RE: Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.
January 26, 2013 at 9:04 am
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2013 at 9:05 am by Golbez.)
Re:Violet Lilly Blossom
Unfortunately, the problem with this type of "evidence" is it doesn't point to a biblical god, or judeo or Islamic or any other specific type of god. It points to all of them, including Zeus, Poseidon and the 2700 other "dead" gods equally, as well as the flying spaghetti monster, and the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. And in that regard, it's not really evidence at all. Otherwise, provide evidence that the world exists due to the Biblical god and let's see how that can be justified.
Also, your definition of evidence includes miracles, of which can only refer to people getting healthy when they're sick, or people who happen upon some sort of good fortune and blame luck or otherwise serendipitous events on a god. But no true miracles will ever be documented, verified and validated in this day and age. Nevertheless, that's enough to count as "evidence" for someone who doesn't understand what they've witnessed, or thought they've witnessed. That isn't, however, any supporting reason to show that a god exists. It's merely a circumstance which continues to delude those who wish it were so. I could find a penny in my couch cushion that I could use as "evidence" that a "couch cushion fairy" exists. If we want to lower the bar and debase the value and meaning of evidence, then I guess "everything" is fair game as evidence god exists. But that essentially acknowledges there is no credible evidence. There's only "evidence."
Regarding what can be decidedly known, you state some bold opinions. Not sure it's supported. How does knowing something make you blind? I guess of fake beliefs of that something. But otherwise, I don't see it. Surely it is better to know our universe than to pretend that a million different possibilities exist to explain how light works. Does it make us blind that we have the knowledge to understand and build technologies to assemble computers, or space craft? If the argument is somehow, the more we know, the blinder we are, then I'd rather not see.
How is it a more simple life? Because it removes the imagination of those million different "possibilities?" If so, again, who cares? Your arguments tend to support the idea that "ignorance is bliss." Maybe that's the life style you value. But that's certainly not for me. I have but one short life, filled with suffering, shared with others destined to also suffer. I want to alleviate as much of that suffering as I can, and enjoy it as much as possible with those I love. Knowledge is the way to remove such burdens. And that is about as righteous in life as it can get. So on that point, I agree.
And I've considered that god could have written the first translation. Doesn't make it any more plausible or credible. But certainly possible. Why anyone would want to bastardize a direct work of god, whom they claim to cherish, is beyond me (yet so many versions and discrepancies exist). Not that I care to entertain that hypothesis for any longer than it's worth.
"He ascended into heaven." You forget that Heaven, LIKE ALL THE REST OF RELIGION (OMG), is not a physical location in the universe and cannot be examined by science. His body would not literally rise up (would it even have been perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the earth on his side of the earth to go straight up +/- 30 degrees?) and go to heaven. It would be his alleged spirit/soul. If it was thought that Heaven was a physical location that bared some sort of universal coordinates that hosted physical bodies, it would be quite easy to test whether such a location receives any eternal guests, which would itself be a strong indication of its lack of existence.
Regarding evidence types of religion v. parents, yes, DNA is that critical, empirical link that can connect an offspring to its parents. Or we can simply witness one's birth. Either way, legitimate evidence contrasts the two comparisons.
Concerning my finding him, it is a rather convenient argument, although it's mere wishful thinking. Time and again we're told how mysterious he is and that we can't understand his will. But when we're curious as to why he can't use his all mighty power to reveal that he exists to anyone besides almost-cavemen of 2000 years ago, we have a solid grasp on his will: we need to find him. It's this random and arbitrary edict that he cannot forsake. How dare he create us in his image and make the entire universe for our blessing and focus all of existence around us, because oh how great we are, we are his pinnacle achievement, but, you know, never stop by and visit. Because what would the other galaxies think if we got special treatment, aside from all that other special treatment?
As an aside, why is it that god is assumed to be a "he?" Not sure he has personal procreation on the docket. But let's pretend he's got sex organs and hormones and masculinity. No, he couldn't have been a creation of a patriarchal society over thousands of years by otherwise fairly dim people. His alleged perfect text of generally bad morals, contradictions and inconsistencies is too sacredly divine to be an invention of man. And with the number one best seller of all time, he has retired from authoring. Not even god could do better than that, after all.
Unfortunately, the problem with this type of "evidence" is it doesn't point to a biblical god, or judeo or Islamic or any other specific type of god. It points to all of them, including Zeus, Poseidon and the 2700 other "dead" gods equally, as well as the flying spaghetti monster, and the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. And in that regard, it's not really evidence at all. Otherwise, provide evidence that the world exists due to the Biblical god and let's see how that can be justified.
Also, your definition of evidence includes miracles, of which can only refer to people getting healthy when they're sick, or people who happen upon some sort of good fortune and blame luck or otherwise serendipitous events on a god. But no true miracles will ever be documented, verified and validated in this day and age. Nevertheless, that's enough to count as "evidence" for someone who doesn't understand what they've witnessed, or thought they've witnessed. That isn't, however, any supporting reason to show that a god exists. It's merely a circumstance which continues to delude those who wish it were so. I could find a penny in my couch cushion that I could use as "evidence" that a "couch cushion fairy" exists. If we want to lower the bar and debase the value and meaning of evidence, then I guess "everything" is fair game as evidence god exists. But that essentially acknowledges there is no credible evidence. There's only "evidence."
Regarding what can be decidedly known, you state some bold opinions. Not sure it's supported. How does knowing something make you blind? I guess of fake beliefs of that something. But otherwise, I don't see it. Surely it is better to know our universe than to pretend that a million different possibilities exist to explain how light works. Does it make us blind that we have the knowledge to understand and build technologies to assemble computers, or space craft? If the argument is somehow, the more we know, the blinder we are, then I'd rather not see.
How is it a more simple life? Because it removes the imagination of those million different "possibilities?" If so, again, who cares? Your arguments tend to support the idea that "ignorance is bliss." Maybe that's the life style you value. But that's certainly not for me. I have but one short life, filled with suffering, shared with others destined to also suffer. I want to alleviate as much of that suffering as I can, and enjoy it as much as possible with those I love. Knowledge is the way to remove such burdens. And that is about as righteous in life as it can get. So on that point, I agree.
And I've considered that god could have written the first translation. Doesn't make it any more plausible or credible. But certainly possible. Why anyone would want to bastardize a direct work of god, whom they claim to cherish, is beyond me (yet so many versions and discrepancies exist). Not that I care to entertain that hypothesis for any longer than it's worth.
"He ascended into heaven." You forget that Heaven, LIKE ALL THE REST OF RELIGION (OMG), is not a physical location in the universe and cannot be examined by science. His body would not literally rise up (would it even have been perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the earth on his side of the earth to go straight up +/- 30 degrees?) and go to heaven. It would be his alleged spirit/soul. If it was thought that Heaven was a physical location that bared some sort of universal coordinates that hosted physical bodies, it would be quite easy to test whether such a location receives any eternal guests, which would itself be a strong indication of its lack of existence.
Regarding evidence types of religion v. parents, yes, DNA is that critical, empirical link that can connect an offspring to its parents. Or we can simply witness one's birth. Either way, legitimate evidence contrasts the two comparisons.
Concerning my finding him, it is a rather convenient argument, although it's mere wishful thinking. Time and again we're told how mysterious he is and that we can't understand his will. But when we're curious as to why he can't use his all mighty power to reveal that he exists to anyone besides almost-cavemen of 2000 years ago, we have a solid grasp on his will: we need to find him. It's this random and arbitrary edict that he cannot forsake. How dare he create us in his image and make the entire universe for our blessing and focus all of existence around us, because oh how great we are, we are his pinnacle achievement, but, you know, never stop by and visit. Because what would the other galaxies think if we got special treatment, aside from all that other special treatment?
As an aside, why is it that god is assumed to be a "he?" Not sure he has personal procreation on the docket. But let's pretend he's got sex organs and hormones and masculinity. No, he couldn't have been a creation of a patriarchal society over thousands of years by otherwise fairly dim people. His alleged perfect text of generally bad morals, contradictions and inconsistencies is too sacredly divine to be an invention of man. And with the number one best seller of all time, he has retired from authoring. Not even god could do better than that, after all.
Religious but open minded about the arguments of atheists? You may have spent your whole life learning about the arguments for religion. May I present to you 10 segmented hours for the case against it?
