Theism? Seriously? EVERYTHING from NOTHING?

[Waiting4evidence]

In a recent post, a theist grossly mischaracterized the atheist position.

Instead of accepting the simple definition that an atheist is one who does not believe in deities, he just made up the definition that an atheist is one who believes that the entire universe came from nothing.

We do not know how the universe came into existence, and we don't even know if the universe ever came into existence.

We make NO conclusion based on our ignorance of the universe's origin.

We do NOT, as per the theist's allegation, say "We don't know, therefore nothing did it". We just say "We don't know, therefore let's not pretend we know, but rather let's try to find out".

So, I am hoping we can put that bogus accusation to rest.


But there is another ramification of the theist's absurd accusation.

He (rightly) claims that it's wronng - given our current knowledge - to hold the dogmatic belief that the universe came from nothing.

At the same time, he believes that an entity much more complex than the universe exists.

So I can't help but ask. If it's absurd to think that something as complex as the universe can come into existence from nothing, then how do you account for the existence of something even more complex than the universe?

How did God come into existence? "You don't know therefore nothing did it"?

Do you see the absurdity of your position, given that you accuse atheists of holding a fatal flaw in their belief, while in reality they do not hold that belief, but you do?

[kayky]

I absolutely agree that scientific research by no means encompasses the entirety of human endeavors, and there is so much more to life. Are, poetry, music, dance, etc. Of course.

But if a non-scientific topic encroaches on scientific grounds, then it is required to abide by scientific rules. What do I mean?

I do know what you mean. That's what makes this type of debate rather pointless.

It's perfectly reasonable for me to say "I think Shakespeare is an amazing writer, I get goosebumps when I read his plays", and it is perfectly cool for you to say "Ah! My favorite author is Dante. He is phenomenal. I too get goosebumps when I read him".

But if I said "I think that objectively, Shakespeare is better than Dante, because I get more intense goosebumps from reading him, than you get from reading Dante", then we would have encroached onto the scientific realm. At that point, an external observer has the right to ask "Is the intensity of goosebumps an accurate indication of the beauty of a work of literature? Can beauty even be quantified?"

Okay. But in reality you do know that Shakespeare is better than Dante, right?

Similarly, it's perfectly reasonable for you to say "I get such a feeling of peace, calm and justice when I read about God drowning millions of innocent babies for no reason during the great flood. That work of literature makes me feel so good." It's also perfectly reasonable for somebody else to say "The idea of God getting a 14 year old jewish peasant pregnant through remote magical insemination, gets me really turned on".

But if either of you say "The Great Flood actually happened 6000 years ago, and God did actually get a virgin pregnant 2000 years ago", then an external observer has the right to ask "Where did the water from the Great Flood come from? Where did it go? Where did Jesus's Y chromosome come from?" Etc.

I do not take a literalist approach to the Bible, so I'm with you on this.

Enjoy your religion as much as you want, and I'll enjoy my music and my art.

But don't tell me your religion is TRUE, or you will have to present reasonable evidence, not just your "feeling" that it's true.

There is no such thing as a "true" religion. When choosing one, determine its effectiveness as a path to the place you want to go.

[cnorman18]

Okay. But in reality you do know that Shakespeare is better than Dante, right?

I think that rather depends on whether one's primary written language is English or Italian.

Applications to the current debate are, I hope, obvious...

[Tired of the Nonsense]

This goes beyond personal opinion to personal bias. Theists are not simply making it up as they go along.

Let's have a little discussion on the nature of make believe then taken directly from your ancient book of make believe.

!). "The Day the Earth Stood Still." (Joshua 10:12-13) The sun an the moon stop dead in the sky for a 24 hour period at a command from Joshua. And apparently everyone else on the planet slept though it, because it's not a part of collective human lore around the world. Simply the greatest tall tale in human history.

2). "The Night of the Living Dead." (Matt. 27:52-53) Hordes of dead people come up out of their graves and wander the streets of Jerusalem. Or so said the author of Gospel Matthew many decades later. No one mentioned it at the time, however, despite the fact that they were "seen by many" according to the author of Matthew. And only the author of Matthew, because no one else mentioned it, at all, EVER. If it wasn't in the Bible, most people would simply laugh at this particular whopper.

3). The corpse of Jesus becomes reanimated and flies away. The incredible tall tale which beats at the very heart by Christianity. I will leave it to you to defend this absurd piece of make believe.

Also, religion is not always comforting. Sometimes it can be quite discomforting. It might surprise you to know that some theists, myself included, are quite agnostic when it comes to the afterlife. We practice religion for the benefits it provides in this life.

Scared yourself, did you? I'm not surprised, because that's what the whole heaven and hell, God and Satan rigmarole was designed to do. Scare you right into the arms of the church/priests for protection from the boogey man they have been preaching to you about your entire life. Non theists find that they don't need Christian make believe to protect them from Christian make believe. I know I sleep soundly.

True spiritual practice requires a great deal of discipline, but the rewards are great.

Yet in the end you get your reward by dying just like everyone else. Of course you do get to have a make believe life afterwords. But you only get to enjoy that idea while you are still alive. After that, you're dead. Have you noticed that everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is now dead, and that in fact they have uniformly remained most reliably and undeniably dead? This despite 2,000 years of empty claims and make believe about the "return" which Christians have made believe was just about to happen any second now for the last entire 2,000 years? Just wondering.

[kayky]

I think that rather depends on whether one's primary written language is English or Italian.

Applications to the current debate are, I hope, obvious...

You're so right. So much gets lost in the translation!

I've missed you, cnorman!

[Flail]

I don't agree. I think it's the opposite. Most atheists I know are open minded to the 'possibility' of a God of some sort, but simply refuse to believe in any Gods so far proposed by mankind; finding them to be unevidenced and incoherent. On the other hand, most of the theists I know are Christian and have a very closed minded, narrowly limited view that the one and only God is the BibleGod, despite having absolutely nothing upon which to base that view except dogma and biased propaganda from ancient hearsay human sources.

Just as I did not describe all atheists, you certainly have not described all theists.

Science explores everything and does so honestly by subjecting all notions to peer review and perpetual testing while labeling anything without sufficient evidence as theory or hypothesis. One would hope religion could someday be equally honest and
refrain from labeling superstition about supernatural beings as 'knowledge'.

This simply isn't true. Science does not and cannot explore everything. The scientific method is limited to exploring only that which can be physically observed. Just as religion has no right to declare science heresy, science has no right to impose its methods on religion. Science is only a subset of human knowledge.

Science is prepared and waiting to put your God to the evidentiary test wherever and whenever He becomes discernible and something more than superstition. In the interim, psychological and behavioral testing demonstrates that human beings can't keep a story straight for an hour when retold, let alone decades, and are susceptible to all manner of hyperbole, emotion and deception from propagandists.

And I was not attempting above to speak as to all theists. I clearly singled out Christians who believe the unbelievable based upon deficient and implausible source material.

[cnorman18]

Also, religion is not always comforting. Sometimes it can be quite discomforting. It might surprise you to know that some theists, myself included, are quite agnostic when it comes to the afterlife. We practice religion for the benefits it provides in this life.

Scared yourself, did you? I'm not surprised, because that's what the whole heaven and hell, God and Satan rigmarole was designed to do. Scare you right into the arms of the church/priests for protection from the boogey man they have been preaching to you about your entire life. Non theists find that they don't need Christian make believe to protect them from Christian make believe. I know I sleep soundly.

Oh, stop it. That's just another common stereotype -- "Religion is all about controlling the masses." We Jews don't have any formal teachings about an afterlife for the same reason you don't -- there's no way to know. Speculation is all there is. There is no "supreme Jewish council" or "Elders of Zion" or "head Jew" that wants to control everyone, anyway -- conspiracy nuts notwithstanding.

The point and focus of the Jewish religion is THIS life, and THIS world. We know of no other; but we don't claim that there can be no other, because we don't know that either.

One more time; All religions are not equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and religiosity =/= irrationality. As I pointed out on another thread:

....Jews are, and have always been, more heavily overrepresented in the sciences, out of all proportion to our numbers, than any people on Earth. E.g., 27% of the Nobel prizes in chemistry, economics, physics, and physiology/medicine have been won by Jews, who constitute 0.2% of the world's population. (If there were a Nobel prize in mathematics, that proportion would probably be even higher. I've always wondered why there isn't. Maybe Alfred disliked math.) This has always been true; Maimonides, the greatest rabbi in our history since Moses, was also the greatest physician of his age -- in the 12th century.

Logic and critical thought are not mutually exclusive with religion...

[Goat]

Oh, the wrong instruments are being used to demonstrate God. So what would the "right" instruments be?

Just to name few: meditation, religious ritual, contemplative prayer,
study of the great mystics, contemplation of sacred writings...

Now, can you show that actually 'demonstrates God', rather than showing emotional reactions that can be attributed to god, and philosophical and ethical musings that are attributed to god, but actually have their source in the intelligence and imagination of man.. that is the question.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Oh, stop it. That's just another common stereotype -- "Religion is all about controlling the masses." We Jews don't have any formal teachings about an afterlife for the same reason you don't -- there's no way to know. Speculation is all there is. There is no "supreme Jewish council" or "Elders of Zion" or "head Jew" that wants to control everyone, anyway -- conspiracy nuts notwithstanding.

There are no formal teachings about the afterlife for the Jews because the Torah makes absolutely no promises of any continuation of life after death. These were not Jewish notions originally. The Torah ABSOLUTELY IS "all about controlling the masses" however. That is it's Raison d'être

[cnorman18]

Oh, stop it. That's just another common stereotype -- "Religion is all about controlling the masses." We Jews don't have any formal teachings about an afterlife for the same reason you don't -- there's no way to know. Speculation is all there is. There is no "supreme Jewish council" or "Elders of Zion" or "head Jew" that wants to control everyone, anyway -- conspiracy nuts notwithstanding.

There are no formal teachings about the afterlife for the Jews because the Torah makes absolutely no promises of any continuation of life after death.

That's true; but what makes you think that that's the ONLY reason? There is plenty of speculation and legend that refers or alludes to an afterlife in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Besides, that didn't stop the Christians...

These were not Jewish notions originally.

True, and they still aren't.

The Torah ABSOLUTELY IS "all about controlling the masses" however. That is it's Raison d'être

Oh? Tell me, how can a collection of oral traditions and legends, which often conflict to the point of being mutually exclusive, and that are from wildly differing sources with wildly differing agendas and approaches and attitudes, and which has not been read literally or slavishly obeyed for at least two thousand years (if ever), be "all about controlling the masses"? How can that be its "raison d'être"? How were "the masses" "controlled" by it, and who, specifically, was using it to "control" them? What is your historical and literary evidence for this? Can't wait to see it...

[kayky]

Let's have a little discussion on the nature of make believe then taken directly from your ancient book of make believe.

!). "The Day the Earth Stood Still." (Joshua 10:12-13) The sun an the moon stop dead in the sky for a 24 hour period at a command from Joshua. And apparently everyone else on the planet slept though it, because it's not a part of collective human lore around the world. Simply the greatest tall tale in human history.

2). "The Night of the Living Dead." (Matt. 27:52-53) Hordes of dead people come up out of their graves and wander the streets of Jerusalem. Or so said the author of Gospel Matthew many decades later. No one mentioned it at the time, however, despite the fact that they were "seen by many" according to the author of Matthew. And only the author of Matthew, because no one else mentioned it, at all, EVER. If it wasn't in the Bible, most people would simply laugh at this particular whopper.

3). The corpse of Jesus becomes reanimated and flies away. The incredible tall tale which beats at the very heart by Christianity. I will leave it to you to defend this absurd piece of make believe.

I do not take a literalist approach to the Bible so none of this applies to me. Do you honestly believe that all Christians think alike? Why do you think there are so many denominations?

Scared yourself, did you? I'm not surprised, because that's what the whole heaven and hell, God and Satan rigmarole was designed to do. Scare you right into the arms of the church/priests for protection from the boogey man they have been preaching to you about your entire life. Non theists find that they don't need Christian make believe to protect them from Christian make believe. I know I sleep soundly.

I do not believe in Satan or hell. I do not practice my religion out of fear. But like most menopausal women, I don't always sleep well at night.

Yet in the end you get your reward by dying just like everyone else. Of course you do get to have a make believe life afterwords. But you only get to enjoy that idea while you are still alive. After that, you're dead. Have you noticed that everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is now dead, and that in fact they have uniformly remained most reliably and undeniably dead? This despite 2,000 years of empty claims and make believe about the "return" which Christians have made believe was just about to
happen any second now for the last entire 2,000 years? Just wondering.

I am agnostic when it comes to the afterlife. I think you will find that I am not the typical theist. If you're going to debate with me, you'll have to up your game.