Fresh Outbreak of Religion-Bashing Threads

[karlhenning]

At least all of drogulus' (Ernie's?) views are internally consistent

Oh! That really is a peculiar remark, Joe!  The only consistency observable in Ernie is his cheap disdain for anyone who thinks otherwise than he on the matter of religion.

And Roseanne Barr possesses more composure than Ernie.

[Joe_Campbell]

Oh! That really is a peculiar remark, Joe!  The only consistency observable in Ernie is his cheap disdain for anyone who thinks otherwise than he on the matter of religion.

And Roseanne Barr possesses more composure than Ernie.

haha...then you got my point....shhhhh!

Whenever I get the feeling that I get a slight insult from Drog, I almost feel like shaking his hand, because they're so vieled that I almost wonder if I should thank him for his discreetness..

[Iconito]

Right, and it is a belief that pretends to only be based on evidence, whlie it has no evidence to go with. Atheism has no evidence whatsoever that the ultimate basis for the material world is materialistic, and treats its unevidenced "extrapolation from science" as evidence. And without realizing that that extrapolation is not even scientific, but philosophical.

The claim of atheists that their beliefs are based on evidence is their ultimate grand delusion.

Or on their "clear thinking" and "free thinking". Clear thinking I have not encountered much in my latest discussions with atheists here (notable exceptions notwithstanding), and "free thinking"? When your mind is enslaved in the cage of materialistic thinking and cannot think outside that box, as has been obvious from many of the atheists' responses in recent discussions here, then calling this "free thinking" is reaching new heights of self-delusion as well.

As I have noticed myself to great disappointment, rational arguments have much less impact on atheists than should be hoped for, if objective thinking were the benchmark instead of the criterium how well things conveniently fit into their world view.

Atheism doesn’t “pretend to only be based on evidence”. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence of God(s) existence (and your religious background, divine revelation, etc, may be evidence for you, but not for everyone). “Where’s your God? Can you show me your God? No? Well, then I won’t believe in your God. When (if) he chooses to reveal himself unequivocally we all will, not “believe” but know that he exists, as we know that, say, Pierre Boulez exists”. I think it’s a very valid and logical position. In fact, it’s a very valid and logical position for you as well, for every subject except God. So, please, you do believe in whatever you want to believe, but stop dismissing people for not believing in unproved things, because not believing in unproven things is the logical thing to do. Listen to yourself: “I would reconsider the God idea if atheism had any plausible explanation for why the universe is, and why it is the very special entity that it is, with its particular laws of nature. However, atheism fails miserably [.....]” Well no, Al: Atheists may have to come with a plausible explanation to convince you, but atheists don’t need a plausible explanation at all for themselves. They just don’t know why or how the Universe is, and they just don’t believe in your (or any) God.

Are there any “fanatic” atheists who actually believe that God unquestionably does not exist? And they believe instead that, say, the multiverse theory is the actual truth? They are a small minority. Most atheists, again, just don’t believe in God(s) --but, “hey... Who knows?”

Now: Believing in some form of undefined “ultimate creator” is one thing... But Religion is a whole different story. What’s the justification for, say, getting on your knees before a statue and pray, or confessing your “sins” to a priest, or accepting Jesus as your “personal savior” (whatever that means), or believing in an afterlife in Heaven (or Hell) etc, etc, etc? From my point of view this is a rhetorical question, since the obvious answer is “none”... but perhaps you have something to say?

No, they [Ernie's views] aren't [internally consistent], as I have repeatedly shown on The Religion Thread for those who have paid attention.

I paid attention. The problem is that you are a Catholic. Otherwise, you would find that Ernie’s views are extraordinarily consistent. Not only that: You would find that your views are borderline lunatic. That’s why a little humility is always handy: You might be wrong...

[Al Moritz]

Atheism doesn't "pretend to only be based on evidence". Atheism is based on the lack of evidence of God(s) existence (and your religious background, divine revelation, etc, may be evidence for you, but not for everyone). "Where's your God? Can you show me your God? No? Well, then I won't believe in your God. When (if) he chooses to reveal himself unequivocally we all will, not "believe" but know that he exists, as we know that, say, Pierre Boulez exists". I think it's a very valid and logical position. In fact, it's a very valid and logical position for you as well, for every subject except God. So, please, you do believe in whatever you want to believe, but stop dismissing people for not believing in unproved things, because not believing in unproven things is the logical thing to do. Listen to yourself: "I would reconsider the God idea if atheism had any plausible explanation for why the universe is, and why it is the very special entity that it is, with its particular laws of nature. However, atheism fails miserably [.....]" Well no, Al: Atheists may have to come with a plausible explanation to convince you, but atheists don't need a plausible explanation at all for themselves. They just don't know why or how the Universe is, and they just don't believe in your (or any) God.
Are there any "fanatic" atheists who actually believe that God unquestionably does not exist? And they believe instead that, say, the multiverse theory is the actual truth? They are a small minority. Most atheists, again, just don't believe in God(s) --but, "hey... Who knows?"

That all may sound quite reasonable, but it is simply not borne out in practice.

In my experience -- and the discussions here have confirmed it -- most atheists (at least most of those who are vocal about their world view) do actively believe in a materialistic explanation for the universe, since "the material world is all there is". It is not just that "they don't need a plausible explanation" as you say (just look at all the discussions with atheists and all the atheist websites and books that prove your statement wrong). And they actively believe the evidence is on their side (through "extrapolation from science" etc.), not just that there is a "lack of evidence for a belief in God".

However, when asked for a justification of their materialistic belief, atheists cannot provide one, and instead they live from an irrational belief that one day their views will be vindicated when science does find the ultimate explanation (which it can't, as I have pointed out). And they mostly come up with the usual array of choices for the laws of nature like "perhaps they cannot be any other way", brute chance, the multiverse etc. without realizing that none of these explanations make any logical and rational sense (not that necessarily they specifically pick the multiverse or some other from that array of choices, but they believe that "somewhere in all of this" is the explanation). And when confronted, they refuse to see or simply don't realize how unlikely their beliefs are, or even that they are a just modern fairytale since they are not at all based on anything that we know about actual matter from actual science (in particular when it comes to eternal matter or quantum fluctuations or the like).

Now: Believing in some form of undefined "ultimate creator" is one thing... But Religion is a whole different story. What's the justification for, say, getting on your knees before a statue and pray, or confessing your "sins" to a priest, or accepting Jesus as your "personal savior" (whatever that means), or believing in an afterlife in Heaven (or Hell) etc, etc, etc? From my point of view this is a rhetorical question, since the obvious answer is "none"... but perhaps you have something to say?

Sure, there is a substantial step from a belief in some form of "ultimate creator" to a specific religion, and I never claimed otherwise.

That's why a little humility is always handy: You might be wrong...

As far as me possibly being wrong goes, sure, that possibility exists. That's why they call it faith and not certainty -- again, I refer with "faith" more to the specific Catholic beliefs than to the rational conclusion that God exists, even though ultimately belief is involved in that too, just like in atheism (nobody has "mathematical proof"). Anyway, you talk about humility with respect to one possibly being wrong, which is fine and dandy, but I don't see that humility in most atheists.

[Norbeone]

A materialistic view of the world is all we need. There's nothing I can think of that requires anything non-material to be explained.

[DavidRoss]

A materialistic view of the world is all we need. There's nothing I can think of that requires anything non-material to be explained.

Please explain quantum physics in solely materialistic terms.  If that's too much for you, then try gravity.  How about love?  Beauty?  Justice?

Atheism=no god.
Agnosticism=no knowledge (of God)

Agnosticism is rational.  You don't know and you don't claim to know.
Atheism is irrational.  You don't know but you claim knowledge that logically requires omniscience.  (Are you really so nuts that you believe you're omniscient?) 

"Proving" God's existence is like "proving" that classical music is beautiful.  You cannot force someone to learn how to listen who's determined not to hear, who already "knows" it sucks, who "knows" classical music lovers are uncool brain-dead dweebs and geezers, etc. You could poll those who actually know classical music and profess appreciation of its beauty, but those results can be dismissed just as the close-minded dismiss the evidence of God offered by people of faith.

Millions of people not only know that God exists but have learned to live in faith (that's reliance, not belief) in God working in their lives.  They've learned to hear him.  But that begins with being willing to hear.  The evidence of God's existence surrounds us.  We live and breathe in God as fish live and breathe in the ocean.  As Jesus put it, God's world is at hand and plainly evident for those with eyes that see and ears that hear.

It's difficult for those confined to the world of artifice created by modern industrial civilization to see more than merely human hands shaping the world.  God's soft pedal tone is hard to hear amidst the cacophony (caca phony?) of shrieking sirens, jackhammers, jet planes, cell phone rings, ghetto blasters, and so on.  One must make an effort to hear it—something all but impossible for the prejudiced since the effort requires at least willingness to have an open mind.

The irrational compulsion of some self-professed atheists to proselytize for their beliefs is hilariously ironic.  To me it seems evidence of an internal battle between their souls and their egos which they externalize in an effort to expel the discomfort of sub-conscious cognitive dissonance.  Don't you love Milton's insightful characterization of Satan as Ego, whose prideful arrogance sundered his communion with God? 

[greg]

Please explain quantum physics in solely materialistic terms.  If that's too much for you, then try gravity.  How about love?  Beauty?  Justice?

Anything that gets the right chemicals in the brain flowing?

[Norbeone]

Please explain quantum physics in solely materialistic terms.  If that's too much for you, then try gravity.  How about love?  Beauty?  Justice?

Atheism=no god.
Agnosticism=no knowledge (of God)

Agnosticism is rational.  You don't know and you don't claim to know.
Atheism is irrational.  You don't know but you claim knowledge that logically requires omniscience.  (Are you really so nuts that you believe you're omniscient?) 

"Proving" God's existence is like "proving" that classical music is beautiful.  You cannot force someone to learn how to listen who's determined not to hear, who already "knows" it sucks, who "knows" classical music lovers are uncool brain-dead dweebs and geezers, etc. You could poll those who actually know classical music and profess appreciation of its beauty, but those results can be dismissed just as the close-minded dismiss the evidence of God offered by people of faith.

Millions of people not only know that God exists but have learned to live in faith (that's reliance, not belief) in God working in their lives.  They've learned to hear him.  But that begins with being willing to hear.  The evidence of God's existence surrounds us.  We live and breathe in God as fish live and breathe in the ocean.  As Jesus put it, God's world is at hand and plainly evident for those with eyes that see and ears that hear.

Firstly, I have not and never have claimed to know that God doesn't exist, so I don't know why you're spewing all that at me.

Secondly, you make a 'hilariously ironic' blunder when you say that 'millions of people know that God exists'. Explain why that isn't an irrational position to take, especially when you (rightly) label pure unconditional atheism (in other words, not agnosticism) as irrational.

I have neither a reason nor any desire to be 'willing to hear' God....not because i'm closed-minded, but that I similarly don't want to open my mind to the notion that Derek Acorah can actually communicate with the dead, or that the constellations can be used to forsee future events.


BTW, what means would you try to explain gravity with, if not scientific ones? And even the feelings we get when we feel love occur via a reductionist view (probably a bleak one, as far as you're concerned) of chemical processes in the brain.

[Joe_Campbell]

What does God have to do with astrology? Equating the two is an irrational diversion. Besides, didn't science 'disprove' astrology recently? Oh wait, science can't do that...

[Norbeone]

What does God have to do with astrology? Equating the two is an irrational diversion. Besides, didn't science 'disprove' astrology recently? Oh wait, science can't do that...

Well, you're certainly correct that i'm equating them.

[Don]

Page after page goes by, and some of you just continue to disrespect the views you do not hold with an endless barrage of self-serving proclamations.  Well, I have my own self-serving issues.  I have to present a couple of pages of hebrew text at my grandson's bar mitzvah this summer and don't know a word of hebrew.  I am not concerned with god's existence; I just want to do a good job by my grandson. Wish me luck (or not). 

[Wendell_E]

Wish me luck (or not). 

בהצלחה 

[Al Moritz]

Atheism=no god.
Agnosticism=no knowledge (of God)

Agnosticism is rational.  You don't know and you don't claim to know.
Atheism is irrational.  You don't know but you claim knowledge that logically requires omniscience.  (Are you really so nuts that you believe you're omniscient?)

Yes, of course, but most atheists are not willing to concede a meaningful difference between the two. Why? To save their irrational ass.

[Al Moritz]

A materialistic view of the world is all we need. There's nothing I can think of that requires anything non-material to be explained.

That's the problem. I don't think that the atheistic position is rationally justified. Its arguments all lead to scenarios that are, in my view, so pathetically unlikely that they require a much bigger leap of faith than the commonsense notion of a creator God (and no, the acceptance of a specific religion is not part of this argument). In recent discussions I have amply explained why I believe this is so.

It is not that I do not know atheism properly, and that my own world view "blinds" me as to be unable to see the rationality of its arguments. Quite on the contrary, I know the arguments of atheism too well, which is why they strike me as irrational. I have thought through the arguments of atheism more thoroughly and analytically than most atheists will ever do, and seeing through their weaknesses makes it impossible for me to accept them.

This is my last post on this thread.

[Don]

This is my last post on this thread.

That's good to hear.

[Christo]

That's good to hear.

Disagree. I read all postings with great interest; the argument is always very clear.

[Don]

Disagree. I read all postings with great interest; the argument is always very clear.

Considering all the repetition on this thread, I am puzzled by the above statement.

[Christo]

Disagree. I read all postings with great interest; the argument is always very clear.

Bis! 

[DavidRoss]

Firstly, I have not and never have claimed to know that God doesn't exist, so I don't know why you're spewing all that at me.

Spewing?  My, what a nasty connotation!  At you?  Hardly.  My response to you was brief, asking for your non-materialistic explanation for a number of things that are not material and for which a material explanation does not exist--the question about quantum physics being particularly pointed since even matter itself is not susceptible to material explanation.  The rest of my post was a general response to some of the confused thinking about atheism and faith expressed on this thread.

Secondly, you make a 'hilariously ironic' blunder when you say that 'millions of people know that God exists'. Explain why that isn't an irrational position to take, especially when you (rightly) label pure unconditional atheism (in other words, not agnosticism) as irrational.

Neither blunder nor ironic--hilarity, however, is in the mind of the amused.  Millions of people know that God exists.  You, apparently, are not among them.  Therefore you do not know--making you agnostic, which is perfectly reasonable.  If you don't know, you don't know.  The atheist, however, goes a step (or two!) further, claiming that his own ignorance somehow trumps the knowledge of the millions who do know, that those who know are just deluded idiots, that if God really existed he would somehow prove himself on demand according to the atheist's specifications (a very odd and inconsistent stance given the atheist's professed admiration for science, which depends on systematic and rigorous inquiry rather than spontaneous revelation), and that since God hasn't revealed himself unequivocally according to the atheist's demands then he (the atheist) knows God does not exist.  The acme of irrationality here is the atheist's implicit claim to omniscience--to know there is no God would require that he know EVERYTHING--whereas to know that God exists means only that you must know that God exists, a far more modest claim. 

I have neither a reason nor any desire to be 'willing to hear' God....not because i'm closed-minded, but that I similarly don't want to open my mind to the notion that Derek Acorah can actually communicate with the dead, or that the constellations can be used to forsee future events.

Thanks for this very telling demonstration of close-minded prejudice, bizarrely confounding open-mindedness toward God with spiritualism and astrology. 

BTW, what means would you try to explain gravity with, if not scientific ones? And even the feelings we get when we feel love occur via a reductionist view (probably a bleak one, as far as you're concerned) of chemical processes in the brain.

You're confounding science and materialism.  The statement I challenged you about was your statement that

A materialistic view of the world is all we need. There's nothing I can think of that requires anything non-material to be explained.

I trust you recognize that gravity is a force, non-material, inferred as the simplest explanation for various observable effects in the world?  Whether you can think of such things unassisted is of less import than how/whether you can think about such things when called to your attention.  And, finally, note that regarding love as a feeling (some kind of biochemically driven rush of sensation) demonstrates a failure to understand love--an all-too-common and frequently exploited confusion of love with lust and infatuation.  Love is neither, nor is it a feeling, but rather a choice about our attitudes toward others (and even ourselves!) that is manifested in our behavior. 

[Joe_Campbell]

I agree with pretty much all of what you said David. However, perhaps you should elaborate on exactly why 'believing that God exists' is that rational-by-default position. I think that Norbeone's main contention with your post is that this is not clarified.