One question that seems to be omitted from discussions about the existence of gods is the question of the definition of "God." When people ask me to defend my atheism, I ask them if they can even define what it is that I am supposed to believe in to make them happy. This often ends the conversation.
Christians tend to go on about "infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, all good" whatnot, but this does not mesh well with the Bible at all. In the bible Yahweh frequently makes mistakes or has gaps in his knowledge.
"Immortal" tends to be one criteria, but the Norse gods grow old without golden apples. They are certainly gods, but they can age and be killed in battle.
Hindu gods are highly variable in power and aspects.
Buddha is not really a "god" but is worshiped as if he were a de facto god.
I find this to be a poorly-defined area in the debate.
Christians tend to go on about "infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, all good" whatnot, but this does not mesh well with the Bible at all. In the bible Yahweh frequently makes mistakes or has gaps in his knowledge.
"Immortal" tends to be one criteria, but the Norse gods grow old without golden apples. They are certainly gods, but they can age and be killed in battle.
Hindu gods are highly variable in power and aspects.
Buddha is not really a "god" but is worshiped as if he were a de facto god.
I find this to be a poorly-defined area in the debate.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1ZbC1LP
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire