This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe (page 41)

John_Mann

That means you have crafted a god according to your wishes.

No.

I'm bound by the first axiom of St. Anselm's ontological argument.

EdenOne

Stability is greater than instability.

Flexibility is greater than inflexibility. Choice is greater than no choice. According to St. Anselm, your god is no god.

John_Mann

Flexibility is greater than inflexibility

Flexibility it's not "bound by nothing".

Choice is greater than no choice.

You don't need to be" bound by nothing" in order to have choice.

EdenOne

Can god change his nature? Can he be evil? Does he give himself that choice? How do you know? Was he evil in the past? Has he regreted it?

Perry

Since atheism is one of the most inconsistent and irrational worldviews that we have to choose from, what are its causes? Here are some thoughts on this:

Freud himself observed that young people tend to lose their religious faith as soon as they lose the authority of their earthly fathers. This can happen in several ways:
1. The father is present, but he is weak, cowardly, unworthy of respect.
2. The father is present, but is physically, psychologically or sexually abusive.
3. The father is absent, whether through death or abandonment.
Another example of a prominent atheist with a poor paternal relationship is Thomas Hobbes. His father was an Anglican clergyman. Although the exact circumstances are unknown, he got into a fight with another man in the churchyard, following which he abandoned his family.
- As for Ludwig von Feuerbach, his father abandoned the family and lived with a married woman in the same town, then returned after the woman died. Feuerbach was twenty at the time of his father’s return. It is also to be noted that his father’s nickname was “Vesuvius”.
- Schopenhauer was rejected by his mother, and his father committed suicide when Schopenhauer was sixteen.
- Nietsche’s father died when he was four. Camus and Hume also lost their father’s in early childhood.
- Our contemporary Madeleine Murray O’Hare also had an unhappy family life. She often fought with her father, and on one occasion tried to kill him with a butcher’s knife. We cannot know the reason for her hatred, but it probably was not without cause.

- Another well-known living atheist is Albert Ellis,...Ellis grew up in New York. His mother did not function well, and his father was a philanderer who abandoned the family when Ellis was twelve. He and his brother had to take care of their mother and themselves. As an adult Ellis is polite to his father, but we can only guess how great the pain of his childhood must have been.

- Dr. Antony Flew is another famous contemporary atheistic psychologist. Some while ago he was at a party and, having had too much to drink, ended up lying on the floor, hitting it and saying over and over, “I hate my father. I hate my father.” (Antony Flew recently changed his mind from Atheism to Intelligent Design.

Perhaps the most prominent bible critic today Bart Ehrman, can trace his hurt feelings to losing his father to cancer while a young church leader tried to get him to confess sins and then tried to anoint him with a bottle of shampoo in a motel room. He was pretty hurt about that.

We know that emotional trauma can shut down certain brain functions. At least one study suggests that when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result.

Does religious trauma and/or loss of a father figure (like shunning) predispose someone to embrace irrational atheist views?

I think there is evidence to suggest that personal pain and myopic, self-centered indulgence of is a major factor.

John_Mann

Can god change his nature?

No.

Can he be evil?

No.

Does he give himself that choice?

No.

How do you know?

Several independent sources.

But in this case I'm just using the first axiom from St. Anselm's ontological argument.

Stability is greater than instability, remember?

Was he evil in the past?

No.

Has he regreted it?

No.

That is, if we go by your flawed logic.

I'm following the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

The St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical argument.

Please use logic to prove his logical argument is flawed. I challenge you.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry -

Once again you demonstrate why reading an article written by conservative Christians that is critiquing a scientific study isn't a good use of your limited amount of free time. The actual study makes a good case against the what it is you are suggesting the study states.

JW's rely on 'spiritual food' from the FDS and we see where that gets the average JW with regards to a basic understanding of science (for 1 example). You, yet again, are demonstrating exactly the same behaviour as the JWs by relying on these 3rd parties to 'feed' you your knowledge...

EdenOne

I'm following the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
The St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical argument.
Please use logic to prove his logical argument is flawed. I challenge you.

In case you didn't notice, I wasn't challenging the logic of St. Anselm's axiom; I can even agree with its logic. What I said, and you wholly ignored it, is that it actually proves that the god of christianity is no god. Why? Because I can think of a being greater than the god of Christianity. Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature. Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria, thus making the god of christianity no god at all.

You can wiggle as you want, argueing about what qualities are "greater" - they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain? Again, you are crafting a god according to your wishes. Nothing new, mankind has been doing it for millenia. Your own logic defeats your reasoning.

Actually it would make much more sense if god was capable of evil. That would make much more sense with the world we live in.

John_Mann

Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature.

This means a very unstable being, right?

Stability is greater than instability.

Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria.

No way.

Your logic is flawed and you know that.

The Christian concept of God meets the St. Anselm's criteria but your defined being not.

they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain?

Because there are necessary truths that are the same in all possible worlds, physical and metaphysical.

And the metaphysical is accessible.

You are the one saying the metaphysical world/realm/domain is not accessible or/and inexistent.

I say the metaphysical realm is more accessible than the physical realm actually. Your consciousness is metaphysical.

cofty

Still off on irrelevant philosophical tangents. The OP is about 9 simple observations. Nothing you have said since begins to address them.

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

Share this