Are Atheists looking in the wrong place?

Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Are Atheists looking in the wrong place?

Hi all, these are my thoughts and my thoughts only.

Atheists most commonly are after external proofs for Gods existence. To me, this creates a number of problems.

If God exists, why does belief in him have to be dependent of external proofs?

If God exists, wouldnt he make himself accesable to anyone and
everyone for belief in him? The only way this can be possibily done is for "something" to be inside of every single human being for belief in him rather than "external proofs".

By looking for external and relying on external proofs, it creates a form of discrimation.


If God exists, wouldnt belief in God be independent of how smart you are, what access to information you have, where you live, what era you live in, how long you live, how well your senses and cognitive faculties work?

The only way to solve this, is that God put something inside each individual person so that we can believe in him.



Lets look at a few examples and you will get the jist of what i am trying o say

1.Many Atheists have said , why doesnt God put a sign in the sky or roar words from the sky? Ok, what good is that to the person who is deaf and blind? Would God make himself available to exclusively to people whose senses are working well? Does that mean the deaf and blind miss out? Bad luck? By looking for this type of evidence, it is discriminating against the deaf and blind.

 

2. Scientific proofs. Lets hypothetically assume that the Kalam Cosmological argument is a slam dunk 100%. It proves beyond any doubt that God exists. Now, the KCA is a combination of scientific and philosphical arguments. It goes into detail about the big bang, quantum mechanics, inflationary period etc etc. These are trivial and require a certain level of intelligence to understand and grasp. Does this mean that people who have a lower leve of intelligence or who are dyslexic who cannot understand these concepts and cannot make anything of it, miss out? If proof of God is to come by this way, does this mean that God is making himself exclusively available to the intelligent? The Dyslexic miss out? Bad luck? The same can be said with any other arguments, ie, Intelligent design, moral arguments etc etc.

 

3. Accesability. Again, lets assume that the KCA is a 100% slam dunk argument, or the moral argument or the design argument OR ANY ARGUMENT. What about people who never hear of these? Does this mean they miss out? Lets say an Atheist dies and goes before God. Do you think an Atheist will say "i couldnt make it to the lecture on the KCA , or science never made the discovery of your existence while i was alive etc etc"....Do you think that will wash down?

Rather, if God exists, for us to believe in him, wouldnt he put that "something" inside each and everyone one of us so we can believe in him. Something that is not dependant on how smart you are, how well your senses are working, how well your cognitive faculties are tuned, how much access to information you have, how much money you have, what era you were born in. By looking for external evidences or arguing for external evidences, in a way, you are discriminating against the type of people who i described above. Rather, that something would be inside of each and every single one of us which doesnt matter who you are, where you are or what you are. its inside of us like a heart is in each human being regardless of anything.

Therefore, in my opinion, the most powerful proofs for Gods existence is the proper basic belief, which isnt a proof, rather a description of belief that is available within each individual person independent of how smart you are, what info you have access to , where you live, when you were born, how well your senses work, how well your cognitives work.


Please, not for one minute am i suggesting that you have tried and are lying. No not at all, rather, maybe , the emphasis of where you are putting your thoughts and energies could be in the wrong place.
 

Cheers

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Then wtf is the bible for?

Then wtf is the bible for?


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Then wtf is

Manageri wrote:
Then wtf is the bible for?

These are just my thoughts / beliefs, the bible simply reinforces what is already in our hearts, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you are.  The initial argument was for deism. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:3.

Conigman wrote:

3. Accesability. Again, lets assume that the KCA is a 100% slam dunk argument, or the moral argument or the design argument OR ANY ARGUMENT. What about people who never hear of these? Does this mean they miss out? Lets say an Atheist dies and goes before God. Do you think an Atheist will say "i couldnt make it to the lecture on the KCA , or science never made the discovery of your existence while i was alive etc etc"....Do you think that will wash down?

Rather, if God exists, for us to believe in him, wouldnt he put that "something" inside each and everyone one of us so we can believe in him. Something that is not dependant on how smart you are, how well your senses are working, how well your cognitive faculties are tuned, how much access to information you have, how much money you have, what era you were born in. By looking for external evidences or arguing for external evidences, in a way, you are discriminating against the type of people who i described above. Rather, that something would be inside of each and every single one of us which doesnt matter who you are, where you are or what you are. its inside of us like a heart is in each human being regardless of anything.

 

If something like god existed and placed the need for belief inside of people, assuming that this deity had human-like qualities, why would it feel a need to have us "stand before it?"

As for the latter half of your argument, what about people that are born with limited or mental disabilities that do not comprehend such ideas and notions ?

The KCA has pretty much been proven to NOT be a 100 % slam dunk. You used the word assume, which would mean that this is in the realm of pure speculation.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:the

Conigman wrote:
the bible simply reinforces what is already in our hearts, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you are.

So god only reinforces the faith of people who get to read the bible? Isn't that kinda at odds with your initial argument? If god is as you speculate him to be then isn't that evidence against christianity?


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Conigman wrote:

3. Accesability. Again, lets assume that the KCA is a 100% slam dunk argument, or the moral argument or the design argument OR ANY ARGUMENT. What about people who never hear of these? Does this mean they miss out? Lets say an Atheist dies and goes before God. Do you think an Atheist will say "i couldnt make it to the lecture on the KCA , or science never made the discovery of your existence while i was alive etc etc"....Do you think that will wash down?

Rather, if God exists, for us to believe in him, wouldnt he put that "something" inside each and everyone one of us so we can believe in him. Something that is not dependant on how smart you are, how well your senses are working, how well your cognitive faculties are tuned, how much access to information you have, how much money you have, what era you were born in. By looking for external evidences or arguing for external evidences, in a way, you are discriminating against the type of people who i described above. Rather, that something would be inside of each and every single one of us which doesnt matter who you are, where you are or what you are. its inside of us like a heart is in each human being regardless of anything.

 

If something like god existed and placed the need for belief inside of people, assuming that this deity had human-like qualities, why would it feel a need to have us "stand before it?"

Sorry, i am not sure what you mean by this.

As for the latter half of your argument, what about people that are born with limited or mental disabilities that do not comprehend such ideas and notions ?

Well, thats the whole point of my argument, there are people in the world with limited or mental disabilities that do believe in God. I see them at my church.

The KCA has pretty much been proven to NOT be a 100 % slam dunk. You used the word assume, which would mean that this is in the realm of pure speculation.

Thats the whole point of the OP. Not to rely on external evidences because of the problems it creates.

I think this argument i created has the potential to go into dangerous territory, simply because it invites talk of judgement, and we should not judge anyone. So we have to be careful the argument doesnt head down that way..


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Conigman

Manageri wrote:
Conigman wrote:
the bible simply reinforces what is already in our hearts, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you are.
So god only reinforces the faith of people who get to read the bible? Isn't that kinda at odds with your initial argument? If god is as you speculate him to be then isn't that evidence against christianity?

