Why I'm an atheist

[Lambowei]

Basically you are trying to do three things:

1. That the only known fact in a scientific theory is the fact that it is a scientific theory. In your thinking, it is this one fact alone that takes scientific theories out of the category of religion. The point that scientific theories when believed in as factual doesn't make them a religion, is about as silly as anyone can get.

2. That scientific theories that are believed in when it is not known that they are factual, are not some form of religious faith... even though there is belief rather than factual knowledge;

3. That when you are talking about the existence of God, suddenly scientific facts and theory don't apply. You intentionally ignore that God made science... the things that are measured scientifically.

As long as you are unwilling to even accept the possibility of the existence of God, when it is the whole principle of the machine universe that points to God, you have an illogical religion going for yourself.

The only way you can simply ignore science findings when they apply to God is to do it. That's all. Standard unbeliever, and an unfair-to-science one at that.

This is what you're doing:

1. You put words into my mouth that I haven't said.

2. You ignore my arguments, and instead of addressing them you only go to the conclusion,that then you twist to build a straw-man fallacy.

3. You are unable to see your blind spots. You build arguments and logic using non-sequitur fallacies.

I refuse to argue with you anymore, it's impossible. You're either too stupid to understand anything or make a real argument, or too blinded to your religious zealotry, or both. Either way, I pity you as you will never ever be able to understand any part of reality at any moment in your whole life. You may believe in god, but god definitely didn't give you a brain, sorry.

[1715164198]

1715164198

[1715164198]

1715164198

[josephsonand]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

Why should we focus on the destruction of something, if we can focus on the creation of something beautiful? For example, we can start with ourselves, with our own irrational actions and thoughts, with our own lives, we can establish relationships with people around, etc. After all, society cannot be progressive when it focuses on the destruction and denial of something.
Science is good, good relations and mutual assistance are good. Let's look at the world in a positive way. Without paying attention to fanatics from religions or science, we can actually build a constructive society.

[andulolika]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

Why should we focus on the destruction of something, if we can focus on the creation of something beautiful? For example, we can start with ourselves, with our own irrational actions and thoughts, with our own lives, we can establish relationships with people around, etc. After all, society cannot be progressive when it focuses on the destruction and denial of something.
Science is good, good relations and mutual assistance are good. Let's look at the world in a positive way. Without paying attention to fanatics from religions or science, we can actually build a constructive society.

Denial of something? Your belief is just the same as my belief.
I believe working togheter is a must for humanity. I don't think mass brainwashing and control does any good.
Id rather kill myself than wasting any hours each sunday.
And im not up for making a point since it is known arguing with believers is just as pointless as arguing with shitheads on this forum.
Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want of course but no religion allows freedom and that is known, might have to ignore it when so many atheists around that they cannot oppress.

[sirazimuth]

I refuse to argue with you anymore, it's impossible. You're either too stupid to understand anything or make a real argument, or too blinded to your religious zealotry, or both. Either way, I pity you as you will never ever be able to understand any part of reality at any moment in your whole life. You may believe in god, but god definitely didn't give you a brain, sorry.

Couldn’t of said that better myself.
I see you got sucked down the BADecker lunacy rabbit hole.
Yeah, don’t bother arguing with him. I used to years ago. It’s like talking to a brick wall.

[BADecker]

Basically you are trying to do three things:

1. That the only known fact in a scientific theory is the fact that it is a scientific theory. In your thinking, it is this one fact alone that takes scientific theories out of the category of religion. The point that scientific theories when believed in as factual doesn't make them a religion, is about as silly as anyone can get.

2. That scientific theories that are believed in when it is not known that they are factual, are not some form of religious faith... even though there is belief rather than factual knowledge;

3. That when you are talking about the existence of God, suddenly scientific facts and theory don't apply. You intentionally ignore that God made science... the things that are measured scientifically.

As long as you are unwilling to even accept the possibility of the existence of God, when it is the whole principle of the machine universe that points to God, you have an illogical religion going for yourself.

The only way you can simply ignore science findings when they apply to God is to do it. That's all. Standard unbeliever, and an unfair-to-science one at that.

This is what you're doing:

1. You put words into my mouth that I haven't said.

2. You ignore my arguments, and instead of addressing them you only go to the conclusion,that then you twist to build a straw-man fallacy.

3. You are unable to see your blind spots. You build arguments and logic using non-sequitur fallacies.

I refuse to argue with you anymore, it's impossible. You're either too stupid to understand anything or make a real argument, or too blinded to your religious zealotry, or both. Either way, I pity you as you will never ever be able to understand any part of reality at any moment in your whole life. You may believe in god, but god definitely didn't give you a brain, sorry.

I understand your position. We might have argued a little many posts back. But you don't need to tell us that you refuse to argue. You stopped arguing long ago. If you have been arguing at all with your last few posts, you have been arguing with yourself through self-contradictions.

A person has to know that God exists before he can believe in Him. So, you are right when you say that I believe in God.

[BADecker]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

Why should we focus on the destruction of something, if we can focus on the creation of something beautiful? For example, we can start with ourselves, with our own irrational actions and thoughts, with our own lives, we can establish relationships with people around, etc. After all, society cannot be progressive when it focuses on the destruction and denial of something.
Science is good, good relations and mutual assistance are good. Let's look at the world in a positive way. Without paying attention to fanatics from religions or science, we can actually build a constructive society.

Denial of something? Your belief is just the same as my belief.
I believe working togheter is a must for humanity. I don't think mass brainwashing and control does any good.
Id rather kill myself than wasting any hours each sunday.
And im not up for making a point since it is known arguing with believers is just as pointless as arguing with shitheads on this forum.
Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want of course but no religion allows freedom and that is known, might have to ignore it when so many atheists around that they cannot oppress.

All people are given by God. The beginning of their first 9 months of life is when they know God solely. As they progress through the 9 months, they gradually learn to be distracted a little as their brains and senses form. Then, after they are born, they are thrown into a world of such distractions, that by the time they are an adult, most people don't remember God at all.

Yet it is God that holds each and every person. Thank Him that He is patient with you for the 7, 8, or more decades that you live... hoping that you will lose the distractions, and return to Him before it is to late for you.

If you honor Him by returning to Him, the Guy you knew all so well in the womb, He will give you great treasure in the next life.

[josephsonand]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

Why should we focus on the destruction of something, if we can focus on the creation of something beautiful? For example, we can start with ourselves, with our own irrational actions and thoughts, with our own lives, we can establish relationships with people around, etc. After all, society cannot be progressive when it focuses on the destruction and denial of something.
Science is good, good relations and mutual assistance are good. Let's look at the world in a positive way. Without paying attention to fanatics from religions or science, we can actually build a constructive society.

Denial of something? Your belief is just the same as my belief.
I believe working togheter is a must for humanity. I don't think mass brainwashing and control does any good.
Id rather kill myself than wasting any hours each sunday.
And im not up for making a point since it is known arguing with believers is just as pointless as arguing with shitheads on this forum.
Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want of course but no religion allows freedom and that is known, might have to ignore it when so many atheists around that they cannot oppress.

And I totally agree with you on that!
You just need to understand that initially in religions there is nothing fanatical and irrational. Brainwashing is the work of people who don’t understand what faith is. When people gather on Sundays, this also makes no sense if it is not sincere. After all, in addition to fanatics or ignorant people, there are reasonable people who also have some kind of religion. And there is nothing wrong with that when it is for the benefit of all people around the world. I do not consider it rational to demonize religion. The fact that people misunderstand and impose on others does not mean that something is wrong with religion, maybe you should think about the literacy of the people who surround us.

Here is what I want to convey: I am not religious, but I believe that almost all religions are originally good (based on rationality, compassion, conscience and love), but most religious people misunderstand these religions, and atheists demonize religions because of this (and I understand that).
Let's just look at the root of what is happening. Let's see the good in everything and let's do good things ourselves and be an example to other people. It all starts with ourselves.

