Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[dfnj]

I don't. I assume the concept(s) of god(s) that are being presented to me, be it the muslim god, the christian god, the hindu gods, or what-have-you.
It's not my job to define the god you happen to believe in.
My atheism is a RESPONSE to god claims. Not a claim by itself.
Some guy makes a claim that his god exists and it is upto that guy to
1. define that god
and
2. meet his burden of proof.
I'm an atheist because theists seem unable to meet their burden of proof. Worse even.... just about every definition of god I have ever been presented with, defined god in unfalsifiable ways. Which means that positive evidence in favor of that claim can't even exist by defintion.

I can't answer all your quibbles because your responses are predictably boring. But I will do my best to answer a few starting with your first reaction.

Most major religions have a concept of God that is more than just an objective experience. God usual is much bigger than what we normally experience. Most people claim God transcends all of existence. The idea of God is a little more complicated than the simple definition most atheists use. The idea of God most atheist use presumes God is an object in reality to be experienced like meeting someone in person. This is not what most religions claim about God. I have not seen any religious text put an address down where you can go and meet God in person.

My God exists. Here is my claim. I will prove you to God exists. God is just a word. The word God exists in our use of language and speaking. What the word God represents is a combination of every possible thought and experience that has ever happened combine with what could possibly ever happen. God is a container word representing everything, and also nothing, all at the same time. God is a concept like zero or infinity. God represents an idea and a feeling at the same time. God is a feeling of the present combined with every experience we've ever had in the past combined with every possible thing we could ever possibly imagine to happen in the future all in one thought.

Yes, my definition of God is unfalsfiable. I don't disagree. But "so what" is my response. Why is it that in your mind the only things that exist must be falsifiable. As an atheist, you are forcing God to be defined a certain way in order for you to accept my definition of God as valid. I'm not claiming God is something like toaster sitting on the table.

You are a philosophical materialist more than you are an atheist:

Materialism - Wikipedia

There's nothing wrong with being a materialist. I am just not one. I am an idealist by choice because the evidence we have doesn't suggest we live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. In my way of thinking, you are the one who is irrational by choosing materialism when it is built on a set of premises that are provably not true.

What evidence?
Your personal opinions and beliefs aren't evidence.

In this video, there are certain results from experiments that indicate we do not live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Now you can take the opinion the evidence means nothing. And you can simply put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes an ignore the evidence. The thing is it appears the evidence supports "idealism" over "realism" despite how counter intuitive it may seem to you or against your personal dogma belief.

I may not completely agree with the conclusion of the video on how active God's role is in running the Universe. But you are just in denial if you don't accept the fact we do NOT live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Sorry, we just don't. Maybe in the future we will but right now we don't. But until then, keep the faith your religion is the only true one.

I have no problems or issues with any scientific measurements in quantum physics. I only have problems with your personal beliefs about those measurements.

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” Niels Bohr

Obviously you do not understand quantum physics. It's okay, there are not many physicists out there who can complete with Niels Bohr.

Maybe since you understand quantum physics so well maybe you can explain to me the mechanism in a double slit experiment that "knows" something is being observed. Where does the mechanism exist in reality? It's simply question. Surely someone of your superior intellect and humility will have no problem answering.

Your arrogance is astounding.

You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character.

I don't want to fight with you. But you really need to understand the differences between a philosophical materialist and idealist. And why idealism is more popular than materialism. Maybe once you get past your simple atheism you will see the World is a little more complicated and nuanced. The funny thing about nature is it always turns out to be so much stranger than anything we could have possibly imagined. I don't think you are fully appreciating how God is manifesting himself in reality. It's really quite stunning how what we observe changes right before our eyes!

 

[ratiocinator]

My God exists. Here is my claim. I will prove you to God exists. God is just a word. The word God exists in our use of language and speaking. What the word God represents is a combination of every possible thought and experience that has ever happened combine with what could possibly ever happen. God is a container word representing everything, and also nothing, all at the same time. God is a concept like zero or infinity. God represents an idea and a feeling at the same time. God is a feeling of the present combined with every experience we've ever had in the past combined with every possible thing we could ever possibly imagine to happen in the future all in one thought.

So, your god is a (rather incoherant) idea in your mind. I have no problem accepting that gods exist as ideas in people's brains. That's kind of obvious and rather trivial.

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” Niels Bohr

Obviously you do not understand quantum physics. It's okay, there are not many physicists out there who can complete with Niels Bohr.

