Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[Willamena]

If the truth changes then it was never the truth to begin unless, that truth is not an absolute truth. For example, the earth is round (absolute truth), that always has been, always will be true no matter what we know or believe. The only way the truth changes if its something like a person's age or health for exmaple. There's a difference.

The truth isn't encapsulated in words. Descriptions change, theories change, the order of words change, the amount of information changes, and they have no impact on the truth. Nothing we can say in words will ever be the truth--that's why, in a court in law, we have to swear to tell the truth to the best of our ability. On the other hand, our words have a unique ability to reveal the truth. We invented something pretty spiff, something that, if used well, can unerringly point.

 

[Polymath257]

Is that meaning true? Should people stop?

Huh? Well, the law says that they should stop. The question of whether the meaning is true or not just seems nonsensical to me. Either that is the meaning (as given by convention) or not.

Fair enough.

I’m not sure. It was like a process of coming to that position. Probably due to a few things, such as the rampant absolutism of fundies, and my philosophy that differences matter, coupled with my approach that all should be honored and treated as equal.

Interesting. While a very similar background lead me to make a clear distinction between truth and falsity with the 'fundies' being on the 'falsity' side. I agree that differences matter, and that is one reason I want to keep the difference between truth and myth distinct.

Where I disagree is that all should be honored. I've seen too much pain and suffering caused by superstition (and fundamentalism) to think it deserves to be honored. In fact, I intend to fight it whenever I see it.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it was your insistence that I must be imagining things, rather than assuming that I’m being honest with you, that I’m an astute individual, whose feet are firmly in reality, and one who is fully cognizant of my own interior life. Instead of going, “Oh! He’s had some significant experiences, this might be worth listening to,” you decided to just blow me off as “imagining things.” Pardon me, but I don’t think that’s being “over sensitive.” That’s calling a spade a spade.

But you also seem to think that those who do not believe haven't had similar experiences, but simply don't think they reflect reality. I think that experience is the first step, but very far from the last step, in determining truth.

I do not deny that people have 'religious' experiences. I have had some myself. What I deny is that the religious interpretation is the correct one. That such experiences really do reflect the truth, as opposed to deeply felt opinions.

 

[Willamena]

The wind is blowing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God".

I don't. I assume the definition of the god believer I am talking to.
I don't have a definition for "god". I have no need to define things I don't even believe in.

Theists are the ones who claim that some god exists. Upto them to define them.
And as you probably know, if you ask 10 random theists to define the god they believe in, chances are rather big that you'll get 10 different definitions.

So when I say that there is no evidence for the existance of God, what I really mean is "all the god beliefs / definitions that theists have presented to me, had no objective evidence in support of them"

And I dare say that this will be the case for the majority of atheists.

For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

All falsifiable objects anyway.
Non-existing and unfalsifiable things, tend to not have such properties, that is true.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent.

Aka: unfalsifiable and as a result, indistinguishable from non-existing things.

However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist.

I'ld rather say that there is a presupposition to what it means to exist and how it can be known if a thing exists, full stop.

It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

As clarified above: that is not the case.
I don't define gods. Theists define gods. I just respond to those definitions.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God.

Yes, from the perspective of a believer, I can understand how you see that as a "problem".
The alternative though, seems to be special pleading.

I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined.

Please....
Theists themselves don't even agree on a god definition.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

If it can't be objective experienced / detected one way or the other, then there is no reason to believe it is real.

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional.

Strange. It doesn't seem so "delusional" that my pc boots when I press the power button.
My computer is the result of millions upon millions of measurements, predictions, scientific research etc etc etc.

If all those things are apparantly "delusional", then why do nukes explode? Why do planes fly? Why do cars drive? How come you can read this very post?

The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects.

I dare you to put that to the test. Take a baseball bat and smack yourself upside the head. Then repeat that "in reality, there are no objects".

In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance.

Particles aren't material?
ps: energy is material to. It's physical.

But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed.

That is simply incorrect and a common misunderstanding of what is actually going on.
Also, even ignoring this mistake, keep in mind that quantum effects only apply at the quantum level, not the macro level. The moon is there, even when nobody is watching. Neither will the moon pop in and out of existance like virtual particles do.

The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

No.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale.

No. We just don't make stuff up or "reinterpret" this evidence while wearing theistic goggles with a priori beliefs about "supernatural minds".

Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism.

False again.
I'm not a materialist. At least not in the sense that I have an a priori belief that the material is all that exists.

I'ld agree that at this point in time we ONLY have evidence of the material. It is the only thing we can currently show / demonstrate to exist.

If tomorrow someone comes up with objective evidence showing that "other stuff" exists as well, I'ld have absolutely no problem accepting that. I'ld actually be quite excited about that - it's bound to be very interesting!

If I were to have a dogmatic stance on materialism, then nothing would be able to convince me otherwise and I'ld hold on to that position in spite of evidence to the contrary.

