Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[sojourner]

Sadly, I suspect that most other theists do as well... though it's pretty certain that they many won't agree on what 'legitimate' theological study is.

Oh sure! There are academic standards set and maintained by disinterested accrediting agencies. There are seminaries. There are peer-reviewed academics. there are legitimate ecclesial bodies with long-standing public trust. All of these agree on standards for theological study.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t say it was. You’e missing my point. You recognize that beauty exists, even though it can’t be proven to exist. You can’t quantify it or measure it. But it exists.
Why should God be held to a higher standard? Why do you insist on quantifiable evidence or proof for God, but not for beauty?

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Oh sure! There are academic standards set and maintained by disinterested accrediting agencies. There are seminaries. There are peer-reviewed academics. there are legitimate ecclesial bodies with long-standing public trust. All of these agree on standards for theological study.

Sure... if you say so. Yet there are thousands of different religious sects all based on disagreements on what should be considered legitimate.

 

[PruePhillip]

Is this even serious?
Secularism is about separation of religion from the state - it doesn't have a set of beliefs about origins.

Re "But you can bring secularism into that class - and all its nihilist, sexual, drug addled baggage."

It's fashionable to generalize our past as being "white supremacist" or "racist" or "patriarchal" etc..
By what standards would our past (ie Western culture over the previous thousand years) judge us?

I hold that secularism is "not connected with religious or spiritual matters." That's Google's definition.

So an example of secular vs religion in my country would be a Catholic Archbishop who was
charged with some offense in Tasmania after he produced a leaflet outlining his church's
position and his bible's interpretation of marriage. This was during the 2018 homosexual
marriage referendum.

So to teach the bible's position on marriage is the new heresy and homosexuality is the new
norm. The secular position is taught and the religious one is not. Maybe some "secularists" prefer
the religious teaching, but generally not.

This secularism has the smell of religion about it, ie value based, zealotry, sinner and saints etc..
Indeed, in posing the "who made the universe?" argument people often tell me, "Science will one
day figure that out." That's Faith.

BTW, in the 1980s the "gay community" of Tasmania claimed their campaign to "decriminalize"
homosexuality would not lead to the practice being taught in schools and would not lead to "gay
marriage." That's MY issue with "progressives" -- the lies. It's about to happen with polygamy.

 

[PruePhillip]

A god who just happens to exist for no reason and creates a universe, is no less mysterious and
unexplained than a universe by itself that just happens to exist for no reason..

It's an excellent point. Reminds me of the "argument" about how the universe came to be.
1 - the universe has always existed
2 - the universe just sprang into existence.

Both arguments are instinctively false to me. The first dodges the argument and the second
argues against science which states all events happen by the process of natural laws.
But then the "so who made God?" argument is proffered. I see this also as an evasion due
to the fact that we can't comprehend anything outside our natural world. You don't explain what
you can't comprehend - anything is possible, literally anything. And even this universe is far more
wonderful than we can comprehend.

 

[sojourner]

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So, suddenly, God is an “extraordinary claim?” How is that? The concept of the Divine has been with humanity since the beginning. It has fostered and supported cultures, nations, races. It has overseen the building of empires. It has created architecture and art that have survived and influenced the arts for thousands of years. It continues to influence human thought and development. It seems to me that the “extraordinary claim” is the one that asserts that the Divine is hooey.

Nonetheless, you didn’t address my point. None of you has. Let me restate in hope that I might receive an acceptable and reasonable answer. Otherwise, I’ll have to conclude that your idea of non-existence is more far fetched that our idea of the existence of the Divine:

You acknowledge that beauty exists in spite of no measurable evidence. Yet you require measurable evidence for the existence of God. Why? What evidence do you seek? A body? An audible voice? What? A birth certificate, perhaps? A photograph? You who cannot define God, nor care to endeavor to do so require that which would support some definition. Doesn’t that sound absurd to you? That you require something that doesn’t fall under the parameters you have established? Doesn’t that sound a little like “stacking the deck? It smacks of a political ploy to me — one that allows you to keep propagating a belief disguised as “logic.”

I’ll be waiting.

 

[sojourner]

Sure... if you say so. Yet there are thousands of different religious sects all based on disagreements on what should be considered legitimate.

Those disagreements aren’t usually of the nature of the Divine. They usually surround polity, doctrine, and practice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, suddenly, God is an “extraordinary claim?” How is that? The concept of the Divine has been with humanity since the beginning. It has fostered and supported cultures, nations, races. It has overseen the building of empires. It has created architecture and art that have survived and influenced the arts for thousands of years. It continues to influence human thought and development. It seems to me that the “extraordinary claim” is the one that asserts that the Divine is hooey.

Nonetheless, you didn’t address my point. None of you has. Let me restate in hope that I might receive an acceptable and reasonable answer. Otherwise, I’ll have to conclude that your idea of non-existence is more far fetched that our idea of the existence of the Divine:

You acknowledge that beauty exists in spite of no measurable evidence. Yet you require measurable evidence for the existence of God. Why? What evidence do you seek? A body? An audible voice? What? A birth certificate, perhaps? A photograph? You who cannot define God, nor care to endeavor to do so require that which would support some definition. Doesn’t that sound absurd to you? That you require something that doesn’t fall under the parameters you have established? Doesn’t that sound a little like “stacking the deck? It smacks of a political ploy to me — one that allows you to keep propagating a belief disguised as “logic.”

I’ll be waiting.

I don't think that you have been understanding my responses. Beauty may be tied into evolution. I am not saying that it definitely is, but things are leaning that way in biology. And yes, if you look at all of the gods throughout history all of them have been extraordinary claims. One of the problems here is that those trying to defend god seem to be having a difficult time even defining what a god is.

 

[sojourner]

I don't think that you have been understanding my responses. Beauty may be tied into evolution. I am not saying that it definitely is, but things are leaning that way in biology. And yes, if you look at all of the gods throughout history all of them have been extraordinary claims. One of the problems here is that those trying to defend god seem to be having a difficult time even defining what a god is.

Still choosing not to answer the question, I see. “Beauty tied into evolution” isn’t an answer. We may be “hard wired” to believe in the Divine, as well.

To your final point: Those trying to dismiss God have a difficult time quantifying beauty. Yet they claim it not only exists, but is legitimate. Why is God any different?

 

[PureX]

Since you cannot justify it that is what it appears to be.

What what appears to be? You have no idea what I 'believe'.

I believe humans cannot know if a God exists, or what a god's existence would even mean for us. It's a ridiculous question for us to even ask. On the other hand, the existential mystery of source, sustenance, and purpose remains, and we humans have to deal with it one way or another without the luxury of knowledge. And therein lies some interesting possibilities. Available to us to be used to our advantage, or to our disadvantage if we're stupid about it.

 

[PureX]

An almost creationist level of error. I am not asking for "proof" merely for reliable evidence. If none can be given then it appears that your beliefs are not justified.

"Evidence" means different things to different people. And your requisite of "reliable" and requirement of achieving "justification according to you" pretty much guarantees an insurmountable bias. It's a game for suckers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What what appears to be? You have no idea what I 'believe'.

I believe humans cannot know if a God exists, or what a god's existence would even mean for us. It's a ridiculous question for us to even ask. On the other hand, the existential mystery of source, sustenance, and purpose remains, and we humans have to deal with it one way or another without the luxury of knowledge. And therein lies some interesting possibilities. Available to us to be used to our advantage, or to our disadvantage if we're stupid about it.

Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer, you have failed to justify your belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Evidence" means different things to different people. And your requisite of "reliable" and requirement of achieving "justification according to you" pretty much guarantees an insurmountable bias. It's a game for suckers.

No, it is a reasonable request. Ducking and dodging is an admission that none exists. "Reliable" is not what would convince you, it is what would convince a reasonable person.

 

[Howard Is]

Not at all. But we should also acknowleldge that poetry is very poor at giving truths, which require precision of language

For an otherwise intelligent man, that is just plain dumb.

Is that precise enough ? I thought I’d better dumb myself down.

If someone says of a musician “his music has soul “, are you going to object and demand musicologically correct terms ?

Or maybe “he has the body of a boxer and the soul of an artist”.

Too imprecise for you ?

Considering that I qualified my meaning, twice, the objections I’m getting are almost laughable. They would be laughable except they indicate that the war between theists and the New Atheists has had a degenerative effect on the general public discourse. It is childish and ridiculous on both sides.

IMO

 

[QuestioningMind]

Those disagreements aren’t usually of the nature of the Divine. They usually surround polity, doctrine, and practice.

In other words, what the 'divine' wants from us. And that's what causes all of the discord. Though of course, there's actually IS quite a bit of dispute about the nature of this divine being. For instance, can God intervene in human interactions or did He tie his hands when He gave us free will? Are God and Jesus the same or are they two separate beings? What about this 'holy ghost' character?

 

[sojourner]

In other words, what the 'divine' wants from us. And that's what causes all of the discord. Though of course, there's actually IS quite a bit of dispute about the nature of this divine being. For instance, can God intervene in human interactions or did He tie his hands when He gave us free will? Are God and Jesus the same or are they two separate beings? What about this 'holy ghost' character?

First of all, you're not making sense as a response to what I posted. This has nothing to do with "what the Divine wants from us." There is generally little disagreement on theological matters of the Divine nature. The great preponderance of difference between churches is, as I said, polity, practice and doctrine, not theology in particular.

There are different theological models and most of them are embraced by most churches. Process theology is process theology. Salvation theology is salvation theology. Liberation theology is liberation theology. feminist theology is feminist theology. Ecological theology is ecological theology. Womanist theology is womanist theology. For example, liberation theology was begun in the RCC. It spread to Protestant churches. Process theology is widespread across the board.

I don't think you have a clue what's meant by "theology," judging from this post. How can you argue against what you don't understand?

 

[Howard Is]

OK.
Now that I have had a b**** about the New Inquisition, I’ll up the ante.

Timothy Leary echoed and expanded on a remark by Voltaire when he said “If no respectable God exists, let us by all means invent one. We do need someone intelligent to talk to”.

This is more than just a quip.
Modern psychology is discovering that there is an important psychological skill which proves the sense of this idea.

It is such a useful skill that it is now taught to Navy Seals.

That skill is engaging in self talk, using an imaginary friend or mentor.
It has been established that, especially when under pressure, talking to oneself in the second person in a supportive way can make a crucial difference.

If you are an atheist Navy Seal, your imaginary friend would probably be secular, unless you have a sense of humour (which can also help in a big way) and imagine Jesus and His Pals.

I have on occasion had conversations with Jesus, in that way. Never at any time was that associated with a belief in a historical divine person. And I am at liberty to tell Jesus that he is a d***head.

I have an imaginary friend called Davo who not only gives me great advice, but has some great jokes.

This is a useful function of the human brain.

 

[QuestioningMind]

First of all, you're not making sense as a response to what I posted. This has nothing to do with "what the Divine wants from us." There is generally little disagreement on theological matters of the Divine nature. The great preponderance of difference between churches is, as I said, polity, practice and doctrine, not theology in particular.

There are different theological models and most of them are embraced by most churches. Process theology is process theology. Salvation theology is salvation theology. Liberation theology is liberation theology. feminist theology is feminist theology. Ecological theology is ecological theology. Womanist theology is womanist theology. For example, liberation theology was begun in the RCC. It spread to Protestant churches. Process theology is widespread across the board.

I don't think you have a clue what's meant by "theology," judging from this post. How can you argue against what you don't understand?

If you say so... though it seems to me that I pointed out a couple of differences in how theists define the nature of the divine. But if you're convinced that they're all on the same page, that's fine.

 

[sojourner]

If you say so... though it seems to me that I pointed out a couple of differences in how theists define the nature of the divine. But if you're convinced that they're all on the same page, that's fine.

So, yeah, there are some differences. Remember: I said "most" not "all." But in the grand scheme of differences, these are relatively few. The major one is Trinity/not Trinity. The world's most ancient and established groups are Trinitarian.

But this is picking at the edges. I'd like to know why precision and definitions are in order for something that is, admittedly, ineffable?

 

[blü 2]

I don't have an unjustifiable belief. You, however, have an unjustified disbelief.

Do you hold that view of all who don't believe?

If so, on what basis?

I ask because I can't think of any.