The Folly of Atheism

The plus side of this is that it kept people from eating raw clams. A person can say "Don't eat those clams, you may get sick." But, many people will still eat the clams. When a GOD FORBIDS eating clams, a lot less people are going to eat clams and get sick.

The down side...
A ruler can say "We must go to battle to preserve our way of life", and many will join.
A ruler can say "It is GOD'S WILL that we go to battle to preserve HIS MAGNIFICENCE, and all the faithful will join.

Nebulous terms are good for a religion. Vagueness is good for religions.
God is Eternal
God is Outside of Time
God is in our very Soul

You cannot disprove that.
Reference back to your Zeus comment.

 

You brought up the 'any scientist' fallacy. And that argument is used ad nauseum in the discussion about the ToE, AGW, or other Fake Science claims.

So you believe. So you assert. But i hope you realize that posting some psychobabble 'studies' from anti-religionists does not constitute 'empirical evidence'. Would you like me to post all the claims of supernatural experience from people all over the world, throughout the history of man? Sure, you can dismiss it all as a 'psychological deception', or 'imaginary companion', but that is a pretty big assumption, without any proof. It is merely asserted as the 'reason' for belief in the supernatural, with no consideration given that it might be an actual experience with it. IOW, it is basing the conclusions on the assumption of 'no supernatural', which is circular reasoning.

I've already said there is nothing empirical for a belief in the supernatural.. and there is nothing empirical for the belief in naturalism, either. They are both beliefs about the origins of life, humanity, & the universe. And any dogmatic statements of BELIEF about the nature of the universe, without evidence, is by definition, 'equally dogmatic'.

All you have to do is post the evidence that life, the universe, & humanity came about by purely naturalistic methods, with no possibility of input from a supernatural entity, & you would have the 'empirical proof' that you crave. But without that, you merely have a belief. You are like other human beings, which seems to be the bigger problem with most atheists. They wish to see themselves as special, not like everyone else. But alas, they are not. They are human beings, too.

 

This is why there is no reasoning with you. You're terribly biased and dismiss information and sources you don't like entirely out-of-hand. You continue to seek to equate religious views with scientific views by attempting to mischaracterize, demean or outright ignore the science.

 

I think you might be wrong on this one, but only because we have a pretty big concept of the spacial and temporal universe.

Consider,

We have accounts by multiple people that Walt Disney created the concept, images, and stories of Mickey Mouse.
We have clear understanding of the various processes that made the animated films that include Mickey Mouse.
We know that the costumed characters in Disney on Ice shows, and in various theme parks, etc. are various human beings doing both choreographed and unscripted activities in many separate manufactured costumes.​

In short, all our known concepts of Mickey Mouse have traceable origins that clearly demonstrate that Mickey Mouse is a fictional character, unequivocally made up. As far as we know, Mickey Mouse does not exist as an independent entity.

However, In a place as huge and complex as modern scientists estimate the universe to be, it is possible that there is an animal that looks like the Disney creation, sounds like the Disney creation, does the same sorts of things as the Disney creation, and is named Mickey Mouse.

Obviously, the odds are astronomically against this, but there is nothing intrinsically impossible in a talking biped with big black ears, a tail, and the name Mickey Mouse. For the same reason you or I can wear gloves, short pants, and a bow tie, there is nothing to make it impossible for the posited Mickey Mouse to be dressed in the way familiar to us all.

Most critically, until we check everywhere in the universe, over the fullness of its history, we have no actual evidence that such a creature does not exist. All we can reasonably say is that the probability is greatly against the existence of a creature that coincidentally matches Walt Disney's creation so exactly.

 

I guess I'm full of dung.

On the other hand...
There is abundant evidence that all entities designated "god" are the result of man's imaginings.

Do you believe Zeus is a real god? Do you believe Thor is a real god? Do you believe Asgaya Gigagei is a real god?

Put another way, do you know that Zeus and Thor and Asgaya Gigagei are not real gods? Or do you leave open the possibility that one, or all, of them are real gods?

 

God is, "The Force" that binds all living things.
I knew that as a kid in the fifties. Pre ADHD diagnosis time, I knew nature, green, helped me sit still.

[video=youtube;c5v3Z856lzg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5v3Z856lzg[/video]
Give it to the 1 minute mark.​

Nothing nebulous about it unless you are expecting a gray bearded Jehovah as seen on Simpsons
or some elephant or jackal headed human statue or image.

When you have that psychic, wham-bang-pow experience, one is gnostic.

I did not volunteer. I was drafted!​

Moi

r > g

View attachment 47246
Murdered by the Police State
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Perhaps God created atheists for a purpose?
For example if everybody was meek and mild and spiritual and refused to fight, the Nazis and Japs would be ruling the world by now..
There's a parallel in LOTR because it's Gollum who saves Middle Earth, not Frodo or anybody else!
Remember how Frodo changes his mind about destroying the Ring and wants to keep it, but Gollum bites off his finger with the Ring on it and accidentally falls into the volcano, destroying both himself and the Ring?-

Return of the King Book VI ch 3
"Then Frodo stirred and spoke with a clear voice, indeed with a voice clearer and more powerful than Sam had ever heard him use....'I have come,' he said. 'But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!'...
Suddenly Sam saw Gollum's long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit. Frodo gave a cry, and there he was, fallen upon his knees at the chasm's edge. But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring...
'Precious, precious, precious!' Gollum cried...And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone....
'Yes,' said Frodo. 'But do you remember Gandalf's words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end. So let us forgive him! For the Quest is achieved, and now all is over.'

Another parallel, The Atheist Conservationist-

 

No comment.

Agreed. It still doesn't change what I said about "knowing". The word "know" is an absolute term. I am an atheist (traditional definition) because I absolutely, without a doubt don't believe any god exists. I also know that all gods are the product of man's imagination but I can't possibly know whether a god (or gods) actually exist or not for the same reason I can't possibly know if intelligent ETs exist or not (although I do strongly believe they do).

 

Consider a distant earth-like planet called blick where two species of hominids evolved.
One species is ten feet tall. All members are handsome, beautiful, highly intelligent and educated. Let's call this species geds.
The other species averages 5'8". The members are a generally average looking, of average intelligence and education. Let's call this species pipples.

The geds, although far fewer in number rule over the pipples. The pipples serve the geds in all ways. The pipples aspire to be like the geds but know they never can.

Two of the leaders of the geds are named Zeus and Aphrodite. On a lark, Zeus and Aphrodite decide to have a genetically modified child. The resulting ged looks like this...






Would you consider the geds of blick to be gods, or is it time to stop the meaningless "maybe, somehow, somewhere" search?

 

I'm reasoning with you. I have merely pointed out the 'unscientific' conclusions, assumptions, & biases of your 'scientific' study. I am NOT equating religious views with science. I am a BIG fan of science, & i hate to see it misused for a political or ideological agenda. IMO, that is what your 'studies' were doing. this is not 'science', but Fake Science, used to prop up some belief system with the illusion of authority.

So it is not me that is demeaning science, but those who try to equate THEIR philosophical beliefs as being 'settled science!'. This is a common theme in the forums, & one i have butted heads with a lot. I don't 'ignore' the science, but scrutinize the claims, like any skeptical, scientifically minded person. But if the claims are merely asserted, or if the conclusions are based on preconceived assumptions, i absolutely can 'dismiss them, out of hand'... and i do. It takes more than an .edu link to evidence a claim. There has to be empirical evidence, not just 'psychobabble', or 'technobabble' from ivory tower grantees.

I would also point out, that your 'rebuttal' here is not rational, or a reasoned response. You merely attack me, personally, in an ad hominem fallacy, impugning my motives or mental state. That is not your task, here, to analyze me or my motives. You only have my words & reasoning, which you can rebut, if you wish, or not. Any deflections or diversions are fallacies, with no bearing on the topic being discussed.

 

Please do not make it look like I wrote things in bold text when I did not.

 

So you know that gods may exist.

.

 

Good points. One would have to have omnipotence, to declare with certainty, 'there is no god'.
I find it intellectually ironic that many of the dogmatic atheists can categorically dismiss any possibility of the supernatural, yet they 'believe' in life on other planets, or abiogenesis. There is no more 'empirical evidence' for those things than a supernatural entity. If anything, there is more evidence for the supernatural, even though it is mostly anecdotal, over the millennia. So they are not pure skeptics, but selectively so.. if it is something that is tantalizing to their intellect, they will consider it. But if it offends them some way, they deny it with hostility. It is a very peculiar stance to take.

He was an embittered atheist (the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him). ~George Orwell

 

No, you haven't. You've offered no detail at all, but simply dismissed the whole thing as 'psychobabble' and 'unscientific'.

Re: "Would you like me to post all the claims of supernatural experience from people all over the world, throughout the history of man? Sure, you can dismiss it all as a 'psychological deception', or 'imaginary companion', but that is a pretty big assumption, without any proof."

