Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Burnt offerings was seen as the best way to give respect to any deity. If God had not requested burnt offerings, people could have suspected that he was not a deity.
Also, errors in the Bible by no means prove that it wasn’t God-inspired. God could have shown the author of Genesis visions of the distant past; and the author could only describe it in the limited vocabulary of the time.
@SquiddlyJazz Re: "God could have shown the author of Genesis visions of the distant past; and the author could only describe it in the limited vocabulary of the time."
Well now, seems like we just flushed the whole "God is omnipotent" claim straight down the toilet. Phew! Glad we got that settled.
@ SquiddyJazzTheist
Really? Really? REALLY?! And just where in hell did you cook up that stupid, asinine, and inane thought?
Hey, Nyarlathotep. Need you for a few seconds. Has there been a more retarded, stupid, idiotic, moronic, asinine, and inane statement made here as the one above made by Squidburt?
Have to agree with Tin-Man. You should flushed this turd before saving it.
Now who is the staw man? You know you have already thrown enough straw on these forums that I am now carrying a fire hose as a rainmaker. Can't let the fire threat threaten my boughs...
rmfr
@Diotrephes
"As creatures of dirt we should be able to get all of our food and essentials simply by sticking a body part into the ground and get what we need."
I tried that. The judge said it was the first time he tried anyone for raping dirt.
"The ''God'', on the other hand, is a necessary ultimate answer to ''why'' natural phenomena occur in the first place."
Not unless you're using "answer" with an entirely different definition to it's common dictionary definition. Your *claim that a deity exists, and created everything, has no explanatory powers at all for a start, and of course neither claim can be objectively evidenced at all, so it's not an answer in any sense I understand the word.
To me you're basically claiming the deity you believe in is simply defined as different to all the others, and because you believe it to be so, thus not really different at all in any tangible sense. There is certainly no more objective evidence or rational arguments for Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah as existent deities than there is for Zeus Thor or Apollo, they just seem to be in vogue.
You are confusing God in the classical theistic sense with multiple gods of multiple religions. Thus it is a non sequitor and equivocation fallacy.
What I'm talking about is the philosophically necessary prime mover, which Zeus and Thor does not fit the description. Greek gods and other polytheistic gods were invented to explain how certain natural phenomena work; typical examples of ''god of the gaps''. The Abrahamic God, on the other hand, arguably fits the description depending how you interpret the Bible.
No, I am not confusing anything, I merely take exception to you claiming your belief in your deity provides answers to anything. Answers by definition have proper evidence to support them, and have explanatory power. Your belief in your deity has neither, or can demonstrate some?
For example, how did your deity come to be, how did it create everything, etc.
"What I'm talking about is the philosophically necessary prime mover, "
A prime mover is not philosophically necessary. This is an irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. A god of the gaps polemic, nothing more. The reason people invent deities tells us nothing about their validity.
"The Abrahamic God, on the other hand, arguably fits the description depending how you interpret the Bible."
Well if a belief has to subjectively interpret archaic and demonstrably erroneous texts, then I can give that belief no credence.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists?
Same reason you don't believe things exist I imagine.
No one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, and it is an objective fact that humans create ficitonal deities.
@servantofAllah
I use a life skill that is very valuable and useful, that we all use everyday, but I apply it to everything instead of being selective and of course it applies to religion.
That life skill being:
Requiring real life, tangible supportable evidence, instead of relying on opinions and assumptions and talk of others.
Every god idea/religion idea I ever heard of is based on assumptions, opinions and just talk, no facts, no evidence, and certainly no proof. Worse still for the various religious ideas, there is a LOT of evidence/proof that the various god ideas are of human creations and are lies, (although it is likely many religious followers are not aware they are lies when they speak of their various religions.)
