Author Topic: Hello! [#2750]  (Read 4187 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hello! [#2750]
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2013, 03:14:37 PM »
Thank you for the kind words, Irish.

You're welcome.

That's actually what the only kind of God I'd worship would count as "good." A God worth worshiping would consider an "Atheist" that lives a good life as better than a "Christian," "Jew," "Muslim" etc that lives immorally, especially going against what he personally believes to be right.

I agree.  A god worth worshipping would consider the goodness of a person, regardless of faith and other factors.

I tried to reply to the PM, but it wouldn't go through and I didn't want to risk spamming the guy, so I'll say it here.

If I remember correctly new members have to have a certain amount of posts in order to access parts of the forum such as creating new topics and private messages.  Not sure what the number is though.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2747
  • Darwins +165/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
Re: Hello! [#2750]
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2013, 10:08:10 PM »
It's not that I'm saying "God A most certainly does exist" as much as I'm saying "This universe as it is provides no proof against all concepts of any and all Gods."

This results in the kind of thing where, following that logic, a God that created all of this then immediately abandoned the universe and played dominoes with an imaginary cat he has (despite being omnipotent and thus being able to have a real cat) is exactly as possible as the one I believe in.

The abandonment by "god" is postulated by Dawkins in The God Delusion.

What you should consider doing is defining the "god" you think exists (or existed but has left the room). In context, the vast majority of people who say that they think there is a "god" also think that the same "god" intervenes in our daily lives and changes the course of events and perhaps does so in the style of miracles.

The god that you state you follow is one that doesn't intervene in daily life (for he has left the room), and therefore, is not much of a god. That god is no more of a god than a father who planted a seed in a mother and abandoned the later-produced baby.

I'm not saying that anyone has an obligation to prove their point to me. I've learned a lot just over the course of today, for example that one thing that defined my beliefs was nothing more than a mathematical error someone made. I've repeatedly made it clear that I am "a not-particularly-well-informed Christian" and "am totally ignorant of the finer points" of some of the things we've discussed in this very thread.

That's why we are here: to help define those finer points.

As for me determining that I am more correct in thinking that there is a God, that's my opinion, a hypothesis only, and only in regard to myself.

To the contrary, any god that you define is a god that you define for all. For if the god you define is not a god of all, then he is a lesser god and not the greater one, and therefore, not (really) a god.

I determined that I, myself, am more correct, in that it is the hypothesis that best fit the information I knew of at the time. This is not referring to me being smarter than others or more well informed. Quite the opposite, and I've stated that several times now, man.

If you have stated it several times in multiple locations, I may not have read them.

It literally meant that, for the information I had, I determined that that was the most likely truth.

Relax, man. It seems like you're used to militant theists coming in here and trying bullrush you.

I am completely relaxed. I am just asking a few questions. You should not get your feathers ruffled for a few questions.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.