Some Atheists Choose to Be Kind to Others

[rug]

April 25, 2017
Posted by Jack Vance

A couple of the comments on a previous post about social media discourse got me thinking. I know that atheism does not mean anything other than the lack of belief in gods. I also know that atheists suffer from all the same flaws that afflict all humans. And so, I am making a mistake when I expect atheists to be any more rational, reasonable, skeptical, kind, etc. than humans in general. I am not sure I will ever manage to come to terms with this entirely, though. Even though I know it is a mistake, I continue to find myself expecting something a little bit better from my fellow atheists and from myself.

With that in mind, how I see some atheists treating people on social media makes me want to spend less time on social media. In that context, I issue this brief reminder:

Being an atheist does not obligate one to treat religious believers poorly. Some atheists choose to be kind to others.

There's nothing inherent in atheism that says we must be hostile to religious believers at every opportunity. And yes, this applies not just to religious believers but to everyone. It even applies to people who have different political views!

http://www.atheistrev.com/2017/04/some-atheists-choose-to-be-kind-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtheistRevolution+%28Atheist+Revolution%29

[ExciteBike66]

1. Some atheists are unkind towards believers

because those atheists see those beliefs as harmful toward society as a whole. If a religious believer is trying to impose his or her beliefs on society, that is something that must be opposed. Part of that opposition is to expose those religious beliefs for the wacky nonsense they tend to be! If that offends other believers who do not impose their beliefs on others, then so be it.

On the other hand, I (as an atheist) do not just call up my religious grandma and start mocking her beliefs. Mockery is reserved for those who wish to impose Jesus, Mohammed, or any other godlings upon the rest of us.


"I am making a mistake when I expect atheists to be any more rational, reasonable, ... than humans in general."

The quote makes little sense. An atheist does not believe in a god, which makes them more rational and reasonable by definition.

[rug]

2. How does nonbelief, per se, make a person more rational and reasonable?

[ExciteBike66]

3. Let us compare:

1.) A person who believes in a god regardless of evidence (faith)

2.) A person who does not believe in a god due to lack of evidence

It seems to me that it is more rational and reasonable to be #2 than to be #1. Many fervent believers agree with me, which is why you see religious folks stating that religion is not subject to logic (i.e. rational thought and reason).

Edit: I should also say that when we compare these two people, we are holding everything else equal.

[rug]

4. Your premise is flawed.

Your conclusion is therefore irrational.

You assume material evidence of an immaterial concept can be evident.

Beyond that, you are asserting that an individual's particular opinion on a particular topic is either the result of, or evidence of, a higher level of rationality.

That is palpable nonsense.

[ExciteBike66]

6. My conclusion does not rest on any type of "evidence" at all!

Person #1 says evidence itself is unnecessary.

Person #2 sees no evidence, material or otherwise.

You are implying that any gods are just immaterial concepts, and I agree wholeheartedly. Those concepts were invented by men to explain natural phenomena, and became tools by which society could be controlled.


"Beyond that, you are asserting that an individual's particular opinion on a particular topic is either the result of, or evidence of, a higher level of rationality. "

I ask you then, how do YOU judge rationality? A psychiatrist might examine a patient who believes that the CIA is sending black helicopters to hunt him down. I am no psychiatrist, but I assume the doctor might judge his patient's rationality on those "opinions", no?

[rug]

8. Wrong. Evidence is not unnecessary, it is impossible.

Regarding your statement that "gods are just immaterial concepts", you added the word just. Adding or omitting words to change meaning is neither argument or reason.

Rationality needs two things in its simplest form. It must make sense and it must be honest, uninfluenced by bias.

Regarding your example, the claim of delusions is susceptible to evidence, not to mention specialized training, observation and experience.

[ExciteBike66]

12. If evidence is impossible

Last edited Tue Apr 25, 2017, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

then my descriptions of persons #1 and #2 stand as written.


"Regarding your statement that "gods are just immaterial concepts", you added the word just. Adding or omitting words to change meaning is neither argument or reason."

Did I change the meaning? Are you arguing that gods are both material and immaterial? If so, then your earlier statement must be flawed ("You assume material evidence of an immaterial concept can be evident.&quot . If god is material, then how can evidence be "impossible"?


"Regarding your example, the claim of delusions is susceptible to evidence, not to mention specialized training, observation and experience."

I am happy you admit that claims about black helicopters are "delusions" subject to evidence. I agree. Now what if our patient stated that only he could see and hear the helicopters. Certainly that does not yield to evidence, correct? What if our patient claimed that, like Mohammed, only he could hear god's whispers telling him to slaughter non-believers?