And the fact is, that it's not even a belief that I hold right now - in a world were NO evidence of anything other then the material exists.

To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo.

It's not taboo. It's just wrong. It's not true.

It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system

Atheism is not a belief system and it's kind of strange that you say that it is, considering you literally opened your post by defining atheism as NOT being a belief system..............................

So where did you make a mistake? In your opening sentence where you defined atheism or in this part, where you called it a belief system which is in direct contradiction of your definition?

Remember what your definition stated: atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system

Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue

Because there is no issue. There is only your strawman, your incorrect charactarisation of what atheists believe or don't believe.

The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

I don't need to deny anything here, really.
All I need to do is point out how you are strawmanning my atheism and worldview.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

T
Here's my question to you: If you think God doesn't exist, why are you attempting to debate what doesn't exist?

Because those who do think god exists feel the need to legislate their religious beliefs, which directly affects the rest of us.

Unless, that is, you have an axe to grind

I most certainly do.
When religious arguments/beliefs form the sole basis and motivation to underpin laws in a secular country, I very much have axes to grind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's the twist in logic, though. We don't need to define God in order to believe in God.

That is certainly a twist in logic..................................

To believe in undefined things.... very strange.

So, do you believe in "gooblydockydododu"?
What is it, you ask? Why? I thought you didn't need to have things defined in order to believe them?

You can't quantify faith, life, beauty, wisdom, attraction, love, courage, loyalty, wholeness, worth, self-esteem, hospitality, generosity, mercy, kindness, forbearance, forgiveness, evil, good, hunger, pain, etc.

All these things are either abstract notions that only exist in the minds of humans or they are emotions or demonstrable physical traits.

None of these are even remotely comparable to supernatural entities.

These are all fluid concepts

Which are all well-defined, detectable and demonstrable.
Unlike your god.

You can't put a number, or even a precise definition on any of them that someone else can't disqualify, yet they seem to exist, and everyone seems to place value upon them. Why must God any different?

So here we see the result of your false premise....
Things don't need to be measurable to 21 decimal places in order to be demonstrably real.

Also, all those words in your list: ALL of them have pretty exact definitions. Definitions so exact, that one can independently detect every single one of them when they occur.

Gods, again, are nothing like that

Tell ya what: when you can give me a clear and concise quantification of your love for your spouse, or a clear and concise quantification of how beautiful any sunset is, then we'll talk.

You can't quantify subjective feelings and opinions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First off, I don’t know that such creatures don’t exist. And their non-existence doesn’t take up much of my cognitive exercise or emotional wherewithal. Second, If certain people were doing that, I’d simply say that they had no right — just like I tell fundies that they have no right to label homosexuals as sinful. But I don’t have to spend time dismissing the pixie concept, just as I don’t “disbelieve” God because of the fundies.

And just telling them that they have no right, doesn't work.
Their response is that not only do they have the right, they have a divine duty.

 

[sojourner]

Huh? Well, the law says that they should stop

Then I guess it’s true that people should stop. The point is that the symbol is a true representation of what it symbolizes.

I agree that differences matter, and that is one reason I want to keep the difference between truth and myth distinct

Your concept of “myth” is incorrect. In the literary sense (which is the sense in which I and the theological community use the term), “myth” is a metaphorical story that is symbolic of the human condition. In the Bible (and other sources), God is often presented as having very human traits. In this sense, God is a mythic representation (or larger than life representation) of humanity — with all its warts and possibilities. Perhaps that’s partly what God is — a reflection of ourselves, and what we hope to be — and what we hope our world to be.

Where I disagree is that all should be honored. I've seen too much pain and suffering caused by superstition (and fundamentalism) to think it deserves to be honored

We honor the suffering by addressing it. We honor the evil acts by calling them out. We honor the people by seeking and serving Christ in everyone we meet — no matter who they are, accurately reflecting their warts and encouraging them to be better people.

 

[sojourner]

But you also seem to think that those who do not believe haven't had similar experiences, but simply don't think they reflect reality. I think that experience is the first step, but very far from the last step, in determining truth

That’s not right. I don’t speculate as to others’ experiences. I do think that reality can be viewed from any number of different positions. I choose to see reality from a theological perspective. And that perspective is just as real as any other perspective.

Yes, we do all have to parse out our experiences to see how they relate to reality, and to see whether they resonate with that reality.

I do not deny that people have 'religious' experiences. I have had some myself. What I deny is that the religious interpretation is the correct one. That such experiences really do reflect the truth, as opposed to deeply felt opinions

What I deny is that there is some “correct” interpretation. So long as the person having the experience can relate that experience to how they perceive reality, the way in which they choose to relate it is valid.

 

[sojourner]

Because those who do think god exists feel the need to legislate their religious beliefs, which directly affects the rest of us.

So your position is reactionary. I, and others I know, very much do not need to legislate our beliefs (except when it comes to equal treatment of all people, such as with the LGBTQ community, women’s bodies, etc.).

