Monothiesm And The 3 Abrahamic Faiths

I'm not sure I follow the argument here, so apparently you're not one person, you're just a some hands, feet, heart, brain, stomach walking around...but actually those are a few billion cells each (probably more too lazy to google it), which are a few trillion atoms each...which are a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are a bunch of quarks and leptons and whatever else. So to follow your argument to its logical conclusion nothing is "one" sans a couple things in the universe (what a silly name!). Lead and Helium are just made up of the same stuff (protons, neutrons and electrons), why even bother calling them different things, they clearly have nothing unique about them! I'll be sure to give lead balloons to my kids sometime I'm sure they won't notice.

1. This is a dim view to assume a deity would enjoy suffering.
2. Its a dimmer view to assume this world is better than the next and you would know better than said deity.
3. The final epic fail in arguments like this is the presupposition of evil, which is an argument for theism not against. If the universe is nothing more than an evolutionary accident, "evil" is nothing more than an opinion, a figment of the individual's imagination. Good and bad things don't happen, just things. There's no consequence, no judgment, no law, no significance.

There are several problems with this explanation:
Notice something about all those "components" you mentioned? They're all thought to be non-sentient. This can't explain the Trinity because every "component" is a "person".

Are these parts equal, or do they have a hierarchy? Are they dependent on one another? Can one exist without the other(s)?

"Evil" is a conceptual word used by humans to define acts that cause extreme undue hardship, suffering, pain, and death to others. It is not an enigmatic entity that possesses people and makes them do bad things.

There is biological evidence for how and why empathy happens, how it develops, and why we understand some things to be inherently wrong on a fundamental level.

"I don't understand, so God" is the battlecry of thousands of years of ignorance.

I'm not saying there isn't any supreme being, as by its very nature it should be able to shield its existence from me. But I am saying if there is one, the odds are very, very good that it is nothing like the ways in which any religion on Earth conceptualizes it/them.

Perhaps, but given the amount of innocents suffering in the world, it's a hard one to convincingly argue against.

I'm not agnostic, but I manage to love agnostic views because of admissions like this. The whole "war" between science and religion would be destroyed if people would just recognize such simple, such logical statements like this. The "religion disproves science" crowd needs to lay off the willful ignorance and the "science disproves religion" crowd needs to lay off the condescending hubris and we'd be all the better for it.


I'm under the impression that, if there is a God, there isn't any way for us to completely comprehend deity. It has taken the collective efforts of thousands (or more) years of our best thinkers to even scratch the surface on our understanding of the universe. Even if (insert religion here) is true, the best we can hope for are some core notions and a mere glimpse of what God is, because that's probably all our puny brains can handle.

I realize I argue pretty fervently against religion sometimes for some very specific issues we have here, so I get pretty worked up and give the impression I'm more anti-religion than I am.

It's just very, very difficult for me to wrap my brain around putting a god "first" in your life when you have people/things so close to you that are quantifiably, 100% verified real beings* that think, feel, and require a connection to you on some level. Friends, pets, lovers, parents, children. People who are on a basic level (ok, aside from the pets) literally part of you.

...but people throw all that away, or at least put it significantly behind, their devotion to something they can't even begin to quantify or prove. And the inconsistencies in religion (and those who claim to strongly believe in it) are further beguiling and frustrating at times.

Which is really where my zeal for keeping it out of government and public places kicks in. Presuming that beliefs associated with unsubstantiated deity should ever override someone's personal freedoms is, in a word, vulgar to me.

*avoiding existential discussions of what is "real" and "perception" because we don't need to go snapping our brains in half on a Thursday afternoon.

This is a fair criticism of my analogy. Suffice to say "I don't know", I honestly don't believe humans can grasp the details of the divine anymore than than my cat can understand calculus, If we're to assume a being created the entire universe (a universe which we know little about in all reality for as much as we've discovered) I think its safe to assume there are aspects that go beyond our comprehension.

My analogy was done only to give a new perspective whether people believe it or not is obviously upto them. I'll humor you and give my personal take on your questions but take it worth a grain of salt, God is who God is (assuming he is at all), regardless of my answers.

I think there is hierarchy, I do not believe they are dependent, and I believe they could exist w/o the other.

The reason I would answer as such is I do not think the Devil's temptations were in vain, if Jesus could not have bowed to him then he was never tempted, since I do not believe anything can be a temptation if you can't actually do it.

That may add more questions than answers, but whether you call the trinity monotheism or polytheism is semantics in my view. The entire point of the story is there is no discord between them. Whether God is like an atom or cerberus or 3 distinct entities is of significantly less interest than his character. I find discussions like this interesting, but at some point I think people are missing the forest through the trees. It reminds me of the anglican priest in "the great divorce" who ends up in hell because he decided he wouldn't be useful in heaven (forgive me if my memory is sketchy been like 10 years since I read that).

I never said it was nor do I believe that. The point is how can you look at any event and insert morality to it? Who's morality? I'm sure Hitler thought himself to be a good guy, and he was doing the world a favor. Morality is by definition arbitrary. The logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism which eschews morality all together (there is no right and wrong only power to do what you will). When you admit something is wrong with the world you have (whether you admit or realize it) admitted to theism. I confess theistic systems vary wildly and there's no way to objectively prove one correct and others incorrect. But something every theistic system has in common is 'the world is messed up'. If atheism and evolution are correct, everything is as it should be.

I wholeheartedly agree, and wish the masses of both crowds humble themselves into realizing that, the more you know (or think you know) about the world, the more you know how little we actually know, which should humble people, not the opposite.


That's totally in line with Islamic theology (derived from explicit verses in the Quran), and is the reason we believe God sent messengers; to answer basic existential questions (not every question concerning the nature of the deity, or existence in general). Without that, even if people had an inclination to believe in deity or higher power (which the "World religions tree" pic serves to support), it's near impossible to "make up your mind" and believe firmly in the oneness of God (speaking from a Muslim's perspective here).

Examples of such verses include:
"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing." - 42:11

"Say, 'He is Allah, [who is]One,
Allah, the [Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.'" 112:1-4

The problem of evil is a very difficult one to answer logically; especially when you claim that God is "All Merciful" or "All Loving". Basically here's a believer's thought process: if one accepts that comprehending every aspect about God and His actions is beyond us (while believing in God), their line of thinking would be "there must be Divine Wisdom to it, whether I realize it or not" to rationalize some of what we perceive as evil. Believing that this life is just a transient testing ground also helps make accepting "apparent evil" easier.

Quran 18:64-82 tells a story of Moses that deals with the problem of evil in that there's hidden wisdom behind apparent evil acts of God that make you feel upset.

That's why the teachings should make sense and not make us live in cognitive dissonance. Honoring your parents, treating your family kindly, spending on them, putting effort into maintaining healthy relationships with your relatives etc are all forms of worship i.e. "putting God first".

No. I understand why theists make this argument, but it is flawed. There is a default setting in humans. "Normal" is -- and I'm really an odd bird to be making this argument -- actually a thing, and not just a perception. Human beings have a default biological setting in their neurological system that triggers empathy for others like you.

Basically put, you recognize that both you and the thing you are seeing are the same (human). Therefore if it experiences harm or anguish, something in your brain fires and tells you to feel that to some degree too. Therefore you understand that would cause pain to you as well, so clearly it is a bad thing.

There's a ton of reading on this subject and I only work professionally at the lowest level of the medical field. I am not really qualified to explain it all in any fashion, but if you're up for some fascinating reading I suggest googling "the neurobiology of empathy."

I understand the theory of it. It's just in my mind that rings hollow. It rings of false platitudes to keep followers docile.

I wish that could come off as some fashion other than insulting toward believers, because I'm aware that it is, on some level, staggeringly so. Maybe I'm wrong and everything in someone's (anyone's?) book is right.

But the concept of someone such as myself who at least tries very hard to follow what is otherwise a very (in this case, Christian) lifestyle without the actual religious idolatry and pomp...that any God would punish me for doing all the right things, but not doing them in His name?

That's *** up. Pretty sure any God should be above petty jealousy about his employees giving him credit.


I'm aware there are differing opinions on precisely how various religious books explain this, but all of the Abrahamic religions are a bit, eh, unkind in treating women with anything resembling what we would consider respect for the abilities as functioning human beings.

That alone throws any teachings into question for me.

Just wanna clear something up here because those statements are contradictory.

The question of theist or atheist is a belief claim.
Theist = I'm convinced there is a god.
Atheist = I'm not convinced there is a god. (note this does not say I believe there is not a god).

The question agnostic or gnostic is a knowledge claim.
Gnostic Theist = I know there is a god.
Gnostic Atheist = I know there is no god.
Agnostic Theist = I am convinced there is a god but I might be wrong.
Agnostic Atheist = I'm not convinced there is a god but I could be wrong.

The idea that there is a spectrum between Atheist and Theist and that "grey area" is agnostic is wrong but is also incredibly common. I've seen debates by professionals who get this wrong but also some people who use it this way to avoid the dreaded "A" word.

I actually consider myself a gnostic theist, but in conversation I generally address the topic of religion like an agnostic theist because I find it less obnoxious. I don't see how my statements are contradictory, though. I know the difference.

I can't say I disagree with your choice and sorry I assumed. When you argue from that point of view it's pretty easy for others like myself to assume that is the view you hold.

Cause statements like this are things I don't often see from Gnostics from either side.

You have a point, and I can't really blame you for the assumption. I'm just in a weird position where I talk like an agnostic, study like an agnostic, dislike most gnostics (on both sides), and yet... I'm actually gnostic. /shrug

It's hard to explain exactly how that works, but it partially has to do with the fact that I refuse to take anyone else's word for it, I have put a great deal of study into the topic, and I have been cognizant enough to recognize that a vast majority of religion is just the blind leading the blind. That certainly doesn't guarantee that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, though. The moment someone starts to think like that is the moment that growth stops, and in my opinion is a pandemic plague in religious and anti-religious thought.

I don't quite understand how anyone can be a gnostic theist, but then I am speaking from the opposite side as an agnostic atheist. My opinion on any theistic religion is that it is most likely fictional but I won't outright say it is as there is no evidence either way, for me deities are as real as unicorns.

The reason I don't understand gnostic theism is that it is entirely illogical, that would be beyond faith that God or gods exist, it's outright saying "I know there is a God" despite there being no evidence for such a claim so doesn't that throw the gnosticism out the window?

I think, at the core of the problem, is that there's really no reason to apply labels but we do it anyhow because it allows our brains to compartmentalize.

The human brain is a fascinating thing that we're always learning new things about. Consciousness, for instance, is now thought to not be one continuous thing; your brain fills in a lot of gaps automatically that you're not even aware and compensates for a lot.

Interesting stuff.

I think we're still talking apples and oranges. If you're trying to draw some rational link between "evil" and "empathy" I'm not sure how you can do so, how can you explain how different people can look at the same situation completely differently, look at slavery once common, almost universally abhorred now. For a more modern issue what about abortion? Pretty much one side views this as an inalienable right while another views it as a violation against the rights of the most indefensible humans, which is evil? Do you have empathy for the mother or the baby? If just 2 people arrive at different answers then clearly there is nothing objective about their conclusions. In theism what we think does not matter, only what the deity dictates.

I mean I agree with you to a point that if you drop a bomb on an orphanage 99.9+% of the population will feel dreadfully awful (empathy) for the situation, but think deeper, maybe there's a reason, maybe we where designed that way. But feeling empathy is not what makes something a vile act, my 2 year old can act more distraught over me just taking a spoon away from her. If some one feels empathy for her does that make taking the spoon away evil?

Because empathy can be learned and/or conditioned away.

Slavery is an interesting example because it's something made societally acceptable even though you feel a repulsion to it. You know damn well for sure you don't want to be a slave yourself. So it's never been a consideration for whether or not it is a negative/wrong action. It's just "can you justify it."

Which is where things like religion or cultural justification come into play. If another tribe/religion/race can be dehumanized and viewed as less than you, that lowers your empathy. It justifies cruel/unusual acts.

It happens to this day, as you stated. Look at the death penalty. We (as a society, individual opinions vary) view killing another as justified because they're a detriment to society holding us down/endangering us.

I'd like to see you prove there is no God and please cite your references please !

The fact that this discussion hasn't been taken over by militant Atheists is shocking indeed. Nothing more entertaining than people that don't believe in something trying to get you to "not believe" it too !

I could go an epic rant against Atheism but I got ***to do today !

Burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

While I believe an entirely secular approach is the only one to take to public policy, claiming to know anything absolutely is the cornerstone of exactly what atheists claim to dislike in religion.

Which is why, while I am quite firm in my lack of belief in the divine, I will not rule out the possibility of some larger force than myself guiding things as science understands them because, as stated before, any such entity would, by nature, have to be able to keep itself veiled from us as a species.

Which is why I shy away from making assertions as such.