The Folly of Atheism

[mikkel_the_dane]

"As for knowledge".... Citation Needed-- you have failed to demonstrate any actual knowledge.

Word Salad comprised of lettuce-- no dressing.

Nice try, though.

You claimed Knowledge but gave no reasoned argument or evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can keep repeating that the scientific method doesn't do what the scientific method wasn't designed to do until you're red in the face. NO ONE IS ARGUING WITH YOU!

What I keep asking is what is the ALTERNATE method for determining how the universe functions that is AS reliable or MORE reliable? If you can't provide an answer, then simply accept that my claim that the scientific method is by far the best method we've found for determining how the universe functions is TRUE?

Take 2.
Why does the universe matter to you and is the universe everything?

I answer that in my way and that includes science is useful, but not the best way of understanding everything. The best way to me is a combination science, philosophy and religion.
Now I acknowledge that to you, your answer is different. But here is the problem.

Nope, science can't do any of those things. But then, neither can mathematics or religion, for that matter. So what's your point?

What the scientific method - logic and reason - CAN do is figure out how the universe works better than any other method we've ever come across so far. And when it comes to fantastical claims like gods and farting pixies, it's BY FAR a better method for determining if they are true or not than whatever silly method you have chosen to use.

You used a "we" and "truth". You don't speak for a "we" and you don't have the truth of everything. Nor do I. You have the truth for what works for you and what is better for you. But you can't speak with truth for a "we" and your "better" is subjective. So is my truth and my better. You didn't speak of the universe as such, you spoke of different ways of understanding everything and you then used your bias of how to frame a certain context: The universe as somehow different from that of other answers about everything.
That is where it ends. The universe is nothing everything if you answer objectively as how we describe what we humans are a part of and the other parts. It is a scientific framework for a part of everything. That is your bias. If you change your bias, the answer of better changes. Not that you are without bias and not that I am without bias. I just explain to you that we both have biases.

As for truth, truth might not be what you believe it is:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
As for science:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

I know this and I can tell you how my culture influences how I see. You seem to take your culture as universal for all humans, hence "we".
So how you rate science and religion is cultural and so for me. I just know that it is so for both of us, and what is better for you, might not be better for me and in reverse.

Edit: PS The many meanings of truth
Further edit: You use science to argue against religion. I understand science differently and doubt that you can use science for that.

 

[Srivijaya]

It is a false dilemma, that non-perception of God can only mean nonexistence. There are other possibilities.

You may be right. What other possibilities do you entertain?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You may be right. What other possibilities do you entertain?

I am not usfan, but there are at least 3:
Through reason and logic.
Through first person non-perceptual experience.
That is unknown.

 

[usfan]

You may be right. What other possibilities do you entertain?

I listed a few in the OP:

But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No scientist would agree to that statement. A theory that functions via experimentation is not taken by any scientist as "truth". It's a primary axiom of science not to do so.
There is no "truth of relative functionality". There is only relative functionality. How it relates to the truth is anyone's guess.
Ignorance can be comforting, yes. That's why it's so often willful. But the idea of purpose is being implied by the nature of existence as we perceive it, not by any claim of mine.
Yes, and that's a good example of the folly of atheism.

ROFL... If expecting actual evidence for a claim prior to accepting it as true is a 'folly' then so be it. Your silly method enables people to believe in any moronic claim imaginable. No wonder there are so many ridiculous religions out there.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, I find a combination of hard science, social science, humanities and philosophy better.
BTW I don't find the universe that interesting. Now what is in it, humans. That is far more interesting thus my top answer.
In a sense I don't care how the universe functions, because what matters are how humans function and how they interact with the world, they are in.

ROFL... well the universe probably doesn't care much about you ether. I really could care less how much you care about how the universe functions. Your lack of interest in the universes doesn't change the reality that the scientific method has helped us understand the universe better than any other method we've come up with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ROFL... If expecting actual evidence for a claim prior to accepting it as true is a 'folly' then so be it. Your silly method enables people to believe in any moronic claim imaginable. No wonder there are so many ridiculous religions out there.