EDIT: It occurred to me that perhaps you meant that person #1 was saying evidence was impossible, not you yourself saying it. In that case, I disagree. I don't think someone who believes in a god can say that ANYTHING is impossible (at least, if they believe in an omnipotent god).

[rug]

25. Do you think finite things can describe infinite things?

Yes, you did change the meaning. No one said that the concept of God is only immaterial. If material claims, say miracles, are made, then those claims are subject to evidence, if any, or explanation, if any. That changes nothing about the essential nature of an infinite god.

Incorrect. If a patient is sitting on his bed in a psych ward and and says there is a black helicopter in there with him, that is obviously subject to evidence. If you are claiming Mohammed said he could hear God whisper, prove it. That is not the explanation of inspired scriptures.

[ExciteBike66]

35. But if god has material aspects

then you are wrong that evidence is "impossible". You say yourself that claims about god are subject to evidence, good! There is also the claim that god exists at all, which of course is also subject to evidence.

Also, what could you possibly mean about the "essential nature of an infinite god"? If such a being exists, wouldn't everything about it be "essential" to it? I mean, if there were things that were not "essential", then the being would not be "infinite".

[rug]

43. If god created material things, say, the universe, that would not mare god material.

Nor would the creation of material things in any way lessen or limit the nonmaterial nature of god, which is what is its essence.

[ExciteBike66]

47. You do not answer my point about infiniteness

which is that if a god is infinite, it must include material things, else it could not in fact be infinite.

[rug]

48. No one has said God includes material things but you.

Making material things from nonmaterial things, ex nihilo, does not make the maker of those things material.

[ExciteBike66]

50. Once again, what about that gods supposed infinite nature?

You yourself use the term infinite.

Anyway, you are arguing for a god that no one worships. Our conversation on the nature of this god is almost entirely irrelevant to religion and gods as actually practiced. You may continue to worship your invisible god that you alone believe, one might as well worship a flying plate of spaghetti so long as it too is invisible.

[rug]

70. You do realize that infinite means without limit, don't you?

Speaking of lack of evidence, prove this:

"Anyway, you are arguing for a god that no one worships."

[ExciteBike66]

78. How about we reverse it,

as I asked elsewhere, why not show what you actually believe, rather than your pathetic semantics.

[rug]

80. How about you answer the question.

The only pathetic things I see here are your evasions.

[ExciteBike66]

83. My answer is simple

Gods were all created by men, and do not exist except in some folks' minds.

Now it's your turn to stop evading the question. What do you believe?

[rug]

84. That doesn't answer the question at all.

I'll repeat it:

"25. Do you think finite things can describe infinite things?"

Your response is a robotic recitation of catechism.

As to what I believe, read the Nicene Creed.

[ExciteBike66]

85. So you believe god has material aspects

The Nicene Creed states that Jesus was human and was also of the same essence as god. Thank you for clarifying that!


As to my answer, it answers my own question, which is all I asked of it.


As to your question on finite things, I say that it doesn't really matter, since you and I both agree that if a god existed then it has some kind of material nature.

[rug]

86. You should read about the hypostatic union before using exclamation points.

[ExciteBike66]

87. Here we go,

The nicene creed states Jesus was not made, and was of one being with the father. Either way, it's all mysticism that resulted from various committees of religious leaders, a silly way to run a religion that purports to understand what a god wants.

[rug]

88. There you went.

It is ironic to see dismissive posts about "mysticism" that are cloaked in regurgitated bullshit.

[ExciteBike66]

89. I forgot to add

"Your response is a robotic recitation of catechism.

As to what I believe, read the Nicene Creed."

I forgot to add that it is funny how you accuse me of spouting catechism while then robotically referring to the actual Catholic catechism as representing what you believe. My answer was at least from my own mind.

[rug]

90. Your answer was trite and unoriginal.

[ExciteBike66]

91. You cited Catholic dogma!

Don't go complaining that my answer was "unoriginal"! Yours was created by a committee hundreds of years ago!

[rug]

92. If you don't understand the difference between religious dogma and internet atheist memes,

you probably shouldn't be posting about religion at all.

[ExciteBike66]

93. I laughed at that, thanks!

You seem to suggest that religious dogma is somehow more believable than atheistic statements (or memes, as you belittle them). Tell me, what do you think of the dogma of non-Catholic religions that contradicts your own? Is it believable that Jesus was not the messiah, as the Jews and Muslims would have it? Or perhaps the dogma of the Branch Davidians is more believable?

