How many GODS do you have?

[Arik]

I can tell you how it looked to me.  When I was a practicing Wiccan, I carefully examined any event that I thought might have a supernatural or paranormal element to it, because I didn't want to assume, I wanted to know.  I was far more a critical thinker as a Wiccan than I had been as a Catholic.

I eventually noticed that I never had an unequivocally paranormal experience; there was a plausible rational explanation for everything.  And thus does superstition and magical thinking die.

Not really germane to this particular question, but I also noticed that the nature of my prayers changed when I transitioned from Catholic to Wiccan.  As a Christian, I prayed for things to happen the way I wanted them to happen.  As a Wiccan, I prayed for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.

I got the same number of answers either way: zero.

Sometime when you drive you may see a sign that say.........WRONG WAY GO BACK.

The same thing may happen when you try to pray God the wrong way.
If you ask God for anything that is irrelevant to your spiritual development you get nothing but when you ask God for something that may help you in your spiritual development then you get all what is needed.

Many Christian in particular pray God for something material.
The paternoster pray is the typical example when it say........Our father
who is in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
As in the sky and on the ground.
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our debts;
As we
forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation:
but deliver us from evil.

As you can see it is all wrong.
First it ask for the daily bread which sound like a mockery.
Just imagine if your son would ask you for the daily food.
After it ask to forgive our debts and not to lead us into temptation.
Haven't we got our free will to do what is correct and in case we don't haven't we got our free will to sort out problems?
As you can see most religious people pray God the wrong way.

You also say that you did pray for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.
Even that is irrelevant to God which is only interested in helping people in their spiritual journey.

[Arik]

Seriously?

We measured the speed of light in 1976 in an entry level electronic engineering course my first year of college, using a laser, a mirror, and an oscilloscope. We got within only a couple of percentage points of the most accurate measurements. And we only had about the mirror about 30 feet away.

Even if that speed of light would be correct then it would be a relative measurement.
Relative to this place in this universe.
If you would be living in an other star system the calculation would be different.
And if you would live in an other dimension then the calculation would also be very different without even mention if you would be in God's dimension where speed and time are non existent.

You guys just don't get it.
Our calculation are only good in the relative dimension in which we are living but offer nothing outside it that is why putting all our efforts in something that is relative make no sense.

[Absolute_Agent]

In other words is the operative part, because you know I never said anything like that.  The "back to atheism" part is particularly baffling.  Do you have some sort of learning disability that impairs your ability to read?  Or do you just mentally replace words you don't like with words you do?  Either would explain a lot.

Neither, I just didn't explain my reasoning sufficiently for you to follow--but it's immaterial.

Really?  Because it comes across as extremely insecure.  In any case, being turned off by preachy people is a frequent theme in deconversion stories, so perhaps you're doing more good than you think.

As for me I enjoy the learning and mental toughness precipitated by having my basic assumptions challenged.  It's boring always being around people who agree with you.  Being secure in my belief enables me to share it in a figurative shark tank that a room full of atheists represents for a believer. 



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Simon Moon]

As for me I enjoy the learning and mental toughness precipitated by having my basic assumptions challenged.  It's boring always being around people who agree with you.  Being secure in my belief enables me to share it in a figurative shark tank that a room full of atheists represents for a believer. 

I can't speak for any other atheist, but my may motivation for debating the existence of gods, is not specifically to put believers through a 'gauntlet', in order to prove they are wrong, so I can gloat or act superior.

One of my main motivations for debating the existence of gods (and other existential claims in similar categories), is because I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible. I come here (and in real life) to debate the existence of gods, because if someone can demonstrate that one or more gods exist, I want to know about it.

For me to be convinced that a god exists, I would require demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, to support that claim. My atheist position, is based on the fact that theists have failed to meet this burden of proof. Why should I accept anything less to convince me that a god exists?

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

For decades, and from 1000's of theists, I have been presented with the 'evidence' for the existence of their gods, and it does not meet scrutiny. I have been presented with all the so called, philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological,TAG, presuppositional arguments) and they are ALL flawed and fallacious. I have a bookshelf loaded with books from many of the major apologists (Plantinga, McDowell, Turek, Craig, Strobel, and others), and they all appeal to common fallacies.

So, I am also secure in my provisional atheist position, but I am fully open to being convinced that a god exists.

[Absolute_Agent]

I can't speak for any other atheist, but my may motivation for debating the existence of gods, is not specifically to put believers through a 'gauntlet', in order to prove they are wrong, so I can gloat or act superior.

One of my main motivations for debating the existence of gods (and other existential claims in similar categories), is because I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible. I come here (and in real life) to debate the existence of gods, because if someone can demonstrate that one or more gods exist, I want to know about it.

For me to be convinced that a god exists, I would require demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, to support that claim. My atheist position, is based on the fact that theists have failed to meet this burden of proof. Why should I accept anything less to convince me that a god exists?

