Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[tayla]

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

I think the following statements are correct:
1) The various Christian conceptions of God contradict reality.
2) Any conceptions of God as: (1) GOOD, and as (2) the creator of the universe; these conceptions of God contradict reality. This, because conscious suffering is not GOOD.

 

[tayla]

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.

The reason there is no evidence for God is that there is no discernible interaction God has with the universe; there is no active ongoing communication between God and this universe.

The only way you can entertain the existence of God is if you define God as something like: the nature and operation of the universe; or, reality as it exists. But this is not what theists mean by God.

 

[tayla]

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

The whole point is that atheists don't think about God. (Except when refuting the views of theists. If there were no theists and no human history having gods, atheists would not think about God at all.)

 

[tayla]

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

It's true that reality contains the possibility for both consciousness and mind to manifest. This does not imply these are higher dimensional or spiritual.

For example, insisting that consciousness resides in a higher spiritual realm does not explain its nature at all. Now you have to explain the nature of this spiritual realm. At some point you have to accept the fact that reality, and consciousness, and mind; that these just are. Invoking God doesn't help if you must of necessity merely assume that God just is.

I think it's better to postulate that the thing in itself is what it is that just is, rather than adding layers above it.

 

[tayla]

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.

Material substance in its very nature consists of quantum fields resulting in the standard model. There is also time and space and energy. The human mind interprets all this as hard stuff.

But where is God in any of this?

 

[tayla]

And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed.

The quantum mechanics wave function collapse does not require a conscious observer; it was occurring long before there were humans watching with their instruments.

The location of an electron (for example) after wave function collapse is random. No one chooses where to place each election (for example). This would be micromanagement in the extreme for God to choose the results of each and every wave function collapse.

Do theists even claim that God micromanages down to the quantum mechanics level like this?

 

[tayla]

Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism.

There is no evidence for non-materialism. Also, materialism includes the manifestation of consciousness and mind.

 

[tayla]

So, falsify a telephone pole, it doesn´t exist, only unseen particles.

In that reality, You, another clump of particles, are completely unable to smell, touch, see, hear or
taste God.

You can see and touch a telephone pole. Yes, the telephone is an object formed in the mind from these sense perceptions, and it exists within the mind. But there are no sensory inputs for any conception of God.

Note: the mind and consciousness are aspects of the physical universe; they are not outside of the universe.

 

[j1i]

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."
"

The crime it was distortion of the truth of God
Pushed to bury the monuments of truth to the meaning of God
This incited people to be atheists
Imagine living in a society you hear that God 's avatar is shaped going and coming
Imagine you hear that the goddess of an object lives on the planet
The size of the vast universe has a maker
And this great maker, how God will come to earth to live and eat food and go to the bathroom

All of these things prompted others to fear of believing in something called God because he did not know the true God
This is his right to be afraid
But it does not make sense to deny the existence of a maker of the wholly universe

Success starts from that atheist at the very least believes that there are creative superpowers that created the universe
The true God

 

[Mock Turtle]

The crime it was distortion of the truth of God
Pushed to bury the monuments of truth to the meaning of God
This incited people to be atheists
Imagine living in a society you hear that God 's avatar is shaped going and coming
Imagine you hear that the goddess of an object lives on the planet
The size of the vast universe has a maker
And this great maker, how God will come to earth to live and eat food and go to the bathroom

All of these things prompted others to fear of believing in something called God because he did not know the true God
This is his right to be afraid
But it does not make sense to deny the existence of a maker of the wholly universe

Success starts from that atheist at the very least believes that there are creative superpowers that created the universe
The true God

I'm not sure that many modern day atheists are that interested in the past. Perhaps they look at the evidence that surrounds them now, have a degree of skepticism regarding old texts (which many of the religious seem to lack), and come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for any God or gods. We might still wonder at the immensity of the universe and our tiny place in it - which might also prop up their view somewhat. What, with God doing all this just for us humans.

 

[j1i]

I'm not sure that many modern day atheists are that interested in the past. Perhaps they look at the evidence that surrounds them now, have a degree of skepticism regarding old texts (which many of the religious seem to lack), and come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for any God or gods. We might still wonder at the immensity of the universe and our tiny place in it - which might also prop up their view somewhat. What, with God doing all this just for us humans.

Thanks for sharing this kindness from you
But as an atheist, it led me to believe that all universe came only by reason and Causer
There must be a creator of the vast universe we see with modern tools
This is my opinion and thank you for adding
It is true that the Scriptures do not open the appetite for atheists because they are difficult to believe
But at the very least, we think of a knowing maker
Just like the investigator, when he sees the footprint, it is certain that one passed from here
thanks for participating
I appreciate your effort

 

[Milton Platt]

The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

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

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. 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. 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.

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

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. The word "reality" is not reality. 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. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. 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. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

Well, atheism is by no means monolithic. But when one says there is no evidence they are in most cases saying that there is no convincing evidence. Meaning that the evidence is circumstantial and hearsay at best, and there is no way to test the claims, or objectively verify the god's existence.

