Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[PureX]

I've tried to understand your previous posts on the subject and responded to them.
What else is there that isn't imaginary? As ever, I stand ready to be persuaded by evidence and reason.

By what "reasoning" are you assuming that human imagination is not 'real'? How is it that you cannot see the blatant absurdity and bias in such an assumption, when "reality" for we humans is, itself, an IMAGINED condition? Are you aware of the fact that what you call "objective reality" is in fact an imagined state that you have never and can never experience?

That depends on how you defined truth. I hold with the 'correspondence' definition ─ a statement is true to the extent that it conforms with / corresponds to / accurately describes objective reality.

And yet you have never and will never know what "objective reality" is, because YOU ARE THE SUBJECT of the subjective reality in which you are living, and you will never be able to escape your own cognitive self.

This has the great advantage of an objective test, and it allows you and me and science to make statements that are true.

Science does not pursue truth, nor does it find any. What science pursues is physical functionality. And all it ever finds out is 'what works', physically, within a specific set of parameters. Knowing what works, physically, may be quite useful to us, but it is not 'truth'; it's just a collection of relative physical facts that we can use to our advantage.

Of course, truth isn't absolute. It changes as we learn more.

For it to "change as we learn more", it must have been false, previous to our new knowledge. So how can it have been the 'truth' when it was shown to be false when we "learned more"? And when have we learned enough to declare it "really and truly true"? I am sorry, but are you beginning to see the foolishness, here?

What definition of 'truth' do you use?

It's very simple. The truth is 'what is'. But unfortunately, we humans do not have access to nor the capacity to grasp the totality of 'what is'. Which means we will never know the truth of it. All we will ever be able to access and grasp is what our limited and relative natures will allow. And all that will ever give us is the fuel with which to imagine a truth that we can never verify.

It remains the case that you and I agree that a world exists external to the self and that our senses are capable of informing us of it. That's the realm of the physical sciences, that's nature, reality, the place where things with objective existence are found.

What you don't seem to understand is that what you just described is a huge and inevitable BIAS. Science is a BIAS. Materialism is a BIAS. Theism (and atheism) are a BIAS. What we call reality is a biased, imaginary, conception of reality that we will never be able to verify.

Once we accept this fact of our limited existence, perhaps we can dispense with these delusions that we are pursuing 'truth', and begin to accept that what we are really pursuing is relative functionality. And that is where religions and science and politics and philosophy all finally meet.

 

[blü 2]

If a definition of god could reach consensus then i think pigs would fly.

This is because there's no clear concept of 'godness', the real quality that a real god has and a fake god lacks.

It seems odd after all this time that not only does God have no real qualities but the push has been on for a long time to define God solely by what [he]'s not. In my view, the apophatic take is both the ultimate cop-out yet at the same time a necessity because of the silliness that results when one attributes real qualities to God.

 

[PureX]

But this would all fall under the heading of self-deception if the idea of god that you have does not correspond to a reality (even if there is a god it might not be what you think it is). You are also neglecting the negatives that theistic beliefs can cause: prejudice, conflict, and so on.

You don't seem to understand that your "reality" is, itself, a "self-deception". Do you really imagine that you can know what reality is? Do you really think that in possessing a few relative facts about history and how the physical world functions that you now know 'the truth' of it?

Once we get over this absurd egocentric delusion that we can know 'the truth', we can finally face the fact that what we humans live for, and by, is relative functionality. The "truth", to us, is whatever works for us in the moment and under the present circumstances. And that's where faith in "God" can become very useful to us, just like science does.

How is intention in any way apparent?

Existence exhibits incredible complexity, balance, and transcendence. So much so that we humans cannot comprehend it all with our own intelligence. Existence also is the result of an innate 'design' mechanism (one that we are seeking, but as yet have not managed to grasp). Which implies that existence is the result of intent. Nothing can result from absolute chaos but chaos. For existence to exist, that chaos had to have some form of limitation imposed on it. And it so happens that those limitations resulted in incomprehensible complexity, balance, and transcendence. This clearly implies both intelligence and intent. It's why we are able to 'study it' through science.

So, why is any of that evidence for any god(s)?

Scientists believe the 'evidence' for their theories when that evidence 'works for them' in application. Why should the evidence for god be any different?

What's 'spirit' and how is it evidence for any god(s)?

This answer you will have to seek on your own.

 

[ChristineM]

This is because there's no clear concept of 'godness', the real quality that a real god has and a fake god lacks.

It seems odd after all this time that not only does God have no real qualities but the push has been on for a long time to define God solely by what [he]'s not. In my view, the apophatic take is both the ultimate cop-out yet at the same time a necessity because of the silliness that results when one attributes real qualities to God.

I agree completely, when i have queried the claim "[my] god is real" more often than not, results in silliness including side stepping, obfuscation, opinion and often enough, down right lies.

The conclusion can only be that gods are in the mind of the believer which would make any definition meaningless if it were to encompass 6 billion individual ideas plus those of history and any in the future.

 

[ChristineM]

You don't seem to understand that your "reality" is, itself, a "self-deception". Do you really imagine that you can know what reality is? Do you really think that in possessing a few relative facts about history and how the physical world functions that you now know 'the truth' of it?

Once we get over this absurd egocentric delusion that we can know 'the truth', we can finally face the fact that what we humans live for, and by, is relative functionality. The "truth", to us, is whatever works for us in the moment and under the present circumstances. And that's where faith in "God" can become very useful to us, just like science does.
Existence exhibits incredible complexity, balance, and transcendence. So much so that we humans cannot comprehend it all with our own intelligence. Existence also is the result of an innate 'design' mechanism (one that we are seeking, but as yet have not managed to grasp). Which implies that existence is the result of intent. Nothing can result from absolute chaos but chaos. For existence to exist, that chaos had to have some form of limitation imposed on it. And it so happens that those limitations resulted in incomprehensible complexity, balance, and transcendence. This clearly implies both intelligence and intent. It's why we are able to 'study it' through science.
Scientists believe the 'evidence' for their theories when that evidence 'works for them' in application. Why should the evidence for god be any different?
This answer you will have to seek on your own.

Reality : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Also you appear to have a rather odd idea of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence : Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method

Do "claims" or "opinion" regarding any of the 4000 + gods (excluding the 33 million hindu gods) meet the requirements of scientific evidence?

 

[blü 2]

I agree completely, when i have queried the claim "[my] god is real" more often than not, results in silliness including side stepping, obfuscation, opinion and often enough, down right lies.

Perhaps that translates as, I don't think of my religion analytically, I think in stories, so I don't know how to answer your question ─ confusion leading to defensiveness leading to talking oneself into a corner.

The conclusion can only be that gods are in the mind of the believer which would make any definition meaningless if it were to encompass 6 billion individual ideas plus those of history and any in the future.

Yes, if believers can't supply a coherent definition of a real god then that only leaves imaginary gods. However, on those very rare occasions when my believing friends and/or rellies and I talk about such things, they all (in their own way) say, I'm not worried about the technicalities, it works for me.

And yet perhaps even they are changing with time ─ my kind, generous sister-in-law died last year, and astonished me by leaving iron-clad instructions that her funeral was NOT to be conducted at the church where she'd been a parishioner forever, because she found the present incumbent intolerably modern, and therefore it was all to happen in the undertaker's chapel (where it went very well).

 

[Audie]

You said:
"At a guess, you probably think there
really-really was a world wide flood, Noah
and all the animals, and all that."

View attachment 27105

Is that an impossible event?
I have no doubt it happened.

Genesis 1:6-8 New International Version (NIV)
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

According to the scientists: "At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water, in the invisible vapor phase. This is enough water to cover the entire surface of the Earth (land and ocean) with one inch of rain" How much water is in the atmosphere?

a vault between the waters to separate water from water

Come on, this is the first book of the Bible and science just discovered it last 2014.

Proverbs 3:13 New International Version (NIV)
Blessed are those who find wisdom,
those who gain understanding,

Yep, knew my Lord God from the Books which we call the Bible.

Romans 10:2 New International Version (NIV)
For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

Other people find their gods by carving a tree or from a stone.

Why the books? Because it contains knowledge, we learn from it. It is like going to school and learning something. Imagine studying accounting and you haven't read any accounting book - what kind of accountant would you be? Same is true with having the right knowledge of God - learn from the book. Oh by the way, self study won't lead you no where - find the approved people of God like finding a school approved by the Department of Education.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 New International Version (NIV)
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Knowledge of the truth - yeah!

I have no doubt you believe in noahs ark.

That you actually value that which is
real, or true? Obviously not.

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps that translates as, I don't think of my religion analytically, I think in stories, so I don't know how to answer your question ─ confusion leading to defensiveness leading to talking oneself into a corner.

Yes, if believers can't supply a coherent definition of a real god then that only leaves imaginary gods. However, on those very rare occasions when my believing friends and/or rellies and I talk about such things, they all (in their own way) say, I'm not worried about the technicalities, it works for me.

Blind faith is a powerful motivator

 

[PureX]

Reality : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

"Actually" exists? What does that even mean? What do we know of "actuality" apart from 'whatever works for us in the moment and under the present circumstances'? ... The relative fact of apparent function.

Also you appear to have a rather odd idea of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence : Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

"Serves to support or counter" ... "serves", how? You mean it functions within the criteria (circumstances) set by the 'experiment'. After all, isn't "evidence for" simply that which works as expected, while "evidence against" is that which does not? So when I say that science is nothing more than the pursuit of whatever works (according to the biased expectations of the theory being tested), how am I wrong? How is science not a massive bias in favor of functionality? So biased, in fact, that many humans mistake this for 'truth', itself. Perhaps including you.

 

[ChristineM]

"Actually" exists? What does that even mean? What do we know of "actuality" apart from 'whatever works for us in the moment and under the present circumstances'? ... The relative fact of apparent function.
"Serves to support or counter" ... "serves", how? You mean it functions within the criteria (circumstances) set by the 'experiment'. After all, isn't "evidence for" simply that which works as expected, while "evidence against" is that which does not? So when I say that science is nothing more than the pursuit of whatever works (according to the biased expectations of the theory being tested), how am I wrong? How is science not a massive bias in favor of functionality? So biased, in fact, that many humans mistake this for 'truth', itself. Perhaps including you.

If you dont understand what "actually" means then we are stuck right there.

The dictionary is a good place to find accepted definitions.

And single word semantics are not much use when examining a phrase as a whole, that phrase was " Serves to support or counter "

And there you go again with your "You mean" NO, the dictionary means. Hope that is clear to you.

How are you wrong? You asked... You make up stories to suite your sensibilities with no regard the the reality.

I have provided definitions, you dont like them then feel free to take it up with those who compile the definitions.

How? The scientific method insures that it is not biassed but evidence based. That you dont approve of the evidence is hardly the fault of science.

 

[lukethethird]

Like not being able to ice skate makes me an ice skater?

Exactly, especially the extreme non-skaters, they're ice skaters just as much as the ice skaters.

 

[ratiocinator]

You don't seem to understand that your "reality" is, itself, a "self-deception". Do you really imagine that you can know what reality is? Do you really think that in possessing a few relative facts about history and how the physical world functions that you now know 'the truth' of it?

We can know something of the part of the reality that we have access to. The evidence is that we can use the knowledge to manipulate it - hence the device you are using to read this on.

Existence also is the result of an innate 'design' mechanism (one that we are seeking, but as yet have not managed to grasp). Which implies that existence is the result of intent. Nothing can result from absolute chaos but chaos. For existence to exist, that chaos had to have some form of limitation imposed on it. And it so happens that those limitations resulted in incomprehensible complexity, balance, and transcendence. This clearly implies both intelligence and intent. It's why we are able to 'study it' through science.

This all falls spectacularly apart when to apply exactly the same 'logic' to whatever 'intelligence' and 'intent' you see as being behind it. Why things exist and are the way they are is ultimately a mystery - but it is made no less mysterious and unexplained if you posit some sort of god to 'explain' it, because said god would be just as (or more) mysterious.

Scientists believe the 'evidence' for their theories when that evidence 'works for them' in application. Why should the evidence for god be any different?

No. Scientists believe the evidence for their theories because it works for other people too (it is intersubjectively verifiable). Other people can then use them to make technology so you can make absurd statements comparing their evidence to 'evidence' for god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey, people who think atheism is a religion: does it follow that you also think that atheism should get the same benefits as religion?

For instance, a few years ago, the Freedom From Religion Foundation applied for a parsonage exemption and were denied. You think they should have been allowed to get it, right?

Or think of the way that, say, some religious adoption agencies refuse to place children with LGBTQ families. Should an atheist adoption agency be allowed to refuse to place a child with families that aren't in accordance with that organization's beliefs?

You agree with all that, right?

 

[Audie]

Like not being able to ice skate makes me an ice skater?

No you ninny! It makes you an ice skate.
Not even a pair of skates. This is sad.

 

[PureX]

Hey, people who think atheism is a religion: does it follow that you also think that atheism should get the same benefits as religion?

For instance, a few years ago, the Freedom From Religion Foundation applied for a parsonage exemption and were denied. You think they should have been allowed to get it, right?

Or think of the way that, say, some religious adoption agencies refuse to place children with LGBTQ families. Should an atheist adoption agency be allowed to refuse to place a child with families that aren't in accordance with that organization's beliefs?

You agree with all that, right?

I think if any group owns buildings and property and so forth that use public infrastructure they should pay taxes to support that infrastructure. And I also think that private organizations should be allowed to discriminate as they choose, so long as they are not misrepresenting themselves as public organizations, and they are not otherwise breaking the law.

 

[Tiberius]

There are atheist creeds, atheist churches, atheist scholarships, atheist conventions, atheist groups, etc.
Atheist groups have pecking order structure as presidents, vice-presidents, directors, field organizers, program directors and assistance's, etc.

That doesn't make them a religion but some see them as a religion based on those things as well as others.

Edit.
IMO, if the Bible that speaks/teaches of God didn't exist, there would be no atheist or christians. We would be just people.

Please provide a source for your claim that there
are atheist creeds, atheist churches, atheist scholarships, atheist conventions, atheist groups, etc. And that atheist groups have pecking order structure as presidents, vice-presidents, directors, field organizers, program directors and assistance's, etc.

I've never heard of the King of Atheism. Is that the correct term? The king? Or is it the Atheist Pope? See how well organised they are? So well organised that I, who have been an atheist for most of my life, have never heard of them.

 

[Tiberius]

Non-religion is also a religion, just so ya know.

The it doesn't count as a non-religion, since it is a religion.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think religion is based on the strength and sincerity of belief, but on a desire to live/act in accordance with whatever degree of belief one holds. Religions are about the process of expressing one's belief. Not necessarily the intensity of that belief.

What kind of belief? Does my belief that Star Trek is better than Star Wars count as such a belief?

These can be developed and expressed individually, and for some atheists, they are. I have seen atheists run from website to website, and thread to thread, spreading their atheist ideology by any means possible, just like the most ardent "god-believer". They tout and express their dogma, ritual, sacred ideals and texts just as surely as any ardent follower of religion.

Apart from "I find insufficient evidence to conclude that God exists," what is there that can be called the atheist ideology, dogma or ideal?

And what atheist rituals and texts are there?

Having common sense and an ability to reason, logically, I don't need any external sources to tell me that touting what one does NOT believe as an assertion that they are loudly and determinedly NOT making is disingenuous nonsense.

Argument from incredulity.

Sounds to me like you are defining atheism the way you want so you can use it to prove the point you want to prove. So strawman as well.

It is twice irrelevant to assert what one does not believe and is not willing to assert publicly. I would expect one to be embarrassed to be making such statements. And yet there they are, atheist after atheist, proclaiming their irrelevance to all the world with religious abandon.

Wow, you really don't get it.

If we lived in a world where lots of people believed that little fairies lived in your shoes, and you had to wear the right colour socks and put your shoes on in a certain way so as to avoid insulting the fairies, you would start speaking up about how there is no evidence for the fairies and how forcing people to live according to the fairy believer's rules was silly.

Replace fairies in shoes with God and you've got atheists.

 

[lukethethird]

There are atheist creeds, atheist churches, atheist scholarships, atheist conventions, atheist groups, etc.
Atheist groups have pecking order structure as presidents, vice-presidents, directors, field organizers, program directors and assistance's, etc.

That doesn't make them a religion but some see them as a religion based on those things as well as others.

Edit.
IMO, if the Bible that speaks/teaches of God didn't exist, there would be no atheist or christians. We would be just people.

I just want to know the atheists' secret hand shake so I could hang with them.

 

[MJFlores]

I have no doubt you believe in noahs ark.

That you actually value that which is
real, or true? Obviously not.

I actually value, it is real and true.

After 2014, science provided the evidence to support the Bible verses:

Genesis 1:6-8 New International Version (NIV)

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water

Genesis 7:17-19 New International Version (NIV)
For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans

The deep Earth holds about the same amount of water as our oceans. That’s the conclusion from experiments on rocks typical of those in the mantle transition zone, a global buffer layer 410 to 660 kilometres beneath us that separates the upper from the lower mantle.

“If our estimation is correct, it means there’s a large amount of water in the deep Earth,” says Hongzhan Fei at the University of Bayreuth in Germany. “The total amount of water in the deep Earth is nearly the same as the mass of all the world’s ocean water.”

The results add to mounting evidence that there is much more water than expected beneath us, mostly locked up within the crystals of minerals as ions rather than liquid water. [continued below]

Genesis 8:2-5 New International Version (NIV)
Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

the springs of the deep
[as continued...]

At least one team has previously discovered water-rich rock fragments in volcanic debris originating from the mantle. Another group has conducted experiments suggesting that the water at these depths was formed here on Earth rather than being delivered to the primordial planet by comets and asteroids.

“The vast amount of water locked inside rocks of this deep region of the mantle will certainly force us to think harder about how it ever got there, or perhaps how it could have always been there since solidification of the mantle,” says Steven Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Illinois, who wasn’t connected with the new research. “It’s a key question about the evolution of the Earth, which extends to extrasolar planets as well.”

the floodgates of the heavens
At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water, in the invisible vapor phase. This is enough water to cover the entire surface of the Earth (land and ocean) with one inch of rain.

2014 AD Science compliments the 1200 BC verses of the Bible