This crap has been investigated and studied for a long time already, and not by biased people looking to shut down religion. These are mean and unfounded accusations on your part against researchers you do not even know and with whose work you are evidently not all that familiar. Admit it - you are religious and take issue with any science that goes against your religion. Begin by acknowledging the truth of your own motivations here. Reflect on how you're thinking and acting. You've grouped evolutionary science with your so-called 'fake science' before as well, which again tells me that you really do not know what you're talking about. You clearly have no grasp of how science operates in the first place, no matter how much you claim to appreciate science.

 

One does not have to have "some secret insight into all the mysteries of the universe" to recognize the very origins of gods and even the word "god" are rooted in man's needs for answers to questions. Gods have no basis in reality. They are the product of man's imaginings. All things supernatural are the product of man's imaginings. There is no basis for believing in anything supernatural.


Yes, I know that gods do not exist.

One out of four. Not very good.

On the other hand...
How do you know "There is NO evidence for a naturalistic belief in origins"? Have you examined and evaluated everything that anyone has ever said or written? Or, do you have "some secret insight into all the mysteries of the universe"?

Perhaps, if you understood what I wrote, you would not have to make ridiculous statements.

 

No I don't know if they may exist or not. Correct me if I'm wrong but in other words you're actually asking me if I know their existence is theoretically possible (or not).

 

Yup, could be..
"Am I only a nearby God? Can you hide? I fill heaven and earth" (Jeremiah 23:23/4)
And Jesus showed us how to get our minds right in order to tap into that force so that it begins downloading into us. The key is to like Jesus enough to want to mindmeld with him-

"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (John 14:20)


True Christians have mindmelded with him, that's why they're cool, calm, goodnatured and fearless, it's a POWER thing..
"Our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power"- (1 Thess 1:5)
How about it Gary?

"I just keep getting stronger"

 

Actually, the "traditional" definition is not "without a belief in a god."

The "traditional" definition is: Someone who denies the existence of a god...or...someone who "believes" that gods do not exist.

The definition "someone without a belief in a god" is fairly recent. I doubt anyone can find a dictionary published before the 1950's using that definition.

That new usage is based on two things:

One, debating atheists wanted to contend that they do not do "believing" like theists do...that all "atheism" was about was a LACK OF A BELIEF.

Two, they pretended that the word came about via "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) = WITHOUT A BELIEF IN A GOD.

But that could not have happened, because the word "atheism" came into the English language almost a hundred years BEFORE theism...and derived from the Greek through the French..."a" (without) + theos (a god) = WITHOUT A GOD...not without a belief in a god.


Dictionaries often do not give a definition of a word...but give us how the word is used.

It is used as "without a belief in a god" by some atheists who want their position to be without any "belief" involved. But if you were to carefully question those people, my guess is it would soon become apparent there are other reasons why the person wants to use the descriptor "atheist"...particularly a "belief" that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.

Every indication, Bob, is that the reason you use "agnostic atheist" is because the "agnostic" accurately describes that you do not know if gods exist or not...but the reason you use "atheist" is not because of a lack of belief of a god, but rather of a belief that no gods do exist.

 

Gollum never had any motivation regarding "saving Middle Earth".
His doing so was just a freak event, maybe nudged by a finger of Jehovah.
Frodo was not strong enough to withstand the corrupting influences of the ring nor did he volunteer a finger to do so.
Who among us is strong enough. Witness the corrupting influences of mammon.
And that's minor league compared to the one ring to bind them all. <ta-da>


Moi

r > g

View attachment 47247
Police State enforcers
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Apologies
I do not like my quotes edited to remove part of the quote.
The highlighting by font change was to make it apparent to what or which I replied.
Fontification helps this dyslexic.
Best Wishes

 

Ya believe Jesus had a high midichlorian count?

May the force be with you.
Viva Carl Jung too.

Moi

r > g

View attachment 47248
Support the 2 Wall Solution
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
​

 

There is nothing meaningless about discussing the difference between knowing something was made up, and knowing something does not exist.

 

Don't be silly. The mind meld is a Vulcan thing- from Star TREK.

 

The truth about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...may be so weird...that the controversy gods/no gods is a joke.

We do not know what is going on here...no matter how certain some people are.

Even if what we consider to be the physical world is all that is...

...to think that a species just recently down out of the trees can make reasonable inferences about the REALITY...is almost funny. We may all be thinking about our "world" the way an ant in the backyard thinks about its world.

 

(my emphasis)

I'm not asking. You stated: "but I can't possibly know whether a god (or gods) actually exist". Therefore, to the best of your knowledge, gods may exist. If you acknowledge the possibility, you are saying that gods may exist. Hence "...you know that gods may exist."