So you can't invalidate the "concept" of God by refuting any of these particular versions any more than you refute the concept of "atom" by refuting Democritus — Pantagruel

This is true. It would have been simpler if you had put it that way from the start.

Doing my best.

The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. And the fact that a god would design an animal kingdom where predation, torment and suffering are a constant necessity for most species to eat, suggests a love of cruelty or more sloppy work. — Tom Storm

That's the second reason not to believe in gods. Whether they're as powerful as the believers claim or not, they're not worthy of praise. I can't worship anyone who fails to meet my standard of morality.
The first reason was the stories believers tell about their gods.

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife.
However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

I think, if there is (a) god(s), and our conventional constructions hold true, that god(s) would "see" through our self-serving reasons. In that sense (albeit, I'm speculating) an authentic atheist might garner more divine favor than a self interested adherent (albeit divine favor is not the point of religion).

In any event, theism (or "mysticism" , deism, agnostic theism, pantheism) and so on, might be as rational a mechanism as any, in "places" in philosophical pursuits where one is left having to fill "gaps" with an externally independent/atemporal/first mover etc.

On the other hand, atheism seems rational when we restrict ourselves to empirical methods, etc.

To me there are "regions" of religious thought in history which necessarily overlap with and inform philosophy (particularly moral/metaphysical) and can shed light on "truths" which for one reason or another, philosophy has overlooked.

Finally, for me, many of the arguments which this age raises against (a) god(s), stem from a mistaken expectation that god(s) are for gaining favor/reward, and avoiding suffering/punishment; that god(s) has to be active in, and "care" about, the things we care about: actively alleviating suffering, intervening to prevent "sins", choosing sides, etc. These, and questions like "why are wars so often in the name of religion?" are strictly human concerns tainting religion, giving rise to "fanatical" (angry and hostile) atheism.

To me, I do not have to profess to be a Christian to appreciate these words from its founder regarding the "proper" religious perspective on/relation to god. After telling his disciples not to seek worldly favors from god(I.e., the alleviation of suffering) he exhorts them to only do this, "seek [god's] kingdom [domain/realm/dimension/truth/reality]" and leave worrying about the world to the world.

The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. — Tom Storm

With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe.

Look, you're free to place yourself in the "God" role but I wouldn't given our incredibly limited scope of knowledge as humans. We live for ~70-80 years maybe and process reality throughout our own irrational and biased brains and then who knows what after it all ends.

We can do it but it's sort of a ridiculous exercise. If I'm God everybody gets free ice cream btw.

With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe. — BitconnectCarlos

Straw man. But I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god (at least the character as written) who endorses slavery and commits mass murder even more effortlessly than Pol Pot.

I mean, you're free place yourself in the "God" role but I wouldn't. :wink: — BitconnectCarlos

:up: I think it's proper to take every opportunity to analyse the narratives we are presented with whether it's the Koran or the Old Testament or The Book of Mormon and identify problems and inconsistences. That's our job.

Anyway, there' s no point letting a little thing like god come between us. Take care.

But I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god — Tom Storm

Let's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? You presume that you know better. I admit that I don't know. That's the difference here.

Religious people say God will give and take life as he does. You say that you know better. That's really the fundamental difference. So how much life should everyone have? I understand that to us floods/natural disasters look bad but we also just don't know anything about the bigger picture.

Let's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? You presume that you know better. I admit that I don't know. That's the difference here. — BitconnectCarlos

No, the difference is that I accept that the mass murder by drowning of men, women and children is wrong.

You say that you know better. That's really the fundamental difference. So how much life should everyone have? I understand that to us floods/natural disasters look bad but we also just don't know anything about the bigger picture. — BitconnectCarlos

There's really nothing you can't justify using this approach, just like the Muslims do.

And we weren't talking about 'natural' disasters we were talking about god created ones. Omniscient omnibenevolent disasters, apparently.

No, the difference is that I accept that the mass murder by drowning of men, women and children is wrong. — Tom Storm

Murder is unlawful killing. In any case, if no flood how long of a life do these people get? The flood story is derived from an ancient mesopotamian account btw. How much life does everyone deserve?

just like the Muslims do. — Tom Storm

Jews and Muslims are on the same page then.

And we weren't talking about 'natural' disasters we were talking about god created ones. — Tom Storm

God is the ultimate cause of natural disasters. Nature is under his purview according to classic theology/the bible.

With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe. — BitconnectCarlos

No, just the tiny corner of it that we can see and experience. When your car stalls and you have to pull off to the shoulder, you can't help knowing that's not supposed to happen, even though you're not qualified to design car engines.

et's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? — BitconnectCarlos

The people, probably. The animals, definitely.

Religious people say God will give and take life as he does. — BitconnectCarlos

God does whatever he bloody well likes. That doesn't make it right by human standards. And it's the humans are expected to do all the praising and adoring. Can they, in good conscience?

So how much life should everyone have? — BitconnectCarlos

Killing willy-nilly is the least serious indictment. It's all the suffering inflicted on innocents who know nothing of good and evil that I can't forgive any sentient entity who did it. The bigger picture doesn't come into it: if the god is omnipotent, he has the power to reduce the horror in each pixel.

The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. — Tom Storm

Always seemed to me that there was never an expectation in Christianity that 'the world' could be other than a 'vale of tears'. The point of the Christian faith is not to fix that, but to transcend it. Heaven, or the Life Eternal, is where there is no suffering or evil or corruption ('there's no sickness, toil or danger in the place to which I go.') Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it.

In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one's way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its...justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras [...] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. ... We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who's life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man. — Schopenhauer's Compass, Urs App

When your car stalls and you have to pull off to the shoulder, you can't help knowing that's not supposed to happen — Vera Mont

Yes, that's a car -- not a human. We don't say that about someone who is deaf or blind.

The people, probably. The animals, definitely. — Vera Mont

How much life do they deserve? Should such a life also be pain free?

Can they, in good conscience? — Vera Mont

That is faith for you. Death could be the most wonderful thing to happen to us, yet we all fear it. In my faith, God is viewed as essentially good -- we may not understand his ways, but in the end it's all for the best. Nor can God be judged by human standards. Otherwise he'd be guilty of murder when a 90 year old dies of natural causes. All death would be God "murdering."

if the god is omnipotent, he has the power to reduce the horror in each pixel. — Vera Mont

He could, but maybe the suffering is for a purpose. In any case it is temporary.

Yes, that's a car -- not a human. We don't say that about someone who is deaf or blind. — BitconnectCarlos

No, we say that about a world full of blindness, leukemia and leeches.

How much life do they deserve? Should such a life also be pain free? — BitconnectCarlos

It's not about quantity. It's about punishing them for the perceived iniquity of one tribe of humans.

That is faith for you. — BitconnectCarlos

No, not for me! Pain cannot be the most wonderful thing to happen to any feeling entity. Faith may be able to find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot.

Nor can God be judged by human standards. — BitconnectCarlos

What other standards are there? If somebody wants my admiration, they have to earn it.

He could, but maybe the suffering is for a purpose. — BitconnectCarlos

Faith can find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot.

I can't worship anyone who fails to meet my standard of morality. — Vera Mont

:fire: Yes yes – a minimally moral (i.e. empathic-benevolent) person, who knows a child is on the verge of being raped and also has the power to prevent it, would do so whereas "Almighty God" does not prevent child-rapes (e.g. priests) – wholly unworthy of worship. Such a deity is either a sadist or a fiction.

I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god (at least the character as written) who endorses slavery and commits mass murder ... — Tom Storm

:100: :up:

maybe the suffering is for a purpose — BitconnectCarlos

Theodicy is a top-down, otherworldly, inhuman/unnatural excuse – ex post facto rationalization – for 'divinely permitted' evil in this world. In other words, it's superstitious bullshit. :death:

Faith can find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot. — Vera Mont

:clap: :flower: :hearts:

Always seemed to me that there was never an expectation in Christianity that 'the world' could be other than a 'vale of tears'. — Wayfarer

Depends on the church.

Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer

My criticism of the characters in monotheism are closer to literary criticism. I dislike Mr Casaubon almost as much as I dislike Yahweh.

If you and I were talking about god and scripture, we would likely be talking allegory and I wouldn't bother talking about scriptural truth. I'm assuming we'd both consider this pointless. But some here seem to believe this stuff.

Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer

Like most Westerners, I grew up hearing sermons about the perfection of nature and god's design. Still a theme, given my last church attendance at Easter. So all I am doing is providing an atheist's counterpoint.

Theodicy is a top-down, otherworldly, inhuman/unnatural excuse – ex post facto rationalization – for 'divinely permitted' evil in this world. In other words, it's superstitious bullshit. :death: — 180 Proof

And what's truly dispiriting is the awful tap dance believers will do to justify the unjustifiable. This must be what they mean when they say religion is nihilism.

And what's truly dispiriting is the awful tap dance believers will do to justify the unjustifiable. This must be what they mean when they say religion is nihilism. — Tom Storm

Yes, ritualized reality-denial. Which is why I define "faith" as believing in the unbelievable in order to defend the indefensible and excuse the inexcusable.

That's the second reason not to believe in gods. Whether they're as powerful as the believers claim or not, they're not worthy of praise. I can't worship anyone who fails to meet my standard of morality. — Vera Mont

So are you rejecting the concept of god that you perceive as being advocated in the world around you, or are you rejecting the most reasonable concept of god that you yourself have been able to formulate? Just curious.

No, we say that about a world full of blindness, leukemia and leeches. — Vera Mont

Maybe it's our job to elevate it.

It's not about quantity. It's about punishing them for the perceived iniquity of one tribe of humans. — Vera Mont

We're talking about the flood regarding animal deaths, right? I can't say that God bringing about animal death is bad. Would it be better for them to die slowly of old age?

Faith may be able to find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot. — Vera Mont

Pain is not necessarily cruelty. Some pain can be cleansing. Some pain can be justice. Some can be necessary. Some can be for growth.

What other standards are there? If somebody wants my admiration, they have to earn it. — Vera Mont

Does God "murder" a 100 year old who dies of natural causes? It is him taking life - murder, right? Or is it ok if he's 100? How do we judge the giver and taker of life according to human standards who operates outside of nature?





Theodicies like Job are just a reminder that as humans our scope of knowledge is very limited so consider that before understanding misfortune as cosmic injustice. Just facts.

The profoundly gullible have always deluded themselves with 'cosmic conspiracies' (e.g. Abraham's "Covenant", Christ's "Second Coming", ... Lovecraft's "Cthulhu Mythos") and yet the facts, as you say, are ... the simplest "divine plan" is – the only one that does not beg any questions – there is no divine plan. :fire:

So are you rejecting the concept of god that you perceive as being advocated in the world around you, or are you rejecting the most reasonable concept of god that you yourself have been able to formulate? — Pantagruel

I am rejecting the concepts of gods.
Some that I've read about are less gruesome than others; some are even attractive in their way, but none are credible - and I've read a fair amount of mythology. The guy in the Bible was pretty awful in the OT, but he was at least in some kind of acceptable proportion to the people he harassed. Once the Roman-European Christians raised him way above his level of incompetence, he became both grotesque and absurd.
I have not formulated a reasonable concept of god, since that's an oxymoron, but I've both encountered and depicted some tame versions of the Christian one in fiction.

Maybe it's our job to elevate it. — BitconnectCarlos

We've done a bang-up job so far!

Would it be better for them to die slowly of old age? — BitconnectCarlos

That's what I'm doing and I consider myself lucky, so YES. Have you ever drowned?

Some pain can be cleansing. Some pain can be justice. Some can be necessary. Some can be for growth. — BitconnectCarlos

Bull. Shit.

It is him taking life - murder, right? — BitconnectCarlos

By whose definition? Are you at all familiar with criminal codes?

How do we judge the giver and taker of life according to human standards who operates outside of nature? — BitconnectCarlos

By rejecting him.

I have not formulated a reasonable concept of god — Vera Mont

Do you think that other people with different experiences might be capable of forming such a concept? Not everyone is capable of conceptualizing equally well in every domain. Perhaps you lack the relevant experiences or abilities? The world is full of examples of people who are incapable of grasping concepts that others find evident. Look at flat-earthers.

Do you think that other people with different experiences might be capable of forming such a concept? — Pantagruel

It's theoretically possible, but I have not encountered it in god-related literature.

Perhaps you lack the relevant experiences or abilities? — Pantagruel

Well, I dropped some acid in my youth, but all I saw was the Void looking back at me.

... all I saw was the Void looking back at me. — Vera Mont

Ancients called that "gnosis" or "nirvana" ... :victory: :cool:

Bull. Shit. — Vera Mont

Not at all. That you deny all of the suggestions he put forward is extremely perplexing. Swathes of pains are beneficial for various reasons. I am telling you this, from experience. It's not deniable in these terms.

How do we judge the giver and taker of life according to human standards who operates outside of nature? — BitconnectCarlos

This is one very, very good reason to ignore the concept of religious morality from a personal God. Its completely impossible to reconcile it with anything we know about suffering and death. The only thing what you've pointed out seems to make implausible is a personal God making arbitrary decisions about lifespans.

Well, I dropped some acid in my youth, but all I saw was the Void looking back at me. — Vera Mont

Try Psilocybin or DMT.

Swathes of pains are beneficial for various reasons. — AmadeusD

Can be this, can be that... are not valid reasons for a loving god to torture the innocent.

The excuses come long after the fact and put into a different context from the indictment.
Pain may have the benefit of warning us that something is wrong with the body - but a clever creator might have devised a less unpleasant warning sign. Some pain can be necessary in order to prevent greater harm, but that is not why Jehovah invented trichinosis. Nor does being nibbled to death by piranhas cleanse a cow of anything but her flesh. Rapid growth of bones may cause pain, but it's not the pain that causes growth. Neither does drowning all the creatures in the world - even the little flat world of the OT - cause the tiny remnant of humanity to become virtuous: one of the first things Noah did after landing was get drunk and curse his son for catching a glimpse of his junk.

Then you can always fall back on "He's too big for us to understand."
Okay. In that case, he's too big and inscrutable to give us coherent standards of moral behaviour.

Its completely impossible to reconcile it with anything we know about suffering and death. — AmadeusD

What is it that we know about those two, especially death? Next to nothing -- only that it is inevitable. Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, could be neutral. Accordingly, we generally leave those decisions to a power beyond ourselves.

God tells us life is sacred. Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly.

Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly. — BitconnectCarlos

That right? All the time the majority of the people believed in God, none of them killed any other?

In some respect Atheists aren't perfect representatives of Atheism, Atheism is not illogical but Atheists progress sometimes in a way that suggests it is illogical - which is wrong.

Card Game Analogy
A deck of cards cannot be properly shuffled without the use of mysticism; a human intervening using the blank side of the cards or in secret is necessary. The Card Game analogy is to ask whether the card game is a true game even with mysticism implied, or is it not-a-game. If argued yes it is a game, then wouldn't the same apply to scientists who use mysticism to create theories? Does mysticism really mean lesser than true?

Does mysticism really mean lesser than true? — Barkon

No. Mysticism isn't about truth or falsehood, fact or fiction, reason or logic. It's an emotional response to Nature, and has nothing whatever to do shuffling cards or theorizing, which in turn have nothing to do with each other. IOW, word salad.