I most certainly do.
When religious arguments/beliefs form the sole basis and motivation to underpin laws in a secular country, I very much have axes to grind

I grind those same axes. But I don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Polymath257]

Then I guess it’s true that people should stop. The point is that the symbol is a true representation of what it symbolizes.

The question of 'should' goes beyond 'truth' to questions of morals and legalities. The symbol is a means of communication for the societal intent. it isn't 'true' or 'false' except in whether it correctly communicates that intent or not (which is a very different sense of 'true').

Your concept of “myth” is incorrect. In the literary sense (which is the sense in which I and the theological community use the term), “myth” is a metaphorical story that is symbolic of the human condition. In the Bible (and other sources), God is often presented as having very human traits. In this sense, God is a mythic representation (or larger than life representation) of humanity — with all its warts and possibilities. Perhaps that’s partly what God is — a reflection of ourselves, and what we hope to be — and what we hope our world to be.

OK, so 'God' is a literary device, a metaphor, a myth.

That is *precisely* what I mean when I say that God does not exist.

We honor the suffering by addressing it. We honor the evil acts by calling them out. We honor the people by seeking and serving Christ in everyone we meet — no matter who they are, accurately reflecting their warts and encouraging them to be better people.

OK, another different use of the terminology. I don't honor suffering; I condemn it and try to address it. I don't honor evil. I condemn it and try to prevent it. I don't honor ignorance. I condemn it and try to inform others.

 

[Polymath257]

What I deny is that there is some “correct” interpretation. So long as the person having the experience can relate that experience to how they perceive reality, the way in which they choose to relate it is valid.

And that is another place where I disagree. Some interpretations are consistent with reality and others are not. Those that are not, while perhaps 'meaningful', are not 'true'.

Another aspect of this is that I believe that there is a circuit or some structure in the brain that is activated (or, perhaps suppressed) when we find something 'meaningful'. if that circuit is activated (or suppressed) in inappropriate circumstances, we will find something to be 'meaningful' even if it is trivial or wrong. We may or may not figure this out until later.

Religious experiences, as far as i can determine, happen, in part, when that circuit is activated (or suppressed). We then feel 'meaning', whether or not it corresponds to the reality at the time.

 

[Polymath257]

I grind those same axes. But I don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

But what if I see religion as the dirt that made the bathwater dirty?

 

[Earthtank]

Nothing we can say in words will ever be the truth

I agree with what you said before this but, disagree with everything after this because, for example, what if i said the earth is round, is that not the truth? I have a mom and a dad, is that not the truth? Those are 2 examples of absolute truths that prove your statement wrong.

 

[sojourner]

None of these are even remotely comparable to supernatural entities.

When did I ever say that God was supernatural — or an “entity?”

That is certainly a twist in logic..................................

To believe in undefined things.... very strange.

So, do you believe in "gooblydockydododu"?
What is it, you ask? Why? I thought you didn't need to have things defined in order to believe them?

Sometimes I experience emotions that I can’t quite pin down. Can’t define them, yet I experience them and know they’re real.

All these things are either abstract notions that only exist in the minds of humans or they are emotions or demonstrable physical traits.

But they’re real, yes?

Which are all well-defined, detectable and demonstrable.
Unlike your god

But still fluid — like God.

So here we see the result of your false premise....
Things don't need to be measurable to 21 decimal places in order to be demonstrably real

Fine. Then demonstrate beauty.

You can't quantify subjective feelings and opinions

How do we know, then, that they exist? Do you love your spouse? Am I just supposed to take your word for it? Do you think the sunset is beautiful? Am I just supposed to take your word for it?

I’ve had an experience of God. You’re just supposed to take my word for it.

 

[Earthtank]

I don’t think truth is absolute. I think some facts are absolute. Also, the fact is that the earth is not “round.” It’s elliptical.

Not all truths are absolute, some are, some are not. For example, I (and you) have a mom and a dad, that is an absolute truth that will never change under any circumstance.

 

[sojourner]

And just telling them that they have no right, doesn't work.
Their response is that not only do they have the right, they have a divine duty.

Neither does overreaction work.

 

[sojourner]

(which is a very different sense of 'true').

So “truth,” which you insist is completely synonymous with “fact” suddenly presents as a “different sense?” So are there “different facts” too?

OK, so 'God' is a literary device, a metaphor, a myth.

That is *precisely* what I mean when I say that God does not exist

That’s not what I said. I said that the theological community uses the myth in that sense. We speak of God in metaphor and in mythic terms. That doesn’t mean that God is only the metaphor. It means that’s how we talk about God.

 

[sojourner]

And that is another place where I disagree. Some interpretations are consistent with reality and others are not. Those that are not, while perhaps 'meaningful', are not 'true'.

That’s what I said.

Religious experiences, as far as i can determine, happen, in part, when that circuit is activated (or suppressed). We then feel 'meaning', whether or not it corresponds to the reality at the time.

As far as you can determine. So, would you say that that’s true for you?