Yes, and on a sub-conscious [unconscious] level reactions to God can become murky indeed.

Even in examining my own reaction to God and religion, I often think/feel that the emotional and psychological intensity [sometimes expressed in anger at or ridicule directed toward the true believers] revolves at least in part around wanting a God to exist if only because at least there would be something – something transcendental – to aim it at.

With No God you are forced to accept the fact that any and all of the suffering [injustice] that you have experienced [or know of others experiencing] is merely part and parcel of the brute facticity embedded in a meaningless and absurd universe. So part of you gets pissed off at those who have a rationalization [a God] they can use to help absorb it.

Yes: “In the absence of God all things are permitted.”

All one need do is rationalize it. And given the reality of human history to date, what behaviors have not been rationalized?

And countless conflicting behaviors have been embraced by folks who insist that their own agenda reflects what God would judge to be virtuous.

It is not for nothing that many religious folks will themselves point out that God is necessary here.

As I see it, we need a point of view – omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent – whereby all human behaviors are noted, all human behaviors are judged, and all human behaviors not in accordance with virtue are punished.

Who else fits the bill here BUT God?

And in pointing this out, it doesn’t necessarily make you “godaphobic”.

Here is but one example of a debate regarding the relationship between God, objectivity and morality:
frame-poythress.org/do-we-ne … -be-moral/

I note in particular this:

But if this is God’s world, a personal universe, then we do have reason to believe in absolute moral principles. For one thing, as Immanuel Kant pointed out, we need an omnipotent God to enforce moral standards, to make sure that everyone is properly rewarded and punished.

But I don’t imagine that any mere mortal can actually resolve it.

And it is not that in the absence of God, our behaviors are not judged. Of course they are. Any particular human community will have rules of behavior [more or less codified into law] that either reward or punish what we choose to do or not do. The only question is the extent to which we can deem these judgments to be in accordance with the most rational manner in which to judge them.

That is true for the majority of those who do not want to believe the God, if not all.
People dislike to be judged as it puts onus of their actions on them and restrict their freeness also.

with love,

Nah, I think you lose most atheists on both of those.

I don’t know about “Godaphobia”; I think it’s just that most atheists operate with “there is no god” standing as a fundamental truth. Anything said about God is fundamentally untrue, always. Naturally, then, if others want to use “God” to justify an action or belief, or to use it as a reason or cause of something, atheists will necessarily find those people moronic.

And the same endlessly repeated irony is that you just “said something about God”, thus what you said must be untrue: “This statement is untrue”, “I don’t know what a god is, I just know that there is no such thing”, “I don’t believe in anything. I just believe there is no God. But that isn’t a belief”.

Godaphobia seems to make people terribly irrational when it comes to logic, not that homosapian has ever really been great at it anyway.

Iam, why must there be no purpose if there is not a hand at the tiller? Evolving and changing life and lifeforms has a direction of its own. I do not need a god to see that evolving and changing is a purpose or has purpose. The smallest lifeform is capable of change, plants can change and adapt, animals do this. The universe will not divulge its reasons because it cannot at this point. Why can this thought not be enough?

I would never argue that there is no purpose to life sans God; only that mere mortals have many different conflicting assessments regarding what one’s purpose in life ought to be. And that any particular purpose we embrace is rooted in dasein – in the lives that we live existentially.

And [of course] that these conflicting value judgments precipitate conflicting behaviors. And that these conflicting behaviors can then often precipitate truly dire consequences.

Yet without God [an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent point of view] we have no font to turn to [among mere mortals] in order to assess these conflicts objectively.

And, thus, in “the best of all possible worlds”, moderation, negotiation and compromise seems to be the best approach.

But not to the objectivists, of course. They often set themselves up as the equivalent of philosopher-kings; and they insist that their own narrative reflects the most rational manner in which to live. And to resolve conflicts.

And yet those intellectuals feel insults are needed against a belief. Had humans begun with patience as a core value, we could be at peace, maybe.

Perhaps in one specific case, it is more “Objectaphobia”, a fear of objectiveness, leading to paranoia. :astonished:

Maybe. But then few folks are more cynical than I am regarding things like that. Of course that’s embedded in dasein too.

Let’s try this game: I would say “God” is, in fact, that purpose - to BE be a GOD-LIKE being.

What does that mean to you? - - If I said, “Look, your ‘purpose’ is to become one with God”?

You’re determining all this shit as you go along. 99% of it, anyway.

This whole “story” is unfolding exactly the way you want it to.
“Values” are internal and arbitrary - is that not what atheism and nihilism teach?


Or, what I think makes more sense - the thing that you think is “you” IS GOD - the “PRIME MOVER” the “ALL-LOVING” “PURE LIGHT” “SPIRIT” of “EVERYTHING” … come the fuck on think about it, it’s a “self” metaphor, always has been. What is “universe” if not the totality of “self”? Does not “everything” end when “you” do? Did not “everything” begin when “you” did?

“God” is the ultimate version of yourself, and manifesting that requires “faith in God” - faith in goodness and light and life and intelligence. Your “purpose” and your “vision of what God wants” are the same thing.

If your “God” is “bullshit, nothing” then your life is “bullshit, nothing.”

You see this is the game we play.

That’s not what atheism teaches, atheism doesn’t teach anything, it’s simply a position concerning the existence of a deity, it isn’t a doctrine itself #-o

How do theists get the simplest stuff like that wrong so often…

Sure, if you’re a solipsist egoist completely out of touch with the real world.

That could be true, my physique bears a strong resemblance to that of Priapus :smiley:

I’m afraid that it actually does preach many things and thus teaches something.

