Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

PruePhillip · Oct 19, 2019

blü 2 said:
Not quite. You can't bring religion into the classroom of a state school, the public education system. That is, you can't proselytize at the government's expense. But in non-state schools, and in Sunday schools, and at home, and so on, you can proselytize to your heart's content.
So you favor a theocracy? Compulsory Rainbow Serpent observances before and during class?

That's to say, secularism is a single notion. Religion is ten or twenty thousand notions ─ who gets to choose which one?

Interesting about the class room comment. Thanks.
The "rainbow serpent" is a logic fallacy in that it tries to delegate the bible
to the status of "just another religion." There never was a rainbow serpent,
or Zeus or the "horse twins." But there was an Israel, a King David, an
Isaiah, an Edict of Cyrus, Dead Sea Scrolls, Pontius Pilot, Jerusalem as
capital, Herod, Nazareth and a singular accurate account of the sequence
of steps of creation.

PruePhillip · Oct 19, 2019

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

They say there's "no evidence" for alien UFO's too - but they discount radar tracking,
photography, testimonials and the like.
So what is "evidence" ?
There's evidence for the possibility that consciousness can exist outside of brain
function. And about 60% of English and 70% of Dutch hospital staff report paranormal
behavior with dying patients.
I got this from two sources - my own and other's personal experiences, and from
reading the work of Peter Fenwick.

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 19, 2019

sojourner said:
I’m not the one demanding quantification where none is warranted. If you don’t think beauty needs to be quantified, why should you think that God needs to be quantified? Does beauty exist? Without quantification? How do you know? Because others also report experiencing beauty?

Okay -- but let's take your argument the whole way. If "God exists because people experience God," by your own argument, then you must also accept that every god, as has ever been experienced, must therefore exist AS EXPERIENCED. So all the gods we've heard of until now, by your reckoning, are equally real.

The wonder is how they get along!

The other wonder is why you think that "quantification" is some sort of test for reality. Are you married? What quantifiers did you (and how do you now) use to describe your wife's beauty when she was nothing more than a hopeful heartbeat and desire in your mind? Have any favourite music? How do you "quantify" what makes it better than any other? I just came from the opera, a performance of Puccini's Turandot, actually, and the music in Act III of Liu's death, and the grief felt by her master Timur, are some of the most beautiful things I know of. But I can't do any algebra around it. I have no spreadsheets that show why it's more beautiful than Gabriel Faure's Cantique de Jean Racine.

And more to the point, I would not even try.

Polymath257 · Oct 19, 2019

sojourner said:
It’s not factual. But it is true that Washington was honest.

So say *that*. Taking the story as 'truth' seems to be simply lying.

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

Did I say that? I said the reason I am here is because of copulation. Families have meaning, to the extent that they do, because of the relationships between the people in them.

Myths aren’t falsehoods.

Well, they certainly aren't true.

They’re metaphorical ways of seeing ourselves.

OK, so analogies. Using a simple-to-understand falsehood/approximation to explain a harder to understand truth?

This is two dimensional thinking you’re showing. I’m glad you weren’t at NASA when we went to the moon. No Z axis in your thinking.

I simply don't see myths as 'true'. I see them, potentially as useful literature. I see them as a good basis for comedy. But there is a HUGE difference between truth and what myths provide.

When asking about deities, I am interested in the truth of the matter: do they actually exist or not? If not, we can still invent stories about them, in the same way people invent stories about Sherlock Holmes (an interesting myth in itself). We can still have meaning and art, etc. But we should still acknowledge them to not be truth.

And I am more than happy to deal with any number of dimensions you want.

Polymath257 · Oct 19, 2019

sojourner said:
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.

It exists in the sense that our brains perceive it. It isn't something that exists independently of people. It certainly doesn't exist in the same sense that the chair I am sitting on does.

Why should God be held to a higher standard? Why do you insist on quantifiable evidence or proof for God, but not for beauty?

Because experience of beauty is a human emotion, not something external to us. If God is an internal state, then there isn't much else to say.

Polymath257 · Oct 19, 2019

PureX said:
The real problem here is our constant lack of clarity both linguistically and conceptually. Unicorns exist. They exist as an idea and they exist as entities in stories, and ideas and stories exist. Unicorns do not exist, as far as we know, as actual biological life forms in the way that we exist as actual biological life forms. So they both exist, and do not exist, depending on the manner of existence being applied.

And when we ask if unicorns exist, we typically mean in the second sense, not in the first. The issue of God's existence is the second sense. If God only exists in the first sense, then there isn't much else to say.

No, it really isn't that simple at all. You are here because here is here, and because here is the way it is. But this doesn't answer any of the questions that we are capable of asking because we are here.
Myths aren't lies. They are artifice: symbolic, metaphoric, and allegorical.

OK, untruths.

Willamena · Oct 19, 2019

Polymath257 said:
OK, so analogies. Using a simple-to-understand falsehood/approximation to explain a harder to understand truth?

No. Metaphorical ways of seeing ourselves.

Using something more profound than analogy to grasp higher truths.

I highly recommend exposure to Joseph Campbell, though the books would probably do more good than the video clips.

Polymath257 · Oct 19, 2019

Willamena said:
No. Metaphorical ways of seeing ourselves.

Using something more profound than analogy to grasp higher truths.

I highly recommend exposure to Joseph Campbell, though the books would probably do more good than the video clips.

Oh, I've read Campbell. But I fail to see how any of the myths reveal 'higher truths'. Fine literature, perhaps, but truths? Not that I can see.

On the other hand, I have never seen any essential difference between simile and metaphor. As far as I can see, they are doing exactly the same thing: making a comparison or analogy.

Willamena · Oct 19, 2019

Polymath257 said:
Oh, I've read Campbell. But I fail to see how any of the myths reveal 'higher truths'. Fine literature, perhaps, but truths? Not that I can see.

On the other hand, I have never seen any essential difference between simile and metaphor. As far as I can see, they are doing exactly the same thing: making a comparison or analogy.

Fair enough. Some can see the difference, though.

Polymath257 · Oct 19, 2019

Willamena said:
Fair enough. Some can see the difference, though.

One has the word 'like' or 'as'. The other doesn't. So what?

Willamena · Oct 19, 2019

Polymath257 said:
One has the word 'like' or 'as'. The other doesn't. So what?

One is poetry, the other is prose. No biggie.

blü 2 · Oct 19, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Interesting about the class room comment. Thanks.
The "rainbow serpent" is a logic fallacy in that it tries to delegate the bible to the status of "just another religion."

But Christianity isn't one religion but thousands, and Islam has much the same tendency, Buddhism exists in various traditions and sub-traditions, Hinduism has its major and a great many minor deities, and so on round the world.

Which one gets to prescribe religion for schools? What about the Wiccans, the Satanists (LeVey and other kinds), the Norse and Greek revivalists, the multifarious traditions of the Great Spirit, the Rainbow Serpent, and so on?

PruePhillip said:
There never was a rainbow serpent, or Zeus or the "horse twins."
But there was an Israel, a King David, an Isaiah, an Edict of Cyrus, Dead Sea Scrolls, Pontius Pilot, Jerusalem as capital, Herod, Nazareth and a singular accurate account of the sequence of steps of creation.

There never was a Genesis Creation or an Adam or Eve or talking snake or Noah or Tower of Babel or Nephalim or a talking donkey or Job, or Moses, on and on. And there may or may not have been an historical Jesus, and if there was, which, if any, of the bible's five or more was he, and regardless, he did no more miracles than Pilate did.

Polymath257 · Oct 19, 2019

Willamena said:
One is poetry, the other is prose. No biggie.

Hmmmm...maybe that's why most poetry just doesn't do anything for me. Some can be OK, but most is almost intolerably obfuscated.

Nakosis · Oct 19, 2019

PureX said:
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.

I don't insist you defend your beliefs, I just insist that you don't expect me to buy into them.

Nakosis · Oct 20, 2019

PureX said:
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.

I expect science will resolve those mysteries. Religion just hasn't provided anything reliable.

Nakosis · Oct 20, 2019

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

Theism is a knowledge that nobody has. Just waiting on the rest of the folks to figure that out.

ratiocinator · Oct 20, 2019

PruePhillip said:
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.

Now your confusing secularism with liberal social values. We could go off at a tangent about said values and their relationship with secularism but that would be straying far from the thread subject.

lewisnotmiller · Oct 20, 2019

PruePhillip said:
There's evidence for the possibility that consciousness can exist outside of brain
function. And about 60% of English and 70% of Dutch hospital staff report paranormal
behavior with dying patients.
I got this from two sources - my own and other's personal experiences, and from
reading the work of Peter Fenwick.

Was Fenwick's assertion based on anecdotal evidence?
Do you have a link to the evidence for consciousness outside of brain function?
Do you have a link to the evidence for the percentage of hospital staff experiencing paranormal events?
What conclusion are you drawing based on these assertions?

lewisnotmiller · Oct 20, 2019

PruePhillip said:
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.

Why are you conflating one Catholic ministers position on gay marriage with 'religion'?
Also, the issue wasn't only his position, but the distribution of the leaflet he produced via the Catholic Education system. What is it he was charged with??

This is the same man who defended George Pell, and who has championed free speech BUT...

'Archbishop accused of free speech hypocrisy after priest silenced on marriage ... ' - Tasmanian Times

Meh. Lies and hypocrisy is not limited to any one side of politics or religion.

ratiocinator · Oct 20, 2019

PruePhillip said:
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.

Which is a quaintly nineteenth century way of looking at the issue. The question is better phrased as why does the universe exist, rather than how it started - because time is part of the universe.

PruePhillip said:
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.

Similarly we don't know the extent of the natural world - we don't know what we don't know, so literally anything is possible naturally too.

That's why the mystery of existence is exactly the same for theists as atheists. Nobody knows why the universe exists (we might explain why this space-time exists, but that would still leave the basic question), and if you postulate a creator god to "explain" it, you're left with an exactly equivalent problem of why that god exists.

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Think & Care

Think & Care

Think & Care

Just me

Think & Care

Just me

Think & Care

Just me

Veteran Member

Think & Care

Non-Binary Physicalist

Non-Binary Physicalist

Non-Binary Physicalist

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Grand Hat

Grand Hat

Lightly seared on the reality grill.