Atheism

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then He/She/It would reveal such a truth if they cared about their creation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Perfectly reasonable assumption until you weigh the answer against the notion "is this truly an altruistic and virtue ethics approach?" If you also consider that I believe we have built in "this is right" mechanisms, then the argument of demiurge or devil becomes one of futility: you would not get that "warm fuzzy" feeling when getting your answer..

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is hard for me to view Hitler (I will automatically go to Godwin's law) as humbly, meekly, and pray-fully approaching God and then asking for guidance on what to do about "those damned Jews". In fact, you would expect an "evil one" to prevent you from supplecating him or herself in thoughtful and sincere prayer because they would not want you to get a genuine answer from God: you would be lifted up into pride and arrogance to the point of not needing to make such an attempt. "I don't need God: the answer is simple.".

Now you may say, "they weren't praying in the true fashion"; but this is simply the "no true Scotsman" argument in a different wording. How is such a claim falsifiable? How could it be proved to you that Hitler prayed in the "right" way? If it never could be, you are not thinking in terms of falsifiability and your idea should be rejected with haste because it has no existential validity.

However, I think that we should be asking God for very few things. We should be thanking Him, mostly, and asking for strength to do the right things: NOT be asking for food, shelter, protection, etc.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't consider the creation of the universe and the existence of God to be "mundane matters of fact". In fact, they would be the ultimate matters of fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find it preposterous that you are arguing it backwards when it should be argued forwards.

God exists.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He wants you to be good.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What is good? Probably genuine altruism..

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you need to pray a bunch or forsake sexuality (no kids), so bet it: as long as it helps you become genuinely altruistic and progress in your understanding of the universe and those around you..

Originally posted by dadudemon
How you worked out that we should be "working it backwards" from the rites is beyond me. That's an impossible thought to entertain. The rites are for the individual, not God. You think God REALLY needs his children to be baptized or for them to pray to the east/west at certain times of the day?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And this is the argument many make but it fails the "all-loving, benevolent, Creator" test. I reject some of the actions of the God of the old-testament as being truly attributable to God. I get that luxury because I'm Mormon. 🙂 We think all works by man are instantly corrupted the moment it processes through our minds from God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Funny you should say that: that's the ultimate "form" of Mormonism. We must progress to the point to where we no longer rely on God for our own perfection but we are our own-light and righteous entity. It is comparable to the state of nirvana.
That can lead to arrogance, for sure.

So, yes, an individual SHOULD progress beyond the point of relying on scriptures AND God. They should be their own righteous entity without need of either to become gods themselves.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you consider that I believe God blessed us with a propensity (for the most part) towards altruistic behaviors, then you can see why I hold it (even if purely biological...our spirits should be rather agnostic towards this) as a supporting argument. It is simply a tool that God blessed us with to become better eternal beings.

Originally posted by Digi
I think the reason for pointing out the "If you're saying God makes you good, would you be evil without God?" is more to make the person aware of the flaws in their own reasoning, not because it's a bulletproof argument. Not sure how it's being used in your conversation there, but that's generally why I use it.

God made us with good inherent in our biology (and our spirit which has a subtle influence on our mortal selves...I believe)...for the most part (it is flawed and has contradictions because if God made our biology to function in a perfect world, perfectly, there is no such thing as progression. We might as well live in God's presence, at that point).

Not believing in God does not remove that.

The argument used by KK is the same argument Atheists have used against the stupid Christian Apologetic of: "ZOMG! Holey crapz! if you don't believe in God, there's no objective moraliteez! Anarchy and Satan abound, duuuudes!"

Neither argument works, IMO. Both are flawed. Since the scientific atheist will agree that altruism is a necessary trait for an apex predator such as humans, then we (the atheist and I) can merge and agree...at least partially.

Originally posted by dadudemon
God made us with good inherent in our biology (and our spirit which has a subtle influence on our mortal selves...I believe)

DDM; don't bother replying to my lengthy post earlier. Answer this first. What evidence, in your eyes, would prove God's existence false? In other words, what is the falsifiability criteria for the existence of such a benevolent God?

