The Folly of Atheism

If a natural process requires a creator, then what created the creator? Unless you're going to resort to special pleading.

My point exactly.

So what properties would you associate with a "creator entity"?

When it comes to the universe itself, there is no reason to guess that "creation" happened, period.

Only one person knows what I KNOW, and that is me.

 

But he does know with absolute certainty that there is more evidence that no god exists than there is logic to prove that a god does exist. That is inarguable since there is no evidence that god exists while given the normal attributes belivers ascribe to god no proof has ever been provided.

 

I think the problem here is we don't share a common definition for "knowledge" or "belief".

 

Order and laws aren't accidental or magically appear by chance.

 

Because it's so obviously an emotionally driven delusion.

The question is uselessly vague. America is filled with nominal Christians who are convinced that their kinda crazy is holy whereas other nominal Christians' crazy makes them cult members.

Then assuming you believe adults shouldn't be buggering children, I can hardly wait to see evidence for that proposition.

I see no mention of scripture in Psalm 1 (KJV).

So you don't know for certain that it's wrong to kill a man just to watch him die. Right?

To whom or what?

Actually justification as a mental exercise would be utterly useless, since might would make right.

 

I didn't say they were, did I?

 

Accontable to ourselves and each other.

I'm not talking about justification as a mental exercise, I'm talking about publicly stated justification -foreign policy, if you like.

"Since might would make right". It already does, doesn’t it? But divine sanction helps, particularly for ordinary every day common or garden variety bigotry.

 

Sure, just like Stalin was accountable to himself.

So why would the others we're accountable to care a straw for our best interests, and why would they not use our accountability for their own ends?

So how the hell does it get to being publicly stated without being the end result of a mental exercise?

In people who think like you, that would certainly compute.

Sure it does, in the minds of those who have a perverse idea of what that means.

 

I did.

 

That's how I feel about religion in general. Are we discussing degrees of delusion? My only point was I am nowhere on that spectrum of emotions. Not at the extreme Charismatic end, not at the mild still small voice end.

Agreed. I'm just curious what criteria you use to label some crazy and others not crazy. There is a spectrum for sure but what's the rating system you use?

"The law" is the first five books of what we now call the Old Testament.
https://bible.org/seriespage/3-law-first-five-books

Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 1
[/QUOTE]

Well it would definitely be wrong for me. I would like to say it's wrong for everyone but they have capital punishment in Texas and I'm pretty sure families of murder victims can watch that and probably feel like it's a good idea (maybe that's only in movies but
I don't feel like looking it up). I know the bible recommended throwing rocks at people until they die.

I'm more of a social contract type guy when it comes to morality. People killing each other tends to cause social disorder.

Even if this is a simulation I can still count on taxes, death, math being pretty reliable etc. When I say "it's the only thing I know for certain," I mean the only thing I know for certain about the true nature of reality.

People still justify bad behaviour. It's a normal feature of tribalism to dehumanize the other tribe so that it's easier to beat them down.

 

No.

Those two are not on the same spectrum.

Actually I don't think that's a certainty at all.

What would I need that for?

And you know that's the definition employed by the author how, exactly?

Please, we don't execute murderers just to watch them die.

So what makes you think the injustice of killing a man just to watch him die isn't part of the true nature of reality?

Your point being...?

 

America stands for moving away from "might makes right" toward "rule of law".

I'm not arguing that we completed that trip - but, we do emphasize that point as an important principle.

 

OK, we're at an impasse

 

We of the West all claim we do, but it's honoured more in the breach than the observance. We'll have two countries do exactly the same thing, like Russia and Indonesia, and we'll say the one we like upheld the law and the one we don't didn’t. And then there's the international law and processes we circumvent (think veto) and the rulings against us we ignore outright. Our selective vision when it comes to human rights abuses. We're pretty frightful, we of the West, and pretty dishonest, too.

 

All true.

But, we do push for the rule of law, including internationally.

It's not an easy objective when we are the most powerful nation AND totally convinced of our own total rightness.

 

No. You say you do. As does every other Western government. Actions speak louder than words.
And money speaks loudest of all. Sucks, doesn’t t?

 

Yes.

And, it's especially hard, as we do have legitimate objectives in terms of trade and economy. For example, keeping a free market in oil is a world wide issue of significant importance.

So, there is ample opportunity for those with influence to screw up our policy in favor of their own wealth. That is, it's hard to draw a bright line between what is legit and what it is that we must prevent as proponents of the rule of law.


I'm not saying we walk the walk. But, I do think that as a whole we recognize the rule of law as an important principle.

"Confessions of an Economic Hitman" documents outstanding examples of the problem. However, we at least see it as wrong.

 

Ok. Well again I consider all people who subscribe to religion to be deluded so I'm giving you a chance to convince me otherwise.

I put them on the same spectrum for the purpose of the point which I was making which us that I have observed how Christian's behave and had them tell me how they feel and I don't feel any of it. I'm not sure why that's a point of contention for you,.

Ok, you seemed to because you said something about Charismatic Christians seeming like cult members compared to others. You used the term nominal Christians which suggests that you consider some Christians to only have the name while some other Christians are genuine. Help me to understand where you're coming from. Or don't. It's up to you.

Again, you just seem to be categorizing Christians using some criteria I'm not aware of. I'm just trying to understand you.

Well I've engaged in a bit of bible study a few years back (more than a few really) so I remember a few things. I supplied you a link so you could look into it yourself if it's a new concept for you. It's not That controversial as far as I know.

It's not something I really relate to because I couldn't do that for any reason. I advocate capital punishment only in extreme cases and I would totally back out if I had to be there. Why are there observation rooms for people to watch capital punishment take place?

It's not part of the reality I have experienced but I suppose it could be part of someone else's. I believe that empathy is the basis of morality and that is important to me so I wouldn't know. I couldn't do that. I don't relate.

You had claimed justification of bad behaviour or violence or whatever is useless. I would argue that it's a feature of tribalism that enables people to do terrible things they might not do otherwise.

 

I am unable to upoad a jpeg of it but perhaps this would help?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-your...rt-of-agnosticism-atheism-and-theism-is-wrong

 

'Somemostmanyism' is not just the preserve of usfan. It is also a Folly of Agnosticism.

 

The Folly of Agnosticism is that it matters not a jot if you explain your ACTUAL position; the devout agnostic fundamentalist defines language only as it sees fit, equivocates with words in contexts and appears to believe that the etymology of words is justification for telling you what some, many, most atheists believe or don't believe. Fundamentalism makes apparently intelligent people turn cartwheels with their intellect in order to justify their dogmatic position.

 

It's the preserve of anyone who wants to push their opinion on others without facts or evidence to support it, I fear. And we all do it. It's one of those things you really have to police yourself for.

 

Not sure why you've picked me to discuss agnosticism with. I'm an atheist.

Ah! I just read between the lines and "devout fundamentalist agnostic" clicked. "Devout fundamentalist" Yup.

 

Exactly, which is why we should try to establish what someone's actual position is not try to tell them what it is or try to misrepresent it by hand waving and simply saying, 'well, it's what some/many/most of you people believe'. I couldn't agree more with you on this point and yes it is difficult not to do it but, when you persistently point out to someone that they are doing it and they continue to do it anyway, that would be a folly and would indicate a Nordic mythical beast was in the corner of the room.

 

Nordic mythical beast! Love it!