Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (attending, souls, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure if Thrill is still around, but I had a video forwarded to me that I finally found the time to watch yesterday, and it reminded me of Thrill's proof of God. Also AA's "something more" mantra, and for anyone else interested in trying to make sense of it all going all the way back to the very beginning, I posted the video in this thread...
" the OP is a loaded question that are we atheists because we don't believe in a God. " I'm in no position to point the finger about typing, but it took me a while to work out this meant: " the OP is a loaded question that (argues) 'Are we atheists because we don't believe in a God? No; we are (atheists) because we think your God is evil' It is neither a fair nor honest question
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Yet the thread took 250 odd pages to figure it all out.
The various discussions have gone on a lot longer than that, the matter of 'what is atheism' is often restated and the belieyers don't listen to the answer.
Quote:
Atheism is not believing in the existence of God, to put it in simple straight forward terms for me.
Not believing in any god.
Quote:
I think this is where the problem is.
BEFORE an Atheists tries to classify God as "evil or good" he MUST accept it's existence.
If an Atheists tries to classify God as evil, then he accepts the existence of this God to begin with. No?
IF it doesn't exist, how can it be evil or good?
No. The problem is that the biblegod - claim is (from the morality point of view) contradictory, so this is an argument that the claim is not believable. It has been said many times that a god -claim does not have to be accepted as about a real god to argue that a paticular god -claim must be false.
But the theists do not listen. That's the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Doesn't make sense.
Why would an Atheist shift away from his point of view?
If I was an Atheist and I was told by a believer that God is good, I would simply reply with, "God does not exist for me, so him being good or evil is not a possibility.
Isn't this a very basic human intelligence?
But that's giving the theist argument a win for free. Effectively it is saying 'Yes, if god existed your claim would make sense, but we don't believe it does exist, so it's irrelevant'. The point is that the theist claim about a Good Biblegod is untenable in itself, and that throws doubt on the credibility of the Bible.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-18-2020 at 12:41 PM..
Thank you.
It’s an accomplishment to receive a compliment from cynical Atheist like yourself
But coming back to the point. We are not just discussing a character in a book.
We are discussing the “possibility of existence†of this character and then associating certain traits with him.
So the first step is: Does he exist?
And the second step is: Is he good or evil?
And imo, if the answer to first step is No, the second step becomes irrelevant. Whether you answer Evil or Good, it’s as fictional as the existence of Darth or Thanos. The true reality of God being good or evil doesn’t mean anything if he doesn’t exist to begin with.
But if the answer to first step is Yes, the example of Thanos or Darth becomes incorrect because no one believes that they actually exist.
And playing a little role of devil’s advocate as we talked about Thanos, I think sometimes you do need him to do his fingers click when you see these kind of believers.
You aren't getting it. If someone tried to argue that Darth Vader or Sauron was good..they'd have their work cutout for them, and we might question their morality, though of course, neither of those characters claimed to be good according to a moral code current in Middle -earth or the galaxy, respectively, supposedly given my them. If they had, in the book/film, the case could be made that such a clam was untenable. Whether they existed or not would be irrelevant to the argument.
I argued above that the claim that such a god exists or not is irrelevant. Showing the Bible to make untenable claims is the point.
I'm not sure if Thrill is still around, but I had a video forwarded to me that I finally found the time to watch yesterday, and it reminded me of Thrill's proof of God. Also AA's "something more" mantra, and for anyone else interested in trying to make sense of it all going all the way back to the very beginning, I posted the video in this thread...
If this video doesn't blow your mind, nothing will!
It hardly blows my mind since I have been relying on the underlying knowledge in my Synthesis. It is far more mind-blowing than the video was able to present without the math. The implications of the math as indices of our underlying Reality are far more revealing than the modest assertions in the video. They support my extrapolations solidly, if only we could solve the measurement problems.
It hardly blows my mind since I have been relying on the underlying knowledge in my Synthesis. It is far more mind-blowing than the video was able to present without the math. The implications of the math as indices of our underlying Reality are far more revealing than the modest assertions in the video. They support my extrapolations solidly, if only we could solve the measurement problems.
"something more". The universe is far more complex than we know. We are in a system that far more complex than we know.
And "something more" is treated like a god claim. It just shows the difference between regular people and engineers. They can't wrap there heads around powers of ten. They have no experience with zooming 35 powers of ten and zooming out 35 powers of ten. Stopping at each point along the way and evaluating how the systems(all of them) in interacting to form, or define, and "object.
yet, we are the ones that are clearly wrong ... oh right, they will say "we aren't saying you are wrong, we don't like how you guys are mean to us.". "we are fighting big bad religion and that stuff isn't helping." or the ever present "we know whats the best-est and most peaceful-est solution to society and its anti-religion."
yeah, we are the ones that don't it alright. we don't care about that stuff. we only care about defining "objects" in the universe. And how do we define objects? How do we take measurements?
is philosophy the best tool we have or is engineering the best tool we have? try and describe a tree using philosophy and engineering and see what one makes better predictions and has mechanisms.
" the OP is a loaded question that are we atheists because we don't believe in a God. " I'm in no position to point the finger about typing, but it took me a while to work out this meant: " the OP is a loaded question that (argues) 'Are we atheists because we don't believe in a God? No; we are (atheists) because we think your God is evil' It is neither a fair nor honest question
The various discussions have gone on a lot longer than that, the matter of 'what is atheism' is often restated and the belieyers don't listen to the answer.
Not believing in any god.
No. The problem is that the biblegod - claim is (from the morality point of view) contradictory, so this is an argument that the claim is not believable. It has been said many times that a god -claim does not have to be accepted as about a real god to argue that a paticular god -claim must be false.
But the theists do not listen. That's the problem.
But that's giving the theist argument a win for free. Effectively it is saying 'Yes, if god existed your claim would make sense, but we don't believe it does exist, so it's irrelevant'. The point is that the theist claim about a Good Biblegod is untenable in itself, and that throws doubt on the credibility of the Bible.
no, your brand of atheism goes one step further. You decide what theist might be able to use then you deem, based on you thinking you own atheism, what is to be denied, suppressed, or shunned.
You answer every god claim based on "I am here to stop religion in the united states." so you can't be a neutral observer type atheist. You have to answer "we don't believe in any god. And we determine what claims that is based on of it will help stop religion."
to the point that you ran away from being called out on your less valid claims. To the point that you actively engaged in removing any discussion on aligning a god claim to the universe. The people that tow the line behind "To stop religion we think its ok to stop people from aligning a god claim to known science." are a disgrace. You guys act like a pack of theist.
or can you say it plain and clear for us. Say "I am here to stop religion in the states and I feel down playing any and all science or ideas that makes that harder."
I might even have respect for you it. Oh wait, no I won't, when you said it before I called you a fundy atheist ...Because that is what you are ... the you ran away.
It hardly blows my mind since I have been relying on the underlying knowledge in my Synthesis. It is far more mind-blowing than the video was able to present without the math. The implications of the math as indices of our underlying Reality are far more revealing than the modest assertions in the video. They support my extrapolations solidly, if only we could solve the measurement problems.
lmao ... notice ... we were going to look at this "something more" claim ... Trans had to act fast to get the discussion removed, it wouldn't help the atheist anti-religion in the unites states. Kind of like triggering a self-destruct" button to early in a battle.
Its funny how open and honest discussion have to be avoided with trans and gang's brand of atheism.
all based on tran's owns words "My primary goal here is to stop religion in the united states." and all the little scarred atheist actually bought into it.
I use his words. He shuns me, changes my words, tells me I am wrong based on how he changed it ... then runs and hides. real open and honest man we got there.
It hardly blows my mind since I have been relying on the underlying knowledge in my Synthesis. It is far more mind-blowing than the video was able to present without the math. The implications of the math as indices of our underlying Reality are far more revealing than the modest assertions in the video. They support my extrapolations solidly, if only we could solve the measurement problems.
