It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God is Not Tinkerbell

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Nietzsche is dead.




posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


You don't believe in god. You are an atheist.

Your own words were that you didn't believe in god, that makes you an atheist.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Dear God! Don't let God die! If you believe, then clap your hands. Genuflect! Testify! Sit, stand, kneel, sit, stand, kneel, sit, stand, kneel.

I am pretty sure that God is not dead, but am certain that Frederich Nietzsche is.
]

Did you not miss the point of the statement?


"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?" — Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann





It seems to me that many people, atheists and true believers alike seem to believe that the existence of God is predicated upon belief.


Really? I certainly disagree. The belief in any deity should be predicated on existence. My lack of verification of the existence of any deity has lead to my lack of belief in any deity. Therefore, atheist.



It is often argued that God made man in his own image, and then man returned the favor. The idea behind this is that humanity invented God, and in their invention declared that God invented humanity.


Well, this is a situation for a famous razor. Which makes more sense? If horses had gods, would they not draw their gods as horses?



The atheist will insist that God does not exist because there is no proof of God's existence.


What? I'm sorry, but what? I've gone out of my way to stress this. I even created a thread to address this. The lack of proof of any deity (I don't know why you're going for the capital G Abrahamic deity in particular here) is the reason we're atheists. It doesn't mean that this deity necessarily doesn't exist, but it's logically justifiable reason to not believe in aforementioned deity.



For the atheist, God's existence is, for all intents and purposes, moot, and yet, there seem to many who claim atheism that seem to be obsessed with denigrating the true believer,


Denigrating? In what way? By pointing out the inconsistencies in belief? Was it denigrating for me to be at a wedding where there was a reading from Paul (internet points for whoever guesses which one!) when Paul is the same person who said women shouldn't adorn their hair of style it in any manner for flattery...a command that nearly all of the women seemed to ignore.



and conversely there seem to many true believers who seem to be obsessed with denigrating the atheist.


Well, just look at what their holy book says about atheists.



It strikes me that both camps have effectively reduced God to the equivalent of Tinkerbell. Belief is the necessary component of God, for both camps.


Your premises are flawed.



It is a strange argument this belief argument. I don't really believe in broccoli,and yet it exists. Of course, broccoli demonstrably exists, but I would argue that so does God. Hell, take a look at broccoli! How can one not see God in broccoli? Whoa! If I don't believe in broccoli, does this mean I don't believe in God?



I like how this argument has the same level of sophistication as a Bible belt church sign. "Atheists don't believe in God, but God still believes in them" was a classic where I grew up.

Atheists are concerned with belief, not existence. Gnostic atheists would concern themselves with existence, but those individuals would have a positive declaration and a reason beyond "God doesn't exist because of my lack of belief".

Again, your premises are flawed.




But wait a cotton pickin' minute here, Jean Paul, some of you might be thinking. We can point to broccoli to show its existence. You can't point to God to show God's existence. Of course, I can't point to zero to prove its existence and yet we all, or most of us, accept zero as an acceptable equation.


Well, you don't have to point to zero, there is mathematical proof of it. In fact, the idea of zero or any other number is based in abstraction.



I can't point to nothing to show that I have nothing, but I have nothing just the same. Conversely, I can't point to everything and can only point to one of everything at any given point.


All the apples. I'm sorry, but you can refer to everything. Oh, and the 'god is everything' argument? Come on, old hat.


I'm just going to disregard the rest. Why? Well, the argument is flawed from the outset. Things don't improve from here.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Did you not miss the point of the statement?


Between you and I, somebody clearly missed the point. Of course, even this will probably go over your head.




Really? I certainly disagree. The belief in any deity should be predicated on existence. My lack of verification of the existence of any deity has lead to my lack of belief in any deity. Therefore, atheist.


Interesting that you use the word "lack" not once, but twice. There is no verification to this "lack" you speak of and we can only take your word for it. A dubious word at that. You clearly believe in this "lack" though, in spite of no verification of it. Show us the lack, don't reify, just show it.

Unlike you, I am not going to smugly pick apart your argument, and then claim I will, at some point ignore the rest while laughably claiming the argument is flawed from the outset. Your argument is flawed from the outset, so I will just simply disregard the rest. See how that works? There is a much more honest approach to taking the initial argument, refuting it as flawed, and then just ignoring the rest, rather than playing the disingenuous game you played.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


All emphasis added.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Did you not miss the point of the statement?


Between you and I, somebody clearly missed the point. Of course, even this will probably go over your head.


Baseless dismissal? Wow, you really are the typical person who speaks about philosophers based on popular quotes.




Really? I certainly disagree. The belief in any deity should be predicated on existence. My lack of verification of the existence of any deity has lead to my lack of belief in any deity. Therefore, atheist.


Interesting that you use the word "lack" not once, but twice.


Yes. Because that's how the English language works. I lack verification for the existence of any deity and this leads to the lack of belief. You know, I could have cracked out the word 'absence', but I try to keep things plain spoken because this is a public forum.



There is no verification to this "lack" you speak of and we can only take your word for it.


There is a verification for the lack of evidence. Were there actual evidence we would not have such a variety of religious views.



A dubious word at that.


Ah, I see what you're doing here. This actually has first semester of philosophy written all over it.



You clearly believe in this "lack" though, in spite of no verification of it. Show us the lack, don't reify, just show it.


You do realize that you're asking me to subvert the fundamentals of logic, right? I don't believe in a lack, I can highlight the lack. Deity A claims to have done action B, evidence for action B is absent where it should be present, therefore there is a lack of evidence for deity A.



Unlike you, I am not going to smugly pick apart your argument, and then claim I will, at some point ignore the rest while laughably claiming the argument is flawed from the outset.


Wow, you insulted me three times already.

Your premises were straw man arguments, why should I bother with what is drawn from them? Do you want me to test if you got a logically sound conclusion from flawed premises? Do you want me to give you a cookie afterwards?

Listen, as much as I am opposed to religion and disagree with the religious, I'm not going to state that they believe their deity exists solely based on their belief. They claim that their deity is eternal and precedes belief or anything else for that matter. A great number of western Christians claim that other deities were worshiped while this deity stood around figuring out the best way to get some followers (hint, genital mutilation played a factor).

On the other side of the coin, atheists don't claim the nonexistence of deities based on a lack of belief. Atheists do not believe in deities either due to a lack of evidence, a claim of positive proof, or an absence of the concept of 'deity' in their minds.

Your two premises were just shown to be invalid, I demonstrated it for you. Do I need to illustrate it?



Your argument is flawed from the outset, so I will just simply disregard the rest. See how that works?


Yes, you're being dishonest. I disregarded your argument after showing the flaw in your premises, you're disregarding my argument after insulting me several times.

See how that works?



There is a much more honest approach to taking the initial argument, refuting it as flawed, and then just ignoring the rest, rather than playing the disingenuous game you played.


So actually taking the time to respond to the meat of an argument is dishonest? It's less honest than insulting me several times (see emphasis in quotes) without actually addressing the points I make?

Wow, you fail at honesty about honesty. That's fractal failure.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   


Wow, you fail at honesty about honesty. That's fractal failure.


Feeding trolls is never a good idea. Your reification is just that and nothing more. You chose to enter this thread to advocate atheism and attack those who believe in God, in doing so, all you did was prove my point, not refute it. For you, God is as much Tinkerbell as it is for the true believers who insist that one must believe in God in order to...

You are entitled to your belief system, and in no way did I ever make an argument that atheists weren't. I simply made an observation that both sides seem view God as Tinkerbell.

Now, clap your hands.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I don't believe in God, I believe in god. I am not an atheist, I am not a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, or any other religion for that matter...

Understand first that when debating theology there can't be rules and nobody can be right because nobody knows. Anyone who knows is inherently wrong because they have made the first logical fallacy that they are capable of knowing in any meaningful manner anything that exists both outside their head and outside of the perception of their senses.

That said I know what I believe, I can share it, but I can't expect that you would change your opinion unless what I believe is more suitable to you than what you currently believe.

I am not an atheist because I choose not to call myself one.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




The atheist will insist that God does not exist because there is no proof of God's existence. The true believer will insist that God does exist but that you gotta have faith, baby.


I've never heard an atheist state that God DOES NOT exist because of a lack of evidence. I have heard plenty of atheists say that they don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence. That is a monumentally important distinction because, as you said/implied, God's existence is NOT predicated upon belief. I'm an atheist, I have no belief in God(s) because there is no good evidence, that doesn't mean they don't exist it merely means that I have no justification for believing in them. Most atheists are also agnostics, the two positions are not mutually exclusive.



there seem to many who claim atheism that seem to be obsessed with denigrating the true believer


I am an atheist and I spend some of my free time attempting to free people from religion. It has nothing to do with whether or not God actually exists, it has everything to do with the damage that religion and religious thinking does to the world. From terrorist attacks to parents drowning their kids at God's command to abstinence only and Creationism trying to get into schools religion does a lot of damage. Plus I was indoctrinated into Fundamentalist faith when I was a kid, escaping it was no simple task and if I can help others by denying ignorance than I want to do that. Most atheists are recovering theists and like people escaping a cult many see a need to save others from going down that road.



