God given rights. Do you really have any?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

So, which imaginations are to be believed? Does it matter for anything more than the experience we are having as humans?

You don't understand the difference between belief and need which is why "need" is meaningless for you.

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Simone had a need for an objective quality of meaning you don't understand. You allow the earth to provide it for you. Why believe? Why not learn how to allow ones NEED to to transcend belief and open to experience? Some can and secular society will always hate them.

[RCSaunders]

I find it interesting that those who are not themselves atheists (or agnostics or deists) are always so quick to explain exactly what those others believe.

That's because Atheism is about as complicated as a hammer.

Atheists themselves claim it means either "the disbelief in God," or "the belief in no gods." It has nothing to it beyond that. Anything else a putative Atheist believes, like say a political or ethical view this or that Atheist person happens to favour, has to be supplemented by some ideology more substantive than Atheism, since Atheism itself contains no precepts concerning such things. They'll proudly tell you the owe you no explanation of anything further.

So what they believe is dead easy to say. Even they say so.

That's fine, except you didn't stop there. You added, "the Atheist then goes on to tell himself that he can be significant," and I'm pointing out you did not learn that from what atheists say about themselves. I don't care if you believe it, or even if you say it, but it's not something I've read or heard any atheist say. (Why do you capitalize atheist? Do you regard it a proper noun? Just curious.)

As for whether or not they can "actually do something," if they can't, what do you care what they believe? You seem to think they can do something, and don't like what they do.

Well, I'm a Christian of a free-will sort, and as such, believe that people are not merely a product of prior causes-and-effects in the material realm, and have actual individual volition. So I know that people can do things, and so in perfect consistency, I can like or dislike what they do. There's no contradiction there.

What I wrote had nothing to do with what you liked or disliked, only with your insistence that, an "Atheist then goes on to tell himself that he can ... "actually do something." My point is that atheists apparently do something else you wouldn't be concerned with them at all. If they did nothing at all what would there be about them that interest's you.

As for their saying they can, "actually do something," I never read or heard one say that either. No doubt they do things (like working and writing books) and if asked would point out they can do those things, but it would be silly for them to go around saying, "I can actually do something." As far as I know they don't. You made that up.

[Immanuel Can]

That's fine, except you didn't stop there. You added, "the Atheist then goes on to tell himself that he can be significant," and I'm pointing out you did not learn that from what atheists say about themselves.

You're right to say that it doesn't rationalize with Atheism, but wrong to suppose they don't say it. In fact, they say all kinds of things unrationalizable in terms of their own Atheism. They say they're "moral" people, for example, even though they can't believe in objective morality. And they say their lives are "significant," even though on their own terms, they cannot possibly "signify" anything beyond the redistribution of cosmic dust. And they insist they're rational when no rational argument can be adduced sufficient to warrant the claim "God does not exist." So they actually say all kinds of such things.

Why do you capitalize atheist? Do you regard it a proper noun? Just curious.

For exactly the same reason one capitalizes Catholicism, Hinduism, Existentialism, Marxism and so on. Creeds are proper nouns.

My point is that atheists apparently do something else you wouldn't be concerned with them at all. If they did nothing at all what would there be about them that interest's you.

Well, they don't do nothing. They tell people what they think is rational to believe. They also tell people what they allegedly cannot believe. And they make statements that are rationally unjustifiable, and which I believe cause people grievous ultimate harm. So I feel quite justified in "being concerned" with their activities.

R. Dawkins, for example, wrote a book called "The God Delusion." Hitchens wrote one titled "God Is Not Great." Sam Harris wrote another like them, addressed specifically "...to A Christian Nation." These guys are campaigning. They're not being neutral on the question of God's existence at all, and they're not keeping their Atheism suitably modest to fit with its actual possession of no facts. They're actually going "Christian hunting," in a manner of speaking. They're proselytizing Atheists, spreading their "bad news" to the benighted masses. How could any sensible person not point out that they've exceeded their rational mandate?

[Dubious]

Even if it were true that God chose to speak through specific human agencies, that would tell neither for nor against their truthfulness.

The problem with that idea is that in each case you have to believe the human to whom god allegedly spoke to believe in its veracity. We’re forced to believe the person instead of god. Regarding these kinds of inner dialog it’s always been extremely convenient for humans if god never actually shows up!

Their truthfulness would be a separate question: your question only asks why the mediating agencies are what they are, not whether or not the message they contain is true. It does not follow that if a man says X, then X is automatically false.

If something cannot be proven, and especially for anything so incapable of proof, it cannot be considered true under any circumstance whether or not automatically denoted false which by then would be superfluous to assert as a next or final step.

You and I are both speaking of what follows logically from our first principle, our basic hypothesis about what is true and false about life. You are saying there's no God...that's your hypothesis. I'm saying there is, and that is mine. I know what my reasons for thinking what I think are, but I was asking about your reasons for choosing your hypothesis. You said it was that men speak for God; I said that that was a non-sequitur, since what men say can be true or false. And there we are. That's the story so far.

Actually that’s not the story so far since the story does have a conclusion which is not my conclusion nor a hypothesis but one of fact:

- Where and when was any such being reported in all of history other than through hearsay which does not equate to proof or probability even in law.
- Science sees no necessity for a creator as a conscious being to exist. God’s “Let There Be” command explains nothing except to prior periods that had no idea how things came to be.

The conclusion is obvious whether or not it’s believed. Conversely what is certifiable historically is how god(s) were created and developed through purely human motives.

Not least if what men say can be true or false then THAT would be a non-sequitur to think that man could EVER speak for god in the first place except by subterfuge or hallucination.

Well, what makes us reject the claim of Mohammed? The answer is remarkably similar for Jews, Christians and Atheists. It's that the Koran fails basic tests of truthfulness, such as correspondence to reality, accuracy to its own claims, empirical and historical facts, and rational coherence. So Jews, Christians and Atheists are on good grounds when saying, "If there is a revelation of God, that one isn't it."

To atheists the same can be said of Christianity regarding accuracy, empirical or historical fact...and let's not forget that the Jews rejected Christianity from the very beginning. Mohammed and Paul both had visions which were incipient to both Islam and Christianity so I can’t see much of a difference here. As for the Jews who were the source for the other two, they are now, with exceptions of course, more secular and traditionalist since traditions have a tendency to outlast beliefs. It’s ceremonies continue to fill the void left by beliefs no-longer or barely active. Christianity also is undergoing an equal erosion which hasn't yet affected Islam.

Religion is collapsing not due to atheism but causing atheism as old worn-out beliefs cease to function. What's left are traditions which many atheists are still capable of appreciating as much as any devout theist. If there's another god in the offing to be extracted from human thought it won't resemble any of those entities that ruled in the past. As in Die Götterdämmerung, Valhalla must burn to begin a new cycle since humans have always outlasted their gods.

[Immanuel Can]

...you have to believe the human to whom god allegedly spoke to believe in its veracity...

No, actually, you don't. You needn't take what he says blindly.

Instead, you can hear what he says, compare it to what happens, what you discover comes, what the ensuing data shows, and know whether the man spoke truth or not. And then you can decide how far you're going to trust anything further. That's precisely what people do, in fact, do with all situations involving a person testifying to something...whether in a law court, a science lab, a classroom, or a claimed prophetic saying. The character of the speaker is decided on the correctness of his utterances.

Their truthfulness would be a separate question: your question only asks why the mediating agencies are what they are, not whether or not the message they contain is true. It does not follow that if a man says X, then X is automatically false.

If something cannot be proven, and especially for anything so incapable of proof, it cannot be considered true under any circumstance whether or not automatically denoted false which by then would be superfluous to assert as a next or final step.

