(06-12-2023, 10:17 PM)Freija Wrote:”Ninurta” Wrote:One should not confuse a wrathful, authoritarian dickhead deity with it's wrathful, authoritarian dickhead acolytes.
Well, who supposedly created a great flood to wipe out the opposition except for a dude and his boat? Who allegedly blew up a city because he didn’t like the way people were acting? Who turned people to pillars of salt and who demanded if you don’t play his game you’re not welcome in the magical kingdom? Why should one submit to bullying tactics of some arrogant pissed off jerk?
(there’s more here: God's 12 Biggest Dick Moves in the Old Testament
Nevertheless, I understand the point you’re making.
Well, either that is "myth", or it is not. If it is not, then that would make it "reality" If it's myth, then it does not count, does not bear consideration or factoring in to an argument, and supports my contention that it is just the ravings of a guy somewhere, and properly any ire should be due that guy, rather than his mythological god. If it is NOT myth, but instead is reality, then that might have farther reaching consequences. If you are willing to give credence and consideration to those stories, are you SURE you are a non-believer?
I do think there is quite a lot more to it than simply being denied admittance to a magical kingdom because of a failure to adhere to rules, but that is probably beyond the scope of this thread. Most, if not all, Christians will freely admit that they've broken all those rules, or a substantial portion of them, and so by rights should be denied admission to that magical kingdom. So, at least to them, there is more to it than just playing a game by a set of rules that cannot be observed consistently. Of course, willful and consistent refusal to even play the game would disqualify one right off the bat, but that appears to have been accounted for.
Quote:”Ninurta” Wrote:I'm curious. Consider this question a part of my ongoing education. Why is belief in a "big mean wrathful omnipotent sky god" more of a stretch than believing the possibility of big mean wrathful all powerful aliens, who can apparently violate the laws of nature and physics at will to travel vast distances in an instant, more of a stretch?
Because it is more fun and aliens haven’t demanded I worship them or burn in hell or some stupid crap like that and the possibilities are more open given the unlikely chance that they might not be dickheads too plus they’re liable to have a more tangible physical presence rather than something unseen and unprovable . Given a choice of fantastical fantasies, I’d rather pick aliens.
Fantasies are fantasies, and in the absence of concrete evidence for or against either, then they are just that - fantasies. I can't see a good reason to prefer one over the other without either some sort of evidence or personal experience of the subject matter. In that case, both would be equally likely. If that is the case, then "belief" in the possibility of one or the other is just a matter of personal preference... with "belief" being the key there. More on that later.
For what it's worth, I find precious little support in Christian writings for the notion of "burning in hellfire forever". that seems to be more of a scare tactic employed by preachers, rather than anything supported in their book. What I find in that book is the notion of oblivion for "non-believers" rather than any sort of eternal torture. Just a simple failure to exist any more, and that forever, for that person, and for many, that's just not scary enough.
Quote:”Ninurta” Wrote:It seems to me that if one is agnostic of one of those potentials, they should also be agnostic towards the other of them. Either way, if they have not seen, how can they "know"? Isn't denial of the possibility it's own kind of faith? And isn't the essence of a religion "faith"?
Non-belief, same as belief, seems to me to be it's own sort of religion, albeit a negative one, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore any conclusions, either for or against, are "faith-based."
This is why I don’t consider myself an atheist as it has become a religion of its own. I’ve looked at alternatives to Christianity and other Abrahamic “religions” such as The Satanic Temple, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca and even Pastafarianism and discarded all of them because as I stated above, I can’t really be bothered to believe or not believe so in my case, my non-believing is not a faith in itself, it is just nothingness.
I agree that Atheism is just another religion among many religions. They all hinge on faith or belief, and "non-belief" is a belief in and of itself, as it is not supported by any evidence. it is "faith" that there is nothing there, not much different, in the long run, from "faith" that there IS something there. In your case, I submit that is also the case - "non-belief" is just a belief of it's own sort. It's a belief in nothingness, rather than nothingness itself. if it were actual nothingness, then it could not exist, because, nothingness. The key concept in both "belief" and "non-belief" is "belief". That is what both have in common.
I have never seen a subatomic particle, but I believe they exist. I have that "faith".
Quote:”Ninurta” Wrote:A corollary question, in my mind, is why do folks, believers and unbelievers alike, seem to limit the extent of a deity to the sky only? Isn't that, in itself, a limitation on the theoretically limitless? Doesn't the very concept destroy notions of omnipotence?
For me, sky faries is just a phrase and I agree that putting a location to this so called omnipotent spirit in the sky is just another contradiction that makes no sense. It's like a grown up version of Santa Clause who's watching to see who is naughty and who is nice except the consequences for not playing by the rules are more serious than getting a lump of coal with a god that will ban you to eternal hellfire and misery.
Anthropomorphism of supposed spiritual beings can be a bitch. it gives both sides of the argument a concrete target to aim at. I think, personally, that for a truly omnipotent being to exist, it would have to exist everywhere, at every point in the universe. I do have a personal theory of how that could be, but won't go into it at this point, as minds could be blown and/ or spiritual foundations shaken, and I'm just not about all that. I think folks should believe as they want to believe, but that they should have some foundation to support that belief, whatever it is, and whichever way it goes. That is really THEIR eternity to look after as they see fit, not mine to worry too much about.
If folks want to believe the tales are objective fact, then I'm ok with that because it's their personal thing to see after. Likewise, if folks want to believe the stories are mythological, then THAT is their own personal belief to see after as well. I'm really ok with whichever way an individual wants to take their own life... just so long as they aren't trying to drag others along with them, kicking and screaming as they go.
I also think that if anyone wants to know about the religion of another, then they'll ask. No need to chase them down and smack them upside the head with a book to get their attention - or smack them upside the head with the LACK of a book, in the case of the Atheist Religion - there's no need to shake a finger in their face (not doing that has the added advantage of not getting that finger bitten off) or most any of the other untoward tactics various religions use to try to force their god (or lack thereof) on an unwilling subject. Folks' religion is a personal matter, and they should be left to it unless they ask about yours or mine... or if they try to inject themselves into ours unbidden.
.