Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Ana the Ist]

I think that pretty much nails it. We are accused of pride by a guy who wants an all-powerful magical entity to tell him that he is special. He won't feel special any other way.

I think Penn Gillette has a similar quote...had to do with atheists being prideful or emotional in regards to their disbelief.

It's an almost absurd claim. Someone who wants to believe that they have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, a creator who answers their prayers, who has a "plan" for their entire life, who has created a special paradise for them and their friends and family where they exist happy and content for eternity....

....but it's the atheists who are being "prideful" or otherwise emotional regarding their disbelief.

I'm no psychologist...but it certainly appears to be a classic case of projection.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think Penn Gillette has a similar quote...had to do with atheists being prideful or emotional in regards to their disbelief.

It's an almost absurd claim. Someone who wants to believe that they have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, a creator who answers their prayers, who has a "plan" for their entire life, who has created a special paradise for them and their friends and family where they exist happy and content for eternity....

....but it's the atheists who are being "prideful" or otherwise emotional regarding their disbelief.

I'm no psychologist...but it certainly appears to be a classic case of projection.

They need a way of making themselves feel humble, and what better way than by calling us conceited for not sharing their theological commitments?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Regarding anonymous person's persistent evasiveness in response to questions:

Yea...you may have noticed that ever since I rebutted my own argument, he's lost all interest in my beliefs lol.

He started with a reply that had nothing to do with my argument. He then claimed he didn't want to respond because I might ignore his points like I did in our debate. He then went on and on about the scholarship regarding Tacitus (which was completely irrelevant). He then claimed he needed time to pray/think for an answer. Then he claimed to have one...but doubted my motivation for forming the argument. He questioned my particular viewpoint regarding the existence of god. He then tried to argue over my receptiveness regarding the answer he had yet to give. He then finally admitted that no rebuttal to my argument was coming (although he never bothered to explain why).

Suddenly...all these questions and concerns have disappeared entirely, now that he has no argument which to dodge.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Confessing Jesus as Lord.

That is objectionable to you.

That's all I'm saying.

Accepting a master-slave relationship, or a cult-leader cult-follower relationship, as an ethical duty. Yes, that is objectionable on philosophical grounds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

Accepting a master-slave relationship, or a cult-leader cult-follower relationship, as an ethical duty. Yes, that is objectionable on philosophical grounds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I've always viewed this as the purpose of sin within christian theology. I don't really see it as a prescription for morality. I see it as a created need for a god who can "save you from your filthy sinful self."

If there were no sin....if we weren't inherently sinful creatures...what need would we have for worshipping a god?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If there were no sin....if we weren't inherently sinful creatures...what need would we have for worshipping a god?

It strikes me as the sort of idea that grows a cult, because it encourages people to give up their reasoning, questioning, evaluating minds. A religion doesn't grow well when people are doing too much thinking and acting for themselves, because that would be "anarchy", don't you know. The believers need to shut off at least a portion of their minds in order to fit in with the group, and subservience encourages this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

It strikes me as the sort of idea that grows a cult, because it encourages people to give up their reasoning, questioning, evaluating minds. A religion doesn't grow well when people are doing too much thinking and acting for themselves, because that would be "anarchy", don't you know. The believers need to shut off at least a portion of their minds in order to fit in with the group, and subservience encourages this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think that the experience of shared ritual, a persecution complex or chosen group concept, and an inherent need for a created entity (the kind of need sin creates) are probably the most effective ways of making large groups of people think they are different from everyone else in some rather unrealistic ways.

Personally, I like Islam's five prayers a day. Christianity got it wrong thinking once a week is enough...that leaves you with a whole 6.33 days every week to think about other things. It's a bit difficult to imagine the world outside of your own bubble when you're required to acknowledge the bubble five times a day lol.

 

[anonymous person]

In this post you appeared to be quite familiar with the concept. What happened?

I know what Wikipedia says about ignosticism.

I wanted you to tell me what it was though because I did not want to presume to know.

Why you are an ignostic?

What certain presuppositions is it based on?

When did you become ignostic?

Etc. etc.

 

[anonymous person]

You don't really believe this, do you?

Sure I do. My thesis has been continually confirmed in my experience and never falsified in the nearly ten years I have been engaging in apologetics. I predict it will be confirmed again after talking with you.

You don't really think you have some magical ability to determine someone's motives for their beliefs...do you?

Oh no, lol!

I would not attribute my ability to diagnose certain underlying reasons for rejecting Christ to a magical ability to determine motives for beliefs.

Even a psychologist would admit that the best they can do is make an educated guess.

I am not a psychologist. But I get your drift.

Your inability to deconstruct a simple logical argument doesn't speak well for your ability to logically deconstruct someone's personal motives for a belief or lack of belief. Perhaps you should consider your own pride has blinded you to this fact.

It is interesting you speak now of pride having the ability to "blind" someone.

Why do you think that?

Perhaps the reason you seem to think that atheists are basing their lack of belief in god in some emotional basis...because deep down you realize that your belief in god is founded upon emotion, not logic or reason.

Is this an educated guess?

Are you now acting as a psychologist?

Also...pride has nothing to do with worship...but threats do. If I asked for your praise while holding a gun to your head...I would seriously doubt the sincerity of any praise you gave me. It's hard to imagine a god so foolish that he thinks his praise is genuine when eternal torment is the only other option he gives anyone.

Lol perhaps his emotional need for praise has blinded him to reality as well.

I quoted the above because it confirms what I have been arguing.

You argue that threats have something to do with worship.

Then you provide an allegory in an attempt to get your point across.

It is as if to say, the only people who praise and worship God are those who are forced or threatened to and that this threat is the hanging of hell over their heads.

Now we are getting to the deeper issues for you specifically. We have passed through the veil of superfluity, of superficiality, and have reached a space in your heart where the actual reasons for your objecting to Jesus can be more clearly seen and wrestled with. For as Blaise Pascal once so succinctly and eloquently remarked: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."

The doctrine of hell it seems, is one of, if not the fly in the ointment of Christianity for you.

You find the idea objectionable do you not?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure I do. My thesis has been continually confirmed in my experience and never falsified in the nearly ten years I have been engaging in apologetics. I predict it will be confirmed again after talking with you.

You've been doing this for 10 years? In those 10 years, how many have you actually converted by presenting them with apologetics? My guess is that the number is somewhere around 0. But you've conjured an excuse to continue with it anyway: they have not been convinced by your case because of their conceit, and not because your case is not as strong as you think it is.

 

[anonymous person]

I have been a seeker for 7 years, you have no idea how often and fervently I have prayed within that time. My atheism does not stem from some resistance towards religion.

You are attacking a very fine strawman. Composed of the finest of straw.

First things first. I was not addressing you, but Mark. It may very well be the case you and him have very different reasons for being atheists.

Secondly, I never argued that Mark's atheism stems from some resistance to religion, but to confessing Jesus as Lord.

Heck! I can say, as a Christian, that I resist religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Heck! I can say, as a Christian, that I resist religion.

No, you're a deeply religious man.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure I do. My thesis has been continually confirmed in my experience and never falsified in the nearly ten years I have been engaging in apologetics. I predict it will be confirmed again after talking with you.



Oh no, lol!

I would not attribute my ability to diagnose certain underlying reasons for rejecting Christ to a magical ability to determine motives for beliefs.




I am not a psychologist. But I get your drift.



It is interesting you speak now of pride having the ability to "blind" someone.

Why do you think that?



Is this an educated guess?

Are you now acting as a psychologist?



I quoted the above because it confirms what I have been arguing.

You argue that threats have something to do with worship.

Then you provide an allegory in an attempt to get your point across.

It is as if to say, the only people who praise and worship God are those who are forced or threatened to and that this threat is the hanging of hell over their heads.

Now we are getting to the deeper issues for you specifically. We have passed through the veil of superfluity, of superficiality, and have reached a space in your heart where the actual reasons for your objecting to Jesus can be more clearly seen and wrestled with. For as Blaise Pascal once so succinctly and eloquently remarked: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."

The doctrine of hell it seems, is one of, if not the fly in the ointment of Christianity for you.

You find the idea objectionable do you not?

What idea? The "idea" of hell?

Since you've acknowledged that you possess no magical mind reading abilities...how in the world is this ridiculous "thesis" of yours confirmed? Have atheists been telling you that their reasons for disbelief are fundamentally emotional?

I used the phrase "blinded by pride" metaphorically...I thought you would've understood that. Emotions can cloud a person's judgement, but the only one which can literally cause you to not see something (to my knowledge) is fear. Pride, like nearly any emotion though, can heavily taint someone's perspective and inhibit an accurate view of reality.

I only studied psychology at the university level for two years...that hardly qualifies me as a psychologist. I have, however, continued my study of it on a personal basis and I don't shy from applying my knowledge of the topic in discussions regarding personal motives. For example, this particular discussion smacks of projection...since you seem to lack any sort of rational reasons for your beliefs. Your reasoning appears entirely emotionally motivated.

Threats do have something to do with worship. I, like you, cannot read minds...so how can either of us judge the sincerity of a worshipper when the threat of eternal torment hangs over their head? Are their motives for worship out of fear or love? If the threat were gone...we wouldn't have to consider such a question.