No not at all. Think of it this way. Dont you think if an Atheist read the bible will agree with what is written in there in terms of it is wrong to steal, lie, murder, rape,  should love one another, etc etc?

This is where i wrote in response to another post, this has the potential to go down a dangerous road of judgement which i want to steer well clear of as no one should judge another.

The OP was strictly for Deism, with a platform to get to Christianity, which we can tackle later.

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
The problem is God only

The problem is God only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know Him.   Most Atheists have no desire to know God.  Judging from my responses, many atheists hold a deep rooted hatred for the God of the Bible so no wonder God doesn't work in their lives.  God could appear physically to appeal to their senses and atheists would try to dismiss it as an hallucination.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:Hi all, these

Conigman wrote:

Hi all, these are my thoughts and my thoughts only.

Atheists most commonly are after external proofs for Gods existence. To me, this creates a number of problems.

If God exists, why does belief in him have to be dependent of external proofs?

If God exists, wouldnt he make himself accesable to anyone and
everyone for belief in him? The only way this can be possibily done is for "something" to be inside of every single human being for belief in him rather than "external proofs".

By looking for external and relying on external proofs, it creates a form of discrimation.


If God exists, wouldnt belief in God be independent of how smart you are, what access to information you have, where you live, what era you live in, how long you live, how well your senses and cognitive faculties work?

The only way to solve this, is that God put something inside each individual person so that we can believe in him.



Lets look at a few examples and you will get the jist of what i am trying o say

1.Many Atheists have said , why doesnt God put a sign in the sky or roar words from the sky? Ok, what good is that to the person who is deaf and blind? Would God make himself available to exclusively to people whose senses are working well? Does that mean the deaf and blind miss out? Bad luck? By looking for this type of evidence, it is discriminating against the deaf and blind.

 

2. Scientific proofs. Lets hypothetically assume that the Kalam Cosmological argument is a slam dunk 100%. It proves beyond any doubt that God exists. Now, the KCA is a combination of scientific and philosphical arguments. It goes into detail about the big bang, quantum mechanics, inflationary period etc etc. These are trivial and require a certain level of intelligence to understand and grasp. Does this mean that people who have a lower leve of intelligence or who are dyslexic who cannot understand these concepts and cannot make anything of it, miss out? If proof of God is to come by this way, does this mean that God is making himself exclusively available to the intelligent? The Dyslexic miss out? Bad luck? The same can be said with any other arguments, ie, Intelligent design, moral arguments etc etc.

 

3. Accesability. Again, lets assume that the KCA is a 100% slam dunk argument, or the moral argument or the design argument OR ANY ARGUMENT. What about people who never hear of these? Does this mean they miss out? Lets say an Atheist dies and goes before God. Do you think an Atheist will say "i couldnt make it to the lecture on the KCA , or science never made the discovery of your existence while i was alive etc etc"....Do you think that will wash down?

Rather, if God exists, for us to believe in him, wouldnt he put that "something" inside each and everyone one of us so we can believe in him. Something that is not dependant on how smart you are, how well your senses are working, how well your cognitive faculties are tuned, how much access to information you have, how much money you have, what era you were born in. By looking for external evidences or arguing for external evidences, in a way, you are discriminating against the type of people who i described above. Rather, that something would be inside of each and every single one of us which doesnt matter who you are, where you are or what you are. its inside of us like a heart is in each human being regardless of anything.

Therefore, in my opinion, the most powerful proofs for Gods existence is the proper basic belief, which isnt a proof, rather a description of belief that is available within each individual person independent of how smart you are, what info you have access to , where you live, when you were born, how well your senses work, how well your cognitives work.


Please, not for one minute am i suggesting that you have tried and are lying. No not at all, rather, maybe , the emphasis of where you are putting your thoughts and energies could be in the wrong place.
 

Cheers

 

I have been debating theists for 11 years now online on various websites. Now while others here are willing to take the time to deconstruct what you have posted, I am not one of those. I am going to simply cut to the chase and address ALL concepts of non material thinking beings, not just yours. I see your particular pet god claim as a mere naked assertion like all god claims in human history.

WHY? Not what? BUT WHY do YOU feel the need to insert a thinking who into the gap?

Does it take Posiden the ocean god to allow or make a hurricane? Does it take Thor to make lightening? Or could it be, just like all humans, even prior to the invention of your personal myth, that humans merely like the idea of having a super hero? There is a word for that "anthropomorphism".

If you can accept that the Egyptian sun god was never real, despite that ancient culture believing it falsely for 3,000 years, what makes you think you are not making the same mistake they did?

To see where we are coming from, try this thought experiment. Take your entire initial post, and everywhere you use the word "God", meaning your own personal belief, ask yourself if you would buy your same argument, if someone else were trying to sell you say Allah, or Vishnu or the Sikh god.

The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do. When you understand why you reject all other claims, besides the one you are making here, you will understand why we reject your argument as well.

What would change if you found out that there was no god? War exists, and there has never been a single generation in human history without some conflict, despite humans always claiming a god to be the cure. Disease has always been around, despite all the  competing god claims in human history. Natural disasters have always existed. And all humans will die and have always died.

Now don't pull "you hate god". No, I can no more hate ANY god, than I can hate Micky Mouse. But you would hate it if you had a friend who literally went around selling and believing that Mickey Mouse was real. I simply do not find ANY god claim in human history having any lick of credibility.

If you can accept their never was an Apollo, and Allah is not real, and you can accept that people falsely believed the earth was flat, then you can easily see that you are STILL part of the same species that has always had flawed logic that can lead them to false conclusions.

I submit, that your "belief" is merely your own wishful thinking and nothing more. "It feels good, so therefore it must be true", if that logic would not work on you for someone selling Allah to you, what makes you think that your naked assertion would work on us?

Now, all anyone of any belief has to do to prove us wrong is to find ONE example of a thought occurring without a material process, and be able to empirically demonstrate it in a neutral lab setting and have that data independently verified. If anyone of any label could do that, they could win a Nobel Prize in science, and hold tons of patents.

Otherwise, the only rational explanation as to why all god claims exist, is because our species has always had vivid imaginations.

But the truth is that thoughts need a material process just like a hurricane could not happen without water and clouds and conditions that would lead to it.

I've been down this road, with all sorts of god claims, and even new age claims like pantheism and all of them to me amount to nothing more than personal woo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:No not at

Conigman wrote:
No not at all. Think of it this way. Dont you think if an Atheist read the bible will agree with what is written in there in terms of it is wrong to steal, lie, murder, rape,  should love one another, etc etc?

And own slaves, beat slaves, oppress women, oppress gays, abuse your kids, make a rape victim marry her rapist and all that other happy happy rainbow lala fun stuff the bible is so well known for? Yeah, that really makes me think "you know what, I think whoever wrote this book is really awesome and clearly above us humans". I'd rather have Josef fucking Fritzl run the universe than the asshole god of the bible.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:The problem is

TWD39 wrote:

The problem is God only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know Him.   Most Atheists have no desire to know God.  Judging from my responses, many atheists hold a deep rooted hatred for the God of the Bible so no wonder God doesn't work in their lives.  God could appear physically to appeal to their senses and atheists would try to dismiss it as an hallucination.

"The problem is that Allah only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know him"

"The problem is that Yahweh only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know him"

"The problem is that L Ron Hubbard only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know him"

"The problem is that Vishnu only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know him".

All you are saying, like any other claimant of any other pet god claim is "to believe, you just have to swallow it first".

Not impressed. If you will not accept another person's god claim with this argument, what makes you think we should accept yours?

This is horrible logic. It is as stupid as going to a used car lot and the car salesman refuses to let you have the car check out by an independent mechanic and you stupidly buy it anyway.

 

If you want to believe something badly enough, you will.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Welcome.Your posts read like

Welcome.

Your posts read like you are a presuppositionalist.

Here's why.

You claim that God has already planted full knowledge of himself in our hearts.  If this were actually true no one would need church to go learn about him. It would also completely eliminate atheism. As churches and atheists exist, your claim is false.

You also say that atheists are putting their emphasis in the wrong place. Again, if God had planted full knowledge of himself in our hearts, such emphasis would be unnecessary and wasteful.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:Manageri

Conigman wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Conigman wrote:
the bible simply reinforces what is already in our hearts, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you are.
So god only reinforces the faith of people who get to read the bible? Isn't that kinda at odds with your initial argument? If god is as you speculate him to be then isn't that evidence against christianity?

No not at all. Think of it this way. Dont you think if an Atheist read the bible will agree with what is written in there in terms of it is wrong to steal, lie, murder, rape,  should love one another, etc etc?

This is where i wrote in response to another post, this has the potential to go down a dangerous road of judgement which i want to steer well clear of as no one should judge another.

The OP was strictly for Deism, with a platform to get to Christianity, which we can tackle later.

 

Do you also not think an atheist reading the Bible will notice where the God who gave these rules fails to follow them himself?

You're cherry-picking here.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Conigman

jcgadfly wrote:

Conigman wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Conigman wrote:
the bible simply reinforces what is already in our hearts, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you are.
So god only reinforces the faith of people who get to read the bible? Isn't that kinda at odds with your initial argument? If god is as you speculate him to be then isn't that evidence against christianity?

No not at all. Think of it this way. Dont you think if an Atheist read the bible will agree with what is written in there in terms of it is wrong to steal, lie, murder, rape,  should love one another, etc etc?

This is where i wrote in response to another post, this has the potential to go down a dangerous road of judgement which i want to steer well clear of as no one should judge another.

The OP was strictly for Deism, with a platform to get to Christianity, which we can tackle later.

 

Do you also not think an atheist reading the Bible will notice where the God who gave these rules fails to follow them himself?

You're cherry-picking here.

Homer Simpson "UMMMMM CHERRIES"

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:The problem is

TWD39 wrote:

The problem is God only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know Him.   Most Atheists have no desire to know God.  Judging from my responses, many atheists hold a deep rooted hatred for the God of the Bible so no wonder God doesn't work in their lives.  God could appear physically to appeal to their senses and atheists would try to dismiss it as an hallucination.

And that is why after spending a lifetime of being fanatically religious and ferverently praying, while being a predominant member of my faith, I came to my senses and saw what illogical nonsense that it all was ?

Your responses might have been better received had you not tried to duct out of every argument and then start putting forth ad homs and THEN get highly offended when you received some ad homs in return.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Conigman

Conigman wrote:

Sorry, i am not sure what you mean by this.

Thats the whole point of the OP. Not to rely on external evidences because of the problems it creates.

So internal "feelings" presents no problems ?

Like the Son of Sam killer that heard voices and such ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:The OP was

Conigman wrote:

The OP was strictly for Deism, with a platform to get to Christianity, which we can tackle later.

 

Deists do not believe in an interventionist god nor christianity.

That would be no different than saying, the original OP was strictly for Islam, with a platform to get to Christianity, which we will tackle later.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:The problem is

TWD39 wrote:

The problem is God only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know Him.   Most Atheists have no desire to know God.  Judging from my responses, many atheists hold a deep rooted hatred for the God of the Bible so no wonder God doesn't work in their lives.  God could appear physically to appeal to their senses and atheists would try to dismiss it as an hallucination.

Unless he did something that hallucinations can't do.  Shame he chooses to remain hidden.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
a couple of cents from my way...

I'm not going to quote your entire post or review everything everyone else has said.  I'll just throw out some of my own ideas.

Why does belief in god/s/dess have to be dependent on external proofs?  Because otherwise, all we are talking about is an imaginary friend for adults.  I grew out of the need for imaginary friends a long time ago.

It seems to me a lot of the rest of your post could be related to temporal lobe stimulation.  See youtube videos on "The God Helmet".  There also seems to be a correlation between epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe region and religious experiences.  One could claim that this was put there by god/s/dess, though it would make as much sense at this point to say evolutionarily it is perhaps a neutral trait, persistent in the population because it does not prevent reproduction.  Or it may be a positive trait as it may enhance social bonds.

Please also note that in 20% of the population, stimulation of the temporal lobe does NOT produce any sensation at all.  So obviously god/s/dess missed a few of us.

 

Quote:

Therefore, in my opinion, the most powerful proofs for Gods existence is the proper basic belief, which isnt a proof, rather a description of belief that is available within each individual person independent of how smart you are, what info you have access to , where you live, when you were born, how well your senses work, how well your cognitives work.

 

I have a son who is learning disabled, and I can tell from this paragraph that you have worked with people similar to my son.  Unfortunately for your theory, I happen to know how easy it is to convince my son that what you are telling him is the truth without any evidence to confuse him.  So while I am aware of the amount of time and energy it takes to work with people of limited abilities, I am also unimpressed with how easy you may have found it to be to convince some of them of the truth of out right fantasy.

And if god/s/dess exists, and I meet him/her/it/them when I die, I would say, "Look, you made me intelligent, a linear thinker, a pragmatic realist.  And you gave me no evidence of your existence.  WTF did you expect?"

And then I would do my best to kick where it hurts the most and demand to be sent to hell --

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Pay closer attention to what is said . . .

TWD39 wrote:

The problem is God only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know Him.   Most Atheists have no desire to know God.  Judging from my responses, many atheists hold a deep rooted hatred for the God of the Bible so no wonder God doesn't work in their lives.  God could appear physically to appeal to their senses and atheists would try to dismiss it as an hallucination.

