The Folly of Atheism

[ArtieE]

Ah...but what if it's true? You think shaking a fist at God is going to win any favours with a powerful Creator who might exist......? You think insulting the being whom you have little to no understanding about, is an intelligent position to take?

Why do those who identify as agnostic, behave like full blown atheists? Why not just come out and say what you keep implying? From what you post, if God exists then you apparently hate him anyway.

If there is a God who authored the Bible, and he gives us information about himself and his requirements for all his human creation (and agnostics claim not to know that he doesn't) then contemplate what unbelievers lose compared to what the faithful lose if he doesn't exist......won't it be interesting to find out?

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

 

[Deeje]

Doesn't it strike you as strange that there would be a 1 time act of supernatural poofing things into existence, and the rest go by natural processes thereafter? Like God suddenly got tired of poofing and stopped ?

Who said God "poofed" anything into existence? Science knows that what caused the universe was a cataclysmic event that required unimaginable power. Why can't that power be the Creator? The creation of the universe and its age can only be estimated.....no one knows for sure, but the Bible allows for a very ancient universe. God did not "poof" the rest either because the "days" in the Genesis accountvare not 24 hours in length.....they could well have been thousands, if not millions of years to create and tweak. God is not a magician....he is a purposeful Creator.

Rather than getting "tired" (which God cannot experience since he is the source of all energy) he came to the completion of what he intended to accomplish here on this planet, and then allowed time for all things to play out naturally in a period of time allotted for that purpose. Free will needed testing because abuse would cause no end of trouble. That happened, and we are all living in the aftermath. However, God put all the mechanisms in place to learn from the experience and to bring everything back to his original purpose after precedents were set for the future. Humans have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are hopeless at handling our own affairs without him.

I think a lot of people don't have a low standard of believability where if a book is old, it's got to be true.

It's not just that its ancient.....it's that its content is one harmonious story from beginning to end, its advice for human conduct is still the best way to live, and its prophesies continue to be fulfilled right before our eyes. Part of the features of its prophesy on "the time of the end" is what we are seeing taking place in the world as we speak.

I believe that we will soon see what the Bible says is the conclusion of this present world system in rather spectacular fashion. We will not be left in any doubt as to who is responsible for it. God will bring his rulership back to mankind just as he purposed in the beginning.

 

[Deeje]

Paschal's Wager: WHICH god, from among MILLIONS?

I am certain that no one will be left in any doubt.....

 

[Jos]

In fact the search for Truth is a vain egocentric goal.

So no one can ever find Truth no matter how hard they try and why is it egocentric to search for Truth?

 

[ArtieE]

Who said God "poofed" anything into existence? Science knows that what caused the universe was a cataclysmic event that required unimaginable power.

Nonsense. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

I believe that we will soon see what the Bible says is the conclusion of this present world system in rather spectacular fashion. We will not be left in any doubt as to who is responsible for it. God will bring his rulership back to mankind just as he purposed in the beginning.

Just search the internet for failed or false prophecies from JW. You'll find tons.
Jehovah's Witnesses and their many false prophecies | CARM.org Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia

 

[wandering peacefully]

Why do those who identify as agnostic, behave like full blown atheists? Why not just come out and say what you keep implying? From what you post, if God exists then you apparently hate him anyway.

Why do fundamentals get all excited when they think they have found someone who maybe "on the fence" but then get all hurt to discover they really are one of those awful atheists?
People who don't believe in your "God" don't hate it. Only willful ignorance can keep producing this argument. Or plain old stupidity after being told a million times. Agnostic or atheist, neither one believe in the fundy fantasies of their God and their hateful exclusive attitudes.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I see! It's a fetus if it's still attached to the mother and it's still a fetus if it's attached to the mother but capable of surviving outside the uterus and it's a viable human individual when it is capable of surviving outside the uterus and is no longer attached to the mother? Did I get that right?

Are you seriously having so much difficulty understanding a simple definition? It's written out in black and white for you. If you are incapable of making sense of the words in the above definition then there's nothing I can write that will help you.

I suggest you get yourself a formal education instead of hoping that people on websites like this can enlighten you.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you seriously having so much difficulty understanding a simple definition? It's written out in black and white for you. If you are incapable of making sense of the words in the above definition then there's nothing I can write that will help you.

I suggest you get yourself a formal education instead of hoping that people on websites like this can enlighten you.

It's a fetus if it's still attached to the mother and it's still a fetus if it's attached to the mother but capable of surviving outside the uterus and it's a viable human individual when it is capable of surviving outside the uterus and is no longer attached to the mother? Did I get it right or not? The definition you quoted doesn't have the words "viable human individual" in it... I can only find six references in Google for "viable human individual" where exactly did you get it from when you wrote "It becomes a viable human individual when it is no longer biologically dependent upon another entity."?

 

[Deeje]

Jesus also said, "whoever is not against us is for us."

But more to the point, the bolded statement above is key, and thank you for saying it. It's a fundamental problem with your view.

Of course it is......it has to be for the millions who "dunno" but more so for those who don't "wanna know".

So many theists simply cannot stand the idea that, "I don't know." When the truth is, "I don't know" is a completely valid, completely rational position to take, on many issues, especially pertaining to the supernatural.

"I dunno" is a safe alternative to having to make a decision, so agnosticism is the fence where some people will sit comfortably for their entire lives.

If we don't have sufficient evidence for a proposition one way or the other, then "I don't know" is precisely the appropriate response.

How much evidence is "sufficient"? Why are so many totally satisfied with the evidence that is right under their noses? When something exhibits design, then intelligence is required to even design the components of a biological being. How all of those components play their role in the overall function of many millions of creatures (both animatecand inanimate) is hard to put down to blind chance.

Only when science began to undermine Christendom's version of creation did doubt become so strong.....but what if Christendom got it all wrong and science cashed in on that but was equally wrong? Ever thought of that? Both based their beliefs on assumptions, not provable facts.

Many theists, unfortunately, can't tolerate that kind of ambiguity in their minds when it comes to something that is so important to them personally. Thus they insist that non-believers fit their either/or mold. But the truth is, we often don't.

That is not at all what the Bible teaches. No one is forced to believe anything. Take Jesus as an example.....he spoke to large audiences and gave them options. He forced no one to believe him or to follow his lead. He knew that he was a catalyst for change among his own people, but it had to be their choice. If what he said resonated with them, many were moved to make adjustments to their thinking and lifestyle. But compared to the ones who hung on to their former views, very few did make the change because it meant standing out as different and even subject to ostracism. People are resistant to change especially when it means leaving your comfort zone. It's the old story of "leading a horse to water"....

Christians are merely messengers.....who listens and responds is up to God. (John 6:65)

 

[Left Coast]

"I dunno" is a safe alternative to having to make a decision, so agnosticism is the fence where some people will sit comfortably for their entire lives.

It has nothing to do with being "safe." As you just pointed out, it's not as though theists who believe God will punish people for not believing in him think he's going to take it easier on agnostics. Agnosticism has nothing to do with being "safe" or not wanting to make a decision, and everything to do with what we honestly do and don't know.

How much evidence is "sufficient"?

For which God, the Biblical one? If he came down here and showed himself that would seem sufficient. He allegedly did it quite a few times in the Bible, let's see it now.

Why are so many totally satisfied with the evidence that is right under their noses?

I assume you mean dissatisfied?

When something exhibits design, then intelligence is required to even design the components of a biological being.

That's just question begging. The point is, how do you know the things you think were designed, actually were?

How all of those components play their role in the overall function of many millions of creatures (both animatecand inanimate) is hard to put down to blind chance.

"Blind chance" and God are not the only two options.

Only when science began to undermine Christendom's version of creation did doubt become so strong.....but what if Christendom got it all wrong and science cashed in on that but was equally wrong? Ever thought of that? Both based their beliefs on assumptions, not provable facts.

Which provable facts are your beliefs based on that aren't scientific and aren't shared in common with "Christendom?"

That is not at all what the Bible teaches. No one is forced to believe anything. Take Jesus as an example.....he spoke to large audiences and gave them options. He forced no one to believe him or to follow his lead. He knew that he was a catalyst for change among his own people, but it had to be their choice. If what he said resonated with them, many were moved to make adjustments to their thinking and lifestyle. But compared to the ones who hung on to their former views, very few did make the change because it meant standing out as different and even subject to ostracism. People are resistant to change especially when it means leaving your comfort zone. It's the old story of "leading a horse to water"....

Christians are merely messengers.....who listens and responds is up to God. (John 6:65)

If who listens and responds is up to God, then him judging and punishing those who don't listen and/or respond is the height of injustice.

 

[leov]

Action? How is faith action? Faith is belief despite insufficient evidence.
How does one detect non material action? What does detecting it entail? What is non material action? How does detecting it prove it?
Intuition? How reliable is intuition? Everyone's intuition is different.

Lots of people make all sorts of subjectively based claims. I could claim my cat is the reincarnation of Cleopatra, or that I'm a prophet from Valhalla, but that wouldn't prove anything.
I hear Adam did, too.

I think it was dates, they good too.

 

[Valjean]

It's not only the atheist will only accept a particular type of evidence, but they ignore evidence that contradicts their own philosophical materialism. We do not live in a clockwork Universe. When you consider the observer changes the results in double slit experiments just what exactly is the IT detects something is being observed! It's NOT material whatever it is. The implications are astounding yet most atheists, who are philosophical materialists, simply ignore the evidence suggest we do not live in a clockwork Universe.

You imply atheists don't believe in quantum mechanics. I disagree.
Atheists don't dismiss "a certain kind of evidence" because it's non-materialistic. Tested, predictive, empirical evidence must be accepted whether it supports a particular world view or not.

I'm atheist, and I believe in quantum mechanics, as do most physicists -- a large percentage of whom are also atheists.

Here's a good video on the subject if you are interested. I don't agree all the author's conclusions completely but it certain outlines the problem:

Good video -- but it starts going off the rails at ~15 minutes. Other than that, it explains the Vedantic Hindu world view pretty well.

"Mind alone exists. It's the creator of the illusion of reality." OK, no problem here. But then it goes on to say that mind doesn't create reality, but only participates in it; that we're not the architects or have the ability to change the structure of the world through mental processes. So which is it?
It comes up with an argument that we're lesser minds dependent on a larger mind; a consciousness looking down on us.
This is just trying to shoehorn theism into physics. It posits an "us and Him" duality inconsistent with the conclusions described in the first half of the video.

I also think the video gave Everett's interpretation short shrift, and solipsism, it seemed to me, was dismissed out-of-hand. But I'll leave that for another post.

Scientists, like all of us, live in the illusion we create; a functionally materialist illusion, where Newtonian physics works well for everyday purposes. But relativity and quantum mechanics work too -- at different levels.
There are levels of reality, and we apply the physics of the reality appropriate to the application at hand.
We can believe in both materialism and idealism.

Here's another good video I like because it's thinking is so outside the box of the standard model:

I have problems with this video, but it would take a longer post to address them. Maybe I'll tackle it later.

I think the problem with the philosophical materialists is they do not appreciate the radical implications of quantum physics. The idea the Universe is composed of bits of material spreading out creating a spatial dimension with an independent element of time does not exist. In quantum physics every primordial piece of matter is "an organized system of vibratory streaming of energy" existing within waves of energy. Time is something existing within each piece of matter acting or vibrating independently of every other vibration. The vibratory parallelism of reality is truly breathtaking. This idea of time is not independent of the vibratory material creating our experience of it is the theme of Alfred North Whitehead's book Process and Reality (1929).

But we do appreciate this, but I'm not going to attempt to walk through a wall just because I realize, intellectually, that the wall is only theoretical; a product of my own imagination. I'm stuck in the reality I currently perceive, and I have to live with that, and act as if it were really real -- practical materialism, intellectual Advaita.

"God" is a personage.
Quantum mechanics does not support either an intentional God or God as a personage, the video reads too much into it. The concept of Brahman might fit with quantum reality, but not anything like a western concept of God.

 

[Valjean]

I suspect that atheism is still running on Newtonian mechanics.

I wasn't aware that atheism ran at all. How does a mere lack of a belief run?

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's a fetus if it's still attached to the mother and it's still a fetus if it's attached to the mother but capable of surviving outside the uterus and it's a viable human individual when it is capable of surviving outside the uterus and is no longer attached to the mother? Did I get it right or not? The definition you quoted doesn't have the words "viable human individual" in it... I can only find six references in Google for "viable human individual" where exactly did you get it from when you wrote "It becomes a viable human individual when it is no longer biologically dependent upon another entity."?

If you are still confused then you are beyond my ability to help. Perhaps if you got a formal education you'd understand that the words human and individual are not required to comprehend the definition of viable. IF you can grasp the meaning of the word viable THEN you should be able to grasp what is meant by a viable human individual.

Since you apparently can't, you'll need to educate yourself a bit first.

 

[Valjean]

More children die of poverty than do abortion. Why are the holier-than-thou Christians not marching for better wages from corporations to save our Children from being murdered by poverty wages.

Or for universal, affordable healthcare, or good schools and affordable college, or parental leave for newborns, or affordable housing, &c &c -- so many pressing problems with tested solutions, but all we worry about are guns, abortion, immigrants and the "war on religion."

Does the scientific method have any limitations you are aware of or willing to acknowledge?

Does a pretty poor job of exploring the supernatural.

 

[Deeje]

Why do fundamentals get all excited when they think they have found someone who maybe "on the fence" but then get all hurt to discover they really are one of those awful atheists?

As I do not see myself as a "fundamentalist" of the same ilk as those who dogmatically insist that everyone who is not a believer has to go to an eternal punishment in a fiery hell.....I see Jesus as the role model. He offered a message that would result in altering people's perceptions of the way things are. He offered the promise of living the life that we were all programmed for in the beginning. Blind Freddy can see that this life is nothing but a constant string of disappointments and problems...tragedies and injustice....mostly brought about by our own ill-considered decisions or as a result of the selfish decisions of others.

Collectively, humans have a strong desire to live in paradise...even for a vacation. Is that just a coincidence?

People who don't believe in your "God" don't hate it. Only willful ignorance can keep producing this argument.

I didn't say that all agnostics were haters of God....but there are some here who are clearly atheists in their derogatory comments and consistent insinuations of God's mishandling of certain events, (in their opinion) and yet they hang onto the agnostic label? Why? Do they believe that there is a fence? Is it a safe place from which to hurl insults? The Bible doesn't mention a fence....but it does tell us that we will "reap what we sow". It also says that God is a reader of hearts and he knows those who bother to search for him.

Or plain old stupidity after being told a million times. Agnostic or atheist, neither one believe in the fundy fantasies of their God and their hateful exclusive attitudes.

And that is their right. All are free to believe whatever they wish. But we can't deny that if God is the Creator of this universe and all that is in it, then he is the rightful Sovereign of all, regardless of whether they acknowledge him as such or not. This is his earth and we are merely the tenants. He has laid down the terms of our tenancy and those who fail to respect his right to set those rules, will face eviction. How is that not completely just and logical? If it works that way with human landlords, then why not with the one Landlord we all have to answer to?

I believe that God knows who among us will make the best citizens of his incoming kingdom. It is he who invites us if he sees a genuine desire to get to know him, and to comply with his reasonable laws and requirements. The two things that God has always required of his people is to love God with a whole heart (something you cannot offer to a stranger) and to love our neighbors as ourselves. You must have both. The problem with most humans is that they don't like being told what to do or how to live. In the end, we get to account for our decisions and how we used our free will in accord with the rules laid down by the Landlord of this Earth....like it or not.

That is how I see it...

 

[Valjean]

Ah...but what if it's true? You think shaking a fist at God is going to win any favours with a powerful Creator who might exist......? You think insulting the being whom you have little to no understanding about, is an intelligent position to take?

But what if the Aztec Gods are the real ones, or Allah, or Ahura Mazda? You can't put your bet on all of them. How to decide...?

Why do those who identify as agnostic, behave like full blown atheists? Why not just come out and say what you keep implying? From what you post, if God exists then you apparently hate him anyway.

What's a "full blown atheist?" For that matter, how are you defining "agnostic?" I usually think of an agnostic as one who doesn't believe it's possible to know if God exists or not.

If there is a God who authored the Bible, and he gives us information about himself and his requirements for all his human creation (and agnostics claim not to know that he doesn't) then contemplate what unbelievers lose compared to what the faithful lose if he doesn't exist......won't it be interesting to find out?

But what about the God who authored the Quran, or Rig Veda, or Guru Granth Sahib, or Book of Mormon?
Are you sure you're backing the right horse?

 

[Valjean]

Who said God "poofed" anything into existence? Science knows that what caused the universe was a cataclysmic event that required unimaginable power.

Who said it required unimaginable power? Not science. Science doesn't know how it happened.

Why can't that power be the Creator?

Why can't it be a flock of cosmic pigeons?
You're putting the cart before the horse. Of the billions of possibilities you're picking one out of your hat -- because it's familiar, and comfortable, not because there's any evidence for it.

]The creation of the universe and its age can only be estimated.....no one knows for sure, but the Bible allows for a very ancient universe. God did not "poof" the rest either because the "days" in the Genesis accountvare not 24 hours in length.....they could well have been thousands, if not millions of years to create and tweak. God is not a magician....he is a purposeful Creator.

OK, it was a poooooooooooffffff.
Seriously, though. The point is that it's implied God did it by magic. No mechanism is described.

Humans have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are hopeless at handling our own affairs without him.

We don't seem very adept at handling things with Him, either.

It's not just that its ancient.....it's that its content is one harmonious story from beginning to end, its advice for human conduct is still the best way to live, and its prophesies continue to be fulfilled right before our eyes. Part of the features of its prophesy on "the time of the end" is what we are seeing taking place in the world as we speak.

It's disjointed and self-contradictory. It's full of errors, impossibilities, and tales no-one would believe if they read them in today's paper, but which somehow became credible with time. It describes a cruel, mercurial God. It's two different books, describing two different religions and two different moral systems.

"I dunno" is a safe alternative to having to make a decision, so agnosticism is the fence where some people will sit comfortably for their entire lives.

You imply equivocation. "I dunno" is the only logical, reasonable and proper position to hold as long as there's insufficient evidence.

When something exhibits design, then intelligence is required to even design the components of a biological being. How all of those components play their role in the overall function of many millions of creatures (both animatecand inanimate) is hard to put down to blind chance.

No. Intelligence is not required. Order is a product of natural, observable, testable, familiar, automatic processes.
No-one claims complexity occurred by blind chance.

Both based their beliefs on assumptions, not provable facts.

Balderdash!

 

[Deeje]

It has nothing to do with being "safe." As you just pointed out, it's not as though theists who believe God will punish people for not believing in him think he's going to take it easier on agnostics. Agnosticism has nothing to do with being "safe" or not wanting to make a decision, and everything to do with what we honestly do and don't know.

There is a difference between "not knowing" and not "wanting to know". Many choose the safe option of agnosticism because they feel it legitimizes their position, plus the fact that they may find walking in a religious minefield too daunting. Better to stay on the safe side rather than to get hurt or upset anyone.

If people really want to know about anything...."where there's a will, there's a way."

For which God, the Biblical one? If he came down here and showed himself that would seem sufficient. He allegedly did it quite a few times in the Bible, let's see it now.

Funnily enough, God gave Israel many tangible signs of his presence before and after they left Egypt, and still they left him. Humans become immune even to miracles it seems, which is why they no longer happen. God requires only those things that humans find almost impossible these days...."faith, hope and love"...fading into a bygone era by the looks.

I assume you mean dissatisfied?

No, I mean that so many of us are totally satisfied with what we observe in nature...it speaks louder to us than the assumptions of godless science....which has become the substitute "religion" for those disenchanted with mainstream religious offerings. It seems like such a viable alternative....not everything is as it seems.

When I researched how much of the science that is fed to the masses is actually just assumption and guesswork, I was quite amazed that they could present any of it as "fact".

That's just question begging. The point is, how do you know the things you think were designed, actually were?

Can you name me anything that man uses of his own invention that has no purpose? Purpose demonstrated intent, and intent needs intelligence to plan ahead. I see the connection in nature where everything is designed to interact. The amazing cooperative function of the eco-system is no undirected accident. Biological function is amazingly designed.

"Blind chance" and God are not the only two options.

For many they are. For others they try to fuse God and evolution and end up with nothing that adds up....more of a fairy story that what they think the Bible teaches.

Which provable facts are your beliefs based on that aren't scientific and aren't shared in common with "Christendom?"

That is the key to any discussion about "scientific facts"....the only provable "fact" that we agree with is adaptation.....lab tested and observed to be an amazing mechanism by which living creatures can adapt to a changed environment or food source. The "fact" of that change is confined to individual species however, and science has no real evidence that adaptation can cross species barriers to invent another "kind" of creature, no matter how much time is thrown at it. Darwin's finches were all still finches, the tortoises were still tortoises and the iguanas were still clearly identifiable as iguanas. Nothing in any scientific experiment has ever proven otherwise. Assumptions are not facts...its surprising to me how many people are led to believe that they are. Mislead the teachers and you mislead all who are taught by them.

If who listens and responds is up to God, then him judging and punishing those who don't listen and/or respond is the height of injustice.

No, that is not what I said. I said that God is searching for those whose hearts are inclined towards him and who want to get to know him. He is not far away from any of us, and we have more information available today on so many topics, that we can find out whatever we want to know...if we really want to.

Jesus likened it to a search for hidden treasure. If you knew that buried in a certain field there was untold treasure, wouldn't you start digging? It depends on what you value I guess...."one man's trash"...as they say. works both ways.

 

[Deeje]

But what if the Aztec Gods are the real ones, or Allah, or Ahura Mazda? You can't put your bet on all of them. How to decide...?
What's a "full blown atheist?" For that matter, how are you defining "agnostic?" I usually think of an agnostic as one who doesn't believe it's possible to know if God exists or not.

But what about the God who authored the Quran, or Rig Veda, or Guru Granth Sahib, or Book of Mormon?
Are you sure you're backing the right horse?

I have a feeling that it won't be long before we all find out......exciting isn't it.....?

Not so exciting for those who do not have a horse in this race though.....