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.
You can technically still do mysticism without a belief in a God or a Trinity at all, see Taoism for example. That aside I think Carl Sagan was a bit of a mystic though his mysticism was of a scientific rather than a natural kind. It definitely comes across in anything he narrated or wrote when it comes to the wonders of the cosmos.
@ CR
Go look up Tertullian of Carthage. He was the first (2nd Century) to formalise the idea of of the Trinity much later adopted by the Roman Church in the Nicene Creed in 382CE.
Why is he not a saint? Well, he actually formalised the idea of the Trinity (but not an equal trinity) when he became a Montanist.
Why did he think up the Trinity? Well, he was a polemicist, dead set against the Gnostic and Adoptionist and Marcionite sects (and others) that abounded in 2nd century Empire. He is considered the father of the Latin church..and not a saint because of his rebirth as a Montanist (another of those sects that inconveniently challenged the later Roman narrative).
You have much to learn grasshopper.
@ CR
Go look up Tertullian of Carthage. He was the first (2nd Century) to formalise the idea of of the Trinity much later adopted by the Roman Church in the Nicene Creed in 382CE.
Why is he not a saint? Well, he actually formalised the idea of the Trinity (but not an equal trinity) when he became a Montanist.
Why did he think up the Trinity? Well, he was a polemicist, dead set against the Gnostic and Adoptionist and Marcionite sects (and others) that abounded in 2nd century Empire. He is considered the father of the Latin church..and not a saint because of his rebirth as a Montanist (another of those sects that inconveniently challenged the later Roman narrative).
You have much to learn grasshopper.
@Cognostic
“With the emperor’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view.”
So this is what you think happened?
Try this:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm#II
That’s somewhat outdated but I have an updated article on the New Catholic Encyclopedia on my phone. Unfortunately I can’t share it with you.
Research St. Athanasius which you probably won’t but it’s very insightful historically.
You can not get to the trinity from here!
@Cognostic
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say. Let’s debate this on another thread if you like. I’m out for now.
@Catholicray: No one is debating the trinity. You asserted the trinity explained the observation of god. It's an inane assertion. The trinity is a late Christian development and even today there are non-trinarian sects. The trinity explains nothing.
@Cognostic
You’re overstating what I said and this we are debating the Trinity. I stand by the assertion that trinitarian theology explains the observation of God in the Old Testament. That is to say no one observed the Father they were observing the son.
Before you try to attack that too let me ask you this. The Jews knew very well what their Scriptures said why would the contradiction be there in the first place? Is your position that they were that stupid?
Any argument that relies on people not being stupid is extremely suspect; given that we see people doing stupid stuff everyday. People is dumb.
I have sufficiently demonstrated that it does not. There was no Trinity in Early Christianity, There is no trinity in the bible. It is a made up assertion to explain all the different versions of the Christian faiths. The trinity is and was an attempt to validate all perceptions of Christianity.
@ Cog
agreed, see my post about Tertullian and the Trinity above....
@Cognostic
So why do we have writings in Jewish tradition that talk about a complex unity concerning God if it's merely made up by Christians?
Well when people are deluded, they believe anything that validates their personal belief.
Why believe anything biblical when there is zero subjective evidence?
Cognostic,
You are right about the trinity. It is not in the Bible, not believed by the early Christians, nor was it believed by those in the old testament. The often repeated phrase that "god is one" is a primary theme in the Bible. Not that god is three in one, just one. The same spirit, the same God from genesis to revelation. You seem to have a grasp of this subject that is surprising to me, because most people that have your view are oneness Christians.
However, I think Catholicry has made some good points about how science is not sufficient alone to address the question of god
@Jo: RE: "science is not sufficient alone to address the question of god."
This is what theists fail to understand. "SCIENCE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF GOD!" Science questions the claims made by theists. Claims of when their God interacts with reality. 'THERE IS NOTHING THERE." All science says about God or Gods is that the "Theists have not met their burden of proof." This is completely basic; "The person making the claim has the burden of proof." Without evidence the proper thing to do is "REJECT THE CLAIM." In science, this is the "Null Hypothesis." The claim is "NOT PROVED" and so it can be rejected.
