A question for atheists.

[Unveiled Artist]

Most people are indoctrinated at young age to resist external criticism. Truth spans the spectrum from objective knowledge, to subjective beauty. Science which deals with the former has made serious inroads into religious "truth", but unfortunately is being corrupted in some ares with political "truth"--which operates in the same way but is actually growing, because people find it easier to feel than to think. In any case, only the ones who are ready to hear, will hear. Much of atheism is still more a form of rebellion than a reasonable stand, and adopt many of religion's intractable tactics, again, because it's easier to feel than to do the work necessary to achieve reasonable results.



Subjective Truth, beauty art and such, are up to the individual. But objective Truth is pursuing the path of evidence, facts and proof. But only those trained to think that way, and committed to think that way, will be ready to hear and listen. I'm not saying I've never been wrong, and I make it a point to admit my errors openly when they occur for my one internal, and my external, credibility. Ego is the biggest emotional obstacle to pursuing Truth via reason and evidence. I've never found a way to come to grips with that problem, and I have to admit I've had very little success getting through. But I just can't bring myself to quit.

Anyway, to answer your question, I define Truth as God, wherever that leads, and the aspects of Truth are knowledge, justice, love and beauty. There may be more but I've been looking a long time and those are all I can identify. In line with that, morality is a huge conglomerate of rules heaped by the religions onto a simple, core moral code which most religions give lip service too. That code is the Golden Rule, which I state as, honoring the equal rights of all to life liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation from force or fraud. This is universal and is all that should govern our interactions. All other codes of behavior are individual and subjective, and I refer to them as virtues.

The root of all evil is not money, or even power, it's a moral/legal double standard. You can set that in stone.



Why is THE question. My answer is to pursue the Truth (knowledge, justice, love and beauty), where pursuit can be equated with worship. It's true whether there is a creator God or not.



But you're setting yourself up as a hypocrite, supporting what you don't believe. As a deist, when I suffer grief, only time will assuage that grief--but I never have to be troubled by the question, why? It's all necessary to maintain our free will in this life...in this test. I think "I don't know" is the best answer we can give rather than a made up vision of heaven, a totally sadistic vision of hell (which no God would ever imagine), or an inevitable oblivion.



Because a non-interactive God is the only reasonably possible God, given the total lack of anything but hearsay evidence otherwise.



Claiming certainty or not, which allows for the possibility of an opposing view, is a huge separation. It's the difference between a closed mind and being open minded.



You're arguing with the revealed religions. I agree with what you say. Again, the ONLY difference between me and atheism is hope that there may be something more after life here. I don't say there is, only hope.



Yes, meaning, the pursuit of Truth (knowledge, justice, love and beauty). That works whether there is a God or not.



Once again, you're preaching to the revealed religions, except for those people you write off in your first sentence, most of whom will never have any contact with a compassionate angel such as yourself.



Again.....I agree, and if I'm one of the unfortunate prisoners in Plato's Cave, I will cling to whatever Truth I can discover, and hope.

I read all you said. Id say truth should be universal such as facts. A lot of beliefs have reason and evidence that are testd by historicans to proove "something could exist" and believers interpret it as "it did exist." Truth should be based on facts if a person against religious Truth wants to find a universal medium to make believers think. Good idea? No. Most of us are happy believing the sun goes around the moon.

As with the child thing, its like having two parents (I only had one). The mother (or father) may believe say Hindu and the Father Christian and the Child Muslim (I know is out there). The child would still know thr beliefs of their parents, influenced by them, but he will still have a chance to think apart from our faith to find his own.

If he is dying, and, knowing my son is a Muslim, by the way our family is built, he wouls know the difference when "mama is helping him with comforting words that suites him" rather than suiting myself.

It was easier, single parent. When I was Christian, my mother has still came to church with us. Watch me baptises the first time and so forth. She is far from any religion with ans without a creator.

If I were still christian, she would try tonoffer words like she did something like "remember your god is watching you" or things that I know she did not believe in but I knew she was "relating to me" and thats what parents do, try to relate to their children.

Long story short, I dislike limitations on religious freedom when a child is old enough to be drawn to a faith most comfortable. Even if its contradicting my own, why not support him? Why wouldnt he know the difference?

 

[viole]

There have been billions upon billions of people born in the world who due to genetic or despotic circumstances have no hope for anything beyond the dungeon (literal or figurative) of their miserable existence. No hope for any kind of fulfillment, just live and die in misery. For them, being the subject of human sacrifice would be the gracious highlight of their lives.

So one of their fellows imagines that perhaps when they die there's something more, a place where spiritual courage and maintenance of personal integrity in spite of the enormous odds against them will be rewarded. No promises, just hope. Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist? At least the latter leaves some room for hope. But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist? From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

I am an extremely hard atheist, if that makes any sense, considering that belief in God is a binary proposition. Nevertheless, I would never say to a dying believer that the last comfort she can have is epistemologically equivalent to believing in invisible blue fairies.

I will simply lie to her.

Alas, I will not deploy the same courtesy with people who are healthy and have what I thnk is a functioning neurology. Especially, when they try to convince me that I am in need of salvation, or any other nonsense.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am an extremely hard atheist, if that makes any sense, considering that belief in God is a binary proposition. Nevertheless, I would never say to a dying believer that the last comfort she can have is epistemologically equivalent to believing in invisible blue fairies.

I will simply lie to her.

Alas, I will not deploy the same courtesy with people who are healthy and have what I thnk is a functioning neurology. Especially, when they try to convince me that I am in need of salvation, or any other nonsense.

Ciao

- viole

Even though, as you put it so well, it's binary proposition (with a laissez-faire God anyway). You not only believe there is no God, you claim certainty that such is so. But that certainty requires proof, or at least something other than the massive quantities of hearsay evidence of which the revelationists are so fond. Hey, why not go all in and write some scripture about how God revealed to you, and other prophets, that He It doesn't exist. Makes as much reason as gnostic atheism, dun'it.

 

[viole]

Even though, as you put it so well, it's binary proposition (with a laissez-faire God anyway). You not only believe there is no God, you claim certainty that such is so. But that certainty requires proof, or at least something other than the massive quantities of hearsay evidence of which the revelationists are so fond. Hey, why not go all in and write some scripture about how God revealed to you, and other prophets, that He It doesn't exist. Makes as much reason as gnostic atheism, dun'it.

i never claimed certainty of anything. Where did you get that? Any post of mine?

I claimed knowledge. Not the same thing at all.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Even though, as you put it so well, it's binary proposition (with a laissez-faire God anyway). You not only believe there is no God, you claim certainty that such is so. But that certainty requires proof, or at least something other than the massive quantities of hearsay evidence of which the revelationists are so fond. Hey, why not go all in and write some scripture about how God revealed to you, and other prophets, that He It doesn't exist. Makes as much reason as gnostic atheism, dun'it.

Requires proof?
Says who?
Is this where the double standard for proof rears its ugly head?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

i never claimed certainty of anything. Where did you get that? Any post of mine?

I claimed knowledge. Not the same thing at all.

Ciao

- viole

OMG.

First it's not don't believe, it's disbelieve. Now this. You won't be happy until the dictionary is shredded beyond recognition. Knock yourself out.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Requires proof?
Says who?
Is this where the double standard for proof rears its ugly head?

If I were a revelationist, which so many atheists love to group with deists, you'd certainly have a point. But I'm not, so you don't, no matter what pretzel factory by which you were indoctrinated into Phil. 101.

 

[McBell]

If I were a revelationist, which so many atheists love to group with deists, you'd certainly have a point. But I'm not, so you don't, no matter what pretzel factory by which you were indoctrinated into Phil. 101.

I also noticed you did not answer the questions....

 

[viole]

OMG.

First it's not don't believe, it's disbelieve. Now this. You won't be happy until the dictionary is shredded beyond recognition. Knock yourself out.

Do you think that knowledge and certainty are the same thing?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I also noticed you did not answer the questions....

Yes I certainly did. It just wasn't the answer you thought you could trap me into saying.

Do you think that knowledge and certainty are the same thing?

Knowledge does validate certainty. Of course those who don't like certainty are going to keep them as far apart as possible...in their own minds at least.

 

[viole]

Knowledge does validate certainty. Of course those who don't like certainty are going to keep them as far apart as possible...in their own minds at least.

True. But if X validates Y, then that does not entail that X = Y.

So, what makes you think that my knowledge claims about the non existence of God are equivalent to certainty claims, as you postulated in your previous post?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NulliuSINverba]

There have been billions upon billions of people born in the world who due to genetic or despotic circumstances have no hope for anything beyond the dungeon (literal or figurative) of their miserable existence. No hope for any kind of fulfillment, just live and die in misery.

What a presumptuous statement! How do you know what billions and billions of other people find fulfilling?

For them, being the subject of human sacrifice would be the gracious highlight of their lives.

That's a mighty bizarre and capricious assumption on your part, don't you think?

So one of their fellows imagines that perhaps when they die there's something more, a place where spiritual courage and maintenance of personal integrity in spite of the enormous odds against them will be rewarded. No promises, just hope.

One might also describe the scenario you're painting as "flim-flammery." Or "outright falsehood?"

Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

They might. They might also simply say something akin to "Despite the fact that life sucks, I prefer to believe in that which is demonstrably true."

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist? At least the latter leaves some room for hope.

What sort of hope is it to end up spending eternity telling God how awesome he is? Or singing and strumming harps? Or whatever the Christian pipe dream is?

But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist? From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Great. I have a bridge to sell you.

And it isn't the bridge you probably think it is. The one I'm offering you is invisible ... which makes it even more awesome. And it can be yours for a song. Do I have any buyers?

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

Truth, I'd imagine. What do you suppose motivates people who refuse to buy invisible bridges?

 

[McBell]

Yes I certainly did. It just wasn't the answer you thought you could trap me into saying.

Ah.
So you avoid answering because you think it a trap.

Most revealing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

True. But if X validates Y, then that does not entail that X = Y.

Knowledge is more that the facts and certainty we possess. There is a lot of knowledge that we are not certain of, and a lot more that which we haven't even imagined.

So, what makes you think that my knowledge claims about the non existence of God are equivalent to certainty claims, as you postulated in your previous post?

You claim to be a hard (gnostic) atheist. If you claim knowledge, you claim certainty, if not, just belief.

What a presumptuous statement! How do you know what billions and billions of other people find fulfilling?

What, you think that people look forward to misery and find it fulfilling? But skip the billions if you like. Only one is required to make the point.

That's a mighty bizarre and capricious assumption on your part, don't you think?

I came to that conclusion by putting myself in their place.

One might also describe the scenario you're painting as "flim-flammery." Or "outright falsehood?"

Very easy for you and most of us the the West to say. Why don't you move to Iran for a while, or N. Korea, or Zimbabwe. You're either very cavalier or ignorant about nature of despotism, which so many libs in the West ignore or assume doesn't exist.

They might. They might also simply say something akin to "Despite the fact that life sucks, I prefer to believe in that which is demonstrably true."

There is absolutely nothing demonstrably true about the origin of the universe. Either belief is equally impossible.

What sort of hope is it to end up spending eternity telling God how awesome he is? Or singing and strumming harps? Or whatever the Christian pipe dream is?

There it is, it almost always comes up. Hard atheists are just unable to think outside the revealed religion box, being in this case a Christian box. As easy as it is to argue against Christianity, it's much easier to go against Islam and its hard line theocratic Sharia Law, yet libs don't want to for some reason. It's a dead giveaway that your agenda is not anti-revealed religion, it's anti-what you think is conservatism--some of whom happen to be Christians. There are as many Christian libs, and libs are the worst for their hypocratic acceptance of corporate welfare while damning capitalism.

Great. I have a bridge to sell you.

And it isn't the bridge you probably think it is. The one I'm offering you is invisible ... which makes it even more awesome. And it can be yours for a song. Do I have any buyers?

Huh?

Truth, I'd imagine. What do you suppose motivates people who refuse to buy invisible bridges?

What basis is there for your "truth"? Why don't you have the courage to admit, like Dawkins, Krauss and others finally did, that we can't rule out a laissez-faire creator God. I think it's because, for many hard atheists, they just get off on being vengeful and belligerent, and superstitious believers in revealed gods are such easy targets. Sounds pretty much like bullying when you think about it. If you really wanted to maybe help them see the light, you'd lighten up.

Ah.
So you avoid answering because you think it a trap.

Most revealing.

Jeez, again, I did answer, just not the answer that would fit your hoped for expectation. IOW, why should I say something just because it would fit with your preconceived ideas. I didn't get diverted by the straw man, so yeah, that is revealing.

 

[viole]

You claim to be a hard (gnostic) atheist. If you claim knowledge, you claim certainty, if not, just belief.

If that was true, then things like scientific knowledge would be oxymoronic, for science is not in the certainty business.

Have I knowledge about some science? I think yes. Am I certain that my knowledge is true? Nope.
Do I know what the speed of light in vacuum is? Yes. Am I absolutely certain that this is valid everywhere? Nope.
Do I know that gravity is attractive? Yes. Am I absolutely certain that no apple fly to orbit when ripe? Nope. I did not check every apple.
Do I know that no invisible monster is not sleeping in my car at night? Yes. Am I certain that this is the case? Nope. Invisible monsters that leave no trace and with good taste in cars are possible.

Same with God. Or should I claim agnosticism about all those things? Fine, but then let's remove the word knowledge from the dictionary, because there is nothing we can possibly know, with a few exceptions related to the non existence of triangles with four sides and similar tautologies.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If that was true, then things like scientific knowledge would be oxymoronic, for science is not in the certainty business.

But it is. And science is the process of discovering/deducing knowledge via theory to certainty or virtual certainty. 1+1=2 is certain, even on the quantum level, and quantum mechanics is virtually proven by mathematics and predicted outcomes even though we aren't certain why it works the way it does--though we appear to be on the verge of that. Gravity is still the big mystery, though it too adheres to natural law.

Have I knowledge about some science? I think yes. Am I certain that my knowledge is true? Nope.

You're not certain that 1+1=2, or that a round wheel rolls while a square one doesn't?

Do I know that no invisible monster is not sleeping in my car at night? Yes. Am I certain that this is the case? Nope. Invisible monsters that leave no trace and with good taste in cars are possible.

Do you know that the Moon won't suddenly disappear without a natural cause? Yes. Natural law is universal and universally observable, without exception, since the Big Bang or whatever you want to call the beginning.

Same with God. Or should I claim agnosticism about all those things? Fine, but then let's remove the word knowledge from the dictionary, because there is nothing we can possibly know, with a few exceptions related to the non existence of triangles with four sides and similar tautologies.

Because 1+1+1=3, not 4. There is no evidence for or against God, only the source of the universe brings up the question. Libs claim that there is no knowable objective Truth, primarily because, that way, irrational thinking can be made rational. If solipsism is true, there can be only one solipist, and that would be me, imagining you.

 

[Shad]

That's a contradiction, if you're not certain, therefore there is a possibility, therefore hope--unless you want to live a life of misery, or at least an unfulfilled one, and then just die, which is entirely up to you.

No it is not a contradiction. It is one being vocal while another is not. It would only be a contradiction is it was the same person saying both views. Certainty can vary, you are treating it as an absolute 100% which is typical of believers. I can be certain of many views while still being open to that there is a slim chance of being wrong. This slim chance does not undermine my certainty of 90 or 99% as 1% or 10% probability is still lower than 90% or 99%. More so to be agnostic atheist is to shift certainty to the capability of any human having demonstrable knowledge of a subject hence all "evidence" is rejected by default. Atheism follow naturally based on empiricist thought. IE There can be no evidence of a subject, certainty stance, thus no reason to believe. Where as agnostic theism is former is the same but is followed by "believe despite a view there can be no evidence"

The correct statement is "I do not believe in God, but I do not know that God doesn't exist." What you're really saying is that you don't know, but you hope there isn't, and/or you don't care.

Which is just changing a previous incorrect phrasing of a stance by you into a correct one. It is not a refutation to my comment but a correction of your own view.

Deism is founded on one core tenet, that God may exist, but if It does, it does not interact in the universe. Any other deistic position must follow from that or it is something other than deism trying to glom on to the good name deists have, or at least had in the past, for being reasonable. There are many modern hyphenated forms of deism which are nothing more than demagogues looking for a niche they can suckle their egos from. Almost all are contradictory, and the few that aren't, like pandeism, are irrelevant flourishes, if an omnipotent, universe creating God is assumed.

Which says nothing about there being an afterlife by your own statement. Again you are correcting your own comment rather than my comment to you. You just repeated exactly what I said to you in the first place. You are loading your own dogma, doctrine, etc on to deism while acknowledging basic deism which has no such tenant. IE you are assign tenets that are not tenets of deism but of theism

Not sure what you're saying there, but many new political positions are essentially identical to religion--especially in the primary reliance on blind faith. Socialism exploits crisis just like they used to do in the Stone Age. Sacrifices (determined not unsurprisingly by our dear trusted leaders) must be made.

The point is some see problems with certain religious views and how these views effect more than the individual holding said view. Religious views have an umbrella of protection under "Freedom of Religious" while certain political parties in various nations are outright banned. I question any law which protects and allows the propagation of bad ideas which can fundamentally damage a society under the facade of "religion" while openly opposing a rival political/government system, which will change a society like say democracy vs communism. All still laying claim to the idea of secularism or democracy. People place a higher value on the idea, or facade of, democracy then they do regarding secular parameters of various nations.

And science is making great strides in cosmology: like the fact that until recently, we didn't know the expansion of space itself (which is not limited by relativity to the speed of light) is accelerating, and that the edge of the visible universe is going superluminal and disappearing from view. Like the smallest divisible units of time and space are known quantities, but there's nothing to say some things might be able to "shrink" and fit through those limits of space and time. That the new leading model (after 30 years) in the interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Transactional Interpretation), explains all quantum weirdness by theorizing that quantum transactions take place outside of this physical universe in the timeless ether, or nothingness, or whatever is beyond/through/"underneath" it.

The Transactional interpretation is not the leading model, it is the one you favour.

*Sorry didn't realize the last comment was directed at another person. It is still valid but you can choice to to reply to the comment or not*

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No it is not a contradiction. It is one being vocal while another is not. It would only be a contradiction is it was the same person saying both views.

So if one person said a balloon was black and another said the same balloon was white, that wouldn't be a contradiction? If the same person was to say it was black and then say it was white, he'd be schizophrenic, or more likely, just someone working hard at being a jerk.

 

[dust1n]

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

It's mostly the conventions.

Atheapalozza 2016! Woo baby!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It's mostly the conventions.

Atheapalozza 2016! Woo baby!

Conventions as in orgies in Belize, or as in atheists are right because of the "we say so" convention?