Author

Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 379. (Read 901520 times)

hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
legendary
Activity: 1848
Merit: 1023
I am a good bro
July 29, 2015, 10:47:57 AM
i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.


Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

Smiley
Atheism isn't a religion.
If it is, it's associatons collect millions and millions of dollar and doesn't pay tax Wink
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 28, 2015, 03:37:26 PM
i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.


Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

Smiley
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
July 28, 2015, 11:54:42 AM
i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
July 28, 2015, 11:24:22 AM
Also relevant:

Quote
The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness. John Bell provides a list of insufficiently clear concepts in his essay “Against ‘measurement’”:

Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.

Textbook expositions of quantum theory make free use of these forbidden terms. But how, in the end, are we to determine whether something is a “system”, or is large enough to count as “macroscopic,” or whether an interaction constitutes a “measurement?” Bell’s fastidiousness about language is the outward expression of his concern about concepts. Sharp physical theories cannot be built out of vague notions.

Take-home message: The language we use to describe the physical Universe is ultimately subject to semantic scrutiny.  One who relies solely upon the 'objectivness' of scientific theories without regard for the theoretical nature of the language used to express those theories ultimately butchers his understanding of them, and overlooks the inherent, fundamental relationship between objective content and the abstract models we form thereof.

It is so difficult to formulate in one's own mind the exact thing one wants to say. Then, on top of it, one needs to use the correct wording and grammar to get it across concisely. Even Solomon in the Old Testament said wording to the effect of, "The more the words, the less the meaning."

Smiley

The problem here is more specific.  The problem is mostly in ascribing inherently mathematical concepts (e.g. "system") to physical phenomena.  The problem is, again, one of induction.

Modeling this process to demonstrate the problem:

1) We have a system we want to scientifically explore.

2) We have not formed a theory or model about this system because we haven't explored it yet.

3) But, we 'a priori' assume that it is an objective system.  This in itself is purporting a theoretical understanding of it before we have explored it.  That is, we have applied an 'a priori' theory of systemhood to objective content before we have explored it to know what it is.

4) At a certain level, this essentially means one is saying they already know what the objective content is before they know what the objective content is.  Hence, this is an inductive fallacy.

There are ways to get around this to stay consistent, but it's tricky.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 28, 2015, 10:40:36 AM
Also relevant:

Quote
The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness. John Bell provides a list of insufficiently clear concepts in his essay “Against ‘measurement’”:

Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.

Textbook expositions of quantum theory make free use of these forbidden terms. But how, in the end, are we to determine whether something is a “system”, or is large enough to count as “macroscopic,” or whether an interaction constitutes a “measurement?” Bell’s fastidiousness about language is the outward expression of his concern about concepts. Sharp physical theories cannot be built out of vague notions.

Take-home message: The language we use to describe the physical Universe is ultimately subject to semantic scrutiny.  One who relies solely upon the 'objectivness' of scientific theories without regard for the theoretical nature of the language used to express those theories ultimately butchers his understanding of them, and overlooks the inherent, fundamental relationship between objective content and the abstract models we form thereof.

It is so difficult to formulate in one's own mind the exact thing one wants to say. Then, on top of it, one needs to use the correct wording and grammar to get it across concisely. Even Solomon in the Old Testament said wording to the effect of, "The more the words, the less the meaning."

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
July 28, 2015, 10:09:54 AM
Also relevant:

Quote
The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness. John Bell provides a list of insufficiently clear concepts in his essay “Against ‘measurement’”:

Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.

Textbook expositions of quantum theory make free use of these forbidden terms. But how, in the end, are we to determine whether something is a “system”, or is large enough to count as “macroscopic,” or whether an interaction constitutes a “measurement?” Bell’s fastidiousness about language is the outward expression of his concern about concepts. Sharp physical theories cannot be built out of vague notions.

Take-home message: The language we use to describe the physical Universe is ultimately subject to semantic scrutiny.  One who relies solely upon the 'objectivness' of scientific theories without regard for the theoretical nature of the language used to express those theories ultimately butchers his understanding of them, and overlooks the inherent, fundamental relationship between objective content and the abstract models we form thereof.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 27, 2015, 09:49:01 PM
Einstein on the relationship between Philosophy and Science:

Quote
How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment….

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken.

Nice.   Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
July 27, 2015, 09:24:34 PM
Einstein on the relationship between Philosophy and Science:

Quote
How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment….

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 27, 2015, 08:15:41 PM

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.



It should also be mentioned that antitheists don't necessarily "hate" religion, though; but antitheists are oppositional towards religion. Atheism really has nothing to do with religion.

Except, of course, in the face of all the science that virtually proves that God exists, atheism is more of a religion than all the God-religions are.

Smiley
full member
Activity: 135
Merit: 100
July 27, 2015, 08:04:17 PM

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.



