Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[robvalue]

For sure, atheists are capable of thinking and acting just as stupidly. I really can't see an atheist church becoming anything like the problem that religious churches are, but it is certainly something to keep an eye on.

And yeah, I'm well aware of atheists who still pedal the "woo", there's plenty of those. I have no idea why they do, but that's up to them. Probably to make the world seem less boring.

But I don't think any of this compares to the utter gullibility of religious servitude. Although I put a lot of it down to indoctrination, so I would call it a case of diminished responsibility to an extent.

---

Oh yeah, fallen! What the holy jesus crackers is up with that? A fallen world. Someone ate an apple, therefore everything is fucked. Well, I blame the parents.

And you know... couldn't god like, unfall it? Is he that stubborn?

Fucks sake god, sort it out.

[Brian37]

Well even atheists do not get a pass. I hate that the word is limited to god claims. It is possible for someone who hold's no god belief to have other woo or superstitions. I've run into atheists who think "all this" meaning the universe is a living thing. I have run into others who buy JFK conspiracies and others who think 9/11 was an inside job. I know others who claim Gene Roddenberry invented the modern cell phone.

"Atheist" merely means "off" on one claim. It says nothing about the individual's education level or critical thinking skills. It says nothing about other superstitions or woo they might hold. It says nothing about their political views or economic views.

I do hate that some atheists are starting "atheist churches". Sounds nice right now, how can a minority become abusive? Easy, think short term and forget that you are not a separate species, create a club, write down words as moral absolutes, POOF, what was a mere position suddenly becomes a dogma with political goals.

Even atheists have extremists sadly.. and the crazies.

Ditch that word "extremists". Ok, the atheist morality of compassion is still evolutionary, and I have the same evolution as say an atheist whom I think is immoral. I do not want to see even atheists fall for that dodge.

If you accept that our morality when we justify doing good or doing bad as evolutionary, then you can deal with conflict resolution much better.

We are still as individuals motivated by evolution to seek resources and a sense of control over our environments.

The loonies of all labels stem from our species paranoia when our egos and patterns we think work get challenged.

---

My position on "extremism" is simple, a suggestion to humanity, not to get rid of labels or boarders, humans flock to like minded people, it is an imperfect part of evolution, but a priority shift to put those differences as less important than our common existence. Don't set up taboos to avoid being offended, but also be willing to know that inside your own label, that the morality is not caused by that label, but our species. See the individual first. See the human first because that is what everybody is born as. We are not born with labels we are born all the same species.

[Mister Agenda]

I do hate that some atheists are starting "atheist churches". Sounds nice right now, how can a minority become abusive? Easy, think short term and forget that you are not a separate species, create a club, write down words as moral absolutes, POOF, what was a mere position suddenly becomes a dogma with political goals.

I'm pretty sure establishing a dogma would be counter to their dogma of not establishing a dogma. Even the Unitarian Universalists and United Church of Christ don't have lists of things you HAVE to believe to be members; just expectations of civil, legal, and safe behavior. I'm sure an atheist 'church' can follow suit.

[FatAndFaithless]

"Chruch" isn't the first word I would've chosen, but eh, no skin off my back, there are plenty of atheist groups that meet regularly that don't call themselves churches, and seeing as there isn't any 'atheist authority' they can call themselves whatever they like. If it gets theists to engage in discussion with atheists more as a result, even if it's just to find out what exactly goes on in their 'church', then I'll take that as a positive.

[dyresand]

I do hate that some atheists are starting "atheist churches". Sounds nice right now, how can a minority become abusive? Easy, think short term and forget that you are not a separate species, create a club, write down words as moral absolutes, POOF, what was a mere position suddenly becomes a dogma with political goals.

I'm pretty sure establishing a dogma would be counter to their dogma of not establishing a dogma. Even the Unitarian Universalists and United Church of Christ don't have lists of things you HAVE to believe to be members; just expectations of civil, legal, and safe behavior. I'm sure an atheist 'church' can follow suit.

a church that teaches science not mythology and having to start off on a mock genesis account but explaining how the universe came to be. My IQ will be safe if a place like that came up around where i lived.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm pretty sure establishing a dogma would be counter to their dogma of not establishing a dogma. Even the Unitarian Universalists and United Church of Christ don't have lists of things you HAVE to believe to be members; just expectations of civil, legal, and safe behavior. I'm sure an atheist 'church' can follow suit.

a church that teaches science not mythology and having to start off on a mock genesis account but explaining how the universe came to be. My IQ will be safe if a place like that came up around where i lived.

isn't that called 'science class'. Without the dogma or infallibility of a church, of course.

[dyresand]

a church that teaches science not mythology and having to start off on a mock genesis account but explaining how the universe came to be. My IQ will be safe if a place like that came up around where i lived.

isn't that called 'science class'. Without the dogma or infallibility of a church, of course.

yes adult science classes we need those near and around churches we just snatch people up and have them come in and get educated after church.

