Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
I am:
a cowardly agnostic, hiding from any consideration of God 36%
a weak theist 12%
a devout believer in God 14%
a member in good standing of the Church 4%
naught but a worm, alive only by the infinite mercy of Allah 5%
shrilly and stubbornly clinging to my own narrow definition of God, a definition carefully chosen to allow me to believe that God does not exist. 26%

Votes: 135

 The Incontrovertible Existence of God

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 22, 2002
 Comments:
The debate over the existence of God is an ancient one, but in modern times this debate has been sullied by the unbearable blattings of woefully unsophisticated and gratingly unapologetic empiricists who first insist on one trivial definition of God or another, and then proceed to point out the fact that there is no physical evidence for their carefully chosen definition, and thus no reason to think that God exists.

Since this problem begins with definitions, I will start with a simple look at a dictionary.

religion

More stories about Religion
Holes
Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
The Revival of the Ancient Ways
The Problem is You - Not Religion
We are all children of Adam and Eve
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Islam: What is it?
Kill Yr Idols: God
Have a Right Halloween!
Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society
The Evil of Harry Potter
Islam is not the enemy
Happy Birthday Christ!
Bloody Sunday, Bloody Right!
What shall we give up for Lent?
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
The Proselytizing Atheist
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
Tolkien, Star Wars and Jesus Christ
World Youth Day: An Alarming Report

More stories by
RobotSlave

How to Smash Global Industrial Capitalism Without Leaving Your Bar-Stool
Reexamining the Recording Industry
The Genital Offensive
Happy Tango-no-Sekku!
Amateur Golf and the Computer Criminal
A Brief Explanation of the Adequacy Comment Ratings System
Linux Zealot Takes a Bath
I keep a cheap paperback dictionary by my desk for simple spelling and usage reference. In it, I found:

"God (god) n. 1. God, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching."

The entry goes on for a while after that. Better dictionaries have much longer entries, and there are plenty of conflicting ideas in the various dictionary definitions. But let's start with the first one, which I've quoted above.

I didn't research the matter at great length, but I did look into a bit of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching, and lo and behold, there was the idea of God, the creator and ruler of the universe. God, therefore, according to the first definition I found in the first dictionary I opened, does, in fact, exist.

Now this is, I'll admit, all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there is a serious point to be made here, one whose consequences are seldom explored by the mental juveniles who waste everyone's time with their dull rehashing of the pink burden of unicorn proof, or whatever other pet syllogism they might fancy.

To start with, God exists as an idea so widely recognized as to have its own word, with that word appearing in just about every general reference book you can find. God as idea exists just as surely as the ideas of love or negative numbers or extraterrestrial intelligent life exist. Moreover, if we sift through reference books for a while, we find that god exists as a particular type of idea; God exists as an ideal. God, in this aspect, exists as surely as human rights and international law and feudalism exist. Finally, God can be said to exist as a living component of society, as an ideal or collection of ideas that many people currently try to organize their lives around, though there are variances in the interpretation from one nation or component of society to another. In this last regard, God exists as surely as Democracy exists.

To prove that God exists in this manner, as a sociological or anthropological artifact, one need only open a newspaper. Since I am in a somewhat playful mood, I will now coin a term to refer to acknowledgement of this socially defined existence of God, a term calculated to infuriate some of the more infantile evangelical atheists I've run across: weak theism.

This incontrovertible existence of God, this easily observed sociological phenomenon, has nothing to do with the sort of material or physical God that immature atheists are so eager to debunk. Interestingly, accepting this phenomenological definition of God gives acknowledgement of God's existence exactly the sort of predictive power that stubborn atheists are so fond of demanding. For example, if we acknowledge the sociological existence of God, then we can predict, for example, that a new abortion clinic will meet with greater protest in a community where God's existence is more strongly expressed.

In fact, a great many self-described atheists admit to weak theism when they bemoan the countless atrocities committed in the name of God throughout the centuries. To fault belief in God for these acts is to admit the existence of God as a powerful ideal capable of directing human affairs.

Now there are, I suspect, many theists who would regard this description of weak theism as heresy, not least because it describes God exclusively in terms of Man. There are probably a few people out there who mean to imply nothing more than weak theism when they claim to "believe in God," but I suspect most theists have a broader conception of the almighty.

There are, regrettably, those who insist on the existence of a material God. They posit a hand on a lever behind the Big Bang, or a vast conspiracy of atoms, whispered behind Heisenberg's screen, or perhaps an unseen thumb on the quantum scales, tipping the random into the deliberate. I will not say that believers of this ilk are idiots, but in addition to providing the figures on which the bleating atheist children model their men of straw, they engage in an activity that I suspect is exactly what is cautioned against when one is advised to avoid attempts to know the nature of God. We might refer to belief in a physical God in nature as materialist theism.

In addition to the weak theist and the materialist theist, there are a great many theists who, while they don't seek to place God in nature, do believe that God has some greater meaning or reality. After all, God to the weak theist is more real than a unicorn only in the sense that God represents more, and to more people, than the unicorn. The unicorn exists as well, of course, as a widely understood mythological character, but the breadth, complexity, and currency of the unicorn are far less than those of God. Similarly, the pink unicorn quite clearly exists, but its existence is even less consequential than that of the unicorn, as the pink unicorn, existing solely (and ironically) as a rhetorical device deployed by unschooled atheists to demonstrate nonexistence, lacks the extra symbolic attributes of the more mythologically grounded non-pink unicorn.

For those who regard God as something beyond a more current and vastly more complicated unicorn, there are many avenues of belief available. At this point, I'd like to nod in the direction of the dual nature of the phrase "believe in," meaning both "consider to be real or credible" and "put one's faith or trust in." I will make no further note of this, as it is surely familiar ground by now, but it might be interesting to keep the dual meanings in mind in what follows.

To many theists, belief in God is belief in absolute (though perhaps never perfectly known) morality. It is belief in a discoverable right and wrong. Theology, to such a believer (and comparative religion too) is, in large part, an ongoing effort to more closely approximate our human understanding to that absolute. In such a context, to say that one "believes in God" might imply that one believes that the human ideal can be approached through the study of and devotion to God.

There are many other non-material definitions of God, and countless means of extending weak theism to lend greater significance to God. I will not describe or even attempt to list these possibilities, but I will outline one that ought to appeal to the wankers who spend too much of their time composing point-by-point rebuttals to post on the inter-worldly web-net.

The particular extension of weak theism that I have in mind is one implied by the very first words of the Bible. If we take the notion that in the beginning there was the Word, and that the Word was God, then we might situate God in the act of communication, or even go so far as to define God as language itself. In this conception, to place God above the material world is to place communication before object. An agreeable moral code might be built on this foundation, though I'm sure there would be some quarreling over the details.

Those who are uncomfortable pondering anything beyond the material need not feel left out of this little study: consider Physics. In modern physics, it is thought by many that the four fundamental forces of the universe might all be explained by the emission and absorption of particles (indeed, only gravitation is in any doubt); in other words, the forces of the universe can all be attributed to a single basic form of communication. Thus, according to our definition, particle exchange would be the manifestation of God in the physical world.

Please do not mistake that last wanky notion for my own belief, as I am hardly prone to such pop-science nonsense in my personal theological musings. Indeed, the origins of this short essay lie in a contrarian exercise, one which I felt obligated to take up after a bit of goading provoked an adequate response. Though the issuer of the initial challenge, sadly, does not seem to be able to meet the terms of his own game, I would encourage those who are able and willing to continue in the original spirit of the exercise.


A few uncanny thoughts. (none / 0) (#1)
by Uncanny Vortex on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:42:04 AM PST
...implied by the very first words of the Bible. If we take the notion that in the beginning there was the Word, and that the Word was God...

Actually, those phrases are taken from the first words of the Gospel of John. Perhaps your knowledge of Holy Writ is a bit lacking.

I believe that the starting point for seeking god is to utterly throw aside all preconceived ideas, organized religions and "holy" writings -- then focus on the notion of right and wrong. What makes it wrong for someone to rape and murder a helpless child? What makes it right for someone to feed a starving person?

From whence did we humans get our internal sense of justice, of propriety and morality? Of course it comes partially from societal conventions, learned behaviors, taboos, and parental conditioning. However, there are core values and morals which have been shown to be innately human, outside of such influences. By understanding why these values exist and what they are, one begins the road to understanding the concept of god.

I truly believe that each person who seeks will discover a different notion of god, based in part on their own persona and their conditioning. Perhaps they are all right, but I doubt it. Each human-worshipped deity has its faults, its human-imposed characteristics, and its limits. That is why theistic understanding has to start with the questions of morality and ethics, which ought to transcend all systems of religion.

Not through the religions of the world, and their concepts, can god be found or understood, and not through cold logic. Only the liberated conscience, only the heart can understand, and never the mind.

-- Uncanny Vortex




So lets just clarify it then. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by dmg on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:19:02 PM PST
That is why theistic understanding has to start with the questions of morality and ethics, which ought to transcend all systems of religion.

Is is OK to eat pork ? To turn a light on on a Saturday ? Must I eat fish on a Friday ? Should I circumcise my son or not ? Is pre-marital sex OK or not ?

I would expect to get the same answers from all you humans out there, if UVs theory is correct.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Morality is not utilitarian. (none / 0) (#3)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:28:17 PM PST
I think even the modern-day Pharisees will agree with me on that point.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Basic concepts. (none / 0) (#6)
by Uncanny Vortex on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:51:17 PM PST
In discussing the basics of morality, I was not referring to petty questions of religious practice, nor questions of societal acceptability such as that of extramarital sex -- especially given the fact that marriage is itself a societal and religious institution.

There are some core values that, it cannot be denied, exist in all humans to some degree -- and those values have nothing to do with religion or social norms. Fish sticks on Friday and such are not core moral values.

Helping someone in need, when possible, is a core value; not killing needlessly is a core value; the basic milk of kindness (such as sharing with others) is a core value; knowing that it is wrong to physically abuse or torture another person is a core value.

These are just a few examples, and each one may have exceptions and controversy which may surround it at any given time, due to the nature of each situation. However, nearly every person can agree on a few basic morals (love, kindness, etc.). Those who cannot are either incredibly narrow-minded, or are too high-minded to grasp the simple truths of this universe.

-- Uncanny Vortex





 
Where we get our sense of morals (none / 0) (#102)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 08:29:21 AM PST
Its pretty damn simple. As intelligent beings we can imagine ourselves in another persons position.
There's no Godly intervention about it.

We see a starving man and we think "That must be terrible to be like that". By imagining that mans position we feel terrible ourselves and so we decide "lets give him food". This is to make us feel better too.

Normal people believe murder to be wrong simply because we can put ourselves in the victims shoes and imagine the suffering. We feel terrible when we imagine what it's like and so we dislike murder to a point where we call it wrong.

From all this stems our concepts of Good and Evil. Murderers are evil - charitable people are good.

That's what I love about the 10 commandments - "Thou shalt not kill".."Thou shalt not steal"...its all stuff that people knew was wrong before.



It's a shame... (none / 0) (#103)
by derek3000 on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 08:50:52 AM PST
there was no Godly intervention to keep you from hitting the post button twice.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Blame that on adequacy (none / 0) (#122)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 11:07:21 AM PST
Seems that when u dont enter your password it simply posts under anonymous reader.


 
If you asked... (none / 0) (#104)
by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 10:02:51 AM PST
a random sample of people why murder is "wrong," I doubt the first answer you'd get is that it's because they could put themselves in the victim's shoes and feel his or her suffering. And why do we feel terrible in the first place? That is to say, what is the impulse that makes us feel bad and where does it come from?

As for the concepts of good and evil, they are slightly more complicated than you think.




I believe guilt is Biological to some degree. (none / 0) (#110)
by JoePain on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:27:31 PM PST
Although to prove this I would have to administer the necessary drugs which would rid people of their 'guilt reaction' if I may and make them sociopath...

While the smart ones would exist in society almost unknown because they would fear the potential consequences of such actions (but not feel guilt as you described) the dumb ones would probably make a blunder and break a law (meaning commit some dreadful behavior) and get caught. Both would be 'able' to commit the sin.

What would enable these people to commit these acts to begin with? Would simply having access to 'the thought', that is 'being conscious of that possibility' be enough?



Yes. (none / 0) (#118)
by Illiterate Bum on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 10:59:30 PM PST
"Being conscious of that possibility" is more than enough, as far as enabling these people to commit "these acts." That's just simple logic, man.

Perhaps you meant "why do these people commit these acts to begin with?"
-----

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

I really don't care about why. (none / 0) (#145)
by JoePain on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 06:31:43 AM PST
That's for them to tell their lawyers. I want to know how they're capable of committing the crimes.

So you believe that once they're conscious of the potential for the act they'll act?

I don't believe that's true. As I've said before an intelligent individual, moral or not, will consider consequences prior to commiting to the behavior. A calculating psychopath will act only after he determines the risk- the probability of receiving punishment * the level of punishment, or some such thing.


 
A question (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 11:53:39 AM PST
If 99% of the world population was given your "guilt-ridding" drug then is murder evil anymore?

Sure, the 1% minority would say it was but its the majority which decide such things.

You raised an interesting point there: What drives a guiltless person to commit an evil act?

Well normal people have guilt and fear of consequence to prevent them commiting murder, for example. A psycopath would only have the fear of consequence to stop them. How effective this is at stopping them all depends on the level of consequence.


 
But it is still valid. (none / 0) (#117)
by Illiterate Bum on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 10:45:10 PM PST
Let's assume that much of individual morality is based on logic. When we make a moral decision, we logically reason why we will make/made that decision, giving no regard to how vague or concrete the reasons might be, i.e. "I will not steal because of my ethical standpoint" is just as valid and logical as "I will not steal because it is against the law" or "I will not steal because I might get caught." It follows a logical train of thought, and most of us will go through a number of these thought processes before coming to a final decision.

A major turning point in the psychological development of a child (according to Jean Piaget) is the idea of reversability, or seeing things from another's viewpoint. Along with such concepts as conservation and object permanence, reversability plays a major role in simple logical deduction, from which concepts like abstract thinking and symbolic interpretation build upon.

So yes, if we asked a random sample of people why murder was wrong, than we would be given a myriad of different answers, with reversability more likely than not being low on the list. But by that point (assuming, of course, that we are asking a group of normal, functional adults and not, say, pre-adolescents) it is safe to assume that most of this random sample is at a point of cognitive development where such concepts as reversability and conservation are done on the sub-conscious level. We are so used to these processes that they are done automatically and unaware, while we engage in higher modes of thought like asking why.

For example, when we see a horror movie (a good one, not the tripe that's being fed down our throats today), reversability is sub-consciously kicking in. We feel the apprehension and fear that the "victim" feels, and when said victim dies a gruesome death, we recoil because we can imagine what, say, getting slowly decapitated by a chainsaw would feel like. But never are we consciously thinking "I feel this fear and this disgust because I can place myself in the victim's shoes." No, most of the time we just say, "Damn that scared the hell out of me," and move on (there are exceptions to the rule, but I'm sure we can agree that the majority of the population works this way). That's also why if you placed a child in front of a horror movie before a solid sense of reversability is established (roughly between birth and six for most of the population) you wouldn't get as much of a response as from a teen, if any.

