A Challenge to God

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood There is no atheist spokesman, nor are the reasons each atheist finds to reject the claims of theism universal or dogmatic. No atheist speaks for the larger "body of atheism" because there isn't one.

Nevertheless, there is a common theme in most of the reasons.

[pikatore]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Nevertheless, there is a common theme in most of the reasons.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by 'theme'? That sentence sounds terribly vague to me.

[Sandy]

There is no God, why should there be? It is a distraction from improving our own species.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: sandy There is no God, why should there be? It is a distraction from improving our own species.

You're probably going to have to respond to somebody/elaborate to get any real debate.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Sandy There is no God, why should there be? It is a distraction from improving our own species.

Please define what you mean by "improving" and does everyone have to agree on this?

A fundamentalist theist might see an enforced christian society as an improvement in their view.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Nevertheless, there is a common theme in most of the reasons.

A 'common theme' is not enough to make a sweeping generalization of all atheists.

What you're doing is comparing one concept (god) to another (aliens) and saying that if you look at both at a certain angle, squint your eyes, and hold your foot above your head then they look similar. You then extrapolate this to mean that everyone who supports one should support the other, and inversely, that everyone who stands against one should stand against the other.

There are two problems with this argument, and I will point out the most obvious first:

Aliens and god are similar, but not congruent ideas. Firstly, there is mildly compelling evidence in favor of the existence of aliens. Secondly, aliens existing somewhere else in the universe seems to be a statistical certainty.

God, or more specifically: your god, not only has zero evidence in support, it has compelling evidence to the contrary.


The second problem with your argument is that you don't apply it equally to both parties. You say that if atheists discriminate the concepts they support based on the presence or absence of evidence, they should deny both aliens and gods. Does this mean that people who don't discriminate the concepts they support should accept as true both aliens and gods?

If you were sincere in your argument you would be posting it on predominantly theist boards, trying to convince people to believe in every other proposed assertion that has no evidence.

[phoenix_fire]

I wasn't trying to make any kind of serious statement of universal truth or anything like that. (I know: unusual, right?) I just thought it was amusing. If one were to look at the question of God in an entirely objective manner, I believe that one could not comfortably, unequivocally say that He does not and could not exist. I find many atheists to be entirely as dogmatic as the Christians and other theists whom they disparage. (But accusing them of it is like accusing a black person of racism: we all know it happens, but woe to you should you point it out). I think, actually, that South Park does a pretty good job in showing that dogmatism is in the very nature of people in the episode where atheism takes over the future (and they still fight over what the "real truth" is).

Frankly, I believe in the possibility of aliens. I have seen no evidence to prove that they exist, so I can't say for sure that they do. Statistically, there's a small likelihood that there could be life similar to that which thrives in our ecosystem on other planets. After you X the vast majority of planets that would be made uninhabitable by different spatial environmental factors. But I certainly won't discount the possibility outright.

On the other hand, theists do have evidence for what they believe. You just don't accept their evidence. That's your business, but at least you could do objectivity the justice of acknowledging that that belief is not baseless.

[Kamehameha34]

On the other hand, theists do have evidence for what they believe. You just don't accept their evidence. That's your business, but at least you could do objectivity the justice of acknowledging that that belief is not baseless.

So theists, our subject, only have evidence that is useful to themselves.

That ain't objective.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: PF On the other hand, theists do have evidence for what they believe. You just don't accept their evidence. That's your business, but at least you could do objectivity the justice of acknowledging that that belief is not baseless.

And Alien Abductees have evidence too, but most reject it. That's your business, but at least you could do objectivity the justice of acknowledging that that belief is not baseless.

Present your evidence and we'll explain why we reject it.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So theists, our subject, only have evidence that is useful to themselves. That ain't objective.

I never said that I didn't think there was a basis to the beliefs of UFO chasers. You said:

God, or more specifically: your god, not only has zero evidence in support, it has compelling evidence to the contrary.

Incidentally, I'd love to see any "compelling" evidence that isn't circumstantial or based on an opinion and/or theory or a misinterpretation of scripture. Compel me.

[Kamehameha34]

I never said that I didn't think there was a basis to the beliefs of UFO chasers. You said:

We aren't talking about UFO chasers anymore. You are asserting that there is objective evidence for your god.

Incidentally, I'd love to see any "compelling" evidence that isn't circumstantial or based on an opinion and/or theory or a misinterpretation of scripture. Compel me.

But you see, when you paint your request with qualifiers like this, it makes it impossible for me to do what you ask because you could adjust the target just so, so that it's impossible to hit it.

So I'll start with a series of questions:

Is your god omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent?

[phoenix_fire]

Could any three people give you the same definitions of those three words? One person thinks a benevolent God would strike the terrorists dead before they got the chance to harm innocent people. Another thinks a benevolent God would never kill anyone. The third would say that if He's omnipotent and benevolent, He should create people so that they don't want to kill each other. But a fourth would see something distinctly Orwellian, dictatorial, and restricting about that. Frankly, we wouldn't know "omnibenevolent" if it smacked us in the face.