There is no need to be religious in the sense in which many people understand this word. Just let's do good things ourselves, help each other, etc. (And do not demonize religions, because they are talking just about the best that is on Earth - about love, that we are all one, about good. And do not succumb to the credentials of those people who are mistaken and think that we need to believe into some kind of mythical creature in heaven that you need to get together on the weekend just because you need to, or something else. Let's be reasonable, we are all on the same side! I really hope that you will understand me)

[josephsonand]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

Why should we focus on the destruction of something, if we can focus on the creation of something beautiful? For example, we can start with ourselves, with our own irrational actions and thoughts, with our own lives, we can establish relationships with people around, etc. After all, society cannot be progressive when it focuses on the destruction and denial of something.
Science is good, good relations and mutual assistance are good. Let's look at the world in a positive way. Without paying attention to fanatics from religions or science, we can actually build a constructive society.

Denial of something? Your belief is just the same as my belief.
I believe working togheter is a must for humanity. I don't think mass brainwashing and control does any good.
Id rather kill myself than wasting any hours each sunday.
And im not up for making a point since it is known arguing with believers is just as pointless as arguing with shitheads on this forum.
Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want of course but no religion allows freedom and that is known, might have to ignore it when so many atheists around that they cannot oppress.

All people are given by God. The beginning of their first 9 months of life is when they know God solely. As they progress through the 9 months, they gradually learn to be distracted a little as their brains and senses form. Then, after they are born, they are thrown into a world of such distractions, that by the time they are an adult, most people don't remember God at all.

Yet it is God that holds each and every person. Thank Him that He is patient with you for the 7, 8, or more decades that you live... hoping that you will lose the distractions, and return to Him before it is to late for you.

If you honor Him by returning to Him, the Guy you knew all so well in the womb, He will give you great treasure in the next life.

I totally agree with you!
It is also important to understand that God is everywhere and in everything. Many people, unfortunately, do not understand that God is not a “human-like being who looks at us from heaven” in the sense in which people most often understand this. God cannot be described in words, we can only try to do it. God is Love, this is all the best that is in this world. God is in our kind words, in our actions. God is when you act according to conscience. God is when you are in harmony with yourself and with the whole world. God is the most powerful and sincere Love for all that exists. God does not go against science and rationalism. God is not from the material world, but everything in our world contains a part of God (except for negativity).
God is not what many people think. Just remember all the best that is in this world - this is God, that’s what it is. And when we do good things, we speak with God.
And it’s not necessary to call it all - God. He has different names, in many true religions, for example, people call it differently (due to different languages and culture). You can also call it all - Nature, the Universe, the Creator or just Love, etc. These are all the same words.

[BADecker]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

Why should we focus on the destruction of something, if we can focus on the creation of something beautiful? For example, we can start with ourselves, with our own irrational actions and thoughts, with our own lives, we can establish relationships with people around, etc. After all, society cannot be progressive when it focuses on the destruction and denial of something.
Science is good, good relations and mutual assistance are good. Let's look at the world in a positive way. Without paying attention to fanatics from religions or science, we can actually build a constructive society.

Denial of something? Your belief is just the same as my belief.
I believe working togheter is a must for humanity. I don't think mass brainwashing and control does any good.
Id rather kill myself than wasting any hours each sunday.
And im not up for making a point since it is known arguing with believers is just as pointless as arguing with shitheads on this forum.
Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want of course but no religion allows freedom and that is known, might have to ignore it when so many atheists around that they cannot oppress.

All people are given by God. The beginning of their first 9 months of life is when they know God solely. As they progress through the 9 months, they gradually learn to be distracted a little as their brains and senses form. Then, after they are born, they are thrown into a world of such distractions, that by the time they are an adult, most people don't remember God at all.

Yet it is God that holds each and every person. Thank Him that He is patient with you for the 7, 8, or more decades that you live... hoping that you will lose the distractions, and return to Him before it is to late for you.

If you honor Him by returning to Him, the Guy you knew all so well in the womb, He will give you great treasure in the next life.

I totally agree with you!
It is also important to understand that God is everywhere and in everything. Many people, unfortunately, do not understand that God is not a “human-like being who looks at us from heaven” in the sense in which people most often understand this. God cannot be described in words, we can only try to do it. God is Love, this is all the best that is in this world. God is in our kind words, in our actions. God is when you act according to conscience. God is when you are in harmony with yourself and with the whole world. God is the most powerful and sincere Love for all that exists. God does not go against science and rationalism. God is not from the material world, but everything in our world contains a part of God (except for negativity).
God is not what many people think. Just remember all the best that is in this world - this is God, that’s what it is. And when we do good things, we speak with God.
And it’s not necessary to call it all - God. He has different names, in many true religions, for example, people call it differently (due to different languages and culture). You can also call it all - Nature, the Universe, the Creator or just Love, etc. These are all the same words.

Thank you. And you are right. God is unimaginably far beyond all that we are, have been, and ever will be.

That being said, God did the almost unimaginable when He sent His Son Jesus in the form of humankind. God became man. And although the man part doesn't understand everything mentally, the God part is attached.

Further, God in the man Jesus, has called us all His brothers. So, even if we don't understand how to apply the God-part that we have been given, it is still there.

Keeping on topic, atheists are simply using their God-part to destroy itself and themselves.

[actmyname]

If the proof of existence is rooted in the object's definition itself, then the object has no foundation except for itself.
If we accept such a tautological concept, then there should be no reason to further disbelieve anything.
If we simply redefine any object X as "X, and also it exists," then we have created the required evidence.

Unfortunately, a system based on such logic would be subject to inconsistencies. Infinitely many inconsistencies, in fact.
For example, consider objects A and B. We have already applied the existence clause to both of these objects, thereby proving their existence.
Now, we consider objects A₀ and B₀.
A₀ := "A, but only if B₀ does not exist"
B₀ := "B, but only if A₀ does not exist"

Which takes precedence? It seems unclear.

[af_newbie]

If the proof of existence is rooted in the object's definition itself, then the object has no foundation except for itself.
If we accept such a tautological concept, then there should be no reason to further disbelieve anything.
If we simply redefine any object X as "X, and also it exists," then we have created the required evidence.

Unfortunately, a system based on such logic would be subject to inconsistencies. Infinitely many inconsistencies, in fact.
For example, consider objects A and B. We have already applied the existence clause to both of these objects, thereby proving their existence.
Now, we consider objects A₀ and B₀.
A₀ := "A, but only if B₀ does not exist"
B₀ := "B, but only if A₀ does not exist"

Which takes precedence? It seems unclear.

And that exactly what the BADecker/CoinCube types assert.

Object X exists because someone long time ago said so. 

Today, many of these tap-dancing philosophers cannot even define what X is.

The best they can come up is a "feeling", aka a smart ape emotion.

[Lambowei]

It is also important to understand that God is everywhere and in everything.

There's nothing to "understand" about god, because there's no proof on whether it exists or not. The verb you should be using is "believe", not "understand".

[BADecker]

If the proof of existence is rooted in the object's definition itself, then the object has no foundation except for itself.
If we accept such a tautological concept, then there should be no reason to further disbelieve anything.
If we simply redefine any object X as "X, and also it exists," then we have created the required evidence.

Unfortunately, a system based on such logic would be subject to inconsistencies. Infinitely many inconsistencies, in fact.
For example, consider objects A and B. We have already applied the existence clause to both of these objects, thereby proving their existence.
Now, we consider objects A₀ and B₀.
A₀ := "A, but only if B₀ does not exist"
B₀ := "B, but only if A₀ does not exist"

Which takes precedence? It seems unclear.

And that exactly what the BADecker/CoinCube types assert.

Object X exists because someone long time ago said so. 

Today, many of these tap-dancing philosophers cannot even define what X is.

The best they can come up is a "feeling", aka a smart ape emotion.

Here's where you are missing it. Complexity.

We have binary for our computers... on and off. Great. We are doing things that we never dreamed of with binary.

Now we are getting into quantum... on and of at the same time. We will do great things with quantum.

But here is complexity. Complexity is binary with levels of on and off. Complexity is quantum with untold numbers of levels of on and off at the same time. Nature is full of this kind of complexity. We are finally starting to make computers with natures stuff... DNA.

The cute little equation...

Code:

A[sub]0[/sub] := "A, but only if B[sub]0[/sub] does not exist"
B[sub]0[/sub] := "B, but only if A[sub]0[/sub] does not exist"

doesn't fit reality at all... except, maybe, in the simplest, crudest fashion.

The question is, Where did the complexity come from that made the little, simple equation possible?

[actmyname]

The question is, Where did the complexity come from that made the little, simple equation possible?

Therefore, your argumentation for the proof of God's existence is...?

It can't possibly boil down to "complexity = God" right? That seems like a very strong non-sequitur.While you're considering this, allow me to present a thought experiment. Given the typical approach to the Abrahamic god, it is simple to create a utilitarian environment in which the highest number of people are given the best possible afterlife.

How do we do this? Simple! Maximize reproduction and infant mortality! We use one sinner to "carry our sins" and send as many people to heaven as possible. If they don't have time to turn against theism, then they won't have time to reduce their afterlife to that of hell!

That's what a truly moral person would do, were they to honestly believe in their Abrahamic religion.

[BADecker]

The question is, Where did the complexity come from that made the little, simple equation possible?

Therefore, your argumentation for the proof of God's existence is...?

It can't possibly boil down to "complexity = God" right? That seems like a very strong non-sequitur.While you're considering this, allow me to present a thought experiment. Given the typical approach to the Abrahamic god, it is simple to create a utilitarian environment in which the highest number of people are given the best possible afterlife.

How do we do this? Simple! Maximize reproduction and infant mortality! We use one sinner to "carry our sins" and send as many people to heaven as possible. If they don't have time to turn against theism, then they won't have time to reduce their afterlife to that of hell!

That's what a truly moral person would do, were they to honestly believe in their Abrahamic religion.

Your thinking in this first part isn't complex enough. Exhaust comes from a car. Does this mean that the exhaust is the car?

Whatever God actually is, there is no way for people with their simple intelligence to know. People can't even figure out the complexity that comes from God.If the operation of the universe, the goals that God has, the thing that people are, the way God has placed Himself into the universe with His strength, and a whole host of other things, were the simple way you picture the Abrahamic religion, why even make the universe? Why not make people to be in Heaven without a universe at all?

Since God made things way more complex than the simplicity you are talking about, time for you to calculate why God would do this. Perhaps you can become a bit more realistic in the things you say.

As God says through the prophet Isaiah, Isaiah 55:9:

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

As God says through the psalmist, King David, Psalm 103:11:

For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him;

You really need to see how great the complexity around us really is!

[actmyname]

I'm not sure why you're telling me that people can't comprehend God and then following up with a description for what God does. Which is it?

[BADecker]

I'm not sure why you're telling me that people can't comprehend God and then following up with a description for what God does. Which is it?

Go outside into a field, or simply stand on the side of the highway. Look at the ground. You can see it. You can dig up a little soil and have it analyzed. But nobody knows for sure what is down there inside the earth. And nobody really knows anything about the stars that they see in the sky. All of our understanding about these things is guesstimations.

We can see and understand a little about the earth and about God. But like we don't really understand what the earth is all about, we don't really have a clue about God. The little we know about Him is what He has seen fit to tell us in the Bible. This ties in to the complexity thing in my previous post.

[actmyname]

Assuming that your idea of God is partially comprehensible, how can you be sure of anything in absolution? Let us not confine ourselves to those known unknowns, but expand our horizons to search for the unknown unknowns.

I do wonder, however, why the bible is a beacon or anchor of absolute information.
Considering the fact that there doesn't seem to be any divine intervention against the possibility of alterations thereof, it seems odd to place such a degree of power upon such a piece of literature.

Let us observe this case:

Let the original bible in its purest form be decreed B.
Early civilizations happen upon B and transcribe the contents onto a copy: B₀.
Apart from having been man-made, B₀ is indistinguishable from B.
Through circumstance, the original text B is lost and irrecoverable.
Future transcriptions are fitted to a variety of languages, of which differ in semantics and syntax.
Due to these differences, increased variation in interpretation between B₀ and its successors is inevitable.
Unfortunately, through passage of time, B₀ and successors continually decay and are eventually unreadable.
Despite best efforts, human error occurs, reducing accuracy between transcriptions by up to 1% for each iteration.
As B_i approaches infinity (where i := iteration #) we note that the probability of having B_i representative of the original text B approaches 0 in response.One final remark: if we cannot pragmatically distinguish the empirical relevance of an object X's existence as opposed to its non-existence, then whether it exists or whether it does not exist is of no relevance to our lives.

That is, if you can't consistently measure any result derived from a belief in a proposition P, then its truth value is of no pragmatic significance.
Example: toilet demons exist and will eat your flesh, but only in the year 3000.

[af_newbie]

Assuming that your idea of God is partially comprehensible, how can you be sure of anything in absolution? Let us not confine ourselves to those known unknowns, but expand our horizons to search for the unknown unknowns.

I do wonder, however, why the bible is a beacon or anchor of absolute information.
Considering the fact that there doesn't seem to be any divine intervention against the possibility of alterations thereof, it seems odd to place such a degree of power upon such a piece of literature.

Let us observe this case:

Let the original bible in its purest form be decreed B.
Early civilizations happen upon B and transcribe the contents onto a copy: B₀.
Apart from having been man-made, B₀ is indistinguishable from B.
Through circumstance, the original text B is lost and irrecoverable.
Future transcriptions are fitted to a variety of languages, of which differ in semantics and syntax.
Due to these differences, increased variation in interpretation between B₀ and its successors is inevitable.
Unfortunately, through passage of time, B₀ and successors continually decay and are eventually unreadable.
Despite best efforts, human error occurs, reducing accuracy between transcriptions by up to 1% for each iteration.
As B_i approaches infinity (where i := iteration #) we note that the probability of having B_i representative of the original text B approaches 0 in response.One final remark: if we cannot pragmatically distinguish the empirical relevance of an object X's existence as opposed to its non-existence, then whether it exists or whether it does not exist is of no relevance to our lives.

That is, if you can't consistently measure any result derived from a belief in a proposition P, then its truth value is of no pragmatic significance.
Example: toilet demons exist and will eat your flesh, but only in the year 3000.

Add to it, Bijkl variations and you get the whole picture.

j - for the time-domain (the dogma 'transformations' over time due to societal/political pressures)
k - for legislated interpretations (major 'releases', B based religions/churches/denominations) at any particular point in time (j)
l - for personal interpretations or omissions (for any given i, j, and k)

The 'B' (B458.756.89890) BADecker 'believes' is different from the one anyone in his church, this forum, his city or country believes in.
 

[actmyname]

Add to it, Bijkl variations and you get the whole picture.

I wish to simplify the argument by creating instances in which the religious doctrines are as protected as possible. Introducing further variables allows for the possibility of strawman accusations, of which would further skew the conversation.

Thus the omission thereof allows us to tackle one instrumental part of the belief at a time, reducing the probability of fallacious deflections or altered representations of the topic.Meaningless trivia: yeah, I believe in the concept of God, though my definition and implications thereof are almost certainly different from every other individual on this planet. What are they, you might ask? Not telling!