So when we think of why murder is wrong, we automatically go through the process that says "murder is wrong because I wouldn't want that happening to me," and proceed to come up with a definition that is more equal to our cognitive level, like "murder is wrong because killing without justification is inherently evil." We think "damn I wouldn't want my throat slit" and move on (taking a page from Lawrence Kohlberg's book) to think on a conventional, or for the special few among us, post-conventional level.

As for where "the impulse that makes us feel bad" comes from, you could argue (using the stance as stated above) that a large portion of it comes from the reversability factor. We feel bad when we, say, steal because a part of us says that we wouldn't want that happening to us. Then the upper functions of the brain kick in, giving us a better justification of why we feel bad (usually making us feel worse), built on (place name of moral origins here- social mores, religious influence, God, parental guidance, etc.). We feel bad because we broke the law. We feel bad because we acted against the moral codes that we built for ourselves. We feel bad because we could've stolen something much better. So on and so forth.

But is good and evil more complicated than the parent poster would indicate? I think that we'll leave that to another time, as this has become monstrously long as it is, and it is a question best left to philosophers and theologists, and not mere sociology majors like myself (though it would be interesting to take a stab at it...).
-----

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

nice (none / 0) (#125)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 12:05:43 PM PST
that was a good read. Very clear and enlightening. Sociology always interested me but unfortunately like so many things that interest me I have to focus on my own subject instead.

I didn't know it was called reversability but ive thought about it before but always fail to describe it. I thought your horror movie anology was brilliant at showing it.


 
You're over complicating the whole issue (none / 0) (#123)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 11:43:47 AM PST
You're asking the question "why do humans feel that murder is wrong?"
Most people will just answer "because it is" without having analysed WHY human beings actually feel this. So questioning people on the street is just going to give ignorant answers and not the truth.

The impulse that makes us feel that murder is wrong is nothing magical or spiritual. It's entirely physical and forms a prime part of our survival instinct.

On the most basic level of human thought is individual survival mentality. We dislike discomfort and we dislike suffering to ourselves. There is also a fear of death itself although this is caused by more complicated reasons. We try damn hard to avoid death, discomfort and suffering.

Now if someone is murdered then our intelligent mind kicks in. First we notice that the murder caused suffering, discomfort and death to the victim. Then our brain correctly calculates that murder could easily happen to us also.

The brain is good at that - we can't predict the future but we can guess all sorts of possibilites - not just the likely ones either.

So now we know that there is something painful, which causes suffering and death and it could happen to us. So naturally we don't like such a thing. We want to be rid of it. We could therefore class murder as "Bad" for ourselves.

Human society is all about order and coexistance. If the majority of humans think murder is bad and want it eliminated then no wonder laws are made against it.
Evil is just a label made up by society to describe someone or something which causes or commits things that most people find bad or disturbing. It's certainly not a univeral constant.

For example we all agree that murder is Evil and yet the Aztecs performed sacrifices that they believed were Good.
In the same way most Americans think murder is Evil but many would call the murder of Bin Laden Good. So Good and Evil are actually on a more mundane level than our feelings.

Basically if we don't like something then calling it "Evil" is over-generalising. It implies that everyone finds that thing bad. But there are always two sides to everything.


No, I don't think so. (none / 0) (#148)
by hauntedattics on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 10:39:06 AM PST
To me, what makes murder wrong is the extreme selfishness and pride that accompany that act. When you murder someone, you are in essence saying that their money/your obsession/your convenience/etc. are more important than their lives. And you are playing God.

So at least for me, the impulse that makes murder wrong is inherently spiritual. Whether the baser emotions come into it or not is thus secondary at best, and unimportant at worst.

Evil in its strictest sense is not just a label that society agrees upon, and to call it that is ignoring a significant part of what it means to be human. Everyone has the capacity for evil within himself; to ignore that is to close your eyes to reality.




 
So.... (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:34:58 PM PST
What you have in fact done is labelled a social phenomenon, the idea of god, "god". And since you have labelled the idea of god "god", you have proved that "god" (the idea of) exists.

So what does this article actual show?


Hello? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:46:04 PM PST
Maybe I should have chosen a stronger title?

The article actually shows that God exists. Maybe it was too subtle for you? Here, I'll summarize:

God exists.

Do you get it now? Let me know if you need any clarification.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

I am not worthy. (none / 0) (#7)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:06:26 PM PST
May I kiss the ground you walk on, pretty please?


--
Peace and much love...




 
No way! (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:28:11 AM PST
You impress me!

God exists, but juast as an idea. So what? It has no consequences whatsoever.

"Zeus" is just an idea, one of a big muscular guy sitting on a mountain, throwing lightbolts. Therefore Zeus exists. So what?

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


Way! (none / 0) (#48)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:45:22 PM PST
Are you completely out of touch with world events there, Skippy?

When was the last time a suicide bomber set out with his heart steadied with thoughts of Zeus?

The existence of God is, in fact, deeply consequential.

Frankly, I think you probably read my article too quickly to understand it. Go back and read it again, pausing every so often to consider what you have read.

I will not answer any more childish, belligerent demands for a "point" when I have in fact already provided you with more than you seem willing to think about.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

so what you're saying is (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 01:14:44 AM PST
That because a lot of people believe in god, or act in the name of god, god must exist.
Again, I'm not entierly sure you're correct:

If a lot of people believe in god, or act in the name of god, then the idea of god clearly exists. but no more can be proven by this argument.

Similarly, a rather large proportion of acient greeks believed in Zeus and the other gods, and acted in their names.
Zeus exists as an idea as well, this cannot be denied.

The only difference between Zeus and your god is your idea is more popular at the moment.


Are you still here? (none / 0) (#61)
by RobotSlave on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 08:23:51 AM PST
Again, you are attempting to impose your own definition of God rather than consider the one I have offered. This is apparent when you again refer to God as a mere idea, when I have clearly gone beyond that, and then whine that "no more" can be proven by this argument. By "more," you probably mean something nice and solid that an empiricist might comfortably set about measuring and testing with ocilloscopes and thermometers and whatnot.

I'm afraid that's not how this works. There is, in fact, quite a lot "more" that could be done with this argument. It could, for example, be used to address the Problem of Evil. If you weren't stuck on step one back there, crying about the notion of God as idea, then you might be able to contemplate the complications of applying an ideal to a living society.

Here's another difference between Zeus and God for you: widespread belief in Zeus died out, but widespread belief in God has not, despite several upheavals in society. Why do you suppose that might be? I ask only to encourage you to begin considering God as an ideal as well as an idea. From there, we might be able to get you to a point where you can begin to understand the argument I've laid out.




© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Did you (none / 0) (#75)
by S on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 04:42:16 PM PST
recently read the novel "Jitterbug Perfume", by Tom Robbins?


 
Yes (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:15:21 PM PST
"you again refer to God as a mere idea, when I have clearly gone beyond that"

I seem to have missed that part somehow... Please give this definition.
Quoting the main article:

"This incontrovertible existence of God, this easily observed sociological phenomenon, has nothing to do with the sort of material or physical God that immature atheists are so eager to debunk."

sociological phenomenon == idea. You just proved that god (yahweh in particular) as an idea exists. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Here's another difference between Zeus and God for you"

The first one being...?

"Widespread belief in Zeus died out, but widespread belief in God has not, despite several upheavals in society."

Widespread belief in Shiva or any other Hindu deity lasts longer than the belief in Yahweh. Is that supposed to prove that Yahweh is just a rip off from "real" Hindu gods? Or maybe all gods, current and past are just equal idea, that come and go?

"I ask only to encourage you to begin considering God as an ideal as well as an idea."

Whats the difference? Longman dictionary tells us that an ideal is "an idea of what something would be like if it had no faults or problems". So it's just an idea.

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


How dare you. (none / 0) (#129)
by RobotSlave on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 03:56:37 PM PST
A sociological phenomenon is a mere idea? Are you completely insane? That's tantamount to saying that the Holocaust, or any other event in history motivated by belief, is just an "idea."

If you don't understand what the phrase "sociological phenomenon" means, then please don't use it. Sociological phenomena can be studied by gathering evidence. The fact that the subject under study is the behavior of human societies does not reduce the facts under discussion to mere ideas.

The first difference between God and Zeus, and the one implicit in mentioning them separately, is that of their names, you intellectual cripple. After that, we can look at the differences that you yourself brought up, differences in idea, in particular Zeus's mountain, and his "lightbolts." Only then do we proceed to the point where I offer another difference between Zeus and God.

As to your lamentable attempt to drag Hinduism into this: Where in my argument did I say that the relative age of particular gods had any bearing on this?

Thank you for quoting Longman. Ever so helpful. Did you notice the fact that even Longman added a few bits on top of "idea" to get to "ideal?" That even your precious Longman defines an ideal as something more than a mere idea?

Never mind the fact that you deliberately chose a definition at odds with the sense of the word as used in the article. You are, after all, flailing around in the boggy mire of your own incoherent thought, and it is only to be expected that you will scrabble and grasp at anything in your attempt to escape from the muck. The fact that your vigorous thrashing about is only causing you to sink faster is sad, but ever so predictable.

You could at least have set up Plato as your straw man in poking at the notion of an ideal, but that would require you to have read and understood Plato and his critics, which is plainly way to much to ask of a miserable little knee-biter such as yourself.

 

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this comment, in whole or in part, without express permission of the author.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
you didn't really (none / 0) (#50)
by nathan on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:08:02 PM PST
Ever read Nietzsche, did you?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Of course he hasn't (none / 0) (#59)
by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:32:05 AM PST
Why would anyone who'd read Nietzsche's works or knew anything about his life use that hoary, out-of-context quote?




It's still a nice parable, (none / 0) (#60)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 07:56:52 AM PST
about the liberalist bourgeoisie killing off God. I think it would be a fine quote for use in response to anything 'Slave or Refutation write.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
"God is dead". (none / 0) (#89)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 12:37:46 PM PST
"Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live forever".

(I can almost see the hellfire in the lower-right corner of the poster.)

P.S. "Fortunecity" must die a horrible death.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Yawn (none / 0) (#113)
by caffeine on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 03:06:01 PM PST
God exists - Very compelling argument.

Your article doesn't show God exists. I merely points out the blindingly obvious point that God as an idea exists. You don't need to prove that God is an idea or that God is an Ideal. Of course the idea of God being Ideal exists. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the idea didn't exist.

I doesn't prove anything, except your grasp of the obvious.


 
Yawn (none / 0) (#114)
by caffeine on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 03:08:45 PM PST
God exists - Very compelling argument.

Your article doesn't show God exists. It merely points out the blindingly obvious point that God as an idea exists. You don't need to prove that God is an idea or that God is an Ideal. Of course the idea exists. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the idea didn't exist.

I doesn't prove anything, except your grasp of the obvious.


Keep Reading. (none / 0) (#115)
by RobotSlave on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 07:54:36 PM PST
If you go back to the part of the article where you stopped paying attention and start reading again, you'll find that in addition to showing that God exists as an idea, I've also shown that God exists as an ideal, and a powerful influence in society.

This minimal definition is a tremendously useful one, but you're not going to understand any of the implications if you just sit there with your chubby little fist clenched, crying for someone to give you the teat of your materialist definitions back.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Yes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Right Hand Man on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:10:55 PM PST
a new abortion clinic will meet with greater protest in a community where God's existence is more strongly expressed.

God willing, the righteous will do more than protest, they'll take whatever steps necessary to prevent the unchecked murder of innocent children.

As an aside, there are far too many words in this article. There are more reliable ways to prove that God exists, and most are fairly simple and straight forward. Ranting about definitions and who does what really doesn't do anyone any good, at the end of the day I'll still believe in God and the athiests will still speeding along the road to hell.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Fortunately you can't find out if God is willing. (none / 0) (#9)
by JoePain on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:16:25 PM PST
So your damning act of hipocracy will never occur.

Or is 'God Willing' defined like your religion-- as anything you want it to mean to serve your ends?


No (none / 0) (#14)
by Right Hand Man on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:51:40 PM PST
There is a book that some people wrote that contains God's word. It is pretty easy to understand. If you read it you'll get a general idea of what God expects from you. Once you've done that you can go speak to a few preachers and you should be able to tell whether they are charlatains.

I'm not exactly sure what sort of ends you think I have in mind. Could you expand on it a bit? Also about the hypocrisy, how does that fit in? And the damning, why am I damned?


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Definitions suddenly seem important eh? (none / 0) (#17)
by JoePain on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:02:43 PM PST
How utterly convenient. Of course 'we' are in the habit of igroring them when they aren't, aren't we?


What (none / 0) (#20)
by Right Hand Man on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:12:37 PM PST
Did I ask you to define something? Any moderately educated person knows what all of the words you and I have used mean, I am not asking you for those. I simply want to know what the 'charges' are.

You seem to think that you know more about me than you actually know. I am trying to sort things out, and you could be a bit more forthcoming with information.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

All I really want to know is- (none / 0) (#30)
by JoePain on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 05:45:06 AM PST
What you mean by God Willing? You claim to know the will of God? Find me a scripture that *explicitly* supports your stance and I will gladly rebuke my comments and publicly apologize.




Approval (none / 0) (#38)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 09:01:27 AM PST
I don't know whether you have read the bible, but God's will is fairly east to determine once you have done so, and understood what you have read. If you find something that needs clarification, even if you don't, actually, you should see a preacher.

In addition to the bible itself it would do you well to read the Didache, maybe Humanae Vitae. They may help you understand what you have read. It cannot be reasonably argued that God does not prohibit the slaughter of children, His words against it are too numerous to list.

Read Psalm 32:9 if you still fail to understand.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Why can't it be reasonably argued? (none / 0) (#41)
by JoePain on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 09:41:49 AM PST
Let me guess.. to many contradictions? Or are you in the habit of only quoting those scriptures which support your claims?

Instead of spreading your nonsence you should instead take your own advice and-

Be ye not as the horse, as the mule, have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.


For the love of your god... (none / 0) (#133)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 10:23:43 PM PST
Know what a damned phrase means before you say it. The phrase "God willing" means: If God wills it, it will happen. It doesn't matter what the will of God is, he is saying this is what he wants, and if God also wants it, it should happen. Apparently, though, he doesn't know what he himself is saying...


 
Which book? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:19:07 AM PST
There is a book that some people wrote that contains God's word.

The Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? Upanishads? Talmud? Tao-te-ching? Each of these texts are considered "holy writ" by large numbers of people.

My guess is that you may be referring to the Bible (i.e. Old & New Testament). I have actually read the Bible from cover to cover, and I did not find it easy at all to figure out what God wants from me.

Should I commit mass murder? In one section of the Old Testament God tells the Israelites "thou shalt not kill", but elsewhere he tells them to "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor." (Exodus 32:27).

Some damn jock just kicked sand in my face, what should I do? The Old Testament advocates "an eye-for-an-eye", while the New Testament tells us to "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies".

Should I have sex with my sister? If Genesis is accurate, Adam & Eve's children had to have sex with each other to perpetuate the human race, implying that God approves of incest. But elsewhere it says that incest is "a wicked thing" (Leviticus 20:17).

I could go on and on, but such blatant contradictions have been documented elsewhere.


Relevant response. (none / 0) (#73)
by Uncanny Vortex on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 03:51:19 PM PST
[Dear Adequacy,] Should I have sex with my sister...to perpetuate the human race?

In short, yes. I would highly recommend it. You may find yourself understanding theology more fully during the experience. You may even discover the true meaning of life, in which case I ask that you post it here.

-- Uncanny Vortex



 
Nicely done. (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:50:05 AM PST
I'll still believe in God and the athiests will still speeding along the road to hell. Glad to see the strictures of grammar are still being upheld.


 
LOL (none / 0) (#72)
by tylt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 02:58:45 PM PST
If you ask me, there aren't really any more reliable ways of proving that God exists. And even the article's 'proof' is a little bit tenuous.

The problem, as the author noticed, is in the definition. Now, while it is possible to prove that a god exists, by exploiting the definition in some way, that hardly proves that the God in which Christians, Jews and Muslims exists - i.e. a creator and I suppose master of the universe.

What the article seems to propose (and I could be wrong here - it's l8 and i'm tired ;-) is this 'weak theism' *g* which seems to portray God as nothing more than a *consequence* of society and mankind, rather than a *creator.* So although it proves the existence of something, it does not prove the existence of what a christian might call "God." This 'weak theism' "God" should really be given a different label, owing to the host of connotations associated with the word "God."

The God-as-a-consequence-of-society thing makes some sense. But the overall creator of the whole universe thing... Suuuuure. See you in hell!

I'm not really a staunch atheist, but I have a bad reaction to people who paint themselves as superior because they ascribe to a system of beliefs, and assume that everyone who does not blindly agree with them will suffer the consequences, and 'go to hell.' I think if God did exist, he'd probably hate these believers at least as much as the non-believers. *g*


Proof (none / 0) (#84)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 07:42:47 AM PST
God (the Christian God) said in Matthew 16:17-18 that signs would accompany those who believe.

Look for these signs as they are proof that God, the Christian God, exists. I don't understand what other proof you need.

In addition, God does not hate anyone, even those who do not believe.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

I don't understand (none / 0) (#163)
by Bnonn on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 09:34:23 PM PST
    In addition, God does not hate anyone, even those who do not believe.
Why, then, does he send them to hell (disregarding the logical unpalatability of (77/infinity) implied in the idea of heaven or hell anyway)?


About God (none / 0) (#175)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 09:34:18 PM PST
Well, God personally doesn't send you to hell - its by your own deads and faith in Him that you will be measured by. The human race has been forever separated from the grace of God by our sin. But there is a way out through Jesus (the old, famous John 3:16, and also John 14:6), whom has built a passage to God's grace through His acceptance. That's all you have to do to be saved! - straight from Romans 10:9. It is if we do not accept this gift by our own choice, we create the place called "hell" - an eternal separation from God.
As a response to the person earlier, I don't think high and mighty of myself (although I might like too...) just because I have a "religion." I know some people do, and it is sad, I agree.
Finally, if some people just don't understand why you'd believe in God, or even Jesus as a matter of fact, take this advice in Blake Pascal - why believe in nothing and gain nothing, yet on the other hand believe in God and gain everything? And through this gain, more to the glory of God, not selfish ambition!
I'd love to hear anybody's thoughts about this and if I sounded too preachy...oh well (I have to deal with the same stuff in my life too)!
Reach me here: strlctrlalias@hotmail.com



 
Gee... (none / 0) (#174)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 04:37:51 AM PST
"Whatever steps necessary"? Apparently the murder of innocent adults doesn't bother you much, then.


 
Good Points, A Clarification (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by zeebillbi on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:26:11 PM PST
I really think you've put across a great argument, or maybe even proof there. It's similar to Descarte's argument, but gets around Hume's objections to do with the 'perfect island'. However, I'd like to expand one of your points before anyone misinterprets it.

The issue is one of magic. Your comments about definition are valid, but need clarification. The exact same argument could be used to 'prove' that magic (as in the stuff done in fairy tales) exists in the same way that communism does. This is clearly not the case.

But why is that? In order to answer this question, we must look a bit more closely at what magic is.

Magic requires a direct violation of the fundamental laws of the universe. This is not possible for someone inside the universe, so it would require someone outside to do the manipulation. We can safely assume that God is the only thing outside the universe, so therefore God must be responsable.

However, that would not be magic. That would be a miracle. This shows us that magic cannot exist, despite our previous assertion.

So how do we explain this? Simple. Magic is an abstract concept which is not fully rooted in reality. Unlike God, magic does not have any physical manefestation, and so cannot be proved by the given deontological argument.


Not really (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:21:29 AM PST
He only proved that he can trap people who disprove the existence of a person called god, by reinterpreting god as an idea. Thats all very nice. In this sense of the word god we all are equally "weak theists", UFO watchers and whoever else you'd like us to be. God as an idea is equal to communism as an idea or witchcraft as an idea. A god that isn't merely a concept disproves the laws of universe in the same way the witchcraft does.

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietsche


 
poll question... (none / 0) (#11)
by freshgroundpepper on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:32:20 PM PST
What am I supposed to choose if I am both "a devout believer in God" and "a member in good standing of the Church"? In my mind these two items are not mutually exclusive, but instead are joined at the hip. I don't think that you can be a _real_ "devout believer in God" without being "a member in good standing of the Church".

I have therefore declined to participate in this poll.

-FGP


Negatory -- over and out. (none / 0) (#13)
by Uncanny Vortex on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:50:58 PM PST
I don't think that you can be a _real_ "devout believer in God" without being "a member in good standing of the Church".

How preposterous! Churches are hotbeds of hypocrisy, junkheaps of judgementality, dogpiles of dogmatic illusion. Same goes for the organized religions to which the church members subscribe. The most honest, sincere and inspirational god-believers I have known were not in attendance at any such edifice.

-- Uncanny Vortex



 
God a Sociological Phenomenon? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by gzt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:33:02 PM PST
I could see how you could argue the existence of, say, complex numbers (which I doubt constantly) based on this argument. But, can it be used for God?

See, according to this article, if everybody on Earth died, would God still exist?

Does this also mean Thor, Helixpixelopterix, and the Green Hornet exist in exactly the same sense as God?

A tiny question: where is one cautioned not to try to know the nature of God? You mentioned it in your article, but I thought that was a major part of theology.


Be polite. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:51:40 PM PST
I realize that you are eager to discuss God, but please ask one question at a time. It will help to keep the discourse civil. In answer to your first query:

Yes.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Sorry about my incivility (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by gzt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:55:58 PM PST
I was just so eager, as you so aptly realized.

But, which is my first question? The title, or the question in the post?


There you go again. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:11:58 PM PST
See, you've asked two questions.

Let's just start over from the top. You ask your question, and I will answer it to the best of my ability.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

It's nice... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by gzt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:34:09 PM PST
that you're trying to be clever, but that's really one question with a clarification. The presence of two statements doesn't make it more than one question.


Fair enough. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:41:18 PM PST
Very well. No use in quibbling over number of question marks or implied queries. We're here to discuss God, after all. Just compose your first question, and off we go!


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Eh, why bother? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by gzt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:01:09 PM PST
I've already been distracted by a moving shiny thing. Besides, discussion doesn't help mere mortals like us approach truth.


Shiny moving thing? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by RobotSlave on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:18:16 PM PST
Where?

Ooh, look! A bus! A bus!


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Sir... (none / 0) (#18)
by freshgroundpepper on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:03:35 PM PST
Your pithy comments and anecdotal evidence do not comprise a convincing argument. Please try again, and this time with feeling.

-FGP


 
All I really want to know is: (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:23:02 PM PST
What you mean by God Willing? You claim to know the will of God. Find me a scripture that *explicitly* supports your stance and I will gladly rebuke my comments and publicly apologize.

Joe


Huh? (none / 0) (#24)
by Uncanny Vortex on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:52:46 PM PST
I believe you meant to reply to Right Hand Man's post, in the proper thread. However you failed to do so.

-- Uncanny Vortex



 
Sorry about the confusion Vortex, (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 06:14:34 PM PST
This was for right hand man


 
God is an explanation... (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:45:39 PM PST
and as such does not fundamentally differ from scientific explanations. Remember, there is no such thing as evolution which, like God and The Invisible Hand, is merely idea.


er... (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:25:37 PM PST
would anybody care to explain to this person the difference between a scientific theory deduced from evidence, and a fairytale?


that anybody wont be you (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 04:04:12 AM PST
first, scientific theories are not deduced, they are inducted. Second, there is a difference between explanation and description. Third, the correspondance theory of truth which urges clever empiricists such as yourself to forcefully claim the "truth" of a theory when it corresponds to observation implies, willy nilly, a distinction between theory and observation. Since theory is not observation, theory is susceptible to social constructions (i.e. beliefs) and individual constructions (i.e. beliefs).

Beliefs. Oh, there's that word again.

Your observation of gravity allows you to describe it according to its causal effects, but your explanation of gravity as force at a distance or curvature in space is no more "true" than someone else's explanation of God as an agent of observed morality.

Finally, let me give you an example of a scientific explanation which is often repeated as truth:
Men are horny because -- more or less -- evolution demands they propagate as much of their genes as possible.
You cannot observe the preceding any more than you can perceive God. Thank you, you've been a thoroughly modern, unsuperstitious audience.


 
God Also Does Not Exist (none / 0) (#31)
by jvance on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:45:37 AM PST
A Godless Universe is also an anthropological artifact on equal footing with God. So would this be "weak atheism"?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Your bottom must be sore... (none / 0) (#36)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:50:06 AM PST
...from sitting on the fence all day.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

And yours is sore... (none / 0) (#39)
by Uncanny Vortex on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 09:16:16 AM PST
...from being anally violated by your phone company, and by my Mom.

-- Uncanny Vortex



Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 09:34:08 AM PST
your Mom was the epitome of femininity.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
My response (none / 0) (#32)
by Ben Reid on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:06:07 AM PST
(Note: I don't have time for frequent responses so I will have to cover most of my counter points in one looong post.)

Summary: If you cannot give a good working definition of God, that is, operationally define Him (What can God do? Is there something that God can do that would allow us to detect whether he, she, or it exists?) then how can one possibly aim to "prove" that this God does not exist? If we assume (say) that the description of the God of Christianity is our closest approximation to the truth-- the Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Transcendent, Illimitable, Absolute Creator -- I will illustrate that this God could not possibly exist.

Before I begin, let me get a few preliminaries out of the way:

  • I am going to take the atheist position that says "I don't like God or the way he manages the universe." The hard-line atheist position, that actively, sincerely believes there is no God, I simply can't understand (to say, as many "atheists" do, "Any God who would allow evil is evil Himself," is to make an allegation about God's character rather than his existence) and thus cannot argue with. Essentially, I am arguing as a disgruntled theist, that believes that materialism and humanism is dead (the typical atheist must necessarily be materialistic. To maximize your happiness in this life is all that matters), however, does not like making any positive claims and most certainly does not believe in any of the popular definitions of God. You could say that I am simply lacking a belief in God (LABIG), and that yes, I am a skeptic through and through. However, I am aware that,"Skepticism, then, is not avoidance of option; it is option of a certain particular kind of risk. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error." [1]
  • I will not dwell heavily on the following arguments, at least not in their immature form:
    (1) Your God is a tyrant/vengeful/evil as testified to by the Bible.
    (2) Belief without proof is evil.
    (3) Christianity has bred nothing but death and malice in the world.
    (4) The Judeo-Christian religion is based on myths. Jesus was spiritualised.
    (5) What makes Christianity think it's the correct religion, out of all the choices?
    (6) Christians are closed-minded and ignorant. Christianity has(breeds) evil qualities.
  • I'm a logical being that requires credible evidence to believe and proof to know. Of course I realise that life only offers us so much evidence and so much proof and thus I agree that the atheism question is really an epistemological question. All we can ask is, what has the most credible evidence, what philosophy or worldview fits my experience in the universe the best?
  • As a die-hard skeptic, I could decide to doubt your existence, and you would have a tough time proving it to me. However, I will assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that certain objective evidence exists (my existence, the veracity of the five senses, the legitimacy of logic, the reliability of experience). Otherwise it becomes impossible to prove anything, as the proof itself must be based upon the obvious, which we have just cast off as doubtful.
  • We agree that you can have no "proof" of anything aside from your willingness to believe it. I have no logical, bottom-line assurance that my heart is going to keep beating long enough for me to finish this message. Hume demonstrated that even tomorrow's sunrise is not a logically guaranteed truth, but a belief rooted in experience. Therefore you can assume I have a willingness to believe in the existence of God. As per [1] I will assume the option to believe in God or go without is a forced, living, and momentous option. The postulate is that there is truth, and that it is the destiny of our minds to attain it [1].
  • You cannot prove or give evidence for the God of Christianity with the Bible. It's circular reasoning.
  • Faith will be defined as what makes the final, willful connection between observable data and reasonable conclusion. Faith - whether in God or other things - keeps people from living in a constant state of doubt, anxiety, and confusion.


Now, on to business. The key problem with your article is that you did not actually give any working definition of God that you adhere to. You brought up and discussed many intangible ideas, but nothing concrete was claimed as your own.

First, you used the idea of God as a widely embraced socially defined construct or pursuit of some, supposedly well defined, ideal (system). Defining God in terms of man is clearly the wrong approach (yes you did point this out), and we also see the fallacy of an idea being true simply because a lot of people believe or follow it.

The idea of a physical God is presented and quickly dispatched, followed by the "absolute morality as an objective reality" approach. Finally we get this notion of God being "words" or a (universal) communication mechanism, with God just being a useful way of describing it. The implication is that man himself is a type of God (after all, we can create "words"), and we are now firmly in the field of Hinduism, along with its western equivalent, the New Age movement.

Basically, the article gave an exploration of all kinds of definitions of God, with no commitment to any of them, a discussion rather than the adoption of any particular position.

For a skeptic to argue against God, we need to define God properly, then we can set up a test to test for the existence of this deity. If we cannot define it, then we cannot test for it, and it puts God along with most of the other gods and goddesses. They are meaningless constructs. An infinite number of existence claims is possible, if I was required to disprove the existence of God, then, by the same reasoning you would have to disprove the existence of Santa and the Loch Ness Monster.

Now, let's look at your initial definition of God:

God, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching

We see that this, along with all dictionary definitions of religious, epistemological or ethical concepts, is of little value. The God of the Christian faith has nothing to do with the God of the Muslim faith. Muslims don't believe in a loving God, they don't believe in the concept of a soul or salvation. In fact, Allah is much closer to Christianity's satan.

Clearly, this definition will not do, so instead, I will posit the God of Christianity (as the Omnipresent, Omniscient ... Creator) as the closest approximation we have to a definition of God.

Given this "definition" there are four main reasons why I (playing devil's advocate) do not believe in the Christian concept of God.

1) Sources that describe God give widely different and contradictory view of what God is and is like, I have seen God described as many different things: the anthropomorphic god of Adam and Eve, the bloodthirsty, vengeful God of Abraham and Moses, the loving God of John 3:16. According to O.T. scripture, God is a jealous, angry, vain God, who needs constant worship and sacrifice. We have incest, violence, destruction of the world with the flood. The OT god had a rather short temper and even a sadistic streak - it points to a God as a rather cruel, violent, murderous, evil creature (and it seems to me that Job got a raw deal indeed!)

(2) The idea that the world is controlled by a supernatural being is contrary to everything I have observed and learned about the physical world. Any "mystical" experiences have known and tested neurological explanations.

(3) I can think of many reasons why leaders in former (and modern!) times would want to make people think that God exists even though he (she?) doesn't.

(4) The problem of evil. The presence of evil in the world poses a trenchant difficulty for traditional theists, as both Epicurus and Hume pointed out. Since an omniscient god must be aware of evil, an omnipotent god could prevent evil, and a benevolent god would not tolerate evil, it should follow that there is no evil. Yet there is evil, from which I can conclude that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god.

This is the killer point. C.S. Lewis' gives a simpler description of this problem [2]: "If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both."

The existence of suffering and evil is incompatible with the existence of a good, moral god.

Hume criticised Aquinas for his fifth argument for the existence of God, there is no legitimate way we can infer the properties of God as the creator of the world from the qualities of His creation. We may conclude he is a great artist, yes, but he is no friend of man. You judge an architect by his work.

Now, lets look at this from a slightly different angle, the concept of a perfect God. Admittedly, the concept of "perfect" is hard to define, but, nevertheless, given that perfect entails the lack of needs or wants, this concept can be refuted in the steps below [3]:

1. God is perfect.
2. God deliberately created the universe.
3. Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants.
4. Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants.
5. Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want.
6. Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want.
7. It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
8. Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything.

Now, you will notice that I haven't even touched on the fact that there is insufficient evidence to believe that Jesus (the incarnation of God) actually existed. The gospels were written too late (100 A.D.) and none of those were by eyewitnesses (which we can infer from internal evidence, at least for Matthew and Luke). The gospels contradict each other in incredible ways and all show evidence of fraud. Luke and Matthew plagiarized over 80 percent of the Greek text of Mark. John is too late to have been an eyewitness. Paul's writings, though we can agree came from the one author, says nothing of the biographical histroy of Jesus. The other epistles are too late to be of any significance and and extra-biblical authors like Josephus and Tacitus were all born after the date of the crucifixation (and thus were not eyewitnesses).

Other historical figures like Julius Caesar and Alexandar the Great left writings, so we can vouch for their aunthenticity, however we have no known writings from Jesus.

And, lets not forget the many atrocities done in the name of God, the Puritans and their burning of witches, or the European decimation of the American continents population in the name of God, or the churches Inquistion, or the rape and pillage of the crusaders on Christian and heathen alike, or the wars between Christian factions deciding the content of the Bible.

So, it's not looking good for the Christian, either God does not exist (and death means annhilation), or, if He does exist, he is not the God of Christianity, he is not a benevolant God, He is an angry God. You could summarise my position thus:

"I know not who put me into the world, nor what the world is, nor what I myself am. I am in terrible ignorance of everything. I know not what my body is, nor my senses, nor my soul, not even that part of me which thinks what I say, which reflects on all and on itself, and knows itself no more than the rest. I see those frightful spaces of the universe which surround me, and I find myself tied to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am put in this place rather than in another, nor why the short time which is given me to live is assigned to me at this point rather than at another of the whole eternity which was before me or which shall come after me. I see nothing but infinites on all sides, which surround me as an atom and as a shadow which endures only for an instant and returns no more. All I know is that I must soon die, but what I know least is this very death which I cannot escape. "

"As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I go. I know only that, in leaving this world, I fall for ever either into annihilation or into the hands of an angry God, without knowing to which of these two states I shall be for ever assigned." [4]

[1] William James, "The Will to Believe"
[2] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
[3] http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_god_perfcreat.htm
[4] Blaise Pascal, Pensees

(Note: Further replies will be delayed, I have family and work commitments)


I havent the time, but you misread Lewis. (none / 0) (#35)
by twainicus on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:59:20 AM PST
In your fourth point, you quoted C.S. Lewis. It appears that you may have only read the first chapter of his book, because he doesnt stop there. Dont forget that Christianity is based heavily on the concept of heaven and eternity. "This present suffering cannot be compared to the glory of that which is to come". That really is the whole idea. As far as evil goes, God created a perfect universe, and gives man free moral rein to do as he wishes, and warns him of the consequences of a bad decision. Man makes the wrong decision, and we are all paying for it. According to Christianity, God is willing to undo that wrong decision, and has made provision for us to be set free from the bondage we placed outselves in. Your argument of evil is shortsighted in the fact that our lives here arent the only thing to take into consideration.
Also, your argument against a perfect God needing nothing is valid, but you fail to consider the possibility that He created man to bless man. Now, I forsee your argument... "Bless man? What the hell do you mean? Look at all the suffering!!!" Again, see my above statement. This present suffering isnt all there is to the overall Christian idea of God.




Just to be clear, (none / 0) (#42)
by derek3000 on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 10:18:56 AM PST
since I haven't seen your username before, we are playing opposites here. Ben is a Christian, so quoting Lewis out of context was probably intentional.

Sorry if you already knew this and were just playing along.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Well (none / 0) (#78)
by Ben Reid on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 09:48:34 PM PST
I actually quoted Lewis in context, it was just a definition he gives at the beginning of the book to explain exactly what the Problem of Pain encompasses.

However, the rest of the book does indeed go on to refute the argument altogether (that the possibility of Pain (or evil) is a necessary side effect of the gift of free will, Ominpotence means power to do all that is intrinsically impossible, not to do the intrinsically impossible etc), so it was a somewhat ironic quote to use I guess (as was quoting James, Pascal).


ok. (none / 0) (#90)
by derek3000 on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 01:44:32 PM PST
thanks.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
That doesn't change anything (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:52:34 AM PST
"Dont forget that Christianity is based heavily on the concept of heaven and eternity. "This present suffering cannot be compared to the glory of that which is to come"."

It does not change anything. Would a perfect, loving (as in Bible) god allow people to suffer forever? I doubt that. That would be called inhumane, and god is supposed to be definately better than humans.

Since when is torturing people for a while to see if they fall for any traps that YOU created for them is good? Its impossible to describe what the christian god is doing to the world in any other way.

"As far as evil goes, God created a perfect universe."

Perfect? So there can't be any less evil in the world? OK, why do theists keep fighting it then?

Also, this universe cannot be perfect, if the god is omnipotent. That would mean, that he is unable to do any better than that. And judging by amount of evil, thats not exactly very good.

"Man makes the wrong decision, and we are all paying for it."

Here's the fair god for you. Just as fair as Nazis in concentration camps - applying group responsibility.

"Your argument of evil is shortsighted in the fact that our lives here arent the only thing to take into consideration"

No, it isn't. Torturing people here is evil, and unnecessary evil too (after all god already knows what we will do, right?). And if god does evil things, he's evil too.

"This present suffering isnt all there is to the overall Christian idea of God. "

You mean that god couldn't accomplish what he wanted ("blessing man"? what for?) in any other way than the current one? So you admint there is suffering. No fair and loving god who is omnipotent would have allowed it.

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


Well... (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 11:00:55 AM PST
"Perfect? So there can't be any less evil in the world? OK, why do theists keep fighting it then?

Also, this universe cannot be perfect, if the god is omnipotent. That would mean, that he is unable to do any better than that. And judging by amount of evil, thats not exactly very good. "

The part of his argument that you seem to miss is that (according to the Adam/Eve account in the Bible) it was not God that brought evil into our world. It was/is us.

<resorting to a lower level>
Therefore God must be omnipotent due to the ability to create a being that has the will to defy him.
</resorting to a lower level>

Rye Shy


Not me... (none / 0) (#109)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:25:06 PM PST
" The part of his argument that you seem to miss is that (according to the Adam/Eve account in the Bible) it was not God that brought evil into our world. It was/is us."

But god allowed it to happen. If he didn't want this to happen, he would stop it. He also knew that thats exactly what 2 humans placed in a garden with an apple tree will do (omniscience).

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


 
juvenile (none / 0) (#67)
by nathan on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 11:20:01 AM PST
Since when is torturing people for a while to see if they fall for any traps that YOU created for them is good? Its impossible to describe what the christian god is doing to the world in any other way.

Come on, man. Don't give us this sophomoric crap. If man wasn't free to err and to suffer the consequences of his error, he wouldn't be free. Now let's think about what it really means to err. If you take an action that causes some harm, the consequences are a part of the action. And, the error and harm being the same thing, the freedom to harm is a necessary part of the freedom to act. For freedom of action to be meaningful, the freedom to meaningfully cause real hurts must exist.

According to Christianity, man's capacity for free will is part of the telos of man. Mankind is over the angels, which powerful though they might be, are not invited to fellowship with God. Only man is. Were man not in some sense invited to a sort of equality with God, man's life would have no meaning.

If you want to criticize Christianity, you can start by criticising it as it is theorised and practiced, rather than as you imagine it without reference to any rigorous study, practice or serious attempt to understand it.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Indeed (none / 0) (#79)
by Ben Reid on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 09:54:12 PM PST
It always amazes me how the concept of free will is so readily misunderstood. Either you have free will (and can thus truly choose to love, hate, do good or evil) or we are simply mindless automata. Take your pick.

Now, arguing about the implications of free will, that free will and an Omniscient God are not compatible, that is at least a worthwhile discussion.

p.s. What makes you think that Man is over the Angels?


for one thing (none / 0) (#87)
by nathan on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 11:53:33 AM PST
Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:3)

I haven't seen a theology that claims moral free will for angels.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

But... (none / 0) (#88)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 12:01:36 PM PST
What about Satan?


--
Peace and much love...




what about Satan? (none / 0) (#91)
by nathan on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 04:10:52 PM PST
Which Satan? (Jobe, Ezekiel, Isaih, traditional Christian mythology...?)

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Satan as depicted in Revelation (none / 0) (#95)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 05:58:21 PM PST
Lucifer the fallen angel who became Satan, cast out of heaven along with a third of the angels (Revelation 12).

Of course, we will never know exactly how this amazing sequence of events transpired, but it does imply the concept of free will, no? Free will in the Adam and Eve sense, where the choice was obedience or disobedience, not between good or evil per se.


Indeed. (none / 0) (#105)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 11:43:19 AM PST
Besides, you're going to have a very difficult time justifying the existence of Satan without drawing free will into the picture.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Freedom or omniscience? (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:24:36 PM PST
"If man wasn't free to err and to suffer the consequences of his error, he wouldn't be free."

Agreed. If man is free, only he himself decides what he will do (err or not to err).
Thus god cannot know what a free man will do in the future.
Threfore, either men are free, or god is all-knowing.


"If you want to criticize Christianity, you can start by criticising it as it is theorised and practiced, rather than as you imagine it without reference to any rigorous study, practice or serious attempt to understand it."

I don't care, about the practical applications. What matters is the theory. Which is inconsistent.

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


Think clearly now. (none / 0) (#111)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 02:02:47 PM PST
Since God is omnipotent, then obviously it is not a problem for Him to create a being with free will.

You are correct in one thing though -- definitely, if free will exists then God cannot know for sure what a free man might do in the future. On the other hand, due to God's omniscience, He can make a very good educated guess. (I think in English it is called "prescience".)


--
Peace and much love...




I am! (none / 0) (#126)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 02:25:22 PM PST
"Since God is omnipotent, then obviously it is not a problem for Him to create a being with free will."

And so we come to the so-called Einstein's argument:
"Can god create a stone so heavy, he won't be able to pick it up?"

Not only its impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time (god cannot do everything, because he already know what he will do). He cannot even be fully omnipotent

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


you seem to fancy yourself (none / 0) (#131)
by nathan on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 04:58:26 PM PST
a philosophical nine-days' wonder. Did you read Wittgenstein? You don't need God to show that the statement is a malformed statement. Allow me:
Can there exist a stone that is so heavy that it cannot be lifted, no matter the power applied?
Our language doesn't handle infinity well. You are asking to compare imprecisely-defined infinities by comparison. It's no more a true paradox than Achilles' turtle.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Not exactly (none / 0) (#135)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 28th, 2002 at 09:16:09 AM PST
Science does not yet know a full answer to that, and doesn't claim that as possible.

In some of the other fields we know though, that there can be "a stone so fast, it cannot be overtaken" (speed of light).

The difference is that no one claims that stones of infinite weights exist, while numerous people claim that omnipotent god exists.

So, can, or cannot he?

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


 
Just stop it. (none / 0) (#139)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 28th, 2002 at 10:23:16 AM PST
This fool is obviously trolling. Don't you have something more intelligent to argue against, Nathan? Like, say, a rock? You're just wasting your time here. He's just going to repeat everything you say, telling you that you are wrong with no real argument to support him, and then yip "God is dead" before vanishing into the crack alleys of the 'net. If he wasn't trolling, for example, he'd go and get himself an account now, wouldn't he? Please Nathan. I thought you were much smarter than this. You are lowering the collective IQ around here by entertaining this goon (and this applies to the rest of you, too- especially you, 'Slave). Please find somebody, anybody, more intelligent and entertaining to argue with.


 
oh stop grandstanding (none / 0) (#112)
by nathan on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 02:44:07 PM PST
The only audience applauding is you. Focus on the arguments.

According to Christianity, man is free in precisely one sense - he can choose to respond with acceptance to God's love. In other words, the Christian model of action is not a 'binary tree' of decisions, but a mess of influences, both conscious and un-, the crucial one being your acceptance of God.

Don't caricature my argument again. Man's free will does not invalidate God's omniscience. In fact, without an omniscient creator, man's free will is meaningless and impossible. Could there be free will in a mechanistic, deterministic billiard-ball physics world? No more than is a stone free not to fall. Free will requires a supernatural framework to exist. As I conceive of it, it's each human being making his or her decisions from his or her internality, not 'as a result of' this or 'caused by' that, except in the most superficial of senses.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Got arguments? (none / 0) (#127)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 02:37:36 PM PST
"According to Christianity, man is free in precisely one sense - he can choose to respond with acceptance to God's love. In other words, the Christian model of action is not a 'binary tree' of decisions, but a mess of influences, both conscious and un-, the crucial one being your acceptance of God."

You gave only one possibility there - accepting. So can I decline?

You wrote that it is not a binary decision - how is that, is there a middle ground between believing and not believing in god?
Why does bible say then something about being either hot or cold, not in the middle, that our answers should be yes,yes, no, no. (dont remember where exactly it was, but can look it up, if you dont remember).

Yoou seem to be attempting to blur the issue. Let me ask straight:
I'am holding a pen right now. Does god know whether i'll put it down on my left or on my right?

Does my free will extend to being able to choose where to put down the pen?