To answer your final question, if you were indeed referring to the idea of a hell, I object to the idea of hell's existence...since there is a lack of reason or evidence for it. However, should you be able to provide some evidence for it's existence...I'd be more than glad to consider it in another way if that's what you'd like to discuss.

 

[anonymous person]

You haven't read much Nietzsche, have you? Let me guess... you read a few snippets on an apologetics blog?

I have read enough of his works to be able to confidently quote what I have in the context I have. This is a minor issue anyway. Heck, discard the whole quote if you feel so inclined. My point remains and is made elsewhere.

This isn't the mystery you make it out to be. It's abundantly clear that the apologist has a long road ahead if he is to establish the truth of his religion's central claims. But you're just shifting the burden.

Indeed a long one. So long in fact that the road never ends. One could present an infinite quantity of data for the establishment of some hypothesis or thesis and so long as the person wants to reject it all on the basis of some underlying objection to the thesis, an objection itself not subject to being removed by a mere appeal to argumentation and reason, then for that person they can simply throw out the oft-repeated atheist rejoinder: "Not enough evidence! Not enough evidence!"

Now that I say it in my mind, this phrase, this slogan "Not enough evidence!" reminds me of some spell or incantation someone might repeat over and over again in order to ward off some threat perceived as dreadful.

You see, we do not have an eternity my friend to sit and flesh all of this out. All things being equal, the time is very short. So like Wal-Mart slashes and rolls back its prices on select goods, I too attempt to slash and roll back those superficial layers of resistance to Christ so that the light may be shone upon the issues of the heart.

It's a legitimate question: if this god exists, what makes him worthy of worship? But let's not fool ourselves: we both know that you won't bother with the question, since doing so would require some intellectual labour on your behalf.

At best I can tell you why I worship God and I can point to the reasons others have put forward who worship Him. Ultimately that is a personal decision. God is a person. Not a set of propositions.

If someone asked you why your loved ones were worthy of your love, honor, attention, affection, and devotion and loyalty, what would you tell them? Would you attempt a logical proof, with all of the typical scientistic, testable falsifiable verifiable jargon attached to it?

I think not.

 

[anonymous person]

What pride prevents you from accepting the doctrines of Islam, a.p.?

Question begging. Establish my disacceptance of Islam is by virtue of pride first.

 

[anonymous person]

Regarding anonymous person's persistent evasiveness in response to questions:

says be ready, does it not?

The referenced scripture lays no obligation upon me whatsoever to answer every question put to me, but to be ready to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have read enough of his works to be able to confidently quote what I have in the context I have. This is a minor issue anyway. Heck, discard the whole quote if you feel so inclined. My point remains and is made elsewhere.

Yeah, sorry, I doubt that. I get the very strong impression that your exposure to philosophy is minimal, and that you mainly engage with apologetics blogs and podcasts.

Indeed a long one. So long in fact that the road never ends. One could present an infinite quantity of data for the establishment of some hypothesis or thesis and so long as the person wants to reject it all on the basis of some underlying objection to the thesis, an objection itself not subject to being removed by a mere appeal to argumentation and reason, then for that person they can simply throw out the oft-repeated atheist rejoinder: "Not enough evidence! Not enough evidence!"

You're just making up excuses now. We're not convinced by your apologetics. Instead of considering whether there's something wrong with your apologetics, you blame us instead.

You see, we do not have an eternity my friend to sit and flesh all of this out. All things being equal, the time is very short. So like Wal-Mart slashes and rolls back its prices on select goods, I too attempt to slash and roll back those superficial layers of resistance to Christ so that the light may be shone upon the issues of the heart.

At best I can tell you why I worship God and I can point to the reasons others have put forward who worship Him. Ultimately that is a personal decision. God is a person. Not a set of propositions.

In other words, you won't even attempt to treat the question seriously, even though "time is short." What a cop out.

If someone asked you why your loved ones were worthy of your love, honor, attention, affection, and devotion and loyalty, what would you tell them? Would you attempt a logical proof, with all of the typical scientistic, testable falsifiable verifiable jargon attached to it?

I think not.

If my loved ones demanded that I worship them and only them, I would be inclined to ask them why they deserve worship. As anticipated, you're not going to treat the question seriously.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Question begging. Establish my disacceptance of Islam is by virtue of pride first.

You haven't established that anyone here refuses to accept Christianity by virtue of pride, so you first.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

says be ready, does it not?

The referenced scripture lays no obligation upon me whatsoever to answer every question put to me, but to be ready to.

I see no signs of readiness to answer questions, but a man who loves the sound of his own voice.