There are few things that are actually incapable of proof. The existence of God is certainly not one of them. But one act of revelation, one miracle, one prophet, one incarnation, one manifestation of divine power -- even one Creation -- would be sufficient to prove His existence. The question is only whether or not any such has every occurred.

- Where and when was any such being reported in all of history other than through hearsay which does not equate to proof or probability even in law.

This has been demonstrated untrue, actually. There are plenty of books around that summon the relevant legal methods to assess the believability of religious claims. That's exactly the approach used by somebody like Josh McDowell, in "Evidence That Demands A Verdict."

- Science sees no necessity for a creator as a conscious being to exist.

"Science" has no such opinion, actually. Science is a methodology, not a set of fact-claims. And the method was invented by Francis Bacon, who was not only one of the most famous scientists in history for doing so, but was also an ardent theologian. Bacon invented a method of detecting order in nature because he expected to find order in nature; and he expected it because he believed in a God of order. That's how it actually happened.

God’s “Let There Be” command explains nothing except to prior periods that had no idea how things came to be.

I think you're channelling the Beatles there.

...what is certifiable historically is how god(s) were created and developed through purely human motives.

"Certifiable historically"? Heh. No, it's not. It's a speculation only. It's always been that, because it's actually not historically verified. And it takes a form of the genetic fallacy to believe it, as well.

There are alternate accounts of how religion came to be, ones that are at least equally plausible. One is that the need for "religion" is deeply imbedded in the human psyche -- and that's a better hypothesis, because the religious impulse seems as good a candidate for a universal inclination as one can get. If so, it could well be the case that "religion" is mankind's attempt to reach understanding of God -- the existence or non-existence of the same not being established by how the beliefs in question originated.

But let's pretend to take the hypothesis seriously, and see where that leads us. Let us suppose that we found that one "religion" were created in that way, "by human motives." Does that tell us anything about the next "religion"? No. Does it tell us that ALL "religions" were constructed that way? No, nothing close, actually. But let's suppose that we find that nearly all "religions" were constructed in that way? Does that give us reason to say we know that one was not? That there could be no one "religion" that contained the truth? No, of course not.

Not least if what men say can be true or false then THAT would be a non-sequitur to think that man could EVER speak for god in the first place except by subterfuge or hallucination.

That doesn't seem apparent. IF God spoke, is your supposition that no man could pass on what He said? There's no logic to suggest that.

Well, what makes us reject the claim of Mohammed? The answer is remarkably similar for Jews, Christians and Atheists. It's that the Koran fails basic tests of truthfulness, such as correspondence to reality, accuracy to its own claims, empirical and historical facts, and rational coherence. So Jews, Christians and Atheists are on good grounds when saying, "If there is a revelation of God, that one isn't it."

To atheists the same can be said of Christianity regarding accuracy, empirical or historical fact.

Well, they have a go at that, to be sure. Guys like Dawkins want to argue it's all a "delusion." But in actual fact, a great case can be made FOR the Biblical narrative, and as I pointed out above, such cases have indeed been made.

..and let's not forget that the Jews rejected Christianity from the very beginning.

The Jewish rejection of Christianity did not come from conflicts with the Old Testament, which Christians also accept as canonical, but over the question of whether or not Jesus is the predicted Messiah of the Old Testament. Outside of that question, Jews and Christians are actually in agreement about the status of Scripture.

Mohammed and Paul both had visions

That's like saying, "John Doe and Einstein both had theories." True enough; but go and look at what they said, and you'll see the distinction instantly.

Religion is collapsing

Statistically, it's not. What's collapsing are merely the conventional, institutional religions, and especially Western institutional religions in the Developed World. But worldwide, belief systems are expanding rapidly, and especially the pietistic and experiential ones. Even in the Developed World, where institutional religions are shrinking, there is an explosion and proliferation of "new" religions and ideologies, such as Gnosticism, Techophilia and Utopian Socialism. It doesn't look at all like the religious impulse is going away.

