Religion and Atheism

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Which is, of course, their "doctrine".

To be more specific, their "doctrine" is that if any gods existed, they (the atheists) would be able to detect this existence to the degree of it being "proven" to them. And since this has not occurred, they surmise, then, that no gods exist unless and until it is proven to them, to their satisfaction, that one or more gods does exist. This IS a "worldview". This IS an ideological "doctrine". And it IS a theological proposition. It is, in a word, a "belief". So that most atheists are being deliberately deceptive when they claim they simply "do not believe" the theist's proposition. Because, in fact, they have and hold a whole contrary belief system of their own.

False. You left out a rather important distinction:

It's not ANY gods. It is SPECIFIC gods, as in the ones being PUT INTO LAW and other atrocity. We are using that argument against GODS BEING FORCED INTO OUR LIVES. Most gods-- if they exist? We don't care any more about them than they do about us-- which is to say-- an infinite zero.

SPECIFIC gods are always couched in the "All Good, All Loving All Benevolent".

And I have a Meme, since this FALLACY comes up so very often. You are very welcome for the SCHOOLING, and I won't even charge you commiserate with it's value (in the neighborhood of a couple of bucks).

 

[lukethethird]

Which is, of course, their "doctrine".

To be more specific, their "doctrine" is that if any gods existed, they (the atheists) would be able to detect this existence to the degree of it being "proven" to them. And since this has not occurred, they surmise, then, that no gods exist unless and until it is proven to them, to their satisfaction, that one or more gods does exist. This IS a "worldview". This IS an ideological "doctrine". And it IS a theological proposition. It is, in a word, a "belief". So that most atheists are being deliberately deceptive when they claim they simply "do not believe" the theist's proposition. Because, in fact, they have and hold a whole contrary belief system of their own.

Here's a doctrine for you, arguing for some gods existence or non existence is a meaningless waste of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good idea! Something abstract, that cannot be examined empirically, but only inferred.

How about, 'Time'?

Space would also work, and even consciousness. There are lots of things we believe, inferred from our experiences, education, and reasoning processes, but have no empirical, objective presence.

I think. Therefore i am..

Time can be measured by several means. As can space. They can be examined empirically. Examining space and time is what led to General Relativity, a theory that has been tested empirically and confirmed countless times. Your example fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a doctrine for you, arguing for some gods existence or non existence is a meaningless waste of time.

Arguing for, yes, arguing against, not so much. Some people's specific gods require a specific universe. The universe puts the lie to their beliefs. The most obvious one is the most recent trend in mainly Christians, and that is the Flat Earth God. Many believers in specific gods think that arguments that refute their personal version of god are arguments that try to "refute God". Which of course is not the same thing at all. The fact that the "God" of the creationists does not exist does not mean that the "God" of the Christians does not exist. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Of course it is a bit of a waste of time since those that believe in an irrational version of God (and I have yet to see one that is not irrational in some way or another) will almost never accept the refutations of their personal beliefs. Some of them will go to the extremes of denying reality which may be why Flat Earth beliefs have made somewhat of a comeback. If one is gong to go crazy why stop at half measures such as believing in a young Earth?

 

[PureX]

That is a very generous take on "practice". I don't think it can be made legitimate.

Oh, I have seen quite a few atheists who appear relatively 'obsessed' with the presumed righteousness of their position. And of whom this obsession gets practiced on a regular basis. It may not be common, but it clearly does happen. And it fits the description of a religion very well, as it's very similar to a religious fundamentalist's ideology and behavior.

 

[PureX]

Okay, I want you to think of something else -- something which is not a "god" by any definition that you choose to use -- which cannot be detected, but which you still surmise must exist.

Love, beauty, honor, justice, compassion, infinity, pi, zero, a vacuum, time, space, reason, ... just off the top of my head.

 

[PureX]

But what is the 'ideology' of atheism? Lack of belief that gods exist? Is lack of belief that unicorns exist an 'ideology'? Was the lack of belief that the Higgs boson existed an ideology? Is lack of belief that Russell's teapot is in orbit out there beyond Jupiter an ideology? I'd have said no in all cases.

Humanism may be an ideology ─ a big tent, that one ─ but humanism isn't atheism. Most deists were humanists. for example, and I dare say still are.

See post #185

 

[PureX]

False. You left out a rather important distinction:

It's not ANY gods. It is SPECIFIC gods, as in the ones being PUT INTO LAW and other atrocity.

No, it's 'all gods' until someone can prove to the atheist, otherwise. There is no "distinction" to it. Agnosticism may be an aspect of atheism (as it may be an aspect of theism), for some people, but it does not define atheism as you are trying to make it do.

We are using that argument against GODS BEING FORCED INTO OUR LIVES. Most gods-- if they exist? We don't care any more about them than they do about us-- which is to say-- an infinite zero.

No one is, or could, "force God into your life". That's just emotional sophistry. Humans are always trying to control everything around them, including each other. Controlling our environment is how we survive and thrive in a dangerous and competitive environment. And we will use whatever means we think we have, to do that: religion, politics, commerce, geography, science, philosophy, and, of course, violence. This really has nothing particularly to do with theology, though. This is just human nature.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

See post #185

Already refuted. Ooops!

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, I have seen quite a few atheists who appear relatively 'obsessed' with the presumed righteousness of their position.

"Appear" may well be the operative word here. Or are you willing to limit yourself to superficial appearances?

And of whom this obsession gets practiced on a regular basis. It may not be common, but it clearly does happen. And it fits the description of a religion very well, as it's very similar to a religious fundamentalist's ideology and behavior.

I for one wish you would have a bit more respect towards the words "religion" and "practice".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, it's 'all gods' until someone can prove to the atheist, otherwise. There is no "distinction" to it. Agnosticism may be an aspect of atheism (as it may be an aspect of theism), for some people, but it does not define atheism as you are trying to make it do..

You attempted to conflate an argument technique, into a Full On Applies To All.

A logical Fallacy-- I forget which. One may well argue whether Lord Voldemort had sufficient motivation to Do Great Evil or not? At the same time, one does not need to have Anti-Voldemort Philosophy Of Life.

Arguments in the Abstract appear to be something you did not consider in your STRAW MAN ATHEIST.

No one is, or could, "force God into your life"..

Here's proof you are absolutely WRONG: Try getting a safe, legal abortion in Alabama. Game. Set. Match.

That's just emotional sophistry. Humans are always trying to control everything around them, including each other. Controlling our environment is how we survive and thrive in a dangerous and competitive environment. And we will use whatever means we think we have to do that: religion, politics, commerce, geography, science, philosophy, and, as always, violent force. This really has nothing particularly to do with theology, though. This is just human nature.

*yawn* Word Salad is Word Salad-not-applying-to-your LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Which is, of course, their "doctrine".

To be more specific, their "doctrine" is that if any gods existed, they (the atheists) would be able to detect this existence to the degree of it being "proven" to them. And since this has not occurred, they surmise, then, that no gods exist unless and until it is proven to them, to their satisfaction, that one or more gods does exist. This IS a "worldview". This IS an ideological "doctrine". And it IS a theological proposition. It is, in a word, a "belief". So that most atheists are being deliberately deceptive when they claim they simply "do not believe" the theist's proposition. Because, in fact, they have and hold a whole contrary belief system of their own.

False. There are thousands of God claims. And as one goes through life it becomes more and more apparent to many individuals that NO ONE can sufficiently explain, demonstrate or produce the realities of their deities. To many of us it becomes ridiculously and INDEPENDENTLY obvious that not a single one of you theists/deists has any idea what you are talking about.

"Not believing on god(s)" is an attribute that makes one an atheist. That is not, at all, a doctrine. No atheist needs to subscribe to the idea dependent some other atheist. Religion is entirely opposite this. In modernity, NO THEIST can come to the conclusions their religion makes on their own. Not one. Atheists however? Easy as pie.

 

[PureX]

Here's a doctrine for you, arguing for some gods existence or non existence is a meaningless waste of time.

I agree with your observation, completely. Yet the "believers" on both sides just can't seem to stop themselves from arguing. They have conflated an ideology with their personal identity, and as a result their egos can't stop "defending" their presumed self-righteousness.

"God" is an ideological possibility that we can use to our own benefit (or not). Otherwise, it's just another unanswerable question.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Here's a doctrine for you, arguing for some gods existence or non existence is a meaningless waste of time.

