Luminous

Could be more eloquently worded, but it's an honest question. Even in a slightly old "If you were ruler of the world" thread we had here at AO, people said they'd attempt to do great things like feeding starving children in Africa. If a deity exists, surely they have that power. And yet they don't. Basically, it's the Problem of Evil. Either God doesn't exist, or God isn't good. When speaking about religion, I suppose we have to narrow the focus on just exactly what kind of deity figure we are speaking of.

__________________

psychical

Or better yet, seeing that we've been going in circles all this time without having reached anything substantial, we could start from the top. I believe we could reach some sort of closure that way. Whaddya say?

__________________

Luminous

I would be up for that, I've been trying to follow the arguements, but find myself quite confused at whats being argued. Having just jumped in though, perhaps I'll just throw in my thoughts on the matter.

I think as people that actively seek out truth, we instinctively are reluctant to leave an empty space blank on a test. When we are sick, we want to know what we have, and why. Such it is, that when faced with the concept of death, we want to know what lies beyond. But we can't ever really know while we're alive can we? But it's an empty space on the test, so I think we still feel the need to fill it in, I think it makes us feel better. It doesn't matter how true it is, as long as we think "Hmm...that's definately a possibility", we'll be less irked about that unknown area. Even most Atheists follow this I think with the line of thinking that after death, who cares, we won't exist anymore to think about it! Epicurus said it best with regards to that I think.
Either way, the desired end result is the same. We stop worrying about death, and happily frollick about living our lives. While one could see some religious people as delusional, belief is one area where you're allowed to be naive, because there is no way to prove you wrong. It's an area where it ultimately doesn't matter. We still live the same way, we still die the same way, that is, happy, and reassured. Rinse, wash, repeat. The cycle continues.

I think the concept of Russel's Teapot adequatly shows that religions are for the most part guesswork that are equally possible of being right and being wrong. Again, that doesn't matter, as long as its true to you as a person, religion is serving its purpose of filling in that blank. Who knows, maybe one of us will end up being right someday.

And so ends my Atheistic pondering aloud, I apologize for the minor essay length, and hopefully I don't sound like a crazy person.

__________________

LichGRIFFIN

Or God is testing us ,after the humans doing all that evil you don't expect to live an easy and happy life ,now do you?

But long generations of humans have passed and no one said a word about this happening ,right?

__________________

Arrianna

Ah, but if most religions contain truth and people live by those truths that it follows they will be happy doesn't it? The issue is whether they also live by any of the false truths in their religion. One of the most fascinating things I have learned about studying religion is just how similar certain "truths" are from religion to religion (if not outright identical). It shouldn't be to surprising when you consider that every main religion now days can be traced directly to Abraham, the religion he followed, and his influence (including the Vedic ones).

An honest question and one there is a simple answer for if you follow through the consequences of the alternative. The answer is that the right to choose what you will do and who you will be is a God given right called "agency". We determine by our choices whether we will do good or evil. Because everyone has that choice and there are those who will choose evil consequently there will be those who cause pain and suffering for others. Now consider what it would take to prevent that....

The only way to prevent anyone from choosing to hurt someone else would to take away that right of choice. It would require not the punishment of someone's actions but their very thought before they could even act. We would live in a world where anyone who even thought of stepping out of line would be punished instantly thus condemning us to remain mentally as little children perpetually disciplined for all of existence. An eternity of enslavement to the whims of a single all powerful dictator.

Ironically in my religion it is believed that that is exactly what Lucifer wanted to do, the ultimate evil, destroying the agency of man. "Send me and I will force everyone to do good." Thank you no. I would rather be able to choose my own fate and accept the consequences of not only my own actions but others as well then live in that kind of slavery.

If God forces us to be "good" then "good" ceases to exist, if he feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and succors the sick and wounded then we ourselves have no opportunity to do good. Even children have to learn sometime. God is good and so we can be.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

psychical

It's good to hear that you're willing to stay awhile and sort this out. But let's start at the very beginning, shall we? This should make what we're to debate easier to understand.

OK, you've decided to take the atheistic stance, and I've decided to take the theistic stance. Here are our givens:

1) It is generally agreed upon that religion is a kind of belief, albeit a more organized, systematic one replete with doctrines and dogmas and practices -- but still a belief, nonetheless.

2) Also, a belief must be a belief in something. And in the case of religion, it's a higher being (or beings) whose name may vary from religion to religion. But to make our lives a bit easier, let's refer to that higher being as "God."

3) In addition, LichGRIFFIN and I learned after a private exchange that we believe in something because it is really true, or at least probably true. We do not believe in something because it is merely "convenient" to do so; neither do we hold to be true something that is "useful", yet false (lies can be useful, right?).

Therefore:
A) If God exists, then religion -- or at least the part of it that professes the existence of God -- must be true.
B) If God does not exist, then religion cannot be true.

So, Luminous -- if you could disprove the existence of God rationally or by presenting cold, hard evidence that immediately proves that premise, leaving no loopholes for religious types to argue out of, you and your fellow atheists will have single-handedly won the debate. So would you choose to hack at leaves and twigs -- that is, the relatively smaller issues, nowhere getting nearer to any conclusion, or would you rather hack at the problem's root instead -- that is, the existence of God?

__________________

Luminous

Does hacking at the actual existance of God ever result in anything? There are religious people who believe in an omnipotent God. Omnipotence is a clear contradiction of itself. Do they care? Of course not, because its their faith, and they are sticking to it. People still argue Evolution isn't true, saying "Its just a theory", even though it's fairly likely. The reason I don't go with those arguements is that they don't work, people just don't care about the loopholes and theories. Once again, Russel's Teapot, despite these arguements that Atheists throw out, it isn't actually our job to disprove God, it is the job of theists to prove it, and such is why I don't enjoy loophole arguing. I don't think it leads anywhere, because we cannot obviously 100% disprove the existance of a deity.

I understand the free will idea, but I still don't quite understand why a benevolent God would even create a system whereby we must consume other life to survive. If you take food out of the equation for life, do you really end up losing something out of the spirit of humanity? I allude to the case of starving children specifically, because that atrocity doesn't necesarrily happen because someone was evil due to free will. It just happens because there was no food to be found.

__________________

psychical

One at a time, please. That's quite a lot, for an answer to a single question.

Does disproving God's existence result in anything? Yes. It proves that you're right, and I'm wrong. And that others are wrong, even if they'd rather not admit it. If they'd rather not, then they're not being honest with themselves, so why bother? At least we'll find out what's true, or at least what's likely to be true. And isn't "seeing the light" a good thing, as opposed to staying in the dark because it's more comfortable that way? I believe so.

Which would you like us to discuss first: omnipotence, or proof of God's existence + Russell's Teapot?. Though I'm warning you, discussing omnipotence would be pointless if we don't see first if it's possible that God exists. One at a time, please... Comprende?

__________________

Luminous

Ah, sorry about that, I guess I'm getting ahead of myself. While I'm Atheist, I can say that I can see the possibility of a God existing. One of my stances has been that if a God exists, it is drastically different from our interpretations of it found in religion. I think a God would still have to make sense, and thusly, no omnipotent power. What are your thoughts on this matter?

__________________

psychical

Omnipotence is an intrinsic quality of a supreme deity. How can we define "God" without omnipotence? Wouldn't we be left with something less powerful, such as a spirit or an angel, if we wanted a higher being without omnipotence?

__________________

Luminous

An interesting question to ponder. Could one concieve of a God who perhaps possess' the power to create a universe, but not the power to shape it, perhaps because it literally cannot? When people question why the universe is so darn imperfect, I have to think that if it was actually created, perhaps the creator wasn't perfect? Do we need to think of God as a being capable of everything in order for us to call him God? If he can be killed, does this mean he is not worthy of worship? Is it just the idea of omnipotence that gives people confidence in a deities guidance?

__________________