"Man's free will does not invalidate God's omniscience."

Why? Because you say so? I just proved otherwise. Now give me some argument, or stop repeating it. Goebels methods (a lie repeated often enough becomes a truth) don't work on everyone.

"In fact, without an omniscient creator, man's free will is meaningless and impossible."

And how is that? Try investigating philosophy called existentialism: the meaning of human life/free will is what we decide it should be. It is fully possible, or at least: there is no proof of it being impossible (my decision to put down the pen to my left might have been influenced by god, but neither myself, nor anybody else is able to tell).

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche



moron (none / 0) (#130)
by nathan on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 04:54:29 PM PST
Are you actually so ignorant of existentialism that you think it began as a movement outside of Christianity? Sartre may have been an atheist but Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky certainly weren't. In fact, the idea of existential choice and radical subjectivity were fundamental parts of Kierkegaard's Christianity!

I'm not blurring any issue if I say I know nothing about God's knowing where you set your pencil down. To me that's not an important philosophical question, and the contributing factors are far too complex for me (or you) to trace. Why bother with crap like this? Reductionist materialism might attempt to explain it, but Christian existentialism certainly wouldn't see any point in the attempt even were it to succeed.

If you think that belief/non-belief is binary, you're falling for the classic liberalist fallacy of imposing binary outcomes on complex phenomena. Does an electron go through the right or the left slit? The experiment told us our idea of the electron as a particle failed to describe reality. I don't think that belief in God is just a state of mind. It is something that entails emotion, actions (past present and future,) and other things that are even more subtle. To reduce it to a binary phenomenon is to do violence to what I'm claiming about belief - which is your right, but you need to provide a competing theory or a criticism of mine.

I am not impressed by your desire to equate free will with trivial phenomena. My idea of 'will' is also something rather more complex than yours. That doesn't mean it's better. Again, argue why my ideas about will and belief are false, and don't reframe the argument in some ridiculous light. That's grandstanding, and it adds nothing to the discussion.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

ROTFL (none / 0) (#137)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 28th, 2002 at 09:55:13 AM PST
Jean Paul Sardt founded existentialism. He defined it as "a philosophy that realises all the consequences of god's non-existance". Christian existentialism is an oxymoron. In existentialism there's no absolute wrong or right (as opposed to what the bible says).

I don't want to get into a discussion on whether mentioned thinkers were really pre-existentialists or not. Lets end it thus:
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Existentialism - any of the various philosophies dating from about 1930 that have in common an interpretation of human existence in the world that stresses its concreteness and its problematic character.

Kierkegaard:1813-1855
Dostoyewski: 1821-1881

Do you know whats existentialism? Have you read any of people mentioned above?

"I know nothing about God's knowing where you set your pencil down."

So you don't know whether god is omniscient.

"Why bother with crap like this?"

A basic example of free will at work.

"If you think that belief/non-belief is binary, you're falling for the classic liberalist fallacy of imposing binary outcomes on complex phenomena."

I don't think so. Bible says so.
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
You don't think so? Maybe you're not a christian?

"argue why my ideas about will and belief are false, and don't reframe the argument in some ridiculous light."

state them.

Piotr Krehbiel
"God is dead" - Nietzsche


christian existentialism (none / 0) (#141)
by nathan on Sun Apr 28th, 2002 at 12:08:58 PM PST
is an oxymoron, and you refute me with a dictionary definition?

Some links for philosophical illiterates.

Listen, you're obviously too ill-informed for me to take seriously. I have no responsibility to educate you. Come back when you know who Kierkegaard is if you want to use existential arguments.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
oh my ghod (none / 0) (#143)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 05:23:53 AM PST
you are such an idiot


--
Peace and much love...




 
I'm on your side (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 06:06:06 PM PST
The reason I don't like playing devil's advocate is that it can sometimes be misinterpreted. The last thing in the world I would want to do is to discourage a Christian who reads my comment.

In reality, there are good solid answers to all of my objections above, some of which you alluded to, and there are some pretty big holes in my reasoning (I'm surprised this hasn't been pointed out).

If you, or any other Christians (or non-Christians) for that matter, are interested in my rebuttal to a post like the above, send me an email.


I don't exist. (none / 0) (#100)
by because it isnt on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 02:37:56 AM PST
In reality, there are good solid answers to all of my objections above, some of which you alluded to, and there are some pretty big holes in my reasoning (I'm surprised this hasn't been pointed out).

I would have liked to point these things out (particularly the "God is perfect" argument. It depends on your definition of "perfect". I can't believe real atheists would ever use it. It's almost as logically flawed as the "can God create a boulder so heavy..." argument), but according to you, I simply don't exist.

I honestly do not believe in, have faith in, or concede the existence of any supernatural entities, including all professed gods of all faiths throughout the world. The only way I accept them is as human-created fictional characters in human-created works of fiction. I do not love or hate any of them, they're not real. I can appreciate the attributes, personalities or actions ascribed to them, but they're not real. (No "but what is 'real'?" getouts, please. They scrape the barrel of theistic debate.)

I have no anger for people's made-up gods. I have no anger for people's belief in their made-up gods. I only have anger when people try to suggest I am lying after they ask my opinion of their made-up gods. They're welcome to have their make-believe world with their make-believe gods in it, but I've got my own one and there are no gods in it.

NB: Any residual irony in the last paragraph is part of the manufacturing process, and should be washed out with hot soapy water.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

I knew you didn't exist! (none / 0) (#119)
by Ben Reid on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 02:44:45 AM PST
I've been having deep suspicions that this Mr Isn't is just a figment of my imagination, but now you've confirmed it. Thanks!

You're right, the "God is perfect" argument depends solely on the definition of perfect, indeed, nowhere in scripture is the phrase "God is perfect" used (OK, maybe in Matthew 5:48 in some translations), so it is an irrelevant argument really. Liberalist word games at the end of the day, but I've heard it a basquillion times and "latched" onto it myself in my atheist days, so that's why I brought it up.

I honestly do not believe in, have faith in, or concede the existence of any supernatural entities, including all professed gods of all faiths throughout the world. ... I only have anger when people try to suggest I am lying

Fair enough. You're right to be angry when people call you a liar, especially if they're a Christian, because one of the tenets of our faith is that you do not judge other people.

As I've said before, really, all you can do is base your beliefs on your experience in your tiny little part of the universe. If you don't think that the existence of God fits your experience, that your heart doesn't long for God, then that's fine. Just be careful though, that you know exactly what you are against, what you object to, what you don't believe in etc, make sure that you are not rejecting the wrong, non-existent, false idea of God. Don't base your idea of God on what other people say (which is what I did), base it on what you yourself discover.

Remember, that you're dealing with something important here, it's not trivial, it's dynamite. There is nothing else in this world that has more implications on the way you act, behave and live you life than whether or not you believe in God.


 
If God is perfect... (none / 0) (#71)
by akepa on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 02:07:04 PM PST
..then one only needs to find perfection to find God.

Behold GOD.


 
wrong definition (none / 0) (#33)
by buridan on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:24:02 AM PST
god: 1. a gross misunderstanding about the way the world works. 2. a person holding a chocolate bunny away from a child 3. a hallucination


 
Neat. (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:50:23 AM PST
To start with, God exists as an idea so widely recognized as to have its own word, with that word appearing in just about every general reference book you can find. God as idea exists just as surely as the ideas of love or negative numbers or extraterrestrial intelligent life exist.

While not quite on the same level as the notion of God, it is telling that over 50% of Americans (a similar figure for most of Europe and Russia) consider themselves Star Trek fans. The word "Trekkie" has been incorporated into the Webster-Merriam dictionary. The number of people who do not recognize the phrase "Beam me up Scotty" is roughly the same number as those who have never heard of ketchup. So following with your line of reasoning, Captain Kirk and his crew are as real as God.

Finally, God can be said to exist as a living component of society, as an ideal or collection of ideas that many people currently try to organize their lives around,

One need only view the documentary "Trekkies", or visit a Trek convention, to know that Trek fans take their TV show every bit as seriously as a Christian takes God. So following your line of reasoning, Captain Kirk and his crew are as real as God. Also, Vulcans and Klingons and Romulans and warp drive and cloaking devices and transporters. And phasers. Those are cool too.

In fact, a great many self-described atheists admit to weak theism when they bemoan the countless atrocities committed in the name of God throughout the centuries. To fault belief in God for these acts is to admit the existence of God as a powerful ideal capable of directing human affairs.

Ooh ooh! Let me try!
A great many people who claim to dislike Star Trek admit to being "weak Trekkies" when they make fun of and mock the geeks and dorks who descend upon convention centers by the thousands. To fault Star Trek for these acts is to admit that Star Trek exists as a powerful idea capable of directing human affairs.

It's time to grow up, RobotSlave. All you've "proven" is that lots of people believe in an idea - this says nothing about the validity or truthfulness of that idea, nor is it revolutionary news. The only evidence I see for divine intervention is the fact that your autonomous life-support functions continue to operate despite your apparent brain-death.


A Lesson in Reading Comprehension (none / 0) (#47)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:23:00 PM PST
If you had read the article and made a reasonable attempt to understand it, you wouldn't be attempting to "refute" it by simply quoting my own words back at me with the word "God" replaced with some pop-culture trrifle you've taken a fancy to.

Now, of course, any reasonable person will acknowledge the existence of Star Trek. All you need to do to demonstrate the existence of Star Trek to yourself is to consult a schedule and turn on your TV and tune it to the appropriate channel at the appropriate time. So far, we've shown that Star Trek exists just as the word God can be found in a Bible. Still with me?

Now, in the Bible, there is a ruler and Creator of the universe called God. In Star Trek, there is... well, there's no creator and ruler of the univers in Star Trek. In fact, there isn't even a unified ideology present in Star Trek. The best thing you could come up with would be the "prime directive," but you could just as easily latch on to the Klingon mythos, which I doubt includes the "prime directive." I apologize if it does. I don't know much about Klingon crap.

Now, if you've been following closely, we've proceeded as before to move from God as idea to God as ideal, but in attempting the same transition with Star Trek, we've encountered difficulty.

Those who call themselves "trekkies" do not hold the television show itself to be ideal (indeed, they relish catty discussion of its worst episodes). In fact, most who call themselves "trekkies" do not even consider consider the show to be an ultimate moral ideal that could or should serve as an authoritative guide one's everyday life. I imagine there are a few who do (especially those Klingon weirdos), but they are not numerous enough to have much impact in society, and exert absolutely no influence at all on the world stage.

Note at this point that we have now failed to move from trek as ideal, which was tenuous at best, to Star Trek as an ideal with influence in society.

When I mock trekkies, I am not complaining about their influence in the world. I'm just calling them nerds. In point of fact, I deny that there is any great influence of trekkies or Star Trek on world events, and thus I could not be referred to as a "weak star-trekkist" or "weak trekkie" under a definition analogous to that of a "weak theist."

I'm all grown up, thanks. I'm so mature, in fact, that I never use the rude point-by-point rebuttal format in my arguments, and I almost always refrain from closing my remarks with an ad-hominem comment.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Well, aren't you just the Man. (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 09:22:55 PM PST
I'm so mature, in fact, that I never use the rude point-by-point rebuttal format in my arguments,

Far from being "rude", this practice is commonly used so that the reader - and the intended recipient - knows exactly which idea is being referred to and commented on. The fact that you choose not to do this is not a sign of maturity or anything else.

If you had read the article and made a reasonable attempt to understand it,

I did, thanks, and I understood it very well. The fact that someone disagrees with you, or thinks your arguments can be compared to something absurd, does not indicate a lack of understanding.

Your article proved nothing more than the existance of an idea. As noted, the acknowledgement that a concept of X exists demonstrates nothing about the existance of X itself.

There are many people who envision an idealized utopia. If I may quote Agent Smith, it is easy to imagine a "perfect human world, where none suffer, where everyone would be happy".
It is an idea that exists, and exists as an ideal as you put it. This does not mean that the utopia exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist.

Besides, nobody would accept the program; entire crops would be lost.

When an atheist denounces the evils that have been committed in the name of God, this does not mean he is a "weak theist" (the fact that this term which you invented/borrowed does not merit any serious consideration in theology is another matter). The atheist could be pointing out that the practice of religion is responsible for countless atrocities - the fact that religion exists does not mean that God exists, nor does the fact that the atheist acknowledges religion mean that he acknowledges God's existance.

Or, the atheist could be pointing out that the idea of God has caused the atrocities - similar to above, but not quite the same. Again, the atheist's acknowledgement that the idea of God exists is not the same as an acknowledgement that God as such exists.

Your tired argument of "atheists don't really exist" has been spouted by countless windbags over the centuries, and shot down numerous times by people more educated than you or I. I hardly need to belabour that fact here, but I suspect you're well aware of it.

For what it's worth, there are very few atheists (at least, few that actually know what they're talking about) who will try to argue a lack of evidence for God based on a single definition. Much atheist literature focuses on the concept that it is not possible to define God, or identify God, or predicate upon God, despite all efforts by theists throughout history. Many atheists will call attention to the fact that any possible defining term of God must, by nature, be either self-contradictory, incoherent, internally inconsistant, or logically impossible - they therefore conclude that no such being exists.

There is no difference between the statements "X exhibits no properties, does not affect anything, and is not useful to explain anything", and "X does not exist".

Next time, you may wish to actually learn the opposing point of view, rather than just assuming you already know it, before charging into the fray.

Good evening.


Read carefully... (none / 0) (#52)
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:05:14 PM PST
Actually, 'Slave is an atheist, if his past posts are any indication. This little story is nothing more than a response to a diary entry that was posted on the site a couple of days ago. 'Slave was merely trying to put together an effective argument for the existence of God, challenging his own personal beliefs and viewpoints. Let me try and clarify, as 'Slave does suffer from "diarrhea of the keyboard," so to speak, and can be a bit verbose at times.

As far as I understood it (I am currently going for my masters in Sociology at Chicago, so keep in mind that most of the knowledge that I have at hand is, for the most part, useless) 'Slave is not trying to prove the physical existence of God, but merely pointing out the fact that God as an idea exists, and that it is an idea powerful enough to motivate entire nations to engage in great actions in the name of said idea- in the process neatly validating the concept of God. So God, in a way, does exist, though not in the physical or even spiritual sense that so many theists cling to. Star Trek, using the same train of thought, also exists, but it is not powerful enough to motivate thousands of people to take up arms and shed blood in the name of Captain Kirk (well, there was this one instance, but that's another tale altogether...).

Also, in 'Slave's current train of thought, the true atheist would refute the idea of God altogether, and instead of blaming God or religion for whatever, would instead directly blame the people responsible- to do otherwise would be to acknowledge that God as an ideal exists, and that God the ideal exerts a powerful influence on people whether they are theists or atheists, therefore validating the existence of God as an ideal and neatly throwing said atheist's position out the window. It is the "weak theist" that blames whatever on the idea of God or religion, for in believing in God the ideal, he is accepting the fact that God exists as a concept that is quite powerful and influential on a great number of people, instead of negating God- physical, spiritual, or ideal- altogether.

And I think I'll stop there. I am quite certain that our cantankerous village curmudgeon 'Slave will validate his position much more effectively (if a bit more effusively) than I, but I hope that I have given you the short and simple of the situation.

By and by, it's rather interesting that you brought up the term "utopia" in this particular discussion, a word rooted in paradoxes. Are you aware of what the word exactly means according to its Latin roots? For that matter, do you know who coined the term, and for what purpose? I'll give you a hint.

"Can I have some more, please?"

I am sure that the adequate among you already know the answer to this one.
-----

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

That's a fairly deceptive hint, citizen (none / 0) (#54)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:33:43 PM PST



 
IB, (none / 0) (#69)
by derek3000 on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 12:35:40 PM PST
could you please tell me? I feel woefully inadequate, which is hard to admit, but you have piqued my interest.

We all have to learn sometime.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Well, (none / 0) (#74)
by Illiterate Bum on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 04:17:45 PM PST
Sir (or St., your preference) Thomas More wrote Utopia, about what was essentially a perfect society, as described through a fictional discourse between a traveller (Raphael Hythloday), More, and someone else (forgive me- it's been awhile since I read it). A quick search through google will pull at least half-a-dozen online texts, and it makes for an interesting read. More was also quite the renaissance man, and led a rather fascinating life. Worth checking out if you have the time.

As for the origins of the word, I'm afraid I made a mistake - I should have asked for the Greek roots, and not the Latin. My apologies for any confusion. Moving on...

Utopia is usually used today in reference to a "place of ideal perfection," or some other such nonsense. When More originally coined the term for his book, the word Utopia was actually a play on two Greek words; Eutopia ("good place") and Outopia ("no place"). Also, Hythloday, the man who describes his travels through Utopia to More, translates as "speaker of nonsense" in Greek, or something like that (my Greek's really rusty, so forgive me).

When reading the text, however, keep in mind that while it seems to be a criticism of this "ideal society" that Hythloday describes (as given by such clues above, and the actual text itself- More the character is the most vociferous decrier of this Utopia), More (the author) is actually in favor of this Utopian society (or at least certain aspects of it), as certain bits of textual evidence will support. It's a bit complex, and perhaps it would be better if you drew your own opinions on the matter after reading the text yourself.

And don't feel too bad. As Mr. Gibbons pointed out, the clue was a bit deceptive and vague. Perhaps I should have been a bit more concrete about the matter.
-----

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

Not deceptive or vague... (none / 0) (#82)
by derek3000 on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 05:26:50 AM PST
I just haven't read it--it's my own fault. Thank you for giving me a kick in the ass, though.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Addendum: (none / 0) (#53)
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:13:59 PM PST
My dose of bile for the day, I suppose. For a much more effective argument against 'Slave's stance than the idiotic point-by-point tripe that you regurgitated (because honestly, who believes that those who resort to a point-by-point rebuttal actually understand the larger ideas presented before them? No one here, I'm sure...), then I recommend clicking here.

Cheers.
-----

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

 
Thank you for abandoning the Star Trek argument. (none / 0) (#55)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:52:59 PM PST
It's good to see that you at least realize that your stupid little pop-culture arguments have been shot down, and abandoned them.

I'd first like to take a closer look at this notion you have of examining the opposing point of view. Have you examined my point of view? Have you, in particular, read the last paragraph of my little essay, and followed a few of the links therein?

Who is it here who is failing to "actually learn the opposing point of view?"

Now, as to the rest of your rambling screed.

Who, exactly, has the authority to coin phrases? Is that an action reserved to licensed professionals of one sort or another? If there is some rigorous application process that one must go through before one can invent a useful term, could you please tell me where I ought to pick up the relevant paperwork?

It's not like I tried to pull a fast one on you there, or anything. I said right up front in the article that I was going to coin a term. One calculated to infuriate strident, slow-witted evangelical atheists. Do you suppose it's met with any success in its stated intention yet?

I did not think that your disagreement indicated a lack of understanding. I thought, instead, that your inability to understand the social component of my definition of God indicated a lack of understanding. In fact, you continue to discuss my argument as though it merely defined God as an idea, when my thesis went well beyond that. Did you read any further than the discussion of the dictionary entry? I don't think you've understood my essay very well at all.

If you want comparisons, then you are going to have to compare God to things that have the properties I attribute to God. Find something that is an idea, an ideal, and widely held and influential in human societies. In other words, something like democracy. Does democracy exist?

Then you seem to have this notion that I've argued that atheists don't exist. This is nonsense. In fact, I refer to real, mentally challenged atheists many times in the essay. I guess you didn't notice that. Sure, I suggest that most of them are weak theists, but I certainly understand that they prefer to refer to themselves as atheists. I even use their term myself so that such people will have no doubt as to whether or not I am referring to them.

Similarly, an atheist who uses the invented term "weak atheist" ought to realize that many people so labelled would prefer to call themselves "agnostics." Under the definitions put forth in my article, of course, many of these same people would be labelled "weak theists."

Personally, I'm quite comfortable with all of this, and I understand where the seeming paradox arises, and why. If such superficial contradiction upsets you, then you have my pity, and a recommendation that you stay away from sociology, psychology, anthropology, and other sciences that address human behavior.

While I do realize that most atheists do not base their faith on a single definition of God, I find it interesting that they tend to disregard, as "pointless" or "silly," any definition, no matter how valid or useful, that does not suit their argumentative purposes.

You say that some atheists claim that "any possible defining term of God must, by nature, be either self-contradictory, incoherent, internally inconsistant, or logically impossible." These do, indeed, seem to be the only sorts of definitions that certain atheists are willing to consider. I think, however, that this simply demonstrates something that I've been saying all along, to wit: that immature fundamentalist atheists will only accept definitions of God that permit them to believe that God does not exist.

I have suggested that, at a minimum, God is an ideal with great influence in human affairs. God, as such, then, does, in fact, exist.

In my definition, God does exhibit properties, God does affect things, and God is useful to explain things. But you, like all too many of your atheist bretheren, choose to reject this definition, rather than consider its implications.

Just in case you have, at this point in your point-by-point typing frenzy, forgotten the second paragraph of this comment, let me reiterate in the form of a direct question:

Would RobotSlave describe himself as a Believer in God, an Agnostic, or an Atheist?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Uh huh. (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 08:49:45 AM PST
Well, since we've all got bugs up our noses about "point by point rebuttals", I'll refrain from doing that. Instead I'll just assume you know exactly which comment of yours I'm referring to. If you can't follow along, so be it.

First: You no more coined the phrase "weak theist" than I invented butter. The argument that nobody is really an atheist has been rehashed dozens of times by people far more educated than you, and some who aren't (google cache).

Does democracy exist? Well, sure it does - as you said, it is an idea, an ideal, and a controlling and wide-sweeping force. But nobody claims that "democracy" is an actual entity, or that it has a will of its own. Thus, your comparision between democracy and God is utterly flawed. It would be a fine analogy to equate democracy with religion, but that isn't the same thing.

And so your thesis falls to the ground.

Oops, time for a cut-and-paste. I hope you won't think I'm being 'rude', and dismiss the rest of this comment out-of-hand with your anti-highlight snobbery. Actually, I don't really care.

While I do realize that most atheists do not base their faith on a single definition of God,

Funny, that's the exact opposite of what you stated in your original piece of masturbation. Excuse me, I meant "article".

You say that some atheists claim that "any possible defining term of God [doesn't work]" ... immature fundamentalist atheists will only accept definitions of God that permit them to believe that God does not exist.

Watch yourself. I said any possible definition, not "only those definitions which suit the atheist's fancy".

Then you seem to have this notion that I've argued that atheists don't exist. This is nonsense. In fact, I refer to real, mentally challenged atheists many times in the essay. I guess you didn't notice that.

Haha. Sure. I refer to you as X.. but then I apply some fanciful, made-up definitions and half-baked creative assumptions and suddenly you're not really X after all, you're Y. And actually, anybody who says they're X is also Y. In fact, X does not exist except that the Y's think they are X's.. but that's just because they're silly, stupid, and "mentally challenged".

In my definition, God does exhibit properties

What properties? You've defined the properties of religion, not of God.

God does affect things

No, religion affects things, not God. God doesn't come down here and do anything.. people who believe in God do things.
God is useful to explain things

You haven't even mentioned that.

But you, like all too many of your atheist bretheren, choose to reject this definition, rather than consider its implications.

Why RobotSlave, you must also be gifted with ESP, since you know who I am and what my theological leanings are.
That aside, you haven't defined God at all. You've defined religion.

Would RobotSlave describe himself as a Believer in God, an Agnostic, or an Atheist?

Heh. Who cares? Since you're happy to define what everyone else is, I get to define what you are.

I like this definition:
"Virtual atheism" includes those who hold principles that are inconsistent with the belief in God or violate the common use of language. God is defined in such vague terms as, "an active principle in nature," "the social consciousness," etc.



NNNNNNNGGGGGGaaahhhhh! (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 09:13:28 AM PST
In reading this thread I've developed a fairly serious twitch in my left eye and a nearly irresistible urge to thrust my head through the screen of my monitor. Other "Anonymous Reader", it's fairly clear that you're not making an effort to understand the article and subsequent commentary in order to simply be as argumentative as possible.


 
Refraining from rudeness? (none / 0) (#65)
by Uncanny Vortex on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:45:22 AM PST
..."point by point rebuttals", I'll refrain from doing that.

It appears that you didn't refrain at all -- perhaps you're unfamiliar with the meaning of "point by point rebuttal". To alternate between quotes from your antagonist's comment, and responses to those quotes, usually constitutes a point-by-point rebuttal.

Of course, as you have adequately proven, the point-by-point format is no guarantee that the writer will have anything convincing or worthwhile to offer.

As has been noted elsewhere:

"thematic rebuttal is always more effective than point-by-point rebuttal... identify the major themes within the opposition's case and attack those. In using thematic rebuttal, a speaker can also much more readily identify and address the key issues in the debate. A good analogy for rebuttal is that of a tree. The case statement and relevant themes of a case are the trunk, the arguments are the branches and the examples used are the twigs. If you wanted to knock the tree down, it makes a lot more sense to go straight for the trunk, rather than breaking off the twigs and branches..." (used without permission)

-- Uncanny Vortex



Link correction (none / 0) (#68)
by Uncanny Vortex on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 11:21:48 AM PST
My apologies. The quote was lifted from here.

-- Uncanny Vortex



 
Thanks. (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 01:02:22 PM PST
I'm well aware of the meaning of "refrain", as well as the concept of a point-to-point rebuttal.

Unfortunately for you, I don't give two farts in the wind what you - or anyone connected to adequacy - think of my preferred method of online discourse. Nor am I interested in your holier-than-thou patronization of me.

But as long as I annoyed some of you, my work here is done.

Interesting how you chose to focus entirely on the quote-and-response system, rather than the actual argument at hand. Ah, adequacy - we hardly love ye.


 
Boorrrring (none / 0) (#120)
by RobotSlave on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 02:45:27 AM PST
I've tried responding to your big pile of stupid many times, but I've nodded off on every attempt until now.

No, I haven't defined "religion." I've provided a minimal definition of God that can be built on if you wish.

Religion is one avenue through which the ideal of God has an effect on society, sure, but it's hardly the only one. Say, what do you make of religions that don't have any God in them, such as Atheism or Buddhism?

I'm sorry, but this argument you provide, which seems to consist of "you're wrong because I don't understand what you're saying" doesn't impress me much. In fact, it seems a lot like lame trolling. Are you aware of the fact that there is a strict no-trolling policy enforced at Adequacy?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Timely Question... (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:50:06 AM PST
Does 'God' exist? A definitive answer to the question would mean that a whole lot of people are wrong about their version of God or a lack thereof. If you consider the many ways in which 'man' (a defined term that includes Men, Women, Children, Unborn Babies and Bill Clinton) defines God then there is rather a lot of opinions and definitions of God to prove or counter-prove.

Consider the Christian faith for example. There is a basic structure to Christianity, but there are a number of variances within this faith alone. Within each group within Chriatianity there are varying degrees of support. Within the varying degress of support there are personal variances of what God actual is.

Given this case then there are an infinite possible answers to the question (given that there the given number of opinions past, present and future are not finite). To find the answer to the question is therefore going to take a bloody long time ...


 
nice (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:36:37 PM PST
With a few changes, this could probably get posted on a real site.


 
God is love... (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 03:45:55 AM PST
...and faith and hope and righteousness. God is the warm enveloping emotion a mother feels when she sees her infant daughter, wide-eyed and cooing, take her first wobbly steps.

God is the tingle of joy felt by that girl's parents as she speaks her first halting words: "ma-ma, ba-ba".

God is the delight of the father and mother as their daughter runs home laughing from school, anxious to tell them of all she has learned.

God is the pride in the hearts of the girl's parents as she, a grown woman, straps on the bomb vest that will take her into paradise, and bring the evil usurping forces who presently control the Holy Land one step closer to destruction.

No amount of eloquent sophistry can explain Allah, who is at once the supreme manifold mystery and at the same time simple enough for a child's understanding to grasp. Those who do have never experienced the true force of Allah's pure and holy love will never understand. Some insight can be gained by studying the Koran. I recommend seeking out a Mullah who teaches Islam in the proper manner, and studying with him. Good luck.

ISLAM: LIVE IT, LOVE IT, BE IT.


Thank you ever so much! (none / 0) (#77)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 08:01:05 PM PST
For rendering over 2000 years of Jewish, Christian and even classical Moslem theology completely irrelevant. Aquinas, Maimonides, Augustine, and even Einstein must be rolling in their graves.

I suppose God then is the hatred spewed by the arab media who claim that jews use muslim blood for baking pastries. Mmm...mmm..mmm!

God would also be the insanity that lets people like you justify the killing of innocents.

Dare I ask what the proper manner of teaching Islam entails? Nah.

No amount of sophistry will ever explain away the virulent hatred and evil your words propagate. No, you do not understand that killing in the name of God (or the idea of God in case you're all wondering if I've read the article) violates the godly ideals of love, harmony and righteousness which you claim Islam embraces. Instead, your words only show how you spurn the ideals Allah would have you live by.

IGNORANCE: FEAR IT, FIND IT, DESTROY IT.




Einstein isn't rolling in his grave (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 11:25:20 PM PST
He was cremated and his ashes cast into a river in New Jersey. Perhaps he's rollin' on the river?


Admittedly, it was a figure of speech (none / 0) (#85)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 10:29:14 AM PST
But I think Einstein would have had a good chuckle.

if you go down to the river,
bet you're gonna find some scientist's brain
you don't have to worry
if you don't understand his theories,
this guy's hair is totally insane....




 
Look, nobody *likes* killing innocent people (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 01:29:42 AM PST
The human body is a marvel, a wonder, this machine of meat and fluid that grows and heals, moves, and laughs, is beautiful to look at and endlessly fascinating to study. A more perfect container for the human soul would be impossible to imagine. To shatter a human body with explosives and shrapnel is a terrible thing, a terrible thing.

