Is there a worse argument??

[_Morrissey]

I would say the same for atheists.

I see horrors and suffering in the world ---> The only acceptable answer is that God does not exist.

I'd caution you to not treat these two equivocally. The argument from evil is a very powerful argument against most popular conceptions of God.

If God is a being who can prevent certain kinds of suffering, and who does not want people to suffer, then if people suffer from things that such a God could prevent, then God, in this definition of the word, must not exist. This is a valid deductive argument. (The argument can also be tweaked to match and disprove conceptions of God that are similar, but not identical to this one.)[/quote]
While there is certainly an argument to be made, the absolutism is what I disagree with. The fact that athiests point to this argument as absolute proof that God does not exist is not right.[/quote]

Which atheists here is making arguments of absolute proof of God's non-existence? I am certainly not. I do not say definitively that God exists, but I conclude, based on evidence, that he does not. I'm perfectly willing to change my view on the basis of new information. But I'm not holding my breath. As I see it, God has had thousands upon thousands of years to provide us reasonable evidence of his existence, but he has failed to do so. Why should I expect this to change any time soon, or at least during my lifetime?

[_Uncle Dale]

...

...
at once totally ineffable and totally immanent.
...

If God exists--and I think so--then I don't think his personality and characteristics are limited by what we
are most comfortable with. On the other hand, we all tend to have our concept of what an ideal deity would look like.

I'm not so much interested in "existence" within time and space, as I am with the
Ground of Being -- or the Cause of Existence itself.

It is a neoplatonic perspective on the biblical faith -- and one which Father Irenaeus would have
branded totally heterodox.

Then again, Mormonism would have topped the list in Adversus Haereses, had it actually
been around in its ostensible form of Apostolic Christianity.

Oh well -- if we tolerate a touch of heresy in one another, we might be able to devote
our time and efforts to better pursuits than infinitely dividing up the Body of Christ into sects.

UD

[_MMAFighter7]

I believe that there is a worse arguement.

How about, "The Bible told me so. I can feel it in my heart."

[_Uncle Dale]

I believe that there is a worse arguement.

How about, "The Bible told me so. I can feel it in my heart."

How about, "Moroni told me so!" ???

UD

[_Roger]

Morrisey wrote:

Which atheists here is making arguments of absolute proof of God's non-existence? I am certainly not.

Isn't the very definition of an "atheist" someone who denies the existence of god? Are you telling me that there are varying levels to that? Do you "sort of" deny the existence of god?

Do you think there is no god, but you hold open the possibility that you might be wrong?

[_Roger]

UD:

I'm not so much interested in "existence" within time and space, as I am with the
Ground of Being -- or the Cause of Existence itself.

It is a neoplatonic perspective on the biblical faith -- and one which Father Irenaeus would have
branded totally heterodox.

Then again, Mormonism would have topped the list in Adversus Haereses, had it actually
been around in its ostensible form of Apostolic Christianity.

Oh well -- if we tolerate a touch of heresy in one another, we might be able to devote
our time and efforts to better pursuits than infinitely dividing up the Body of Christ into sects.

UD

Tolerate heresy? That's heresy!

[_MMAFighter7]

I believe that there is a worse arguement.

How about, "The Bible told me so. I can feel it in my heart."

How about, "Moroni told me so!" ???

UD

/thread

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Morrisey wrote:

Which atheists here is making arguments of absolute proof of God's non-existence? I am certainly not.

Isn't the very definition of an "atheist" someone who denies the existence of god? Are you telling me that there are varying levels to that? Do you "sort of" deny the existence of god?

Do you think there is no god, but you hold open the possibility that you might be wrong?

In a more accurate sense, an atheist is really an agnostic (well there might me some people who deny god on faith, they would be the same kind of people that affirm god on faith). He concedes the possibility of god or leprechauns, but goes off the best evidence. The only times a reasonable person can DENY a god, is if the image of the deity is self contradictory (a square circle) or in contradiction to the evidence.

I can't deny a deist god, but I can deny a god that is fair, just, merciful, interventionist, kind, loving, etc. This has nothing to do with requiring god to intervene, rather I condemn him for setting up people and systems to suffer. Take cystic fibrosis. Who created DNA as the means of replication? Who had the kind of wisdom and power to ensure an efficient means of replication? Well, if god did, he had no problem with condemning my baby girl to an early death and life full of painful treatments.

So I think I have to change my answer, in a way, when I look into the eyes of my baby girl who has CF, it makes me deny there is a good god. Is that fair?

[_twinkie]

How do you explain mosquitoes, though?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
In a more accurate sense, an atheist is really an agnostic
...

During my years in the Kingdom of Nepal I met "true atheists" -- those Buddhists who
not only gave a wry smile at the Hindu's mention of "god;" but professed that all such
talk was an utter waste of time.

These people were in no way "agnostics." They realized that the common folk, in their
ignorance, resorted to beliefs in spirits -- in good and evil supernatural entities. But
they patiently attempted to lead the common folk away from such childish ignorance.

A "true atheist" does not bother to argue against the existence of God: a true atheist
demonstrates that "existence" itself is a mental illusion, based upon untrustworthy
human perceptions and beliefs.

A "true atheist" knows perfectly well that there are no gods -- and that the Hindus have
mistakenly attached attributes, where no such thing is warranted.


Uncle "Madalyn Murray O'Hair knew about as little as did Vladimir Illych Ulyanov" Dale