Another reason I do not believe in god/religion.

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
Another reason I do not believe in god/religion.

I have not seen this particular idea discussed here that I have noticed, so I figured I would share it to see what you all think. (Both atheist and theist.)

TLDR summary: Why would a god (as depicted by the various religions) rely almost exclusively on human-to-human communication to communicate to humans? It makes no sense, a much more likely explanation that makes a lot more sense is that there is no god, and communication is pretty much exclusively human-to-human simply because there is no god to do the communication, and "god" is strictly a human idea.
_____________________________________________

The thought occurs to me, religion and talk of god and what god wants, is at least 99% communication from human-to-human. Even by religions own explanations of their religion and god. Very few people alive today would claim they heard direct communication from god, and even fewer people would claim they have a message from god, that god wanted that person to communicate to everyone else through them instead of directly. So just about everything you and I ever heard about for any religion/god idea, came from other people. Other humans trying to communicate to humans about what they heard from yet other humans saying they heard it from god.

Worse still it is nearly impossible to separate out what people heard about various religious ideas from any possible original communication from a supposed "god." Except we do know complex and detailed god ideas that even closely align to an already established religion does not just "appear" in isolation. We do not have cases of people that never heard of any form of various religions (say a geographically isolated tribe of people in a jungle somewhere) come out and say "hey, adam and eve lived in a garden as the first humans and then one ate the forbidden fruit, .... and then a guy named jesus christ was born on christmas day, and then died for our sins, but was then resurrected etc etc etc.

The various holy books of instruction on religions/god idea. Written by humans, edited by humans, printed by humans. Translated by humans, distributed by humans, details amended, changed and argued by humans. Same for any religious gathering, god does not show up and communicate, at least not in a direct way, the religious groups are usually lead by "religious leaders" ... humans.

If a "god" with all it supposed wisdom and powers wanted to communicate to humans, why would a god use "human-to-human" as by far the most common way to communicate to all the people a particular god idea wanted to communicate to?

A person born in the 21st century could communicate much more directly and efficiently to people utilizing the internet. Then relying on human-to-human communication If I had a large claim and wanted to communicate to people, I could just put up a video and be able to communicate much more directly with billions of people that have at least fleeting access to internet capable of showing a video. If a person born in the 21st century is capable of that why would a powerful and knowledgeable god instead utilize a very lousy and prone to error form of communication? Why would a god handicap its communication? Especially when supposedly at a certain point in time most god ideas were just fine with direct communication based on the various religions written record of their god and then just stop? And most religions state that their god is the one true god and that god direct that people should follow it, and the followers should spread the word of this god.

I think we can all agree that human-to-human communication is a lousy form of communication especially when other much better methods are available. We all know that humans can lie, humans typically do not have perfect recall, people can have agendas, all part of the human condition. We also know humans can easily make mistakes even if they managed to avoid lying, imperfect memories, and avoid all possible agenda/bias.

All of us humans have learned early on, not to take people solely on their "word" without evidence. Especially if we never even met the person before, that has shown a strong pattern to be "true" to their word. If I say to you I am elvis, (the famous singer) you know that is extremely unlikely and that you would not just take my word for it, you would demand proof. Even something more benign, say a claim that I have brown eyes, while brown eyes are a very common eye color for humans, you are well aware I have not proved in any way I have brown eyes. You would not turn around and accept a bet with me for 100 bucks where you will pay 100 dollars if I actually do not have brown eyes.
_____________________________________________

I imagine some theist may say: "god works in mysterious ways, we can't know god's plans, or understand god. Along with possibly some combination of: "god gives us free will, and if god were to communicate to us directly, we would lose free will."

First saying "god works in mysterious ways, or we can't know god's plans or understand god" is just another way of saying I/we do not know. A: "I do not know" answer is NOT an answer. If I could say "I do not know" to every challenge to a any claim I make, and you accepted that answer you would not be able to falsify anything I say. I could say you owe me a million dollars. Prove to me you do not owe me a million dollars, and any reason you came up with why or why not you owe me 1 million dollars, I simply said "I work in mysterious ways, or "you can not understand why."

Second: on the freewill part, why would god communicating directly be suddenly robbing people of free will? Even to pick a god? A god could create a giant permanent magical "banner in the sky" above any large gathering of people, and say "I am god, I am here go read website xyz to learn more about me!" and not rob people of the free will to believe in it or not.
____________________________________________

I am very interested in people's thoughts on this. Agree? Disagree? Why?
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
@LOGIC: If a "god" with all

@LOGIC: If a "god" with all it supposed wisdom and powers wanted to communicate to humans, why would a god use "human-to-human" as by far the most common way to communicate to all the people a particular god idea wanted to communicate to?

Ummmm.... Hamster to human has not worked out so well. He tried Chicken to human but the damn humans kept eating all the chickens. It was God's error. He made them good. So we ate them. Giving up on hamsters and chickens he wrote a book. "Well that was really stupid." He wrote the damn book at a time when no one could read. By the time the people were able to read the books had all rotted away. So now we have no original writings. I think God's next plan is to find a subhuman species capable of speaking, like Creationists, who are only one hair away from being baboons and have them communicate with us. Still, if you look at God's failure rate, I suspect this plan will fail as well.

LogicFTW's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

Hah, chickens.. :) I bet "god" is so stumped why that one did not work. He even tried to make everything taste like chicken so we would stop eating all the (damned?) chickens!

I think we can all conclude "god's" latest attempt to communicate via creationist is not working to well. Apparently this god idea just sucks at communicating.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Algebe's picture
@Cognostic: Creationists, who

@Cognostic: Creationists, who are only one hair away from being baboons

That's insulting and discriminatory.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
God hasn't got thumbs being

God hasn't got thumbs being spiritual and all so he can text. He tried the Holy Ghost but, hey he's just a dick, and Jesus? he's still got those problems with those nails of his...soooo its gotta be Human to human.
The angels? Nah come on...they're all too busy announcing shit, fighting Satan and doing angelic stuff like singing praises...hey its a big galaxy...and anyway none of them have an iphone.

LogicFTW's picture
Perhaps "gods" creation has

@old man shouts clouds

Perhaps "gods" creation has surpassed god, with the invention of the Iphone. Maybe we should get "god" to worship us!

Hah I rather like that... "god" I command you to worship me. You are also free to pray to me, but you will have to speak up I cant hear you. No matter though I am going to ignore your prayers anyways god, just like you ignore human prayers.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

talynEarth03's picture
I have a religious friend,

I have a religious friend, and when i told her this objection, her answer was not satisfying... Unfortunately, this was years ago so I don't remember. It is the same thing for the arabic god too...

LogicFTW's picture
@talynEarth03

@talynEarth03
To bad you do not remember, I would be interested in their response and see if I could easily counter it or not.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sapporo's picture
@LogicFTW you are quite

@LogicFTW you are quite correct. Making a message clear and direct has no bearing on whether we have free will, anymore than making a message vague and indirect.

LogicFTW's picture
And right now it is

@Sapporo

And right now it is absolutely vague and indirect. The same trick politicians, con artist and scam artist like to employ: vague, indirect, but a made up conclusion that people want to hear.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

quip's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

"TLDR summary: Why would a god (as depicted by the various religions) rely almost exclusively on human-to-human communication to communicate to humans? It makes no sense, a much more likely explanation that makes a lot more sense is that there is no god, and communication is pretty much exclusively human-to-human simply because there is no god to do the communication, and "god" is strictly a human idea."

Yes. I've argued this with theists. Any so described omni-max god could indeed make his existence know to man as effortlessly as mankind breaths or empties his bowels. The theist's "middle-man" insistence is conspicuously lacking and downright suspicious.

LogicFTW's picture
@quip

@quip

You and I seem to agree on quite a few things, I believe you describe yourself as somewhere in the "agnostic" to "other." So I want to share with you why I went from agnostic/other to atheist, and hear your thoughts on that.

For me it was a simple as looking up commonly agreed upon definitions of keywords.

First though, my previous thinking back when I considered myself agnostic/other years ago:
1.) I strongly agreed with the fact that I do not know everything, I am not omniscient, I can not know for sure there is no god I cannot be sure of anything as I do not know anywhere close to everything. To me it felt like saying "there is no god" was arrogance and it was narcissistic to state I knew for sure.
2.) Closely related to the first, I did believe in the possibility of some sort of creator, although nothing like depicted in all the religions that I knew anything about.

Then a few years ago I looked up the definition of atheist. Then I looked up the definition of theist, god and the definition of religion and finally of agnostic.

Atheist definition: paraphrased: Not theist. Theist definition (paraphrased again, all of these definitions are for sake of brevity,) believer in god and religion.

Definition of god:
This gets a bit more complex, just about any theist will explain that the definition of god is hugely complex, but there are certain keywords that appear in all the major recognized dictionaries definition for god. Words like "supreme being," "worshipped," "all powerful" "ruler", "source of moral authority" Deity, power over nature.

The definition of Religion:
Belief in and worship of superhuman power, Belief in god or gods. A system of faith. Supreme importance and so on.

The definition of Agnostic: someone who believes nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of god. A person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in god.

Reading all these definitions I realized I very much disbelieve in the common definition for god. It makes absolutely zero sense to me that some sort of all powerful being requires worship and wanted to rule over man and earth, create morality, or even remotely care about earth and humans. I disbelieve in god as it is commonly defined. I am no longer agnostic. The best well known common definition word that describes me is atheist, (not theist.) I felt agnostic after I read the definitions does not describe me accurately at all.

I still believe, in the small possibility of some sort of advanced, possibly "intelligent" being may have had a role to play in how life ended up on earth, but that being is likely very much long gone, (No longer functioning or greatly changed.) And it makes zero sense that such a being would care even the slightest about any one living being 14 billion years after the big bang. Out of 1 of over 100 billion human beings, or the trillions upon trillions of other advanced life forms on this planet. Such a being requires zero worship, has zero relevance on our day to day lives. And let me remind you again I think logically and reasonably there is a very remote chance of this. It most certainly does not fit the definition of god. I also can still believe in this remote possibility and still firmly fall within the definition of atheist, (not theist.) Our sun could actually mostly fill the role of something complex that played a large role in life here on this planet. Sun certainly does not require worship or religion to keep on shining. No one needs to collect money for it, or go to war and spill blood over it. Those all sound like human created ideas.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

quip's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

"I disbelieve in god as it is commonly defined."

I did this for several years. Then I came to realize the dichotomic struggle between god/not god (as conventionally portrayed) is itself both necessary and futile to struggle against.

Within us all lies the Divine as well as the profane. The interplay between the two is the "god" you've (and the theists) yet to discover. Belief in god necessarily requires the non-belief in god and vice versa. Belief/non-belief is a spectrum where each one of us falls upon at various points. Collectively speaking, our lives interact both directly and indirectly as no one lives within a vacuum. That is, my beliefs and actions affect yours... which in turn affect mine.

The fact that you see the human element conspiring in religion.. Ex. manifesting in the inhumane acts their god has wrought upon mankind in the bible - is the divine providence the theist attributes to a god they project as offering moral direction...which - as misplaced as it seems - has been within them all along.

Through this interplay we live in a world full of necessary evil with the necessary capacity to alter it.

YOU are the functioning "god" (warts and all) that you presume external to you....collectively we all are. This might be hard to understand given the traditional view of god thus it requires a complete paradigm shift.

I hope you give it some thought.

LogicFTW's picture
@quip

@quip

Then I came to realize the dichotomic struggle between god/not god (as conventionally portrayed) is itself both necessary and futile to fight against.

Both necessary and futile? Ouch. I assume you explain how you reached this conclusion or give further detail later in your post.

Within us all lies the Divine as well as the profane.

Divine is an interesting choice of words, especially when compared to profane. I assume that was a very deliberate choice of words.
Looking up the definition of divine: "of, from, or like God or a god."
And then, looking up definition of profane: "relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious."
I am left with the question, how do you know the divine lies within us? Or did you mean it in a much more metaphorical way? As in we all can have thoughts or consideration of divine if we are exposed to it. And not the literal "god is within us." If it is simply the thoughts of, that is not saying much. I have had a wide range of thoughts on nearly every subject whether patently ridiculous to completely impossible.

The interplay between the two is the "god" you've (and the theists) yet to discover.

Are we talking the standard definition of god? The whole: " the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." And "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." type of god? I am guessing you do not mean that at all, so you need to define your god idea. And how it is different from the more standard accepted definition of god. It seems to me the god most people talk of when talking about god does not exist in "The interplay between the two" but more strictly on the divine side of things.

Belief/non-belief is a spectrum where each one of us falls upon at various points.

I do agree with that. I would say I am very far, on the non-belief side of things, especially with the standard accepted definition of god and religions. The more I study, ponder, and learn about religion/god and the counterpoints the more solidly I go towards non belief in god(s)/religion.

Collectively speaking, our lives interact both directly and indirectly as no one lives within a vacuum. That is, my beliefs and actions affect yours... which in turn affect mine.