*sigh*

Such an abused quote. Yes quantum theory is kind of shocking, but perfectly ordinary students learn it and use it. Not just pure scientists either, it's also used in engineering.

Maybe since you understand quantum physics so well maybe you can explain to me the mechanism in a double slit experiment that "knows" something is being observed. Where does the mechanism exist in reality? It's simply question. Surely someone of your superior intellect and humility will have no problem answering.

As much as woo-peddlers love to tell you it's all about whether a conscious mind is "looking" or not, there is exactly zero evidence that it has anything at all to do with conscious minds. See Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't answer all your quibbles because your responses are predictably boring.

Most major religions have a concept of God that is more than just an objective experience. God usual is much bigger than what we normally experience. Most people claim God transcends all of existence. The idea of God is a little more complicated than the simple definition most atheists use.

I've just told you that I don't have, nore need, a defintiion of god. Instead, I require the people who claim a god exists, to define said god (and produce rational evidence in support of that god).

Otherwise, I'ld be arguing a strawman. And I don't fancy logical fallacies.

My God exists. Here is my claim. I will prove you to God exists.

Wonderfull. Can't wait.

God is just a word. The word God exists in our use of language and speaking. What the word God represents is a combination of every possible thought and experience that has ever happened combine with what could possibly ever happen. God is a container word representing everything, and also nothing, all at the same time.

Sounds like a pretty useless word.

God is a concept like zero or infinity. God represents an idea and a feeling at the same time. God is a feeling of the present combined with every experience we've ever had in the past combined with every possible thing we could ever possibly imagine to happen in the future all in one thought.

You already covered this by saying that "god" is everything.

So, what you mean by the word "god" is a just a catch-all label then... You're not referring to an entity of sorts. Just a label. And a pretty useless one at that.

Yes, my definition of God is unfalsfiable. I don't disagree. But "so what" is my response

Well off course, if you don't really care about being rationally justified in your claims / beliefs, then off course falsifiability or evidence doesn't matter.

Why is it that in your mind the only things that exist must be falsifiable

Because I actually require some rational evidence to accept something as true / accurate.
Unfalsifiable ideas, can't have such rational evidence. Unfalsifiable idea, are potentially infinite in number, only limited by one's imagination. There is no reason to believe one such idea over another.

As an atheist, you are forcing God to be defined a certain way in order for you to accept my definition of God as valid. I'm not claiming God is something like toaster sitting on the table.

Not exactly. First of all, it's not just God. I require anything claimed to be real, to be defined in a falsifiable manner. For the simple reason that unfalsifiable claims can't be verified. I have no way of assessing the truth value of an unfalsifiable claim.

This means that by default, I could never have a rational and valid basis, to accept such claims / ideas as accurate. Because it isn't testable or verifiable.

You are a philosophical materialist more than you are an atheist:

Materialism - Wikipedia

Not at all.
Materialism, as I understand it at least, is some kind of dogmatic position where when a priori assumes that "the physical is all that exists". While that seems to be true, I don't commit to that view at all. I try to be intellectually honest and leave that door open for potential future evidence to demonstrate that there is something more then just the physical.

It's just that I haven't seen such evidence.

There's nothing wrong with being a materialist. I am just not one.

Neither am I.

In this video, there are certain results from experiments that indicate we do not live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Now you can take the opinion the evidence means nothing. And you can simply put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes an ignore the evidence. The thing is it appears the evidence supports "idealism" over "realism" despite how counter intuitive it may seem to you or against your personal dogma belief.

Sorry, but please don't tell me to go watch a 20-minute video and go hunt for this alledged evidence you claim is mentioned somewhere. Please give a summary of the point being made and explain how it's evidence and evidence in support of what. Thanks.

But you are just in denial if you don't accept the fact we do NOT live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Sorry, we just don't.

You keep making claims about how I view the universe, which is rather strange because I don't remember discussing this with you at all.

I even don't even know what you mean exactly by "a clockwork Universe with hard determinism".

Perhaps you should first ask me what my views are concerning these topics, instead of pretending to know in advance what my answers are going to be.

You should also brush up on your mindreading skills, because so far, you didn't get many things correct... You were wrong about how I supposedly define God, you were wrong about me being a materialist, and while I still don't really know what you're saying exactly now - I'm going to go ahead and predict that you're wrong about how I view the universe as well.


