The Paradox of Atheism and God

[PureX]

Fair question. In my view, truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. (That's called the 'correspondence' definition.)

Its great advantage is that it's capable of giving an objective test for 'truth'.

And it's great disadvantage is that 'objectivity' is a conceptual myth.

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps to you, but not to the Atheist.

What?

Really?

Why would any atheist look at the
sun and call it god? Or Kumari for that matter.

I dont think you have the hang of what makes an atheist?

 

[dybmh]

.sorry bud, you introduced your own topic by cherry picking the bible and tried to drag me into it, like i said, I'm not playing childish games

Also like i said, physician heal thyself

Here is what I am reposnding to: - LINK

The topic is the paradox of atheism.

 

[ChristineM]

Here is what I am reposnding to: - LINK

View attachment 82667

The topic is the paradox of atheism.

No, your topic is trying all ends up to dis me and I'm taking no more of your childish nonsense, welcome back to my ignore list you deserve it.

Of course you will now post that you won, please feel free to embarrass yourself.

End game

 

[dybmh]

No, your topic is trying all ends up to dis me and I'm taking no more of your childish nonsense, welcome back to my ignore list you deserve it.

Of course you will now post that you won, please feel free to embarrass yourself.

End game

No, it's not about you.

 

[dybmh]

I suppose I'll mention that the Pew survey that was listed yesterday in an effort to establish atheist knowledge of the bible compared to others doesn't actually measure that.

Out of the 32 questions, only 7 were bible questions. 4 on the OT, 3 on the NT. That's it. The remainder of the questions were about theology and world religions. Atheists scored on average 17 out of 32. Christians scored on average 14 out of 32. Jewish people scored on average 18 out of 32. None of these scores demonstrate increased or decreased knowledge of the bible. It simply doesn't measure that conclusively.

I gave it a fair look. It had potential to be useful information in this context. But, it doesn't. So far, the notion that atheists know more about the OT than than religious adherents who study it can still be accurately described as myth.

 

[Altfish]

So what did you mean when you said you should have put an "s" at the end?

God or gods

 

[blü 2]

And it's great disadvantage is that 'objectivity' is a conceptual myth.

Ah, I see you didn't stop breathing for ten minutes as I suggested. But try it ─ it demonstrates the reality of the world external to the self rather clearly.

 

[PureX]

Ah, I see you didn't stop breathing for ten minutes as I suggested. But try it ─ it demonstrates the reality of the world external to the self rather clearly.

Actually, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. What it demonstrates is that there is no "external reality" that can be accessed or assessed except through me: the subject of the term 'subjective reality'. Which is the antithesis of 'objective reality'. Such that the only reality any of us can ever access or assess is subjective.

 

[Unfettered]

Fair question. In my view, truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. (That's called the 'correspondence' definition.)

Its great advantage is that it's capable of giving an objective test for 'truth'.

Very good. I find this definition to be the best I've encountered: "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (see Truth)

Do you agree that our definitions are compatible?

 

[Muffled]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

Some people may say that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible, but what is hell? Is it a literal place of fire and torment, or is it a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others? Is hell something that God imposes on us, or something that we impose on ourselves? Is hell eternal, or can it be overcome?

Perhaps hell is just especially real if one makes it a fear of theirs and a mental reality. Perhaps hell is the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death, but something that we experience in life.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion.

Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do. Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom.

Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God.

I believe some atheists have taken the path of reason to the living God of the Bible but it requires an honest view of the reasoning and it would appear that most atheists have an a priori way of reasoning about God.

 

[Muffled]

You are assuming quite some things about atheists which are not warranted. Some people who happen to be atheists use rationality and value truth, knowledge and morality - but that is not because they are atheists. Atheism doesn't require anything but that the number of gods you believe in is zero.

I believe I suspected all along that a disbelief in God doesn't require anything.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe some atheists have taken the path of reason to the living God of the Bible

Doubtful.

 

[Heyo]

I believe some atheists have taken the path of reason to the living God of the Bible but it requires an honest view of the reasoning and it would appear that most atheists have an a priori way of reasoning about God.

There is no rational way from informed atheism to theism.
This is empirical true as I have yet to meet someone who has gone that route and it is logically true as theism is an inherently irrational position.

 

[blü 2]

Actually, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. What it demonstrates is that there is no "external reality" that can be accessed or assessed except through me: the subject of the term 'subjective reality'. Which is the antithesis of 'objective reality'. Such that the only reality any of us can ever access or assess is subjective.

Next time someone you know dies, see if the universe disappears.

 

[blü 2]

Very good. I find this definition to be the best I've encountered: "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (see Truth)

Do you agree that our definitions are compatible?

Hmm. The future? No, my definition doesn't include "and as they are to come". A statement about the future would always be conditional ─ "The bus will leave at 10 am" means "Other things being as expected, it's reasonable to assume the bus will leave pretty much on time." Certainly there are higher and lower degrees of confidence in statements about the future, but they have to happen before they can be true, I'd say.

Similarly my definition of a fact is along the lines of "an accurate statement about a real state of affairs". That too can only refer to things that are already real ie have happened.

 

[Unfettered]

Hmm. The future? No, my definition doesn't include "and as they are to come". A statement about the future would always be conditional ─ "The bus will leave at 10 am" means "Other things being as expected, it's reasonable to assume the bus will leave pretty much on time." Certainly there are higher and lower degrees of confidence in statements about the future, but they have to happen before they can be true, I'd say.

Similarly my definition of a fact is along the lines of "an accurate statement about a real state of affairs". That too can only refer to things that are already real ie have happened.

OK. Let's amend...

"truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were"

If we remove the mention of the future, do our respective definitions of truth harmonize enough to move forward?

 

[blü 2]

OK. Let's amend...

"truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were"

If we remove the mention of the future, do our respective definitions of truth harmonize enough to move forward?

I'm of the view that truth is a quality of statements, so I've included statements as part of my definition. That is, truth doesn't exist as an independent abstract quality.

For instance, for "The truth will set you free" to be "true" in my definition, the statement which is "true" must be clearly stated (or otherwise clearly understood), and the metaphorical "set you free" must have a coherent and relevant meaning. Thus in saying truth is a quality of statements, I reject the idea that "truth" exists on its own.

Or perhaps, if I was writing a dictionary, I'd put my definition as 1, and the abstraction as 2, a different meaning like "an undefined idea or claim asserted to be desirable".

 

[Unfettered]

I'm of the view that truth is a quality of statements, so I've included statements as part of my definition. That is, truth doesn't exist as an independent abstract quality.

For instance, for "The truth will set you free" to be "true" in my definition, the statement which is "true" must be clearly stated (or otherwise clearly understood), and the metaphorical "set you free" must have a coherent and relevant meaning. Thus in saying truth is a quality of statements, I reject the idea that "truth" exists on its own.

Or perhaps, if I was writing a dictionary, I'd put my definition as 1, and the abstraction as 2, a different meaning like "an undefined idea or claim asserted to be desirable".

Your earlier definition was clearer. Please give a few more examples. Maybe some statements that are true, and some that are not.

 

[blü 2]

Your earlier definition was clearer. Please give a few more examples. Maybe some statements that are true, and some that are not.

Ahm, let's see if I can make these sufficiently different ...

True: Through the window I can presently see five parked cars.

True: Traffic police use cameras because they provide a more objective form of evidence than witness statements on their own.

True: Authoritative sources assert that the reality of the Higgs boson has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

True: According to the conventions of mathematics, 2 + 2 = 11 (base 3).