Disproving the Existence of God

[onewheeldave]

 

* I doubt there are many Muslims that would agree with Wildcat's, Hairyloons's, or Onewheeldave's claims that god is not omnipotent.

 

Just to point out- Onewheeldave has made no comment or claims whatsoever on whether God is omnipotent or not.

[Wildcat]

So is it 'no religions', or just the main branches of the ones you have studied? I'm sure you realise that the difference is significant. I'm not nitpicking.

 

Truth be told, I agree with you; god is not omnipotent. God is not anything. Well ok; a figment of the imagination then.

 

I studied religion in general in philospophical terms which included atheism. Was brought up with Christianity (although not sunday school) I have also studied east asian religions Buddhism, Taoism etc. Have read about Hinduism, zoroastrianism and other Asian religions. And have read some anthropology of religion and religious belief.

 

To be honest I don't understand the distinction between 'no religions' or 'just the main branches' you are getting at, but I think my answer addresses the question.

[onewheeldave]

No, at it's roots is an even more basic (mis)understanding of what forces were responsible for certain phenomenon that couldn't have been explained because of the primitiveness of the time period these people lived in.

 

As you posted that in objection to the claim that religions roots are mystical, I'll point out that mystics do not do their practices with the aim of explaining worldly phenomena.

 

It's a inward quest, often in as nonwordly place as possible (e.g. deserts, mountain tops etc) the aim, depending on the tradition, being union with God- actual experience of the reality postited to exist beneath/beyond the material world and beyond the self.

 

Not necessarily experience of God- buddhism is primarily a mystical tradition (especially the zen forms) and, many buddhist are atheists.

 

Wiki for mysticism here-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

[redwhine]

I studied religion in general in philospophical terms which included atheism. Was brought up with Christianity (although not sunday school) I have also studied east asian religions Buddhism, Taoism etc. Have read about Hinduism, zoroastrianism and other Asian religions. And have read some anthropology of religion and religious belief.

 

To be honest I don't understand the distinction between 'no religions' or 'just the main branches' you are getting at,...

You used the words 'no religions' yet you don't know what it means?

 

Amazing!

 

No religions means not any single religion. Just the main branches of some religions means not all religions.

 

 

...but I think my answer addresses the question.

Yes. It indicates that you haven't a clue whether all religions believe in an omnipotent god not. As I suspected, but I now have evidence to back up my suspicion. Do you you see how that works?

[onewheeldave]

You are still arrogantly speaking for all religious people. Like the others on this thread. The god I was brought up to believe in was an omnipotent one. This whole mystical approach to mainstream religions is modern new age wishy washy nonsense with even less intellectual honesty than fundamentalism imo. Of course it exists, but it by no means covers all religions, just silly middle class white people's religions.

 

The mystical origin of religions is fairly well documented (google 'desert fathers' for one example).

 

IMO, modern organised state religions are usually distortions of the original mystic-inspired originals, hence why they tend to be full of contradictions, wild claims and, empty of genuine spiritual content.

 

And why many believers are making an effort to re-discover the true roots of their own religions.

[flamingjimmy]

The mystical origin of religions is fairly well documented (google 'desert fathers' for one example).

 

IMO, modern organised state religions are usually distortions of the original mystic-inspired originals, hence why they tend to be full of contradictions, wild claims and, empty of genuine spiritual content.

 

And why many believers are making an effort to re-discover the true roots of their own religions.

 

I think you've got it backwards. Modern people pretend like it's all just mysticism in order to get around/deny relevance of any contradictions within their religion. It's a cop out.

 

In any case I would contend that there are literally millions, nay, hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion religious people who don't think that way, and for Wildcat to earlier suggest that 'no religion believes in an omnipotent god' (which was the thing that instigated this particular thread of the discussion) is complete nonsense.

[Wildcat]

You are still arrogantly speaking for all religious people. Like the others on this thread. The god I was brought up to believe in was an omnipotent one. This whole mystical approach to mainstream religions is modern new age wishy washy nonsense with even less intellectual honesty than fundamentalism imo. Of course it exists, but it by no means covers all religions, just silly middle class white people's religions.