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's simply an unjustified assumption.

Prove the contrary. Oh wait.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What if your body, as the gnostics believed, was created by such a devil? Then, assuredly, you would get warm fuzzy feelings when you did bad things.

He's not the devil, in that regard: still an agent of God.

But let's actually address your point instead of arguing it at face value.

What you really mean to ask is: what if God was a malevolent and evil force, as we understand it in our anthropic view of existence? Then that would still be God and the labels have only changed. It is at that point you would have to ask, "What interest does such a being have in its creation" if at all? Then you are lead back to agnosticism.

Then we are back to square one. It is circular reasoning and actually does not add anything meaningful to the discussion. It just mixes up labels in the hopes of creating a point of discussion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think Hitler probably prayed more than anyone; but the answers he got were merely those of his own brain. This is simply a foolish opinion. The bishops who perpetrated the Cathar genocide were definitely prayerful (bishops, after all). But I don't think the words urging them to genocide came from God or a Devil; they came from their own subconscious.

Hitler was not Pious, so, no your assertion is not correct. He did not pray and when did, it was for show.

And I have a personal belief on things such as the crusades and the Cathar executions: they knew what they were doing was evil the entire time and they justified it openly be relished their evil quietly.

🙂

Of course, that may not be all of them. But probably the instigators were like that. Take for instance the suicide bombers: they are usually coerced into such actions by a charismatic leader. I view the leader as the evil one and the follower as the tool of evil...but less evil than the leader. Same thing with the executions some of the American soldiers did: they stated that they were just following orders (the CO would be the evil one (confirmed in at least one story where the field CO was a murderous bastard who relished the opportunity to get to kill people and enjoyed "sharing" the opportunity with his subordinates)). In other words, I think the system is far more complex than just a single individual praying. But a sincere prayer, when you are humble, will always get you the correct answer. Whether you choose to listen to it or not is up to you: your pride may get in the way of hearing the correct answer.

bla bla bla...arbitrary, unjustified, bla bla bla

I know. I've heard it all already.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Now you may say, "they weren't praying in the true fashion"; but this is simply the "no true Scotsman" argument in a different wording. How is such a claim falsifiable? How could it be proved to you that Hitler prayed in the "right" way? If it never could be, you are not thinking in terms of falsifiability and your idea should be rejected with haste because it has no existential validity.

Actually, it's quite easy to see how to pray.

If praying requires you to:

1. Realize you need help beyond what this world can give you in a serious problem.

2. Realize that God exists and is benevolent enough to answer such a plea.

3. Are humbling yourself in sincerity.

4. Are willing to drop your pride...

Then it is quite easy to see how to get a real answer. Atheists just don't like it because it is too nebulous and ambiguous for them: they like something "hard" and "concrete". Cool. I understand that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's my point. I don't think a "warm fuzzy feeling" is sufficient to judge even mundane matters; therefore, how much less sufficient is it in deciding ultimate matters! It is like taking a drug that failed to cure the common cold, and then declaring that it can eliminate all illness.

I do. It's like taking a drug that cured the common cold and then declaring that it's a drug that cures the common cold. 🙂

Originally posted by King Kandy
An unfounded assumption.

Yeah, an unfounded assumption for why one should pray. Good one. It's not as unfounded as taking the position that God definitely does not exist. There are plenty of reasons to believe God exists but no reasons to think God does not exist because our knowledge of 11-dimensional reality is infinitely small to make such a conclusion. How, we can say things, "I am atheistic towards your belief in fairies" or "I am atheistic in your beliefs in Jesus", but you cannot take the position of saying, "God definitely does not exist." That's an unfounded assumption that takes a massive leap in faith.

Originally posted by King Kandy
An unfounded assumption.

No it's not: we are discussing this in terms of the the post you originally quoted. Namely, the God I described. Not some arbitrary god.

If you want to discuss the nature of God, there is another thread for that.

The context of the conversation is key to actually having one.

