Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Why should we care what "serious theologians" think? Are they better able to demonstrate their supernatural claims than the non-serious theologians?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And this is an example of what I call atheistic fundamentalism, where God can only be a set of ridiculous things like the above (ascertained by a literal reading of the Bible cover to cover, which no serious theologian holds), and if he's something else, well then...that just can't be the case.
Should we include science with the FSM, given that there's no way to validate its existence either along positivist or empirical lines?
And what are the metaphysical qualities of the FSM? Is he, I don't know, omnipresent, eternal, occupying no space, etc?
All I'm seeing is a physical entity who exists in a completely different way than any necessary conception of God given his role as a creator.
FSM is a pagan figure, God is not an idol, God is the Mind that created the Universe, He exists before the physical Universe and that makes Him transcendental
I know that the stupidity of new atheists is unbeatable
but i want you to answer me a question , if nothing is a separate entity that creates Universes on its will isn't exactly the same as God?
Why should we care what "serious theologians" think? Are they better able to demonstrate their supernatural claims than the non-serious theologians?
A "Modest Proposal", so to speak :
Dear Fellow Atheists, STOP Saying Christians Believe God is a Bearded Man in the Sky. They Dont.
Why should we care what "serious theologians" think? Are they better able to demonstrate their supernatural claims than the non-serious theologians?
My undetectable 7-headed multi-dimensional dragon is all of those things.
I can dream up arbitrary definitions as well, you know?
The FSM is a particularly poor example, as it was specifically (and successfully) conceived as tool to counter the placement of religious dogma into the science (or as a science topic in the) classroom.Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM.
But my point is very simple (and serious): if God exists as a creator, then by definition he has qualities that aren't commensurate with any FSM or related image we analogously consider God to be. This is because the FSM and other atheist-supported analogies to God presuppose an arbitrary set of qualities about God, like he's no better than an imaginary thing with any randomly chosen quality, like the qualities a child chooses his imaginary friend to have.
Meaningless words make for poor definitions. Just sayin'.Let me respond to DogmaHunter to further this point.
My undetectable 7-headed multi-dimensional dragon is all of those things.
I can dream up arbitrary definitions as well, you know?
This presupposition of arbitrary definitions is exactly what's the problem. Again, if God exists as a creator, there are no arbitrary definitions; a creator of space and time is by definition spaceless and timeless,
I do not see (with few exceptions) panetheistic deities being promoted here. The gods (God) that I am being told of can walk, and talk, make decisions, and answer prayers. Some claim to have two-way communication in some strange form or another.at least intrinsically (which means in relation to the universe he might have different modes or qualities, but the real gist of the argument is on intrinsic qualities and definitions), and from here you're already on your way to having a completely non-arbitrary epistemology regarding God. (Yeah, that's the Western conception, but the Eastern, pantheism, is just as simple in non-arbitrarily delineating.)
I am unaware of any unfalsifiable scientific concepts that are used for a basis for morality, law, or taught as fact. Contrast that with religion.And gee, if something is not worth considering because you can't find a specific definition, which would make something arbitrary, then science itself fits the same camp, given the plethora of different philosophical considerations of what science even is and how it functions.
What are these qualities, and how did you derive them?So no, it's not about arbitrary definitions at all. The qualities of a creator deity (i.e., Western God) limit other qualities of this deity to a handful of possibilities, which isn't arbitrary at all.
Spend some time in the Physical and Life Sciences forum on this site.So let me take another provocative step forward. Unless we're rationalist children who don't consider non-rational influences on potentially any argument, we have to admit the possibility that something must be motivating atheists to view God as totally arbitrary, no better than a seven-headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster despite the consistent claims of serious theologians and philosophers (no single person in the philosophy of religion field would touch the arbitrary claiming arguments on these boards with a ten foot pole). What is it?
Or, they simply do not want religions to be around, to be bothered by.Well, I think it's more than not having a good reason for God. We're not psychologically just passive receptors of information; we also determine which arguments we consider seriously. The rest of the answer is that some atheists simply don't want a God to be around to bother with.
Enter Thomas Nagel (another fantastic philosopher):
I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isnt just that I dont believe in God and, naturally, hope that Im right in my belief. Its that I hope there is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind . This is a somewhat ridiculous situation . t is just as irrational to be influenced in ones beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.
No, he's not the only atheist in the history of the cosmos to hold such an explicit statement. And there's nothing wrong with this opinion. I just wish more atheists would be aware of their preconscious processing on this point.
The FSM is a particularly poor example, as it was specifically (and successfully) conceived as tool to counter the placement of religious dogma into the science (or as a science topic in the) classroom.