 

No talking about individuals religious belief adds another layer of complexity to the issue. I am talking about religion in general, let's not distract this with a psychological discussion of belief systems.

 

The God of the bible is limited, it explicitly puts limitations on his ability to only act according to God's nature, an inability to lie, for example. Or from the original post the discharging of power to humans in the form of freewill... a further limitation on God's Omnipotence.

 

I know there are claims made about Omnipotence by Christians but these take the form of praise and flattery not literal truth.

 

This is not about silly middle class religions.... this is about the foundation and meaning of religion in general, there would be no requirement for faith if God could be known or described in a way that was not metaphysical.

[Wildcat]

You used the words 'no religions' yet you don't know what it means?

 

Amazing!

 

No religions means not any single religion. Just the main branches of some religions means not all religions.

 

That is not what I said and you know it. Are you interested in discussing the issue or just scoring imaginary points?

 

Yes. It indicates that you haven't a clue whether all religions believe in an omnipotent god not. As I suspected, but I now have evidence to back up my suspicion. Do you you see how that works?

 

 

I know full well not all religions believe in a omnipotent God... some don't even include a God!

[flamingjimmy]

The God of the bible is limited, it explicitly puts limitations on his ability to only act according to God's nature, an inability to lie, for example. Or from the original post the discharging of power to humans in the form of freewill... a further limitation on God's Omnipotence.

You and I can see that, but many religious people cannot, they are perfectly comfortable with ignorance of/denial of contradictions like this. Exhibit A: Grahame.

 

I know there are claims made about Omnipotence by Christians but these take the form of praise and flattery not literal truth.

That is catagorically not the the case. I have personal experience of this, and you are 100% wrong. I was taught as a child that god is omnipotent. It was presented to me very much as a literal truth. Are you going to call me a liar?

 

I suppose this is a step up, rather than claiming to speak for all religious people now you're just claiming to speak for all Christians.

 

This is not about silly middle class religions.... this is about the foundation and meaning of religion in general, there would be no requirement for faith if God could be known or described in a way that was not metaphysical.

In the bible there are loads of examples of God coming down and proving himself to non-believers, up until a couple of hundred years ago very few people would have argued what you're arguing now. Most people were perfectly happy to believe in an interventionist creationist literal omnipotent god until the pesky modern world came along and made all that stuff look rather silly.

[quisquose]

I had a very interesting chat with a very clever person the other day who reminded me that you can never change people's minds online and certainly, discussing this topic and trying to intellectualize something instinctively personal, is a complete waste of time.

 

And he'd be right. I've not had a religious discussion in decades, and don't know why this even goes on on the forums. No one is capable of changing any theist's mind, so why bother.

 

Ultimately, what does it matter what anyone else thinks? Be happy that you do or don't believe in god and leave it at that. All this bickering on so trivial a point is a waste of effort on just about every level.

 

So, in the immortal words of Dragons' Den: I'm out!

 

Is it trivial though?

 

Belief in a deity, on its own, is harmless. Lack of belief in a deity, on its own, is harmless.

 

Simple theism or atheism, belief or not in a deity, arrived at through instinctive personal thought, is not of concern to anybody. Sure it’s nice to think we are right, and sometimes it can be interesting to debate and disagree. But holding an opinion as to the existence of deities, is no better or worse than holding an opinion as to the existence of a multitude of other un-disprovable things like ghosts, UFOs, or monsters. At the end of the day people can just believe what they want.

 

Evil does not come from people’s beliefs, or lack of, in un-disprovable things. Evil can come from greed, power, poverty, shame, desire, good intentions, love, dogma, anger, drugs, and many other things that theists and atheists alike are susceptible to.

 

However, whilst it should not concern us that people believe in deities, what should concern us is religious dogma. Particularly when religion is intolerant of others, or the evils mentioned in the previous paragraph are reinforced, and made more possible, with the supposed authority of God.

 

When people make claims with the authority of God it can be dangerous. Gays cannot adopt, or even exist, and God says so. Women are inferior to men, and God says so. Do not vote Democrat, and God says so. Give me money, and God says so. What alternative response is there to such intolerance than to shout back god does not exist?