The Anti-theist Thread

[Wayfarer]

That pretty much sums up alll of your arguments.

You obviously have a hard time seperating arguements from examples.

I use metaphor not because it proves a point, but because it helps to visualize how things may work.

Have you ever seen just one of anything? The opposite of what you say is true. If there is one, the circumstances that allow its existence would certainly allow for more than one.

I am not intent on coinvincing you that circumstances which could produce or allow one more more gods do, in fact, exist. You must realize that nothing which is 'allowed' to exist or 'produced', I.E, 'Created' fits my defenition of God. I'm talking about something that exists It its Own Right and which would go on existing no matter what. IT is not subject to circumstances but rather the wellspring from which all circumstances flow.

Elvellon: You have some very interesting thoughts. But I must leave it at that for the moment...

Simplist explanation doesn't necessarily mean the correct explanation

My Friend, I ask you one question:

Going with my defenition of 'god' as any self existant entity (having no dependance on anything else), can you reasonably believe that there are more than one entity which exists In Its Own Right? That is, can you surmise that two entities could possibly exist and have no relation with eachother beyond that fact? I cannot. Therefore, by 'simple' I mean 'possible to imagine'.

How do you explain those anomalies in space then? Those particles that seemingly mutate without any external energy/force acting up them?

I could explain it:
a) God causes these changes directly.
b)they are the result of some law of their existance, which we do not yet understand.

You decide which is more likely.

How do you explain the fact that nature, science and its effects are visible all around us, affect us every second, and for that matter, ARE us, while a Creator is nowhere perceptible and has left no legacy to prove its existence?

I would love to... however there are problems, as I mentioned. I hope you don't mind waiting until tomorrow for me to explain... I have to be gone.

[Andúril]

I am saying it started with my God

Why? Why did:

1) It start with your god, and
2) It start with yourgod?

[Cirdan]

You obviously have a hard time seperating arguements from examples.

Only when they are mixed with faulty logic, dogmatic repetition, and pseudo-science. For example....

I am not intent on coinvincing you that circumstances which could produce or allow one more more gods do, in fact, exist. You must realize that nothing which is 'allowed' to exist or 'produced', I.E, 'Created' fits my defenition of God. I'm talking about something that exists It its Own Right and which would go on existing no matter what. IT is not subject to circumstances but rather the wellspring from which all circumstances flow.

So, there are no circumstances under which god is "allowed" to exist. Putting quotations aroud a word doesn't change its meaning. How about this to fix the semantics.

The conditions which you subscribe to as attributes of god's existence would lead to the existence of multiple gods.

I think I must "realize" that you believe in a mythical being for which there is no proof, which conforms to no physical laws, which defies logic, and that you refuse to use your "god given" free will to even doubt, for any reason, the existence of a single christian god exclusive of all other possible scenarios.

"Own Right" and "wellspring" are semantic crutches for a weak logical point.

"Own Right" is a medieval term that applies to an inherited title as opposed to an appointed title. From whom do you believe god inherited his title?

"Wellspring" is the source of a stream which does not experience dry periods. The water comes from the water table and does not exist infinitely.

Once again, these arguments fall into the catagory of unsubstantiated beliefs. God is not proved to be the wellspring of all circumstance because there is no evidence for this assumption.

[BeardofPants]

Hear, hear!

[Rána Eressëa]

*cheers along with BoP*

[mirrille]

Originally posted by emplynx

Because infinite regression is 100% impossible it could never happen. Something had to be "there" to start everything else off. Yes, my God is somthing special, thanks for asking.

Just like to point out something: If infinite regression is impossible, then you've just stated that your God is impossible. God is supposed to have always been there, otherwise, he couldn't have been "there" to start anything , not to mention that the idea that he's always been around is always trotted out as one of the cool things about him. That's infinite regression. Infinite regression is impossible, ergo....

Oops! See what I mean?

Just be careful. It doesn't prove he doesn't exist, but if we use that argument to prove that he does, we will get into trouble.

Why? Why did:
1) It start with your god, and
2) It start with yourgod?

Yes, well, it always comes back to that, doesn't it? I think they are ignoring us on that one.

[Cirdan]

Thank you all.. you've been great!

* Cirdan has left the building*

But seriously, I had an "anti-theist moment. (must stop using quotations). My mother had a full hysterectomy last week. We, (the disfunctional family unit) were visiting her in the hospital. Who should show up but the reverend "susan". It was all very pleasant, even discussed the topic of the seminarian's sermon (doubting thomas... why, questioning faith is important... what irony), until we were drawn into a hand holding prayer. I don't mind the "moment of prayer" (damn quotes!), but the hand holding was like asking me to be a hypocrite or ebarass mom in her hospital bed.

I feel so violated(j/k).

Poll: Is it be ok for people to assume like that?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by mirrille


Just like to point out something: If infinite regression is impossible, then you've just stated that your God is impossible. God is supposed to have always been there, otherwise, he couldn't have been "there" to start anything , not to mention that the idea that he's always been around is always trotted out as one of the cool things about him. That's infinite regression. Infinite regression is impossible, ergo....

Oops! See what I mean?

Just be careful. It doesn't prove he doesn't exist, but if we use that argument to prove that he does, we will get into trouble.

Yes, well, it always comes back to that, doesn't it? I think they are ignoring us on that one.

Nice catch... let's see that again on instant replay.. ooo, look at the grip on the mind!

[Rána Eressëa]

I refuse to speak the Pledge of Allegiance because of that one little line: "One nation under God." Damn that line! Now, I'll stand up and put my right (why can't it be left?) hand over my heart, but I won't say it because I don't believe in it, and I would find it very hypocritical of me if I did, not to mention it's a violation of my civil rights in this country . . . *continues mumbling something about 'civil rights'*

One of my teachers actually got on to me once last semester for not standing and saying the pledge. She went on talking to the class about how we get free books for learning and we should be thankful for our country and get up each friggin' school day in the morning to stand and say a pledge. I seriously feel very violated because of her. From now on I don't even bother doing it, and if a teacher ever gets on to me again, I'm going to give them a piece of my atheist mind!

[BeardofPants]

I have always found the idea of a pledge of allegiance to ones country to be vaguely terrifying. Good on you for standing up for your rights. I find it ironic, that the US was founded by people who sought freedom from the commonwealth, and yet, after all that, are no more free than when they started. We don't pledge to the Queen, neither does England, and yet, the land of the free pledges? Hmmm....

Of course, not being an american, ("I'm afraid of americans" - David Bowie), I'm not used to this almost military mindset, so if I've gone off on a completely wrong tangent, then feel free to edify me.

[mirrille]

Well, I suppose you could say the "Pledge of Allegiance" right through and just keep quiet when you get to the part about being a nation under God. It's a bit of an anachronism anyways. Separation of Church and State (wags a finger admonishingly*). I always thought that they just kept it around because it would be too much bother to change it to something more inclusive. You can always tell your teacher that you don't believe in God, and if she doesn't respect that, you are completely justified in reporting her. Unless she's your catechism teacher, because then it might be under her jurisdiction.
Similarly, the Canadian national anthem also has just one line near the end that says "God keep our land glorious and free". Every year someone makes noise trying to change it, but usually what happens is the argument goes, "hardly any people know the national anthem anyways. Who cares? Too much trouble over nothing."
Anyways, I never really understood the almost fanatical patriotism that goes on down south. I know that not everyone is like that, but they can be scary. But even for non-extremists, I get the impression that Americans are alot more ...umm...how to say?... they almost worship their country ... worship their system. It's very bizarre to me.

To Cirdan, I hope your mother is doing alright now. I think if I was in your situation, I would have held hands in the little circle, but only to save face for susan. Sort of to accomodate her as this might be the only way she knows to "connect" with everyone. But it sounds to me that this is a pattern for her. If she was taking advantage of your mother's condition to draw you into her little cult, then shame on her!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Poll: Is it be ok for people to assume like that?

Here's a big fat no.


_______________________

New Zealand has 'God' in the national anthem as well....

"God of nations at thy feet,
In the bonds of love, we meet,
Hear our voices we entreat,
God Defend New Zealand...."

Hmmm....

[Earniel]

You actually have to stand up and say the pledge? I thought they did that only in movies. Pretty bizarre. Glad my school is only catholic in name.

[Andúril]

Poll: Is it be ok for people to assume like that?

Hell no! But they will anyway...

By they, you know exactly who.

Perhaps you should post this poll on the Theism thread - I reckon your answers over here will be biased towards the nay vote....
.....and I guess the yay vote on the other side....nevermind.

[afro-elf]

[ Look around you. No gods. No spirits. No heaven or hell. No devils.


AND


how does anything you have to say SOLELY support a christian god?

[FrodoFriend]

Poll: Is it be ok for people to assume like that?

NO. And that's one of the things that pisses me off most.

I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance either, mostly because, well, I don't pledge allegiance and I'm not going to pretend I do. Plus it is a little weird and ritualistic.