Indeed. Except that for some gods? The Majority Theists use the Full Force Of The Law, to force everyone to comply with what they imagine their "god" really wants.

As in: "What God Wants, God Gets-- god help us all...."

 

[PureX]

"Appear" may well be the operative word here. Or are you willing to limit yourself to superficial appearances?

I don't read minds, so, yes, I have to read their behaviors.

 

[PureX]

False. There are thousands of God claims. And as one goes through life it becomes more and more apparent to many individuals that NO ONE can sufficiently explain, demonstrate or produce the realities of their deities. To many of us it becomes ridiculously and INDEPENDENTLY obvious that not a single one of you theists/deists has any idea what you are talking about.

The really weird thing is that you and so many other atheists believe that there is some sort of innate logical demand that you be "convinced". That somehow this is even possible. When clearly, as you have just admitted yourself, it's not. And it is this weird assumption that forms the atheist's base ideology: that if God/gods exist, we would all somehow 'know it'. When, by our own common and historical definitions of "God", we could not possibly ascertain the nature or existence of such an entity/phenomenon, as we do not have the capabilities that would logically be required. And yet on and on go the "believers", insisting that they "know God exists", or that "God can't possibly exist" without them knowing it. Both assertions being completely illogical and neither being convinced by the other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Love, beauty, honor, justice, compassion, infinity, pi, zero, a vacuum, time, space, reason, ... just off the top of my head.

I truly hope that you're being tongue-in-cheek, because that's a poor list. You seem to think that just because you can't define something to some sort of exactitude, it can be said not to exist to be "detectable," which is nonsense. People "detect" love, beauty, honour (I'm Canadian), justice, compassion and such all the time. They feel it, and your feelings are detectors. In fact, your ability to feel is among the most wonderful things about you. Your feelings are the expressed outputs of the algorithms that make you the entity that you are. Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century) calls emotions "biochemical algorithms that are vital for the survival and reproduction of all mammals." And as such, they are just as real as stripes on a zebra. Note, however, that they don't always express the same way, but close study will show you that each zebra's stripes are also unique.

Pi, certainly exists. You think it doesn't just because nobody can compute its last decimal place? Of course they can't, because Pi doesn't HAVE a last decimal place. And yet, we can describe Pi perfectly accurately. It is the ratio of the circumference of any circle, divided by its diameter.

How on earth can you imagine that zero cannot be "detected." Zero is the number of cookies still on the plate after the dog spots them and eats them all.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree with your observation, completely. Yet the "believers" on both sides just can't seem to stop themselves from arguing. They have conflated an ideology with their personal identity, and as a result their egos can't stop "defending" their presumed self-righteousness.

"God" is an ideological possibility that we can use to our own benefit (or not). Otherwise, it's just another unanswerable question.

WHY do atheists argue against Religion?

SEE: ALABAMA.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The really weird thing is ....

See: Alabama, and several other states passing RELIGIOUS BELIEF INTO LAW.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I truly hope that you're being tongue-in-cheek, because that's a poor list. You seem to think that just because you can't define something to some sort of exactitude, it can be said not to exist to be "detectable," which is nonsense. People "detect" love, beauty, honour (I'm Canadian), justice, compassion and such all the time. They feel it, and your feelings are detectors. In fact, your ability to feel is among the most wonderful things about you. Your feelings are the expressed outputs of the algorithms that make you the entity that you are. Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century) calls emotions "biochemical algorithms that are vital for the survival and reproduction of all mammals." And as such, they are just as real as stripes on a zebra. Note, however, that they don't always express the same way, but close study will show you that each zebra's stripes are also unique.

Pi, certainly exists. You think it doesn't just because nobody can compute its last decimal place? Of course they can't, because Pi doesn't HAVE a last decimal place. And yet, we can describe Pi perfectly accurately. It is the ratio of the circumference of any circle, divided by its diameter.

How on earth can you imagine that zero cannot be "detected." Zero is the number of cookies still on the plate after the dog spots them and eats them all.

Whereas it IS true that Pi is endless, when you calculate it in Base 10?

If you switch to Base Pi? It has a value of 10. (or 1, depending on your settings).

Of course... multiplication can be a bit.... Interesting in Base Pi.