Further, atheists should try to use the definition of "god" that is being used by the specific person they are conversing with. The problem that arises is that it sometimes seems there are almost as many versions of the christian god, for instance, as there are Christians.

I try to have the person claiming there is a god to define the god and work off of that. When online, that is very difficult if not impossible, because there are multiple people in the discussion, all with different concepts of god.

An added issue is that often the person will often state something like, " It is impossible to know what god is like", or "god is beyond human comprehension". That effectively places their god beyond any attempt to actually know it exists.

 

[Shad]

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

If something is being measured you have reduced God to the very thing you are objecting to.

 

[tayla]

We atheists cannot be expected to know everyone's personal definition of this fictional being.

Good point. The theist should provide a detailed definition of his/her conception of God. And I suppose that the theist should also provide evidence for the various attributes of his/her definition of God. Then, non-theists can object that these "proofs" are inadequate or require unjustified assumptions.

But atheists have no obligation to indulge theists in order to be able to consider themselves atheists.

 

[dfnj]

I think the following statements are correct:
1) The various Christian conceptions of God contradict reality.
2) Any conceptions of God as: (1) GOOD, and as (2) the creator of the universe; these conceptions of God contradict reality. This, because conscious suffering is not GOOD.

We have to consider the nature of our omnipotent God. God is perfect, whole, and complete. God lacks nothing, desires nothing, and needs nothing. Because God does not have any desires or needs, God is absolute perfection and Goodness. It is our needs and desires that are the source of all that is evil in the World.

Our Universe was not created by God out of some desire or need. The Universe was created out of an overflowing abundance of energy coming from and out of the wholeness and perfection that is God. Because the Universe, nature, and human beings are not whole, complete, and perfect like God, we were created with imperfections. It is these imperfections that are the source of all that is evil the World because our imperfections are the source of all our needs and desires. Since God is perfect having no needs and desires then there is no contradiction at all as you are stating.

From this Wiki page:

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

I really like this idea of God being both knowable and unknowable at the same time:

"Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only.[web 2]"

This is what I meant by my post you responded to is that most atheists do not have this complex idea of God which includes the idea "at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent". Most atheists use the most elementary definition of God taught to little children in Sunday school.

 

[dfnj]

If something is being measured you have reduced God to the very thing you are objecting to.

I was talking about the IT that decides something is being observed in a double slit type experiment in quantum mechanics. I have not reduced God at all but have affirmed His existence.

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”

“A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself.” Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge

 

[dfnj]

All religion should shut the **** up and die off already. anyone who believes in God are uneducated. Low IQ in general. Get mad simpletons.

You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character.

But please educated me on the proper way to believe in God? Thanks in advance.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

That's woo woo, and you wonder why there are atheists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There must be a creator of the vast universe we see with modern tools

Why? Why "must" that be the case?

Just like the investigator, when he sees the footprint, it is certain that one passed from here

Only beacuse we know what footprints are.
What do you think is "the footprint" that points to the god you happen to believe in, very likely by mere geographic accident?

 

[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 concept(s) of god(s) that are being presented to me, be it the muslim god, the christian god, the hindu gods, or what-have-you.

It's not my job to define the god you happen to believe in.
My atheism is a RESPONSE to god claims. Not a claim by itself.

Some guy makes a claim that his god exists and it is upto that guy to
1. define that god
and
2. meet his burden of proof.

I'm an atheist because theists seem unable to meet their burden of proof. Worse even.... just about every definition of god I have ever been presented with, defined god in unfalsifiable ways. Which means that positive evidence in favor of that claim can't even exist by defintion.

Unfalsifiable assertions can't have any evidence. Such assertions also can't be distinguished from false assertions. Meaning that there is no rational justification to believe them. Unfalsifiable assertions are potentially infinite in number.

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.

It's not my problem that you define your god as a being that can't be distinguished from non-existant things.

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.

And unfalsifiable. And thus, indistinguishable from non-existant things.

As the infamous saying goes: "the non-existant and the undetectable, look very much alike"

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.

Again, atheists dont define "god", nore are they the ones that come up with the concepts.
It's theists that do that. An atheist's atheism is a response to theistic claims.

I don't wake up one morning telling myself that I'm not going to believe in "goblybockoduck". Someone needs to first claim that a "goblybockoduck" exists and explain what (s)he means by it, BEFORE I can disbelieve said claim.

To disbelieve a claim is by definition reactionary to someone making said claim.

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. The word "reality" is not reality. 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. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

This is just woo mixed with some sciency-sounding words and some personal beliefs sauce on top.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence

What evidence?
Your personal opinions and beliefs aren't evidence.

and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale.

I have no problems or issues with any scientific measurements in quantum physics. I only have problems with your personal beliefs about those measurements.

Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism.

No.

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

No. It's rather completely "woo".
It's just a claim. A very loaded claim at that, based on your a priori religious beliefs.
The claim is unjustified and just bare assertion.

It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism

That's neither a religion, nore an atheist tenant.
You're just arguing a strawman.

Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue.

There's nothing to admit.
You're just wrong.
What else do you want me to say....

You're strawmanning my actual position.

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

Your arrogance is astounding.