The Flaw of Monotheism (1 Viewer)

[Bereie]

Oh deary me, maybe go and spend some time with some people who found religion NOT because of their parents...

I doubt there are many, and I doubt there are any on this board. But whether or not the brainwashing came from the parents, the majority are still brainwashed into ignoring reasoning and science.

You are right in saying monotheism and religion are intrinsically linked, but nor are they the same. You are targetting at religious moral flaws and technical flaws in the accounts of religion in general rather than the specific belief in one God which is monotheism.

You're getting into semantics. It doesn't matter what the name of the thread is. The content and the discussions have evolved over the pages so why do you keep bringing up this annoying little point?

 

[mirakon]

I'm bringing up this point, because there a lot of people here who having 'disproved' religion, automatically take it that God does not exist.

 

[Titburger]

I'm bringing up this point, because there a lot of people here who having 'disproved' religion, automatically take it that God does not exist.

And where does the burden of proof lie?

 

[mirakon]

The concept of burden of proof is complete BS. It is the theists job to prove God exists and the atheists to prove he doesn't. Burden of proof functions purely as an excuse to avoid the brunt of the argument a desperate attempt at trying to divert the argument back to the opposition when you can't think of anything.

Furthermore that is completely irrelevant to the previous post. What I was saying was that whilst religion may be flawed, that does not necessarily disprove God.

 

[Scorch]

I'm bringing up this point, because there a lot of people here who having 'disproved' religion, automatically take it that God does not exist.

I never in the slightest suggested this. Please do not put words in my mouth that are not there.

There is no good reason to believe that there is a God because there is no evidence to do so, however that does not necessarily make belief in a higher celestial being irrational as science has not reached a full consensus or understanding on such larger issues.

However belief in a religious God is entirely irrational, hence the importance of the distinction I previously made between deism and theism.

and the atheists to prove he doesn't.

Not in the slightest. Atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive logical assertion.

 

[Titburger]

I never in the slightest suggested this. Please do not put words in my mouth that are not there.

There is no good reason to believe that there is a God because there is no evidence to do so, however that does not necessarily make belief in a higher celestial being irrational as science has not reached a full consensus or understanding on such larger issues.

However belief in a religious God is entirely irrational, hence the importance of the distinction I previously made between deism and theism.

Yes - this!

 

[mirakon]

I never in the slightest suggested this. Please do not put words in my mouth that are not there.

There is no good reason to believe that there is a God because there is no evidence to do so, however that does not necessarily make belief in a higher celestial being irrational as science has not reached a full consensus or understanding on such larger issues.

However belief in a religious God is entirely irrational, hence the importance of the distinction I previously made between deism and theism.



Not in the slightest. Atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive logical assertion.

I never suggestexd you were one of those people, i was talking about others.

I'll let the following quote address your definition of atheism as it summarises my criticism of it exactly:

Charles Bradlaugh, in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism. Since 1979, many atheists have followed Bradlaugh's thinking further and stated that atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god.[8][9] The motive for such a shift in meaning appears to be to an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theism side.[8]
In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels which owns and operates the Secular Web. The Secular Web is one of the principle websites for atheists, agnostics and skeptics on the internet, states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."[8] In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered.[8] The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods

In short, such a definition of atheism is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof, a lazy deviation from true atheism.

 

[Titburger]

Not in the slightest. Atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive logical assertion.

Until it can either be proven that God does not exist or it is set out that it is logically impossible for God to exist, I see atheism as a leap of faith from agnosticism.

 

[Scorch]

I never suggestexd you were one of those people, i was talking about others.

I'll let the following quote address your definition of atheism as it summarises my criticism of it exactly:

Two points that need making:

1. Atheism is the disbelief in theism. A-theism. It's embedded in the term itself that it is simply a lack of theistic persuasion due to the lack of evidence to suggest that any God exists. That is all. Your other definitions are no more than made up by you, as you are, effectively, telling atheists what they believe. That being said, definitions change and evolve as scientific progress is made.
2. Even if atheism was a belief that God doesn't exist, I would not call that a leap of faith or illogical any more than it is illogical not to believe in unicorns because there is no proof. I don't believe that there is a giant spaghetti monster that will kill us all in vengeance for eating his spaghetti brethren, but is simply biding his time until the correct opportunity arises because there is no evidence that one exists; is that illogical? Not at all. If you are trying to maintain that, in a realistic sense, believing that things don't exist if there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they do exist is somehow illogical, then you will quite simply not be able to maintain such a position because all of a sudden a hell of a lot of entirely logical positions become illogical, according to you.

In short, such a definition of atheism is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof, a lazy deviation from true atheism.

Then please prove there are no fairies. See the problem that naturally occurs here? We reject claims of theism because there is no proof for them. We reject claims of fairies because there is no proof for them.

 

[mirakon]

The differnece between 'unicorns' and God is that unicorns are very specific creatures with limitations. God is a wholly broad manifestation of omnipotence and as such can take such a diversity of forms that one cannot immediately discount it as one discounts a spaghetti monster or a biblical God.

God is not necessarily a physical being or even a physical reality, but can be a purely immaterial object e.g. the laws and natures of the Universe ala Spinoza or the unified conswciousness of all living things that allows for perception and conception.

