theophilus

The dispute here is really artificial. There is no meaningful neutral argument against the existence of god, i.e., rational atheism.

What we truly have here is a dispute about "who" is god; the God of revelation or the god of self.

Simply to make the statement that "there is no god," implies a knowledge base sufficient to support it. It implies that the arguer has asked all the right questions, knows the correct answers and has infallibly judged all issues in dispute. A knowledge base that is manifestly impossible for any human or collection of humans.

This is really a dispute about authority. Atheists, so called, are really saying, "we will have no one rule over us," i.e., we assert our reason to be the authoritative judge of all possibility and truth.

It is interesting that the 1st of the Ten Commandments is: "I am the LORD your God; you shall have no other gods in my presence." Interesting because this is the fundamental relationship from which all others derive.
Either Jehovah is God or man is; there is no in-between.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Just to paraphrase a bit...

The dispute here is really artificial. There is no meaningful neutral argument against the existence of Allah, i.e., rational atheism.
What we truly have here is a dispute about "who" is Allah; the God of the Qur'an or the god of self.

Simply to make the statement that "there is no Allah," implies a knowledge base sufficient to support it. It implies that the arguer has asked all the right questions, knows the correct answers and has infallibly judged all issues in dispute. A knowledge base that is manifestly impossible for any human or collection of humans.

This is really a dispute about authority. Atheists, so called, are really saying, "we will have no one rule over us," i.e., we assert our reason to be the authoritative judge of all possibility and truth.

It is interesting that in the Qur'an it states: "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is a messenger." Interesting because this is the fundamental relationship from which all others derive. Either Allah is God or man is; there is no in-between.



[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Jerry Smith

Perfect, Nightshade! This looks like fun, mind if I jump in?

The dispute here is really artificial. There is no meaningful neutral argument against the existence of god, (i.e., rational atheism), except that god is an unnecessary postulate, and an hypothesis completely unsupported by objective evidence. There are also moral arguments against the existence of a god with the traits of Jehovah, but we need not go in to it.

What we truly have here is a dispute about "who" is imagining god, and which god they imagine; the God of revelation or the god of self.

Simply to make the statement that "there is no god," implies a familiarity with the hypothesis of god. It implies that the arguer has asked all the right questions, has received all of the wrong answers and has summarily dismissed all of some missionary's rantings. A dismissal that is manifestly justifiable for any human or collection of humans.

This is really not a dispute about morality. Atheists, so called, are really saying, "we will have no one's imaginary friend rule over us," i.e., we assert our reason to be the authoritative judge of all possibility and truth.

It is interesting that the 1st of the Ten Commandments is: "I am the LORD your God; you shall have no other gods in my presence." Interesting because this is the fundamental relationship from which all others derive.
Either Jehovah is God with a god-sized inferiority complex, or some OT writer is trying to sell you something; there is no in-between.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

Triple Six

At least I agree on your last statement, and the answer is obvious, man and not the fictional creation he invented.

There are those of in the human race who enjoy and appreciate the efforts of our fellow members and do not feel the need to assume a servile position to some being for which there is no evidence. Perhaps it's all down to self esteem and how we value our fellow humans?

Keep grovelling to your fictional authority figure if you like, I prefer to be my own boss.

Amos

You think I would add because for you "to be your own boss" there must be two of you. "You" and that which ("your own") you are boss over.

But hey, I agree and don't blame you one bit! As long as there is two of you, you better take charge or reason won't prevail for long. Is that perhaps why so many irrational things happen these days?

Amos

copernicus

A point of order here, Theophilus. I thought that the more faithful translation (from King James) was the wording "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". I'm sorry to get so picky about this, but there is a reason why that wording was important in the Old Testament. In ancient times, Yahweh was just one god in a pantheon of gods, and, since gods have very anthropomorphic qualities, there was usually a "chief god"--the Greeks' Zeus or the Romans' Jupiter. For the Hebrews, their chief god was Yahweh, and the First Commandment was originally just a statement of which god was chief among others. It wasn't until the end of the Babylonian captivity that jewish holy men began to have a sense of there being only "one god". They borrowed the concept from the Persian Zoroastrian tradition, since it was the Persians who liberated them from exile. Since the words "no other god before me" didn't make much sense in a monotheistic tradition, modern Abrahamic religions have come to interpret them as an endorsement of the Persian-inspired monotheism.

I know that this is just a seemingly pedantic quibble over words, but we should all strive for historical accuracy.

Ender

Hello Theo! A fine effort you are pulling off here on these boards! You raise the first commandement? I see you Jehovah's jealousy and raise you Thus Spoke Zarathustra!

From the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in the chapter on Apostates, section 2:

It will be my death yet- to choke with laughter when I see asses drunken, and hear night-watchmen thus doubt about God.

Has the time not long since passed for all such doubts? Who may nowadays awaken such old slumbering, light-shunning things!

With the old Deities has it long since come to an end:- and verily, a good joyful Deity-end had they!

They did not "twilight" themselves to death- that do people fabricate! On the contrary, they- laughed themselves to death once on a time!

That took place when the ungodliest utterance came from a God himself- the utterance: "There is but one God! you shall have no other gods before me!"-

-An old grim-beard of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself in such wise:-

And all the gods then laughed, and shook upon their thrones, and exclaimed: "Is it not just divinity that there are gods, but no God?"

He that has an ear let him hear.-

~Speaker 4 the Death of God~

copernicus

Well spoken, Speaker! Zarathustra was, of course, the founder of Persian Zoroastrianism.

Eudaimonist

Shhhhhhhh! Please keep it down!

I need silence when creating a Universe. The last time I was interrupted, I goofed and created a square circle.

Koyaanisqatsi

What we truly have here is a cult member trying to turn the question around so that they don't have the burden of proof.

Nice try.

The only claim is that gods exist. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Let's all repeat that ten thousand times so that it can sink into the brainwashed minds of all those who keep pretending that there are any other positive claims being made, shall we?

Obviously inculcation is the only thing they know, so let's all use their own programming techniques to deprogram, yes?

Of course yes...