Atheism is not scientific

[Subduction Zone]

Short answer. God wants us to worship Him because God is good and wants us to be good which worshipping encourages.

That appears to be an unwarranted assumption, and it makes no sense at all. Isn't it better to believe in Santa Claus. "Be good for goodness sake". I think that atheistic morality trumps theistic morality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheism is a belief, a dogmatic (I would say religious) idea that reality is limited only to where cause and effect (or time and space) can reach.
God is not male or female, but I choose to call the Supreme Consciousness a He and His Creation a She, just like I call people with willies he and the one with c*nts she.
It is of course a fallacy to use that in this discussion, just like it is a fallacy to compare spirituality to not collecting stamps. But is takes intelligence to spot a fallacy and we are dealing here with religious folk, not spiritual folk.
So they are not to blame.

A lack of belief is not a belief no matter how many times you claim that.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheism is a belief, a dogmatic (I would say religious) idea that reality is limited only to where cause and effect (or time and space) can reach.
God is not male or female, but I choose to call the Supreme Consciousness a He and His Creation a She, just like I call people with willies he and the one with c*nts she.
It is of course a fallacy to use that in this discussion, just like it is a fallacy to compare spirituality to not collecting stamps. But is takes intelligence to spot a fallacy and we are dealing here with religious folk, not spiritual folk.
So they are not to blame.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less,
Anything else you attribute to atheiem is nothing more than your own bias and misunderstanding.

 

[Valjean]

I simply believe that Consciousness precedes time, space and cause and effect.
So in that way I am not agnostic.

Agnosticism is the position that the question of God is unknowable, or, at east, unresearchable. This is what I had in mind.

But when it comes to most religious ideas, I am a non-believer.
God can only be realised by going beyond your own consciousness (surrendering it) merging it into the Cosmic Consciousness.
You cannot realise God with your limited small mind, He is too vast for that, He is beyond creation.
You cannot also say that God exists, that is equally stupid as saying He does not exist.
He has nothing to do with any type of existence, He is beyond that.
The Creation exists, She can be analysed with the human mind, not God.

I think our metaphysical ideas are more similar than you realize, Marcion, but, this thread being a pragmatic one, I'm responding pragmatically.

Colour is created in the brain, just as smell and taste is.
The vibrations in the brain are triggered by vibrations in the nerve cells and sense organs which are created by chemical or light wave/particle triggers.
The actual "seeing" of colour has nothing to do with the triggers themselves, it is an indirect process.
So you can never explain to a colour-blind person what colour really is to you.
And you cannot explain to someone who has never realised God "what" God "is".

I agree. Electromagnetic frequency is physics. Color is qualia.

 

[Marcion]

And my point is that colour could be measured wheras a god is in the the head and cannot be measured

Wavelengths can be measured, colour is a product of your brain, it cannot be explained to a colour-blind person.
So the analogy stands, you are just blind to it.

Agnosticism is the position that the question of God is unknowable, or, at east, unresearchable. This is what I had in mind.
I think our metaphysical ideas are more similar than you realize, Marcion, but; this thread being a pragmatic one, I'm responding pragmatically.
I agree. Electromagnetic frequency is physics. Color is qualia.

There are two types of knowledge. Atheists only recognize one type. Actually that type of knowledge is not real knowledge at all, it is only indirect, an inferior type of knowledge. Just like atheism is an inferior type of religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wavelengths can be measured, colour is a product of your brain, it cannot be explained to a colour-blind person.
So the analogy stands, you are just blind to it.

A color blind person can be given different colored filters and look at images of numbers in colors and see that with certain combinations that he cannot see certain numbers. That can be used to confirm even the presence of color to the color blind. They do not need to see it. The analogy fails.

 

[robocop (actually)]

That appears to be an unwarranted assumption, and it makes no sense at all. Isn't it better to believe in Santa Claus. "Be good for goodness sake". I think that atheistic morality trumps theistic morality.

No because you are putting clothes on being good either through a good religious book or through a good congregation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No because you are putting clothes on being good either through a good religious book or through a good congregation.

Nope. That is not how we know what is good or not.

 

[ChristineM]

Wavelengths can be measured, colour is a product of your brain, it cannot be explained to a colour-blind person.
So the analogy stands, you are just blind to it.

To repeat myself again to one who apparently does not want to understand,
Colour is a product frequency of light. It is processed by the eyes and how that colour is perceived is subjective and varies from person to person. It can be measured vand recorded by machine

No such chart exists for a god

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is a belief, a dogmatic (I would say religious) idea that reality is limited only to where cause and effect (or time and space) can reach.

Atheism is just the opposite. It's a lack of belief, pending evidence. It has no doctrine, either pragmatic, idealistic or metaphysical.

God is not male or female, but I choose to call the Supreme Consciousness a He and His Creation a She, just like I call people with willies he and the one with c*nts she.
It is of course a fallacy to use that in this discussion, just like it is a fallacy to compare spirituality to not collecting stamps. But is takes intelligence to spot a fallacy and we are dealing here with religious folk, not spiritual folk.
So they are not to blame.

Fair enough.....

 

[Marcion]

Atheism is just the opposite. It's a lack of belief, pending evidence. It has no doctrine, either pragmatic, idealistic or metaphysical.

No, it is the belief that there is nothing beyond cause and effect.
You cannot prove that cause and effect are the one and all so it must be a belief, a kind of religion.
The lack of "evidence" has nothing to do with disproving God.
It is a hollow idea with no substance.
But religions are what they are, they don't need proof.
I can never be satisfied with a belief or religion, that is why I could never be an atheist.
And I have experienced what it means when your individual consciousness becomes more aware of the Cosmic Consciousness, nothing in life can compare to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is the belief that there is nothing beyond cause and effect.
You cannot prove that cause and effect are the one and all so it must be a belief, a kind of religion.
The lack of "evidence" has nothing to do with disproving God.
It is a hollow idea with no substance.
But religions are what they are, they don't need proof.
I can never be satisfied with a belief or religion, that is why I could never be an atheist.

No. It is merely the lack of belief in that which has not been supported. Most atheist do not try to "disprove God" because they know that is as fruitless of a venture as trying to prove God. and if you think that a god exists it appears that you have a belief. It may not be a formal belief, that would arguably make it a religion.

Instead of claiming that someone else has a dogma without any evidence it is wise to find out what they actually believe or don't believe.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Nope. That is not how we know what is good or not.

Then you simply don't know what's good or not. So seek learning out of the best books.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you simply don't know what's good or not. So seek learning out of the best books.

I would say it appears to be the other way around. We do not need a god to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Reason can do the job. You are trying to define God as good but you cannot demonstrate how he is good. There are serious arguments against the idea of a god due to things such as the Problem of Evil:

The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And the related Epicurean Paradox:

The Epicurean Paradox – Epicurus Today

If there is no god we can still be good. And those problems disappear.

 

[Marcion]

No. It is merely the lack of belief in that which has not been supported. Most atheist do not try to "disprove God" because they know that is as fruitless of a venture as trying to prove God. and if you think that a god exists it appears that you have a belief. It may not be a formal belief, that would arguably make it a religion.

Instead of claiming that someone else has a dogma without any evidence it is wise to find out what they actually believe or don't believe.

But it is a dogma. The dogma that cause and effect is all there is to know and that there is only one type of knowledge.
That is why atheism to me is a religion, just another religion.
I prefer spirituality, it is more real. It can be experienced instead of just believed.
Atheists are like the colour-blind guy who keeps shouting that there are no colours because he cannot see them. There aren't colours to him because he has no way of knowing them with a fault in his eyes or nerve cells. Clinging to their dogma is the fault of the atheists, they have the ability to attain self-realisation like any other human. But they refuse to pursue it out of their dogmatic attitude.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I would say it appears to be the other way around. We do not need a god to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Reason can do the job. You are trying to define God as good but you cannot demonstrate how he is good. There are serious arguments against the idea of a god due to things such as the Problem of Evil:

The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And the related Epicurean Paradox:

The Epicurean Paradox – Epicurus Today

If there is no god we can still be good. And those problems disappear.

Epicurus is my favorite philosopher, but there are ways to get through this.

Most people who believe in God believe He is good and get more motivation than standard reasoning alone. Can you top my Church for charitable donation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Epicurus is my favorite philosopher, but there are ways to get through this.

Most people who believe in God believe He is good and get more motivation than standard reasoning alone. Can you top my Church for charitable donation?

On a person basis no. But let's not get into pointing out the flaws in each others beliefs. This is not supposed to be a debate thread.

I have yet to see a believer get around those arguments. They usually merely do a lot of hand waving and special pleading fallacies. Those arguments would not still exist if there was an easy answer to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it is a dogma. The dogma that cause and effect is all there is to know and that there is only one type of knowledge.
That is why atheism to me is a religion, just another religion.
I prefer spirituality, it is more real. It can be experienced instead of just believed.
Atheists are like the colour-blind guy who keeps shouting that there are no colours because he cannot see them. There aren't colours to him because he has no way of knowing them with a fault in his eyes or nerve cells. Clinging to their dogma is the fault of the atheists, they have the ability to attain self-realisation like any other human. But they refuse to pursue it out of their dogmatic attitude.

No, that is just your strawman.

 

[robocop (actually)]

On a person basis no. But let's not get into pointing out the flaws in each others beliefs. This is not supposed to be a debate thread.

I have yet to see a believer get around those arguments. They usually merely do a lot of hand waving and special pleading fallacies. Those arguments would not still exist if there was an easy answer to them.

OK so as a matter of fact it does take some jumping through hoops to get through Epicurean's paradox, but I think that makes belief better not worse.

Brigham Young said, "As not all have faith, seek ye learning out of the best books," so if I can't convince you that's what I recommend, but I've seen nothing in this thread to counter my arguments.

 

[Valjean]

But it is a dogma. The dogma that cause and effect is all there is to know and that there is only one type of knowledge.

At what level are you talking; from what perspective?
Most here are speaking pragmatically, from an everyday, material world perspective. You seem to be injecting metaphysics into the discussion and confusing everyone.

That is why atheism to me is a religion, just another religion.

Define religion, please. I'm not following.

I prefer spirituality, it is more real. It can be experienced instead of just believed.

You're doing it again. This is Platonic Realism, not Pragmatism. You're confusing everyone.

Atheists are like the colour-blind guy who keeps shouting that there are no colours because he cannot see them. There aren't colours to him because he has no way of knowing them with a fault in his eyes or nerve cells.

And as soon as anyone produces convincing evidence, he will believe. In the meantime, his skepticism seems rational.