Arguments for God?

[AntiTheist]

I’ve never seen someone argue an effective reason as to why we’d turn up by chance/should think the neccesary infinite variety of realities exists, at least logically.

And one of the main reasons you’ve never seen this is that, as I just explained on this thread, atheism is in no way contingent on demonstrating that either of those things are true.

You demonstrate a marked inability to read and/or comprehend what others are saying, and that makes me strongly doubt your ability to evaluate any debate that you might hear.

For what it’s worth, I find debates largely useless because few people are ever convinced by them and most people simply find their position reinforced. It’s not uncommon for two groups of people to come away from a debate each thinking that “their guy” won.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

And one of the main reasons you’ve never seen this is that, as I just explained on this thread, atheism is in no way contingent on demonstrating that either of those things are true.

Not to sound too "bill clinton"esque, but that depends on how you are defining atheism. If you intend atheism to mean “No christian-type god, no muslim-type god, no god of any type that is understood today”, then I agree that you may logically hold atheism to be in no way contingent upon logically explaining the existence of contingent beings/matter.

However if you intend it to mean “there is no creator” then it absolutely is contingent upon explaining away the necessity for a “prime mover”. For that atheistic view to be held absolutely requires an explanation for the existence of an infinite regression of contingent beings.

Should you say something like “I cannot have faith in the christian god” I cannot fault you since faith is just that, faith. But should you say “I cannot know that everything which exists must have had an origin somewhere/sometime and must have had a creator” then I can find fault in your logic and with relative ease.

You demonstrate a marked inability to read and/or comprehend what others are saying, and that makes me strongly doubt your ability to evaluate any debate that you might hear.

A lack of acceptance of others points does not mean that one does not “read and/or comprehend what others are saying” it simply means that I/we/he/she (whoever) disagree. And finding arguments on either side to be lacking does not mean lack of comprehension any more than it means lack of listening or reading. My disagreement with your belief in an atheistic universe does not mean that I do not apprehend your arguments, only that I disagree.

For what it’s worth, I find debates largely useless because few people are ever convinced by them and most people simply find their position reinforced. It’s not uncommon for two groups of people to come away from a debate each thinking that “their guy” won.

lol, I absolutely agree. I have seen very few people walk away from a debate and say “wow, my point of view was just trounced… boy I need to adjust that.” What is the psychological premise whereby people only retain that information that agrees with what they already hold as true?

I do find debates useful, however, for helping me to understand exactly what it is that I believe. When I was an atheist I would debate with any theist (lol, if you say that out loud its kind of funny) in order to help them to see the stupidity (my words not anyone elses) of believing in some sort of “god” that would watch you and care for you and sometimes punish you. But these debates also forced me to try to explain some things, the hardest being from where the universe fundamentally arose.

Please dont stop advocating for your point of view, and please dont be offended if someone here might insult you. As a whole, we value every voice on this forum and hope to foster dialogue and thought.

FSC

 

[samiam1611]

what I mean is, atheism has been regularly losing it’s arguments logically. I’ve never seen someone argue an effective reason as to why we’d turn up by chance/should think the neccesary infinite variety of realities exists, at least logically.

Well isn’t that something - I’ve never heard any arguments for theism that were logical!
When one, such as me, such as you I think too, are full of conviction on our beliefs, it takes quite a bit of effort to suspend our pre-formed judgements and force ourselves to pretend we are agnostic. Pretend we are open to changing our mind. That’s what’s interesting about these discussions, it’s not just about hearing different views, it’s the challenge to listen. Well, read not listen, but you know what I mean.
While I am quite convinced that I am right, I recognize that I do not KNOW I’m right, I just THINK I’m right.
That being said, I haven’t the faintest idea

why we’d turn up by chance.