[Kamehameha34]

Of course "omnibenevolent" relies on set definitions for what 'benevolent' actually is.

For the purposes of my question, benevolent will be defined as "wanting happiness for others."

So, is this god you speak of of the tri-omni variety?

[phoenix_fire]

Happiness isn't always best for people. Aside from the obvious examples of excess that spring to mind, there are also instances in which one person's happiness can only come at the unhappiness of someone else. Human beings have problems with happiness. It tends to make them want to cause strife. Like when a mother gives all three of her children generous and equal helpings of ice cream and they bicker over who seemingly got the most.

Quote by: Agent Smith, the Matrix Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered? Where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.

So I can't accept your definition.

[Becky14]

Quote by: Isherwood That he exists. It should be far easier for him to do that than for his followers. Yet neither can accomplish this most basic task. This just makes this god sound like a jerk who plays favorites with his little toys. Nope, I don't see where this god is evidenced either, and as said before, he doesn't sound like one who deserves belief.

*nods head*

[Morality Games]

Happiness isn't always best for people. Aside from the obvious examples of excess that spring to mind, there are also instances in which one person's happiness can only come at the unhappiness of someone else. Human beings have problems with happiness. It tends to make them want to cause strife. Like when a mother gives all three of her children generous and equal helpings of ice cream and they bicker over who seemingly got the most.

1. Happiness theoretically isn't always what's best for people, but in reality it is too hard to acquire for theoretical examples of excessiveness to carry much weight. Even if a time comes when the amount of happiness grows too great to be healthy, ethical standards can be readjusted to account for that.

2. One person's happiness can come at the expense of somebody else, but it doesn't have to -- there are many possible solutions to a single person's problem and it is inefficiency more than anything else which makes it appear as though humans have to be at odds with one another in order to acquire happiness. In general, we have the capacity to be social and cooperative beings and derive more joy from that than isolation and emnity. In cases where a dilemma between two people in the acquisition of happiness really is irresolvable to the benefit of both (which happens far less often than we are conditioned to think), then things can just play out as they will and hopefully they will get better in the future. After all, not everything in the world can be good.

3. In any case, happiness shouldn't be the primary consideration of what is right or wrong -- rather, good health (a well-balanced state of body and mind) is key. Happiness is (very demonstratably in the realm of science) key to producing good health, so it becomes a treasured thing.

(this is all fairly unrelated to the course the topic took, but I've been waiting for an opportunity to say something to this effect for a couple of days now)

[Kamehameha34]

Aside from the obvious examples of excess that spring to mind, there are also instances in which one person's happiness can only come at the unhappiness of someone else.

Neither would be a problem for an omnipotent god.

Human beings have problems with happiness. It tends to make them want to cause strife

So because of a flaw in our design, and therefore our designer, we can never achieve total happiness.

That implies that the designer is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent.

If a god is tri-omni, and there exists no tri-omni god, the only logical conclusion is that the god does not exist.

Like when a mother gives all three of her children generous and equal helpings of ice cream and they bicker over who seemingly got the most.

Makes one wonder why your god sewed the seeds of jealousy and misery in the children in the first place.

I don't accept movie quotes as valid references. Let's approach this like adults.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Shuurei, Saiunkoku ep. 2 What I hope for isn't anything spectacular. I'm not silly enough to ask the emperor to create a country where everybody will be happy. Because that is impossible. Happiness isn't something that can be given by someone. To be happy or not is a personal issue. Even the ruler of a country isn't responsible for that. It's your own life. You have to live with your own decisions. You are responsible for yourself, no matter how unfortunate or unfair that may seem.

I couldn't agree more.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I couldn't agree more.

We're not talking about an emperor. We're talking about an omnipotent god.

This argument that it would "be too hard" simply does not apply. There are no restrictions on an omnipotent god.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Neither would be a problem for an omnipotent god. So because of a flaw in our design, and therefore our designer, we can never achieve total happiness. That implies that the designer is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. If a god is tri-omni, and there exists no tri-omni god, the only logical conclusion is that the god does not exist. Makes one wonder why your god sewed the seeds of jealousy and misery in the children in the first place. I don't accept movie quotes as valid references. Let's approach this like adults.

But you are begging the dictator then.

No, it doesn't. It states that people aren't.

You haven't really proven that. We haven't even found acceptable terms for each tri-facet. Don't get ahead of yourself.

He didn't.

I use movie quotes because it is an example and it helps people see things in another way. If I was quoting a book, would you still object? Your statement comes off a bit like baseless intellectual snobbery to me. It's a belief that's common in the culture, but I disagree with it. I think that movies and such have every bit the potential, and in some ways more, to make strong philosophical statements. If you think there is a breach of logic in the quote, say so. But don't stick your nose in the air about the source.