There is no reason what so ever for scientists to run around disproving every silly claim that people can imagine. If they did that they would never have time for making real discoveries. The system is simple, someone observes something happening in the real world. They create a hypothesis about the event. They then test the hypothesis to see if it can be validated or proved wrong. In every case and in every way the God hypothesis has failed modern science. It appears that the magical omniscient and all powerful God is exactly the same as nothing at all. If catholicray wants to assert a God exists, he must indicate how that god exists, how he knows what he knows and then provide evidence for his assertions. It's just that simple. It is not a failure of science. It is a FAILURE OF THEISTS.
Cognostic,
Your positive claims seem to be in conflict. "SCIENCE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF GOD" and "Science questions the claims made by theists." If a theists ask the question of god existing, science cannot answer that question, but can address the claim? Seems contradictory to me.
If science ultimately cannot answer the question, than you are just dancing around the margins and proving nothing.
If a theists says that god lives on Mt Olympus and parties there in physical form with his buddies. Scientist could climb the mountain and disprove that belief. But that only answers to that specific situation. It does not address the main issue. Kind of like proving that there is no man in the moon and extrapolating that to the entire universe.
That would not be proof the belief is false.
No it would not. Then the question would be, "Did they hide?" Amongst many, many others.
rmfr
@Jo "If a theists ask the question of god existing, science cannot answer that question, but can address the claim? Seems contradictory to me."
Theists do not "ASK THE QUESTION OF GOD EXISTING." If they did they would be non-believers. Theists make the assertion "God Exists." All science does is ask for evidence that is measurable, repeatable, consistent and predictive.
Claim: Human beings have a spirit.
Claim: Prayer works.
Claim: Miracles happen
Claim: Magical cures.
Claim: Holy water
Claim: The wafer changes magically into the body of Christ.
Claim: The wine changes magically into the blood of Christ.
Claim: Exorcism is real.
Claim: Bible Prophecies have come true.
Claim: etc.... etc..... etc......
When god interacts with the real world, the changes can be seen, measured, predicted, and validated. Nothing we have ever seen or experienced in any way has ever led us to a God.
You are confusing claims and questions. "God exists" is a claim. This requires facts and evidence to be validated. "Does god exist?" is a question. To find out, we must define our concept. That means we must make claims about this god we are talking about.. God exists beyond time and space. This is a claim. No one knows that is beyond time and space it is a foolish claim with no evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence (Hitchens.) To begin exploring the question you have in mind, "Does god exist?" You have to define what you are talking about. All definitions are claims. Claims can be addressed. The person making the claim HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. This is true whether or not he or she is a scientist.
CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN:
Science only deals with specific situations. No scientist has ever made the "scientific claim" that God has been proven not to exist. All science has ever asserted is that there is no good evidence for God claims. There are also no good logical arguments as all of them are based on fallacies of logic. Obviously the god on top of the mountain does not exist. In your example, people whet there and proved it, they were there and God was not. This says nothing at all about any other assertion of god. IT IS THE JOB OF THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THEIR CLAIM. Scientists have better things to do than climb mountains or debunk every silly claim that comes along.
Like your example, when claims are examined, we find no evidence at all of God or gods. The claims are then rejected. There is no reason to believe the claim.
So an agreement and some rules in a book are all that holds mankind from this?
Approximately a hundred years ago Einstein could not deal with the concept of black holes. Yet here we are, having just taken a major step in the examination of black holes, and further entrenching his great theories into reality.
This is why I made the posit that mankind can reach beyond the boundaries of superstitious rules imposed centuries ago. Religion stifles advancement, and attempts to make all of us believe that we are unworthy and incapable of reaching for the stars ... and gods.
Religion draws boundaries, imposed without reason or explanation. Mankind will continue to reach out, to explore, and examine everything laid at our feet. And that includes the god concept.
And if religion is the victim of our push to learn, so be it, then it was false.
@David Killens
“Religion draws boundaries, imposed without reason or explanation.”
