A question for atheists
 

I don't know where else to put this, so I guess I'll just put it here.

This is primarily aimed at (A specific group of) atheists, but anyone can answer. Now, assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for God, then how can one claim, with any reasonable faith, that no God exists? The admission that there are an infinite number of possibilities for God precludes atheism. To make such a statement while claiming to be an atheist is-- Dare I say it?-- Logically incoherent.

(When I say atheism, I'm talking about those who claim no God exists rather than agnostics.)

I apply this comment


"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."


It relates, I think.

There aren't infinite possibilities for god. The only resources for god are religious texts and stories. There are like 20 major world religions currently, but let's be very generous. Let's say there have been 1 million total gods believed in since the dawn of man. All of those gods include one thing: they're supernatural. Without that, the meaning of god changes and it's just someone calling something non-supernatural god (like when someone says they see god as the universe or some such nonsense).

Supernatural = unproven, unverified, and currently unverifiable. So when someone says "God doesn't exist" it's simply a statement made to communicate that there's absolutely no reason to believe in god that's based in logic.

For that matter, there are an infinite number of ways my car could break down. It's logically incoherent to assume that it runs at all.

furthermore, it's not infinite or zero.

it's not about numbers, it's about "1" or "0" in a binary sense.

true, or false
yes, or no.

in that light, might as well say it's 50/50

Will, that's nice and all, but that really wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Excluding agnosticism, atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. Now, I realize that a disbelief in God is not the same thing as the belief that there is no God, therefore I'm not concerned with the first position, as it poses no problems. It's the second position which provides a whole host of nasty logical problems. It's not uncommon to see an atheist use the argument "How do you know your God exists? God could be anything!" Well, if God could be anything, then to simultaneously make the statement that God doesn't exist, would be to make a contradiction (Something can't be anything yet not exist). That's why the statement, as I see it, is logically incoherent and precludes one from being an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

Only an idiot would make a statement like that. If any atheist says that to you, please send them my way. I won't want morons making atheists look bad (we're all looking at you, Lenin).

Some infinite sets are larger than others. For example, one might consider that the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for God is smaller than the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for no God. If the first set turns out to be infinitely smaller than the second, one might conclude that the chance of God existing is infinitely small.

As willravel points out, this is not a logic-driven argument.

However, let's put a different spin on it. I believe, Infinite_Loser, that you're a Christian of some description, am I correct? I don't need the details and I'm not judging, I just want to clarify that as a point of comparison. Personally I'm a dedicated fence-sitter, but that's neither here nor there.

Here's the catch, though: if you are Christian, you can't use the above argument to invalidate atheism without invalidating your own religion. If we assume for the sake of argument that it would be correct to say that there are an infinite possible ways in which God or a pantheon of gods could manifest, we have to accept as a given that one of those ways is for no gods to manifest at all; non-existence is one of those infinite possibilities. From there we can then equate atheism with any other faith, with the only difference being that atheism uses empirical evidence as a 'Bible.' From that perspective, you really can't use the infinite possibilities argument against atheists any more than they can use it against you, since those infinite possibilities contain both of your 'religions.'

I'm not sure how one could make this distinction as, by definition, infinite is undefined and inmeasurable. So there'd be no way of knowing this aside from simply assuming it to be true.

I would like to contribute to this thread, but it would first help to have a definition of God.

If we are taking God to mean a singular being as Creator, then I believe that such a being does not exist. If, however, we take God to mean something different, then my own beliefs could very well be parallel to such.

I'm not so sure how such an argument would invalidate my religion as, assuming God is anything, then, by association, my definition of God would be among one of the possibilities. This doesn't validate the atheist position, though, as while anything can be something, anything can't be nothing. And, yes, while I realize that the argument here is, if I'm understanding it correctly, that "Nothing is a possibility of anything (Which would make the probability of God existing being zero)", the usage of the word anything excludes nothingness (Or, in other words, existence doesn't include non-existence).

"God is the anything" is a simple mislabeling. God is not "anything". God is a deity, whether you consider he/her/it/them to be mythology or not. It's a personhood, not some concept of all that is.

Edit: if when one says "I believe in God" they are actually saying they believe in anything, then they're not even necessarily a theist or deist. They're just way too open minded.

Will, you've skipped over entire bodies of philosophy through the ages.

EDIT: (God is not necessarily a personhood.)

This is something else entirely.


We need a clarification of just what we're talking about when we say God.

For argument's sake, let's just define God as the creator of the universe.

This assumption includes non-existence as one of those possibilities, since "an infinite number of possibilities" would by definition include any possibility conceivable.

If you wish to use a completely literal interpretation of the statement "God could be anything" and therefore exclude non-existence as a possibility, that statement ceases to be atheistic in nature (which it never really was to begin with) and becomes an implied declaration of faith. Therefore, assuming such an interpretation for the statement "God could be anything," it for the purposes of this discussion carries essentially the same meaning as "God is an all-knowing, all-powerful benevolent creator," and any atheistic viewpoint becomes irrelevant. You are essentially making an argument against the different flavours of theism, rather than an argument for or against atheism. Regardless, the first highlighted statement and the second highlighted statement are inconsistent unless one adopts a more liberal interpretation of one or the other.

Also note that the statement "God could be anything" is not identical in meaning to the statement "God is anything." Your terminology in general is somewhat inconsistent here, which makes deciphering your message difficult.

EDIT for cross-posting -

This definition is theistic in nature and is therefore not well suited to a discussion of theism vs. atheism. A better definition would be "an entity assumed by some individuals to be the creator of the Universe," since it will allow discussion of God without an implied discussion of the Universe.

I'm not following, how can we assume there are an infinite number of possibilities god exists? This type of assumption doesn't get us anywhere because you're not bringing up any evidence for assuming such a thing. If you assume there are an infinite number of possibilities for god and an infinite number of possibilities that there is no god you end up right back where you started. Making assumptions like that is the complete lack of logic, not even a speck of it whatsoever.

The type of question you're asking here appears to be dealing with the probability of god existing and to determine if god exists or not you have to come up with reasons for and against and weight them based on their legitimacy.

Your logical and analytical skills are as abominable as ever. You also like to make shit up, which seriously offends me. Either that, or you're totally ignorant of the meaning of the words (and phrases) that you use...

Infinity is not undefined. Indeed, how can something, by definition, be undefined? This is a clear example of you making shit up and using words you don't understand...

Now, I think I can agree that infinity is immeasurable but that doesn't mean it's incomparable. For instance, lets define a power set of a given set as the set of all subsets of the given set. It's not too hard to prove that the power set has more elements than the given set, regardless of whether the given set had an infinite number of elements or not! Thus, some infinite sets are larger than others...

Sorry for the edit. I don't ordinarily edit to this degree but I was so incensed with the first post that I wasn't reading this one too clearly. It's very late at night so, hopefully, not too many people have read the previous revision...

I think you're misunderstanding the argument. The conclusion of the argument you're trying (desperately) to refute isn't "therefore, there is no God." The point of the argument is that the burden of proof is on the theist to provide compelling reason to believe in their particular god. The atheism comes from the sad fact that no one has provided any evidence that such a being exists and, therefore, it's most reasonable to not believe in any...

NVM

Trying to prove god's existance throug scientific analysis is futile as science by definition is supported in natural facts that are constant and repeatable, meanwhile god is by definition super natural or BEYOND nature. God is about faith, and faith by definition is believing beyond logic. If you or I believe in god that's fine, if you and I dont, that's fine too, just dont try to convince an atheist of God's existance rationalizing it.

where does this assumption come from?
how do you imagine this would involve an atheist in your op?


let's give this goofy thing the benefit of the doubt.

say there's an operation behind it---say youre transposing something like giodarno bruno's idea that there are infinite possible worlds.

so:

world=>category=>meaning understood as manifold of possibilities=>a manifold of possibilities is a collection of all possible exemplars of the category==>if the category is "world" then it follows that there are infinite possible worlds.

none of this gets started without the category "world."

the demonstration repeats the characteristics imputed to "meaning."

if you assume a meaning is a manifold, when you ask about a meaning, you find a manifold.
as a manifold, a meaning would "contain" all possible exemplars.
a manifold in this sense is maybe a "tree" diagram that would connect all possible exemplars of the category.
another way: this particular idea of "meaning" is spatialized (projected onto the world) as a tree of exemplars, say.
a tree of clay pots would be the manifold "clay pot".

for any given category, there's an infinite number (?) of potential examples of the category.
but infinite here implies indeterminate: you can't make an exhaustive list of them. your tree cannot indicate all possible exemplars. there's always n+1. so maybe an arithmetical infinity, in the sense that you can't create a closed set. indeterminate more like.


anyway: nothing here goes beyond a discussion of the characteristics of a particular idea of "meaning" as it is applied to the case of a noun.

a meaning is a manifold is a meaning is a manifold.

"world" here: world=>category=>meaning understood as manifold of possibilities=>a manifold of possibilities is a collection of all possible exemplars of the category==>if the category is "world" then it follows that there are infinite possible worlds.


possible logic to justify substituting "god" for "world":

world is a category
god is a category
therefore god=world.

so we are basically being asked about the noun "god" which exists as a noun and just as a noun---and about the meanings that are or can be attached to that noun..

if that's the case, then what you're asking us to do is agree with you that the word "god" exists, and that a conception of what a meaning is also exists such that we can think in terms of infinite possibilities without loosing all specificity.

congratulations.
we have demonstrated that the word "god" exists and is a noun.

I think the assumption, while sounds valid, is flawed. If there are an infinite amount of universes, and then an infinite amount of universal sets (each set with an alternate form of physics), yes some god like beings are capable of existing. These beings could be without limit to their power. However, these beings would not be the alpha-and-omega God because these gods were created as a consequence of infinite possibility, not the creator of infinite possibility.

The concept of god is a human invention. That's why there are so many variations. However, it all comes down to one thing: explaining and justifying the unknown and unknowable. If you let go of the need to explain the things you do not understand, then the concept of god becomes unnecessary. If you give god credit for the things you already understand, then you're escaping reality.

Can I risk scorn and offense by putting in two cents, even though I'm a definite theist?

I don't mean what I say to be offensive so I apologize in advance if any resident atheists do take my remarks out of turn.

It seems to me that atheism is a spectrum of beliefs. That spectrum ranges from those who have adopted the scientific paradigm to the spiritual paradigm, and will not accept the notion of a God that is not measurable by manmade instruments, or deducible in laboratory experiments that follow the accepted academic models (although they admit that if the Heavens opened in front of them and a great, well-modulated deep voice was heard amidst a column of dazzling light, they might well change their minds); all the way to a kind of fundamentalist atheism that not merely refuses to believe in God, but refuses the notion that anything could ever change that (like, if the Heavens opened tomorrow and flights of angels sang choruses, these folks would attribute it to mass hallucination or alien spacecraft or too much fluoride in the water-- anything except a supernatural experience).

But in any case, atheism is a belief choice. Atheists have chosen to believe that nothing in human experience ought not to be subject to scientific reasoning. That there is nothing beyond what is perceptible to the five physical senses, or to the best mechanical and electronic equipment that can be manufactured on this planet. That the validity of a feeling or perception is entirely dependent upon it being quantifiable mathematically and repeatable as desired. That is a perfectly valid spiritual belief, but it is just that. And as such, I try not to get into "why don't you believe what I believe" arguments with atheists (or anyone else), because I try stay clear of criticizing other people's religious beliefs.

Atheism isn't a religious belief, though. It's a term explaining what someone is not (like gentile! :thumbsup: ). Maybe that's why it's so difficult to argue against. It's not really one doctrine or set of beliefs. My atheism is founded in what I view is rationalism. Someone else's may be rooted in something completely different. It's not like we have a Bible or something.

Dude, you're post is a calm and rational statement of your opinion. I don't see how anyone could be offended by that.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, as does everyone. In fact, I would say you have a very valid point; the bottom line is that atheism is a belief system, albeit one that's grounded in logic rather than ancient texts. In fact, it's my experience that this logical basis causes a subset of atheists to be the most zealous individuals I've ever met.

This sort of depends on who you talk to. From the strictest standpoint one could argue that atheism is solely the belief that there is no divine overseer, with no room for doubt. Anyone who admits uncertainty would be categorized as agnostic.

I can respect that. It's my firm belief that people should have the right to whatever religion they wat; as such, I don't care if you're Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or believe the Universe was sneezed out the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure. Whatever makes you happy. The people who piss me off are the fucking missionaries (of any religion). I get that they're committed to their beliefs, why can't they get that other people are committed to different ones?

Anyway, I reckon that's a rant for another time.

EDIT - For cross-posting:

I think the point wasn't 'atheism is a religion' so much as it was 'atheism is a belief system,' which is correct. A religion, as you rightly point out, is an organized group of people sharing a belief (usually founded on a text that's considered holy), while a belief system is simply an explanation for why the world is the way it is and can be highly individual. You consider your belief system to be superior because it's grounded in logic and I get that. Keep in mind, though, that from Levite's perspective his belief system is superior, since it's founded on the word of God and that trumps logic. It's all about point of view.

personally, i dont think you can know anything either way. maybe there's some god. maybe there's not. it's undecidable, and so is functionally irrelevant. chances are that whatever you think a god is comes from the way in which you project through the word "god"---maybe there are thousands. maybe there's nothing. you don't know either.

that you "believe" means only that you believe. it doesn't provide you any special ground to stand on. it doesn't really mean anything, except insofar as it helps you get through your life: it functions for you.

you are in no position to say anything about anything that is not clanging about inside your skull by way of the statement "i believe.."

it is of no consequence whether that position or an atheist's position or an agnostic's position is or is not grouped as a belief: your belief that it is a belief is also a belief.
we can go round and round about this endlessly.
it too is of no consequence.

You don't have to have a bible, or an organization, or unified beliefs, or anything else. When I say atheism is a religious belief, I don't mean that there's some sort of Church of Nuh-Uh that atheists belong to. I mean that the belief that the rationalist paradigm (or the nihilist paradigm, or the humanist paradigm, or whatever foundation a person's atheism happens to be built on. I am just going with rationalism because that seems popular) is, essentially, the only authentic and effective means of engaging the universe and attempting to discover truths valuable to human beings...is a belief. It is a belief that you and I would both agree works spectacularly well for scientific endeavors. You and I would differ on its efficacy for matters spiritual. But there is nothing any more inherently true about the notion of rationalism's authenticity or effectiveness in matters spiritual than there is about any religion's authenticity or effectiveness.

To not believe in God cannot stand on its own: there must inevitably be a "rather." As in, I don't believe in God, rather, I believe in...(science, rationalism, humanism, nothingness, chaos, or whatever other things occupy that philosophical place). Human beings instinctively require a framework of structure in which to understand the universe. I don't believe (ironically) in the notion of an atheism solely defined by its prime negative attribute. Therefore, there are inevitably going to be philosophical frameworks that the atheist will apply, or invent, even if not always refined and formulated.

But my point is, when I say a religious belief, I mean not a belief in a religion, but a belief in some system or notion that holds equivalent status to the atheist in question as a religion would to a theist.

You can't prove anything about spirituality scientifically, nor can the supernatural ever be quantified by rational means: those experiences are by definition arational. They require a completely different paradigm to function and be understood effectively.

I don't try to prove or disprove atheism (or theism, for that matter), any more than I would try to "prove" Judaism to a non-Jew. First, it's a waste of time to try and prove the unprovable to people who don't agree with you in the first place. Second of all, it's not merely comparing apples and oranges (as might be said of, say, Judaism and Christianity, which at least share the same theistic paradigm): it's like someone saying "Sexual love is a beautiful thing," and another person saying "But I just don't care for Gothic architecture." Or having an artist show you a painting, and asking him to solve the painting using the quadratic formula.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I never said that, and never would! My whole point is that I don't judge systems of belief on a hierarchical scale! That includes mine!

My view is-- and for the record, it's the traditional view of Rabbinic Judaism-- that what you believe or if you believe at all is infinitely less important than how you behave. I would rather see (and according to Judaism, God would rather see) an atheist who helps the poor, comforts the sick, feeds the hungry, and promotes justice in society than a Jew (or adherent of any other religion) who observes all the ritual trappings of the religion, but does no charity, acts out of selfishness and greed, promotes injustices in society, and in general acts like an asshole.

And when I talk about theism or the supernatural, I'm not referring to the word of God (which, by the way, is a term of questionable theological standing, and by Jewish standards should not trump logic, when logic is used within the theistic paradigm): I'm referring to being open to leaps of faith (which are a choice made deliberately), being open to experiences of the world not dependent upon the five physical senses or sensing machines, and the belief that there are truths about the universe that can be acquired through such experiences.

Ah but the scientific matter of which you speak are something objective. You and I, of different philosophies, can look at the same factual evidence regarding natural phenomena and come to the same, reasoned conclusion. We both understand that evidence points to evolution to explain why the planet isn't overrun by just one kind of microorganism. We both understand that gravity is what keeps us from flying off into space. These are basically universal. If people don't believe them it's for one of two reasons:
1) They have evidence that contradicts our conclusions (awesome!)
2) They're nuts.

Science isn't really subjective. It's something that can be universally known without personal opinion. It's factual. Religion, spirituality, and philosophy aren't. They're about subjective interpretation, which is fine, but one should recognize the difference between gravity and Jesus.

Atheism may have different philosophies, but it usually boils down to things that aren't subjective. My atheism isn't a belief. My secular humanism is, but that comes later.

Sorry about that, then. When you classified yourself as a theist, I assumed we were talking about a sect with more.. evangelical beliefs. We could replace your name, however, with the term 'generic Christian X,' however, and get basically the same point. What I was driving at is that atheists tend to believe that their viewpoint is superior because it's based entirely on secular logic, whereas other belief systems simply use another basis for their beliefs. I was attempting to make the point that it's difficult or impossible to state authoritatively that any one religion is superior to another, since it's really all a matter of perspective anyway. On that we seem to be agreed.

First of all, the one point in which I said "God is anything" should be changed to "God could be anything" as I have it everywhere else (Not sure why I did that, but *meh*). From there, what I had written should logically follow. My goal wasn't to make a statement (a)theistic in nature, but rather to show that if God could be anything, then He can't be nothing, as anything excludes nothingness (Or non-existence). And, if God can be anything but nothing, then an infinite number of possibilities of God being *something* should preclude atheism.

(Now as I said earlier, I didn't come up with the statement "God could be anything", so don't go ballistic on me for that one.)

Ehhh... That's not much much different, but fair enough, I guess.

[QUOTE=KnifeMissile]Your logical and analytical skills are as abominable as ever. You also like to make shit up, which seriously offends me. Either that, or you're totally ignorant of the meaning of the words (and phrases) that you use...

Infinity is not undefined.

*Sigh*

inBOIL said that one might consider that the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for God is smaller than the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for no God, to which I said there'd be no way of knowing this unless you simply assumed it to be true.

I understand what the argument just fine. But, you see, I'm not concerned with proving whether or not a particular God exists, as that doesn't terribly concern me at this point (Especially since trying to argue which God exists with someone who doesn't believe in one to begin with is futile), but rather that, if one assumes God could be anything, then there's no way he, or she, could be an atheist. And, you know, I might be wrong here, but I don't know too many atheists who claim God, assuming he exists, to be only a few, finite possibilities.

I would agree that it does no one much good to point to a physics problem and attempt to solve it by other means. And as you know, I think, I have no problem with the notion that the "how" of the universe is accomplished through interactions of physical laws and evolution of biological organisms-- a notion I embrace readily. I am not, in fact, talking about the phenomena of physics and biology at all. I am talking about revelation, of feeling the presence of God, of awareness of supernatural beings, of being aware of and interacting with energies which are not physical or measurable by instrument, of being aware of subtle connections in the universe that are not manifest to scientific examination. These are arational experiences, and are neither scientific or unscientific notions, but non-scientific notions. I have already accepted that rationalist examination works splendidly for science. It is not such issues that I differ on, but the notion that the scientific paradigm is universally objective, and applicable equally to everything.


For a physics problem, which falls admirably within the scientific/rationalist paradigm, sure. Science is objective. For spiritual and supernatural phenomena, which fall into their own paradigm altogether, science is subjective, because one must choose to apply that paradigm into a different one. There is a difference, in other words, between "fact" and "scientific fact." The latter can be proven using set processes to within mathematical parameters, and can be demonstrated at will. What I would argue is that people's experiences can be factual, and yet not fall within the parameters of "scientifically provable." (I resist the dichotomy of universal subjectivity/objectivity, if for no other reason than it seems too limited. Science is objective to the point at which it becomes theoretical-- for example, how many dimensions are there? Depends on who you ask. Likewise, can we say without doubt that the belief in the existence of God/gods/the supernatural is truly subjective when it is common to every culture, and history is full of claims of mass witnessing of miracles or revelations?) The distinction I am making here is, I think, both real and acceptable. The only point at which it becomes problematic is when people begin attempting to do the reverse of what I have argued is your position of point, namely, to apply the spiritual/supernatural paradigm to the scientific one.

The difference between gravity and Jesus is that they are data from two completely independent subsets of knowledge and experience.

I am in no way trying to diminish or be dismissive of your atheism. And I understand that part of your embrasure of rationalism is the notion that scientific reasoning is universal-- an ultimate authority. I am not in any way suggesting that you not be an atheist or a rationalist. But I do think that the idea that one way of looking at everything is universally applicable and correct is a philosophical belief.

I'm more agnostic than atheist.
I don't currently believe in a god(s) but I'm not full opposed to the idea if you can prove to me that one exists. But telling me it's true because someone wrote it in a book thousands of years ago is not going to do it for me.
But then at the same time, I do believe in some kind of "force" that connects all of us and everything. And in that same camp I believe somewhat in karma.
So where does this leave me???

A true atheist is no different than a true believer.

A true atheist is taking the unknowable and making definite statements about it.

Most rational atheists are really agnostic. God is possible but very very very very highly improbable. We think there is no god but can not say with honest certainty there is none.

I can't say there is no god, but nothing would surprise me more than finding out there was one.

I like how we now bring infinite sets into this discussion. Again, just because there is a set of verses that could contain a super supreme being only implies that they occurred as a result of their being infinity many outcomes and these gods are not the creator of said infinite sets.

Does that makes sense or did I cross my logic somewhere?

I'm not sure, using the definitions that are here, that I can claim to be anything.

I CALL myself an atheist - and when I use the word about myself I mean that I do not beleive in god.

The word atheist comes from a-theist. As in NOT A THEIST. It does not require a belief that there is NOT God, it simply requires that there is NO belief IN God.

LACK OF BELIEF =|= BELIEF OF LACK

Belief is not a skill that can be learned or taught, it is an atribute. I can no more chose to believe than I can chose to be taller.

To me, the key issue is that there is no explanation involving theism that cannot be equally well explained by non-theist arguments.


My position is equivalent to Epicurus:

1. if God is willing but unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent

2. if God is able but not willing to prevent evil, he is not good

3. if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Although traditionally ascribed to Epicurus, it has been suggested that it may actually be the work of an early skeptic writer, possibly Carneades

QFT.

God is whatever the believer wants him to be. He is a self-serving construct of an individual. God is a justification.

(More to come... reading all of these posts brings the words forth.)

Atheists are just as ignorant as religious fanatics. In fact, Atheism, deny it all you want, is a religion. It is a set of beliefs held to be true that cannot be dis/proven.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, GeneralMao, be careful with that unwieldy brush you got there....I think you got some on me.... put....the....brush... down....

Religious "fanatics" often have aberrant beliefs of their own faith. Is this really what you mean to say?

I say that atheists are always open to proof. They're always interested in fantastic things. Because they don't exist, wouldn't it be wild to see? Atheists are not fanatical. The semantics nazis are gonna drill me on this one, but I think atheists are just agnostics who have decided to live their life on one side of the line while they passively wait for something to come along to bump them off of their path - confident, though, that it will never happen.

As an atheist myself, I'm more than willing to hear someone else's case, but the statements I make about religion are based off of observation. Everything I've seen in my life can be explained without the use of god. Some people like to complicate the matter by insisting he exists. I can explain an occurrence in simple logical terms, meanwhile others dramatize it with religion.

A: Show me something I can't explain.
R: How did the universe come to be?
A: There are a lot of ideas, but its too early to say for sure.
R: The universe, in its greatness and mystery, was created by God.
A: Why do you have to jump to that conclusion? We don't even know half the facts yet.
R: If you have to wait for the facts, it shows that you have no faith.
A: In the past, people have used that same reasoning to justify things that we can now attribute to science and physics. I'd say its worth the wait.
R: God created science and physics.
A: See, now you're letting god take credit for something that was deemed unrighteous in the past. This is like a court case where the witness keeps changing his testimony.

The more you try to justify it, the more obvious it becomes.

Right, but in that case your argument precludes atheism to begin with and thus doesn't really have anything to do with atheism. I'm also not to clear on how you arrive at your conclusion; are you arguing on probability? If so, I would contend that probability has no place in this discussion.

If it is your intent to show that 'God could be anything' is not a strong argument for atheism, you'll get no argument here. There are much better ones to be made, and that statement is better support for agnosticism than atheism. However, it does not invalidate atheistic belief, either.

But you've adopted the argument for your own ends, making it's origin irrelevant.

The difference may not seem like much to you, but it is significant. By defining God as the creator of the Universe you automatically exclude the possibility that the Universe has no creator, or that it's a self-created machine. Again, this excludes atheism, which is counter-productive in a discussion about atheism.

Actually, I would argue that atheists do use a very finite set of possibilities for God, having it narrowed down to the single possibility of non-existence.

Let me put it in other terms. I don't mean to say either atheism or mono/polytheism is bad.

Religion is based off of a system of beliefs that there is a higher, upper power. The key word there is beliefs, however. The idea that atheists think they are something special and that atheism is not a religion tends to make me scoff at their extreme arrogance and ignorance. There is no hard evidence either for or against the existance of God, so the fact that atheists think that atheism is not a religion is illogical. It is a belief, nothing more, that God does not exist. Remember kids, in science, you always test against the normal established laws, not the other way around [Some form of religion is the established norm in this world, so the fact that atheists say "prove to me God exists" makes me laugh hard].

What I was trying to get at is that in my eyes, atheist fanatics [by fanatic, I mean someone extremely devoted i.e. fundamentalist/devout/practicing. I probably shouldn't group those things together, but oh well] are just as bad as the religious fanatics they bash.


I have a long way to go in life. Someday I'll probably look back and this and say what a fool I was for denying God. For now, I stand neutral [agnosticism=win].

I want to start an apatheist movement, but I think that it would be doomed to failure by definition.

My lethargy movement had trouble getting off the ground, too. Or off the couch, for that matter.

Note that I was so badly quoted that I had to edit the post so that I can properly quote it. The emphasis is mine...

You said more than this. I know because I quoted you...

I still don't think you understand the argument because you're still arguing against a conclusion that the argument doesn't make.

If you read your original post, you're concerned that the argument doesn't make sense. I'm pointing out that you don't think it makes sense because the conclusion that you're refuting is not the conclusion of the argument. For your edification, the conclusion of the argument is that the burden of proof is on the theist to show that God exists. In and of itself, the argument is not a refutation of the existence of God...

It takes a lot more than a "set of beliefs" to constitute a religion...

To think that any belief (or lack, thereof) is a religion is to make the word pointless...

Atheism is based off faith that there is no supernatural being. Religion is based off faith that there is/are one/many supernatural beings.

I've seen the word "religion" tossed around a lot in this thread in describing atheism, and I think it's worth defining what "religion" means:

From the Oxford English Dictionary.

...and therefore? There's got to be more to your argument than this!

Here are two words you should learn: necessary and sufficient. Perhaps faith is necessary for religion but it's certainly not sufficient. Strong atheism (a popular term for what you're referring to) is not a religion. To give you an idea of how stringent this term is, even Richard Dawkins doesn't identify himself as a strong atheist...

By definition, Atheism is a religion. There is a devout belief that there is no supernatural being, something that cannot, and will not be proven. The belief in no God requires just as much faith as the belief in God.


Here's something you should learn:

Weak atheism= BS term. It's the same as agnosticism, but they're idiots who want to be 'different'.

Strong atheism= Religious belief. Who are you to say that God does not exist? Can you prove it? It is based off faith and faith alone, that there is no universal super being.

Only arguably, by definition #6 of the Oxford English Dictionary, and I suspect you didn't even know this before it was pointed out to you...

So, you think atheism requires... devotion? ...faithfulness? ...piety?

Atheism requires no fidelity, nor does it have any principles...


It depends on what you mean by agnosticism... Regardless of your feelings on the subject, this has no bearing on whether it's a religion...

Bzzzzz wrong but thanks for playing, we have a fine parting gift of turtle wax and the tfp philosophy home game.

Even the most outspoken and assholish atheist Richard Dawkins says that he is not 'sure'.

I can't say with 100% certainty there is no god. I would be less surprised if my children were really ET spies bent on world domination than there really being a god, but the possibility, no matter how infinitesimally small is still there that maybe there is some kind of god out there, though I'd be even more surprised, if thats possible, that such a god will be like any followed by the major religions.

So for me, I live a godless life, where I don't worry about heaven or hell, and eternal life is nothing but a fairy tale.

This is a far cry from most agnostics who like to hedge their bets.

Swing and a miss! Atheism is no more a religion than gentile is a race. It describes what one is not. It does not explain what one is.
This can't end well...
Ouch, 0 for 2. As Ustwo (an atheist, not unlike myself) said, they are quite different. Weak atheism describes a point of near-certainty regarding the non-existence of the divine. That which is without any evidence cannot be proven. That supports the weak atheist position that a sure belief in god is unreasonable and a belief that god almost certainly doesn't exist is the most logical conclusion.

Agnosticism? That's the stance that it's unknowable.

I think the last sentence in this comment relates to agnostics as well.

As to every god I've ever heard about, I am convinced they do not exist. I suppose, in fairness, I can't be an atheist about gods that I haven't heard about yet. If you really want to claim a point against my atheism because I haven't dismissed the existence of a new religion to be formed in the future, then bully for you.

No, that's incorrect. I'm sure most atheists would happily convert to some religious sect if they could be shown evidence and proof that such religion is correct. As all evidence that has been accumulated points against the existence of any god, it requires no faith to be an atheist, just an understanding of the evidence.

I'm in a Jesus Tapdancing Fistfucking Christ mood all of a sudden. How many times must we do this song and dance? I've been thinking about this thing all day; fuck! Holy holy fuck!!! Atheism is not a religion. Quit trying equate it to one, so as to try to make a subtle assertion that the atheist is simply a hypocrite with rebel-without-a-cause syndrome. An atheist simply doesn't believe in a deity. Period. After that, there's a lot of other things an atheist might be. A nihilist. A humanist. A rationalist. A lot of stuff. What they are is someone who doesn't believe in a god. This really isn't that tough.

Fuck fuck fuck.

Yes, I've been drinking bourbon.

I'd like someone to respond to my post. Or is it hard to argue against?

Your post is right. Of course, you're one of many atheists, though, so I wouldn't expect a quick response.

Why are christians so interested in what we think?

A. because they imagine themselves something like bodhisatvas, committed to ushering everyone to an enlightened state of being before taking leave of this existence, or this-like existences?

B. because the mere existence of other religions or non-religion exacerbates their own Doubt?

C. because they are working on their conversion merit badges?


Sorry, i'm not interested in the question of "god" -- whatever that is.

Actually I don't blame a true believer for trying to convert my heathen hide.

Think of it this way, if they truly believe their own faith, how can they not try to save me from the lake of hell fire and eternal damnation that is not being in gods holy presence?

If I was sure of such a thing I'd be trying to save you, and you wanting it or not would not matter, if I could save one, then I have done something wonderful.

Of course such people are a special kind of annoying, but I can empathize.

I'm not sure what's there to argue against. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly, you are an atheist because your own observations have lead you to that conclusion. The observations and/or beliefs of others lead to different conclusions, but that's going beyond what you said. You've made a statement regarding your own beliefs, which while interesting in it's own right, isn't really an argument to be countered.

Your hypothetical conversation is amusing but irrelevant.

If it is your intent to assert that the beliefs of others are wrong because of your observations, well that can be argued. I would start by pointing out that unless you yourself are omniscient, your personal observations do not necessarily incorporate all of existence and possibility. Therefore I would say that your conclusions, while they may work for you as a belief system, are really no more or less valid than the conclusions of anyone who uses any other belief system. Interestingly, I am currently engaged in some correspondence that mirrors (and could even be said to be inspired by) this thread. When discussing a similar point I mentioned how there have been individuals I've known of theistic bent who see proof of God everywhere, and was informed that this is unsurprisingly common among theists. While it's not a view I share, this is a view I certainly understand.

If we assume that your hypothetical conversation (which, granted, I'm only assuming is hypothetical to begin with) is intended as support of your argument, I would contend that you start it out by challenging the Generic Theist (I assume Christian?) off the bat to show you something you can't explain; in essence, you're asking to be shown God. While not an unreasonable request, this cannot be fulfilled. It's simply not possible, because finding or not finding God depends entirely on your own perspective.

Science cannot be used to support anything we don't have proof of. It's entirely empirical in nature, and anything that is unobserved cannot be said to have any scientific support. Therefore the belief that everything has a sensible scientific explanation doesn't really have any more validity than the belief that God did it. It's a belief, not a fact, and will remain so until we can say as a species that we know everything about everything, which is unlikely to ever happen.

To clarify, I am a dedicated agnostic, and as such treat all belief systems as equally valid. Please do not ask me any in-depth questions regarding Christian beliefs, as I don't have the answers.

EDIT - How can you not be? At worst it's a question of anthropology rather than truth. I understand irritation with proselytizers, but it's been my experience that they make up a relative minority of the theistic population, and when approached from a purely intellectual standpoint the question of God is fascinating whether you believe the answers or not.

No attack intended, I just have trouble understanding how anyone can not be interested in learning more about the world around them.

I have plenty of interest in learning more about the world around me. I am interested in God and religion only to the extent to which belief in them influences actions.

I am not, however, interested in participating in the discussion of whether something for which no evidence exists is real or correct. The question of "God" is one of belief, and after years of finding that nearly everything I believed in was wrong and misguided, I found that is worth neither my time nor effort to believe in things.

Martian, I don't get it. You state yourself that finding or not finding god depends on your perspective. This is like leaving the decision to nuke Cuba to little ol' Mary-Sue Wilkenson from Kentucky. You'd trust a common person's intuition to conceive god and hold the conclusion of realist logic in the same esteem? I wouldn't trust another person as far as I could throw 'em, so they're gonna have to bring more to the table than a personal revelation for me to believe.

Does the question of god lead to more understanding of the world? I'd say no. It's the wrong question.

Note that the question of the nature and existence of god are not the same as the anthropological questions about belief or religion as social institutions. Those are indeed important questions.

One time my grandpa was in the hospital after suffering a massive heartattack. I prayed for his safety and then he died.

You didn't do enough Hail Marys, Lasereth. You need more FAITH!

Your grandfather is safe... Safely dead! ...in heaven!

Um, guys? I think Laser is describing when he lost his faith and his grandfather. That's probably not kosher to joke about.

It's ok, I actually thought it was pretty funny too. :thumbsup: Reminds me of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on prayer.

QFT.

I won't believe it unless enough names I trust are stamped, signed, or quoted in it.

I don't trust names. I trust factual, verifiable evidence. I hope no one just automatically trusts what I say or post; always fact check because no one is right 100% of the time.

Um, so if you take narrow definitions of a vaguely worded claim, you can manipulate it into saying something you want.

How is this interesting? I mean, other than demonstrating the fun of picking narrow definitions for terms?

Let X be the term that means "anything or nothing". Let Y be the term "anything, but not nothig".

Now say "God could be X" as opposed to "God could be Y". Both X and Y are decent working definitions of "anything" -- and when someone says something, it seems polite to use the working definition that is closer to what they seem to want to say, rather than to pick another working definition that makes their statement nonsense?

:p

No, you made some nonsense about infinity being undefined.

You are also seeking to prove that there must be a god. The fact that your proof ... does not eliminate alternatives ... means that it isn't a proof.

You did it again. You took a term "anything", defined it narrowly in such a way that the other side's position was wrong, and then said "aha! By (my) definitions of terms, your side is speaking nonsense! Nevermind that if you very minorly tweak one of the words away from my personal definition that my argument is nonsense -- there is nobody behind the curtain!"

...

Second, here is a neat trick.

We have a random number generated by the following process.

First, we flip a fair coin. If it lands heads, the answer is 0.

If it lands tails, we then grab a plutonium atom. The random number produced is the number of seconds that it takes that plutonium atom to decay. And heck, we'll neglect quantized time for now.

Now, let's look at that random number. What values can it hold? An infinite number of different values! That plutonium atom can decay after any number of seconds.

It has a zero chance to decay at any one particular moment in time -- ie, at exactly pi seconds after we grab it, there is actually a zero chance that it decays. Note that it could still decay at that time, but the probability that it happens is zero. Gotta love probability. :)

It has a non-zero chance of decaying over any small interval of time. And it has a 100% chance of decaying eventually....

However, the random number generator I made has a 50% chance of returning 0, and it can return an infinite number of different possibilities.

So here we have a random process that can return any one of an infinite number of values, yet has a 50% chance of returning zero.

Why did I do this? To demonstrate that even if you have an infinite number of alternatives, you can still have a finite chance to produce a given value.

That 50% chance of a particular value can be made as high as one wants.

So no, demonstrating that there are an infinite number of "alternatives" does not mean that a particular case is impossible.

That analogy doesn't really hold up. Belief in God doesn't kill people. Sure, followers of religion have done some really shitty things in the past, but atheists can be real assholes too. Mary-Sue Wilkinson might be a real a dick. Maybe she's part of the WBC and is a bad person. Or y'know, maybe she works for the salvation army. Maybe she's dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate (heart to God, hand to man and all that). And if she's a good person, why does it matter what she believes? Hell, for that matter if she's a bad person why does it matter what she believes? Groups like the WBC are a vocal minority and using them as a representation for all followers of all religions is a bit extreme, to say the least.

I'm not saying that you should believe. I don't believe, why would I suggest that anyone else should? All I'm saying is that there are billions of people worldwide who follow various religious doctrines, and to assume that all of those people are mindless sheep is something of a fallacy. Having spoken with a great many followers of different faiths, one thing that I've found is that those whose beliefs are religious in nature tend to have a much higher degree of variation in their exact answers than atheists do. Faith demands that sooner or later anyone who follows it has to ask the same questions as those who don't, and the answers derived are dependent entirely on what assumptions you work with.

I would posit that knowing the answers others have formulated for the question of God leads to greater understanding of those others, and thus does lead to a greater understanding of the world through the people in it.

Then you're asking a different question.

If you're analysing religious discourse in this way, you aren't really contributing to it, but processing it after the fact, like Feuerbach, or a sociologist. I don't think you can say that you're truly interested in the question of god.

I'm not following your argument. Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined precisely what you mean when you say the 'queston of God,' since that term is somewhat vague. I interpreted it as a reference to the question of whether or not God exists, and what form he would take if the answer is positive. It seems I'm mistaken.

I mean the complex of questions about the sacred that cannot be answered within our episteme. One deity or many or none? Theirs or ours? Jealous or forgiving? Bible or Koran? Old Testament or New? Luther or Aquinas... zzzzzzzzz....

If you are saying that we must pay attention to religious discourse because it teaches about humans, then it seems to me that you are more interested in social practice than the content of that discourse. Which is fine, but how is religion any different than anything else you might analyse?

There's always thesis 11 to keep in mind as well.

Of course. With the high-speed course society advances at, one can no longer validate ALL new information that is presented. How easy for me would it be to validate the existence of a quark, or prove mass can collapse beyond nuclei to form singularities, or find a raging psychopath and ask if he was touched improperly as a child... it isn't. However, enough scientists with respectable titles have proven it and then a bunch of other less known guys have validated it separately in hopes to disprove them.

As to what goes on here, again, there has to be enough evidence for me to believe, and even then I may just consider the "evidence" presented as nothing more than an amount of opinions.

Now you're getting it! I'm fascinated by these questions not because I think the answers other people have derived are 'correct,' as such, but because I find it equally if not more fascinating to learn how and why they believe what they do. From an analytical standpoint there is no real difference between religion and, say, entomology. Both amaze and astound me and in much the same way. I'm not part of these other religions, I don't believe what they do (although I certainly don't take issue with them believing it) but I want to learn about it just the same. You could, I suppose, argue that my interest is sociological in nature, but regardless of the root of that interest I am very much interested in these complex questions and the plethora of answers derived. My own beliefs cause me to approach these answers all on equal footing, including the answers of atheism. What I've discovered in my travels so far is that atheism is a belief system like any other. Where most belief systems use ancient teachings in the form of texts and oral traditions (which may not actually be oral in the strictest sense, as I've recently learned) atheism uses logic, a comparatively new teaching.

I don't understand how others can not be fascinated by these things. Then again, I also don't get how others can not be fascinated by stars or bugs or physics. I'm all about the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake.

Thesis 11?

Could you explain to me how that applies to the current discussion? I'm not sure I get the connection.

My father is much the same. He and my mother both emphasized learning about all faiths and religions, despite the fact that he is a committed atheist. He emphasized when I was a teen that I couldn't possibly consider committing to a belief system until I had explored all of them and learned what I could about all of them. As a result, my belief system is a mishmash of many traditions, with an overriding idea of tolerance and understanding of other beliefs--including my father's atheism.

A couple of things come to mind here - this explains the whole situation for me better than anything I've seen:

Suppose we have the following four premises, which the Bible and most other bibles assume and/or preach:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omnibenevolent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. Evil exists.

Why does evil exist????????

See? It just doesn't add up. Why does God allow for evil to exist? He is either a sick bastard and likes to watch us suffer, or he is not all-powerful. Simple as that. If He isn't all-powerful, He isn't a god.

Why does shit like this happen?

Was it really necessary to kill 225,000 people? Does God have a taste for the theatrics? A bit of the old ultraviolence? Jesus. (pun not intended)

God is a scapegoat. God has a reason for everything, people! Those two hundred thousand died for a reason, we may not understand it, but they all drowned because of a divine reason. By the way, the reason you won the lottery is because God was looking after you (and apparently not everyone else?). The reason your dog was ran over is because it was his time to go - no questions asked. The reason your church was burned to the ground was because God wanted you to rebuild it and become stronger. How come the preacher didn't win the lottery to make 20 churches to further the word of God? Because it's aaaaall part of the plan.

The plan is some fucked up shit - it's all chance. The dog got run over because he jumped in front of the car at the wrong time, the two hundred thousand folks drowned because of a natural phenomenon that caught them in the wrong place at the wrong time, the church burnt down because someone lit it on fire, and you won the lottery because someone has to.

All of this is the reason it's quite easy to ignore the infinite possibilities of God existing.

If there truly is a God, and he likes to watch us suffer, then I'd rather pretend He isn't real.

Because so does free will.

We are not slaves to God; we are merely slaves to the consequences of our actions and the actions of others--this is the challenge of free will: figuring out how to deal with the law of causation in the universe as spirits free to choose what we will.

Evil doesn't exist. There's destructive, there's immoral, there's unethical, and there's selfish.

I think if Epicurus could appreciate the diversity present in theistic notions of what god is he would have kept his mouth shut.

How many religions do you think existed in or around Greece at 340BC? I mean there are really only like 5 main religions now. 3, if you want to be totally honest.

There's a reason that his statement has withstood the test of time. He was 100% spot on.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is a wonderful example of applying logic to the concepts present in religion.

I don't know how many religions existed in or around Greece at 340BC. It isn't all that relevant to what I said. Presently there are over 1500 different denominations of Christianity alone. Perhaps Epicurus' mistake was lacking the foresight to see that more diverse perspectives would arise (or already existed).

In any case, his assumptions about the nature of god aren't necessarily reflected across the whole of theism. An omnipotent being might have a slightly different concept of benevolence than humanity.

I agree about it being a good example of applying logic to religious concepts. Maybe Epicurus' problems more stem from the lack of awareness of the people who quote him...

There is a reason that the word "religion" is not the same as "denomination". Most denominations are the same. All of the sermons in my father's Lutheran Church could be told in a Methodist church, Baptist church, Episcopal, Evangelical, etc. If you put the word "Pope" in now and again, they could even be preached in Catholic churches. They all read the same book, and even interpret 99.9% of the book the same. That's not diversity; it's stubbornness.
They don't apply to non-deistic religion, like Buddhism, but they apply to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. That's about 70% of the population of the planet. And 14% are atheistic or non-religious. So let's examine the 15% left: Buddhists (covered them), Sikhs (probably not covered by Epicurus), Baha'is (monotheistic, in basically the same boat as Islam)... you see where I'm going with this.

Epicurus's wonderful feat of logic doesn't apply to, well, about 6% of the Earth's population. That's about 360,000,000. Of course, you have to then ask yourself whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy, so it could be less than 1%.

Oh but you know, "it's a test", or "god works in mysterious ways, ways that exceed the comprehension of your puny human mind", or "your concept of deity & religion is too bound up in mediterranean monotheism."

If logic is a problem, polytheist, atheistic, or animist religions might be good choices. At least there is no problem of theodicy -- can't promise you that there wouldn't be any other deal-killers. In the end, even if you want to hold on to a religious attitude, there really isn't any logical need for deity (see Buddhism, Taoism, nature cults...)

I'm fully aware that not all religions consider their god to follow the rules I quoted, and I'm also aware that some religions don't even have a deity, but it is undeniable that a large percentage of religions believe their central deity/god follows the rules that I quoted - so can someone that believes in that type of god @ TFP please explain why their god/God chooses to mass murder 250,000 innocent people? And please explain it without the "it is a higher understanding that we cannot comprehend" or "it was meant to be" or "He has a plan" arguments.

Maybe it will help me understand how some people have absolute faith in a God?

Also, while you're at it, please explain to me why people who devote their entire lives to God get murdered in their homes? Just happened a couple of months ago here in the Raleigh area - a bishop was murdered in his home, after 50-60 years of good, solid service. God is a fucking bitch if he does exist - that is just cruel. His family is suffering, and I don't even want to think of the sick shit that went through this man's head as he was being murdered.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."






You might find the immediate context interesting. Here's the link: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...ses/theses.htm

A lot of them are probably very similar, but I don't know if you can credibly claim that they're the same. I've heard sermons from different denominations, mostly at funerals, and you're wrong if you think they're the same in every denomination.

No, they don't. They only apply to lazy oversimplifications of the religions you mention. Generally, it is prudent only to apply logical frameworks to situations which share the same assumptions.

It's not that wonderful...

I didn't say the sermons were all the same. I specifically mentioned my father's sermons as being unintentionally interdenominationaly applicable.
So, according to you, the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who believe that god is omniscient have lazy beliefs?

Torah: Genesis 17:1, Job 42:2, Jeremiah 32:17,27
New Testament: Matthew 19:26, Luke 1:37, Revelation 19:6
Qur'an: Every time Allah is called: The Mighty (Al Aziz) or The Most Strong (Al Qawi) (I lent out my Qur'an).

It's kinda clear. No assumptions.

I guess I'm just confused as to why you brought it up. You said that most denominations were the same, and then immediately afterward you mentioned that your father's sermons could have been given in any church. Were these two statements unrelated?

Were you saying that most denominations would suffer through the same sermon without a problem if the sermon were sufficiently vague? I could see that. It doesn't mean that most denominations are the same, it just means they use the same references.

When I spoke of laziness I was referring to the kind of intellectual vigor that results in a person presuming that a few select holy book quotations can be used to effectively understand how the vast majority of theists view their god.

How about benevolence? Do you have any verses where god claims that he's never going to let anyone suffer?

Not at all. The point was that the subtle differences are so small that they've failed to come up in the last 15 years of my dad's sermons.
This represents a rather odd window where a person completely trusts an ancient book of myths, so much so as to believe in the supernatural without question, but also is skeptical enough to not take the book at face value?

Omnipotence is WIDELY accepted across all Abrahamic faiths.
You mean malevolence, right?

Why would they come up in your dad's sermons? Does he go around preaching vaguely nondenominational sermons? Do you go to your dad's church every Sunday? Were you there when he blamed the U.S. government for AIDS ;)?

Seems kind of odd, doesn't it.

It probably is. That doesn't mean that its significance to different sects of different faiths can be accurately determined from selective holy book quotation. We all know that theists generally presume god to be omnipotent. What that actually means probably depends on who you ask.

Sure, if that works for you. Find me a bible verse where god claims that suffering isn't part of being human.

He doesn't intend them to be interdenominational. That's the point. Actually, most of the Lutheran and Methodist sermons I've seen are unintentionally interdenominational (say that 6 times fast!). I don't go to church at all, but my dad's sermons are available online, and I usually read them.

Maybe we can perform an experiment. Attend different protestant and catholic churches over the next few weeks and write down everything that's not interdenominationally applicable in the sermons. I think you'll find, as I have, that most sermons take some text, from the Bible and then simply weave a broad moral tale about it.

If you really want to test it, attend a few temples and mosques. I've only been to a few of each myself, but even they are surprisingly consistent.
"All powerful". It means all powerful. It's a simple definition that's provided in Sunday School classrooms all around the world.
That's not relevant to Ep's logical symphony. He has the power and does nothing, or he doesn't have the power and isn't god.

As with all religious debates this thread will never end.

It is my religious belief that everyone and everything is wrong and it accounts for everything so it must be right. If I was wrong in this theory then various religions wouldn't have different "interpretations" of events, the number of different faiths would be far fewer, and there wouldn't be conflicting statements about god. The fact that religion as a whole is such a mess and not "fixed" is that people have played with it and perhaps even conjured it up--in either case it is far from something handed down from a supreme being or creator.

So just to be clear, this has nothing to do with how all denominations are pretty much the same?

We all know what it means according to the dictionary. What the selective quotation of holy books won't necessarily tell you is what that power means in the context of how it is used. You don't necessarily get enough information.

Epicurus defines malevolence as having power to prevent evil and doing not doing so. Even if this definition of malevolence wasn't ridiculously broad and simplistic, it's still a problematic statement in that it presumes an understanding of the relationship a completely hypothetical being has (god) with a completely subjective idea (evil; subjective as far as we experience it).

Even then, it isn't necessarily as interesting as a critique of theism as it is as an appeal for a logically consistent definition of god. It presumes that god is defined in a certain way, and then seeks to show that this definition is inconsistent. The thing of it is that it is completely irrelevant when brought up in the context of deities who aren't defined in precisely the same way.

It does, in fact. We like to pretend that "it's the literal body and blood of christ" vs. "it's the figurative body and blood of christ" is a huge gaping crevasse, but it really isn't. Very few people actually believe that it's the literal body and blood of christ, even though that's their denomination's official stance on the issue. The only real key difference is the faith to works ratio for salvation. Some say it's just faith, some say it's faith and works. Even in that, though, the "strictly faith" types, like the LCMS, still do preach works whether they want to admit it or not.

So yes, even though they'd like to think differently, most Christianity is the same. Judaism? You'll have to ask Levite. Islam? It's the word of Allah that it's a sin for there to be denominations. Yes, there's Shiite and Sunni, but the difference of opinion is simply over the teaching lineage from Muhammad. So really, Islam is pretty much just one big party too.
All power isn't vague at all. It's all power.
That sounds about right. Those who have the power to stop evil but who do not stop evil clearly are either apathetic or spiteful.
But, as I demonstrated above, a vast majority of religious people believe their deity to be omnipotent. There's no inconsistency there.

There is a resemblance between difference sects of Christianity, which is to be expected, given that that Christians believe in Christ and reference the bible, beyond that, saying they're the same is ridiculous. That's like saying all economists are the same because they all talk about numbers and have all read Adam Smith. Maybe it's the same as far as you're concerned, but the fact that you can't be bothered to see distinctions doesn't mean that they don't exist.

There is something you're not getting here and it has to do not with the definition of power, but the way in which power is used. I can go outside and punch the first person I see. The fact that I don't says more about how I view the appropriate uses of my power than it does about the actual characteristics of my power. The definition of omnipotence is irrelevant to anything I'm saying. I've never disputed the fact that theists tend to believe in omnipotent gods.

Yeah, or they don't share your definition of evil, or your opinion that existence should be void of it...

You demonstrated something that I never disagreed with. My main qualm with Epicurus is that he presumes that there exists an objective definition of evil as it relates to the human experience. That's something that's very difficult to do; there are many different meaningful ways of defining evil. Perhaps you could hunt down a quote from a religious text where a god claims that the elimination of evil from the human experience is its goal.

Yes some have minor differences, but saying they're not the same is ridiculous. I do see the tiny and insignificant differences, but they're academic. In practice they're basically identical. That's the bottom line.
"All powerful" doesn't speak to use, but rather speaks to ability. Omnipotent speaks to ability, malevolent speaks to use. Like omniscient speaks to ability, and voyeurism speaks to use.
I'm using "evil" based on religious axioms. Where do you suppose god falls in the parable of the good Samaritan?
He's doing the same thing I did above: he's utilizing axioms presented in religion to frame a logical statement. I'll translate by removing the axiom:
Is God willing to prevent that which is destructive and hurtful to people (including his followers), but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent or apathetic.