Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
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.
Donating = Loving
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Jon the Catholic: "Oooh!" God says while he passively watches altar boys being buggered by priests. All knowing, all powerful, just could not manage to warn the boy (or girl) of the impending danger.
"Ooooh!" God says, while church officials move priest to new locale so he can rape again. All powerful, but can not trip the transfer up long enough for secular authorities to subdue the priest.
Repeat!
@Jon the Catholic: "We have faith because it’s reasonable."
I thought the value of faith was in accepting the unreasonable. The Genesis creation story, the flood myth, the virgin birth, the resurrection are all unreasonable. Things like that don't happen in the real world. You accept them purely on faith, don't you?
So without the "Five Ways" proposed by Aquinas, you wouldn't believe in god?
You're clumping up a bunch of things that you're assuming I believe in literally. So, let me break it down.
- I don't believe in the literal 6-day creation account. I do believe that what the creation account tell us is true (God created the world and all the living and non-living things in it.)
- I don't believe that a worldwide flood actually happened. More likely would be a great local flood. But on this issue, I haven't decided what to believe in what actually happened. I do have some other ideas on this but it dives into a subject that would get nowhere in this forum.
- Virgin Birth. This I believe by faith but through a reasonable means which come from the next one.
- The resurrection - You can come to this conclusion by looking at the evidence from history. This event is the best explanation for certain events that happened in the early first century in Palestine. If a man can raise himself from the dead, then that's enough proof for me to accept that He is God. and as such, I can trust what he says. He founded a church and told his apostles that "whoever hears you, hears me..." This is me putting my faith in God through putting my faith in the church he founded so I believe by faith what the church teaches to be true. I do not, however, follow what the individual church leaders do. I know the Catholic church has had a bunch of immoral people in it's ranks but looking at the church teaching itself, I can see something that people cannot do. It has to be God.
Jon the Catholic:
What are "reasonable means" for a virgin birth or a dead man coming back to life? What events happened in 1st century Palestine that couldn't have happened without god?
The resurrection could not have happened without God. And I believe the resurrection happened because it's the best explanation to the following facts from history:
- A man named Jesus lived and died by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate
- The tomb where he was laid in was empty the Sunday following his crucifixion.
- Following this, a number of his followers (most of which had denied him previously) claimed to have seen him and spent time with him and claimed he had risen from the dead.
- They were willing to die for this belief.
- Known skeptics like James and even a Jewish leader who persecuted Christians (Paul) claimed the same and converted and were willing to die for this belief.
I've heard it said that people willing to die for something doesn't make it true - which I agree with. What is also true though is that people will die for something they know is false. They must've at least thought that what they were dying for was true. And you have all the apostles except John and Judas die for their faith while proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Hallucinations are also brought up as an alternate explanation but this too is lacking as hallucinations are specific to individuals. Very rarely do we have groups of people hallucinating about the same thing.
Is that what you meant to say?
@Al-Ghabe
The existence of god can be proven by logical arguments, we don't need holy books to believe that there is a god, that's a vicious circle. so it requires an intellectual person, which is of course not an atheist, to reach the conclusion any sane mind would reach which is that there is a necessary being upon which all existents are contingent. but there are other things that cannot be proven by the necessity of logical reasoning, which are falls under the category of possible things such as the existence of Angels or miracles which malicious atheists, like you, conflate them with Impossible things. so there are things that can be reached with a sane mind, and there are things that we believe in because God mentioned them in his books. so, believing in the existence of Angles is a branch of believing in the revelation which is a branch of believing in the existence of god. thus we first discuss the root then we discuss its branches you fucking retards.
Admonition: there is no such thing as "unreasonable" that's not an accurate word, it's either not possible i.e., impossible OR Possible. The former means it cannot exist because it entails logical impossibility, and the latter is self-evident does not need an explanation. and there is no religion came up with what entails logical impossibilities. let that sink in your little atheist mind.
Perpathetic:
The use of the words "reasonable and unreasonable" was not mine. I merely quoted them. So save your subliterate lecture for the original user of those words.
Peripathetic: "existence of Angles"
I firmly believe in angles. Right angles, acute angles, obtuse angles. Do you believe in grammar and orthography? Perhaps you should ask your grade school teacher to arrange some remedial reading classes for you.
Peripathetic: "you fucking retards." You childish prick.
@Al-Ghabe
I think you firmly believe in Grammar nazing too? the WORST kind of objection, you fucking Ignoramus, is the grammatical one, and it does not prove shit other than me being not good at English. but me being not good at English does not change the fact that you have cognitive disorders. and this is exactly the only kind of objection you'd get from a pseudo-intellectual retarded atheist. what a miserable loser.
@Peripathetic: "I think you firmly believe in Grammar nazing too? the WORST kind of objection"
Says Verypathetic after erroneously lecturing me on the correct use of the word "unreasonable". I don't usually pick up grammar errors, but you make such a tempting target with your hilarious mistakes. After all, the precise use of words is fundamental to philosophy, as you'll learn if you can find a reputable university to accept you after you complete your high school education.
"you fucking ignoramus"
Charming. You copulating non compos mentis.
@Al-Ghabe
these are two different things you empty-headed moron. a dispute in the meaning of a word is not like a dispute in the arrangement of some letters. no wonder you're an atheist, it fits your cognitive disorder.
@Patentlypathetic: "a dispute in the meaning of a word is not like a dispute in the arrangement of some letters"
Oh really? The "arrangement of some letters" is the difference between comprehensibility and gibberish. You not only mispelled a word. You turned it into a completely different word. You do know the difference between an angel and an angle, don't you? It's an interesting mistake though. It reminds of Pope Gregory, who when told that some slave boys in a market were Angles, said "Not Angles, but angels." I think maybe he was a pedophile.
How can anyone know for sure what you mean when you try to talk about grown-up topics? Have you considered an adult literacy program?
@Al-Ghabe
I think the context would prevent any misunderstanding, Only a grammar nazi atheist with cognitive disorder would confuse an angel with an angle in a context that's mentioning religious claims such as the miracles and the existence of god. especially when it's correctly spelled a couple of lines before
@Perniciouslypathetic: "I think the context would prevent any misunderstanding"
Sure. I'll try to remember you're challenged and make allowances next time I read one of your posts.
Or perhaps I'll just ignore you. You're really rather boring and predictable, right down to the amateur psychology, preening arrogance, and clumsy obscenity.
Goodbye.
Jon, you said, "With the pagan gods, they do have beginnings so we can safely assume them to be false gods (with a lower case g)"
Will you demonstrate that, per god, please?
Okay. I'll try. From Aquinas 5 ways, we can deduce certain things about the uncaused cause, or the unmoved mover, or the source of objective morality (though this comes from another argument), etc. The following must then be true about God.
- God is not lacking in anything. Not in power, Not in knowledge, Not in goodness. Now, let's take the pagan gods, we usually have one god/goddess for a certain thing - love, war, wind, sun, rain, etc. These gods would be lacking in power as they have a lot of power for sure but not over everything. In fact, there must only be one God because the moment you have more than one, you contradict the omnipotence of God as each one would be able to destroy the other. So Aquinas 5 ways simply lay the groundwork for a monotheistic belief system.
@Jon the Catholic:
Is your god the same god throughout the Bible? I see several different god characters, starting with the all-powerful wizard of Genesis, who just thinks things into being. Later we have a god who acts more indirectly. In Egypt, for example, he hardens Pharaoh's heart and then repeatedly terrorizes him with a series of plagues. The god who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah throws thunderbolts like Zeus in a tantrum. Parting the sea reminds me of Poseidon. Turning Lot's wife into salt was just the kind of petty trick that Greek-Roman gods did.
By the New Testament, we have a god that no longer interevenes directly in the world (except to impregnate Mary) but instead sends his son as an agent.
These look like different characters to me. What do you think?
It's the same God throughout the entire history of mankind. Even today. Consider this simpler analogy - me.
At work, I'm one of the senior engineers - my mind is very analytical and I may choose to show little emotion.
When talking to contractors, I may come off as demanding and strict.
To my roommate, I'm very quite and prefer to keep to myself.
To my girlfriend, I'm very loving and sweet and thoughtful.
To my parents, I can be respectful or even hard-headed.
To my sisters, I'm usually sweet but we don't talk a lot.
To my select friends, I can actually be the life of the party.
It's the same with God. With varying degrees of closeness and hostility towards God, he can appear to be very loving or stern.
"By the New Testament, we have a god that no longer interevenes directly in the world (except to impregnate Mary) but instead sends his son as an agent."
- His son is God, so Jesus isn't merely God's agent. He is God, so He's still intervening quite a lot in the New Testament.
Jon, is this your demonstration, per god, of its beginning as I asked? If so, it seems juusssttttt a tad lacking.
To demonstrate per god and their origin would take me until December to finish, Cyber. I chose a faster route which rules out polytheism and thus rules out all their gods. You want me to stick to beginnings?
How 'bout, say, just a half dozen of them then?
That is bulk rate question begging, wow. I wonder if Costco offers this kind of deal?
I realize it's a lot but from the rules of logic, you're able to deduce certain things from certain statements. Say God exists (we're not yet saying if it's true or not. Grant me this this one time). The next question would be what is God like?
If we use the Argument from Cause, we can deduce the God would be the uncaused cause.
From the argument from motion, we can deduce that God would be the unmoved mover.
From the argument from morality, we can deduce that God is the source/foundation of objective morality.
I feel like I have to spell everything out with you, though. And every time I see ellipsis when you quote me, I have to remind myself that you obviously removed something important that I said. And I said that from Aquinas 5 ways and from the argument from morality, we could deduce certain things about God.
The Argument from Cause is not a proof; you can not use it to logically deduce anything.
The same goes for the other 2.
And what exactly do you mean by "I realize it is a lot"? I hope that wasn't innuendo.
------------------------------------------------
That is probably a good idea; details matter.
Well, I dunno what to say anymore. You wanted evidence and evidence was given. It seems to me you’re clinging onto atheism being true so you’ll reject anything that proposes otherwise.
Glad you finally came to the right conclusion.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I did? What did I ask for evidence of? And what evidence was given? And why would I ask for evidence in a thread about a proof, since proofs can not be supported by evidence?
Jon
How can something that can not move, move something else? What is an uncaused cause?
Yes, in his case God with a capital g = Jehovah.
And, not all non-Abrahamic gods were created. Some are eternal just like Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah.
If the first mover is suppose to be a god, then he should just say it's a god. Then he has to prove there is a god, and don't run to the metaphysics crap as the proof. If he can prove a god is real, then he has to prove which god it is that humanity worships.
Pages