Meaningless words make for poor definitions. Just sayin'.
I do not see (with few exceptions) panetheistic deities being promoted here. The gods (God) that I am being told of can walk, and talk, make decisions, and answer prayers. Some claim to have two-way communication in some strange form or another.
I am unaware of any unfalsifiable scientific concepts that are used for a basis for morality, law, or taught as fact. Contrast that with religion.
What are these qualities, and how did you derive them?
Spend some time in the Physical and Life Sciences forum on this site.
Or, they simply do not want religions to be around, to be bothered by.
I have never seen any god concept as anything other than a wholly human fabrication, so I do not fathom Nagel's position at all. Why should he care about something that he does not believe to exist?
Well, I think it's more than not having a good reason for God. We're not psychologically just passive receptors of information; we also determine which arguments we consider seriously. The rest of the answer is that some atheists simply don't want a God to be around to bother with. Enter Thomas Nagel (another fantastic philosopher):
I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.
No, he's not the only atheist in the history of the cosmos to hold such an explicit statement. And there's nothing wrong with this opinion. I just wish more atheists would be aware of their preconscious processing on this point. And if your response here is, "golly, Received, nobody closes themselves off to arguments because they don't like imagining an argument being true," you're living in a fantasy land where people are magical robots who automatically calculate the best and adapt themselves automatically to these calculations.
Particularly by you.No, the FSM is not used this way, so appealing to some assumed historical intention doesn't wipe off how it's used on these forums.
I do not equate symbolic with meaningless. Equivocation is your gig.Timeless and spaceless aren't meaningless, unless you're going to assume all of our concepts, ideas, and mathematics and anything else symbolic is meaningless. Just sayin'.
I was hoping for more than religious presupposition.I've mentioned multiple times in this thread how the qualities are derived, Davian.
<blinks>And needs are different than evidence. People should care a whole lot about things they might not have a good reason to believe in if the alternative is a darker universe for them in particular.
I do not take gods, goblins, fairies, pixies, leprechauns, or rumors of extraterrestrial aliens visiting earth seriously, because the existence of these things is not evidenced.If a person has no need for God, of course he's going to have no inclination to consider him seriously, and this is basic psychology.
Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM. Which means the atheists who do this are no more mature and sophisticated than the backwoods fundamentalists whose God concept they attack, or there is some other motive going on (more on that later).
Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM. Which means the atheists who do this are no more mature and sophisticated than the backwoods fundamentalists whose God concept they attack, or there is some other motive going on (more on that later).
But my point is very simple (and serious): if God exists as a creator, then by definition he has qualities that aren't commensurate with any FSM or related image we analogously consider God to be.
This is because the FSM and other atheist-supported analogies to God presuppose an arbitrary set of qualities about God, like he's no better than an imaginary thing with any randomly chosen quality, like the qualities a child chooses his imaginary friend to have. Let me respond to DogmaHunter to further this point.
This presupposition of arbitrary definitions is exactly what's the problem.
Again, if God exists as a creator, there are no arbitrary definitions; a creator of space and time is by definition spaceless and timeless, at least intrinsically (which means in relation to the universe he might have different modes or qualities, but the real gist of the argument is on intrinsic qualities and definitions), and from here you're already on your way to having a completely non-arbitrary epistemology regarding God. (Yeah, that's the Western conception, but the Eastern, pantheism, is just as simple in non-arbitrarily delineating.)
So let me take another provocative step forward. Unless we're rationalist children who don't consider non-rational influences on potentially any argument, we have to admit the possibility that something must be motivating atheists to view God as totally arbitrary, no better than a seven-headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster despite the consistent claims of serious theologians and philosophers (no single person in the philosophy of religion field would touch the arbitrary claiming arguments on these boards with a ten foot pole). What is it?
No, the point of the analogy is a different one, and it has been explained numerous times.Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM.
No, of course this doesn´t follow. Refuting a stupid argument doesn´t make you stupid. After all, it´s not like those God concepts didn´t exist or weren´t seriously presented here.Which means the atheists who do this are no more mature and sophisticated than the backwoods fundamentalists whose God concept they attack, or there is some other motive going on (more on that later).
Again, this is not the point of the analogy.But my point is very simple (and serious): if God exists as a creator, then by definition he has qualities that aren't commensurate with any FSM or related image we analogously consider God to be. This is because the FSM and other atheist-supported analogies to God presuppose an arbitrary set of qualities about God, like he's no better than an imaginary thing with any randomly chosen quality, like the qualities a child chooses his imaginary friend to have.
