I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.
- Thread starter yrger
- Start date
Hi Yrger.
What's your concept of a militant atheist?
I would define God as the supremely powerful, good, and knowledgeable personal creator of the universe.
But I have no major objections against your definition.
Do you have any good arguments/reasons for thinking God so-defined exists?
What's your concept of a militant atheist?
I would define God as the supremely powerful, good, and knowledgeable personal creator of the universe.
But I have no major objections against your definition.
Do you have any good arguments/reasons for thinking God so-defined exists?
Whatsisface
Well-known member
I'm not a militant atheist.
However, I don't have a personal concept of God and i see that even within Christianity there are many concepts of God.
It seems we create God in our own image.
My observation on atheists' talks in the net is that what I call militant atheists are die-hard Taliban-like atheists, they don't think honestly, intelligently, and productively, like for example their number 1 reason why God does not exist is because God existing begs the question what or who creates God, and on and on and on into what they rejoice in repeating, infinite regress.
About the concepts of God with what I call militant atheists, they follow their idol like one Bertrand Russell, with calling God names like flying spaghetti monster, from Russell's orbiting teapot in space.
Militant atheists do not care to talk with me on a sustained time basis, they will end up with declaring in effect that I am insulting them - there, end of exchange.
From my part, I maintain that there is a distinction between God of reason and God of religion, militant atheists attack religion, but using God as a strawman.
In brief, militant atheists to their core are into nothing but evasions from the issue itself of God exists or not.
On the other hand, I submit that I am not a militant God-knower, I just cannot imagine how existence can survive without the reality of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
About the concepts of God with what I call militant atheists, they follow their idol like one Bertrand Russell, with calling God names like flying spaghetti monster, from Russell's orbiting teapot in space.
Militant atheists do not care to talk with me on a sustained time basis, they will end up with declaring in effect that I am insulting them - there, end of exchange.
From my part, I maintain that there is a distinction between God of reason and God of religion, militant atheists attack religion, but using God as a strawman.
In brief, militant atheists to their core are into nothing but evasions from the issue itself of God exists or not.
On the other hand, I submit that I am not a militant God-knower, I just cannot imagine how existence can survive without the reality of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
Well, I'm afraid I'm not a militant atheist then, so it is up to you if you want to continue discussion with me anyway. To your disappointment I'm sure, you will find that I do tend towards being honest, intelligent, and productive. I don't understand why you would actively seek out the opposite of that, but I'm here anyway if you'd like to start presenting your arguments.
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
Define what you understand by "god".
Whatsisface
Well-known member
I don't know any atheist who's number 1 reason is as you say. Not one. Certainly not mine.
You misunderstand the idea behind the FSM, and the tea pot.
You do. i remember you from a while back. I knew it would go like this.
Whatever arguments you present, the atheists here will give substantive replies.
Classic argument from personal incredulity.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
We already have a moral high horse thread posted by a fresh diploma. Today
Atheism is a religion and attacks religion. Mostly Christians.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Deflection out of reflex response
Tiburon
Well-known member
I'm not a militant atheist. If that's your definition of God I see no reason to reject or accept it.
I can see why you have a problem holding an atheist's attention. This is looking boring already.
What you perceive as a beginning of everything assumes that you have some capacity to know what everything is, even that which defies your current capacity to measure. Example..... Did we know what microwaves were before they were measured, focused, and used to cook stuff from the inside out? Did they not exist until we measured them?
If you are reaching back into Planck-time with regards to what you call a creation event, aren't you merely pointing to a currently immeasurable "something" and not a something from nothing event? Or have you decided that anything you cannot measure is nothing by fiat? If so, then for you to be logically consistent you would apply that logic to god too and god would therefore be declared to be nothing as well, not existent.
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
You will find few if any militant atheists.
My own concept of God, is an imaginary super-self that English speaking Christians create as their idealized self.
An extension of their character, and an expression of their fantasies.
Also a vehicle for revenge fantasy.
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
So you have zero clue about atheism. Or individual atheists.
And you have never cracked a book on biology, physics, chemistry, or cosmology.
Show me that someone named God, exists.
horsefeathers
New Member
Yeah, an impo'tant pigment of your imagination.
rossum
Well-known member
I am not a militant atheist, but I am happy to talk.
This I disagree with. In a philosophical discussion, I define the universe as "All That Exists" (ATE). This is not the same at the STEM material universe of science. The STEM universe is part of the ATE universe. If any God or gods exist then those gods are part of the ATE universe, not separate from or outside it. By definition that ATE universe cannot have an external cause since nothing exists outside the ATE universe. If any existing component of the ATE universe is eternal, then the ATE universe is itself also eternal, and so does not require a cause.
You did well to include "with a beginning" to your concept of what God created. That leaves out a great many things. The Abrahamic God is a living God, so He did not create life. He is intelligent, so He did not create intelligence. He is jealous, angry, merciful etc. so He did not create them either. God did not create Himself, hence He did not create any of His characteristics. Those characteristics did not have a beginning, so God did not create them.
$0.02
There are few if any militant atheists here - but plenty of atheists who are considered militant by others.
I would suggest that any meaningful definition of God has to include that God is intelligent and capable of appreciating being worshipped. Suppose the universe was created by a random perturbation in a quantum field.... That would then be the creator-cause of mankind and the universe, but would still not be God according to the conventional use of the word.
Here is my proof for the existence of God:
1. There are entities in existence that have a beginning.
2. The existence of entities with a beginning demands an entity without beginning to come into existence.
3. Therefore God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe aned everyting with a beginning.
You mean man has a concept of God that is based on man's honest intelligent productive thinking, and that is not any creation at all of God in our own image.
So, what do you want to tell me on the question God exists or not?
From my part, in brief according to my honest intelligent productive thinking, the existence of entities with a beginning is the evidence for the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.