Why I'm Anti-Theistic

[bhsmte]

if there WAS to be some sort of "moral compass", where should it come from?
another human?
this sort of thing needs to come from a "supreme being", in my opinion anyway.
this does raise some interesting questions though.
a culture of headhunters, or of cannibals, are they "immoral"?
let's stretch this a little.
what about a culture of "perverts", an incestuous culture perhaps.
what then?
why would headhunters be moral and the incestuous not, or vice versa?

Which supreme being do you believe in?

 

[whois]

This isn't a thread for apologetics. I realize you're not the only one making posts related to apologetics....but I'd appreciate it if you and everyone else stop discussing proofs, for or against the existence of god or the validity of christianity.

Thanks.

huh?
wasn't it you that started this thread about "anti-theism", but yet wants to forbid any discussion on how and why there might be a god???
it seems to me that you want to only discuss your side, while trying to bar the other.
maybe you should request the thread to renamed to "the atheist agenda".

 

[whois]

Much of our moral compass is cultural - it is learned from other people. But the codified rules that make up the consensus moralities of successful cultures are influenced by basic behavioural tendencies with an evolutionary origin in intra-group co-operation and inter-group competition; for example, forager groups whose individuals co-operate in competition with other groups tend to be more successful, so these traits are selectively reinforced (at least, until agriculture allows larger, settled groups and more complex social structures). We still see this powerful group loyalty at all levels today, from families and small teams (e.g. in sports), to the hierarchy of geographic groups from neighborhoods to states and superstates (which tend to be increasingly fragile with scale).

the problem with this argument is that you have no controls to test it.
i know of no culture that is absolutely devoid of religious influence.

Why? because you can't imagine how else it could happen?

not at all.
morality needs to come from something other than the corrupt ways of humanity.
mere mortals can be exceedingly barbarous, most humans can be prodded into murder if urged correctly.
one experiment proves than most people are tortuous.
this is the major reason i argue in favor of a god, not necessarily that it actually exists, but because humanity desperately needs one

There are those can suppress any sense of conscience & guilt, and also sociopaths who feel no such qualms - no conscience, no guilt; true parasites.

some?
MOST people can be like this if correctly trained for it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

huh?
wasn't it you that started this thread about "anti-theism", but yet wants to forbid any discussion on how and why there might be a god???
it seems to me that you want to only discuss your side, while trying to bar the other.
maybe you should request the thread to renamed to "the atheist agenda".

It's against forum rules...not my personal choice.

I'd love to discuss the evidence for god ...I don't get to make the rules though, so please stop breaking them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

the problem with this argument is that you have no controls to test it.
i know of no culture that is absolutely devoid of religious influence.

not at all.
morality needs to come from something other than the corrupt ways of humanity.
mere mortals can be exceedingly barbarous, most humans can be prodded into murder if urged correctly.
one experiment proves than most people are tortuous.
this is the major reason i argue in favor of a god, not necessarily that it actually exists, but because humanity desperately needs one

some?
MOST people can be like this if correctly trained for it.

Things don't exist because you need them.

Also the experiment you're thinking of shows people respond to authority...it doesn't show they are "torturous".

 

[whois]

It's against forum rules...not my personal choice.


I'd love to discuss the evidence for god ...I don't get to make the rules though, so please stop breaking them.

you mean . . . my posts are against the forum rules?
i'm not asking ANYONE to defend their beliefs, at least i don't think i am.

this has me really curious now, how can you have a philosophy forum, AND NOT discuss the prospects of a god?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

It's against forum rules...not my personal choice.

I'd love to discuss the evidence for god ...I don't get to make the rules though, so please stop breaking them.

I'm pretty sure if you can make a thread railing against God and upholding anti-theism then a theist can argue evidence for God. You, however, cannot try to say there is no God.
This kind of thread only exists by technicality, it really should be dropped.
Manipulate much? It seems to me that you are just throwing a tantrum.

 

[whois]

Also the experiment you're thinking of shows people respond to authority...it doesn't show they are "torturous".

still, the fact remains that ordinary people were willing to inflict pain.
i would imagine that quite a few of them got a certain amount of enjoyment from it too.

 

[Grafted In]

What I meant was we know why you come here. You do too but will not allow yourself to accept why.
I've said before on a similar thread....what would we do without you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm pretty sure if you can make a thread railing against God and upholding anti-theism then a theist can argue evidence for God. You, however, cannot try to say there is no God.
This kind of thread only exists by technicality, it really should be dropped.
Manipulate much? It seems to me that you are just throwing a tantrum.

The thread was made to explain my position of anti-theism...I don't actually make any arguments against the existence of god. Go ahead and read it again since you seem to have missed the entire point and think I said things I didn't say.

If you have a problem with the rules of the forum, talk to a mod about it. I don't really care what you think...just follow the rules for posting in this thread.

As for me saying there is no god...I can say it all I want, there's no rules against it.

There's no god.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I meant was we know why you come here. You do too but will not allow yourself to accept why.
I've said before on a similar thread....what would we do without you.

I must've missed that thread lol...tell me, what would you do without me?

I come here because I like deep conversations. I like to talk about things like religion, politics, science, philosophy, morality...etc. This forum is just one of many which I have these conversations with people of various viewpoints.

Specifically, I like this forum because few people here share my views. I don't think it's very challenging...in fact I think it's intellectually lazy...to surround yourself with a bunch of people who agree with everything you think. What's to be gained from that?

I hope that clears some things up for you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

you mean . . . my posts are against the forum rules?
i'm not asking ANYONE to defend their beliefs, at least i don't think i am.

this has me really curious now, how can you have a philosophy forum, AND NOT discuss the prospects of a god?

Again, that's something you'll have to take up with the mods...

I'd enjoy a good apologetics discussion...I've seen posts that do less to defend the existence of god get removed and then close the thread. If I had to guess, I'd say that if your posts were reported you'd definitely be accused of discussing apologetics and your posts would be removed and you given a warning.

I'm not going to report anyone unless they decide to act childish and start insulting me. That doesn't mean others won't report you though.

 

[whois]

There's no god.

what, exactly, do you mean by this?
i understand why you would make such a comment, but then again i don't.
how can you make this comment when there is no real evidence either way?
the best i, personally, can say is i find the concept difficult to believe, but i cannot outright state there is none.

 

[whois]

Again, that's something you'll have to take up with the mods...

I'd enjoy a good apologetics discussion...I've seen posts that do less to defend the existence of god get removed and then close the thread. If I had to guess, I'd say that if your posts were reported you'd definitely be accused of discussing apologetics and your posts would be removed and you given a warning.

I'm not going to report anyone unless they decide to act childish and start insulting me. That doesn't mean others won't report you though.

this type of thing is nonsense.
you cannot objectively discuss philosophy without discussing the influence of a god.

BTW, my intent is not to insult you or anyone else.

 

[Ana the Ist]

what, exactly, do you mean by this?
i understand why you would make such a comment, but then again i don't.
how can you make this comment when there is no real evidence either way?
the best i, personally, can say is i find the concept difficult to believe, but i cannot outright state there is none.

Simple rationality.

I think it stands to reason that if there were a god, at least a god as god is defined by most major religions, there would be evidence of one.

If there is no evidence for existence when evidence is reasonably expected...

That lack of evidence is itself evidence that thing does not exist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

this type of thing is nonsense.
you cannot objectively discuss philosophy without discussing the influence of a god.

BTW, my intent is not to insult you or anyone else.

I think it depends upon what the philosophical concept/question/statement is. Certainly some philosophical ideas can be discussed without any mention of god.

I don't like it either...it seems a little silly that a topic of discussion within the christian community, a topic as broad and interesting as apologetics, has been forbidden on a forum for talking about christianity.

Then again, I kind of understand why. I've seen apologetics threads on other forums...and it usually seems very one-sided. If this forum is designed in part for the purpose of strengthening people's faith, answering their religious questions, and exploring christian concepts...the last thing you want is someone who wandered in looking for answers to their questions about christian rules for dating to suddenly have a crisis of faith because they saw several ideas that they've believed their whole life get logically torn apart.

So maybe, in a way, the lack of an apologetics section reflects christianity and it's intentions rather well. After all, you're not supposed to be questioning god anyway...aren't you?

 

[whois]

Simple rationality.

okay, i can agree with that.
the concept of god is ludicrous, ridiculous.
rationality says there is no god, or its highly improbable.
OTOH, since when has "ludicrous" been proof of anything?

I think it stands to reason that if there were a god, at least a god as god is defined by most major religions, there would be evidence of one.

maybe god isn't a religious god at all.
maybe god is a highly advanced transdimensional being.
any sufficiently advanced entity would appear godlike.

If there is no evidence for existence when evidence is reasonably expected...

well, maybe the evidence exists, but you aren't seeing it as such.
maybe you are trying to explain god in religious terms and there isn't a connection at all.

That lack of evidence is itself evidence that thing does not exist.

not necessarily.
like i mentioned in an earlier post, this god, or intelligence, can exist transdimensionally, eluding all attempts at detection and still exist within the physical bounds of the universe.
like einstien said:
not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.

a question that always comes up in discussions like this, is one of "first causes".
this paradox can easily be solved by putting the universe at infinity, both in scope and duration.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Perhaps it's best to actually define "god" first. I'd be a strong atheist in regards to all the variations of the Christian deity (or really the Christian pantheon of deities) - there's just far to many inconsistencies and lack of any credible evidence to support that. I haven't seen anything to support any of the other god claims either.

With regards to a super being (or race of superbeings) - whom we would consider gods because they have evolved so far as to make them appear so, I'm more of a weak atheist. Of course they'd probably be mechanical or partly mechanical rather than fully biological so perhaps best not to encounter them at all.

 

[dms1972]

There's no god.

I disagree with this bald and nonsensical assertion.

However I would like to say one or two things in regard to it.

If viewed as a deflationary statement it has no truth value and is not a statement of truth, and has no reference to objective reality. The deflationary theory however cannot be applied to all statements, without meaningful communication breaking down. For two reasons, meaningful statements depend on meanings being out there in the world, or up there in the heavens (plato). Meaning also has to do with intersubjectivity, understanding what another person means.

Not viewed as a deflationary statement it does have a truth value - that it is false.

Deflationary statements are fine if you want to just chew the breeze, not for philosophy discussions which are about love of wisdom, and truth and ultimate concerns.

I would not report your comment (others may, and I make no judgement about them for doing so). Neither does the statement make me feel worried by it, or insist you change your position or beliefs unless or until it seems good to you to do so.

This sort of statement can claim no more, and can be expressed only as a tentative opinion is what I think.

And what is more I won't hold you to it. However these are discussion forums and those who facilitate, and others who use them may disagree, and may change the rules accordingly, so that meaningful discussion may continue.

Going back to your comments about respecting beliefs. Discussions are about truth, not merely beliefs. Does truth on these important questions change? The quoted statement isn't a truth statement. Its either a belief or a sort of protest. Which is more important that people respect your beliefs, or honour truth? If honouring truth means civilly disrespecting your beliefs can you handle that? Can I honour truth without making 100 posts of "there is a God" on an atheist forum. I believe so.

 

[Ana the Ist]

okay, i can agree with that.
the concept of god is ludicrous, ridiculous.
rationality says there is no god, or its highly improbable.
OTOH, since when has "ludicrous" been proof of anything?

maybe god isn't a religious god at all.
maybe god is a highly advanced transdimensional being.
any sufficiently advanced entity would appear godlike.

well, maybe the evidence exists, but you aren't seeing it as such.
maybe you are trying to explain god in religious terms and there isn't a connection at all.

not necessarily.
like i mentioned in an earlier post, this god, or intelligence, can exist transdimensionally, eluding all attempts at detection and still exist within the physical bounds of the universe.
like einstien said:
not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.

a question that always comes up in discussions like this, is one of "first causes".
this paradox can easily be solved by putting the universe at infinity, both in scope and duration.

I tried pretty hard to think of a way to reply to this that wouldn't be breaking forum rules. I couldn't come up with one.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to do so in private messages.