You don't need to disprove God
Offline We are living on a small blue-white looking planet orbiting a G-type star at the distance of 150 mio kilometers. There are a lot of things that need to be in place to make life possible on earth.
But however numerous those constraints for an advanced civilization on a planet my be - the universe is huge enough to make it certain that there are somewhere extraterrestic civilisations.
Giving the time the universe existed and the several waves of extinction life on earth went through we should expect those civilisations to be much older than we are. I always wonder how the writers of Star-Trek suppose that the civilization we could find out there could be about as old as our civilization is.
From the early agricultural beginnings in Egypt to modern day humanity you can roughly set the age of our civilisation to 10,000 years. Giving that there is no point of self-destrution in which every civilisation when it reaches a certain point of development destroys itself there could be aliens whose civilzation is millions of years old.
Which would also mean that they are technologically advanced to a point where their abilities would seem magical or divine to us.
Should we therefor pack gold, silver, diamonds and things of worth into a rocket and shoot it into space?
My answer to it is clearly no, and I think most of my reader will agree on me with this.
Firstly, we don't know in which direction to shoot the rocket.
Secondly, we don't know wether gold, silver, diamonds and things that seem worthfull to us are of use for such a civilization.
Thirdly, the aliens never asked for it - even if (like some UFO-scientis may claim) they did it in a way that the evidence for this is in modern days highly disputable. (to put is mildly)
Fourthy, we don't know wether our supply reaching one civilization wouldn't enrage another one.
Therefor the waste of shooting rockets loaded with valuables isn't justified by any reason.
Now, after setting that up let us turn to theism.
Is it justied to send valuables to any kind of Gods?
First some examples:
(Catholism -> St. Peters Basilica)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Altar_of_St_Peter%27s_Basilica.jpg
(Islam -> Kaaba in Mecca)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Mecca_skyline.jpg
(Buddhism -> Shwedagon Pagoda)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/Yangon29.JPG
(yes it is coated in gold)
of course those are just very few examples of things (valuables or time)sacrified to a divine being or purpose. And we can reason against those sacrifices with the very same arguments than with shooting rockets into the sky.
Firstly, we don't know in which direction to shoot the rocket.
And we also don't know which God to give our time and money to.
Secondly, we don't know wether gold, silver, diamonds and things that seem worthfull to us are of use for such a civilization.
How do we know that prayers are of use for God? How can anything we could give to a God be of use for him, her,it or them?
Thirdly, the aliens never asked for it - even if (like some UFO-scientis may claim) they did it in a way that the evidence for this is in modern days highly disputable. (to put is mildly)
It is said that God asked for it. In the Bible, Quoran or the Veden. But the origin of those books is also disputable. Supposing this God would be almighty we could expect there to be much better evidences for the sacrifices. Extroordinary demands also need extraordinary proves.
Fourthy, we don't know wether our supply reaching one civilization wouldn't enrage another one.
That's the biggest problems with Gods. You sacrifice to one - you enrage another.
Conclusion:
Just like the aliens would need to show up and ask for their rockets full of gold and diamonds (agains) - God would also need to show some proveable sort of interaction with this world that would be enough to justify the enormous amount of sacrifice he, she, it or they demand.
The amibition of a lot of atheist or agnositcs to disprove that he, she, it or they don't exist is leading nowhere. The lack of proveable interaction itself justifies a de-facto-atheism completly which does not discard the possiblity of the existence of a God or Gods but the necessity to sacrify to them.
Additional Question to my readers:
Did you stumple upon a similar analogy (comparing shooting rockets to aliens with sacrifing to God) before? I thought about it myself but wouldn't be suprised to find it somewhere else.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
- Login to post comments
Well, a few things that are wrong with it. Theres nothing wrong with the logic you base it on, rather an ignorance of the beliefs.
I speak from the Christian view point (not Catholic, Islamic or whatever else).
We don't sacrafice anything. In the early days, God did talk to humans (Moses being one example). God came to earth. And God revealed himself through everything.
Can I proove any of that? Not scientifically. But if I were to try to it would go in to the very debate you said yourself is pointless.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
You sacrifice a lot of time worshipping and praising a god. I think that's a waste of time that could be better spent in other ways, so that's kind of a sacrifice.
I don't think he meant that the sacrifices had to be sheep and children and so on. It just means giving up something you value.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Protestantism (I simply assume that you are protestant after you quoted Spurgeon) sacrifices a lot of time for its religion.
First of all - building churches, keeping those churches running (they need money and maintenance) than your preachers need payment to live.
Than the time - protestantism even demands more time than catholicism
Not just going to church every Sunday when there would be better things to do, reading your bible every day which means that you sacrifice time to you could use for recreational reading or reading to advance in your job.
