Religion

[skotosa]

Id love to see an atheist make a cogent argument on why there is no god, without reference to any religion whatsoever.

 

Didn't Epicurus do this a while back? As in, like, 300BC ish?

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

 

Then why call him God?

 

i don't think it's fair to apply concepts like willingness and benevolence to an infinite being.

 

What is your proof to suggest this is true?

 

an infinite being/thing/construct/god (assuming something like that exists) is everything. it has no choice in the matter, really, since that's the description of being infinite. an infinite being cannot be benevolent, because it is equal parts malicious. from another perspective, it cannot be benevolent because morality is a human concept. we can apply morality to god as much as we can apply it to an ant. they're entirely different levels of existence and pretty much incomprehensible to us. i know that sounds like that typical "god works in mysterious ways" trash, which is a piss poor argument. instead, i'm saying that god is neither benevolent, nor malicious, because it's actually both, making it neither.

 

and even so, calling something benevolent assumes it has free will, because you're assuming it will make "good" choices.

 

an infinite being has no free will (assuming that such a thing exists at all), because will implies the ability to make a choice. an infinite being has already made all possible choices. i'm not disagreeing that a god-thing would be omnipotent. instead, i think most people conceive omnipotence as being miracles and personal interventions. it seems to me that it'd be on a much larger, more deterministic scale--that is, god has made all possible choices by creating all possible universes.

 

of course, this is all assuming that such a being exists. i'm not saying it does. that doesn't mean we can't engage in hypothetical discussion. if anything, it shows that the abrahamic god is so, so totally unlike what an infinite being would really be. i think it's actually a good idea to assume a deist stance when trying to argue with the religious, because it makes them think in a context that isn't frightening (saying right out that you're an atheist makes most folks immediately bare their teeth).

 

If God is omnipotent then he should be able to make a rock in which he can't lift. But then if he can't lift it he is no longer omnipotent. Ergo God can't exist in the manner most religions make him/her/it to be. If something is going to be infinite in nature it won't be a being or consciousness, more like nature itself. And nature doesn't concert itself with choices, it just does/is everything all at once.

[Hoodie]

Id love to see an atheist make a cogent argument on why there is no god, without reference to any religion whatsoever.

 

Didn't Epicurus do this a while back? As in, like, 300BC ish?

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

 

Then why call him God?

 

i don't think it's fair to apply concepts like willingness and benevolence to an infinite being.

 

What is your proof to suggest this is true?

 

an infinite being/thing/construct/god (assuming something like that exists) is everything. it has no choice in the matter, really, since that's the description of being infinite. an infinite being cannot be benevolent, because it is equal parts malicious. from another perspective, it cannot be benevolent because morality is a human concept. we can apply morality to god as much as we can apply it to an ant. they're entirely different levels of existence and pretty much incomprehensible to us. i know that sounds like that typical "god works in mysterious ways" trash, which is a piss poor argument. instead, i'm saying that god is neither benevolent, nor malicious, because it's actually both, making it neither.

 

and even so, calling something benevolent assumes it has free will, because you're assuming it will make "good" choices.

 

an infinite being has no free will (assuming that such a thing exists at all), because will implies the ability to make a choice. an infinite being has already made all possible choices. i'm not disagreeing that a god-thing would be omnipotent. instead, i think most people conceive omnipotence as being miracles and personal interventions. it seems to me that it'd be on a much larger, more deterministic scale--that is, god has made all possible choices by creating all possible universes.

 

of course, this is all assuming that such a being exists. i'm not saying it does. that doesn't mean we can't engage in hypothetical discussion. if anything, it shows that the abrahamic god is so, so totally unlike what an infinite being would really be. i think it's actually a good idea to assume a deist stance when trying to argue with the religious, because it makes them think in a context that isn't frightening (saying right out that you're an atheist makes most folks immediately bare their teeth).

 

If God is omnipotent then he should be able to make a rock in which he can't lift. But then if he can't lift it he is no longer omnipotent. Ergo God can't exist in the manner most religions make him/her/it to be. If something is going to be infinite in nature it won't be a being or consciousness, more like nature itself. And nature doesn't concert itself with choices, it just does/is everything all at once.