When it comes to complex, abstract, unknowable things, my beliefs would be more accurately termed disbelief of supernatural explanations.
Without getting into the long, looonnng list of reasons why I’m an atheist, I do have one thing to share with you - something you might be able to relate to, to understand my thinking, if not my beliefs.
Supernatural stories (i.e. Jesus rising from the dead) are literally on the same level as myths and fairy tales to me. Pegasus = Thumbelina = Zeus = the Frog Prince = God. Whatever your reasoning is for not believing in Santa Claus and mermaids, it’s probably the same reason I don’t believe in God.
By extension, the God of the gaps argument rings very true for me. Humans are inquisitive creatures by nature, with an intellectual interest in understanding the world around us. Back in the day, very little was known - we barely had language, let alone scientific method! But due to our nature, we wonder things. We ask questions …When the answer is not available, people seem inclinded to make stuff up. When the truth is revealed to us, we revise our understanding of the subject. (except religious people don’t usually which is what I don’t get.)
Perfect example: a young child asks his parents “where do babies come from?” His parents tell him, “Storks, son. Storks are birds who fly with babies wrapped in a bundle of fabric carried in their beaks.”
It’s just a silly story, but children believe that for awhile, until they figure out that’s not possible or learn the correct answer. What I don’t get is why religious people still embrace these fables, these fairy tales, these fictional stories, as if they are as reasonable as scientific explanations that have come to light, or are proposed and make sooo much more sense, or have the potential to be explained as science advances.
Some things may never be explained by science, let alone proven. I place my faith in science to explain many phenomenoma, and for the rest, I just deal with it. I don’t accept explanations that involve deities or miracles or things that defy nature as we know it. Science constantly seeks the truth, it doesn’t stubbornly hold onto the imagnitave stories created by humans who couldn’t deal with not knowing.

 

[danserr]

Supernatural stories (i.e. Jesus rising from the dead) are literally on the same level as myths and fairy tales to me. Pegasus = Thumbelina = Zeus = the Frog Prince = God. Whatever your reasoning is for not believing in Santa Claus and mermaids, it’s probably the same reason I don’t believe in God.

Except there are many first rate scholars at academic departments who study the Resurrection using sound historical methodology and find it to be probable. I know of none, on the other hand, who defend the historicity of Thumbelina or Santa Claus. That alone should be suggestive. There’s already a thread on this, so I won’t go into it here, but there are some books on the subject worth looking at.
On the pop level: Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ and William Lane Craig, The Son Rises
And on the scholarly level NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God

What I don’t get is why religious people still embrace these fables, these fairy tales, these fictional stories, as if they are as reasonable as scientific explanations that have come to light, or are proposed and make sooo much more sense, or have the potential to be explained as science advances.

And yet many of the best scientists today are Christians. Again, this should be suggestive. Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, Paul Davies, Owen Gingerich (harvard univ. astronomer), Christopher Isham etc. These people accept the sophisticated scientific explanations and yet see no contradiction between them and belief. Some have even found that current cosmology, rather than replacing old “fairy tales” has provided new reasons for belief.
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5507
I’ve heard another poster suggest, Stephen Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

 

[Mystic_Banana]

And one of the main reasons you’ve never seen this is that, as I just explained on this thread, atheism is in no way contingent on demonstrating that either of those things are true.

You demonstrate a marked inability to read and/or comprehend what others are saying, and that makes me strongly doubt your ability to evaluate any debate that you might hear.

For what it’s worth, I find debates largely useless because few people are ever convinced by them and most people simply find their position reinforced. It’s not uncommon for two groups of people to come away from a debate each thinking that “their guy” won.

The reason your arguments fail is because they are contingent upon absolute dogmatic reliance upon the Scientific method, supported by a corresponding dogmatic rejection of experience or evidence outside of that. Subsequently, most of your arguments become entirely tautological (immaterial things aren’t material things, therefore don’t exist because only material things should be considered to exist because that’s all we can reliably test scientifically)

Your inability to understand that actually I do understand what you’re saying is, I’m afraid, likely to be that you are unable to understand a dogma outside your own, sadly, or understand, correspondingly what my objections to your argument actually are!

But, yes, you’re probably right - but that’s faith for you

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well isn’t that something - I’ve never heard any arguments for theism that were logical!
When one, such as me, such as you I think too, are full of conviction on our beliefs, it takes quite a bit of effort to suspend our pre-formed judgements and force ourselves to pretend we are agnostic. Pretend we are open to changing our mind. That’s what’s interesting about these discussions, it’s not just about hearing different views, it’s the challenge to listen. Well, read not listen, but you know what I mean.
While I am quite convinced that I am right, I recognize that I do not KNOW I’m right, I just THINK I’m right.
That being said, I haven’t the faintest idea When it comes to complex, abstract, unknowable things, my beliefs would be more accurately termed disbelief of supernatural explanations.
Without getting into the long, looonnng list of reasons why I’m an atheist, I do have one thing to share with you - something you might be able to relate to, to understand my thinking, if not my beliefs.
Supernatural stories (i.e. Jesus rising from the dead) are literally on the same level as myths and fairy tales to me. Pegasus = Thumbelina = Zeus = the Frog Prince = God. Whatever your reasoning is for not believing in Santa Claus and mermaids, it’s probably the same reason I don’t believe in God.
By extension, the God of the gaps argument rings very true for me. Humans are inquisitive creatures by nature, with an intellectual interest in understanding the world around us. Back in the day, very little was known - we barely had language, let alone scientific method! But due to our nature, we wonder things. We ask questions …When the answer is not available, people seem inclinded to make stuff up. When the truth is revealed to us, we revise our understanding of the subject. (except religious people don’t usually which is what I don’t get.)
Perfect example: a young child asks his parents “where do babies come from?” His parents tell him, “Storks, son. Storks are birds who fly with babies wrapped in a bundle of fabric carried in their beaks.”
It’s just a silly story, but children believe that for awhile, until they figure out that’s not possible or learn the correct answer. What I don’t get is why religious people still embrace these fables, these fairy tales, these fictional stories, as if they are as reasonable as scientific explanations that have come to light, or are proposed and make sooo much more sense, or have the potential to be explained as science advances.
Some things may never be explained by science, let alone proven. I place my faith in science to explain many phenomenoma, and for the rest, I just deal with it. I don’t accept explanations that involve deities or miracles or things that defy nature as we know it. Science constantly seeks the truth, it doesn’t stubbornly hold onto the imagnitave stories created by humans who couldn’t deal with not knowing.

Thing is, those ‘myths’ still correspond to human experience on a regular basis today. Which is more than can be said for large chunks of what is woefully believed to be modern ‘science’, such as the only current wobbly justification for atheism currently standing at all, as I understand it, namely Hawkings latest bit of science fiction about infinite universes, although he’s just done a doubtlessly dull hard scifi version of Michael Moorcocks stuff, if you ask me…

not that the infinite possibility fantasy doesn’t have so many holes in it you could drive a truckload of imaginary abiogeneses (if that’s what you’d call them - abiogenesi?) and faked creations of life through them! And God, for that matter

no evidence, no experience, just ‘inferential knowledge’ - an atheism of gaps in truth, as opposed to the God of ever-continuing human experience, and unfettered logic which guides theology.

So, can you just tell me again, who are believing silly myths here?

Because the Cosmological Argument survives centuries, whereas arguments to justify atheism, outside of the public arena, usually disappear by the following lunchtime

 

[samiam1611]

Except there are many first rate scholars at academic departments who study the Resurrection using sound historical methodology and find it to be probable. I know of none, on the other hand, who defend the historicity of Thumbelina or Santa Claus. That alone should be suggestive.

