Finishing the "God or No God?" Debate

Anything metaphysical is, by its nature, unobservable - and therefore we can not prove any metaphysical scenario as being “true”.
To claim that God does not exists is to make an assumption, not a conclusion. As an assumption, it is indifferent in its accuracy than the assumption that God does exist. This in turn, reveals the modern atheist as an embarrassing bashful hypocrit - to claim to uphold the virtues of science, logic, and knowledge, yet lack any of those in the very foundation of what they consider to be their belief: atheism - what an embarrassment.

If a person truly upholds logic and science above beliefs which are just convenient, their answer to the question “Does God exist?” would have to be “I don’t know”.

If we look at what’s really going on psychologically, an atheist holds a belief in atheism for the same reason a theist holds a belief in theism: it is beneficial for them (coincidentally, the same fallacy they accuse theists of): the belief in no god allows them to disregard the rules which theists try to impose on them, and in our modern society where theism is centered around holding a person back, down at the bottom of the ladder, this is highly beneficial to the atheist.

Atheists need a better argument and a better strategy for that argument. First of all, the title of “atheist” just sounds stupid if I’m being completely honest. Second of all, their argument should be “If God does exist, then Christianity and Catholicism in particular have done a terrible job of teaching His virtues.”
They could then cite examples of the profit-orientated manner in which the church operates. They could also cite examples of how christians do not actually follow the very virtues they preach - instead they work around their own virtues, using them as tools for their piety and for criticizing those they don’t like.
If the Bible teaches “love and forgiveness”, then they haven’t been following the Bible.

This approach is similar to Nietzsche’s - a much more credible and scholarly atheist (albeit still a flawed one) than the embarrassing excuse for “atheists” we have today, who run around thinking “Hey I can harvest a feeling of superiority by looking down on others as fools just for their beliefs.”

There is also the Jungian approach: the concepts and symbols of Christianity are a reflection of our civilization’s unconsciousness - we should respect those symbols, because we are their heirs. They are part of our story, our heritage, and with the right perspective, you can see them as brilliant and beautiful with or without being a believer in God. In fact, all religions have their hidden beauty – although they have been distorted, exploited, and abused by others ever since the ‘prophets’ had conceptualized them.

The very existence of a “prophet” archetype is a beauty in itself; the good prophets, the ones who put their love for everyone before themselves in hopes of ending conflict and unifying people in love and cooperation - oh how we have failed those beloved prophets.

Let’s look at a few areas where we went wrong:

  • The US government was able to play off of the self-righteousness and ignorance of Christians to invade non-christian countries. Invading Afghanistan was justified - invading Iraq was not. However, the common Christian, the one who Nietzsche would have thought of as having “slave morality”, did not see a difference in their mind between Iraq and Afghanistan; to them they merely saw “the enemy”, the non-Christian.

  • The history of the past 2,000 years is full of genocides carried out by the Catholic church against any neighboring group with a different religion. Hell, a lot of these “other religions” were even other forms of Christianity, but ones that contradicted the papacy.

  • Christian communities will shun any individual for being different or free-spirited - and this is where modern christians are seen for what they really are: not a religion, but a clique; slave morality at its most shameless: the banding together of the malicious weak to validate defiance against the free-spirited strong - to try and convince non-members of the clique that they must devote themselves to earning acceptance by the group or they will be shunned, and they want the free spirited to believe this, because in doing so, they will start them off at the lowest tier of acceptance, thereby gaining power over them - blatant hubris. What they want is to overwhelm the free-spirited by making them think there is no path or exit to contentment other than the most arduous; and they try to convince the free-spirited that this arduous, shameful, embarrassing path is one that everyone in the group had to take - a blatant lie. In truth, these slave moralists gain great pride and almost a sexual satisfaction in enslaving and utterly humiliating and demasculinizing the free-spirited. They think, “Why should the free spirited go out and be able to achieve so much while I am stuck here, in this group, but I can not leave–errr–I mean I WOULD NOT leave the group, it is my duty! And besides… I have spent so long reaching my stature… oh so long… and… It’s definitely not because I am scared of leaving! I have no fear! I stay because it is virtuous, it is definitely not because I am worthless, weak, and powerless without the group.”

Your conception of atheism is unnecessarily narrow and misguided. Many atheists have reasons to think what they do. That is, they don’t believe in that which they don’t have evidence for. The same sort of reason you rightfully don’t believe in leprechauns.

His conception of Christianity doesn’t fare any better.

Not true… already…

True for most, but not all.

I couldn’t argue with that one.
Sometimes I wonder who is really on which side.

Over generalizing during a period when publicly lying about Christians is encouraged and supported.

All seemingly irrelevant to the topic.

Wow… WAY, Completely out of your league, apparently.
I know that it might be hard to believe, but the world actually isn’t made of merely Atheists and Christians.
…I know, I know… it surely seems that way… but believe it or not… it really isn’t.

To be fair though that is an extremely lazy response to a considered one. Not that I agree or disagree either way but if I were a Christian, with such prose I would probably soon lose faith.

 How considered is it to simply ape the philosopher he based his screen name on? He read Nietzsche. Good for him, so did I.  I gave a considered response to Nietzsche when I was actually reading the man speaking for himself. :stuck_out_tongue:  But if YOU want to write long, thoughtful rebuttals to a Nietzchean, I invite you to do so and see where it leads. 

Yeah, no doubt. That’s what internet discussion groups are basically for- loudly paraphrasing books you skimmed to make other people lose faith in their convictions. If a Christian is losing their faith because of this thread, that Christian needs to read more.

Nah can’t be assed, too lazy and besides who is Nietzsche, have I met him, would I like him? What were his books about, would I disagree with him on the basis of being a Christian or not? Meh don’t bother I can’t be assed with that either, in fact forget I said anything at all, I can’t be assed with writing any m.

The day any Christian ever reads anything contentious or even remotely so with his own faith, without already having made his mind up it is wrong before he even starts is the day pigs fly. I really think that it’s because of people like you, that is what internet discussions are for, but that’s a whole other thread.

Loudly proclaims the internet is bs, and everyone on it has read some books they are paraphrasing before saying meh.


I am or was Helandhighwater, I am already banned, do you think I really care what you think? :laughing:

Speaking as an administrator to a member, can you please actually type something worth reading once in a while, or else take it to Mundane Babble?

Can you? Speaking as a concerned veiwer of people making utter fools of themselves in a capacity as an “administrator” of course. Besides you are not an admin as far as I can tell merely a moderator, thank god, assuming he exists.

Is that a ‘no’, then? Noted.

That’s an I am a conceited jumped up authoritarian with a massive chip on my shoulder and an ego the size of Wales then in response to a no he can’t possibly answer because he is a lazy jumped up self opinionated cretin with some sort of personality disorder.

Your lethargy and unwillingness to say anything remotely factual or interesting about anything is duly noted. Moderators, they are nothing if not all collossal hypocrites, who can never and will never be wrong about anything. What do they do when hiring a moderator throw a dart over their head backwards with a list of some of the most coneited over opinionated boring twats from 1-20 and then ignore that and go for a trolling dickhead with a penchant for lies who only just missed out because he can barely be bothered to breathe most days?

Fuck me you pay peanuts you get monkeys, you pay nothing you get even less than that. #-o


[size=50]…[/size][size=124]OK girls, we drilled to the bottom of that one.[/size]

Now, that we’re finished, let’s return to the important shit of back-biting and calling each other names…[/size]


Can I tell you something man?

How do you justify this statement?

What do you mean “prove” and “true”?

There are a good number of definitions of metaphysics, and this would not be true for at least a number of them, and it would not make sense for others. Space and time, parts vs. wholes, for example are metaphysical topics and we can certainly experiences these in some ways.
So what is your definition of metaphysical?
How do we know what will never be observable at some point or is occasionally observable or not?

In my original post I was criticizing mass groups of people in generalities – of course there is always people who do not fit into a generality

And I am met with personal criticism of me individually: “He just views everyone as either christians or atheists” and “He is just imitating philosophers whose writings he barely skimmed through” – you are all silent though when it comes to delivering any well-founded counter argument.

Is it because I don’t mind offending everybody?
Christians: There is a dark history to your church you’re not ready to cope with, as well as a contradiction between your beliefs and your actions.
Atheists: If denouncing Christianity weren’t beneficial to you (in more ways than you’ll admit), you wouldn’t bother doing it.

With an understanding of modern physics, “space” and “time” are very easily understood as physical phenomenon.
The metaphysical being what is beyond physical, the unobservable

“Science” and “knowing” amount to ‘observing’, being able to interact with the physical, and deducing that something exists – the metaphysical, being beyond physical and unobservable, amounts to assuming the existence of something through things like “faith” or “desire”.
If your definition of the metaphysical is anything but, then what you’re thinking of still fits under the definition of ‘physical’.

And what’s the definition of ‘physical’?
The only category I can think of for things that are not supposed to be experiencable are things that are just transcendent and not immanent. Most religious entities, for example, supposedly can be experienced. IOW the category metaphysical, according to your definition, should not include many things that I think you are aiming at, since they are supposed to be experienceable.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I know the Church’s dark history and I accept it–the torture, the wars, the corruption, the intrigue. They were all part of the violence of the time and the struggle for power among political leaders during the Middle Ages. In later times, Christian sects committed atrocities as well–in the name of God. Some of them still do, although with more subtlety.

The name calling has been rampant among some sects. RC’s have been called idolators, ‘untrue Christians,’ ‘whores of Babylon,’ and other names. I think this is the result of fear and ignorance (on both sides, btw) And I’m sure there are just as many Catholics who commit sinful acts as there are Protestants. People tend to separate their everyday lives from their religious lives in order to survive now, when so many have denied ethics and morality as a way of life.

How do churches operate in a profit-oriented manner?–And how has religion done a terrible job teaching virtue?

Churches/religions are made up of people; some of them will be virtuous and some won’t–some only pretend to be so. But that’s true anywhere and everywhere.

Jesus’ mission was to take the Judaic people back to the 613 commandments of the Old Testament. That’s why He was called “Rabbi.”

Enough. I don’t understand how your OP “finishes the ‘God or no God’ debate.” It seems to be both a diatribe against Christianity and your instructions for people who don’t believe in any Christian religion to give a possibly ‘logical’ basis for their disbelief. No matter what, it’s full of assumptions.

Logic is not an observation, but a “metaphysical” construct (beyond the physical).
All deduction, and thus all observation, requires such a metaphysical tool.
A mind cannot exist without it.