Also, somehow, I have the feeling that in your reply to this post, if there is one, you're going to try and tell me that I am wrong about *my own beliefs* and you'll then arrogantly proceed to dictate to me what my beliefs "really" are...

But until then, keep the faith your religion is the only true one.

What religion? Do you know what an atheist is?

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” Niels Bohr

Obviously you do not understand quantum physics.

Did I claim I do?

It's okay, there are not many physicists out there who can complete with Niels Bohr.

Maybe since you understand quantum physics so well maybe you can explain to me the mechanism in a double slit experiment that "knows" something is being observed. Where does the mechanism exist in reality? It's simply question. Surely someone of your superior intellect and humility will have no problem answering.

I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to understand quantum physics.

You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character.

So now you are going to play mr psychologist?

I don't want to fight with you. But you really need to understand the differences between a philosophical materialist and idealist. And why idealism is more popular than materialism. Maybe once you get past your simple atheism you will see the World is a little more complicated and nuanced. The funny thing about nature is it always turns out to be so much stranger than anything we could have possibly imagined. I don't think you are fully appreciating how God is manifesting himself in reality. It's really quite stunning how what we observe changes right before our eyes!

You should stop arguing strawmen and pretending to know better then others what their opinions, views and beliefs are.

 

[Polymath257]

Materialism - Wikipedia

There's nothing wrong with being a materialist. I am just not one. I am an idealist by choice because the evidence we have doesn't suggest we live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. In my way of thinking, you are the one who is irrational by choosing materialism when it is built on a set of premises that are provably not true.

Where in the definition of materialism (or even physicalism) is the requirement that the universe be a clockwork with hard determinism?

In this video, there are certain results from experiments that indicate we do not live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Now you can take the opinion the evidence means nothing. And you can simply put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes an ignore the evidence. The thing is it appears the evidence supports "idealism" over "realism" despite how counter intuitive it may seem to you or against your personal dogma belief.

How does the fact that hard determinism is false mean that materialism is false?

I may not completely agree with the conclusion of the video on how active God's role is in running the Universe. But you are just in denial if you don't accept the fact we do NOT live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Sorry, we just don't. Maybe in the future we will but right now we don't. But until then, keep the faith your religion is the only true one.

The video misrepresents several aspects of quantum mechanics. In particular, QM is NOT deterministic, but is still materialistic. See below.

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” Niels Bohr

Obviously you do not understand quantum physics. It's okay, there are not many physicists out there who can complete with Niels Bohr.

Bohr was a very important physicist. But we have learned quite a bit since he died.

Maybe since you understand quantum physics so well maybe you can explain to me the mechanism in a double slit experiment that "knows" something is being observed. Where does the mechanism exist in reality? It's simply question. Surely someone of your superior intellect and humility will have no problem answering.

This is a place where the video gets the results wrong. The mechanism of the double slit experiment does NOT know if someone is looking or not.

But, in order to detect 'which slit' information, there needs to be something *additional* (like a light source) that has a wavelength smaller than the distance between the slits. But a small wavelength implies a large energy of interaction, which affects the particles going through the slit (you have to interact with them to see them). And it is that interaction that changes the results from having a interference to not.

In fact, we can vary the wavelength of the light and see how that affects the interference pattern. And, we get a smooth transition between 'interference' and 'no interference' as the wavelength is decreased.

The issue isn't having someone watch: it is that watching requires an interaction and that interaction affects the results.

 

[Shad]

I was talking about the IT that decides something is being observed in a double slit type experiment in quantum mechanics. I have not reduced God at all but have affirmed His existence.

Measurements apply to objections. Measurements means boundaries and restrictions. None of which applies to God. The double slit is still measuring an object. You affirmed nothing. You have used terms you didn't not know the meaning nor implications of the uses of those words. Nothing more

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”

“A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself.” Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge

Dropping off-topic quotes does not make your mistakes something impressive especially considering you have to project a statement about QM in to a topic about God... Try again.

 

[j1i]

Why? Why "must" that be the case?



Only beacuse we know what footprints are.
What do you think is "the footprint" that points to the god you happen to believe in, very likely by mere geographic accident?

thanks for participating
In fact, the available data confirm that it is stupid to deny the existence of a maker (creator)

There is a difference between seeing the skyscraper architecture and seeing raw materials from the mountains

Man has been created with a wonderful engineering design that simply reflects that there is a creator with knowledge, experience and ability

As if you want to say that the presence of humans is due to an unplanned sexual accident


Besides, what we quoted from the former grandparents, and this is the opinion of the majority

You are absolutely free, but I am comfortable with this and liked the post (^_^)

If I am a vital creature and others are stones, it is difficult for me to split the rock in two parts with my hand to tell others that there is no car inside

please take care my friend
GOD bless you

 

[Thief]

The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects.

not sure if I can go that far

try banging your head on the wall until you bleed

be objective

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thanks for sharing this kindness from you

Oh you deserve some effort.

But as an atheist, it led me to believe that all universe came only by reason and Causer
There must be a creator of the vast universe we see with modern tools
This is my opinion and thank you for adding

As it is mine that no creator is probably necessary - since perhaps we view existence through rather different lenses - perhaps mine not being rose-tinted so much.

It is true that the Scriptures do not open the appetite for atheists because they are difficult to believe

More about the various interpretations than trying to understand one particular text. How do you think all the various religions came into existence if there is only one essential message? Talk about the tree of life. The tree of religious belief is more like a thorny hedge!

But at the very least, we think of a knowing maker
Just like the investigator, when he sees the footprint, it is certain that one passed from here
thanks for participating
I appreciate your effort

Just like many things can appear to be designed but aren't - such is why we don't necessarily need the existence of a creator.

A small effort deserves a return.

 

[Audie]

So, your god is a (rather incoherant) idea in your mind. I have no problem accepting that gods exist as ideas in people's brains. That's kind of obvious and rather trivial.



*sigh*

Such an abused quote. Yes quantum theory is kind of shocking, but perfectly ordinary students learn it and use it. Not just pure scientists either, it's also used in engineering.



As much as woo-peddlers love to tell you it's all about whether a conscious mind is "looking" or not, there is exactly zero evidence that it has anything at all to do with conscious minds. See Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

You actually read all of that?
I tried, but it was as a friend called it,
"like trying to steer a barge through a plowed field".

 

[Audie]

Oh you deserve some effort.

As it is mine that no creator is probably necessary - since perhaps we view existence through rather different lenses - perhaps mine not being rose-tinted so much.
More about the various interpretations than trying to understand one particular text. How do you think all the various religions came into existence if there is only one essential message? Talk about the tree of life. The tree of religious belief is more like a thorny hedge!

Just like many things can appear to be designed but aren't - such is why we don't necessarily need the existence of a creator.

A small effort deserves a return.

A small one, you gave about 1000% back.

 

[dfnj]

not sure if I can go that far
try banging your head on the wall until you bleed
be objective

Let me try to understand your point of view. You believe your words are the reality represent. You've never experience people having slightly different connotations to words so that your thoughts are interpreted the wrong way?

I think every word we use in a sentence has a certain amount of accuracy, completeness, and ambiguity built into it's meaning. People have different experiences. People have different subjective judgments and opinions. Do you think physicist who only knows Newtonian physics is going to have the same appreciation of the word "reality" compared to a physicist who knows Relativistic mechanics or Quantum mechanics as well as Classical mechanics?

 

[ChristineM]

I think every word we use in a sentence has a certain amount of accuracy, completeness, and ambiguity built into it's meaning.

So dictionaries are redundant, mind reading people personal definition of a word is the way forward?

Newtonian physics is going to have the same appreciation of the word "reality" compared to a physicist who knows Relativistic mechanics or Quantum mechanics as well as Classical mechanics?

Physicists are not prone to ambiguity, the word reality is defined as
* the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
* the state or quality of having existence or substance.

 

[dfnj]

Measurements apply to objections. Measurements means boundaries and restrictions. None of which applies to God. The double slit is still measuring an object. You affirmed nothing. You have used terms you didn't not know the meaning nor implications of the uses of those words. Nothing more
Dropping off-topic quotes does not make your mistakes something impressive especially considering you have to project a statement about QM in to a topic about God... Try again.

I will try again.

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” Niels Bohr

The idea the Universe has its own mind watching what is being watched is significant with regards to the statement about QM in relationship to God. God is just a word. The word God exactly represents the idea the Universe has its own mind. Obviously, the significance of the Watcher is an opinion or subjective judgment that cannot be proven to be true or false objectively. I do not have a problem with you just concluding this is insignificant and meaningless.

I would not expect anything more from a nihilist. I totally get the idea from a certain perspective all the energy and matter swirling around in the Universe faithfully following the laws of physics there is no pattern in the swirling that is more meaningful than any other pattern. I totally get the idea there is no objective reason to conclude reality has any purpose at all. Or to conclude the Universe in its entirety means something. I am not asking you to make a conclusion based on reason. I'm not asking you to make an objective decision.

From my perspective, the meaning and significance of what happens in the Universe is not an objective decision. It is a choice based on no-reason. It's is a TRUE choice and not a decision. Only TRUE choices have no reasons. The only reason I choose the way I do is I have fully accepted your nihilism. The difference between you and me is I go one step further and choose NOT to think nihilism is significant and meaningful. Since nihilism is meaningless, I choose different than you.

 

[Revoltingest]

25 pages......have we been proven wrong yet?
I hereby proclaim that I'm not even wrong.
No one can prove otherwise.

 

[dfnj]

So dictionaries are redundant, mind reading people personal definition of a word is the way forward?
Physicists are not prone to ambiguity, the word reality is defined as
* the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
* the state or quality of having existence or substance.

Oh no, you again. I thought you and I were not talking with each other. Alright, if you forgive me then I will....never mind.

Can we just get past the part where you think objective reality is clear as glass and everything is hunky dory in your clockwork Universe. You and I will just never agree.

But to answer your post, words are a map of reality. Words are NOT the map they represent. I cannot objectively prove this to you. Because when you use words, you just assume they have more meaning than they actually have. If I have a road-map of reality, reality itself has an infinite amount of more detail than is ever present on the road-map. I am just interpolating this idea to include all forms of human language including mathematics. Human language has limitations despite your refusal to acknowledge they exist.

You don't have to respond unless you can't stand what I am saying. As I said, you and I will just never experience the same Universe. I get it that you are always right about everything. So there will be no end to this argument. I simply choose to experience a more meaningful Universe than yours.

 

[dfnj]

25 pages......have we been proven wrong yet?
I hereby proclaim that I'm not even wrong.
No one can prove otherwise.

We meaning me and the theists or we meaning you and the rest of the atheists?

I think after 25 pages we have clearly showed the atheists simply assume they have perfect understanding of how reality works on every level irregardless of any evidence supporting their belief system.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We meaning me and the theists or we meaning you and the rest of the atheists?

I think after 25 pages we have clearly showed the atheists simply assume they have perfect understanding of how reality works on every level irregardless of any evidence supporting their belief system.

I think you have that inverted. It is usually the religious who do so, with the non-believers accepting that we just don't know it all - hence their not being believers.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh no, you again. I thought you and I were not talking with each other. Alright, if you forgive me then I will....never mind.

What are you rabbiting about?

Can we just get past the part where you think objective reality is clear as glass

No.

everything is hunky dory in your clockwork Universe.

Is it? Why do you make up bull to massage your imagination?

You and I will just never agree.

Probably true

But to answer your post, words are a map of reality. Words are NOT the map they represent. I cannot objectively prove this to you. Because when you use words, you just assume they have more meaning than they actually have. If I have a road-map of reality, reality itself has an infinite amount of more detail than is ever present on the road-map. I am just interpolating this idea to include all forms of human language including mathematics. Human language has limitations despite you refusal to acknowledge they exist.

What has this to do with answering my question?

Are dictionaries redundant in favour of your global mind-reading technl

You don't have to respond unless you can't stand what I am saying. As I said, you and I will just never experience the same Universe. I get it that you are always right about everything. So there will be no end to this argument. I simply choose to experience a more meaningful Universe than yours.

Cant stand? I find it hilarious.

I never claim to be right about everything, but it would be nice if you could actually answer the questions rather than talking woonthen claiming you have answered.

No, you choose to experience an imaginary universe, that may be more meaningful to you but is totally meaningless in reality

 

[Revoltingest]

We meaning me and the theists or we meaning you and the rest of the atheists?

Oh, I'd forgotten that I currently list Bokononism instead of atheism as my religion.
I meant "us" atheists.

I think after 25 pages we have clearly showed the atheists simply assume they have perfect understanding of how reality works on every level irregardless of any evidence supporting their belief system.

We do?
I suppose that the belief system of not believing in unproven
claims is perfect in a way. But "perfect" sounds so hifalutin.
I prefer "useful", because it is practical & avoids error.
It shouldn't take 25 pages to get here.

 

[ChristineM]

We meaning me and the theists or we meaning you and the rest of the atheists?

I think after 25 pages we have clearly showed the atheists simply assume they have perfect understanding of how reality works on every level irregardless of any evidence supporting their belief system.

The projection is strong in you