Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are all Christians atheists?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 136 of 161 (396401)
04-19-2007 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mike the wiz
04-19-2007 10:52 AM


Re: The Probable God
quote:
It's reasonable to disbelieve in the truth of a claimed god if the deity isn't benevolent or shows wildly irrational behaviour.
Why?
quote:
For me, the more forgiving and understanding/intelligent the God is, the more likely the deity is, to be the correct deity IF it is assumed there is one.
Why?
I have no idea where anybody ever got the idea that gods have to be "nice" or "good" to be gods.
Likewise, I have no idea where anybody ever got the idea that the "correct" god could be determined by her "niceness" or "goodness"
There is no logical reason at all to conclude this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2007 10:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 137 of 161 (396402)
04-19-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by anastasia
04-19-2007 3:20 PM


Re: Good point
A Hindu doesn't disparage you for practicing Catholocism.
A Hindu would just consider you a very poor Hindu.
(Hindus believe that everyone is Hindu)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 3:20 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 11:35 PM nator has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 138 of 161 (396424)
04-19-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by anastasia
04-19-2007 8:59 PM


anastasia writes:
If I believe in only one God then the question is about 'why one God?' and not 'which one?' at all.
But the topic would be, "How did you get to one God?" If you get God-or-no-God from your upbringing (mostly), don't you get which-God from your upbringing too?
If you go to the Big Pile o' Gods at all, you go there to pick one (or more). If you go there to pick one, does it really matter if you pick one-of-a kind or a matched set?
... because its really not about the god/s in the long run. It's about the what-does-God-dos?.
The trappings of a religion are what humans do to appease their gods. It makes little difference if they sacrifice virgins or if they sacrifice wine and wafers. It's for a human need, not a godly one.
Buildings are for a human need. Singing hymns is for a human need. Prayer is for a human need. In the long run, religion has little or nothing to do with God at all.
So what difference does it make "Which God?" Even less difference how many.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 8:59 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 11:25 PM ringo has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 139 of 161 (396430)
04-19-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ringo
04-19-2007 11:02 PM


Ringo writes:
But the topic would be, "How did you get to one God?" If you get God-or-no-God from your upbringing (mostly), don't you get which-God from your upbringing too?
If you go to the Big Pile o' Gods at all, you go there to pick one (or more). If you go there to pick one, does it really matter if you pick one-of-a kind or a matched set?
Lordie, Ringo! The topic is about why people who pick one God (or one set) rule out the rest. The answers to that still seem to have something to do with wanting One or More Than One. Other folks here are claiming to like more benevelent gods. I am claiming to like One God. I picked that One as the TRUE God so I think others which are multiple versions are 'false'.
Still, this is not an accurate portrayal. It's just the best I can do with your Pile O'Gods analogy.
No, maybe not.
The idea is that this Pile is full of viable God choices. When I pick one the rest are still viable for others. There you have the ol' 'just because I believe it doesn't make it true' thing.
My choice doesn't MAKE any other God impotent. It just makes me believe they are, or rather, believe that I was not even picking from a pile of Gods at all. Just a pile of ideas. Some ideas are better than others. So, this still goes back to which are better, and 'more benevolent' or 'oneness' are some of the traits we have to choose from.
The trappings of a religion are what humans do to appease their gods. It makes little difference if they sacrifice virgins or if they sacrifice wine and wafers. It's for a human need, not a godly one.
Yeah, yeah, but you follow well in our little analogies, (and these I doubt any one else even gets at times!) and then it goes berzerk.
When I talked about trappings I never said 'religion'. I meant the vestiges of God, His accoutrements, His devices. WE may need to pray or sacrifice or this or that. But SOME Gods may like it! If we have the Pile O' Gods again, and I had to pick a God that can talk or a God that can listen, or one that I CAN appease, maybe I would want that one.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 04-19-2007 11:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 04-19-2007 11:44 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 140 of 161 (396433)
04-19-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by nator
04-19-2007 9:28 PM


New Subject Line Please!
nator writes:
A Hindu doesn't disparage you for practicing Catholocism.
A Hindu would just consider you a very poor Hindu.
(Hindus believe that everyone is Hindu)
Yes, similar to the idea that we are all born to worship God, and some of us do it better than others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by nator, posted 04-19-2007 9:28 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 04-19-2007 11:41 PM anastasia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 161 (396435)
04-19-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by anastasia
04-19-2007 11:35 PM


Re: New Subject Line Please!
quote:
Yes, similar to the idea that we are all born to worship God, and some of us do it better than others?
I'd agree that we are born to worship gods, and some of us get better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 11:35 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by anastasia, posted 04-20-2007 12:12 AM nator has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 142 of 161 (396437)
04-19-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by anastasia
04-19-2007 11:25 PM


anastasia writes:
Just a pile of ideas.
So, this still goes back to which are better, and 'more benevolent' or 'oneness' are some of the traits we have to choose from.
I suspect that the "more benevolent" notion is mostly wishful thinking. The mean Gods have bad PR, but I don't see how they have a lesser claim on reality.
I meant the vestiges of God, His accoutrements, His devices.
What do we know about those?
If we have the Pile O' Gods again, and I had to pick a God that can talk or a God that can listen, or one that I CAN appease, maybe I would want that one.
So it is about wishful thinking and not reality.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 11:25 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by anastasia, posted 04-20-2007 12:14 AM ringo has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 143 of 161 (396445)
04-20-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by nator
04-19-2007 11:41 PM


Re: New Subject Line Please!
nator writes:
I'd agree that we are born to worship gods, and some of us get better.
Ha ha...maybe I will start a thread.
Why Are All Atheists Polytheists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 04-19-2007 11:41 PM nator has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 144 of 161 (396446)
04-20-2007 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
04-19-2007 11:44 PM


Ringo writes:
So it is about wishful thinking and not reality.
I think all beliefs start out or end up being wishes. Doens't mean that none are real, but starts making you question the odds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 04-19-2007 11:44 PM ringo has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 145 of 161 (397452)
04-26-2007 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by nator
04-18-2007 6:36 PM


I've been on a trip, nator, that was a lot of work. I was way too exhausted to be answering complicated theological questions.
Now I'm back, so...
My points are:
1) Drowning innocent animals and children would get your God prosecuted and punished today, so I fail to see why this point is in your favor.
In my favor is irrelevant. The original issue was why Greek, Roman, & Norse gods (among others) were rejected. I gave a reason. I think it's a good one. You want to apply it to the God of Israel in the Old Covenant. That's fine, you can, but it's irrelevant.
2) You seem to imply that gods shouldn't be considered gods if they aren't "good" or benevolent, or something. I don't understand at all why you would think that.
No doubt. Personally, I think you have a problem with authority. This does not negate your complaint about genocide in OT Israel, but it does address why you don't understand what I'm saying.
Yahweh sending a flood to "drown innocent animals and children" would not get him prosecuted today, because he's the authority. All governments (almost) put some people to death. No governments are prosecuted for doing so. A government carrying out an act of war may be morally wrong, but if they win, no one will be able to prosecute the government.
The Romans had stories about their gods' lives on earth. Then they believed those men were exalted to be gods. The argument was that it was unreasonable to believe such men would be exalted, because their behavior was criminal. Their behavior, according to the myths, continued to be criminal after they were gods.
Perhaps there is some evil deity ruling the universe or many evil deities roaming the universe. To discover some evidence of a malevolent, powerful being and call such a being a god could happen, but the stories of the Romans and Greeks don't add up to something believable, nor, if they were believable, would these be gods you would want to serve.
The OT god is a jealous, venegeful, bloodthirsty god that would be tried for war crimes for his many genocides. Does this mean that, to you, the OT Yahweh is "far from being a god, but is rather a criminal."?
This isn't relevant to this thread. From past experience, I know you think that's dodging the question, so let me add that one, I don't think genocide is a good thing, and two, that I don't believe that genocide occurred in the Israelite conquering of Canaan. However, if that needs to be discussed further, it really should be in a different thread.
Edited by truthlover, : Added a bit to try to make my post clearer; it was really hard to get across what I wanted to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 04-18-2007 6:36 PM nator has not replied

  
Rascaduanok
Junior Member (Idle past 5267 days)
Posts: 21
From: Save Warp
Joined: 05-02-2007


Message 146 of 161 (399073)
05-03-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by tudwell
04-12-2007 6:39 PM


Supernatural;
tudwell writes:
The theist, no matter what religion, accepts the supernatural on some level, where the atheist does not.
Atheists can ” and indeed, some do ” accept the supernatural. Not in relation to God, but to entities such as ghosts, spirits, and suchlike. I’ve even conversed (online, mind you) with people who have labelled themselves as ”atheist’, yet believe that angels exist Of course, angels do not necessarily need a divine creator, but I’d still refer to it as an instance of the supernatural.

$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tudwell, posted 04-12-2007 6:39 PM tudwell has not replied

  
SpecKeta
Junior Member (Idle past 6151 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 05-26-2007


Message 147 of 161 (402376)
05-26-2007 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-12-2007 5:29 PM


Well they must not have believed as strongly as Christians do seeing how those religions were regional and short-lived while Christianity has been a widespread and very longlasting religion (including Judaism as its precursor).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-12-2007 5:29 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Nuggin, posted 05-26-2007 9:53 AM SpecKeta has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 148 of 161 (402397)
05-26-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by SpecKeta
05-26-2007 5:27 AM


Well they must not have believed as strongly as Christians do seeing how those religions were regional and short-lived while Christianity has been a widespread and very longlasting religion (including Judaism as its precursor).
Well, it is fairly hard to maintain your religion when an army of Christian missionaries decend upon you killing everyone who disagrees with them.
Additionally, are we suggesting that whichever religion has been around the longest is most correct? Or whichever religion has the most followers?
Is "truth" that relative?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by SpecKeta, posted 05-26-2007 5:27 AM SpecKeta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Raphael, posted 11-09-2007 12:28 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 149 of 161 (432973)
11-09-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Nuggin
05-26-2007 9:53 AM


Christians are not atheists regarding Zeus, Thor, etc because they are not real Gods. They're just made up by the greeks or the norse nations or the romans etc. Whereas the Jewish God, the Christian god, is not made up. Peole had experiances with Him that cannot be looked over.

Why Are We so Simple-Minded?
I Know it's Easy to Deny the Truth.............Search Your Heart for What You Believe to be True. Then, Considering Your Morals, Decide if this, in Your Heart of Hearts, is What you Truly Believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Nuggin, posted 05-26-2007 9:53 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 11-09-2007 12:49 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 151 by bluescat48, posted 11-09-2007 1:26 PM Raphael has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 150 of 161 (432978)
11-09-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Raphael
11-09-2007 12:28 PM


Come on Raph
People had experiences with Zeus and Thor as well. How are those experiences any different than the tales from Christian or Jewish Folklore? Heracles himself was a son of Zeus and Helen was one of his daughters. How can you overlook such contacts?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Raphael, posted 11-09-2007 12:28 PM Raphael has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024