Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Feb 2, '14 at 4:32pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,414 posts

Knight

Attributing one's god to a SPORTS GAME OUTCOME is ridiculous, even if you believe in that god.

You have obviously never watched football. You frequently see players pray before the match to invoke god's blessing, and winners thank god by some gesture. And I'm sure football is by far not the only sport where people are so superstitious, as this survey about the Super Bowl seems to indicate. Personally, I'm not surprised.

Even the Eagles, in their song Frail Grasp On The Big Picture (album Long Road Out Of Eden) criticise this in the lines "And we pray to our Lord - Who we know is American - He reigns from on high - He speaks to us through many men - And he shepherds his flock - We sing out and we praise His name - He supports us in war - He presides over football games - And the right will prevail - All our troubles shall be resolved - We have faith above all - Unless there's money or sex involved"
 

Posted Feb 3, '14 at 12:19pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,706 posts

I'd like to know why theists and atheists have such difficulty agreeing upon what qualifies as evidence. Why are religious texts, which are biased by necessity, being presented as self-sufficient proof?

 

Posted Feb 3, '14 at 12:48pm

09philj

09philj

2,085 posts

In any religion where god is omnipotent, your understanding of the nature god is flawed, due to omnipotence paradoxes. ( "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?") If your understanding of nature is flawed, your understanding of God's purpose is probably also flawed, meaning any argument you make in favor of worshiping him due to his purpose or nature being good is baseless.

 

Posted Feb 3, '14 at 12:55pm

09philj

09philj

2,085 posts

In addition, if there are any of you who can justify evil without compromising god's omnipotence or omnibenevolence I'll be very surprised.

 

Posted Feb 4, '14 at 9:13pm

abt79

abt79

61 posts

God doesn't want to interfere with free will, we must make our own decisions to get into heaven.

 

Posted Feb 4, '14 at 10:42pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,826 posts

God doesn't want to interfere with free will, we must make our own decisions to get into heaven.


Then why the "believe in me or go to hell" rules?
 

Posted Feb 5, '14 at 1:00am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,706 posts

God doesn't want to interfere with free will, we must make our own decisions to get into heaven.


So, God creates all matter, all energy, all forces, all physical laws. God also creates life, including human beings, and all organs and biological mechanisms thereof. Then God creates for them this "free will", right?

So, your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-creating God made everything exactly to His own specifications, leaving no room for error...and still has to wait and see how we behave, as though we weren't programmed (by Him, in all his all-knowingness) to do exactly what we end up doing from the start? How exactly do you see this as making sense?
 

Posted Feb 5, '14 at 1:25am

Fiends

Fiends

114 posts

The idea of a God is irrational and pathetic, invented by humanity to protect their fragile little minds from the dark abyss that is death.

 

Posted Feb 5, '14 at 1:45am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,826 posts

The idea of a God is irrational and pathetic, invented by humanity to protect their fragile little minds from the dark abyss that is death.


Oh geez...where to begin...

1) You have taken the stance of gnostic Atheist. Because of this gnostic stance, you must now back it up.

2) Since when were you atheist?
Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior,
~Fiends - 2014; Is Homosexuality Right or Wrong
 

Posted Feb 5, '14 at 7:05am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,250 posts

Moderator

In any religion where god is omnipotent, your understanding of the nature god is flawed, due to omnipotence paradoxes. ( "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?")


This is a common, though unfair, charge made against the theist. Consider the straightforward response to your question that no - God cannot create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it. The response to this answer is typically something like 'Well, here is an example of something God cannot do, so He is not omnipotent'. But notice that the challenge lies in doing something that is logically impossible. God also can't make a square circle, nor can He make it so that 1 + 1 = 3. But this isn't a challenge to His omnipotence.

In addition, if there are any of you who can justify evil without compromising god's omnipotence or omnibenevolence I'll be very surprised.


This might be asking too much. I'm not even sure how one might go about justifying evil. The Problem of Evil is more about reconciling (a) the clear matter-of-fact that there seems to be unnecessary suffering with (b) God's loving nature. As for this question (and some other nearby ones), there are quite a few interesting responses within the philosophy of religion, though to be fair I've never found these responses all that compelling.

So, your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-creating God made everything exactly to His own specifications, leaving no room for error...and still has to wait and see how we behave, as though we weren't programmed (by Him, in all his all-knowingness) to do exactly what we end up doing from the start? How exactly do you see this as making sense?


I read a manuscript (I'm not sure if the paper ever got published) by Jon Kvanvig that developed a logical system that tried to preserve free will with God's omniscience (a position that is broadly called compatibilism). Jon is one of the best philosophers alive, though the paper is incredibly challenging. But the broader point here is that addressing the Problem of Free Will in this way isn't nonsensical. Well, at least to some people!

The idea of a God is irrational and pathetic, invented by humanity to protect their fragile little minds from the dark abyss that is death.


As pang mentioned, you would need to back up this claim. But you might want to hedge a bit here, as your stance is going to be pretty much indefensible. We should also keep in mind that there are very intelligent theists out there who have some deeply interesting things to say about their beliefs. So let's be civil and keep in mind the Principle of Charity (I like Donald Davidson's formulation) when attributing beliefs to the theist.
 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!