P
PRmerger
Guest
If there were any strong atheists here on the CAFs I would ask them for proof of their claim.
No one has ever been able to provide proof for their strong atheism, so it’s certainly an untenable position to espouse.
If you can be a good person without God then why need Him?
- Status
No one has ever been able to provide proof for their strong atheism, so it’s certainly an untenable position to espouse.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’ve not seen many here in these forums. I have however seen quite a number of disagreements based on the misunderstanding that some one is taking a strong atheist position; to some all that use the label “atheist” are people that make the claim that there are no gods.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
It is impossible to be a “good” person unless you are trying to please your mommy. Everybody needs God. You can’t possibly get through life without his grace.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This sounds like a distinction without a difference.
If you don’t pray, and that includes atheists and agnostics so far as I know, you clearly don’t believe any gods exist. People who call themselves Christians but never pray are practical atheists. They don’t really believe.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Within this thread it’s relevant to an earlier statement.
Many of them don’t make claim that there are no gods and may openly agree that some god-concepts may refer to a real entity.
T
tonyrey
Guest
And daddy, friends, relatives and strangers on this earth… and the whole host in heaven.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I reviewed unioman’s posts here and I didn’t see anything which suggests that he treats the bible as being “written verbatim”.
What is it that you believe he posted that supports this, Brad?
What say you, unioman?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
A real entity such as …?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
There’s a wide variety of god-concepts that that have been proposed by various people. Selecting from one that I don’t expect any one to support (and I could be wrong) let’s take Poseidon as an example, the god of the sea/oceans. I can find stories about him, physical descriptions, statues, and other information said to be inspired by him. Suppose for a moment that Poseidon never existed (we can’t prove he didn’t/doesn’t). Then what we have is a god-concept that isn’t backed by a matching entity. Or, to put it in other terms one might say the god isn’t real.A real entity such as …?
There’s also the situation of there being an existing entity that has been labeled as a god, such as a Tiki god, or a volcano that we have been told is a god. In those cases some one may be able to point to something that exists and say “This is God.” There are may be other attributes they share with us about this god, such as comments about its thoughts or personality. In these cases we can’t say their god doesn’t exists. But we might say the god-concept that they have presented (the thinking feeling sentient Tiki statue or volcano) isn’t backed by any matching entity. I think some people might word this as “that’s not a god.”
There are some other variations in how some one’s god-concept could be wrong. These are not the only possible ways, but the ones that may better answer your question.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Defining God as a superhero, or “someone who’s like a human being, only more awesome” is an otiose definition, TS.
As atheist, BC Johnson writes: “Such a God, if not dead, is the next thing to it. And a person who believes in such a ghost of a god is practically an atheist. To call such a thing a god would be to strain the meaning of the word.”
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Well, I’ve not defined god/gods/God. I work with the different usages presented to me.
No doubt. Given the various usages of the word and it’s variants that I’ve encountered it seems to be a rather unconstrained and word by itself. That’s part of why I tend to use a constraining term when I want to invoke a more specific set of concepts. Ex: a phrase like “God of Abraham” is more specific (more constrained) than just “God” and “Christian God” is even more specific and can be used when necessary to filter out some of the other god-concepts that are applied to the word “God” by itself.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then it’s really an inutile discussion, isn’t it?
If you describe god as a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then all the Christian has to do is say: that’s not God. Pasta is material. And, as such, a material object could not be the Source of creation.
If you want to have a discussion about God best to use the classical Western philosophical definition: God is the eternal, necessary,omniscient and omnipotent being.
Defining God as Zeus, or someone who’s super-duper powerful, is a little bit of a waste o’ time.
Let’s just eliminate the unnecessaries and presuppose that when we are talking about God here on the CAFs, we are talking about the God of the Philosophers: the necessary immaterial eternal Being who is omnipotent and omniscient.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I would, but discussions here often are not limited to classical western god-concepts. Often times the beliefs of people world wide or throughout time are invoked. But when discussion is limited only to Christianity and western religion then you’ll see I find the qualifiers less necessary.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device from 10,000 meters.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, if you want to talk about a god who is made of pasta, then I suppose we have nothing more to say.
Now, if you want to discuss a Being “who no greater can be thought”, then, let’s get it on!
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
Pasta, eh? God could be made of pasta, and that’s something you entertain.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m fine letting you make what ever inference you like on how I would react to someone proposing Bobby Henderson’s god-concept. But if you really want to know, Google is your friend.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I make no inference whatsoever. It has never entered my mind to examine your reaction to his “god-concept”.
Not even once.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
OK. Well that’s cool.
My memory is fuzzy on this. As far as I know FSM was part of some hypothetical in response to some school boards new proposed standards of education (was it Kansas?). It was presented both as a god-concept worthy of ridicule but also passed the criteria for the new educational standards (which says something about those standards) and resulted in the proposed standards being withdrawn. But Bobby’s response became popular so he began selling the gospel of the FSM and titled himself a prophet.
People that claim to be members of the church of the FSM show up at DragonCon in large numbers. I’ve never knowingly have spoken to them. There are way to many fascinating people around when they are present. Perhaps if I encounter historical record of people that seriously follow the FSM church or when a member tries to convert me I may have a response. But so far the FSM members I have seen are usually sandwiched between storm troopers, Startrek federation members, bronies, and furries and only seem to be looking to have a good time. Whether or not I will entertain one if s/he does try to present it to me is yet to be seen.
Here in Catholic forums the threads in which I’ve seen it mentioned appear to use it as a god-concept that may or may not pass ones super natural epistemology alongside some invisible fire breathing reptile.
Unrelated side note, I try to avoid pasta and noodles in general. Too many carbs.
My display isn’t updating. Can’t see what I am typing. Please pardon my mistakes.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Any definition of god which is not that “which no greater can be thought” is otiose.
FSM, Zeus, a god that must apologize to us (see previous discussion on this thread wayyyy back when) is a “ghost of a god” (reference quote by atheist BC Johnson already cited).
- Status