Brother Jeff Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 The Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically inspired this glorious topic when I saw Brother Eccles make the following emphatic, absolute statement in this topic: THERE IS NO GOD. I tend to agree with Brother Eccles that that is most probably true, but I feel magically compelled to point out that that's not something that really should be stated with absolute certainty since nobody - at least as far as I know - has ever proven that there is no God. In the same way, theists really shouldn't make the absolute statement that God does exist because they can't even come close to proving it. Neither side can prove that their position is correct (though I happen to agree that the evidence strongly supports the Atheist position) so either way, whether God exists or not is actually a matter of opinion - perhaps very strongly held opinion - but opinion nonetheless. Glory! Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Over here in the Free World the only people who seem dead set on telling you their mental bowel movements are Johos and Mormons... The rest seem to think it's slightly bad form to rub one's face in their faith... unless they invite you to be God Father of their offspring or Best Man at their church wedding... then, I'm afraid it's a rousing chorus or two of "Onward Christian Soldiers", "Through the Night of Doubt and Sorrow" (Weddings) and "Jerusalem" before we get fed and drink beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoomonkey Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 If a person were intellectually honest, all they could really say is that there MIGHT be a god; there also MIGHT NOT be a god. Because you are right - neither side can prove their position. I would think that someone claiming a god would have to shoulder the burden of proof and that atheists can simply say "I've never seen one" to validate their experience. God - if he is exists - MUST be experiential. In other words, I must have some personal first hand experience with him. If i do not, I am operating completely on conjecture and superstition. A Christian typically "proves" god with personal anecdotes, and an ex-Christian "disproves" god the same way. No "proof" is better or more valid than the other. An atheist, however, does have the benefit of existence as proof enough that WE are here - and no ready evidence of a god to support what they believe to be true. The Christian can not - in any way - match that portfolio. My belief on "god" is based on experience - but my experience is completely different than that of most Christians. I believe there is something - though I believe it to be a dispassionate energy that - while fascinating and exciting - is completely non-sentient and non-partisan. This god-energy is apathetic about whether I believe in it or not - and my morality and politic simply doesn't matter. I define god based on my experience with it. I don't think we can define it any other way. So - opinion... And not a very important one at that... Spoomonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 What's the difference between: "That's an OPINION!" and "It's an opinion, and nothing more."? I've learned over the years to be careful to call anything a fact, so I'll go with opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Well, part of what would be useful in this is which definiton of god are you talking about. Without a consistient definition, or at least some working one, then yes, all this situation is, is people talking across eachother. So what does god mean exactly, for the purposes of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 Well, part of what would be useful in this is which definiton of god are you talking about. Without a consistient definition, or at least some working one, then yes, all this situation is, is people talking across eachother. So what does god mean exactly, for the purposes of this thread? Really any definition of god as a supernatural being of some kind will do for this discussion since I was speaking of god in generic terms much as a classical deist might when I posted this thread, but the Christian god can be assumed as well. That's usually the god I am referring to when I speak of god on this site or on my own glorious site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 What's the difference between: "That's an OPINION!" and "It's an opinion, and nothing more."? I've learned over the years to be careful to call anything a fact, so I'll go with opinion. Nothing except emphasis, I suppose. It's a duplicate option. Oops... oh well... Glory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I guess Say-TAYN nudged your elbow, eh Brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 I guess Say-TAYN nudged your elbow, eh Brother Apparently so! O well...what Say-TAYN planned to use for evil, GAWD has actually used for His glory! Glory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 The Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically inspired this glorious topic when I saw Brother Eccles make the following emphatic, absolute statement in this topic: THERE IS NO GOD. I tend to agree with Brother Eccles that that is most probably true, but I feel magically compelled to point out that that's not something that really should be stated with absolute certainty since nobody - at least as far as I know - has ever proven that there is no God. In the same way, theists really shouldn't make the absolute statement that God does exist because they can't even come close to proving it. Neither side can prove that their position is correct (though I happen to agree that the evidence strongly supports the Atheist position) so either way, whether God exists or not is actually a matter of opinion - perhaps very strongly held opinion - but opinion nonetheless. Glory! Thoughts? It can't be a fact, because God is a hypothetical concept. It is a fact that belief in God is not rationally warranted, though, which is demonstrated by the complete lack of rational justification for belief