Atheism preaches that there is no God, no morality, no eternal cause (the definition of God), often that there is no Truth, that morality is bad (aka evil), religion is bad, faith is bad, that there is no such thing as good or evil, and most especially that Christians are bad, and that evolution is random and purposeless. There are a great many other things that often go along with the [brain]wash. Atheism proselytizes anti-religion as a religion, taking advantage of those who are asleep or the children not yet aware.

What it teaches is that atheists are just as brainwashed, religious, and evangelic as everyone else. They just worship a different god and seriously fear the word “religion” such as to fear anything associated with it, even though they do it all quite religiously.

That is true if atheists only state that gods do not exist. But they say a lot more and so they teach and preach.

Just look around here. Full of atheists who can’t stop commenting on the evils of religion, the psychology of believers, the morality of the nonexistent God, the errors of holy books.

James S Saint

Wrong already. That’s strong atheism, a position a minority of atheists ascribe to.


That’s not the definition of god, that’s not how the majority of theists use the word and that’s not how the majority of atheists see theists use the word.

By now it’s getting all too obvious you’re just strawmaning.

Theism means believing in a personal god.
Atheism means not believing in a personal god.

It’s that simple.

And while it’s true that some beliefs do tend to go along with atheism (evolution, non spirituality) it’s not necessary to being an atheist.

But I guess since you’re pulling the atheists are religious argument you aren’t interested in sincere discussion because I don’t believe you’re that deluded and I think you’re simply trolling me. The fact that you claim ATHEISM takes advantage of “children not yet aware” only confirms my suspicion because I don’t think a person can be THAT hypocritical unwittingly.

I don’t think even you believe your own nonsense and if you really do I guess there’s no reasoning with you.

That’s where you’re wrong. That Simms guy f.e. was almost like a religious atheist, he constantly defended the religious and claimed he wants to be religious too.

As I said to JSS, atheism means not believing in a personal god, theism means believing in a personal god. It’s that simple. Some philosophical positions are more often held by atheists, some are more often held by theists. That doesn’t mean that atheism or theism necessarily teach those positions or that having those positions is necessary to be an atheist or a theist.

Not around here is isn’t.
And it is a ruse to attempt to call agnosticism “atheism”… an intentional, cowardly deception, serpentine.
Only those few of us do that nasty thing. Us good atheists don’t do that [we just follow in their wake]”… give it a break. :icon-rolleyes:

And only a few Nazis gassed the Jews. And only a few Jews murdered Jesus (one of their own). And only a few Christians burned witches - oh but that’s different, all Christians are evil.

But then by atheism, anyone can be a liar, cheat, or thief because morality is arbitrary.
So does that mean that Atheists can burn witches and gas Jews?

Theism means believing in god(s). It is That simple.

And “gods” include what is today called “principles”… which inherently lead to both Truth and morality.

A “personal god”, or rather an “anthropomorphized principle” is merely one option for those who never learned any more than that, much like believing that Christmas is all about Santa Claus and never growing up.

And frankly, isn’t as bad, but otherwise the same as believing in the Relativity theory in physics. It is for those who don’t have an analytical mind for details and just want something to use as a general guide.

But an agnostic can be an atheist, agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive. The former is concerned with knowledge while the latter is concerned with belief.

You can believe and not know, you can disbelieve and not know, you can believe and know and disbelieve and know.

About your concept of god JSS I’d be an agnostic atheist - I disbelieve but I don’t claim certainty. About some people’s concept of a good theistic god I’d be a gnostic (strong) atheist.

Claiming morality is objective doesn’t make it so. It’s sad that I actually have to point that our.

Theists aren’t any less inclined to crime than atheists, on the contrary.

patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat … -imagined/

I’ve never seen any practical use of belief in objective morality so not only is it wrong and unsupported by evidence, it’s useless. Empathy and common sense I use seem to have much better results than some people’s supposed “objective” morality.

Did you even read my previous posts?

If Nazi act according to their political ideology and their political ideology includes gassing Jews then YES, you CAN blame their political ideology.
If Christians in middle ages acted according to Bible, which commands killing witches then YES, you can blame their bible.

However, find me an atheist who would claim to base his morality on non-belief in god. I’m not sure if that’s even possible.

Perhaps it leads to BELIEF in absolute truth and absolute morality. Definitely doesn’t bring people any closer to truth or morality though.

Yes, they are. The atheists are just afraid to take a stand when confronted with actual logical deductions (such as admitting the definition of an atheist). They use the agnostic argument merely to escape logical defeat.

And you can not believe and not know (the agnostic) - different than disbelieve and not know.
That is a silly argument and not the case at all.

So you seriously disbelieve that there is anything consistent at all causing the universe to be the way it is? That would mean that you believe that the entire universe is nothing but total chaos, without the slightest order involved. It would mean that you disbelieve all science.

Seriously? I doubt that, else you wouldn’t be able to speak or type… or even walk.

Your arguments are the result of concluding in a serious vacuum of understanding.

I respect Simms because he doesn’t evangelize. It’s refreshing.

Whether gods are personal or not is irrelevant to both theism and atheism.

As long as atheism is simply saying that there are no gods because it sees no evidence for gods, then it can be considered empty and without doctrine. Waiting for evidence before accepting the existence of an object is the rational position.

However, it’s clear from the proliferation of literature coming from atheists that there is more going on than waiting. Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins are creating content which is the basis for ‘religious atheism’. The religious aspects of atheism becoming more popular. There are now atheist congregations.