I Found An Intelligent Atheist, But He's Still Wrong

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

For one thing, all human flesh will be destroyed, the human mind included. Everything will be spiritual. Spirits live forever, think forever, feel forever.

What do spirits think with if the mind has been destroyed?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

What do spirits think with if the mind has been destroyed?

The HUMAN mind of course!

Maybe you should research it and find out.

 

[Skwim]

The first trick to being superior is to simply be it...not to lord it over others.
The second is to look inferior while doing it.
How'm I do'n?

Gotta say, you're superior at looking inferior.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gotta say, you're superior at looking inferior.
.

@Kilgore Trout beat you to that observation.
Hmmm.....
I must claim the moniker, Inferiorist, before someone else does.

 

[PureX]

Humanism accomplishes the same things without a god, so I don't see how love, generosity, or kindness depend on theism.

No, it really doesn't. Because humanism does not consider these characteristics "divine". Nor does it raise them to the level of "God's will". Such that humanists do not feel compelled to work at expressing these, themselves, or at glorifying them in others, to the degree that a theist would. A moral imperative that you can dismiss at will with no sense of divine repercussion is not the same as a moral imperative that is being handed to you, and manifested in you, by a Divine Being.

 

[PureX]

I note that you are indifferent about whether the religious notions you approve are actually true or not, an attitude I have often seen used by theists to deflect criticism.

I can honestly say that I can't know, nor do I much care about the factuality of God's existence. And in fact, it is because I cannot know what or if "God is" that gives me the freedom to decide for myself what I would like God to be if God does exist, and to then live as if this were the case. Because I find that in doing so, the quality of my experience of being is greatly improved, and my ability to add to the quality of other people's life experience, is also increased. And because of this, I consider my/our "unknowing" regarding the nature and existence of "God" to be a great gift!

I find it curious that people do not feel that tactic embarrassing.

Hopefully, I have just explained to you why it is both logical and advantageous. And I see no need for anyone to be embarrassed of either.

Sure theism is a scam. I suppose that the first ancient tribesman who found that he could escape the daily grind of survival by pretending to talk to gods found pretty quickly that he was onto a good thing (for him). And so it goes on and on.

I don't think you have much of an understanding of theism. As far as I know, theism does little to help anyone "escape from the daily grind of life". I think it has far more to do with giving that grind some positive meaning, and purpose, and a desire to make it better for oneself and for others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it really doesn't. Because humanism does not consider these characteristics "divine". Nor does it raise them to the level of "God's will".

Neither does theism, in and of itself. "God exists" does not necessarily imply that anything in particular is "God's will" or that "God's will" is something we should seek to follow.

Such that humanists do not feel compelled to work at expressing these, themselves, or at glorifying them in others, to the degree that a theist would.

I strongly disagree. The most common theism I'm surrounded with diminish the compulsion of people to do good work:

"If you do wrong and seek forgiveness, God will grant it."

"If you wrong someone or make them suffer, God will reward them in Heaven."

"One day soon, God will swoop down and make the world perfect, so any human need you leave unmet will be met in due course."

A moral imperative that you can dismiss at will with no sense of divine repercussion is not the same as a moral imperative that is being handed to you, and manifested in you, by a Divine Being.

Handed to you unquestionably, with no evidence-based relationship to right and wrong.

If a humanist throws away humanist principles, it means they no longer value the inherent worth of humanity. If that ever happens, it's very rare.

And history shows us that "moral imperatives being handed to you by a 'Divine Being'" are pretty easily dismissed and changed themselves.

 

[PureX]

The first trick to being superior is to simply be it...not to lord it over others.
The second is to look inferior while doing it.
How'm I do'n?

Transcending others is a fools errand. And most of the fools that engage in it end up raising themselves up by putting everyone else down.

Better to try and transcend ourselves by diminishing our own egos. But that's a path less traveled.

 

[PureX]

Neither does theism, in and of itself. "God exists" does not necessarily imply that anything in particular is "God's will" or that "God's will" is something we should seek to follow.

I agree. But theism offers us the possibility, and a powerful tool.

I strongly disagree. The most common theism I'm surrounded with diminish the compulsion of people to do good work.

That's because your mind is jaundiced when it comes to religion and religious practices. And because you are incapable and unwilling to differentiate between the misuse of such a powerful tool, and the proper, positive use of that same powerful tool. All you look for is the damage, so all you see is the damage.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

The HUMAN mind of course!

Maybe you should research it and find out.

You said "all human flesh will be destroyed, the human mind included". Do you mean atheists like me will be annihilated while you lucky saints get to keep your "human mind"? Just asking, the way you phrased it sounds contradictory.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, it really doesn't. Because humanism does not consider these characteristics "divine". Nor does it raise them to the level of "God's will". Such that humanists do not feel compelled to work at expressing these, themselves, or at glorifying them in others, to the degree that a theist would. A moral imperative that you can dismiss at will with no sense of divine repercussion is not the same as a moral imperative that is being handed to you, and manifested in you, by a Divine Being.

I have no need of the concept of divine punishment to want to be a good person, or to considering perfecting myself to whatever limit is possible a virtue. I need no commandments from men pretending to speak for a god that they have imagined, commandments that would limit me if I accepted them. I've fared better outside of religion than I did within.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can honestly say that I can't know, nor do I much care about the factuality of God's existence. And in fact, it is because I cannot know what or if "God is" that gives me the freedom to decide for myself what I would like God to be if God does exist, and to then live as if this were the case.

So by "the moral imperative that was handed to you by a Divine Being," you mean "the words I put in the mouth of a god I have chosen to assume is there"?

Are you actually a theist, or are you an atheist who uses theistic metaphors?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. But theism offers us the possibility, and a powerful tool.

I don't see how:

- if you're in a position to use theism as a tool, you don't actually believe it.
- if you do believe it, you're not free to use it as a tool.

That's because your mind is jaundiced when it comes to religion and religious practices. And because you are incapable and unwilling to differentiate between the misuse of such a powerful tool, and the proper, positive use of that same powerful tool. All you look for is the damage, so all you see is the damage.

"Misuse?" Who are you to dictate what "proper" theism is?

 

[james bond]

I would say that one can study theology as a soft scientist, as one would study sociology. But of course the ideas espoused by theology cannot be considered scientific. Theology is ultimately about faith correct? Faith is a real thing, but it ain't science.

Creation science is the science part.

 

[james bond]

Is Craig someone you've recently started viewing more?

I've been listening to him for a few years now.

 

[icehorse]

Creation science is the science part.

I don't think that "creation science" really qualifies as a science.

 

[james bond]

I don't think that "creation science" really qualifies as a science.

Well, you're wrong.

 

[icehorse]

Well, you're wrong.

Well science depends on reliable and repeatable evidence correct? So how does creation science deal with that? I'm sorry but you simply cannot get away with saying that scripture provides evidence.

 

[james bond]

Well science depends on reliable and repeatable evidence correct? So how does creation science deal with that? I'm sorry but you simply cannot get away with saying that scripture provides evidence.

Ha ha. The Christians had many scientists, much more than the atheist scientists. Let's talk about Louis Pasteur and his swan neck flask. With that, he scientifically proved that one can not have abiogenesis.

 

[james bond]

It's no more right or wrong to choose atheism than it is to choose theism, because neither choice is based on ascertainable knowledge. And both are based on subjective reasoning.

I choose theism because it affords me positive possibilities that atheism denies, and I see no logical reason for me to reject and deny myself the benefit of these possibilities based on nothing. But I understand that an atheist might find personal benefit in doing just that. What's right for him does not have to be what's right for me.

It's based in part on subjective reasoning, but there's an important component -- faith. Atheism is based on rationalism which isn't always rational and there can be mistakes because it's human rationalization.