Understanding religion and philosophy

“Anti god arguments”

Over the years I have read and heard some of the most astonishing “anti god arguments”. Sometimes even from the most intellectual among the earth.

  • “Do you truly believe God came to this earth as Jesus Christ?”
    • This is not an anti god argument, but an emotional argument that presses for the feeling of being stupid by believing such an absurdity. But we don’t know what is absurd and what not. When not believing in Christ as God, we should remain humble and leave the conclusion aside.
  • “Christ cannot be without sin when being received by a sinner (the virgin Maria)”
    • Since we have no sample we can examine, we cannot conclude anything about it. We should remain humble and leave the conclusion aside. (even with a sample, how do we measure and examine -the absence of- sin in mortal bodies?)
  • “Religion is only for the mentally weak”
    • This is not an anti god argument. We might want to return to verifyable observations here: what is the evidence for this idea? What do you mean by mentally weak? Do you mean any religion? What population did you use? Etc.
    • What if a religion is true and it is only for the mentally weak. The insult is then rather a condition to enter the truth.
  • “I don’t believe in an almighty good God that allows suffering”
    • How is this an anti god argument? It is rather a question for an explanation for the paradox of ‘good’ and ‘suffering’ and ‘almighty’ in one sentence.
  • “Religious children are not raised with a neutral worldview”
    • How is this an anti god argument? It is rather sentimental playground that raising any children with religion is immoral. What is neutral? Is it raising a child without any mentioning of any worldview? In such a way, that children discovers the worldview-questions all by themselves? But even this approach is the result of a wordview..
  • “I don’t need God to live a moral life”
    • How do you know that, for sure? I can imagine I don’t need God, but how we verify this is the truth? How is this an anti god argument?
  • “The evidence is so thin”
    • This is not an anti god argument, rather an attempt to disqualify any religious scripture. What is the counter-evidence? How thick is that? What evidence do you use for your goals, morality, (anti)religion? Etc.

Explore similar topics:

  1. The problem of free will
  2. The (ir)relevance of God
  3. The paradox of the agnostics

, ,

Reacties

  1. clubschadenfreude Avatar
    clubschadenfreude

    “How do you know that, for sure? I can imagine I don’t need God, but how we verify this is the truth? How is this an anti god argument?”

    no evidence for any gods. We can verify that not one of the events supposedly caused by the christian god never happened.

    Like

    Beantwoorden
    1. Rob Avatar
      Rob

      Interesting thoughts. I rather see the God as a probability.

      The most simple reason for this is the understanding of ‘a higher power’. What is it? An effect caused by … God?

      How did you verify (or what source do you use) that not one of the events supposedly caused by the christian god never happened? (i think you mean ‘ever’)

      Like

      Beantwoorden
      1. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        No evidence for your god so no way to determine a probability. No need for any “higher power” either, that’s just a presupposition.

        ROFL. Rob, christians have been looking for centuries for evidence for their claims and have never been able to produce anything.

        Geology shows no magic flood. A flood as decribed would leave one huge layer sorted within itself. It would not leave many separate layers, salt deposits, and fossils organized by complexity.

        Archaeology shows that not one of the bible events happened. No one noticed any exodus of 600,000+ people wandering around in an area half the size of pennsylvania for 4 decades. No onen also noticed Egypt losing all of its food supply, its army and a sizable portion of its population. Neither trade partners or enemies of Egypt noticed.

        No one noticed any fabulous temples, palaces etc, despite looking for centuries.

        Christians cna’t even agree on where the “tomb” is.

        And no one noticed a guy wandering around roman-occupied Judea being followed by a literal roman legion’s worth of men. No one noticed any triumphal entry into roman-occupied Jerusalem and no one noticed any certain day where there was a major earthquake, the sky darkening and dead jews wandering around Jerusalem during a passover. 3 out of the 4 anonymous authors of the gospels missed that last bit.

        There *should* be evidence for all of these events. Where is it?

        Like

  2. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    I’ll respond with curiosity to your first point:

    • What do you believe what it is, that we understand as a higher power? The eldest scriptures in the world mention something like this, and the notion of it is still very present.

    I’ll respond to your archeology point from the perspective of a skeptic:

    • I agree that it is remarkable that there is no clear evidence of an earth-wide flood, deduced from the presence of a layer of mixed sediments. Yet, the idea of ‘a worldwide flood must leave a worldwide layer’, instead of what we see today, requires a huge step of faith. If I were an atheist, I would be agnostic on this point; I don’t know how the world would look like, including it’s sediments, after so many years. (especially since there are archeological findings that do correspond with a world wide flood)
    • The rest of your argument is based on: ‘no one noticed’. How do you know that? I don’t see the absence of additional writings about Biblical events as proof that no one noticed any of these events. I have not seen true evidence that counterspeaks the events. Since the absence of counterspeaking, again, if I were an atheist, my attitude would be agnostic; I don’t know.

    What I find rather curious, is that most places mentioned in the Bible correspond with existent archeological historical places, such as Jericho, Ur, Gebal, Damascus, Jerusalem, Nineveh, Hazor, Meggido, Hebron, Bethlehem, the list goes on.

    How do you decide, when reading the Bible, which parts are historical true, and which not? Do you restrict to what corresponds with scientific findings?

    Like

    Beantwoorden

Plaats een reactie