The sacrifice of having to marry a christian. The early Chruch teaching which the protestants as well as catholics stick to clearly says that you have to marry a christian. That needn't be a sacrifice but if you would fall in love with someone of a different faith it would be a huge one.
Then there's the sacrifice of self-denial. As a Christian God has to be first in your life and you have to accept yourself as sinfull scum which can only get into heaven due to Jesus self-sacrifice.
And now lets look to the evidence God presents to you to demand those sacrifices:
A book that was written by people you don't know. The New Testament is a joke in it self.
Even the most optimistic scholars date the earliest gospel to be written 10 years after Jesus supposingly died on the cross.
I don't know about you, but if I would want to sacrifice myself for mankind I would assure that my thought and motives are passed down accuratly.
Jesus could have written down his words just at the time he lived. Or he could have convinced a scribe to follow him. He could have also gifted one of his followers with the ability of literacy to pass his words accuratly down.
But he did neither of that. He trusted that his words and deeds would be passed down in 10 years of gossip.
I don't know about you but I don't trust in gossip which is just a week old.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I have no idea why God would demand sacrifices.
If you want to worship God, it should be for your benifit, not his.
It is for my benefit?
Great. Which proveable benefits does it have to spend a lot of time sending him prayers?
Just like in the alien example: If there would be a big enough benefit of shooting rookets into space, I would argue that we should quickly to do that.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
I never said anything about prayer.
Getting benefits for nothing even seems better.
But you didn't answer what those benefits were. And if there is something you need to do to get those benefits you should tell us what it is.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
The benefits could vary from person to person. Sense of purpose, spirtual fullfillment etc...
Of course you don't need to worship to get these, but if it suits a person.
Like I said, God doesn't demand worship.
by my definition that makes you a de-facto-atheist. Because you think that you neither have to pray to God, nor build church nor do anything in his favor. He will send you goodies anyway.
It would be like in this alien example we sitting on our planet and seeing a lot of good things raining down from space.
But some questions stay:
If you never asked for it, how do you know that those benefits come from God?
How do you know from which God those benefits come?
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
I'm not going by your definition.
Strawman.
Should I bring my umbrella ella ella eh eh eh?
What benefits are you talking about?
my definition of a de-facto-atheist is someone who doesn't do anything in favor of God.
If that was a strawman that means you do something in favor of God. It would be honest to tell us what it is.
might be better. Those aliens might try to let brain-enhancer rain on you.
The benefits you've mentioned here:
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
No, the 'he will send you goodies anyway' was the strawman.
The benefits you've mentioned here:
I already mentioned
The benefits come from the person, not God.
[edit:quotes]
It seems that you're saying it doesn't actually matter if god exists. A person gains benefit from worshiping anyway.
Is this accurate?
If you said that your God doesn't demand worship that leaves the question open with religion you affiliate with.
Surley not Christianity because it teaches in the Old Testament to put God first in your lift and in the New Testament it teaches:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind
Now to your benefits: Sense of purpose, spirtual fullfillment, etc
You also can have a sense of purpose by joining any local club and if you like fullfillment you can always work in a charitable organisation. I don't see that religion is needed to get those.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
AD HOC AD HOC AD HOC!!!
I'll answer for him:
Abso-fucking-lutely.
I never gained anything from worshipping a god that didn't exist. I really don't see how anyone else could, unless they really believed that a god did exist.
But crazy people happen, I guess.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Pantheism
So?
no u
Yeah, that's pretty much the crux of it.
Im surprised you know Spurgeon. I don't know many Christians who know Spurgeon.
But, yes we do sacrafice alot of time ...but that isn't really talked about in your fist post. You talk about things you can shoot off in the sky. Saying that is God wanted a sacrafice, people don't know where to shoot it.
God doesn't demand all of the stuff we do. Churches are realy more for organization.Folks could meet in the basement of a abandoned building and God wouldn't care. And preachers don't have to be paid. In fact, in the early days of Christianiy, they weren't. IT took a few hundred years for that to start. Preachers could still have a regular job and speak on Sundays, without getting paid for it and God wouldn't care....shot, that would probably give better quality preachers because the preacehrs would be preaching for the right reasons (no more Ted Haggerds).
Yea. It would be easy to say "God doesn't require sacrafice at all" from a Catholic stand point. All they have to do is tell a preacher 1 or 2 things every year or so, and they think they're good. Church? Bible?....all optional to alot of em.
Well, Lorship theology would disagre with that, because according to Lorship ideas you dont have to do any of that. I however belong to mroe of the Free Grace theology..so yes, that is required. However, 1) it is not tangible and 2) we believe it was commanded to us by God.
