Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 414. (Read 901367 times)

Asking if I have $1 million dollars is asking me about my wealth.  Or at least it's asking about it enough to the point where an honest answer could jeopardize my safety.

Let's put it this way -- I may or may not have $1 million, and if I do, I'll gladly enter into such an agreement.

I didn't ask about your wealth, I asked whether you have 1 million dollars, since it was you who said that you would give that amount (not me asking in the first place). Do you follow me?

Lol Nice.

I don't disclose my wealth, so take that as you wish.

I would gladly enter into this agreement, but I would clarify some things before actually doing so (e.g. the definition of God used in premise 2 is that of an "omnipotent creator of reality," which needn't actually be proven true or false for the argument to work, but rather is assumed to be true because it is a commonly-accepted conceptualization of what a monotheistic god is).  Other clarifications are also necessary, e.g. that empiricism cannot *soundly* conclude about God (saying something like "Empiricism can soundly conclude that it can't conclude about God," or something similar, doesn't count).  There would be a few others.

But on the whole, yes.

Exactly! That's what I have been trying to tell you. Of course, with different words.


Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps you are so strong that "they" could tie you down and gradually slice off your flesh, one square centimeter at a time. Perhaps the Chinese water torture wouldn't bother you at all. Possibly you like waterboarding.

You just might be a very strong person. However, could you overcome the evidence of God, Himself? Could be. You are attempting to do it in these discussions with me.


You are limiting yourself and the universe by claiming this.



You see? This is where we differ. You hold your evidence and proof as absolute, while I hold that it is NOT absolute. You hold my evidence as inadequate, while I hold it as basic and fundamental. However, I recognize that you have the ability to disregard my evidence and proof, while you don't recognize that I can do the same with yours.

Perhaps I am not as able as you to stand up to great joy or great pain. So, you just might be right.

Okay, do you have $1 million and are you ready to give it to anyone who would refute that point (in case you have that much in the first place, of course)?

Responding in order:

1)  Regardless of how you feel, something that is logically true or false remains logically true or false.  There's an entire logical fallacy specifically set aside for what you are describing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

So much for that argument of yours.

2)  See #1.  It's actually the opposite.  I have the strength to maintain logical reasoning without letting emotions influence my judgment.

3)   No, nothing physical is evidence of God because the defining characteristic that distinguishes God from all possible forms he could take (or make) is a non-physical characteristic (i.e omnipotence, or a total lack of constraint).  

Again, the limitations of inductive reasoning strictly prohibit the possibility of physical evidence for God.  This is not up for debate.  It's black-and-white, and all I can tell you is that you need to learn more about inductive reasoning.

This can be soundly deduced as follows:

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

4)  Again, I have no reason to resist any evidence for God if I believe in God (and I do).  I would *love* to see evidence for God, but unfortunately it's a logical impossibility.

I'm directly calling you ignorant because, well...can you think of a better word for someone who willfully dismisses absolute proof of their own logical fallacies?

 

It is true that this is a problem. But it isn't my problem alone. It is your problem as well. You are using it as am I.

Neither of us is in great joy or great pain regarding the things that we produce as evidence or proof. Thus, we are able to accept and reject anything that we want. If we couldn't do such, this discussion would have been over long ago.

In the event that emotions become strong in one way or another, we focus on our emotions, and our strength of will is taken away so that we accept things as evidence or proof much easier.


Thank you. As I said above, you have strength to keep from accepting evidence as evidence and proof as proof if you so desire. As it is for me, so it is for you. Thank you, again.


Everything physical is physical evidence of God.



I respect your ability to resist the evidence and proof that I show you. I accept that you have the ability, at least at this stage of the game, to demean my character by directly calling me ignorant.

As Carl Sagan said ” Extraordinary claims take extraordinary proof.

1)  Proof exists in the presence of joy or pain?  Well, there you go, that's your problem.  You rationalize by emotion, not reason.

2)  I believe in God for logical reasons, so there is no possible benefit to me to ignore any evidence for God.  If the things you mentioned actually are proof of God, I would be among the first to embrace it and share it with others.  I have no motive to denounce what you claim is proof.  But, it simply isn't proof.  Accordingly, it's not about convincing myself that it isn't proof.  It's about you convincing yourself that it is proof (and simultaneously convincing yourself that logical fallacies don't apply to you simply because you don't want them to don't understand them).

Not possible for there to be physical evidence of God.  Period.

3) I respect your right to be intentionally ignorant, and am absolutely floored by your ability to do so.

I talked with many Atheists, from many countries, with different Official Religions.
In contrast of this, I realized that many(not all) atheists try to undermine religion.
In my opinion this is a way to weaken their doubts:
"Maybe I am wrong and God really exists? What if I die and Allah or God will punish me? "

Sadly, these kind of people are everywhere, independent of their country of origin.

This is exactly IT! You hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

There is nothing that explains the existence of the universe and all the marvels that are in it. We have observation of it, but no explanation for it or how it came into being.

Science is dribbles of knowledge combined with a whole lot of science fiction. Religion points at Something that might have created the world, but still has no understandable way that it could have been done.

Since we don't know how or where it all came from, and since we don't have a clue really how to make any of it ourselves, everything is a miracle. It all exists, but other than the fact that we have become used to and comfortable with its existence, the whole universe is a complete miracle.

Yeah, I understand that common things around us don't look quite like magic, but have you ever wondered that the very existence of the world around us (and ourselves) is magic in itself? And I don't necessarily mean divine inception or anything of the kind...

When the banks scammed everyone with their financial mis-selling tactics the victims weren't stupid people. The banks were suppose to be trustworthy sound businesses, and people trusted them to make the right decisions and advice. People were lied to and stolen from.

Same with the church. It is supposed to be a trustworthy business and people naturally follow it's advice. That doesn't make them stupid.
The church tells people that xyz will happen when they die. Not might happen, they sell it as fact. Yet as discussed earlier, not a single person on the planet knows what will happen when we die. So clearly the church is lying and mis-selling.

There doesn't have to be a god, there's no use for a god. We could all be in a multiverse, in a dimension that might not stay stable for all of time. But if your idea of god is the result of an earlier civilization that learned much more than us at this point, why would you feel the need to worship their figurehead? You can clearly see there's no works of any god in this world. No real magic can be seen. So why are people so stupid to need to latch on to a religion? Hate the stupid people that have blind faith, because that's all it can ever be. At least until the aliens come and say they are our god.

If there is a god, why did they mess up so badly in biology? Instead of coming up with the best solutions, each descendant on the tree of life had to work with what was living before them. We in essence are remolded fish. If religions thought the truth, no one would believe in a higher being. That's why we should not like religions, on top of of the evil they add to the world.

As I have said, proof of anything exists for sure only in the presence of great joy or great pain. Anybody can take any evidence and convince himself that it isn't evidence and that it doesn't prove anything... except in the presence of great joy or great pain.

The point? In a balanced world where one looks at the evidence against God and compares it with the evidence for God, the evidence for God almost entirely outweighs the evidence against God.

I respect your freedom to believe for yourself anything that you can hold your faith in.

You forget awfully quickly.  I referenced the exact logical fallacy(ies) you committed with regards to every single point on there.  The fact that I'm a theist and not an atheist should be especially troubling for you, then.

Not a single thing there provides a shred of evidence for God.  Zip, zero, nada.  If you forgot, I can do it all again.  

Edit:  To clarify, it's actually not so much that every point you mention is provably wrong, but rather it is impossible to prove them correct in terms of being proof of God.  You just think it's proof for God, because you say to yourself, "Oh, this looks like it makes sense!"  

It only makes sense to you because you lack the awareness to know that you are unsoundly filling in gaps which cannot be filled by the merit of the arguments you provided.  Logic doesn't work by saying, "I guess this looks good enough."  A sound argument is one that cannot possibly be overturned by any other theoretical or real consideration.  Every point you mention begs that alternative considerations be examined, and unfortunately none of these other considerations are disproved by the arguments you present.

Oh I see. The Christian God is the "correct" God.
Obviously you have studied, in depth, all the other countless false Gods to arrive at that conclusion. I mean you would of had to right?
I'm glad we sorted that one out. Now all you have to do is convince the couple of billion people in the world that disagree with you.

I love it when BADecker starts doubting his own faith. You can always tell because he starts snapping and lashing out, like a cornered fox with nowhere to run. Funny.

This is where you and the other atheists luck out. True believers in God - the Christians - are often more or less blind-faith believers. That is, they think that they have reason to believe in God, but they can't really put their finger on it.

The reason for this is that they don't know their religion anywhere near the way they are supposed to. Even Saint Paul, in Romans chapter 1 agrees with what I say:In other words, even the Bible acknowledges the things that I say at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.

Be glad that other Christians don't recognize this, because if they did, you atheists and agnostics would be laughed right out of town because of your stupid, willful ignorance.

The believers are saved based on their faith in God. Faith in God doesn't have anything to do with the scientific knowledge that exists or doesn't exist. It has to do with the way that God uses His Word to hold on to the hearts of the believers.

The scientific evidence that I have shown at my above link is there for you. It is there to show you and the other atheists that your atheism is based in stupidity, so that thereby you might, through its prompting, have occasion to get into the Bible, get the Word into you, so God has something to save you with.

Science saves no-one. Science is way too limited in its scope and breadth and strength to save anyone. Only God can save. The way He does it is through faith in His words, the Word, the Bible. It isn't blind faith. It is "educated" faith. You are badly mistaken in your way. If you don't change, you will ultimately destroy yourself in an everlasting, painful destruction.

Interesting how you've deliberately neglected to point out that the believers in God are also calling BS to this nonsense as well. Actually everybody has!

Is dishonestly lying by omission the only card left in your hand to play? Are you now that desperate? Really?

Tsk, tsk. All this dishonesty must be racking you up lots of black marks in Gods little book. Oh, dear.

@deisik

None of the atheists has any logic that the things written here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 are false. All they can do is SAY that these things are false and make fun of them.

Neither do they have any logic that can contradict the fact that all the deep scientific papers are made up of two major parts. The first part is some major kernel of scientifically proved something or other. The second part is one or more hypothetical points where the kernel might be applied. But the points in the second part often have no basis in science. They are often simply fictional wishes and desires that the scientist would like to exist, but as far as anybody knows, don't exist.

Get down to the basics. The atheists do not know that God does not exist. The evidence in the above mentioned link is but a smattering of strong evidence that suggests that God DOES exist. When people attempt to use the much weaker evidence to prove something opposite of what the much stronger evidence suggests, they are forming a religion.

There will always be question about both, the evidence that suggests that God exists, and the evidence that suggests that He doesn't. Presently, the evidence that suggests He DOES exist, blows the other right out of the water with regard to quantity and quality.

I admire the atheist who has knowledge of the things that I have said here, and yet remains an atheist. Such an atheist has strong faith. If his faith were based in the religion of God rather than the religion of atheism, he would be a powerful missionary... maybe even one who could do miracles like the Bible prophets of old.



EDIT: In the event that you didn't understand what this has to do with why atheists hate religion, here it is.

An atheist wants religion to NOT exist so strongly, that when he is faced with the undeniable and overwhelmingly great facts that religion has to exist, he hates the whole idea of religion. And what makes him hate religion even more is when he realizes that the atheism that he spouts is based in non-reality so much more than the theism he opposes, that he, himself, is in a religion called atheism, and so he despises religion even more. Vicious cycle. The more he hates and despises religion, the more it becomes a religion for him, simply because there is far greater evidence for the existence of God than against it.