In part what "blows my mind" is the manner in which the otherwise inexplicable is explained in a way that is fairly easy to follow and understand. The math as well is part of what measurement is all about, or at least how to know where to look for what to measure. How scientists have drawn from previous breakthroughs to go on and perform the next step of a breakthrough, leading up to matter and anti-matter, for example. All that "blows my mind" anyway.
It's not all that novel a "Synthesis" the universe is much more than some sort of stagnant realm in any case. Of course there's much going on in our universe, all for a long time now. "Mind blowing" in many a respect we understand and still "mind blowing" when it comes to so much we're still working to better understand. Never seen the issue of Quantum Mechanics needing to be married with the theory of relativity either, let alone mathematically, or ultimately how what remains are those one in a billion matters not anialated by anti-matter.
No doubt all already known by you and covered in your Synthesis somewhere, but the relatively short video helped introduce and explain all this to me in a way I had not enjoyed before. Call me simple...
"something more". The universe is far more complex than we know. We are in a system that far more complex than we know.
And "something more" is treated like a god claim. It just shows the difference between regular people and engineers. They can't wrap there heads around powers of ten. They have no experience with zooming 35 powers of ten and zooming out 35 powers of ten. Stopping at each point along the way and evaluating how the systems(all of them) in interacting to form, or define, and "object.
yet, we are the ones that are clearly wrong ... oh right, they will say "we aren't saying you are wrong, we don't like how you guys are mean to us.". "we are fighting big bad religion and that stuff isn't helping." or the ever present "we know whats the best-est and most peaceful-est solution to society and its anti-religion."
yeah, we are the ones that don't it alright. we don't care about that stuff. we only care about defining "objects" in the universe. And how do we define objects? How do we take measurements?
is philosophy the best tool we have or is engineering the best tool we have? try and describe a tree using philosophy and engineering and see what one makes better predictions and has mechanisms.
Can be said "the universe is far more complex than we know." Plenty still to discover about the universe in any case, but no one is arguing the universe is simple. It's the forever inclination to call it "something more" or God or whatever rather than what we simply still don't know that tends to unnecessarily complicate what remains to be discovered. Adds that mysterious element that suggests a gap we should be filling with something like a God or "something more" like whatever you want to call it. What's wrong with simply calling it what it is?
In part what "blows my mind" is the manner in which the otherwise inexplicable is explained in a way that is fairly easy to follow and understand. The math as well is part of what measurement is all about, or at least how to know where to look for what to measure. How scientists have drawn from previous breakthroughs to go on and perform the next step of a breakthrough, leading up to matter and anti-matter, for example. All that "blows my mind" anyway.
It's not all that novel a "Synthesis" the universe is much more than some sort of stagnant realm in any case. Of course there's much going on in our universe, all for a long time now. "Mind blowing" in many a respect we understand and still "mind blowing" when it comes to so much we're still working to better understand. Never seen the issue of Quantum Mechanics needing to be married with the theory of relativity either, let alone mathematically, or ultimately how what remains are those one in a billion matters not anialated by anti-matter.
No doubt all already known by you and covered in your Synthesis somewhere, but the relatively short video helped introduce and explain all this to me in a way I had not enjoyed before. Call me simple...
Your posts have made it quite clear that you are NOT simple, LearnMe. It is NOT easy to grasp the implications of the mathematics involved especially when trying to discern what their formulations actually represent in the underlying Reality. QFT and QED are difficult to grasp at a pragmatic level let alone their philosophical implications for our underlying Reality. Your skepticism about my extrapolations especially as they apply to consciousness are well-founded since we have no measurements to represent consciousness as a phenomenon in our models. That will be a very tough nut to crack. That is why Arach resists the consciousness substrate (unified awareness field) while retaining an open mind about the rest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Effectively it is saying 'Yes, if god existed your claim would make sense, but we don't believe it does exist, so it's irrelevant'. The point is that the theist claim about a Good Biblegod is untenable in itself, and that throws doubt on the credibility of the Bible.