Know however that the hand of the jihadi are forced by the monstrous power of the forces of the infidel. The jihadi face down bombers, tanks, and missles, and fight back withthe only weapons at their disposal. At least they have enough faith in their cause to lay down their lives. The minions of Zionism and US Imperialism are cynical thugs who believe only in power, and hide behind their sophisticated weapons. They fear what awaits them in the afterlife.

Remember too that this is not simply a mundane political tiff between rival semitic peoples: the struggle over the Holy Land is about nothing less than the balance of good and evil through the entirety of the cosmos.

Consider the the comets. Did human hands set those vast congolomerations of ice and dust hurtling through millions of miles of space? No. Did human hands spangle heaven's vault with glinting stars? No. Did humans set alight the immense nuclear furnace of the sun, warming the Earth and drawing forth the green shoot form the soil? No. Know then that our cause is the cause of Allah, for whom effecting these mighty deeds is as brushing away an eye-lash to you or I.

One day the forces of the infidel will relent, and true democracy, Islamic rule, will return to the Holy Land. There will be no more killing, and a new age of peace and prosperity will dawn. The sacrifices we make now, terrible as they are, will then be seen as necessary steps to a new world.

ISLAM, LIVE IT, LOVE IT, BE IT.


I think you have me confused (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 10:47:00 AM PST
with someone who would be fooled by anything you have to say.

You'll note that nowhere have I denied the existence of God. As a matter of fact, I have often mused that comets are certainly a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Your spouting of pro-palestinian propaganda is also highly inappropriate. Where in my post did I actually attack the palestinians? No, I just attacked YOU, and YOUR vile justifications used to kill innocent children who, I can assure you, do not need fear what awaits them in the afterlife. But instead you have shown me once again how evil and twisted your supposed love of God is. Not that I will change your thinking, of course.

It is people like you that give God a bad name.

IGNORANCE: HATE IT, FIND IT, DESTROY IT.


No worries (none / 0) (#99)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:31:52 AM PST
Providing they have lived pious lives (i.e., by The Book: Christians, Judaists, Muslims) those who perish as a result of the jihadi's actions against Zionist terror and US Imperialism, having let slip the fetters of mortality, find themselves in Paradise, laughing with a kind of transcendent joy unreachable by we who remain this realm of dust and pain, while before them the hand of Allah turns the pages of the book of Creation, revealing the mystries of existence, all and everything, what there was before there was time, and what will be now and everlasting.

Meanwhile we who are left behind to further Allah's cause know that our task is not a pleasant one, but as Moses, struggling to free his people from the blasphemous tyranny of the pagan Pharaoh, was forced to call on Allah to slay the first born of the oppressors, so we too must do our share of ending Earthly lives in order to liberate the Holy Land from Zionist fascists and the infidel clutches of US Imperialism.

All this will be much clearer if you take some time to study Koran with a properly trained Mullah. Check out the mosques around your home town, I'm sure someone will be willing to teach you the Truths of Islam.

Allah Akbar.


 
RobotSlave... (4.00 / 1) (#76)
by First Incision on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 05:26:10 PM PST
You sir, are the Devil.

I find your article appealing. Heretical, but appealing. In fact, I found it appealing because it was heretical. I (like most any human) struggle with the concept of God. I struggle with it actively and daily. As I read, I thought "Yes! This makes sense! Am I, in fact, a weak theist?"

But with the help of God, I was able to tune out your serpentine deception before I finished your article.

Still, your ideas will stick in the back of my head. A sweet lie is infectious and does not disappear easily.

I should have realized this earlier, with all your inter-worldly web-net BDSM. I felt drawn to you, more than any other person on Adequacy. The Devil is glamourous, likable and eloquent. But I must be careful now, for I know that you are Satan.

I hope we can still be friends.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Wow (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 06:37:04 AM PST
I'm somewhat impressed by the open mindedness of this article, especially for this site. I try to be openminded about this as much as possible, so at this point I will neither acknowledge or deny the existance of a God. I seek the truth. I believe that if a God does exist, this god cannot be anything like what the religions of the world claim to think since all of them seem to have a different idea of what their god is and wants. I do not subscribe to the idea of blind faith, I believe blind faith can be used to get anyone to believe anything. To that end, I find that I have become more of a believer in science since science is generally based on facts, whereas religion in general has generally tried to refute such fact using any means including blind faith. In the defense of religion, I have trouble believing that black holes exist, science maintains that they do but this is based on theories and cannot yet be proven as fact.
There is also the fact that throughout the recorded history of mankind, there have been many religions that have existed that are now considered to rediculous. Rediculous to us, but in it's time and place we must realize, was considered to be as real and serious as the religions of modern day and these people were just as willing to die for them. For example, ancient Greek and Roman mythology. We see it now as mythology but back then it was religion. And we see a major reason for having religion in this mythology that still holds true today. The explanation of the unknown. Why do things happen in our lives? Why do earthquakes, droughts and famine happen or why have we lost a loved one? The god (or god's) must be angry with us or it is part of a plan for a larger purpose. Although the focus of belief has changed, this reasoning is not. Science has found explanations for these things and this is largely why religion of any kind has taken a position as the enemy of science. In essence, science has the ability to knock the legs out the hold most religions up.


Science and religion are orthogonal (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 05:47:10 PM PST
They deal with two entirely separate things.

Science is all about finding a model that works, it says nothing about the questions religion tries to answer. Science deals with the how, not why. Science will tell you how gravity works the way it does, but not why gravity works the way it does. Even if every single part of the universe could be explained by science, do you not see that the question "why" would still remain.

Religion explains the meaning of life, man's purpose, existence, immortality etc. In this respect, science is deadly silent.

Of course, if you forget what Science is all about, it can and will become a pseudo-religion and sadly, this is quite often the case.


 
God, I hate this site (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 04:27:13 PM PST
This site is chock-full of pseudo-contrarian garbage. It reminds me of the idiotic arguments I had with my semantics-loving roommates after college. You seriously started an article with a DICTIONARY DEFINITION? Argh!

I'm not sure what the deal with this site is. It seems like a series of contrarian essays to "debunk" the beliefs of the typical internet/linux/libertarian junkie, but it wants to eat the damn cake too, and laugh at the NON-savvy as well. Like I wrote - Argh!

Do you guys write the same articles you debunk? Do you actually believe anything you write? By the end of every article on this site, all I know is that I have NO idea what the authors actually think about ANYTHING.


The classic mistake (none / 0) (#98)
by First Incision on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 07:12:44 PM PST
You have made a common mistake made by many newcomers. This site has no underlying belief system. This site is for the discussion of controversial opinions, but even the opinions of the editors tend to vary widely.

Yes, this site attracts many people who are sick of the "internet/linux/libertarian junkie." The main reason for this is because it is hard to get a controversial word in edgewise in the "mainstream" news/discussion sites. That is unless, your idea of "controversy" consists of hating the DMCA, writing shell scripts, and worshiping made-up nature gods.

The idea may seem foreign to you, but this is not Slashdot, where you can assume that any opinion expressed is shared by over 90% of the site's users.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Existence (none / 0) (#107)
by caffeine on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 01:16:05 PM PST
Your article is kinda interesting. But mostly you bang away on the question of existence, which perhaps sounds good to a infantile evangelical theists or atheist. But it's bunk.
To quote Kant, "Existence is not a predicate."
Clearly the idea of God exists, just like democracy and human rights. And just as clearly there are people believe in God.
Tacking "exists" into your sentences does nothing to prove your point.

"For example, if we acknowledge the sociological existence of God"

What are you talking about? What sort of person would not acknowledge the socialogical existence of God? I think you might have your hand on it. Are you an Athiest is Sheeps clothing?


"There are, regrettably, those who insist on the existence of a material God."

You are an Athiest in Sheeps clothing. Clearly you're just being clever and subversive. Of course, I could be wrong.

Maybe you should be advocating "Live life as if God exists", instead of struggling to justify your own beliefs by excessive use of the word "exists".





This is difficult for you, isn't it? (none / 0) (#116)
by RobotSlave on Fri Apr 26th, 2002 at 08:45:25 PM PST
There you go, first saying that the whole thing is bunk, and then in the next breath admitting that the existence of God as idea, ideal, and sociological phenomenon is undeniable.

Which is it?

The implications here are not trivial, caffeine. Have you ever met an atheist who doesn't bother to read theology on the grounds that none of it could possibly be relevant due to the nonexistence of God? My argument lays waste to such intellectual laziness, as even the minimal definition of God restores relevance to theology.

Are you still with me here?

What's wrong with the word "exist?" Have I used it in a way that you don't like? Is there some other word that I should use instead, some special word that atheists use when they claim that God does not exist?

Though I've coined the term "weak theism" in response to a particularly obnoxious atheist argument, it is still possible for one to accept the existence of God as defined, yet still claim, without contradiction, that one does not believe in God.

Can you figure it out, or would you prefer me to walk you through it?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

But... (none / 0) (#121)
by caffeine on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 10:34:34 AM PST
Thanks for the offer of walking me through it, stupid Athiest that I am.
You aren't making a point, just pointing out the obvious. Of course God as an Idea exists. And if God wasn't thought of as Ideal, he wouldn't be a God, just some supernatural being.
Acknowledging this doesn't make me a weak theist. It means I'm aware of my surroundings. Being able to predict protests over an abortion clinic is no proof that God exists, just that people who don't like abortion clinics exist.

Your use of "exists" does nothing for your argument. If the idea of God didn't "exist" we wouldn't be here. As we are discussing the idea, it must exist.

"Have you ever met an atheist who doesn't bother to read theology on the grounds that none of it could possibly be relevant due to the nonexistence of God? "

I've met plenty of Christians who haven't read it. I think the reason is that it has been spoon fed to them from childhood. They accept it without question.




Oh, but I am making a point. (none / 0) (#128)
by RobotSlave on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 03:05:29 PM PST
If the existence of God is obvious, then on what grounds do you call yourself an Atheist?

It's very strange to me that so many critics fail to address my conception of God as an idea, an ideal, and an active and present force in human society. Lots of the detractors here pretend that I'm only talking about God as idea, even though I've tirelessly reiterated my larger conception. What's up with that?

I don't think I asked you about Christians or other theists who haven't read any theology. Yes, they're out there. Yes, I think they're pretty dim. I noticed that you didn't bother to address my point: to wit, that even my minimal conception of God makes theology relevant.

Now, when did existence become unimportant? It seems to me that that's all that a certain (and rather dull) sort of Atheist ever wants to talk about.

I am quite interested in what sort of argument for atheism you plan to make without using the word "exist." In fact, it's precisely the sort of thing I was encouraging in my previous post.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

rubbish (none / 0) (#132)
by rat herder on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 09:29:41 PM PST
I fail to understand how one moment you appear to have a vague grasp on the intricacies of this topic, yet the next you appear to completely (possibly intentionally) miss the point of Caffein's post.

Caffein was clearly illustrating that your diatribe on the conception of god as an idea, is painfully obvious. A point i agree with.

Futhermore, your litteral take on his point about the use of the word "exist" was fully childish and quite irritating to read.

It's easy to criticise, so i'll offer another "immature atheists" perspective. Religion gives a society a chance to propigate a moral code. It's pretext with god as an omnipresent force watching our every move, gives massive potential to manipulate peoples behaviour.
In the case of the Christian church, inevitably this power is abused and the corrupt use the influence of the church for their own gain.

The concept of god is dead. The messages his figure served to promote are poisened. Atheism is the simple statement that reality is ones only master. I have faith in the physics and the science of the new millenium. I beleive they are/will be driving force in societal change. I do not however reference my reverence for technology as "god".

-Q


Hello, Kitty. (none / 0) (#134)
by RobotSlave on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 10:45:41 PM PST
I was wondering when you'd turn up.

So, kitten, you don't want a God, but you elevate Epiricism to the status of religion: That is, you believe it ought to be the moral or political fundament of society. You have faith in "physics and science and the new millenium."

You, too, have failed to understand my argument. Once again, I am not arguing that God is mere idea. I grow weary of repeating this.

Second, though you criticise my questioning of Caffeine's attack on the word "exist," you offer no basis for your criticism.

In fact, the problem here is precisely that so many vocal and dull-witted atheists are completely hung up on an empirical notion of existence, and therefore utterly incapable of addressing essential ideals and their corresponding social realities that can be said to "exist" only in the public and private imagination. Stuff like democracy, for example.

Refusing to understand an argument does not qualify as valid criticism of that argument. You don't like it when I define God into existence, because your shrill little screed is entirely dependent on outright rejection of any definition of God that might be supported by evidence.

What would happen to you if someone defined God as "physics and science and the new millenium?" Would your overheated little brain explode?

Now, go read your uninformed little rant to yourself over and over and over again. I want you to do this because it will make your past, and in particular your indelible internet history, much more painfully embarassing to you if you ever do manage to gain a wider understanding of philosophy.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

dna (none / 0) (#142)
by rat herder on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 03:24:51 AM PST
I didn't just "turn up", and my name is not "kitten". Given the sheer number of people who could register for a free anonymous service like this, i'm wondering why in gods name you would say that.

The basis of my comments regarding Caffein's attack on your use of the word "exists" is exactly as i previously stated. You failed to understand his point, and there fore took his statement literally, which was not it's orginal intent.

Your responses to my points are completely nonsensical. Your confused ramblings are full of contradictions and totally unsupported claims.

I have a question... How have you survived in society with such a clear lack of intelligence or logic. I would have been sure someone like you would have choked to death on a fork or a spoon by now...

I've read through your posts in response to peoples questions/comments. I've noticed you are a complete wanker, and it hurts me that i've allowed myself to participate in this discussion. Goodbye


spank, spank, spank (none / 0) (#144)
by nathan on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 06:22:11 AM PST
Do you usually declare victory after failing to rebut and losing? Does it make you feel better when you're struck by your own soul-crushing lameness at lonely hours of the night?

It's people like you who become record-store clerks and, both unskilled and uncool, claim ugliness as beauty, sickness as fitness, and hip anomic stupidity as refinement and wit. No one else buys it, though.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Lay off record store clerks. (none / 0) (#146)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 07:39:57 AM PST
Gary Larson used to be a record store clerk, so they can't all be bad.

...both unskilled and uncool, claim ugliness as beauty, sickness as fitness, and hip anomic stupidity as refinement and wit.

Copulation before marriage is barbaric and cruel. I'm saving myself for Ms Right.

No one else buys it, though.

Correct.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

The way it is: (none / 0) (#147)
by nathan on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 08:59:04 AM PST
link

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

She's lying. n/t (none / 0) (#164)
by derek3000 on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 06:18:33 AM PST



----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
loser (none / 0) (#149)
by rat herder on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 01:06:32 AM PST
the is no victory, if there was no competition.

I notice you adressed the points I did raise with astounding clarity.

You're right, I felt better after i was struck by my own soul-crushing lameness.

A fine example of logic and the wit you are so in touch with.

HA - I'm going to steal your intellectual property and pass it off as the prophetic jibberings of a eunuch monkey. I'll make millions!!