[Brian37]

I do hate that some atheists are starting "atheist churches". Sounds nice right now, how can a minority become abusive? Easy, think short term and forget that you are not a separate species, create a club, write down words as moral absolutes, POOF, what was a mere position suddenly becomes a dogma with political goals.

I'm pretty sure establishing a dogma would be counter to their dogma of not establishing a dogma. Even the Unitarian Universalists and United Church of Christ don't have lists of things you HAVE to believe to be members; just expectations of civil, legal, and safe behavior. I'm sure an atheist 'church' can follow suit.

You'd like to think that, but still not a given. I attended a Unitarian Church for many years. It was pluralistic and very inclusive. And I really liked it because everyone hated Falwell(the same city he lived in). But in 05 when I moved here, they had gotten rid of the preacher because he was too secular and atheistic. He got replaced by a more Jesus fan because the entity of the organization didn't like that direction.

You are not going to avoid power struggles even with saying " we are all equal". It sounds nice on paper, but you do not protect it by presuming that merely saying it, will automatically make that happen.

[GrandizerII]

I can logically argue that God does not exist.

However, God being God, I cannot say with any high confidence that he does not exist in spite of the logic.

Um no. This is bad logic. It is merely splitting the baby out of some well intended but wrong headed sense of fairness and empathy.

Logic is a tool we use to make sense of this world, but it is not a perfect tool for knowledge about everything.

[Asmodee]

I signed up just to respond to this post. I'll introduce myself later.

Let me first define true atheism

The problems start here. This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, an attempt to restrict the definition of something to be more amiable to your position. Regardless what pandering definition you found which you think matches your position, the "definition" of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods, not just God, specifically, as your definition states. There are many forms of atheists. I, for instance, am an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in any gods and, in fact, finds the idea of a god existing ludicrous, but freely accepts that I may be wrong. Am I? Prove it!

Atheism is a complete and total rejection of all theistic claims.

Also wrong. I do not have to reject "all" theistic claims to be an atheist, just the god. If a theist claims to be able to heal with a touch, I can believe that and still be an atheist so long as I don't attribute it to a god.

If theists assert God (creator of the universe and all life in it) does exist, atheists must assert the contrary , i.e. God does not exist.

Wrong. While an atheist may assert specifically that no god exists, to be an atheist one needs only not believe any gods exist, not specifically assert that they do not. So if a theist asserts God exists, the atheist can simply respond "I do not believe that". He or she does not need to make an assertion of non-existence.

A.We have observable empirical evidence of a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes, existing here on earth

B.Therefore a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes existing elsewhere in the universe, including other possible dimensions, is a logical possibility and can not be ruled out

Therefore If A is true then B is logically possible and can not be rejected

A and B are true. The conclusion is not. Any concept can be rejected, no matter how ridiculous it is to do so. The point is valid, but stated improperly.

Atheists will easily accept the existence of a sentient life form (lets call it life form 1.1) that is 1% superior in intelligence to humans, and they will accept this possibility by blind faith using nothing more than logical inferences. So then we must assume life form 1.1 could exist, therefore can not be ruled out of existence. And life form 1.1 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.2., and life form 1.2 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.3 etc. etc.

This is a shambling mess. The main problem here is that "possibility" does not require faith. It requires faith to accept that life form 1.1 does, for sure, exist. Accepting a possibility due to logical inferences in no way resembles "faith". The rest of this is more or less accurate, within logical limits, which I will get to shortly.

And at every step along the way an intelligent life form that is 1% superior in intelligence/attributes can logically & rationally exist from the perspective of the life form that is 1% inferior, and at no point along the way does this chain of slightly superior life forms become an irrational concept (i.e flying spaghetti monsters) from the perspective of the preceding slightly less intelligent life form. Therefore in this chain of logically possible life forms, the existence of life form 100000^100000 (i.e creator of the universe, thus God) becomes as logical a concept as life form 1.1 is.

Incorrect. To assume that because I accept the idea that any given life form in the universe may posses 1% higher average intelligence in no way suggests that I must accept that somewhere along the way this superior intelligence and unnamed "attributes" would make the jump to magical powers. A further problem with this assertion is you are talking about possibilities due to natural processes until you reach the "final stage", which is a being not created by natural processes and, therefore, does not follow the chain. This also has the problem with, let's say, the 1,000 life forms below this "god" getting together and killing it. The first one below it only has 1% less "power". The second one below it only has slightly less than 3% less power. If even those 2 got together they could kill your god. If you accept this argument as valid then you must accept that possibility. And there's another. The 1% ABOVE your god. If we don't stop before your ideal god-creature, why would we have to stop after? now we have God's god. Then God's god's god, etc. Do you accept that there are 100000^100000 beings above your god? If you don't accept the parameters of your on logical conclusions, why should I?

The concept of a God-like intelligence is only rejected by narrow minded subjective atheists that are incapable of mentally grasping the existence of BIG LIFE, when in fact there is no rational, logical or mathematical basis to reject a God-like intelligence from existing. Just as single celled organisms and trillion celled organisms have the same mathematical chances of existing , humans and a God-like sentience also have the same mathematical chances of existing

Again you're making the jump from "ordinary life form bound by the laws of physics" to "super-life form with magical properties which created the physical universe". The two have nothing in common. It's not just apples and oranges, it's apples and Winnebagos.

Not to mention that I, as I mentioned, am an "agnostic atheist", who freely accepts the idea that some god-like being may exist. The concept is ludicrous and I am sure no such fairies exist, but I may be wrong. If I am, prove it and I'll change my mind.

As for your "mathematical chances" of a god existing, that is just plain nonsense. You are again applying the known laws of the universe to something which supposedly created the universe. If a thing created the universe then it, by its nature, cannot be bound by the laws of this universe, making it IMPOSSIBLE to state what the chances of its existence might be because we can state said chances only by what we know of what we can see, measure and quantify, ALL of which lies within our universe. We have no data from outside the universe and do not even know there is an "outside our universe" and can therefore not make any claims whatsoever about the mathematical possibility of a specific imagined being existing.

Understand, the "SIZE OF INTELLIGENCE" has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the potential existence of a sentient life form. Therefore unimaginably small life has the exact same chances of existing as unimaginably big life does as far as logic is concerned, and the IIT proves it at every incremental step.

Again, not true. Very small life has a much bigger chance of existing than very big life. It is believed that very big life came from very small life, so by necessity very small life would be more abundant. More than 100 trillion microorganisms live in our bodies, and the bodies of each of the 7 billion people on Earth. That's 100,000,000,000,000 x 7,000,000,000 microorganisms living in people alone. I think it's safe to say microorganisms are FAR more prevalent than larger organisms.

Once the atheist opens the door of possibility to the existence of life form 1.1, he then must produce a reason to stop this incremental intelligence from reaching Godhood in a stepwise fashion.

The fact that it makes the leap from "natural processes" to "outside the universe" is a good reason to stop. The fact that it makes the leap from "physical life form" to "Ghost Superman with Magical Powers" is a good reason to stop. The fact that you want to stop before going one step further is a good reason to stop.

And the atheist can never produce a valid reason to stop the progression of this incremental intelligence other than he can't mentally comprehend a God-like intelligence existing. Therefore the atheist is forced to compare the concept of God to absurd concepts like flying spaghetti monsters to justify his reasoning in what should be a perfectly logical concept.

Wrong. I just gave you three reasons. And we aren't "forced" to make any comparison to "justify our reasoning". The FSM is an example we use, not "what we are forced to resort to". What is your reasoning for stopping at your God in your "perfectly logical concept"? What is your reasoning for believing that the 50 or so life forms below your god can't get together and kick your god's ass, their combined mental and "other attributes" being able to easily overpower your god.

Atheists illogically and irrationally put a cap on the intelligence/attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, and do so without ever giving an explanation why a God-like intelligence can not exist or is highly unlikely to exist.

That depends on what you mean by "God-like intelligence". Do you mean, "super smart"? I can totally see that. Do you mean, "Magical powers"? That really doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with intelligence now, does it? Do you mean, "A life form created withing the universe, by the universe by natural means which is so much more advanced than us that it appears magical to us"? I can totally see that. Do you mean, "Existed before the universe, created the universe, has ACTUAL magical powers?" A little less believable, not to mention that it makes your little "life form 1.1" analogy completely pointless as it assumes natural processes right up until "I win!" where we suddenly have MAGIC!...not to mention the process mysteriously stops for no apparent reason.

In fact the only logical reason someone has to put a cap on the intelligence levels in the universe, is if a life form knows all that can be possibly be known, thus is all knowing and can't know any more

Not true. There are physical limitations to processing power vs the size of the processor (in this case, the brain). There is also the difference between "intelligence" and "knowledge". There's also the fact that to "know everything" requires "the magical power to watch me poop from outside the universe, of course knowing the smell, consistency, chemical makeup, position of the atoms, subatomic particles, etc., all without being anywhere near me, and do this, but for every subatomic particle in the universe, simultaneously". Now, as each atomic particle, at least, consists of a certain amount of "data" it is logical to assume that any life form, even granting it magical powers, would have to have a way to store this data in order to "know" it. To store the data about the position of an electron, the spin of that electron, etc. would require more matter than a single electron. Let's be generous and say it would require only 2 electrons to store all information about a single electron. Now this being has to be made of fully twice the amount of matter in the universe to be "all knowing", BUT, it can't be made of any of the matter IN the universe or it would be a runaway effect of storing information about 1 requires 2 requires 4 requires 8 requires 16 on to infinity. So, logically, such an "all knowing" creature could not be made of matter and/or could not be contained within our universe, thus, not abiding by ANY of the known laws which govern ANY of the known universe, including life, making it COMPLETELY different from all other possible life, breaking the hell out of your analogy.

Therefore true atheism (not agnosticism) is an illogical concept

Therefore you don't understand logic, science or atheism.