Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 24. (Read 38463 times)

But... we've seen moose before.  We can see moose NOW, if we want.  We know they live in the woods.

No one has ever seen any god.  You certainly can't see one on demand. 

See the difference?

Atheism DOES NOT mean that we deny the POSSIBILITY of god, just that we currently don't think that he exists based on current evidence.

And I would say, yeah I saw the girl who speak with the moose, she is nice and all, but really she just speak to herself. And no sign of the moose so far.
Of course she have this book about the moose, she is always referring to.
Should I tell here that my grand father just wrote this book for the children ?
May be not, she won't believe me anyway, she is happy with here imaginary friend ...
May be it's the best way she found to overcome the hard world we live in.


As for the saying :

Agnosticism: "There might be or might not be a moose in these woods. And I can't decide without evidence."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence. And who ever think the opposite, will burn in wood fire"
Atheism: "There might be or might not be a moose in these woods. But since we scanned the wood and didn't saw any trace of it, I would rather think there is none"

Yet, that's what you say. ( if A is in B,then B having a property P => A having a property P, but does not mean : A having a property X => B having a property X )
The "meaning" is a local property that we create to qualify life.
This property is irrelevant to the universe as a all.
So yes by saying the universe is meaningless we are wrong, we should say meaning is irrelevant to the universe.


Your semantic argument is irrelevant because it exist "only" in English. So the second "will" is only denoting future. Please spare me those arguments.

Universal law of physique that is.
Opposing science and religion is merely a lost cause for religion.
It's been century that science push back religion from every material point of view (science don't deal with immaterial).
Centuries ago every bit of strange things was because of god (cloud, firefly, aurora Borealis, etc... ).
But now science explain those things, and will explain more and more in the future.
So resistance is futile.
You are deluding yourself if you think you can find any trace of god in the material world.

So what is left is "pure god", that is an invisible omniscient omnipotent yet unwilling to intervene as yet, supreme been.
Any other materialist assertion about religion is mass manipulation. (and if you are not the manipulator, then you are the manipulated, or both if you are into self-delusion)

That leave you with faith, that we may discuss, but only in philosophical term.

You keep saying that but without anything to sustain it.
Language is used for communication between two being.
I see no language in the universe, despite the fact that you think the universe is talking to you in some way, this is just caused by the drug you are taking, that release the same brain mechanism I was talking about, and make you see things !

Can you see the pattern in the prime numbers ?
May be there is one, may be not, we don't know yet, but anyway that won't mean god/theUniverse is talking to you.


What pattern are you talking about ?
Every pattern I see make sense to me, even the fact that there is people believing in god.

More cliche bullshit.  "Arbitrary phenomena?"  Really?  And how do you exactly assert arbitrary phenomena to exist without ascribing to it set parameters (i.e. at the very least, it's phenomena)?  You're throwing in hypotheticals which sound logic doesn't like.  That is, "If we weren't here, then all that's left would be arbitrary phenomenon."  No.  Already, you've fallen off the wagon.

It sounds a lot like people who say, "truth is relative."  Oh, well then it's the absolute truth that truth is relative, eh?  Or, it's definite that phenomena is arbitrary, eh?

The meaning of life is the assignation of meaning to arbitrary phenomena.

I take it you are agnostic then?  You said it was the most sane?  

I would consider myself a Theist.  But using your analogy I would say, "There is a moose in these woods.  I felt his presence and found him, then got to know him and now he is my friend."

That is how I see my relationship with God anyways.

So the main goal for all of us should be the search for Truth!  Otherwise we risk humiliation and worse, eternal punishment.  That is how I look at it anyways.

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

As for the alien that looks like a giant Easter Bunny that people would believe in?  I think that when the antichrist mentioned in the Bible does come he might actually say he is an alien and everyone will be so impressed with how smart he is and the "miracles" he will do.  It is a thought anyways.  That is when it will get tricky though.  He will be very persuasive and many people will be deceived.  That is why we have to have discernment.  Discernment is a gift only God can give and it helps us see through the things that are false and see what is truth.  You know the saying, "I once was blind but now I see?"  

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

Um, no.

Laws distribute to systems contained therein, and smaller systems owe their constructs to the syntactic structure of the larger systems they are nestled within.  You say I have a problem with "local loop," I say you have a problem understanding systems.  You're isolating certain parts of reality and trying to explain them without accounting for the larger systems in which they inhabit (e.g. life as utterly independent from non-life, etc.).  This is just plain unsound reasoning.  Start with the sameness-in-difference principle that states "any two relands x and y must necessarily share a common medium, even a medium of absolute difference" and you'll understand why this isn't a "local loop" problem.  The syntax of the "set of all sets" necessarily distributes to all sets nested therein. I'm not suggesting, as I think that you think I am, that the syntax of a smaller system necessarily distributes to larger systems.  

Your statement about the sun blowing up and the Universe remaining "pointless" is hard to respond to, namely because it's just wrong.  I think it's interesting that you said the Universe has no will, but then you state that it "will continue" (semantic arguments hold more weight than you think).  Why will it continue?  Because of pointlessness?  Or because of some Universal laws that govern and guide Universal content in a particular way?

To say that finding patterns is a "problem" is utterly retarded.  Yes, I get what you mean about the "faces" and such (Mommy look! An elephant in the clouds!) but that's a cliche argument that goes nowhere quickly.  "Pattern" and "structure" are virtually synonymous, and it's impossible to ignore the fact that the algebraic structure or "pattern" of language is emergent everywhere, in everything, always.  Moreover, you can't even formulate a concept, thought, or sentence without utilizing patterns.  The simple communication of information is a necessary pattern inherent in any system, and there could be no system without patterns.  

The Universe doesn't need to have meaning "otherwise my brain will be lost."  The fact that there is meaning (this is directly evident, we're talking about meaningful things right now) necessitates a meaningful syntax.  If you're suggesting that a smaller, meaningful system can emerge from a larger, utterly meaningless system, then you would be wrong.

I'm not invoking god to fill a patternless void.  I think you're invoking a void because you can't make sense of the patterns in front of you.

Of course!!!  But what if the books in the Upanishads are true?  Or the Mahaburata?  Or a hundred other holy books?  Wouldn't you have some personal humiliation at that point as well?

What if an alien arrived that looked like a giant Easter bunny?  Wouldn't you feel stupid for not believing in him all these years? I would!!!!

WHAT IF.  Two words that mean nothing.  

(dank, buzz off, we are trying to have a rational conversation.  go pay your debts.)

Point being your existence effects those around you more than you would think.

But what if the Bible is true?  Then the verse: "every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God" is true.  Then wouldn't you have some personal humiliation at that point? 

You don't say. What is your point? Everything in the universe affects the universe.

Every sound wave and light wave you emit will forever stream across the universe.  Every movement has it's own gravitational pull which can be felt at an ever exponentially decreasing rate, but still present.

You existence affects the entire universe.

Thank you for enumerating my thoughts in a much more eloquent way than I was able to, hehe... No, but seriously, this. If we didn't exist the universe would go on just the same.

There you go.  If you are not too proud to accept gods, then neither are atheists.  I fear personal humiliation too much to dare believe in one.

@"the joint" you have a hard time with local loop.

The fact that life give itself some meaning is just a local loop, and as so doesn't impose condition on the rest of the universe.

If the sun explode, earth would be reduced to dust, and the universe will continue as pointless as it was before.
The universe is pointless because the universe has no will.

The problem with human thinking, is it try to search meaning and patterns everywhere, that's how we evolved. Because it's useful to know that a lion wants to eat or that an other person has an aim, as it help us anticipate action of others and so survive with more efficiency.
Alas searching pattern where there is none is detrimental, and the worse is we will find (false) patterns.
Just like when you look in the sky and see faces, our brain is hard-wired to see faces everywhere, this doesn't mean there is faces drawn everywhere, you have just been tricked by your brain.

The same happen with the universe : "it has to have a meaning because otherwise my brain is lost".
So what an atheist do, is accept the fact that universe has no will, despite the fact that his primal brain cry for a meaning.
Other people would invent a supreme been that look like them to give them this meaning that they what so much.

The same goes for infinity or emptiness (or the absence of everything) , infinity and void are difficult concept to grasp. That's why people don't accept void, and always want to put something there, whether it is a god or a super alien.

It is true, life has whatever meaning you give it, but there is a universal end purpose to life on earth, which is to evolve as an intelligent spirit and find heaven, whether it's when your dead or alive.

Are we nothing?  For we exist, we are something.  We are made of the universe, surely we are everything.  But yes, the illusion can disappear in the flash of an eye leaving reminiscence of something that indeed exists though you can't quite differentiate one thing from another, for it is all the same.

So does nothingness exist if we exist, or is it an illusion of nothing?

We are infinitely big, infinitely small, but are we nothing?

Are we something?

I need answers, are we something?

And where does that meaning come from?  What of the syntax of the system in which you were born into that allowed not only yourself to find meaning, but others as well?  Meaning is found in the Universe because the Universe allows for meaning. There's a reason why we can find meaning at all, and the way I see it, you're suggesting there's no reason for this reason to exist.  How could something allow for meaning if it wasn't inherently meaningful?