Seeing the great variety of religious dogma, I think my statement about gods being created by men seems rather strongly verified.

[rug]

104. The short answer is the amount of thought that goes into antitheist internet themes and cartoons is

laughable. They are the embodiment of straw men and shallow criticism.

Disbelieve, scoff, or piss on dogma all you want, it's immaterial to me. But in doing so, you are deliberating ignoring the sheer intellectual thought that's gone into it, all because a cartoon about a pig feeds your bias instead.

There is much to appreciate most developed religious dogma.

If you are incapable of honest examination of beliefs, at least do us all a favor and quote Russell now and then. The current shtick is growing staler by the post.

[ExciteBike66]

105. "you are deliberating ignoring the sheer intellectual thought that's gone into it,"

How much thought went into "David Koresh is the second coming"? That dogma is just as valid as yours.

Sticking with Catholicism, it's tough to respect dogma that was produced by committee and is jettisoned when public opinion goes against it. The fact that there are conservative and liberal factions in the church at all are evidence of the flexibility of its supposed dogma.

[rug]

106. David Koresh was a psychopath.

That you fail to realize it explains all that is needed to know about your understanding of religion.

"Branch Davidians (or Scientology or Pastafarians or Church of Bacon or any other lunatic group you wish to insert) are just as valid as any other religion" is among the lamest of internet antitheist memes. There is a reason they are termed viral. They keep reinfecting each other instead of producing serious original thought on the subject.

I doubt the Catholic Church is longing for your respect of its doctrines. I certainly am not. Particularly when you have such a stunning lack of knowledge about it.

[ExciteBike66]

107. And your evidence is....

"Branch Davidians (or Scientology or Pastafarians or Church of Bacon or any other lunatic group you wish to insert) are just as valid as any other religion" is among the lamest of internet antitheist memes."

Do you have any evidence at all that these groups are less valid than the Catholic Church?

Let's not forget all the crazy stuff the Catholic Church has decreed over the years. Weeping statues, miracles, the Inquisition, Galileo, the forbidding of marriage to non-Catholics, forbidding divorce.. etc etc.

How is David Koresh's claim to being the messiah any less valid than that of Jesus? There is exactly the same amount of evidence for both! Shit, you yourself believe that Jesus will one day return, if David Koresh was still alive his claim would be as strong as that of anyone else!

Your belief that Koresh is not the messiah is exactly the same as the Jews' belief that Jesus was not messiah.

[rug]

108. 18 dead children and 58 dead adults.

Chanel Andrade, 1, American
Jennifer Andrade, 19, American
Katherine Andrade, 24, American
George Bennett, 35, British
Susan Benta, 31, British
Mary Jean Borst, 49, American
Pablo Cohen, 38, Israeli
Adebowale Davies, 30, British
Shari Doyle, 18, American
Beverly Elliot, 30, British
Doris Fagan, 51, British
Yvette Fagan, 32, British
Lisa Marie Farris, 24, American
Raymond Friesen, 76, Canadian
Sandra Hardial, 27, British
Diana Henry, 28, British
Paulina Henry, 24, British
Phillip Henry, 22, British
Stephen Henry, 26, British
Vanessa Henry, 19, British
Zilla Henry, 55, British
Novellette Hipsman, 36, Canadian
Floyd Houtman, 61, American
Sherri Jewell, 43, American
David M. Jones, 38, American
Bobbie Lane Koresh, 2, American
Cyrus Koresh, 8, American
David Koresh, 33, American
Rachel Koresh, 24, American
Star Koresh, 6, American
Jeffery Little, 32, American
Nicole Gent Little (pregnant), 24, Australian
Dayland Lord Gent, 3, Australian
Paiges Gent, 1, American
Livingston Malcolm, 26, British
Anita Martin, 18, American
Diane Martin, 41, British
Lisa Martin, 13, American
Sheila Martin, Jr., 15, American
Wayne Martin, Jr., 20, American
Wayne Martin, Sr., 42, American
Abigail Martinez, 11, American
Audrey Martinez, 13, American
Crystal Martinez, 3, American
Isaiah Martinez, 4, American
Joseph Martinez, 8, American
Julliete Martinez, 30, American
John-Mark McBean, 27, British
Bernadette Monbelly, 31, British
Melissa Morrison, 6, British
Rosemary Morrison, 29, British
Sonia Murray, 29, American
Theresa Nobrega, 48, British
James Riddle, 32, American
Rebecca Saipaia, 24, Filipino[72]
Judy Schneider, 41, American
Steve Schneider, 43, American
Mayanah Schneider, 2, American
Clifford Sellors, 33, British
Scott Kojiro Sonobe, 35, American
Floracita Sonobe, 34, Filipino
Aisha Gyrfas Summers (pregnant), 17, Australian
Gregory Summers, 28, American
Startle Summers, 1, American
Hollywood Sylvia, 1, American
Lorraine Sylvia, 40, American
Rachel Sylvia, 12, American
Chica Jones, 2, American
Michelle Jones Thibodeau, 18, American
Serenity Jones, 4, American
Little One Jones, 2, American
Margarida Vaega, 47, New Zealander
Neal Vaega, 38, New Zealander
Mark H. Wendell, 40, American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#Fatalities_of_April_19

