Theists and the Truth

[RestlessSoul]

We're not talking about the existence of God. We're talking about the assessment of evidence.

I maintain that the evidence commonly cited to support the God-concept is logically or factually flawed.

The evidence for God is God.

God-concepts, on the other hand, are necessarily flawed, because they are human constructs - like logic, and facts, they are the map not the territory.

 

[Valjean]

If the term atheism doesn't mean anything at all, as you keep trying to assert, then why use it at all?

It has a meaning, but not a doctrine or belief system.

And why keep asserting that you don't believe in anyone else's idea of God when you have no idea of God of your own, and "no evidence" upon which to base your objections?

I don't believe in that for which there is no evidence. I have no need to justify my skepticism because I have no burden of proof.
Theists are the one's making the assertions. They have the burden. If they fail to meet their burden, skepticism is justified.

What's the point of insulting everyone else's thinking about God when you have no thoughts whatever about it of your own to offer even as a rebuttal?

Why do you feel insulted when someone points out errors in your calculations?
Meths class must have been a nightmare.

What's the point of sitting around saying "I don't like the way you think" if it's not just to massage your own ego?

It's not a matter of liking. It's a matter of fact. Which are you invested in, truth, or your narrative?

And why shoud anyone care whether or not you like the way they think? Especially when you aren't offering any thoughts, at all, yourself. You're just negating everyone else's.

I'm on a talkboard discussing ideas and facts. I post about ideas and facts. When someone makes up facts out of whole cloth, I comment. That's what we're here for.
I'm not asking anyone to care. I assume RF members reading this do care, or they would be on another site.
I am offering thoughts. I'm offering thoughts on reason and logic, and you're getting defensive because they undermine your narrative. You can't change the maths, yet you still protest it, and go on to question my intentions, motivation, and character -- as if these affected the logic of my arguments.

Can you see why I have such a low opinion of this brand of phony atheism?

Yes. Because you're emotionally invested, your ego-integrity is invested, and you find yourself without a leg to stand on. You can't defend, so you must attack; but you have no ammunition, so you must fling fantasy facts, innuendo, and ad homs.

So what's phony about this brand of atheism?

 

[Valjean]

I think the truth is that we humans don't have access to the truth. Not because anything evil is hiding it from us, but because we do not possess the necessary intellectual ability to cognate it. And we should probably be grateful for this, because in our ignorance, we get to decide for ourselves what we choose to stand by as "the truth". And in doing that we get to create and define who we are as individual autonomous beings within an existential event that is singular and holistic. And event in which nothing gets to be truly autonomous. If we knew "it all", we would not longer have the freedom to choose our own version of truth. And then, what's the point of any of it?

If we can't access the truth directly, weeding out the untruth might be helpful. It could eliminate dead-end paths, and narrow the playing field.
Eliminate the false proposals, and what we're left with, might be the truth, or at least a possible proposal.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If we can't access the truth directly, weeding out the untruth might be helpful. It could eliminate dead-end paths, and narrow the playing field.
Eliminate the false proposals, and what we're left with, might be the truth, or at least a possible proposal.

And what if we’re left with nothing?

 

[Valjean]

It's our imperfections that set us free.

Of what?

Our own truth is all the truth we'll ever get, so long as we are human. Developing our own truth seems to be our purpose, here. As it's what we have been designed by the existential event to do.

So curiosity is fruitless, and research futile?
Personally, I think we'fe made remarkable progress in our understanding of the world, since we abandoned "our own truth" and adopted the scientific method of testing and critical analysis.

 

[Valjean]

I think there's an objective Truth, valid for all, that contains the secret of universal happiness. Individualistic, artificial truths create individualistic happiness, that is often incompatible with others' happiness.

The individual truths: folk tales and religious narratives, can, indeed, be comforting. If an opiate is all you seek, fine. But so many people so militantly insist their folklore is true, and endeavor to craft a society and legal mandates around it, that I usually regard it as threatening.

Exactly. It's my truth, not the Truth, so it's irrelevant.
That's why I said I can't wait to be told the real Truth, in the Afterlife.

Pie-in-the-sky when you die?

 

[Estro Felino]

The individual truths: folk tales and religious narratives, can, indeed, be comforting. If an opiate is all you seek, fine. But so many people so militantly insist their folklore is true, and endeavor to craft a society and legal mandates around it, that I usually regard it as threatening.

You perfectly understood what I meant. Thank you.

 

[Estro Felino]

The individual truths: folk tales and religious narratives, can, indeed, be comforting.

Even Capitalism can be a religion. Thriftless and unbridled worship of the profit maximization, even at cost of walking over the people's corpses.
And so many people worship this religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The individual truths: folk tales and religious narratives, can, indeed, be comforting. If an opiate is all you seek, fine. But so many people so militantly insist their folklore is true, and endeavor to craft a society and legal mandates around it, that I usually regard it as threatening.

Pie-in-the-sky when you die?

Well, if you look up Ayn Rand Objectivism you will find the same effect as the ones you describe in effect.
So to me, it is not about religion as such. It is about the ideas of The True Good and Right Life. And that is not unique to religion.

 

[Valjean]

My questions is: since atheists don't believe in an Afterlife where any Truth will be exposed...
do they strive for it on Earth, at least?

There's nothing in the atheist rule-book that rules out an afterlife. There's no indication that truth will be revealed in any afterlife I think that's a Christian fantasy about Heaven.
I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm a very curious character, and am always looking for answers.

 

[Valjean]

The evidence for God is God.

???
So If I see no evidence....?

 

[Valjean]

And what if we’re left with nothing?

Them's the breaks.
Go for a walk, read a book, watch a movie, have sex with a friend.
Life can be enjoyable without all the answers.

 

[Valjean]

Even Capitalism can be a religion. Thriftless and unbridled worship of the profit maximization, even at cost of walking over the people's corpses.
And so many people worship this religion.

It's all the rage here in the US.

 

[Valjean]

Well, if you look up Ayn Rand Objectivism you will find the same effect as the ones you describe in effect.
So to me, it is not about religion as such. It is about the ideas of The True Good and Right Life. And that is not unique to religion.

I read most of Rand's books many year ago, starting with Anthem, as a teen. Well crafted, thought-provoking, even inspirational, but deeply disturbing, in hindsight.

 

[RestlessSoul]

???
So If I see no evidence....?

If you don’t see, you don’t see.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Them's the breaks.
Go for a walk, read a book, watch a movie, have sex with a friend.
Life can be enjoyable without all the answers.

The pursuit of pleasure is the purpose of life?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The pursuit of pleasure is the purpose of life?

Yes. It's also the central motive of Christianity. You want heaven instead of hell, right? Here are the commandments you need to do that in this book of things that God told us to tell you he said. Obey them, and receive everlasting bliss.

But pleasure on earth is another matter. No to pursuing that, as your question implies. That's called hedonism, and in Christianity, it is associated with rebellion and the hope of escaping accountability. You need to sacrifice earthly pleasure in the service of achieving heavenly pleasure. It's in the Sermon on the Mount. If the boss man slaps your cheek, turn the other one for him to slap. Be longsuffering and accept your lot without resistance and you will live like a king in a mansion of many rooms. Your heavenly reward is promised!

My questions is: since atheists don't believe in an Afterlife where any Truth will be exposed...
do they strive for it on Earth, at least?

This one does. From that post: "Pursuing truth was the path to control of my life."

 

[Valjean]

The pursuit of pleasure is the purpose of life?

Why do you feel the need for a purpose? Why can't we choose our own purposes?

 

[Estro Felino]

Why do you feel the need for a purpose? Why can't we choose our own purposes?

Being 8 billion on this Earth, finding our own purpose individualistically can be very difficult.
Maybe through a common purpose, we can satisfy each other's needs.

 

[ppp]

Being 8 billion on this Earth, finding our own purpose individualistically can be very difficult.

What does the number of people on earth have to do with the ease or difficulty of finding one's own purpose?