Religion and Atheism

[ecco]

Hopefully, our future young inquiring minds will have a chance to choose fact over fiction, reality over fantasy, and logic over illogic. That is, if they are not religiously interfered with, before they are mentally and emotionally able to defend themselves.

However, in the vast majority of cases, that is not possible. Parents take to youngest to churches, mosques and synagogues. Later, even the mainstream media refers to blessings and miracles daily.

 

[Trailblazer]

If being immaterial was not the only reason we can't prove God(s) exists, then you should not have claimed that it is. What are the other reasons we can't prove that God(s), exists? Also, unless you are a God yourself, you have no idea what is in the mind of a God. You have no idea what He thinks, wants, is, or needs. And, you certainly can't know WHY He does anything. You should really apply your "naïve believer syndrome" to yourself as well.

I did not claim that immateriality was the only reason we cannot prove God exists. I said “There is no way to prove God exists as a fact, because God is immaterial...” By the process of deductive reasoning I conjecture that the other reason we cannot prove that God exists is because God does not want us to be able to prove He exists, because if God had wanted us to be able to prove He exists, an omnipotent God could have made that possible.

I never said that I know what God thinks, wants, is, or needs. Those are your words.

If you are using a Messenger of God to evidence the existence of God, then you are being implicit that a Messenger of God does actually exist. There is no difference between your two statements, since there is no evidence to support the existence of either.

Yes, I believe a Messenger of God exists; all I was saying is that even if there were no Messengers of God, God would still exist.

I believe that the Universe that exists today, is clear evidence that a God(s) does not, and cannot exist. The existence of Messengers of God(s), angels, devils, demigods, the spiritual and paranormal, miracles, souls, or a heaven, are all violations of our physical laws of reality. This would create a new causality paradigm, which would render our fundamental forces functionless and redundant. Therefore, these religious/spiritual claims need to be seriously addressed and demonstrated. Not with more empty rhetoric, self-serving excuses, fallacy-riddled logic, subjective anecdotes, and with absolutely zero evidence.

Believe whatever you want to and I will believe what I want to. That is the beauty of free will.

You can no more prove your theories are true than I can prove my beliefs are true.

Since you seem totally perplexed why some people find it so difficult to believe in the existence of God, let me help you. EVIDENCE. It is evidence that is the source of true enlightenment. It is evidence that is the difference between what is perceived as true, and what is conceived as true. It is evidence that is the difference between what is perceived as real, and what is conceived as real. It is evidence that is the difference between what becomes practical knowledge, and what becomes abstract knowledge.

We have been down this road many times before so I see no point going down it again. Practically everyone in the world believes that religion is the evidence that God exists. Only 7% of people in the world are atheists who for some reason cannot SEE the evidence that is staring them right in the face. They do not LIKE religion but they have no logical reason not to like it. They think there should be objective evidence of an Entity called God, but God cannot be located on a GPS tracker. It is patently illogical to have such expectations of objective evidence. It is also illogical to think we could KNOW what God is doing in this world and use that as evidence that God exists.

Logically speaking, if there is a God, God knows more than any human and so God knows the BEST WAY to communicate to humanity. Religion is the ONLY evidence that we have ever had that shows that God has communicated to humanity. So either (1) religion is the evidence, (2) God exists and does not communicate to humanity, or (3) God does not exist. God gave you a brain and free will so you can choose between one of those three logical possibilities.

Any human being can easily be assisted in convincing himself to believe in anything. Given enough time, motivation, rewards, and positive feedback, anyone can be convinced that an afterlife, God(s), devils and angels exist. Or, can be convinced that miracles and other superstitions are real, without any need to deposit one example, one relevant demonstration, one relevant comparison, one objective/verifiable piece of evidence, or without one fallacy-free consistent argument. Unfortunately, the mind's ability to compartmentalize sensory input, has proven to be a blessing as well as a curse.

If you know logic you would know immediately that the fact that people can imagine things that are not real does not mean that nothing that people imagine can be real. Throughout history, people have imagined things that later turned out to be real.

Evidence is not what makes something real. Evidence is just what people WANT in order to believe that things are real. I believe that I have good evidence; you disagree. There is no point arguing about that because there is no way you or I are going to change.

God and the afterlife are either (a) real or (b) a fantasy. Those are the only two logical possibilities. Nobody can prove it either way so I see no point in atheists and believers calling each other derogatory names and creating unnecessary disharmony.

If you believe that your beliefs are perceptual in origin, then you are just deceiving yourself. Unless, belief itself is now an innate/congenital part of the human condition. I along with many Atheist have no objection to adults, believing in adult fairy tales. It is only when those fairy tales encroach into my ontologically-based reality, that my attention becomes warranted. The encroachment of Deuteronic Ethos, elitism, and intolerance, is clearly visible within society. Religious tenets exist in our public education system, our government and legal systems, our sense of morality, women's reproductive rights, our scientific principles and research practices, and in the stifling of critical/independent thinking and individualism.

I will take that as an insult because that is exactly what it is, clothed in subterfuge. Adults believing in fairy tales. Religion is not a fairy tale, would you but know it.

You are the pot calling the kettle black because you are an elitist and you are intolerant. Maybe some religious people are that way, but ALL religious people are not that way.

Morality comes from religion since God sets the standards as to what is moral behavior. Who should decide how morality should be reflected in the law, atheists or believers? Thank God atheists are not the majority. I happen to disagree that women should have the choice to kill an unborn child just because she had unprotected sex. She chose to have sex so she is responsible for the outcome. There are other women who cannot have children who would give anything to have a child, so killing an unborn child is nothing short of selfish and done because women do not want to be inconvenienced. Well, they should have thought of that before they had sex.

If you have some innate need to depend on an imaginary interdimensional multi-omni sky daddy, to give you a sense of security, community, and inner strength, then why not just keep it to yourself?

Who do you think you are to tell me why I believe in God, what my needs are? For your information, I do not get ANY of what you listed by believing in God. I do not even LIKE believing in God, but I cannot disbelieve what I have evidence for.

If not, lets see the evidence. Surely, the 80+% of the world's population can produce one verifiable objective evidence, to suggest the existence of anything that is supernatural or spiritual. Maybe a prayer that works? Maybe any example of the paranormal? Even a violation of the physical laws will do. So far nothing but excuses, or the old standard, "you won't understand, until you have convinced yourself that you do understand. Then you will understand".

You are not going to SEE any evidence other than what I have already presented. You did not find that sufficient so why would I present it again? If I did present something paranormal you would say that I could not prove it was a real phenomenon.

 

[Trailblazer]

"A Messenger of God"? I thought there were many according to your beliefs.

Nevertheless, you have no definitive evidence that "messengers" are actually "messengers". Just because a person in the 1800's claims Muhammed was a "messenger" does not make Mohammed a "messenger" in the Bahai sense of the word. Certainly, billions of Muslims disagree with that view. Therefore, logically, you have no evidence for a god.

I believe that all the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists. There are many Messengers of God but I believe God exists because of one Messenger in particular.

I have no proof that “messengers” are actually “Messengers of God”. I never said that I had proof. I said I have evidence. Evidence is not proof.

What Muslims believe about Baha’u’llah has nothing to do with that is true, because beliefs do not determine reality.

Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger sent by God or not. That can never be proven as a fact but it could still be true, or it could be false. Those are the only two logical possibilities.

 

[Trailblazer]

You also should not believe in anything for which there is a great deal of evidence against. Think Great Flood. There is no evidence to support it. There is massive evidence against it. The evidence against it is far more compelling than the scarcity of evidence for it.

I do not believe in the Great Flood. I am of the hook because regarding what has been written about the flood in the books of old, Baha’u’llah wrote...

“Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.” Gleanings, pp. 174-175

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it would and yes they do.

Some believers do it, but some atheists also do it.

There was a time, long ago, that I found it exceedingly difficult to believe that any truly intelligent person could believe in God. That included the Pope.

Then I became aware of the tremendous power of early childhood religious indoctrination.

See, you just did it. Apparently, you cannot understand that everyone does not think like you do.

But you are right about early childhood religious indoctrination. That explains why most people believe in religion, particularly Christians. But that does not explain why I believe in religion because both my parents dropped out of Christianity before I was born. My father was an atheist but I have no idea what my mother believed when I was a child or after that. My father died before he heard of the Baha’i Faith, but my mother became a Baha’i at age 60, a few years after the rest of the family had become Baha’is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: I can, because there was a time I did not believe in God.
Trailblazer said: I tried to disbelieve in God but I never could.

One from Column A; One from Column B.

Both of your statements cannot be true.

Yes, they can both be true. Let me explain.

There was a time – before I became a Baha’i – when I did not believe in God.

Then later – after I became a Baha’i – I tried to disbelieve in God, but I never could.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps true... I just think there are better tools, more well-grounded in reality. People don't seek them because the religious stuff is easy and more readily accessible.

I would think being easy to use and readily available would be high on the list of criteria for a "good tool". I also think that for a lot of humans on this Earth the tools we are speaking of are the only ones available to them. Science may be great at inventing 'better tools', but it doesn't seem to do much about our disinclination to share them.

There is plenty that stop a whole lot of people... even religious people in other areas of their lives. People don't just walk around being delusional about all sorts of things (outside of religion) very often. And when they do, they are labeled with dysphemisms like "conspiracy theorist." In other words, it's never really considered a "good" thing. So why actively subscribe to an idea you know holds little to no truth? That's what I am getting at.

I think you presume the accuracy of what we think we know far too generously. Remember that "reality" is an imaginary conceptual construct, based on very limited personal experiences, just like "God".

I see truth to this, though again, when the source of the ideology causing harm is known/found/shown to be of dubious to false origins, I feel it should be easier for it to be discarded than it ends up being.

