Making fun of atheism

Mock Turtle · Oct 18, 2021

mikkel_the_dane said:
Oaky, I will try. It is a part of being skeptical about words and combination of words.
I am skeptical of the use of the word "best" in your post, because I can find no evidence for it.

Let me explain. It is possible to use science, but it is not possible to use for "best" as you do it. It runs into this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Here is what you do. There are different human behaviour possible and doing science is one. Doing science on our existence is the best one as behaviour goes. The problem is that you have no evidence for it being the "best". All you can do is to note the different behaviors, there is evidence for that, but your evaluation is individual and not our evaluation. You don't speak for a best for all humans and nor do I.

If you want it as a joke, then if the world is natural, then religion is natural and a part of how the world works. If religion is not natural, the all the world is not natural. In other words religion is a part of how evolution works in humans. So what is the problem?

No problem. We seem to live in different worlds I guess.

PureX · Oct 18, 2021

Stevicus said:
I agree with most of what you're saying here, although a lot of things we expect out of a certain routine that we've grown up with. But there's also enough randomness out there that we also learn to expect the unexpected. Sometimes, I go out to my car, expecting it to start, but it doesn't. It happens.

A lot of the benevolence that we might see in today's modern world comes from humanity itself. At least in the sense that we're more comfortable than our Stone Age ancestors were. At least, if we look at the evidence, humanity's early ancestors came from an existence in which they were compelled to deal with the harsh and indifferent forces of Nature, which appear neither benevolent nor malevolent. They simply exist, although with a certain degree of predictability.

We are part of the universe, so our benevolence toward each other is just another example of the universe's benevolence toward us. For me, personally, this embodies a lot of what I choose to consider to be "God's reality". I do not see God as being apart from me, from us, or from the natural order in the universe. I see it all as aspects of the same source. And in fact this is the main idea being forwarded by Judeo-Christian religion (even if in a somewhat more archaic and superstitious way). Given this understanding, the "evidence" for God and God's benevolence is all around us, and even in us. Of course it's not absolutely for us and about us, as we are only a small fraction of the universe. So we still suffer, and we die. But the fact of the gift of our having been here, and been aware of it, remains. And nothing I can think of is more important.

Stevicus said:
We don't really know if someone or something "created" it or why.

We don't have to. But we do still have to trust in it. And for most humans, that tends to involve a degree of anthropomorphization. You or I may not choose this methodology, ourselves, but that doesn't make it wrong. Nor ineffective. Nor does it negate the fact that we all have to trust in the idea that existence will remain benevolent toward us, for us to function.

Stevicus said:
We don't really know that, even if someone did create this place, whether it was what they truly intended. All we really know is that this is the hand we've been dealt, as a species, and the entire known history of humanity is our story of how we've played that hand. For all we know, our entire existence could be the side effect of some forgotten experiment, still sitting on some scientist's shelf - or maybe tucked away in some giant extra-dimensional equivalent of a warehouse of the kind seen at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Maybe God is truly embarrassed by the whole failed "human experiment." It could be something like that.

True. But I think what matters to me is the unnecessary suffering in it. THAT we can do something about. And if faith in a religious, anthropomorphic God will help people on that score, then I support it even if I don't feel a need to engage in it, myself. And I can't even imagine why someone would try to negate or humiliate that means of relief based on some fantasy of their own about presumed knowledge that they don't possess based on "evidence" that is nothing more than a personal bias.

PureX · Oct 18, 2021

ratiocinator said:
Nobody said we know, but we do have evidence that supports a reasonable expectation. It isn't just trusting in speculation.

What anyone of us accepts as "evidence" is based on the criteria of our own chosen truth/reality paradigm. Thus it is being subjectively determined and thereby serves mostly as a method of self-sustaining bias. Your "reasonable expectations" do not overcome your not knowing. Nor does anyone else's.

ratiocinator · Oct 18, 2021

PureX said:
What anyone of us accepts as "evidence" is based on the criteria of our own chosen truth/reality paradigm. Thus it is being subjectively determined and thereby serves mostly as a method of self-sustaining bias. Your "reasonable expectations" do not overcome your not knowing. Nor does anyone else's.

Simply nonsense. If we have lots of experience of cars mostly starting, then that is entirely objective and could, if we could be bothered, be quantified. It can certainly be used as a basis for a reasonable expectation. It's really no different than testing something (for example, COVID vaccines, or wearing seatbelts in cars) and then giving advice to people based on the relative risks. It doesn't provide certainty, in the sense that nobody will ever get a negative outcome, but it does provides an entirely objective basis on which to proceed.

There is no comparison at all with belief in god(s) or that the universe was designed for us.

Why are you hung up on certainty, anyway? Who do you think is making any claim of certainty? Apart from you, of course, who made the entirely unsupported and unqualified claim that the universe was designed to meet our needs. Generally it's theists who claim certainty, rather than atheists.

QuestioningMind · Oct 18, 2021

questfortruth said:
Expressions: I have lack of pencils,

I have lack of gasoline,

I have lack of belief,

carry no information of what is in your possession.

That could be found in the collection:
Dmitri Martila

They could tell me about what they posses, I mean the quest for explaining the Big Bang, the mystery of UFO and time. It does not tell me much, when they say "we have lack of..."

But what they do? Do they struggle to explain Big Bang like Dr. Hawking has tried and failed? Do they look for explanation of UFO, and Dark Matter?

What about you? What do you do, if you disbeliever.

It is another expression of the atheism definition, it cares no information about your lifestyle and dreams. Do you wanna get information of how World has begun? If yes, then what do you do to get that information?

The expression: "I have belief", carries information of what is there in possession.

It is simply redefinition of the atheism. It gives not further insight beyond "we have lack of belief."
But what gives the insight, is what poetry do you prefer?
But I am not asking you, because you are not atheist.

"Poetry, Lanny? Go back to work!"

"I posses lack of gasoline" is nonsensical.

No, it does not. The sense makes this figure of speech: "I have no gasoline."

The ways to say fact can be wrong and illogical.

The legitimate statements are:
1. there is no gasoline,
2. I am lacking of gasoline,
3. I am out of gasoline,
4. etc.
But it is somewhat retarded to say:
5. I have lack of 1000 liters of gasoline in my possession, please let me show you that. Are you selling your lacks?

That is all I have asked for. Thank you. We have the winner.

[/QUO

The legitimate statements are:
1. there is no gasoline,
2. I am lacking of gasoline,
3. I am out of gasoline,
4. etc.
But it is somewhat retarded to say:
5. I have lack of 1000 liters of gasoline in my possession, please let me show you that. Are you selling your lacks?

How silly... 2 and 5 are the same. All you did was change I am lacking from #2 to I have a lack of in #5 and then added the amount of gasoline that one lacks. If #2 is legitimate then #5 is legitimate as well. You really have difficulty with the concept of basic logic and reason, don't you?

QuestioningMind · Oct 18, 2021

questfortruth said:
Expressions: I have lack of pencils,

I have lack of gasoline,

I have lack of belief,

carry no information of what is in your possession.

That could be found in the collection:
Dmitri Martila

They could tell me about what they posses, I mean the quest for explaining the Big Bang, the mystery of UFO and time. It does not tell me much, when they say "we have lack of..."

But what they do? Do they struggle to explain Big Bang like Dr. Hawking has tried and failed? Do they look for explanation of UFO, and Dark Matter?

What about you? What do you do, if you disbeliever.

It is another expression of the atheism definition, it cares no information about your lifestyle and dreams. Do you wanna get information of how World has begun? If yes, then what do you do to get that information?

The expression: "I have belief", carries information of what is there in possession.

It is simply redefinition of the atheism. It gives not further insight beyond "we have lack of belief."
But what gives the insight, is what poetry do you prefer?
But I am not asking you, because you are not atheist.

"Poetry, Lanny? Go back to work!"

"I posses lack of gasoline" is nonsensical.

No, it does not. The sense makes this figure of speech: "I have no gasoline."

The ways to say fact can be wrong and illogical.

The legitimate statements are:
1. there is no gasoline,
2. I am lacking of gasoline,
3. I am out of gasoline,
4. etc.
But it is somewhat retarded to say:
5. I have lack of 1000 liters of gasoline in my possession, please let me show you that. Are you selling your lacks?

That is all I have asked for. Thank you. We have the winner.

The legitimate statements are:
1. there is no gasoline,
2. I am lacking of gasoline,
3. I am out of gasoline,
4. etc.
But it is somewhat retarded to say:
5. I have lack of 1000 liters of gasoline in my possession, please let me show you that. Are you selling your lacks?

How silly... 2 and 5 are the same. All you did was change I am lacking from #2 to I have a lack of in #5 and then added the amount of gasoline that one lacks. If #2 is legitimate then #5 is legitimate as well. You really have difficulty with the concept of basic logic and reason, don't you?

PureX · Oct 18, 2021

ratiocinator said:
Simply nonsense. If we have lots of experience of cars mostly starting, then that is entirely objective and could,

Actually, it's entirely subjective as it's based on your own personal experiences. How is it that you can't understand this? And not only is it based on your own personal experiences with starting cars, but it's also based on how you chose to interpret those experiences, which is also completely subjective. And just repeating "no, no, no" isn't going to change this.

Also, the fact that most cars start most of the time has no real bearing on whether this car will start this time. It only bears on whether or not you think it will start. And if you are a 'believer' (as you clearly are) whether or not you believe it will start. But in spite of what you think, and what you choose to believe, you still don't actually know that the car will start. And you're still turning that key based on your trust in the reasonableness (if not benevolence) of the universe as you experience and understand it.

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 18, 2021

questfortruth said:
They could tell me about what they posses, I mean the quest for explaining the Big Bang, the mystery of UFO and time. It does not tell me much, when they say "we have lack of..."

Nonsense, it can often tell you a lot. For example, if you have a lack of a decent credit rating, you are not getting a bank loan.

F1fan · Oct 18, 2021

PureX said:
We are part of the universe, so our benevolence toward each other is just another example of the universe's benevolence toward us. For me, personally, this embodies a lot of what I choose to consider to be "God's reality".

Our benevolence to each other (when it happens) is a decision the human makes. They make this representing the self, not the universe. Your scenario, if valid and complete, needs to acknowledge the hate and violence as well as how hostile and deadly the universe is to us. You can't have a glass half full view and think others won't notice your bias.

Think about it, in our universe little children develop cancers like Leukemia, and often die after suffering through long treatment. people can get infected by deadly bacteria, including the flesh eating bacteria. So I want to know why you ignore all the ways our universe was designed to kill us, and do so slowly and painfully as a sadist would do. Take your time. And tell us more about "God's reality".

Spirit of Light · Oct 18, 2021

questfortruth said:
Expressions: I have lack of pencils,

I have lack of gasoline,

I have lack of belief,

carry no information of what is in your possession.

That could be found in the collection:
Dmitri Martila

They could tell me about what they posses, I mean the quest for explaining the Big Bang, the mystery of UFO and time. It does not tell me much, when they say "we have lack of..."

But what they do? Do they struggle to explain Big Bang like Dr. Hawking has tried and failed? Do they look for explanation of UFO, and Dark Matter?

What about you? What do you do, if you disbeliever.

It is another expression of the atheism definition, it cares no information about your lifestyle and dreams. Do you wanna get information of how World has begun? If yes, then what do you do to get that information?

The expression: "I have belief", carries information of what is there in possession.

It is simply redefinition of the atheism. It gives not further insight beyond "we have lack of belief."
But what gives the insight, is what poetry do you prefer?
But I am not asking you, because you are not atheist.

"Poetry, Lanny? Go back to work!"

"I posses lack of gasoline" is nonsensical.

No, it does not. The sense makes this figure of speech: "I have no gasoline."

The ways to say fact can be wrong and illogical.

The legitimate statements are:
1. there is no gasoline,
2. I am lacking of gasoline,
3. I am out of gasoline,
4. etc.
But it is somewhat retarded to say:
5. I have lack of 1000 liters of gasoline in my possession, please let me show you that. Are you selling your lacks?

That is all I have asked for. Thank you. We have the winner.

