Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

Stevicus · 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."

I don't know if atheists are defining God in any way. Atheists didn't invent "God," but the concept does exist in society. I suppose if no one ever invented "God," or if no one ever heard of "God" and the concept of belief simply didn't exist at all, then everyone would be "atheists," although they probably wouldn't use that particular word.

joe1776 · 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 don't know what was in Planck's mind. I simply remembered this quote and offered it since it was on point.

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.

You can certainly do that if you wish. What you can't do persuasively is chalk up the possibility of an intelligent mind as the source to simply a fantasy of the author of the OP since a physicist intimately connected with the creation of quantum theory had the same idea.

icehorse · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
That doesn’t answer my question. No, I don’t believe those things. So should your anti-theist stance be universal? Or should it be an anti-some-theists stance?

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.

QuestioningMind · Oct 18, 2019

sojourner said:
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?

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.

Howard Is · Oct 18, 2019

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

Beliefs regarding God are generally either conditioned from birth, or based on some kind of experience.

Given that I have ‘experienced’ being at a tribal celebration in the African jungle, while lying on my back on a headland north of Sydney, I know full well that it is possible to ‘experience’ anything.

I also know that when the whole brain lights up under the influence of a 5HTP2a agonist, people report an experience of ‘cosmic oneness’, visions, and transcendent wisdom.

The release of an endogenous (internal, from within the brain) 5HTP-2a agonist will precipitate the same kind of experience.

Knowing that, and knowing that people use the same words with completely different meanings, and the same meanings with completely different words, I simply don’t bother myself with whether or not I am Label A or Label B.

And I really don’t understand why you do, or why it matters to you whether or not I do.

Question - if I think that awareness and wisdom are inherent properties of whatever-reality-is, and revere and cultivate that, but do not speculate beyond that...
1. Am I an atheist ?
2. Am I a skunk who doesn’t realise he stinks ?

Based on this post, what do you think I am ?

loverofhumanity · 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."

Have atheists really got it all wrong? There’s a lot of religious superstitions that atheists rightfully reject. I think atheists have in fact got quite a few things right.

How many millions of religionists are very superstitious and irrational even though they claim to believe in God? Whereas atheists cannot accept what their mind is unsure of religionists seem to fall hook, line and sinker for the most irrational and superstitious ideas told them by their leaders.

Even today you have people believe in a God that will raise dead bodies out of graves when Christ returns on a cloud with angels and His followers will be taken up physically in a rapture!!

I was once an atheist and found God but had to find Him through discarding all these superstitious ideas indoctrinated into me by church dogma. Only then when my mind roamed in the realms of logic and reason was my spirit able to really find God and I thank God I was an atheist because if I remained an indoctrinated Christian then to this day I would be following a superstitious God concocted by the fathers of the church and never have found the real God.

As an atheist I was permitted to question instead of blindly following what was dictated to me. No longer brainwashed I found God and the truth and am thankful I was an atheist as it was the only way my brainwashed, indoctrinated and shut mind could eventually be opened not by following a priest or minister.

I have the utmost respect for atheists as in many ways they are much more open minded than religionists who follow blindly a leader instead of using their own minds.

I believe It will require science and reason to purge religion of its many superstitions to prepare it for this new age.

paarsurrey · 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."

“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”

Is it really a taboo for the Atheism people, please?

Regards

QuestioningMind · Oct 19, 2019

sojourner said:
Ok. I looked back to be certain, and I haven’t made any such claims in this debate. I did mention God-concepts. Second, I never claimed that definitions were silly. If your definition is “silly” to you, it seems a different, serious exercise is in order, no? Such as coming up with a God-concept that serves you. Are you conceding defeat in that endeavor? It sounds like you are, and that you want us to do it for you.

So, who’s not making sense here? I didn’t say that atheists use incorrect definitions. I said that they generally use definitions that are not shared by theists.
I never claimed that God exists, either. These are claims that you’re pressing upon me. We’ve all done our own spiritual work of developing God-concepts for ourselves. You need to do your own work in that regard. I’m not asking you to believe in anything. I don’t care what you believe or disbelieve. What I’m trying to figure out is why my beliefs seem so important to you?

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.

Howard Is · Oct 19, 2019

paarsurrey said:
“Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism”

Is it really a taboo for the Atheism people, please?

Regards

No.
Some of us have a rich spiritual life that requires no belief and fits none of these cliche worn out labels

I do not need my reality defined.

I would only need that if my mind was dominated by barnyard logic and I needed to find my place in that.

paarsurrey · Oct 19, 2019

Howard Is said:
No.
Some of us have a rich spiritual life that requires no belief and fits none of these cliche worn out labels

I do not need my reality defined.

I would only need that if my mind was dominated by barnyard logic and I needed to find my place in that.

"a rich spiritual life that requires no belief"

Well, what is one's understanding of the word "spiritual", please?

Regards

Heyo · Oct 19, 2019

dfnj said:
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".

The moment atheists admit they don't know what a god is, they stop being atheists and become Agnostics. Not that I would mind.

The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

[citation needed]
And I don't mean some quantum woo á la Deepak Chopra or even musings of some real quantum physicists. I'm thinking of a paper in a referred science journal.
Reality is still real, even if it is created by probability waves. Convince yourself that you are a probability wave and try to tunnel through a brick wall. Then tell me again that reality isn't real.

Heyo · Oct 19, 2019

icehorse said:
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.

You don't come off as an anti-theist to me. I think you could drop that classification without loosing anything in exchange for being a secularist. If you can accept the existence of religions and theists and only want them to play nice with the other kids, you are a secularist. And secularism is a position that can be held by theists, too.

Heyo · Oct 19, 2019

Howard Is said:
Based on this post, what do you think I am ?

An acid-head.

syo · Oct 19, 2019

Nakosis said:
I'd suppose if you are not defining God, there is nothing to believe or disbelieve.

Yup. 'Theism' is a knowledge that atheists do not have.

PureX · Oct 19, 2019

Nakosis said:
I'd suppose if you are not defining God, there is nothing to believe or disbelieve.

Well, except that the mystery is real, and allows for some interesting possibilities. The problem I have with atheism is that it denies those possibilities based on nothing.

PureX · Oct 19, 2019

Augustus said:
Atheism is "simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods" yet "To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods"

"Siri, what does disbelief mean?"

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.

PureX · Oct 19, 2019

LuisDantas said:
Can't say I understand the point of the OP.

Atheism is clear enough and reasonable enough. Some people simply have no need for any conception of deity.

That is actually a FAR BETTER AND MORE HONEST DEFINITION of atheism than the "unbelief" gibberish that's currently being spewed.

I thank you for it.

PureX · Oct 19, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Give me a clear and concise definition of God ...

... Because mysteries cannot exist in my reality!

ChristineM · Oct 19, 2019

syo said:
Yup. 'Theism' is a knowledge that atheists do not have.

Or guesses where atheists follow the evidence or lack of evidence

PureX · Oct 19, 2019

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

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

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

Well-Known Member

Lucky Mud

We are all the leaves of one tree

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Lucky Mud

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Veteran Member