Gnostic Atheism

[reggieM]

I am arguing against certain “attributes” of God. The basic Christian definition of God is the “creator of the universe”. Nothing else.

I should take this a little more seriously and perhaps we can gain something.

Ok, let’s imagine that is correct. The Christian definition of God is “the creator of the universe”. Nothing more than that. Our definition stops there.

The universe is space, time, matter and energy.
If God is the creator of the universe, then it follows that God created space, time, matter, energy and all aspects of the universe.
From that it follows: Is God bound by time?
Obviously not, since God created the universe and therefore created time.
So, we have one attribute - Timeless or Not Bound by Time.
Then, Is God bound by the dimensions of space?
Again, God created the universe and therefore created the dimensionality of space.
Another attribute - God transcends space. Another term for that is 'infinite with regard to spacial dimension". God is infinite.
We do the same: Is God made of matter?
God created matter, so cannot be made of material components.
Another attribute – God is immaterial. Spiritual.
Since God is not created of matter, Can God be composed of parts?
God is immaterial and spiritual essences are not composed of parts.
Aside from that, the joining of parts requires an organizing principle - which would have to exist outside of God.
Does the universe possess energies and powers that did not come from God?
Since God created the universe, then no – all energy and power comes from God.
Thus, God is mightily powerful. We say All-Powerful or Omnipotent because there cannot be any additional power that is not possessed by God (if so, where would it come from)?

Timeless, Infinite, Immaterial, Powerful.

So no, the definition does not stop with “creator of the universe”. By logic, it necessarily includes those additional attributes.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

There are many people who believe in God who would not subscribe to or endorse any of the things you have listed.

This is undoubtedly true, but beside the point. As you said yourself, almost everything I listed are common beliefs taught by multiple religious, although not universally. You asked:

Thus, why God? Why is there is no God written about, commented upon and vehemently opposed so extensively by comparison to anything else that is equally believed to be a ‘lie?’

And that’s what I was trying to answer. The reason that “anything else that is equally believed to be a lie” is treated differently is because those beliefs tend to be far less common and far less consequential.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute, KtS.

If you haven’t heard an argument against gay marriage that never appeals to “Because God says so” you need to do a bit more studying.

Of course I’ve heard those arguments, but that’s not relevant.

All of us who are against gay marriage should be able to argue against its morality without ever appealing to the Bible, to God, to Catholicism.

I know. Again, not relevant, because there are a lot of people who don’t do that, but only use religious arguments and think that should settle it for everyone.

I didn’t say “Here’s a list of things that all people who believe in God think, and their belief in God is the only reason they think it.” I was saying that these are common things, all pulled from things I’ve seen or experienced, motivated the way that some people believe about God, and this sheds some light as to why people end up pushing against belief in God more than belief in things like unicorns.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

The atheist’s favorite straw-man. That poor fellow gets the exercise, doesn’t he?

What straw man?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I’ve heard those arguments, but that’s not relevant.

It is supremely relevant.

Don’t offer arguments that no one has endorsed here.

Imagine you’re trying to convince an anti-vaxxer that immunizations are a good thing and the anti-vaxxer says: “I’m so tired of you pro-vaccination folks arguing that we should immunize because that’s what Big Pharma tells us to do!”

You say, “I’ve never, not even once, offered that as a reason to immunize” and she responds with, “That’s not relevant. Some folks do present that as an argument.”

 

[KnowtheSilence]

It is supremely relevant.

Don’t offer arguments that no one has endorsed here.

Imagine you’re trying to convince an anti-vaxxer that immunizations are a good thing and the anti-vaxxer says: “I’m so tired of you pro-vaccination folks arguing that we should immunize because that’s what Big Pharma tells us to do!”

You say, “I’ve never, not even once, offered that as a reason to immunize” and she responds with, “That’s not relevant. Some folks do present that as an argument.”

It’s not relevant to the point I was making. I didn’t point the finger at anyone in particular. I didn’t say that you did these things.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not relevant to the point I was making. I didn’t point the finger at anyone in particular. I didn’t say that you did these things.

Then its a strawman.

Just like the anti-vaxxer’s comments about people saying she should vaccinate because Big Pharma tells us to.

We argue against gay marriage because it’s a nonsensical entity.

Kind of like saying, “We should call this a circle and folks who say that we can’t do this are just anti-circular!”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Then its a strawman.

Not if I’m pointing to common things that some people actually do. I know not all theist do it. I never said all theists do it. But enough theists do it to warrant the disparity in behavior that reggieM was pointing out.

