Argue the Opposite: Existence of God

[Animavore]

I'm not sure how I could argue for something without having knowledge and understanding of what it is first. But since any gods I've come across are so ill-defined I might as well argue for the existence of fyyyttggffvvcddfggyu.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

Sound bites are great an' all but the views, thoughts and opinions on God are so diverse and varied one could very quickly get bogged down entertaining them. Also, one would have to entertain and argue for conflicting and contrary views at the same time while maintaining consistency. A tall order

No need to do any of that. You don't have to argue "everything" in order to make an argument.

But all the arguments suck. Especially the ontological argument above. I can think of many gods greater than the one of many Judeochristomuslims.

Their god sees homosexuality as immoral. My god is down with that. In fact he put them here to show us straight guys how to 'do it' if we had ears to listen.
Their god destroys cities and lives in the form of vengeful wrath. My god gave us brains that we can counter strive and rise above nature.
Their god sent a ragamuffin collection of swivel-eyed, ranty men with inferiority complexes and unhealthy sexual appetites, from incestuous drunks to paedophile warmongers. My god sent Megan Fox to suck our collective cocks.

My god is the greatest being maximally and therefore deserves the existence willed into it, while their puny god is the product of diseased minds racked in superstition and hobbled by lack of education and only exists as a deranged hallucination shared by people seeking attention and confirmation from an authority figure who has unreasonable standards.

[Coito ergo sum]

But all the arguments suck. Especially the ontological argument above. I can think of many gods greater than the one of many Judeochristomuslims.

Yes yes. But, here's the thing. Have you ever noticed that there are some otherwise intelligent, educated people who are "believers" of one sort or another? They're making arguments. I am like you in thinking that the believer arguments suck. Sure, but I can't help but think that there might be a possibility that something out there is persuading some fairly smart people. I'd at least like to be able to fathom their thinking. And, just the exercise is a help in debating with believers, because it helps to understand their arguments better than them -- they can be skewered easier that way.

[rachelbean]

The problem for me is as someone who was a devout believer, and then after slowly finding myself doubting more and more, spent many years studying theology to try and find the "truth" and holding to those beliefs until they unravelled, all the while holding on to at the very least, the core idea that God existed and was the beginning of all things. Well, I only ended up at atheism because I continued to shoot down my own beliefs as they became unbelievable. If I had found a believable argument I'd still be a believer. So, arguing for something I know to be untrue seems like an exercise in futility.

[Svartalf]

Exercise in futility? This is a Ratz thread, what else do you wish for?

[Hermit]

I am starting a new thread series for the forum. It's called "Argue the Opposite" and I welcome anyone else to start a thread similar to this on other topics or questions.

The idea: The idea is to argue the opposite of the position you would normally take on an issue. That is, if you are normally atheistic, argue the theistic position. If you are normally a theist, then argue the atheist position.

I'll sit this one out at least until our chief "contrarian" regales us with walls of words about the virtues and desirability of Marxism.

That would be a great thread to start. "Argue the Opposite: Why is Marxism good or bad?" -- care to start it?

No, I do not. Read the previous line again, please.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem for me is as someone who was a devout believer, and then after slowly finding myself doubting more and more, spent many years studying theology to try and find the "truth" and holding to those beliefs until they unravelled, all the while holding on to at the very least, the core idea that God existed and was the beginning of all things. Well, I only ended up at atheism because I continued to shoot down my own beliefs as they became unbelievable. If I had found a believable argument I'd still be a believer. So, arguing for something I know to be untrue seems like an exercise in futility.

It's not so much whether you know or don't know it to be "true." The exercise is to take your best shot at making the argument.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am starting a new thread series for the forum. It's called "Argue the Opposite" and I welcome anyone else to start a thread similar to this on other topics or questions.

The idea: The idea is to argue the opposite of the position you would normally take on an issue. That is, if you are normally atheistic, argue the theistic position. If you are normally a theist, then argue the atheist position.

I'll sit this one out at least until our chief "contrarian" regales us with walls of words about the virtues and desirability of Marxism.

That would be a great thread to start. "Argue the Opposite: Why is Marxism good or bad?" -- care to start it?

No, I do not. Read the previous line again, please.

Well, if you started the thread, then that person might make that argument.

[Hermit]

[rachelbean]

The problem for me is as someone who was a devout believer, and then after slowly finding myself doubting more and more, spent many years studying theology to try and find the "truth" and holding to those beliefs until they unravelled, all the while holding on to at the very least, the core idea that God existed and was the beginning of all things. Well, I only ended up at atheism because I continued to shoot down my own beliefs as they became unbelievable. If I had found a believable argument I'd still be a believer. So, arguing for something I know to be untrue seems like an exercise in futility.

It's not so much whether you know or don't know it to be "true." The exercise is to take your best shot at making the argument.

Like I said, I've been through that a long time ago. Why would I argue something that I've argued and decided? If there was an argue left to be made that could be created in my own head I would have already shot it down or I wouldn't be an atheist.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem for me is as someone who was a devout believer, and then after slowly finding myself doubting more and more, spent many years studying theology to try and find the "truth" and holding to those beliefs until they unravelled, all the while holding on to at the very least, the core idea that God existed and was the beginning of all things. Well, I only ended up at atheism because I continued to shoot down my own beliefs as they became unbelievable. If I had found a believable argument I'd still be a believer. So, arguing for something I know to be untrue seems like an exercise in futility.

It's not so much whether you know or don't know it to be "true." The exercise is to take your best shot at making the argument.

Like I said, I've been through that a long time ago. Why would I argue something that I've argued and decided? If there was an argue left to be made that could be created in my own head I would have already shot it down or I wouldn't be an atheist.

Fair enough. I get that. Especially with an issue like gods, which is near and dear to people's hearts. It's traumatic for believers to lose faith, and once they do they don't want to reargue it. I get that.

I used to joke once in a while when there was like a drunken debate among friends and I was a late arrival. They'd be like "CES, you wanna get in on this? We're arguing __________." And, I'd say, "sure, which side do you want me to be on?" LOL I'm probably the only one who finds that funny, but I was both joking and serious. Joking because it's kind of funny to enter a debate and be o.k. with arguing either side, but serious because if they wanted me to be prochoice or pro Life in the debate, by way of example, I really could argue either side.

[rachelbean]

I have no emotional issues with it whatsoever, I just have nothing to argue. I do not believe there are any valid arguments to be made

[Mysturji]

Sorry, new to this thread, starting at the beginning... Please note: I am attacking the arguments, not the people posting them.

It is impossible for there not to be a God. The proof? The universe is so fucking awesome!

The only thing that proves is your lack of imagination.

[Mysturji]

The opposite of my position is surely that ALL gods exist - as I currently hold that none of them do. That could get a tad crowded in Olympus.

Which - I believe* - is uninhabited.


* irony intentional

[Mysturji]

It is impossible for there not to be a God. The proof? The universe is so fucking awesome!

Indeed, we live an a positive paradise, and human nature, since we are made in Its image, proves that it is perfect and benevolent.

Tell that to the children of Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Lybia...

[Mysturji]

Of course gods exist. The main problem with the religious and with atheists is that they presume that existence pertains to the physical universe. Gods exist in the same way all fictional characters exist. Imagined constructs with motivations and personalities which we define for them.


We done?

Hail Superman!