A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Sheldon]

No, atheism as you define it. And I do,

We are also defining it precisely as the primary dictionary definition does, which reflect common usage. and if my views deviated from the primary definition, then I would either not refer to myself as an atheist, or I would accurately qualify what I meant when I used.

He is incapable of understanding that we are talking past each other. But that is not unique in this case.

I'm inclined to be believe he understands it perfectly, but is being deliberately obtuse. Not that it matters either way, he is still demonstrably wrong, and his refusal to engage with the fact he is trying to tell others what they think, despite be shown they do no such thing, or to even acknowledge his arbitrary definitions do not reflect common usage as found in the dictionary, says it all to me. This latest disjointed rant accusing of others of hypocrisy is just hilarious irony.

 

[ratiocinator]

If one rejects the theist assertion that gods exist, one can do so on only two possible grounds: one lacks sufficient information to determine whether gods exist or not, or one accepts the counter-assertion that no gods exist. That's it. There are no other logical possibilities.

You're completely ignoring credibility and level of belief.

If I made the claim that next time you stepped out of your home, unless you were wearing a straw hat, pink boots, and a pentagram earring, a malevolent demon with a huge sword will materialise and decapitate you on the spot, you'd be faced with having insufficient information to prove me wrong. However, would you be in the least bit worried about what I said next time you went out? Would you be considering obtaining and wearing the relevant items of clothing and jewellery to avoid the demon's wrath? I very much doubt it. In other words, you wouldn't believe me, despite being unable to determine with certainty that I was wrong. You couldn't possibly know that my claim was wrong, but you'd have no reason at all to take it seriously, so you wouldn't.

 

[Sheldon]

you have apparently stated a fact with objective evidence. So now what?

Not apparently, unequivocally, and I have no idea what you are asking by "now what"?

It is a fact of how the world works that he can be wrong, so what is the problem?

I see no problem? You will have to clarify what you're asking me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not apparently, unequivocally, and I have no idea what you are asking by "now what"?



I see no problem? You will have to clarify what you're asking me?

All those people who are wrong, What does that matter? They life lives, most have children and then they die like everybody else,
What is the significance of them being wrong?

 

[Sheldon]

All those people who are wrong, What does that matter?

That would depend what you mean by matter, and to whom, and in what context.

They life lives, most have children and then they die like everybody else,
What is the significance of them being wrong?

I give up, what is it?

 

[wandering peacefully]

None of this is about anyone's "stories about gods". Rejecting stories about gods is only rejecting religious depictions of the gods, it's not rejecting the existence of any gods. Being against religious depictions of gods does not make anyone an atheist. Plenty of theists also reject religious depictions of gods

Of course.
However, that is the where the majority of the believers in gods as a "real entity" come from.

You, as an independent god believer with your own standards of definitions of non believers as well as beliefs in God(s), must understand that your ideology of non believers can be different than the actual non believers you are attempting to describe.

Do you have any idea of how amazing this natural planet is? Do you have any idea how hard it is to feel fortunate it is for some to not only understand this nature but to also experience this nature on a daily basis, with intent, while at the same time realizing the horrifying destruction of that natural world in the name of greed?

I do suppose you do. So why, when you clearly understand nature and human nature, do you support the non understanding of something unnatural such as gods?

I can cannot begin to describe the many "spiritual experiences" I have had over 50 years. But how am I to discern those experiences as something wished for and looked for vs something external and unnatural to my position at that moment?

I would love nothing more than for my imagined, followed by actual experiences, to be reality. But in order to be honest with myself, I cannot see or find a place outside of my physical brain or any physical nature, in which reality outside my own experiences could exist. These natural happenings within my imagined happenings appear to conunside. But is it because I am always looking for them? Or is it just coincidence?




I have become (in my own mind) a Bear, Moose, Raven. Deer, and physically felt them all. But it is just the power of my human mind which allows those experiences? I would argue yes. As much as I want to give gratitude and thanks for my amazing life, natural surroundings and all that I have, in the end, I have noone to thank except the one who originally made it possible. Not some god vision.

Well, where do I send that message to of gratitude to, other than to the understanding I have somehow landed in a place on earth where I am fortunate due to unforeseen circumstances?

How am I supposed to enjoy this being imo, the most fortunate f@$% on the planet when I know it is only my exterior circumstances that got me here? Not god, not fairness, fairies, not trolls?

I just landed here. I can't help all of the suffering, injustices, sadistic cruelty. destruction of our only planet. The heart breaks of all those who suffer?

Is that what a god of mercy would want? A life of plenty but denial of pleasure because of the knowledge and reality of suffering of others?

I sure as hell hope not because that leaves nothing.

 

[PureX]

Of course.
However, that is the where the majority of the believers in gods as a "real entity" come from.

You, as an independent god believer with your own standards of definitions of non believers as well as beliefs in God(s), must understand that your ideology of non believers can be different than the actual non believers you are attempting to describe.

Do you have any idea of how amazing this natural planet is? Do you have any idea how hard it is to feel fortunate it is for some to not only understand this nature but to also experience this nature on a daily basis, with intent, while at the same time realizing the horrifying destruction of that natural world in the name of greed?

I do suppose you do. So why, when you clearly understand nature and human nature, do you support the non understanding of something unnatural such as gods?

I can cannot begin to describe the many "spiritual experiences" I have had over 50 years. But how am I to discern those experiences as something wished for and looked for vs something external and unnatural to my position at that moment?

I would love nothing more than for my imagined, followed by actual experiences, to be reality. But in order to be honest with myself, I cannot see or find a place outside of my physical brain or any physical nature, in which reality outside my own experiences could exist. These natural happenings within my imagined happenings appear to conunside. But is it because I am always looking for them? Or is it just coincidence?

You are presuming that they can't be both, and thereby creating a false dilemma for yourself. Music is just noise until your brain makes it's own sense of it. Thus, the music happens both in the world AND in your mind. But that doesn't make it any less musical, or 'real'. God is an idealized experience like music is an idealized experience. It takes both mind and physics for it to become apparent.

I have become (in my own mind) a Bear, Moose, Raven. Deer, and physically felt them all. But it is just the power of my human mind which allows those experiences? I would argue yes. As much as I want to give gratitude and thanks for my amazing life, natural surroundings and all that I have, in the end, I have noone to thank except the one who originally made it possible. Not some god vision.

Well, where do I send that message to of gratitude to, other than to the understanding I have somehow landed in a place on earth where I am fortunate due to unforeseen circumstances?

How am I supposed to enjoy this being imo, the most fortunate f@$% on the planet when I know it is only my exterior circumstances that got me here? Not god, not fairness, fairies, not trolls?

You don't know that.

I just landed here. I can't help all of the suffering, injustices, sadistic cruelty. destruction of our only planet. The heart breaks of all those who suffer?

Is that what a god of mercy would want? A life of plenty but denial of pleasure because of the knowledge and reality of suffering of others?

I sure as hell hope not because that leaves nothing.

You place yourself in judgment over all the world and it's people as if you own it, and you could run it all, better. You even place yourself in judgment over God for not running it better. Why? All it gets you is sadness and frustration. Stop presuming yourself to be the judge of all that is, and try just being grateful to be your own very small part of it.

 

[Sheldon]

God is an idealized experience like music is an idealized experience.

We know humans create music, and we can record the results. Can you record a deity? Otherwise we're in agreement it's a creation of the human imagination, which is why you disbelieve so many of them one assumes.

 

[sojourner]

Atheism isn't self proclaimed.

Theism is. That's what brought about the response that's called Atheism in the first place.

It's not the other way around. That would be incredibly silly.


Everyone starts out as an atheist naturally and then theism is later taught prompting the response that is called Atheism.

I disagree. Everyone starts out with some sense that the world is larger than it appears to be, that their experience is deeper than it appears, and that there must be some greater purpose than converting oxygen and pooping. That sense, then, develops as we are taught.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I disagree. Everyone starts out with some sense that the world is larger than it appears to be, that their experience is deeper than it appears, and that there must be some greater purpose than converting oxygen and pooping. That sense, then, develops as we are taught.

If that was the case, infants would indicate that.

Obviously there are no indications suggesting such a thing.

 

[sojourner]

If that was the case, infants would indicate that.

Obviously there are no indications suggesting such a thing.

They do. They are not self-differentiated from the world in the beginning. As we develop, we become aware that the world is much bigger than just “us.” Then we move to “why” the world is bigger than us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I disagree. Everyone starts out with some sense that the world is larger than it appears to be, that their experience is deeper than it appears, and that there must be some greater purpose than converting oxygen and pooping. That sense, then, develops as we are taught.

I think you are implying that we are born theists because of such intuitions as those you listed. I define theist as a person with a god belief and atheist as everybody else, meaning everybody is one of these, and nobody neither or both (MECE = mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive).

What you have described above does not include a god belief, and such cannot be called theism. I call it atheism, but maybe you think there's a third category that people fall into before they can answer the question of whether they have a god belief or not, such as a prelinguistic child.

One could argue that such people not be called atheists until they can tell you that they hold no such belief, but I would say that even if we agree to designate only those who can answer that question "no," prelinguistic people are still not theists.

It's interesting to look at the etymologies of these two words. One would expect theism to be the older word, with atheism coming later, the way that the words asymmetry and amoral came after symmetry and moral. But atheism is a 16th century word, and theism 17th. Certainly, the idea of believing in a god came before the idea of not believing in one, but apparently it wasn't called theism until after unbelief was called atheism.

 

[Sheldon]

Why negate them when you can simply ignore them?

I can't speak for others, but I find some religious doctrine is pernicious, and I find the influence religions hold in some parts of the world to be as well.

Your lack of evidence doesn't mean they are not still possible.

Straw man fallacy, atheism makes no claims.

So why presume they are not possible based on no evidence?

Straw man fallacy, atheism doesn't assume this, or anything else, again it is the lack or absence of belief. If you want to make this accusation then the honest thing to do would be to aim it only at atheists who make such a claim.

You're right though, I don't know that a deity or anything supernatural is even possible, this would be another reason to disbelieve the claim though.

Why not just ignore them unless and until their possibility become evident to you?

When theists stop trying to exert influence on behalf of their religion's dogma and doctrine, and claiming they know what a deity wants others to do, then I will stop responding. Again not knowing that something is even possible, would be a sound reason to disbelieve the claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Everyone starts out with some sense that the world is larger than it appears to be, that their experience is deeper than it appears, and that there must be some greater purpose than converting oxygen and pooping.

Well can't claim to know what everyone senses, but I can tell you this was definitely not my experience. I have reason to doubt that I am unique in this as well, since i have had many discussions with other atheists?

That sense, then, develops as we are taught.

Again that was not my experience, the more religion I was taught the less credible it all seemed. Though I was lucky that the level of indoctrination in my part of the world is less pervasive, which is probably why theism and religion in general has been in decline here for some time.

 

[sojourner]

I think you are implying that we are born theists because of such intuitions as those you listed. I define theist as a person with a god belief and atheist as everybody else, meaning everybody is one of these, and nobody neither or both (MECE = mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive).

What you have described above does not include a god belief, and such cannot be called theism. I call it atheism, but maybe you think there's a third category that people fall into before they can answer the question of whether they have a god belief or not, such as a prelinguistic child.

One could argue that such people not be called atheists until they can tell you that they hold no such belief, but I would say that even if we agree to designate only those who can answer that question "no," prelinguistic people are still not theists.

It's interesting to look at the etymologies of these two words. One would expect theism to be the older word, with atheism coming later, the way that the words asymmetry and amoral came after symmetry and moral. But atheism is a 16th century word, and theism 17th. Certainly, the idea of believing in a god came before the idea of not believing in one, but apparently it wasn't called theism until after unbelief was called atheism.

I’m implying that we are born with the capacity to sense that we are one with the world, and that later we naturally self-differentiate to sense that there is more than just “us.” Both the experience of oneness, combined with the sense of a larger world, serve to say that there is an innate predilection to spiritual experience.

 

[sojourner]

Well can't claim to know what everyone senses, but I can tell you this was definitely not my experience. I

But this is documented science in how the personality develops. We all begin life undifferentiated from our environment and then progress toward the world being bigger than we perceive it.

 

[Sheldon]

I’m implying that we are born with the capacity to sense that we are one with the world,

later we naturally self-differentiate to sense that there is more than just “us.”

the experience of oneness, combined with the sense of a larger world, serve to say that there is an innate predilection to spiritual experience.

Again I can only speak for myself, bit no, no and no.

Can you evidence any of your assertions in any remotely objective way?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

What if the right god is Cthulhu?

Why not? Cthulu would be as real as Illuvatar (Creator God of Middle Earth) or Torak (Dragon God of Angarak) or Jehovah or Thor or Quetzalcoatl or the God of any man made work of mythological fiction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They do. They are not self-differentiated from the world in the beginning. As we develop, we become aware that the world is much bigger than just “us.” Then we move to “why” the world is bigger than us.

There's nothing there when an infant is born.

It's a clean slate where the experience starts as an organism when the brain goes 'online' and ends when that organism dies as it will be for all of us.

 

[sojourner]

Again I can only speak for myself, bit no, no and no.

Developmental science disagrees with you.