everyone is born an atheist. an atheist is one who lacks belief in a god, everyone is born lacking belief in a god. god belief is the product of indoctrination. lack of belief does not require you to be taught anything.
you act as if we are born believing in everything and someone has to convince us not to. that is not the case. we are born lacking believe in ghosts gods and other superstitious notions. these are culturally propagated. atheism is simply a lack of belief. you are born lacking belief in a god. lacking belief is not rejecting a belief that you have never been introduced to. you dont understand epistemology.
life is just biological processes, consciousness is awareness and is emergent from the brain. they could be named hebrew national beef franks but they already have names: namely consciousness/awareness and life.
so you'd rather use a word like 'spirit' because it sounds metaphysical or something?
there would be a lot less ppl making themselves look delusional if they stop trying to mystify ordinary , everyday shit.
not saying thats what youre doing, but there are ppl who do this on purpose.
self awareness emerges from the brain. nothing else is necessary. as you say, our awareness stops when the brain stops.
but what is the spirit?
every time i ask this question, no one can define the spirit as anything they know, or can show to actually exist, and most of the time it is simply defined via equivocation as things known to emerge from the brain.
yet ppl are always talking about spirits.
if it aint just a feel good buzzword, what the hell is it?
how do you know its there if you don't even know what IT is?
you would obviously be able to define it, it's function, and parameters,
it if you knew what it was, yet you contend 'it's there, without being able to define what it is?
arguments like this are what prompted this question in the first place.
but we are no closer to a definitive answer than we were before asking the question.
'If God cannot do so then he is not omnipotent, something which conflicts with the notion of a deism.'
So jehovah is a deistic god? i was under the impression that he is a personal theistic god of the anthropomorphic variety.
I am not a theist, or a deist. I have no belief in a god, mainly due to lack of evidence but all the logical inconsistencies born out of the things attributed to the abrahamic god, only make god look even less likely to actually exist. It is the contention of christians that god cannot violate free will. any and all other logical inconsistencies only add to the problem.
if you dont understand why omnibenevolence and indifference are incompatible, youre short because i wont waste any time explaining something so blatantly obvious.
'This is written in a manner which leads me to believe that you do not believe in the existence of free will.'
so it never occurred to you that i don't believe in any god?
'free will' in the theological sense is an excuse. that's not to say that ppl cant do whatever the hell they want to do. but our ability to make decisions doesn't have anything to do with a 'god allowing us' to do so, or 'not wanting us to be robots.'
'Why couldn't God violate an individual's free will to make a point?'
because that is logically inconsistent with the assertion that god cannot (or does not) violate free will.
if god could violate Pharaoh's free will to give himself an excuse to kill all Egypt's first born, he could violate the 'free will' of all child molesters to make sure no child was ever again molested. and in doing so, he would be beginning to solve 'the problem of evil'.
'the problem of evil' is only a problem because theists contended that god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. these qualities are directly contradicted by the persistence of 'evil'. one cannot be all loving, all powerful and indifferent to the suffering of untold millions of children.
the fact that i need to explain all this, puts a particularly humorous spin on your totally unnecessary snipe, citing 'uneducated corruptors'. but thanks for asking.
no. of course not. free will is just an excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, moral god would choose to do so.
ppl claim that god refuses to intervene, because that would violate free will.
but if no god exists, no god would intervene anyway, which completely solves the problem.
the same ppl who claim that 'divine intervention would violate free will', also claim that 'God answers prayers'. This directly contradicts the claim that god must preserve free will.
If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then he violated free will and punished the children of Egypt for his own gratification.
the fallacy of free will and the problem of evil, both demonstrate the logical inconsistency of the Christian god.
'The reason why there was those laws is because those are for the Jews to follow.'
So because they were Jews, God required them not to wear poly/cotton blends?
You didn't even attempt to reason out a logical answer to the question. your answer gives no reason for god wanting them not to wear poly/cotton blends. the fact that they were jewish is not a reason, its an excuse. one that doesn't hold a teaspoon of water.
'If I acknowledge that the god I worship is malevolent, I must acknowledge my own iniquity."
If a person feels he gets his sense of morality from his religion, he cannot acknowledge the malevolence of his own god without shooting himself in the foot.
I don't even think most satanists believe in a malevolent god. they just believe in liberation from the hypocrisy of the aforementioned paradigm.
'You don't see very many theists who believe in a malevolent God. Why is that?'
Actually lots of theists believe in a malevolent god. God is one great big appeal to emotion. He loves you, he will guide, and protect you, if you bend to his will. If you don't he'll torture you repeatedly forever. If you follow his rules and someone tries to impede or oppose you, they will see his malevolence.
In other words, gimme your milk money or my God will beat you up at recess.
You are free to choose, but if you don't choose the choice God has chosen for you, your store will be destroyed by arson. This is what I like to call 'Divine Extortion'.
I don't believe In Kali or Jesus because they're equally ridiculous. There is neither objective evidence, nor logic to support their existence.
If theists cant get a warm fuzzy from their faith, they'd see no point in constantly lying to themselves.
Logic takes those lies and exposes em. Thats why theists hate it, and why they compartmentalize so much.
If an atheist asks a theist for evidence of a God, he gets no evidence. What he generally gets is philosophy. Where the problem lies is that theists are unwilling to admit their philosophy is just philosophy. They insert it where it does not belong, where it has no validity, and this is why they're looked upon as being intellectually dishonest adults, with childlike minds, who simply refuse to accept the reality of human mortality..
they never even use the word philosophy when they're asked for evidence, they simply spew it out as if saying 'the evidence is all around you' actually proves what they posit. "i know in my heart there is a god' proves absolutely nothing because no one knows anything in his heart (which is simply a pump to circulate blood throughout one's body.) what they're really saying is that they find the idea of a personal god, emotionally appealing. well we as atheists already know that. but we have long since accepted that reality wont kneel before us to placate us in our self-centered fantasies. it doesn't care about our opinions or our feelings.
Yes, to hell with separation of church and state. We need one nation under desert goat herders, cause Da Big Bad God comin' to get us. We have the minds of small children, so we actually believe such utter nonsense.
Why shouldn't we have a president who believes he can become a god? Superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense. You can call it Mormonism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. It's still fairytale bull crap.
all ppl of a particular church do not have the same idea of god. all ppl of a denomination dont have the same idea of god. nor do all ppl of a city or culture or era. what a dictionary describes as 'god in a monotheistic sense' is perfectly irrelevant. Obviously I am referring to opinions, not standardized definitions. you shouldve gotten that from "ask 20 different ppl and you get twenty different answers'. we are not machines, we are human beings, with different views , different philosophies and different concepts of our personal gods. why do i even have to say this? God as the hero of western revenge fantasy is just one of god's many guises. you shouldnt get the idea that god is one thing specifically defined because ancient and contemporary world culture, myth and superstition shows that god/ gods are not, and all of this goes without saying. yea it does get lonely around here.
What is God? A super-thingie of nebulous ambiguity? A one size fits all security blanket for the ignorant and superstitious? Ask 20 ppl what God is and you get twenty different answers. Ask where god is and you get the same. God is and does whatever anyone says, whatever anyone chooses to believe. God is the hero of western revenge fantasy. An elaborate contradiction guilded in emotional appeals. God's truth is not to be found beyond death. That would require a functioning brain. God is just a sugarcube.
no argument here. i guess youre comparing theistic worship to blind trust in ultimate authoritarians, who you acknowledge as simply ppl that theists dishonestly refer to and defer to as 'god?'
i also assume that youre saying atheist hold scientists and certain philosophers in such high esteem that they simply accept any claim they make, as 'fact'? making scientists and certain philosophers the same kind of ultimate authoritarians?
the problem there is that theists encourage blind acceptance and denounce critical analysis. whereas atheists discourage blind acceptance, and encourage critical analysis, scrutiny,peer review, scientific enquiry, etc,.
anyone who holds faith as a pathway to ultimate understanding, has no grounds to question any 'ultimate understanding' gained through the faith of another. even if its contradictory to his own ultimate understanding found through faith. because doing so invalidates his own conclusions and the methodology used to reach them.
no atheist would ever have this problem if he remembers that anything can and should be scrutinized.
well thats just it. i don't think you're being dishonest, i simply have no idea what point you're attempting to make or what model you're attempting to use to do so. i have no idea what argument you're making, what proof you're offering or whether or not i should even take this seriously. i have no idea what you're saying. thats where i started and I'm still there. in fact after reading the replies of others, i still have no idea what's actually being discussed, here.
when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept? if not , i have no idea what you mean. but if you do, are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'? because this type of argument has already been defeated. concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.
lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god. 'god', generally denotes a supernatural being. so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist. metaphors exist. you have to do all kinds of calisthenics to transform a being that is known for hurling lightning bolts and parting seas into "a group of beings worthy of trust'. there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities. so no. we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.
you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.
thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.
