|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Atheists don't believe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
No disrespect CG. But when your "I just dropped in" average sentence-per-post drops below a certain minimum I reserve the right to not reply
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I'll leave it to the various protagonists to defend their case
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Atheists see god/gods/etc/whatever the same way we see Q on Star Trek. And Q could actually make me omnipotent. But you know Q can do nothing of the sort. But you don't know in the same way about God. Atheism doesn't know anything. It is extreme agnosticism: I REALLY don't know...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Q is no more or less reasonable than any other omnipotent being that is conjectured by humans. It is safe to say that you know Q is a figment of human imagination (ref: Star Trek titles). Whereas you do not know the same about God.
You are right, we don't KNOW anything about something for which there is nothing that CAN be known (by definition it seems) Do you mean unless YOU know then nothing can be known? Or perhaps you mean unless WE can know according to some arbitary system an arbitary WE chose to measure 'knowing' by, then God cannot be known. Do you not need to calibrate all those arbitaries against something concrete NN? And if not why not?
As many have noted: we see numerous individuals touting one or another higher form of sentience we see them as interesting as a sociological study they are otherwise uninteresting. Though I find the Egyptian pantheon a bit more interesting. This doesn't really appeal to an argument from anywhere (not that I am always innocent what your doing the same here myself) Edited by iano, : Typos and clarify Edited by iano, : heck its late Carpenter from Nazareth seeks joiners
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
NO no no! You keep saying you KNOW it! You BELIEVE it! Two very different things. At the risk of causing that throbbing vein in your head to go POP!... Are you saying that I cannot know that God exists. Are you saying the God cannot let me know that he exists? Are you saying "I know you only believe" or are you saying "I believe you only believe" (which would account for your error)? If someone says they know something then either: They are a liarThey are deluded They are telling you the truth You can choose which one is true - but you cannot know which one is true (unless you come to know him yourself). You'd imagine folk would be queuing up to find out what its like to know God exists. Sheesh!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
No I can say the same thing about god (at least a non-deist god). I am 100% sure that the judeo-christian god does not exist. The Universe directly contradicts the existence of an omnipotent/omnibenevolent god. I'm not sure what omnibenevolent means. No matter. Does your modelling take into account a perfectly Just and Wrathful God who is as 'constrained' to satisfying his justness and wrathfulness as he is 'constrained' to satisfying his love. Or are you guilty of dismantling a strawgod. Edited by iano, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: If Christianity was the one and only way would it sound exclusive and intolerant of all others? Does that in itself make it wrong? Hardly. Truth is always intolerant of error. That doesn't make Christianity true but it tells you something of what you could expect if it was true. Truth doesn't have to prove itself in order to be true. The world was round long before anyone proved it. Neither am I attempting to prove Christianity is true. I'm making a narrow point here. If true then exclusive it can be expected to be. Do you concur with that single issue?
So, to return to the point it would (in my opinion only, of course) seem deeply unjust of God to discern between any type of religious faith as they all seek and work with their own set of "truths" - their own paths to God, so to speak. They all do - except that Christianity (if true) would be the one which works with Gods truths and not mans own. The worlds religions aren't designed to lead to God they are designed to lead to a god made in mans own image an likeness. A god designed to suit mans needs. A god that can be controlled and adapted. God takes a dim view on people worshipping such false gods. Its not harmless error - its blatant denial of him and his claim on us. If it weren't so tragic it would be funny.
Your faith is no more true than any of the others. How do you know that?
The baseless, arrogant assumption that one group has special access to God over all others is one of the traits of fundamentalist religion I most dislike. If God said there was one way only by which access to him was to be obtained then that would be the case (if you feel that this is unjust then say why you think that - specifically). If so, then what is arrogant and baseless and assumed in the stance of a group of people who are shown this path by him and who take it and tell others how to take it? That path is open to everyone after all.
I'm pretty sure you really think Christianity is true! In any case what you are implying here is that belief of the "wrong" kind incurs Godly punishment for making the "wrong" choice. Yet by some sick conincidence God seems to have created any number of religions with which to confuse people. You might well argue that this represents "temptation". Sounds like a sick joke to me. Where did you get the notion that God created all the religions? You don't think man is capable of making up gods (if not God)? Its not belief in another god per se which results in mans damnation. The god he worhsips is only an outworking of a deeper, universal problem. Sin point of note: I know Christianity is true. You cannot be sure of that granted - I could be lying or be deluded (in which case I might be saying I know something which I don't actually know). But I can be sure I know
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The sense I get from you when you use the word KNOW is one of absolute surity Good. For that is precisely what I am trying to convey. For if one suspected for a moment that I was telling the truth then they might conclude that they could know for sure too (on the assumption that 'knowing' is a quality that shares similar characteristics amongst all people)
To KNOW is to banish any chance of error. Correct
I contend that the universe we live in does not have 100% chance of anything. I agree. We might not exist. We can know we do but that doesn't mean we actually do.
QM shows us that probability can not reach 100% (If I'm wrong here could some one correct me as my arguement hangs on this fact) Presumably QM being true hasn't reached this 100% probability level either
I contend that you cannot KNOW (by your defination) anything. When you use the word KNOW I get the sense that you are stating that you cannot be wrong in this. My definition allows for it not actually being the case. But only on the level: If God doesn't exist then neither do I. I know lots of things. I know my motorcycle is parked outside (at least I hope so - the bike thieves were around checking it out yesterday - I know that too for I used to be one). I know there is a computer sitting on front of me and that there is a person who goes by the name of Larni at the other end of it Whats the big problem with knowing anything?
Please note, I do not claim you are wrong (you could be right, in fact I hope you are) but that your confidence is terribly terribly misplaced. My confidence is not my own. He showed up and that is why I am confident. I am right. I am telling the truth. He told me to tell others so I do. Bring on the lions!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Your not the most wordy of posters at the best of times CK but this must set a new record.
Was there a question in there somewhere?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
That weren't me you wus quoting there Larni
{AbE}
Larni writes: I don't believe in your sky god (or any god) because I can see it is self evident that SOMEONE made it up. I sure would like to meet the person who made up a principle of living that nigh on all people would, in their hearts, concur with, to whit: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" hang on - I already did! Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
You propose a universe in which your existance is contingent on the xian god. I knew that both I and the universe existed before I knew God existed. My knowing I existed wasn't contingent on God. It was contingant on my knowing it. Same as anyone else I suppose Then I knew he existed If I can know he exists when he actually doesn't, then I can know I exist when I actually don't. In which case I cease to exist - for existance depends on our knowing it to be the case - to be the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
CK, I haven't done a trawl through your recent post history, but were I to, I would suspect no change in the behaviour demonstrated since I arrived here. 1 or 2 lines posts which don't argue a position but just nip at the ankles of those who attempt to engage each other.
Get a series of 10-20 line posts established somewhere else, which lay out a position of yours and which is attacked and defended a while and I'll considering engaging with you. But for now, no thanks .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
More reasons not to believe..... Given that one will never get concrete evidence of Gods non-existance (either one dies and there is no God in which case you still get no concrete evidence. Or you die and find out he does in fact exist) this is a path one can waste a life following. Or one can look for reasons to believe which at least holds out the potential for concrete evidence being gained (knowing is about as concrete as it comes) One search without end or a search with a potential end. Even to a neutral bystander the latter appears to make more sense. Like its not that it is very difficult!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Your existance is contingent on the existance of your god Lets try it this way. My existance is contingant only on my knowing it. The existance of the computer on front of me is contingant only on my knowing it. The existance of God is contingant on my knowing it. If things that I know exist don't actually, then my knowing is no guide to anything actually existing - not even myself.
Your use and definition of KNOWing (as I understand it) is erroneous. Do you know you exist? Or, on what is your existance contingant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
quote: Jesus in his summing up of the law and the prophets is the same Lord who spoke somewhat earlier in time Heads down time again Larni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024