Atheism ends today

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if you allow for a First Cause that led to the existence of the universe - which is presumably what you were referring to as the alternative to the idea that a universe could pop out of nothing - allowing for the possibility of a First Cause does not automatically lead to believing that the First Cause also has any moral capacity that would guide people rather than people guiding themselves.

Is a First Cause with moral authority your concept of a Supreme Being that you think people are avoiding? Or is just the moral authority alone sufficient for you to consider something a Supreme Being, even if it wasn't the First Cause?

A supreme moral being is singular. If the supreme moral being is created how can it be more moral than it's creator outwith nothing has existence?. In other words there can be no independent moral sphere outside the supreme being.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A supreme moral being is singular. If the supreme moral being is created how can it be more moral than it's creator outwith nothing has existence?. In other words there can be no independent moral sphere outside the supreme being.

If I understand you correctly, your belief is that a supreme moral being popped out of nothing - on the basis that it can't have been created and still be the supreme moral being?

And it is the moral sphere that you are focussing on in relation to gods? Objects and species that have no moral capacity are therefore not part of this sphere of creation/ influence for a supernatural entity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I understand you correctly, your belief is that a supreme moral being popped out of nothing - on the basis that it can't have been created and still be the supreme moral being?

And it is the moral sphere that you are focussing on in relation to gods? Objects and species that have no moral capacity are therefore not part of this sphere of creation/ influence for a supernatural entity?

Popping out of nothing is a bit too Humeian for me and suffers from the critique that whatever the popper out of nothing is it could have alternatively been beamed in from somewhere but yes since it itself is the creator then there can be no moral sphere without it. The moral sphere is dependent on the supreme being. I see no need for everything to be a partaker of it, just as not everything is a partaker of the connections recognised by intellect or consciousness.

[jeremyp]

A supreme moral being is singular. If the supreme moral being is created how can it be more moral than it's creator outwith nothing has existence?. In other words there can be no independent moral sphere outside the supreme being.

Since we now know there is no creator, this is all completely academic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since we now know there is no creator, this is all completely academic.

And how do we know there is no creator Jeremy?

[jeremyp]

And how do we know there is no creator Jeremy?

Have you already forgotten the earlier pages of the thread? You should review them to try to get up to speed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you already forgotten the earlier pages of the thread? You should review them to try to get up to speed.

Can you write out your full proof?

[Spud]

So prayer doesn't work.

What if God doesn't want to end atheism yet?

[Gordon]

What if God doesn't want to end atheism yet?

Then, presumably, it could have ensured that it's fan club didn't pray for something it didn't want to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then, presumably, it could have ensured that it's fan club didn't pray for something it didn't want to do.

Could have, would have or should have Gordon? As a manager of something I know not but probably damn near the  universe what  would you have done in God's shoes?

[Outrider]

Could have, would have or should have Gordon? As a manager of something I know not but probably damn near the  universe what  would you have done in God's shoes?

Been more concerned with making it clear that rape, genital cutting and slavery are bad, but that morally I couldn't give two rainbow coloured shits about haircuts or prawns?

O.

[Gordon]

Could have, would have or should have Gordon? As a manager of something I know not but probably damn near the  universe what  would you have done in God's shoes?

Made sure that my existence was a clear and unequivocal fact, so that 'faith' could be dispensed with, along with the plethora of dogmas and rituals invented by humans. Crucially, I'd have stopped people over the the centuries causing suffering to other people under the guise of claims about my nature.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Made sure that my existence was a clear and unequivocal fact, so that 'faith' could be dispensed with, along with the plethora of dogmas and rituals invented by humans. Crucially, I'd have stopped people over the the centuries causing suffering to other people under the guise of claims about my nature.

I cannot give a time when atheism ends but we are told that all will be aware in the clearest terms that there will be no dodging it.
The hardest decision here is whether to effectively create puppets or to give people the freedom people complain God stifles. Maybe if it were me I would move atheists to realise they are not, in fact the good guys they think they are but are just authors of a new, acceptable bigotry against the religious communities. That seems the least assault against human freedom.

[Gordon]

I cannot give a time when atheism ends but we are told that all will be aware in the clearest terms that there will be no dodging it.
The hardest decision here is whether to effectively create puppets or to give people the freedom people complain God stifles. Maybe if it were me I would move atheists to realise they are not, in fact the good guys they think they are but are just authors of a new, acceptable bigotry against the religious communities. That seems the least assault against human freedom.

Given what is happening elsewhere in the world right now, and of course throughout much of recorded history, it is laughable that you associate religion with 'human freedom'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given what is happening elsewhere in the world right now, and of course throughout much of recorded history, it is laughable that you associate religion with 'human freedom'.

what has happened in the world is the result of the human freedom to do it. And of course one should remember that where religion was put away.....sometimes forcibly, up to 30 millions ended up dying in a very short space of time after the Russian revolution.

[Gordon]

what has happened in the world is the result of the human freedom to do it. And of course one should remember that where religion was put away.....sometimes forcibly, up to 30 millions ended up dying in a very short space of time after the Russian revolution.

Politics too can have negative effects: we know this already.

Anyhoo - what do you conclude about the apparent failure of this prayer initiative to end atheism?

[Aruntraveller]

https://www.wired.com/2007/04/old-testament-m/

Figures can be used to prove anything when religion is the context. I'd suggest we all stop using it.

People gonna kill.

[Outrider]

what has happened in the world is the result of the human freedom to do it. And of course one should remember that where religion was put away.....sometimes forcibly, up to 30 millions ended up dying in a very short space of time after the Russian revolution.

And we should also remember the difference between events that happen after one another, and events that happen because of one another.

What is happening in Afghanistan is being done in the name of your god - either because your god wanted it, because your god doesn't care enough to stop it, or because your god can't stop it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And we should also remember the difference between events that happen after one another, and events that happen because of one another.

What is happening in Afghanistan is being done in the name of your god - either because your god wanted it, because your god doesn't care enough to stop it, or because your god can't stop it.

O.

And people are free to use the name God too, sadly.
But, turning to your own case too many public atheists have classified the bad things in life as down to God, religion and believers and attributed all the good in the world to antitheist enlightenment.........A naive position.

Most people do things in the name of being right. When it turns out as it invariably does to be wrong do we give up on righteousness? Of course not, but given the same chance to give up on God, phwooosh, straight in there.

[Outrider]

And people are free to use the name God too, sadly.

Because, if your all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god is there he's not bothered enough to stop it.

But, turning to your own case too many public atheists have classified the bad things in life as down to God, religion and believers and attributed all the good in the world to antitheist enlightenment.........A naive position.

No, they've pointed out that the 'problem of evil' is one of the more significant issues that arises if you start form the precept of the Abrahamic god and follow the theory through.

Most people do things in the name of being right.

No, most people do things in the name of being comfortable or happy; sometimes, if they're trained well, they do what's 'right' (within their cultural context) because it's what they've been trained to feel comfortable with or happy about.

When it turns out as it invariably does to be wrong do we give up on righteousness?

Oh, there's a huge step from being 'right' to being 'righteous'...

Of course not, but given the same chance to give up on God, phwooosh, straight in there.

When did you give up on Allah? Or Vishnu? Or Zeus? Or Ameratsu Omikami?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because, if your all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god is there he's not bothered enough to stop it.

No, they've pointed out that the 'problem of evil' is one of the more significant issues that arises if you start form the precept of the Abrahamic god and follow the theory through.

No, most people do things in the name of being comfortable or happy; sometimes, if they're trained well, they do what's 'right' (within their cultural context) because it's what they've been trained to feel comfortable with or happy about.

Oh, there's a huge step from being 'right' to being 'righteous'...

When did you give up on Allah? Or Vishnu? Or Zeus? Or Ameratsu Omikami?

O.

I've never heard of Ameratsu Omikami but am prepared to accept these are names of the supreme being......who I haven't given up on.

[Outrider]

I've never heard of Ameratsu Omikami but am prepared to accept these are names of the supreme being......who I haven't given up on.

Neither Vishnu or Omeratsu Omikami (from the Japanese traditional pantheon, a sun-goddess, I believe) are 'The' supreme being, given that they come from traditions with multiple deities; it's questionable whether Zeus or the Christian god are 'The' supreme being given they come from traditions with multiple divine beings, although they are depicted within those traditions as 'senior'.

It remains the case though that you've not rejected those depictions, they're just not ones you've adopted. I appreciate that some non-believers used to believe, but far from all of us.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither Vishnu or Omeratsu Omikami (from the Japanese traditional pantheon, a sun-goddess, I believe) are 'The' supreme being, given that they come from traditions with multiple deities;

If you insist, that's probably why I have given up on them.

it's questionable whether Zeus

Zeus comes from a dramatised effort at theology, a kind of cosmic JR Ewing

or the Christian god are 'The' supreme being given they come from traditions with multiple divine beings, although they are depicted within those traditions as 'senior'.

Well Zeus is senior but his supremacy is in question since there seems to be a time when he didn't exist. Your argument that the abrahamic monotheistic God comes from people who once were pantheistic leaves me asking ''so what?''. That;s a bit like saying the Wright brother's originally built Bicycles so planes are just Bicycles.

[/quote]

[jeremyp]

Can you write out your full proof?

I already have. Read the first couple of pages of this thread.

You've got no answer. That much is obvious from your diversionary tactics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I already have. Read the first couple of pages of this thread.

You mean your wrong assumption of an immediate result or the result you predicted within the limitations of your theological understanding?
I can't find any reference to this event at all.