Agreed with you there.

...is the divine providence the theist attributes to a god they project as offering moral direction...which - as misplaced as it seems - has been within them all along.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, are you saying: theist have always thought divine providence has been with them all along? Could I rephrase that to theist believe they have always believed in god? If so okay, do not disagree with you there I imagine lots of theist operate that way, but how did that make you go from atheist to agnostic/other?

Through this interplay we live in a world full of necessary evil with the necessary capacity to alter it.

Through the interplay of people deciding whether they believe in god or not, we live in a world of necessary evil? Wha?? Are you saying evil is necessary because people may not have decided whether they believe in god or not? Wow, what a statement, please let me know if I misunderstood your statement. (As how I currently try to understand what you are saying, it is a statement I do not agree with even a little bit.)

We have the capacity to alter evil? What is evil then? Do we have the capacity to stop Hurricane florence barreling towards the carolina's that will likely cause huge disruption to millions of people and possibly death to some people? Is hurricane Florence not evil? What is? When humans harm one another? Are you saying this interplay between people deciding if god is real or not is why humans harm each other?

YOU are the functioning "god" (warts and all) that you presume external to you

Referring back to that definition of god, I would not say that describes me at all. I am a human, the word human describes me much, much better than the word god.

collectively we all are.

We all are god? If you mean in the metaphorical sense, that we came up with the idea of god, we talk about it, and since this god is strictly within the realm of metaphysical and has no real world implications, and only exist within human thought communicated to each other, then yes I agree with you, a weird way to say it, but yes, all of us humans are what make up god. Just like all of humans are what make the concept of the boogeyman, or santa claus. But I do not see how that made you decide you are no longer atheist but instead theist. I feel all you did was bend and distort the commonly held definition of god.

If I were to bend the standard definition of god, I could easily say: hey look at our sun (okay, maybe don't look directly at it!) see, it is absolutely necessary for this planet and life, it is extremely powerful, and if it were to suddenly disappear we would all die within seconds.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

quip's picture
@Logic FTW

@Logic FTW

"I am left with the question, how do you know the divine lies within us? Or did you mean it in a much more metaphorical way? As in we all can have thoughts or consideration of divine if we are exposed to it. And not the literal "god is within us." If it is simply the thoughts of, that is not saying much. I have had a wide range of thoughts on nearly every subject whether patently ridiculous to completely impossible."

Yes, metaphorically. Mankind decides what is good and what is evil by many relative means...religious, commpassionate, intuitive, secular and non-secular to which many are at odds with one another in how they define them. Ex. A muslim radicalist with a suicide bomb believes he's doing the work of god (good)...whilst most see that as evil. This is an extreme example of the "divine" interplay of mankind I speak of, constantly in flux. The views and actions of others form your particular world-view and subsequent decisions and action, which in turn affect other people and so on.

"Referring back to that definition of god, I would not say that describes me at all. I am a human, the word human describes me much, much better than the word god."

The point being is that god is not an external being directing our lives. We are not passive entities acted upon by outside forces within this world rather we are active moral participants. For good or ill, WE are the divine process governing our existence.

P.S. off topic but how are you creating those formatted quotations? The forum doesn't seem to like my tags.

LogicFTW's picture
@quip

@quip

Yes, metaphorically. Mankind decides what is good and what is evil by many relative means...religious, commpassionate, intuitive, secular and non-secular to which many are at odds with one another in how they define them.

Okay, I think you are talking about how morality is subjective, not objective. And trying to say that each person's morality is the divine to profane interplay. Okay I am now aware of your thought process on this, I am an atheist and now have "discovered" your thought process and I think I understand your interplay point. I also certainly agree other people actions help form my own personal world-view and how my own affect others.
I fail to see why the understanding this concept you presented would lead me (or you) in any way to switch from atheist to agnostic or other? How does this concept connect with: "by the general accepted definition of god, I do not believe in god/religion." To the agnostic, "I do not know one way or another, and nothing can be known about the existence of God, I do not have faith or disbelief,"

The point being is that god is not an external being directing our lives. We are not passive entities acted upon by outside forces within this world rather we are active moral participants. For good or ill, WE are the divine process governing our existence.

I think we are back to changing the commonly accepted definition of god, to one that is of yours (and perhaps others) own making. Most theist when they talk of god they definitely mean the external being that directs our lives. That is fine. It just means by commonly held definitions, you are an atheist. You do not believe in the standard definition of god you will find in dictionaries. It is fair to say, hey atheist is not a very good definition for me either, I have my own definition of god, that I do believe in. Just... be prepared for lots of confusion if you do not clearly explain that.
Correct me if I am wrong but another way to describe your particular belief is: we all struggle with good and evil, we all have various levels of believing in god (standard definition of) to being secular. Those struggles are what I believe in, I believe in self and our place in the group of us as the interplay of it all. I assuming your belief also requires no real organization, prayer, worship or any of that sort of thing as well.

For good or ill, WE are the divine process governing our existence.

I remain unconvinced that "we are god" does not fit nearly as well as "we are human" to describe your beliefs in a way we all, using common definitions of god and human, would define your belief. Your particular definition of "god" bears almost none of the standard definition descriptions of the word god.

P.S. off topic but how are you creating those formatted quotations? The forum doesn't seem to like my tags.

The html tag you are looking for is blockquote. It looks like this: <blockquote>quoted part here</blockquote> If you need further explanation check my signature block below for more information in useful links.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

quip's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

How does this concept connect with: "by the general accepted definition of god, I do not believe in god/religion." To the agnostic, "I do not know one way or another, and nothing can be known about the existence of God, I do not have faith or disbelief,"

Oddly enough @Old man put it nicely (before getting snarky again.) as a 'particle of god'/gestalt. I would say I have no knowledge one way or the other regarding the 'being' of god as conventionally portrayed. Yet, I wouldn't say that nothing can be (subjectively) known about "god" in the broad sense. I believe that firmly places me in the 'other' category.

I remain unconvinced that "we are god" does not fit nearly as well as "we are human" to describe your beliefs in a way we all, using common definitions of god and human, would define your belief. Your particular definition of "god" bears almost none of the standard definition descriptions of the word god.

That's understandable given that we're talking about human interaction here. My belief extends beyond the issue of mankind's relation with itself. A subject for another day.

The html tag you are looking for is blockquote. It looks like this:

quoted part here

If you need further explanation check my signature block below for more information in useful links.

Thanks. Appreciate it.

quip's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

I am left with the question, how do you know the divine lies within us?

Because there is no 'divine' without the human capacity to define and express it. We are active participants not idle spectators.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Quip

@ Quip

"YOU are the functioning "god" (warts and all) that you presume external to you....collectively we all are"

So, your introspection and primitive zen mediatation has resulted in the belief that you are a particle of god, a god that is within the entire human race.

Following that, then this fragmented "god" you postulate is an unconscious gestalt?

Does it exist (a fragment thereof) in every conscious being?

Does it exist in unconscious or inanimate objects?

How do you demonstrate this to someone who just does not believe you or has not commenced their journey to the void?

I would remind you that a "god" that is not demonstrable and that has no physical effect on the world as we know it is identical to a "god" that simply does not exist.

quip's picture
@old man

@old man

"So, your introspection and primitive zen mediatation has resulted in the belief that you are a particle of god, a god that is within the entire human race.

Following that, then this fragmented "god" you postulate is an unconscious gestalt?

Does it exist (a fragment thereof) in every conscious being?"

Yes. That's a good way to put it.

"Does it exist in unconscious or inanimate objects?"

I'm not sure how one could determine this though I believe all things have their purpose and place.

"How do you demonstrate this to someone who just does not believe you or has not commenced their journey to the void?"

Try some form of meditation...Zen or otherwise.

"I would remind you that a "god" that is not demonstrable and that has no physical effect on the world as we know it is identical to a "god" that simply does not exist."

Ok. Not in contention by me.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@quip

@quip

Lets reverse the order:

"I would remind you that a "god" that is not demonstrable and that has no physical effect on the world as we know it is identical to a "god" that simply does not exist."

You replied Ok. Not in contention by me.

"How do you demonstrate this to someone who just does not believe you or has not commenced their journey to the void?"

You replied Try some form of meditation...Zen or otherwise.

Following that, then this fragmented "god" you postulate is an unconscious gestalt?

NOT answered

Does it exist (a fragment thereof) in every conscious being?"

Yes. That's a good way to put it.

"Does it exist in unconscious or inanimate objects?"

You replied I'm not sure how one could determine this though I believe all things have their purpose and place.

I will not go on...Blind Freddy can see that you are making assertions without the slightest acceptable evidence apart from your navel gazing. To come on an atheist forum and presume to lecture your peers on your infantile philosophical,addlepated ideas is arrogance personified.

Squidling, I think you have a brain, I think you have potential, I think we can all hope, that with more meditation, less arrogance, and far more listening you could be a better thinker.

Read the above exchange and let me know where you may be corrected.

quip's picture
Well, thanks for your opinion

Well, thanks for your opinion.

I'm rather dissappointed though, it seemed you and I were primed for a reasonable discussion regarding "navel gazing".
Too bad you went the cheap route and reduced yourself and the argument to useless ad hom. *sigh*

Have a good day nonetheless.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ quip

@ quip

"I'm rather disappointed though, it seemed you and I were primed for a reasonable discussion regarding "navel gazing"

Now that is a gutless response. Nor did I resort to an ad hominem. The jumbling of the order of your answers was to demonstrate to you (if you had bothered to think about) that your "deep thought" is, in fact a selection of "non responses" and show that rather than comprehending the essence and abnegation of self you were acting and thinking like a second year student.

You have a very long way to go. Spend more time with your teacher and meditate a long time on the meaningless state of youthful arrogance and why it is donned as protective armour in the face of direct and indirect examination.

Your self examination has stopped at the gateway of your own understanding of "self" . A common error and one your teacher should direct you to studying,

Have a fine day.

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: To quip - "You

@Old Man Re: To quip - "You have a very long way to go. Spend more time with your teacher and meditate a long time on the meaningless state of youthful arrogance and why it is donned as protective armour in the face of direct and indirect examination. Your self examination has stopped at the gateway of your own understanding of "self" . A common error and one your teacher should direct you to studying,"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_oJf0JAhQH

Hey, quip, would you care for some ointment?.... *holding up jar of Preparation H saturated with Carolina Reaper powder*...

quip's picture
@old man

@old man

It seems - according to your assessment - I fit right in with the best of 'em here. Better yet perhaps you could teach me the finer points of being a crusty old curmudgeon.

Better still, why don't you revisit navel gazing, between that and a daily supplement of fiber, you might be less cranky and more personable.

After all, it's nobody's fault but yours that you wasted away a life's worth of potential wisdom on Jack Daniels and cynicism.

Have a fine day.

Thank you. I will.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ quip

@ quip

Better yet perhaps you could teach me the finer points of being a crusty old curmudgeon."

Happy to oblige old son. First you have to learn suffering fools gladly is for fools. That callow youth always exhibits a certain arrogance that is as unseemly as it is inevitable. Then you have to learn you can lead a tyro to a logical path of self examination, but like a good mule, they sometimes refuse it.

I am happy to discuss anything you like, but on the basis that you do not know any answers for sure, and you are the innocent in the den of wolves and lions.

My fibre intake is quite adequate, I make sure I crunch up thoroughly the carapace of youthful arrogance, and the shields and arrows of the righteous.

Coupled with liberal (some would say excessive) amounts of good Australian Shiraz and a very good diet, my bowels seem to be regular, consistent and well behaved. But thanks for the enquiry.

You should take more care of yourself, keep out of the glare of debate, although I see you practice, you are at best a 3rd Kyu in the dance of the gods.

Be safe, prize your own ignorance, wear it like a mon on your back so that all will contribute a little bit to your knowledge and your being.

There's some Aloe Vera out the back for that nasty burn....

quip's picture
@old man

@old man

Well then, here's to me and my upward mobility!

P.S. Glad for the update on your bowels. Mayhap another infirmity is the cause of your pleasantries.
Good luck with that.

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man and quip

@Old Man and quip

...*grumbling to self*... oh, sure, just like always. nobody asks about MY bowel movements. nobody cares about ME.... *sulking*...

quip's picture
In your case tin I'd focus on

In your case tin I'd focus on a greasy diet with a emphasis on sufficient iron while avoiding over-hydration...not good for the joints or complexion.

Just my uninformed .02
I don't want anyone complaining I'm an pernicious quack now do I?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ quip

@ quip

Mayhap another infirmity is the cause of your pleasantries.

Oh squidling, you so clever! Yes, you are right I suffer from "inperitae intolerantia"

Its brought on by close proximity to insufferably conceited, swaggering, know it alls...

You should get to the emergency room for that burn...its looking serious.

Sheldon's picture
"Yes. I've argued this with

"Yes. I've argued this with theists"

????

quip's profile
MY VIEW
I am a / an Non-Atheist

If you don't not believe a deity exists thennnnnn????

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.