Really this argument can be summarised as Materialism (Science/Logic) Vs Immaterialism. And then one cannot assume that materialism is the end all of all things, pure reason is in fact, rather flawed, according to Kant.

One cannot use logic to disprove God as assuming he exists, he can defy logic anyway, being an immaterial being beyond reason.

It is for this reason that many people are agnostic. Atheism and theism is a leap of faith either way as God can never be proved or disproved as God himself, assuming he exists is beyond logic.

 

[Scorch]

I agree with you to some extent, which is why it is a-theism and not a-deism, which is essentially what you are describing.

Only a deistic God would hold the very vague, uncertain principles which naturally makes it an infinitely expanding tautology that is impossible to theoretically disprove. The principles and ideologies of the theistic God are, however, logically inconsistent and scientifically incorrect.

There is an important distinction to make here.

To some extent the point you are making is extremely moot and semantical and really doesn't have much to do with anything.

 

[mirakon]

Yes, but this really depends on how literally you want ot take a theistic God. Metaphorically and symbolically they can be reduced to other possible intterpretations of God that are within the category of a 'diestic' God.

 

[Bereie]

You're still bringing up an annoying irrelevant point. The majority Christian/Muslim/Jew view of God is not a Metaphorical/symbolical interpretation but a mostly literal one of the God in their books. The thread is about that view of God, not a Spinozan one or whatever else you keep bringing up in these threads. Wrong argument in the wrong thread.

 

[mirakon]

You're still bringing up an annoying irrelevant point. The majority Christian/Muslim/Jew view of God is not a Metaphorical/symbolical interpretation but a mostly literal one of the God in their books. The thread is about that view of God, not a Spinozan one or whatever else you keep bringing up in these threads. Wrong argument in the wrong thread.

Who are to say that the majority interpetation of something is the only one you should take into account. Just becuase you disproved what the majority of Christians for example believe in, it by no means that the other possible interpretations of Christianity and hence Christianity as a whole is wrong.

It indicates how narrow-minded your argument is that 'As the majority of Christians think that Christianity is X then Christianity must be judged as being X and all other interpretations of the religion should be ignored.'

 

[Titburger]

I agree with you to some extent, which is why it is a-theism and not a-deism, which is essentially what you are describing.

Well then, what are your views on deism? Do you think it's valid or not?

 

[Scorch]

You're still bringing up an annoying irrelevant point. The majority Christian/Muslim/Jew view of God is not a Metaphorical/symbolical interpretation but a mostly literal one of the God in their books. The thread is about that view of God, not a Spinozan one or whatever else you keep bringing up in these threads. Wrong argument in the wrong thread.

Yeah basically.

Who are to say that the majority interpetation of something is the only one you should take into account. Just becuase you disproved what the majority of Christians for example believe in, it by no means that the other possible interpretations of Christianity and hence Christianity as a whole is wrong.

He is not dealing in what the majority of Christians make up to justify their faith in a rational sense but rather what the Bible says, as am I. If people want to ignore, manipulate or excuse parts of the Bible to make up for the fact that a lot of it is nonsense then that is their prerogative.

In fact the very fact that they are forced to excuse, deny, or remain in willful ignorance of the contents of their own Holy Book in order to simply justify their faith as more than the Bronze Age superstition it is shows how absurd the Bible's self-defeating claims of infallibility, divinity and morality really are.

Well then, what are your views on deism? Do you think it's valid or not?

I don't believe in it because there is no good reason to do so, as there is no good reason to believe in fairies. However deistic fairies at least have an inherent logical consistency and aren't quite as mean or sadistic.

 

[Bereie]

Who are to say that the majority interpetation of something is the only one you should take into account. Just becuase you disproved what the majority of Christians for example believe in, it by no means that the other possible interpretations of Christianity and hence Christianity as a whole is wrong.

It indicates how narrow-minded your argument is that 'As the majority of Christians think that Christianity is X then Christianity must be judged as being X and all other interpretations of the religion should be ignored.'

Because Christianity in its current form is made up and represented by the majority view, and it's Christianity in its current form which is currently holding back secularism in the governments of countries like Australia and the USA.

Again: Wrong argument, wrong thread.

 

[Scorch]

Because Christianity in its current form is made up and represented by the majority view, and it's Christianity in its current form which is currently holding back secularism in the governments of countries like Australia and the USA.

As I showed a page or two back, Christianity has, since the writing of the Gospels, been naturally unconcerned with the words of Christ, the historical and political realities of the day and other such concepts as long as it suits their agenda to ignore them. Why stop now?

 

[Titburger]

As I showed a page or two back, Christianity has, since the writing of the Gospels, been naturally unconcerned with the words of Christ, the historical and political realities of the day and other such concepts as long as it suits their agenda to ignore them. Why stop now?

I'm finding it funny that people like Name_Taken are using lines such as "Well Jesus didn't condemn pedophilia, does that make it right?" To express there own views on subjects such as homosexuality. The idea of filling in the blanks of your own holy text seems hilarious/ridiculous to me

 

[Scorch]

The idea of ignoring the other words of your holy book and THEN filling in the blanks is even funnier.

What did you think of my idea of deism, anyway?