How I Feel About Atheists

[PureX]

It'd be easier to say that it's completely false.

Sure, but it would also be a completely baseless claim.

They're not any more selfish than believers.

Self-centered and self-empowered does not necessarily mean 'selfish'.

It's quite easy to see that you don't control your destiny that much. A catastrophe can happen, your heart can suddenly fail without giving much warning, a crazy man may attack and kill you without you being able to defend. The earth is a tiny grain of sand on the oceans of the universe, how much power can someone living on a grain of sand think they control destiny?

I think you'd be amazed at how self-empowered some people think they are. Even when they admit to being an 'existential pawn', at the mercy of nearly everything around them, and even their own bodies, they still don't really believe it. They still think they're smarter than all those 'other' poor fools and losers that existence chews up and spits out.

 

[Jumi]

Sure, but it would also be a completely baseless claim.

Based on what? Your claim didn't have any substance to it that I could see.

I think you'd be amazed at how self-empowered some people think they are. Even when they admit to being an 'existential pawn', at the mercy of nearly everything around them, and even their own bodies, they still don't really believe it. They still think they're smarter than all those 'other' poor fools and losers that existence chews up and spits out.

Some people might be, but this isn't an atheist trait. From my experience atheists and theists aren't any different in this regard.

Being chosen by God and being a special hand-crafted existence above all of nature and the animals doesn't necessary make someone less of an egotist than someone who thinks they are specs of dust in a mind-bogglingly huge universe.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, they really do. For most atheists, it's themselves. It's the idea that they possess the power and the ability to understand and control their own destiny, through reason. They see no power greater than themselves. And they see no need of any. They ARE the highest power in their conception of reality.

That is not my experience and I've grown up in a predominantly atheist region. If anything we see ourselves and others simply muddling through life as best we can. This pragmatic realist simply adapts to what he cannot change and moves to change things that he has power over that are not to his satisfaction. In many ways, we understand that no one is in charge but circumstance sometimes dictates that someone needs to take charge from time to time. At least we do not succumb to the delusions of pretending to know some higher power's desires.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not believing one way or the other is Agnosticism, NOT Atheism

Not believing in a god is atheism.

thanks for your interest, but I'm not in the market for a god.

Yes, you are - it's just subconscious.

Nah. I'm doing fine without a god belief.

"All have faith but not all are conscious of having faith."

Scripture is not authoritative to me. I feel the same way about both the Christian Bible and the Qur'an as you (presumably) do about the Qur'an

Shall I quote the Qur'an to you as if you should defer to its pronouncements? If so, here's one of my favorite passages from that source.

Spoiler: digression

"Wherein they will hear no unsuitable speech. Within it is a flowing spring. Within it are couches raised high" - Qu'ran Al-Ghashiyah 88:11

There you have it: Couches will be raised high! So let it be written. So let it be done. And yea verily, it's not just the couches that are slated for elevation. Love seats, too. Love seats will be raised on high by the angels as they weep, "Holy! O so holy!"

But there is more. Chaises will be lifted, davenports will ascend, and settees will be seen to float.

And behold, for it is written: divans will sprout wings to take to the air even as chesterfields follow them and head for the heavens.

Pretty pointless, no?

Paul Tillech (philosopher) defined god as "one's ultimate concern."

That might work for Tillich, but it's meaningless to me. I define a god in the monotheistic sense as a sentient, volitional agent capable of creating our universe. Polytheistic gods would be defined differently.

Exactly what is it that you do not believe?

Among other things, that I don't need a reason to believe things, or that I should believe anything not derived from the proper application of reason to all of the relevant evidence considered critically and open-mindedly, that is, with the ability to recognize and a compelling argument and a willingness to be convinced by it. I do not believe that faith can possibly be a path to truth given how easily any idea or its polar opposite can be believed by faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Gravity is a physical phenomena. Why do you expect "God" to be a physical phenomena, providing you with physical evidence, when one of the common aspects attributed to God is the creation of all physical existence? That's an illogical expectation. By most people's definition of "God", God would have to be some sort of omni-metaphysical entity, and the evidence for it would be the nature and existence of existence, itself.

If a god exists that is causally connected with our reality, then it is at least in principle detectable. What reason can you give for why this would not be the case, or even could be any other way? What reason do you propose for why the existence of a god if present couldn't be measured or detected in some way?

It appears that the reason that believers claim that God can't be detected is because no god is detected, and so a rationale has been devised to explain how this incredibly vast, pervasive, loving, eternal, all-powerful something can be in every respect indistinguishable from nonexistence.

Polymath recently alluded to a problem with the concept of the supernatural, which like so many other concepts in theology, are vaguely defined. If it exists, it is part of nature and therefore natural. The laws of nature may need to be expanded to include some not yet apparent to us yet, but they do not need the cloak of a nebulous term that seems contrived to hide the fact of nonexistence.

• "When inventing a god the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." – anon

 

[Polymath257]

How might one conceive of this entity if it did exist?

I don't know. Any suggestions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Paul Tillech (philosopher) defined god as "one's ultimate concern."

Paul Tillich can bite my shiny metal butt.

He may not have been able to comprehend how people see the world without "God goggles," but we don't all fit into his chauvinistic, theistic box.

 

[PureX]

Being chosen by God and being a special hand-crafted existence above all of nature and the animals doesn't necessary make someone less of an egotist than someone who thinks they are specs of dust in a mind-bogglingly huge universe.

You're trying to argue with a specific religious ideology as if it's an argument against theism.

 

[PureX]

If a god exists that is causally connected with our reality, then it is at least in principle detectable. What reason can you give for why this would not be the case, or even could be any other way?

Well, it is assumed that 'god' is 'omni-causal'. Such that everything that exists is the result of it's causal influence. In which case it would be impossible to determine a god-caused phenomena from any other phenomena.

It appears that the reason that believers claim that God can't be detected is because no god is detected, and so a rationale has been devised to explain how this incredibly vast, pervasive, loving, eternal, all-powerful something can be in every respect indistinguishable from nonexistence.

I think I just explained it quite easily.

Polymath recently alluded to a problem with the concept of the supernatural, which like so many other concepts in theology, are vaguely defined. If it exists, it is part of nature and therefore natural. The laws of nature may need to be expanded to include some not yet apparent to us yet, but they do not need the cloak of a nebulous term that seems contrived to hide the fact of nonexistence.

Well, first of all, God exists. And the fact that we are discussing the existence of God is proof, enough. So the question is not "does God exist", the question is "in what way does God exist, to us, and to what function and purpose?"

God exists metaphysically, as an ideal. But what does that mean to us? How does accepting this basic fact of reality, effect us?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're trying to argue with a specific religious ideology as if it's an argument against theism.

Ah, irony.

 

[Jumi]

You're trying to argue with a specific religious ideology as if it's an argument against theism.

? I'm not arguing against theism. Keep in mind that I'm not an atheist even if I disagree with your ideas. I'm arguing against your sweeping characterization of atheists as egotistic control freaks.

Well, first of all, God exists. And the fact that we are discussing the existence of God is proof, enough. So the question is not "does God exist", the question is "in what way does God exist, to us, and to what function and purpose?"

This kind of leading by the nose tactic always annoyed me when I was an atheist and never changed my mind about anything. Neither does it change my view of Hell as non-existing now, as I have talked about it with Christians and Muslims. Do you believe in a Hell of eternal torture?

God exists metaphysically, as an ideal. But what does that mean to us? How does accepting this basic fact of reality, effect us?

God is not just a philosophical idea that comes into existence by thinking about it. God is something you either know from experience or you don't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, they really do. For most atheists, it's themselves. It's the idea that they possess the power and the ability to understand and control their own destiny, through reason. They see no power greater than themselves. And they see no need of any. They ARE the highest power in their conception of reality.

Still speaking for us?

I can affect but not control my future. The control I do have comes from applying reason to evidence.

Of course there are things more powerful than I am. A supernova is more powerful than any of us.

No, I don't need there to be anything more powerful than myself. Why would I?

Too many theists seem to resent this understanding, but it is actually quite enabling. When I pull over on a rural road to shuttle a turtle crossing it before somebody runs it over, I have no expectation that anybody will ever know or care except me.
There was nobody there in that corner of the universe to take that responsibility for that turtle, so I did. No god helped. That is a divine experience. In moments like those, I feel most godlike.

But I still don't see myself as a god. I am a human being, which is as close to a god as I've ever seen.

The antithesis is to see yourself as subject to some imagined or hoped for god. Why would any self-actualized person choose to believe that absent compelling evidence? None of the reasons are good.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ah, yes, the mighty god of scientism! The fountainhead of all knowledge and truth in the atheist's meme! Except that it's not. It can't even explain how a simple magnet works. Let alone, why.

What's your problem with science?

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"
- Steven Novella

Novella does a couple of the Great Courses series. I'll bet that you already knew that.

Here are a couple more quotes that you might like:

• "Religion is notorious for conceiving an idea and then trying to make it true, either by propaganda or sometimes by force, while science makes a discovery and then immediately sets about trying to disprove it, just to make sure it's correct before everybody makes idiots of themselves." - Seth McFarlane

• "Whenever theology touches science, it gets burned. In the sixteenth century astronomy, in the seventeenth microbiology, in the eighteenth geology and paleontology, and the nineteenth Darwin's biology, all grotesquely extended the world-frame and sent churchmen scurrying for cover in ever smaller, more shadowy nooks, little gloomy ambiguous caves in the psyche, where even new neurobiology is cruelly harrying them, goughing them out of the multifolded brain like wood lice from under the lumber pile." - John Updike

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why are you fighting with other people's idea of god when you can't even come up with one of your own?

Anybody can come up with an idea of a god. That's pretty much the problem, isn't it?

Spoiler: assorted gods

Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Amaterasu, An, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Cheng-huang, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jehovah, Jesus, Juno, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kukulcan, Lakshmi, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, Rhea, Sabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Tiamat, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, Ymir ,Yu-huang, Yum Kimil, Zeus

 

[Polymath257]

Well, it is assumed that 'god' is 'omni-causal'. Such that everything that exists is the result of it's causal influence. In which case it would be impossible to determine a god-caused phenomena from any other phenomena.

So why add on extra assumptions that are not required for understanding? Of what value is the God concept?

I think I just explained it quite easily.

No, actually, you didn't.

Well, first of all, God exists.

Sorry, but that is the point at issue. You can't just declare this without some proof. And, as you just stated, there can be no proof. Which is why there is no *reason* to believe.

And *that* is why the *lack* of belief is reasonable. And that is the atheist position.

And the fact that we are discussing the existence of God is proof, enough.

We can discuss the existence of unicorns, but that doesn't mean unicorns exist. Talking about something doesn't bring it into existence.

So the question is not "does God exist", the question is "in what way does God exist, to us, and to what function and purpose?"

No, the question is whether God exists. Whether that metaphor actually refers to an existent entity.

God exists metaphysically, as an ideal.

So, God only exists as a thought in our heads? if so, I don't care one way or the other. You can imagine all you want.

But what does that mean to us? How does accepting this basic fact of reality, effect us?

it means nothing at all to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you'd be amazed at how self-empowered some people think they are.

Atheism is self-empowering. It frees us from the bondage of religious faith.

They still think they're smarter than all those 'other' poor fools and losers that existence chews up and spits out.

One judges a worldview by its fruits. Some are chewed up and spit out through bad luck - illness perhaps, being born in the wrong time and place, or other factors that can befall any of us.

Others arrive at the same place via poor judgment. Their mental map is defective, and they cannot effectively navigate through life because of that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, first of all, God exists.

Need a shave? Try Hitchens' Razor:

• "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Produce a god or compelling evidence of one, and we can talk.

And the fact that we are discussing the existence of God is proof, enough.

I was discussing the Kraken earlier on another thread.

So the question is not "does God exist", the question is "in what way does God exist, to us, and to what function and purpose?"

No, the question is why should I believe in a god in the absence of sufficient evidence whether one exists or not? You mentioned things like hope and purpose, but I'm content in both of those areas without god beliefs.

 

[Mister Silver]

Well, first of all, God exists. And the fact that we are discussing the existence of God is proof, enough.

God does not exist. The fact that we are discussing the existence of god is only proof that theists view god as more than a mere concept.

God only exists as a concept in the minds of believers. I am no more going to bow and worship the concept of an invisible pink unicorn than I would a god concept born of nothing more than pure imagination.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

First before I get accused of plagiarism this thread is a copy done from memory of a write by William Craig, a famous Christian apologist. I couldn't find the original article which contained much more information. I will cut and paste the article if I ever find it.


Well the definition of atheism is difficult or easy depending on the emotional make up of the atheist one asks to define themselves. (lol, I used the word emotional as a substitute for psychological make up. Its an friendly in house sarcasm).

The big question is atheism a view or a psychological condition? If atheism is taken to be a view, like the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. What about the atheists who freely say that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof? Those guys attempt to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition. And psychological conditions can make no assertions. I agree with Craig who says these self named atheists are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. Don't ask me why I know that is true!

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Need a shave? Try Hitchens' Razor:

• "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Produce a god or compelling evidence of one, and we can talk.



I was discussing the Kraken earlier on another thread.



No, the question is why should I believe in a god in the absence of sufficient evidence whether one exists or not? You mentioned things like hope and purpose, but I'm content in both of those areas without god beliefs.

Please member 'It Aint Necessarily So' just what are you calling sufficient evidence? You see if you are asking for what I think you are asking that is a problem. Most atheists think they prove their case by smugly stating they want only empirical evidence to prove the existence of an atemporal being that has little or no physical attributes. Its a non-argument. In addition those atheists feel Atheism is a default position of sorts and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. Not so...

Thank you Dr Craig ~

; { >