in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Thoughts? Yes, the (non-)existence of a Divine force in general can't be proven either way. What if it wants to hide from us, and is quite good at it? Now, for a specific concept of the Divine, there might be ways to argue. Like the absurdity and logical impossibility of the morontheist idols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 If a person were intellectually honest, all they could really say is that there MIGHT be a god; there also MIGHT NOT be a god. Why must I say there might be a god? Must I then also say there might be a Loch Ness monster? There might be fairies? I can't make the honest claim that there is no god, but that doesn't mean I have to make room for a might be one either. Just clarifying the atheist position here. Can I do that in this section? If not, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 The problem is that I can't answer that poll - because the truth is that it is neither a fact nor an opinion. It is an estimate. A fact is something you know is true. eg. grass is green An opinion involves a truth that is purely subjective. eg. christians are assholes something where the truth is uncertain but it seems likely is an estimate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosingMyReligion Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I'm just going to be intellectually honest. I am 99.999999999999999999999999% certain there is no God. But I don't say 100% because there MIGHT be one. But I'll say with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as an anthropomorphic deity. No way no how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 The problem is language, again. When someone says "There is no God", by default it is generally assumed it is a statement of that person's opinion. However, that said I think it's far better for everyone to avoid using language that uses absolutes, as it reinforces a closed-minded mentality in the person talking like this. If something is fact, than everything else is error. The reality is everything should be left an open-ended question. Even if the possibility seems extremely remote, it allows for consideration. On the contrary, Absolutist beliefs are unrealistic, unhealthy, irrational (even if they use logic to support them), and potentially dangerous. What people should really say is "I believe that God exists," or "I don't believe that any god exists." Those are indisputable facts. The person knows what he believes. Then after this, it's a matter of discussing and debating why he does or doesn't believe something. It makes for far more civilized discussion and opens the door for knowledge and understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoomonkey Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I can't make the honest claim that there is no god, but that doesn't mean I have to make room for a might be one either. If you can not state categorically that there is no god, then whether or not you make room for the chance that there might be one is irrelevant. The wiggle room exists based solely on your own intellectual honesty. In my opinion Spoomonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 But I'll say with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as an anthropomorphic deity. No way no how. Hmm... What about deities that aren't conceivable which could anthropomorphize in order to relate to their beneficiaries? I'll say that logically absurd deities absolutely don't exist within our reality, and none of the gods that have been thought up by man are real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 It doesn't matter if there are any gods, since they clearly aren't interacting with us if they do exist. Therefore, to me, it seems to be a moot point - hence, why worry overmuch about it? If there are any gods, or were any gods, maybe we'll find out in time or maybe we won't. Either way, it doesn't seem to impact my life any more when I lean towards Atheism than when I lean towards Theism. To me, it's worrying about something that, however fascinating to ponder, is a non-issue in the final analysis. If I want a god, I'll look in the mirror. That god definitely exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 My sentiments exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I can't make the honest claim that there is no god, but that doesn't mean I have to make room for a might be one either. If you can not state categorically that there is no god, then whether or not you make room for the chance that there might be one is irrelevant. The wiggle room exists based solely on your own intellectual honesty. In my opinion Spoomonkey My point is you can't categorically say that there is no such thing as a cookie monster in real life, yet to offer such a profusely obvious imaginary being a "might exist" reaches levels of the nonsensical that I'm not willing to go there in my intellectual honesty. God is the same. Now, if you were to word the question differently, such as "was there an intelligent life form that gave life on earth first cause?", my response would be I don't think so, but it might have happened that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 If I want a god, I'll look in the mirror. That god definitely exists Amen! That's what it all comes down to Brother. We are the God we seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoomonkey Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 My point is you can't categorically say that there is no such thing as a cookie monster in real life, yet to offer such a profusely obvious imaginary being a "might exist" reaches levels of the nonsensical that I'm not willing to go there in my intellectual honesty. God is the same. Now, if you were to word the question differently, such as "was there an intelligent life form that gave life on earth first cause?", my response would be I don't think so, but it might have happened that way. Then we are discussing semantics really... You are beginning with a specific definition of god - I am not. I know what this god would be within my personal experience with it, but for the sake of the question asked, there were no such parameters given. God could be anything form a fatherly diety who bakes his creation to a flying plate of pasta as I have seen around here. Or it could be a mindless creative force or simply (as I tend to think) a necessary ingredient in the creative process that we can have experiences with (in a primitive way). So - whatever fills that space of "unproved" could be anything. You would attribute god-like qualities to this thing, but would refuse to label it a god. Fair enough - but you are simply choosing not to give it a common name. It could be a god. It could even be cookie monster... And if it is, I will bow to him - because he has cookies... Spoomonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbobrob Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I take the arguement in this direction: If my thoughts are real, then everything I can think of is real, even Dying Gods, and unicorns, and flying speghetti monters (my personal favorite), and loch ness monters and Zeus and etc. It is a very Discordian mindset (ie, I think my point is laid out in the Illuminati Trilogy someplace). The reality of such things are never in question for me. The physical presence of it all is a completely different story. To have physical existance (ie physical reality) I need scientific (or at least sensory) proof. I believe everything. Yet, I only really beleive what I can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or have scientific evidence of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 What if it wants to hide from us, and is quite good at it? Like how Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes once said: "Sometimes I think the greatest proof of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." "Hey, let's swing by the Earthlings and see who's getting bombed today!" ".........Let's not." For me, spirituality is all about personal experience and feeling, and just as I am unable to impose the experiences and feelings I have had on others (to get them to agree with me), they cannot do the same to me. The statement "there is no God" doesn't bother me in the least. The statement of "everything you think and believe in is a sham and you're full of shit," does bother me, in the same way it would bother anybody to be told "Well, you KNOW you're spending eternity in hell, right?" I can't force you to be who I am, but that doesn't mean that who I am is illegitimate or wrong. I figure everybody's got a good reason to believe what they do - at least, when they're 21 and over. Mostly. By the time they reach that age, MOST Western adults will have examined precisely why they do what they do at that point, at least within my generation, and then most likely for generations to come. (Ever notice how the most evangelistic and puritan of Christians are often the youth-group set? Or that Muslim terrorists are often young men and women?) I think that's why most people do tend to be more "lukewarm" or "liberal" Christians than a lot of them and us would like us to believe. It's all about equality and the Golden Rule for me; if you want to discuss beliefs, I'm all for it, it's fun for me. But as soon as it turns into missionizing, or "But you see, my beliefs are correct and legitimate whereas yours are not, and every feeling you've had within your spiritual experience is Satanic/just bull", or "I live with your beliefs because I know you're a sinner/a dumbass and going to hell/waste your time anyway", that's when I draw the line. As for God itself......Well, I do kind of feel that, the universe is fuge, eternity's a long time, and we've been here and civilized for only about 10,000 years, and managed to explore only our own planet, and even then not most of it (the oceans). We can't even predict the friggin' weather, our science is inexact and controversial even among those that study it, all in all, we're really kind of primitive right now. So, I wouldn't put all my eggs into one basket because I don't think we as a species have, at this point, much to say about it definitely. To assert the reality or non-reality of God, either based on "revealed Scripture" or modern science, IMO, and I realize it's not a common or popular one, is grossly overestimating our own brains. I'm actually in two minds about God, really: personally, through experience, I know it's there, but intellectually, I realize I may be wrong. Personally, I am a theist, but intellectually, I am agnostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I agree with Asimov and Vigile on this entire issue and would like to add... Ancient people did not know much about the world in which they lived and created stories about God, Gods, Goddess, angels, devils, spirits, etc. in order to explain what they didn't understand. Soon some of those people turned these God stories into a way of controlling others. What a person believes is their business (so long as they don't get in my face with it), BUT saying to one who states, "There is no God!" close-minded, intellectually dishonest, telling them that they really "don't know" etc., IMnotsoHO, has no basis. Would you call me close-minded if I said with 100% certainty that it is a fact that there isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn in the sky? Of course, not. But for some reason, even non-believers who are agnostic (and even some atheists) will call those who say the same about God "close-minded." I'm an "open-minded" person when it concerns reality, but when it comes to this "god" business, forget it. Science may not be able to prove exactly how the universe was created, there are a few theories floating around, but it doesn't make a difference to me whether or not they ever prove it...in that, I am perfectly comfortable with saying "I don't know" and honestly...I really don't care. If one's passion in life is to seek out how the universe came into existence, good for them. However, it has no impact either way on how I live life in the here and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts