Is Atheism a crutch for people who don’t understand the complexity of God?

[Jayford]

Quote from jonbig04:

Quote from Jayford:



Point being, it is much easier to prove something does exist. Bring me a Sasquatch corpse, and I'll believe it. Absolute proof. Don't even need to say anything.

I agree with your overall statement, but I think your are overlooking the vastness of the dilemma. After all, if God exists, he could easily create a Sasquatch corpse without any of them actually existing.

This argument will rage till the end of time (or end of humans anyway). There is no way God will ever be disproved, although there is a ton of evidence against it unless one believes in the 13.5 billion year old universe, evolution AND God. Then its just a philosophical debate (why does God allow all the misery, etc.). I enter these debates knowing full well I won't change any minds. Its just fun in a warped way I suppose.


I agree with the first part, however I don't agree with the next. The nature of a supreme being is so that it can never be disproved. There is NO evidence against a supreme being, because evidence implies that said being is bound to some sort of logic...when, by definition, its not.

True, a God could just create a Sasquatch corpse, but why? What's the point? I know your answer will be we can't understand God, which leads to your second point here that logic does not matter when discussing the existence of God. This creates a huge dilemma for me because then why do you even discuss it at all, if your answer will be "I will believe no matter what you say, and although your logic makes sense, I don't care to hear it cause it doesn't count."

If you truly believe this, you leave the other side with virtually nothing because their argument is based on science, and the dilemmas that arise if there is an all powerful, all knowing, supremely good being. Your answer to the dilemmas is the same, we cannot understand God. Therefor, there is nothing left to discuss. Believers will then never be swayed, and non believers will have nothing else to argue as their ammo is not permissible.

Can you understand how frustrating this gets for atheists?

Theist males must get along swimmingly with women. They usually don't permit the use of logic in an argument either. Again, very frustrating.

 

[jonbig04]

It doesn't matter, that was not the point.

You said�. "The nature of "God" is such that it is beyond the realm of logic."

You now seem to be shifting away from that.
Did you mean to say maybe or perhaps The nature of "God" is such that it is beyond the realm of logic?
Just trying to get it clear

You're right, I shouldn't have stated any absolutes. Maybe he is beyond it, maybe he isn't.

If God is beyond the realm of logic, God is illogical. Then along with �makes no sense� I think you also said,

here is a difference between illogical and beyond logic. but maybe be is one or the other or both, i don't know.

God would be irrelevant and pointless for the role of God too.

Why is that?

Those don�t appear to be the attributes one might normally associate with a supreme being .

Maybe they are maybe there aren't...why does it matter?


Mealymouthed nonsenses like "beyond all understanding" render a supposedly all powerful being understandably pointless, if it can't be understood.

I tend to hate the "beyond all understanding" premise as well, but like it or not there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn't, as you say, render a supreme being pointless...in fact it sometimes has the opposite affect.


Anyways what's your point with all this?

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Jayford:

True, a God could just create a Sasquatch corpse, but why? What's the point? I know your answer will be we can't understand God,

Why does the point matter?


which leads to your second point here that logic does not matter when discussing the existence of God. This creates a huge dilemma for me because then why do you even discuss it at all, if your answer will be "I will believe no matter what you say, and although your logic makes sense, I don't care to hear it cause it doesn't count."

You really can't discuss it, which was my first sentence in this thread. Logic is based on rules we define as humans, how then can you use it to prove or disprove a supreme being? Your logic doesn't "make sense". It really can't. For example, it may be "logical" to say that the earth is billions of years old, but could not have God created it that way?


If you truly believe this, you leave the other side with virtually nothing because their argument is based on science, and the dilemmas that arise if there is an all powerful, all knowing, supremely good being. Your answer to the dilemmas is the same, we cannot understand God. Therefor, there is nothing left to discuss. Believers will then never be swayed, and non believers will have nothing else to argue as their ammo is not permissible.

Exactly my point. However its not so much that its "not permissible" it just simply doesn't apply. Its akin to an attorney walking into a murder trail and explaining that the defendant loves to golf. It just doesnt really matter, but its all we have.

Can you understand how frustrating this gets for atheists?

Sure. Whats more frustrating is science is limited so far. The most incomprehensible thing about god to me, is that he came from nothing, yet science assumes the same premise with the big bang. Is it logical for something to come from nothing? Yet it must have happened. Atheists are just a religious as the next guy.

 

[jonbig04]

How about this. Someone please explain one logical argument you have against a supreme being existing. Just one.

 

[andrasnm]

There is a saying from my poker days; "Lady Luck is a Fickle Bitch and Her Name is Karma"...
I don't care to "convert" you (or anyone for that matter) to my way of thinking. I also stand behind my statement. Evertything is either karma based or a product of individual or collective thoughts. When (and IF) you think about (and have life experience) to validate this by careful observation of your own life, you will see this way too.




<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D5lahcNAmc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D5lahcNAmc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Quote from Gringinho:

Ahm, I think you lost me on your last claim there...