Originally posted by King Kandy
An unfounded assumption.

Incorrect. My statement was not one of spiritually but one of science. You are now going into the realm of denying objective, measurable truths rather than staying on task. Be careful what you are so quick to dismiss because of your bias against theisms.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Meanwhile, if the God of Moses is true, "cursed is he who raises up not seed in Israel"-- oops, you just went to hell!

Context:

Cursed because his seed will not be able to partake in the religious rites and responsibilities of their religion. Maybe they will not get as much out of life? It is not that God curses them, they curse themselves.

However, quoting old testament scripture, when I've already told you I largely do not believe in that God (and mark it up to changed interpretations of what actually took place mixed in with folk-lore from surround cultures...such as Gilgamesh), your argument has not place as response to what I said. Unless your point was to prove my point? In which case, I apologize. I agree with you: silly old-school scriptures are silly.

Originally posted by King Kandy
On my part, I accept neither baptism nor prayer, and hold those things to be useless to personal improvement (or, if they are useful, it is through mundane mechanisms utterly lacking in divinity of any sort).

Well, you can say that but those that "sincerely" take upon themselves the "name of Christ" make quite awesome changes in their lives. Did they need the baptism to do that? Maybe. Maybe not. Like I said, those rites are not for God but for us. He doesn't need us to be baptized.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I get the luxury of rejecting 100% of the attributes, as i'm an atheist. But my question to you, is if you think your own judgment surpasses scripture, why do you regard even 1% of the scripture as divine?

Because we need the testaments of others in order to personally grow. We are a social species. Sure, not all scriptures will work for an individual: maybe it is seeing some people do some volunteer work?

The scriptures are but one tool in a humongous tool-shed God uses. It is the Christian Evangelicals and Muslims that put so much emphasis on the scriptures. Are you forgetting about how much Mormons are criticized for our "alterations" and "new scriptures"? We are considered blasphemers by many different types of theists.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Buddhists have regard to no prime mover, yet Nirvana is one of their tenants.

And because of this, I can't ever fully embrace most forms of Buddhism.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why do you bother with God, rather than simply rejecting him instantly?

For the same reason you don't bother with God and reject Him instantly: personal choice.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What benefit do you get from believing in God?

Well..something about the path of eternal enlightenment and the ability to become God-like myself. Arrogance? Not really. I consider it the ultimate form of Altruism (capital "A"😉. I want to have trillions of spirit children and millions or trillions of creations. Why not? For me, that's the ultimate form of existence: a gigantihuge "family" and enjoying no concept of time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I am an atheist, yet, I feel like I have gained every benefit you say you have gained for yourself; and I didn't need God for one moment of it.

What benefit? I didn't even outline my benefit yet because you just asked.

Also, you assume that I think an atheist cannot achieve ascension. Not true. As a Mormon, I believe everyone gets the chance. 🙂 Not one soul will be without exception: even Hitler's.

But also, I can just quote some scripture at you about "the fool" thinking he didn't need God for "one moment of it" when his entire existence is dependent upon that same God he rejects.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But why would you even consider that? If you see the biological causes, why is that not enough for you? Why must you consider introducing these spurious notions?

Why is it so hard to believe that a benevolent Creator gently and elegantly created this universe and used evolution to get us there? We certainly are still in need of an actual prime mover. We have theories...

You can be agnostic to the point of discussion but I can never reject the need of a Prime Mover as it bothers me greatly. So I will subscribe to Pascal's Wager until I ascend. 🙂 Keep in mind that I am perfectly accepting of nothing being after "this". I am perfectly willing to believe in oblivion as my "next life".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Is that influence measurable?

How is that influence immeasurable?

Or rather than that question...

What do you think I meant in the text you quoted?

Originally posted by King Kandy
DDM; don't bother replying to my lengthy post earlier. Answer this first. What evidence, in your eyes, would prove God's existence false? In other words, what is the falsifiability criteria for the existence of such a benevolent God?

Well, too late. And you should have known better because I reply very quickly to stuff, usually. Boring at work n'stuff...

