Mr Spinkles
Mr
In another thread, I said:
I would add that I believe the definitions for some gods are unreasonable. For example, the existence of any god who has the ability and motive to remove {A} from the world is inconsistent with the existence of {A} in the world. If {A} exists in the world, something must be lacking in either the god's motive or ability.
Furthermore, the definitions of some gods are so vague as to render themselves utterly meaningless, and therefore do not warrant consideration (much less beleif). I'm thinking here of New Age definitions of god (e.g. god is the "source" of all things, god is "an energy that binds us all", god is "all that is good").
Finally, there is good evidence against the existence of some gods. For example, if a given god is defined as a man with an alligator's head who has special powers and regularly walks around in big cities, there is very good evidence against the existence of that god. Why? Because if that were true, we would expect that god to have been captured on film numerous times, and that his appearances would be commonplace and lots and lots of credible witnesses would corroborate the event. The absence of the predicted evidence is good evidence against the existence of this particular god.
How do you clarify your atheism? Do your views fall along the same lines as mine?
This is not to say that I *know* Mother Goose and God do not exist. Rather, I feel that belief in them does not stem from knowledge of their existence but from the myths of societies and individuals I explained earlier. Any relationship these beliefs have to reality is purely coincidental.I would say I don't believe in god or Mother Goose...however, my position doesn't quite stop with an absence of belief in them: I believe something about God and Mother Goose. I feel there is strong evidence that both God and Mother Goose are mythical creations of societies and individuals which manifest themselves purely within the human psyche.
I would add that I believe the definitions for some gods are unreasonable. For example, the existence of any god who has the ability and motive to remove {A} from the world is inconsistent with the existence of {A} in the world. If {A} exists in the world, something must be lacking in either the god's motive or ability.
Furthermore, the definitions of some gods are so vague as to render themselves utterly meaningless, and therefore do not warrant consideration (much less beleif). I'm thinking here of New Age definitions of god (e.g. god is the "source" of all things, god is "an energy that binds us all", god is "all that is good").
Finally, there is good evidence against the existence of some gods. For example, if a given god is defined as a man with an alligator's head who has special powers and regularly walks around in big cities, there is very good evidence against the existence of that god. Why? Because if that were true, we would expect that god to have been captured on film numerous times, and that his appearances would be commonplace and lots and lots of credible witnesses would corroborate the event. The absence of the predicted evidence is good evidence against the existence of this particular god.
How do you clarify your atheism? Do your views fall along the same lines as mine?