Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[Stevicus]

Then please provide all "evidences","proofs" and positive and reasonable arguments one has for Worldview/No-Worldview, position/no-position of "Atheism" irrespective if any Religion exists or does not exist and without reference to any Religion, please. Right, please?

Do you want me to do it standing on my head?

I still don't understand what it is you're asking of me.

 

[sojourner]

Then God is also unknowable, and therefore there ought to be nothing more to say about it.

Yes, but God is also knowable, especially in the Christian world. Therefore, we do talk about it.

What are the evidences, the coincidences, that suggest that God is doing, or has done, something about the world?

If God is existence and creation, itself, the very fact that we exist is evidence.

 

[sojourner]

All right, but then, once again, I can point to the many things that people have "experienced," very much like some of the "experiences of God" that I've heard. Try reading "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Dr. Oliver Sachs. Or perhaps investigate anosognosia, which can leave a person utterly convinced that the arm attached to their own shoulder is not theirs, but someone else's. And that tell me that, if that is what they perceive (as in the case of the woman who actually believed it was her son's arm that refused to move at her will), if that must therefore be the case? Was the son's arm magically transferred to the mother's shoulder? Or is something else going on.

I can make no claim about what you might have experienced, or how you might have interpreted (or magnified) your experience. I can only say that I have had none of that, nor have I ever perceived someone else's appendages attached to me, nor conversations with the devil, nor an imaginary friend who has better jokes than I do.

You’re right. You can’t make any definitive statements about my experiences — or anyone else’s.

 

[Nakosis]

Ok. But intentions, desires, thoughts, etc seem to be able to affect the material realm without being measurable. We can just about infer their existence in other people but that seems to be about as far as it goes.

Would you agree?

Btw, I'm not going to spring a gotcha or anything. I'm genuinely puzzled/interested is all.

I have lots of desires I don't act on. The reason I don't is because I know they will affect reality in a manner I don't what it affected.

Perhaps what you mean is desires and thought that arise from one's unconscious mind can direct one's conscious activities. That's true but these are still things that are acted upon.

While I can infer what's going on inside someone else's head it's only their actions that affect me.

I can infer somebody hates White people. However if they don't act on that hate and treat me like everyone else, then their hatred doesn't affect me.

If your talking about how what is going on inside my head can affect me emotionally, sure but emotions are physiological responses. Your feelings are the result of a bunch of chemicals, like endorphins, being released into your system. You can cause these responses by thinking happy thoughts for example.

So you desire to be happy, you think happy thoughts, an act. your body responds by releasing endorphins, you feel better.

So you imagine you are loved by a God, this act releases a chemical mixture into your system and you good, better. The physiological can be measured.

 

[osgart]

God is a notion that gives believers eternal aspirations, and goals. It's the effort to transcend physical reality. Believers have a higher emotional hope and certainty than a naturalist would about reality.

The hope for a God is a total letdown when you look at reality objectively and assume nothing from it.

However I have not lost my sense of spirituality and soul.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, but God is also knowable, especially in the Christian world. Therefore, we do talk about it.

No, I maintain that God is not "knowable," and I can provide evidence for that assertion. And my evidence is this: there are many religions, and those religions are divided into many, many divisions and sects. There are 38,000 Christian sects alone. And all these sects exist because, and only because, they disagree with other sects on what God is/wants/does.

If God is existence and creation, itself, the very fact that we exist is evidence.

I wish you would look closer at what you wrote. You started by saying "IF," and then don't provide any reason to suppose that the answer to that "IF" is true. There is, in other words, nothing to suggest that "God is existence and creation." And therefore, the fact that we exist is evidence of nothing except that we exist. And much more to the point, the sheer amount of accumulated knowledge in all the sciences about how everything we know comes to be, leads anyone with some science knowledge further and further away from giving any credence to your "IF" at all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You’re right. You can’t make any definitive statements about my experiences — or anyone else’s.

But you won't answer the points I made, will you? I wonder why not? You seem to really want to argue your topic, but you won't touch the evidence, easily available to you, that says that people can and do "experience" many things that are absolutely not real.

And, of course, we know why you don't want to touch those...

 

[sojourner]

But it was the sex that was the cause of my existence

Cause and reason are two different things.

The people in the family objectively exist. That seems to be a relevant different with them and deities

Possibly.

They speak to human experiences. They speak to human emotions. They speak to human goals. Those are not truths. Those are opinions.

So the things we experience are not true human experiences? Our emotions not true human emotions? Our goals not true human goals?

That it cannot be addressed by factual language means it isn't truth

You’re conflating truth and fact.

You mean, at the level of truth as opposed to myth

See above.

 

[sojourner]

No, I maintain that God is not "knowable," and I can provide evidence for that assertion. And my evidence is this: there are many religions, and those religions are divided into many, many divisions and sects. There are 38,000 Christian sects alone. And all these sects exist because, and only because, they disagree with other sects on what God is/wants/does

Someone facing south will say: California is to the right. Someone facing north will say, California is to the left. Someone in California will say California is right here. They are all correct from their own perspective which, where God is concerned, is the only perspective they can have.

“Evidence” debunked.

I wish you would look closer at what you wrote. You started by saying "IF," and then don't provide any reason to suppose that the answer to that "IF" is true. There is, in other words, nothing to suggest that "God is existence and creation."

There is nothing to suggest that God is not. There is an ineffable and transcendent aspect to human experience that eludes speech and a tangible concept. Theology and myth are useful tools for speaking of what we perceive is behind that veil. The more concrete verbiage of measurement and proof are useless in that arena, for the most part.

 

[sojourner]

But you won't answer the points I made, will you? I wonder why not? You seem to really want to argue your topic, but you won't touch the evidence, easily available to you, that says that people can and do "experience" many things that are absolutely not real.

And, of course, we know why you don't want to touch those...

Of course they do. But I suggest that, on some level, those experiences are true. Especially when given form by language, cognition and emotional response. We’re not sure why the placebo effect works, either, but we know it does.
Just as we know that beauty exists.

 

[sojourner]

That's ok since it is only the physical realm that can be shown to have any affect on or reality. That which has no affect on the material realm can be safety ignored

This drivel isn’t worth arguing with.

 

[sojourner]

Evidence is something that can be shown which leaves little room to doubt the clam.

Never — NEVER — doubt the Clam.

 

[sojourner]

Evidence is something that can be shown which leaves little room to doubt the clam. One of course can continue to doubt, but as more is shown that supports the claim it become less and less reasonable to continue to doubt.

Generally, IMO, the best way to approach any claim is to remain skeptical and continue to remain skeptical of the evidence offered as well. At some point, enough has been shown to support the claim that it is no longer reasonable to remain skeptical.

So if you make a claim, my initial response is going to be skeptical. It is going to remain skeptical until you've been able to show enough, IMO which admittedly can be a bit arbitrary, that it is no longer reasonable to disbelieve your claim.

So evidence is what you show to support whatever it is your are claiming.

The Bible, other scripture, testimony, is pretty weak evidence in that it is all easily doubted. Humans are just not very reliable when it comes to the truth, even when their intentions are good. So physical evidence, something whose existence can't be disputed is the best type of evidence to use to support your claim.

Again: provide indisputable evidence that beauty exists.

 

[sojourner]

What bias? Anything that affect the material realm can be measured

Untrue.

 

[Nakosis]

Untrue.

I'm certainly ready to learn what...

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope. We're reading ancient cosmology.
[ Hardly the only time the bible contradicts itself. The softer expression is that both models are found.)
Its origin is twofold. First, roughly 20 of them were from my notes, gleanings from here and there over time; then before I posted them I checked the net, which yielded another ten or so. I'm a most discriminating cut-and-paster, I assure you, and by no means took everything on offer.
What's disingenuous is to pretend those ancient dudes knew (hence wrote) anything more than the cosmology of their day.

And I still don't know why you'd want them to.

Just to show the bible's somehow magic? It ain't. It's simply two collections of writings by various authors at various times for various purposes. It's of considerable historical interest, and now and then relevant to the present because religion is still an active political force, though noticeably in decay in the First World.

Hebrew "cosmology" as we know it hardly existed. The bible was originally Sumerian
and THEY thought the sky touched the horizon. Not sure how "four corners" fitted into
with a cubic sky - but it's all allegorical: Sumer knew of other empires beyond their own
horizon.
Genesis 1 isn't really about cosmology. It just mentions the "heavens and the earth."
And again, "heavens" meant, TO THEM, the sun, moon, stars and anything else that
happen to go shooting past.
In other places the "heaven" meant where God lived or good people went. But there's
even argument about that.
And "heaven" meant a really nice place or experience, too.
And many in the Catholic Church agreed with Galileo that "The bible doesn't tell us how
the heavens go, it tells us how to go to heaven."

ps just read a fascinating look at the population of King David's Israel - "scholars" consider
him a tribal chieftain on the basis of archaeology. But on this basis Genghis Khan was
also a petty tribal chieftain, as opposed to having the largest empire in history. It's all to do
with what the article calls "archaeological transparency."

Science is a method of validation. Whatever you happen to believe, you can use science to validate that belief. Of course if you don't care about validation, you are free to believe as you wish. I've see this validation process work over and over again. Science can validate what exists. It can not validate what does not exist.

Why is science here? IMO, because religion, spirituality didn't require validation. Folks could claim whatever they wanted as truth. Unfortunately with a bit of charisma and forceful attention people believed these claims.

Some folks got it in their head that maybe we should think about validating these claims of truth. It was found that a lot of the religious/spiritual claims couldn't be validated. So up to you, trust the claims that can't be validated or trust the ones that can.

Being technical here - when you hear a science minded person say "There is no reason
for our being" then right there you experience the limits of science - and its arrogance.
That's because the statement is itself unscientific.
"...what does not exist" is something to consider, because from this came the
Universe. Think about it.

One more thing. In Judea Christianity (as given in the bible - please note) proof is of
supreme importance. Personal proof. The bible goes further - if you haven't proven
the bible's precepts for yourself then you haven't learned anything. This is the personal
proof as opposed to corporate proofs of natural things.

 

[Polymath257]

So the things we experience are not true human experiences? Our emotions not true human emotions? Our goals not true human goals?

One always has to be careful of the difference between truly having an experience and having a true experience.

When we see optical illusions, the experience is truly an experience, but it is not a true experience.

You’re conflating truth and fact.

See above.

No, I'm not conflating. They are actually the same. Truths are about facts. And facts are truths.

 

[Polymath257]

Again: provide indisputable evidence that beauty exists.

beauty doesn't exist outside of human experiences (maybe animals).

 

[sojourner]

I'm certainly ready to learn what...

I’ve been party and have observed several cases of spiritual healing. I don’t expect you to believe it, but it happened.

 

[sojourner]

One always has to be careful of the difference between truly having an experience and having a true experience.

When we see optical illusions, the experience is truly an experience, but it is not a true experience

Magic shows and spiritual experience are in completely different ballparks.

No, I'm not conflating. They are actually the same. Truths are about facts. And facts are truths

I have two friends who used to be public defenders. They both had the experience of obtaining a not guilty verdict over a technicality. The truth? The suspects did what they were accused of. The facts? The suspects were found not guilty of doing what they were accused of. Facts do not always bear out the truth. Two different things.