What "source of ideology"? The source of our ideological constructs is our own human experience and intellect. And it's the same source for all of them. Our ideologies develop and evolve as we do.

People thinking that they have the backing of God for their opinions is ultimately a bad thing in my opinion. Even people who start out with the best of intentions have their instincts to contend with - and many religions blatantly attempt to dissuade you from following your instincts and to instead deprive yourself. Something like instinct isn't simply going to go away, and so for all the "compassion, forgiveness, empathy, humility, and social responsibility" that is fostered, you have all the other, more basic natural impulses to contend with that aren't being talked about. And so you create a huge opportunity for certain things to simply be conducted in secret, or passive-aggressively. And I am not just talking sexual things... but also things like "being alpha" or vying for leadership, hoarding or shoring up personal resources and "fight or flight" mechanisms.

Humans are transcendent beings; in process. We are having to learn how to recognize and choose between our animal "instinctual" natures and our metaphysical human reality as self-imagined beings. We are struggling with this all the time, as individuals and as a human collective. And this struggle permeates every endeavor we engage in, not just our religions. How is it you focus on this struggle in religion and ignore it in politics, economics, art, science, and social interactions of every sort? The 'enemy' you are focused on is not particularly religious, it's the human transitional condition.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I did not claim that immateriality was the only reason we cannot prove God exists. I said “There is no way to prove God exists as a fact, because God is immaterial...” By the process of deductive reasoning I conjecture that the other reason we cannot prove that God exists is because God does not want us to be able to prove He exists, because if God had wanted us to be able to prove He exists, an omnipotent God could have made that possible.

I never said that I know what God thinks, wants, is, or needs. Those are your words.

Yes, I believe a Messenger of God exists; all I was saying is that even if there were no Messengers of God, God would still exist.

Believe whatever you want to and I will believe what I want to. That is the beauty of free will.

You can no more prove your theories are true than I can prove my beliefs are true.

We have been down this road many times before so I see no point going down it again. Practically everyone in the world believes that religion is the evidence that God exists. Only 7% of people in the world are atheists who for some reason cannot SEE the evidence that is staring them right in the face. They do not LIKE religion but they have no logical reason not to like it. They think there should be objective evidence of an Entity called God, but God cannot be located on a GPS tracker. It is patently illogical to have such expectations of objective evidence. It is also illogical to think we could KNOW what God is doing in this world and use that as evidence that God exists.

Logically speaking, if there is a God, God knows more than any human and so God knows the BEST WAY to communicate to humanity. Religion is the ONLY evidence that we have ever had that shows that God has communicated to humanity. So either (1) religion is the evidence, (2) God exists and does not communicate to humanity, or (3) God does not exist. God gave you a brain and free will so you can choose between one of those three logical possibilities.

If you know logic you would know immediately that the fact that people can imagine things that are not real does not mean that nothing that people imagine can be real. Throughout history, people have imagined things that later turned out to be real.

Evidence is not what makes something real. Evidence is just what people WANT in order to believe that things are real. I believe that I have good evidence; you disagree. There is no point arguing about that because there is no way you or I are going to change.

God and the afterlife are either (a) real or (b) a fantasy. Those are the only two logical possibilities. Nobody can prove it either way so I see no point in atheists and believers calling each other derogatory names and creating unnecessary disharmony.

I will take that as an insult because that is exactly what it is, clothed in subterfuge. Adults believing in fairy tales. Religion is not a fairy tale, would you but know it.

You are the pot calling the kettle black because you are an elitist and you are intolerant. Maybe some religious people are that way, but ALL religious people are not that way.

Morality comes from religion since God sets the standards as to what is moral behavior. Who should decide how morality should be reflected in the law, atheists or believers? Thank God atheists are not the majority. I happen to disagree that women should have the choice to kill an unborn child just because she had unprotected sex. She chose to have sex so she is responsible for the outcome. There are other women who cannot have children who would give anything to have a child, so killing an unborn child is nothing short of selfish and done because women do not want to be inconvenienced. Well, they should have thought of that before they had sex.

Who do you think you are to tell me why I believe in God, what my needs are? For your information, I do not get ANY of what you listed by believing in God. I do not even LIKE believing in God, but I cannot disbelieve what I have evidence for.

You are not going to SEE any evidence other than what I have already presented. You did not find that sufficient so why would I present it again? If I did present something paranormal you would say that I could not prove it was a real phenomenon.

So am I to assume that whenever you make a truth/fact claim, that there may be caveats and other hidden stipulations that will be revealed to us later? This seems like a confusing and intellectually dishonest method for honest discourse. Stating that we can't prove that God exists, because God doesn't want us to prove that He exists, is not only circular reasoning, but is also an argument from ignorance. Not only can't you demonstrate why this claim is true, but you can't even demonstrate the rationale supporting the claim. You keep saying that you don't know what a God thinks, needs, is, and wants, yet you keep making assertions that imply that you do. How do you know why a God is avoiding human detection? How do you know if God knows more than humans? How do you know that God gave you free will? How do you know that this God is a moral God? How do you know that He even exists. In short, you don't have a clue. You simply believe because you want to believe. Yet you continue to make these claims, as truth claims.