I would say based on science thus far that you and I would be well within reason to say,
The universe draws boundaries imposed without reason or explanation.
@catholicray
"The universe draws boundaries imposed without reason or explanation."
I cannot agree with that statement catholicray because the universe is governed by the laws of physics.
@David Killens: Governed by? I gotta question that one. My understanding is that the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive. We make the "Laws of physics" based on our observations. When our observations change so does our physics.
"The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] Each scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the Universe. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow theories) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc.). Scientific laws summarize and explain a large collection of facts determined by experiment, and are tested based on their ability to predict the results of future experiments. They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
What Catholicguy has done is give agency to the universe. He is assuming in his question the outcome of the answer. It's like asking "Who created the universe." The question leads the answer. This is called "Begging The Question" a typical theist ploy.
""The universe draws boundaries imposed without reason or explanation."
Does the universe Reason?
Does the universe Explain?
Does the universe Impose?
Does the universe Draw? (make)
There is so much wrong with that question that it isn't worth responding to.
@Cognostic
You are correct, and not only was I incorrect, I was very sloppy. I intended to reference the "laws of science", but just stated "laws of physics".
"Trinitarian theology answers this dilemma."
No it doesn't, at all. Moses allegedly looked upon god, as supposedly did Jacob, and people saw Jesus, thus the idea that no one can look upon god and survive means the bible roundly contradicts itself here. Unevidenced claims are not answers either, this is nothing more than unevidenced rationalisations to wave away yet another biblical contradiction.
Exodus 33:20
But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.
@Sheldon
I would say your jumping around Scripture like a Protestant.
Trinity Theology would simply say that God as referred to in Exodus is referring to the Father or it is a reference to the total complex unity by which even those who saw Jesus can be said to not have seen God.
It really depends on what the meaning the author was trying to convey when he referenced the word God.
@ CR
Sorry mate...read the father of the trinity nonsense. Go read Tertullian. Then go confess...(he was a montanist) so you should go off to the local priest (who probably won't have clue what you are talking about) What you are spouting is a much much later apologetic from the 18th century when serious questions, both in and out of the Catholic arena, were being asked to justify such an outlandish joke as the Trinity.
When you have read Tertullian understand what he was trying to do. Read his polemics (aka propaganda)... you will be educated very quickly.
(Eddit added title and reference to Catholic Church)
FFS - You are not still on this trinity shit are you.
"The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)" I believe 170 CE.
The first defense of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against "Praxeas"
So the TRINITY IS A 3ED Century Creation. Using the trinity to explain anything is a dead end. The Church invented the term, It is pulled out of the Pope's ass.
It is not in the bible. It is an attempt to justify and explain Early Christian beliefs that were all different from one another. It is an attempt to condense the Christian Faith and IT FAILED. We have Adoptionists Today. We have faiths that simply believe Jesus was a prophet. Hell, We have faiths that believe God and his two sons, Jesus and Satan live on Golob. THE TRINITY IS A FAILURE.
Later, at the First Council of Constantinople (381), the Nicene Creed would be expanded, known as Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, by saying that the Holy Spirit is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son .
So they did not even have it worked out by the 4th Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
You would think they would have it all worked out by then BUT NOOOOOOOO!
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) adds: "In God there is only a Trinity since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial."
THE TRINITY CONCEPT WAS PULLED OUT OF THE ASS OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND IT DOES NOTHING TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING. IT IS A FABRICATED LIE.
But but but ...... I love the trinity. If it is accepted, then since jesus is actually part of god, he never died for our sins, thus shredding the entire foundation of christianity.
As I have stated previously, jesus had a bad hair day, and then spent three days in heaven before returning for his final curtain call.
@ Cog
Aaw come on Chimp...I was gradually leading Ray down the rocky goat path to knowledge and you stick a 6 lane motorway right through his most ingrained and cherished (if silly) beliefs! No fair!
Plus it means I will have to go find something else to research. Shit.
I'm going to party with the bonobos and sling some poo around to feel me better. TM, where's that party punch stuff you make? I need a real drink.
Pages