Atheisms and the supernatural

[PureX]

I humbly suggest that a dictionary of the English Language is a compendium of words used in English-speaking societies...

Why don't we set the dictionary aside, and focus on the definition I gave for the words I used. Personally, I don't care what the words are (we can call 'existence', "Steve" if you want); I care that they communicate the ideas and concepts intended. So that these can be considered and discussed logically and reasonably.

So far I have been responding to your comments as needed, intending to be as clear and honest as I can be. You don't have to agree, but I do appreciate your reasoned rebuttal. This whole dictionary thing, however, is not a reasoned rebuttal. It's as an issue of 'style' as opposed to content, I think, and as such is just a pointless distraction.

I realize that materialists have a difficult time accepting the notion that ideas and concepts are as "real" as anything else that exists; as they are so used to presuming that existence is defined by it's physicality. And if you cannot transcend that bias, I understand. And you will not be alone. But humanity needs to get past this bias if it is to survive and thrive into the future. We need to pursue greater wisdom, right now, not increased physical functionality. We're already so physically functional that we're in serious danger of destroying ourselves and the planet. We don't need any more science-worship, we need more priests, philosophers, and artists; to help us understand how, when, and why to apply all this increased physical functionality without destroying everything that matters.

 

[ecco]

No offense, dude, but if you were so "secure and rational" you would have understood long ago that those religious depictions you found so foolish and irrational are forms of artifice: myth, metaphor, symbolism, iconography, etc., intended to represent those mysteries

The Sunday school teacher who presented those representations to a group of ten-year-olds did not say or imply that they were "myth, metaphor, symbolism, iconography". She presented them as facts.

You may consider them to be mere "myth, metaphor, symbolism, iconography" but many people, including some posting on RF also believe them to be facts.

Some people believe them to be factual.
You believe them be symbolic.
I believe them to be made-up stories, just as I believed at age ten.

that you're apparently happy to just remain ignorant about. The arrogance and superiority are not as warranted, here, as you presume.

What am I ignorant about?

Not about real people believing the Genesis are historically factual.

Not about your need to believe that the Genesis stories were written as mere iconography.

So, please do try to be specific.






While you're at it, please address...

Nonsense. Knowledge creates the majority of atheists. However, if you have statistics to give evidence to your assertion, I'd sure like to see it.

 

[ecco]

I dont believe in gods, I believe in one God who created everything and died for His creation because He doesn't want us to pay the price for our sins, and He wants us to be reconciled to Him.

I'll be more specific...

Well, here we go again. Another God-believer who thinks everyone believes the way he does. Is it an ego thing?

I've got news for you. You are wrong. I realized that God and the ark were in the same category as the characters in my comic books. That was when I was ten.

Nothing in the many years since then has ever led me to question that decision. Quite the opposite, the more I learned about gods and religions, the more I know that decision was valid.

If you want to believe in make-believe, that is your choice. But don't try to drag the rest of us down to that level.


Perhaps you'd care to respond to what I wrote instead of prosthelyzing.

 

[ecco]

Science supports the existence of God. The order and purpose that exists in creation can only be explained by the existence of God.

Two sentences. Both wrong.

Please show how and where science supports the existence of God. Do not just link to a website. In your own words.

Opinions like "The order and purpose that exists in creation can only be explained by the existence of God" are just your opinion.

 

[MikeF]

Not just philosophy, but art and religion, as well. Each discipline offers a unique set of tools that we can use to explore and investigate metaphysical realm of existence as we experience it. A realm that science cannot explore or investigate beyond the physicality from which it springs. Science, for example, cannot explore or investigate beauty, or justice, or 'God', because these are metaphysical phenomena.
Yes, we seek to understand physical functionality so as to use it to our own benefit. But we also seek to understand the metaphysical possibilities being offered to us by way of consciousness, conscious awareness, and cognition. We also seek an understanding of our value, origin, and purpose in life, and within existence. To deny this is to deny a fundamental aspect of humanity, and to reduce us to being just clever animals. An ideal that I find both insulting, and horrific in it's implications for our future.
Effective knowledge (data+data analysis) without wisdom is a loaded gun in the hands of a monkey.
And ultimately on the wisdom required to know when and why, or why not, to apply it.
What you are proposing, here, is called "scientism". That is the belief that science is the only pathway to truth. And it is based on the false premise that physical functionality equals truth. And it does not. Physical functionality is a part of the truth of existence, and our place within it, but so is metaphysicality. And the scientific method is not able to investigate that realm of existence. As any scientist will gladly and openly attest.

Science cannot investigate the cognitive phenomenon of 'God'. Or the cognitive phenomenon of beauty, or of justice, or of mathematics. It can only study the physical mechanics involved in the cognition of these. But the physical mechanics cannot address the new, existential possibilities that these phenomena make available to us, and therefor cannot address their value to us beyond biological survival. And we humans clearly seek more than just biological survival. We seek the meaning, and value, and purpose of survival. So much so that without some semblance of these, we tend not to survive at all, even when the means are at hand. We are more than just clever animals. And it's why we humans have engaged in the arts, and in religion, since the beginning. It has never been enough to just achieve dominance via our knowledge of physical functionality. We needed the wisdom of value, and origin, and purpose to govern and control that knowledge. And we still do, perhaps now more than ever.

Throwing a box of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys is not going to end well for the monkeys. And yet this is what industrialized science is doing to humanity. And it's not going to end well for humanity if we don't step up our acquisition of wisdom, to control our increasing physical functionality. And your (and others) 'scientism' is an ideology that moves us in exactly the wrong direction in this regard.

I would like to start by asking for direct answers on two points that I had made. If you disagree with either statement I would be interested in your reasoning.
1. I made the point that human beings are quite limited in their ability to gather information about the world through their senses, and that human beings ability to reliably and consistently analyze that information is impacted by all the many reasons I mentioned. Do you agree that human beings are imperfect and fallible observers/analyzers of the world around themselves?
2. Do you agree that the validity of any single observation and/or analysis is strengthened by corroborating observations and/or analyses? And do you further agree that the greater the number of corroborations, the greater the confidence in its validity?

 

[MikeF]

As long as you admit it is a premise and not absolute proof, we are okay.

As for reality, what is that?

Reality is all that is real or exists, in contrast with that which is imaginary.

 

[MikeF]

The Bible fits together like a puzzle piece. Everyone knows that they do things they arent supposed to do and there is a God. Sin is real. That's why Christ came, to redeem a creation lost in sin. People saw Christ after he ressurected from the dead. It wasnt hallucinations because multiple people saw it and the apostles were persecuted for their faith. Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true? | GotQuestions.org

I would strongly suggest you update yourself on current biblical scholarship. The God of Jesus and Abraham is a compilation of the storm god Ba'al and the Canaanite god El, head of the council of gods and originating in the pantheistic traditions of the Bronze Age Mediterranean and Mesopotamia. The story of how this pantheistic god was shaped into a single monotheistic god through editing and redaction over the centuries is quite illuminating. I encourage you to explore your scriptures in greater detail.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't believe it is possible to know God. Any God that actually exists is beyond human knowledge.

It is possible if one ponders on the Work of G-d and Work of G-d, I understand.

Regards

 

[PureX]

A question for you? How would you interpret those atheists who had no influence over religious ideas of god and definition of it?

Those who don't hate and reject god because they don't believe it exists?

How would you interpret their views in relation to their disbelief in god's existence?

I don't need to interpret anyone else's belief/unbelief. What would there be to interpret? From what I have gathered discussing the subject with atheists is that they tend to fall into three categories. Those who reject religious depictions of God, those who are basically indifferent to the idea and so have given it little consideration, and those who believe that existence is defined by physicality, and God is not a physical phenomenon, so God does not exist.

I, personally, find all three of these positions to be weak, intellectually, but everyone has the right to their own criteria for reasoning.

 

[PureX]

The Sunday school teacher who presented those representations to a group of ten-year-olds did not say or imply that they were "myth, metaphor, symbolism, iconography". She presented them as facts.

You may consider them to be mere "myth, metaphor, symbolism, iconography" but many people, including some posting on RF also believe them to be facts.

Some people believe them to be factual.
You believe them be symbolic.
I believe them to be made-up stories, just as I believed at age ten.

It's unfortunate that your understanding of theism has not advanced since you were ten. Perhaps that's because you have allowed other people, who you knew to be wrong, to dictate what God is (or isn't) for you, instead of actually taking on the proposition for yourself, and generating your own definition. I suspect that just presuming them wrong was easier and more invigorating than grappling with the possibility of a God, for yourself.

 

[PureX]

I would like to start by asking for direct answers on two points that I had made. If you disagree with either statement I would be interested in your reasoning.
1. I made the point that human beings are quite limited in their ability to gather information about the world through their senses, and that human beings ability to reliably and consistently analyze that information is impacted by all the many reasons I mentioned. Do you agree that human beings are imperfect and fallible observers/analyzers of the world around themselves?

Of course, and I made quite a point of saying so in several posts. Even regarding the physical universe, cosmologists estimate that we are still ignorant of 87% if it. A percentage so high that the margin of error could easily overwhelm what we presume to know. As of yet, we have no idea what energy is, how it originated, what governs how it can and cannot express itself, or what possible purpose it might be serving. And yet all that exists, so far as we can tell, is the result of expressed energy originating from a single point. The mystery is still enormous, and overwhelming. So much so that it's likely that we are not even capable of grasping it, cognitively, even if it were ultimately graspable.

2. Do you agree that the validity of any single observation and/or analysis is strengthened by corroborating observations and/or analyses?

No. Consensus is only a valid criteria for interactive functionality. Interactive functionality is important, but it is not the criteria for truth.

And do you further agree that the greater the number of corroborations, the greater the confidence in its validity?

Only relative to interactive functionality, as I stated. Your task, then, is to begin to recognize how humans can experience existence apart from the collective (apart from interactive functionality) and why this is so important to us.

 

[MikeF]

Why don't we set the dictionary aside, and focus on the definition I gave for the words I used. Personally, I don't care what the words are (we can call 'existence', "Steve" if you want); I care that they communicate the ideas and concepts intended. So that these can be considered and discussed logically and reasonably.

So far I have been responding to your comments as needed, intending to be as clear and honest as I can be. You don't have to agree, but I do appreciate your reasoned rebuttal. This whole dictionary thing, however, is not a reasoned rebuttal. It's as an issue of 'style' as opposed to content, I think, and as such is just a pointless distraction.

I realize that materialists have a difficult time accepting the notion that ideas and concepts are as "real" as anything else that exists; as they are so used to presuming that existence is defined by it's physicality. And if you cannot transcend that bias, I understand. And you will not be alone. But humanity needs to get past this bias if it is to survive and thrive into the future. We need to pursue greater wisdom, right now, not increased physical functionality. We're already so physically functional that we're in serious danger of destroying ourselves and the planet. We don't need any more science-worship, we need more priests, philosophers, and artists; to help us understand how, when, and why to apply all this increased physical functionality without destroying everything that matters.

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." (The Princess Bride,movie, 1987).
In this case it applies to multiple words including logic, reason, wisdom, and truth. This dictionary thing is important as it speaks directly to my point that you have redefined the impossible out of your Philosophical Universe. And further, it is not simply a difference in 'style'. Either I have made a correct characterization of the nature and use of language, or I have not. If I am correct and you cannot concede, then it speaks to your mindset and the strength of your data analysis, so to speak.

Let's look specifically at one way you have eliminated the impossible from your Philosophical Universe. In your Philosophical Universe, there is no such thing as a true-or-false statement. Once any statement is made (or even thought), that statement automatically becomes true. The statement, "There is a Metaphysical Realm that transcends the Physical World." can only be true, and never false, by the definitions you have provided in your Philosophical Universe. I cannot refute it within the parameters of your artificial Philosophical Universe, for simply to think it, it becomes so.

Since human beings can believe the impossible, there has to be a methodology by which we can differentiate between that which we know (within the bounds of our limited ability to perceive and analyze) and that which we imagine. We need a way to impartially evaluate what we think, in a manner outside of ourselves, as we can't trust that what we personally think, feel, imagine, intuit, and divine is not corrupted in some way. That which we imagine may eventually be shown to to be true, but it cannot be held to be true until our (all of humanities) body of knowledge supports it and takes it out of the realm of the imagined.

You referred to uncomfortable truths in your post #368. That your Philosophical Universe is in the realm of the imagined is just such an uncomfortable truth.

 

[MikeF]

Of course, and I made quite a point of saying so in several posts. Even regarding the physical universe, cosmologists estimate that we are still ignorant of 87% if it. A percentage so high that the margin of error could easily overwhelm what we presume to know. As of yet, we have no idea what energy is, how it originated, what governs how it can and cannot express itself, or what possible purpose it might be serving. And yet all that exists, so far as we can tell, is the result of expressed energy originating from a single point. The mystery is still enormous, and overwhelming. So much so that it's likely that we are not even capable of grasping it, cognitively, even if it were ultimately graspable.

As to the first point we seem to be in full agreement. We are beginning to establish some common ground on which to build.

2. Do you agree that the validity of any single observation and/or analysis is strengthened by corroborating observations and/or analyses? And do you further agree that the greater the number of corroborations, the greater the confidence in its validity?

No. Consensus is only a valid criteria for interactive functionality. Interactive functionality is important, but it is not the criteria for truth.
Only relative to interactive functionality, as I stated. Your task, then, is to begin to recognize how humans can experience existence apart from the collective (apart from interactive functionality) and why this is so important to us.

On this second point, for you, the statement holds true for "interactive functionality" but cannot be used to evaluate "truth". This begs the questions:
1. What is "interactive functionality"?
2. What is "truth"?
3. How are "interactive functionality" and "truth" related? Is "interactive functionality" a subset of "truth", completely unrelated, or something else?
4. What is "the" criteria by which we are to evaluate "truth"?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't need to interpret anyone else's belief/unbelief. What would there be to interpret? From what I have gathered discussing the subject with atheists is that they tend to fall into three categories. Those who reject religious depictions of God, those who are basically indifferent to the idea and so have given it little consideration, and those who believe that existence is defined by physicality, and God is not a physical phenomenon, so God does not exist.

I, personally, find all three of these positions to be weak, intellectually, but everyone has the right to their own criteria for reasoning.

I would ask how they are weak though.

I know theists are varied. Some believe in god but not a being. Some believe in a being but not like Casper. Some people believe he's a being/spirit that actually "does" things. While others say he is abstract and metaphorical (though not that word) and can only be experienced in the heart. Some people say he "is" love and grace. Others say he gives it. Some call god an incarnation of himself (god being human and god at the same time). Others see him and his son quite differently. Some say you can only "experience" him. Others don't even call him him because they believe god is a mystery and can't be described in words.

So, it's really not the atheists fault with the varied opinions he or she may hold. Especially those indoctrinated with one or two concepts of god above that many other theists just don't share.

So, atheists are the victim in this case not theists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some believe in god but not a being. Some believe in a being but not like Casper. Some people believe he's a being/spirit that actually "does" things. While others say he is abstract and metaphorical (though not that word) and can only be experienced in the heart. Some people say he "is" love and grace. Others say he gives it. Some call god an incarnation of himself (god being human and god at the same time). Others see him and his son quite differently. Some say you can only "experience" him. Others don't even call him him because they believe god is a mystery and can't be described in words.
So, atheists are the victim in this case not theists.

IMHO, such people, who believe in any kind of God whatsoever, should not be labeled as atheists. There is no need for atheists to be victims of any kind.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

IMHO, such people should not be labeled as atheists. There is no need for atheists to be victims of any kind.

Yeah. I have a pretty strict definition-disbelief in deities (gods, goddesses, whatever). Anything other than that-forces, love, spirits, the universe-really doesn't count as deities so atheism is not a good word for it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No such thing exists.

 

[ecco]

You present a strawman of your own making...

Those who reject religious depictions of God, those who are basically indifferent to the idea and so have given it little consideration, and those who believe that existence is defined by physicality, and God is not a physical phenomenon, so God does not exist.

... and then assert the position is intellectually weak...

I, personally, find all three of these positions to be weak, intellectually, but everyone has the right to their own criteria for reasoning.

I guess, in your mind, you have shown the world the correctness of PureX's arguments.

In actuality, all you have done is prove that your beliefs are so lacking in merit that you have to play make-believe.

 

[ecco]

It's unfortunate that your understanding of theism has not advanced since you were ten. Perhaps that's because you have allowed other people, who you knew to be wrong, to dictate what God is (or isn't) for you, instead of actually taking on the proposition for yourself, and generating your own definition. I suspect that just presuming them wrong was easier and more invigorating than grappling with the possibility of a God, for yourself.

Once again you have to pretend that you know anything about me. Even worse, you must intentionally ignore things I have stated about my views on atheism.

It's called stroking your own ego.

However, I see that you have no snappy comeback for the reality that there are people who believe Genesis is actual fact. That is something that you deny - repeatedly. You want to believe that everyone knows that Biblical stories are just - your word - iconography.

It's called stroking your own ego.

Your views are provably wrong. You've been on RF for 14 years.
You must have come across posters who are fundamentalists who believe Genesis to be factual.
You must have come across posters who are fundamentalists who believe Jesus walked on water and fed the multitudes.

So, stop erroneously posting that your view of scripture is shared by everyone. It isn't.

 

[ecco]

The mystery is still enormous, and overwhelming.

Enormous, yes. Overwhelming, to who? You?

So much so that it's likely that we are not even capable of grasping it, cognitively,

Most people can not grasp quantum mechanics. So what!