Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Demonstrably 100% false? Don't think so.

Rathji is right when he says that the lack of evidence for a god does not make the case that a concept is demonstrably false. However, this doesn't automatically give the concept any credibility. If a claim is made without evidence, it can be rejected as just as swiftly as it was made with the exact same amount of evidence.

But I did say demonstrably false. Given that the only "evidence" there is for the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh is the Bible and 'divine revelation' (he said, choking back a laugh), then we have to evaluate the claim on what we're given.

For starters, many of the qualities that we're told to believe about Yahweh are incompatible with each other:

- A being that is perfect would have no need for worship.
- A perfectly moral being would not impose immoral punishments.
- A perfectly just god cannot be a merciful god, as mercy is the suspension of justice.
- A benevolent being would not impose such atrocious and depraved punishments upon people, such as:
-- Original sin, which punishes an entire species for the disobedience of Adam and Eve.
-- The killing of children for the crimes of their parents.
-- Slaughtering an entire village when David takes a census at Yahweh's request
- Any references made to Yahweh 'testing' the faith of the believer - an omniscient being would already know the outcome and as such would have no need for such an exercise.


Nevermind the other ridiculous claims made in these holy texts. On that basis, the claim of this particular god's existence is demonstrably false.

I approach different god concepts differently, based upon how they're defined. There are other god concepts that, while I cannot claim them to be demonstrably false, I can dismiss as unknowable on the basis that we have no way to verify the existence of such a being. But again, having no evidence against a claim doesn't require anyone to accept that claim - dismissing the claim or reserving your acceptance of said claim is the appropriate response when presented with no evidence for it.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Rathji is right when he says that the lack of evidence for a god does not make the case that a concept is demonstrably false. However, this doesn't automatically give the concept any credibility. If a claim is made without evidence, it can be rejected as just as swiftly as it was made with the exact same amount of evidence.

But I did say demonstrably false. Given that the only "evidence" there is for the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh is the Bible and 'divine revelation' (he said, choking back a laugh), then we have to evaluate the claim on what we're given.

For starters, many of the qualities that we're told to believe about Yahweh are incompatible with each other:

- A being that is perfect would have no need for worship.
- A perfectly moral being would not impose immoral punishments.
- A perfectly just god cannot be a merciful god, as mercy is the suspension of justice.
- A benevolent being would not impose such atrocious and depraved punishments upon people, such as:
-- Original sin, which punishes an entire species for the disobedience of Adam and Eve.
-- The killing of children for the crimes of their parents.
-- Slaughtering an entire village when David takes a census at Yahweh's request
- Any references made to Yahweh 'testing' the faith of the believer - an omniscient being would already know the outcome and as such would have no need for such an exercise.


Nevermind the other ridiculous claims made in these holy texts. On that basis, the claim of this particular god's existence is demonstrably false.

I approach different god concepts differently, based upon how they're defined. There are other god concepts that, while I cannot claim them to be demonstrably false, I can dismiss as unknowable on the basis that we have no way to verify the existence of such a being. But again, having no evidence against a claim doesn't require anyone to accept that claim - dismissing the claim or reserving your acceptance of said claim is the appropriate response when presented with no evidence for it.

Love it! Have argued many of the same points myself to others. And it all goes back to this idea of an omnipotent being being the problem. Which is a problem even in itself. Going to Homer's version of the much used riddle... 'Could an all powerful God microwave a burrito so hot even he himself could not eat it?'

Is omnipotence even possible?

Oh, you also forgot... A perfect or merciful being would not be such a jealous being as demonstrated by the first commandment. 'I am a jealous God, thou shalt not have any Gods beside me.'

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Oh, you also forgot... A perfect or merciful being would not be such a jealous being as demonstrated by the first commandment. 'I am a jealous God, thou shalt not have any Gods beside me.'

That's a big one - it is sort of covered in my point where I say that a perfect being would have no need for worship, but it's worth mentioning.

When we see this quality in people, the desire for worship stems from crippling inadequacy... in other words, ANYTHING but perfection.

That a benevolent god would condone, permit, and commit atrocities makes absolutely no sense.

Rape? It's in the Bible.
Murder? It's in the Bible.
Dehumanizing people by forcing a depraved punishment upon them, namely eating one's own children? It's in the Bible.
Condemnation for victimless 'sin'? Care for some shellfish? How about a suit made with blended fabrics?

Once we let go of the assumption that the lawmaker is perfect, we can see these for what they are - immoral. And a perfectly moral being, Yahweh is not. And once the 'proof' presented by the Bible is shown to have such massive contradictions in it, you can honestly say that the claim of the existence of Yahweh is patently, demonstrably 100% false.

[Daradon]

Yeah, I knew that your examples carried the essence of mine, I just like it because it's such a great example. It's right in the 1st commandment! Doesn't get much more in your face than that.

It's a little bit like the way we suspend our belief for movies or books we know are fiction. As long as the art stays within the rules it itself has presented, we can't really argue with it, and we accept it.

But in this case, the theology isn't even playing by the rules it has laid out for itself. It's full of contradictions and cases against itself.

In the movie example, the Bible would be a crappy movie full of contradictions and continuity errors. It would be a summer blockbuster that flops because IT MAKES NO SENSE. Even in it's own rules. Even if you start out by believing that yes, it's possible god may exist, yes it's possible that someone may rise from the dead, so you can enjoy the movie one ends up feeling cheated because it doesn't play by the rules it outlined.

It's flawed from the beginning and cannot be called proof even measured against nothing else.

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah, I knew that your examples carried the essence of mine, I just like it because it's such a great example. It's right in the 1st commandment! Doesn't get much more in your face than that.

It's a little bit like the way we suspend our belief for movies or books we know are fiction. As long as the art stays within the rules it itself has presented, we can't really argue with it, and we accept it.

But in this case, the theology isn't even playing by the rules it has laid out for itself. It's full of contradictions and cases against itself.

In the movie example, the Bible would be a crappy movie full of contradictions and continuity errors. It would be a summer blockbuster that flops because IT MAKES NO SENSE. Even in it's own rules. Even if you start out by believing that yes, it's possible god may exist, yes it's possible that someone may rise from the dead, so you can enjoy the movie one ends up feeling cheated because it doesn't play by the rules it outlined.

It's flawed from the beginning and cannot be called proof even measured against nothing else.

Has anybody ever done a "Bible....the movie" before? That WOULD be a great idea. I think the confusion would begin somewhere where God creates the world...twice for some reason. After that, the confusion would never clear up.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Nuje

Has anybody ever done a "Bible....the movie" before? That WOULD be a great idea. I think the confusion would begin somewhere where God creates the world...twice for some reason. After that, the confusion would never clear up.

Not a movie, but this is a verse by verse graphic novel of Genesis illustrated by R. Crumb.



Needless to say, it isn't something you'd likely want young children to read ;-)

[edslunch]

My contention is that religion is man-made. The only way to refute this is to point to what the bible says. The bible, as a book, is by definition man-made, so I'm up on points already.....

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by edslunch

My contention is that religion is man-made. The only way to refute this is to point to what the bible says. The bible, as a book, is by definition man-made, so I'm up on points already.....

Of course religion is man made. The only thing I can say for it, is that it tries to explain god through various eyes. It fails for a lot of people as who can relate to some of the outdated notions that it uses. It fails for me, as torquedog says it tries to feed me some concept that makes little sense but as for torquedog shooting down different concepts of god, well god is not a concept, it's an experience.

[calgaryrocks]

Worship is not groveling before God, nor is it performing meaningless rituals. God hates hypocrisy and insincere worship (Hos 6:6, Is 1:11-17). What God does tell us to do is to love him (Mt 22:35-40). Loving God includes praising him, thanking him and obeying him (1 Jn 5:3). If God is perfect, then he deserves praise, and his commands are good commands that should be obeyed. Worshiping God actually benefits us:

• Worshiping God fulfills us and makes us happy. We like to see that a person's goodness is acknowledged and rewarded; praising God gives his followers the same satisfaction.
• Worshiping God puts us into the proper relationship with him, in the sense that we are acknowledging that he is God and deserves worship, and doing what he wants us to do. (Being completely right with God requires more than worship - see The Four Spiritual Laws.) This allows us to have a closer and more fulfilling relationship with God

I don't think demands worship, like egotistical or even insecure tyrant who insists that everyone tell him how great he is. This is not an accurate portrayal, for God's command to us is, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Dt 6:5), not "Tell me over and over how wonderful I am." Worship is included as part of God's command to love him, for it's a proper expression of our love for someone who is perfect and so much above us in every way. God wants us to love him, and people might have a problem with that and say well he is perfect so he doesn't need love, but could he want it anyways? If you were God, wouldn't you want the people you are God of to like you, or love you? otherwise what's the point.
If we praise our friends and family when they do well, how much more appropriate it is for us to praise a perfect God! When we love God and realize how awesome he is, worship and praise are natural results.

God's instruction to worship him is only a demand in the sense that God's other moral laws are demands. God doesn't command us not to murder because he's a dictator, but because it's morally right (and therefore ultimately in our best interests). These commands go beyond just the words but the meaning of them. Similarly, God tells us to worship him because it's the proper way for us to relate to him and because it's to our benefit to do so (see above).
Something else to consider: If God were vain, one would think that he would want pictures and statues of him everywhere, yet he commanded that no one make images of him. Instead, he told the Israelites to keep copies of his commands everywhere (Dt 6:6-9), so that they would remember them and obey them and receive blessings as a result (Dt 6:18).



also, in response to God wanting us to have no other Gods, we have to look for the meaning behind it.
A verse in Jeremiah states this: They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger. But am I the one they are provoking? declares the LORD. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame? (Jer 7:18-19) If Christianity is true, then the Christian God really is the only God, and praying to another god is praying to someone who doesn't exist (duh). Not only is that counterproductive, it's harmful: the person who does so is ignoring the help and advice that God is willing to give him, and is instead seeking help from a nonexistent deity. At best, he will receive no benefit from the false god, and will have damaged his relationship with the true God (for praying to a false god is really saying to God, "I don't trust you to answer me or help me, so I'm going to seek help from another source," and also, "I don't believe you when you say you're the only God; your words aren't trustworthy"). At worst, praying to a false god allows him to be deceived - for instance, he may fool himself into thinking that the false god has given him permission to do something evil.

On the other hand, if we worship the true God, we receive all the benefits of a relationship with God, including his love, forgiveness and guidance.

of course you could look at the flipside, if the Christian God doesn't exist then Christians are wasting thier time and effort in the same fashion.

[Daradon]

Nm, no point. Too easy.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

If we praise our friends and family when they do well, how much more appropriate it is for us to praise a perfect God! When we love God and realize how awesome he is, worship and praise are natural results.

If my friends and family were omnipiotent and yet sat by passively while millions of people were tortured and starved every year for hundreds of thousands of years, I wouldn't praise them nor characterize them as perfect. Perhaps that is just me though.

[jammies]

The Christian God isn't demonstrably false - it could simply be that He is not benevolent.

I suppose, to be more precise, the attributes of the Christian God that are commonly accepted to be true cannot be true, but that doesn't mean the same entity that allegedly created the universe didn't also divinely inspire the bible. God the Uncaring and Mildly Malevolent is perfectly possible and would resolve all kinds of theological paradoxes.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

of course you could look at the flipside, if the Christian God doesn't exist then Christians are wasting thier time and effort in the same fashion.

I think you may be onto something with this.

Originally Posted by jammies

The Christian God isn't demonstrably false - it could simply be that He is not benevolent.

I suppose, to be more precise, the attributes of the Christian God that are commonly accepted to be true cannot be true, but that doesn't mean the same entity that allegedly created the universe didn't also divinely inspire the bible. God the Uncaring and Mildly Malevolent is perfectly possible and would resolve all kinds of theological paradoxes.

Let me break this down for you:

1. The claim, put forth by believers, is that Yahweh exists.
2. The burden of proof rests upon the person making the claim.
3. The evidence presented for the existence of the deity is the Bible, a book we know was written by men, but the believer insists was divinely inspired by God.
4. The information contained within the book contains numerous contradictions and demonstrably false information.

This leaves us with two possibilities:
1. Believers continue to claim that the Bible is the absolute truth and that it accurately describes God. This leads us to the conclusion that God as described is demonstrably false - it cannot exist because of the contradictions that are presented about its nature.
2. Admit that the Bible is not true and does not accurately represent God. You now have no evidence for the existence of God, and what is presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by Makarov

If my friends and family were omnipiotent and yet sat by passively while millions of people were tortured and starved every year for hundreds of thousands of years, I wouldn't praise them nor characterize them as perfect. Perhaps that is just me though.

which millions are being tortured and starved for hundreds of thousands of years? there is free will. man can make choices, and it is up to man to see other peoples needs and care for them. if you are talking about africa in general, what do you expect God to do? their ancestors decided it would be smart to live in places with little potential for clean food and water. thier governments decided to withhold what the people need (including donations) or persecute them. no I wouldn't praise my family and friends for not helping when they could.
If God is omnipotent, he doesn't have to use that power. it comes down to whether God should allow total free will. to let man make his own choices, and face the consequences.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

1. The claim, put forth by believers, is that Yahweh exists.
2. The burden of proof rests upon the person making the claim.
3. The evidence presented for the existence of the deity is the Bible, a book we know was written by men, but the believer insists was divinely inspired by God.
4. The information contained within the book contains numerous contradictions and demonstrably false information.

I don't think you're fully assimilating my argument that God could just be a liar. You are making a logical leap from "The Bible cannot be true" to "The God of the Bible cannot exist". Your error is between steps 3 and 4 - there is nothing stopping God from divinely revealing falsehoods and contradictions. Therefore, the Bible could be false while the God of the bible be true.

Further, if your conclusion is that the bible isn't evidence of anything, that applies both for and against: you can't say "the Bible proves God *doesn't* exist". By saying the God of the Bible (and not the Bible itself) is "demonstrably false", that is exactly what you are doing.

A further error lies in your assumption that "the Bible" admits of only one interpretation of God which is the "Christian" viewpoint. This is a (admittedly subtle) straw man argument, where the straw man is the vision of God as a benevolent omnipotent actor concerned with humanity and its travails; there are sects who believe God will save only the elect and punish everyone else, sinners or not, and their vision of God is more along the lines of a jealous, amoral, arbitrary killer, and these sects can also find ample scriptural backup for their preferred vision.

All you can really say is that the Bible cannot be literally true at all points, and that it is open to just about any interpretation of its supposed author.

[Rathji]

I think that is an interesting point. If there is some type of supreme being, it is likely we have a very severely flawed understanding of what it is, to the point where the some/all teachings of any religion could be considered invalid.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think that is an interesting point. If there is some type of supreme being, it is likely we have a very severely flawed understanding of what it is, to the point where the some/all teachings of any religion could be considered invalid.

You're on to something.

A community of blind men once heard that an extraordinary beast called an elephant had been brought into the country. Since they did not know what it looked like and had never heard its name, they resolved to obtain a picture, and the knowledge they desired, by feeling the beast - the only possibility that was open to them! They went in search of the elephant, and when they had found it, they felt its body. One touched its leg, the other a tusk, the third an ear, and in the belief that they now knew the elephant, they returned home. But when they were questioned by the other blind men, their answers differed. The one who had felt the leg maintained that the elephant was nothing other than a pillar, extremely rough to the touch, and yet strangely soft. The one who had caught hold of the tusk denied this and described the elephant as, hard and smooth, with nothing soft or rough about it, more over the beast was by no means as stout as a pillar, but rather had the shape of a post ['amud]. The third, who had held the ear in his hands, spoke: "By my faith, it is both soft and rough." Thus he agreed with one of the others, but went on to say: Nevertheless, it is neither like a post nor a pillar, but like a broad, thick piece of leather." Each was right in a certain sense, since each of them communicated that part of the elephant he had comprehended, but none was able describe the elephant as it really was; for all three of them were unable to comprehend the entire form of the elephant.

He likens those who cannot agree about the eternally immutable God, those in whom the spiritual eye has not yet awakened, to a group of people who seek an elephant in a dark room, and try to determine its appearance by touch alone. Naturally, each one comes to a different conclusion, according to the part of the animal’s body that they feel.

I think even those who have been awakened, still don't see the whole of god.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_m...hant/Sufi.html

[jammies]

If God is unknowable then there is no point in worshipping him; his reaction to such might as easily be negative as positive. Therefore, the effort expended in doing so is wasted.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jammies

If God is unknowable then there is no point in worshipping him; his reaction to such might as easily be negative as positive. Therefore, the effort expended in doing so is wasted.

Unless there is an afterlife, and we are judged based on our conduct in this one. He may be judging you on your reactions to adversity. The book of Job would suggest this may be the case.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jammies

If God is unknowable then there is no point in worshipping him; his reaction to such might as easily be negative as positive. Therefore, the effort expended in doing so is wasted.

Why would you say god is unknowable? If you are referring to my post, I'm just saying that each of us may see god in a different way.