I'm a fountain of charity (none / 0) (#150)
by nathan on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 01:44:31 AM PST
Blessings be upon you, my child. Allow me to quote your first post:

Religion gives a society a chance to propigate a moral code. It's pretext with god as an omnipresent force watching our every move, gives massive potential to manipulate peoples behaviour. In the case of the Christian church, inevitably this power is abused and the corrupt use the influence of the church for their own gain.
My child, this is not an argument. It is a statement. It may be an argumentative statement, although I would prefer to call it provocative, for clarity. An argument seeks to demonstrate how the concluding statement comes out of the initial premises. I cannot refute 'points' unless they are phrased as arguments, because refutation is logically antecedent to the presence of an argument. My dear child.

Allow me to quote you again, my little lamb.
Atheism is the simple statement that reality is ones only master.
I'm sorry to say that I can't really make sense out of this. What does it mean to be mastered by Reality? It must be very strong and masterly. It must be very powerful stuff.

Allow me to quote you a third time, my angel. It's so charming when you say things like this:
I have faith in the physics and the science of the new millenium. I beleive they are/will be driving force in societal change.
Oh, if only I could have faith like a little child, that I might become as happy as you! The physics and science of the new millenium are certain to have effects on our lives, my clever little lemon drop, just as the physics and science of the past millenium did then, when you were just a wee one, bless your eyes. Someone who was interested in the wicked, wicked idea of a personal God, though (I am sorry to use words like that in front of widdums) might say that physics and God don't address the same issues at all, my dear one, not at all. Not all teleology (a word made up in the olden days in Greece) is dependent on materialistic empiricism, which is what the grown-ups call it when clever you knows that the wide wide world is just like his comfy little nursery. My little darling. My sugar-bun.

Time for bed now, but there'll be more stories tomorrow night, my little snugglebug. Pleasant dreams, and don't let the bed-bugs bite!

Nathan-Wathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Nathan hasn't been the same since- (none / 0) (#151)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 06:07:57 AM PST
he got owned by the wiccan. Apparently he has become gay. I guess that is what happens when you finally come to terms with the limits of your intelligence by battling and losing to someone smarter/faster/better than you. But, much like a child, if he can't find a smaller child to beat up he will go out and attack a dog.


Logic 101, my dove (none / 0) (#152)
by nathan on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 08:07:54 AM PST
  • Only dumb people mock dumb people.
  • I mock dumb people, therefore I am dumb.
    BUT
  • You mock me
    AND
  • I am a dumb person.

    Uh, wait a second...

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • Try again Nathan. (none / 0) (#156)
    by JoePain on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:02:06 PM PST
    How does your reply have anything to do with my post?

    1. I never said I was smarter than you, nor did I imply in any way that only dumb people mock dumb people. I wrote that you, having met your intellectual match, have to start picking on dumb(er) people- much in the same way that a child once beaten by his parent beats his dog because he has no one else smaller around to beat on.

    2. The rest of your post is normal Nathan bullshit.

    3. This is not the same AR (if you had half a brain you could tell that by the style).

    4. Doves are a traditional symbol for those whose purpose is peace. Which clearly does not represent me, because I have no interest in making peace with you and never will.

    5. Obviously you have work on your logic/reading skills. Try again-- this time harder. I know you can do better than that.



    it was obviously you (none / 0) (#161)
    by nathan on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 02:57:41 PM PST
    As soon as you wrote "owned by the wiccan." You're the only person labouring under that misapprehension.

    Now, back to the point. Let's consider three things you wrote:
  • I never said I was smarter than you.
  • ...if you had half a brain you could tell that by the style.
  • Obviously you have [to] work on your logic/reading skills.

    By your own claims, you are demicephalic, illogical, and illiterate, and you are projecting these traits onto me. How can I be expected to care about arguing with you?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • Nice parlor trick Nathan. (none / 0) (#165)
    by JoePain on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 08:25:20 AM PST
    Please stick to the topic.


    funny thing (none / 0) (#166)
    by nathan on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 11:01:37 AM PST
    Whenever you get humiliated, you ask me to "stick to the topic." When I'm debating a topic, you step in and insult me. What do you want from me? You can't get blood from a turnip.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Simply humility and respect for other people. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 02:31:36 PM PST
    I know I should practice what I preach and I have been making an attempt, but every time I see one of your posts, your belittlement of other people makes me sick. So, rather than take the approach of an adult and ignore it, but I am a weak human and have chosen to be a child and sink to your level.

    BTW.
    Happy May Day.


    I only belittle (none / 0) (#169)
    by nathan on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 03:49:00 PM PST
    arrogant assholes. They're free to try to outwit me, if they think they can. I like to think of it as volunteer, freelance social work. It's a medicine that can kill or cure - but, if it kills, I rather feel it did its job anyhow.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    ha (none / 0) (#170)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 05:09:46 PM PST
    rat herder demolished you. Take a look back through this discussion.

    you were totally out classed. Get a grip


    I'll assume you're not trolling, (none / 0) (#171)
    by nathan on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 09:13:13 PM PST
    As the Adequacy has a strict no-trolling policy. Much as it pains me, I'll assume that you are actually stating that you believe that I was beaten in an argument by one "rat herder." Of course, this is nonsense, as I have already established that "rat herder" ("a reference to Herder?" I asked myself, only to be let down) has yet to provide an argument. Without arguing, it is impossible to win an argument.

    Boo-yah! Q E D! Q E D!

    Pardon me, my excitement seems to have gotten the better of me. Anyway, it is clear to me that you persist in this perverse belief or, as I should call it instead, "psychotic fugue-state," as the result of a psychotic break from reality. Just as some people have taken to doing such bizarre things as eating their own feces (Guy de Maupassant) or joining the Democratic Party, you have apparently become fixated on indicting me for failures and inadequacies that are clearly not mine.

    While there remains some controversy as the the causes of some psychoses, I would venture to say that systematic abuse at the hands of an authority figure has led to to hate and fear excellence and achievement in any form. For some reason, you have chosen to fixate on me. My so-called "failures" buttress your self-esteem by allowing you to symbolically punish me (in your own mind) for my vigour, energy, learning and wit.

    While I should be able to accept this on my own account, I cannot in good conscience tolerate it on yours. You must develop the inner strength to overcome your sick need to trample me for my brilliance; only then will you be whole. I suggest that you find a skillful Freudian analyst to help you with this serious, serious problem.

    Best of luck.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    What is the differenece between your actions (none / 0) (#172)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 11:35:28 AM PST
    and trolling? You admit to belittling arrogant assholes (tell me do you do this to your self?) Be specific.


    Sir, (none / 0) (#173)
    by tkatchev on Fri May 3rd, 2002 at 12:37:42 PM PST
    You are a dirty trool. Go back to your stinking hole.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    The world according to AR (none / 0) (#153)
    by hauntedattics on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 08:22:46 AM PST
    1. Calling someone gay is the ultimate insult.

    2. It's all about "winning" and "losing" arguments, with the "winner" being whoever can submit the most obnoxious post.

    3. When you can't argue effectively with someone and they (annoyingly) don't join your group lovefest, calling them stupid and wondering out loud how they can function with such low "intelligence" is a good last resort.




     
    Don't touch it! (none / 0) (#154)
    by tkatchev on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 11:04:07 AM PST
    I belive the guy was trooling you.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    I guess I'll bite... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Illiterate Bum on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 11:38:58 AM PST
    (Cracking knuckles, neck fairly confidently...)
    <p>
    Okay. Let's start with you definition.

    <i>"God (god) n. 1. God, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching."</i>

    Going by this definition and the usage of the capital "G" in your spelling, I am going to assume that you mean "God" just as the definition states, i.e. the Judaeo-Christian god.
    -----

    "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

    Start somewhere else. (none / 0) (#157)
    by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:04:09 PM PST
    That's not my definition. That's the first definition I found in the first dictionary I opened. For my definition, that is, the definition I use when arguing that the existence of God is incontrovertible, please read the rest of the article.

    If, on the other hand, you would prefer, like certain less than adequate detractors, to use your definition of God, then feel free to do so, but please don't expect a particularly interesting response from me.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    My apologies. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Illiterate Bum on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:58:15 PM PST
    I accidentally hit "post" instead of "preview." Clumsy me, I guess.
    -----

    "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

     
    I guess I'll bite... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Illiterate Bum on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:55:52 PM PST
    (Cracking knuckles and neck fairly confidently...)

    Okay. Let's start with you definition.

    "God (god) n. 1. God, the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching."

    Going by this definition and the usage of the capital "G" in your spelling, I am going to assume that you mean "God" just as the definition states, i.e. the Judaeo-Christian god.

    Given- God exists as an idea. Given- God exists as an ideal. Given- God exists as an easily observable sociological phenomenon. But does all this necessarily mean that God "exists?" Yes and no.

    Let's first discuss the semantics of the argument. Whose (G)od(s) are you talking about? The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim god, while sharing common roots, are fairly different from each other. And then we have the various sects of each group, who each hold their own definition of God. These sects might only share nominal differences at best, but they are nonetheless different enough to easily distinguish between, say, Presbyterians and Baptists. And then we can start pulling in the other religions of the world, from Hinduism (and its various sects) to Buddhism (and its various sects) to the house-gods that some Chinese still worship to this day. And each one of those god(s) also hold a place as an idea, an ideal, and in most aspects, as sociological phenomena.

    This leads to the second flaw- the definition. Although most dictionaries probably won't state as such, we can pretty much agree that most of the major religions are fundamental. Yes, some are more (much more) fundamental than others, but most believe that their way is the correct way, and therefore, the absolute that should apply to all of humanity (for, as nathan brought up in another post- and yes, I am aware he was just playing along with the diary, but it was a good point nonetheless- "if an absolute exists, it must apply to all of humanity"). So whose absolute are we applying here? The Hindus? The Sikhs? The Zoroastrians? The Catholics?

    Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that for God(s) to exist as a universal sociological phenomenon, the definition must be more concrete, and it must contain an absolute that applies for all of humanity, believer or not- i.e. whether one believes in this god or not, they must all agree on the same basic definition. Otherwise, God remains a localized phenomenon, applicable only to certain groups by definition.

    For example, "democracy" is a fairly universal ideal. The administrations of democracy differ from model to model, but its basic definition- rule by the masses- is a definition that is pretty much uncontested. "Justice" and "Capitalism" can also be considered universal ideals, for while the administration, adoption, and/or practice of said ideals vary wildly from region to region, their basic definitions are, for the most part, uncontested as well.

    You see, it's only with God do we run into the problem with definitions. Depending on who you talk to, some gods are omniscient, some aren't. Some are omnipotent, some aren't. Some allow for free will, some don't. You get my drift.

    The definitions also don't allow for the degree of predictability that you state. To use your abortion clinic example, we can agree that if a new clinic opened up in a primarily Catholic or Baptist community, it would be met with greater resistance. However, what if it opened in a primarily Unitarian (as unlikely as it is) community? The response would probably not be quite as hostile as in the above mentioned communities, if at all. Once again, God is relegated to the status of a localized sociological phenomenon, while something like democracy is pretty universal. In fact, using this particular stance, I could argue that God is in the numbers, as mathematics can predict a much wider range of phenomena much more accurately, and would not be burdened by semantic matters.

    To be more accurate about matters, we can say that religion exists as a universal sociological phenomenon, but we cannot say the same for any God(s). Also, you have not proved the deeper spiritual connotations of actually proving the existence of God (spiritual or physical) entails- the existence of an afterlife, a soul, so on and so forth- which I think that many of the other posts mistakenly are refuting you on. But that's an off-topic matter.

    I suppose we could also get into a debate on what the word "exist" actually entails, but let's leave that for another day, shall we?

    Cheers.
    -----

    "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

    Thank you for offering a bit of decent argument. (none / 0) (#160)
    by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 02:32:10 PM PST
    You insist that democracy is "pretty universal," but God is not. You demonstrate this by adding an extra condition to my definition of God.

    You insist that God must be "absolute." Why doesn't democracy have to be "absolute?" I think that the various implementations of democracy that the world has seen, from the slave states of ancient Greece to National Socialist Germany to the present-day France, have exhibited at least as wide a moral spectrum as that which you attribute to various notions of God in present-day societies. Yet we still "understand" democracy.

    God can be said to have the "same basic definition" from one society to another just as much as "democracy" can. When people from different religions make a passing reference to "God" (or "Allah" or "Vishnu"), we know what they are talking about without having to quiz them about particulars.

    As to the abortion clinic example, I might resort to arguing that in a Unitarian community, God is not as powerfully influential in human affairs. Instead, I will admit that the abortion clinic might not be the best example, as it does, as you rightly point out, deal with a limited population, where I had a larger-scale sociological impact in mind.

    Allow me to offer a better example. The existence of God (as I have defined it) can be, and is, used by polling and and demographics organizations to predict voter response to various positions in state and national party politics in the US.

    Though you have avoided the bogs that my less attentive detractors have fallen into, you have nonetheless resorted to extending my definition of God, and then tearing apart your own extension.

    I do not think that God has to be absolute. That is not part of my definition. Widespread and influential, yes, but not absolute. That is your own (and nathan's) extension to my minimal definition.

    Nor do I think that God must be identical in all particulars from one society to the next. This is another extension of yours, one that you have derived from your first extension. My definition does not rely on anything more than a "fairly universal" understanding of God, comparable to a "fairly universal" understanding of democracy.

    Again, thank you for at least understanding the core of my argument before wading in with fists swinging.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    I tip my hat in your general direction. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Illiterate Bum on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 08:04:28 PM PST
    Well, you stumped me. To be honest (and you probably figured this out from reading some of the other posts I've put up), I completely agree with you. It took me awhile to figure out an effective way to argue against it, as it completely falls in place with what I have learned from sociology. But I felt obliged to put together a somewhat intelligent argument attacking the key points in your article after reading some of the utterly banal and moronic arguments a few of the other readers have posted (Ben, while offering a fairly effective argument against the existence of a perfect, benevolent God, is arguing with someone else other than you, apparently).

    Unfortunately, I'm no philosopher nor theologian. I drew the best argument I could using my sociology background, and drew a few bits and pieces here and there from various other sources to complement it. I figured that this thing was kind of flawed when I started, especially in light of the fact that I figured out what the key point of contention should be.

    I believe that the problem still lies in the definition, but not of the word "God," but of the word "exist." The thought of an idea "existing" is a purely platonic (or Socratic- whatever) viewpoint, and is fairly contestable. However, as you've probably guessed, I am not particularly well-versed in Plato or Socrates (once again- whatever), which is the main reason why I didn't go into the definition of the word "exist." I was hoping that someone else here (who is well-versed in the Platonic/Socratic way of thought and its critics) would have been adequate enough to catch on to that and launch an intelligent argument from that standpoint.

    Well, here's to hoping. Anybody listening?
    -----

    "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

     
    hmm (none / 0) (#176)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 4th, 2002 at 11:39:53 AM PST
    You complain about people giving trivial definitions of God in order to prove that God does not exist, and then go on to create a definition that's so trivially all-encompassing that you have to conclude that it exists. You're just playing the same pointless game.



     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.