 

assuming my logic is correct, god wouldn't manifest and engage in miraculous events. god would create all POSSIBLE universes. that means that the universes would still be bound by laws like physics and probability. god wouldn't be lifting any rocks anywhere in any universe because this infinite being doesn't directly interact with the universe. am i making sense.

[murve33]

I think the "God created everything and then left" theory is the most sound.

 

Answers all of our questions, and Christians don't have to worry about making him cry if "he" left.

[Atop]

having faith in infinity,

 

not a personal god...........

 

a gigantic,

 

multi-dimensional,

 

infinite swirling first thing,

 

that has existed and will exist,

 

forever

 

and ever

 

AMEN-RA

 

Ra Hoor Khuit

 

Horus

 

Ain Soph

 

The First Thing

With infinite names.

Call it what you will.

[sweepstakes]

I have a hard time not conflating religion with Christianity, and not conflating Christianity with the hateful assholes that are trying to take a big shit on homosexuals' collective head right now. Although I will say that Taoism and Zen Buddhism have some really great ideas that I love, and people (myself included) should meditate more. But that's all a very stereotypically IDM sort of view to hold.

 

So it's probably best overall that I just shut up, turn around, and walk out of this thread.

[gmanyo]

Popular Christianity gives Christianity as a whole a really bad name. There was actually a whole movement where people were opting for the name "Christ followers" instead of Christian.

[skotosa]

Id love to see an atheist make a cogent argument on why there is no god, without reference to any religion whatsoever.

 

Didn't Epicurus do this a while back? As in, like, 300BC ish?

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

 

Then why call him God?

 

i don't think it's fair to apply concepts like willingness and benevolence to an infinite being.

 

What is your proof to suggest this is true?

 

an infinite being/thing/construct/god (assuming something like that exists) is everything. it has no choice in the matter, really, since that's the description of being infinite. an infinite being cannot be benevolent, because it is equal parts malicious. from another perspective, it cannot be benevolent because morality is a human concept. we can apply morality to god as much as we can apply it to an ant. they're entirely different levels of existence and pretty much incomprehensible to us. i know that sounds like that typical "god works in mysterious ways" trash, which is a piss poor argument. instead, i'm saying that god is neither benevolent, nor malicious, because it's actually both, making it neither.

 

and even so, calling something benevolent assumes it has free will, because you're assuming it will make "good" choices.

 

an infinite being has no free will (assuming that such a thing exists at all), because will implies the ability to make a choice. an infinite being has already made all possible choices. i'm not disagreeing that a god-thing would be omnipotent. instead, i think most people conceive omnipotence as being miracles and personal interventions. it seems to me that it'd be on a much larger, more deterministic scale--that is, god has made all possible choices by creating all possible universes.

 

of course, this is all assuming that such a being exists. i'm not saying it does. that doesn't mean we can't engage in hypothetical discussion. if anything, it shows that the abrahamic god is so, so totally unlike what an infinite being would really be. i think it's actually a good idea to assume a deist stance when trying to argue with the religious, because it makes them think in a context that isn't frightening (saying right out that you're an atheist makes most folks immediately bare their teeth).

 

If God is omnipotent then he should be able to make a rock in which he can't lift. But then if he can't lift it he is no longer omnipotent. Ergo God can't exist in the manner most religions make him/her/it to be. If something is going to be infinite in nature it won't be a being or consciousness, more like nature itself. And nature doesn't concert itself with choices, it just does/is everything all at once.

 

assuming my logic is correct, god wouldn't manifest and engage in miraculous events. god would create all POSSIBLE universes. that means that the universes would still be bound by laws like physics and probability. god wouldn't be lifting any rocks anywhere in any universe because this infinite being doesn't directly interact with the universe. am i making sense.

 

But he should be able to if we wanted to right? Nothing would/should be able to prevent him from interacting with any universe let alone this one? I'd see no reason for him not being able to? So the paradox would stand and my point would remain valid.

[gmanyo]

I'd like to bring up the point again that there being no objective morals means that society defines how people act. This is not necessarily what causes the least suffering, and I don't think everyone being atheists is going to change that, either. From our point of view there are some pretty horrible things that people do in different cultures. I'm not sure I have as much faith in humanity as other people do to "fix" this.

[sweepstakes]

I'd like to bring up the point again that there being no objective morals means that society defines how people act. This is not necessarily what causes the least suffering, and I don't think everyone being atheists is going to change that, either. From our point of view there are some pretty horrible things that people do in different cultures. I'm not sure I have as much faith in humanity as other people do to "fix" this.

 

Humanity is who defines morality and who "fixes" social ills anyway. Even if you believe in God, these acts are ultimately carried out by people.

 

I don't care to argue whether there is a God (I can't think of a more universally irrelevant concern). I just take issue with the claim that religious people are morally superior.

[vamos scorcho]

having faith in infinity,

 

not a personal god...........

 

a gigantic,

 

multi-dimensional,

 

infinite swirling first thing,

 

that has existed and will exist,

 

forever

 

and ever

 

AMEN-RA

 

Ra Hoor Khuit

 

Horus

 

Ain Soph

 

The First Thing

With infinite names.

Call it what you will.

 

thanks. i'm with you there

[gmanyo]

I'd like to bring up the point again that there being no objective morals means that society defines how people act. This is not necessarily what causes the least suffering, and I don't think everyone being atheists is going to change that, either. From our point of view there are some pretty horrible things that people do in different cultures. I'm not sure I have as much faith in humanity as other people do to "fix" this.

 

Humanity is who defines morality and who "fixes" social ills anyway. Even if you believe in God, these acts are ultimately carried out by people.

 

I don't care to argue whether there is a God (I can't think of a more universally irrelevant concern). I just take issue with the claim that religious people are morally superior.

 

I don't think religious people are morally superior, even as a Christian. But I just don't think people's claims of faith in humanity to do "good" are internally consistent. I mean, I don't really trust humanity. I guess things are slowly getting better, though.

[vamos scorcho]

I'll share some spiritual moments I've had recently.

 

1. Our perception is our choice. We decide how we feel. We do this by recognizing our mind states and train of thought. If we can notice that we fall into patterns constantly, we can go deeper, and deeper, and deeper, into the truth.

 

2. We cannot lie to ourselves. We have to look with honesty at our own situations. Once we grow more devoted to the truth, that is when we can grow and become real.

 

3. Love is all. Love is basically the end goal, the main force, and so on and so forth. All things lead to this. If we cultivate love, we're living well. All things that draw us away from this are what we can call "bad." So love is what we call GOOD and really everything else can fall into BAD in varying degrees? Something like that. Spinoza said something like that too.

 

Honestly that's how I can see how fucking far from perfection I am. Not happiness [though that's part of it], just my ability to feel love in any given moment. That's why Jesus will always be more valuable than scientific theories. It's OK though, I like science too. I just think that love comes first.

[gmanyo]

The thing that keeps me from giving up my belief most is consciousness. It's really hard to explain from a naturalistic point of view. The best thing I can think of is evolution of consciousness, but even that's a bit sketchy.

 

I wish I could make decisions purely based on logic, but it's impossible. Quoting myself from earlier because I don't want to explain again:

 

I would imagine that I'm one of the few Christians on this forum, although I'm not completely decided on my beliefs and I certainly don't follow it closely enough. I have heard what I perceive to be logical and legitimate arguments from both Christians and Atheists. But are they really logical? How can I tell whether logic is logical using logic? Am I only a Christian because I was brought up that way and am too afraid to leave, or do I really believe what I do? Is rebellion, the desire to have no one above me control me or tell me what's right and wrong, the main factor behind me considering atheism? Such is the postmodern crisis; how can I know that my model of reality is accurate?; how can I tell what reality really is when my view of it is so distorted by the subjective? It's like I'm in a cathedral, looking at the world around me through the stained glass windows of patron saints.

[pattern recognition]

I guess things are slowly getting better, though.

[gmanyo]

I guess things are slowly getting better, though.

maybe

[ZoeB]

I think the "God created everything and then left" theory is the most sound.

 

Answers all of our questions, and Christians don't have to worry about making him cry if "he" left.

 

"Answers all our questions"? No it doesn't! Even if a deity existed, and manifested herself directly to us humans of all people (and we can't possibly be the most interesting lifeforms in the whole universe), do you think we'd say "well, that just about wraps everything neatly up then, thanks!" or do you think we'd have a whole slew of questions to ask about where she came from?

 

Of course, if such a thing happened, she would probably be just a member of a very advanced civilisation (relative to ours at our current state, at least, which undoubtedly wouldn't be very difficult) playing a practical joke on us.

[ZoeB]

The thing that keeps me from giving up my belief most is consciousness. It's really hard to explain from a naturalistic point of view. The best thing I can think of is evolution of consciousness, but even that's a bit sketchy.

 

What's sketchy about it? Being able to simulate and predict things before they happen makes you more likely to reproduce before you die. If you think there's something magical about consciousness, you haven't read enough popular neurology. I'd recommend Vilayanur S. Ramachandran as a starting point. In addition to his books, you can also watch some of his fascinating speeches on YouTube.

 

Another fascinating series on YouTube is

. I'd really recommend this over, say, television. Reality tends to be much more fascinating.

[gmanyo]

The thing that keeps me from giving up my belief most is consciousness. It's really hard to explain from a naturalistic point of view. The best thing I can think of is evolution of consciousness, but even that's a bit sketchy.

 

What's sketchy about it? Being able to simulate and predict things before they happen makes you more likely to reproduce before you die. If you think there's something magical about consciousness, you haven't read enough popular neurology. I'd recommend Vilayanur S. Ramachandran as a starting point. In addition to his books, you can also watch some of his fascinating speeches on YouTube.

 

Another fascinating series on YouTube is

. I'd really recommend this over, say, television. Reality tends to be much more fascinating.

 

I know you can tell what someone thinks and what they feel by looking at their brain. Consciousness is related to what happens in our brain, but so far as we have seen it doesn't make sense. We can see correlation, but why? I think it's actually one of the biggest problem most philosophers encounter (as in, it bothers them a lot). It's the idea of perceiving yellow as yellow; being able to taste what you eat; feeling sad for someone. Yes, people feel a certain way based on what's going on inside them. But there's something beyond a chemical reaction there, at least in the traditional sense, and the only way to know it is by experiencing it. The idea of being able to experience something doesn't make sense based on what we know. There has to be some sort of component to matter that creates consciousness, or maybe a realm outside of our own which grants us with one, or something. It might be that every single chemical reaction sparks a small amount of consciousness due to some part of it we have not yet discovered, and evolution has gradually built it up in to one complex unit of consciousness. But if one were to build a robot that emulated a human perfectly without having the same build (like, actually made of metal instead of flesh), I don't think it would feel anything, because consciousness was not intended to be created. We don't even know how we would go about creating it.

 

Like, why do you actually feel bad for people? I understand an emotionless chemical reaction that happens which makes you cry, but when you cry you really feel it. It seems like something beyond a chemical reaction, and just the thought that it even can seem like it's beyond a chemical reaction is confusing. To "seem" or "experience" is the problem, not the relation between the brain and feelings. The difference is subtle but distinct.

[kinski]

i used to think it's all unexplainable magic thingy until i got treated for depression and it turnout to be exactly what it is - chemical imbalance. the way depresion distorts your counciousness and the fact that pills can fix it to a certain extend was pretty conclusive for me. you won't get these results with, say, hipgnosis, so it must be something else. something physical. you can't talk it over either.

[ZoeB]

I know you can tell what someone thinks and what they feel by looking at their brain. Consciousness is related to what happens in our brain, but so far as we have seen it doesn't make sense. We can see correlation, but why? I think it's actually one of the biggest problem most philosophers encounter (as in, it bothers them a lot). It's the idea of perceiving yellow as yellow; being able to taste what you eat; feeling sad for someone. Yes, people feel a certain way based on what's going on inside them. But there's something beyond a chemical reaction there, at least in the traditional sense, and the only way to know it is by experiencing it. The idea of being able to experience something doesn't make sense based on what we know. There has to be some sort of component to matter that creates consciousness, or maybe a realm outside of our own which grants us with one, or something. It might be that every single chemical reaction sparks a small amount of consciousness due to some part of it we have not yet discovered, and evolution has gradually built it up in to one complex unit of consciousness. But if one were to build a robot that emulated a human perfectly without having the same build (like, actually made of metal instead of flesh), I don't think it would feel anything, because consciousness was not intended to be created. We don't even know how we would go about creating it.

 

Like, why do you actually feel bad for people? I understand an emotionless chemical reaction that happens which makes you cry, but when you cry you really feel it. It seems like something beyond a chemical reaction, and just the thought that it even can seem like it's beyond a chemical reaction is confusing. To "seem" or "experience" is the problem, not the relation between the brain and feelings. The difference is subtle but distinct.

 

We see correlation and we recognise patterns because again, that's very useful when you're trying to reproduce before you die. If you can see a bunch of stripes and two circles and draw the conclusion that it's a tiger, that's beneficial to you. False positives are less dangerous than false negatives, which is why people are so jumpy and so eager to imagine patterns where there are none. Hence the abundance of things like conspiracy theories, and the love of pattern predicting passtimes, like listening to music.

 

You can often learn the most about how something works by observing it failing. There are colourblind people who don't perceive yellow as yellow. There are psychopaths who don't translate events happening to other people into emotional values. Obviously seeing colours, tasting what's food and what's poison, and helping out other people who carry the same genes as you is beneficial to those genes. Bees and flowers have co-evolved so that bees can see in ultraviolet and flowers can draw pretty landing strips in ultraviolet. That doesn't help us, so we can't see any of it, and were oblivious to the whole thing until we started using the scientific method and simple curiosity to figure out what was going on. When it comes to food, obviously it's a benefit to our survival and reproduction if we reject (as in avoid eating, or throw up) anything that might poison us, or we suspect of having already poisoned us, hence motion sickness (in which the perception of movement looks, to that part of the brain, suspiciously similar to being drugged, and it takes appropriate precautionary measures). It's also benefitial if we are drawn towards (via smell and taste) food like sugar and fat. Thanks again to science, we now have an abundance of these, to the point where our desires are actually detrimental to our health, but there's not much we can do about that besides having strong willpower (and maybe one day genetically engineering ourselves with patches to fix the bugs).

 

Just because it's subjectively interesting when you feel emotions, doesn't make them any less understood or explained. Just as, conversely, if you understand them, it doesn't make them any less real. I know that I love my partner because for two people raising a child together to stick around, that helps the child's chances of survival, carrying on roughly half the genes of each parent (discounting mitochondria for the sake of argument), and that in our case this is completely misdirected as we're a childless lesbian couple, but that knowledge doesn't make us love each other any less, or make our love for each other any less real.

 

Now, if you were to emulate a brain in a different medium, be it a rackmounted server or -- and here's the kicker -- pen and paper, logically it must be equally capable of continuing its train of thought and having completely subjectively real emotions as your flesh-and-blood-rendered self. This is explored nicely in several Greg Egan novels, most notably Permutation City. It's also something I'm exploring myself in my not-quite-finished-for-many-months novel Angel, which is why I need to get off my bum and actually finish the thing.

 

But my point is, we know there's nothing mystical about how the brain works, although we still have a long way to go before we can say we understand it well.

[gmanyo]

It's not explained. I'm not saying that makes it mystical, or that it cannot be explained. There is a connection between reactions, brain chemicals, and consciousness, but that doesn't explain how it works.

