Lack of belief in gods

Explaining the concept and addressing misconceptions.

Some have commented that the Bible doesn't say "God needs worship". The Bible doesn't have to use those words - it /describes/ a god that needs worship: Yahweh commands us in Deuteronomy to worship and love it, explaining that the penalty for disobedience is destruction*. Biblical authors were writing at a time when people respected displays of raw power. Today we understand that commanding worship under threat of destruction is the negation of love, compassion, wisdom or serenity, and is instead evidence of instability, insecurity and megalomaniacal need. Failure to worship causes no one any conceivable genuine harm - especially to an omnipotent being - and its punishment is morally indefensible.

To those who'd claim that Yahweh commands worship "for our own good": if the alternative is destruction, then it is only "for our own good" in the way that that obeying a person with a gun pointed at your head is "for your own good". It amounts to no more than simple self-preservation under extreme duress.

*Those who'd object that the punishments in Deuteronomy don't apply to us today clearly refute the notion of eternal values. If people from the past deserved destruction for failing to worship and we don't, that's clear evidence of a shifting morality.

• Category

  Education

[AMilitantAgnostic]

If I may point out -

Agnosticism addresses the question - does existence have intention or not? Obviously our position is to openly admit ignorance, where we differ from Atheist is that the Atheist (while attempting to claim ignorance) states a belief based on scientific probability.

Huxley calls the Atheist out on this, "It [Agnosticism] simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

TJ Bradders

[drgoldteef]

Oh yeah? I can shoot Nd:YAG lasers out of the side of my mouth, but only when no one is looking. Believe me or not? I don't care. It's true. You MAY want to reserve your belief in that - until you see me do it... Unless, of course, you're an idiot.

I bet you can whisper to god at night and get special favors. I don't need evidence of that. If you say it's true, I believe you! And that, my friend, is what makes me an idiot. :)

[LittleLlion]

If the Superman from the comics would exist he would be super. That's part of the properies the comics gave it. It's not circular. If God isn't the way the Bible says He is, then He is not the God from the Bible.

Learning about reality involves actually acquiring knowledge, which means you need to verify it to use it as a truth. In epistemology you can't use assumptions as truth to verify assumptions. That's using beliefs as justification for your beliefs, exactly what a Gettier problem is.

[LittleLlion]

You still talk about gods whereas I just used the Christian God in one example of a being outside the physical world. My proposal is about any being outside of the physical world and what properties such a being would have. Of course within the rules of the physical world it would seem to be impossible. But the (part of the being) that's outside our physical world is not in it so it doesn't matter if the quantum probability of it existing in the physical world is zero.

[DEdgeOfReason .]

I think that I indicated from the start that I am not interested in your proposals, suggestions or speculations about "god". When you have anything empirically quantifiable about "god", then you will be able to substantiate his "interactions".

If "god" is "timeless" (not affected by time) & outside of the physical world (space-time) then he is a non-event in space-time with a quantum probability of zero, and therefore cannot exist. Like your proposal/suggestion: made up.

[DEdgeOfReason .]

You KNOW the Christian "god" is omniscient because the Christian Bible tells you so. You may as well believe Superman is Super because a comic book told you so. Not self refuting or contradictory, just circular.

The basic epistemology of it is that we assume that we exist in a consistent reality. We assume that we can learn about that reality. If we can learn about reality, we can use our reason to test our assumptions (beliefs) against what is actually consistent (truthful) in reality.

[TheFinalDate21]

YOU BETTER REALIZE THIS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT KILLS YOU

THIS IS THE WORLD THE ELITE WANT... AND THEY WONT TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER

/watch?v=wU0PYcCsL6o