Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[sojourner]

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

Then don’t buy into it. But you don’t get to ruin it for the rest of us. Otherwise, you’re no better than the fundies who try to ruin it for you.

 

[sojourner]

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.

No, that is a fact. The truth is the way in which we integrate that fact into our experience.

 

[Earthtank]

No, that is a fact. The truth is the way in which we integrate that fact into our experience.

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006 - Annoying for sure and that's the truth lol. You can wordplay and dance around using the word truth all you want, it wont change the absolute truth. Somehow at this stage i feel like you are just trolling

 

[Polymath257]

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


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.

OK, so, using your terminology, is the existence of God a fact, or is it a metaphor?

 

[Polymath257]

No, that is a fact. The truth is the way in which we integrate that fact into our experience.

OK, I see that as a very non-standard usage for the word 'truth'.

So, is the existence of God a fact or a 'truth'?

 

[Polymath257]

That’s what I said.

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

No, I would say it is my opinion. I don't use the construct 'true for me' because 'true', as I use it, *means* to be independent of the observer.

 

[Willamena]

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.

That you have a mom and dad is true regardless of the words used to convey the idea to others. The truth isn't in the words, we just use words to point to it.

We can point absolutely, and we can point relatively, depending on how we pose the words. We can point objectively, and we can point subjectively. Truth doesn't reside in the words we use, it is wholly apart of them.

That said, we often conflate the words with the truth, for utility and convenience.

 

[sojourner]

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006 - Annoying for sure and that's the truth lol. You can wordplay and dance around using the word truth all you want, it wont change the absolute truth. Somehow at this stage i feel like you are just trolling

Your conservative is coming out. Thanks for dismissing me. Your “respect” is duly noted.

 

[sojourner]

OK, so, using your terminology, is the existence of God a fact, or is it a metaphor?

Depends what you mean by “existence.” I don’t believe in some supernatural “sky daddy” in a white robe. I don’t believe in God as an existent being in that way. I believe in God as existence, itself, as the creative principle, as love, itself. If you think those things exist, then fine. Does existence exist, or is it a metaphor?

For me, that’s God. Might not be how everyone else sees God, but that’s not my problem. I choose to see the world in theological terms; there’s nothing “wrong” or “fantasy” about that.

I think that existence, love, creation and creativity (and other things) are existent. I think there is energy that drives those things, and that’s what I call “spirit.” I talk about those things in theological (that is, metaphorical) terms, because that’s what people are used to, and that’s really the only language we have for theology.

 

[sojourner]

OK, I see that as a very non-standard usage for the word 'truth'.

So, is the existence of God a fact or a 'truth'?

God is truth — just like God is existence.

 

[sojourner]

No, I would say it is my opinion. I don't use the construct 'true for me' because 'true', as I use it, *means* to be independent of the observer.

That’s a strange concept of truth to me.

 

[Polymath257]

God is truth — just like God is existence.

So existence and truth are the same?

 

[sojourner]

So existence and truth are the same?

I didn’t say that. Truth exists. Existence is true. I tend to couch those things in theological terms.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn’t say that. Truth exists. Existence is true. I tend to couch those things in theological terms.

For me, truth is the collection of facts about things that exist. I'm not sure in what sense that collection 'exists' or is simply a linguistic ploy. Existence is not a noun. The closest thing I could get to 'existence' is 'the collection of things that exist'. Again, I am not sure in what sense that collection can be said to exist or whether it is simply a linguistic trick we use.

What is meaningful, on the other hand, is a value judgement. It isn't a question of fact, but one of opinion. Hence, as far as I can see, meaning doesn't even have a truth value. It is neither true nor false. I either feel something to be meaningful or I do not. And some truths are irrelevant while some falsehoods may seem meaningful. It can be a truth or falsity that 'I think such and such is meaningful', but that isn't about the thing alone, but of both me and that thing.

I can flirt with identifying God with 'existence', but to me that seems like a distortion of language. God is 'supposed' to have a personality, and motivations, giving purpose, etc. And existence, in and of itself, simply lacks those qualities as far as I can see.

Instead, I see *us* as what gives meaning to the universe. We are the thinking beings that care. So we are the ones that determine our values and thereby what is and is not meaningful. There is nothing inherent in the universe that makes anything meaningful. Only our valuation of it does.

BTW, you have said a few times that you tend to see things in 'theological terms'. I'm not even sure what that could mean if the term God is undefined.

 

[Polymath257]

Depends what you mean by “existence.” I don’t believe in some supernatural “sky daddy” in a white robe. I don’t believe in God as an existent being in that way. I believe in God as existence, itself, as the creative principle, as love, itself. If you think those things exist, then fine. Does existence exist, or is it a metaphor?

I see 'existence' as not a 'creative principle' since creative means to bring something into existence. I see love as a human emotion and a very different sort of thing that either of the other two.

Does existence itself exist? I would tend to say not, that it is a linguistic device for talking about things that exist. A sort of collective noun, but in a way that proper classes don't exist in set theory, existence itself can't be said to exist.

For me, that’s God. Might not be how everyone else sees God, but that’s not my problem. I choose to see the world in theological terms; there’s nothing “wrong” or “fantasy” about that.

Hmmm.....so does 'God' then have a personality? Does 'God' actually create?

I think that existence, love, creation and creativity (and other things) are existent. I think there is energy that drives those things, and that’s what I call “spirit.” I talk about those things in theological (that is, metaphorical) terms, because that’s what people are used to, and that’s really the only language we have for theology.

So theological=metaphorical?

I don't see love as being something cosmic, in the way I see 'existence' or 'truth'. It is an emotion, like all other emotions. It doesn't exist outside of out minds, unlike 'truth' and 'existence'. Creation is a word I don't use since I don't see the universe as having been create. Creativity is a property of some thinking beings. To group all of those together seems to be very, very strange to me. Sort of like trying to group oil and a sofa and the number 3.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So your position is reactionary.

Obviously.... Atheism is a response to a theistic claim. It's not a claim by itself.
Someone needs to claim that a god exists, before I can reject said claim.

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.).

Great.
Many others do not share your sentiment, as I'm sure you are aware.

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

Yeah well, I think this particular "baby", isn't worth keeping either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You didn't, that's correct. I just assumed that you would adhere to the christian notion of a god, since you label yourself christian. On the other hand, you also label yourself "shamanic" and I have no clue what that is.

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

If you say so. Somehow, you do seem to know they are emotions.
Emotions are pretty real.

But they’re real, yes?

Sure. And nothing like a god.

But still fluid — like God.

That doesn't make god real.

Fine. Then demonstrate beauty.

Beauty is an opinion. Not some objective thing that exists independently of minds capable of forming opinions.
Does it really need demonstrating that humans are capable of forming opinions and expressing them?

How do we know, then, that they exist?

I think that's a stupid question.
There, an opinion. Proof enough for you that opinions 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? ​

No. You could observe us as a couple and see how I treat her, how we communicate, how we live together, how I react to certain situations,... Then you'll be able to see if my behaviour is consistent with someone that loves her or not. In fact, doing so would make you capable of deducing for yourself if I love her or not. You wouldn't even need to ask me.

See when it comes to opinions, all you can do is either just accept that what I say is my opinion is actually my opinion, or you can accuse me of lying about it. Opinions are not a matter of "right" or "wrong". They are, at best, a matter of being honest by the person that expressed the opinion.

When I say "I think that's a beautifull song", I either really think that OR I really think it's horrible and am lying about it for whatever reason. But the song being beautifull is not a matter of objective truth. If my opinion is that it is beautifull, then that's what I think. If I think it's horrible, then that's what I think.

Neither is "wrong", or "right".

To demonstrate that I'm lying when expressing an opinion, you'ld have to point out behaviour or other things I express and show how they are in contradiction with the opinion that is under fire.

Perhaps I told other people that I think the song is horrible. Perhaps my face looked like I just took a bite from a rotten fish when listening to the song - which wouldn't be very consistent with the idea that I like the song...

In any case, short of accusations of lying... all you can do with opinions of people, is accept that those are the opinions of those people.
How any of this is relevant to the actual objective existence of things that exist independently of human minds, is a mystery to me.

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

That's not a mere opinion.
That's an interpretation of an experience you had, which includes claims about objective reality and things that supposedly exist independently of your mind.

You had an experience and your explanation for that experience is "god".
I don't doubt you had an experience.
I have no reason to accept your explanation of said experience.

Consider as an analogy, alien abductees.
I have no doubt that they had an experience.
Their explanation for this experience is "alien abduction". I very much doubt their explanation.
I'm guessing you do to...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then don’t buy into it. But you don’t get to ruin it for the rest of us. Otherwise, you’re no better than the fundies who try to ruin it for you.

Relax, all we are doing here is talking.
Nobody is suggesting to make religions illegal.

 

[sojourner]

God is 'supposed' to have a personality, and motivations, giving purpose, etc.

“Supposed?” Says who? What does “supposed to” even mean? There are many valid theological constructions. Just because the Bible presents God in anthropomorphic terms doesn’t mean that God is “supposed to” be anthropomorphic.

 

[Polymath257]

“Supposed?” Says who? What does “supposed to” even mean? There are many valid theological constructions. Just because the Bible presents God in anthropomorphic terms doesn’t mean that God is “supposed to” be anthropomorphic.

OK, so what is a good definition? What are some properties that 'Gods' are supposed to have to be called Gods?