Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[Polymath257]

It's an unfair game.
In America you can't bring religion into the classroom. But you can
bring secularism into that class - and all its nihilist, sexual, drug addled
baggage. Secularism declares it is not a religion - but it holds we came
from nothing, for no reason whatsoever, and "no hell below us and above
us only sky."
So secularism can be taught, but "religion" can't.

Yes, that's right. Secularism is NOT a religion. It has no comment on anything supernatural. And no, it does NOT have the nihilistic, sexual, drug baggage you claim. It is simply the idea that religion is not something the government should be involved in AT ALL.

And yes, *science* can and should be taught, even if it disagrees with (some) religious doctrines. Same for history and philosophy.

And yes, time sprang into existence with the beginning of the universe,
whatever that beginning ultimately is found to be.

And if there was a beginning.

Science says the "expanding universe" pushes into "nothing." This same
"nothing" existed before the universe. It was a "nothing" like anything we
can comprehend - not even empty space or laws of physics ---- absolutely
n.o.t.h.i.n.g.

Nope. THIS is wrongly stated. The universe is NOT 'pushing' into anything (even nothing). It is simply expanding. Nothing, as you describe it, simply doesn't exist.

If I could conjure up a unicorn (we are reminded unicorns are in the bible,
but unicorns is just a translation for "horned animal."} out of thin air we
wouldn't necessarily violate physics simply because the universe runs on
probability and all things are possible - just unlikely.

Your misunderstanding of quantum theory is noted. The conservation of energy is still a thing, though.

universe is way more magical than my unicorn appearing. And people,
without thinking about it, are relying upon magic to explain how it all began.

I'm sure that you understand that the Big Bang description, for example, does NOT violate the conservation of energy, right? For one thing, in your unicorn example, we already have time and are going from one time when there is not a unicorn to another time when there is. That is NOT the case with the universe at large: there was no time when the universe did not exist.

Now, we can ask why there is anything at all rather than nothing at all. But that question cannot be answered at all. Even religious speculation fails at that one (simply brushing the existence of God under the carpet).

 

[sojourner]

Theism is a widespread belief system. Of course nothing widespread like this is always bad or always good. Since you haven't answered my questions, I don't know what sort of theist you happen to be. But I can still step back, and look at the big picture, and say that "theism does more harm than good". (Which I said earlier.) Of course "some" theists have a positive impact on the world. But that doesn't mean that overall theism is a good idea.

I suppose I could say I'm anti-theism, perhaps that's what you're looking for? But I didn't make up the phrase "anti-theist", so I'm using a phrase that's already in use.

That’s fair. But I disagree that theism is more harmful than not.

 

[sojourner]

Okay... if you say so. Though I suspect that IF such people ignored you when you told them that they had no right and insisted that your children must recite a prayer each day to the magical pixie, because the magical pixie told them that they had to, you just might be a bit more adamant in speaking out against the pixie believers.

I hardly consider my attempts to demonstrate the absurdity of god claims to be anything close to obsessive. And though I realize that the vast majority of theists won't be swayed by my arguments, if just a single person decides to stop basing their beliefs on faith and instead start employing logic and reason, then I don't consider it to be a waste of time. Far too many of the ills in today's society are a direct result of people abandoning logic and reason in favor of what they 'feel' is true or what they have 'faith' in is true, regardless of what the objective facts might indicate.

So you don’t think the two can coexist? I, for one, find legitimate theological studies quite logical.

 

[Phaedrus]

That’s fair. But I disagree that theism is more harmful than not.

Granted, some theists on this forum give good face, whereby they state "You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe."

But in general reality of the world overall, theists want non-believers to be precisely like them, they also want to control how people live (their dirty religious hands in politics), and they simply cannot fathom a world without absolutely everyone in it believing in the same god. It's not just a few bad apples, either, because if we're being honest it is a great majority of the theistic community that behaves and thinks in a manner of absolute disgrace.

 

[sojourner]

My bad... I incorrectly assumed that you were the OP for this topic. In that case, my answer to the question you asked me is simply: Certainly I'm CAPABLE of making up some silly definition for a god being, but such a made up entity certainly wouldn't have any meaning to me, other than something I pulled out of my imagination. It would be similar to me deciding to come up with definitions for various kinds of magical fairies. I'm capable of doing it, but it would have no more meaning to me than an intellectual exercise in imaging possible magical fairy characteristics.

Personally I do not use definitions for god that are not shared by theists, because I always start off asking the question that I asked. What is your definition of god? I would think that the next logical step for the individual who is making a claim that some god entity exists would be to define what god means to them.

But instead you asked me are you incapable of coming up with your own concept that carries meaning for you? Why would you want me to provide you with that? Wasn't your complaint that so many atheists define god in ways that aren't shared by theists? By asking the theist for their definition, we can ensure that the definition we discuss IS shared by the theist.

Thanks. This makes sense. Thought I was losing my mind...

 

[Polymath257]

If we take general relativity seriously, the whole of space-time is a manifold and time is just an observer dependant direction within it, but the manifold itself is timeless. No "springing into existence" needed. You seem to be stuck in a kind of Newtonian mindset.

I was to second this notion. One point is that causality only makes sense within that manifold. So to even ask where that manifold came from is nonsensical. It simply exists.

Now, there is a valid question how this gets modified under quantum mechanics, especially quantum gravity, but the basic idea is still valid: space and time *together*, along with matter and energy are existence. To ask about causality is to be *within* the universe, so asking about the cause of the universe doesn't make any sense.

 

[Polymath257]

So you don’t think the two can coexist? I, for one, find legitimate theological studies quite logical.

I have yet to see any logical theology. At the very least, theology has to make the logical leap to think there is something to talk about at all.

EVERY argument I have ever seen to show the existence of a deity is deeply flawed. Until that logical leap is repaired, theology has nothing to say at all. It really is simply rearranging biases.

 

[Polymath257]

That’s fair. But I disagree that theism is more harmful than not.

I think it is a mixed bag. Theism certainly has inspired great art, literature, and architecture. It often encourages us to explore the beauty and awesomeness of the world around us.

It has also inspired horrid oppression, cruelty, and slaughter. It tends to lead quickly to fundamentalism, which is almost always problematic. And it tends to dive people into 'us' and 'them' in a very counter-productive way. And it often promotes a type of regression from the world that I think is harmful.

On balance, I think the scales tip to it being a net negative. But there are times when religion seems to motivate people to do what needs to be done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It means they don't have to defend their belief that gods don't exist unless and until proven otherwise, even though they can insist that the theist defend his.

As it should be. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

... Because mysteries cannot exist in my reality!

Now now, just because you have an unjustifiable belief is no excuse for making false claims about others.

 

[Howard Is]

Please provide evidence that there is a soul that is anywhere close to the evidence that there is air and wind (moving air).

I do not have a belief in an entity called the soul.
I qualified the word in my post as essential qualities, meaning the personal qualities that characterise an individual.

I am claiming my right to use poetic language.

Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean you have to have antiseptically logical language.

Poetry isn’t logical or scientific.
Should we discourage all poetry for fear of religion ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A definition of God for the atheists: God is the undefinable source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

Since there is no clear evidence of such a being it would be irrational to believe in it.

 

[Phaedrus]

I do not have a belief in an entity called the soul.
I qualified the word in my post as essential qualities, meaning the personal qualities that characterise an individual.

I am claiming my right to use poetic language.

Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean you have to have antiseptically logical language.

Poetry isn’t logical or scientific.
Should we discourage all poetry for fear of religion ?

I don't have to use poetic language to know the soul is not real. There's simply no evidence for its existence.

 

[sojourner]

Hmmm....I don't get that. Myths are stories we tell ourselves that comfort us. But they are, ultimately, stories and thereby not truth. I can get 'meaning' out of reading science fiction but I know it *is* fiction. To take it too seriously leads towards delusion

Not necessarily. Sometimes they upset us. And let’s not conflate truth with fact. For example, we know that George Washington chopping down a cherry tree isn’t factual. But it does convey the truth of his honesty.

Huh? I'm using what I perceive most people require as a minimal aspect of God: a consciousness, a creative mind, goodness, etc. I don't belive there is an entity with those characteristics

No, but that’s the concept you know. Having a concept for something and believing are two different things.

I'm not sure why you need a 'God concept' to talk about those aspects of life that are awe inspiring. Just talkk about the experiences. Why bring in a myth at all?

Doesn’t have to be “awe-inspiring.” It can be as simple as tying your child’s shoes. Myths bring meaning. One of the fundamental human questions is existential: why are we here? Myth creates space and language for us to wrestle with that question. What does our existence mean to us? Surely there’s something more than merely converting

Well, some people say that good literature 'speaks to reality' even if it is purely fiction. It seems that myth has many of the qualities of good fiction.

OK, this is just such a strange concept to me: 'make meaning'. And how is it that the myths do that? Yes, fiction can be moving and 'meaningful', but it isn't *true*. To take it too seriously is delusional. And, it seems that the same is true of myth. It can have great stories, but to take them too seriously leads to delusion

 

[sojourner]

No. It exists inside of our heads. Experiences are always inside of our heads. What exists outside of our heads are the sound waves.

For example, optical illusions are also 'shared experiences', but that doesn't mean they are outside of our heads.

Well, if it’s in my friend’s head, it certainly ain’t in mine!

 

[icehorse]

That’s fair. But I disagree that theism is more harmful than not.

That's also fair. I understand that I hold an uncommon opinion in this regard

 

[sojourner]

Beauty is just a reaction, the reaction of a person who perceives something as beautiful. The next person may not see it that way. However, whether perceived as beautiful or not, at very least both can agree that there's something there to be perceived -- whether it's a piece of artwork, a face, or a natural setting.

Oddly, communication with God is always personal and secret. When the televangelist says, "God wants my congregation to raise $50 million," the unfortunate congregation has to take it on faith. When the prophet says, "Thus says the Lord," well, who knows if He did or didn't -- you've gotta take the prophets word for it, even if it's diametrically opposed to what the prophet at the next corner is claiming.

But you claim beauty exists — it’s a thing. Where’s the quantitative proof? That seems to be what atheists ask for where God is concerned.

 

[sojourner]

The hunger IS the math. Feelings and emotions are the algorithms that operate us.

The hunger IS the math. Feelings and emotions are the algorithms that operate us.

Show me the formula. What does hunger weigh? What are it’s dimensions? What color is it? Is it liquid or gaseous? What are its energetic properties? Does it produce lumens or amperage or temperature? Show me hunger. Put it out there in front of me. If you can’t do it, it doesn’t exist. No such thing. It’s a delusion that’s all in your head, and I’m. Not buying it. There are no hungry children in Africa.

 

[sojourner]

Granted, some theists on this forum give good face, whereby they state "You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe."

But in general reality of the world overall, theists want non-believers to be precisely like them, they also want to control how people live (their dirty religious hands in politics), and they simply cannot fathom a world without absolutely everyone in it believing in the same god. It's not just a few bad apples, either, because if we're being honest it is a great majority of the theistic community that behaves and thinks in a manner of absolute disgrace.

Generalization is a very slippery slope.

 

[Phaedrus]

Generalization is a very slippery slope.

It becomes less of a generalization when you encounter it constantly.