Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Because Athiests in themselves are religious without even realizing it. Almost more so than the christians that I live around here in the gd bible belt.

I've heard it all before "atheists are just as religious as the theists".

Imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy. And they passed special laws on pillows and teeth and dentists that catered to this tooth fairy. You had to buy a certain pillow to make it easier for the tooth fairy. Before every meal, everyone asked the tooth fairy to protect their teeth during this meal. In schools, you had to pledge allegiance to the tooth fairy.

If in that society, I came out as a nonbeliever in this tooth fairy, and said everyone was crazy, and suggested that tooth fairy worship churches shouldnt get special favors, and the government shouldnt design the law based on the laws people believe are handed down by the tooth fairy, would it make any sense at all for someone to criticize me by saying :

"Ha! For someone who claims not to believe in the tooth fairy, you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing over the tooth fairy. You are just as dogmatic and religious about your non-belief in the tooth fairy as the believers are."


This type of argument is really a non-argument. It doesnt adress the issue, its simply a diversion to distract people away from criticizing belief. Its similar to the tactic the left is doing right now, by calling anyone who criticizes Obama a "racist". It gives people the idea of "Uh oh, I dont want to be called a racist, so I better be careful and not criticize Obama's policies". With atheism, it goes, "Uh oh, these people are calling me religious and dogmatic for being an atheist, and I dont want to be called religious and dogmatic, so I better not call myself an atheist, or come out very strong in my convictions."

 

[TortoiseDream]

TD - I'm not a pure mathematician or an expert logician and this seems to be an area you are particularly adept at..I, perhaps erroneously (due to my lack of complete understanding) suggested in a debate your postulation that both religious and mathematical standpoints are faith-based and received the following response...and require your help....sorry for hijacking this thread :o

This is how I'd respond.

Of course there are absolutes in mathematics. Would you for a moment doubt that 2+2=4? OK, let's assume you say even that is not certain. So you say:
"No statement can be absolute."

You're misinterpreting the spirit of mathematics, that is, mathematics has NO connection to truth in any way, shape, or form. Mathematics is simply, SIMPLY, precise manipulation of symbols according to rules, THAT'S IT. More precisely, mathematics is the manipulation of axioms sets with precise rules. In pure mathematics, the statement "2+2=4" follows from a particular "mainstream" set of axioms that "make sense", though the choice of this axiom set is only preferred because it seems to correlate with common sense. One could just as easily define an axiom set that gives 2+2=$, or 2+2=2. I've taken a math course where we actually precisely defined addition; we said it was a function that took in an ordered pair and spit out the sum. If we defined addition differently, 2+2 could equal anything.

In this way ALL statements in mathematics are contingent on the axioms set and set of rules being employed. They are not absolute, and if they were the term "absolute" wouldn't have any connection to reality anyway. So when I say all the axioms in mathematics (more generally logic) are taken on faith, that's because no logical process can lead you to believe one over another. That defeats the purpose of the axioms themselves.

Now, is the above statement absolute? If yes, then there is something absolute; if not, then you cannot be sure if there are absolute statements...

This is more for the realm of philosophy. You can, in principle, doubt anything. But, like you point out, how can I say this knowing that I can also doubt the act of doubting itself? I don't see any conclusion except that you become so skeptical that you are skeptical of being skeptical. Essentially man knows nothing certain, not even his uncertainty. It is the abyss, the dilemma of all human life. Thus you have religion to cling to, it's a savior.

I would like to point out that in mathematics the word 'theory' has a very different meaning from that which is associated with it when speaking, for example, of the theory of evolution. In mathematics a (formal) theory is a system of axioms from which you derive theorems by means of logical rules. The axioms are not something you assume to be "true"; it's more like the theory is an imaginary world that you examine (or at least that's one way to look at it; I personally think that some things are absolute, like 2+2=4, and that mathematics consists of finding out those absolute truths).

That's all right, except for the end. You can personally meditate about the meaning of mathematics on your own, we all do, but from a formalist point of view there is no meaning except for what we inject into it (of course this is true for all domains). Math has no connection to truth. The number 2 does not exist.

 

[TortoiseDream]

If "atheism" is true, then there is no reason why we should believe "atheism" is true. In their worldview, we just live in a corrupt and suffering world for a few years, and then we die into nonexistence.

Seems to me like the only argument here is that atheism is less preferred, thus it is untrue. Does disgust lead to untruth? Should you not embrace truth, regardless of what it may be? Isn't clinging to an imaginary safe-haven foolish? Just playing devil's advocate, but what do you think?

I've heard it all before "atheists are just as religious as the theists".

Imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy. And they passed special laws on pillows and teeth and dentists that catered to this tooth fairy. You had to buy a certain pillow to make it easier for the tooth fairy. Before every meal, everyone asked the tooth fairy to protect their teeth during this meal. In schools, you had to pledge allegiance to the tooth fairy.

If in that society, I came out as a nonbeliever in this tooth fairy, and said everyone was crazy, and suggested that tooth fairy worship churches shouldnt get special favors, and the government shouldnt design the law based on the laws people believe are handed down by the tooth fairy, would it make any sense at all for someone to criticize me by saying :

"Ha! For someone who claims not to believe in the tooth fairy, you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing over the tooth fairy. You are just as dogmatic and religious about your non-belief in the tooth fairy as the believers are."


This type of argument is really a non-argument. It doesnt adress the issue, its simply a diversion to distract people away from criticizing belief. Its similar to the tactic the left is doing right now, by calling anyone who criticizes Obama a "racist". It gives people the idea of "Uh oh, I dont want to be called a racist, so I better be careful and not criticize Obama's policies". With atheism, it goes, "Uh oh, these people are calling me religious and dogmatic for being an atheist, and I dont want to be called religious and dogmatic, so I better not call myself an atheist, or come out very strong in my convictions."

The atheist has faith in logic, his "God" is reason. Like I say so much, you cannot support reason with reason because it defeats the point of reason being the foundation. Whether or not you'd call that religious is another issue, and I don't really care since it's mostly semantics. But you must agree that the atheist adheres to the same kind of romantic hopes as the Christian.

 

[TGGRV]

1. I don't believe in the type of Hell you are referring to. C.S. Lewsis said that ultimately there are two types of people; Those who say to God "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says "Thy will be done." People who are in hell are there because they set the wisdom of God at naught and followed thir own counsel. My religion believes that people go to one of three kingdoms after judgement - even the lowest of which is vastly superior to the earth that we live on (which is actually subject to Satan in other words yes we are currently in Hell.)

There are actually a very few that will go to a place worse than here - those with a full knowledge that Jesus is Christ and deny it. In other words, very few people are ever even capable of committing this sin.

Anyway the short answer is there will be no reason to mourn those not where I am because they will be living in exactly the place and condition that they are happiest in. They will not be with God because they don't WANT to be with God they want...well obviously it varies from person to person.

2. I'd need an example, I would likely say I do not believe the scripture you quote to be the infallible word of God.

3. Although Adam and Eve did not know good from evil, they did understand obedience/disobedience and consequences. Also, punish may not really be the right word as again I think that consequence is more accurate. If you tell a child not to cross the road, are you then punishing the child when they are hit by a car?

4. My religion believes in baptism in behalf of the dead. We believe that those who had no opportunity to hear the gospel in this life will have that opportunity presented to them in the afterlife. If they accept the gospel, then the proxy baptism done in their behalf is in effect. After Jesus' resurrection, He said that He had been preaching to the spirits in prison.

5. We believe that the words Infinite and Eternal are names of God. Thus infinite and eternal punishment means, in this case, God's punishment, not unending punishment. Likewise we believe the gift of eternallife means the gift of living the same type of life that God lives (which in this case IS also unending as God's life is unending.)

6. God's omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive. yes God knows in advance every choice that we will make. But that does not mean that God imposes His will upon us to make those decisions, only that He knows us so intimately that He knows the choice in advance. C.S. Lewsi was once asked that if that were the case, what is the point of life, why did God not just sort us out according to all of the choices that we WOULD make and punish/reward us accordingly? C.S. Lewis responded that knowing that putting dough in an oven at such and such a temperature would make bread did not remove the necessity of putting the dough in the oven if you wanted bread made. In other words, something is done in the process of making these choices, something that God would not do just by "waving His magic wand". So yes He knows already where we will all end up, but we still have to walk the path to get there. And I am sure that I didn;t word it as well as C.S. Lewis, I will try to find the book and anecdote and include it later.

7. I think your analogy is off. I think the truth is saying you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but if you exercise your freedom of speech by walking up to a 250 lb. drunk bodybuilder and telling him he is ugly and his mom is good in bed you will be punished with a bloody nose or worse.

A quote that comes to mind is that we are not so much punished for our sins as we are by our sins. For instance take a child molester...imagine what it would be like to live for eternity knowing what you had done? That is hell. It is not the devil sticking at you with a pitchfork it is an awareness of the consequences of your actions with a fully awakened sense of conscience.

I also believe that people are only punished (or suffer guilt for) things that they were aware were wrong. I believe that an atheist who honestly has sought to find out if there is a God and for whatever reason has not been given a witness - well I would say in his case that if he was trying to dissuade a believer from believing because he thought they had been deceived - and thus was doing him a favor - I cannot imagine that he would be punished for that. However, i don't think that is true for someone who refuses to believe because he knows the changes that would require him or her to make in their own lives. I think many of these people either know better or at one point did know better and talked themselves out of believing. I do believe that these people will be held responsible for any that they lead away from belief. That's one of those situations that "only they and god know what is in ther heart", and I am sure there are as many shades of grey as their are people.

Sorry this is kind of laymanish. It's what I believe, and I jsut felt like answering because as I read your questions I felt like I could answer them. I am sure many of them fall short of satisfying you, but as I said they are sufficient for myself.

How can you say that Adam and Eve getting kicked out of Eden not being punishment? lol. Anyway, if you can't know right for wrong, you can't know obedience. Obedience follows the same pattern because you obey because you know that's the RIGHT thing to do.

And my analogy isn't off. Yours is off because being damned is systematic, just like the government encroaching the right to free speech.

pacelli, just read the Bible. Why did God have to check if the people in Sodom and Gomorrah are astray? Or why did he need Cain to confess? I can go on with the examples in which God didn't know what was going to happen, even though he is omniscient. And this is in all Abrahamic religions.

You can't respect a law if you don't know that it is the right thing to do.

Hell is an infinite punishment.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

I've heard it all before "atheists are just as religious as the theists".

Imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy. And they passed special laws on pillows and teeth and dentists that catered to this tooth fairy. You had to buy a certain pillow to make it easier for the tooth fairy. Before every meal, everyone asked the tooth fairy to protect their teeth during this meal. In schools, you had to pledge allegiance to the tooth fairy.

If in that society, I came out as a nonbeliever in this tooth fairy, and said everyone was crazy, and suggested that tooth fairy worship churches shouldnt get special favors, and the government shouldnt design the law based on the laws people believe are handed down by the tooth fairy, would it make any sense at all for someone to criticize me by saying :

"Ha! For someone who claims not to believe in the tooth fairy, you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing over the tooth fairy. You are just as dogmatic and religious about your non-belief in the tooth fairy as the believers are."


This type of argument is really a non-argument. It doesnt adress the issue, its simply a diversion to distract people away from criticizing belief. Its similar to the tactic the left is doing right now, by calling anyone who criticizes Obama a "racist". It gives people the idea of "Uh oh, I dont want to be called a racist, so I better be careful and not criticize Obama's policies". With atheism, it goes, "Uh oh, these people are calling me religious and dogmatic for being an atheist, and I dont want to be called religious and dogmatic, so I better not call myself an atheist, or come out very strong in my convictions."

The point is, I dont give a shit what anyone believes. Thats their business. Its really a stupid waste of time arguing with either side.

 

[Objectivist]

Funny thread.

 

[thevinci]

Muchas gracias TD

 

[Spot the Fed]

I would have to agree that I do this. I do this whenever I encounter someone who believes something I think is a fantasy. I take the same stance against 911 truthers, and chemtrailers.

*cough* insufferable douche *cough*

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The point is, I dont give a shit what anyone believes. Thats their business. Its really a stupid waste of time arguing with either side.

Why does this rule only apply to religion? Does religion not play a major part in the structure of our society?

Ill buy into your argument when the religious stfu and keep their religion to themselves.

 

[thevinci]

Grr....I've become the proxy in a debate!!!
Help? lol

"So basically you're a formalist. I'm a platonist. I believe that yes, there is Absolute Truth, but of course there has to be a clear distinction between something that's absolutely true, regardless if anybody knows it and absolute certainty -- that is, knowing that something is true. Of course, this introduces the element of faith or metaphysics, if you will, and some people don't like it. But I personally feel you can never avoid it. And I also think formalists are kind of hypocritical when they say how supposedly nothing in mathematics exists, and it's all just symbol manipulation, because then you can ask, "So how do you know symbols exist? How do you know manipulating them is real?", and I'm not sure what would be their response, but this to me shows how this element of faith is inevitable in mathematics. In fact, I believe, manipulating symbols amounts to arithmetic, so believing in symbols and not believing in numbers doesn't make sense to me.

