The Son of God:

What MonstaMunch is pointing at, Darkfyre, is the reason I used certain terminology in my first post.

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Ok, omnipresent can take a hike for this one actually, but they're usually bundled together, so I went ahead and listed it. You cannot have God be those words and also maintain the narrative you've given here.

Let's say there were a finite number of ways everything could have played out. If this were true, omnipotence is violated. If there aren't a finite number of ways everything could have played out then we can't possibly be in the best version - it's trivial to think of a way to just slightly improve human history. Putting the germ theory of disease in the Old Testament would have saved countless lives. But you could pick a much smaller example too.

If even one less girl underwent FGM in Africa, or one less asian boy died in a tsunami - with everything else the same - that would be a better version. Having had the option to choose a better version of time and space, but choosing not to, that would preserve both omnipotence and omniscience, but would make Him a capricious dickhole and would also make him unjust.

As a slight aside, 'atheist' means 'without belief', so to say that you are an atheist in regard to all gods but yours is fair, and you are a theist, with belief, in your God.
"
innervation wrote:
As a slight aside, 'atheist' means 'without belief', so to say that you are an atheist in regard to all gods but yours is fair, and you are a theist, with belief, in your God.


I was going to respond to him but gave up on the idea when I got to the part where he doesn't realize that he's an atheist with regards to every single religion in the world except one.....
"
VictorDoom wrote:


That drummer though o.O.!.
"
MonstaMunch wrote:

I was going to respond to him but gave up on the idea when I got to the part where he doesn't realize that he's an atheist with regards to every single religion in the world except one.....


I don't mind that so much - words is treacherous bastards after all, and in anything that resembles this topic, defining terms at the outset is more a necessity than a luxury. The pure translation of 'atheist' being 'godless' isn't super useful here since none of us can demonstrate any gods existence. If you were in the undemonstrable presence of a god, but called yourself an atheist, you'd be wrong (the corollary being equally hypothetically wrong). Which makes it much more useful to say that you are 'belief-less' or 'without belief' instead of 'without god' - that's infinitely easier to prove to someone's satisfaction.

--

That song is 3 brutal 5 me - nice drums though. Metal like that always sounds like the vocalist is trying to hard to be...something. Idk. Overall it's not for me, would like it if it were just the instrumentals or had softer vocals.
Was going to skip this discussion as nothing good usually stems from these but what the hell.

1: Omniscient creator god makes free will impossible. Such god would know the future choices of every man before they're created and thus those choices would be his instead of the men themselves (by creating the individual omniscient god also creates his future actions).

2: If "perfect" man + free will = sick, imperfect man then either man wasn't created perfect or free will is somehow evil and corrupting attribute. In either case god is malevolent as he created men to suffer (either he made us imperfect or corrupted us with evil free will).

3: Atheism isn't something you apply in regard to specific deities. It's just a general lack of faith towards the existence gods. Also it bothers me a lot that agnosticism is usually considered to be a "neutral" state between theism and atheism; agnosticism deals with completely different question (usually self-proclaimed agnostics are atheists who have learned that atheism is something to be ashamed of). Everyone is either theist or atheist.
"
kuukkeli wrote:
3: Atheism isn't something you apply in regard to specific deities.


Atheism applies in regards to different theologies, by definition. It's where the theism part comes from. Atheism is a lack of belief in a specific theology.

If you do not believe in ancient Roman religious theology, then you are an atheist with regards to it. That's what the word means.
Last edited by MonstaMunch on Apr 19, 2017, 5:40:07 AM
"
MonstaMunch wrote:
"
kuukkeli wrote:
3: Atheism isn't something you apply in regard to specific deities.


Atheism applies in regards to different theologies, by definition. It's where the theism part comes from. Atheism is a lack of belief in a specific theology.

If you do not believe in ancient Roman religious theology, then you are an atheist with regards to it. That's what the word means.


You're stepping on your own words where I've bolded. The logic flow isn't if you don't believe in <subset of deities> you're atheist in regards to them but rather if you're atheist that means you don't believe in <set of any and all potential or posited deities> therefore you also don't believe in <subset of deities>.
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:


You're stepping on your own words where I've bolded. The logic flow isn't if you don't believe in <subset of deities> you're atheist in regards to them but rather if you're atheist that means you don't believe in <set of any and all potential or posited deities> therefore you also don't believe in <subset of deities>.


Applying that to gnostic/agnostic makes zero sense under your definition, and perfect sense under ours though :/ You wouldn't dream of defining an agnostic as one literally 'without knowledge' about everything. Rather it is (or ought to be) understood that you are agnostic regarding something specific.

Which is why it makes more sense to use them consistently in this manner.
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:
You're stepping on your own words where I've bolded. The logic flow isn't if you don't believe in <subset of deities> you're atheist in regards to them but rather if you're atheist that means you don't believe in <set of any and all potential or posited deities> therefore you also don't believe in <subset of deities>.


I don't see where I stepped on anything, and you're clearly wrong, sorry. Perhaps it would help if I'd said "any specific theology" rather than "a specific theology"? Either way it's semantics. If you don't believe in a theology, then you are an atheist with regards to it. If you aren't aware of that then you can't have spent much time looking into the issue, as it isn't disputed even by religious people.

If there was only one theology out there then you'd either be an atheist or you wouldn't. As it is, there are many theologies, and most of them are mutually exclusive which means if you are a theist with regards to one, then you will be an atheist with regards to the others.
"
MonstaMunch wrote:
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:
You're stepping on your own words where I've bolded. The logic flow isn't if you don't believe in <subset of deities> you're atheist in regards to them but rather if you're atheist that means you don't believe in <set of any and all potential or posited deities> therefore you also don't believe in <subset of deities>.


I don't see where I stepped on anything, and you're clearly wrong, sorry. Perhaps it would help if I'd said "any specific theology" rather than "a specific theology"? Either way it's semantics. If you don't believe in a theology, then you are an atheist with regards to it. If you aren't aware of that then you can't have spent much time looking into the issue, as it isn't disputed even by religious people.

If there was only one theology out there then you'd either be an atheist or you wouldn't. As it is, there are many theologies, and most of them are mutually exclusive which means if you are a theist with regards to one, then you will be an atheist with regards to the others.


Trying to inversely apply the general descriptors 'theist'/'atheist' to achieve this meaning isn't just wrong usage of the intended logical contexts of the words it's also not necessary. Simply using the word 'Christian' or 'Muslim' etc. will much more efficiently convey the intended idea of belief in a given theology with a mutual disbelief in all others.

Edit: For example if I were to say I'm atheist but I'm a Christian that wouldn't make sense within the flow of normal conversation without qualifying it in the manner you are because that's not the intended logical usage of the word 'atheist'.
Last edited by GeorgAnatoly on Apr 19, 2017, 10:23:14 AM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info