However, whether a religion is expanding or contracting numerically has nothing whatsoever to do with its truth or falsehood, obviously. That's a non-sequitur, too. To think that would be merely the old ad populum fallacy, the naive belief that numerical popularity proves truth. Of course, it doesn't.

[RCSaunders]

Why do you capitalize atheist? Do you regard it a proper noun? Just curious.

For exactly the same reason one capitalizes Catholicism, Hinduism, Existentialism, Marxism and so on. Creeds are proper nouns.

So what do you call someone who has never heard of the concept of a deity, like the Pirahã people. They obvious cannot believe in what they have never heard of. Or what do you call those whose religions exclude a distinct deity, like the Shinto, Buddhists or host of animists. None of them believe in a God.

They cannot be theists. What someone does not believe in, because they never heard of it, or their own beliefs exclude, cannot be a creed, as that word is usually meant, "A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith, or 2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions," can it? A creed is a statement of what one does believe, not what they do not believe.

Before the discovery of microscopic organisms, no one believed in germs. That non-belief certainly wasn't a creed. After the discovery of microscopic organisms, there were still individuals who didn't believe in the little buggers. Were they, "Agermists," and was their non-belief a creed?

I know there are some atheists who are also, "anti-theists," with an agenda to combat any belief in a deity, and I suppose that kind of militant atheist holds their lack of belief as a kind of creed, but they are the well-known vocal exceptions. Most atheists you will never know are atheists unless you directly ask them, because like most people, they seldom talk about what they neither believe or have any interest in. The idea of a God simply does not concern them at all.

I do not believe in astrology, ESP, spiritualism, the supernatural, fortune telling, fairies, demonism, any religion, magic spells, luck, evolution, deities, most philosophies, and thousands of other things I cannot believe in simply because I have never heard of them. It is absolutely absurd to identify one's self in terms of what one does not believe or to describe a non-belief as a creed.

[Skepdick]

A creed is a statement of what one does believe, not what they do not believe.

Before the discovery of microscopic organisms, no one believed in germs. That non-belief certainly wasn't a creed.

Maybe they didn't "believe in germs" but they sure believed in "people randomly getting sick and dying".
Maybe they even called it "Being possessed".
Maybe they had a causal explanation (even if wrong one) for the phenomenon of people getting sick and dying.

You can be assured that there was some ritual that they performed WHEN somebody got sick.
That makes it a creed (even if the ritual didn't work).

creed noun a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.

[Immanuel Can]

So what do you call someone who has never heard of the concept of a deity, like the Pirahã people.

Well, in the first place, they don't call themselves Atheists, so I guess I don't have to call them anything. Secondly, they don't know anything about the issue, as you say, so they are agnostic about it...literally "unknowing" or "ignorant" of the question, so that again takes Atheism out of the picture.

However, you do raise an interesting fault in Atheism's self-description here: namely, that if it includes people who simply know nothing about the question, then that subcompartment of Atheism is indeed not a creed. But then, it's really not very much at all. It amounts to, "I personally don't have any idea about that." And that doesn't rise to the level of even an interpersonal claim, let alone any kind of belief.

Now, really, RC...is that what you think a Dawkins, a Hitchens or a Harris would say? Or would they, like Nietzsche, want to say "God is dead," or "God is a delusion." But if that's what they want to say, then it's entirely untrue that their Atheism is merely a denial of knowledge; rather, it's a claim to having reasons to think they do, in fact, know exactly what they want to say about God. Moreover, they think they know it so well they imagine they have reason to tell the rest of us that we would be quite wrong to believe in God at all. Does this sound like the kind of Atheism you're describing?

A creed is a statement of what one does believe, not what they do not believe.

Not at all. A belief can be a statement of what one positively denies. That is the case with Atheism. And the denial of God certainly compels some other set of positive claims, such as that the physical, temporal and material is all that's real.

But really, do you think Dawkins, Hitchens, Nietzsche et al. qualify as Atheists? How about Hume? Or Russel? Or Mackie? Or Camus? They certainly all had or have a creed about God. But if you want to say they're not, you'll need to say why they don't qualify. I've never heard any Atheist say that; but maybe you're the first, so I'm happy to hear your reasoning on that. I think you'll find, though, that many, many Atheists want to claim their association with such men and the arguments they attempted to assert, so you'll find few Atheists who are happy to stop with, "Well, I'm just personally clueless about that."

As you can see, the "non-belief" excuse is a transparent ruse. If it were true, then rocks, park benches and beechwood trees would also be Atheists, because so far as we know, they too have no beliefs about God.

[RCSaunders]

But really, do you think Dawkins, Hitchens, Nietzsche et al. qualify as Atheists? How about Hume? Or Russel? Or Mackie? Or Camus? They certainly all had or have a creed about God.

If I ever had an occasion to have a discussion with any of those gentlemen and they brought up their views about God as some part of a discussion, I might think about what they say they believe for the sake of discussion, just as I do with you. Otherwise, I'm just not interested in their views on God, or almost anything else, except Russel's humor (while despising his philosophy), Camus' fiction (The Plague, especially) and some of Hitchens' political commentary. I have no use for Nietzsche's subjectivist version of egoism. What you or they or anyone else believes about God does not matter to me. I actually think worrying about other's ideologies is a philosophical and psychological mistake. I don't really know Machie.

I certainly don't care if you or anyone else believes in God, and i think anyone who believes something ought to live by those beliefs and defend them if they are sincere. That doesn't mean I have to agree with those beliefs, or cannot see how irrational and dangerously wrong they are; and, I will say so when it is appropriate, but not to change anyone else's mind, (because it is wrong to interfere in anyone else's life), but to be honest. What do you care if someone else believes what you think is wrong and promotes what they believe? Won't the truth ultimately prevail in any struggle between truth and falsehood?

[Dubious]

"Certifiable historically"? Heh. No, it's not. It's a speculation only. It's always been that, because it's actually not historically verified. And it takes a form of the genetic fallacy to believe it, as well.

Well if you can point to any god that didn't require human intercession and a host of scribes to proclaim it's existence, I'd like to know who that was. Why would god need humans to make IT'S presence apparent?? Something credible should have happened to make your assertion even half true. If you can't show what that is then obviously its not me who's speculating or history purposely not mentioning what would have amounted to the greatest event since the planet took shape. If you say "it's speculation only not historically verified", in spite of having no record of any such "actual" god visitations, it's up to you to provide reasons for thinking so instead of reducing it to a fallacy with no follow-up. Yours in summary is not an argument against what I was saying; it's no argument at all!

In addition, it's irrational to regard what history has no record of as a "speculation"! Such a conclusion is not only illogical but thoroughly meaningless! These maneuvers are more akin to schizophrenic attempts in trying to squeeze something out of nothing if only as speculation or fallacy! Your logic here fails completely!

Instead the product of that irrationality is theism which then attempts to rationalize its extremely dubious underpinnings...often quite brilliantly by presenting itself in a logical format which can be extremely deceiving for those who refuse to analyze further. Compared to most other fictions, theism is the ONLY one which strives to rationalize itself as an infallible truth vessel, one in which every unfavorable fact is negated as non-factual replete with speculation and fallacy! Without that modus theism couldn't exist which you keep proving to perfection.

What's makes most theistic arguments so pathetic is that it can never EXPOUND itself as true no matter how hard it tries; it can only PROCLAIM itself as such by giving itself the divine right to do so. It's establishment is by fiat and rarely by fact.

I know that in any debate it would be foolish to suppose that a confirmed theist could ever be rationally convinced of anything contrary to his or her beliefs or that any truth inconsistent with those mandated is likely to be accepted. But occasionally I like to force such arguments into the open if only for its entertainment value. