Atheism and Monotheism

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

you are evidence, since i already know that i am a god and that others are gods, you are evidence that i'm not mistaken. otherwise, i'd be here all by myself with no evidence that anyone else exists.

what are the pre-requisites for being a god? could it be "i think, therefore i am"? who would i be to deny you that power?

a reply to: undo

Are we playing dodgeball here? Thanks for ignoring my point again.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: undo

Are we playing dodgeball here? Thanks for ignoring my point again.

i didn't ignore it. you're saying i'm ominscient, and i agree to the extent that i know i'm a god but so are you. you're also saying i'm not omniscient and not god, only you are god. now if you know i'm alive and i know you're alive, then i have more proof that i'm right than you do that i'm wrong. you just have to accept that other gods exist besides yourself.

lol

originally posted by: undo
well don't worry , i don't hope that you are erased from the planet just because we don't agree.

i have grown fond of the folks here, including the atheists.

You don't even listen to anything anyone tells you so this discussion is over between you and me at this point. I just explained at length why this isn't the case but you insist that you know what I think better than I do. You think I want you erased from existence and I tell you that I don't think that at all and explain why but you go right back to making the same claim. It's insulting and rude and unreasonable to talk to others like that.

You don't get to decide what I think especially after I already told you what I think already. What you're doing is wrong and you know it and you wouldn't accept it if I did the same to you so until you can be honest in this discussion there isn't a discussion as far as I'm concerned.

now for the subject of believing there's a god being the same thing as believing there's no god, omniscientally speaking: i think you are right, you are a god. but so am i.

Nope, they aren't the same and I'm not claiming I am god and I don't think you are god either. We are both just men. This there is plenty of evidence to prove as well.

i can't claim there's no god other than myself, since i have living evidence that there is. we are just suffering a sort of 3d amnesia and limited by the extent of the laws of this dimensionality (hey that's scientific). i just happen to believe this because i read the writings about this very compassionate guy named jesus and thought.......dang, that guy is awesome. i wanna know what he knows. he said something like "did i not tell you, ye are gods?"
was nice of him to be so informative. notice he didn't say " did i not say only one of you are god?"

Ya, I've read the same stuff and yes Jesus as he's described sound totally cool and I'd love to meet him and pick his brain. However, I don't know for sure if he was ever a real person but even if he was that doesn't mean he was God or did magic stuff or didn't really die either. I feel the same way about Don Juan the guy that Carlos Castenada talks about in his books. He was wise and interesting and did feats of magic as well. But I also don't know if he was real and if he was that the tales of magic were real. So just like God, until there is proof of their existence, while I may like the image they represent and want it to be real, for now I can't say.

Just to be clear about "There is No God". That isn't my position unless you ask me and want a Yes or No answer. When given the choice between Yes and No I have to say No because I can't say Yes. However, my official position is I don't know. Maybe God is out there doing what God does but I have yet to see any convincing evidence to support that.

a reply to: mOjOm

who gets to make the decision there is no god, for you? you do, right? which is evidence of omniscience, otherwise you'd be a robot and ONLY regurgitate whatever was in your software. the correct position (if you really think about it) however, is to recognize everyone is omniscient to a degree, and as a result, has a right, the same as you, to believe whatever they want, provided the belief doesn't seek to harm others by forcing monotheistic totalitarianism (belief there is only one god, whether that's you or your dog or the government or the universe, etc).

a reply to: undo

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you misunderstood my point. I will now put it as plainly as possible in hopes of a different response.

1. You said in a previous post the moment atheists claim there is no God they are claiming omniscience. You followed it with saying, "how could you prove there's no god?" Clearly implying the only way one can claim there is no God is by having omniscience.

2. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

3. You stated you were a Christian. I understand your views are not the same as all other Christians. However, as a Christian, you still believe in a God. A God other than yourself. A God other than other human beings. Some divine Godhead. Presumably Jesus Christ, and his father (whoever he prayed to), and maybe a holy spirit.

4. You have no absolute proof your God(s) exist. Therefore by claiming you do, you are claiming omniscience. There is no omniscience to an extent. Anything other than the capacity to know everything is not omniscience.

5. Have you closed your heart to the possibility there are no Gods?

6. You did not answer my questions with the intent they were asked. Which was a mirror of your accusations of atheists. In other words, you are applying a double standard to the question.

7. I'm not interested in a random piece of scripture about how we are all Gods as an answer. You obviously put some importance on the scriptures, where and who they come from. If your Christian perspective is simply "we are all Gods", and a rejection of most other aspects of Christianity, so be it. Imo that would be a Christian in one of the vaguest senses of the word. However if that is the case, your previous answers would make a bit more sense.

Thanks undo, sorry for the confusion. I hope this helps.

a reply to: undo

I'm not saying "there is no god" unless you are asking me for a yes or no answer to the question "Is there a God". In that case, having only a Yes or No answer to give, I'll choose No because I can't choose Yes. However, my position is "I don't know if there is a God". I'm not going to assume there is a god either. Just like I'm not going to assume that Aliens exist or Bigfoot exists either until I have a reason to do so, which at the moment I don't.

Omniscient by definition means to know everything. So as long as we use that word in the same way as it's defined then neither of us qualify. Unless of course you can show that you do know everything. I'm willing to view your evidence to support that claim if you want to make it. Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that neither of us is Omniscient.

Other than that, you and I and everyone is free to believe anything they want for themselves. I don't really care.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

4. You have no absolute proof your God(s) exist. Therefore by claiming you do, you are claiming omniscience. There is no omniscience to an extent. Anything other than the capacity to know everything is not omniscience.

5. Have you closed your heart to the possibility there are no Gods?

hmm, perhaps your right. omniscience is the wrong word to use. i'll rephrase: "i think, therefore I AM!" (and so do you and thus, so are you. well if you don't want to be, that's your choice. dunno why you wouldn't want to be but free will is free will)

yes i have closed my heart to that possibility cause i know i exist lol (and so do you (exist that is))

a reply to: mOjOm

Well said! I agree.

I also find it interesting how non believers pointing out flaws in their logic or w.e are somehow persecuting them. It's scary how much it solidifies some of their positions too. Us heathens out in numbers during the end times.

a reply to: undo

You're just avoiding the questions again.

Perhaps re-read my baby-steps post, if you want.

Have fun with that. Thanks.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Yes it's a little scary because at least with a rational person who is willing to engage in a talk honestly and who is willing to understand or try to understand what the other is saying makes it possible for some kind of reconciliation to happen. But trying to get someone who refuses to understand what you're saying makes it impossible for there to be an honest discussion.

If someone makes the claim that I am evil and regardless of how I might try and prove that I'm not evil they refuse to comprehend anything I say in my defense then there is no point in me saying anything.

That's what worries me. Too many Religious Radicals either don't or won't have an honest discussion about topics like this even though they say they will. To me that makes them dishonest and I have trouble deciding if I can trust them or not. Because if we can't even talk honestly there is no hope of establishing any trust with each other in any way.

Damn, Damn,
Double, Double,
Post, Post

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: undo

You're just avoiding the question again.

Perhaps re-read my baby-steps post, if you want.

Have fun with that. Thanks.

well since we're talking about opposites, the opposite of "i exist" is "i don't exist" . that's my point.

originally posted by: undo
WARNING: TROLL VIRUS PROTECTION ENGAGED! IF YOU DON'T READ THIS ENTIRE OP, AND THEN PROCEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR ASK A QUESTION THAT IS ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THIS OP, I WILL IGNORE YOUR POST. HEHEHE. MWAHAHAHA. ahem.


First thing you must understand is monotheism and totalitarianism are essentially, cut from the same cloth. Keep this in mind as you read.

For thousands of years, people were essentially polytheists. There's evidence that even old testament Judaism started out, as polytheistic. Polytheism was a socially friendly construct. It may have occasionally caused problems when the names attributed to one region's gods/goddesses, did not jive with the names from another, but overall, the people in an area, were rarely at war amongst themselves other than petty squabbles. This is not to say that there wasn't one god in particular who was given the most gravitas and respect, a father god or mother goddess, if you will, a leader of a divine council, but generally speaking, our ancestors were not monotheists.

Ahem, ok. Might I remind you there was a whole world at that time full of nations and people, and yes they fought amongst themselves. May I remind you of King Asoka. And I don't think the wars were just petty little squabbles. The Greeks fought each other from Sparta to Troy to Micenea. The Italia tribes warred with the Etruscans.

My goodness, the whole Indian subcontinent was at war all the time.

Yes, it is true about our ancestors.

So where did the monotheist concept come from? Biblically, monotheism seems to have overwritten the polytheistic reality already apparent in its pages. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why, so I began an earnest search for the answers.

Egypt had a monotheistic pharaoh. Zoroastrianism was monotheism.

It appears there were at least 3 authors of old testament torah (deuterocanonical texts (first five books), each adding to the original body of writing, weaving the new passages into already existing passages. This impacted the polytheistic areas of the text in a way that nearly obscured them entirely (in fact, it obscured alot more than just the polytheism but also world events and their timelines).

Are you talking only about the Hebrews being monotheistic?

And the rest of the post was too long to address, so I thought to respond on the first bits. I really think perhaps there should be a different way of making your point, such as..."within Biblical culture and religion", monotheism wasn't a Hebrew construct as there were at different times other religions that had monotheism. Before Hinduism, they were also monotheism. Their gods arose simply as defining attributes of The ONE. They still call it today The ONE.

You are correct about the printing press bringing the Bible to the masses.

a reply to: undo

You're very good at mental gymnastics.

I thought of a way to rephrase my question.

Do you have any absolute proof Satan exists?

No?

By claiming he does you claim to have the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

Have you closed your heart to the possibility he doesn't exist?

The entire point (which I know you know) was that you cannot claim to absolutely know something exists, anymore than an atheist can claim to absolutely know it doesn't.

But you acrobat your way around that point, hence your double standard.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

no i can't prove satan exists or doesn't exist, and frankly, i don't want proof of that one lol

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

no i can't prove satan exists or doesn't exist, and frankly, i don't want proof of that one lol

You have to remember, it doesn't matter if you are Christian or not, they will always ask "can you prove your god exists". Why expect them to be different?

They don't want you to answer for them, they just want to be heard for their much speaking. Really, do you think that if they really wanted the answer, they would be on ATS searching for it? Whatever or however you believe, it cannot be disproven to you. That's really the heart of the matter.

Some people have never believed or believed in an idea. We can only speak to what we know, and what we know can never be disproven to us, because we know.

Call that subjective, but that is what religion is about. Once you know, you can't unknow.

I'm just going to call BS on your statement there. If you honestly believe scientific information is not filtered before it hits the public, you are sadly mistaken. The very people the OP is discussing, " The Papacy " control ALL major universities, corporations, their figure heads, and more importantly , all the funding that is given to " scientific studies ". They control the flow of information.

You don't TOW the line, you no longer have a career, your discredited, and whatever truthful research you have is kept hidden only to be used by the " elite". Thats how this works. Knowledge is power and the general public typically has none. Those who release it ( you know guys like Ed Snowden/ Nikola Resla ) are pursued, imprisoned, publicly torn to pieces, set up, bankrupted or assassinated. You clearly do not know who the Jesuits are or how large their sphere of influence truly is...Beware of the Jesuits and their Black Pope

reply to KrazyShot

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Once you know, you can't unknow.

How do you explain formerly religious people?

For example, many atheists are former Christians.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Once you know, you can't unknow.

How do you explain formerly religious people?

For example, many atheists are former Christians.

The default answer is: They were never "really" Christian to start with, or they wouldn't be an atheist now.