Good point I would need to know more about this historical methodology thing to outright agree with you, but I get the idea. (At work now so don’t have time to look at your links but I might later). My beliefs are more like opinions on the plausibility of the stories. For instance, it’s just not plausible for a man to fly around the whole world in one night to every house that celebrates Christmas; likewise, it’s just not plausible that there is a land in the sky, above the clouds, where humans that have died play harps and have wings made out of bird feathers. That’s just not possible. Humans can’t stand on clouds, sorry ‘bout it. Clouds would not support the weight of pearly gates either.
You see, while I’m sure the bible (and related scriptures and not just Christian ones, I include the Torah in this, and I was raised Jewish!) contain some true(ish) stories, I think it is irrational to base an entire belief system - for some people, base their whole lives (!!!) - on a book of stories that most certainly include a great deal of fantasy. I have not read the bible, but all the famous stories anyway sound just like mythology to me. What we call Greek mythology was the Greeks’ religion (as opposed to Thumbelina et al who have never been part of a religion as far as I know); do you not see the similarities of Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, indeed, every religion, to what is now called mythology? Not saying every religious belief or claim is entirely false, just pointing out the similarity between myths and religious stories. More similar than different in my opinion.

And yet many of the best scientists today are Christians. Again, this should be suggestive.

Also a good point… I figure they must be a little skeptical of some of the more outlandish stories. For instance, I would not call Intelligent Design irrational. This is a religious belief, and I disagree with it, but it shows me some Christians were reasonable enough to recognize that Adam and Eve was not true, and sought a way to bring reason into their religious beliefs.

Anyway, that’s just how I see it!

 

[samiam1611]

Thing is, those ‘myths’ still correspond to human experience on a regular basis today. Which is more than can be said for large chunks of what is woefully believed to be modern ‘science’, such as the only current wobbly justification for atheism currently standing at all…

no evidence, no experience, just ‘inferential knowledge’ - an atheism of gaps in truth, as opposed to the God of ever-continuing human experience, and unfettered logic which guides theology.

So, can you just tell me again, who are believing silly myths here?

I’m sorry, did I write something about believing in abiogenesis while I was on ambien or something? I don’t believe I did, so which silly myth are you referring to that you think I believe?
Atheism of the gaps would not be inaccurate for me, no argument there. But I take issue when you say that is not logical. “Evidence, human experience” you use to defend your theism. But I have never experienced anything that could remotely be construed as supernatural. Perhaps you have, and if so, I’ll acknowledge it is not utterly irrational to believe God did it (or whatever). but in my lifetime, not a single piece of evidence nor any events that I have witnessed suggested anything of that sort. So why would I attribute the things I can’t explain to a magical invisible guy in the sky?
I was raised Jewish until about 8 or 9. My dad was raised Catholic so lucky me, I got to celebrate Christmas too. I did not believe anything I learned in Hebrew school, like God spoke to Moses or Jews were the Chosen People or whatever. For some reason though, I did believe in Santa for a bit… BUT!.. I was extremely skeptical! It seemed impossible for some of the things people say Santa does to be true. Oh yes, there was evidence, like the cookies I put out the night before were gone, and there were presents under the tree that weren’t there when I went to bed, and they even said From Santa on them. But even at that age, with eeevvvverrryone around me believing in Santa, eeeeeven with that “evidence,” I was like, well doesn’t it make more sense that my parents ate those cookies? Doesn’t it make more sense that they hid the Santa presents from us these past few weeks and then put them under the tree after we went to sleep?
You see, even though there was evidence that Santa was real, I thought there was a more logical explanation and turns out, I was right. Too bad proving God doesnt exist is not as easy as proving Santa doesnt exist. I rejected this story just like I rejected the story about the ten commandments and all that God-related stuff.
When 90% of my experiences and observations can be explained in a non-supernatural way, how on earth could it be called logical to attribute ALL of my experiences to a supernatural thing, just because nature/science/technology can’t explain quite everything?

 

[danserr]

not plausible that there is a land in the sky, above the clouds, where humans that have died play harps and have wings made out of bird feathers. That’s just not possible. Humans can’t stand on clouds, sorry 'bout it. Clouds would not support the weight of pearly gates either.

