Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

Polymath257 · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
For me, truth and meaning are very closely tied. If the experience isn’t true in some way, on some level, it’s not meaningful.

Hmmm...not at all my experience. There are many things that have no truth value, but are quite meaningful. Such as beauty. It isn't 'truth', but it is meaningful.

And conversely, not all true things are meaningful.

See? So back to my original question: what evidence would convince you? I may be simply a little soured, but I don’t think any external evidence would convince you. Here’s why: evidence has to be validated by some authority, or it’s not evidence. And I think this is really the rub for you. A runny nose, body aches and a fever is evidence for the flu, because the authority of medicine has discovered that those are the symptoms. There is no “authority” higher than the Divine that can either establish or judge the Divine, because the Divine (by definition) is its own authority. Who judges the standard for beauty? Why judges the authenticity of creation? You see, there are just aspects of our existence that are above, or beyond, or greater than the sum of our parts, that we can’t establish any authority over. We can’t snuff out existence. We can’t quash beauty.

So, what external evidence would convince you? similarly, what internal evidence would convince you?

Internal evidence is an oxymoron.

As for external evidence, it depends on what definition of 'God' you use. For a creator God, a message in the cosmic background radiation that can be decoded straightforwardly into a 'signature' would be a very good first step. If it also included design notes and some information that could be validated and that was unknown prior, that would certainly be enough.

It would be *much* harder to justify the existence of a supernatural, however.

No. Because internal evidence is more than just “opinion.”

OK, I disagree here. In fact, it is almost my definition of opinion: that which I believe that cannot be independently verified.

So, I find tomatoes to be horribly nasty. That is my 'internal experience'. But that does not make it a 'truth' that tomatoes are horribly nasty. It only makes it a 'truth' that it is *my opinion* that they are.

Polymath257 · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
How? A red octagon is a notification how? By verbiage? By audio message? By any kind of human linguistic communication? No! It’s a symbol of that law that says, “Stop!”

and it’s obvious.

No, it is an agreed upon method of notifying people of how the law will be applied. It is a *convention*. Not all language is spoken.

Revoltingest · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
For me, truth and meaning are very closely tied. If the experience isn’t true in some way, on some level, it’s not meaningful.

See? So back to my original question: what evidence would convince you? I may be simply a little soured, but I don’t think any external evidence would convince you. Here’s why: evidence has to be validated by some authority, or it’s not evidence. And I think this is really the rub for you. A runny nose, body aches and a fever is evidence for the flu, because the authority of medicine has discovered that those are the symptoms. There is no “authority” higher than the Divine that can either establish or judge the Divine, because the Divine (by definition) is its own authority. Who judges the standard for beauty? Why judges the authenticity of creation? You see, there are just aspects of our existence that are above, or beyond, or greater than the sum of our parts, that we can’t establish any authority over. We can’t snuff out existence. We can’t quash beauty.

So, what external evidence would convince you? similarly, what internal evidence would convince you?

No. Because internal evidence is more than just “opinion.”

About internal evidence.....I don't trust it.
I have a very certain feeling that there are no gods.
But I know that a feeling is not truth.
So I don't believe it.

One can call a feeling "evidence", but consider that
in a trial, competing sides both offer evidence. No
one wins simply by having some. One must weigh
it from both sides. Without convincing evidence from
believers or the nons, disbelief is the rational choice.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Polymath257 said:
Hmmm...not at all my experience. There are many things that have no truth value, but are quite meaningful. Such as beauty

For me, truth is a qualifier for beauty. if it’s false, it can’t be beautiful.

Polymath257 said:
As for external evidence, it depends on what definition of 'God' you use. For a creator God, a message in the cosmic background radiation that can be decoded straightforwardly into a 'signature' would be a very good first step. If it also included design notes and some information that could be validated and that was unknown prior, that would certainly be enough.

It would be *much* harder to justify the existence of a supernatural, however

Well, whoever said that God had to be “supernatural?” Cannot God be the impetus of the creation of the natural order? I don’t envision God as some ... something that is wholly Other than creation. For me, the world is God’s body. The cosmos is not so much “evidence” (for evidence requires a judgment) as it is a theophany.

Polymath257 said:
OK, I disagree here. In fact, it is almost my definition of opinion: that which I believe that cannot be independently verified.

So, I find tomatoes to be horribly nasty. That is my 'internal experience'. But that does not make it a 'truth' that tomatoes are horribly nasty. It only makes it a 'truth' that it is *my opinion* that they are

It makes it a truth for you. I think you’re getting hung up on the “necessity” of truth being some universal something. For me, truth is subjective.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Polymath257 said:
No, it is an agreed upon method of notifying people of how the law will be applied. It is a *convention*. Not all language is spoken.

And how are they notified? What’s the notification “medium?” In fact, what is written language, itself? It’s all symbol: an apprehendable something that stands for what it signifies. The symbol is as good as the thing itself.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Revoltingest said:
About internal evidence.....I don't trust it.
I have a very certain feeling that there are no gods.
But I know that a feeling is not truth.
So I don't believe it.

One can call a feeling "evidence", but consider that
in a trial, competing sides both offer evidence. No
one wins simply by having some. One must weigh
it from both sides. Without convincing evidence from
believers or the nons, disbelief is the rational choice.

Or is it? It may be a rational choice for you, but not for me. Because I’ve had experiences — both internal and external — that I can corroborate with other people who’ve had similar internal experiences, and the same external experiences, that we can only define as “spiritual.” Spiritual healing, for example.

Not only that, but for me there’s a difference between a “feeling” and an intuition of truth. Things have happened to me that resonate so deeply with me — and not necessarily in a corroborative” way, that is, not confirmation bias, but something new for me — that it resonates as true.

Revoltingest · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
Or is it? It may be a rational choice for you, but not for me. Because I’ve had experiences — both internal and external — that I can corroborate with other people who’ve had similar internal experiences, and the same external experiences, that we can only define as “spiritual.” Spiritual healing, for example.

Not only that, but for me there’s a difference between a “feeling” and an intuition of truth. Things have happened to me that resonate so deeply with me — and not necessarily in a corroborative” way, that is, not confirmation bias, but something new for me — that it resonates as true.

Different perspectives, eh.

Polymath257 · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
And how are they notified? What’s the notification “medium?” In fact, what is written language, itself? It’s all symbol: an apprehendable something that stands for what it signifies. The symbol is as good as the thing itself.

Well, typically, the notification medium is when we learn, as kids, that the red octagon means to stop.

Again, it is a cultural convention.There is nothing inherent in that red octagon that means 'stop'.

And the same is true for language. There is no reason that the word 'cat' should correspond to that fuzzy animal that likes to be petted. And, in fact, that same animal can be a gato, a chat, or a mao.

The truth is not the same as the representation.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Secondly, myth at least knows what it is. Theology pretends that it is not myth

If that’s what you think theology is and does, you don’t have any business arguing theology. Theology deals deeply with the mythic — on purpose.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Revoltingest said:
Different perspectives, eh.

I’d say so.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Polymath257 said:
Well, typically, the notification medium is when we learn, as kids, that the red octagon means to stop.

Again, it is a cultural convention.There is nothing inherent in that red octagon that means 'stop'.

And the same is true for language. There is no reason that the word 'cat' should correspond to that fuzzy animal that likes to be petted. And, in fact, that same animal can be a gato, a chat, or a mao.

The truth is not the same as the representation.

but the representation of it is the same as the truth. Because that’s what symbols are. The notification media is the symbol. The symbol is what it represents. If I don’t see the symbol guess what? I don’t stop! (Sometimes I don’t anyway...)

You seem to want to deal only with what is exterior, completely ignoring that what is interior can also be truth. I just don’t buy that. we need a balance of the two.

Polymath257 · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
but the representation of it is the same as the truth. Because that’s what symbols are. The notification media is the symbol. The symbol is what it represents. If I don’t see the symbol guess what? I don’t stop! (Sometimes I don’t anyway...)

You seem to want to deal only with what is exterior, completely ignoring that what is interior can also be truth. I just don’t buy that. we need a balance of the two.

No, the *truth* of the stop sign is that it is a piece of painted metal in the shape of an octagon. It is also a truth that this society takes it as a convention that that sign means to stop.

Yes, precisely, truth is *defined* as being that which does not depend on the observer. If changing cultures changes the meaning, it isn't the truth.

Again, that is not to say that all things meaningful are true. In fact, that is certainly NOT the case. Most meaningful things don't have a truth value at all.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Polymath257 said:
No, the *truth* of the stop sign is that it is a piece of painted metal in the shape of an octagon. It is also a truth that this society takes it as a convention that that sign means to stop

The fact of the stop sign is that it is a piece of painted metal in the shape of an octagon. Its truth is that it means “stop.”

Polymath257 said:
Yes, precisely, truth is *defined* as being that which does not depend on the observer. If changing cultures changes the meaning, it isn't the truth

I disagree. Truth depends on the perspective in which we stand. Truth does, indeed change as we change.

Earthtank · Oct 22, 2019

Atheism is not only wrong its an illogical belief. Yes, its a belief system like any other no matter how much word play they try to say otherwise.

Polymath257 · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
The fact of the stop sign is that it is a piece of painted metal in the shape of an octagon. Its truth is that it means “stop.”

No, that is NOT the truth of the sign. The *meaning* of the sign is that people should stop.

I disagree. Truth depends on the perspective in which we stand. Truth does, indeed change as we change.

OK, all I can say is that you use the word 'truth' in a *very* different manner than I do (or, for that matter, than any of my colleagues).

Furthermore, I can see no reason to dilute the word 'truth' as I use it to include the variety of things that you include. There are simply not enough similarities with 'truth' as I define it and the things you want to include in the usage of the word.

I am also *significantly* less interested in this extended notion. It seems *way* to fuzzy to me to be of much interest.

So, a sociological question: where did you learn to use the word 'truth' in this way?

Earthtank · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
Truth does, indeed change as we change.

If the truth changes then it was never the truth to begin unless, that truth is not an absolute truth. For example, the earth is round (absolute truth), that always has been, always will be true no matter what we know or believe. The only way the truth changes if its something like a person's age or health for exmaple. There's a difference.

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 22, 2019

sojourner said:
And is the southwest coast of the Inited States east of Japan, or west? Depends on your frame of reference.

You’re working off the premise that God is an existent thing. IOW, you’re biased.

You have no idea what I “imagine” and what I perceive. None. You, like most other atheists, assume such Superiority in that regard. Thanks for taking me seriously. Your “respect” is duly noted. I think we’re done here. If you can’t at least show respect, you’re not worth my time.

You might try to remember what the subject of this thread is, which is that "atheism and atheism are just wrong." I am not targeting you, nor your God. I am defending the atheist position, which I think to be extremely defensible -- much more so than the multitude of conflicting claims of the many religions humans have concocted for themselves.

Obviously you don't like it, but I have been at great pains to demonstrate to you why atheists have VERY GOOD REASONS, reasons which they can articulate without having to manufacture whole classes of stories (e.g. myths) to get there.

And you yourself make the very odd claim that I'm biased for thinking of "God" as "an existent thing." Which part of that, do you suppose, is wrong? If God is not existent, then this conversation is already over, and the atheists win. If God is not a thing, that is some sort of entity which exists, then God also plays no part at all in this existence.

EXCEPT, as you keep trying to suggest about other things like beauty, in the mind of the believer. But if that is the case, then this God that you think so important is not in the slightest respect any different than the Santa Claus of a child's belief, or the misplaced arm of the woman suffering from a mental malfunction called anosognosia.

And I showed you no disrespect whatsoever in pointing out that I would never, when speaking of the location of a state, resort to saying something like "it's left of here." We have perfectly adequate language to use in such descriptions, along with a large array of agreed-upon standards (such as global longitude and latitude, with zero degrees longitude at Greenwich, England, on which brass line I have actually stood). If you thought that was disrespectful, then you are being over-sensitive.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Polymath257 said:
The *meaning* of the sign is that people should stop

Is that meaning true? Should people stop?

Polymath257 said:
OK, all I can say is that you use the word 'truth' in a *very* different manner than I do (or, for that matter, than any of my colleagues).

Furthermore, I can see no reason to dilute the word 'truth' as I use it to include the variety of things that you include. There are simply not enough similarities with 'truth' as I define it and the things you want to include in the usage of the word.

I am also *significantly* less interested in this extended notion. It seems *way* to fuzzy to me to be of much interest

Fair enough.

Polymath257 said:
So, a sociological question: where did you learn to use the word 'truth' in this way?

I’m not sure. It was like a process of coming to that position. Probably due to a few things, such as the rampant absolutism of fundies, and my philosophy that differences matter, coupled with my approach that all should be honored and treated as equal.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
You might try to remember what the subject of this thread is, which is that "atheism and atheism are just wrong." I am not targeting you, nor your God. I am defending the atheist position, which I think to be extremely defensible -- much more so than the multitude of conflicting claims of the many religions humans have concocted for themselves.

Obviously you don't like it, but I have been at great pains to demonstrate to you why atheists have VERY GOOD REASONS, reasons which they can articulate without having to manufacture whole classes of stories (e.g. myths) to get there.

And you yourself make the very odd claim that I'm biased for thinking of "God" as "an existent thing." Which part of that, do you suppose, is wrong? If God is not existent, then this conversation is already over, and the atheists win. If God is not a thing, that is some sort of entity which exists, then God also plays no part at all in this existence.

EXCEPT, as you keep trying to suggest about other things like beauty, in the mind of the believer. But if that is the case, then this God that you think so important is not in the slightest respect any different than the Santa Claus of a child's belief, or the misplaced arm of the woman suffering from a mental malfunction called anosognosia.

And I showed you no disrespect whatsoever in pointing out that I would never, when speaking of the location of a state, resort to saying something like "it's left of here." We have perfectly adequate language to use in such descriptions, along with a large array of agreed-upon standards (such as global longitude and latitude, with zero degrees longitude at Greenwich, England, on which brass line I have actually stood). If you thought that was disrespectful, then you are being over-sensitive.

No, it was your insistence that I must be imagining things, rather than assuming that I’m being honest with you, that I’m an astute individual, whose feet are firmly in reality, and one who is fully cognizant of my own interior life. Instead of going, “Oh! He’s had some significant experiences, this might be worth listening to,” you decided to just blow me off as “imagining things.” Pardon me, but I don’t think that’s being “over sensitive.” That’s calling a spade a spade.

sojourner · Oct 22, 2019

Earthtank said:
If the truth changes then it was never the truth to begin unless, that truth is not an absolute truth. For example, the earth is round (absolute truth), that always has been, always will be true no matter what we know or believe. The only way the truth changes if its something like a person's age or health for exmaple. There's a difference.

I don’t think truth is absolute. I think some facts are absolute. Also, the fact is that the earth is not “round.” It’s elliptical.

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

Think & Care

Think & Care

Pragmatic Libertarian

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Pragmatic Libertarian

Think & Care

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Think & Care

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Active Member

Think & Care

Active Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006