This is also the wrong thread for this question, by the way.

My answer: the question is ridiculous to begin with because God has already been proven to exist, 100%, making it impossible for me to prove that a benevolent God is not needed.

How so?

I can interpret your question anyway I like. The universe is God and by its benevolence, I was bestowed life.

Does the universe exist?

Check.

Do I have life?

Check.

The Universe is my benevolent God because I define benevolence as the ability to give life: no consciousness required. I win the argument. 😐

Now do you want to move on from petty "does God exist" arguments?

But if you want me to actually answer your question: what should I answer? What do you want me to answer? If I can move on from there, then I will know how I should approach your question.

I am not asking that you prove God doesn't exist, i'm asking what (hypothetical) sort of evidence would change your mind. If your mind can never be changed by any evidence, then i'm going to immediately stop this conversation because it is not operating in the true spirit of inquiry.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I am not asking that you prove God doesn't exist, i'm asking what (hypothetical) sort of evidence would change your mind. If your mind can never be changed by any evidence, then i'm going to immediately stop this conversation because it is not operating in the true spirit of inquiry.

You didn't answer my question about that.

"But if you want me to actually answer your question: what should I answer? What do you want me to answer? If I can move on from there, then I will know how I should approach your question."

I am more than willing to answer but I need to know how to approach the question. It is definitely not a straight-forward question and serves only as a "trap" or a "trick" question that is often asked by atheists. My response can be quite varied based upon your answers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't answer my question about that.

"But if you want me to actually answer your question: what should I answer? What do you want me to answer? If I can move on from there, then I will know how I should approach your question."

I am more than willing to answer but I need to know how to approach the question. It is definitely not a straight-forward question and serves only as a "trap" or a "trick" question that is often asked by atheists. My response can be quite varied based upon your answers.

The way I see it, you make a few claims about God:

1. God exists.
2. God desires altruistic behavior.
3. God is not tied to any specific ritual or dogma.

What sort of evidence could convince you of the error of any of these three points?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So whenever I go into a discussion with a theist, I am hoping with all my heart that they will prove God exists,

I do not believe this for an instant.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That said I do not feel like anyone has met that challenge.

It seems more like you sole purpose is to argue and feel uplifted in your own personal sense of pride rather than actually having meaningful discussion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The way I see it, you make a few claims about God:

1. God exists.
2. God desires altruistic behavior.
3. God is not tied to any specific ritual or dogma.

What sort of evidence could convince you of the error of any of these three points?

God exists because the universe/multiverse exists.

Because it exists, God is benevolent.

God is definitely not tied to any specific ritual or dogma.

But, for you, what would be a valid response to your question? This is my question to you. If you were sincere with you question, you would have a laundry list of things for which you are looking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not believe this for an instant. It seems more like you sole purpose is to argue and feel uplifted in your own personal sense of pride rather than actually having meaningful discussion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, for you, what would be a valid response to your question? This is my question to you. If you were sincere with you question, you would have a laundry list of things for which you are looking.

Scientific evidence that the universe is self-created; this may be a refutation to the cosmological argument.
Some theists have been convinced God is false by the horrible atrocities they have witnessed. You have already offered an apologetic for this.
Self-contradiction--some theists have abandoned their views by proof that their scripture is full of holes.
Personal test-- if you pray and get awful advice, I suppose this could at least put the issue into question.

But, it seems to me, that by not tying to scripture your god is so amorphous that few of these apply--I suspect it may not be falsifiable at all, in which case, I don't really see a point in talking to you about it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, if I knew what you thought would disprove your views,

This is the problem: not what you think I think would be the correct answer, but what you think works. Then you would measure what I say against what you think works. This is what I am asking of you because your question is very difficult to answer without some sort of guidelines on what you are asking for.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I obviously would have started discussing it already. That said, here are some things other theists have told me before:

Scientific evidence that the universe is self-created; this may be a refutation to the cosmological argument.
Some theists have been convinced God is false by the horrible atrocities they have witnessed. You have already offered an apologetic for this.
Self-contradiction--some theists have abandoned their views by proof that their scripture is full of holes.
Personal test-- if you pray and get awful advice, I suppose this could at least put the issue into question.