  Attn.  -- TWD39

  Hello

     We had someone close to the family, a "family member" who would rail on about organized religion, Protestants and Catholics. If she was on this board I can honestly say people would grow tired of her, even people who would agree with her would be taking her to task. Just by the forceful vehement disdain, half of the time all you got were things from her that didnt make any sense to any.  If there is true hatred, there usually is no way to hide it and resentment at her level, hasnt been seen since an incident about three months ago, it didnt make much sense to most. Any real bitter resentment(s) are obviously almost unheard of on the board. Although there are numerous examples in the Bible of 'unbelief' some cannot except that someone could come to this conclusion, as seen here, without it based in some irrational solely emotional intense dislike at work in their minds. In her case the average joe would just begin to discount her, the way she'd go on. But, here, the reality is not borne out with anyone I could think of approaching this. One problem is a all too common bunch of preconceived ideas and if you couple that will inflammatory speech, you can almost always be assured the conversation will turn, an uglier side will be shown. If your in a minority view, you are making your mistake is in failing to realize basic human nature at play. This uglier side can easily be brought on, and anyone uncareful  can unwittingly incite it at times. I'm assuming you dont want the conversation to degenerate to what your own unfortunate experience ended up as. If given a chance people are free to voice their opinions and are quite reasonable. Yes, Emotions run high on any board and to acknowledge is a step towards dealing with what is.  It might be of assistance to force yourself to remember people are coming from a particular point of view, foreign to anything you know. And be open to look a little deeper. The board is a quote factory and no one need to lower the level of conversation at any point no matter what is going on. That is no guaranty people at one point or another are always going to like what was said nor you will never experience a moment of anger. But, This is the internet, I cannot stress it loud enough. Granted, some people have a far different experience than others and I shouldnt be able to tell you why that is. However, Something to consider, If you more closely follow what is actually being said, trying to pay attention to the actual words. You might find it far different from what you  think is happening on a couple of levels.

p.s.-- Now if you can tell us who why the word uncareful shows up on the spell checker, I know I'm happy.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I'm not going to

cj wrote:

I'm not going to quote your entire post or review everything everyone else has said.  I'll just throw out some of my own ideas.

Why does belief in god/s/dess have to be dependent on external proofs?  Because otherwise, all we are talking about is an imaginary friend for adults.  I grew out of the need for imaginary friends a long time ago.

It seems to me a lot of the rest of your post could be related to temporal lobe stimulation.  See youtube videos on "The God Helmet".  There also seems to be a correlation between epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe region and religious experiences.  One could claim that this was put there by god/s/dess, though it would make as much sense at this point to say evolutionarily it is perhaps a neutral trait, persistent in the population because it does not prevent reproduction.  Or it may be a positive trait as it may enhance social bonds.

Please also note that in 20% of the population, stimulation of the temporal lobe does NOT produce any sensation at all.  So obviously god/s/dess missed a few of us.

 

Quote:

Therefore, in my opinion, the most powerful proofs for Gods existence is the proper basic belief, which isnt a proof, rather a description of belief that is available within each individual person independent of how smart you are, what info you have access to , where you live, when you were born, how well your senses work, how well your cognitives work.

 

I have a son who is learning disabled, and I can tell from this paragraph that you have worked with people similar to my son.  Unfortunately for your theory, I happen to know how easy it is to convince my son that what you are telling him is the truth without any evidence to confuse him.  So while I am aware of the amount of time and energy it takes to work with people of limited abilities, I am also unimpressed with how easy you may have found it to be to convince some of them of the truth of out right fantasy.

And if god/s/dess exists, and I meet him/her/it/them when I die, I would say, "Look, you made me intelligent, a linear thinker, a pragmatic realist.  And you gave me no evidence of your existence.  WTF did you expect?"

And then I would do my best to kick where it hurts the most and demand to be sent to hell --

 

Oh my Thor do I love you CJ!

But I would not demand to be sent to hell, that sounds as vile as heaven, I would simply kick it in the nads or vagina(take your pick) and demand to become nothing and be nothing for eternity, that way I wouldn't have to deal with the inept needless  drama this alleged being set up for it's own benefit.

But I totally agree, gives you a brain to think with, then blames you for using it, or makes excuses as to why he/she/it doesn't have to explain itself to you.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Misc.

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

I'm not going to quote your entire post or review everything everyone else has said.  I'll just throw out some of my own ideas.

Why does belief in god/s/dess have to be dependent on external proofs?  Because otherwise, all we are talking about is an imaginary friend for adults.  I grew out of the need for imaginary friends a long time ago.

It seems to me a lot of the rest of your post could be related to temporal lobe stimulation.  See youtube videos on "The God Helmet".  There also seems to be a correlation between epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe region and religious experiences.  One could claim that this was put there by god/s/dess, though it would make as much sense at this point to say evolutionarily it is perhaps a neutral trait, persistent in the population because it does not prevent reproduction.  Or it may be a positive trait as it may enhance social bonds.

Please also note that in 20% of the population, stimulation of the temporal lobe does NOT produce any sensation at all.  So obviously god/s/dess missed a few of us.

 

Quote:

Therefore, in my opinion, the most powerful proofs for Gods existence is the proper basic belief, which isnt a proof, rather a description of belief that is available within each individual person independent of how smart you are, what info you have access to , where you live, when you were born, how well your senses work, how well your cognitives work.

 

I have a son who is learning disabled, and I can tell from this paragraph that you have worked with people similar to my son.  Unfortunately for your theory, I happen to know how easy it is to convince my son that what you are telling him is the truth without any evidence to confuse him.  So while I am aware of the amount of time and energy it takes to work with people of limited abilities, I am also unimpressed with how easy you may have found it to be to convince some of them of the truth of out right fantasy.

And if god/s/dess exists, and I meet him/her/it/them when I die, I would say, "Look, you made me intelligent, a linear thinker, a pragmatic realist.  And you gave me no evidence of your existence.  WTF did you expect?"

And then I would do my best to kick where it hurts the most and demand to be sent to hell --

 

Oh my Thor do I love you CJ!

   I would simply kick it in the nads or vagina(take your pick) and demand to become nothing and be nothing for eternity

 

 

  Hi CJ  Sorry Love luck of the draw, there is no hidden message.  Please know, I was composing something to TWD34 and hadnt even seen your post.

   I think I saw the original program of the YouTube video you were talking about . .

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  Hi

danatemporary wrote:

  Hi CJ  Sorry Love luck of the draw, there is no hidden message.  Please know, I was composing something to TWD34 and hadnt even seen your post.

   I think I saw the original program of the YouTube video you were talking about . .

 

No problem.  I was/am too lazy to go hunt for the video.  For anyone who is interested, just search for "God helmet" and you can take your pick of a number of videos.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh my Thor do

Brian37 wrote:

Oh my Thor do I love you CJ!

But I would not demand to be sent to hell, that sounds as vile as heaven, I would simply kick it in the nads or vagina(take your pick) and demand to become nothing and be nothing for eternity, that way I wouldn't have to deal with the inept needless  drama this alleged being set up for it's own benefit.

But I totally agree, gives you a brain to think with, then blames you for using it, or makes excuses as to why he/she/it doesn't have to explain itself to you.

 

Nothingness, oblivion, would be preferable.  But the usual religious type seems to insist on frying unbelievers and if I had to choose between frying and heaven - in the fire I would go.  It couldn't be any more torturous than listening to untrained harp music and off key choirs for eternity.

