Atheism makes no sense to me?!?

[Wiccan_Child]

It's known that consumption of intoxicants such as marijuana and alcohol can increase alpha brainwave activity, which can subsequently lead to an RE. Cannabis is known to have played a major role in almost all religions. I can reasonably assume that the over-consumption of cannabis and other psycho-tropic substances are what caused the initial RE's.

But all such experiences? Isn't that another leap on your part?

We make predictions based on a probability wave, but the outcome is never fully determined. If the Deistic god didn't have a plan, then it was merely experimenting and never intended on seeing humans evolve, or even for humans to "worship" it. Life would've still happened by accident. So why should we call this "god"? Especially if it isn't omnipotent, why give it such a powerful title such as "god" or "deity"? It seems like Deism is essentially equivalent to Ietsism running under the guise of "Agnostic Theism".

It's a god because it created the universe. That seems as apt a description as any. The Olympian pantheon were powerful, but finitely so, yet they were still 'gods'. The deistic god is more powerful still, it's simply apathetic. Why should apathy disqualify it from godhood?

 

[UnReAL13]

But all such experiences? Isn't that another leap on your part?

I think a far greater leap in logic must be made to assume that any RE has occurred as the result of unnatural or "supernatural" causes. Without true empirical evidence, it's simply a hypothesis, like the god concept.

It's a god because it created the universe. That seems as apt a description as any. The Olympian pantheon were powerful, but finitely so, yet they were still 'gods'. The deistic god is more powerful still, it's simply apathetic. Why should apathy disqualify it from godhood?

So you're defining god as a "creator". You're merely assuming that a deistic god is "powerful" at all. For the sake of argument, let's say the universe was created through a computer algorithm. Would the programmer who writes this algorithm require any degree of "power" in order to initiate the process? Any sort of "supernatural power" that is contained within themselves? I would argue not.

Furthermore, is it that the deistic god is "apathetic" towards this universe, or is it simply unable to intervene? If it's an inability, that implies a limit to its "power". For all intents and purposes, it would merely be a "creator", but not a "god" in the sense of an all powerful, perfect being. Although this logic is based on my understanding of the common perceptions of god, which seems to vary from your interpretation.

You have defined god as the "creator". I feel that this description doesn't exactly qualify any entity for the title of "deity".

 

[skm9]

Matter must have come from somewhere? Why assume that nonexistence is the default position? Just because some old manuscripts and just-so stories posit a begining of non-being? And why is it that theists answer to anything that is not currently understood is "god did it with magic"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think a far greater leap in logic must be made to assume that any RE has occurred as the result of unnatural or "supernatural" causes. Without true empirical evidence, it's simply a hypothesis, like the god concept.

Agreed, but the default stance is 'I don't know'. If there is no evidence for either alternative, why weigh down on one? If there is evidence against religious experiences being from god, that doesn't constitute proof - after all, science has been wrong before.

So you're defining god as a "creator".

No. I'm saying that an intelligent set of beings that created this universe are deities - this condition is sufficient, but it is not necessary.

You're merely assuming that a deistic god is "powerful" at all. For the sake of argument, let's say the universe was created through a computer algorithm. Would the programmer who writes this algorithm require any degree of "power" in order to initiate the process? Any sort of "supernatural power" that is contained within themselves? I would argue not.

You've changed the term from 'powerful' to 'supernaturally powerful', so you've built a strawman. To create a universe, one needs to be powerful. This is a vague term, and I never meant it to imply a sort of magical, snapping-of-fingers, wiggling-of-noses kind of power. The ability to create a computer algorithm that somehow created this physical universe, that is power.

Furthermore, is it that the deistic god is "apathetic" towards this universe, or is it simply unable to intervene? If it's an inability, that implies a limit to its "power". For all intents and purposes, it would merely be a "creator", but not a "god" in the sense of an all powerful, perfect being. Although this logic is based on my understanding of the common perceptions of god, which seems to vary from your interpretation.

Indeed - you assert a god must be "an all powerful, perfect being", a definition I disagree with. As I said earlier, the Olympian pantheon were powerful, but not all powerful - yet they were still deities. A deity doesn't have to be all-powerful.

You have defined god as the "creator". I feel that this description doesn't exactly qualify any entity for the title of "deity".

Though that is not my definition, what are your criteria for godhood?