Do atheists have an oversimplified concept of God?
Simmering Frog
2012/08/20 05:31:12
|
|
|||||
|
21 votes
|
|
27% | ||
|
37 votes
|
|
48% | ||
|
19 votes
|
|
25% | ||
Whenever you see an atheist debate about the existence of a creator, they inevitably bring up the Spaghetti Guy here. It always makes me believe they have a over simplified view of a creator. And why they feel the need to compete with him/her/it is just as big of a curiosity. What's up with that?
Top Opinion
-
Link 2012/08/20 11:33:35
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing" - Socrates.
My comment was along the lines of 'why would someone house a concept of something that they didn't believe to exist'... They'd have little need of conceptualizing, or interpreting very much at all in something they didn't think to exist. The topic speaks for itself in my way of thinking about it. I don't think they sit around thinking about what God would be like or what God might say or do, which I'd define as conceptualizing, to interpret God. To conceptualize means to interpret. Definiton of interpret: 1: to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2: to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe
3: to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
This is where my comment came from.
Definition depends on where you get it...LOL
Any one can have an Idea or think in their mind what a god would be.. Doesnt mean because they have the Idea or concept that they believe it...
I don't see the need for some to obsess over conceptualizing/interpreting on a topic that they swears cannot exist. Seems like a waste of valuable time if they're without a doubt... Also seems that both sides are locked in obsession of thought over such a humanly impossibility of an unknowable topic. I always get such a kick out how they want to defend each side because I don't think we can absolutely know such things with our limited human capabilities. We can't know all that exists or not. We can at best merely speculate on our personal feeling on the subject.
I've studied Camus and Heidegger and Nietzsche and Merleau-Ponty, et. al. I've also studied a few religions in detail. There are two identifiable patterns of thought when it comes to a monotheistic concept of God. The usual terminology in philosophical circles is that there is a God of philosophy (sometimes, Spinoza's God) and a God of religion (sorry if you don't like the wording, I didn't make it up). The God of religion is the guy painted on the roof of the Sistine Chapel, the old guy with a beard that likes to do nice things sometimes and bad things sometimes, the anthropomorphic God that looks and acts like people. The God of philosophy has a relatively clear definition: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent. This is the concept of God that permeates all major monotheistic religions. (Sometimes omni-benevolent is considered optional so that no one has to worry about the problem of evil.)
Father Barron seems to be concerned that the "new atheist...
I've studied Camus and Heidegger and Nietzsche and Merleau-Ponty, et. al. I've also studied a few religions in detail. There are two identifiable patterns of thought when it comes to a monotheistic concept of God. The usual terminology in philosophical circles is that there is a God of philosophy (sometimes, Spinoza's God) and a God of religion (sorry if you don't like the wording, I didn't make it up). The God of religion is the guy painted on the roof of the Sistine Chapel, the old guy with a beard that likes to do nice things sometimes and bad things sometimes, the anthropomorphic God that looks and acts like people. The God of philosophy has a relatively clear definition: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent. This is the concept of God that permeates all major monotheistic religions. (Sometimes omni-benevolent is considered optional so that no one has to worry about the problem of evil.)
Father Barron seems to be concerned that the "new atheists" dismiss the God of religion without giving thought to the God of philosophy. Personally, I think what he's noticing is that there are more young atheists in our society these days and they may not have been exposed to a more sophisticated view of God. I would contend that a more sophisticated view of God would not change their beliefs, though. There are problems with the God of philosophy that I doubt most people who have already given up on the idea of faith could overlook. Theologians are much safer clinging to faith (like Kierkegaard) instead of trying to rationalize the irrational (like *cringe* Kant).
Notice that Barron forgoes logic from the very outset and assumes that there is Truth and Goodness (which he says is God... he's defining the philosophical God) because he feels it is there. He has begun what we would suspect is an argument based in logic with an emotional premise and an unfettered assumption. I personally believe Father Barron has too simple a concept of existentialism. Existentialism isn't about being dark and skeptical (although many view it that way). It is about understanding existence is purely subjective. There is no objective Truth. Philosophy would not allow Father Barron's initial assumption, nor would logic allow an appeal to how he feels as a premise.
I hope that somewhat answers your concerns.
FSM was made as a parody of ALL religions.
Oh really. I guess life on other planets is ruled out in your book because of lack of proof.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Maybe I have placed it before somewhere in this post I forgot but it stays funny...
Do you know that you can debunk half of the bible stories with the use of math ??
Numbers back then were important.. thus the use of 40, 7, and 3...
And then the bible tells us that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights,, then later on the same story says 150 days...
I dont know how a sane person can read the bible and not be confused by all the contradictions....
I have wrote this one about it :
There is absolutely NO evidence of a global flood
What you mean is, due to tectonic plate movement certain areas that used to be ocean floor were pushed up
The layers of sediment are put there during millions of years of evolution (oops dirty word) and got visible (like the layers you mention) during millions of years of erosion, and cannot be formed in one flood
Same as this idiocy the the grand canyon could me made in a few minutes till a few days..
Lets make a crude calculation:(in the metric system)
The total surface of a sphere is 4πR²
We know the circumference of the earth is 40,000 Km
The radius of the earth = 40,000 : π : 2 = ±6366 Km
That makes the surface 4 x π x 6366 x 6366 = ±509.000.000 Km²
To keep it simple the highest point of the earth, Mount Everest, is 8000m = 8Km
We know the earth has 1.400.000.000 Km³ of water and has been constant for the pas billion years..
http://www.unwater.org/statis...
To flood the earth you need 8 x 509.000.000 Km³ = 4.072.000.000 Km³ of EXTRA water on top of the 14 billion Km³ water the earth already had..
Suppose heavy rains give 100cm a day in rain fall so 8000 meters of rain would take 8000 days and nights of rain and that is 21.9 years..
Again it is a crude calculation, I can be off 10% ...
I have wrote this one about it :
There is absolutely NO evidence of a global flood
What you mean is, due to tectonic plate movement certain areas that used to be ocean floor were pushed up
The layers of sediment are put there during millions of years of evolution (oops dirty word) and got visible (like the layers you mention) during millions of years of erosion, and cannot be formed in one flood
Same as this idiocy the the grand canyon could me made in a few minutes till a few days..
Lets make a crude calculation:(in the metric system)
The total surface of a sphere is 4πR²
We know the circumference of the earth is 40,000 Km
The radius of the earth = 40,000 : π : 2 = ±6366 Km
That makes the surface 4 x π x 6366 x 6366 = ±509.000.000 Km²
To keep it simple the highest point of the earth, Mount Everest, is 8000m = 8Km
We know the earth has 1.400.000.000 Km³ of water and has been constant for the pas billion years..
http://www.unwater.org/statis...
To flood the earth you need 8 x 509.000.000 Km³ = 4.072.000.000 Km³ of EXTRA water on top of the 14 billion Km³ water the earth already had..
Suppose heavy rains give 100cm a day in rain fall so 8000 meters of rain would take 8000 days and nights of rain and that is 21.9 years..
Again it is a crude calculation, I can be off 10% but it is still a ridiculous amount of water..
And think of this: So much extra clear water added to the sea would have killed 99% of the ocean life ..
Ok this raises a few new questions :
#1 where did all this water come from ??
#2 Where did it go to after the flood ?
answer, it is impossible, the great flood is a myth...
It's simple : god is imaginary created. Just because human can't live with a blank of explication until we find it