My theory that God cannot exist, is based on science, logic, common sense, and observation. My theory is predicated on the idea that a God must have some material properties, that can interact with the material properties of our 4 dimensional reality. There are 4 basic forces in the universe, with a possible 5th to accommodate for the addition of constants in formulas. How do God properties interact with quantum fields and waves? How do God properties affect the Uncertainty Principle, Gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, spacetime, or wave mechanics? Is God a neutrino, that do not interact with anything(other than the weak nuclear force). I can certainly present a case why a God property would create a causal cascade of natural events that could lead to the destruction of our Universe. I sincerely hope that your evidence does not include these poorly thought out false tautologies.

Things that are imagined in the mind, will always be conceptually real(mental construct). Things that exists outside of the mind will always be perceptually real(physical constructs). No matter how much imagination you have, you will never cause it to physically appear. But if you really mean bringing your imagination to fruition, by using material means, then I completely agree with you stating the obvious. Evidence does not make something real, but it will support claims that something is real. Since you can't support your supernatural claims with evidence, you must make evidence inconsequential. If you don't have any intentions of providing any evidence to support your supernatural claims, then you are only proselytizing your beliefs and opinions. Especially, since you have zero evidence, despite the many claims that you do.

I may be intolerant, or an elitists, but at least I'm open-minded. I am not so entranced and enraptured in blind faith, that my moral compass has become skewed. I have always believed that women should have the right to make all decisions regarding their reproductive system. No one else should make decisions for them, especially since it is not them that has to live with them. It is because of your own intolerance, apathy, and religious bias, that you lack any understanding of the trauma caused by a decision to terminate the pregnancy. You may think you are taking the moral high ground, but you are not the one that will be looking after the child for life, or be forced to give the child away. You remind me of the indifference felt by politicians, as they send our young men/women off to die in never-ending regime change wars. What if the fetus endangers the life of the mother? What if the fetus is deformed or mentally handicapped? How about a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest? To bad and tough luck, right? Do you really think that the maturity and sex drives of a teenage girl, is the same as yours? Clearly it is you that is selfish, under the guise of religious fundamentalism.

Keeping it in perspective, a 7% world population of Atheists is 200 Million more people than the entire population of the US. But consensus is never proof for the existence of anything. That requires evidence. Otherwise, the belief in Santa Clause by 85% of young children, would be evidence of the existence of Santa Clause. If you are having some conjectured crisis of faith, might I suggest the default position? ​

 

[Workman]

So am I to assume that whenever you make a truth/fact claim, that there may be caveats and other hidden stipulations that will be revealed to us later? This seems like a confusing and intellectually dishonest method for honest discourse. Stating that we can't prove that God exists, because God doesn't want us to prove that He exists, is not only circular reasoning, but is also an argument from ignorance. Not only can't you demonstrate why this claim is true, but you can't even demonstrate the rationale supporting the claim. You keep saying that you don't know what a God thinks, needs, is, and wants, yet you keep making assertions that imply that you do. How do you know why a God is avoiding human detection? How do you know if God knows more than humans? How do you know that God gave you free will? How do you know that this God is a moral God? How do you know that He even exists. In short, you don't have a clue. You simply believe because you want to believe. Yet you continue to make these claims, as truth claims.

My theory that God cannot exist, is based on science, logic, common sense, and observation. My theory is predicated on the idea that a God must have some material properties, that can interact with the material properties of our 4 dimensional reality. There are 4 basic forces in the universe, with a possible 5th to accommodate for the addition of constants in formulas. How do God properties interact with quantum fields and waves? How do God properties affect the Uncertainty Principle, Gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, spacetime, or wave mechanics? Is God a neutrino, that do not interact with anything(other than the weak nuclear force). I can certainly present a case why a God property would create a causal cascade of natural events that could lead to the destruction of our Universe. I sincerely hope that your evidence does not include these poorly thought out false tautologies.

Things that are imagined in the mind, will always be conceptually real(mental construct). Things that exists outside of the mind will always be perceptually real(physical constructs). No matter how much imagination you have, you will never cause it to physically appear. But if you really mean bringing your imagination to fruition, by using material means, then I completely agree with you stating the obvious. Evidence does not make something real, but it will support claims that something is real. Since you can't support your supernatural claims with evidence, you must make evidence inconsequential. If you don't have any intentions of providing any evidence to support your supernatural claims, then you are only proselytizing your beliefs and opinions. Especially, since you have zero evidence, despite the many claims that you do.

I may be intolerant, or an elitists, but at least I'm open-minded. I am not so entranced and enraptured in blind faith, that my moral compass has become skewed. I have always believed that women should have the right to make all decisions regarding their reproductive system. No one else should make decisions for them, especially since it is not them that has to live with them. It is because of your own intolerance, apathy, and religious bias, that you lack any understanding of the trauma caused by a decision to terminate the pregnancy. You may think you are taking the moral high ground, but you are not the one that will be looking after the child for life, or be forced to give the child away. You remind me of the indifference felt by politicians, as they send our young men/women off to die in never-ending regime change wars. What if the fetus endangers the life of the mother? What if the fetus is deformed or mentally handicapped? How about a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest? To bad and tough luck, right? Do you really think that the maturity and sex drives of a teenage girl, is the same as yours? Clearly it is you that is selfish, under the guise of religious fundamentalism.

Keeping it in perspective, a 7% world population of Atheists is 200 Million more people than the entire population of the US. But consensus is never proof for the existence of anything. That requires evidence. Otherwise, the belief in Santa Clause by 85% of young children, would be evidence of the existence of Santa Clause. If you are having some conjectured crisis of faith, might I suggest the default position? ​

I am a Strong Atheist..from a Very religious kind of way! Who are you to claim NOT of another? Your proofs are NOTHING!!!! more than a bunch of tools that basis you as its account.
In other words your owned by (things)...of things that are not ALIVE..therefore you have be-lowered yourself to a THING! from another way to look at it..your comparing yourself a (Living being) to let THINGs tell your truth for you. Where is my God is from my own being=which i had used from my own control of SELF to form MY OWN PROOF of God! Take your science to where you(thing) belong to.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would think being easy to use and readily available would be high on the list of criteria for a "good tool".

Do you think this assessment holds in the case of "tools" of various types? Aren't the very best, most durable, most well-died tools more expensive? Didn't they take the crafters more time and effort to design and create? They most certainly did and more certainly are. The easiest to get your hands on, and the most readily available aren't going to be "the best" in just about any avenue of life you traverse.

I also think that for a lot of humans on this Earth the tools we are speaking of are the only ones available to them.

Why do you think I am out here advocating for the use of other tools?

Science may be great at inventing 'better tools', but it doesn't seem to do much about our disinclination to share them.

The kinds of "tools" I am referencing aren't necessarily offered by science, though I suppose knowledge of the findings of science and some understanding of the facts of our reality does help.

I think you presume the accuracy of what we think we know far too generously.

It's sort of only ever a "rolling" accuracy at best, isn't it? That's what it seems like you've been saying also anyway. But shouldn't we all be striving to be on the leading edge of the roll? If you don't care, fine... just don't deny up-to-date findings just for the sake of being obstinate for goodness sake.

Remember that "reality" is an imaginary conceptual construct, based on very limited personal experiences, just like "God".

This is taking it a bit too far. Reality is all there is. And it is proved we're not just "imagining" it whenever two of us can mutually experience a particular aspect of it, even if our interpretations are slightly different. God is much different from this. "Mutual" in only very superficial respects. Completely different from "reality."

What "source of ideology"? The source of our ideological constructs is our own human experience and intellect. And it's the same source for all of them. Our ideologies develop and evolve as we do.

And what I have been saying all along is that there is a stark difference between imaginary sources of ideology and ideology based on what we can actually experience inter-personally.

Humans are transcendent beings; in process.

We certainly like to think so.

We are having to learn how to recognize and choose between our animal "instinctual" natures and our metaphysical human reality as self-imagined beings. We are struggling with this all the time, as individuals and as a human collective. And this struggle permeates every endeavor we engage in, not just our religions. How is it you focus on this struggle in religion and ignore it in politics, economics, art, science, and social interactions of every sort? The 'enemy' you are focused on is not particularly religious, it's the human transitional condition.

I focus on religion because it is an entirely unnecessary addition to the struggle. Seriously now - can you possibly argue that "religion" is even close to being as important as any of those other arenas? Politics is more important than religion - I know some may scoff at this, but "politics" does not mean dems versus republicans or anything so mundane and artificial. Politics is truly (supposed to be) the process of human beings coming to terms with one another in a graceful manner. Economics is more important than religion - and by "economics" is not just meant dealings with "money," but also being economical in everything to which it is pertinent - our use of resources, our dealings with others, our granting of "power." Art is more important than religion - there's a reason that the church in all times has relied on art (paintings, windows, carvings, music, poetry) to attempt to lure people into the mythos. Science is more important than religion - measurable, reproducible results are what truly drive one forward in almost any area of knowledge - not "as good as chance." Social interactions are more important than religion - this one speaks for itself. And in fact, I would argue that religion doesn't even stand on its own as a separate entity from the above arenas, but rather simply borrows from them all in varying amounts. Politics - how we deal with one another, economics - how we deal with one another's resources, art - how we appreciate the world around us, science - how we discover and describe the world around us, social interaction - how and why we come together. Religion isn't even really its own category - it's a hodge-podge. Throw an imaginary figure up in front of it all and see if people will toe the line. If it were necessary, it would be as fundamental and irreducible as the others in the list. I would argue it is only ever complicating things - while the others offer solutions to necessity.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am a Strong Atheist..from a Very religious kind of way! Who are you to claim NOT of another? Your proofs are NOTHING!!!! more than a bunch of tools that basis you as its account.
In other words your owned by (things)...of things that are not ALIVE..therefore you have be-lowered yourself to a THING! from another way to look at it..your comparing yourself a (Living being) to let THINGs tell your truth for you. Where is my God is from my own being=which i had used from my own control of SELF to form MY OWN PROOF of God! Take your science to where you(thing) belong to.

