The simplemindedness of an atheist discussing the "God" concept

Sep 2019
162
11
Evolution's bosom
Dealing with the simple-mindedness of the average atheist in discussing the "God" concept (whether from a secular, or religious perspective) is tiresome.

When atheists attempt to talk about God, or a god, they're merely referring to a simplistic, iconographic image of God, rather than the abstract concept it refers to, which renders mosts of the debates on the subject worthless, as we're merely arguing with an idiot.

Anyone who has done even rudimentary research on the topic would know that a symbolic image of God, such as the figure depected in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam isn't the God itself, but merely a representative image - even during the Medieval Era, the Catholic Church merely used said image to represent God to people who weren't literate, but understood that God was not the image itself, but an abstract concept or idea, much like "science", which couldn't be visually represented otherwise, since it doesn't correspond to a physical object). I believe this is why sacred texts such as the Hebrew Bible prohibited the use of graven images - since they knew it would dumb down the concept, and idiots would believe that "God" actually looked like that, or could be seen with the naked eye.

This is why atheists using the silly "Santa Claus" analogy are laughable, even from a secular perspective like that of myself - It would be like an atheist dismissing the concept of aliens, by saying it would be like believing in Marvin the Martian, when of course, if alien life exists, an alien wouldn't really look like that - "Marvin the Martian" is just a childish depiction of one.

For that matter, an "atom" can't be seen with the naked eye either; drawings of atoms are just depections, which is why unintelligent atheists using the simple "I can't see it with my own eyes argument" aren't worth anyone's time, since they'd have to also dismiss the existence of science, atoms, quantum physics, and other abstractions which "can't be seen" with their eyes either - them simply having faith in scientists having observed said things and produced said abstractions, not on having tested and gathered the evidence themselves... how utterly... naive...

Or "ghosts", "goblins", "zombies", or whatever - I have no idea what abstraction a "ghost" necessarily refers to, but assuming that a childish drawing or depection of a "ghost" is the same as whatever abstract concept or idea something such as "The Holy Ghost" refers to is either stupid or a liar, perhaps too dishonest or defective to even talk to.
 
Last edited:

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,758
12,526
Mustafa
I'm not trying to sell God, just trying to sell atheist stupidity - like Nietzche said, they are even worse.

And you fail because your third paragraph (and ff. ) makes false claims ~ claims that you have not supported and which are blatantly superficial.

I challenge you to a true philosophical debate on the subject ~ a debate not merely reduced to a collection of elaborate ad hominem attacks that lack substance and a well developed argument ~ a debate based solely upon reason.

I am an atheist, and I have never once mentioned an anthropomorphic god as depicted in art, or Santa Claus for that matter, so let's see if you have what it takes to back up your fatuous and dishonest attacks.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
14,556
5,256
California
And you fail because your third paragraph (and ff. ) makes false claims ~ claims that you have not supported and which are blatantly superficial.

I challenge you to a true philosophical debate on the subject ~ a debate not merely reduced to a collection of elaborate ad hominem attacks that lack substance and a well developed argument ~ a debate based solely upon reason.

I am an atheist, and I have never once mentioned an anthropomorphic god as depicted in art, or Santa Claus for that matter, so let's see if you have what it takes to back up your fatuous and dishonest attacks.
That is a good point.There are no "Absolutes" in Philosophy ,so I just pose one question. The "Natural Laws" and "Evolution" . They happened by random chance?
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,758
12,526
Mustafa
That is a good point.There are no "Absolutes" in Philosophy ,so I just pose one question. The "Natural Laws" and "Evolution" . They happened by random chance?
Which of course wasn't my point, however, can it be demonstrated that they didn't? If you're alluding to causation ultimately arriving at a god, I suggest you examine the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its attendant flaws.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
14,556
5,256
California
Can it be demonstrated that they didn't?
Another good question. There is a tale about the possibility of 100 Chimpanzees accidently typing the Encyclopedia. Theoretically possible. But unlikely.
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,758
12,526
Mustafa
Another good question. There is a tale about the possibility of 100 Chimpanzees accidently typing the Encyclopedia. Theoretically possible. But unlikely.
If you're alluding to causation ultimately arriving at a god, I suggest you examine the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its attendant flaws.

I give you the following: In a universe of infinite time and infinite space, there exists infinite possibilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Friday13

CtC

Mar 2019
14,556
5,256
California
If you're alluding to causation ultimately arriving at a god, I suggest you examine the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its attendant flaws.

I give you the following: In a universe of infinite time and infinite space, there exists infinite possibilities.
How about this. In Genesis ,if one reads is allegorically ,wouldn't "Let there be Light" describe "The Big Bang" ?