You argue using in effect emotions.
A science checklist
The many meanings of truth

You hold one view of science.
But it is not the only one and again:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

You judge other human behavior, but you can't use science to do so. But I guess you still consider this true:
"No wonder there are so many ridiculous religions out there."
If so, scientific evidence please.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ROFL... well the universe probably doesn't care much about you ether. I really could care less how much you care about how the universe functions. Your lack of interest in the universes doesn't change the reality that the scientific method has helped us understand the universe better than any other method we've come up with.

You used emotions again and not science. I do it so, I just admit that I can't claim scientific evidence for it.
As for the universe in the scientific sense is not everything. Some humans care for and about me and I care for and about some humans. The joke is that this universe gave rise to us humans, so parts of the world care for other parts.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Take 2.
Why does the universe matter to you and is the universe everything?

I answer that in my way and that includes science is useful, but not the best way of understanding everything. The best way to me is a combination science, philosophy and religion.
Now I acknowledge that to you, your answer is different. But here is the problem.



You used a "we" and "truth". You don't speak for a "we" and you don't have the truth of everything. Nor do I. You have the truth for what works for you and what is better for you. But you can't speak with truth for a "we" and your "better" is subjective. So is my truth and my better. You didn't speak of the universe as such, you spoke of different ways of understanding everything and you then used your bias of how to frame a certain context: The universe as somehow different from that of other answers about everything.
That is where it ends. The universe is nothing everything if you answer objectively as how we describe what we humans are a part of and the other parts. It is a scientific framework for a part of everything. That is your bias. If you change your bias, the answer of better changes. Not that you are without bias and not that I am without bias. I just explain to you that we both have biases.

As for truth, truth might not be what you believe it is:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
As for science:


I know this and I can tell you how my culture influences how I see. You seem to take your culture as universal for all humans, hence "we".
So how you rate science and religion is cultural and so for me. I just know that it is so for both of us, and what is better for you, might not be better for me and in reverse.

Edit: PS The many meanings of truth
Further edit: You use science to argue against religion. I understand science differently and doubt that you can use science for that.

You use science to argue against religion. I understand science differently and doubt that you can use science for that.

This last line explains a LOT. Now I understand why you are so reluctant to admit that the scientific method has been so successful at what it's INTENDED to do and keep suggesting that its 'flaw' is that it can't answer questions that it's not INTENDED to answer. It's not ME who argues that science is against religion. You however clearly find something threatening about the scientific method.

This clarifies a great deal. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You use science to argue against religion. I understand science differently and doubt that you can use science for that.

This last line explains a LOT. Now I understand why you are so reluctant to admit that the scientific method has been so successful at what it's INTENDED to do and keep suggesting that its 'flaw' is that it can't answer questions that it's not INTENDED to answer. It's not ME who argues that science is against religion. You however clearly find something threatening about the scientific method.

This clarifies a great deal. Thanks.

Okay, so that there are ridiculous religions out there, is not a scientific fact or has no scientific theory/law to back it up.
Can you admit that?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If, if, if, ... from our perspective it remains an 'if'. Thus, we still have to choose, even 'if'. But it appears that "Bob the Unbeliever" actually believes quite strongly in his nonsensical proposition, as most of those atheists so loudly proclaiming their "unbelief", do.
Every one of them, because even though God may already know their choice, the humans would still have to do the choosing, because they don't already know.
Repeating this does not magically make it make sense. But I can see that you believe, and so there will be no dissuading you.

Nothing in the above? Constitutes actual ARGUMENT. Belittling. Derisive hate-comments? Yeah, it's full of that.

And worst of all? Not one single cognitive argument in favor of his magical god-beast.

DONE. Go away, bother someone else with your hategod.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God would be a bully if He forced Himself on us in order to convince us.
God is not a bully and that is why He does not force us to believe in Him.

Yet-- your bully-god DID force himself on at least one-- his Special Favorite Spokes-person. To the exclusion of everyone else.

Nevermind THAT-- your bully-god will torture forever anyone who refuses to be brow-beaten by "god's special favorite"--- who by all accounts? Was one of the most judgmental, unpleasant and horrible people who ever lived, in a passive-aggressive way, of course.

Nope. You have failed to be convincing. A bully your god remains.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

All evil comes from man, because man has free will to do either good or evil.

Don't bother quoting from your BOOK OF UNFAIRNESS. I don't actually read any of it: it's immoral on the face of it.

Let Your God Speak Directly To It's People.

As for Free Will? Not even a little-- your "Perfect" being eliminates any possibility...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You claimed Knowledge but gave no reasoned argument or evidence.

Irony duly noted. Extreme irony, point of fact....

Do you even have a mirror?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am not usfan, but there are at least 3:
Through reason and logic.
Through first person non-perceptual experience.
That is unknown.

Again, with the Irony....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irony duly noted. Extreme irony, point of fact....

Do you even have a mirror?

Yes, I know I sometimes can learn something new, which can change my views.
Now I am willing to learn about Knowledge, so please explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, with the Irony....

Please explain. As it stands it is nothing but an emotion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now what is in it, humans. That is far more interesting thus my top answer.
In a sense I don't care how the universe functions, because what matters are how humans function and how they interact with the world, they are in.

Human behavior is also my major area of interest. Before I came back to my religion I studied psychology for many years and got a MA degree in counseling psychology so I could help people. I never ended up going into the field for personal reasons but I retain an interest in human behavior and I try to help people as much as I can whenever I can.

I now believe the best way I can help people is by helping them realize there is a God. Whether or not they join my religion is secondary. Everyone does not have to be part of one religion, although that is what will happen in the future, since that is what God has ordained.

Before studying psychology, I was in college for many years obtaining other degrees, but I never studied hard science because that was not my area of interest and I do not have the aptitude for hard science subjects. I find subjects such as astronomy very interesting, but not as interesting as human behavior.

During all my years of college, I only too one world religions class, because I was never interested in religion. In fact, since I was not raised in a religious home, I never even read one page of the Bible until I came to my first forum in 2013. I am now trying to make up for lost time.

One reason I like this forum so much is because I get to meet so many different people and they all have different beliefs and non-beliefs. I like people and I learn so much from other people, but I do not like having to go out and meet people in social settings because people generally put on airs and talk about boring things I am not interested in. Most people are only interested in things of the material world, and I have no interest in those things. I already wasted too much time on those things and I do not consider them important anymore.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Human behavior is also my major area of interest. Before I came back to my religion I studied psychology for many years and got a MA degree in counseling psychology so I could help people. I never ended up going into the field for personal reasons but I retain an interest in human behavior and I try to help people as much as I can whenever I can.

I now believe the best way I can help people is by helping them realize there is a God. Whether or not they join my religion is secondary. Everyone does not have to be part of one religion, although that is what will happen in the future, since that is what God has ordained.

Before studying psychology, I was in college for many years obtaining other degrees, but I never studied hard science because that was not my area of interest and I do not have the aptitude for hard science subjects. I find subjects such as astronomy very interesting, but not as interesting as human behavior.

During all my years of college, I only too one world religions class, because I was never interested in religion. In fact, since I was not raised in a religious home, I never even read one page of the Bible until I came to my first forum in 2013. I am now trying to make up for lost time.

One reason I like this forum so much is because I get to meet so many different people and they all have different beliefs and non-beliefs. I like people and I learn so much from other people, but I do not like having to go out and meet people in social settings because people generally put on airs and talk about boring things I am not interested in. Most people are only interested in things of the material world, and I have no interest in those things. I already wasted too much time on those things and I do not consider them important anymore.

Well, I had to learn about humans, because I have 3 psychiatric disorders. Don't worry, they are not that "heavy", but I have to learn about how to live with that and I had to learn about morality about as good, because some people kept say to me, that what I did, didn't make sense to them and I could do it better, if I just did as they did. So I have been in hands of professionals, who have taught me a thing or two. But the most I have learned, are by reading books, asking questions in RL and on the Internet and it helps to have a wife, who are both a nursing assistant and social worker.