The problem with atheism.

[Vod]

But what if the Bible is true?  Then the verse: "every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God" is true.  Then wouldn't you have some personal humiliation at that point?  

Of course!!!  But what if the books in the Upanishads are true?  Or the Mahaburata?  Or a hundred other holy books?  Wouldn't you have some personal humiliation at that point as well?

What if an alien arrived that looked like a giant Easter bunny?  Wouldn't you feel stupid for not believing in him all these years? I would!!!!

WHAT IF.  Two words that mean nothing.  

(dank, buzz off, we are trying to have a rational conversation.  go pay your debts.)

[the joint]

@"the joint" you have a hard time with local loop.

The fact that life give itself some meaning is just a local loop, and as so doesn't impose condition on the rest of the universe.

If the sun explode, earth would be reduced to dust, and the universe will continue as pointless as it was before.
The universe is pointless because the universe has no will.

The problem with human thinking, is it try to search meaning and patterns everywhere, that's how we evolved. Because it's useful to know that a lion wants to eat or that an other person has an aim, as it help us anticipate action of others and so survive with more efficiency.
Alas searching pattern where there is none is detrimental, and the worse is we will find (false) patterns.
Just like when you look in the sky and see faces, our brain is hard-wired to see faces everywhere, this doesn't mean there is faces drawn everywhere, you have just been tricked by your brain.

The same happen with the universe : "it has to have a meaning because otherwise my brain is lost".
So what an atheist do, is accept the fact that universe has no will, despite the fact that his primal brain cry for a meaning.
Other people would invent a supreme been that look like them to give them this meaning that they what so much.

The same goes for infinity or emptiness (or the absence of everything) , infinity and void are difficult concept to grasp. That's why people don't accept void, and always want to put something there, whether it is a god or a super alien.

Um, no.

Laws distribute to systems contained therein, and smaller systems owe their constructs to the syntactic structure of the larger systems they are nestled within.  You say I have a problem with "local loop," I say you have a problem understanding systems.  You're isolating certain parts of reality and trying to explain them without accounting for the larger systems in which they inhabit (e.g. life as utterly independent from non-life, etc.).  This is just plain unsound reasoning.  Start with the sameness-in-difference principle that states "any two relands x and y must necessarily share a common medium, even a medium of absolute difference" and you'll understand why this isn't a "local loop" problem.  The syntax of the "set of all sets" necessarily distributes to all sets nested therein. I'm not suggesting, as I think that you think I am, that the syntax of a smaller system necessarily distributes to larger systems.  

Your statement about the sun blowing up and the Universe remaining "pointless" is hard to respond to, namely because it's just wrong.  I think it's interesting that you said the Universe has no will, but then you state that it "will continue" (semantic arguments hold more weight than you think).  Why will it continue?  Because of pointlessness?  Or because of some Universal laws that govern and guide Universal content in a particular way?

To say that finding patterns is a "problem" is utterly retarded.  Yes, I get what you mean about the "faces" and such (Mommy look! An elephant in the clouds!) but that's a cliche argument that goes nowhere quickly.  "Pattern" and "structure" are virtually synonymous, and it's impossible to ignore the fact that the algebraic structure or "pattern" of language is emergent everywhere, in everything, always.  Moreover, you can't even formulate a concept, thought, or sentence without utilizing patterns.  The simple communication of information is a necessary pattern inherent in any system, and there could be no system without patterns.  

The Universe doesn't need to have meaning "otherwise my brain will be lost."  The fact that there is meaning (this is directly evident, we're talking about meaningful things right now) necessitates a meaningful syntax.  If you're suggesting that a smaller, meaningful system can emerge from a larger, utterly meaningless system, then you would be wrong.

I'm not invoking god to fill a patternless void.  I think you're invoking a void because you can't make sense of the patterns in front of you.

[tkbx]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

[BitChick]

But what if the Bible is true?  Then the verse: "every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God" is true.  Then wouldn't you have some personal humiliation at that point?  

Of course!!!  But what if the books in the Upanishads are true?  Or the Mahaburata?  Or a hundred other holy books?  Wouldn't you have some personal humiliation at that point as well?

What if an alien arrived that looked like a giant Easter bunny?  Wouldn't you feel stupid for not believing in him all these years? I would!!!!