Go on, defend David Koresh.

[ExciteBike66]

109. Riiiiiiight

and how many Christians have died for their savior Jesus Christ?

Oh, and I kind of remember Koresh himself talking about the book of Revelation. Seems to me he was kind of a Christian himself, which means that your "18 dead children and 58 dead adults" also died for Jesus...

[rug]

110. Right.

Go on, demonstrate how Koresh was not a psychopath.

In your haste to peddle regurgitated attacks on religion be careful how many bodies you step over.

[ExciteBike66]

111. Whatever Koresh was

how can you claim Branch Davidianism was not a religion. I don't know whether they applied for status as a church, but I bet it would have been granted, no? What about his followers, surely they had some sort of religious feeling?

As to bodies, once again your own religion is probably at or near the top in body count. Last I checked, Pastafarians had not killed anyone in the name of their religion.

[rug]

112. You bagan this charade with "David Koresh is the second coming".

Having backed down from denying he was a psychopath you now interject this: "how can you claim Branch Davidianism was not a religion".

The Branch Davidians indeed descended from the Seventh Day Adventists. The difference is one was a cult, the other a religion.

Your intentional refusal to observe the actual differences between the two is precisely why posting antitheist internet memes is not religious discussion.Your intentional refusal to acknowledge the psychopathology of Koresh is symptomatic of that.

The pathology of David Koresh transformed a dissenting religious group into a cult of personality and eventually to the deaths of dozens of people. A fact you are quick to overlook because . . . religion!

[ExciteBike66]

113. Cult, noun

Definition of cult
1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents the cult of Apollo
3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see spurious 2); also : its body of adherents the voodoo cult a satanic cult
4
: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator health cults
5
a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book)



1, 2, 3, and 5 all apply to Christianity and Branch Davidianism. As regards #3, remember that Christianity was once considered "unorthodox" and indeed many branches of Christianity are today also considered "unorthodox".

I never denied Koresh was a psychopath, I am not a psychiatrist and do not argue either way.

And you are still ignoring the body count of the Catholic Church as you continue to blame Koresh for 80 deaths...

[rug]

116. This should help you, but I doubt it.

http://www.cultwatch.com/howcultswork.html

You're too enmeshed in false equivalence.

[ExciteBike66]

117. Again, the Catholic Church has killed way more people

than any "cult", by your definition. You are right that they are not equal, but I guess it is fair to say the Catholic Church had a couple thousand years head start...

I prefer the dictionary definition, it fits your church well.

[rug]

118. You're really dumping your grabbag of antitheist memes aren't you.

That remark has nothing to do with the OP and even less to the post you replied to.

[ExciteBike66]

144. You are the one who brought up body counts, rug. nt

[Eko]

139. And to you

that proves infinity? Not god but infinity? Because god?

[Lordquinton]

58. Do you define your god as infinite?

If so how did you reach that conclusion?

[rug]

63. It has been described that way for millennia.

Do your own homework.

[Lordquinton]

67. You apparently know the answer

So how was that information accuired? How can we test this? If it's true you should know. If you don't know, then it's on you to prove it. You or anyone else making that claim.

[rug]

68. If anything at all was "on me" to prove, it wouldn't be to you.

But it's not.

Are you incapable of spending five minutes to find out yourself?

[Lordquinton]

69. I've looked,

I've found declarations that it's truth, but no proof. Nothing saying "this is how we know" in so many words or not. But you said it here, so you should have it at hand.

I expect more personal attacks, but you could at least support your position while you give them, so far you have nothing.

[rug]

72. Good. Now look for the topic of this subthread: "Do you define your god as infinite?"

Not whatever you want to dredge to divert from that.

[Lordquinton]

73. So you're refusing to answer this question?

Another to add to the long list.

[rug]

74. You should know, from your long list of stupid, baiting questions, followed by desperate diversions,

that neither they nor you warrant a serious response or serious consideration.

Now knock yourself out fiddling with your "list".

[Lordquinton]

75. Again, no answer

Could it be perhaps that you don't have an answer?

[rug]

76. None warrented.

Could it be perhaps that you don't deserve an answer?

[Lordquinton]

100. More likely that an answer doesn't exist

I'm used to the deflection and attacks.

I'm also used to the fact that the answer doesn't exist.

[Doodley]

129. So, because something is described in a certain way for a long time, it must be true?

[rug]

133. Not necessarily but it is known by anyone with a modicum of sense and education.

[Eko]

102. Show me something infinite?

With proof, otherwise you are describing a concept that neither true or false, its just a concept with no evidence. That is why atheists are more rational, we don't believe in things that are not true. Rational = based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

[rug]

103. Prove your eye can grasp the infinite.

If you cannot appreciate the philosophy behind this you should not post of being rational.

[Eko]

119. I'm going to be nice

and not call you the type of person who demands evidence when asked for evidence of their claim. I can appreciate the philosophy behind that way more than you can have a honest discussion.

[rug]

120. That is always prudent.

[Eko]

122. Non belief makes a person more rational and reasonable

Because we believe in things that are proven in as much as anything can be proven but we are open to new evidence that would change it. Also, we enter discussions with an open mind and don't evade questions with inane answers.

[rug]

123. If that were true, you would not be using "we".

Nor would you be posting unproven boasts.

[Eko]

124. Talk about unproven boasts!!!

Infinite!!!!! When I say "we" I am referring to the majority of Atheists that believe in science, but you got infinite so,,,,,,,,,too funny.

[Eko]

125. I shouldn't tell you

but there is actually proof for infinity, at least as an axiom. But you are into faux philosophy instead of science so you wouldn't know about it. That has been the funniest part about this my friend, all you had to do was google it and do some reading and you could have presented a somewhat convincing argument for it, of course I would have shot it down as an axiom among science but the fact that you didn't even try shows your area of expertise, using faux philosophy to bolster your argument. Thanks for playing, I enjoyed it immensely, besides your word salad was even better than our presidents. Rock on!

[rug]

126. Clean up your interior monologues from the flolor before you go.

It's simple courtesy.

(BTW, you can't prove God by mathematics.)

[Eko]

127. I have looked up this thing you call flolor

and cant find it. Why can you not prove god by mathematics?

[rug]

128. Typo cop on top of everything else.

Do you think you can?

[Eko]

130. Can what?

What is flolor?

[rug]

132. Prove God by math.

A flolor is a typo seized on with desperate relief when all arguments fail.

[Eko]

134. I didnt make that claim at all.

You made the claim that it wasn't possible so the burden of proof is upon you. We went through this already in our very first exchange how when you claim something and instead of answering me for any kind of proof instead you ask me to prove something. How droll. So, back up your claim. Did you mean floor? That is all you had to say.

[rug]

136. Here's how it works:

You don't prove a negative.

You don't ask stupid questions asking to prove a negative.

You, especially you, are in no position to demand a DU member do anything.

Are you so obtuse as to think it was anything other than a typo of floor?

[Eko]

137. Proving infinity

is not proving a negative and you have yet to do anything to prove that other than throw the burden of proof back on me. I never demanded, I asked, sure its a typo, what? cant take some ribbing? alright, I apologize for harping on your typo, are you going to finally prove that infinity exists cause that it central to this entire discussion?.

[rug]

138. It's not central at all.

Infinity is a mathematical concept, ironically limited in its application.

[Eko]

140. You used it

to describe god. Not me. Actually its a philosophical concept first. But lets explore it as a mathematical concept, it is a mathematical axiom, do you know what a axiom is?

[rug]

141. Yo used it, inaptly, as amathematical concept that cold be proven

Followed by a grandiose claim that were I to use it you wold easily disprove it.

You have reached circularity and this has become an exercise in trolling not discussion. Do it elsewhere.

[Eko]

142. No,

I used it as a concept and showed as how the best possible evidence would be from mathematics but that that was not proof as it is an axiom. If you have a better way to prove it by all means proceed. Nope, not going, still waiting for you to prove the infinite as that is a descriptor for god that you used.

[Eko]

143. If you look back at post 25

that is the descriptor you used for god, if you cant even prove the descriptor for god you are going to have quite a time proving god to anyone. So,,,,,,,, proceed.

[Eko]

135. I never said you could

prove or disprove god with math, nor did I say you could prove or disprove infinity with math. I only asked you to prove infinite as you used that as a descriptor for god. Then I showed you that you could argue for infinity with math but that it was only an axiom. Keep up.

[Eko]

131. I wasnt planning to go anywhere

as evidenced. I think you misunderstood my absolutely destroying your argument and thinking you would be able to accept it with me leaving your flolor.
flolor.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Immaterial concept claims to have manufacturered all material, time, and space.

And further has claimed (Abrahamic religions) to have physically interacted with humanity many times through further supernatural surrogates.

So yes, there should be some material evidence of immaterial design/manufacture.

[rug]

9. If you accept the premise that an immaterial entity created the universe, the universe is evidence.

But that is not the dispute. The dispute is the nature of God, not whether the God created anything. Until you can define God you cannot describe evidence that fits that definition.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Disagree.

If immaterial entity claims it created the universe in a certain way, and the evidence shows some other process (a natural process, unguided and without design) then we can settle the question definitively.

So, no need to bother with the contents of your post, since the title is the crux of the issue.

[rug]

26. That's a very big if.

So, no need to bother with the contents of your post, since that is not the crux of the issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Well, you can define your 'if' any way you like, it's yours.

But if the point was to have a conversation with a second human, you might consider exactly what starting premise is being shared.

"If you accept the premise that an immaterial entity created the universe, the universe is evidence."

The universe might not be evidence, if it wasn't actually created, and it can be shown to have occurred by a non-creative, non-design process. So, your 'if' is practically a tautology. It was created because look at it, it exists therefore it was created.

Created implies a creator. That the universe exists does not require it was created.

[rug]

64. Everything known to science had a beginning.

Those are the known laws of physics.

Any theory to explain the existence of matter and energy without a beginning is exactly that, an unproven hypothesis. You are free to hope and have faith that humanity will eventually have an explanation but look where you'll be then.

That leaves a perfectly rational explanation that wherever the universe came from, there is something that does not follow the laws of physics, to wit something with no beginning. Look where you'll be then.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I never said it doesn't have a beginning.

Having a beginning, and having a creator are very different things that may or may not overlap at all on a venn diagram.

[rug]

66. Precisely. Which is why it's a worthy inquiry.

They may or may not overlap.

[ExciteBike66]

13. But that is not rational by your own definition

"If you accept the premise that an immaterial entity created the universe, the universe is evidence."

and

"Rationality needs two things in its simplest form. It must make sense and it must be honest, uninfluenced by bias."


If one accepts that the universe was created by God, then using as evidence the existence of that very universe is an example of "bias" and thus cannot be rational.

[rug]

27. Incorrect.

In that case, the existence of god is a datum, a premise, not a belief. What follows from that premise is completely rational. To dismiss that datum out of hand, without seeing where it goes, is the bias.

[ExciteBike66]

36. I just love how the belief that god exists is somehow

not a belief in your eyes.

[rug]

42. I just love how you fail to grasp what I say.

The belief that god exists is a belief. But it can also, independently, be a datum in an intellectual inquiry. A datum you shrink away from as if it were a garlic clove resting on a coffin lid.

[ExciteBike66]

46. OK

"If you accept the premise that an immaterial entity created the universe, the universe is evidence."

To go back to your statement, I would quote you elsewhere on this topic: "That is a pretty big 'if'."

Anyway, the premise is incorrect even according to you. You have already argued that god is not solely immaterial.

[rug]

49. See #48.

[ExciteBike66]

51. To quote you

"No one said that the concept of God is only immaterial."

[rug]

52. "No one has said God includes material things but you."

That's the correct quote.

[ExciteBike66]

53. You are now arguing dishonestly, which is irrational according to

your own definition of rationality.

Perhaps you should state your view on whether god (or the concept of god or whatever semantics you wish to throw at me) is solely immaterial, or only partly immaterial.

[rug]

71. The only dishonesty in this thread is your deliberate misquoting.

Do you think no one here can read?

[ExciteBike66]

77. Please

I used cut and paste on your own words, not sure how that could be a misquote.

Any answer on what you actually believe, as I asked?

[rug]

81. You cut the quote and pasted an incomplete quote.

As dishonest as it is pathetic.

[ExciteBike66]

82. Quotes

"No one said that the concept of God is only immaterial." post #25

I cut and pasted a complete sentence.

"If you accept the premise that an immaterial entity created the universe, the universe is evidence." Post #9

I cut and pasted a completed sentence.

"Rationality needs two things in its simplest form. It must make sense and it must be honest, uninfluenced by bias." Post #8

I cut and pasted a complete sentence.



If your complete sentences are incomplete, what does that make you?

[Volstagg]

29. Well that's circular.

The universe is proof that god created the universe.

Except you're wrong. I created the universe. The universe is proof of that.

[rug]

30. Except that is not the statement.

[guillaumeb]

16. Divine fingerprints perhaps?

Or a trace of divine DNA that proves the existence?

[ExciteBike66]

18. I'm sure an omnipotent god could think of something... nt

[guillaumeb]

20. But that does not require the Creator to provide a signature, or DNA.

My view is that creation is the evidence of the Creator.

[ExciteBike66]

22. And my view is that

science has been steadily rolling back your view for hundreds of years now, and is not going to stop.

[guillaumeb]

33. When science explains everything from the very beginning, meaning prior to the big bang,

I will consider it as proof.

[ExciteBike66]

37. You don't notice the trend, eh?

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Might want to start reading Stephen Hawking now then, particularly his latest book.

Krauss has a slight less substantial work in the same area called 'A universe from nothing'.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Assumes it was 'created' in using the word 'creation'.

Every faith before yours, including 'dead' mythologies, viewed the same thing you did.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. or toolmarks, etc.

Essentially, yes. Something indisputable.

THEN we come to the question of whether it is worth my allegiance/faith/relationship/worship.

[guillaumeb]

32. I would argue that the Creator is not asking for your allegiance.

You are free to provide it. The concept of free will.

[ExciteBike66]

40. You are free to provide it.

"You are free to provide it" or else you go to hell...

[guillaumeb]

59. If that is what you believe.

[ExciteBike66]

61. The concept of "god as bringer of morality" withers a bit

if you don't have a hell to back it up.

But I do find deism much more appealing than most other religious -ism's, I guess!

[guillaumeb]

62. The concept of hell has "evolved" from the Middle Ages.

While some literalists do believe in an actual place, other believers have a more nuanced view.

If one looks at the Creator as all knowing and all merciful, the concept of Hell as a permanent condition seems inconsistent.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Which alleged 'creator'?

Most make very specific demands of us in the 'allegiance' department.

[guillaumeb]

15. Regarding #2:

What makes you certain that you are competent and advanced enough to recognize evidence, or to decide what constitutes evidence?

If there is a Creator who created, or caused to evolve all, of existence, what makes you feel that your fallible human intellect is able to recognize that Creator?

[ExciteBike66]

17. Humans are too stupid, is that it?

Winning argument, that. Kinda shuts down the discussion.

My question to you is: Is that what you believe? Do you recognize no evidence and take everything on faith in regards to the existence of a god?

[guillaumeb]

19. Stupid is your choice of words. I prefer fallible.

Our intellects are limited. Does an ant recognize a bridge as a constructed object?

[ExciteBike66]

21. You didn't answer my question.

Do you recognize any evidence?

"Does an ant recognize a bridge as a constructed object?"

Give an ant our intellect and he would. We are not ants.

Your argument that humans are too limited to understand your god cut both ways. The Bible was written by humans, as was the Koran and every other text upon which a religion is based. If humans are too limited, why trust your priest's statements that god exists at all?

[rug]

28. Humans will comprehend all, is that it?

I know of no priest - or nonpriest - stupid enough to claim that.

[ExciteBike66]

38. We are working on it,

which is more than one can say for the priests...

[rug]

41. It's a matter of mental capacity not priesthood.

Put down your Hitchens and read a book on neuroscience.

[ExciteBike66]

44. My point stands

neuroscientists are also working on it.

[rug]

45. Hope and faith, even stubborn faith, are considered virtues.

[guillaumeb]

31. In many faiths, it is believed that the writings are divinely inspired.

And my analogy holds because the difference between a Creator and one of the created is immense. An ant cannot recognize that a bridge is a constructed object because its intelligence is not sufficient. So applying that analogy to humans and the Creator...................

[Bretton Garcia]

34. We are even less capable of understanding...

... when the call to Faith actively discourages us from trying to understand, or reason.

The call to faith, to blind obedience, does indeed actively turn us into ants. Mindless workers. Obedient, unthinking slaves.

A good analogy.

[guillaumeb]

60. If you are determined to characterize faith as unthinking obedience,

that probably fits your personal viewpoint, but it is only your personal viewpoint. And it hardly fits with actual history, which is filled with people of faith who were and are scientists.

[ExciteBike66]

79. They were and are scientists

but their faith did nothing to advance their scientific work.

[guillaumeb]

94. Can their faith be separated from the rest of their personality?

Faith is part of what they are. Perhaps they recognize, as many of us do, that faith and science are not in conflict.

[ExciteBike66]

95. It doesn't have to be separated.

Stating that "faith and science are not in conflict" is not the same thing as stating that scientific ideas come from some part of a person's faith.

Just because Einstein may have believed in a god doesn't mean he got his ideas on relativity from that faith.

I grant you that a scientist may decide to become a scientist due to an interest in "god's handiwork" or something like that, but beyond that motivation there is no further way for faith to inform their scientific ideas and discoveries.

[guillaumeb]

96. You seem to be inferring something that was not stated.

A scientist's ideas presumably are influenced by observation and study. And no doubt insight. A believer might argue that such insight is similar to inspiration, and make a claim that the inspiration has a divine origin. I make no such claim.

[ExciteBike66]

97. A believer might claim....

A believer might claim anything at all.

A scientist might claim Jesus whispered a scientific breakthrough into his ear, but if the scientist cannot come up with an experiment to back up his claim it will likely be ignored.

[guillaumeb]

98. But if the experiment proves that the theory is correct,

and the scientist insists that he/she was inspired, what do we infer from that?

[ExciteBike66]

99. It's not religion doing the inspiring...

no one is looking for answers to math questions in scripture, or questions of biology or chemistry.

If a scientist claimed that Jesus told him the answer, and the answer turned out correct, it still won't convince anyone that Jesus actually did tell the guy the answer. I mean, Jesus told George W. Bush to attack Iraq, last I heard.

It will be inferred that the scientist is a loon, and that he got his ideas the same way normal scientists do, from thinking about the problem deeply, and probably from numerous prior failures.

[ExciteBike66]

39. We did not create ants

"And my analogy holds because the difference between a Creator and one of the created is immense. An ant cannot recognize that a bridge is a constructed object because its intelligence is not sufficient. "

We did not create ants, so your analogy fails.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Why does everyone keep assuming all these ridiculous limitations on ants?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116641-ants-craft-tiny-sponges-to-dip-into-honey-and-carry-it-home/

Leafcutter ants are fucking FARMERS. They don't eat the leaves. They use the harvested leaves to cultivate a fungus they eat. They demonstrate multiple levels of problem solving. In the above link, they demonstrate problem solving and tool use, on a level we thought only advanced primates could do.

Ants. Are. Not. Stupid.

They build ventilation systems into their ant hills. They build sewage systems and waste treatment systems. They build highways, and everything else we see at a macro level in our own cities. Farming fungus like the Leafcutter ant requires multi-step planning and long term strategic thinking. We've been farming livestock for only about 6,000 years. Ants have been doing it for millions of years. They're the only other species that we've found that can do it. (They domesticate aphids and milk them for food, without killing them.)

Ants share our historically darker aspirations too. They wage war, and capture slaves.

They also teach each other, communicate, and team-build for problem solving.

I see no reason to arrogantly assume an ant is not sufficiently intelligent to figure out the difference between a natural surface like a tree, and a manufactured man-made bridge or structure.

[guillaumeb]

101. They insist on getting into food.

And occasionally biting.

But our cat loves to crush ants when she finds them on the floor.

[Bretton Garcia]

114. Guil? Bishop Barron said Religion is not so faith-based

So? Should Guil be stressing Faith so strongly? So constantly? So relentlessly?

[guillaumeb]

121. An interesting question for a separate post.

What causes anyone at DU to talk about religion constantly?

My posts are mainly in the general discussion arena.

Your question might be better posed to someone who posts in religion the vast majority of the time. (Perhaps 80% or more as a baseline for the term vast majority of posts.)

[AtheistCrusader]

115. wat.

[Bretton Garcia]

10. Nonbelief at least eliminates one cause of problems

Last edited Tue Apr 25, 2017, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

It eliminates a positive attachment to irrational faith per se. It avoids glamorizing following things without evidence. It avoids even commanding that we believe in things without evidence.

[Freethinker65]

5. Humanism

[Jim__]

14. Being an atheist does not obligate one to treat religious believers poorly. Amen.