Valhalla wouldn't be so bad.  Party all night, get up, no hangover, no STDs, get drunk, get laid, party some more, repeat.... I could go for that.  Shield maiden wouldn't be a bad thing to be for all eternity - as long as some hunky Scandinavian guy came along for the ride. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: No problem.  I

cj wrote:

 

No problem.  I was/am too lazy to go hunt for the video.  For anyone who is interested, just search for "God helmet" and you can take your pick of a number of videos.

 

Some of the best reading material that I have ever encountered thus far, that explains the biological and neurological theories for people and their belief's in god were covered in Mathew Alper's : God Part of the Brain , Religion Explained by Pascal Boyar, and Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Neuberg. ( I did not like the latter half of Why God Won't Go Away, because the author makes the assertion : that although god is nothing more than a certain "feeling" that is self induced by brain chemistry, people who believe in god have a better life than those who do not. THAT'S BULLSHIT IMO.) However, the reason that I bring up Why God Won't Go Away is because the first half is so intricate about the reactions of the brain under CAT scans and such, while people from all beliefs and faiths were praying, meditating, etc.

The best one that I have read thus far is : Religion Explained by Pascal Boyar. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Valhalla wouldn't

cj wrote:

Valhalla wouldn't be so bad.  Party all night, get up, no hangover, no STDs, get drunk, get laid, party some more, repeat.... I could go for that.  Shield maiden wouldn't be a bad thing to be for all eternity - as long as some hunky Scandinavian guy came along for the ride. 

 

Smiling

Seriously enough, I remember when I was a good little theist Catholic in school, during a hsitory lesson one time, the teacher stated that out of all the ancient religions, the Norse religion was the most bleak and "evil" (yes she actually used the word evil) and then went on to describe Valhalla.

Even way back then, I kinda thought the concepts of the Norse religion were pretty cool. Fight to the death in battle for comrades, party hard and take what you want.

No wonder when I threw away religion, it was so easy to grow my hair long and fall into the biker lifestyle. I was a Viking at heart all along. One of the hardest partying and riding clubs that I have ever encountered have the Norse God Surt on their back jackets.

I'll take Valhalla and cool dudes like Loki and Thor any day. At least they ADMITTED to being screwed up deities. The current fictitious deity we have, threatens us with eternal hell while simultaneously claiming to have nothing but perfect love for us.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: cj

harleysportster wrote:

cj wrote:

Valhalla wouldn't be so bad.  Party all night, get up, no hangover, no STDs, get drunk, get laid, party some more, repeat.... I could go for that.  Shield maiden wouldn't be a bad thing to be for all eternity - as long as some hunky Scandinavian guy came along for the ride. 

Smiling

Seriously enough, I remember when I was a good little theist Catholic in school, during a hsitory lesson one time, the teacher stated that out of all the ancient religions, the Norse religion was the most bleak and "evil" (yes she actually used the word evil) and then went on to describe Valhalla.

Even way back then, I kinda thought the concepts of the Norse religion were pretty cool. Fight to the death in battle for comrades, party hard and take what you want.

No wonder when I threw away religion, it was so easy to grow my hair long and fall into the biker lifestyle. I was a Viking at heart all along. One of the hardest partying and riding clubs that I have ever encountered have the Norse God Surt on their back jackets.

I'll take Valhalla and cool dudes like Loki and Thor any day. At least they ADMITTED to being screwed up deities. The current fictitious deity we have, threatens us with eternal hell while simultaneously claiming to have nothing but perfect love for us.

 

I have never heard of Odin and crew ever giving much of a care for mere mortals.  But then, maybe not-so-mere mortals would be more problematic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayLPl4yX5ew

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Ok. Alot of people have

Ok. Alot of people have responded, so i will try and summarise a few notes...

 

It seems a few people here and is a common Atheist argument about different Gods being worshipped as some sort of rebuttal to my OP. remember, i am still talking about Deism and havent gone into Christianity which i will later and show how the argument fits in well.

 

Here are my thoughts on this.

 

Since the beginning of mankind, it is well established, that it "appears" different Gods have been worshipped over time. Many different Gods have been named here. However, the question is, ARE THEY REALLY DIFFERENT GOD's? I am not talking about religions, but GOD's. Are they really different or are they the same?

Arent ALL these supposed "DIFFERENT" Gods that are worshipped over time STILL ultimately the creator of the universe, the creator of life, the source of all moral goodness, etc etc? In that respect, arent these different Gods, ultimately the SAME God?

Is it possible, that while there are different names for God it is still EFFECTIVELY the same God, however, because of different cultures, have created different names for God? But effectively the same God.

Using this as a starting point (characteristics which i descibed above) which was made known to man in the history of humanity by God, man has added bits and pieces (add ons) around this , for cultural significance, personal desires etc etc,


I heard that people used to worship the sun, but couldnt that simply mean that this is the same God as Christians believe in, but wanted something physical to worship, instead of a sculpture, they chose the sun etc etc.
 

So, when different Gods are mentioned over human history, arent they effectively the SAME God, that is, the same creator of the universe, the same same creator of life, the same source of moral goodness. But man in effect has put "add ons" for cultural significance, eras and recognisability over the course of human history?

 

 


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:The problem is

TWD39 wrote:

The problem is God only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know Him.   Most Atheists have no desire to know God.  Judging from my responses, many atheists hold a deep rooted hatred for the God of the Bible so no wonder God doesn't work in their lives.  God could appear physically to appeal to their senses and atheists would try to dismiss it as an hallucination.

Well, this is the crux of my argument. There appears a great desire for external proofs. However, by going to these external proffs, it is discriminating to different people in society. Is God only making himself available to the intelligent? people whose senses are working well? People who have access to information? Or for a discovery? By doing this, you are alientaing and discriminating against certain people. Rather, wouldnt belief in God be available to anyone, anywhere and any how? The only way for this to work is if there is a"something" inside you which is there for anyone to access, if they wish to.

 


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Conigman

Manageri wrote:
Conigman wrote:
No not at all. Think of it this way. Dont you think if an Atheist read the bible will agree with what is written in there in terms of it is wrong to steal, lie, murder, rape,  should love one another, etc etc?
And own slaves, beat slaves, oppress women, oppress gays, abuse your kids, make a rape victim marry her rapist and all that other happy happy rainbow lala fun stuff the bible is so well known for? Yeah, that really makes me think "you know what, I think whoever wrote this book is really awesome and clearly above us humans". I'd rather have Josef fucking Fritzl run the universe than the asshole god of the bible.

This is now going completely off the topic. Do you agree that it is wrong to steal, lie, rape and murder? Do you need the bible to tell you that?


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Conigman

Brian37 wrote:

Conigman wrote:

Hi all, these are my thoughts and my thoughts only.

Atheists most commonly are after external proofs for Gods existence. To me, this creates a number of problems.

If God exists, why does belief in him have to be dependent of external proofs?

If God exists, wouldnt he make himself accesable to anyone and
everyone for belief in him? The only way this can be possibily done is for "something" to be inside of every single human being for belief in him rather than "external proofs".