WHAT IF.  Two words that mean nothing.  

(dank, buzz off, we are trying to have a rational conversation.  go pay your debts.)

So the main goal for all of us should be the search for Truth!  Otherwise we risk humiliation and worse, eternal punishment.  That is how I look at it anyways.

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

As for the alien that looks like a giant Easter Bunny that people would believe in?  I think that when the antichrist mentioned in the Bible does come he might actually say he is an alien and everyone will be so impressed with how smart he is and the "miracles" he will do.  It is a thought anyways.  That is when it will get tricky though.  He will be very persuasive and many people will be deceived.  That is why we have to have discernment.  Discernment is a gift only God can give and it helps us see through the things that are false and see what is truth.  You know the saying, "I once was blind but now I see?"  

[BitChick]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

I take it you are agnostic then?  You said it was the most sane?  

I would consider myself a Theist.  But using your analogy I would say, "There is a moose in these woods.  I felt his presence and found him, then got to know him and now he is my friend."

That is how I see my relationship with God anyways.

[LightRider]

The meaning of life is the assignation of meaning to arbitrary phenomena.

[the joint]

The meaning of life is the assignation of meaning to arbitrary phenomena.

More cliche bullshit.  "Arbitrary phenomena?"  Really?  And how do you exactly assert arbitrary phenomena to exist without ascribing to it set parameters (i.e. at the very least, it's phenomena)?  You're throwing in hypotheticals which sound logic doesn't like.  That is, "If we weren't here, then all that's left would be arbitrary phenomenon."  No.  Already, you've fallen off the wagon.

It sounds a lot like people who say, "truth is relative."  Oh, well then it's the absolute truth that truth is relative, eh?  Or, it's definite that phenomena is arbitrary, eh?

[SlyWax]

@"the joint" you have a hard time with local loop.

The fact that life give itself some meaning is just a local loop, and as so doesn't impose condition on the rest of the universe.

If the sun explode, earth would be reduced to dust, and the universe will continue as pointless as it was before.
The universe is pointless because the universe has no will.

The problem with human thinking, is it try to search meaning and patterns everywhere, that's how we evolved. Because it's useful to know that a lion wants to eat or that an other person has an aim, as it help us anticipate action of others and so survive with more efficiency.
Alas searching pattern where there is none is detrimental, and the worse is we will find (false) patterns.
Just like when you look in the sky and see faces, our brain is hard-wired to see faces everywhere, this doesn't mean there is faces drawn everywhere, you have just been tricked by your brain.

The same happen with the universe : "it has to have a meaning because otherwise my brain is lost".
So what an atheist do, is accept the fact that universe has no will, despite the fact that his primal brain cry for a meaning.
Other people would invent a supreme been that look like them to give them this meaning that they what so much.

The same goes for infinity or emptiness (or the absence of everything) , infinity and void are difficult concept to grasp. That's why people don't accept void, and always want to put something there, whether it is a god or a super alien.

Um, no.

Laws distribute to systems contained therein, and smaller systems owe their constructs to the syntactic structure of the larger systems they are nestled within.  You say I have a problem with "local loop," I say you have a problem understanding systems.  You're isolating certain parts of reality and trying to explain them without accounting for the larger systems in which they inhabit (e.g. life as utterly independent from non-life, etc.).  This is just plain unsound reasoning.  Start with the sameness-in-difference principle that states "any two relands x and y must necessarily share a common medium, even a medium of absolute difference" and you'll understand why this isn't a "local loop" problem.  The syntax of the "set of all sets" necessarily distributes to all sets nested therein. I'm not suggesting, as I think that you think I am, that the syntax of a smaller system necessarily distributes to larger systems.  

Yet, that's what you say. ( if A is in B,then B having a property P => A having a property P, but does not mean : A having a property X => B having a property X )
The "meaning" is a local property that we create to qualify life.
This property is irrelevant to the universe as a all.
So yes by saying the universe is meaningless we are wrong, we should say meaning is irrelevant to the universe.

Your statement about the sun blowing up and the Universe remaining "pointless" is hard to respond to, namely because it's just wrong.  I think it's interesting that you said the Universe has no will, but then you state that it "will continue" (semantic arguments hold more weight than you think).  Why will it continue?  Because of pointlessness?  Or because of some Universal laws that govern and guide Universal content in a particular way?

Your semantic argument is irrelevant because it exist "only" in English. So the second "will" is only denoting future. Please spare me those arguments.

Universal law of physique that is.
Opposing science and religion is merely a lost cause for religion.
It's been century that science push back religion from every material point of view (science don't deal with immaterial).
Centuries ago every bit of strange things was because of god (cloud, firefly, aurora Borealis, etc... ).
But now science explain those things, and will explain more and more in the future.
So resistance is futile.
You are deluding yourself if you think you can find any trace of god in the material world.

So what is left is "pure god", that is an invisible omniscient omnipotent yet unwilling to intervene as yet, supreme been.
Any other materialist assertion about religion is mass manipulation. (and if you are not the manipulator, then you are the manipulated, or both if you are into self-delusion)

That leave you with faith, that we may discuss, but only in philosophical term.

To say that finding patterns is a "problem" is utterly retarded.  Yes, I get what you mean about the "faces" and such (Mommy look! An elephant in the clouds!) but that's a cliche argument that goes nowhere quickly.  "Pattern" and "structure" are virtually synonymous, and it's impossible to ignore the fact that the algebraic structure or "pattern" of language is emergent everywhere, in everything, always.  

You keep saying that but without anything to sustain it.
Language is used for communication between two being.
I see no language in the universe, despite the fact that you think the universe is talking to you in some way, this is just caused by the drug you are taking, that release the same brain mechanism I was talking about, and make you see things !

Moreover, you can't even formulate a concept, thought, or sentence without utilizing patterns.  The simple communication of information is a necessary pattern inherent in any system, and there could be no system without patterns.

Can you see the pattern in the prime numbers ?
May be there is one, may be not, we don't know yet, but anyway that won't mean god/theUniverse is talking to you.

The Universe doesn't need to have meaning "otherwise my brain will be lost."  The fact that there is meaning (this is directly evident, we're talking about meaningful things right now) necessitates a meaningful syntax.  If you're suggesting that a smaller, meaningful system can emerge from a larger, utterly meaningless system, then you would be wrong.

I'm not invoking god to fill a patternless void.  I think you're invoking a void because you can't make sense of the patterns in front of you.

What pattern are you talking about ?
Every pattern I see make sense to me, even the fact that there is people believing in god.

[SlyWax]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

I take it you are agnostic then?  You said it was the most sane?  

I would consider myself a Theist.  But using your analogy I would say, "There is a moose in these woods.  I felt his presence and found him, then got to know him and now he is my friend."

That is how I see my relationship with God anyways.

And I would say, yeah I saw the girl who speak with the moose, she is nice and all, but really she just speak to herself. And no sign of the moose so far.
Of course she have this book about the moose, she is always referring to.
Should I tell here that my grand father just wrote this book for the children ?
May be not, she won't believe me anyway, she is happy with here imaginary friend ...
May be it's the best way she found to overcome the hard world we live in.


As for the saying :

Agnosticism: "There might be or might not be a moose in these woods. And I can't decide without evidence."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence. And who ever think the opposite, will burn in wood fire"
Atheism: "There might be or might not be a moose in these woods. But since we scanned the wood and didn't saw any trace of it, I would rather think there is none"

[termhn]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

Atheism DOES NOT mean that we deny the POSSIBILITY of god, just that we currently don't think that he exists based on current evidence.

[Vod]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

But... we've seen moose before.  We can see moose NOW, if we want.  We know they live in the woods.

No one has ever seen any god.  You certainly can't see one on demand. 

See the difference?

[Vod]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

So let's say I deny 100% of holy books, not just 99.5% of them like you do.  That means I am going to your cult's hell.  For ALL ETERNITY I am to be punished constantly and furiously with no rest.  And you're sitting up in heaven, knowing I am down there with billions of others, and you can experience paradise?  It doesn't bother you in any way?  

[dank]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

But... we've seen moose before.  We can see moose NOW, if we want.  We know they live in the woods.

No one has ever seen any god.  You certainly can't see one on demand. 

See the difference?

More false assumptions.  I have had direct contact with god under the influence of psychedelics and sober.  First time I saw god, an amazing curved line figure appeared from energy.  It was god, as if I had seen the most beautiful thing in my life.

I thought "What's your name?" and immediately I knew that it had no name for it was everything, consciousness, it only has whatever name we give it.


Let me clarify on the concept of eternal hell fire.  You are currently in hell.  Hell is a space time universe where negativity exists, such as earth.  The goal of life is to die at peace, for when you die at peace, you ascend upwards in dimensions.  If you die in fear or fail to believe in an after life, you reincarnate on earth like planets until you find your soul and find heaven.

So yes, if you believe you will burn for eternity (literally or metaphorically) it may happen, indefinitely.  What matters is your last moment though, nothing before that comes into play just if you are at peace.

There are infinite spirits in hell just as there are infinite spirits in heaven.  You don't feel bad for those in hell when you're in heaven (you can but you don't), for you understand their life is part of their evolution and they will one day find eternal paradise.  If you feel bad for those in hell, you do what I did.  You choose a life as some sort of ego destroying jesus type warrior and you go to that planet to spread the word of god, the word of love.  Great way to make lots of friends.

[BitChick]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

So let's say I deny 100% of holy books, not just 99.5% of them like you do.  That means I am going to your cult's hell.  For ALL ETERNITY I am to be punished constantly and furiously with no rest.  And you're sitting up in heaven, knowing I am down there with billions of others, and you can experience paradise?  It doesn't bother you in any way?  

Why do you think Christians come across so desperate?  Christians are hated for witnessing and for sending out missionaries by many because they do not want to sit up in heaven without others.  Hey, I am even hated by some on here for sharing my beliefs.  But we share because we are concerned.  However, we realize that everyone does have free will and can choose to believe or not.  I cannot do anything about that.  The Bible says that there will be no more crying and no more pain in heaven so I am not sure about how it won't bother us that there are people not in heaven with us.  I have pondered that as well but do not have the answer.

In an earlier post I mentioned my unusual thoughts on hell compared to some Christians. I see that the Catholic teaching of Purgatory might be a little more correct (not that indulgences or praying for dead people works) but that God is fair and everyone will get a chance.  So in Sheol people will still get a chance to accept or reject.  I do think that those that reject Jesus here on earth might not get a second chance though.  Perhaps they have already made their choice?    

[dank]

If one cannot believe in Jesus, is one ready to become Jesus?

[BitChick]

If one cannot believe in Jesus, is one ready to become Jesus?

Matthew 24:5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray

No one can become Jesus.  We can try to be like Him though.

[termhn]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

So let's say I deny 100% of holy books, not just 99.5% of them like you do.  That means I am going to your cult's hell.  For ALL ETERNITY I am to be punished constantly and furiously with no rest.  And you're sitting up in heaven, knowing I am down there with billions of others, and you can experience paradise?  It doesn't bother you in any way?  

Why do you think Christians come across so desperate?  Christians are hated for witnessing and for sending out missionaries by many because they do not want to sit up in heaven without others.  Hey, I am even hated by some on here for sharing my beliefs.  But we share because we are concerned.  However, we realize that everyone does have free will and can choose to believe or not.  I cannot do anything about that.  The Bible says that there will be no more crying and no more pain in heaven so I am not sure about how it won't bother us that there are people not in heaven with us.  I have pondered that as well but do not have the answer.

In an earlier post I mentioned my unusual thoughts on hell compared to some Christians. I see that the Catholic teaching of Purgatory might be a little more correct (not that indulgences or praying for dead people works) but that God is fair and everyone will get a chance.  So in Sheol people will still get a chance to accept or reject.  I do think that those that reject Jesus here on earth might not get a second chance though.  Perhaps they have already made their choice?    

I have asked priests from both Christian and catholic beliefs and both day that being an atheist is not a sin and it does not equate to a trip to hell in the afterlife if there is one.

[termhn]

If one cannot believe in Jesus, is one ready to become Jesus?

The entirety of genesis 1-15 is about humans trying to become divine or become god and god punishing them for that. So, even of one does believe in Jesus, one is not ready to become Jesus.

[BitChick]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

So let's say I deny 100% of holy books, not just 99.5% of them like you do.  That means I am going to your cult's hell.  For ALL ETERNITY I am to be punished constantly and furiously with no rest.  And you're sitting up in heaven, knowing I am down there with billions of others, and you can experience paradise?  It doesn't bother you in any way?  

Why do you think Christians come across so desperate?  Christians are hated for witnessing and for sending out missionaries by many because they do not want to sit up in heaven without others.  Hey, I am even hated by some on here for sharing my beliefs.  But we share because we are concerned.  However, we realize that everyone does have free will and can choose to believe or not.  I cannot do anything about that.  The Bible says that there will be no more crying and no more pain in heaven so I am not sure about how it won't bother us that there are people not in heaven with us.  I have pondered that as well but do not have the answer.

In an earlier post I mentioned my unusual thoughts on hell compared to some Christians. I see that the Catholic teaching of Purgatory might be a little more correct (not that indulgences or praying for dead people works) but that God is fair and everyone will get a chance.  So in Sheol people will still get a chance to accept or reject.  I do think that those that reject Jesus here on earth might not get a second chance though.  Perhaps they have already made their choice?    

I have asked priests from both Christian and catholic beliefs and both day that being an atheist is not a sin and it does not equate to a trip to hell in the afterlife if there is one.

So it is better not to believe in God because that equals a free pass to heaven because they are an atheist?  There is nothing in the Bible that says that.  Atheism is a belief more then techincally a "sin" I guess.  Perhaps that is where they are going with that?  Regardless,  the Bible is clear that all have sinned.  There is no one righteous. So regardless if Atheism is the sin that damns someone to hell is irrelevant.  There will be plenty of other "sins" to choose from that will be enough to do that.  I look at it like going to a court of law.  Let say I broke a law but did not know it was wrong.  The court could still find me guilty of breaking that law and send me to jail.  But if someone paid my debt for me I would be exonerated.  The same thing applies to us in regards to hell.  We are all damned to go there even if we do not believe in it.  God is the judge.  He will determine if our debt has been paid.  If we accept his free gift of salvation then we will be able to stand in the "trial" and be freed.

[termhn]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

So let's say I deny 100% of holy books, not just 99.5% of them like you do.  That means I am going to your cult's hell.  For ALL ETERNITY I am to be punished constantly and furiously with no rest.  And you're sitting up in heaven, knowing I am down there with billions of others, and you can experience paradise?  It doesn't bother you in any way?  

Why do you think Christians come across so desperate?  Christians are hated for witnessing and for sending out missionaries by many because they do not want to sit up in heaven without others.  Hey, I am even hated by some on here for sharing my beliefs.  But we share because we are concerned.  However, we realize that everyone does have free will and can choose to believe or not.  I cannot do anything about that.  The Bible says that there will be no more crying and no more pain in heaven so I am not sure about how it won't bother us that there are people not in heaven with us.  I have pondered that as well but do not have the answer.

In an earlier post I mentioned my unusual thoughts on hell compared to some Christians. I see that the Catholic teaching of Purgatory might be a little more correct (not that indulgences or praying for dead people works) but that God is fair and everyone will get a chance.  So in Sheol people will still get a chance to accept or reject.  I do think that those that reject Jesus here on earth might not get a second chance though.  Perhaps they have already made their choice?    

I have asked priests from both Christian and catholic beliefs and both day that being an atheist is not a sin and it does not equate to a trip to hell in the afterlife if there is one.

So it is better not to believe in God because that equals a free pass to heaven because they are an atheist?  There is nothing in the Bible that says that.  Atheism is a belief more then techincally a "sin" I guess.  Perhaps that is where they are going with that?  Regardless,  the Bible is clear that all have sinned.  There is no one righteous. So regardless if Atheism is the sin that damns someone to hell is irrelevant.  There will be plenty of other "sins" to choose from that will be enough to do that.  I look at it like going to a court of law.  Let say I broke a law but did not know it was wrong.  The court could still find me guilty of breaking that law and send me to jail.  But if someone paid my debt for me I would be exonerated.  The same thing applies to us in regards to hell.  We are all damned to go there even if we do not believe in it.  God is the judge.  He will determine if our debt has been paid.  If we accept his free gift of salvation then we will be able to stand in the "trial" and be freed.

You miss my point. What I'm trying to say is that you can believe whatever you want in this life and God (if he exists) won't condemn you based on that. Sure, there are other sins. That's obvious. We all make mistakes and do bad things at points in our life. But not believing in God does not mean he will be more likely to send us to hell (or, in your analogy, judge us guilty). That's my point.