I am well aware of degrees of truth and degree of belief, certainty etc. But you seem a little too certain in your assumptions...

"Nothing" - not anything - is random? Really...? Care to back that up with something more formal than just three words?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from andrasnm:

There is a saying from my poker days; "Lady Luck is a Fickle Bitch and Her Name is Karma"...
I don't care to "convert" you (or anyone for that matter) to my way of thinking. I also stand behind my statement. Evertything is either karma based or a product of individual or collective thoughts. When (and IF) you think about (and have life experience) to validate this by careful observation of your own life, you will see this way too.




<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D5lahcNAmc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D5lahcNAmc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That's a little too deep for my taste. But I can only imagine what nefarious thoughts, collective and/or individual, the victims of Katrina and the recent tsunami must have held to deserve their fate. And all of the starving and ailing innocent children, not only in Third World countries, but right here at home. And the innocent victims of senseless crimes. And the innocent civilians of military offensives. And those stricken with terminal illnesses. The list goes on. Those bastids all had it coming, eh? (Hey, this self-righteous smugness feels pretty good!)

P.S. Some folks just can't accept the notion that they are not in complete control, can they? While implicitly passing judgment, of course. (Ahem.)

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Thunderdog:

victims of Katrina and the recent tsunami must have held to deserve their fate. And all of the starving and ailing innocent children, not only in Third World countries, but right here at home. And the innocent victims of senseless crimes. And the innocent civilians of military offensives. And those stricken with terminal illnesses. The list goes on. Those bastards all had it coming, eh? (Hey, this self-righteous smugness feels pretty good!)

Agreed.

"No luck"....I don't believe that for a second.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Dirty Harry didn't say "a man has got to inflict whole hosts of pointless self-imposed religious limitations on himself" .

When the theist asks 'what came before God', there is no answer which wouldn't equally apply to 'what came before big bang'.
When the atheist asks what came before God, the answer is big bang .

But to tell you the truth, in all the sickeningly sanctimonious self-righteousness religious excitement , you can lose track yourself. If it's the wrong Sky Daddy you picked, God will blow your head clean off. So you've got to ask yourself one question; Do I feel lucky?
Well,
do ya, punk?
Science, now there's a thing. A possibility for opening up the chamber to see "Did he fire six shots or only five?".

Because of your hatred you keep taking the illogical side of the debate.

While your dirty harry quote is amusing its is not on point.

My statement was science is not on the side of the Atheist. (To make sure you get it - I will spell it out.) That statement does not mean Science is on the side of the Theist.

You really should check your emotions - that cause you to make illogical conclusions.

 

[Jayford]

Quote from jonbig04:

How about this. Someone please explain one logical argument you have against a supreme being existing. Just one.

The most classic and often repeated argument of all. Probably the first thing you will learn in philosophy 101 (first thing I studied in that class anyway). This is referring to the Christian version of God BTW.

1) God is all powerful

2) God is all knowing

3) God is supremely good.

Then why allow all the extreme misery on Earth? That is a logical argument. The typical theistic response is not. They cannot give a rational answer, which invariably leads to the same crutch, "we cannot understand why God allows all the misery, because we cannot understand God". THAT is not logic, its a cop out.

If you do offer a logical argument and state that "who says God is good?" then you would indeed be a rare believer, but you would have a point. My answer would be that I personally don't believe in a supreme being because I don't believe in much of anything that has not been proven by science, or that at least has some scientific evidence. I don't believe in UFOs for example because after all these years, no one has produced one. Same with Sasquatch. One woulda been hit by a car by now.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Jayford:

The most classic and often repeated argument of all. Probably the first thing you will learn in philosophy 101 (first thing I studied in that class anyway). This is referring to the Christian version of God BTW.

1) God is all powerful

2) God is all knowing

3) God is supremely good.

Then why allow all the extreme misery on Earth? That is a logical argument. The typical theistic response is not. They cannot give a rational answer, which invariably leads to the same crutch, "we cannot understand why God allows all the misery, because we cannot understand God". THAT is not logic, its a cop out.

If you do offer a logical argument and state that "who says God is good?" then you would indeed be a rare believer, but you would have a point. My answer would be that I personally don't believe in a supreme being because I don't believe in much of anything that has not been proven by science, or that at least has some scientific evidence. I don't believe in UFOs for example because after all these years, no one has produced one. Same with Sasquatch. One woulda been hit by a car by now.

You are right, that is the most repeated argument, but I asked for evidence against a supreme being's existence. We haven't even gotten far enough to start to ponder the attributes of that being. Lets start at the beginning then maybe one day we will get to the being's nature, but as of right now we haven't even established whether he is exists or not.

On a side note there is of course no easy answer to your question, but you should remember that the argument you will get from an intelligent theist will center around the subjectivity of the word "good". What does it mean? Good is such an ambiguous term that it will do use no justice to go back and forth on whether he is good or not, as "good" is likely to be interpreted differently by different people. But like I said, we haven't gotten there yet.