1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that. its not up to others to disprove it. you have provided no 'proof of god'. you havent even provided evidence of a god. you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god. you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'. taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe) and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents, then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison. now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being. if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?' this really makes no sense. why call 'respected beings' god? is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true? "parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such? you know what? nevermind.
do you see where it says,
'You should define what you term "God", then illustrate it's existence and or influence?'
well do you? before there were any replies to this debate, i made this clear.
like i said, it's useless hot air. someone really enjoys the sound of his own keystrokes..
hopefully after all this back and forth , you finally see your initial comment was moot. you havent challenged me to do anything, because i am not trying to prove there is a god. i have no belief in gods. once again, thank you for this pointless exchange.
its useless hot air is what it is. it is not a logical argument for any god, of any kind. the naked claims positing the 'existence' of supernatural gods are obviously what drives my question. i doubt your'e unclear on that since this is the only kind of god whose existence is widely and constantly contested. but I left it up to respondents to define the gods for which they posit logical arguments. either way it's for naught. theists know that. that's why they have avoided the question.
If i wanted to make this about points there would be none for posts lacking logical arguments. I want to discourage the posting of useless banter but that seems to define the bulk of the arguments from the 'yes' side.
the aforementioned goes without saying. i think we're done here.
religious faith is belief without objective evidence or logical justification, and often held despite evidence to the contrary. often it is belief held for the sake of diminishing personal insecurity.
a proposition is held as logical if it's reasoning is in accordance with the principles of logic. superstition is not logical and religious faith is indistinguishable from superstition, which is defined as:
a.
irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
b.
any blindly accepted belief or notion.
c.
a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, or a false conception of causation.
Faith is inherently illogical. But this debate is not about faith, it's about 'logical arguments for a God'
Christian children starve to death by the thousands daily and not just in third world countries.
Likely rebuttal: 'God allows them to starve because he wants us to feed them,'.
Does he want us to cure cancer, birth defects, aids, and every genetic anomaly and deficiency known to man?
'God' doesn't 'bring anyone through' progeria. You're born with it, you age at a high rate of speed and you die of old age in your teens. You can make all the excuses you want, they just don't hold water.
I know you'd rather exist in an eclectic fantasy of a reality, but we just don't. God or no God.
This truth cannot be smeared away with allegorical mythology.
This truth is the reality of human existence.
you must know that any believer in Jehovah already knows that he kills innocents by the millions. they accept that he drowns planets laden with millions upon millions of infants. they must accept that he will burn 99% of the ppl ever to walk the earth no matter what their faith or lack thereof. they know their god is evil and they have wholeheartedly accepted clergy and doctrine's ridiculous excuses for divine extortion and divine genocide.
to expect them to stand up for humanity and stand for what's right at the imaginary risk of losing their nonexistent souls is to expect a leopard to change his stripes. they will down-vote ppl all day without ever providing a challenging or compelling argument. because they have convinced themselves that the lack of blind belief in a person is the work and will of Satan. they take the reality of the world, morality, and human existence, and reshape it into an eclectic fantasy where they are the centers of the universe. a universe that is eternally concerned with them.
You know, if i offended you earlier, i really didn't mean to. i don't expect to be taken seriously by ppl online. if you're gonna have debates and discussions online, you will probably need thicker skin. But i apologize if I offended or upset you. It truly is nothing personal.
judging from the number of logical rebuttals i have to say that theists agree. or at least they certainly appear to be silenced. only one theist has even attempted a logical argument, and he obviously has no grasp of logic whatsoever. oh well.
i don't mind being called arrogant. if you have an actual rebuttal, bring it.
unless you still don't see why your argument is silly and fallacious. i guess you have the attitude that you can never be wrong, so you wont even begin to consider the possibility that you are.
you argument is ridiculously fallacious in that your reasoning is circular and you commit the fallacy of equivocation. existence and creation are two different things. thunder is no more proof of thor, than the universe is proof of vishnu or jehovah. at this point you obviously fail to understand why the existence of the universe is not proof that it was created with teleologic intent, but your intellectual shortcomings provide no shelter. youre just plain wrong.
Your argument could only be described as laughable. its a perfect circle. i asked is anyone could make a logically consistent argument for a god and not one theist has managed to do so. only one out of 200 million american theists even bothered to try and he submitted a fallacious and logically laughable argument appealing to 'feelings'. and you, you appeal to 'esoteric knowledge of an unknown origin'. theistic arguments like this make atheists look like geniuses.