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

For decades, and from 1000's of theists, I have been presented with the 'evidence' for the existence of their gods, and it does not meet scrutiny. I have been presented with all the so called, philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological,TAG, presuppositional arguments) and they are ALL flawed and fallacious. I have a bookshelf loaded with books from many of the major apologists (Plantinga, McDowell, Turek, Craig, Strobel, and others), and they all appeal to common fallacies.

So, I am also secure in my provisional atheist position, but I am fully open to being convinced that a god exists.

Since you are so well-versed in theist arguments, which is a complement on your part, what is a list of the most common fallacies used to prove the existence of God?

Secondly, imagine for a second that God exists, who wished to create a world where people wouldn't be forced to believe in Him.  One object being to distinguish the average Joe's from the real go-getters so that He could reward the top performers accordingly.  Another object being to provide tests of courage and character for their growth, independence and development (sort of like sending your kids away to college). Now does this scenario (hypothetical for you) seem logical, and why or why not?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Sometime when you drive you may see a sign that say.........WRONG WAY GO BACK.

The same thing may happen when you try to pray God the wrong way.
If you ask God for anything that is irrelevant to your spiritual development you get nothing but when you ask God for something that may help you in your spiritual development then you get all what is needed.

Many Christian in particular pray God for something material.
The paternoster pray is the typical example when it say........Our father
who is in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
As in the sky and on the ground.
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our debts;
As we
forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation:
but deliver us from evil.

As you can see it is all wrong.
First it ask for the daily bread which sound like a mockery.
Just imagine if your son would ask you for the daily food.
After it ask to forgive our debts and not to lead us into temptation.
Haven't we got our free will to do what is correct and in case we don't haven't we got our free will to sort out problems?
As you can see most religious people pray God the wrong way.

You also say that you did pray for understanding as to why things happened the way they did.
Even that is irrelevant to God which is only interested in helping people in their spiritual journey.

Bible verses make sense in cultural and historical context.  A common fallacy of atheist or competing theist POV, is to remove them from context.  It is typical as "Occidentalism" for Eastern people (Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist) to mangle Jewish/Christian religion, just as much as atheists do.  But it doesn't do the Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists any credit to do so.  "Occidentalism" is just as much bigotry and pseudo-intellectualism as "Orientalism".  See Edward Said etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidentalism

Basically N vs S, or E vs W apologetics/polemics.  But no truth seeking.  A framework for universal bigotry.

Part of the joy I take from comparative religions study is that I am forced to assume an alien cultural/linguistic framework.  That forces me to confront my hidden assumptions and prejudices.  In the end, no matter how frustrating people are, our religions or atheisms are cultural artifacts are what makes us interesting and unique (see alien comment about people in the movie Contact).  Other people may seem strange and repulsive, but I seem the same way to them.

[Simon Moon]

Since you are so well-versed in theist arguments, which is a complement on your part, what is a list of the most common fallacies used to prove the existence of God?

This seems like a subject for another thread. Refutations of these arguments should be the focus of a different thread, not one with all these other subjects and hijacks already going on.

But I love talking about these things, so please open a thread on one or all of these arguments, and I will be happy to chime in!

Secondly, imagine for a second that God exists, who wished to create a world where people wouldn't be forced to believe in Him.  One object being to distinguish the average Joe's from the real go-getters so that He could reward the top performers accordingly.  Another object being to provide tests of courage and character for their growth, independence and development (sort of like sending your kids away to college). Now does this scenario (hypothetical for you) seem logical, and why or why not?

I guess you would have to define said god for me to determine if the hypothetical situation was logical or not.

For example, if you define your god as being omniscient, then he/she/it/they would already be aware (even before I was born) that I would be unable to believe he/she/it/they exist without evidence. So, the end result would be, that this god created me (and billions upon billions of others before and after me), knowing far in advance that I would not be rewarded by him. So no, this would not only be an irrational and illogical scenario for a god, it is patently immoral.

I could go on, and on (depending on your definition of god) on how and why this is an illogical scenario.

[Simon Moon]

Bible verses make sense in cultural and historical context.  A common fallacy of atheist or competing theist POV, is to remove them from context.  It is typical as "Occidentalism" for Eastern people (Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist) to mangle Jewish/Christian religion, just as much as atheists do.  But it doesn't do the Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists any credit to do so.  "Occidentalism" is just as much bigotry and pseudo-intellectualism as "Orientalism".  See Edward Said etc.

Here's the problem with the above.

According to most theists that believe in the Biblical god, said god is supposed to be the 4 omnis, or more modern theists use maximally instead of omni (to avoid logical contradictions).

So, why would a god, who supposedly has the most important message for all humanity, for all time, have his message recorded so they only make sense in  cultural and historical context? Doesn't he care about those of us that are millenium removed from the actual events?

Why would he have said message recorded: in ancient languages that he would know would die out, be susceptible to misinterpretation, contextual and cultural idioms, copy errors, etc, etc, etc. And have it recorded on little pieces of parchment, that he should know could be lost, burned, edited, etc?

Why would he do this in such a small geographical area, to only a small percentage of the human population? Meanwhile, every other culture all over the world, went about their activities with zero knowledge of the 'most important message for all humanity', to invent their own 'false' gods and religions.

He had his choice and the ability to make sure his message was recorded in such a way, as to avoid all these (and many more) problems, yet he chose the same exact method that all those other 'man made' religions have for their false gods. What a coincidence, huh...

[Absolute_Agent]

I can't speak for any other atheist, but my may motivation for debating the existence of gods, is not specifically to put believers through a 'gauntlet', in order to prove they are wrong, so I can gloat or act superior.

One of my main motivations for debating the existence of gods (and other existential claims in similar categories), is because I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible. I come here (and in real life) to debate the existence of gods, because if someone can demonstrate that one or more gods exist, I want to know about it.

For me to be convinced that a god exists, I would require demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, to support that claim. My atheist position, is based on the fact that theists have failed to meet this burden of proof. Why should I accept anything less to convince me that a god exists?

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

For decades, and from 1000's of theists, I have been presented with the 'evidence' for the existence of their gods, and it does not meet scrutiny. I have been presented with all the so called, philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological,TAG, presuppositional arguments) and they are ALL flawed and fallacious. I have a bookshelf loaded with books from many of the major apologists (Plantinga, McDowell, Turek, Craig, Strobel, and others), and they all appeal to common fallacies.

So, I am also secure in my provisional atheist position, but I am fully open to being convinced that a god exists.

I created a forum here:

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatheistforums%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D13597%2E0&share_tid=13597&share_fid=99594&share_type=t

Hopefully you will do me the honor of being the first poster. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

For example, if you define your god as being omniscient, then he/she/it/they would already be aware (even before I was born) that I would be unable to believe he/she/it/they exist without evidence. So, the end result would be, that this god created me (and billions upon billions of others before and after me), knowing far in advance that I would not be rewarded by him. So no, this would not only be an irrational and illogical scenario for a god, it is patently immoral.

I could go on, and on (depending on your definition of god) on how and why this is an illogical scenario.

Suppose instead of belief in the above scenario, the primary criteria is behavior--were you an ethical person, did you help old ladies across the street, did you take good care of your family, etc.  Would that change your logical assessment?

God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, merciful, forgiving, generous, meticulous, and wise--but severe in punishing evil and oppression.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Unbeliever]

Well, the God depicted by the Bible was certainly not a very nice God:

What the Bible's God is really like

[Absolute_Agent]

Well, the God depicted by the Bible was certainly not a very nice God:

What the Bible's God is really like

What about as He is depicted in the Qur'an?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Unbeliever]

I haven't read the Quran, so I can't speak to his portrayal there. I've studied the Bible fairly well, so I can talk about that version of God. I've focused on the Christian view, since that's the culture in which I've lived, and that's the religion that may be threatening to turn America into a theocracy, not Islam.

[Absolute_Agent]

Here's the problem with the above.

According to most theists that believe in the Biblical god, said god is supposed to be the 4 omnis, or more modern theists use maximally instead of omni (to avoid logical contradictions).

So, why would a god, who supposedly has the most important message for all humanity, for all time, have his message recorded so they only make sense in  cultural and historical context? Doesn't he care about those of us that are millenium removed from the actual events?

Why would he have said message recorded: in ancient languages that he would know would die out, be susceptible to misinterpretation, contextual and cultural idioms, copy errors, etc, etc, etc. And have it recorded on little pieces of parchment, that he should know could be lost, burned, edited, etc?

Why would he do this in such a small geographical area, to only a small percentage of the human population? Meanwhile, every other culture all over the world, went about their activities with zero knowledge of the 'most important message for all humanity', to invent their own 'false' gods and religions.

He had his choice and the ability to make sure his message was recorded in such a way, as to avoid all these (and many more) problems, yet he chose the same exact method that all those other 'man made' religions have for their false gods. What a coincidence, huh...

So that the body of revelations would be organic, thus ensuring maximum retention and relevance.  Additionally, for variety, richness and depth of tradition and interpretation.  God loves creativity, beauty and poignancy.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Simon Moon]

So that the body of revelations would be organic, thus ensuring maximum retention and relevance.  Additionally, for variety, richness and depth of tradition and interpretation.  God loves creativity, beauty and poignancy.

Nice post hoc rationalization you got there.

But then, where does that leave me, with my critical thinking and my skepticism, then?

If the above is true, and your god knows that some people, like me will be unable to believe he exists without good evidence, then as far as I can tell, he wants us to believe he exists for bad reasons.

That sure seems like he values gullibility more than critical thinking. Not interested.