You are viewing vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal - Refuting Monotheism
Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards
Add to Memories
Refuting Monotheism
From: (Anonymous) Date: May 30th, 2003 12:13 pm (UTC) (Link)

Good try

Your first argument is flawed, and when reading an article, when the first thing said is wrong, it makes people either not want to read the rest or not listen to the rest even if it is done well. You see, you say God has no free will because he knows what He will do in the future and therefore cannot change it; however, God does not exist in Physical form, and according to the science and math of physics (mainly einsteins relativity) if you take mass away, time becomes undefined, therefore God is unaffected by time, and therefore has no future, past, or present.

I find a lot of the arguments on this page to be unresearched and easily refutable arguments. If the author would actually study Christian Doctrine and Theology, as well as Creation Science and such, almost everything on this page seems to fade into childish arguments that most first year theology students can counter. People need to actually learn about something before they write about it.
vexen From: vexen Date: May 30th, 2003 12:52 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Good try

If a god is outside of time, it's thoughts are static, it's nature is unchanging, then such a god makes no choices and feels no emotion, and does not makes choices over time, or consider things, but is a completely instant and autonomous being... such a being also has no free will. Free will depends on a change of mind over time.

Please continue to question and debate, but I wouldn't disregard an argument without debating it first, as most these pages and essays are not in-depth, but merely introductions to the arguments.
From: (Anonymous) Date: July 17th, 2006 11:40 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Good try

You really think you can understand what God thinks and does? My what amazing power you must have.......
From: (Anonymous) Date: August 20th, 2004 04:56 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Good try

I like the argument that god is massless and is therefore "everywhen" in time. So, being the creator of the big bang and everything that followed, there was no need for "later" divine intervention. Thus, believers in divine intervention should change the name of their theory from "intelligent design" to "incompetent designh".
From: (Anonymous) Date: January 26th, 2006 04:08 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Jacqueline... Vexen you are hypocritical...

Dear Vexen,
Although some of your arguments are sound, not all are and you submit to name calling and labelling 'the opposition' and those who do not agree with your arguments. In order to avoid what comes accross as self righteousness (for is that not what some religious orders fall prey to in condemning non believers). You are also guilty of falling into that trap many times in assuming that your logical arguments cancel out all others and are therefore superior. I repeat, belief or non belief in God can only be subjective, therefore personal. Noone can prove either way on others behalf whether God exists or not as ultamite fact and the subject is far too vast to try to pin it down by word alone. It will always be an arrogant premise to assume that we as human beings, hardly incapable of knowing ourselves, let alone the whole and total nature of the universe we dwell in, to decide whether God exists or not as fact! We can debate and argue for or against but that is all we can do. You fail, just as theologists, religious and philosphical individuals do in attempting to factualise their claims of the existence of God or otherwise. You fail because just as they do, you claim ultamite superiority and knowing that God does not exist just as they claim God does exist. The might of conviction bares the same weight. It is just that it comes from oppossing perspectives and I am surprised you haven't recognised this!

Just as believers are convinced God exists for all the reosons they judge as sound, you believe god does not exist for all the reosons you think are sound. You say Potato and they say Patatoe, either way it is a circular argument that goes round and round and round. If anyone has true faith in what they beleive, they do not need to prove it, justify it or get others on board. Attempting to do so reveals a certain weakness to pride, insecurity and self righteousness. You are just as flawed as religious hard-liners. You present your arguments as though they are fact which betrays a great deal of self righteousness and pride as much as these others do. You even label some religious people as 'stupid'. This reveals that you see youurself as higher and intellectually superior and above their mental capacity which in the end is very condemning, proud and self righteous. It is true that there are people out there that have been indoctrinated by the fundamentalist approach to religion but these are people we surely should feel for, not condemn. By all means they have been trapped and forced to be conditioned from an early age but are largely unaware of being so. Not everyone has the same strength of charachter to rebel or question such conditioning and those that do should surely should not look down on these people but attempt to free them from such indoctrination in compassionate ways. If you truelly object to such indoctrination (instead of self righteously condemning it) then why not put that conviction to meaningful and humaintarian good use instead of sitting on an ivory tower??? if you truelly care, if you truelly want to put your anger accross constructively then surely it would be practical to try to enable those trapped in bondage to self destructive, mortal hating religions that encourage others to see this life as sinful, repugnent and lesser and attempt to make a real difference. If you are not willing to do so then you are more interested in being right for it's own sake than the genuine concearn for humanity at large.
vexen From: vexen Date: February 7th, 2006 10:03 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Jacqueline... Vexen you are hypocritical...

1. If you have problems with my logic, then point out the flaws. That's the beauty of logic... it responds to logical criticism. Unlike personal criticism, which I don't often respond to.

2. Yes, God could prove as ultimate fact that it existed (if it did): It would simply make it a known absolute truth that God exists. So, you saying that God cannot be proben or disproven is wrong. It is also wrong for another reason: No theory that is self-contradictory can be true: There are no logical theories of why there is a god, therefore, there isn't even a valid theory that gods exists. That's proof by absence of theory or fact. There are no gods.

3. I debate because I believe strongly in truth and, more importantly, the honest search for truth. If you put that in the same mental category as those who are religious, then feel free to do so; it still doesn't consitute logical argument against the points raised on my pages.

3. I do attempt to free people, not merely judge them. My webpages are major evidence of that attempt.

4. I do put my convictions to very good and robust practical use in both my job and in my free time.
From: (Anonymous) Date: January 26th, 2006 05:44 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Jacqueline, scripture is not to blame but ignorance of it's spirtual context

dear Vexen,

Some of your arguments are thought provoking and question religious indoctrination which is very relevant and poinent at this day and age, however you have undermined such questioning by falling prey to self righteousness and assuming that your arguments are not fool proof which in the end renders them subjective and dictorial rather than objective and therefore you come accross as hypocritical. If you were sincere and truelly objective you would have attempted at all times to give a balanced view which was consciencious enough to observe it's own folly and self indulgence. In attacking you have brought attack upon yourself and I sincerly hope that in future if you want to get a point accross you will not submit to the weakness of demomising or belittling the opposite side through means of self rightous argument because it renders valid arguments you present swamped and over looked by the over all tone of arrogance. you cannot speak for all people and assume you see the light above and beyond those you are trying to expose as flawed whilst your arguments are also flawed. Just because some religious people take certain scripture out of context and use it to justify selfish, malicious means it does not mean that that scripture as a whole itself is the cause. Religion becomes set in it's ways and instituional when people stray from the true meaning of scripture and build belief around selective doctrine, whilst ignoring the context in full or it's meaning of scripture as a whole. Not all Christians, Muslims or Jews limit themselves to convient means of addressing scripture partically, there are numbers that resonate with and follow all of the meaning and interpritaion by balanced means in a personal rather than religious manor. Open minded individuals that follow doctrine spiritually instead of religiously are more in touch with the true meaning of that very scripture. When religious leaders ignore many parts of the whole and mislead the followers to do the same it is this very corruption of ignoring scripture as a whole that is the problem, not nesseserily the scripture. And it is this very corruption and indictrination that gives religion, therefore scripture, a bad name which stops many from giving scripture a full and fair hearing. we all are guilty of picking and choosing what suits us and what does not to justify our motives and intentions. You too are guilty of this. It is not religion that is the entire problem as such but the rejection of the spiritual context of scripture and misinterpriataion of it as a whole that is the problem. When religion is founded on selective scripture and worse still is followed as law rather than the personal relationship with the true spiritual meaning behind such laws then the spiritual interpritation of such scripture is obscured and repressed. If religious leaders were in touch with the spiritual context of scripture and the human element instead of condemning the human condition as ultamitely sinful and therefore repungnent and condemned in the eyes of God, there would have been little in the way of religious war over the centuries. it is also relevant to point out that many religious people have been persecuted and killed by non believers as much as religious people have persecuted other religious peoples and non believers. You need to open your mind, Vexen, to the critisims people on this sight have expressed towards your arguments and humble yourself in seeing where you might be flawed in your arguments. If you are not prepared to do this then you are just as closed minded as the people you judge and have argument against. Jacqueline
From: (Anonymous) Date: September 22nd, 2006 10:04 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Good try

so u dont follow the bible???????
238 Comments or Make Comment