Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[PureX]

You're giving us less credit than we deserve, which is a sad non-humanitarian tactic. If we had not had scientists to understand our place in the universe, we would still be illiterate church following opiates.

Do you actually think that we "understand our place in the universe"??? Boy, is your curiosity quotient low!

 

[PureX]

Furthermore, most agnostics are the silliest bunch of people next to many theists.

Oh, we don't know, we don't know.

You can cry that till the cows don't come home, because as far as our knowledge of what does and does not exist is concerned, most agnostics should be expending the same energy they do with god toward all things that cannot be proven to not exist.

Ah, the insanity of all or nothing extremism ...

 

[Polymath257]

WOW! You really can't see any truth in literature and fiction? Man! I feel bad for you! And by the way, no scientist claims truth, or even to be seeking it.

It isn't truth. It may be moving, relevant, descriptive, etc. But it isn't truth.

I have no control over what other people choose to believe, and neither do you. But I can explain to you WHY they choose to believe these things. Something that seems to totally frustrate and perplex you.
We wouldn't even be human, without it. Yet you seem to feel that it's a silly and pointless pursuit. That scares me.

No, I don't consider literature to be a silly and pointless pursuit. It is a *different* pursuit than the pursuit of truth. That is all that I am saying. The two a very different human endeavors.

I find it a bit scary that you don't see the differences and the importance of those differences.

I enjoy good literature. I enjoy some bad literature. I enjoy reading different myths.

I just don't see them as 'truth'.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I could say the same thing to you about God.

What, you are going to suggest that I have "felt God" and am now pretending not to? You would be very, very wrong on that score. I have felt hunger, and knew it. I have felt sadness, joy, mirth and I have perceived beauty and ugliness. I can distinguish kindness from selfishness with ease. But no, no God. Not ever.

 

[PureX]

Well, because so many people insist that they know God exists and that I am a fool for not having a belief in such an entity.

They are just being as inarticulate as you are about what they mean by the term "exist". Theists are just as inarticulate and confused in their thoughts and language as atheists are. Which is why every time some atheists posts the idiotic demand for evidence/proof of God's existence, some fool theist takes the bait, and the argument goes on interminably, with neither of them ever learning a thing.

 

[Polymath257]

They are just being as inarticulate as you are about what they mean by the term "exist". Theists are just as inarticulate and confused in their thoughts and language as atheists are. Which is why every time some atheists posts the idiotic demand for evidence/proof of God's existence, some fool theist takes the bait, and the argument goes on interminably, with neither of them ever learning a thing.

I see. And only you have the correct way of looking at things. Everyone else is confused and inarticulate.

It seems to me that you are the one using the rather unusual definition of the term 'exist'.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What a sad way to live. No meaning to your family other than copulation.

That is a ridiculous statement. Any of a million things, in a moment, could have changed which sperm succeeded. A tiny delay, a shift in position, anything. And then that new person would be someone quite different than the one you are addressing now.

But it isn't which sperm got the job done that makes for meaning in families. It's the whole, complex, dynamical relationships that happened AFTER that moment. But your interlocutor was quite correct -- (s)he is here because his/her parents had sex. That's the ultimate cause of that individual's existence. And yet, it's very likely the least important thing about that person's actual lived reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have a belief. I'm an agnostic.

So you claim.

 

[PureX]

It isn't truth. It may be moving, relevant, descriptive, etc. But it isn't truth.

Oh, my! How sad for you!

No, I don't consider literature to be a silly and pointless pursuit. It is a *different* pursuit than the pursuit of truth. That is all that I am saying. The two a very different human endeavors.

I don't know what else to say but, no, they really aren't. Literature (the arts) pursue not just truth, but the meaning of truth. While science can only pursue functional facts.

 

[Howard Is]

And yet, they don't exist. They are fictional. The myth may be an interesting social phenomenon, but unicorns, as represented by the myth, do not exist.

Possibly reports of a real beast seen in a foreign land ... rhinoceros ?...plus Chinese whispers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We don't. That's true. But it's exactly because we don't know that all those possibilities remain possible. And because they are still possible, we can logically choose to trust in the possibility that we find most appealing: most positive, hopeful, and effecting in our current (ignorant) lives.

Whereas the atheist just blindly rejects all those possibilities and all the possible benefits that they might afford him simply because he can't have the proof he demands: that the possibility he chooses will be the one that will manifest as true. He has no faith, and no imagination, and I think that's very sad. Because he's still just another ignorant human, and now without hope or imagination.

Though I can't speak for all atheists, this is certainly not true of me. I do not blindly reject possibilities, I select between those that seem, for reasons that I can articulate, most likely to be true, and tend to reject those that seem, again for reasons that I can articulate, least likely.

 

[PureX]

I gotta run, though ...

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, my! How sad for you!

Why? Because I make the distinction between fiction and reality?

I don't know what else to say but, no, they really aren't. Literature (the arts) pursue not just truth, but the meaning of truth. While science can only pursue functional facts.

I see it as sad that you don't see the differences.

Literature seeks, when it is best, to understand some aspects of human existence. It does so through fiction (usually) and story-telling. The hope is that by reading the story we learn a bit more about ourselves and how we respond to the world.

But it isn't truth.

 

[Polymath257]

Possibly reports of a real beast seen in a foreign land ... rhinoceros ?...plus Chinese whispers.

Which is why I stated 'as told in the myths'. The origin of the myth is another thing. I think many myths have their origins in real events/things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh there is a general consensus of what is beautiful, but though not by an overwhelming majority. Beauty may simply be an evolutionary reaction. Not knowing something, where does beauty come from for example, is not evidence for a God.

I remember walking into the dining room at the Royal Pavilion in Brighton, England and saying to my companion, "Oh my goodness, isn't it garish and awful." A pair of elderly ladies behind us were quite miffed -- they thought it the most beautiful thing they'd ever seen.

 

[Howard Is]

Which is why I stated 'as told in the myths'. The origin of the myth is another thing. I think many myths have their origins in real events/things.

I think so too.
Like fire breathing dragons.
Alligators and crocodiles are renowned for eating anything, including golf balls, tin cans.... and that implies some potent stomach acids.

When I was a kid I made hydrogen for balloons using caustic soda and water in a milk bottle, to which I’d add whatever aluminum I could scrounge, usually shredded drink cans.

It occurred to me that perhaps, once upon a time, a knight encountered an alligator near a moat. The alligator had consumed some hapless soldier and his metal gear. The metal reacted with the intestinal acids and produced a flammable gas. The knight had a lit torch, which he waved in the maw of the terrifying beast...and the beast belched, producing a fireball.

Quite plausible I think, given that humans light their farts for fun, lol.

 

[Stevicus]

OK, so let's put it this way.

Does God exist in the same sense as unicorns?

Or does God exist in the same sense as the sun?

Or does God exist in the same sense as the number 2?

We still can't know how God exists, or even would exist, if God exists. Why are you finding this so difficult to accept?

WE DON'T KNOW. WE AREN'T GOING TO KNOW. NO ONE ELSE CAN TELL US. The question of God remains a question. And will remain a question. Looking for evidence and not finding it doesn't mean anything. The question remains exactly as it was. And so do the endless possibilities that it embodies. So the question to you is: are any of those endless possibilities of particular positive use/value to YOU? Could they be?

Theology begins, here ....

I agree that we don't know. Given the circumstances of our present existence, there's no way that anyone can possibly know with any degree of certainty. I don't think we're at a stage where we can even begin to "look for evidence," since the very concept of God remains indefinable and indescribable - other than symbolic representations in literature and fiction.

At least with unicorns, we have some sort of artistic conception so that if anyone did spot one, they could say "Yep, that's a unicorn." Other people could also confirm it. But there's no record of that ever happening. If it's a creature that's said to exist on earth, then the earth has been sufficiently explored by now that if someone ever did spot a unicorn, we would have heard of something.

But with "God," we don't even know what we're looking for. Even if we did find "evidence," we still may not have sufficient knowledge to make sense of it or confirm it as reliable. If we're talking about some kind of entity which is large enough and powerful enough to create an entire universe literally from scratch, then it could theoretically be some entity which exists outside of our dimension and plane of existence.

If so, it would be practically impossible to even produce one shred of evidence which we could examine or confirm on our current plane of existence. In the end, it's all just a big "maybe." Maybe this, maybe that - but no hard evidence, no direct knowledge. It's all just guessing.

Theology begins with guessing. Not that there's anything wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with considering all the possibilities.

But theology seems like it goes beyond that. Even if we get beyond the question of whether or not there is some kind of "God" who created the universe, theology also tries to attach some meaning or significance to it, to humans specifically. Theology often tries to attach a certain necessity or urgency for an individual human to find "God" and to accept that there is meaning, significance, and purpose in one's life (even if we don't really know what it is).

That's what theology does. It's not just a matter of considering possibilities. Maybe there is some extra-dimensional being far beyond our comprehension who created the universe for some particular reason. Maybe. But even if that's true, what does any of it have to do with us, here in this tiny little corner of this immense thing known as the universe?

That, for me, is when theology tends to go awry. It's one thing to operate from the assumption that "there is a God," but then to pile more assumptions on top of that is when it starts to go too far.

 

[Stevicus]

I remember walking into the dining room at the Royal Pavilion in Brighton, England and saying to my companion, "Oh my goodness, isn't it garish and awful." A pair of elderly ladies behind us were quite miffed -- they thought it the most beautiful thing they'd ever seen.

Well, obviously, they've never been to Waffle House or any decent truck stop.

 

[ratiocinator]

We still can't know how God exists, or even would exist, if God exists. Why are you finding this so difficult to accept?

WE DON'T KNOW. WE AREN'T GOING TO KNOW. NO ONE ELSE CAN TELL US. The question of God remains a question. And will remain a question. Looking for evidence and not finding it doesn't mean anything. The question remains exactly as it was. And so do the endless possibilities that it embodies. So the question to you is: are any of those endless possibilities of particular positive use/value to YOU? Could they be?

Did you intend this to be comical? You could say the same thing about any unfalsifiable proposition, and come to the exact same conclusion if you used the same unreasoning approach. It's basically saying that if you make up a fantasy reality, so long as nobody can disprove it, go right ahead and believe it, if it suits you. On second thoughts, not comical, dangerous.

Theology begins, here ....

Fantasy and delusion begins here.

 

[Vinayaka]

with neither of them ever learning a thing.

How can you possibly learn anything when you already know everything there is to know? At the extremes of the spectrum of the atheism/theism debate there is unpenetrable ego. If only they recognised such commonality in approach. Yes the beliefs are on opposite poles, but the way it's approached has striking similarities.