By looking for external and relying on external proofs, it creates a form of discrimation.


If God exists, wouldnt belief in God be independent of how smart you are, what access to information you have, where you live, what era you live in, how long you live, how well your senses and cognitive faculties work?

The only way to solve this, is that God put something inside each individual person so that we can believe in him.



Lets look at a few examples and you will get the jist of what i am trying o say

1.Many Atheists have said , why doesnt God put a sign in the sky or roar words from the sky? Ok, what good is that to the person who is deaf and blind? Would God make himself available to exclusively to people whose senses are working well? Does that mean the deaf and blind miss out? Bad luck? By looking for this type of evidence, it is discriminating against the deaf and blind.

 

2. Scientific proofs. Lets hypothetically assume that the Kalam Cosmological argument is a slam dunk 100%. It proves beyond any doubt that God exists. Now, the KCA is a combination of scientific and philosphical arguments. It goes into detail about the big bang, quantum mechanics, inflationary period etc etc. These are trivial and require a certain level of intelligence to understand and grasp. Does this mean that people who have a lower leve of intelligence or who are dyslexic who cannot understand these concepts and cannot make anything of it, miss out? If proof of God is to come by this way, does this mean that God is making himself exclusively available to the intelligent? The Dyslexic miss out? Bad luck? The same can be said with any other arguments, ie, Intelligent design, moral arguments etc etc.

 

3. Accesability. Again, lets assume that the KCA is a 100% slam dunk argument, or the moral argument or the design argument OR ANY ARGUMENT. What about people who never hear of these? Does this mean they miss out? Lets say an Atheist dies and goes before God. Do you think an Atheist will say "i couldnt make it to the lecture on the KCA , or science never made the discovery of your existence while i was alive etc etc"....Do you think that will wash down?

Rather, if God exists, for us to believe in him, wouldnt he put that "something" inside each and everyone one of us so we can believe in him. Something that is not dependant on how smart you are, how well your senses are working, how well your cognitive faculties are tuned, how much access to information you have, how much money you have, what era you were born in. By looking for external evidences or arguing for external evidences, in a way, you are discriminating against the type of people who i described above. Rather, that something would be inside of each and every single one of us which doesnt matter who you are, where you are or what you are. its inside of us like a heart is in each human being regardless of anything.

Therefore, in my opinion, the most powerful proofs for Gods existence is the proper basic belief, which isnt a proof, rather a description of belief that is available within each individual person independent of how smart you are, what info you have access to , where you live, when you were born, how well your senses work, how well your cognitives work.


Please, not for one minute am i suggesting that you have tried and are lying. No not at all, rather, maybe , the emphasis of where you are putting your thoughts and energies could be in the wrong place.
 

Cheers

 

I have been debating theists for 11 years now online on various websites. Now while others here are willing to take the time to deconstruct what you have posted, I am not one of those. I am going to simply cut to the chase and address ALL concepts of non material thinking beings, not just yours. I see your particular pet god claim as a mere naked assertion like all god claims in human history.

WHY? Not what? BUT WHY do YOU feel the need to insert a thinking who into the gap?

I dont understand what you mean by this.

Does it take Posiden the ocean god to allow or make a hurricane? Does it take Thor to make lightening? Or could it be, just like all humans, even prior to the invention of your personal myth, that humans merely like the idea of having a super hero? There is a word for that "anthropomorphism".

Read my post on the different Gods.

If you can accept that the Egyptian sun god was never real, despite that ancient culture believing it falsely for 3,000 years, what makes you think you are not making the same mistake they did?

Again, read my post on the different Gods.

To see where we are coming from, try this thought experiment. Take your entire initial post, and everywhere you use the word "God", meaning your own personal belief, ask yourself if you would buy your same argument, if someone else were trying to sell you say Allah, or Vishnu or the Sikh god.

 

Again, read my post on the different Gods.

The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do. When you understand why you reject all other claims, besides the one you are making here, you will understand why we reject your argument as well.

 

Again, read my post on the different Gods.

What would change if you found out that there was no god? War exists, and there has never been a single generation in human history without some conflict, despite humans always claiming a god to be the cure. Disease has always been around, despite all the  competing god claims in human history. Natural disasters have always existed. And all humans will die and have always died.

How can you find out if there was no God on this side of the grave? Atheists will never know if they are right. But they will know if they are wrong.

Now don't pull "you hate god". No, I can no more hate ANY god, than I can hate Micky Mouse. But you would hate it if you had a friend who literally went around selling and believing that Mickey Mouse was real. I simply do not find ANY god claim in human history having any lick of credibility.

No i never said that "hating God".  If he was going around selling mickey mouse, tbh, i wouldnt waste much of my time arguing against him. Certainly not 11 years of it....

If you can accept their never was an Apollo, and Allah is not real, and you can accept that people falsely believed the earth was flat, then you can easily see that you are STILL part of the same species that has always had flawed logic that can lead them to false conclusions.

Seriously? what does flat earth have to do with believing in God? This makes zero sense.

I submit, that your "belief" is merely your own wishful thinking and nothing more. "It feels good, so therefore it must be true", if that logic would not work on you for someone selling Allah to you, what makes you think that your naked assertion would work on us?

So now i believe because it feels good? WOW.

Now, all anyone of any belief has to do to prove us wrong is to find ONE example of a thought occurring without a material process, and be able to empirically demonstrate it in a neutral lab setting and have that data independently verified. If anyone of any label could do that, they could win a Nobel Prize in science, and hold tons of patents.

 

Did you read my OP? This is the exact thing my OP is going against.

Otherwise, the only rational explanation as to why all god claims exist, is because our species has always had vivid imaginations.

But the truth is that thoughts need a material process just like a hurricane could not happen without water and clouds and conditions that would lead to it.

I've been down this road, with all sorts of god claims, and even new age claims like pantheism and all of them to me amount to nothing more than personal woo.

Read my posts on different Gods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Welcome.Your

jcgadfly wrote:

Welcome.

Your posts read like you are a presuppositionalist.

Here's why.

You claim that God has already planted full knowledge of himself in our hearts.  If this were actually true no one would need church to go learn about him. It would also completely eliminate atheism. As churches and atheists exist, your claim is false.

You also say that atheists are putting their emphasis in the wrong place. Again, if God had planted full knowledge of himself in our hearts, such emphasis would be unnecessary and wasteful.

Is it POSSIBLE that because of our evil and sinful nature, our ability to access this "something" is extremely limited?

 

Furthermore, we dont go to church to learn about God, church is a hosptial for sinners, where we bit by bit try and remove our sinful and evil ways so we can slowly access that "something" that is inside of us. Furthermore, you dont need to go to church for that. But when we do, that is what  it is about.

 


Conigman
Theist
Posts: 87
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Conigman wrote:

Sorry, i am not sure what you mean by this.

Thats the whole point of the OP. Not to rely on external evidences because of the problems it creates.

So internal "feelings" presents no problems ?

Like the Son of Sam killer that heard voices and such ?

 

Oh ok.

To a degree, i believe our conscience is a big part of that "something" which i am alluding to.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:Manageri

Conigman wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Conigman wrote:
No not at all. Think of it this way. Dont you think if an Atheist read the bible will agree with what is written in there in terms of it is wrong to steal, lie, murder, rape,  should love one another, etc etc?
And own slaves, beat slaves, oppress women, oppress gays, abuse your kids, make a rape victim marry her rapist and all that other happy happy rainbow lala fun stuff the bible is so well known for? Yeah, that really makes me think "you know what, I think whoever wrote this book is really awesome and clearly above us humans". I'd rather have Josef fucking Fritzl run the universe than the asshole god of the bible.

This is now going completely off the topic. Do you agree that it is wrong to steal, lie, rape and murder? Do you need the bible to tell you that?

Lmao, so when the bible tells you to do good things ZOMG GOD IS REAL but when it tells you to be an asshole, instead of drawing the opposite conclusion, you go WELL DUH BIBLE NOT RELEVANT HURR. Go look up intellectual honesty.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
The reason why atheists are

The reason why atheists are interested in external proofs of god is because these are the proofs we can all share. If we had such proofs, we could arrive at a common understanding of god that would allow us to actually know his will and guide our actions as a society accordingly. Purely subjective, internal proofs are of no use to anyone but the individual. They may exist in almost everyone, but they don't do me any good because I don't share them. And even those who do claim to carry such proof inside them have terrible disagreements about just what those proofs prove. So it becomes much easier to see those claims as evidence of bias and wishful thinking than as evidence of any actual proof from an external deity.

It seems to me that a loving god who really wanted people to believe in him would provide lots of external proofs so there would be no doubt and everyone could share the wonderful truth of his existence. Instead, we have atheists, which suggests such a god does not exist.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 260
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:Hi all, these

Conigman wrote:

Hi all, these are my thoughts and my thoughts only.

Atheists most commonly are after external proofs for Gods existence. To me, this creates a number of problems.

If God exists, why does belief in him have to be dependent of external proofs?

If god exists, why would he rely on proofs that are lesser than our external senses and the scientific method? If our senses/relentless peer review would prove his existence, this would be one of the most religious forums on the internet. The god hypothesis does not pass this test. 

Conigman wrote:
 

If God exists, wouldnt he make himself accesable to anyone and everyone for belief in him? The only way this can be possibily done is for "something" to be inside of every single human being for belief in him rather than "external proofs".

Yes, perhaps he would. However, it's now your job to tell me why Muslims and Hindus feel just as certain about their deities as you do about yours. Until you can provide reason to explain that your hypothesis is superior to other mono-theisms, and poly-theisms, you have nothing to go on.

Conigman wrote:


If God exists, wouldnt belief in God be independent of how smart you are, what access to information you have, where you live, what era you live in, how long you live, how well your senses and cognitive faculties work?


The only way to solve this, is that God put something inside each individual person so that we can believe in him.

Pre-suppositionalism. If you don't think, you might believe. I was raised Catholic, therefore exposed to the idea. I defeated it with thought. Now it's up to you why my "god given" (according to you) mental faculties led me to disbelieve. Why would god's perfect creation turn away from him while using their god given brains?

Conigman wrote:
 

Lets look at a few examples and you will get the jist of what i am trying o say

1.Many Atheists have said , why doesnt God put a sign in the sky or roar words from the sky? Ok, what good is that to the person who is deaf and blind? Would God make himself available to exclusively to people whose senses are working well? Does that mean the deaf and blind miss out? Bad luck? By looking for this type of evidence, it is discriminating against the deaf and blind.

 

You're suggesting that an omnipotent god could only throw out one form of evidence. Why not one for the majority, then throw it all out in braille for the blind, in sign language for the deaf, etc? You're the one positing an omnipotent being not us!

Conigman wrote:

2. Scientific proofs. Lets hypothetically assume that the Kalam Cosmological argument is a slam dunk 100%. It proves beyond any doubt that God exists. Now, the KCA is a combination of scientific and philosphical arguments. It goes into detail about the big bang, quantum mechanics, inflationary period etc etc. These are trivial and require a certain level of intelligence to understand and grasp. Does this mean that people who have a lower leve of intelligence or who are dyslexic who cannot understand these concepts and cannot make anything of it, miss out? If proof of God is to come by this way, does this mean that God is making himself exclusively available to the intelligent? The Dyslexic miss out? Bad luck? The same can be said with any other arguments, ie, Intelligent design, moral arguments etc etc.

The KCA is way simpler than you put it. It's the argument that we don't know what happened before one Planck time after the big bang, therefore, god!!! Humanity has attempted to insert god to explain many things for which we now have better explanations for (I use the term better loosely, as god doesn't explain a damn thing!). Because we don't know, does not mean god. 

Conigman wrote:

3. Accesability. Again, lets assume that the KCA is a 100% slam dunk argument, or the moral argument or the design argument OR ANY ARGUMENT. What about people who never hear of these? Does this mean they miss out? Lets say an Atheist dies and goes before God. Do you think an Atheist will say "i couldnt make it to the lecture on the KCA , or science never made the discovery of your existence while i was alive etc etc"....Do you think that will wash down?

Christians have largely varying opinions on what happens to those who simply don't know. Specifically on these arguments...we know why we have morality (mostly evolutionary development of altruistic feelings, and a bit of foresight and thought does the rest) and the design argument is PURE BULLSHIT (sorry I can't be nice here...we have 2 breathing holes in our head, that converge into the eating hole. If we suck at eating, we suffocate. We also reproduce through the same hole where we pee......and if that's not enough, EXPLAIN MY APPENDIX!!! If I'm lucky, it won't explode. It's so ridiculous, it's become a term that defines extra crap in books and written documents!).

Conigman wrote:

Rather, if God exists, for us to believe in him, wouldnt he put that "something" inside each and everyone one of us so we can believe in him. Something that is not dependant on how smart you are, how well your senses are working, how well your cognitive faculties are tuned, how much access to information you have, how much money you have, what era you were born in. By looking for external evidences or arguing for external evidences, in a way, you are discriminating against the type of people who i described above. Rather, that something would be inside of each and every single one of us which doesnt matter who you are, where you are or what you are. its inside of us like a heart is in each human being regardless of anything.

Therefore, in my opinion, the most powerful proofs for Gods existence is the proper basic belief, which isnt a proof, rather a description of belief that is available within each individual person independent of how smart you are, what info you have access to , where you live, when you were born, how well your senses work, how well your cognitives work.


Please, not for one minute am i suggesting that you have tried and are lying. No not at all, rather, maybe , the emphasis of where you are putting your thoughts and energies could be in the wrong place.
 

Cheers

 

2 biggest fails in my opinion for pre-suppositionalism as outlined here:

1. People with mental disorders who don't get it. They're still humans, and as per most doctrines, are bound to the rules/regulations of the religions, while unable to understand/practice them. 

2. The fact that exercising our cognitive faculties tends to lead us away from god. At this point, the theist has 2 choices. Either tell us that we're somehow wrong (tough task) or tell us not to think (immoral!!). 

Your last sentence I'm sure was not meant to sound condescending, but it does have a hint of that tone. You're suggesting I'm thinking wrong. The "emphasis" of where I'm putting my thoughts is the truth. Now if that's wrong, I want to bring up a common theme in my post. Explain why!!

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 260
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:Hi all, these

apologies, doubl-ay post-ay.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:... ... ... 

Conigman wrote:
... ... ...  If God exists, wouldn't he make himself accesable to anyone and everyone for belief in him? The only way this can be possibily done is for "something" to be inside of every single human being for belief in him rather than "external proofs"... ... ...

 

What is the "something" that would make your hypothesis work?   If you are alluding to some instinctual reaction to a god then why wouldn't god make this instinct as strong and primal as recoiling from pain thus as testable and reproducible in a lab setting.  Finally, the biggest question I would ask of you is why would having the god "something" in me be better than just being a  conscientious, sympathetic, empathetic, contributing member of the human species?  These are the questions I ask of you as an atheist.  As an atheist, I'm more concerned with a theist/deist needs for a god to justify being a decent human being or for creating the universe.

As an atheist I find the irony of the theist/deist vs atheist debates is that, as an atheist I ask questions that will make me a better person whereas a theist/deist believes themselves already a good person simply because they have god.  My atheism is a starting point whereas your theism/deism is the pinnacle of all you believe.   Here is an anecdote.  The christian church in town took it upon themselves to embrace my family and myself shortly after my then wife was diagnosed with cancer(gossip travels fast in a small town).  They brought meals and offered help in the way all people will.  I was impressed by their humanity to be quite honest.  A couple of weeks before christmas they brought us a christmas-tree, I was polite, thanked them, invited them into my home and offered them coffee and did the small talk thing and they left all delighted in themselves and my family thankful for their thoughtfulness.  The tree meant nothing to us though and the tree remained outside and shortly was moved to the "burn pile" where the yearly accumulation of branches and twigs are burnt each spring.  A follow-up visit a day or two before December 25th by our supposed benefactor(s) revealed to them that the christmas tree they brought us was, indeed, not set up and that visitor quickly, if not politely, found reason to leave.  This "news" traveled about the church community in our small town faster than the original news and all the good will and cheer that was initially poured upon us dried up and turned into something just short of contempt.  (I heard through the grapevine that they believed they could "save" us but we were beyond redemption.  hahahaha)  Fortunately, modern medicine has caused my now ex-wife's cancer into remission --oddly enough the local church presently pats itself on the back because of all the prayers sent her way, hallelujah --.

I re-tell this little anecdote to ask again, what is the godly "something" that is inside?

P.S. I've always been an atheist, this event has nothing to do with my atheism nor do I have any contempt for my neighbors that belong to the church.  Fortunately, again, my little community is far bigger than the church and the community as a whole did far more for my family and me than the church could ever hope to have done.  The difference being is that the community did it without a price attached.  Cannot say that for the church.  So, you tell me where the humanity lies.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:The problem is

TWD39 wrote:

The problem is God only reveals himself to those who truly seek and desire to know Him.   Most Atheists have no desire to know God.  Judging from my responses, many atheists hold a deep rooted hatred for the God of the Bible so no wonder God doesn't work in their lives.  God could appear physically to appeal to their senses and atheists would try to dismiss it as an hallucination.

Someone's angry they couldn't keep up with all those mean atheists that were challenging their asinine claims. Now that someone is dropping in random threads to snipe at people instead of dealing with the counter-arguments that still wait in their original thread they started.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Conigman wrote:jcgadfly

Conigman wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Welcome.

Your posts read like you are a presuppositionalist.

Here's why.

You claim that God has already planted full knowledge of himself in our hearts.  If this were actually true no one would need church to go learn about him. It would also completely eliminate atheism. As churches and atheists exist, your claim is false.

You also say that atheists are putting their emphasis in the wrong place. Again, if God had planted full knowledge of himself in our hearts, such emphasis would be unnecessary and wasteful.

Is it POSSIBLE that because of our evil and sinful nature, our ability to access this "something" is extremely limited?

 

Furthermore, we dont go to church to learn about God, church is a hosptial for sinners, where we bit by bit try and remove our sinful and evil ways so we can slowly access that "something" that is inside of us. Furthermore, you dont need to go to church for that. But when we do, that is what  it is about.

 

Not if you want to continue to insist that you're talking about Deism.

You've shot that argument down. Would you like to drop the pretense and simply move on to Christianity?

Actually you've weakened that argument also because you claim that our "sinful nature" can overcome an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"If God exists, why does

"If God exists, why does belief in him have to be dependent of external proofs?"

How can I believe in something without any evidence at all, let alone proof?

"If God exists, wouldnt he make himself accesable to anyone and everyone for belief in him? The only way this can be possibily done is for "something" to be inside of every single human being for belief in him rather than "external proofs"."

I guess he just forgot to put that something inside me then?

"If God exists, wouldnt belief in God be independent of how smart you are, what access to information you have, where you live, what era you live in, how long you live, how well your senses and cognitive faculties work?"

Not necessarily. You're jumping to conclusions.
Otherwise you're proving god doesn't exist, because there is a marked difference in levels of belief in religion between educated and uneducated, rich and poor populations. The uneducated and poor are far more likely to be religious than the educated and well off.

1: Simple solution:

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Make deafness and blindness

Make deafness and blindness impossible. It's an omnipotent creator right? So why don't organs regenerate themselves when damaged? Other species can regenerate, why not us?

2: People made that argument, not a god.

3: Yeah. If god is good like religious people tend to suggest, then belief in him would hardly be a measure of accessibility to some heaven. Rather, the person you were would be judged. Your acts and inactions. Your accomplishments and failures. And because it's god, your intent along the way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
CJ wrote: It couldn't be any

CJ wrote:
It couldn't be any more torturous than listening to untrained harp music and off key choirs for eternity.

A lot of people hate Simon Cowel from American Idol. I did at first, but now I get him. If you suck you suck and someone has to tell you you suck, and nothing sucks more to me than the idea of a fictional battle between Superman vs Lex Luthor..

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"External" proofs are the

"External" proofs are the only one that can be taken seriously if we are trying to prove that something exists outside our imagination. We unarguably have many ideas and internal feelings that have no relevance to anything but the internal state of our mind and body. How are we to distinguish thoughts and feelings that are responses to something beyond our own imagination unless by showing some connection with 'external evidence'?? In the absence of 'external evidence', all we have is speculation and imagination.

The KCA, at most, suggests that something beyond our Universe 'caused' it, but says nothing about the nature and attributes of that 'something'. So it in no way counts as a 'proof' of a God.

'God' is totally inadequate as an ultimate explanation of anything, in the absence of an explanation of why such a being exists, especially since we have many serious and plausible arguments for the origin of the Universe and Life and Consciousness, etc that make no reference to the supernatural.

 

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