 

[PRmerger]

Not if I’m pointing to common things that some people actually do. I know not all theist do it. I never said all theists do it. But enough theists do it to warrant the disparity in behavior that reggieM was pointing out.

So what would you say to the anti-vaxxer who says to you, “I’m so tired of you pro-vaccination folks arguing that we should immunize because that’s what Big Pharma tells us to do! I get that you don’t do that. But lots of pro-vaccination people do say that’s why I should vaccinate my kids!”

(And let’s presuppose that you wish to continue dialogue with the anti-vaxxer).

 

[KnowtheSilence]

So what would you say to the anti-vaxxer who says to you, “I’m so tired of you pro-vaccination folks arguing that we should immunize because that’s what Big Pharma tells us to do! I get that you don’t do that. But lots of pro-vaccination people do say that’s why I should vaccinate my kids!”

(And let’s presuppose that you wish to continue dialogue with the anti-vaxxer).

It depends. In this hypothetical conversation, have I already interpreted what they were saying uncharitably, told them they needed to study more, then falsely accused them of attacking a strawman even while they were explaining how that wasn’t what they were doing? If that’s the case, I’d apologize. If not, I’d agree with them that “because big pharmacy says so” is a bad reason for vaccinating kids, and then maybe steer the conversation toward what kind of evidence they think is reliable when it comes to healthcare issues.

 

[PRmerger]

It depends. In this hypothetical conversation, have I already interpreted what they were saying uncharitably, told them they needed to study more, then falsely accused them of attacking a strawman even while they were explaining how that wasn’t what they were doing?

Nope. You haven’t done that at all. Not even close.

If not, I’d agree with them that “because big pharmacy says so” is a bad reason for vaccinating kids, and then maybe steer the conversation toward what kind of evidence they think is reliable when it comes to healthcare issues.

Then QED.

We both understand what a stupid thing it was then to bring up a really bad argument no sane person really has presented.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Nope. You haven’t done that at all. Not even close.

Oh, good. I would so hate to be such a person.

We both understand what a stupid thing it was then to bring up a really bad argument no sane person really has presented.

If the anti-vaxxer really has heard that argument, especially personally, especially multiple times, then I’d have no problem with them bringing it up. Especially if they were bringing it up in response to someone else’s question about why anti-vaxxers are so vocal about anti-vaxx stuff but not so much about x, you, and z other issues.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, good. I would so hate to be such a person.

Me, too.

So, I think you’re making the point, again, although inadvertently, that we believers have been objecting to: creating a straw man to try to destroy it.

Please stop doing that.

Present some real objections, some real arguments and then we can chat.

 

[PRmerger]

If the anti-vaxxer really has heard that argument, especially personally, especially multiple times, then I’d have no problem with them bringing it up.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

PRmerger:

I think we’re done here.

 

[PRmerger]

I think we’re done here.

Ok! I retract the above.

Deleted.

 

[Bradski]

No where have I argued for the abolition of a temporal justice system. I still think the convicted criminal should face jail. I also think he can be forgiven his sins. But Justice, if it objectively exists, cannot be subjectively yours or mine. That makes it vengeance.

So justice can’t be decided by you or me because that would be subjective, but you are quite definite that there should be punishment. Incarceration in this case.

I’m sure you are aware of the three reasons we consider punishment to be suitable. As a deterrent to others, as a means of protecting the public and, here’s the interesting one, retribution. Or to put it another way, vengeance. God may claim it as His own but we mere mortals will have our pound of flesh in this world.

I actually read a book once where it was recommended. Something about eyes. I forget the exact wording. You’d know it if you saw it.

So we have and do, and always will, demand and expect justice. You are no different. Nobody defers it on the offchance that God will make the final call.

Yet you still insist that repentance (and you can define that however you choose) will allow the murderer an eternity of bliss whilst the father, adamant in his anger against God, is committing himself to hell.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You cannot resolve the problem of evil that way. How Satan then perform evil? There was no evil before him.

It’s got to start somewhere. Satan turned away from God (Good). That is how Evil entered the world. God should have told Adam and Eve not to eat the snake, not the apple.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet you still insist that repentance (and you can define that however you choose) will allow the murderer an eternity of bliss whilst the father, adamant in his anger against God, is committing himself to hell.

I don’t see how anyone could think that someone who’s adamant in his anger against God would be going to heaven.

That sounds astonishingly ridiculous.

 

[Bradski]

Thought I would throw this one in:

Is it important not to believe in God? If so - why?

It’s important to believe what you think is true. So if one is convinced that there is no God (or gods to be specific), then yes, it’s important.

Like wise trolls, djins, ghosts, fairies, miracles, NDEs etc and etc.