Since you mentioned that you got the point I was making, I’ll just be brief here. I did just want to say that no educated Christian has or ever has seriously thought of heaven as literally people on angel wings, wearing gold crowns, standing on clouds, and playing harps. It’s just imagery. As C.S. Lewis says, Gold implies value and eternity (it does not rust). Music suggests joy etc. I’ve mentioned a couple books already so I feel a little guilty mentioning another, but I will overcome that guilt and mention
NT Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven and the Resurrection, which also gives a shorter summary of his historical arguments for the resurrection in his bigger book. So yes, I agree that the picture you give above is implausible, but since it’s just imagery, it’s just not relevant if taken literally.

do you not see the similarities of Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, indeed, every religion, to what is now called mythology

Actually, no I do not. There are actually a couple key fascinating differences. Chief among them that Christianity is based on a single historical fact. “The uniqueness and scandal of the Christian religion,” writes George Ladd, “rest in the mediation of revelation through historical events.” This means that unlike every myth that you mention, Christianity is falsifiable. If the Resurrection were disproved, Christianity would fall. John Updike has a nice, famous poem on this. theophiliacs.com/2009/01/28/john-updike-seven-stanzas-at-easter/ (just the first link I found in a google search)

None of those myths, wicca, roman/greek myths are falsifiable (ie testable). On the other hand, through historical investigation we have a way of testing the truth of Christianity. Hence why so many first rate scholars study the Resurrection as a historical event. Next, Christianity stands or falls on a single person, Jesus, in a way that no myth (wicca/greco-roman etc.) does. Even Islam could survive without Muhammad, but without Jesus, Christianity falls.

Second, by the time of Christianity, *you are no longer in the age of myths, *and the gospel writers don’t claim to write myths, but history, and this is actually how most historians (Such as AN Sherwin-White) have come to see them. By which I do not mean that they are good history (though I think that they are), only that history is a separate genre from myth and the gospels certainly are not of the genre of myth.

When 90% of my experiences and observations can be explained in a non-supernatural way, how on earth could it be called logical to attribute ALL of my experiences to a supernatural thing

Reason does not require to to believe that all your experiences have a supernatural explanation. It does not even require, that the remaining 10% of your experiences are explained by a supernatural being. Obviously, if Christians thought that, there would be no great Christian scientists; they would simply assume everything they didn’t know could be explained by God and not bother to do any more science. But obviously this is mistaken. Reason only requires you to be open to the possibility that there be some circumstances and facts better explained by an appeal to the supernatural. Examples might be the fine-tuning of the universe for life, or scientific and philosophical evidence for the origins of the universe.

Accepting God, in no way means rejecting science or seeking scientific explanations. It just requires keeping an open mind on the issue.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Iin my lifetime, not a single piece of evidence nor any events that I have witnessed suggested anything of that sort. So why would I attribute the things I can’t explain to a magical invisible guy in the sky?

Genuinely? I’ve had this discussion many times before, and if you press hard enough, you’ll usually find it’s more the case that experiences which could be construed as supernatural, could also be construed as illusionary, unusual natural phenomena etc., and ultimately, hallucination, the catchall that can ultimately be used for virtually anything you could want to excuse yourself from believing!

I have… not quite visions of angels, ghosts etc. etc., but certainly mystical/eerie experiences, nothing that I could declare conclusive, technically speaking, but then, what is?

However, I can’t deny that I’ve met numerous people who have had stronger experiences, and it should be obvious to us all that there are rather a lot of people who have the same, and it is these that you also have to deny the possibility/likeihood of.

Regarding Father Christmas, well, I’d say he does exist, or at least did, literally, and physically, although I doubt he jumps down chimneys or eats mince pies, and certainly I consider you unreasonable to assume he is a myth

 

[Red_Paladin]

I was raised Jewish until about 8 or 9. My dad was raised Catholic so lucky me, I got to celebrate Christmas too. I did not believe anything I learned in Hebrew school, like God spoke to Moses or Jews were the Chosen People or whatever. For some reason though, I did believe in Santa for a bit… BUT!.. I was extremely skeptical! It seemed impossible for some of the things people say Santa does to be true. Oh yes, there was evidence, like the cookies I put out the night before were gone, and there were presents under the tree that weren’t there when I went to bed, and they even said From Santa on them. But even at that age, with eeevvvverrryone around me believing in Santa, eeeeeven with that “evidence,” I was like, well doesn’t it make more sense that my parents ate those cookies? Doesn’t it make more sense that they hid the Santa presents from us these past few weeks and then put them under the tree after we went to sleep?

I think that it is very easy to disprove Santa and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny simply because we know their origin. Santa Claus was invented by Coca-cola, using the attributes of St. Nicholas(Santa Nicolaus = Santa Claus) to make a more secular character for their ads.
Nobody knows where God(excluding the ones where we know their origin) came from and yet almost every major religion believes there is one. So many great philosophers have come to the conclusion that there must be a supreme being(Brahma in Hinduism, God in Judaism, the Unknown God of the Greeks, Shangdi of the Chinese etc.). Why have so many people come to the same conclusion!? We don’t see Santa Claus(not even under a different name) originating in other cultures, or myths about the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Glennonite]

"

I have not read the bible, but all the famous stories anyway sound just like mythology to me. What we call Greek mythology was the Greeks’ religion (as opposed to Thumbelina et al who have never been part of a religion as far as I know); do you not see the similarities of Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, indeed, every religion, to what is now called mythology? Not saying every religious belief or claim is entirely false, just pointing out the similarity between myths and religious stories. More similar than different in my opinion.

"
I heard it put this way once: Everyone is an atheist. Most are atheists regarding : Zeus, and Thor, and Posideon, and…UNTIL they get to the God that they believe in (Yahweh, Jesus…). In other words, Even ‘believers’ are atheists; it’s just that ATHEISTS are atheistic about just one more god than believers.

Thoughts?

Glennonite

 

[samiam1611]

I heard it put this way once: Everyone is an atheist. Most are atheists regarding : Zeus, and Thor, and Posideon, and…UNTIL they get to the God that they believe in (Yahweh, Jesus…). In other words, Even ‘believers’ are atheists; it’s just that ATHEISTS are atheistic about just one more god than believers.

Thoughts?

Glennonite

Oh yes, I’ve heard something like that, it was “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Not my absolute favorite atheist quote but I think it’s similar to what I was saying.

 

[Glennonite]

"

…“The uniqueness and scandal of the Christian religion,” writes George Ladd, “rest in the mediation of revelation through historical events.” This means that unlike every myth that you mention, Christianity is falsifiable. If the Resurrection were disproved, Christianity would fall…

…None of those myths, wicca, roman/greek myths are falsifiable (ie testable). On the other hand, through historical investigation we have a way of testing the truth of Christianity…

…Second, by the time of Christianity, *you are no longer in the age of myths, *and the gospel writers don’t claim to write myths, but history, and this is actually how most historians (Such as AN Sherwin-White) have come to see them…

…Examples might be the fine-tuning of the universe for life, or scientific and philosophical evidence for the origins of the universe.

Accepting God, in no way means rejecting science or seeking scientific explanations. It just requires keeping an open mind on the issue.

"

Danserr: Nice. I’ve not thought along these lines before but they’re sound.

Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

"

Oh yes, I’ve heard something like that, it was “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Not my absolute favorite atheist quote but I think it’s similar to what I was saying.

"

That’s the quote; it sounds more intelligent the way you remember it.

Glennonite

 

[Mystic_Banana]

“”
I heard it put this way once: Everyone is an atheist. Most are atheists regarding : Zeus, and Thor, and Posideon, and…UNTIL they get to the God that they believe in (Yahweh, Jesus…). In other words, Even ‘believers’ are atheists; it’s just that ATHEISTS are atheistic about just one more god than believers.

Thoughts?

Glennonite

Funny, but it’s all a bit different in the old testament, isn’t it? Isn’t the understanding that other Gods are misunderstandings of teh one true God, until the misunderstandings become Demi Gods themselves?