Well, this definition is in itself arbitrary. You don´t get to define stuff into existence.This presupposition of arbitrary definitions is exactly what's the problem. Again, if God exists as a creator,
Yes, this would indeed follow from the first arbitrary definition (creator entity).there are no arbitrary definitions; a creator of space and time is by definition spaceless and timeless,
Even though it may be a good start, I don´t think it will get you anywhere near a meaningful, relevant or significant God concept - unless you add arbitrary qualities.at least intrinsically (which means in relation to the universe he might have different modes or qualities, but the real gist of the argument is on intrinsic qualities and definitions), and from here you're already on your way to having a completely non-arbitrary epistemology regarding God.
Oh no, not THAT again!And gee, if something is not worth considering because you can't find a specific definition, which would make something arbitrary, then science itself fits the same camp, given the plethora of different philosophical considerations of what science even is and how it functions.
That´s simple: It´s what pretty much all God concepts have been traditionally introduced to us as.So let me take another provocative step forward. Unless we're rationalist children who don't consider non-rational influences on potentially any argument, we have to admit the possibility that something must be motivating atheists to view God as totally arbitrary, no better than a seven-headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster despite the consistent claims of serious theologians and philosophers (no single person in the philosophy of religion field would touch the arbitrary claiming arguments on these boards with a ten foot pole). What is it?
Unfortunately, oftentimes arguments that I can´t even take seriously are presented time and again, and there are attempts to make them not only acceptable, but also the basis for societal matters. That´s reason enough to put up with them even though considering them stupid. It doesn´t make me stupid.Well, I think it's more than not having a good reason for God. We're not psychologically just passive receptors of information; we also determine which arguments we consider seriously.
Well, not even shrinks get to tell me what my motives are.The rest of the answer is that some atheists simply don't want a God to be around to bother with.
It seems that you yourself have strong inclinations to this rational "fantasy land" - after all, you are the one who tries to score points for the existence of God by stripping Him off all those arbitrary characteristics that used to evoke emotional responses and polarize.No, he's not the only atheist in the history of the cosmos to hold such an explicit statement. And there's nothing wrong with this opinion. I just wish more atheists would be aware of their preconscious processing on this point. And if your response here is, "golly, Received, nobody closes themselves off to arguments because they don't like imagining an argument being true," you're living in a fantasy land where people are magical robots who automatically calculate the best and adapt themselves automatically to these calculations.
No, of course this doesn´t follow. Refuting a stupid argument doesn´t make you stupid. After all, it´s not like those God concepts didn´t exist or weren´t seriously presented here.
Well, this definition is in itself arbitrary. You don´t get to define stuff into existence.
Yes, this would indeed follow from the first arbitrary definition (creator entity).
Terms like "spaceless" and "timeless" don´t derive any intelligible meaning from being forced by an arbitrary assumption (i.e. that time and space have to be created by an entity).
Even though it may be a good start, I don´t think it will get you anywhere near a meaningful, relevant or significant God concept - unless you add arbitrary qualities.
And that appears to be the very problem with those "serious" God concepts replacing the traditional "stupid" God concepts: While the latter Gods (if they existed) would indeed have had strong relevance, significance and implications for our lives (after all, They could send us to heaven or hell for the way we conduct, They could interfere with our lives, They were seeing our every thought etc. etc.), the former - proportionally to the degree They are stripped off arbitrary qualities - are losing Their relevance, significance, implications. A "(timeless, spaceless) first cause" (and for purposes of this argument I am assuming that a first cause were even necessary - which I don´t think)? Ok, let It have been at the beginning of the universe, and move on - It´s completely irrelevant for anything that religion tried and tries to have the answers for or the monopoly on.
So make no mistake: It is the very arbitrary add-ons that make Gods attractive (or feared or opposed to), relevant, significant.
And that´s why those God concepts are vehemently discussed (because they actually affect people rationally and emotionally) and the "timeless, spaceless first cause" isn´t (why would it even help raising someone´s eyebrows?).
No, the FSM is not used this way, so appealing to some assumed historical intention doesn't wipe off how it's used on these forums.
Timeless and spaceless aren't meaningless, unless you're going to assume all of our concepts, ideas, and mathematics and anything else symbolic is meaningless. Just sayin'.
I've mentioned multiple times in this thread how the qualities are derived, Davian.
And needs are different than evidence. People should care a whole lot about things they might not have a good reason to believe in if the alternative is a darker universe for them in particular. If a person has no need for God, of course he's going to have no inclination to consider him seriously, and this is basic psychology.
I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.
I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?
So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?
Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.
What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?
Believers of Nothingness Randomness and Luck (atheists) don't know that they just replaced God with a Pagan figure, they returned to the Paganistic Era.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?