Are all religions cults?

[Foxaèr]

I’m asking you, how you come to the conclusion that they are unrealistic?  Why should I believe your claims here?

Due to reality.

It's not a difficult concept to perceive.

God makes no appearance, he does not speak to us from the heavens to let us know he's real, he doesn't do anything except for what "believers" claim he does.

I'm not taking the "claims" of believers over what I could be experiencing if god was real and made himself empirically known.

What you have is personal, fallible faith because you want to believe in a fantasy of god's existence over the reality that he doesn't exist. It's fucking sad. And we shouldn't be having this argument, except that you cannot seem to reason properly when it comes to your silly religious beliefs.

It if fucking sad. So fucking sad.

It is the believers who are to be pitied, for they have forsaken reality for the fantasy that provides nothing except personal comfort. A delusion that shields them from the reality that god does not exist.

How fucking sad.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Do you think that shifting the burden of proof justifies your claim?  The religious person could do this as well, but I view that as fallacious reasoning. It’s another atheist delusion that theists point to no evidence for God, but if we are both just assuming our view is true, and it’s up to the other to show it as false, then we are not going to get very far.

Except it's only theists assuming that their belief is true.

Unless you are gnostic atheist like me, then atheism is one of scepticism. The majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. This has been explained to you a myriad of times before and you keep ignoring it.

And personally speaking as a gnostic atheist, it's still not the case that we are both assuming that our views are true. You may be, but my view is shaped by what we have discovered to be true because of science. The modern world would not exist if the discoveries of science were just assumed to be true. Unfortunately for you, they contradict your theist beliefs.

[RoadRunner79]

I’m asking you, how you come to the conclusion that they are unrealistic?  Why should I believe your claims here?

Due to reality.

That appears to be your conclusion;  if it's also your reasons for that conclusion, then wouldn't that be begging the question?

It's not a difficult concept to perceive.

God makes no appearance, he does not speak to us from the heavens to let us know he's real, he doesn't do anything except for what "believers" claim he does.

I'm not taking the "claims" of believers over what I could be experiencing if god was real and made himself empirically known.

What you have is personal, fallible faith because you want to believe in a fantasy of god's existence over the reality that he doesn't exist.  It's fucking sad.  And we shouldn't be having this argument, except that you cannot seem to reason properly when it comes to your silly religious beliefs.

It if fucking sad.  So fucking sad.

It is the believers who are to be pitied, for they have forsaken reality for the fantasy that provides nothing except personal comfort.  A delusion that shields them from the reality that god does not exist.

How fucking sad.

So then, anything that you have not personally experienced, is delusional?   This seems a little ridiculous to me.

---

Do you think that shifting the burden of proof justifies your claim?  The religious person could do this as well, but I view that as fallacious reasoning. It’s another atheist delusion that theists point to no evidence for God, but if we are both just assuming our view is true, and it’s up to the other to show it as false, then we are not going to get very far.

Except it's only theists assuming that their belief is true.

I don't.... and it appears here, that a number of atheists do as well.  

Unless you are  gnostic atheist like me, then atheism is one of scepticism. The majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. This has been explained to you a myriad of times before and you keep ignoring it.

And personally speaking as a gnostic atheist, it's still not the case that we are both assuming that our views are true. You may be, but my view is shaped by what we have discovered to be true because of science. The modern world would not exist if the discoveries of science were just assumed to be true. Unfortunately for you, they contradict your theist beliefs.

I agree, that there are atheists who are just skeptical and not making any claims.   However I find that many do, and then claim they do not.  If you are just skeptical, then you are not making a claim about reality, and therefore cannot claim that theists are delusional for denying that reality.  

For instance, what is it, that you claim that in science contradicts a theists view?

[I_am_not_mafia]

For instance, what is it, that you claim that in science contradicts a theists view?

• The laws of thermodynamics.
  
• What science is finding out about the very nature of intelligence contradicts the idea of an omniscient and eternal god.
  
• Speed of light is a constant and nothing can go faster than it.
  
• There is no physical mechanism for your god to sense and interact with the world.
  

[RoadRunner79]

For instance, what is it, that you claim that in science contradicts a theists view?

• The laws of thermodynamics.
  
• What science is finding out about the very nature of intelligence contradicts the idea of an omniscient and eternal god.
  
• Speed of light is a constant and nothing can go faster than it.
  
• There is no physical mechanism for your god to sense and interact with the world.
  

I don't see where any of that contradicts theism.

The law of thermodynamics is often used in support of it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

• The laws of thermodynamics.
  