Then you can hear some people even say how, in the end, not even these basic operations are certain; "nothing is certain, not even logic", which doesn't make sense when the same people are forced to use it in their "reasonings", it's inevitable. And then it goes:

"Nothing is certain. It's not even certain that nothing is certain. And the preceding statement isn't certain, either. And the same about the preceding one. And the preceding... [Then, after infinitely many statements:] None of the preceding statements are certain. etc."

This doesn't lead anywhere. Obviously, there must be something that we should be able to hang onto. I know there are fundamental problems with this when, for instance, you can assume either an axiom or its negation, and both versions are equiconsistent, but to this I say: just because we don't know which one is true, doesn't mean neither is. Do you understand what I'm saying?"

 

[Mini-Me]

Why does this rule only apply to religion? Does religion not play a major part in the structure of our society?

Ill buy into your argument when the religious stfu and keep their religion to themselves.

Although I agree to an extent, if you focus on opposing coercive power in general, that will encompass any damage that coercive religious people can do to you. I think spending your efforts attacking religion is a mistake, because it alienates religious people who don't want to push their beliefs onto you (and who might join you in opposing coercion), and it also bypasses people who want to control you for non-religious reasons.

 

[Feenix566]

Aside from the occasional thread about religion on RPF, I don't have any religious people pounding me over the head with their religion. So it doesn't really bother me. If you all want to believe that Jesus is saving you from your sins, go ahead. I pity you because you're throwing your life away. But it's yours to throw away, so it's no sweat off my back.

 

[TortoiseDream]

"So basically you're a formalist. I'm a platonist. I believe that yes, there is Absolute Truth, but of course there has to be a clear distinction between something that's absolutely true, regardless if anybody knows it and absolute certainty -- that is, knowing that something is true.

Of course, and I think most people, including me, would agree that absolute certainty is a romance and unattainable. Things can always be doubted.

Of course, this introduces the element of faith or metaphysics, if you will, and some people don't like it. But I personally feel you can never avoid it.

Right, that's my point. If you believe math has connection to reality, then it is faith based.

And I also think formalists are kind of hypocritical when they say how supposedly nothing in mathematics exists, and it's all just symbol manipulation, because then you can ask, "So how do you know symbols exist? How do you know manipulating them is real?", and I'm not sure what would be their response, but this to me shows how this element of faith is inevitable in mathematics. In fact, I believe, manipulating symbols amounts to arithmetic, so believing in symbols and not believing in numbers doesn't make sense to me.

Symbol's don't exist; rather pen ink exists, pencil lead exists, chalk dust exists. The symbols are our interpretations of these things when placed in aesthetically pleasing ways. And also, I don't know what formalists you talk to, but my opinion is not to replace faith in numbers with faith in symbols. I don't want to replace it with anything. This amounts math to a game, simply a game that we play for fun. I do math for enjoyment and speculation, but I do not connect it to truth.

Then you can hear some people even say how, in the end, not even these basic operations are certain; "nothing is certain, not even logic", which doesn't make sense when the same people are forced to use it in their "reasonings", it's inevitable. And then it goes:

"Nothing is certain. It's not even certain that nothing is certain. And the preceding statement isn't certain, either. And the same about the preceding one. And the preceding... [Then, after infinitely many statements:] None of the preceding statements are certain. etc."

Right.

This doesn't lead anywhere. Obviously, there must be something that we should be able to hang onto.

How is that in anyway obvious? What what does it mean to be obvious in the first place, what are the implications of "obvious"? Infinite regression is unavoidable if one is to critically doubt what he sees (metaphorically speaking). The only way to "escape" the chain is by a leap of faith. Hence religion, reason, etc.

I know there are fundamental problems with this when, for instance, you can assume either an axiom or its negation, and both versions are equiconsistent, but to this I say: just because we don't know which one is true, doesn't mean neither is. Do you understand what I'm saying?"

I do, but you must remember that all of your arguments and attempts to convince anyone of anything are based in your logical reasoning. It really makes communicating a silly thing, but I think that's the way it is.