Answers to what questions?
To iterate, atheism is a simple response to one proposition. Atheism has nothing to do with anything else.
Atheists, however, are as varied as theists in thoughts, beliefs, confidences, etc. Your seeming insistence in lumping together folks who identify as atheist into one creature with many legs reeks of ignorance and bias.
1 Like
I replied to your question. I am a Southern Baptist.
No where have I read in the Bible that God adopted Jesus. Jesus was God in the flesh and was on Earth for 33 years or so. My question I guess in a way is answered because of your distaste of the many denominations or editions of the Bible. With that being said, if God we’re to appear today, would you believe? Or would He have to PROVE to you that He was God? And if He proved it to you, would you even care? No disrespect here of course, but not everything can be proven. Even science and mathematics can’tdefinitively prove that the universe came from a reaction between two elements. Those 2 elements had to come from somewhere. The only rational conclusion is that there is a Creator. Only a Creator could be responsible for something coming from nothing.
That makes no sense, you couldn’t blame a non-existent deity for anything. One can either not believe a deity exists, or one could blame it for something, one cannot do both. FWIW I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, but if the one depicted in the bible or koran existed, I’d want nothing to do with it, as I find the deity described to be morally repugnant.
That seems like a begging the question fallacy to me, so I am dubious it is rational at all, but please explain why you think a creator is even a choice, let alone the only rational one?
Again you seem to making an absolute claim, without even attempting to demonstrate any objective evidence, and who says anything came nothing, or that nothing is a possible state even?
1 Like
That is just your opinion/guess, it not a fact. I was an atheist decades before I studied any science; your opinion is ludicrous, and the assumption that it has to do with faith in science seems like slander.
And lest we forget, we have had a few atheists on here in the past, who expressed some poorly reasoned and irrational guff, some of it has been bat shit crazy nonsense.
One would not assume that someone who didn’t believe in unicorns or mermaids, “were following a specific interpretation of the evidence, and this interpretation is based on a representation of reality grounded in mathematics and various conceptual models.”
So why does @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU assume this about atheists?
Is that what you’re doing when you disbelieve in all the hundreds of thousands of deities I disbelieve in, except for one you imagine to be real?
So not believing your unevidenced claim that a deity exists is a delusion now?
delusion
noun
- a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions.
That is laughably wrong, and atheism isn’t a belief, and you have no objective evidence for any deity, that is axiomatic or you’d have demonstrated some, instead of endlessly irrational arguments. Delusion, you are hilarious fair play.
Priceless, you;re using a computer linked to the internet, and powered by electricity, they all work precisely because we gained a better understanding of reality, try praying for them to work, see what that caricature of reality produces.
Thanks for your reply David.
Then you are not reading the “right” version according to those who DO believe jesus was born of man but was ascended to heaven as God’s only adopted son. They would say you are not saved and need to read the right book to be heavenbound.
I suggest that for history (the first "Christians were adoptionist) you look up who the Ebionites were or you can read something [here] and here about christian foundations.
No, that is an assumption you make because of your social position,social pressures and education.
According to those who followed his teachings in the early first century CE he was the “perfect Jew” and very human.
Your particular subcult of christianity did not come into being until after the American Civil War, where you split the Baptist congregation because of the “Southern Baptist” opposition to antislavery (since repudiated) and segregation. If you go back a little further then you find that the Baptist Churches organised in 1707 so at best you are a sub cult (large I know) founded some ONE THOUSAND AND SIX HUNDRED years after the Pauline Epistles, reading a very much edited version of the ancient greek texts. .
In the meantime hundreds of cults and sub cults all worshipping a slightly different jesus and god figure have lived, expanded and finally expired or been absorbed. To read about the Marcionites you can google or follow the link below. I can send you an essay on the Ebionites if you wish that will give you some grounding in the origins of your faith. (More on Christian sects in the second to 5th centuries)
How would I know it was a god? Humans have a propensity for mistaking other humans as gods…ever hear of the Cargo Cult? Especially when their technology is very much in advance.
Even worse for you what if this god thing is not your deityofchoice if it should appear?
Of course not, “proof” is a concept for the mathematicians and alcohol makers/consumers amongst us. What I seek is good evidence. And for your particular American brand of god …I do not find any worthwhile evidence at all, especially in the last 400 years. .
Nope that is not the only conclusion possible. There is not a shred of evidence that a creator is necessary, even less evidence that it looks and behaves like the petulant, deadly toddler you believe controls your life.
Nobody I know claims that anything comes from nothing…that sounds like christian college propaganda about atheists. and so is dismissed with extreme prejudice.
1 Like
I don’t blame God for these things. How can I blame God if God does not exist?
I blame religion . . . which is different from blaming God.
Also, did you consider my points about my “reverse Pasqaule’s Wager?”
1 Like
List of Nobel Peace Prize Winners:
[Narges Mohammadi] “for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all”
Ales Bialiatski [Memorial and Center for Civil Liberties(https: “The Peace Prize laureates represent civil society in their home countries.
[Maria Ressa and [Dmitry Muratov: “for their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace”
[World Food Programme: “for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict”
[Abiy Ahmed Ali: “for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea”
Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad: “for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict”
How long of a list would you like? This is not even scratching the surface.
4 Likes
Well, keep in mind that I’m interacting with a screen, and I see similar responses. I don’t have enough information to see the personal differences between everyone, so of course I might make generalizations based on that (I’ve seen generalizations from the other side as well).
It’s inevitable to generalize when interacting through these devices, but I fully admit that I could be wrong.
1 Like
Yes, the pheromone trails of ants are what feed them every day. Look how efficient they are.
1 Like
If the Southern Baptist god appeared and convinced me it was genuine I’d no longer be an atheist but I sure wouldn’t worship it! I find the god in the bible stories to be a bullying, egotistical, cruel, bigoted being.
3 Likes
Did they? Really? How do you know that?
2 Likes
- Correct, you do not have sufficient data to determine personal differences.
- All you have to do is ask as a means to avoid making erroneous assumptions.
It’s not rocket surgery.
I don’t think it’s inevitable. I think it’s something decidedly different.
1 Like
You create an intellectual representation of reality, and your representation consists of inert matter forming a universe. Then you assume that your own experience, or qualia, is merely a byproduct of these ideas.
But reality is just the opposite. Qualia is what’s real here, not your ideas. Inertness is an idea, and mathematical descriptions of phenomena are ideas—but qualia is real.
The reality of matter is not its inertness, because right now, you are matter, and you are a sentient being. This is the true reality of matter, not the abstract ideas in your head about it.
These ideas are functional, just like how pheromone trails are functional for ants. But this is not reality; it’s only a picture you’ve created, inherited from others. Even knowing that the map is just a map, people can’t seem to detach themselves from it.
That’s true. Let me ask, what does reality mean to you?
How large a demographic do you imagine you’re interacting with here, compared say with atheists globally? You have also of course brought what appears to be a very closed mind, and lot of preconceived prejudices about what atheism is, and what atheists do and do not believe, and why.
It is clear that the more objective the evidence, and the more of it that supports a belief, the more likely that belief is to reflect objective reality. You’re rhetoric about hidden esoteric truths is not new, and not at all compelling, for that very reasons, and you can post false equivalences using facile ant analogies all you want.
“The other side”? What a telling turn of phrase, but no you don’t need to generalise, you could ask people what they believe, and what they don’t and why. Since you got here you have been preaching at people with a string of mostly unevidenced sweeping assertions.
The same facile analogy, that implies that objective reality is a screen to a magic world, I already know how pointless it is to ask if you can demonstrate any objective evidence to support the idea, or the fact science doesn’t need and doesn’t evidence any deity is somehow a flaw in those methods, except it is a fact that science can’t detect non-existence things, so if they are unfalsifiable and offer no datta, they are discarded as meaningless.
Straw man fallacy, I have made no such claim ever, I do accept that the universe exists, and that insert matter exist, it is you who is adding a deity you cannot objectively evidence, using magic that has no explanatory powers whatsoever, I merely follow the objective evidence, where it justifies any rational conclusion I form beliefs.
Straw man fallacy,
False dichotomy fallacy, my subjective perceptions are not what I base beliefs on, this has been explained countless times. Science and logic are not my ideas either, so that’s a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Straw man fallacy.
That’s a hasty generalisation fallacy.
Straw man fallacy. I rely on sufficient objective evidence to separate subjective bias from objective reality, whereas you indulge iit, with fanciful unevidenced and irrational superstition, because it makes you feel good.
You have some magic powers to tell others what is and is not reality now? I think you are no longer pretending to debate, but are simply preaching your own unevidenced superstitious beliefs now.
1 Like
“Inert” is an indemonstrable concept. If you can, prove that there is no qualia in a stone.
Yes, you believe in inert matter, but I told you this is just an idea in your mind.
No, not just feeling good—be better, which is different and not necessarily pleasant.
No, you rely on the interpretation of the evidence.
I don’t need magic to tell you that ideas are not real; they are merely representations of reality.
No it isn’t?
If you can, demonstrate stones don’t turn into dragons whenever no one is looking? FYI I never made the claim you’re asking me to demonstrate, at some point you may grasp the epistemological difference between disbelief and opposing or contrary belief, but sadly “may grasp” is of course semantically identical to may not grasp.
inert
adjective
- lacking the ability or strength to move.
It is an idea in my head, as are all thoughts of course, but this one is not just an idea in my head.
That’s just an idea in your head, and good is a subjective idea anyway.
Do I control science, logic? That was a rather silly lie, come on now.
Well you’re not using objective evidence, and are decrying the best methods we have, while peddling unevidenced superstition, so I am sticking my assessment as it best matches the evidence, unless you offer something beyond sweeping unevidenced assertions, and raft of known logical fallacies, as you did here again, and swept passed them to clip the text you think gives you your next gotcha moment, and unfalsifiable ideas, while decrying those who base belief as closely as is possible on objective reality.
The presence or absence of qualia is impossible to demonstrate.
Don’t worry, your qualia, which are real, will notice the difference between good and bad.
Yes, ideas are representations in your brain; this is a well-known fact.
I don’t decry science; I decry extremism.
I repeat, your belief is based on a representation you’re constructing in your brain, and this is not an opinion. I don’t understand why we need to discuss this fact.
And this has what to do with the word inert that you introduced?
I am not worried, and my evolved consciousness can use reason of course, but good and bad remain subjective ideas.
And they can be based on objective evidence, or on subjective bias, and unevidenced wishful thinking, I use the former as a standard for credulity, while you are content to use the latter, because to me the truth is more important than the claim, but to you the belief is paramount, it is manifest everytime you post.
That’s just a subjective idea in your head, and your posts suggest otherwise. Panpsychism is not an idea that has any mainstream support within science, since it is unevidenced, unfalsifiable, untestable, and has no explanatory powers, so the extremist view is yours not mine. Or is extremism another word you don’t fully grasp, like inert?
Based on the best methods and objective evidence, unlike your ides which exist only in your fetid imagination.
Because your mendaciously misrepresenting the facts, as anyone can see. All human idea exist in the brain, this is trivially true, but they don’t all reflect objective reality, again this is trivially true. The best methods we have for separating the two are science and logic, and you are peddling an idea for which there is no scientific evidence or support, which is in fact unscientific as it is unfalsifiable, and using arguments that are relentlessly irrational. Though I’d accept the latter is your fault, and not necessarily panpsychism’s.