Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that ‘God is the ultimate’ or ‘God is our better nature’ or ‘God is the universe’. Of course, like any other word, the word ‘God’ can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that ‘God is energy,’ then you can find God in a lump of coal.
Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory
What’s the “purpose” of this? Where is “God’s plan” in this? ”Greater good”? Keep having faith in such nonsense rather than working to mitigate such atrocities. That is the difference between theists and atheists: we strive to correct the horrors of this life whilst they believe that such horrors are corrected, avenged, and/or justified in another.
I honestly have trouble understanding how so many Christians imagine that Yahweh is prolife
Intentional cognitive dissonance in most cases. Divine Command Theory in the apologists’ case. I’m not too fond of either.
He doesn’t know why god threw a gamma ray burst in our direction (read here), he just knows that he did it. Blind, foolish faith at its finest. There’s nothing left to discuss. He started by defending the Bible and then he told me that he didn’t learn about god from ministers, his parents, or get this, the Bible. Claims to have a personal relationship with god, but can’t find out why he threw a gamma ray burst in our direction; yet he claims to know that that’s how it went down Arrogant Christians these days.
Because I’m choosing neither. Both are demonstrably false. Hell is not a real place and god does not exist. I would lay out the evidence, but you’re going to ignore this response anyway.
I challenge a Christian, any Christian, to come up with an original and new argument for god, theism and/or Christianity. “All thinking men are atheists.” At the moment, I don’t see a reason to disagree with that statement. We atheists are freethinkers; Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. don’t think for us. Show us that Craig, Licona, Swinburne, Plantinga, etc. don’t think for you; in other words, rather than rehash their old, tired, refuted-many-times-over arguments, present something original, new and most importantly, convincing.
My prediction: it can’t be done. In any case, follow this one rule and you’ll be okay: don’t get sloppy; I am keen at noticing a rehashed, modified or blatantly plagiarized argument!
What percentage of philosophers are theists? How many of them believe in free will? More importantly: how many of them think zombies are actually possible? Finally, a study has provided an answer to all these questions, and more.
From the article:
8. God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
85.4% are non-theists. That’s a pleasant surprise.
jrosmith asked: More on your dibola's post about science: There is no such thing as "proving" something in science. You can design one thousand experiments to "prove" a hypothesis, but what really matters is whether or not you can design one to disprove it. Personal gods have no room in science because gods are null hypotheses, they cannot be tested. For someone who claims to love a subject, dibola sure has a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.
I agree. That is precisely why I said that scientific facts disprove the notion indirectly. For instance, when you think about how we evolved and thus, how our brains evolved, you see the emergence of a (perhaps) never before seen cognition; this cognition led us to realize our limitations on a level above the rest of the animal kingdom. In realizing these limitations, we began to conceptualize anthropomorphic beings that can overcome these limitations (i.e. dying and rising gods, immortal gods, omniscient gods, omnipotent gods, weather-controlling and natural disaster-controlling gods, etc.).* We evolved; we have complex brains. These are facts that we know through science, but they are also facts that indirectly disprove any notion of god; it is a fact that if our brains weren’t as complex, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.**
*Of course, this doesn’t account for the different kinds of gods that have been conceptualized. While it is true that most gods are, in some sense, anthropomorphic, they aren’t always so. It can be argued that some gods were conceptualized due to a heightened humanism (that is to say, a humanism that extends beyond humanity into the rest of the animal kingdom; the Native American deities come to mind). Their reverence for nature gave rise to the gods they conceptualized; the same can be said of the ancient Egyptians. Perhaps the idea of heightened humanism needs to be made more clear, but I hope you at least grasped what I was trying to get at.
**I’m not in any way saying that other non-human cognitions aren’t complex enough to conceptualize gods; it could be that dolphins and whales and perhaps chimps and gorillas conceptualize supernatural beings. They may even liken these beings after themselves, but this is conjecture. Someone once said that if triangles had a god, it would no doubt look like a triangle. It goes to show that gods are projections that are contingent on our limitations and mortality.
Science doesn’t actually say that god doesn’t exist. Science can’t prove that he doesn’t nor prove that he does exist. For something to be scientific fact something has to be proven. So think about that before you say “God doesn’t exist.” to somebody. You’re entitled to your beliefs just like anyone else but just remember what I told you.
I’m not on anyone’s side, I’m just stating a fact that involves a subject I love which is science. Thank you.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence is to be expected. Simply put, a personal god would interact with the physical universe; therefore, we would be able to perceive such interaction. Yet what is labeled a miracle is never a miracle and what is labeled an act of god is never an act of god. Science doesn’t need to disprove god; science makes god unnecessary. Science has, in fact, refuted the notion of god indirectly (that is to say that a collection of scientific facts refute this notion and not that the idea of god crumpled under the scientific method); in the interest of brevity, I’ll choose not to explain that. If you require an explanation, feel free to inbox me.