• What science is finding out about the very nature of intelligence contradicts the idea of an omniscient and eternal god.
  
• Speed of light is a constant and nothing can go faster than it.
  
• There is no physical mechanism for your god to sense and interact with the world.
  

I don't see where any of that contradicts theism.

The law of thermodynamics is often used in support of it.

Wrongly though. The argument goes that life violates the second law but it does not because order is created locally at the cost of an increase of global entropy.

1) The second law of Thermodynamics means that global entropy must always increase. This means that your god cannot be eternal. What's his power source?
2) An omniscient god cannot be intelligent (plus all forms of intelligence are self organising systems subject to the laws of thermodynamics)
3) Where is your god and how far away is he? The speed of light means latency is an issue.
4) Scientists have found no mechanisms by which your god can sense and interact with the world. But you say he does, and to a significant degree as well. If this was true, the physical mechanisms would have been discovered by now (and also exploited).

[RoadRunner79]

I don't see where any of that contradicts theism.

The law of thermodynamics is often used in support of it.

Wrongly though. The argument goes that life violates the second law but it does not because order is created locally at the cost of an increase of global entropy.

1) The second law of Thermodynamics means that global entropy must always increase. This means that your god cannot be eternal. What's his power source?
2) An omniscient god cannot be intelligent (plus all forms of intelligence are self organising systems subject to the laws of thermodynamics)
3) Where is your god and how far away is he? The speed of light means latency is an issue.
4) Scientists have found no mechanisms by which your god can sense and interact with the world. But you say he does, and to a significant degree as well. If this was true, the physical mechanisms would have been discovered by now (and also exploited).

So you seem to be treating a non-physical thing, like a physical thing.   This would be a category error.

However
1.  God is the source and sustainer of all things and is not contingent on anything else.    Wouldn't this also apply to the physical universe as well.   It seems that your argument here, needs a prime mover, something like God to be the first cause. 

2. This is going to depend on what you mean by intelligence.

3.  God is omnipresent.  So how is the speed of light an issue?


4.  This argument appears to assume that everything that exists is known to scientists, and that which they have not found does not exist.   What are we paying them for then?  And if you are claiming scientists are omniscient, then I would refer you back to your point 2, and ask that you support this claim.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So you seem to be treating a non-physical thing, like a physical thing.   This would be a category error.

Nope. Because religionists claim that their god can sense and interact with the physical world. You cannot do that if you are a non-physical thing.

Name another thing that exists that is non-physical. You cannot. Therefore saying that your god is a non-physical thing is special pleading.

However
1.  God is the source and sustainer of all things and is not contingent on anything else.    Wouldn't this also apply to the physical universe as well.   It seems that your argument here, needs a prime mover, something like God to be the first cause. 

What is your god's power source? How can your god do anything if there isn't some equivalent to the laws of thermodynamics? How can he function? How can he think?

Suggesting that your god is the only thing that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics makes no sense and is special pleading.

2. This is going to depend on what you mean by intelligence.

Sure there are many definitions of intelligence, but every form of natural intelligence is a self organising system subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Brains settle into stable states and get driven out of them. Whether that happens at the level of dendrites, neurons, neural activity of entire cortices or emotions.

What we understand as intelligence comes from natural intelligence. Again it's special pleading to argue that your god's intelligence is something different. Add to that my thread about how if you are omniscient then you cannot be intelligent, just the equivalent of a universal look-up table.

3.  God is omnipresent.  So how is the speed of light an issue?

So how come we cannot sense or interact with your god considering that he can sense and interact with the physical world? Why can't we feed your god into a generator to provide our homes with energy? I would like to find ways to cut my electricity bill.

4.  This argument appears to assume that everything that exists is known to scientists, and that which they have not found does not exist.   What are we paying them for then?  And if you are claiming scientists are omniscient, then I would refer you back to your point 2, and ask that you support this claim.

We can measure down to the level of the sub-atomic level and still no sign of any omnipresent god. If something was able to sense and interact with the world to the extent that religionists claim then we would have been able to measure it by now.

[RoadRunner79]

Concerning thermodynamics.   Would you consider this a physical property or a metaphysical one.  

In trying to make the case against God, you seemed to have made the case for Him!

[I_am_not_mafia]

Concerning thermodynamics.   Would you consider this a physical property or a metaphysical one.  

I can answer that when you give a good definition of what metaphysics is.

In trying to make the case against God, you seemed to have made the case for Him!

Not in the slightest.