A question for atheists.

[Demonslayer]

atheists are right because of the "we say so" convention?

It's less "we say so" and more "it's pretty obvious."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

There are several different arguments in which to base hard atheists. Depending on which one would be a personal choice. For example one argument is that there are several different religions and none seem to be any more likely than the other in respect to evidence. Then we can track the history and development of religions over time just as we see the change in culture over time. So many people are able to conclude that because of this religion and belief in god are most likely constructs of ancient civilizations based upon our tic to false associations.

Then there is the argument about subjective experiences and the way the brain functions which would render any "personal" evidence of god moot.

There are others but I am too short on time to list them. But they all have in common that they are evidences directly against the concept of god having any merit. So one can develop a "belief" that its all bull****.

 

[dust1n]

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

Neither, we just go party unconcerned of what sort man lurks above the clouds.

 

[McBell]

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

And?
I mean, when you boil it all down to the nitty gritty bare bones what is the difference between "God said so" and "We said so" other than the first is an appeal to authority?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It's less "we say so" and more "it's pretty obvious."

Based on what evidence is it obvious?

There are several different arguments in which to base hard atheists. Depending on which one would be a personal choice. For example one argument is that there are several different religions and none seem to be any more likely than the other in respect to evidence.

More justified anti-revealed religion which does nothing to advance or justify the atheist positon.

Then we can track the history and development of religions over time just as we see the change in culture over time. So many people are able to conclude that because of this religion and belief in god are most likely constructs of ancient civilizations based upon our tic to false associations.

...and more still.

Then there is the argument about subjective experiences and the way the brain functions which would render any "personal" evidence of god moot.

...and more still.

There are others but I am too short on time to list them. But they all have in common that they are evidences directly against the concept of god having any merit. So one can develop a "belief" that its all bull****.

And finally the throw up the hands and claim victory position.

Neither, we just go party unconcerned of what sort man lurks above the clouds.

That's not atheism, it's materialism or nihilism.

And?
I mean, when you boil it all down to the nitty gritty bare bones what is the difference between "God said so" and "We said so" other than the first is an appeal to authority?

And so it continues. Still can't resist resorting to arguing against revealed religions as proof there is no God. I know old habits are hard to break, but there's no evidence either way for any authority.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

More justified anti-revealed religion which does nothing to advance or justify the atheist positon.



...and more still.

Then there is the argument about subjective experiences and the way the brain functions which would render any "personal" evidence of god moot.

...and more still.



And finally the throw up the hands and claim victory position.

Hmm. Seems like some is salty that their religion isn't justified in the light of evidence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hmm. Seems like some is salty that their religion isn't justified in the light of evidence.

??? Please edit.

 

[Demonslayer]

Based on what evidence is it obvious?

The smell test.

There are lots of things I find that make the existence of a deity next to impossible to believe. But if you're asking for "proof" of any kind, I'll offer up this notion. Though it's true we can't prove a negative...can't "prove there is no God"...we can in fact prove many claims people make about God are false. I will use the God of the Christian bible as an example, because it's the God I was raised with and the most common one in the US where I live.

Studies over and over again have shown prayers don't effect the outcome of anything. We can disprove a young earth. We can disprove claims of a global flood. We can disprove all claims of demonic possession, which the Catholc Church still offically accepts. We can disprove transubstantiation. These are things we can actually, scientifically disprove.

There are other claims we can disprove logically. Miracles and Free Will are incongruous with a omniscient being. Contrary to creationist theory, the human being is not designed very well. The mountains of evidence supporting evolution all but disprove man was created in our present form, as-is. Etc. etc.

In my eyes these things make a "personal God" type deity so unlikely that it's immediately obvious there isn't one.

Now, if we back the claims off to what the deists claim...which is really nothing very specific, just that maybe some entity out there that we know very little about created everything...and I have very little to say. I find the ideas of deism to be infintely more acceptable and understandable.

But a large number of the very specific claims of a theistic God are easily disproven, so I think if we can disprove most of the claims about this thing, the thing itself is very, very unlikely to exist as described.

 

[Willamena]

It's less "we say so" and more "it's pretty obvious."

One man's "obvious" is another man's "w-t-f."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

??? Please edit.

It seems that you are in an emotionally distressed state due to the fact that your own religion isn't actually supported by evidence and actually the evidences that come to light make it seem less and less likely. However instead of internalizing this information you lash out against atheism making feeble excuses that the arguments and evidences don't apply to *special* religions and instead actually lack any sort of argument for atheism itself. However atheism is a conclusion. Hard atheism as I have gathered comes from the realization that the likely hood of any god is zilch and it is simply the creation of the mind of man.

 

[dust1n]

That's not atheism, it's materialism or nihilism.

Whatever it is, that's what I'm in it for.

 

[McBell]

And so it continues. Still can't resist resorting to arguing against revealed religions as proof there is no God. I know old habits are hard to break, but there's no evidence either way for any authority.

Sorry, I should have put the word "divine" in there:

what is the difference between "God said so" and "We said so" other than the first is an appeal to divine authority?​

Is this yet another question you will avoid answering?

Seems you would rather whine about the wording whilst avoiding the content.

 

[viole]

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.

There is not such a thing as a proof of a physical theory. Mathematics certainly does not count. It is very easy to create elegant mathematical theories of physics which are obviously wrong. The final arbiter is experiment. If an experiment confirms the theory, then the thory is still alive. If it does not, the theory dies. Independently from its mathematical underpinning, elegance or whatever.

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

Yes. I am certain that tautologies are true. By definition. My point is that certainty entails knowledge, while knowledge does not entail certainty.

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.

Yes, I know it. But I am not absolutely certain of that. My point, really.

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.

The source of the universe begs the question: what makes you think that universes have sources?

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

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 can't read the first two paragraphs here without thinking that it perfectly highlights why religion and faith even exist in the first place...

Things are hard sometimes and things can suck - therefore it's easier to make up happy fairy tales than to deal with the often seemingly bleak reality of one's existence.

But that's not how atheism works at all - at least for me.

I'll openly admit all day long that I'm a hard atheist, but that doesn't mean that I'm without empathy or compassion or that I can't think altruistically... To assert that hard atheists simply say "suck it up, buttercup!" as a way of dealing with life's problems is a little unfair, don't you think?

While advice can indeed seem harsh at times, it's only for the purpose of ending someone's pain sooner, as opposed to prolonging it by sweeping some of the harshness of life under the rug for just a little while longer; which is what I think religion does.

We're all going to die. That's a simple fact of reality that I think children should be made aware of at an early age.
That fact can be quite scary! We can die at any time, and our loved ones can die at any time as well. It's terrifying if you really consider it. But instead of hiding from the reality of death by making up fantastic imaginary worlds which help us not have to deal with it, the atheist can openly discuss the emotions and feelings that go along with said fact and then move on with their lives...
Choose even the simplest problem of the human experience and I think we'll all agree that dealing with it and getting over it is superior to pretending that problems don't exist - yet religion doesn't function that way.

We teach children how to work because as adults they'll have to work. It would be a great injustice to let the child grow up thinking that they would never have to lift a finger and then suddenly expose them to the trials of labor in adulthood, wouldn't it? - So such is religion when it comes to certain facts of life.

That's what motivates me as a hard atheist.

 

[Demonslayer]

I can't read the first two paragraphs here without thinking that it perfectly highlights why religion and faith even exist in the first place...

Things are hard sometimes and things can suck - therefore it's easier to make up happy fairy tales than to deal with the often seemingly bleak reality of one's existence.

But that's not atheism works at all - at least for me.

I'll openly admit all day long that I'm a hard atheist, but that doesn't mean that I'm without empathy or compassion or that I can't think altruistically... To assert that hard atheists simply say "suck it up, buttercup!" as a way of dealing with life's problems is a little unfair, don't you think?

While advice can indeed seem harsh at times, it's only for the purpose of ending someone's pain sooner, as opposed to prolonging it by sweeping some of the harshness of life under the rug for just a little while longer; which is what I think religion does.

We're all going to die. That's a simple fact of reality that I think children should be made aware of at an early age.
That fact can be quite scary! We can die at any time, and our loved ones can die at any time as well. It's terrifying if you really consider it. But instead of hiding from the reality of death by making up fantastic imaginary worlds which help us not have to deal with it, the atheist can openly discuss the emotions and feelings that go along with said fact and then move on with their lives...
Choose even the simplest problem of the human experience and I think we'll all agree that dealing with it and getting over it is superior to pretending that problems don't exist - yet religion doesn't function that way.

We teach children how to work because as adults they'll have to work. It would be a great injustice to let the child grow up thinking that they would never have to lift a finger and then suddenly expose them to the trials of labor in adulthood, wouldn't it? - So such is religion when it comes to certain facts of life.

That's what motivates me as a hard atheist.

Best post I've seen.

Except for my posts of course which are all outstanding in every way.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Except for my posts of course which are all outstanding in every way.

Well, they're at least the second best responses in the thread...

 

[Demonslayer]

Well, they're at least the second best responses in the thread...

I'm agnostic about who's posts are better.

 

[JustWondering]

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

How is fostering FALSE hope not cruel? To a hard atheist change only comes by DOING something, not WISHING for something.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

To assert that hard atheists simply say "suck it up, buttercup!" as a way of dealing with life's problems is a little unfair, don't you think?

If you're chained to a wall in a dungeon and tortured every 15 minutes, how do you deal with that? Hope for escape is less likely than hope for something better in a following life, even though you keep hope alive for both. I'm not saying it happens, only that there is a hereafter, only that there's hope. You keep confusing that hope with the false hope of the many revealed religions.

While advice can indeed seem harsh at times, it's only for the purpose of ending someone's pain sooner, as opposed to prolonging it by sweeping some of the harshness of life under the rug for just a little while longer; which is what I think religion does.

True, but that's because the promises of revealed religions (which you and many atheists keep focusing on) are founded on falsehoods. Deism only offers the hope of possibility.

We're all going to die. That's a simple fact of reality that I think children should be made aware of at an early age.
That fact can be quite scary! We can die at any time, and our loved ones can die at any time as well. It's terrifying if you really consider it. But instead of hiding from the reality of death by making up fantastic imaginary worlds which help us not have to deal with it, the atheist can openly discuss the emotions and feelings that go along with said fact and then move on with their lives...
Choose even the simplest problem of the human experience and I think we'll all agree that dealing with it and getting over it is superior to pretending that problems don't exist - yet religion doesn't function that way.

You're making a straw man. The deist says that our grief is real, but you don't have to ask why. Life, with all its possible joys and pain, is the price we pay for our self-awareness and free will.

How is fostering FALSE hope not cruel? To a hard atheist change only comes by DOING something, not WISHING for something.

Absolutely, and I'm not saying anything different. We must all live our lives as if there is no God, which may be the case. I'm only saying that the suffering in this life and the death we all face, may not be all there is--and atheists have no evidence to the contrary. All they do is point to deism and equate it with revealed, false religions, with the same reasons and vehemence with which those very religions damn deism. Just because atheism is reasonable doesn't mean it is the only reasonable position.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you're chained to a wall in a dungeon and tortured every 15 minutes, how do you deal with that? Hope for escape is less likely than hope for something better in a following life, even though you keep hope alive for both. I'm not saying it happens, only that there is a hereafter, only that there's hope. You keep confusing that hope with the false hope of the many revealed religions.

I think I see where you're going with this, but that still doesn't necessitate the God variable, does it? I mean, people can find inspiration, motivation, or hope in almost anything at all.

In the hypothetical scenario of being chained to a wall and being constantly tortured, maybe the prisoner will fall back to their memories of a happier time, or any innumerable flight of fancy. They'll do anything to help ease the suffering of their situation. I'm not denying that at all. I think it's a primitive part of human nature. I'm simply equating one with the other. Once we recognize the similarities between our propensity to mentally escape certain situations via imaginary scenarios to our propensity for believing in god, we'll be one step closer to seeing faith for what it really is. And even if we didn't immediately recognize those similarities, I think we still have to admit that the wishful thinking which we rely on in dire times to create hope, whether it be a realisitc hero charging through the door to rescue us or a benevolent omniscient being making a special place in heaven just for us, come from exactly the same part of the human experience.

I'm not saying it's terrible to have faith - I mean, I read fiction too and I enjoy it.
I'm simply arguing that we need to recognize that Harry Potter isn't real and never wrote an autobiography... He's never going to swoop into our homes at night and cast away our dark feelings with his magic wand.

No manner of logical argument, wishful thinking, or emotional attachment can ever make Happy Potter actually exist.

True, but that's because the promises of revealed religions (which you and many atheists keep focusing on) are founded on falsehoods. Deism only offers the hope of possibility.

The last time I got into a conversation with someone who was making a similar argument, albeit for pantheism, I apparently offended them and we haven't had a productive conversation since.
That's not my intention here, but I do have to ask how exactly you see a difference between hope in something extremely fantastic and probably unlikely is any different from hope in something completely false?

If you'll go so far as to admit that the revealed religions are based on falsehoods, why even bother with maintaining faith in something that is utterly without evidence aside from our known escapist proclivities?

I think I've already shown that we can create faith and hope in absolutely anything at all... Why should one fantastic escapist mind trick be considered any more legitimate than another?

You're making a straw man. The deist says that our grief is real, but you don't have to ask why. Life, with all its possible joys and pain, is the price we pay for our self-awareness and free will.

Certainly there are some religions that don't even invoke the god concept at all - and they would do just as fine as any other. So my question is, if that's true, then what difference does faith in god make?

Deist, Pantheist, Monotheist, Polytheist, Atheist...Only one of those is really any different.

And even if you're arguing for the validity of your life's philosophy, well I have no problem with that at all. I have a little bit of woo associated with my life at times too - I'm just not afraid or ashamed to admit that it's self-induced woo that I've invented to get me through ****ty times. I'd never pretend or preach that my woo is somehow a solution to the great mystery of existence... you know what I'm saying?