Infinite regression: neither science nor religion can explain this satisfactorily. Either matter and energy or God has always existed - in neither instance can we explain why, or where they came from, or if there was a beginning or not. Hence, theists can not use this argument against us.

Guess what! My friend and I have almost convinced our history teacher to let us have a religious debate (we usually have historical debates)! All we need to do is make it relevant to history somehow.

[mirrille]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Poll: Is it be ok for people to assume like that?

Well, I guess I'm a little more forgiving. I think it's ok for people to assume that, meaning that it's not a huge crime and offense if they do. There's no need to get upset about it if someone assumes you believe in whatever. But if you run into that assumption, it's also OK for you to (politely!) correct their assumption. In turn, they should respect your right to believe in something else. If they then try to draw you into their religion or give some other sign of disrespect, that would be the time to be offended. I just think it's premature to feel upset if they just made a mistake and didn't know your standpoint. People do make mistakes, that's all. If the person is reasonable, they will just apologize for assuming, and we'll just change the subject. Most situations where it's come up for me have been fairly harmless, in perspective.

[Wayfarer]

Question: If my logic is bad and my premises flawed, as you claim, why must you stoop to attacking the one part of my argument which is admittedly unnescessary? After all, is it not better for all involved if I am shown my error as soon as possible?

So, there are no circumstances under which god is "allowed" to exist. Putting quotations aroud a word doesn't change its meaning. How about this to fix the semantics.

The conditions which you subscribe to as attributes of god's existence would lead to the existence of multiple gods.

By defenition, if anything exists that can allow, dissalow, or otherwise constrain an entity (beyond this entity itself), this entity cannot be Self Existant.

By defintion, God (or nature) must be completely independant of and surperior to all other things. So if anything (apart from itself) can dictate the conditions of it's existance, then our entity is subordinate to that thing, and cannot be considered God.

As Far as multiple gods, I will concede that a Valar scenario is possible (if not particularly useful). However, it is irrational that there could be more than one thing that exists completely apart from all other things.

Now... I would like to answer frodofriend's question on why I believe that a Self-Existant nature is insufficient. The answer is this:

A self existant nature must be a closed system. (It contains and is the cause of anything else that exists)
Within a closed system, the amount of usable energy decreases.
We have observed that there is usable energy in the universe.
This means that there is usable energy in Nature.
The amount of energy cannot have been decreasing forever.
So nature must have a beginning.
Anything that has a beginning must have a cause.
Which does not fit the defenition of a self existent entity.
So nature cannot be self existant.

Now, someday we might learn something which solves this dilemma. That day has not come.

you refuse to use your "god given" free will to even doubt, for any reason, the existence of a single christian god exclusive of all other possible scenarios.

Do I? Do I really? I believe in a single Christian God because I've repeatedly examined what I know, and come to a conclusion that there must be a God, and the christian god fits my conclusions perfectly. I have certainly not always belived, indeed, I was a nihilist for a good part of my life. Don't speak aboutthings you know nothing about. It will get ou into trouble (this is the voice of experience speaking)

"Own Right" and "wellspring" are semantic crutches for a weak logical point.

Then let me be blunt and to the point. You cannot possibly devise a system in which hte ultimate cause is either God or Nature. You also cannot solve the aforementioned problem with claiming nature is self existant. Please, give it your best shot. You will fail.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Anduril
Perhaps you should post this poll on the Theism thread - I reckon your answers over here will be biased towards the nay vote....
.....and I guess the yay vote on the other side....nevermind.

Could Be. But I for one take exactly the opposite tack... I tend to assume that peopel aren't christians. That way, I'm pleasently surprised when they are.

By the By... you'd be surprised how many christians agree with you on the state of christainity in general. Esp, the church in america.

If infinite regression is impossible, then you've just stated that your God is impossible. God is supposed to have always been there, otherwise, he couldn't have been "there" to start anything , not to mention that the idea that he's always been around is always trotted out as one of the cool things about him.

Absolutely! I'm not saing that infinite regression is impossible.

Either matter and energy or God has always existed - in neither instance can we explain why, or where they came from, or if there was a beginning or not.

Really? When I said that, you disagreed with me. ]: ) In any case, this is probobly a better understanding of the theology than most christians have.

[Wayfarer]

And finally, my good friend afro-elf:

Look around you. No gods. No spirits. No heaven or hell. No devils.

People said that for years about things like bacteria and radiation. The difference here is, one you can see god, it's too late to change your mind.

How does anything you have to say SOLELY support a christian god?

I'm working up to that point. After all, would you wish that I try and convince you that the christian god is the real one when you disbelieve in the existence of any God at all?