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]

The problem with the theist position is that it extends the limits of human knowledge to include make believe. The scientific empirical method seeks to extend human knowledge incrementally through observation and experimentation by carefully building on knowledge layer by layer as it is acquired. And proper science is required to accept facts as they become apparent, without prejudice. Theists on the other hand feel free to make it up as they go along, formulating assumptions which seek to support comforting predetermined conclusions that will serve to assuage their emotional wants and to reinforce their personal sensibilities. In other words, make believe.

This goes beyond personal opinion to personal bias. Theists are not simply making it up as they go along. 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. True spiritual practice requires a great deal of discipline, but the rewards are great.

[Quath]

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.

This is the faith/belief vs evidence/logic issue. I remember when I was going to church as a child, one preacher was talking about the virtues of blind faith. He saw this as one of the great virtues we could have and it allows for us to believe in stuff not proven.

But that morning my mother was mad at me for doing something my friend talked me into doing. She asked, "If he told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" Obviously, the correct answer was , "No." However, if I had blind faith, then it should be "Yes."

I realized with blind faith, I should have as much faith in the existence of Superman, my ability to fly if I wished hard enough and mermaids in the lake near my home.

So I realized that blind faith leads to a world of pure guesses where every possibility is just as good as the next. So I backed off of that and tried to work with a more rational faith. But the more I tried to make that work, the less faith there could be until I was back to logic/evidence.

So while people may say that science doesn't have all the answers, wild guesses have no way of getting any closer to the truth.

[Waiting4evidence]

Waiting4evidence;

Your statement is not entirely true, for the Atheist has made up their mind that there is no god, which is to me, as absurd as someone making up their mind there is one.

Agnosticism is our better choice, I simply admit that I do not know whether there is or is not a god. I weigh the data before me, have my personal ideas and hopes, but at the end of the day I know that I do not really know.

False. The atheist has NOT made up his mind that God doesn't exist. The atheist has just made up his mind that the evidence presented to him thus far is insufficient to determine that God exists. If new evidence is discovered, we'd be happy to look at it and change our opinion on the existence of God.

[Waiting4evidence]

God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips

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

By any chance would they be the same instruments you could use to demonstrate the existence of Thor, Zeus, Santa, Leprechauns, Big Foot and Spiderman?

If you need to use your faith/belief/imagination/hope/spirituality to discover/demonstrate something, then that thing is no more real than anything else you could discover/demonstrate using faith/belief/imagination/hope/spirituality.

I assure you millions of children believe in the Tooth Fairy as strongly as you believe in the Talking Snake. What's the difference?

[kayky]

This is the faith/belief vs evidence/logic issue. I remember when I was going to church as a child, one preacher was talking about the virtues of blind faith. He saw this as one of the great virtues we could have and it allows for us to believe in stuff not proven.

But that morning my mother was mad at me for doing something my friend talked me into doing. She asked, "If he told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" Obviously, the correct answer was , "No." However, if I had blind faith, then it should be "Yes."

I realized with blind faith, I should have as much faith in the existence of Superman, my ability to fly if I wished hard enough and mermaids in the lake near my home.

So I realized that blind faith leads to a world of pure guesses where every possibility is just as good as the next. So I backed off of that and tried to work with a more rational faith. But the more I tried to make that work, the less faith there could be until I was back to logic/evidence.

So while people may say that science doesn't have all the answers, wild guesses have no way of getting any closer to the truth.

I am also against "blind faith.". But I do have faith my own experience. God can be experienced and known. Religion is just a path to that experience.

[Waiting4evidence]

As I see it, the problem with the atheist position is that it limits the realm of human knowledge to the scientific method. The scientific method is very effective in performing the job it was designed to do, but its self-imposed limitations are just as effective in doing just that: limiting the realm of human experience it can explore. That is the purpose of art, poetry, myth, and even religion.

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?

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?"

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.

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.

[kayky]

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...

[Waiting4evidence]

Personally, I see the same problem with both of these threads; extremists on both sides trying to show that theirs is the only acceptable way to think and that those who disagree do not merely disagree, but are irrational, stupid and/or mentally unbalanced. Me, I believe in freedom of thought.

Atheism is a perfectly rational and defensible position; one who sees no evidence for any gods, and thinks that objective evidence is necessary for such beliefs, would logically reject such beliefs until such evidence is presented.

Theism CAN BE perfectly rational and defensible as well. In my opinion, Biblical literalism is neither, but people are still allowed to think that way if they like, so long as they do not insist that others do the same. That said, though, one who regards religious beliefs as matters of ethics, community, metaphor, and heritage, as opposed to matters of objective fact (note my signature) is perfectly free to take that approach -- without, let us hope, being subjected to the criticisms and ridicule of those who insist that literalism and supernaturalism are all that there is or can be to this thing called "religion." That contention is as objectively inaccurate and stereotyped as the contention that atheism entails any beliefs or claims other than the absence of a belief in gods.

As I have said many, many times; there is no such thing as "religion." There are only specific religions, and there is no attribute, practice, or belief that is common to them all. Some have nothing to say about supernaturalism or gods; some regard such beliefs as optional, trivial and matters of individual taste, whether they are held or not.

The single most reliable identifying characteristic of bigotry is, and has always been, the perception that "they're all alike." All atheists are not alike; and neither are all theists. One should take care that one does not become that which one opposes.

I agree 100%. As I wrote in previous posts on this thread. As long as you don't make the statement "It is objectively true that there once was a talking donkey", you are allowed to take as much solace and inspiration from the tradition, heritage and sense of community associated with the literature in Numbers 22 or any other portion of any other book.

[Waiting4evidence]

This is the faith/belief vs evidence/logic issue. I remember when I was going to church as a child, one preacher was talking about the virtues of blind faith. He saw this as one of the great virtues we could have and it allows for us to believe in stuff not proven.

But that morning my mother was mad at me for doing something my friend talked me into doing. She asked, "If he told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" Obviously, the correct answer was , "No." However, if I had blind faith, then it should be "Yes."

I realized with blind faith, I should have as much faith in the existence of Superman, my ability to fly if I wished hard enough and mermaids in the lake near my home.

So I realized that blind faith leads to a world of pure guesses where every possibility is just as good as the next. So I backed off of that and tried to work with a more rational faith. But the more I tried to make that work, the less faith there could be until I was back to logic/evidence.

So while people may say that science doesn't have all the answers, wild guesses have no way of getting any closer to the truth.

I am also against "blind faith.". But I do have faith my own experience. God can be experienced and known. Religion is just a path to that experience.

"God can be experienced and known". Yeah, so can the Great Snake God. If you eat enough Peyote.

Doesn't mean God or the Great Snake God are real.

[Waiting4evidence]

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...

Those tools can just as easily lead you to the conclusion that it is most definitely 100% TRUE that Jesus is the son of God, as they can lead you to the conclusion that it is most definitely 100% FALSE that Jesus is the son of God.

If I had a compass that sometimes told me north was one way, then 2 minutes later told me that it was a different way, and another 2 minutes later told me it was a different way still, then it WOULDN'T BE A GOOD TOOL FOR DETERMINING WHERE NORTH IS!

If "mediation, religious reading, prayer, etc" can draw me to the conclusion that reincarnation is definitely 100% real one minute, and draw me to the conclusion that reincarnation is definitely 100% NOT real the next minute, then IT WOULDN'T BE A GOOD TOOL FOR DETERMINING WHETHER REINCARNATION IS REAL.