• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

Oh, don't do that. You've gone from "might there be a god" to "might there be something we don't know and don't understand out there". I'm sure there is. Maybe it's even in my garage.

However, the actual concrete examples of a god and an invisble dragon in the garage are completely the same. One thing that is pure fiction is equivalent to another thing that is pure fiction. Zero evidence for either and both are completely unfalsifiable.

They are not completely the same. Some adults believe the god exists. That alone makes gods a topic worthy of discussion.
 
Serious question: do you really not think a significant percentage of people think of a god in that way? Not religious people. Just garden variety people who do not get involved in debates on forums or go to churches. Do you seriously think they just like...don't exist?

When someone poses a question like "is there a god?", I start at the most basic level, not assuming anything about specific or even general organized religion. You think when someone asks that, they are trying to recruit you into their chosen faith?
I always ask which god since there are so many different ones. The question is meaningless without more information.
 
You are SO dishonest!



I have demonstrated over and over that the Abrahamic God has all of the properties of a god that I described (including creator of the universe) but you are so in awe of your "p-god" cleverness that you constantly pretend that those posts don't exist.
And as demonstrated we know the Abrahamic gods, note there are many different gods in that phrase, as defined by those religions do not exist as we have knowledge that contradicts those religions' definitions. All you do is change the definition those religions use to create your p-god, your p-god is not one of the gods those religions claim exist.
 
Fair point, very well reasoned.



I'm not sure I agree with Darat's take on agnosticism. In fact, I'm sure I don't! I think all agnosticism means it is so far unknown --- it may or may not be known in future, but so far we don't know.



Because, sitting here, how the **** can you determine that something will necessarily be unknown in future also, no matter how long in the future? That's nonsensical.



But agreed, should we go with Darat's terminology, then atheism would seem to follow from agnosticism. Nicely argued! [emoji106]
You need to put your mind back in time to when these definitions were being created. Back then they were really considering a god which facilitated an afterlife, and there was an unstated assumption built into the definition which was "in this life", after you died you could know that a god existed. In the end the word agnostic came about because of intellectuals wanting to avoid the word faith. It was a form of intellectual snobbery.
 
Just like "strong" atheism (I believe gods can't exist) differs from "weak" atheism (I don't believe gods exist), I distinguish strong agnosticism (we cannot know) from weak agnosticism (I don't know).



I think weak agnosticism is a wishy-washy excuse to avoid answering a question, so I don't subscribe to it. I like my philosophy to be strong!
There is no such thing as strong/weak/tepid atheism, it's nothing more than a repeat of the original agnostic malarkey. An atheist is simply someone who when asked "which god do you believe in?" Answers with " none".
 
It's actually the opposite. Christians have been found to face death with more anxiety than the non-religious, not less.
I wonder if we would find a difference between RCC followers and most of the protestant followers? A devout RCC would know if the correct spells are followed they are going to heaven whereas for most devout protestants will think they are going to be judged on their works, and over the course of a life I doubt there are many that haven't done religiously dubious acts.
 
Last edited:
And as demonstrated we know the Abrahamic gods, note there are many different gods in that phrase, as defined by those religions do not exist as we have knowledge that contradicts those religions' definitions. All you do is change the definition those religions use to create your p-god, your p-god is not one of the gods those religions claim exist.
I didn't expect you to start being honest now but "many" Abrahamic gods? WOW.

Of course, the idea that I changed the definition of "those religions" is also false.
 
I didn't expect you to start being honest now but "many" Abrahamic gods? WOW.

You think the gods worshipped by Jews (various flavours), Muslims (ditto), Orthodox Christians (and again), Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Wee Frees, Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are identical?
 
You think the gods worshipped by Jews (various flavours), Muslims (ditto), Orthodox Christians (and again), Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Wee Frees, Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are identical?
Who said "identical"?

Even if the various religions have differing opinions on the nature of this God, they all worship the God that was first described in the Talmud.
 
I didn't expect you to start being honest now but "many" Abrahamic gods? WOW.

Of course, the idea that I changed the definition of "those religions" is also false.

We've been through this before and I've given you examples of how the various religions we put under the umbrella of Abrahamic have different gods and contradict each other's definition. The biggest difference that I would have thought was general knowledge is of course Jesus. I've also gone through and shown how the definition of the RCC god is contradicted by the knowledge we now have.

I know the god of the RCC does not exist, I know the god of the methodist chapel I was brought up in does not exist.

And as I said all you do is handwave that away and then come up with your very own p-god and try to claim that is the god the religious folk claim exists by ignoring all that the religions themselves say about their gods.

You have you own definition of god which is why when I talk about your god I distinguish it from the thousands of other gods folk have and do claim exist by labelling it p-god so we don't get "confused" about which god we are talking about.

Your p-god is not any of the gods of the Abrahamic religions.
 
Who said "identical"?

Even if the various religions have differing opinions on the nature of this God, they all worship the God that was first described in the Talmud.

Are you saying Christians don't believe that Jesus is god? Your knowledge of religion is not as complete as you may think it is.
 
Your p-god is not any of the gods of the Abrahamic religions.
That's because there is no p-god. That is just a lie you invented since I proved you wrong and that the RCC believes that God created the universe.

Are you saying Christians don't believe that Jesus is god?
Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God (although the RCC has a slightly more complicated view).
 
So if two or more people have different opinions of me does that mean that there are two or more psionl0s?

Could you address what I said, not what you’d like me to have said? I said the gods are different, not the opinions of them. One requires animal sacrifices, another is three beings in one, another requires regular fasting, another promises whole planets in the next life to their followers.
 
That's because there is no p-god. That is just a lie you invented since I proved you wrong and that the RCC believes that God created the universe.
...anip...

Perhaps in your p-reality....

Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God (although the RCC has a slightly more complicated view).

Glad you've dropped your view that the Abrahamic religions all have the same god. (ETA: And you have the phrase wrong - Jesus is "God the Son")
 
Last edited:
Do you mean super-powerful alien (tech so advanced it looks like magic), or actually supernatural (against laws of physics)?

Pretending there's no difference is a core part of apologetics, same as pretended "unanswered" and "unanswerable by design" are the same thing.
 
Who said "identical"?

Even if the various religions have differing opinions on the nature of this God, they all worship the God that was first described in the Talmud.

No, they all worship constructs that they believe to be described in various ancient Judaic texts, or rather, copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of those texts. But they've invented very different characters based on those sources, ranging from warm, fuzzy and loving to capricious, draconian and homicidally jealous. Or are you really going to claim that the Jesus of the Unitarians is the same as the Jesus of the White Nationalists? Such varied interpretation is easy because their gods are imaginary constructs.
 

Back
Top Bottom