Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

columbus · Oct 18, 2019

I just want to be the 20th response that gets this thread featured.
Tom

wandering peacefully · Oct 18, 2019

dfnj said:
Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

This of course is completely wrong, but what is your concept of deity if it isn't something that can be experienced or have any effect on other objects? And if your God isn't anything material or is just particles, what in the world is the point of believing in it?

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

icehorse said:
Your argument feels like a dodge to me.

We atheists cannot be expected to know everyone's personal definition of this fictional being. But some of us atheists are concerned about religion, and it has to be fair for us to debate, using the common definitions of god that the religious use.

This is where I get all messed up with atheism. You wanna believe God doesn't exist? Fine. I have no problem with that. But I've spoken to/debated enough atheists to know that many manifestations of atheism are wholly political in nature. That is, atheists have an axe to grind. Most of it is a stance against Christian fundamentalism/evangelicalism. And they pull out the "prove it" card without exception, every single time, even though they think there's nothing to prove. It ends up being a non-argument, because atheists insist on imposing standards on the Divine that those who believe in the Divine don't espouse. Yet you claim to want to use "common definitions." You can't have it both ways!

Here's my question to you: If you think God doesn't exist, why are you attempting to debate what doesn't exist? It seems to be an exercise in futility, i.e. a complete waste of your time. Unless, that is, you have an axe to grind, and you just want to grind others into the dirt with your thrilling displays of "logic."

icehorse · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
This is where I get all messed up with atheism. You wanna believe God doesn't exist? Fine. I have no problem with that. But I've spoken to/debated enough atheists to know that many manifestations of atheism are wholly political in nature. That is, atheists have an axe to grind. Most of it is a stance against Christian fundamentalism/evangelicalism. And they pull out the "prove it" card without exception, every single time, even though they think there's nothing to prove. It ends up being a non-argument, because atheists insist on imposing standards on the Divine that those who believe in the Divine don't espouse. Yet you claim to want to use "common definitions." You can't have it both ways!

Here's my question to you: If you think God doesn't exist, why are you attempting to debate what doesn't exist? It seems to be an exercise in futility, i.e. a complete waste of your time. Unless, that is, you have an axe to grind, and you just want to grind others into the dirt with your thrilling displays of "logic."

Actually, I define myself as an anti-theist. In other words, I think religions do more harm than good.

So I keep my atheism separate from my anti-theism.

(And BTW, why would you venture into slurring me?)

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Give me a clear and concise definition of God and I will tell you if I believe in that or not. That some theists cannot even define "God" is not my problem.

Here's the twist in logic, though. We don't need to define God in order to believe in God. As is readily seen, "God" is a very fluid concept. You all seem to think that fluid concepts are a bad thing. You wanna lock everything down with a number or a measurement. You can't quantify faith, life, beauty, wisdom, attraction, love, courage, loyalty, wholeness, worth, self-esteem, hospitality, generosity, mercy, kindness, forbearance, forgiveness, evil, good, hunger, pain, etc. These are all fluid concepts. You can't put a number, or even a precise definition on any of them that someone else can't disqualify, yet they seem to exist, and everyone seems to place value upon them. Why must God any different?

Tell ya what: when you can give me a clear and concise quantification of your love for your spouse, or a clear and concise quantification of how beautiful any sunset is, then we'll talk.

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

icehorse said:
Actually, I define myself as an anti-theist. In other words, I think religions do more harm than good.

So I keep my atheism separate from my anti-theism.

(And BTW, why would you venture into slurring me?)

I'm not slurring you; I'm just scratching my head at the cognitive dissonance I perceive.

So, you're an "anti-theist." You just don't like theists very much? So, God exists, but you don't like the worshipers? What exactly are you claiming here? And do other atheists share your definition, or is this another fluid concept, like trying to pin God down to a definition that atheists approve of?

The arguments generally seem to me to be vague, vindictive, and reactionary. Just like a lot of atheists accuse theists of being. What an unhappy circumstance.

joe1776 · Oct 18, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
....But I most certainly do not agree when you say the "scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind." There's nothing you could present that would demonstrate that, and I think that it is pure fantasy on your part - a fantasy that is based in part on our own human ability to posit the existence of other minds.

I don't know the truth on this point but Max Planck who made a crucial contribution to quantum theory said this:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

QuestioningMind · Oct 18, 2019

dfnj said:
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

Go ahead and give me your definition of god and the verifiable evidence that you have for this god and I'll let you know if I have any good reason to believe in it. Thus far after 57 years of life, I have yet to come across anyone who can provide me with a definition and the evidence that I would require for belief. Let's see if you are any different.

Subduction Zone · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
Here's the twist in logic, though. We don't need to define God in order to believe in God. As is readily seen, "God" is a very fluid concept. You all seem to think that fluid concepts are a bad thing. You wanna lock everything down with a number or a measurement. You can't quantify faith, life, beauty, wisdom, attraction, love, courage, loyalty, wholeness, worth, self-esteem, hospitality, generosity, mercy, kindness, forbearance, forgiveness, evil, good, hunger, pain, etc. These are all fluid concepts. You can't put a number, or even a precise definition on any of them that someone else can't disqualify, yet they seem to exist, and everyone seems to place value upon them. Why must God any different?

Tell ya what: when you can give me a clear and concise quantification of your love for your spouse, or a clear and concise quantification of how beautiful any sunset is, then we'll talk.

What does a fuzzy god even do? What good is a fuzzy god?

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
What does a fuzzy god even do? What good is a fuzzy god?

I didn’t say God was fuzzy concept. I said that the God-concept is fluid. The first is a precise definition. The second leaves room for differences in perception and perspective. Let me counter your question with this: If God is small enough for any one human being to perceive enough to precisely and universally define, what good is such a small God? For God to be God, God must such that God encompasses all existence. And we can’t precisely define that.

I think every person who cares to conceptualize the Divine does so in a fairly unique way.

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 18, 2019

joe1776 said:
I don't know the truth on this point but Max Planck who made a crucial contribution to quantum theory said this:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Okay, and what do you suppose it is that made Planck think that "we MUST assume," anything at all, and most especially, why what we must assume must be both conscious and intelligent?

I'll go Planck one better and ask this: "If we assume that there is a conscious and intelligent agent of existence, how the heck did it get to be?" If there's no answer at all, then I submit that I need make no such assumption at all, and that Planck, for all his mathematical intelligence, was not, in fact, all-wise.

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

QuestioningMind said:
Go ahead and give me your definition of god and the verifiable evidence that you have for this god and I'll let you know if I have any good reason to believe in it. Thus far after 57 years of life, I have yet to come across anyone who can provide me with a definition and the evidence that I would require for belief. Let's see if you are any different.

Are you incapable of coming up with your own concept that carries meaning for you? Our apprehension of the Divine is a fairly subjective process, and is mostly experiential in nature. It’s more intuitive than cognitive.

icehorse · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
I'm not slurring you; I'm just scratching my head at the cognitive dissonance I perceive.

So, you're an "anti-theist." You just don't like theists very much? So, God exists, but you don't like the worshipers? What exactly are you claiming here? And do other atheists share your definition, or is this another fluid concept, like trying to pin God down to a definition that atheists approve of?

The arguments generally seem to me to be vague, vindictive, and reactionary. Just like a lot of atheists accuse theists of being. What an unhappy circumstance.

So if you can go ahead and stow comments like "thrilling display" and stick to the actual points, that would be great.

If you read my post carefully, I agreed that I was an atheist AND and anti-theist. I don't usually get into debates about atheism, because to me, there's not much to talk about.

But as for anti-theism, it's not that I "don't like worshipers". I don't like many of the effects that religion has had, and continues to have on society. So a worshiper that keeps their faith mostly to themselves doesn't bother me. But there are those religious folks who want to warp how we teach science, or who want to inflict theocratic rule, or who push for beating kids in school. Those are the folks I disagree with. The ones who want to club the rest of us over the head with their religious beliefs. And while - as a percentage - they're not in the majority, we all know that it's the extremists that tend to cause way more trouble than their sheer numbers would suggest.

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Okay, and what do you suppose it is that made Planck think that "we MUST assume," anything at all, and most especially, why what we must assume must be both conscious and intelligent?

I'll go Planck one better and ask this: "If we assume that there is a conscious and intelligent agent of existence, how the heck did it get to be?" If there's no answer at all, then I submit that I need make no such assumption at all, and that Planck, for all his mathematical intelligence, was not, in fact, all-wise.

Yeah, I don’t follow that reasoning either.

QuestioningMind · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
This is where I get all messed up with atheism. You wanna believe God doesn't exist? Fine. I have no problem with that. But I've spoken to/debated enough atheists to know that many manifestations of atheism are wholly political in nature. That is, atheists have an axe to grind. Most of it is a stance against Christian fundamentalism/evangelicalism. And they pull out the "prove it" card without exception, every single time, even though they think there's nothing to prove. It ends up being a non-argument, because atheists insist on imposing standards on the Divine that those who believe in the Divine don't espouse. Yet you claim to want to use "common definitions." You can't have it both ways!

Here's my question to you: If you think God doesn't exist, why are you attempting to debate what doesn't exist? It seems to be an exercise in futility, i.e. a complete waste of your time. Unless, that is, you have an axe to grind, and you just want to grind others into the dirt with your thrilling displays of "logic."

Let me ask you a question. IF there was a large portion of people in society who believed in magical pixies and insisted that there were laws that the magical pixies expect all human being to follow and they want to impose those rules onto everyone in the society that you live in, would you attempt to debate the existence of these magical pixies? Would the fact that you chose to argue against the existence of such pixies also mean that you have an 'ax to grind' and just want to grind others into the dirt with your thrilling displays of "logic.?

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

icehorse said:
So if you can go ahead and stow comments like "thrilling display" and stick to the actual points, that would be great.

If you read my post carefully, I agreed that I was an atheist AND and anti-theist. I don't usually get into debates about atheism, because to me, there's not much to talk about.

But as or anti-theism, it's not that I "don't like worshipers". I don't like many of the effects that religion has had, and continues to have on society. So a worshiper that keeps their faith mostly to themselves doesn't bother me. But there are those religious folks who want to warp how we teach science, or who want to inflict theocratic rule, or who push for beating kids in school. Those are the folks I disagree with. The ones who want to club the rest of us over the head with their religious beliefs. And while - as a percentage - they're not in the majority, we all know that it's the extremists that tend to cause way more trouble than their sheer numbers would suggest.

Ok, but I’m a theist and I’m against those things, too. Do you have another set of reasons for being anti-theist? Because it’s not necessary for taking a stance against the stuff we don’t like. It just seems, as I said, reactionary. For example, I don’t like Sammy Hagar, but I’m not “anti-rock Star.” For me to be against all rock stars just because I don’t like Hagar would be ... reactionary.

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

QuestioningMind said:
Let me ask you a question. IF there was a large portion of people in society who believed in magical pixies and insisted that there were laws that the magical pixies expect all human being to follow and they want to impose those rules onto everyone in the society that you live in, would you attempt to debate the existence of these magical pixies? Would the fact that you chose to argue against the existence of such pixies also mean that you have an 'ax to grind' and just want to grind others into the dirt with your thrilling displays of "logic.?

First off, I don’t know that such creatures don’t exist. And their non-existence doesn’t take up much of my cognitive exercise or emotional wherewithal. Second, If certain people were doing that, I’d simply say that they had no right — just like I tell fundies that they have no right to label homosexuals as sinful. But I don’t have to spend time dismissing the pixie concept, just as I don’t “disbelieve” God because of the fundies.

Don’t you find this reactionary disavowance a little ... obsessive? It just seems like y’all waste a lot of time on something you believe doesn’t exist anyhow. Why give it power by spending all this time fiddling with it?

icehorse · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
Ok, but I’m a theist and I’m against those things, too. Do you have another set of reasons for being anti-theist? Because it’s not necessary for taking a stance against the stuff we don’t like. It just seems, as I said, reactionary. For example, I don’t like Sammy Hagar, but I’m not “anti-rock Star.” For me to be against all rock stars just because I don’t like Hagar would be ... reactionary.

Because as I said earlier, from my perspective, overall religions do more harm than good. I think John Lennon wrote a pretty good song about this.

QuestioningMind · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
Are you incapable of coming up with your own concept that carries meaning for you? Our apprehension of the Divine is a fairly subjective process, and is mostly experiential in nature. It’s more intuitive than cognitive.

You're the one who made the claim that some god entity actually exists. 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.

You really aren't making any sense. You start off your OP claiming that atheists use incorrect definitions for god. Yet when I attempt to get you to provide me with an accurate definition... you ask ME for MY definition. If you can't even define what you mean when you claim a god exists, why the heck would ANYONE accept that this undefined being actually exists?

sojourner · Oct 18, 2019

icehorse said:
Because as I said earlier, from my perspective, overall religions do more harm than good. I think John Lennon wrote a pretty good song about this.

Yes he did. So, if you’re anti-theist, are you anti-me? Or anti-Bonhoeffer? Or anti-Gene Robinson?

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

yawn <ignore> yawn

Which way to the woods?

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006