Cuadrix wrote: ↑
03 Jun 2019, 23:49
Again. Why are you saying "god"? Why do you expect me to know what you are talking about? Use your gods name or just say "a god", as I'm not referring to any specific gods but rather deny the existence of all such things due to simple and obvious facts.
Just take it that this whole debate is about "a god" or "any god" unless explicitly stated otherwise. Minor typographical errors should not be confused with arguments.
Just a curiosity: Do you have some strong christian background by the way? It seems that you are most uncomfortable with things like capital G's and the lack of an article before the nouns in other peoples phrases.
I have also observed that you are looking things from the inner perspective (from behind the religious goggles), while I'm looking at what's actually happening on the surface.
An Ad hominem fallacy
. Please refrain from using these types of "arguments", they are personal attacks and quite ofensive (much more so than the "generalizations" i was accused of).
It is clear that you are too stuck in your deep thinking of these so called theological concepts that you aren't able to deeply think about anything else related to it, such as what I have mentioned above.
Another Ad hominem fallacy
One must deeply think about ALL related subjects from a neutral perspective, and not just one. That is why most atheists are atheists, because we have been to both worlds
Atheism is not a neutral perspective. It is a fixed position: something that if hold onto as a belief, will subject you to a lot of premises. And if you do value the perspective from someone that has "switched sides" before, i will let you know that for about 3 years in my life i have defined myself as an atheist. Therefore i have seen the world from the perspective of an atheist and really, that is exactly why i think atheism is basically a sheer negation of almost everything around us (our reality and the way it presents itself to us) in a huge effort to support the preconceived view that everything is of a "purely mechanical" nature. Mathemathics, albeit clearly present in the workings of our universe, is by itself "inert" in the sense that it cannot produce our reality alone. Therefore, it is NOT alone.
unlike the overwhelming majority of religious people who have never even bothered questioning their beliefs.
I can't speak for others, but i actually question my beliefs very oftenly. And theism is a very logical conclusion for me. That's why i have actually presented some up-to-date pro-theism arguments (But it looks nobody in here is willing to discuss them at the moment. Personally, i wonder if this is because people in here haven't questioned themselves enougth to seek some prior debates by some of the more experienced people defending each side. Not saying this as an argument: just wondering really, as i think that the prospect of debunking the main theist arguments should be of great interest to any atheism advocates).
Now for the most important part:
Religion is the reason these mythical deities exist in the human civilization and it's why people of each generation become religious depending on the geographical location of the said culture and religion.
Just like you were most likely indoctrinated into your beliefs and therefore sincerely believe in your specific god, a hindu sincerely believes that his god is real and every other god is false. Just the psychological observation of this indicates the unlikeliness of any such beings existing, not to mention the fact that religion and the gods that are believed in themselves survive due to indoctrination going on.
The external evidence against any gods/goddesses existence is far greater than what you religious people think is evidence for your specific god out of thousands worshiped.
Just looking at how religious people become religious in the first place is indication of this. Not to mention how beliefs of the overwhelming majority of religious people contradict with each other , and how they also contradict with what we observe in reality/nature; referencing back to what I said about belief about souls or ghosts. All this serves to prove that gods don't exist.
That inductive reasoning is not a "proof that gods don't exist" at all. The negation of a lot of previous hipothesis has absolutely no influence over whether a new hipothesis is true or not.
You are talking about the genesis of religion as being purely the result of indoctrination, but this is not the case really. There are actually two ways through which people may come to believe in something: one is by having personal experiences and the other is by believing that the experiences others around us have reported may indeed be true. The funny thing when you realise this fact is that not only religion, but really everything you think you know, including the ideas about the workings of our universe, are basically over 99% a result of experiences actually had by other people. People have said and you have absorbed, this is what makes over 99% of what you believe to be true (and everyone else is like that). And that is not wrong at all: You would actually be more primitive than a caveman if you were to only believe in truly personal experiences.
Now, i know that talking about specific religions is not a good idea for this debate, but i will do it nonetheless to use as an example. And as promissed, i am specifically stating now that i am taking the following from the main christian faiths:
There were 12 apostles. All of them claimed to have witnessed Jesus performing many miracles, and they were with him basically the entire time during his ministry on earth (and for 40 days after he rose from the dead). That being said, all 12 apostles died in horrific ways exactly because of their faiths and all of them maintained to the very end that the teachings of Jesus were indeed true. If they were lieing, wouldn't at least one of them have admited to it before the prospect of death for their faiths?
That may not be a formal "proof", but perhaps it is all the extraordinary evidence you need.