And it is obvious you think of yourself pretty highly to not let yourself be signaled under the moniker "thing." Though I assure you, if you are solid in your position, you would not be rattled by the thought that you are a "thing." No one and no "thing" gets to dictate your worth to you. Not even "God" (provided He exists). And so, no matter what you're called by, your worth does not change. Anyone with even a shred of humility would realize this. Anyone without humility would take offense. Call me "thing" all you want. Facts don't bother me - and neither should they bother you.

From the tone of your post, I have no choice but to surmise you are simply working with all the wrong tools.

 

[Workman]

And it is obvious you think of yourself pretty highly to not let yourself be signaled under the moniker "thing." Though I assure you, if you are solid in your position, you would not be rattled by the thought that you are a "thing." No one and no "thing" gets to dictate your worth to you. Not even "God" (provided He exists). And so, no matter what you're called by, your worth does not change. Anyone with even a shred of humility would realize this. Anyone without humility would take offense. Call me "thing" all you want. Facts don't bother me - and neither should they bother you.

From the tone of your post, I have no choice but to surmise you are simply working with all the wrong tools.

Wether you think so or wether you don’t think at all!.. either way you are right! You are not worth my approach for!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Wether you think so or wether you don’t think at all!.. either way you are right! You are not worth my approach for!

The way you word things leaves me wondering if I am even understanding you correctly. You should try to clean up your language. Some of the words you use before or after others just do not seem to follow. For instance, the phrase "my approach for" - what do you mean with this? An intent to "approach" me? Are you talking about "approaching" the subject? Saying it isn't worth making an approach on the subject matter with me? Even just the phrase "You are not worth my approach." makes a lot more sense. Throw the "for" at the end and I just have to wonder what you are trying to say.

 

[Workman]

And it is obvious you think of yourself pretty highly to not let yourself be signaled under the moniker "thing."

And that was obvious enough for me to see your wrongs in measuring what you cannot see..it wasn’t ‘thing’ that drew my attention..it was ‘love’.
That’s from God..showing up for a friend. You failed this one!

Though I assure you, if you are solid in your position, you would not be rattled by the thought that you are a "thing."

And still by your use of tool has dug into a deeper hole into your abyss...

No one and no "thing" gets to dictate your worth to you. Not even "God" (provided He exists).

Hmm!..I take your word for that!.since your clearly it’s proof of denying.

And so, no matter what you're called by, your worth does not change. Anyone with even a shred of humility would realize this.

Yes!..all ‘things’ do!

Anyone without humility would take offense. Call me "thing" all you want. Facts don't bother me - and neither should they bother you.

And still you’ve produced yourselves wronged by your 1st post therefore you’ve fallen short of its measuring the rest. I do not have time for your mistakes.

From the tone of your post, I have no choice but to surmise you are simply working with all the wrong tools.

Yea..thats ok which ever your tool shows you. I’ll just say yes to that!


And this is why I don’t bother with most that think like you..It’s just a waste of my time

 

[Workman]

The way you word things leaves me wondering if I am even understanding you correctly. You should try to clean up your language. Some of the words you use before or after others just do not seem to follow. For instance, the phrase "my approach for" - what do you mean with this? An intent to "approach" me? Are you talking about "approaching" the subject? Saying it isn't worth making an approach on the subject matter with me? Even just the phrase "You are not worth my approach." makes a lot more sense. Throw the "for" at the end and I just have to wonder what you are trying to say.

Are you blind? Or are you just simply wronged tooled? My approach was a reply to someone’s post..NOT YOU!

 

[usfan]

But you are right about early childhood religious indoctrination. That explains why most people believe in religion,

Yes, this has gone on for millennia. Even now, atheistic naturalism, the unofficial State Religion (in America), indoctrinates their religious beliefs into hapless children, who emerge convinced of the 'progressive!' belief.

The organization of the progressive religion, in academia, govt, the media, entertainment, and almost every institution is a clear indicator of the 'religion', or at least 'religious nature', of the ideology. The result is increasing hordes of indoctrinees, unable to spell, do simple arithmetic, or follow any scientific methodology, yet they can zealously defend global warming, common descent, and the glories of socialism..

This is just the new, 'Religious Indoctrination,' from the current majority belief. How is it any different from the past?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do not have time for your mistakes.

Then have fun doing whatever it is that you do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, [the "a" in atheism] doesn't mean "without", it means 'the antithetical of'.

The prefix a- is one of several privative (related to the word deprive) prefixes, and means without. There are several others such as ab- (abnormal), ig- (ignoble) il- (illegal), im- (immaterial), in- (insanity), non- (nonfat), and un- (uneducated). Atheism means without theism.

Why is the etymology of atheism an issue? Is there still some ambiguity about what atheism means, or what an atheist is?

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. Theism is not a "belief in the existence of God.

Theism is the yes answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods, atheism being the no answer..

Well, that's what's best for you, I'm sure. Because that way you can attack the theist's proposition without ever having to defend your own.

Atheism needs no defense beyond stating that one doesn't believe in gods because he needs a reason to believe anything, and doesn't have such a reason when it comes to gods. Why would that need defending? The same is true with avampirism. I presume that you are an avampirist. Is that a trick so that you don't have to defend that position? Probably not. So why is it a

Any form of theism is a positive statement about reality and as such brings with it a burden of proof for anybody that wants to claim that he has the truth and wants to be believed.

The asymmetry here (there's that privative prefix again) is that all forms of theism are ideologies, that is, positive claims about reality that can be challenged, and that atheism is the absence of belief in any of them, a position that can't be challenged unless you want to say that the atheist is lying and really is a theist. What else is there to challenge about atheism?

I also think you are completely overlooking the positive effect theism and religion have had in furthering the cause of humanity through the fostering or compassion, forgiveness, empathy, humility, and social responsibility.

We don't need god beliefs or theism to foster compassion, forgiveness, empathy, humility, or social responsibility. Those are virtues of secular humanism, for example, and thus aren't related to religion even if some religions promote them.

Furthermore, I don't see those values being advanced by the religion most visible to me. Lip service is not enough. What I see is persecution of atheists, homosexuals, and transgendered people being called love.

If Christianity faded away in the West, so would those bigotries, but not compassion, forgiveness, empathy, humility, or social responsibility.

There are not really only two positions, I believe God exists or I believe God does not exist. The third position is "I don't know" and I consider that agnosticism, not atheism.

How about "I don't know if a god or gods exist, so I don't believe that they do"? That agnostic atheism. A person holding such a position (and I am one) is an atheist for not believing in gods, and an agnostic for not claiming to know either way.

I think there is more evidence for God than there is for Smegglebarbs. Religion is the evidence.

In my opinion, religion is evidence that humanity has a predilection for creating religions and nothing more, just as the Bible is evidence of nothing more than that it was written.

The reason that religion is not evidence for a god is that evidence for a god would be something that made the existence of a god more likely, such as a bona fide miracle. We would expect religion to exist given humanity whether gods exist or not, so the presence of religion does not help us answer questions about the existence of deities.

The question is, what causes a believer to become a nonbeliever? Is it just a realization that the Bible is not true after all?

Yes, in my case.

When I decided to try out Christianity at about age 20 (I had been an atheist until then), I agreed to put my critical thinking skills on hold, that is, to suspend disbelief long enough to give God a chance to make Himself known, as one might test a pair of shoes to see how well they fit.

At first, the experience was ecstatic - euphoric. Surely I was filled with the Spirit. But then I moved cross-country following discharge from the military, tried a half-dozen other congregations that were all lifeless.

Eventually, I realized that what I had been feeling in my first congregation was the effect of a very gifted and charismatic preacher, and I had been mistaking my own mental state for a deity, and so, I returned to atheism after about ten years as a Christian.

Still, I cannot understand how someone who really believed in God could come to disbelieve in God

The above might help you see that. You might say that I never really believed in God, but I would disagree.

So it could be that certain atheists do not want to believe in God

A disciplined critical thinker doesn't choose what he or she will believe. He simply finds some things believable and others not. I can choose to jump off a building, but I can't choose to believe that I will fly if I flap my arms or that I won't die.

God does not want us to be able to prove He exists, because if God had wanted us to be able to prove He exists, an omnipotent God could have made that possible.

Isn't that an argument against the religions that teach their god wants to be known, believed, loved, and worshiped?

Only 7% of people in the world are atheists who for some reason cannot SEE the evidence that is staring them right in the face. They do not LIKE religion but they have no logical reason not to like it.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking religion. I have no need of religion. It would fulfill no unmet need, so why bring it into my life?

They think there should be objective evidence of an Entity called God, but God cannot be located on a GPS tracker.

The rational skeptic believes that he needs empirical evidence for a god or gods before believing that such things exist, not that such evidence exists or should exist.

It is patently illogical to have such expectations of objective evidence.

I'd say it's illogical to believe without it. I realize that a god may exist and there be no evidence of it, but why would I believe that if there is no evidence? Because it's not impossible?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am a Strong Atheist..from a Very religious kind of way! Who are you to claim NOT of another? Your proofs are NOTHING!!!! more than a bunch of tools that basis you as its account.
In other words your owned by (things)...of things that are not ALIVE..therefore you have be-lowered yourself to a THING! from another way to look at it..your comparing yourself a (Living being) to let THINGs tell your truth for you. Where is my God is from my own being=which i had used from my own control of SELF to form MY OWN PROOF of God! Take your science to where you(thing) belong to.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you are not from around here. There are so many syntactic errors, dangling participles, extra prepositions, incoherent fragments, missing conjunctions and articles, and no clearly defined cohesive thought. It is just rambling gibberish.

I suggest that you re-read my comments, and address them in the context they were written. I have no idea of the context you are using "things" and "tools".

 

[PureX]

Do you think this assessment holds in the case of "tools" of various types? Aren't the very best, most durable, most well-died tools more expensive? Didn't they take the crafters more time and effort to design and create? They most certainly did and more certainly are. The easiest to get your hands on, and the most readily available aren't going to be "the best" in just about any avenue of life you traverse.

A tool that you can't get, or use, is of no practical value to those who can't get and use them.

Why do you think I am out here advocating for the use of other tools?

I don't know. But I would think that the more of them we have available to us, the better off we all are. Whereas you only seem to want us to have those that you approve of.

The kinds of "tools" I am referencing aren't necessarily offered by science, though I suppose knowledge of the findings of science and some understanding of the facts of our reality does help.

Science is a tool. And a very useful one. But it's true that it's only useful regarding our material experiences. And for most humans, that is not the main event.

It's sort of only ever a "rolling" accuracy at best, isn't it? That's what it seems like you've been saying also anyway. But shouldn't we all be striving to be on the leading edge of the roll? If you don't care, fine... just don't deny up-to-date findings just for the sake of being obstinate for goodness sake.

My point was that delusion is endemic to the human condition. It's unavoidable. And that being the case, isn't the more logical goal to pursue the delusion that provides us with the highest quality life experience? I'm not saying we should ignore or deny logic, or reason, but I do seriously question those who put so much emphasis on pursuing a "truth" that they will never attain, to the point where they are disparaging anyone who is not compliant with their hopeless cause.

Faith in God is not based on knowledge, or even on the presumption of knowledge. It's based on the possibility that our profound human ignorance affords us: that a God of our understanding could exist, because we have no way of proving that it couldn't. And if we choose to live by that possibility, how does doing this effect the value of our life experience?

Faith is not about the pursuit of a truth that we can never attain. It's about the hope that can be found in our own ignorance. And how useful that hope can become to us.

This is taking it a bit too far. Reality is all there is. And it is proved we're not just "imagining" it whenever two of us can mutually experience a particular aspect of it, even if our interpretations are slightly different. God is much different from this. "Mutual" in only very superficial respects. Completely different from "reality."

Mutual delusion is still delusion. "Reality" is what we imagine to be going on, from it's effects on us; not what is actually going on. There is no escaping this, not even with science. Science just helps us to quantify and relate those effects.

And what I have been saying all along is that there is a stark difference between imaginary sources of ideology and ideology based on what we can actually experience inter-personally.

What I am saying is that there really isn't much of a difference. Because it's a;; imaginary, whether it's one's imagination or many. And it's all delusion whether we imagine and label it be the 'truth", or not.

We certainly like to think so.

I focus on religion because it is an entirely unnecessary addition to the struggle.[/QUOTE]I don't think you get to decide what is necessary or unnecessary to other people's experience of the struggle to transcend ourselves. I don't see how you could possibly know.

Seriously now - can you possibly argue that "religion" is even close to being as important as any of those other arenas? Politics is more important than religion - I know some may scoff at this, but "politics" does not mean dems versus republicans or anything so mundane and artificial. Politics is truly (supposed to be) the process of human beings coming to terms with one another in a graceful manner. Economics is more important than religion - and by "economics" is not just meant dealings with "money," but also being economical in everything to which it is pertinent - our use of resources, our dealings with others, our granting of "power." Art is more important than religion - there's a reason that the church in all times has relied on art (paintings, windows, carvings, music, poetry) to attempt to lure people into the mythos. Science is more important than religion - measurable, reproducible results are what truly drive one forward in almost any area of knowledge - not "as good as chance." Social interactions are more important than religion - this one speaks for itself. And in fact, I would argue that religion doesn't even stand on its own as a separate entity from the above arenas, but rather simply borrows from them all in varying amounts. Politics - how we deal with one another, economics - how we deal with one another's resources, art - how we appreciate the world around us, science - how we discover and describe the world around us, social interaction - how and why we come together. Religion isn't even really its own category - it's a hodge-podge. Throw an imaginary figure up in front of it all and see if people will toe the line. If it were necessary, it would be as fundamental and irreducible as the others in the list. I would argue it is only ever complicating things - while the others offer solutions to necessity.

Religions are the methodology of how humans carry out their chosen theological positions in their actual lives. So their religion informs their political behavior, their commercial behavior, their social behavior, their goals in life and how they pursue them, their ... everything.