The Folly of Atheism

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you have no proof that if God communicated directly to everyone, everyone would believe in God

The sun communicates to everybody with its light and heat. Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining. An omnipotent god, if one existed, could certainly be at least that apparent if it chose to.

I've mentioned to you in the past that the choices that this alleged god makes are always and in every case the option that would be imposed on a godless universe capable of generating and sustaining intelligent life. Every time we flip this coin, it comes up tails (the godless option is always the outcome). The coin is loaded. The god isn't doing anything. Even if gods exist and one created our universe, it would be the deist god - the noninterventionalist god.

God does not WANT humans communicating directly with Him.

How could he prevent it if he is omniscient?

Why should God care if atheists exist if atheists don't care if God exists?

What use would any of us have for such a god? If I ever choose to believe in a god, it will be a better one than that. It will be a good god and a compassionate god - the things various theists tell me is the case with their god just before describing its flaws and imperfections such as indifference to atheists - people

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are deflecting from what I said. Believe or know, it is all the same thing....

Not even close.... not even in the same ballpark: I know 2+2=4, in every Base System 2 and above (of course, you may need to represent "4" with other characters-- but it'll still be 4 as in 1+1+1+1 objects in a collection).

That is Knowledge. The same Knowledge we use to show that Evolution happened and is happening.

YOU DO NOT NEED FAITH/BELIEF HERE -- in fact? That particular sort of INSANITY gets in the way of actual KNOWLEDGE.

Some atheists do not want to know if god exists because they do not care about god..

Do you care about Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Bigfoot? You might-- if someone could present facts that support their existence... But that is how you sound here.

Obviously you say that because you do not want to have to have faith....

Obviously you are LYING as is your habit! I have stated elsewhere: Faith is not a CHOICE.

I WOULD LOVE FOR THERE TO BE A MAGICAL SUPERFAIRY WATCHING OVER HUMANITY.

Show me the evidence!

You have that backwards..

Nope. That is YOU and your BEAST-GOD who I must now conclude is either grossly incompetent-- like dumber than Forest Gump? Or myth.

It would be stooping if God proved He exists so you and those like you would not have to have faith.
It would be stooping to your level by kowtowing to your desires.

LMAO! It's not MY desires in the SLIGHTEST-- I AM NOT LABELED AS HAVING ALL THE POWER AND PERFECT.

That's your beast-god.... a false claim if ever there was one.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well, we don't have free will in a natural universe.

You know this because????

The only way to eliminate free will, would be to have everything 100% under some sort of Magic Control.

So that the Future isn't Fixed.

If the future is indeterminate? Then free will likely exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You know this because????

The only way to eliminate free will, would be to have everything 100% under some sort of Magic Control.

So that the Future isn't Fixed.

If the future is indeterminate? Then free will likely exists.

Your choices don't come out of nowhere. If undetermined, they are just arbitrary or if you like random, not free.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your choices don't come out of nowhere. If undetermined, they are just arbitrary or if you like random, not free.

*sigh*

Quibble over the details all you like.... I have no interest in such things, unless they are forced upon my by evil, unfair LAWS.

I see you 100% ignored my point that an All Powerful Being eliminates Free Will, as does an All Knowing one.

Neither permit an indeterminate future, required for Free Will.

But, a future that can go in nearly any direction? Allows free will. And it certainly seems that humans DO have free will.

If I did not? I would still be deeply indoctrinated into the god-virus. But I wanted to Know. And Knowing proves that gods don't exist as Advertised.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

*sigh*

Quibble over the details all you like.... I have no interest in such things, unless they are forced upon my by evil, unfair LAWS.

I see you 100% ignored my point that an All Powerful Being eliminates Free Will, as does an All Knowing one.

Neither permit an indeterminate future, required for Free Will.

But, a future that can go in nearly any direction? Allows free will. And it certainly seems that humans DO have free will.

If I did not? I would still be deeply indoctrinated into the god-virus. But I wanted to Know. And Knowing proves that gods don't exist as Advertised.

It might just be arbitrary. If you are a result of causality, you are an effect and not your own cause.

As for knowledge, I am a skeptic. We can check your knowledge, but based on prior experience, I doubt, you have Knowledge.

 

[Valjean]

There is inferred evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and a First Cause:

• Human angst
• Felt Presence
• Universal Morality.. perception of 'good & evil'
• Intelligence
• Human consensus
• Foxhole Atheists
• The Universe
• Probability
• Hysterical Hostility
• Presumption of Mass Delusion

These things are not empirical, but they have been part of the human experience since we have recorded our thoughts.

I submit that it is 'folly', to categorically dismiss the entirety of human experience and consensus for millennia, for some new, pop notion of 'no God!', based mostly on Indoctrination, peer pressure, and a narrow view of evidence.

The folly continues by pretending, 'we're so much smarter, now!', when all we have done is harness technology, and we are no closer to understanding the mysteries of life and the universe than we were thousands of years ago. Some could argue we've forgotten more than we've ever known, regarding the deepest mysteries of the universe. Some facts of physics and engineering may have made existence easier, but it has not brought us any closer to our roots and the Big Questions of existence.

It is the presumption of wisdom, that cannot be quantified by natural facts, that exposes the folly.

Those aren't evidence, inferred or otherwise.

 

[Valjean]

The laws along with atoms, energy, and space time then gave rise to the knowing subject that cognises and studies these objects.

The story is good.

Well, there were quite a few steps before a "knowing subject" eventually emerged.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Why should God care if atheists exist if atheists don't care if God exists?
Answer that question.

I dunno: that fake "perfection" you keep going on about? A perfect god would care.

God does care about atheists but God does not barter with humans as to how he will reveal Himself.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

And would never stoop so low as to single out Special Favorite Super-People. Even a 2 year old has a superior sense of Fairness.

It is perfectly FAIR because God does not favor me over you or any human over any other human. As that quote says above, God loves everyone.

 

[PureX]

... an All Powerful Being eliminates Free Will, as does an All Knowing one.

Neither permit an indeterminate future, required for Free Will.

That is not logically so. From the omniscient, omnipotent God's perspective, we would have no free will. But from our non-omnipotent, non-omniscient perspective, we would still have (limited) free will. Our choice comes from our not knowing the outcomes of the various possibilities that we see as being available to us. That choice remains (to us) even if God does determine both the possibility and the result. The same is true even if we are foolish enough to believe that nature is omnipotent, and inevitable, and thereby determines every "choice" we make and every result. The choice still has to be made because WE don't know that there is no other possibility, and because WE don't know the result in advance.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: you have no proof that if God communicated directly to everyone, everyone would believe in God

The sun communicates to everybody with its light and heat. Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining. An omnipotent god, if one existed, could certainly be at least that apparent if it chose to.

God IS that apparent to most people, for various reasons. We do not have to SEE God directly. We do not gaze into the sun directly or we would be blinded. Likewise, if we looked at God directly, we would be blinded.

Even when the sun is not shining it is apparent that there is a sun behind the clouds.

I've mentioned to you in the past that the choices that this alleged god makes are always and in every case the option that would be imposed on a godless universe capable of generating and sustaining intelligent life. Every time we flip this coin, it comes up tails (the godless option is always the outcome). The coin is loaded. The god isn't doing anything. Even if gods exist and one created our universe, it would be the deist god - the noninterventionalist god.

Just because God does not want to make His action apparent does not mean God does not exist. That’s no logical because a God who is omnipotent can CHOOSE not to make His actions apparent. Humans cannot KNOW that God is not doing anything because they cannot SEE God doing nothing. In short, we cannot KNOW what God is doing or not doing. All we can know that God does is that He communicates to Messengers because there is evidence that occurred.

Trailblazer said: God does not WANT humans communicating directly with Him.

How could he prevent it if he is omniscient?

I meant that God does not want communication going back and forth. God does want humans communicating TO Him in prayer and meditation. But God is not going to answer back in an audible way.

Trailblazer said: Why should God care if atheists exist if atheists don't care if God exists?

What use would any of us have for such a god? If I ever choose to believe in a god, it will be a better one than that. It will be a good god and a compassionate god - the things various theists tell me is the case with their god just before describing its flaws and imperfections such as indifference to atheists – people

God has no indifference to atheists but as I just told Bob, God is not going to barter on how He communicates to humans…. It is God’s way or the highway because God is omnipotent.

God does not prefer believers to atheists. What is really going on is that believers accept God as-is and atheists don’t. Atheists reject God’s methods of communication but God is not going to CHANGE those methods just to accommodate a few atheists. Atheists are the ones who have to change and accept God’s methods, IF they want to know if God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

YOU DO NOT NEED FAITH/BELIEF HERE -- in fact? That particular sort of INSANITY gets in the way of actual KNOWLEDGE.

I have stated elsewhere: Faith is not a CHOICE.

I WOULD LOVE FOR THERE TO BE A MAGICAL SUPERFAIRY WATCHING OVER HUMANITY.

Make up your mind Bob. First you say that we should not need faith, then you say you would love to have faith... Which is it? You either want to have faith or not.

Show me the evidence!

Faith is a choice. You have free will so you can choose to have faith. I know, I do it every day.

I do not need faith that God exists, because I have evidence, but I have to have faith that God loves me and cares about me because I do not always see the evidence of that.

If I show evidence to you and you reject it, so what am I supposed to do about that? Nobody can be forced to believe against their will and God does not want that. God wants belief to be a FREE choice.

LMAO! It's not MY desires in the SLIGHTEST-- I AM NOT LABELED AS HAVING ALL THE POWER AND PERFECT.

Of course it is your desires that God do something differently. Otherwise you would accept what God does.

Having all power does not mean that God is going to DO what YOU want Him to do. In fact, it means that God does only what He CHOOSES to do.

If God stooped to your desires it would be stooping to your level by kowtowing to your desires. God never does that.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 73

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes. I will try.

Some believe that the space-time, elements, energy and physical laws that were created after big-bang gave rise to the knowing subject. That subject then cognises and studies these objects.

People who believe so also claim to be more rational-logical than some others who do not blindly ascribe to the above mythic creation of the knowing subject.

If one is truly rational, one would question “Whence the I awareness”?

YMMV.
...

In short, I am skeptical of the narrative that logic and reason are born of inanimate objects and assume the role of the ‘knowing subject’.

The only logic and reason that I have ever seen practiced has been by living sentient human beings, never by an inanimate object. If you know of a way that a cognizant being can come into existence outside of the physical laws of the universe, I'd love to hear your verifiable evidence for the claim.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That nobody holds authority over reality. But that science is better, is not science.

Please learn to speak in complete sentences. That nobody holds authority over reality, is not a complete thought, nor is But that science is better, is not science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please learn to speak in complete sentences. That nobody holds authority over reality, is not a complete thought, nor is But that science is better, is not science.

Nobody controls other humans simply because they are right, have truth on their side or whatever. The sentence "that science is better" is not a scientific fact or theory or what ever, because you can't give evidence for better using science.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Nobody controls other humans simply because their are right, have truth on their side or whatever. The sentence "that science is better" is not a scientific fact or theory or what ever, because you can't give evidence for better using science.

Okay... apparently communication here is futile. Nobody controls other humans simply because their are right, have truth on their side or whatever. Again... this isn't a complete thought. You started off okay... Nobody controls others simply because (THEY) are right... but then you go off the rails with ...have truth on their side or whatever.

I'm not certain but I THINK that when you wrote The sentence "that science is better" is not a scientific fact or theory or what ever, because you can't give evidence for better using science. you were trying to say that my claim that the scientific method is by far the best method we've found for determining how the universe works isn't true.

I say that it IS in fact true and I challenge you to present me with a method for determining how the universe works that has proven itself to be even close to as reliable as the scientific method has been.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay... apparently communication here is futile. Nobody controls other humans simply because their are right, have truth on their side or whatever. Again... this isn't a complete thought. You started off okay... Nobody controls others simply because (THEY) are right... but then you go off the rails with ...have truth on their side or whatever.

I'm not certain but I THINK that when you wrote The sentence "that science is better" is not a scientific fact or theory or what ever, because you can't give evidence for better using science. you were trying to say that my claim that the scientific method is by far the best method we've found for determining how the universe works isn't true.

I say that it IS in fact true and I challenge you to present me with a method for determining how the universe works that has proven itself to be even close to as reliable as the scientific method has been.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Take it up with these scientists.

 

[PureX]

Okay... apparently communication here is futile. Nobody controls other humans simply because their are right, have truth on their side or whatever. Again... this isn't a complete thought. You started off okay... Nobody controls others simply because (THEY) are right... but then you go off the rails with ...have truth on their side or whatever.

I'm not certain but I THINK that when you wrote The sentence "that science is better" is not a scientific fact or theory or what ever, because you can't give evidence for better using science. you were trying to say that my claim that the scientific method is by far the best method we've found for determining how the universe works isn't true.

I say that it IS in fact true and I challenge you to present me with a method for determining how the universe works that has proven itself to be even close to as reliable as the scientific method has been.

Knowing how the physical universe works (which we do not) still does not tell us anything about why it works as it does. And that 'why' includes the question of both source and purpose. It would be wrong to assume that science has given us anything more than some insight into relative functionality. Functionality is good, but it is nowhere near being 'truth'.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Take it up with these scientists.

Yes, science DOES have limits. Who ever claimed that it did not? HOWEVER, the scientific method HAS demonstrated itself to be BY FAR the most reliable method we've ever come across for determining how the universe works. If you claim that it isn't true then PLEASE give me an example of a method that has been MORE or even AS reliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, science DOES have limits. Who ever claimed that it did not? HOWEVER, the scientific method HAS demonstrated itself to be BY FAR the most reliable method we've ever come across for determining how the universe works. If you claim that it isn't true then PLEASE give me an example of a method that has been MORE or even AS reliable.

You were evaluating the worth of science. That can't be done using science, because the evaluation is subjective.
Again read:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Now I will spell out for you:

Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Better is a variant of good.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.

You can use that knowledge by denying it.