Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, what this sort of response always amounts to, as atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel candidly admits, is "I'm open to some sort of god, but not the God of the Bible because I don't like him, I don't want to live my life as though he existed, I don't want a God like that."
In short, the supposed "disbelief" in the God of the Bible is really nothing more than a matter of personal preference. Alas, ultimate ontological Truth is not a matter of personal preference.
If I thought atheism were the most sound intellectual position, I'd adopt it even if it were far from my personal preference. Aspects of Christianity wouldn't be my personal preference, for that matter. But unlike many here, I resist the urge to remake God in my image.
That's one guys quote. You use it as though it applies to all atheism. It doesn't.
It applies to one guys view of his own atheism. Sounds like a flippant remark in any case.
There no like or dislike of something that does not exist.
And what is the Christian god if 'nothing more than a matter of preference'?
It seems you are implying that the God of the Bible is an "impossible god", as though you are absolutely certain that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Your inability to understand my point you quoted is amusing. Your definition of your god is impossible, but that would not make another definition of the god of the Bible impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Can you just answer the question directly instead of dodging it?
I have answered, in my post you quoted. If your god is a first cause creator god, I gave you a figure for that. An actual figure. 99.999% recurring against, and 100% for your impossible definition of your god.
And no one is dodging because your question makes no sense. The god of the Bible is both vague and contradictory. You need to define what you mean by the god of the Bible.
And you are the last person to accuse others of dodging questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
It makes you look like you're afraid to state what you believe.
Only to idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Q: Harry, are you absolutely certain that the God of the Bible does not exist? Yes or no?
Which gods (plural) of the Bible? The polytheistic god married to a goddess, the monotheistic Jewish god, the trinitarian god, the non-trinitarian god, the arguably Gnostic gods (plural) of John, the Muslim version? They can not all be true.
But I am absolutely certain your impossible definition of the Bible god does not exist.
Of course, what this sort of response always amounts to, as atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel candidly admits, is "I'm open to some sort of god, but not the God of the Bible because I don't like him, I don't want to live my life as though he existed, I don't want a God like that."
False equivalence and a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
In short, the supposed "disbelief" in the God of the Bible is really nothing more than a matter of personal preference.
For Thomas Nagel, maybe (although as a philosopher, I doubt that). That does not make it true for other atheists. For someone who keeps talking about philosophy, you appear to have a fragile grasp of logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Alas, ultimate ontological Truth is not a matter of personal preference.
Indeed. But I have often given my reasons for why I think the evidence points to atheism. All you appear to do is use the same tedious and refuted fallacies. Perhaps the problem of personal preference is your problem, not ours.
Your inability to understand my point you quoted is amusing. Your definition of your god is impossible, but that would not make another definition of the god of the Bible impossible.
I have answered, in my post you quoted. If your god is a first cause creator god, I gave you a figure for that. An actual figure. 99.999% recurring against, and 100% for your impossible definition of your god.
And no one is dodging because your question makes no sense. The god of the Bible is both vague and contradictory. You need to define what you mean by the god of the Bible.
And you are the last person to accuse others of dodging questions.
Only to idiots.
Which gods (plural) of the Bible? The polytheistic god married to a goddess, the monotheistic Jewish god, the trinitarian god, the non-trinitarian god, the arguably Gnostic gods (plural) of John, the Muslim version? They can not all be true.
But I am absolutely certain your impossible definition of the Bible god does not exist.
The theist apologist (or self appointed council for the prosecution ) never seems to understand the idea of evidence and sliding scale of weight of evidence. It is ALWAYS based on 'Believe - or not', or in fact Faith. Evidence is only used to prop up Faith. Thus Iwash thinks in terms of either 100% certainly that Biblegod (the other gods are simply ignored) cannot exist (which is technically logically untenable) or 'God' cannot be proven one way or another, evidence doesn't matter and it's a Faith matter'. Or perhaps rather 'god is possible, it cannot be disproved and thus exists by default.
That's how they think and is te key to understanding their argument, and they never, ever, understand that it's a rubbish apologetic because te never really listen. An online pal who used to be a Calviniist told me that when he argued, he never really listened but waited till the other person finished so he could argue what he'd bee thinking up while he just watched the other fellow moving his mouth.
One has to understand their Rhetorical methods to avoid being at a loss by their irrational arguments.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-07-2020 at 06:37 AM..
I grew up in a family that was both religiously and culturally very Christian and I believed as a child. I would very much have liked to continue believing as I grew up, and I tried to convince myself of the truth of our beliefs through both prayer and reasoning, but the more I thought about it, the less I believed. "Lord, I believe - help my unbelief" was a refrain for me, to no avail, and the more I studied religious history and scripture, the more implausibilities I encountered. So I tried just not thinking about it too much, going through the motions of religious practice, but that's a bit of a Catch-22 between commandments 1 and 8, isn't it? Eventually I had to come to accept that while I find many of the practices of the religion and faith I grew up in beautiful, and I value that it was a source of strength to many of my predecessors, I myself simply don't see how a literal God of the Bible and/or of mainstream Christian teaching could exist, and I don't feel a connection on a emotional or spiritual level, either. Neither my mind nor my heart buys it. If it were down to preference, I'd rather like to believe - I think it'd be a great comfort. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I respect Thomas Nagel's position, but he wasn't elected spokesperson for all atheists.
I was sort of like this. I didn't believe very young, in like third grade tho. I loved watching "wild kingdom" in the seventies and knew they had it wrong.
Then, as I got older I asked myself "what set of descriptors or classification about the system describes what we are seeing the best?"
I’d say #2, but still don’t have the absolute certainty that a fundamentalist of any religion might.
I really need to read some of Richard Dawkins books, and read them with the same lack of emotional investment that an atheist or Non-Christian might read the Bible.
I just wiondered....did South Park ever take the rise out of atheism?
did they ever! Mind, it wasn't attacking atheism but a sort of Sci -Fi spoof. But what made me laugh out loud was 'what the Great Question actually was.
I just wiondered....did South Park ever take the rise out of atheism?
did they ever! Mind, it wasn't attacking atheism but a sort of Sci -Fi spoof. But what made me laugh out loud was 'what the Great Question actually was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) never seems to understand the idea of evidence and sliding scale of weight of evidence. It is ALWAYS based on 'Believe - or not', or in fact Faith. Evidence is only used to prop up Faith. Thus Iwash thinks in terms of either 100% certainly that Biblegod (the other gods are simply ignored) cannot exist (which is technically logically untenable) or 'God' cannot be proven one way or another, evidence doesn't matter and it's a Faith matter'. Or perhaps rather 'god is possible, it cannot be disproved and thus exists by default. 
I saw this and I thought of you -wall.
did they ever! Mind, it wasn't attacking atheism but a sort of Sci -Fi spoof. But what made me laugh out loud was 'what the Great Question actually was. 