I don't see any of those as actual reasons except the first one. The others are just personal attributes that they have given God for which they have set Him up for failure from the beginning.

For instance: hole filled scriptures. No matter what, one can conclude it will have holes. Even if you assume it was inspired of by God, it has to have problems with it because God did not write it himself. Then, on top of that, even if God wrote it himself, there are interpretations due to how interpretative we can be about God. So the entire premise of that "falsifiability" fails.

The personal test one works decently however it is also contradicted both positive and negative: did you really pray with sincerity and humbleness or did you make up your mind before you prayed? Did you know you answer, deep down, was wrong, but chose to go with it anyway? (these two can be addressed as we progress in neuroscience...we may be able to get those answers. Then religion would become more scientific. Imagine sitting down and checking to see if you are truly sincere and humble about a question before you prayed? "Beep. you are not humble yet." Sure, sounds arbitrary and silly, but it is an example of what we might come close to if we know what we are looking for.) Maybe the answer really was the correct one but you cannot see it as the correct answer quite yet?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, it seems to me, that by not tying to scripture your god is so amorphous that few of these apply--I suspect it may not be falsifiable at all, in which case, I don't really see a point in talking to you about it.

This is the truth, on both accounts.

Regardless of your interpretation, it is not falsifiable because the definitions of "benevolent God" can be changed to meet any argument thrown at it.

"Pain and suffering in the world" - "benevolent God needs you to go through that in order to grow as a spiritual and eternal entity. It is for your benefit and you are much "older" as a being than just this crude hell-hole of a life."

"The universe created itself" = "Preposterous and unsupportable even more so than the extent of Ex Nihilo creation. This is circular."

And so forth. Basically, no matter what, there's always an excellent counter argument for both sides. I cannot entertain the idea that God cannot exist because it is equally plausible that God can exist.

So the question itself is not answerable by myself. I can contradict myself with anything I can think of making it impossible for me to say for certain that anything can make me truly believe God does not exist.

I even considered this idea: when I die and I "experience" Oblivion, then I will know for sure. However, that's quite stupid because I am experiencing oblivion and I no longer exist. So I can't know that God doesn't exist for sure because I don't exist. That's still not a final counter argument to that, either: God can still exist if I cease to exist.

But what would YOU look for? What do YOU think is a good answer? This is what I want to know.

Originally posted by dadudemon
making it impossible for me to say for certain that anything can make me truly believe God does not exist..

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bye. 🙂

So quick to leave when you have this nugget:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I cannot entertain the idea that God cannot exist because it is equally plausible that God can exist.

I have thought of an answer to your question and I answered it.

"when I die and I 'experience' Oblivion, then I will know for sure."

Yet you pretend you are leaving? 😖hifty:

So I say again, you have not presented a legitmate reason for me to believe you are sincere in these discussion "for a question of knowledge" and a "love to be proven wrong". You have not presented such a case because your sole approach appears to be a pissing match where you assert your beliefs over others and then relish in thinking you have done so.

If you die and go to Oblivion wouldn't that mean The Elder Scrolls universe is the real one?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you die and go to Oblivion wouldn't that mean The Elder Scrolls universe is the real one?

Nice. And that would be awesome. I'd be a Battlemage in the "next" life, for sure. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
So quick to leave when you have this nugget:

I have thought of an answer to your question and I answered it.

"when I die and I 'experience' Oblivion, then I will know for sure."

Yet you pretend you are leaving? 😖hifty:

So I say again, you have not presented a legitmate reason for me to believe you are sincere in these discussion "for a question of knowledge" and a "love to be proven wrong". You have not presented such a case because your sole approach appears to be a pissing match where you assert your beliefs over others and then relish in thinking you have done so.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually, i'm quitting KMC as of this post. So no pretending here! 🙂

.. and I just got back. 😛