93 replies to this topic

[Luna]

Thank you NeverSayDie for proving what I said :D too many definitions out there!

[exapted]

There is no anthropomorphic god-being entity that exists unto itself that created the world. Yes, you are right atheists are looking at the concept of "God" from the wrong perspective. They are looking at it from the religious perspective which just perpetuates the same old lies ad infinitum. Those involved in religion generally have no idea as to what their spiritual literature actually means. They read it literally and fail to realize that it was written in a metaphoric, symbolic, and allegorical way. That is why people believe that "God" is an actual entity, and that a man is going to actually come down out of the clouds and save humanity...at least the "good" ones. Interesting enough, each religion has a very different conception as to who the "good" ones are.

Are you sure about that? In some ways I agree, in that I imagine that the gods as spoken of in spiritual literature are sort of like archetypes, derived from some kind of animistic or psychedelic experience. Or they were responding to previous myths. But at some point these myths need to connect with philosophy, including physics and psychology - that is where we discover that many of the ideas of theism are specious, neurotic, rationally unwarranted, logically false, harmful, etc. Theistic literature just doesn't know how to dance that well.

[exapted]

I think many atheists do engage with the concept of god quite well. The trick is actually to not focus on Platonism, because, like NeverSayDie said, religion is now supposed to be interpreted abstractly. If you engage with the abstract definitions of god, there are all sorts of specious arguments that can be thrown at you. The trick is to simply expose the flaws as you see them, one by one, and never bother to take the question of the existence of god seriously. I think religious people engage in very deceptive and convoluted concepts of god, and that's why many theists are so obtuse and aggravating!

Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.-- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 95, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

[NeverSayDie]

Are you sure about that? In some ways I agree, in that I imagine that the gods as spoken of in spiritual literature are sort of like archetypes, derived from some kind of animistic or psychedelic experience. Or they were responding to previous myths. But at some point these myths need to connect with philosophy, including physics and psychology - that is where we discover that many of the ideas of theism are specious, neurotic, rationally unwarranted, logically false, harmful, etc. Theistic literature just doesn't know how to dance that well.

Yeah, I'm sure about that...because we agree. I too, find that the vast majority of ideas within theism are specious, neurotic, rationally unwarranted, logically false, harmful, etc.