ATHEISM: How Many Gods Are There?

[ding]

I am Agnostic. I don't need evidence for anything.

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

I see. Then you are an atheist.

 

[ding]

I am Agnostic. I don't need evidence for anything.

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

What fact are you stating?

 

[ding]

"...God, in Himself, contains both masculine and feminine. GASP! God contains a feminine nature? Of course He does. Goodness. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Well, you might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Let’s define masculinity and femininity with two axioms:

The essence of masculinity is INITIATION.

The essence of femininity is RESPONSE.

In all aspects of life, from sociology to courtship to sexual intercourse itself, men are vocationally the initiators – or at least they SHOULD BE. Men lead. Men make decisions. Men command armies and wage war. Men initiate courtship. Men are the head of the household. Even the male anatomy is initiatory. The man introduces his body into that of his wife..."

The One About WHY PRIESTS CAN ONLY EVER BE MEN | Barnhardt

What a sexist view of life

Only women are capable of Goodness?
Women are made to be followers, not make decisions, not initiate any activity

19th century thinking

That isn't what that said.

God contains a feminine nature? Of course He does. Goodness

Yep. Too bad you don't believe in God.

Don't believe in Santa either....takes all the fun out of Christmas

It never did for me.

 

[yiostheoy]

Judaism, with its' concept of only one God (monotheism), was such a good idea that both Christianity and Islam modeled their fundamental, metaphysical convictions on the Jewish concept. Believing in an assortment of Gods (polytheism) is very confusion anyway, and sometimes it is impossible not to realize that one God is in opposition with another God. I mean, if the Gods cannot agree with one another how should we mortals proceed? “One God” sounds good to me.

“God” - The Creator. That's what God is suppose to have done, Create Heaven and Earth. So “The Creator” is synonymous with “God” and The Creator (according to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is One. One God. He came from nothing. Nothing at all. He always was and he always will be. Nothing happened before Him because there never was any “before Him”. It's always been Him.

As far as atheists are concerned, there is no God, neither monotheism nor polytheism. But – Lo and behold! - they do believe in “creation”. They believe that two particles collided with one another (the “Big Bang”) and from that altercation Life began! And from where did these colliding particles hail? From nowhere. They always were. So if we accept this theory we have no choice but to assume that these two were the Creators – two Gods. Polytheism? I guess so. Of course it could be that those particles were not Gods at all but created by a God …. or Gods. Atheists never seem to have much to say about that. Believers and dis-Believers just think that everything was created from nothing. "It always was!"

I am an Agnostic. Golly! I'm so glad!

Agnosticism is a scientific approach to religion.

Agnosticism's fundamental principle and doctrine is "show me".

The problem with agnosticism is that it is like mixing apples and oranges.

Science is the regular collection of data with precision instruments and the formulation of inferences from those data. Galileo and his telescope are credited with the origin of pure science.

Religion is more ancient and consists of the pronouncements of holy men/women regarding the nature of God(s) and the proper order of living that humans should follow.

They have nothing in common.

Putting them together is childish foolishness.

Ergo agnostics are fools.

 

[yiostheoy]

We know very little about God's reproductive organs. We do know something about his digestive tract, however. It ought to be common knowledge that he dumps "holy shit" on us all.

GLASNOST my friend you actually sound more like a Roman Catholic or a Greek Orthodox in your heart of hearts !!

 

[GLASNOST]

I am Agnostic. I don't need evidence for anything.

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

I see. Then you are an atheist.

Huh? You didn't read my OP ..... or you don't understand it.

 

[GLASNOST]

Agnosticism is a scientific approach to religion.

No it isn't.

Agnosticism's fundamental principle and doctrine is "show me".

No it isn't.

The problem with agnosticism is that it is like mixing apples and oranges.

Who's mixing apples and oranges? You?

Science is the regular collection of data with precision instruments and the formulation of inferences from those data. Galileo and his telescope are credited with the origin of pure science.

Who's talking about science? You?

Religion is more ancient and consists of the pronouncements of holy men/women regarding the nature of God(s) and the proper order of living that humans should follow.

Probably.

They have nothing in common.

What has nothing in common?

Putting them together is childish foolishness.

You are putting them together .... not me.

Ergo agnostics are fools.

You are clearly wrong.

 

[ding]

I am Agnostic. I don't need evidence for anything.

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

I see. Then you are an atheist.

Huh? You didn't read my OP ..... or you don't understand it.

I read and understood you OP it was your other comments that I was responding to. You seem to have a horse in the race.

 

[yiostheoy]

Agnosticism is a scientific approach to religion.

No it isn't.

Agnosticism's fundamental principle and doctrine is "show me".

No it isn't.

The problem with agnosticism is that it is like mixing apples and oranges.

Who's mixing apples and oranges? You?

Science is the regular collection of data with precision instruments and the formulation of inferences from those data. Galileo and his telescope are credited with the origin of pure science.

Who's talking about science? You?

Religion is more ancient and consists of the pronouncements of holy men/women regarding the nature of God(s) and the proper order of living that humans should follow.

Probably.

They have nothing in common.

What has nothing in common?

Putting them together is childish foolishness.

You are putting them together .... not me.

Ergo agnostics are fools.

You are clearly wrong.

GLASNOST your disagreement with logic is noted.

 

[GLASNOST]

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

What fact are you stating?

The convictions that you allege to be true.

 

[ding]

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

What fact are you stating?

The convictions that you allege to be true.

Which convictions would that be?

 

[GLASNOST]

Agnosticism is a scientific approach to religion.

No it isn't.

Agnosticism's fundamental principle and doctrine is "show me".

No it isn't.

The problem with agnosticism is that it is like mixing apples and oranges.

Who's mixing apples and oranges? You?

Science is the regular collection of data with precision instruments and the formulation of inferences from those data. Galileo and his telescope are credited with the origin of pure science.

Who's talking about science? You?

Religion is more ancient and consists of the pronouncements of holy men/women regarding the nature of God(s) and the proper order of living that humans should follow.

Probably.

They have nothing in common.

What has nothing in common?

Putting them together is childish foolishness.

You are putting them together .... not me.

Ergo agnostics are fools.

You are clearly wrong.

GLASNOST your disagreement with logic is noted.

It is exactly logic that I believe in. I adhere to logic. I am devoted to it. It is you who've made several errors in logic in all but one of your statements above.

 

[GLASNOST]

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

What fact are you stating?

The convictions that you allege to be true.

Which convictions would that be?

Read my OP. I don't feel like repeated it or copying & pasting it.

 

[GLASNOST]

I read and understood you OP it was your other comments that I was responding to. You seem to have a horse in the race.

That "horse" is called "opinion. You don't have one?

 

[ding]

If you were agnostic you wouldn't be discussing the existence or non-existence of God at all.

I am not discussing either of them. I am stating fact by observation.

What fact are you stating?

The convictions that you allege to be true.

Which convictions would that be?

Read my OP. I don't feel like repeated it or copying & pasting it.

Ok, but I don't believe you can capture my convictions. I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything. You're an ok guy for an agnostic.

 

[ding]

I read and understood you OP it was your other comments that I was responding to. You seem to have a horse in the race.

That "horse" is called "opinion. You don't have one?

Sure I do.

 

[Paladin_]

How many gods are there?

From what I can tell, given the absolute lack of compelling evidence or arguments, none.

 

[ding]

How many gods are there?

From what I can tell, given the absolute lack of compelling evidence or arguments, none.

Then you have not studied the evolution of matter.

 

[Paladin_]

How, exactly, does the "evolution of matter" offer compelling evidence for the existence of god(s)?

 

[ding]

How, exactly, does the "evolution of matter" offer compelling evidence for the existence of god(s)?

I am afraid I will have to walk you through this one step at a time because you have shown to behave dishonestly in our discussions.

Do you believe we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise? Or do you believe that beings that know and create were created by a special act of God?