My first question would be: Why do you want to make fun of Atheists? What do you personally gain from doing so?

ratiocinator · Oct 19, 2021

PureX said:
Actually, it's entirely subjective as it's based on your own personal experiences.

Of course it isn't based on my own subjective personal experience. It's based on repeated objective observation, and not only mine, but those of others all over the world. It's absolutely no different in principle to the scientific evaluation of the efficacy of a drug, except that the testing is even more widespread.

PureX said:
How is it that you can't understand this?

Because it's obviously nonsensical.

PureX said:
Also, the fact that most cars start most of the time has no real bearing on whether this car will start this time.

It has just as much bearing as me taking a COVID vaccine because it's been tested and the likelihood is that it will protect me from illness and not kill me with a rare side effect.

PureX said:
It only bears on whether or not you think it will start. And if you are a 'believer' (as you clearly are) whether or not you believe it will start. But in spite of what you think, and what you choose to believe, you still don't actually know that the car will start.

What is it with some theists that they can't see shades of grey and have to think in black and white? I don't believe it will start, I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely to start than not.

PureX said:
And you're still turning that key based on your trust in the reasonableness (if not benevolence) of the universe as you experience and understand it.

Again, you are trying to read certainty into reasonable conclusions based on the available evidence. Of course it might not start and I fully understand that. What's more, it's not impossible that, instead of starting my car, when I turn the key it will actually release hordes of demonic entities that will kill all of humanity, I just don't take that into account because I have no reason to take it seriously. Just like most god-concepts, in fact.

PureX · Oct 19, 2021

F1fan said:
Our benevolence to each other (when it happens) is a decision the human makes. They make this representing the self, not the universe. Your scenario, if valid and complete, needs to acknowledge the hate and violence as well as how hostile and deadly the universe is to us. You can't have a glass half full view and think others won't notice your bias.

Think about it, in our universe little children develop cancers like Leukemia, and often die after suffering through long treatment. people can get infected by deadly bacteria, including the flesh eating bacteria. So I want to know why you ignore all the ways our universe was designed to kill us, and do so slowly and painfully as a sadist would do. Take your time. And tell us more about "God's reality".

There is far more good than evil. Which is how an why we are still here.

PureX · Oct 19, 2021

ratiocinator said:
Of course it isn't based on my own subjective personal experience. It's based on repeated objective observation,

By you.

ratiocinator said:
and not only mine, but those of others all over the world.

And by them, each individually. It doesn't matter how many observers there are, because all the observations are all being made by the same "subjects", and so they are all subjectively derived. All you gaining is a subjective average. But it's still subjective. As it's still subject to the limitations of the observers.

ratiocinator said:
It's absolutely no different in principle to the scientific evaluation of the efficacy of a drug, except that the testing is even more widespread.

Functional probability does not eliminate our subjective collective ignorance. Especially when it can only be ascertained under specific conditions and relative to specific events. You think you are not profoundly ignorant, and vulnerable, because you can establish functional probability in some circumstances and under some conditions. Therefor you don't need to trust in the benevolence of existence, because you think you are in now in control of it.

And yet you need to defend this delusion at every turn, and by any means you can muster, anytime someone suggests otherwise. So I don't think you are as convinced as your bluster tries to assert.

ratiocinator · Oct 19, 2021

PureX said:
And by them, each individually. It doesn't matter how many observers there are, because all the observations are all being made by the same "subjects", and so they are all subjectively derived. All you gaining is a subjective average. But it's still subjective. As it's still subject to the limitations of the observers.

It's not at all subjective, it's a basic objective (intersubjectively verifiable) observation.

PureX said:
Functional probability does not eliminate our subjective collective ignorance. Especially when it can only be ascertained under specific conditions and relative to specific events. You think you are not profoundly ignorant, and vulnerable, because you can establish functional probability in some circumstances and under some conditions.

Repeated observation, learning from it, and applying it, is how the technology exists for you to communicate this irrational nonsense to the world. You are using the products of the reasonable confidence you deny exists.

PureX said:
Therefor you don't need to trust in the benevolence of existence, because you think you are in now in control of it.

I don't believe for a minute I'm in control of it, I've just used collected data to make an informed choice as to what I might reasonably expect. I don't have to trust any sort of "benevolence of existence", not least because existence shows no real sign of being at all benevolent.

PureX said:
So I don't think you are as convinced as your bluster tries to assert.

I'm not claiming to be convinced or certain, it's you who are doing that, and doing so via a medium that demonstrates the absurdity of your assertions.

mikkel_the_dane · Oct 19, 2021

ratiocinator said:
It's not at all subjective, it's a basic objective (intersubjectively verifiable) observation.

Repeated observation, learning from it, and applying it, is how the technology exists for you to communicate this irrational nonsense to the world. You are using the products of the reasonable confidence you deny exists.

I don't believe for a minute I'm in control of it, I've just used collected data to make an informed choice as to what I might reasonably expect. I don't have to trust any sort of "benevolence of existence", not least because existence shows no real sign of being at all benevolent.

I'm not claiming to be convinced or certain, it's you who are doing that, and doing so via a medium that demonstrates the absurdity of your assertions.

You are really funny. Irrational nonsense has no basic objective (intersubjectively verifiable) observation, because neither reason, logic or what makes sense is observable through external sensation.

ratiocinator · Oct 19, 2021

mikkel_the_dane said:
...because neither reason, logic or what makes sense is observable through external sensation.

And yet you too are using the products of science (reasoning and logic applied to intersubjectively verifiable evidence) to tell everybody why its basis makes no sense.

mikkel_the_dane · Oct 19, 2021

ratiocinator said:
And yet you too are using the products of science (reasoning and logic applied to intersubjectively verifiable evidence) to tell everybody why its basis makes no sense.

No, it makes sense. It is just limited in how it makes sense and not the only version of making sense.

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 19, 2021

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Nonsense, it can often tell you a lot. For example, if you have a lack of a decent credit rating, you are not getting a bank loan.

You do not have a lack of a decent credit rating, you have a bad credit rating.

KWED · Oct 19, 2021

questfortruth said:
Expressions: I have lack of pencils,

I have lack of gasoline,

I have lack of belief,

carry no information of what is in your possession.

That could be found in the collection:
Dmitri Martila

They could tell me about what they posses, I mean the quest for explaining the Big Bang, the mystery of UFO and time. It does not tell me much, when they say "we have lack of..."

But what they do? Do they struggle to explain Big Bang like Dr. Hawking has tried and failed? Do they look for explanation of UFO, and Dark Matter?

What about you? What do you do, if you disbeliever.

It is another expression of the atheism definition, it cares no information about your lifestyle and dreams. Do you wanna get information of how World has begun? If yes, then what do you do to get that information?

The expression: "I have belief", carries information of what is there in possession.

It is simply redefinition of the atheism. It gives not further insight beyond "we have lack of belief."
But what gives the insight, is what poetry do you prefer?
But I am not asking you, because you are not atheist.

"Poetry, Lanny? Go back to work!"

"I posses lack of gasoline" is nonsensical.

No, it does not. The sense makes this figure of speech: "I have no gasoline."

The ways to say fact can be wrong and illogical.

The legitimate statements are:
1. there is no gasoline,
2. I am lacking of gasoline,
3. I am out of gasoline,
4. etc.
But it is somewhat retarded to say:
5. I have lack of 1000 liters of gasoline in my possession, please let me show you that. Are you selling your lacks?

That is all I have asked for. Thank you. We have the winner.

Are you ok?

KWED · Oct 19, 2021

PureX said:
When you can't logically defend what YOU believe, but you still want to logically attack whatever someone else believes, you have to try and keep the focus off yours, and on theirs. This is why the obsession with atheists proclaiming "unbelief". They don't have to defend what they DON'T believe. And their hoping we won't notice the illogic of what they DO believe.

Atheists do not believe anything, so it cannot be illogical.
Obviously, people who are atheists might believe in stuff that is illogical, but those beliefs are not required by atheism. They are entirely separate.

Making fun of atheism

Oh my, did I say that!

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Veteran Member

Be who ever you want

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

My own religion

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

My own religion

Oldest Heretic

Scratching head, scratching knee

Scratching head, scratching knee