 

I know it's beneficial to act a certain way when presented with stimuli, like being drawn towards certain foodstuffs, but a consciousness is not needed for that. I think the best naturalistic explanation is that consciousness helps with making decisions, but we still haven't explained how it exists, or why it is related to neurology.

 

I'm not saying that consciousness is unexplained/not understood because it is subjective; it's unexplained because we haven't explained it yet. Just like the double slit experiment; we know how it works and what it does, but we have no idea why. This isn't an argument for mysticism and is even an argument I've heard atheists use against Christians who say that consciousness means there has to be some supernatural side of the universe.

 

There are arguments, however, that the idea of consciousness lends itself toward a theistic universe, although I don't want to get into them, nor am I sure I believe them.

 

edit:

i used to think it's all unexplainable magic thingy until i got treated for depression and it turnout to be exactly what it is - chemical imbalance. the way depresion distorts your counciousness and the fact that pills can fix it to a certain extend was pretty conclusive for me. you won't get these results with, say, hipgnosis, so it must be something else. something physical. you can't talk it over either.

 

I think that this makes sense. It's unexplained, but that doesn't mean it can't be. There's even evidence to say that it's physical, but it still has yet to be understood by us.

[ZoeB]

I'm not entirely sure if we're in agreement about what consciousness is. It's being aware of your surroundings and reacting to them, and being aware of what you are. We know how our eyes and ears work, and so on, and how we can take this information and turn it into abstract notions like "this collection of colours getting bigger means it's an object moving closer to me", and how we take all these objects and identify them ("that's my partner"), and apply emotions to them ("I love the person that I'm perceiving as that blob of colours moving around, and the shape of her mouth right now means she's happy, which makes me feel happy too"). All of this is understood. Which bit do you think isn't understood?

[gmanyo]

Maybe I'm talking about something closer to self-awareness. But maybe not.

 

A robot doesn't really have a consciousness, but it can react to things. There's a clear difference between something reacting to stimuli due to complex chemical reactions (it would essentially be the same as a spring bouncing back after being pulled, only more complex) and actually feeling something. Red isn't just a value in your brain, like numbers on a screen; you actually perceive it as something. I guess what I'm talking about is the idea of experiencing things instead of just reacting to them.

 

A bunch of chemicals bouncing into each other and electrical impulses shouldn't make any sort of real, experiencing organism, at least as far as we understand matter to work. All it would make is a complex machine, with no "real" emotions. Only chemicals.

[Guest RandySicko]

I believe that people don't like religion because most of them would have to change their hedonistic lifestyles if they were to align themselves with a particular faith. I definitely believe Christians in general are morally superior than non-believers and can say this without even having to define "morality" ..because it is already laid out for us; the 10 laws being the simplest way to break it all down. Yes there may be the "spiritual" folks who go around hugging trees, not even thinking about screwing my wife or laying a finger on anyone, etc..... but how are they contributing to society and helping their fellow man when all their time is spent sucking the earth's dick? Granted, most Christians themselves do not follow the laws 100%, but the goal is to live a lifestyle with standards of what is right ..instead of sitting there, wasting time regurgitating some philosophical bullshit thoughts about .."what does it mean to be right?". When compared to the though of "life" after "death"... 80 some odd years does not seem like a lot. Some people choose to live for that, others for what comes after.

[azatoth]

Maybe I'm talking about something closer to self-awareness. But maybe not.

 

A robot doesn't really have a consciousness, but it can react to things. There's a clear difference between something reacting to stimuli due to complex chemical reactions (it would essentially be the same as a spring bouncing back after being pulled, only more complex) and actually feeling something. Red isn't just a value in your brain, like numbers on a screen; you actually perceive it as something. I guess what I'm talking about is the idea of experiencing things instead of just reacting to them.

 

A bunch of chemicals bouncing into each other and electrical impulses shouldn't make any sort of real, experiencing organism, at least as far as we understand matter to work. All it would make is a complex machine, with no "real" emotions. Only chemicals.

 

You might want to read about p-zombies.