Religion and Atheism

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I suspect you are playing very fast and loose with the term "exist". Because all of the things on my list, including 'existence', itself, is an idea-set, derived from the combination of our experience and imagination. None of them are substantial, or materially (objectively) verifiable. They are all, in fact 'opinions about reality' (metaphysically extant), rather than a 'reality without opinion' (physically extant). Just as "God" is an idea-set: an 'opinion about reality' (metaphysically extant), rather then a 'reality without opinion' (physically extant).

I'll just put one little notion in front of you, since I think that you are playing quite "fast and loose" yourself.

You cannot say "our experience and imagination," when what you mean is "my experience and imagination." You cannot share my experiences, you can know for certain, in fact, nothing whatever about them. And as my imagination and your imagination are informed by the totality of everything we've experienced before (all very different between the two of us). From this, I conclude it should not be possible for human beings to agree so incredibly widely on so much of what exists...on flowers and bees, colours and sounds, the presence or absence of physical barriers, and a trillion other things. Yet, surprisingly by your thesis, we do very much agree on all of that. I've never met anyone, ever, who looking up at the Eiffel Tower or the Washington Monument, mistook one for the other.

This brings us to the subject of metaphysics, which I take to mean...well, nothing at all, really. And I do that for one very simple reason..."Insofar as it is possible to find a coherent line of argument in the writings of any anti-realist, it is hard to see why they, like the logical positivists, are not open to a charge of self-referential incoherency." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Metaphysics). Therefore, for me, metaphysics (literally "before physics") has no meaning in a physical world.

And one last point I'd like to bring up, since you are attempting to suggest that "opinion" (or matters of mind) are somehow not physical (you do this when you claim "metaphysically extant" and "physically extant") that the current work in trying to "turn thought into speech" which is now well underway, suggest that, sadly for you, even thought is quite physical enough to be detected and interpreted mechanically. And if thought itself were somehow "metaphysical," that ought to be impossible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You can't detect what isn't there.

You can't? Really, are you sure? You mentioned a vacuum, earlier, as one of your examples. Let me put it to you that if you found yourself in a vacuum, one of two things would happen, one probably much more quickly than the other: you would explode or suffocate due to lack of oxygen. Let's ignore the vacuum and just put you in a room in which all the oxygen had been removed from the air. I promise you, you would suffocate, most uncomfortably. I consider both exploding and suffocating to be very convincing ways of "detecting what isn't there."

 

[blü 2]

Well, ... and in the eyes of all those atheists that find being called "religious" insulting. I don't think theists call atheists "religious" to insult them. I think they do it to make all other ideologies "equal" to their own.

Again, atheism is a view regarding religion, but is atheism, as such, an 'ideology'? I'd say it isn't. It has no central story (simply a negation), no moral content, no life goals, no wish or purpose to gather, no ceremonies or observances, no political side, no particular form to disbelief; it doesn't even say belief in religion is bad ─ any such judgment is purely an incidental matter for the individual.

And I think that's exactly why so many atheists resent the implication: because they believe their atheist ideology is not equal to theism, but is superior.

That view's hardly one-sided, though ─ believers openly declare that their beliefs are superior to those of others. So in these ecumenical times, the Abrahamics may make noises of accord, but only exceptionally do they include the Hindus or Buddhists, let alone the followers of Norse beliefs or Wiccan or Olympianism or the Great Spirit or the Rainbow Serpent; and virtually none seek official rapprochement with unbelievers (though Francis makes intelligent remarks about them now and then).

 

[Unity of Mankind]

We can certainly have well founded "opinions" on the origins of non-existent gods/God/faries/pixies et. al. They all are the creations of man's imaginings.

So you are reflecting on how atheists are expressing opinions on “origins” rather than the “nature” of what they conclude does not exist?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The really weird thing is that you and so many other atheists believe that there is some sort of innate logical demand that you be "convinced". That somehow this is even possible. When clearly, as you have just admitted yourself, it's not. And it is this weird assumption that forms the atheist's base ideology: that if God/gods exist, we would all somehow 'know it'. When, by our own common and historical definitions of "God", we could not possibly ascertain the nature or existence of such an entity/phenomenon, as we do not have the capabilities that would logically be required. And yet on and on go the "believers", insisting that they "know God exists", or that "God can't possibly exist" without them knowing it. Both assertions being completely illogical and neither being convinced by the other.

This is one of the most ridiculous paragraphs of nonsense I have ever read. I am being 100% serious. The above paragraph could be said about ANYTHING make-believe that cannot be proven to either exist or not to exist. It applies to infinitely many things... which means it is worthless.

I don't demand to be convince... you simply aren't convincing AT ALL. Seriously not one iota... especially not with absolutely amorphous goofy-talk like the above. Your paragraph makes no worthwhile point... and all the while reading it, one can tell that you really feel it to contain some profound wisdom.

The really, really, really weird thing is that you admit in the paragraph above that you have just about ZERO basis to make any sort of claim about anything deity-related with any amount of confidence... and yet that's what you want me to just let stand and leave alone without question? Are you being serious? I have to wonder if you even comprehend your own words. You have basically made my entire argument for me. Case closed. There is no reasonable reason to ever believe anyone's claims about deity, as there is literally no way to prove or disprove any of it.

Give me a break. What the hell is going on here? Damn... just damn.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have basically made my entire argument for me. Case closed. There is no reasonable reason to ever believe anyone's claims about deity, as there is literally no way to prove or disprove any of it.

There is no way to prove God exists as a fact, because God is immaterial...

There is a way to prove to yourself that God exists but nobody can prove it to you since their proof is not your proof. In other words, what convinces one person does not convince another person. For me, the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists, but for another person staring up into the sky and looking at all the stars is evidence. People are all different in how they think.

It is possible to become convinced, but you have to convince yourself, nobody can convince you.
Why would you believe in God if you were not convinced God exists? I wouldn't.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'll leave you with the same message:
ROFL!
Ok. I get it. I can see that 'debating' with you will not be productive. Thanks for the brief encounter.

I accept your admission of 100% defeat, and that you were completely wrong in all aspects of the word "wrong".

Fractal Wrongness.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What is your purpose for posting, in any thread?

Do you suspect some dark agenda, or conspiracy, from my pathetic posts?

I see someone who's desperate for attention... any attention will do...

but that's just me.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, an ape knows many things. It knows what plants are good to eat, and which ones aren't. It knows which plants are going to make it feel better when it's sick. It knows how to behave within the social hierarchy of the group, in order to get along, and how to gain allies by altruistic acts like grooming others, offering food. It even knows how to use tools, such as long sticks to get nutrition dense termites out of the ground and into the tummy.

Even though I was speaking poetically and should not have been taken literally, it is so refreshing to see someone these days knows apes. You even told me one thing I didn't know already, and that rarely happens when it comes to the great apes (apart from humans and orangutans). I'm glad you did. Thank you.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

There is no way to prove God exists as a fact, because God is immaterial...

There is a way to prove to yourself that God exists but nobody can prove it to you since their proof is not your proof. In other words, what convinces one person does not convince another person. For me, the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists, but for another person staring up into the sky and looking at all the stars is evidence. People are all different in how they think.

It is possible to become convinced, but you have to convince yourself, nobody can convince you.
Why would you believe in God if you were not convinced God exists? I wouldn't.

Wave energy, Dark energy, and Potential energy are all immaterial. Yet we can clearly demonstrate their existence, directly, indirectly, and objectively. Also, these energies can be easily falsified. So being immaterial is no excuse to finding evidence to confirm God's existence. If a God had, in any way, interacted with our 4 dimensional reality, there would be some evidence of that interaction. There isn't. And, I believe there can't be, without completely destroying all of the natural laws of physics.

For me, creating one fairy tale, to justify another fairy tale, is just circular reasoning and really poor logic. It still begs the question, and becomes just another argument from ignorance. Saying that I believe that God exists because I believe that a Messenger of God exists, does not evidence either. Convincing myself to believe that something exists, that I can't demonstrate exists, just because others believe exists, is even worse than delusional. It is just gullible. What is this way to prove to myself that God exists, since no one else can prove it for me("There is a way to prove to yourself that God exists..")? Never mind, I feel that it will be just another vacuous dangling participle, that promises something but will in the end deliver nothing.

 

[Augustus]

And yet, I think there is justification for all of those beliefs -- justification that is not based in the assumption of a deity or deities. The first and most important of those justifications is that humans evolved as a social species, that is, we are a group of animals belonging to the same species, and consisting of individuals beyond those in a family unit, who perform specific tasks, spend distinctly more time together, and interact much more within the group than with members of the same species outside of that group. A social animal is defined as any animal species that typically forms into societies. That evolutionary path obviously involves some inbuilt behaviours, behaviours that recognize our dependence on others in our society, or even beyond it. And those behaviours, rather than being "religious," i.e. held often because there's just no better model, at least appear to be based in nature.

There is justification for religious belief even if you believe no gods exist. There are 2 key ways in which people decide upon what is 'right': reason and tradition. There are significant plus and minus points for each (which I won't go in to) as our irrational species is far too stupid to understand the complex world we live in.

Humans evolved to live in small groups with close personal bonds, primarily of kinship. They did not evolve to live in mass societies mediated by modern technologies.

The need to build ever larger groups of 'fictive-kinship' is the reason for the ubiquity of religion. Modern secular replacements for religious fictions are still fictions, no matter how well meaning.

And in fact, monkeys that have evolved to live in social groupings do indeed have "responsibilities" within the group, and behave accordingly. Sometimes, in fact, I think we can dispense with the notion that there is something very different between "knowing" and instinctive behaviour.

They have responsibilities to the group, that often define them in opposition to other groups (and individuals with their group). They do not have responsibilities to monkeys in other groups.

The concept of a collective Humanity is a purely religious concept. Based on the religious idea of human exceptionalism, it certainly has no basis in science.

 

[Augustus]

Nah.

At least you were wrong concisely

 

[PureX]

It's also unusual, even amongst atheists. What you're describing here is "hard" or "strong" atheism, while the large majority are of the Nontheists are more of the "soft", or "agnostic", variety.

This common error is why I prefer the term "non-theist". "Atheist" is so often mistaken to only refer to the hard atheists, when there aren't very many of them. Hard atheists are not representative of all non-theists.

Tom

The degree of one's conviction is not relevant to the term. The term "atheism" refers to the proposition that God/gods do not exist. Just as the term "theism" refers to the proposition that God/gods does exist.

 

[syo]

*blinks*

*blinks again*

modern atheism is a set of rules that negate the abrahamic god. so it's an abrahamic religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The degree of one's conviction is not relevant to the term. The term "atheism" refers to the proposition that God/gods do not exist. Just as the term "theism" refers to the proposition that God/gods does exist.

No, if one breaks it down the "a" in atheism means without. Therefore a-theism means without theism, or without a belief in a God or gods. Atheism is best defined as being without a belief in gods. That covers everyone from hard atheists to sort atheists.

⚙ Define atheism :: Etymology

 

[SalixIncendium]

modern atheism is a set of rules that negate the abrahamic god. so it's an abrahamic religion.

 

[syo]

Tao

 

[Rival]

He has a point though; modern atheism largely arose in response to Classical Monotheism; it may be said to be a product of Abrahamic religion. You only have to listen to how most atheists phrase themselves, I don't believe in God. Only on here have I seen them include 'or gods'.

 

[usfan]

I see someone who's desperate for attention... any attention will do...

but that's just me.

..stay away from mirrors..

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is no way to prove God exists as a fact, because God is immaterial...

There is a way to prove to yourself that God exists but nobody can prove it to you since their proof is not your proof. In other words, what convinces one person does not convince another person. For me, the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists, but for another person staring up into the sky and looking at all the stars is evidence. People are all different in how they think.

It is possible to become convinced, but you have to convince yourself, nobody can convince you.
Why would you believe in God if you were not convinced God exists? I wouldn't.

Again, the above could be said about anything that doesn't exist, or exists but is never presented in any way within your reality - and therefore may as well not exist. And because it can be said of anything like that, it means you are just speaking nonsense. It means that it is entirely arbitrary what you insert into the sentences you write, because it would all make just as much sense.

I know you have seen this kind of thing dozens of times before, but it is no less applicable in this situation:

There is no way to prove Smegglebarbs exist as a fact, because Smegglebarbs are immaterial...

There is a way to prove to yourself that Smegglebarbs exist but nobody can prove them to you since their proof is not your proof. In other words, what convinces one person does not convince another person. For me, the Messengers of Smegglebarbs are evidence that Smegglebarbs exist, but for another person staring up into the sky and looking at all the stars is evidence. People are all different in how they think.

The emoji at the end just rounds it all out perfectly, don't you think?

P.S. Smegglebarbs are immaterial forces of fundamental nature that create stars - which is why looking up into the sky is clearly evidence for them. Their "messengers" are apparent as the light waves that travel from the stars, and they manifest as one (white), but can be separated into red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet members. Red is not orange, is not yellow, is not green, is not blue, is not indigo, is not violet, but all are "white." Their name must always be written in blue (their favorite of the colors - the "chosen" color) out of respect for them. Disrespecting the Smegglebarbs is called "blasphermebery" - extreme cases of which are punishable by long exposure to ultra-violet rays (the "evil" wavelengths of light - which the Smegglebarbs also create).