Is atheism lacking?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Is atheism lacking?

Post #1

Post by historia »

This is an oft made point on this forum, but one I want to explore in a bit more depth:
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:37 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:23 pm
If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a belief.
I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.
I think we can all appreciate the case where a person might be ignorant of a particular topic and thus have no beliefs about it. That seems straight-forward.

But, if a person previously believed in X but now no longer believes in X, while spending time on an online forum debating X, it seems less straight-forward (to me anyway) to say that they simply "lack" belief in X. Even if that person is merely contending that there is insufficient evidence (for them, at least) to believe in X, surely we must conclude that constitutes a belief about X.


Question for debate: Is it accurate to say that atheists debating the existence of God on an online forum lack belief in God (or gods), or is there a more accurate way to describe their beliefs vis-a-vis God (or gods)?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #291

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #289]
Faith is in claiming that a Creative cosmic mind credibly exists, without any decent evidence.
Search "Faith"
1: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.



My own understanding of a Creative Cosmic Mind is that there are no known conditions attached to motivation of said Mind. Thus there is no requirement for faith-based beliefs to be attached to the idea of "Creative Cosmic Mind" nor is there a necessity to trust said mind, because trust itself requires conditions which effectively create layers superimposed upon what is known re creation/nature.

It is what it is and there is neither requirement to trust it or to distrust it, as far as I can tell. The "Problem of Evil" is therefore not really a problem of nature so much as a problem humans have created through faulty perception of nature as an attempt to explain death and suffering and the like - thus trust has to be formed where in reality, it is not required

You appear to have also missed this invitation
Post #65

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #292

Post by alexxcJRO »

David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Whether the arguments are "unsound" or "basically playing with words" is precisely what I am disputing. You can't just assert that it's the case, that's begging the question.
Sir you and KALAM proponents claim arrogantly that premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence” is true.
Because of Uncertainty principle you cannot know that is true. Therefore you cannot say conclusion is true because premises are true.
You would have to be omniscient.
But wait omniscience is a logically impossible because no being can really know if it really knows everything. :)

David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Again, whether they are truly "bogus" or "anonymous" is precisely what I intend to dispute, and
No more begged questions, please
Even the Catholics admit the anonymity : Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm
They agree that the traditional titles were a later addition.

That their 2000 years old there is no dispute.

The earlier gospel was dated to be decades after the supposed event:
“The Gospel according to Mark (Greek: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μᾶρκον, romanized: Euangélion katà Mârkon), also called the Gospel of Mark, or simply Mark, is the second of the four canonical gospels and of the three synoptic Gospels. It tells of the ministry of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his death, burial, and the discovery of his empty tomb. There is no miraculous birth or doctrine of divine pre-existence,[1] nor, in the original ending (Mark 16:1–8), any post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.”
Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am If He decides to work miracles through some Indian guru, that's His decision. C.S. Lewis said much the same about Vespasian.

Of course, for all I know, Sai Baba's miracle claims don't defy all cultural expectations in his immediate environment, and aren't used to fundamentally redefine key religious notions. In which case, it would be far easier to dismiss them as mere fabrications than it would be to dismiss the Christian miracle of the Resurrection.
Reincarnation is incompatible with Christian doctrine. The whole mutual exclusive thing.
Off course special pleading takes places. My miracle from my religion is special. Those other miracles from other religion are just fabrication.
The same thinks a Hindu or Muslim of your miracle. A mere fabrication.
Off course its easier to dismiss them as mere fabrications when one is already Christian.
Off course its easier to dismiss Supposed Christian miracle when one is Muslim or Hindu.

David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am And? The point of prayer is to recognize one's own reliance on God, not to convince Him to do this or that particular thing.
Off course a personal God intervention in the universe cannot be empirically proved.
The all unfalsifiable hypothesis logic.


David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am So you claim.
Indeed I do.

David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am It was the "de-mythicization" of the natural world by the monotheistic religions that made science possible.
Your subjective interpretation and biased ponderings "de-mythicizate" the bible by calling problematic parts allegorical, metaphorical or whatever other nonsensical excuse. Bible as originally written like any ancient text Mesopotamian or otherwise are full of myths which writers(ancient goat herder ignorant morons) probably view them as historical. They were probably bored at fire gatherings and embellished stories were among the few means of entertainment and be popular. You’ve heard a story that was not that fantastic. What about some cute embellishment to be more popular and cool cuz’ that’s what humans most desire affirmation by peers. Also was probably a means to obtain money, a job like bards did in medieval times. Profit is always a good excuse for embellishment.
After decades of human greed, psychological weakness and oral transmission the embellishment probably transformed mere normal stories in phantasmagorical magical stories that brought profit, popularity to the users of such practices. In the way a movie embellish on scientific facts and historical facts to make the media more watchable, cinematic and therefore bring more profit.
This mechanism is what lead to the magical stories of the old testament(magical construction of a huge boat by one man ignorant ancient goat herder Noah, magical global flood, magical story of Adam and Eve(original sin and corruption of the universe), Samson magical hair or Moses magical feats or Jona magically living in a fish or Babylon magical language story or Egyptians magical plague, magical talking donkey) and magical stories of magical creatures like dragons, giants, nephilims.
David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Science has confirmed that "de-mythicization" was a Good Idea (TM).
Off course its better to not believe witches-wiccan, gays, fortunetellers should be killed.
Off course its better to not believe its ok to have a slave and to beat him to death as long as he/she does not die the first day or two.

1.Kill Witches
“You should not let a sorceress live.”(Exodus 22:17)
2. Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”(Leviticus 20:13)
3. Kill Fortunetellers
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.”(Leviticus 20:27)
4. Beating your slave to death
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 )
David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Science has created gaps in our knowledge that weren't there before.
And religious people have filled them with the easy answer:GOD ad nauseam since the dawn of mankind.
David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Science has not closed all of the gaps it has created.
Q: So what? That will forever be the case maybe.
That does not gives credence to a forever argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.
David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Short answer? We know enough about the natural world to place limits on what it's capable of. And those limits are pretty strict.
That is probably what the ancient people thought too. That the supposed all natural world places limits on what it's capable of. When in fact natural world was beyond what they imagine and thought possible. That the natural world is capable of more that you know or can imagine. Their “all natural world” was not all natural world. Just a part. And we have been revising what is “all natural word” since our beginning.
You think that natural world cannot bring forth life and universe through process that do not involve God but maybe you are wrong as the ancient people were.
The long record of being wrong i am afraid does not look well for the newest filling of the newest hole with GOD.
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #293

Post by brunumb »

David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Science has created gaps in our knowledge that weren't there before.
That's an interesting claim. Please elaborate for us with some examples and an explanation of exactly how science has created those gaps.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #294

Post by TRANSPONDER »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:46 am
David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:15 am Science has created gaps in our knowledge that weren't there before.
That's an interesting claim. Please elaborate for us with some examples and an explanation of exactly how science has created those gaps.
Two things occur to me - indeterminacy and the (possible) holographic universe. Nobody suspected any such thing, at least in my young day. These are 'gaps that have appeared'. Dark matter and dark energy, too. They are all questions that have popped up that science has to answer. However there is no reason to see them as gaps for God (as some Believers have tried to make them) but are gaps for science, just as the question of the Bronze age collapse was a gap in history. Fortunately no theist has tried to argue that 'God made it collapse'.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #295

Post by William »

There is no reason to reject the notion that a mind behind the existence of our reality, cannot be a scientific one.
On the contrary - given what we already scientifically know about our universe, it would be silly to assume otherwise.

The creation of a Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation would require science, in order to accomplish.

Search "Science"

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #296

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:16 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #289]
Faith is in claiming that a Creative cosmic mind credibly exists, without any decent evidence.
Search "Faith"
1: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.



My own understanding of a Creative Cosmic Mind is that there are no known conditions attached to motivation of said Mind. Thus there is no requirement for faith-based beliefs to be attached to the idea of "Creative Cosmic Mind" nor is there a necessity to trust said mind, because trust itself requires conditions which effectively create layers superimposed upon what is known re creation/nature.

It is what it is and there is neither requirement to trust it or to distrust it, as far as I can tell. The "Problem of Evil" is therefore not really a problem of nature so much as a problem humans have created through faulty perception of nature as an attempt to explain death and suffering and the like - thus trust has to be formed where in reality, it is not required

You appear to have also missed this invitation
Post #65
That 'invitation' seemed pointless or an attempt at misdirection.

The above is either missing the point or misdirection. The point about a Faith -claim is the reaction of a human mind to a claim such as the god-claim. Faith is nothing at all to do with the supposed qualities or workinghs of the mind of this supposed god.t
William wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:24 pm There is no reason to reject the notion that a mind behind the existence of our reality, cannot be a scientific one.
On the contrary - given what we already scientifically know about our universe, it would be silly to assume otherwise.

The creation of a Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation would require science, in order to accomplish.

Search "Science"

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
That is merely making a claim using Jargon terms that sound somewhat sciencey. I have not yet heard that indeterminacy, or even the Holographic universe had made a case for a Cosmic mind. You may have to explain what the case is rather than telling us to search 'science' looking for your evidence.

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #297

Post by TRANSPONDER »

re Holographic universe.

"The Real World
Ultimately, the experiment turned up nothing of the sort. The laser beams stayed right where they were supposed to. It's a result that shouldn't surprise anyone, and physicist Sabine Hossenfelder made it abundantly clear why in a 2012 blog post:

"The idea that space may be digital is a fringe idea of a fringe idea of a speculative subfield of a subfield. I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm just saying if you'd actually go and ask a representative sample of physicists, I guess you'd find that most don't care about the holographic principle and wouldn't agree on any statement about it."

However, Craig Hogan, the head of Fermilab’s Center for Particle Astrophysics and leader of the experiment, has not been deterred. “The first step to do is to do what we've already done, but do more of it—we need to run longer and look more sensitively," Hogan told"
(discover)

Just saying that this is all still theoretical and it would be a mistake to leap to conclusions about what it is or even whether if it was it could have to be done by an intelligence. Like Theists rushing to claiming NDE's as evidence of heaven (never mind 'God') some are too willing to rush prematurely to a conclusion that a theoretical holographic universe must be the result of intelligent activity. Better to wait and see how the discussion pans out.

Until then this is no reason to say that atheism is lacking anything as regards scientifically validated evidence of a logic -based case, even if the holographic universe is ascribed to a god.

Post Reply