Atheism: How Sure are You Gods Do not Exist?

[William Rea]

This is where we got to last time Frank...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ly-impossible-part-one-11.html#post1064953513

1. Basically supernatural where supernatural is defined as within the laws of Physics.
2. Of this Universe where this Universe is defined as all that is and not all that we know about.
3. Imaginary.
4. An emperor.
5. A tree.
6. A cat.
7. A bowl of warm noodles.
8. In the eye of the beholder.
9. Everything has been or could imaginably be.
10. Not of this Universe.
11. Something exist that made this thing we humans call "the universe?'' (this one is uber tentative).
12. A maximally perfect person who is responsible for life.
13. Superheroes.
14. Rises from the dead.
15. Creates things from nothing.
16. Omnipotent.
17. Omniscient.
18. Take an interest in our daily affairs.
19. the creators.
20. Something you cannot know about until they 'introduce themselves'.
21. A part of us, an internal dialogue.
22. Unfathomable by ourselves.
23. Something that prophets claim to know about through revelation.
24. God of the gaps.
25. Do not appear on the daily tv and/or radio news or in the newspapers.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That is what God did, that is not define what God is.

It is what I consider a "god."

If that is not enough for you...I guess you will have to discuss with someone else. But I cannot for the life of me see why you consider that to be deficient. What is the purpose of you wanting more specificity?

 

[RAMOSS]

It is what I consider a "god."

If that is not enough for you...I guess you will have to discuss with someone else. But I cannot for the life of me see why you consider that to be deficient. What is the purpose of you wanting more specificity?

It is pointing out that with the ability to precisely define what god is, the question is 'Is there a god or not' is in fact, meaningless.

 

[Frank Apisa]

This is where we got to last time Frank...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ly-impossible-part-one-11.html#post1064953513

1. Basically supernatural where supernatural is defined as within the laws of Physics.
2. Of this Universe where this Universe is defined as all that is and not all that we know about.
3. Imaginary.
4. An emperor.
5. A tree.
6. A cat.
7. A bowl of warm noodles.
8. In the eye of the beholder.
9. Everything has been or could imaginably be.
10. Not of this Universe.
11. Something exist that made this thing we humans call "the universe?'' (this one is uber tentative).
12. A maximally perfect person who is responsible for life.
13. Superheroes.
14. Rises from the dead.
15. Creates things from nothing.
16. Omnipotent.
17. Omniscient.
18. Take an interest in our daily affairs.
19. the creators.
20. Something you cannot know about until they 'introduce themselves'.
21. A part of us, an internal dialogue.
22. Unfathomable by ourselves.
23. Something that prophets claim to know about through revelation.
24. God of the gaps.
25. Do not appear on the daily tv and/or radio news or in the newspapers.

We did???

I don't even remember that thread...but I'll take some time later to look to see what I said.l

Any chance you can give me a reference? Your post was not directed to me...so I cannot travel it back.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Just went back...and saw at least one post...that pretty much sums up how I think about this.

I do not understand the relevance of your 25 items, though.

 

[Tim the plumber]

That is, you know, irrelevant? Wouldn't a creator use a method that worked for the time available? If i wanted to build a watch evolution might seem a good way to go about it. After all, all you need do is start it and then go watch TV till humanity does the job like it does in The Sirens of Titan.

If you are after a way of creating things that does not involve you at all and results in things that will be totally unpredicable in detail but within general niches then yes.

It would also fit for the none-existance of God as well as the absent God idea.

It would not fit for an involved God making important choices and choosing to create various animals, plants and stuff. That would be right out.

 

[akrunner88]

I'm 100% sure that the various religions of the world and their interpretations/understanding of God are completely wrong.

As far as their being an entity out there, or energy/force that is sentient and has influence in the universe? My mind on that front is open if the evidence or proof is there. It would also depend on how you define "God."

 

[William Rea]

...I do not understand the relevance of your 25 items, though.

And, that is exactly the point Frank.

 

[joG]

If you are after a way of creating things that does not involve you at all and results in things that will be totally unpredicable in detail but within general niches then yes.

It would also fit for the none-existance of God as well as the absent God idea.

It would not fit for an involved God making important choices and choosing to create various animals, plants and stuff. That would be right out.

Have you never done Montecarlo Simulations. There you do a couple of thousands of runs to get probability distributions for outcomes. Doing something similar with physical universes would produce expected amounts of whatever it was that you as Creator wanted. That in small is how production of many chimicals works.

 

[William Rea]

It is what I consider a "god."

If that is not enough for you...I guess you will have to discuss with someone else. But I cannot for the life of me see why you consider that to be deficient. What is the purpose of you wanting more specificity?

Then with respect, I think that by that definition you should desist from using the term 'god' in this forum section.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/219563-philosophical-discussion-forum.html

Up to you of course, I hold no sway, but maybe just out of respect for your fellow forum members? For me, you are asserting a 'god' and avoiding skeptical discussion with a derailing definition.

 

[DDD]

Otherwise the title appeals to the unknown because it asks the reader how certain they are of a negative.

 

[joG]

Here's a slightly different spin on the "Atheism is it a belief or not" thread worth its own discussion. I'm about 75% sure the idea of gods is just crap that primitive people made up. I don't believe in them, and I believe the evidence against the gods put forth by man thus far have all been debunked. The 25% I am unsure of would be that gods exist which defy our imagination at the moment.

The closest I can come to explaining a god which I believe might exist would be some unifying entity of which we are all a part of, a stream of energy that is life. Ok, maybe it's 10% not 25.

I am sure to find out. And if i don't, it will no longer matter.

 

[calamity]

Well, yeah it's probably a bit on the speculative side on exo planets.

Looks like I was wrong. Apparently Hubble can take spectrographic data of exo-planets.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Have you never done Montecarlo Simulations. There you do a couple of thousands of runs to get probability distributions for outcomes. Doing something similar with physical universes would produce expected amounts of whatever it was that you as Creator wanted. That in small is how production of many chimicals works.

Which is what I was asying about knowing what basic niches would be filled, preditors herbivors etc, and not having any input about the detail of exactly what forms they take.

A totally hands off idea of God. Absent. Functionally the same as not there.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Looks like I was wrong. Apparently Hubble can take spectrographic data of exo-planets.

Yeah, but the degree of information and confidence about it is fairly low. So the idea of iron as rain... well sound good and may well be right but educated guess is about the strength of it. Still massively impressive stuff.

 

[JC Callender]

Atheism may be a "personal" belief, but it is not a "belief system," hence, it can't be categorized as a religion -- only a "lack of religion."

Personal beliefs that fall under the umbrella of being atheistic, range from a belief that nothing super-normal exists, to believing that deities do not exist, to believing that some sort of energy might exist, to a belief in transmutation.

Atheism can never qualify as a religion because it lacks the one vital factor that defines religion -- worship.

In the end, religion has to be the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The con cannot be proven false until the believer dies (if then), and then it's too late to sue for being conned. Right?

Why do you think someone would make up Jesus in order to con people?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Why do you think someone would make up Jesus in order to con people?

To control the unruly masses. That's what all religions seek to do, after all. That's why leaders put on the mantle of piety -- mustn't let the peasants think they're any better than peasants after all.

Who uses Jesus (or religion in general) to con others?

Look no further than your television on a Sunday morning -- listen to the evangelists selling salvation -- then 'shaming' their listeners into donating money they might not have. Ever heard of 'tithing?' That means giving 10% of your income to the church - whether or not you can afford it. Pretty good confidence game, I'd say.

More to your specific question, the idea that Jesus will reward the poor, the downtrodden and the meek, even if this life is crap for them, as long as they "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," is a godsend (pun intended) for any leader or ruler. It means they can control the actions of the poor without resorting to government force in many cases. Jesus doesn't advocate overthrowing oppressive governments, after all, His reward for you is after you leave this Earth.

Give the people something to believe in...something unseen...something unproven...something mythical, then tell them that they MUST accept this belief in order to have a wonderful afterlife.

The greatest (and most successful) con game in the world.

How much of your behavior is moderated because WWJD?

 

[joG]

Which is what I was asying about knowing what basic niches would be filled, preditors herbivors etc, and not having any input about the detail of exactly what forms they take.

A totally hands off idea of God. Absent. Functionally the same as not there.

And as we know from The Sirens of Titan humanity might have a hidden meaning.

 

[JC Callender]

To control the unruly masses. That's what all religions seek to do, after all. That's why leaders put on the mantle of piety -- mustn't let the peasants think they're any better than peasants after all.

Who uses Jesus (or religion in general) to con others?

Look no further than your television on a Sunday morning -- listen to the evangelists selling salvation -- then 'shaming' their listeners into donating money they might not have. Ever heard of 'tithing?' That means giving 10% of your income to the church - whether or not you can afford it. Pretty good confidence game, I'd say.

More to your specific question, the idea that Jesus will reward the poor, the downtrodden and the meek, even if this life is crap for them, as long as they "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," is a godsend (pun intended) for any leader or ruler. It means they can control the actions of the poor without resorting to government force in many cases. Jesus doesn't advocate overthrowing oppressive governments, after all, His reward for you is after you leave this Earth.

Give the people something to believe in...something unseen...something unproven...something mythical, then tell them that they MUST accept this belief in order to have a wonderful afterlife.

The greatest (and most successful) con game in the world.

How much of your behavior is moderated because WWJD?

So the man/woman who made up the story of Jesus did so to control the masses? Are you assuming it was a Jewish or Roman leader at the time who made up Jesus? If not, why would anyone else care to?

And I know why people take advantage of Christianity to con others..that's simple. People put a lot of faith into it and some petty turd just adopts it as a cover for a scam. Trust me, if you created a wonderful philosophy that people believed in they would do the same with yours.

 

[HowardBThiname]

So the man/woman who made up the story of Jesus did so to control the masses? Are you assuming it was a Jewish or Roman leader at the time who made up Jesus? If not, why would anyone else care to?

It's hard to say for sure. If we could prove where it originated, it wouldn't still exist. The Essenes are frequently credited with coming up with the story, but there is no hard evidence for that.

And I know why people take advantage of Christianity to con others..that's simple. People put a lot of faith into it and some petty turd just adopts it as a cover for a scam. Trust me, if you created a wonderful philosophy that people believed in they would do the same with yours.

I'm not saying that the story of Jesus isn't comforting or that it doesn't promote kindness and compassion in many cases. I'm saying it's of great value to leaders of the world because it voluntarily restricts the actions of the citizens.

All religions do that.

A philosophy is one thing - when it becomes a religion, which involves worship, it morphs into an entirely different creature. With Christianity, there are many different sects, some, the fundamental ones, believe that those who are not Christians do not have a shot at a heavenly afterlife. That translates into seeing people of different religions and cultures as 'lost.' That's what we're seeing right now in the US, as fundamentalists shun Syrian refugees and see Muslims as "the enemy."

If you can see another people (or culture) as the enemy of your god (or Savior), you've taken a step closer to being able to eradicate them.

 

[Frank Apisa]

And, that is exactly the point Frank.

Cute...but worthless as the 25 points.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Then with respect, I think that by that definition you should desist from using the term 'god' in this forum section.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/219563-philosophical-discussion-forum.html

Up to you of course, I hold no sway, but maybe just out of respect for your fellow forum members? For me, you are asserting a 'god' and avoiding skeptical discussion with a derailing definition.

With respect...I am NOT trying to derail anything.

I was asked how I define a god. And I've given a reasonable answer.

If you have a problem with it...it is your problem.

What, may I ask, is wrong with the definition that you think it inappropriate in this forum?

You do realize that I am first and foremost...a skeptic. Not a skeptic of one side...but a skeptic of both sides of the issue. I truly am the non-believer.

 

[JC Callender]

It's hard to say for sure. If we could prove where it originated, it wouldn't still exist. The Essenes are frequently credited with coming up with the story, but there is no hard evidence for that.



I'm not saying that the story of Jesus isn't comforting or that it doesn't promote kindness and compassion in many cases. I'm saying it's of great value to leaders of the world because it voluntarily restricts the actions of the citizens.

All religions do that.

A philosophy is one thing - when it becomes a religion, which involves worship, it morphs into an entirely different creature. With Christianity, there are many different sects, some, the fundamental ones, believe that those who are not Christians do not have a shot at a heavenly afterlife. That translates into seeing people of different religions and cultures as 'lost.' That's what we're seeing right now in the US, as fundamentalists shun Syrian refugees and see Muslims as "the enemy."

If you can see another people (or culture) as the enemy of your god (or Savior), you've taken a step closer to being able to eradicate them.

Do you believe the Essenes may have done it for political reasons...to gain more control? See, I totally understand how and why someone could claim to do something manipulative under the cover of being a Christian for personal gain and I can easily see why religious people do bad things....we all sin. I just have a hard time believing someone made up the story of Jesus for personal or political gain because Jesus certainly wasn't pandering to the wealthy for money. He was admonishing the serious religious people of the day. He was helping and associating with the lowliest people in society. I don't understand why someone would come up with a story like that and have all of these apostles and all of these different books written....for what gain, especially at the time when the result was that Christians were often persecuted?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Why do you think someone would make up Jesus in order to con people?

Are you kidding???

How many times has the Pope had blisters on his hands from working hard?

 

[JC Callender]

Are you kidding???

How many times has the Pope had blisters on his hands from working hard?

So you believe Pope Francis made up Jesus?