what many people believe created and and sustains life, but God is not the only thing that could fill those roles. It is begging the question to assert that those attributes are exclusive to the God concept.

God is defined as a supernatural sentient entity of some sort, otherwise it is just a mythical, poetic, or allegorical label for some aspect of reality.

 

 

I said in the definition, as in part of the description of God not the definition,

 

 

A God that doesn't create and sustain life isn't much of a God now is it?

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That is not

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not the definition of God. Otherwise we could equally legitimately label the laws of physics and the flow of energy in the Universe as 'God'.



I had a discussion with someone who wanted to do just that. I was amazed. Why we would need a different word for the laws of physics is beyond me.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I said

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I said in the definition, as in part of the description of God not the definition,

K, but there's still the problem that chemistry takes care of the mechanisms of life pretty handily without help.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
A God that doesn't create and sustain life isn't much of a God now is it?

Hey, it's your call. I've never been able to make sense of all this knowledge people claim to have of something we can't know anything about (gods), so if your god wouldn't be quite right without a hammer, a sombrero, and some soul sisters for back-up ... it's your fantasy, so whatever you think makes it better.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: The

HisWillness wrote:

 The creator and sustainer of all life is chemistry. If you want to call chemistry "God", go right ahead, but I'm pretty sure most people would be confused by that overcomplication.

 

 

 

To call  God chemistry, is like calling a mechanic a screwdriver.

 

 

Chemistry is just one of the tools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

 The creator and sustainer of all life is chemistry. If you want to call chemistry "God", go right ahead, but I'm pretty sure most people would be confused by that overcomplication.

To call  God chemistry, is like calling a mechanic a screwdriver.

Chemistry is just one of the tools.

What possible reason do you have for saying that chemistry is the "tool" of anything? What's going on with life other than chemistry? Where's the magic that happens that makes you say "God" before you'd bother to figure out what's actually going on?

What I'm saying is I don't believe you. I don't believe you know anything about this pretend mechanic, and I think you're making it up as you go along. You really give me no reason to believe you, either.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:A God

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

A God that doesn't create and sustain life isn't much of a God now is it?

 

Actually he would be much of a god regardless of creations or lack thereof. Not all gods are creator gods.

 

Just a small sample:

 

Idunna

Pele

Kokopelli

Kuan-yin

Hephaestus

Lugh

Isis

 

Let's cut it with "the only real god is my one true god" crap. It's annoying.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
oh ciarin

One persons god is another persons demons and demigods but not a true real god, just minor things that aren't really of importance. for centuries this argument has gone and in conclusion many christian denominations decided that your so called gods are just demons deceiving people into believing they are gods, like they have done to you. I love these arguments, I don't have to provide any evidence or real plausible argument to prove my point.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not the definition of God. Otherwise we could equally legitimately label the laws of physics and the flow of energy in the Universe as 'God'. 

God is what many people believe created and and sustains life, but God is not the only thing that could fill those roles. It is begging the question to assert that those attributes are exclusive to the God concept.

God is defined as a supernatural sentient entity of some sort, otherwise it is just a mythical, poetic, or allegorical label for some aspect of reality.

I said in the definition, as in part of the description of God not the definition,

 

A God that doesn't create and sustain life isn't much of a God now is it? 

OK, I missed that.

So 'Creating and sustaining life' is part of what your God does, by definition. IOW, an assumption on your part.

We still have no real evidence that a God is required for 'creation' of life.

Even less so for sustaining life, since that would be an ongoing activity, and could be expected to be detected, in the form of things which didn't fit into any sort of naturalistic framework.

LIfe as we know it has so many serious imperfections, it is hard to see it as actively being 'sustained' by something 'God-like' - it is doing a terrible job, must be 'asleep at the wheel'. Looks much more like 'life' is just bumbling along, riddled with viruses and genetic defects, pretty much what one would expect from a purely 'Darwinian' process.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Oh Latin Canuck latincanuck

Oh Latin Canuck

 

latincanuck wrote:

One persons god is another persons demons and demigods but not a true real god, just minor things that aren't really of importance. for centuries this argument has gone and in conclusion many christian denominations decided that your so called gods are just demons deceiving people into believing they are gods, like they have done to you. I love these arguments, I don't have to provide any evidence or real plausible argument to prove my point.

 

Unless that person is religiously plural, like most polytheists are.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yet you fail again

seeing that I am simply making this argument regarding your statement of this "Let's cut it with "the only real god is my one true god" crap. It's annoying."

It's annoying that anyone would make the statement that ANY god is real without A SINGLE bit of evidence. However, the one true god thing, sure but mentioning all those supposed gods, well so what, the bible clearly shows that those "gods" are agents of satan out to take you way from the scriptures of god, the one true god, as they are demons in league with satan. There is only one true god and those that you mentioned aren't it.

See this is type of silly arguments you can make with any god or goddess as NO evidence is required to prove they are real, even your gods are just made up deities to try to explain the natural word and to calm the superstitous minds of early humans.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:What

HisWillness wrote:

What possible reason do you have for saying that chemistry is the "tool" of anything? What's going on with life other than chemistry? Where's the magic that happens that makes you say "God" before you'd bother to figure out what's actually going on?

 

 

 

I think I have a decent grasp of Chemistry so I don't see how I'm jumping to God without bothering to figure out what's going on.

 

 

HisWillness wrote:

What I'm saying is I don't believe you. I don't believe you know anything about this pretend mechanic, and I think you're making it up as you go along. You really give me no reason to believe you, either.

 

It's that I don't know everything, it's that I know enough.

 

 

Ciarin wrote:

 

Let's cut it with "the only real god is my one true god" crap. It's annoying.

 

 

 

Well, if your Gods exist, mine doesn't, if mine does, yours doesn't and if neither of ours, then well, neither of ours exist.

 

 

Also I think the whole poly theism and more particularly any religion thing is cause by people just going too fast, they should slow down to actually give thought to what they're appllying.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Latincnauck fails again

latincanuck wrote:

seeing that I am simply making this argument regarding your statement of this "Let's cut it with "the only real god is my one true god" crap. It's annoying."

It's annoying that anyone would make the statement that ANY god is real

 

True or False: the gods I mentioned were considered to be gods by the people that worshipped them.

 

True.

 

The opinions of those that do not worship those gods means absolutely dick. Whether or not they're real to you means absolutely dick in the context of this argument.

 

QQ more


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Well, if

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Well, if your Gods exist, mine doesn't, if mine does, yours doesn't and if neither of ours, then well, neither of ours exist.

 

It's not an either/or thing.

 

 

Quote:

Also I think the whole poly theism and more particularly any religion thing is cause by people just going too fast, they should slow down to actually give thought to what they're appllying.

 

Explain this.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

What possible reason do you have for saying that chemistry is the "tool" of anything? What's going on with life other than chemistry? Where's the magic that happens that makes you say "God" before you'd bother to figure out what's actually going on?

I think I have a decent grasp of Chemistry so I don't see how I'm jumping to God without bothering to figure out what's going on.

Okay, then where's the God? Where, in your decent grasp of chemistry, does God fit, exactly? Simply saying you have a decent grasp of chemistry isn't a reason for me to think you have a decent grasp of chemistry as a tool of an invisible mechanic.

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

What I'm saying is I don't believe you. I don't believe you know anything about this pretend mechanic, and I think you're making it up as you go along. You really give me no reason to believe you, either.

It's that I don't know everything, it's that I know enough.

What? That doesn't even mean anything. None of us know everything -- that's a given. What "enough" are you talking about? Give me some information that would back up the idea that specifically your idea of God exists. Because I'm thinking Ciarin's gods are just as likely to exist as a single God, which is just as likely to exist as centaurs.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You would certainly need to

You would certainly need to know much more than just 'chemistry' to be able to judge the plausibility of life emerging and evolving without some sort of external, supernatural 'guidance'.

If the idea is of a 'being' who set up the laws of physics and chemistry etc such that it was virtually certain that life would emerge and evolve into humankind somewhere in the Universe, without ongoing direction, that would be more defensible, but begs the question of 'who' did the equivalent duty for such a 'being' itself.

No matter how you cut it, 'God' doesn't work as an explanation of ultimate origin - if 'something' either just popped into existence, or always simply existed, ideas such as a field of all but structureless quantum 'foam' that twitched at least one larger 'singularity' into existence are always going to be more plausible than an infinite all-powerful sentient being.

The idea that intelligent life would require an even more intelligent designer-creator is a logical non-starter, because of the monstrous infinite regress it demands.

EDIT: The basic question of 'who created God?' is tired and old, but unanswerable without seriously fudging the issue...

The only 'Gods' that are consistent with logic are finite and are not the ultimate creators of life, altho a finite but vastly 'advanced' and powerful being who may have been responsible for life "as we know it" is not logically impossible, but could not have created itself, of course.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:It's not an

Ciarin wrote:

It's not an either/or thing.

 

 

 

Yeah it kinda is. Either your Gods exist or not. Either my God exists or not.

 

Ciarin wrote:

 

Explain this.

 

 

I'm saying that people seem to take this concept of God and run with it such as "it's Thor" or "God wants this or that"

 

 

They're going far too fast and are kinda jumping the gun.

 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm saying that people seem to take this concept of God and run with it such as "it's Thor" or "God wants this or that" 

They're going far too fast and are kinda jumping the gun. 

Basically, they get a huge pile of crap and take it all for granted instead of examining one claim at a time?  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm saying that people seem to take this concept of God and run with it such as "it's Thor" or "God wants this or that"

Or "God creates and sustains life." Wacky stuff like that.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm saying that people seem to take this concept of God and run with it such as "it's Thor" or "God wants this or that"

Or "God creates and sustains life." Wacky stuff like that.

How about the Hyper-God (level 1) who 'creates and sustains' the base level 'God' who 'creates and sustains' mere mortal life?

Or the Hyper-God (level 2) who.... well you should get my drift.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:How about

BobSpence1 wrote:

How about the Hyper-God (level 1) who 'creates and sustains' the base level 'God' who 'creates and sustains' mere mortal life?

Or the Hyper-God (level 2) who.... well you should get my drift.

Where's Kevin when you need him for a nerdy RPG level-up joke? C'mon, all I know about Dungeons and Dragons is that you can have a Mace of Flaming Irritable Bowel +3, or whatever. I don't know how you level up.

I mean, I consider myself a Level 5 Hyper-God, but Bob's point stands: once you start with that shit, there's always a bigger fish.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence