The petulance of atheism

[JFKvsNixon]

I think he's simply trying to claim that his god is the king of the castle, and we're all dirty rascals ... or something like that.

 

He's half true then, although I prefer the term scoundrel.

[Grahame]

For example just because the statement "all false gods are popular" is true (assume it is for this example) it does not follow that "all popular gods are false"

 

You've got it!

 

 

So you agree with me that not all popular gods are false. In other words at least one God must be the true God.

[Number Six]

I think he's simply trying to claim that his god is the king of the castle, and we're all dirty rascals ... or something like that.

 

If I was God I'd totally put some kind of big show on to let people know I was God, and so my lovely creations would realise that I was there for them if they ever needed me - not that they would because I'd look after them like I do my child, because it's the correct thing to do, and besides, if I was God it wouldn't even be hard work, I could probably make everyone happy by blinking or something.

 

I guess Grahame's god - and the god's of the followers of other religions on the forum - need to get their followers to do the work for them.

[HeadingNorth]

So you agree with me that not all popular gods are false.

 

 

Where have you proven that? All you have proven - which everyone already knew anyway - is that gods being popular does not make them false. It certainly doesn't make them true.

[Number Six]

So you agree with me that not all popular gods are false. In other words at least one God must be the true God.

 

Not all popular gods are false THEREFORE

one god must be a true god

 

rather relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a god. I would argue that there is only such a thing as a concept of god.

 

You could equally say

 

Not all fairies are false therefore one fairy is real.

 

It makes sense only if you accept that fairies are real, rather than simply a concept.

 

Incidentally, even if one accepts your argument as valid in the sense that there is a god (which makes the argument unnecessary anyway) it does not follow that there is only one true god.

[Grahame]

As we've already explained - fairly thoroughly - if there was no such thing as a concept of god, there would be nothing but atheists - nobody would believe in a concept which had not even been invented. Indeed, there would be no need for the word "atheist" to be used to describe them.

 

That both theists and atheists exist proves nothing about the existence of any god; it proves only that the concept of a god's possible existence, is one which has been considered.

 

The concept of God exists, right?

 

The concept of the television never existed in history.

 

Regardless of there being no concept of television none-the-less it exists, which means that as the concept of God has existed since time immemorial then the probability of God existing is far more likely than TV existing, and as television exists, then so does God.

[HeadingNorth]

Not all popular gods are false THEREFORE

one god must be a true god

 

rather relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a god. I would argue that there is only such a thing as a concept of god.

 

 

Rather more to the point, nobody has even claimed, much less proven, that not all popular gods are false - until Grahame suddenly tried to argue that you've agreed with the claim.

 

What has been claimed, and is self-evidently correct, is that a god being a popular god doesn't prove he is a false one. (It's also self-evidently correct that it doesn't prove he is a true one either!)

[Number Six]

The concept of the television never existed in history.

 

If that were true we wouldn't know what the word 'television' means. We do, ergo it's nonsense.

[HeadingNorth]

The concept of God exists, right?

 

The concept of the television never existed in history.

 

Regardless of there being no concept of television none-the-less it exists, which means that as the concept of God has existed since time immemorial then the probability of God existing is far more likely than TV existing, and as television exists, then so does God.

 

By the same logic, the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and so the Monster itself must exist.

 

I use the term "logic" in its broadest possible sense, of course. Anyone who claims that because someone once thought of the something, the something must actually exist, is a long way away from using anything resembling logic.

[milquetoast1]

If I was God I'd totally put some kind of big show on to let people know I was God, and so my lovely creations would realise that I was there for them if they ever needed me - not that they would because I'd look after them like I do my child, because it's the correct thing to do, and besides, if I was God it wouldn't even be hard work, I could probably make everyone happy by blinking or something.

 

I guess Grahame's god - and the god's of the followers of other religions on the forum - need to get their followers to do the work for them.

 

If you or I were god we would be nice, like I try to be nice to my children, even the smallest of animals in my garden.

 

Grahame's god is clearly a steward of the bar.

 

In fact, if I was following this guy's rules in the hope of some eternal reward, I would be very worried about his real motives.