Of course, I can't point to zero to prove its existence and yet we all, or most of us, accept zero as an acceptable equation.


When was the last time someone's child died because they were busy praying to zero? Zero only exists out of mathematical necessity. Its a representative concept, not a living thinking being. So I think the example is fallacious.



It seems unlikely that science could ever disprove God


And if you talked to most atheists they'd wholeheartedly agree with you. I, as an atheist, fully accept that there might be god(s) out there somewhere but you're not going to get me to believe in them without showing me evidence.

Think of it this way, we're in a court of law, the burden of proof rests on those making the claim, the prosecution. If all the prosecution has is hearsay and superstition to back up their claims than why should the jury agree with them? Why should anyone agree with them? Just as defendants are held innocent until proven guilty I hold that all gods are fictional until proven actual/real. I can be swayed by evidence of course, do not take this as some rigid closed-minded position.

So yeah, gods might exist out there somewhere and belief has nothing to do with whether or not they do. But does the fact there's a chance SOME kind of god might exist justify someone's belief in Yahweh, Zeus, Allah or any other deity?
edit on 28-2-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I don't believe in God because I think the whole idea doesn't fit with the reality in which I perceive (Given most standard definitions of God at least). Not because of a lack of evidence. Frankly there is no conceivable evidence that could sway this opinion. I have decided that if Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God himself all came to me in the middle of the day and insisted they were real I would still not believe. I would believe there are beings beyond my ability to comprehend who exist outside of this world but beyond that I couldn't be convinced of a standard Christian type God.

I wonder what evidence would make you believe? How could science conceivably prove the existence of God? This is a legitimate question as I honestly can't think of a thing.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
You don't believe in god. You are an atheist.

Your own words were that you didn't believe in god, that makes you an atheist.


An atheist means that you either don't believe in God or that you believe that God or gods do not exist.

It is no wonder that with such an ambiguous term, someone with a passive disbelief would refrain from defining themselves in this way, when the term also conveys a position that they do not hold.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Titen


Most atheists are also agnostics, the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

They are exclusive in English. The Scottish theologian's Flint's effort to marginalize and refute agnosticism by repackaging it as atheism will be resisted. It is just the sort of woo that the internetz foster and thrive on. Strident theists and atheists making common cause against the authentic alternative to their often pointless wrangling is good content, better than the wrangling itself. It's free content, too, and worth every penny.


I hold that all gods are fictional until proven actual/real.

That is your prerogative, of course.

In contrast, I don't "hold" anything about the existence of gods. That is one aspect of my agnosticism, as well as one way in which agnosticism in general excludes atheism in general.

"All gods are fictional" is an additional belief, which you currently hold (your "until..." clause is still pending, a situation likely to persist), beyond whether people are mistaken to believe. I think that the idea of a universal fiction is false. That view is typical of non-atheists, like me.

You have no burden of proof for "I hold that all gods are fictional until proven actual/real." You have stated your personal opinion, and you haven't asked anyone to change their opinion. "I hold that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior" is of just the same kind.

No burden of proof attaches until and unless someone asks me to agree, when I do not already agree. Once attached, the burden persists only so long as I am engaged with the person making the request that I change.

The question itself has no privileged answer, no response that "should" be adopted provisionally, no asymmetry in the amount or quality of evidence for the adoption of one answer compared with the alternative. Nobody need prove anything to anyone else in order to hold an opinion themselves. All of that, too, is an expression of my agnosticism. Some atheists agree with me, while other atheists disagree emphatically.


I am an atheist and I spend some of my free time attempting to free people from religion.

People do not need to be "freed" from their own personal opinions. Especially not by you, who has nothing to offer them beyond what they already have, a personal opinion about a disputed question of fact.

Leaving fundamentalism was good for you, and you are the only judge. But it may be disastrous for someone else, and they are the only judge. Until you see that, you are just as much acting under the influence of your religious indoctrinators as if you had stayed in their church.

They have maneuvered you into becoming a teaching example whom they can preach about to increase their hold on others. Congratulations on your "escape."



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
S&F. I agree.

I think that too many people judge the world, and God (whatever that concept may entail for them), upon their own experience and existence.

This is not a very mature and adult way to approach the big questions of life as it presupposes that we have some sort of answer.

Here's some assumptions I can make about God (based upon my poor logic):
God is beyond us - totally.
God does not need us (He/She/It) is self-sufficient.
God has not created us out of hurt or longing or insufficiency.
God existed for eternity without us before we were and will exist for eternity after us.

We should be less arrogant and more amazed that we are even noticed (as we obviously are).
edit on 25/2/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


God cares for humans. There are different masses though.
to your last assumption, we will exist eternaly with him. That's the faith we were grown in. There can be a bound with God. What we don't differ is the aspect of Love, that is the same. Every act is done by the hand of the almighty. Belief in Jesus takes us realizing there can be healing that is caused by the Father. We lack faith. I keep on seeing medical attention as a lack of faith. Believe in the power of Jesus Christ, although the man doesn't walk this earth we need to believe there can be help from, beyound.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


You don't believe in god. You are an atheist.

Your own words were that you didn't believe in god, that makes you an atheist.


Do atheists don't believe in an almighty superior or are they against him. Do they wrick others thoughts as long as God is denied, whatever will occur with you trying to do that. Eliminate all signs God being here.

I always find them acknowledging his existence and believing a lie about Him. Are there those completely in denial? One day I'll get them. Psychotic. Pray.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You wrote:

["The God question, or theory, or hypothesis is a mind boggling question. I really, in the end, don't know what to say about it, other than I believe in God, but just as surely as I believe in God, I don't believe in Tinkerbell."]

You could have STARTED with not knowing what to say, instead of ending with it. Thus keeping your 'logic' ramblings down to a minimum.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


You wrote:

["I think that too many people judge the world, and God (whatever that concept may entail for them), upon their own experience and existence."]

Where the heck should people start from if not from their own experience and existence.

Is somebody telling them what to think a better method?

Quote: ["This is not a very mature and adult way to approach the big questions of life as it presupposes that we have some sort of answer."]

And the mature and adult way is to blindly accept circle-argumented doctrinal 'absolutes' without a shred of evidence?

And are you either blind to or completely ignorant of all the other existing options of approaching "the big questions in life"?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Am I a false believer? I don't think God requires belief to exist. I asked Him for a personal experience and I got it. Before that I was an atheist. Whether people like it or not the crucifixion was a true event, not just a myth, and to deny it is to speak from ignorance. If you have no belief in God, that doesn't mean God can't do whatever He pleases.
edit on 25-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


Sure, sure. It's true because it's true.

And when somebody questions the lacking logic in this, she/he is 'ignorant'.

Bravo, brilliant reasoning. It will undoubtly attract hordes to the empty churches.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


You wrote:

["It is now thought that man invented God and now man does not know who he is."]

If you kept that down to 'speaking for yourself' it would maybe be correct. I do not remember ever giving my consent to be included in such sweeping generalizations; especially not as I have some pretty clear ideas on who I am.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
I think all people believe in god. It just depends on the form of their desire. Whatever is highest in peoples' minds, the thing they are most drawn to, is their god.
edit on 26-2-2011 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)


Isn't it just amazing, what semantic gymnastics can lead to.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


You wrote:

["People do not need to be "freed" from their own personal opinions. Especially not by you, who has nothing to offer them beyond what they already have, a personal opinion about a disputed question of fact."]


In your fascination with the idea, that life is contained in language, instead of language being a minor part of life, you again miss a point:

People do not need to be 'freed' from their own personal convictions, but they constantly need to be 'freed' from OTHER peoples' convictions, which invasively has been imposed on them. Your semantic shufflings are worthless when facing Stalinist, Maoist, nazi, jihad or 'christian soldier' bullies.

From the point of society without violent conflict, the relevant point to consider would then be the gray area between 'offering information' as opposed to 'pushing it'.

Quote:

["Leaving fundamentalism was good for you, and you are the only judge. But it may be disastrous for someone else, and they are the only judge. Until you see that, you are just as much acting under the influence of your religious indoctrinators as if you had stayed in their church."]

You're framing the context. So leaving cannibalism, child-abuse, pyromania and general sociopathy may be good for somebody, disastrous for others. In your ivory-tower of words, you seem to ignore, that people, nature and the universe RELATE practically, and what's one person's delight can be another person's catastrophe in this relating.



edit on 28-2-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 


You wrote:

["I keep on seeing medical attention as a lack of faith."]

I repeat in capital letters to make sure nobody misses the point:

"I KEEP ON SEEING MEDICAL ATTENTION AS A LACK OF FAITH.

Well done, Etherical. You have just presented yourself as a brilliant example of the obvious dangers of fundamentalism. Pray the illness away, pray the gay away, pray the ......whatever christians don't like...away and avoid mundane methods, even when they appear to function better than the holy ones.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join