The main problem with your post is you DO have to disproove God somewhere along the line. You said "God would have had to tell people what to sacrafice" and we believe God did. Through the Bible. That breeds debate of teh Bible, which breeds debate of God. Somewhere along the line you HAVE to try to disproove God, because, at least in the Christian belief, God DID tell us what to sacrafice.
Oh, and you know Darwin? When was the last time you talked to Einstein?
That's true, but, all of the Gospels (except MAthew, I think)were written to a people. This shows that the accounts weren't written just as accounts, or as historical documents in general...they were specificly adressed to people to talk about their situation.
Picture this
You see a presidential candidates speech (we'll call the candidate John), and you sit and talk with that guy for a while about his views. Well, next year rolls around and you buddy (from across the country) emails you sainyg he isnt sure which candidate to vote for, because he is unsure about John's character, and his veiws. So you write him an email about John. The fact that you didnt write that email until after the talk doesn't mean that the talk didnt happen. It simply means taht you had REASON to write it later.
Plus, you can't really attack the gospels, because there are tons of "gospels"...only 4 are canon, but there are tons of accounts.
He could have done all of that. And infact he did have followers who were literate. His disciples actually had the first few books of the Bible memorized, and they were scribes for Rabbis early in their lives. That how JEws worked. Young boys were either tadesmen young, or they were scibes for Rabbis when they were young, hoping to be Rabbis. If after a few years they didn't want to be a Rabbi or the Rabbi said that they weren't called to be Rabbis...they would take on a trade.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
No, no. You didn't read that correctly.
I used to believe in God, but I never got anything out of worshipping him then. I stayed with the church for a long time and small questions grew into doubts which snowballed into the atheism I promote today.
You misrepresented my quote by dropping off the "that didn't exist" part.
I don't see how anyone could honestly get anything from worshipping a god that doesn't exist... unless they really believe that the god does exist.
That is my statement in its entirety. Dropping off any words makes it no longer my statement. This includes the words "that doesn't exist".
The point is that simply believing that something is true doesn't make it true, but believing things that are not true can still have an emotional effect on the believer.
However, if you believe that the untrue thing is benefitting you in some material way, then I would just call that delusion or selective observation.
In short, I'm rejecting the "It's real because it feels real to me" argument.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
That's still the crux of it. My only real mistake was thinking that it would be a waste of time to go back and edit my post to put the "that doesn't exist" part in it, because there was no way you would flip shit about it.
Oops.
I'm listening quite often to those people from the WayOfTheMaster. They like to quote him.
Sorry, I should have mentioned that I study engineering. For me, time is as valuable as gold or other material goods.
I didn't expect that theists who might bother answering my mail would disagree on that point.
And as it is still waste to build those rockets and to load them (which is time) the waste of time is also somehow included in that comparison.
We would have no more 'Ted Haggerds' if the persecution of homosexuals by religions would end. The story of him is indeed a very tragic one, if you consider that he lived for years with a wife he didn't love had children and had to lie to his congregation just to meet the standards of a religious conformism.
You should research better on catholic theology before you state nonsense like that. Also catholism sacrifices a lot of time. I was raised Catholic and the sacrament of confession was traditionally though to be gone through at least every month.
It's also not that you confess one or two sins. You have to confess all your sins. (Adultry, Lying, Deceiving, Sin of the Thought and so on). The standpoint of the bible is reduced closer to the actual trustworthyness of that book, while the interpretation of the Church and the Church itself is put over the book.
It is dishonest for a protestant to denounce the Catholics for not to caring about their Church.
Oh, sure. I can buy books about them and learn as much about them as I want.
I can't do that with the authors of the bible who received the perfect word of God. Taking the idea of the Devil serious, Satan would have tried to distract them from writing those text downs and to put errors into the book. The issue that Christianity claims this book to be inerrant means that the authors had to be a perfect belief, if they couldn't be tempted by the devil.
Those persons would make excellent role models for generations to come and is quite suprising that the bible doesn't mention them.
Than those gospels were written by someone 10 years afterwards. Could you please try to write me such a long letter about something that happened 10 years ago?
Even 1st hand witnesses couldn't have possibly remembered the details inerrantly after such a long period of time.
Yes, they had a reason to write them 10 years afterwards because they started to grow impatient about the issue that Jesus 2nd coming didn't happen by then than started to have real doubts about that new religion.
That begs the question: Why do the gospels not refer to originals if they ever existed?
Another issue is that the world as we see it today is different than the world the bible describes. Bridges collapse because of dynamic fatigue of material (combined with lack of maintenance). Towers in which a plane have flown don't need to be put down by God to finally fall.
All those thing the bible ascribed to God have a very good scientific or technical reason. The world doesn't need any divine influence to keep going. And if God really want this sacrifice of time, it is not understandable why he seems to be hiding.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.