It should also be mentioned that antitheists don't necessarily "hate" religion, though; but antitheists are oppositional towards religion. Atheism really has nothing to do with religion.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 27, 2015, 07:09:53 PM
Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.


Using the science of atheists to prove that God exists IS what good Christians DO to mind their own business. After all, their business is to spread God's business among all atheists, one way or another.

We love atheists. Their existence gives us purpose for our lives.

 Cheesy

The point is, if there weren't any atheists, and if there weren't any believers in a false God, chances are that God would move all of us to His new universe where we could REALLY live in peace, love, and harmony, forever with God.

Smiley

Come on! Why do you think God is waiting? He doesn't want anyone to be lost. He is giving us time to repent.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
July 27, 2015, 03:35:09 PM
Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.

Most Christians mind their own business.

Most Christians want their children to go to heaven so they will continue to teach them to trust in Jesus Christ, which I guess is what you're calling brainwashing. But children in the public school are brainwashed and left to that alone would never consider any other points of views.

Children Christians can grow up and ask if there is something else. You did, right?

The ones who brainwash and don't encourage asking questions are the schools these days.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 27, 2015, 03:26:49 PM
Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.


Using the science of atheists to prove that God exists IS what good Christians DO to mind their own business. After all, their business is to spread God's business among all atheists, one way or another.

We love atheists. Their existence gives us purpose for our lives.

 Cheesy

The point is, if there weren't any atheists, and if there weren't any believers in a false God, chances are that God would move all of us to His new universe where we could REALLY live in peace, love, and harmony, forever with God.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 27, 2015, 03:21:44 PM
Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.


Using the science of atheists to prove that God exists IS what good Christians DO to mind their own business. After all, their business is to spread God's business among all atheists, one way or another.

We love atheists. Their existence gives us purpose for our lives.

 Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
July 27, 2015, 03:15:09 PM
Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 26, 2015, 05:52:29 PM

This appears to be an argument by people so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. In fact, atheism fulfills none of the properties generally held to characterize religion.
 We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.


Atheism involves no belief, no dogma, no faith: it is simply the absence of theism. It does not involve any kind of worship, rituals, faith, prayers, etc, and it has no spiritual leader and no sacred text. Although individual atheists have philosophies by which they live (whether they be based on secular humanism, objectivism, etc), there is no clearly defined philosophy common to all (or even most) atheists.

In fact, perhaps the only thing on which atheists would agree is the wrongheadedness of the single main characteristic of a religion: a belief in supernatural beings or gods.

If an individual does not believe in astrology, for example, such disbelief would not be held to constitute a religion (anastrology?). Alternatively, we could ask: “Does 'not collecting stamps' constitute a hobby?” or  “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.

Religious belief requires a leap of faith because it postulates the existence of entities that we have no good evidence to believe exist. Atheism, on the other hand, does not require faith because it involves believing in nothing beyond that which we have evidence for and experience of.

Currently, science believes officially that there is nothing more than the physical to life. All of the supposed consciousnesses and free-will activities are nothing more than bio-electric activities of the brain and nervous system. This means that everything operates by cause and effect. Why? Because some many things stimulated the brain and nervous system to act the way it did... produce the illusions that we call consciousness and free will.

However, even if science gets to the point where it literally discovers that there is some outer thing that is a part of us, and upholds or acts with or is upheld by the brain and nervous system, even then science will have to prove that this thing is not operating through cause and effect.

Cause and effect rules in everything that we see, know, and understand, especially in science. Even the quantum mechanics and quantum math that suggest that in some cases effect can come before cause, have to do with the manipulation of the order of things in the universe by mankind. Thus, there is cause and effect in all that seems to be the reverse order of cause and effect. But it is reverse cause and effect that is caused by man, making cause and effect to still rule.

What, if anything, was the Great First Cause that started things going?

----------

There is extreme complexity in the universe. This complexity includes the mind of mankind, the illusions of free will and emotion, math that is so great that we haven't been able to thoroughly calculate dimensions beyond 6 or 8, even though we have parts of as many as 30 dimensions or more, mathematically.

----------

We see nothing other than entropy in all things. Everything is wearing out, eroding, falling to pieces, etc.  The more complex something is, the faster it seems to wear out with regard to its complexity. This is why life doesn't last much more than a hundred years for people. Yet, in all this entropy, we don't see anything that could have started the complexity. The complexity is dying, but we don't see anything that could have started it.

If the mind of man wasn't so complex, if he wasn't so able mentally, then we might be able to say that whatever started the universe might have been backward. But this isn't the case. Even today, after thousands of years of entropy, the mind of man is still great. Obviously, by the way cause and effect, and entropy work together, the mind of man must have been far greater in the distant past. After all, entropy doesn't suggest evolution. It suggests devolution.

Because the mind of man - and even the whole universe - was far advanced in the past, much more than entropy has allowed it to remain, the THING that was able to start the whole universe going, the THING that was able to dictate the multiple thousands of years of cause and effect ('cause that's what we see in everything), and WHATEVER IT WAS that was able to produce such extreme complexity back then, must have been way more complex in itself that anything we see.

Advancement does not arise from entropy. And we see nothing other than entropy, operating through cause and effect. And a thing that could cause-and-effect the mind of man into existence way back before there was much entropy (or any), certainly falls into the category of God Almighty... at least with relation to anything that mankind can think of or be.

----------

If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.

Smiley

You said "I do not believe God exists" so what is your religion? or you are Atheists? and I do not agree with this too "you operate in faith and belief rather than fact"
facts are facts and it is different with faith

No, I said:
Quote
If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.

In other words, if you follow science, you essentially believe God exists, according to some of the basic facts of science.

If you accept science as fact, and you don't want to accept that God exists, you have essentially turned science into a religion for yourself, by believing something that does not go along with scientific fact.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
July 26, 2015, 05:20:37 PM

This appears to be an argument by people so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. In fact, atheism fulfills none of the properties generally held to characterize religion.
 We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.


Atheism involves no belief, no dogma, no faith: it is simply the absence of theism. It does not involve any kind of worship, rituals, faith, prayers, etc, and it has no spiritual leader and no sacred text. Although individual atheists have philosophies by which they live (whether they be based on secular humanism, objectivism, etc), there is no clearly defined philosophy common to all (or even most) atheists.

In fact, perhaps the only thing on which atheists would agree is the wrongheadedness of the single main characteristic of a religion: a belief in supernatural beings or gods.

If an individual does not believe in astrology, for example, such disbelief would not be held to constitute a religion (anastrology?). Alternatively, we could ask: “Does 'not collecting stamps' constitute a hobby?” or  “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.

Religious belief requires a leap of faith because it postulates the existence of entities that we have no good evidence to believe exist. Atheism, on the other hand, does not require faith because it involves believing in nothing beyond that which we have evidence for and experience of.

Currently, science believes officially that there is nothing more than the physical to life. All of the supposed consciousnesses and free-will activities are nothing more than bio-electric activities of the brain and nervous system. This means that everything operates by cause and effect. Why? Because some many things stimulated the brain and nervous system to act the way it did... produce the illusions that we call consciousness and free will.

However, even if science gets to the point where it literally discovers that there is some outer thing that is a part of us, and upholds or acts with or is upheld by the brain and nervous system, even then science will have to prove that this thing is not operating through cause and effect.

Cause and effect rules in everything that we see, know, and understand, especially in science. Even the quantum mechanics and quantum math that suggest that in some cases effect can come before cause, have to do with the manipulation of the order of things in the universe by mankind. Thus, there is cause and effect in all that seems to be the reverse order of cause and effect. But it is reverse cause and effect that is caused by man, making cause and effect to still rule.

What, if anything, was the Great First Cause that started things going?

----------

There is extreme complexity in the universe. This complexity includes the mind of mankind, the illusions of free will and emotion, math that is so great that we haven't been able to thoroughly calculate dimensions beyond 6 or 8, even though we have parts of as many as 30 dimensions or more, mathematically.

----------

We see nothing other than entropy in all things. Everything is wearing out, eroding, falling to pieces, etc.  The more complex something is, the faster it seems to wear out with regard to its complexity. This is why life doesn't last much more than a hundred years for people. Yet, in all this entropy, we don't see anything that could have started the complexity. The complexity is dying, but we don't see anything that could have started it.

If the mind of man wasn't so complex, if he wasn't so able mentally, then we might be able to say that whatever started the universe might have been backward. But this isn't the case. Even today, after thousands of years of entropy, the mind of man is still great. Obviously, by the way cause and effect, and entropy work together, the mind of man must have been far greater in the distant past. After all, entropy doesn't suggest evolution. It suggests devolution.

Because the mind of man - and even the whole universe - was far advanced in the past, much more than entropy has allowed it to remain, the THING that was able to start the whole universe going, the THING that was able to dictate the multiple thousands of years of cause and effect ('cause that's what we see in everything), and WHATEVER IT WAS that was able to produce such extreme complexity back then, must have been way more complex in itself that anything we see.

Advancement does not arise from entropy. And we see nothing other than entropy, operating through cause and effect. And a thing that could cause-and-effect the mind of man into existence way back before there was much entropy (or any), certainly falls into the category of God Almighty... at least with relation to anything that mankind can think of or be.

----------

If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.

Smiley

You said "I do not believe God exists" so what is your religion? or you are Atheists? and I do not agree with this too "you operate in faith and belief rather than fact"
facts are facts and it is different with faith
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
July 26, 2015, 04:48:40 PM
You do understand, however, that Science conducted upon observation carries assumptions that are empirically unfalsifiable, right?  It must, by definition, take for granted the assumption that observation has no causal effect on that which is observed.  There is precisely zero evidence for this assumption.
In other words, there is a total lack of evidence to support the entire methodology of empirical exploration.  

I'd like to come in and comment about that. You point out a very interesting issue with an empirical philosophy. We must assume that our senses are reasonably reliable and that what our senses "show" to us is the reality around us. The brain in a jar problem comes up (the matrix, etc). I take this issue to be irrelevant to the validity of empirical research (science), because of a pragmatic stance. Does it work? It seems to. It got us fast transportation, it got us off the ground in planes and spaceships To the moon! ┗(°0°)┛ . We have computers and TVs that work on principles found by doing empirical research.
Now, that doesn't solve the problem. I might still be a brain in a jar being fed electric stimuli to emulate the feeling of typing up a response to a comment, or we might be in a matrix-like network (for whatever reason), or our senses are fooling us all in some odd way that makes certain real things seem like something else under our perception of them. I don't think that problem has a solution. I don't think it necessitates God to come solve it, I don't think God solves that particular problem.
Maybe God can bypass our senses and reveal things to us directly into our consciousness... but how do we know them to be true? How do we know them to be accurate? We take God's word for it? You might say God is the source of all good, the moral law giver... but I'm sure fucking with our perception of reality could be done to spare people pain and suffering, perhaps even death. Who are you to say that God doesn't make us all think we're mortal, when in fact God grants immortality to all, removing people from earth at time of "death" and sending them off to a heaven/hell/purgatory/etc that exists within this universe?

I don't think god solves the problem because we could never know for certain whether God was fucking with our perception of reality (if this is reality, and not some God-created simulation to temporarily place us in) to serve a good our minds can't even begin to comprehend. That's just what I think. And at the end of the day, our senses seem to be the only things to guide us in this universe, be it a simulation, hallucination or something completely different.

Empiricism works because we can defer to the rules of sound inference as they pertain to inductive reasoning.  We simply must blare this inductive limit at all times -- it is precisely because this limit exists that empirical conclusions carry a margin-of-error.

While empirical conclusions carry a margin-of-error, knowledge of the inductive limit itself does not -- we know this at a 100% level of confidence. 

We can know things logically at a 100% level of confidence because logic is self-referential, i.e. logic validates itself.  This is why logical consistency is recognized as the trump card in theory-making.  Because any theory of anything must be consistent in a logical way in order to be true, knowledge of this self-referential property of logic, and its structure, serves as a root of all conceptual understanding -- it is a limit of theorization itself.  Utilizing this limit, if we can evoke categorical relationships between this limit and objectively real content, then we've devised a logical way of forming tautologies at the height of generality.  This is the next step in scientific understanding.
newbie
Activity: 15
Merit: 0
July 26, 2015, 03:59:46 PM
You do understand, however, that Science conducted upon observation carries assumptions that are empirically unfalsifiable, right?  It must, by definition, take for granted the assumption that observation has no causal effect on that which is observed.  There is precisely zero evidence for this assumption.
In other words, there is a total lack of evidence to support the entire methodology of empirical exploration.  

I'd like to come in and comment about that. You point out a very interesting issue with an empirical philosophy. We must assume that our senses are reasonably reliable and that what our senses "show" to us is the reality around us. The brain in a jar problem comes up (the matrix, etc). I take this issue to be irrelevant to the validity of empirical research (science), because of a pragmatic stance. Does it work? It seems to. It got us fast transportation, it got us off the ground in planes and spaceships To the moon! ┗(°0°)┛ . We have computers and TVs that work on principles found by doing empirical research.
Now, that doesn't solve the problem. I might still be a brain in a jar being fed electric stimuli to emulate the feeling of typing up a response to a comment, or we might be in a matrix-like network (for whatever reason), or our senses are fooling us all in some odd way that makes certain real things seem like something else under our perception of them. I don't think that problem has a solution. I don't think it necessitates God to come solve it, I don't think God solves that particular problem.
Maybe God can bypass our senses and reveal things to us directly into our consciousness... but how do we know them to be true? How do we know them to be accurate? We take God's word for it? You might say God is the source of all good, the moral law giver... but I'm sure fucking with our perception of reality could be done to spare people pain and suffering, perhaps even death. Who are you to say that God doesn't make us all think we're mortal, when in fact God grants immortality to all, removing people from earth at time of "death" and sending them off to a heaven/hell/purgatory/etc that exists within this universe?

I don't think god solves the problem because we could never know for certain whether God was fucking with our perception of reality (if this is reality, and not some God-created simulation to temporarily place us in) to serve a good our minds can't even begin to comprehend. That's just what I think. And at the end of the day, our senses seem to be the only things to guide us in this universe, be it a simulation, hallucination or something completely different.
Jump to: