Atheism? Yay or Nay.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Is it just me, or does this thread have a cathartic notion? Whenever I feel like punching a creationist I read a bit here and see them being delivered the argumental equivalent of driving a tank over their car. It's refreshing!

Ah, but who created the tank?

Also, there ain't been any creationist argument thus far in this thread. It's been full of failing agnostics who mistake theism and atheism as being equally invalid. I respect some theists even more than these.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Depending on your definition of the word "explanation", science may well have explained some stuff. (Snipped for space, but I did read the rest.)

I know, but eventually the line of questioning they put to you will run you in to a wall on the edge of human knowledge. It's the intellectual dishonesty that really winds me up, because it almost outright makes the presumption that their awful, unfalsifiable "hypothesis" is better than no hypothesis at all.

Sounds very Zen. Know what you know and know what you know not. For to purport to know that which you know not is to deserve a sutra flung at full speed straight into your face.

[The Daughters of Semiramis]

I'm saying that a square is however you define it but I'm playing nice so I say yes a square with three lines (God) can exist if you add a line (humans).
I am getting tired of this.I said don't put God into this.We are talking about PLAIN SQUARES ! What's so hard to understand ? Can a normal square have 3 sides or not ? No God in this

1 God gave me reason (let's suppose I'm not retarded)
2 I have used my reason to deduce he exists (If you want, I can go in lengths about it later)
3 God is proud of me
Logic huh?

I made that scenario to explain why sending a non believer to hell is plain evil
Now for a real question
If God is omniscient and knows the future
and omnipotent
can he change the future ?
Just like 3 sided squares that's ilogical therefore imposible

Ah well sorry then. OK without the whole God thing, then I say a square with three sides is not a square at all so what's the point of saying it's a square unless you add that one missing line?

If God is omniscient (knows the future) and since he's also omnipotent (almighty), then sure he can change the future if He wants to. Where's the clash in that?

[Mauldale]

30 pages and nobody has killed each other yet?! No flaming?!

I have not read the entire thread though, so I may be wrong.

If I am not, however, all this would in itself be a NS miracle, which would then make any arguments for atheism non void .

Lol.

Really though um...I voted theism. You can see my nation for more info, as it reflects my personal beliefs.

I'm not sure if I could bring anything new to the table that hasn't been talked about in say, the last 1000000000000000000000000000000 threads about religion, believing in God or not, etc. But if I did, it would be much too tiring now (at 5 AM).

Kudos to all civil conversation that has (possibly) transpired !

[Leepaidamba]

I'm saying that a square is however you define it but I'm playing nice so I say yes a square with three lines (God) can exist if you add a line (humans).
I am getting tired of this.I said don't put God into this.We are talking about PLAIN SQUARES ! What's so hard to understand ? Can a normal square have 3 sides or not ? No God in this

I made that scenario to explain why sending a non believer to hell is plain evil
Now for a real question
If God is omniscient and knows the future
and omnipotent
can he change the future ?
Just like 3 sided squares that's ilogical therefore imposible

Ah well sorry then. OK without the whole God thing, then I say a square with three sides is not a square at all so what's the point of saying it's a square unless you add that one missing line?

If God is omniscient (knows the future) and since he's also omnipotent (almighty), then sure he can change the future if He wants to. Where's the clash in that?

Now the real clash:
If God is omniscient and therefore knows the future he knows what he himself will do to the greatest detail. If he does otherwise than he knows he will do, he is not omniscient. If he is not able to change what he will do, he is not omnipotent, and he can't if he's omniscient as explained above. So, if a god is omniscient, he is not omnipotent and vice versa meaning that by the definition of God, which includes both omniscience and omnipotence, God does not exist.

[Soviet Shlyapy]

I believe that there is no god, as I think religion is kind of an annoyance. Think about it, most terrorists now-a-days are following some kind of faith, whether it be Christianity, Catholic, Islam, et cetera... What's happening today in Ireland is that Catholics and Christians are attacking each other because they are arguing who worships god the most! The fact that in the old-days that you couldn't challenge god's authority got us nowhere technologically speaking. If religion wasn't so strict I believe that we could've found a cure for cancer and other serious illnesses, like HIV. Hell, we could even by now have set up a colony somewhere in space!

However, I'm not all faithless. I like to see myself as (what I call) a failed Buddhist. I try my best to try and keep to the Buddhist way of life such as not killing things (even the small things like insects and arachnids), not committing any sort of crime like stealing and so on. But at the same time, I eat meat, I don't meditate that much because I find it really uncomfortable (and if I do manage to it's only for 30 minutes or so...), and like every other guy on NationStates and so forth, the odd bit of perverse thought.

Basically, if I summed all that up, it would look like this:

Yay, I am an Atheist, but I still have some sort of faith. I just choose to live my life without someone looking over my shoulders all the time and begging me to pray to him.

¡VIDA LA VIVA!

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I believe that there is no god, as I think religion is kind of an annoyance. Think about it, most terrorists now-a-days are following some kind of faith, whether it be Christianity, Catholic, Islam, et cetera... What's happening today in Ireland is that Catholics and Christians are attacking each other because they are arguing who worships god the most! The fact that in the old-days that you couldn't challenge god's authority got us nowhere technologically speaking. If religion wasn't so strict I believe that we could've found a cure for cancer and other serious illnesses, like HIV. Hell, we could even by now have set up a colony somewhere in space!

However, I'm not all faithless. I like to see myself as (what I call) a failed Buddhist. I try my best to try and keep to the Buddhist way of life such as not killing things (even the small things like insects and arachnids), not committing any sort of crime like stealing and so on. But at the same time, I eat meat, I don't meditate that much because I find it really uncomfortable (and if I do manage to it's only for 30 minutes or so...), and like every other guy on NationStates and so forth, the odd bit of perverse thought.

Basically, if I summed all that up, it would look like this:

Yay, I am an Atheist, but I still have some sort of faith. I just choose to live my life without someone looking over my shoulders all the time and begging me to pray to him.

¡VIDA LA VIVA!

Religious extremists are a lot like murderers:

If religion was outlawed, they'd just find some other problem to blame their violence on.

[Leepaidamba]

I believe that there is no god, as I think religion is kind of an annoyance.

There's irreligious theism if you want though. Not wanting to get you going in that direction.

[Khytenna]

Agnostic, we can't possible prove that there is a god/gods so i can't be bothered to get upset or lose sleep over something that might or might not exist.

if there is a god (as in from a abrahamic faith) then he has a lot of explaining to do as his 'plan' seems stupid.

[Dornakia]

Yay. I think that if there was a God, why does he make all bad stuff happen like natural disasters and illness. But I still respect peoples' beliefs and don't force mine on anyone else.

[The Daughters of Semiramis]

Ah well sorry then. OK without the whole God thing, then I say a square with three sides is not a square at all so what's the point of saying it's a square unless you add that one missing line?

If God is omniscient (knows the future) and since he's also omnipotent (almighty), then sure he can change the future if He wants to. Where's the clash in that?

Now the real clash:
If God is omniscient and therefore knows the future he knows what he himself will do to the greatest detail. If he does otherwise than he knows he will do, he is not omniscient. If he is not able to change what he will do, he is not omnipotent, and he can't if he's omniscient as explained above. So, if a god is omniscient, he is not omnipotent and vice versa meaning that by the definition of God, which includes both omniscience and omnipotence, God does not exist.

How do you see the future? Just asking, because it's kind of crucial here.
But it's perfectly possible that God is omniscient and omnipotent.
WAIT read on. Thank you

OK I've always seen future like this (here it gets complicated to explain)
There are many choices in life. Humans choose one of the choices and continue down the predestined path of that choice. Sometimes, God comes in and guides us away from a bad path and towards a better one. Usually, he lets us choose because He knows we are not His puppets, but His children, whom He must guide but not control.
So God is omniscient in the way that he can see what choice we will make and what would happen if we went down Path A, B, C etc etc.
But God has a choice too: when we get to the fork in the path, He decides whether or not to step in and lend a guiding hand or not. He is omniscient in that he knows if He decides to step in, then thing A would happen. If he doesn't, thing B would happen. So he's omniscient. And omnipotent too because he does have the power to change the future.
So think of the future as multi-layered. I mean, if you think of the future as some, direct never-changing thing then we really can't debate on this
I think what it really comes down to is whether you consider omniscient as God seeing what he can do and what would happen (future influenced by the many choices God and humans make), or what God will do ( future being unbending).

Oh and I told my mother about this and she thinks that God is both omniscient and omnipotent but he doesn't have to USE his omniscience and omnipotence at both times, or one at a time... or you get the idea She compared this to a rich guy having a lot of money but not necessarily living in a big house

[Leepaidamba]

Oh and I told my mother about this and she thinks that God is both omniscient and omnipotent but he doesn't have to USE his omniscience and omnipotence at both times, or one at a time... or you get the idea She compared this to a rich guy having a lot of money but not necessarily living in a big house

That doesn't work. If God were to switch his omniscience on so to speak he'd know absolutely everything of everything, everywhere, always. If he'd switch it off then and he'd forget what he came to know and if he'd then switch on his omnipotence to change his future actions he would retroactively lose his temporary omniscience as he will then do otherwise than he knew he'd do meaning that he didn't know after all.

Therefore no god can be omniscient and at the same time or at another time be omnipotent.

Edit: Under your other scheme, God wouldn't know what he is going to do himself. That means he doesn't know at least one thing and therefore he is not omniscient.

[Romania Mare1]

How do you see the future? Just asking, because it's kind of crucial here.
But it's perfectly possible that God is omniscient and omnipotent.
WAIT read on. Thank you

OK I've always seen future like this (here it gets complicated to explain)
There are many choices in life. Humans choose one of the choices and continue down the predestined path of that choice. Sometimes, God comes in and guides us away from a bad path and towards a better one. Usually, he lets us choose because He knows we are not His puppets, but His children, whom He must guide but not control.
So God is omniscient in the way that he can see what choice we will make and what would happen if we went down Path A, B, C etc etc.
But God has a choice too: when we get to the fork in the path, He decides whether or not to step in and lend a guiding hand or not. He is omniscient in that he knows if He decides to step in, then thing A would happen. If he doesn't, thing B would happen. So he's omniscient. And omnipotent too because he does have the power to change the future.
So think of the future as multi-layered. I mean, if you think of the future as some, direct never-changing thing then we really can't debate on this
I think what it really comes down to is whether you consider omniscient as God seeing what he can do and what would happen (future influenced by the many choices God and humans make), or what God will do ( future being unbending).

Doesn't work.If he is omniscient then he knows when he will act.That in itself is part of the future so he can't change it unless he doesn't know it which means he's not omniscient.
Face it,it's ilogical
You have two choices : either renounce one (or both attributes ) or admit that God has the same possibility of existing as a square with 3 sides

[Bergnovinaia]

Yeah... I don't argue much on the subject because either way, it winds up being a pointless thing because nobody will budge.

Well, breaking news, I am a case study of someone who has budged due to good arguments by others on NSG, in my case from agnostic theism to ignosticism. So it may well work on others. If someone shows me the folly of my ways and convinces me that theism is more logically reasonable than ignosticism, I would convert too. That is, if.

Well... I suppose a better wording would have been statistically won't budge. You have your traditional theists on the right who won't move no matter what ya say because they have a strong faith in God, the divine, etc. and you have your athiests and agnostics who will be no means budge because science backs up the claim that there is no divinity.

Personally, as a theist, I'd say if there was a regligous specturm of sorts that I'd wind up somewhere near the midde (but not agnostic) because science could be part of a deity's grand design... I'm not one of those nuts (many of whom are in my science classes) who flip out when evolution is mentioned or things that would technically contradict any Abrahamic text. My personal view is why couldn't have God created things to evolve...? Also, unlike many Christians, I don't take the Bible at literally its face value, believing everything in it for what it is, but rather, a metaphorical story that has morals behind it...

Anyways, I said I wasn't going to argue or state my beliefs any further, so I won't.

[The Daughters of Semiramis]

How do you see the future? Just asking, because it's kind of crucial here.
But it's perfectly possible that God is omniscient and omnipotent.
WAIT read on. Thank you

OK I've always seen future like this (here it gets complicated to explain)
There are many choices in life. Humans choose one of the choices and continue down the predestined path of that choice. Sometimes, God comes in and guides us away from a bad path and towards a better one. Usually, he lets us choose because He knows we are not His puppets, but His children, whom He must guide but not control.
So God is omniscient in the way that he can see what choice we will make and what would happen if we went down Path A, B, C etc etc.
But God has a choice too: when we get to the fork in the path, He decides whether or not to step in and lend a guiding hand or not. He is omniscient in that he knows if He decides to step in, then thing A would happen. If he doesn't, thing B would happen. So he's omniscient. And omnipotent too because he does have the power to change the future.
So think of the future as multi-layered. I mean, if you think of the future as some, direct never-changing thing then we really can't debate on this
I think what it really comes down to is whether you consider omniscient as God seeing what he can do and what would happen (future influenced by the many choices God and humans make), or what God will do ( future being unbending).

Doesn't work.If he is omniscient then he knows when he will act.That in itself is part of the future so he can't change it unless he doesn't know it which means he's not omniscient.
Face it,it's ilogical
You have two choices : either renounce one (or both attributes ) or admit that God has the same possibility of existing as a square with 3 sides

Third choice: Talk a little more
Yes he knows when he will act. The question is: Will he act?
The thing is, if the future is multi-layered, as I see it, then you've got to factor the choice of acting or not acting in, be it an act done by a human, or an act done by God.
And besides, I thought that God was omniscient in that He knows our future, and what His doing or, not doing would result in.
When the future hasn't happened yet, you can still change it. Same with God. For example: He foresees that in the first layer of future, He will act with Plan A and will result in C. At the same time, in the underlying layer, He foresees that if He acts with Plan B, he will result in D. So He has a choice of changing the future - aka instead of the original layer of paths, he can choose to have the second layer instead.

[Ifreann]

But more importantly, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Doesn't work.If he is omniscient then he knows when he will act.That in itself is part of the future so he can't change it unless he doesn't know it which means he's not omniscient.
Face it,it's ilogical
You have two choices : either renounce one (or both attributes ) or admit that God has the same possibility of existing as a square with 3 sides

Third choice: Talk a little more
Yes he knows when he will act. The question is: Will he act?
The thing is, if the future is multi-layered, as I see it, then you've got to factor the choice of acting or not acting in, be it an act done by a human, or an act done by God.
And besides, I thought that God was omniscient in that He knows our future, and what His doing or, not doing would result in.
When the future hasn't happened yet, you can still change it. Same with God. For example: He foresees that in the first layer of future, He will act with Plan A and will result in C. At the same time, in the underlying layer, He foresees that if He acts with Plan B, he will result in D. So He has a choice of changing the future - aka instead of the original layer of paths, he can choose to have the second layer instead.

Wouldn't that be a problem if through His omniscience, He already knows which choices He will make, which would mean He can't change His future choices, undermining His omnipotence?

[The Daughters of Semiramis]

I'm not one of those nuts (many of whom are in my science classes) who flip out when evolution is mentioned or things that would technically contradict any Abrahamic text. My personal view is why couldn't have God created things to evolve...? Also, unlike many Christians, I don't take the Bible at literally its face value, believing everything in it for what it is, but rather, a metaphorical story that has morals behind it...

High-five I always thought evolution was cool

[Furious Grandmothers]

Well, breaking news, I am a case study of someone who has budged due to good arguments by others on NSG, in my case from agnostic theism to ignosticism. So it may well work on others. If someone shows me the folly of my ways and convinces me that theism is more logically reasonable than ignosticism, I would convert too. That is, if.

Well... I suppose a better wording would have been statistically won't budge. You have your traditional theists on the right who won't move no matter what ya say because they have a strong faith in God, the divine, etc. and you have your athiests and agnostics who will be no means budge because science backs up the claim that there is no divinity.

Personally, as a theist, I'd say if there was a regligous specturm of sorts that I'd wind up somewhere near the midde (but not agnostic) because science could be part of a deity's grand design... I'm not one of those nuts (many of whom are in my science classes) who flip out when evolution is mentioned or things that would technically contradict any Abrahamic text. My personal view is why couldn't have God created things to evolve...? Also, unlike many Christians, I don't take the Bible at literally its face value, believing everything in it for what it is, but rather, a metaphorical story that has morals behind it...

Anyways, I said I wasn't going to argue or state my beliefs any further, so I won't.

Do you take part, or all of the Bible figuratively? I figure that Christians who take the entire Bible figuratively are logically the most consistent, better still if they do not believe in God, and the extent to which they are Christian is therefore that they just take moral lessons from the Bible like a thick version of Aesop's fables, that's all. Christian atheists, in other words. Yes, as far as I know, there are such people.

[The Daughters of Semiramis]

Third choice: Talk a little more
Yes he knows when he will act. The question is: Will he act?
The thing is, if the future is multi-layered, as I see it, then you've got to factor the choice of acting or not acting in, be it an act done by a human, or an act done by God.
And besides, I thought that God was omniscient in that He knows our future, and what His doing or, not doing would result in.
When the future hasn't happened yet, you can still change it. Same with God. For example: He foresees that in the first layer of future, He will act with Plan A and will result in C. At the same time, in the underlying layer, He foresees that if He acts with Plan B, he will result in D. So He has a choice of changing the future - aka instead of the original layer of paths, he can choose to have the second layer instead.

Wouldn't that be a problem if through His omniscience, He already knows which choices He will make, which would mean He can't change His future choices, undermining His omnipotence?

Hmmm I think through his omniscience, it's more of He knows which choices He can make, as opposed to will make because of the choice factor. And even if it is "will" make, why can't he change his future choices?
Sorry, I just really don't see the clash.

[Furious Grandmothers]

I'm not one of those nuts (many of whom are in my science classes) who flip out when evolution is mentioned or things that would technically contradict any Abrahamic text. My personal view is why couldn't have God created things to evolve...? Also, unlike many Christians, I don't take the Bible at literally its face value, believing everything in it for what it is, but rather, a metaphorical story that has morals behind it...

High-five I always thought evolution was cool

It's such a beauty that one simple concept can explain the immense diversity of life. Things which happen to have the properties to subsist for longer would necessarily live on to constitute the population of the future. I think it applies not just to life, but to everything in the universe.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Wouldn't that be a problem if through His omniscience, He already knows which choices He will make, which would mean He can't change His future choices, undermining His omnipotence?

Hmmm I think through his omniscience, it's more of He knows which choices He can make, as opposed to will make because of the choice factor. And even if it is "will" make, why can't he change his future choices?
Sorry, I just really don't see the clash.

Because if He knows the future choices that lie before Him, but knows not which of these choices He would take, then He would not be omniscient.

[Leepaidamba]

And besides, I thought that God was omniscient in that He knows our future, and what His doing or, not doing would result in.

If that's the case God is as much omniscient as you are an atheist. God knows almost everything but not one thing: what he himself will d; you do not believe in most gods, just one: God/Yahweh/Jehovah/The Trinity.

Besides, I explained it already.

[Soxastan]

I don't mind people practicing religion, what I do hate is when people try to force it onto others (IE Crusades, Counter-Reformation, Inquisition). People live their own ways and we should respect that. However when science comes along and gives evidence saying stuff like,"Evolution is true and here is the evidence" or "The solar system is Heliocentric and here is the evidence" we should adopt these ideals because there is evidence (I know that kind of sounds hypocritical but that is what we all are at one point or another). But when there are things we cannot explain such as, life after death, then by all means use religion. I am Agnostic in this sense: that there is Karma, there is Reincarnation, there might be a deity of some sort, they do not control the Earth directly (See Deism).

TL; DR Why don't we just behave? That is what religion is all about.

[Samuraikoku]

And besides, I thought that God was omniscient in that He knows our future, and what His doing or, not doing would result in.

If that's the case God is as much omniscient as you are an atheist. God knows almost everything but not one thing: what he himself will d; you do not believe in most gods, just one: God/Yahweh/Jehovah/The Trinity.

Besides, I explained it already.

Not to mention, if he's omniscient, he knew what was going to happen with Adam and Eve. He knew Satan would tempt Eve, and he knew she would eat the Forbidden Fruit, and he kicked them out of Eden anyway. And if truly omniscient, then God is evil.