Must admit, I generally subscribe to a view not far off this one, although perhaps more positive (i.e. that we’re all mostly worshipping the same God, with different understandings of him - inevitably, ours being the truest, of course… )

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I think that it is very easy to disprove Santa and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny simply because we know their origin. Santa Claus was invented by Coca-cola, using the attributes of St. Nicholas(Santa Nicolaus = Santa Claus) to make a more secular character for their ads.
Nobody knows where God(excluding the ones where we know their origin) came from and yet almost every major religion believes there is one. So many great philosophers have come to the conclusion that there must be a supreme being(Brahma in Hinduism, God in Judaism, the Unknown God of the Greeks, Shangdi of the Chinese etc.). Why have so many people come to the same conclusion!? We don’t see Santa Claus(not even under a different name) originating in other cultures, or myths about the Tooth Fairy.

Santa Claus is St. Nicholas, really though, just to try and drag the argument back to my contention - to say he is a myth isn’t quite true, since he is very likely to have existed, and, if you believe in an afterlife, still will exist… declaring Santa a myth isn’t really true, therefore - it’s just whether he does all the things he’s reported to…

I’m sure there are supposed to be a bunch of pagan sources of the pimped up legend of Santa Claus, incidentally… not to cheerfully undermine your argument or anything!

And, just to raise an occasional contentiousness, Jesus is held by some to be equivelant to Krishna (afterall, Hinduism has at it’s heart a trinity as well), or Buddha, or a range of other central God/man manifestations…

 

[Red_Paladin]

I really don’t agree with that ‘we’re all atheists’ nonsense. An atheist is someone who holds that there is no God, how can we all be atheists if we do believe in God. If someone tells you that whales are green and somebody else say that they’re yellow and another that they’re red you would investigate and see what this whale was which everybody was talking about and then you find that whales are blue but that doesn’t mean that your a non-whale believer. Atheists are people, when after hearing all the contradiction about the whales come to the conclusion that there are no such things and build they’re arguments without even investigating the alternative.
Another thing I hold about the ‘all gods are one’ thing. We can’t say that, not about Hinduism at least. If I treat John like an animal what does that have to say about my opinion about John(I’m not saying the other religion treat God like a dog, okay)? And Hinduism does not teach a trinitarian God like Christianity. They are three person, not sharing the same nature.
The may teach a supreme being, but his attributes are very different from the Jewish-Christian God.

Yes, I was talking about the pagan nonsense. No worries. I too hold your view about Santa Claus.

Has anybody here read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton?

 

[danserr]

Has anybody here read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton?

Yes, Chesterton is awesome.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I really don’t agree with that ‘we’re all atheists’ nonsense. An atheist is someone who holds that there is no God, how can we all be atheists if we do believe in God. If someone tells you that whales are green and somebody else say that they’re yellow and another that they’re red you would investigate and see what this whale was which everybody was talking about and then you find that whales are blue but that doesn’t mean that your a non-whale believer. Atheists are people, when after hearing all the contradiction about the whales come to the conclusion that there are no such things and build they’re arguments without even investigating the alternative.
Another thing I hold about the ‘all gods are one’ thing. We can’t say that, not about Hinduism at least. If I treat John like an animal what does that have to say about my opinion about John(I’m not saying the other religion treat God like a dog, okay)? And Hinduism does not teach a trinitarian God like Christianity. They are three person, not sharing the same nature.
The may teach a supreme being, but his attributes are very different from the Jewish-Christian God.

Yes, I was talking about the pagan nonsense. No worries. I too hold your view about Santa Claus.

Has anybody here read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton?

The tripartite theory in Hinduism is quite central to it’s understanding, different to Christian understanding in details, but ultimately similar in term of relationships. I still feel it’s too bizarre to be coincident, which you can put down to cultural influence, or relation to experience of th same thing with different comprehension.

The 'we’re all atheists regarding many Gods" is pretty lame- you’re right. It’s like saying because if you don’t think Robin Hood exists, you’re disbelieving the same thing as someone who thinks Father Christmas doesn’t exist. And the same as someone who thinks Plato doesn’t exist… Or the same as thinking Obama doesn’t exist… (etc.)

Very different from thinking no-one exists!!!