Atheists: Finding Comfort in Loss

Remove all ads!

Am I the only one finding it at least a little ironic that a thread with the title "finding comfort in loss" has a heated discussion which hardly gives comfort to anyone?

 

Welcome to the internet

Anything relating to "how do you manage without God?" will always activate the "religion senses tingling!" (Many scientists have deduced that people displaying such a sense may have been bitten by a priest at some stage in their lives, but lack of evidence prevents further research and funding)

The phenominon known as John Gabriels Theory demonstrates that the anonymity of the internet has an effect similar to alcohol consumption without the sensoral deprivation. It is however considered as addictive and lead to withdrawl from the common poster when deprived of their beloved pastime.

The final issue facing the internet is commonly derived from the John Gabriels Theory but simply leads to "Posters On The Internet May Appear Angrier Then They Really Are" commonly shortened down to "lolwut?"

Spoiler

To conclude:

• Topics covering religion will draw together Atheists and Religious folk like an African watering hole attracks Alligators and Zebras
• Creativity of expression online outweighs manner of expression online
• "Let's get jolly riled up!"

 

@Drew

Given that common lore concerning Unicorns has it that they are magical creatures, its possible that a pink unicorn would be capable of hiding its existence from us. We arent, after all, masters of all we survey - new species are discovered daily in jungles and the ocean depth, and until fairly recently the giant squid was thought to be a myth. Who can say what powers a pink unicorn might have if it existed?

As for God..... theres a difference in thought processes here.

You say that you have no reason to believe that God does not exist, and hence you choose to believe that he does. This strikes me as a particularly odd chain of thought. It would be the same as somebody saying to me that we have no evidence for the non existence of pink unicorns, and me choosing to believe that they do. The possibility of something existing doesnt make it likely.

For me, God either exists or he doesnt. He isnt responsible for the Earth being what it is - natural forces ensured that, and the anthropogenic principle explains why we are lucky enough to even question this. He didnt create us humans - evolution led to us. So what influence does he have on our lives? I hold that there is too much inconsistency in the Bible and its portrayal of God and his attitude towards humans in general for him to make sense. Life is too random and chaotic. I could stand up right now and blaspheme at the top of my lungs, I wouldnt be struck down and neither would my family.

In summary, my position is that God may or may not exist, but theres really no reason for him to - he'd have nothing to do. At best, he created the universe and set things in motion and then sat back.

 

8people, I find your attitude somewhat bemusing. Draws atheists and religious folks you say like you were in some kind of middle ground. There is no middle ground. You either believe or you don't. What you believe may differ though. The only way to pretend to be in the middle is if you have no given the issue much thought.

@Proteuz, Drew clearly stated several times that he does not believe in god. Just that the concept of a god is a lot harder to clearly disprove than the pink unicorn due to the supposed nature of "god".

 

@joacqin

Whoops, thanks.

Apologies Drew, obviously didnt read enough of your posts.

 

@joacqin

I have never 'pretended to be in the middle' I simply have no desire to bash what people believe and expect the same curtesy back I find the preaching from both sides to at times be quite deafening and simply staying quiet on my personal beliefs tends to keep the racket down somewhat

I assure you I have given the matter much thought.

As to drawing Atheists and Religious together, I'm sure you'll see a variety of believers and non in this topic and similar, and like Alligators and Zebras - when one snaps the other gets ugly.

 

Assign me some properties to work with. Omnipotent, omniscient, sentient?

(Which, btw, is easy. There is no motive for an omnipotent, omniscient sentient being to continue existing; he would already know the consequences of everything he's about to do. Ergo God is Dead.)

And have already received much ridicule for it. Up for an another go, now that I have no motive for holding back? ;p

 

Considering last time you ridiculed with no basis of what I actually believed, I have no reason to think that you will even attempt a well reasoned argument this time round

Sometimes actually learning about more beliefs can be more profitable than simply denouncing based on personal zeal.

 

Dude, that's the whole point. As I have re-iterated several times, if we were talking about a specific God with specific attributes, you and I would be in agreement!

As it is, we are comparing a very specific pink unicorn to a very non-specific god. Good luck disproving naturalistic pantheism* (and no, I am not a pantheist).

* Naturalistic pantheism believes in an unconscious, non-sentient Universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense.

 

You're right. That's less disprovable than ****ing stupid.

Here's a problem for your idiotic view. Define Taluntain as a God.

Wow, I have solid proof of God's existence suddenly.

And using the word "likely" STILL doesn't apply, because it depends a ****ing reference frame.

There's PLENTY of need to insult you. Likely still doesn't apply to the nebulous definition of "God" you have, and you have a definition nebulous enough to qualify "Cogito ergo sum" into the bloody definition.

 

Taza, my point from the very beginning has been that God is too loosely defined to disprove. How is this view idiotic? I didn't invent pantheism, so I am not re-defining God by bringing up a definition for God that many people hold.

As to whether or not naturalistic pantheism or, say, deism is "****ing stupid," I personally find naturalistic pantheism to be a somewhat less absurd viewpoint than the commonly held belief that a very nice Jewish man who was cruelly nailed to a tree, stabbed through the heart, and died somehow rose from the dead three days later and then ascended into the sky (and all that without suffocating or freezing to death once he got there).

EDIT: you added this after the fact:

It isn't my fault that the term "God" is so loosely defined. I didn't define it.

 

You defined this definition.

But once you remove the definition of a word and then try to disprove it...

... or apply words such as "likely" to them...

 

No, I didn't "define" the definition of naturalistic pantheism. You insisted I be more specific about God, despite the fact that the subject of the initial comparison was not specific, so I did. If you don't like naturalistic pantheism, disprove deism instead. It makes little difference to me.

As to whether or not I can reasonably assert that something that we all know was made up in a deliberate attempt to be ridiculous is "less likely" than something so loosely defined that nearly anything could fit the bill, well, we appear to disagree. It is neither my fault nor my problem that God is so loosely defined.

 

Which *doesn't* invalidate my original point; at all.

We cannot use words such as "likely" because we have nothing to compare to; still.

And naturalistic pantheism defines God as non-supernatural and a non-being, which takes this argument from "pointless" to "****ing stupid".

 

Taza -- just to get this straight -- you are arguing that it is not reasonable to state that something we all know and agree was made up in an explicit effort to be absurd is less "likely" to exist than something so poorly defined that nearly anything would fit the bill (my argument from the very beginning)," is that correct? If so, I will respectfully disagree with you and leave you be, as there is no way we can engage in any further rational discourse on the matter.

 

I'm arguing that the word "likely" has no meaning when the target is unique or that nebulous.

We don't - can't - know how likely God is. We can make some kind of guess about pink unicorns, but can't prove anything there either.

Is 1 larger than undefined?

 

Which I pretty much condeded, however they are far from proven facts or even a very reliable theory, which you also conceded. This if anything is a matter of belief, and with beliefs there are allways the odds of you (or me) being wrong.

 

Taza, we make conjectures based on available information -- or its lack -- all the time. What's more, by some definitions of God that are actually used today (hence, no re-defining necessary), God's existence is every bit as absolute as yours or mine. To prove that God exists, I needn't prove all possible definitions, but merely one of them. The pantheist who believes God is the universe and then argues that the existence of God is absolute need only prove that the universe exists to be 100% correct. This is why definitions are so damnably important. When leaving all currently embraced definitions of "God" on the table, the existence of "God" is absolute. Since "absolute" is always more likely than improbable, "God" is always more likely to exist than pink unicorns. Yes, it's silly. Yes, it's semantic, but I never said that it wasn't. In fact, I conceded exactly that point to Aldeth before you even got involved in this little dog and pony show.

 

@joacqin

Well, I for one do believe that there no such things as invisible pink space elephants on the dark side of the moon. I do believe that invisible pink space elephants exist, although, not physically.

No, of course not, but the definition of belief is that there is a certain level of confidence in a specific statement, e.g. God does not exist. It might be true, it might be false, who knows? However, that some people make that specific statement with such a level of confidence makes them believers. They believe that there is no god, but they have nothing to actually to show for it, other than the tired old routine of 'pink elephants bla bla.' Coming up with the pink elephants argument is only meant to avoid giving a honest answer to a good philosophical question.

I'll try to post some more tomorrow, because it's getting late and I need my sleep.