Pages:
Author

Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 23. (Read 901370 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 05, 2019, 09:42:26 AM
You missed his point.  His point was that in the future we could discover how the world (and all the parallel universes) were created naturally. Your position is not allowing for any future discoveries to be accepted because it would invalidate your 'God the creator of all things' position entirely.

An honest position is to say: we know what we know, what we don't know we don't know...

Exactly. Just look at history. Was it not more logical to believe in a god 5000 years ago? I believe it was. People had so little information about anything, a big bearded man in the sky seemed quite logical. They also believed the earth was flat, can you blame them? Of course that was shown to be not even close to reality.

I would suggest a change of focus. The important question is not what unknown information might be out there in the universe that will be novel or force me to modify my worldview. Clearly there are probably quite a number of such discoveries. They are also entirely unknown and unpredictable.

We have no control over future discoveries. All we control is ourselves. Among the choices we face perhaps the most critical is the choice of what to worship. Everybody worships something though it’s often subconscious. David Foster Wallace highlighted this well in one of his well known speeches.

“You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't. You get to decide what to worship. Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.

If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings.
They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing.

And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving and display.

The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.”

As for the concern that my chosen worship will not allow me to accept future discoveries because they run contrary to my faith I honestly think that cannot happen. One of the advantages of choosing to worship God is that it moves the object of worship outside of the closed system. See: An Argument for God. In doing so a full understanding of the system becomes the natural goal.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
March 05, 2019, 04:23:31 AM

Nevertheless he is correct in this one implication. The existence of a creator is a straightforward and logical a priori. There is no observed example of spontaneous and sustained de-novo creation in the observed universe. Yet here we are and we can trace our existence back to a unique moment of infinite creation when the entire universe emerged and then expanded from a single point in space and time. Given the complexity of the universe and ourselves the belief there is a creative entity behind it all is indeed not hard to understand.

There are a ton of problems with this kind of argument. For one, something that might seem logical now, might not be logical tomorrow when we find out whatever new information that changes everything. Perhaps our understanding of the universe is not even 0.01% correct. Second problem would be that even if it's logical to think there is a creator, the argument still doesn't show it's the god from the bible and not other god.

Regarding #1 Our knowledge may indeed expand in the future and invalidate some of current understanding. However, changing or shaping your current worldview based on hypothetical future knowledge that may or may not ever exist is not a path to a sane or stable worldview.

Regarding #2 If there is an entity that created the universe then by definition that is the God of the Bible for such a creator is by definition God. This would be true even if the Bible was somehow shown to be incomplete or inaccurate in its description of said creator.

You missed his point.  His point was that in the future we could discover how the world (and all the parallel universes) were created naturally. Your position is not allowing for any future discoveries to be accepted because it would invalidate your 'God the creator of all things' position entirely.

An honest position is to say: we know what we know, what we don't know we don't know.  We know the universe was much smaller in the past, probably was a singularity when the spacetime that we know and experience 'became available' in its current form.  Who knows what the future discoveries will bring?

Maybe the spacetime that we know was in a different form, and we never actually had the singularity.  Just a different form or state (with unknown Physics).

What is known to be 100% true is that the stories about Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, and all the other ancient Gods are fairy tales (from the crypt, pun intended).



Exactly. Just look at history. Was it not more logical to believe in a god 5000 years ago? I believe it was. People had so little information about anything, a big bearded man in the sky seemed quite logical. They also believed the earth was flat, can you blame them? Of course that was shown to be not even close to reality.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
March 04, 2019, 08:44:54 PM

Nevertheless he is correct in this one implication. The existence of a creator is a straightforward and logical a priori. There is no observed example of spontaneous and sustained de-novo creation in the observed universe. Yet here we are and we can trace our existence back to a unique moment of infinite creation when the entire universe emerged and then expanded from a single point in space and time. Given the complexity of the universe and ourselves the belief there is a creative entity behind it all is indeed not hard to understand.

There are a ton of problems with this kind of argument. For one, something that might seem logical now, might not be logical tomorrow when we find out whatever new information that changes everything. Perhaps our understanding of the universe is not even 0.01% correct. Second problem would be that even if it's logical to think there is a creator, the argument still doesn't show it's the god from the bible and not other god.

Regarding #1 Our knowledge may indeed expand in the future and invalidate some of current understanding. However, changing or shaping your current worldview based on hypothetical future knowledge that may or may not ever exist is not a path to a sane or stable worldview.

Regarding #2 If there is an entity that created the universe then by definition that is the God of the Bible for such a creator is by definition God. This would be true even if the Bible was somehow shown to be incomplete or inaccurate in its description of said creator.

You missed his point.  His point was that in the future we could discover how the world (and all the parallel universes) were created naturally. Your position is not allowing for any future discoveries to be accepted because it would invalidate your 'God the creator of all things' position entirely.

An honest position is to say: we know what we know, what we don't know we don't know.  We know the universe was much smaller in the past, probably was a singularity when the spacetime that we know and experience 'became available' in its current form.  Who knows what the future discoveries will bring?

Maybe the spacetime that we know was in a different form, and we never actually had the singularity.  Just a different form or state (with unknown Physics).

What is known to be 100% true is that the stories about Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, and all the other ancient Gods are fairy tales (from the crypt, pun intended).

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 04, 2019, 03:05:08 PM

Nevertheless he is correct in this one implication. The existence of a creator is a straightforward and logical a priori. There is no observed example of spontaneous and sustained de-novo creation in the observed universe. Yet here we are and we can trace our existence back to a unique moment of infinite creation when the entire universe emerged and then expanded from a single point in space and time. Given the complexity of the universe and ourselves the belief there is a creative entity behind it all is indeed not hard to understand.

There are a ton of problems with this kind of argument. For one, something that might seem logical now, might not be logical tomorrow when we find out whatever new information that changes everything. Perhaps our understanding of the universe is not even 0.01% correct. Second problem would be that even if it's logical to think there is a creator, the argument still doesn't show it's the god from the bible and not other god.

Regarding #1 Our knowledge may indeed expand in the future and invalidate some of current understanding. However, changing or shaping your current worldview based on hypothetical future knowledge that may or may not ever exist is not a path to a sane or stable worldview.

Regarding #2 If there is an entity that created the universe then by definition that is the God of the Bible for such a creator is by definition God. This would be true even if the Bible was somehow shown to be incomplete or inaccurate in its description of said creator.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 04, 2019, 02:44:06 PM
In regards to “good people” I suspect we would have trouble agreeing on the definition of that term. here is a comment I ran across a few months back that stuck with me. Not my words but I have found them to be true.

“I have often noticed. The further the unbeliever is from God...the more "good" they believe themselves to be. Contrastly, the nearer one draws toward God...the less good they see in their own life! God is the light the reveals the sin within us. As we draw nearer that light...so that sin is revealed. As we move further ...so that sin disappears in the darkness.”

The proper term would be a spiritual transformation. Perhaps that’s why you are struggling with the concept. Materialist reject the existence of the spirit so naturally it’s difficult to understand the transformation of something that you refuse to acknowledge exists. As I said before the closest analogy in materialist phraseology would be an update or revision of the core operating system.



That is the problem.  I don't even know what does 'sin' or 'spirit' even mean.  They are abstract concepts developed to instill fear and bondage in the gullible masses.

So what you're talking about is mumbo jumbo in my 'materialistic' world.  Makes absolutely no sense.  Crazy talk.

Yes well that happens when people adopt different fundamental a priori about the nature of the universe. They begin to branch out in entirely different directions. To you my arguments sound like crazy talk. To me your arguments appear as willful blindness reflecting an inability to open your eyes and take in the nature of reality around you.

The a priori matters quite a bit. Our innate biological limitations lock us into set forms and patterns dictated by natural law but increasingly we are developing the power to overcome these and remake reality according to our whims. As we do so the a priori becomes ever more important as it ultimately directs our developmental path which becomes a matter of choice not destiny.

A synonym for a priori is faith. Everyone who is logical and consistent has a faith. The nihilist has faith in the meaninglessness of the universe. The hedonist has faith that pleasure is the most important thing in life. The theist has faith in God. What we choose to have faith in is far more important then commonly recognized for in the end it dictates who we are.

If you understand this you can begin to understand why a genuine faith in God may at the end of the day be more important then the mistakes even the horrible ones that people may have committed on the winding path to achieving that faith.  
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
March 04, 2019, 01:05:11 PM
What part of there's a giant bearded dude in the sky that created earth and man don't you understand?

Notbatman is a simpleton or troll who ignores all scientific evidence, believes that everyone is engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the nature of the planet and can apparently only visualize an infinite creator as a big man in the sky with a giant beard.

Nevertheless he is correct in this one implication. The existence of a creator is a straightforward and logical a priori. There is no observed example of spontaneous and sustained de-novo creation in the observed universe. Yet here we are and we can trace our existence back to a unique moment of infinite creation when the entire universe emerged and then expanded from a single point in space and time. Given the complexity of the universe and ourselves the belief there is a creative entity behind it all is indeed not hard to understand.

There are a ton of problems with this kind of argument. For one, something that might seem logical now, might not be logical tomorrow when we find out whatever new information that changes everything. Perhaps our understanding of the universe is not even 0.01% correct. Second problem would be that even if it's logical to think there is a creator, the argument still doesn't show it's the god from the bible and not other god.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
March 04, 2019, 11:20:57 AM

Are you are talking about a functional transformation?  

How did your body or mind functionally changed since you 'accepted' God?

Let me give you a hint.  Good people remain good people despite believing or disbelieving in imaginary friends.  Same goes for the bad apples.

Again, a real example would be helpful to understand where you went wrong.

In regards to “good people” I suspect we would have trouble agreeing on the definition of that term. here is a comment I ran across a few months back that stuck with me. Not my words but I have found them to be true.

“I have often noticed. The further the unbeliever is from God...the more "good" they believe themselves to be. Contrastly, the nearer one draws toward God...the less good they see in their own life! God is the light the reveals the sin within us. As we draw nearer that light...so that sin is revealed. As we move further ...so that sin disappears in the darkness.”

The proper term would be a spiritual transformation. Perhaps that’s why you are struggling with the concept. Materialist reject the existence of the spirit so naturally it’s difficult to understand the transformation of something that you refuse to acknowledge exists. As I said before the closest analogy in materialist phraseology would be an update or revision of the core operating system.



That is the problem.  I don't even know what does 'sin' or 'spirit' even mean.  They are abstract concepts developed to instill fear and bondage in the gullible masses.

So what you're talking about is mumbo jumbo in my 'materialistic' world.  Makes absolutely no sense.  Crazy talk.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 04, 2019, 10:31:15 AM

Are you are talking about a functional transformation?  

How did your body or mind functionally changed since you 'accepted' God?

Let me give you a hint.  Good people remain good people despite believing or disbelieving in imaginary friends.  Same goes for the bad apples.

Again, a real example would be helpful to understand where you went wrong.

In regards to “good people” I suspect we would have trouble agreeing on the definition of that term. here is a comment I ran across a few months back that stuck with me. Not my words but I have found them to be true.

“I have often noticed. The further the unbeliever is from God...the more "good" they believe themselves to be. Contrastly, the nearer one draws toward God...the less good they see in their own life! God is the light the reveals the sin within us. As we draw nearer that light...so that sin is revealed. As we move further ...so that sin disappears in the darkness.”

The proper term would be a spiritual transformation. Perhaps that’s why you are struggling with the concept. Materialist reject the existence of the spirit so naturally it’s difficult to understand the transformation of something that you refuse to acknowledge exists. As I said before the closest analogy in materialist phraseology would be an update or revision of the core operating system.

legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
March 03, 2019, 09:44:12 PM
What part of there's a giant bearded dude in the sky that created earth and man don't you understand?

Notbatman is a simpleton or troll who ignores all scientific evidence, believes that everyone is engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the nature of the planet and can apparently only visualize an infinite creator as a big man in the sky with a giant beard.

Nevertheless he is correct in this one implication. The existence of a creator is a straightforward and logical a priori. There is no observed example of spontaneous and sustained de-novo creation in the observed universe. Yet here we are and we can trace our existence back to a unique moment of infinite creation when the entire universe emerged and then expanded from a single point in space and time. Given the complexity of the universe and ourselves the belief there is a creative entity behind it all is indeed not hard to understand.

I think we already re-hashed the God of the Gaps argument.  You need to dig deeper for more original arguments.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
March 03, 2019, 09:41:58 PM
What transformation are you talking about?  Are you 'transforming' right now?

Can you post the before and after pictures from your transformation?  What exactly did you transform?  Please be specific.

Maybe a computer science analogy will be easier for you to follow? When you download an operating system onto a computer what kind of transformation is that? Physically the change is unobservable the computer and hard drive look exactly the same. Nevertheless the functional changes and the effect on the behavior of the system is profound.

Choosing God is the human version of this general type of transformation a revision to the core operating system. Nearly completely unobservable yet at the same time fundamental.

Are you are talking about a functional transformation?  

How did your body or mind functionally changed since you 'accepted' God?

Let me give you a hint.  Good people remain good people despite believing or disbelieving in imaginary friends.  Same goes for the bad apples.

Again, a real example would be helpful to understand where you went wrong.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 03, 2019, 09:22:02 PM
What part of there's a giant bearded dude in the sky that created earth and man don't you understand?

Notbatman is a simpleton or troll who ignores all scientific evidence, believes that everyone is engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the nature of the planet and can apparently only visualize an infinite creator as a big man in the sky with a giant beard.

Nevertheless he is correct in this one implication. The existence of a creator is a straightforward and logical a priori. There is no observed example of spontaneous and sustained de-novo creation in the observed universe. Yet here we are and we can trace our existence back to a unique moment of infinite creation when the entire universe emerged and then expanded from a single point in space and time. Given the complexity of the universe and ourselves the belief there is a creative entity behind it all is indeed not hard to understand.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
March 03, 2019, 08:46:12 PM
What part of there's a giant bearded dude in the sky that created earth and man don't you understand?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 03, 2019, 08:14:15 PM
What transformation are you talking about?  Are you 'transforming' right now?

Can you post the before and after pictures from your transformation?  What exactly did you transform?  Please be specific.

Maybe a computer science analogy will be easier for you to follow? When you download an operating system onto a computer what kind of transformation is that? Physically the change is unobservable the computer and hard drive look exactly the same. Nevertheless the functional changes and the effect on the behavior of the system is profound.

Choosing God is the human version of this general type of transformation a revision to the core operating system. Nearly completely unobservable yet at the same time fundamental.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
March 03, 2019, 07:57:55 PM
.

BTW, it is not 'God' who is transforming you, it is you who is transforming you

Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.


Why do you need a new word for it?  If it is energy that is within us, call it that and be done with it.

Why continue to use this intricate mythology around the concepts that are well understood today?

Not sure I am following you? What new word?

We bring God into this world via our faith and subsequent actions. In the process we transform both ourselves and the world. We are the ones doing the work but the work and transformation is only possible because of God.

I meant to say another word: God.  Energy is energy.  You don't need an ancient nomenclature to describe energy.  People who wrote scriptures did not know what energy was so they came up with some magical description of the world.  They did not know what planet they were on, what is the function of Sun, what was in their bodies, what the sky they saw was etc.  

What transformation are you talking about?  Are you 'transforming' right now?

Can you post the before and after pictures from your transformation?  What exactly did you transform?  Please be specific.


legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 03, 2019, 07:40:42 PM
.

BTW, it is not 'God' who is transforming you, it is you who is transforming you

Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.


Why do you need a new word for it?  If it is energy that is within us, call it that and be done with it.

Why continue to use this intricate mythology around the concepts that are well understood today?

Not sure I am following you? What new word?

We bring God into this world via our faith and subsequent actions. In the process we transform both ourselves and the world. We are the ones doing the work but the work and transformation is only possible because of God.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
March 03, 2019, 06:45:59 PM
.

BTW, it is not 'God' who is transforming you, it is you who is transforming you

Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.


Why do you need a new word for it?  If it is energy that is within us, call it that and be done with it.

Why continue to use this intricate mythology around the concepts that are well understood today?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 03, 2019, 05:27:49 PM
.

BTW, it is not 'God' who is transforming you, it is you who is transforming you

Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
March 03, 2019, 05:20:47 PM

I hope one day I will be able to know which to believe but if I don’t no biggie.

Here is a video on this topic that I enjoyed watching. It’s one of my favorite essays by of C.S. Lewis’s narrated and put to video.

Man or Rabbit by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ
hero member
Activity: 978
Merit: 506
March 03, 2019, 04:43:59 PM

Most atheists aren't really atheists. It's not that they don't believe in God they just have something against God. They're actually theist that don't agree with what God has done, is doing and will do.
They are ignorant of who God is because they either never read His word or don't know it or have accepted somebody's cursory biased interpretation of it.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." -Hosea 4:6
Then there are those that have ears and don't hear. In other words, they claim to be on the side of reason and logic and yet refuse to listen, read or hear any dissenting views.
"They have ears, but cannot hear."-Psalm 115:6
These are a few of the inconsistencies and downright hypocrisies of atheism. Jesus did not argue, he spoke and those that wanted to hear, heard and those that loved him followed him.
There's no point in arguing with those that have already made up their minds, no matter what you say.



legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
March 03, 2019, 03:35:14 PM
....

A murderer who kills and repents may indeed be less evil then a man who denies God and lives an outwardly unassuming life. ...

I think your moral compass is skewed.

If I live my selfless life helping others, caring for poor and needy, never harmed anyone, I am eviler than a murderer just because I think that the fictional characters are fictional?

Who thought you such garbage?  Ask for a refund.


You may indeed do all those good things now. Maybe you are the utterly selfless individual Astargath was imagining upthread.

In that event it is unquestionable that you are going good in the here and now and should be commended for it. However that’s not the most important question when discussing an afterlife. More important then what you have done so far is what you would do if given tremendously more power then you currently have and an eternity of time to work with.

What fundamental core belief do hold that will keep you on the path of good. After eons of serving the poor and needy what would prevent you from ever becomming bored and deciding one day to glorify and serve yourself with your great power instead of using it to serve others?

The answer of course is that it is the genuine acceptance that we are the stewards not the owners of God’s creation that our accomplishments are a reflection of his glory not our own. That willing subjugation is what prevents the self from becomming destructive.



Subjugation to the Bronze Age way of thinking can bring you to destruction in a New York minute.

Fictional characters remain fictional, no matter what you or I believe.

So god is a fictional character?

I personally know that I don’t know that igod  is fictional.
I also personally know that I don’t know that god is real.

Since I simply don’t know which is true and that is the real truth for me I don’t choose to believe in either one.

I live my life as if it is real and it matters what I do to myself and the rest of the people that seem to be in the same spot that I am in.

I also wonder if god believers were given something extra to have that belief.
I also wonder if atheists were given something extra to have that belief.

I hope one day I will be able to know which to believe but if I don’t no biggie.

Of course.  The God character is only in fictional books.  You will not find God character in your science or history book.
Only religious fairy tales (aka scriptures) present this character.
Pages:
Jump to: