Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[Polymath257]

Here's the twist in logic, though. We don't need to define God in order to believe in God. As is readily seen, "God" is a very fluid concept. You all seem to think that fluid concepts are a bad thing. You wanna lock everything down with a number or a measurement. You can't quantify faith, life, beauty, wisdom, attraction, love, courage, loyalty, wholeness, worth, self-esteem, hospitality, generosity, mercy, kindness, forbearance, forgiveness, evil, good, hunger, pain, etc. These are all fluid concepts. You can't put a number, or even a precise definition on any of them that someone else can't disqualify, yet they seem to exist, and everyone seems to place value upon them. Why must God any different?

I notice that most of the things on your list are emotions. They don't exist outside of the minds of the people who are experiencing them. They are *subjective* and not *objective* states of being. And that is why they are fluid: because each person has their own opinion about them. There is no objective definitions for these concepts.

So, do I believe in love? Yes, it is a human emotion. Do I believe it is something outside of that? No.

So, if you want to say that God is an emotion, I might question your concept, but we don't have any further issues.

Tell ya what: when you can give me a clear and concise quantification of your love for your spouse, or a clear and concise quantification of how beautiful any sunset is, then we'll talk.

Love is when someone else's happiness is as important to you as your own. The beauty of a sunset is a subjective experience akin to any other experience of beauty.

Can you even define God as well as those?

Are you incapable of coming up with your own concept that carries meaning for you? Our apprehension of the Divine is a fairly subjective process, and is mostly experiential in nature. It’s more intuitive than cognitive.

Well,t hat is *precisely* the point. If it is only a subjective thing, it only exists in your head. And that isn't what most people seem to mean when they talk about God: they mean something outside of their own feelings and emotions. If yours isn't, again, I might question your definition as being rather unusual, but I don't have a problem with it.

But why I should even seek such a thing is beyond me. It certainly has nothing to do with issues like the formation of the universe, the beginning of life, or how to construct societies that function for their members.

 

[sojourner]

You're the one who made the claim that some god entity actually exists. Certainly I'm CAPABLE of making up some silly definition for a god being, but such a made up entity certainly wouldn't have any meaning to me, other than something I pulled out of my imagination.

You really aren't making any sense. You start off your OP claiming that atheists use incorrect definitions for god. Yet when I attempt to get you to provide me with an accurate definition... you ask ME for MY definition. If you can't even define what you mean when you claim a god exists, why the heck would ANYONE accept that this undefined being actually exists?

Ok. I looked back to be certain, and I haven’t made any such claims in this debate. I did mention God-concepts. Second, I never claimed that definitions were silly. If your definition is “silly” to you, it seems a different, serious exercise is in order, no? Such as coming up with a God-concept that serves you. Are you conceding defeat in that endeavor? It sounds like you are, and that you want us to do it for you.

So, who’s not making sense here? I didn’t say that atheists use incorrect definitions. I said that they generally use definitions that are not shared by theists.
I never claimed that God exists, either. These are claims that you’re pressing upon me. We’ve all done our own spiritual work of developing God-concepts for ourselves. You need to do your own work in that regard. I’m not asking you to believe in anything. I don’t care what you believe or disbelieve. What I’m trying to figure out is why my beliefs seem so important to you?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Tell ya what: when you can give me a clear and concise quantification of your love for your spouse, or a clear and concise quantification of how beautiful any sunset is, then we'll talk.

Care to take up the same challenge? Tell us about your communication/interaction with God, and what were the markers in that communication that made it clear to you that it was more than just your own mind?

Really, I'll bet lots of people would be thrilled to know how an actual dialogue with something outside yourself actually works. I myself have worms on my tongue (waiting with baited breath).

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. I looked back to be certain, and I haven’t made any such claims in this debate. I did mention God-concepts. Second, I never claimed that definitions were silly. If your definition is “silly” to you, it seems a different, serious exercise is in order, no? Such as coming up with a God-concept that serves you. Are you conceding defeat in that endeavor? It sounds like you are, and that you want us to do it for you.

Yes, I concede defeat in that endeavor. I have never found a 'God concept' that makes any sense. That is *why* I don't have a belief in any 'God concept', which is why I am an atheist.

But I go further. Why would I *want* to form a 'God concept' that is purely a matter of my own imagination? Why would I think such an endeavor would have any meaning at all?

So, who’s not making sense here? I didn’t say that atheists use incorrect definitions. I said that they generally use definitions that are not shared by theists.

OK, so provide a definition. I'm more than happy to use any reasonably coherent definition you provide. We can then discuss what it means for something to exist.

I never claimed that God exists, either. These are claims that you’re pressing upon me. We’ve all done our own spiritual work of developing God-concepts for ourselves. You need to do your own work in that regard. I’m not asking you to believe in anything. I don’t care what you believe or disbelieve. What I’m trying to figure out is why my beliefs seem so important to you?

What I have found is that way too many people believe in what I consider to be nonsense. Since those people like to go out and vote, and also try to take over our school systems and our government, I have a pretty strong reaction to that. Those that keep to themselves I don't have a problem with.

 

[sojourner]

I notice that most of the things on your list are emotions. They don't exist outside of the minds of the people who are experiencing them. They are *subjective* and not *objective* states of being. And that is why they are fluid: because each person has their own opinion about them. There is no objective definitions for these concepts.

So, do I believe in love? Yes, it is a human emotion. Do I believe it is something outside of that? No.

So, if you want to say that God is an emotion, I might question your concept, but we don't have any further issues

Ok. So let’s just concentrate on beauty, good, and hunger. Those aren’t emotions. Provide the math.

Well,t hat is *precisely* the point. If it is only a subjective thing, it only exists in your head

I didn’t say that it’s only subjective. I said it’s mostly subjective.

And that isn't what most people seem to mean when they talk about God: they mean something outside of their own feelings and emotions

That’s because it’s not only subjective. There are shared experiences that happen between people. God is both imminent and transcendent.

But why I should even seek such a thing is beyond me

I didn’t suggest that you should. I just wonder why you all think we shouldn’t.

 

[sojourner]

Care to take up the same challenge? Tell us about your communication/interaction with God, and what were the markers in that communication that made it clear to you that it was more than just your own mind?

Really, I'll bet lots of people would be thrilled to know how an actual dialogue with something outside yourself actually works. I myself have worms on my tongue (waiting with baited breath).

I’m not the one demanding quantification where none is warranted. If you don’t think beauty needs to be quantified, why should you think that God needs to be quantified? Does beauty exist? Without quantification? How do you know? Because others also report experiencing beauty?

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. So let’s just concentrate on beauty, good, and hunger. Those aren’t emotions. Provide the math.

Hunger is easy enough. It is the reaction to being without food when the mind and body notice that lack.

Beauty and goodness are subjective. They are *opinions* and only exist in the minds of those who are experiencing them.

I didn’t say that it’s only subjective. I said it’s mostly subjective.

OK, let's talk about the non-subjective part. What can you say about it?

That’s because it’s not only subjective. There are shared experiences that happen between people. God is both imminent and transcendent.

And what do 'imminent and transcendent' actually mean? How do you experience those?

Let me give an example. There are many known optical illusions where *everyone* shares the experience of the illusion. The difference is that we know the experience is illusory. Such experiences are NOT objective even though they are common to us all. They are, in fact, simply false perceptions that happen because our senses and brains don't process things perfectly.

I didn’t suggest that you should. I just wonder why you all think we shouldn’t.

Meh. If you wish to waste your time, that isn't a concern for me. But I might suggest there are more productive and more fulfilling endeavors.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m not the one demanding quantification where none is warranted. If you don’t think beauty needs to be quantified, why should you think that God needs to be quantified? Does beauty exist? Without quantification? How do you know? Because others also report experiencing beauty?

The experience of beauty exists. It is in our heads. Beauty as something that exists outside of our personal experiences does not exist.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I concede defeat in that endeavor. I have never found a 'God concept' that makes any sense. That is *why* I don't have a belief in any 'God concept', which is why I am an atheist.

But I go further. Why would I *want* to form a 'God concept' that is purely a matter of my own imagination? Why would I think such an endeavor would have any meaning at all?

I’m kind of confused. I didn’t post this in response to you. But I’ll answer you anyway, because you appear to want to engage.

I’m not sure you should form such a concept. Seems counterproductive to me. However, that doesn’t mean that theists haven’t found a God-concept that serves them. I’ll also be the first to admit that many hold God-concepts that DON’T serve them.

OK, so provide a definition. I'm more than happy to use any reasonably coherent definition you provide. We can then discuss what it means for something to exist.

The concept I hold is that God is not an existent being. Rather, God is existence — being — itself. That concept helps me to make meaning of life. That’s the short, but by no means comprehensive, answer.

What I have found is that way too many people believe in what I consider to be nonsense. Since those people like to go out and vote, and also try to take over our school systems and our government, I have a pretty strong reaction to that. Those that keep to themselves I don't have a problem with.

So your stance is primarily one of lack of meaning, and secondarily reactionary toward nonsensical people, then?

 

[icehorse]

Yes he did. So, if you’re anti-theist, are you anti-me? Or anti-Bonhoeffer? Or anti-Gene Robinson?

I feel I'm just repeating myself now.

I don't know, do you want to have ID taught alongside evolution?
Do you think it's okay to beat kids in school?

 

[shmogie]

So...demonstrate what those "usual suspects" say that is incorrect.

In whoś min

Of course there are. There are actually rocks, cars, and people. They are just made of subatomic particles. I'm not sure why you think that means materialism is an illusion.



No. The telephone pole exists *as a collection of subatomic particles*.



What, then, does it even mean to say something exists?

The issue is perspective, How something is viewed. Philosophical naturalism presupposes that God doesn´t exist, using a standard that totally ignores many things we know exist. As I said, falsify wisdom. Not by definition, that is a collection of words, but by the actual substance of it. You cannot.

Yet, atheists demand that God cannot exist, without being verified by the scientific method.

Back to the subatomic particles, could you falsify a telephone pole from the subatomic particle perspective ?

What if the perspective we exist in deny´s our material falsification of God ?

I respect the agnostic position, when I was an atheist, I was arrogant, and believed that science, philosophical naturalism, was the sole arbiter of reality and truth, and laughed at any with different ideas.

A fatal error.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry, I still fail to see the point.

See my response to polymath

 

[Polymath257]

I’m kind of confused. I didn’t post this in response to you. But I’ll answer you anyway, because you appear to want to engage.

I’m not sure you should form such a concept. Seems counterproductive to me. However, that doesn’t mean that theists haven’t found a God-concept that serves them. I’ll also be the first to admit that many hold God-concepts that DON’T serve them.

So, it appears to me that you are encouraging people to create their own mythology, to find what pleases them.

Instead, why not detemrine what is real and adjust desires to match it?

The concept I hold is that God is not an existent being. Rather, God is existence — being — itself. That concept helps me to make meaning of life. That’s the short, but by no means comprehensive, answer.

Fair enough. I flirt with pantheism occasionally. My main issue is whether 'existence itself' actually qualifies as something 'god-like' enough to deserve the name.

So your stance is primarily one of lack of meaning, and secondarily reactionary toward nonsensical people, then?

I don't like how people make up myths, accept them over reality, and then seem to require others to accept their myths. And it is the last two processes that both me. Myths can be a wonderful source of fiction and literature.

 

[sojourner]

Hunger is easy enough. It is the reaction to being without food when the mind and body notice that lack

Provide the math. Provide the quantification that proves it exists.

Beauty and goodness are subjective. They are *opinions* and only exist in the minds of those who are experiencing them.

So there’s no math then? How do we know it really exists, if we can’t quantify it?
Is it that one person can create beauty and someone else can recognize that beauty?

OK, let's talk about the non-subjective part. What can you say about it?

Kind of like the same way we can talk amongst ourselves and agree about beauty.

And what do 'imminent and transcendent' actually mean? How do you experience those?

How much time and bandwidth do you have?

God is as close as the breath we take. We have our being in God, because God is being itself. But God is also other than us, because other creatures have being, too — as well as the vastness of the universe. There’s a rudimentary start.

Meh. If you wish to waste your time, that isn't a concern for me. But I might suggest there are more productive and more fulfilling endeavors.

