Thread: To the God Believer

why exo why...This will start yet another feud...

Sounds fun.

I wasnt saying that in a rude manner. Sorry if it came off so. All im saying is this religious discussions that seem to sprout up daily seem in the end to lead no where.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Always the best response when people ask why you are an atheist. Some of them even think about it for a minute.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Discuss

I contend that we are both theists, as your belief system differs from mine only by one God. Your belief system involves God... it just happens to deny His existence. It is still God science - theo - ology.

From my Deist point of view:

Anything under the 'main' God or highest force would just seem kind of pointless in my view. Even if there is some kind of division of power, I would still believe that something is at the top - the highest power that runs everything - the only power I am concerned about. I definitely don't dismiss the possibility of such a reality - so no, I don't understand why you dismiss the possibility of only one.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Discuss

That was a quote by Stephen F. Roberts. You should really give credit where credit is due if you're going to use something as almost every word of a post.

Also, while "I just believe in one fewer god than you do" is true, there is a fundamental difference between someone who believes in "one or more gods" and someone who believes in "none"...

why exo why...This will start yet another feud...

Maybe so, but nearly everything in this forum turns into a feud anyway. The only way to stop the feuds would be to remove the forum entirely, and that won't be happening anytime soon

I contend that we are both theists, as your belief system differs from mine only by one God. Your belief system involves God... it just happens to deny His existence. It is still God science - theo - ology.

A good response, though a belief system simply involving a god does not make one a theist. The belief in a god makes one a theist, an atheist rejects the belief in a god. In that right, you reject the belief in the god of another religion.

From my Deist point of view:

Anything under the 'main' God or highest force would just seem kind of pointless in my view. Even if there is some kind of division of power, I would still believe that something is at the top - the highest power that runs everything - the only power I am concerned about. I definitely don't dismiss the possibility of such a reality - so no, I don't understand why you dismiss the possibility of only one.

Just to make sure I don't misinterpret that, as I'm not sure I entirely follow, come again?

That was a quote by Stephen F. Roberts. You should really give credit where credit is due if you're going to use them as almost every word of a post.

Also, while "I just believe in one fewer god than you do" is true, there is a fundamental difference between someone who believes in "one or more gods" and someone who believes in "none"...

Bold: Hence the word discuss, as in Discuss the Quote. I meant to put quotation things around around it actually, thought I did.

Italics: See response to PJ

I believe God is scientific.


isn't God, according to christians, the ultimate truth? Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Jesus was the son of God, so doesn't that make God the ultimate truth?

and what is the only thing anyone can know to be true? the only one thing anyone can know for sure, the only thing that is undoubtedly true, is that you can't know everything. when you admit you don't know everything, you're admitting that you are not everything. if you are not everything, there is another, or many others. you're acknowledging others. when you acknowledge others, you are being selfless.

and God is selflessness.

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 John 4:8

love is selflessness. selflessness is the only truth. science is the search for truth. science is, therefore, the search for God.


NOW. having said that...I believe the majority of christians do not understand this, and are selfish, therefore unGodly. the majority of christians have chosen to follow certain doctrines and dogmata, which is choosing to believe in more than one truth, which is basically choosing more than one God. by holding onto these beliefs, they have closed their minds, which is closing themselves off from others, which is being selfish. this is the definition of "religion".

as a matter of fact, this truth does not even have to be called "God", it can be called "the ultimate truth" or anything you want to call it, really. hell, I've decided to call it Satan, for personal reasons. it isn't Satan, and I'm not a satanist, I am one who understands the only truth, I'm someone who knows the only thing that can be known. it doesn't matter what you call it, what matters is that you understand it.

the bible even says to keep an open mind. Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

trust in selflessness. acknowledge others. do not lean on certain ideas you believe to be true, as they may not be. all you know is that you don't know, which means you must be open, study, learn. if you believe in God, don't you need to learn about Him? don't chrsitians stive to be closer to Him? if you hold onto a set of beliefs without questioning them, you are claiming to know as much as God.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

A good response, though a belief system simply involving a god does not make one a theist. The belief in a god makes one a theist, an atheist rejects the belief in a god. In that right, you reject the belief in the god of another religion.

Belief in a god makes you a deist, which is different from theist. A theist believes this god has revealed itself in some way. An atheist rejects ALL gods. It's kind of a misnomer, since an atheist is not just a non-theist, but also a non-deist.

But I think we're just arguing over semantics at this point. I don't think Roberts meant to say anything about atheism. Really, all he meant was that the difference between an atheist and a [d|th]eist is that the former rejects a few more gods than the latter. The "we are both atheists" part of that quote is just there to be cute, IMO. And he did a good job, because people wouldn't be quoting it as much as they are if it weren't for that twist .

I do think "I only reject one more god than you do" is an interesting point of discussion, though.

I contend that the vast majority of atheists are simpletons, capable only of regurgitating the words of their philosophical leaders in hopes that they might sound more intelligent than they actually are. When you are capable of forming your own thoughts on the subject, perhaps we can carry on an actual discussion.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I contend that the vast majority of atheists are simpletons, capable only of regurgitating the words of their philosophical leaders in hopes that they might sound more intelligent than they actually are.

One could quite easily say the same about theists. Why attempt to turn a rational (and, consequently, rare) discussion into an ad hominem sniping session, insulting the intelligence of a large group of people based on knowing nothing more than what they choose to believe? Does the rational discussion pose such a threat to you as an individual that it must be destroyed and reduced to the level of assumption and prejudice?

Some of the most brilliant people I know are atheists. Others of the most brilliant people I know are deists and theists. The result of a lifetime of observation in this regard reveals that a person's belief system tells me absolutely nothing about the individual.

The willingness to prejudge groups and resort to arguing group assumptions, on the other hand, tells me a great deal about the individual.

I'm a solitary Witch, I believe in the great creator, Gods and Goddess,
What my question to you are, What makes a person an atheists.

Nicely put.

I contend that Xaquaria doesn't know his arse from his elbow, ad hom fully intended.

ad hominem, haha, that's a good word.


does't anyone have any argument to my reply? I was expecting an onslaught of posts in disagreement. I just said God is scientific, that science is actually the search for God. surely someone has an objection?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I contend that the vast majority of atheists are simpletons, capable only of regurgitating the words of their philosophical leaders in hopes that they might sound more intelligent than they actually are. When you are capable of forming your own thoughts on the subject, perhaps we can carry on an actual discussion.

I think the same applies to a lot of Christians also.
"capable only of regurgitating the words of their philosophical leaders in hopes that they might sound more intelligent than they actually are"
Sounds like something that applies to the majority of most humans, religious or not.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Discuss

I disagree. It is my belief, that aside from the parody-gods (and possibly some of those), that all religions came from the same, original religion.

From this assumption of mine, which I believe to be true, I think that the gods of other religions may actually exist in some form.

So all the ones with creation myths attached to them did their part in creation? Or all the ones with with a heaven myth all have different heavens, or do they all go to the same heaven?

I agree with keeper's assumption here, in fact I had the idea long ago. especially the jump from paganism to monotheism. I believe God with these Arch angles and angles really is the same as zeus with his demigods. and yes through different story tellings the heaven and punishment kept changing

As for the quote. I believe I just took care of that by stating the other gods are still believed in just people call them arch angles and angles now. So no, atheist is still rejecting all religion, and if you are a theist who really understands religion then you wold accept all.

I must say Paperdoll, your argument is well thought out, it is interesting how any human could think the really understand the words of a divine being, since once it enters a humans brain it always becomes corrupt to some extent no matter how pure the individual. So, it is entirely possible that science and religion are searching for the same thing without knowing it. many paths to one destination.

Originally Posted by Keeper

I disagree. It is my belief, that aside from the parody-gods (and possibly some of those), that all religions came from the same, original religion.

That's not a disagreement at all, you've just restated the problem - atheists disbelieve in your god(s) for the same reasons that you disbelieve in parody gods: they are obviously constructed, they have no evidence, they are logically inconsistent, etc..

From this assumption of mine, which I believe to be true, I think that the gods of other religions may actually exist in some form.

What about gods with mutually contradictory definitions? You can only ever have one "lord of the universe" type gods - so if there are two different religions with such a god, which one is correct? How about poly. vs monotheism? Deism vs theism?

I don't see how you could possibly believe that all gods from religions exist. And if you're disbelieving in a select few then you're back at the original statement.

you could read my post if you like spoon, he might not have thought of that but I have.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I agree with keeper's assumption here, in fact I had the idea long ago. especially the jump from paganism to monotheism. I believe God with these Arch angles and angles really is the same as zeus with his demigods. and yes through different story tellings the heaven and punishment kept changing

So Zeus is who we should be praying to? We should be following the strictures of the Greek religion? I suppose it is earlier than christianity - so it is more likely to be that original religion that Keeper was talking about. Is Jesus just the younger brother to Hercules, one who didnt't even equal his brothers 12 (herculean, ha ha) tasks before getting nailed to a tree? Should we just discard the tale of Jesus as an obvious adaptation of the older, truer, Hercules tale?

Is the above any more correct than saying that the greek gods (not demi gods - Zeus' pantheon were gods in their own right) are equal to angels?

You see, you can't just draw a vague comparison between two religions and proclaim they are one and the same. You'll never get over the fact that they both have many conflicting details. Sure, you might say 'discard the details, the truth will be in their overlapping definitions'. But what overlap do you get in the union of all religions? I can think of nothing - not even a belief in a deity, or heaven.

As for the quote. I believe I just took care of that by stating the other gods are still believed in just people call them arch angles and angles now. So no, atheist is still rejecting all religion, and if you are a theist who really understands religion then you wold accept all.

All religions are correct, because I can shoehorn all previous religions into minor roles in my religion's cosmology? Is scientology correct because Jesus, Zeus and Krishna were the ones who helped Xenu trap the thetans on earth? No - because Jesus, Zeus and Krishna are not spaceship pilots. Just as Zeus' pantheon are not angels, and Jesus is not Hercules' brother.

Just because you can retroactively define all other gods as parts of your religion doesn't make any of it true. You're discarding vital bits of their original definitions to do so. And if you're discarding parts of religions, you're back at the original discussion point of this thread.

I didnt say they were exactly the same. I was using the comparison of a hierarchy in greek and christian traditions as an example to show that religions continually have been changed through out history. I believe this being due to different story tellers and people shaping religions to the way they want society to be run. and eventually any truth that may, and I stress may, have been there has been lost.

In this way there may have been some original thing that really started religion, weather all powerful or not, but religion has become nothing more than fabricated stories to keep people down. Then again, I guess we would never know if anything really started religions unless we had a time machine

So, in effect, I am saying NONE are correct, not ALL are correct.

I believe in a negative number of gods.