All the evidence, facts, sound reasoning that is available on the concept of religions/god points to just about all religions being a CON, that takes advantage of people that do not know or do not want to know the actual reality. If money/power is changing hands in relation to religion, it is a CON. (Albeit a particularly well refined, and clever con, over centuries of practice.) That is particular potent because like all good cons, those that are conned are frequently never aware they are being conned while filling in a powerful emotional need. Worse still for those that may even suspect it is a con, people frequently deny/suppress that thought, as these people do not want to think that they themselves as well as family/friends/peers all fell for the same con.
Although anyone that fell for the con should forgive themselves, it is highly likely this con was pushed onto them by trusted elders such as parents/grand parents, teachers etc while they were far too young to have the necessary critical thinking skills to recognize the con. It truly is a rather horrifying process.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
''That life skill being: requiring real life, tangible supportable evidence, instead of relying on opinions and assumptions and talk of others.''
Incidentally, you also don't have tangible supportable evidence that the world around you is real instead of a hallucination. And the only things that can help you counter this notion happen to be opinions and assumptions, which according to you have no realistic value. Therefore, it is logical to live as if the world is a hallucination...no?
Also, I'd like to point out that jumping from ''belief in God'' to ''belief in certain religion'' is a non sequitor. Belief in God is a philosophical position which not all religions share (in fact, depending on the definition, I can say that Abrahamic religions are the only ones that believe in God).
JazzTheist: "Incidentally, you also don't have tangible supportable evidence that the world around you is real instead of a hallucination. And the only things that can help you counter this notion happen to be opinions and assumptions, which according to you have no realistic value. Therefore, it is logical to live as if the world is a hallucination...no?
No.
rmfr
@JazzTheist
"Incidentally, you also don't have tangible supportable evidence that the world around you is real instead of a hallucination"
real ... actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
You need to prove that I am hallucinating.
@JazzTheist
"Belief in God is a philosophical position which not all religions share (in fact, depending on the definition, I can say that Abrahamic religions are the only ones that believe in God)."
Is your claim because you are a monotheist? What about Zoroastrianism?
Yes, Zoroastrianism came long before the Abrahamic god was invented. So the last part of your assertion is historically incorrect.
I didn't say Abrahamic religions WERE the only ones that believe in God. What's more, Zoroastrianism isn't quote monotheistic.
@JazzTheist
"I didn't say Abrahamic religions WERE the only ones that believe in God. What's more, Zoroastrianism isn't quote monotheistic"
And the father, the son, and the holy ghost are monotheistic?
"Incidentally, you also don't have tangible supportable evidence that the world around you is real instead of a hallucination. "
This demonstrably false. Usually when theists make this claim they are dishonestly construing not being absolutely certain with having no tangible objective evidence at all.
"And the only things that can help you counter this notion happen to be opinions and assumptions, "
Whilst it is epistemologically impossible to be 100% certain that all reality isn't an allusion there is no objective evidence to support the idea. The notion is also unfalsifiable so we can base no assertions on it. If you want to deny the entirety of reality on an argument from ignorance fallacy, just to try and erroneously claim this somehow validates an unevidenced deity, then we're getting s real idea of the root of the problem with religious arguments and why I find them completely uncompelling.
"Therefore, it is logical to live as if the world is a hallucination...no?"
No, what your using is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, so by definition this cannot be asserted as rational. You should also step back and look at the sheer desperation to validate an unevidenced belief has you claiming denying all of reality is rational. If that doesn't have alarms bells ringing or at least give you pause, then you may want to ask yourself why.
"Also, I'd like to point out that jumping from ''belief in God'' to ''belief in certain religion'' is a non sequitor....I can say that Abrahamic religions are the only ones that believe in God)."
That first sentence is untrue, and the second one is absurd, countless religions throughout human history have cited a deity as part of their beliefs, and you could have avoided this error by simply Googling the dictionary definition of religion, which references the belief in a personal god or gods in the definition.
religion
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
''This demonstrably false. Usually when theists make this claim they are dishonestly construing not being absolutely certain with having no tangible objective evidence at all.''
No, it is demonstrably circular. You can ''demonstrate'' the world around you to be real, but that's circular reasoning and no different than ''the world says it's real; therefore it's real''. You have to show me tangible objective evidence that the world around you is real, without using the world itself as evidence.
''Whilst it is epistemologically impossible to be 100% certain that all reality isn't an allusion there is no objective evidence to support the idea. The notion is also unfalsifiable so we can base no assertions on it. If you want to deny the entirety of reality on an argument from ignorance fallacy, just to try and erroneously claim this somehow validates an unevidenced deity, then we're getting s real idea of the root of the problem with religious arguments and why I find them completely uncompelling.''
First of all, you seem to view ''deities'' as simply other things in the natural world. But I'm talking about a philosophical necessary prime mover, aka the God of classical theism. And there happens to be religions (e.g. the Abrahamic religions) whose God fit this description. Demanding physical evidence is totally inadequate here, because the God in this sense is by definition not a thing in the natural world.
And again, no objective evidence to support the opposite idea either.
''That first sentence is untrue, and the second one is absurd, countless religions throughout human history have cited a deity as part of their beliefs, and you could have avoided this error by simply Googling the dictionary definition of religion, which references the belief in a personal god or gods in the definition.''
Again, you are confusing the God of classical theism (which the God of Abrahamic religions fit the description of) and the gods of polytheism (which were invented to explain certain natural phenomena). And comparing God to a superhuman would be a false analogy because a superhuman is by definition just another thing in the natural world.
@JazzTheist
"You have to show me tangible objective evidence that the world around you is real, without using the world itself as evidence."
Really? Do you understand how freaking insane that comment is?
"You have to show me tangible objective evidence that the world around you is real, without using the world itself as evidence."
No I don't, anyone who starts from a position that nothing is real can assert nothing. You are defeating your claims a priori...
"First of all, you seem to view ''deities'' as simply other things in the natural world."
You have a poor grasp of atheism then.
"Demanding physical evidence is totally inadequate here"
Just as it would be with all non existent things.
" I'm talking about a philosophical necessary prime mover,"
I don't agree that a prime mover is necessary, and every philosophical argument for a prime mover I have seen is the very definition of an irrational argument from ignorance, a "god of the gaps" polemic. Talking of which...
"And again, no objective evidence to support the opposite idea either."
That is argument ad ignorantiam fallacy. You can't claim invisible unicorns exist and can;t be evidenced and then try to validate them by pointing out the claim is unfalsifiable. By definition all unfalsifiable claims cannot be falsified, even if they are false.
"Again, you are confusing the God of classical theism (which the God of Abrahamic religions fit the description of) and the gods of polytheism (which were invented to explain certain natural phenomena)."
Again with this, it's starting to sound like a mantra, I don't care how you think your deity differs from all the others humans have invented, as it has no bearing on it's validity. The only comparison I care about is that all deities are equally fictitious until proper objective evidence is demonstrated for them.
"And comparing God to a superhuman would be a false analogy because a superhuman is by definition just another thing in the natural world."
It's not my comparison, it is the dictionary definition of religion. Are you saying you don't believe your deity has or shows exceptional ability or powers? If you do then by definition it is superhuman, and your objection is mere semantics. However you are missing the salient point here, I don;t care that you believe your deity is different from all the others, all theists and deists play this card. Unless you can demonstrate objective evidence for your belief it is a special pleading fallacy as far as I am concerned. The way in which all deities are the same to an atheist should be pretty obvious, and I set the same standard for belief for them all, and for all beliefs come that...
...that objective evidence be demonstrated for a claim or belief that is commensurate to it. Neither biased for or against, and this is the very definition of open minded, to approach all ideas without bias.
@JazzTheist
I like it, everything is an illusion, so you admit your god idea/religion could be an illusion? That is a start.
No no, I know better, you just are grasping for straws in an argument you barely even comprehend, blinded by years of indoctrination and your brain working very hard to rationalize the absurd system that you have been lied to about since you were a little kid. It would hurt far to much to accept you been lied to, that you, and many of the people you know well have been conned.
Even if we accept the possibility that life is an illusion and we have no way to prove otherwise, what does that have to do with your religious idea? If anything it makes your religious idea even more unlikely, if life is an illusion then obviously your god ideas must be an illusion too. An illusion within an illusion, arguably worse.
If this life is an illusion I have no problem avoiding the "illusion" of pain, hunger, suffering etc. Because well as you said there is no way to prove we are in an illusion. How do I avoid pain, hunger and suffering even if it is an illusion? Using those skills I mentioned earlier.
Also, look up the definition of god and religions. If you happen to have a religion that has no god, that does not fit in the standard widely understood definition of religion you need to speak up and say "my religion has no god" To which I would counter, if we can change commonly accepted definitions at will, we are speaking gibberish. Call what you do something else if you have no "god" in your religion. Because if you believe in no god, another common definition applies to you, you are an atheist.
You even talk about "definitions" lower down in your post! Are you another one of those that likes to change key word definitions to suit you to keep your religion idea nice and squirmy and away from the cold grasp of fact, solid reasoning and logic?
Additionally don't think for a second I did not notice you did not address the other points I brought up in my post, you avoided them. Why is that? Do not have a good answer for them other then your: "well everything is an illusion!"
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Oh my oh my. Did you know that I actually had been an atheist for my entire life until recently?
The illusion allegory does not shake my position THE SLIGHTEST. Even if the universe is an illusion, then what provides the existence of such illusion? There still needs to be a source of existence.
And now, you are confusing different definitions of the word ''definition''. Here's an example of what I meant by definition: ''by definition, a car must have wheels.''
The reason why I ''avoided'' some of your points is because all your points contain false prerequisites, and I already addressed the false prerequisites.
What do you define yourself as, if you are not atheist?
If you accept the possibility that everything is an illusion then by default nothing can be defined as true. Meaning any ideas you have about god or not are also an illusion, nothing matters, you can stab yourself in the arm and watch the blood trickle out and not react, because your blood does not matter, the pain does not matter. (Not that I am suggesting you to do this, self inflicted bodily harm is a serious red flag that you need lots of professional help!)
And that "source" of the illusion? What does it matter? If the illusion is complete that "source" could be absolutely anything, not just some sort of "god" religion idea.
The only thing I know about you right now is: you say you are no longer atheist, and you talk about illusion a lot, so what are you? Clearly concisely define what you currently believe. Or are you afraid to do so because suddenly your belief becomes a bit more material and subject to actual reasoning, logic and the whole lack of evidence thing.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@JazzTheist
"And now, you are confusing different definitions of the word ''definition''. Here's an example of what I meant by definition: ''by definition, a car must have wheels.''
Which car? The one used to transport people over roads, railways, or the the passenger compartment of an elevator, cableway, airship, or balloon?
just an aside, and since it is way back in the conversation, I expect no response.
I once had a 1986 Pontiac Sunbird (SE with the Turbo, hot stuff back then, sort of). I parked in at a hotel hosting my company's holiday party. When the party ended, I went to the parking lot and the car was gone. Three days later, it rose from the dead (sorry, couldn't resist) and I was directed to a salvage yard to pick up what was left. It was described to me on the phone as "we found your CAR", that's right they said car and I knew what they meant.
When I arrived at the salvage yard, my car had no wheels, funny, they still called it a "CAR". So I guess, it wasn't a car? Because it didn't have wheels? What, pray tell, was it then?
By your definition, it wasn't a car, then it also wasn't "a car without wheels". Was it just a pile of junk, then magically became a car again when a new set of wheels were put on it? This is just so confusing.
Should I have said, "you did not find my car, because cars must have wheels, and this "thing" has no wheels so it is obvious by definition this is not a car so how can it be my car?" And if it was just a pile of junk, how could have been mine since I did not own a pile of junk (haters of GM mid 80s car may object here), I owned a car.
@NewSkeptic Re: Your car
LOL... Good one, dude. Got a pleasant laugh out of that... *thumbs up*...
"There still needs to be a source of existence."
Hmm, evidence please, and define source. I'm guessing you're about to try and define your deity into existence, let me take a stab at it for you...transcendent, eternal, necessary, and omniscient or powerful enough to have created everything, how'd I do?
I was describing Thor by the way.
''by definition, a car must have wheels.''
Nope, a functioning car maybe. Accuracy is imperative in definition. As with all words I like to start with commonly understood definition, and so go to a dictionary when it is in dispute. Here is the Oxford English dictionary's definition of definition.
Definition
NOUN
1 A statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
1.1 An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
‘our definition of what constitutes poetry’
I think the secondary definition is apropos here. Note the word exact. Please give an exact definition of your deity, if you do it will be the first time any theist or deist has offered anything tangible to define their deity. It is rationally impossible to define anything into existence, but it is certainly possible to define something so as to make it's existence dubious.
@JazzTheist
" you also don't have tangible supportable evidence that the world around you is real instead of a hallucination"
For the sake of argument I will concede that we have one of two choices. What makes more sense? Reality or hallucinations?
Firstly to address the Assymetry point...
The standard model CP symmetry is almost but not an exact symmetry, in which case there can be processes allowed that create different amounts of matter and anti matter.
This is on going at CERN.
Now to the OPs question, The reason I don't believe is due to it being total bollocks in my opinion.
Theism requires the laws of nature and physics to be suspended in order for it to be true.
This cannot and does not happen, thus any theological claim regarding miracles, creation and so fourth are absolute garbage.
Once theology and theologians could account for everything from human morality, where we came from, how earth came to be, the universe and so on.
Sciences has battered religion in a fight that is laughably one sided! And what religion has left is what it can possibly offer in the guise of charity, community and spirituality.
But it has now been brushed aside when it comes to knowledge and explaining phenomena.
Religion is simply a form of control.
As a theist, I do agree that the OP is committing the argument from ignorance fallacy regarding the Asymmetry thing. However, I'd like to point out that theism in fact does not operate on argument on ignorance at all.
''Theism requires the laws of nature and physics to be suspended in order for it to be true.''
Nope. Theism provides a philosophical explanation on why laws of nature and physics exist in the first place.
''Any theological claim regarding miracles, creation and so fourth are absolute garbage.''
Only if it commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. But since non-fallacious theological claims do exist, I declare your claim to be absolute garbage under the same criteria.
''Once theology and theologians could account for everything from human morality, where we came from, how earth came to be, the universe and so on.''
Theology and philosophy are never intended to answer ''how'' questions which science is supposed to answer. You're basically saying that ''theologians can't do what science does''. Yeah, so...?
''Sciences has battered religion in a fight that is laughably one sided! And what religion has left is what it can possibly offer in the guise of charity, community and spirituality.''
In fact, theology gave birth to science. This may not be popular opinion, but Kepler, Galileo and Newton certainly would agree with this. Also, you're jumping from ''belief in God'' to ''religion'', which is a common non sequitor. Not all religions believe in God; in fact the Abrahamic religions are the only major ones that believe in God.
''But it has now been brushed aside when it comes to knowledge and explaining phenomena.''
Again, there are how questions and why questions, which aren't both in the realm of science.
''Religion is simply a form of control.''
The reason why the Catholic Church had much control over the mass is exactly because they wouldn't let people read the Bible. And when folks finally got to read it, they became Protestants. Hmmm....
Theism and philosophy are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, they all make claims that do require the laws of nature to be suspended in order to support their ideologies.
Theism has yet to produce a solid explanation as to why these laws exist, other then to commit a god of the gaps fallacy.
This is bollocks to the highest order, again miracles require the suspension of the laws of nature and physics and that does not happen.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Again the two are not mutual exclusive, and yet they make the claims that there is this invisible cosmic mage overlooking us. That we are created. There are many, many claims made... all of which have been disproved.
And I wonder what the punishment was for not believing in those eras???
Remind me, what happened to Galileo Galilei?
What happened to those of lesser notoriety and fame?
Pages