I don’t find it a waste of time. I find my spiritual life eminently productive.

The experience of beauty exists. It is in our heads. Beauty as something that exists outside of our personal experiences does not exist.

Oh? Mozart wrote symphonies. He created beauty in his head and put it out into the world. I find his symphonies beautiful. So do other people. I’d say that beauty exists outside of ourselves.

 

[Polymath257]

In whoś min

The issue is perspective, How something is viewed. Philosophical naturalism presupposes that God doesn´t exist, using a standard that totally ignores many things we know exist. As I said, falsify wisdom. Not by definition, that is a collection of words, but by the actual substance of it. You cannot.

We can, and do, determine that things are NOT wisdom all the time.

Yet, atheists demand that God cannot exist, without being verified by the scientific method.

No, they don't. They simply say that no evidence ofr that existence has been sufficient to cause them to believe.

Back to the subatomic particles, could you falsify a telephone pole from the subatomic particle perspective ?

Huh? I'm having trouble even figuring out what you * mean there.

What if the perspective we exist in deny´s our material falsification of God ?

Huh? I have no idea what you are asking here.

I respect the agnostic position, when I was an atheist, I was arrogant, and believed that science, philosophical naturalism, was the sole arbiter of reality and truth, and laughed at any with different ideas.

A fatal error.

And I have never said that science and naturalism are the only important things in our lives. In fact, many quite crucial things are subjective and not 'true' or 'reality'. We mostly live by *opinions* and not be truth. We have opinions on what is good or bad, what is beautiful or ugly, what we like to eat and what we don't, what sort of society we want and what we don't want. ALL of those are opinions and not facts.

Science deals with facts. Because of that, it cannot deal with morality (except to inform it). There are not 'moral truths' in the sense that there are 'scientific truths'. There *are* commonly accepted *opinions*, sometimes even biologically determined, about how to act in societies with others.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh? Mozart wrote symphonies. He created beauty in his head and put it out into the world. I find his symphonies beautiful. So do other people. I’d say that beauty exists outside of ourselves.

OK, there I disagree. Mozart knew how to communicate the beauty in his head so we can experience it in ours. But what exists outside of our heads is sound waves. Beauty is the experience.

 

[sojourner]

So, it appears to me that you are encouraging people to create their own mythology, to find what pleases them

Yes, but it’s better if we can find common constructs. We work better in community than we do alone.

Instead, why not detemrine what is real and adjust desires to match it?

Myth isn’t fake; it’s metaphoric. Myth allows us to make meaning out of the reality in which we live.

Fair enough. I flirt with pantheism occasionally. My main issue is whether 'existence itself' actually qualifies as something 'god-like' enough to deserve the name.

A-HA!! So you DO have a God-concept! God must be “larger-than-life,” if life itself doesn’t deserve the appellation. There it is! The God-concept allows us to talk about and fiddle with those experiences in life that are ... larger than we can conceptualize, or define, or measure. This is why I hesitate to define a God. It’s just too big, and no one has the perspective.

I don't like how people make up myths, accept them over reality, and then seem to require others to accept their myths. And it is the last two processes that both me.

If the myth doesn’t speak to reality, it’s not really a myth. It’s a delusion, IMO.
I agree. I don’t like the foisting of beliefs either.

Myths can be a wonderful source of fiction and literature.

They can also be a great way to help us make meaning.

 

[sojourner]

OK, there I disagree. Mozart knew how to communicate the beauty in his head so we can experience it in ours. But what exists outside of our heads is sound waves. Beauty is the experience.

It’s a shared experience though. It exists outside of just our heads.

 

[Cooky]

OK, there I disagree. Mozart knew how to communicate the beauty in his head so we can experience it in ours. But what exists outside of our heads is sound waves. Beauty is the experience.

...Sorry. I was just dying to use this somewhere... Figured this was a good spot... Sorry.

 

[sojourner]

I feel I'm just repeating myself now.

I don't know, do you want to have ID taught alongside evolution?
Do you think it's okay to beat kids in school?

That doesn’t answer my question. No, I don’t believe those things. So should your anti-theist stance be universal? Or should it be an anti-some-theists stance?