Religion?

Quote:

Despite the rhetoric of clergy and anti-theists the motivations of the church are more often material than metaphysical.

Er, in which case, what's the point of supporting such institutions in the first place? Might as well make Donald Trump a Cardinal.

It's not up to atheists to disprove your Merciful Father's existence. It's up to the lot of you believers to prove that he exists. Or to please him to the extent that he finally deigns to appear and smite the rest of us on your behalf. It's you who haven't made good on your side of the bargain.

Order227 wrote:

It's not up to atheists to disprove your Merciful Father's existence.

No it's up to them to prove he doesn't since that is their philosophical claim. Just as it's up to theists to prove he does exist if they're gonna go around saying he does.

Order227 wrote:

It's you who haven't made good on your side of the bargain.

To your satisfaction perhaps.

No, it's up to you theists to prove your god exists, as it was you lot who invented him, then made universal recognition and adoration of his existence mandatory (on point of death) in the first place.

It's the task of the philosopher to deconstruct millenia of theology, folklore, and superstition, so that rational thinking can clear the way for scientific progress. Philosophers such as Marx do not have to prove god doesn't exist. It's enough to point to the lack of evidence, then recall all the claims theists have made on his behalf, and question their motives for doing so.

Ultra-theists, by the way, are normally the ultimate misanthropes.

If you didn't want to validate your position on God you shouldn't have taken one in the first place. That said requiring proof of theisitic positions (this includes atheistic ones) is only important if you're going around telling other people that they're wrong.

Quote:

No it's up to them to prove he doesn't since that is their philosophical claim. Just as it's up to theists to prove he does exist if they're gonna go around saying he does.

Essentially this.

Quote:

So it's not an original idea - sorry - I think it raises a valid point nonetheless. (Actually I'm pretty sure I've come across arguments pretty similar to yours elsewhere - now that I think of it.)

I agree that Agnosticism is a more defensible position, but I think that about Solipsism also. At some point though I make assumptions about the existence of an objective reality - even if I can't strictly prove it exists.

Well, I'm not saying that it's not an original idea, which is pretty much a non-possible thing (as far as philosophy goes). I'm more pointing out the fact that it is a polemic, and not an actual argument. It's meant to convert, to be used in propaganda.

Quote:

No, it's up to you theists to prove your god exists, as it was you lot who invented him, then made universal recognition and adoration of his existence mandatory (on point of death) in the first place.

Yes. It is up to them to prove that their God exists, if they are claiming that is a defensible philosophical position. And it's up to you to prove that a god does not exist, if you are claiming that is a defensible philosophical position. The point is that either way, in order to be philosophically justified, it takes more than just saying that someone else made up a version of an idea that probably does not exist, therefore that idea could never exist. But in fact the god explanation is more than just religious, it also simply speaks to the nature of the universe. In that respect, one cannot make a statement about the nature of the universe because there is no evidence to justify any belief. It is something that has not been observed.

Dagoth and Order should be exiled to their own religion topic, you know... to let other people have a chance at bat instead of killing a thread.

/hyocritical statement.

Wheelchairmaniacal wrote:

Dagoth and Order should be exiled to their own religion topic, you know... to let other people have a chance at bat instead of killing a thread.

/hyocritical statement.

haha, definitely hypocritical, in all seriousness though, I agree, it would be better to steer away from making this a one on one argument to a group discussion

-also hypocritical

It would make more sense to start with first principles and assume nothing, therefore, assume a god does not exist.

Because that's how science works, bitches.

Else, we could assume anything exists, like an invisible pink unicorn.

Science observes natural phenomenon. How can that be applied to metaphysics?

I just liked adding that in as a random statement.

My point here is that you simply have to assume nothing, and until you gain more information, assume nothing.

Otherwise, you can assume anything, and a contradiction occurs- Reductio ad absurdum. It's quite meaningless to assume something when you have nothing (ie. no proof) in the first place, and then ask a person who has assumed nothing to prove that their logic makes sense.

In the end you just get a meaningless discussion, like all metaphysical arguments.

Pink unicorns are physical. God is not. There's your problem. You're comparing god to physical things. Bad comparison. It's as simple as that. Now, I think it's fair to say that natural phenomenon have natural explanations, correct? All of them do.

If something is a natural phenomenon, it originated from a natural mechanism.
Everything contained within the universe is considered a natural phenomenon.
Humans can only observe with their senses what is contained within the universe as long as they exist within the universe.
Thus humans cannot observe what is not contained within the universe.
Thus humans cannot observe what is not a natural phenomenon.
God is not a natural phenomenon.
Humans cannot observe God.
If a human does not observe God, that does not mean God does not exist.


Satisfied?

Since when were pink unicorns a natural phenomena?

You fail. Miserably.

I defined natural phenomenon. Things that exist within the universe. If a pink unicorn existed, it would exist within the universe.

If you're going to use the word "fail", then do so with precision.

If it's not contained within the universe, what's the point of believing it's anywhere?

If it's not contained within the universe, what harm can it do to us if we fail to worship it and send it money?

If it's not contained within the universe, and the humans that it reveals itself to are either 4000 years dead or known to be a touch schizophrenic and/or power hungry, what does that say?

How exactly is a pink unicorn physical while god is not? Since we're all into metaphysics, maybe the invisible pink unicorn is a god!

If we CAN observe something- awesome. If we can't, then what's the point? Obviously a god would not be in the universe by your definition, and hence is not part of our physical world, and hence can't be observed. So again, what's the point?

What's even worse is believing said gods have given random messages to people. How were they observed? They couldn't possibly have been observed, by your definition.

And hence we just go into a endless loop of nothingness. Which is why it only makes sense to assume nothing from the start.

Quote:

How exactly is a pink unicorn physical while god is not?

Where exactly would this invisible pink unicorn exist if not in the universe? I defined natural phenomenon for you, right in the post. Something contained within the universe. We know that anything contained in the universe arose through a natural mechanism. That's the point of historical materialism as an ideology, no?

I don't think you're getting the point. If you can't observe something objectively, it cannot be said to either exist nor not exist. You have agreed that you cannot observe it, so why are you arguing the point?

Quote:

What's even worse is believing said gods have given random messages to people. How were they observed? They couldn't possibly have been observed, by your definition.

Excellent, you've arriving at the reason why I do not believe in the Abrahamic God. It's a ridiculous concept, I agree. That doesn't change anything that I have said. Remember, I am a philosophical agnostic, not a Christian. You're arguing against the Abrahamic God to someone who does not believe in it. That is futility.

Quote:

And hence we just go into a endless loop of nothingness. Which is why it only makes sense to assume nothing from the start.

I again agree. Which is why when you assume nothing you still arrive at the position that god could exist.

Really I fail to see the reason for you to argue this point. There are good arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic God. Not so much against the metaphysical entity that we term god. And there will be none, because whatever way you slice it, there's no real way to argue against an entity which does not need natural mechanism in order to exist. That is what makes god impossible to argue against, and not the pink unicorn.

Rob-O wrote:

Where exactly would this invisible pink unicorn exist if not in the universe?

Where would a god exist if not in the universe, by the same reasoning?

Again, there is nothing disproving that the invisible pink unicorn is not a god. A unicorn certainly isn't uniform. And therefore, an invisible pink unicorn must be divine.

Rob-O wrote:

Which is why when you assume nothing you still arrive at the position that god could exist.

This would now become a discussion of the inherent problems with inductive logic. The best way really to solve this is by assuming nothing except for the information you're given. Assuming something COULD exist is meaningless. There's nothing preventing a non-corporeal entity from destroying the universe within the next day. Obviously, this wouldn't happen, and pondering on anything here is just meaningless.

Quote:

Where would a god exist if not in the universe, by the same reasoning?

That's the point. God is just a placeholder concept for an entity that does not exist in this universe. By saying that "god" does not exist, you are making a claim about the physical world? No. You're making a claim about something we cannot observe. How can we say that something metaphysical exists or does not exist? We simply can't make claims about that. This is why we just say, there is neither evidence he exists or does not exist. It's not hard to understand why that is far more justified a statement than "god does not exist".

Quote:

This would now become a discussion of the inherent problems with inductive logic. The best way really to solve this is by assuming nothing except for the information you're given. Assuming something COULD exist is meaningless. There's nothing preventing a non-corporeal entity from destroying the universe within the next day. Obviously, this wouldn't happen, and pondering on anything here is just meaningless.

Yes. There's nothing preventing that. Which is why if you said that the world is going to end today, and it doesn't, you'd be wrong. And you'd be wrong for the next infinity, give or take a few, years. After a while of that, you would probably end up deducing that the world is not going to end tomorrow. Probably after like, a year of that actually. Which is why a statement predicting the end of the universe has no predictive value, and thus is false. But then, that is entirely different from stating that a non-corporeal entity exists or does not exists. You can't observe it, so why state that it exists or does not exist on a philosophical level? Ambiguity is not an acknowledgment of a possibility, or a statement of there not being an objective truth. It means what it means: it would not be justifiable to state that a god does or does not exist, thus either statement is not justified.

It's like ignoring it because it is an illogical thing to ponder. Exactly what you want. You are taking issue with something that you should not be: all I am saying is that your position is not justified philosophically, even if I happen to agree with it personally. That is it's not a statement of truth, it is a statement of belief. Which is fine. And you can come up with all the personal justifications you want. Still doesn't change the fact that your position cannot be justified, because the thing you are taking to issue simply cannot be observed.

EDIT: Also, for the above to apply, it would have to be something someone actually believes. There's no reason for anyone to refute the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, which is why it's not a common issue that people face. Honestly, I think stuff like that is non-sequitor and detracts from interesting metaphysical discussion, of which I do not feel that methodology should be much of a concern. That's why I feel the above argument is strong: it is more saying that we should ignore the issue philosophically but does not preclude the issue from being discussed. I think that atheists simply want to attack religion for whatever reason, and that seems somewhat unreasonable to me. I also think that religious people are very determined to attack atheists, and for other motivations, but the more pressing issue is that they wish to insert themselves and God into scientific and philosophical discussions instead of relegating it to theology.

Staunch atheist.

Quote:

Orthodox Christian.

Lol Mabool, I never picked you as a Christian

Oho, so who voted scientology?

Christian btw. Anyway I do lol at some atheists sometimes. Gone are the days when civilised religious people go around trying to convert others - but that won't stop atheists from putting up those retarded "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" signs in my town center. And then they dare to lecture us on the horrors of the middle ages. What a bunch of ironic shits.

Also, I think I'll just leave this here: