The Folly of Atheism

[ArtieE]

"the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father"

God is in closest relationship with Himself?
That makes absolutely no logical sense and they changed the translation to try to make Jesus into God.

No they didn't. They are simply being accurate to the Bible. Here is all the evidence in the Bible again: Is Jesus God?
"Is Jesus really God? There are many cults and false religions today that deny it."

You realize that when they are talking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost they aren't talking about three separate people right? They are the same God? The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is also God...

 

[ratiocinator]

I guess I am not following you. I do not know what mean by random.

Technically it means that every possibility has equal probability but in this context, I'm referring to something that happens for no reason. It is not the result of anything that preceded it.

Any system that changes over time is either a deterministic system or not. A deterministic system is one in which everything follows directly from what preceded it, so a fully defined starting point can only result in one future. Newtonian physics would imply that this is true of the universe. The alternative is that part of the development of the system is not determined by anything that happened previously, and is therefore random. Adding quantum mechanics implies that the universe may not be deterministic but it is a matter of some debate.

I m not sure how all this is related to free will. I believe people choose what they will do and what happens is determined by human will and actions that follow, not determined by God.

The problem is that "free will", if it is to have any meaning at all, has to fit in somehow with the above. If you consider that it is just that you are free (within practical constraints) to do as you wish, then there isn't a problem and we arrive at compatibilism. In that case, you are free to do as you wish but what you wish is fully determined by the past (or the past and some randomness).

This view, however, becomes nonsense if we introduce an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

There is objective evidence, by your definition of objective (actual) but how one interprets that evidence is subjective.

Evidence is only evidence if it can distinguish between different hypotheses. For there to be objective evidence, you'd need to show that something exists, or happened, or some experiment will lead to some predicted outcome, that is in accordance with the hypothesis that your god exists, and not compatible with other hypotheses.

There is objective evidence but how is that unjust for God to judge you if you did not like the evidence He provided?

It's not a question of liking it - where is anything that is evidence in the sense I just outlined?

 

[Trailblazer]

No they didn't. They are simply being accurate to the Bible. Here is all the evidence in the Bible again: Is Jesus God?
"Is Jesus really God? There are many cults and false religions today that deny it."

You realize that when they are talking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost they aren't talking about three separate people right? They are the same God? The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is also God...

I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine of the church.
The Baha'i Faith has a different interpretation of the Trinity: 27: THE TRINITY

Only God is God and God never reveals His Essence to man.
The Son is not God and the Holy Spirit is not God.
The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God, not God.
The Son is a perfect mirror image of God, not God.

I do not care how many people misinterpret the Bible. I know that God cannot become a man because of what Baha'u'llah wrote. But you are free to believe what you want to because you have free will.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49”

 

[Trailblazer]

Technically it means that every possibility has equal probability but in this context, I'm referring to something that happens for no reason. It is not the result of anything that preceded it.

Whereas I think some things seem to happen to us for no reason, there was a reason they happened as they happened because someone else made a decision to do something. In the case of an auto accident someone made a choice to pull out in front of us and CAUSED an accident, it was not a free will choice we made.

Any system that changes over time is either a deterministic system or not. A deterministic system is one in which everything follows directly from what preceded it, so a fully defined starting point can only result in one future. Newtonian physics would imply that this is true of the universe. The alternative is that part of the development of the system is not determined by anything that happened previously, and is therefore random. Adding quantum mechanics implies that the universe may not be deterministic but it is a matter of some debate.

Okay, thanks for explaining that. So random events are not determined by past experiences.

The problem is that "free will", if it is to have any meaning at all, has to fit in somehow with the above. If you consider that it is just that you are free (within practical constraints) to do as you wish, then there isn't a problem and we arrive at compatibilism. In that case, you are free to do as you wish but what you wish is fully determined by the past (or the past and some randomness).

I can agree with that.

This view, however, becomes nonsense if we introduce an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

I cannot agree with that because God is hands off. Just because God is all-powerful and all-knowing that does not mean God influences us. God gave us free will so we could be free to do what we want to as choices become available.

Evidence is only evidence if it can distinguish between different hypotheses. For there to be objective evidence, you'd need to show that something exists, or happened, or some experiment will lead to some predicted outcome, that is in accordance with the hypothesis that your god exists, and not compatible with other hypotheses.

Then I do not have objective evidence for God by your definition.

It's not a question of liking it - where is anything that is evidence in the sense I just outlined?

No, I do not think so.

 

[ArtieE]

I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine of the church.
The Baha'i Faith has a different interpretation of the Trinity: 27: THE TRINITY

Only God is God and God never reveals His Essence to man.
The Son is not God and the Holy Spirit is not God.
The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God, not God.
The Son is a perfect mirror image of God, not God.

I do not care how many people misinterpret the Bible. I know that God cannot become a man because of what Baha'u'llah wrote. But you are free to believe what you want to because you have free will.

If you have free will, believe in the Trinity doctrine of the church for one day. If you have free will, stop parroting everything this Baha'u'llah wrote. Show us you have a free will instead of just regurgitating the writings of a guy long dead.

 

[ArtieE]

I cannot agree with that because God is hands off. Just because God is all-powerful and all-knowing that does not mean God influences us. God gave us free will so we could be free to do what we want to as choices become available.

What is it that makes us want something Trailblazer? Do you think we use our free will to choose all those things that makes us want something over something else too?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you have free will, believe in the Trinity doctrine of the church for one day. If you have free will, stop parroting everything this Baha'u'llah wrote. Show us you have a free will instead of just regurgitating the writings of a guy long dead.

I never claimed that free will means that I can choose to do or believe anything.
The will is the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action. Clearly we have a will because if we had no will we would not be able to do anything at all. To will something is to intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen. How “free” we are to use that will to believe or act is another matter. I do not think that we can believe or do “anything” we want to do. The choices we make are constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. These all affect how we think and how we think affects how we act.

I cannot believe what my rational mind will not accommodate. Besides that, I would have to have a reason to believe in the Christian Trinity doctrine. There would need to be evidence that supports it. There is no such evidence in the Bible. The Trinity doctrine is a man-made doctrine of the church that was decided upon at Councils such as Nicaea.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is it that makes us want something Trailblazer? Do you think we use our free will to choose all those things that makes us want something over something else too?

Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances.

I do not think that we can use our free will to change what we want. We either want it or we don't want it. However, we do not need to act upon what we want. We have free will to choose to act or not act.
I might want to have an affair with a man but I can use my free will to choose not to because I know it is immoral, according to my beliefs.
I disapprove of the beliefs and lifestyle of a coworker and I want to say what I think, but I know that is wrong so I am always nice to her.
Sometimes I want to eliminate an evil tenant I had who is now trying to sue me, but I am not going to do that because it would be against the law and against my morals.

The list goes on. I want to get out from under this house and sell my two rental houses and go and live somewhere else where I might be happier, but I know this is not the best choice right now so I do not act upon it. I have to use my rational mind to analyze my options and come up with the most reasonable choice at any given point in time.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Well, IF.. there IS a God, then disbelief isn't a very viable possibility.. it would be a major misperception of reality.

Mind you, I am not so much an atheist as a seeking agnostic. But James A Lindsay, God Doesn't, We Do, (Lindsay copyright, 2012) shows that the kind of God being proclaimed (mostly in the United States) simply doesn't do anything like he is supposed to if Christians are correct in saying that God is real and alive. Therefore, disbelief is certainly a logical option as we see no fruits of the kind of God being proclaimed as being real. There is no mis-perception if the evidence for the putative God doesn't exist for us to see, to realize, to live with, or whatnot. If the God that is was actually engaged and doing what the scriptures proclaim he does, then it could be possibly claimed it is a misperception to not believe in that God. But with the absence of any of the attributes God is supposed to possess, there is no sin of disbelief. Disbelief is no sin anyway, as we all have it for myriads of different claims. Doubt is the harbinger of truth in all quarters of human inquiry.

 

[ArtieE]

I might want to have an affair with a man but I can use my free will to choose not to because I know it is immoral, according to my beliefs.

If your will has to play second violin to what you believe your will isn't free.

I disapprove of the beliefs and lifestyle of a coworker and I want to say what I think, but I know that is wrong so I am always nice to her.
Sometimes I want to eliminate an evil tenant I had who is now trying to sue me, but I am not going to do that because it would be against the law and against my morals.

The list goes on. I want to get out from under this house and sell my two rental houses and go and live somewhere else where I might be happier, but I know this is not the best choice right now so I do not act upon it. I have to use my rational mind to analyze my options and come up with the most reasonable choice at any given point in time.

Then your will isn't free but bound by reason.

 

[ratiocinator]

I do not think that we can use our free will to change what we want. We either want it or we don't want it. However, we do not need to act upon what we want. We have free will to choose to act or not act.
I might want to have an affair with a man but I can use my free will to choose not to because I know it is immoral, according to my beliefs.
I disapprove of the beliefs and lifestyle of a coworker and I want to say what I think, but I know that is wrong so I am always nice to her.
Sometimes I want to eliminate an evil tenant I had who is now trying to sue me, but I am not going to do that because it would be against the law and against my morals.

The list goes on. I want to get out from under this house and sell my two rental houses and go and live somewhere else where I might be happier, but I know this is not the best choice right now so I do not act upon it. I have to use my rational mind to analyze my options and come up with the most reasonable choice at any given point in time.

All this actually says is that you want some things more than others. How do you choose to override a want? It can only be because you want something else more. If you want to have an affair with a man but you don't because of your beliefs - all that says is that you want to follow your beliefs more than you want an affair with a man.

Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances.

Yes - and that's all there can be. Think about it. Those things are what made you the person you are - if some ingredient of a choice has nothing to do with them, then it has nothing to do with you. Without such an ingredient, every part of a choice is the direct result of those things.

 

[Riders]

No they didn't. They are simply being accurate to the Bible. Here is all the evidence in the Bible again: Is Jesus God?
"Is Jesus really God? There are many cults and false religions today that deny it."

You realize that when they are talking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost they aren't talking about three separate people right? They are the same God? The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is also God...

Nothing you can say will ever explain that the Trinity is real or that Jesus is God, there is no proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

If your will has to play second violin to what you believe your will isn't free.

My will is free because I choose to pay second violin to what I believe instead of following my lower material nature.

Then your will isn't free but bound by reason.

My will is free because I choose to be bound by reason rather than acting upon my emotions.

 

[Trailblazer]

All this actually says is that you want some things more than others. How do you choose to override a want? It can only be because you want something else more. If you want to have an affair with a man but you don't because of your beliefs - all that says is that you want to follow your beliefs more than you want an affair with a man.

That is true. I do not want to have an affair with a man but if I wanted to have an affair with a man and I didn’t because of my beliefs, then that would mean I want to follow my beliefs more than I want an affair with a man. It would be a free will decision to follow my beliefs and not have the affair.

Yes - and that's all there can be. Think about it. Those things are what made you the person you are - if some ingredient of a choice has nothing to do with them, then it has nothing to do with you. Without such an ingredient, every part of a choice is the direct result of those things.

That’s true too.

 

[ratiocinator]

It would be a free will decision to follow my beliefs and not have the affair.

In the compatibilist sense, yes. You are free to do what you want (most). You are not free to suddenly want something different, that wouldn't even make sense - it would be wanting to be free from being yourself. The point being, that all your wants come from your nature, nurture, and life of experience.

That’s true too.

So how can there be free will from the point of view of a god - who set the world in motion and, as a direct result (unless it introduced randomness), chose all of history, including all of your nature, nurture, and life of experience, and hence your "free will" choices?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism

There's actually quite a simple reason for that.... And that is, that atheism isn't a philosophy, religion, ideology, doctrine, .... like theistic systems like christianity is. It's not even a worldview.

Such things (worldviews, ideologies,...) are things that positively define what someone believes and/or stands for. Atheism is the exact opposite of that. Atheism is a word that is used to exclude things from whatever it is the atheist DOES belief.

By the label atheist, you ONLY know what I do NOT believe.
While a label like "christian", "humanist", "communist", etc gives you information about what IS being believed. Do you see the difference between these labels?

"Atheism" is like having a word for someone who does NOT collect stamps. It doesn't tell you about what his hobbies are. It only tells you what hobby he doesn't have.

You don't call "not playing football" a sport, so why would you call "not believing in gods" a belief / worldview / ideology / whatevs?

And, since there is a disproportionately high number of vocal, proactive atheists here, a light hearted look at atheism should be welcome relief from the seriousness and intensity that some display.

A false dilemma
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)

The dilemma presented is usually like this:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

Not once have I seen any atheist on this forum say that. And I might add that not once have I seen or heared any atheist say this, ever.

I'm sure there will be an atheist somewhere who made that logic error. But I can honestly tell you that I have never encountered such.

So, your choice of words, that it's "usually" presented like that, is kind of strange.
So what are you referring to? In which context or place is that dilemma "usually" presented like that?

Here's how I would formulate that:

"If you can't at least support God's existance with sufficient independently verifiable evidence, then there is no reason to believe that that God exists"

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.

And the same could be said for aliens, leprechauns, unicorns and 7-headed dragons.

2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.

And the same could be said for aliens, leprechauns, unicorns and 7-headed dragons.​

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.

And the same could be said for aliens, leprechauns, unicorns and 7-headed dragons.

​

4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.

And the same could be said for aliens, leprechauns, unicorns and 7-headed dragons.​

5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

And the same could be said for aliens, leprechauns, unicorns and 7-headed dragons.​

We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others.

Indeed we don't. And the same could be said for aliens, leprechauns, unicorns and 7-headed dragons.

What we CAN say however, is that because we have no verifiable evidence, we will not accept the claims as true, for we have no reason to.

Yes, this also goes for the reverse claim: god does not exist. We also don't have verifiable evidence for that (which is a logic thing, as it can never be proven that an unfalsifiable thing does not exist). But you know what? Again the same could be said for aliens, leprechauns, unicorns and 7-headed dragons


So this is why I classify your god on the same shelve as mythical beasts like centaurs, griffons, unicorns and 7-headed dragons

Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.

Your argument is fallacious, based on a strawman. The "false dilemma" is indeed a false dilemma. But no atheist (that I know of) makes this claim, while you like to pretend that many do, apparantly.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point being, that all your wants come from your nature, nurture, and life of experience.

That is true.

So how can there be free will from the point of view of a god - who set the world in motion and, as a direct result (unless it introduced randomness), chose all of history, including all of your nature, nurture, and life of experience, and hence your "free will" choices?

God set the world in motion but God did not choose all of history, including all of our nature, nurture, and life of experience. All this came about by virtue of human "free will" choices. Everything that happens to humans in the world comes about by virtue of human free will.

 

[ratiocinator]

God set the world in motion but God did not choose all of history, including all of our nature, nurture, and life of experience. All this came about by virtue of human "free will" choices.

Except that you've just admitted that human "free will" choices are made entirely because of wants, that are, in turn, due to nature, nurture, and experience. All of nature, nurture, and experience happens because of what is going on externally and all the choices made by other people, which are made because of their nature, nurture, and experiences. So, assuming no randomness, we have an unbroken chain of causality from (say) me making a "free will" choice to make a cup of coffee this morning, back to the very moment when (if it exists) your god magicked everything into existence...

 

[Trailblazer]

Except that you've just admitted that human "free will" choices are made entirely because of wants, that are, in turn, due to nature, nurture, and experience. All of nature, nurture, and experience happens because of what is going on externally and all the choices made by other people, which are made because of their nature, nurture, and experiences. So, assuming no randomness, we have an unbroken chain of causality from (say) me making a "free will" choice to make a cup of coffee this morning, back to the very moment when (if it exists) your god magicked everything into existence...

Yes, that is true.

 

[usfan]

Doubt is the harbinger of truth in all quarters of human inquiry.

Well said.

There are two possibilities:

We are alone in the universe, or we are not.

The universe has other dimensions that we cannot grasp easily with our natural senses, or it is purely material and limited to (currently) known phenomena.

The folly of materialistic atheism is in dogmatically declaring Absolute Knowledge, based on limited awareness of the vastness of the universe through highly restricted human sensory organs.

If we cannot see, touch, hear, or smell, another dimension, it cannot exist. And when the consensus of humanity, for thousands of years, declares that there is, indeed, an unseen spiritual realm, the folly of denial, and pretense of smug superiority, seems even more absurd.

How can anyone be dogmatic, in the face of the vast unknown of the universe? How can we assign limited human senses as the final arbiter of Absolute Truth?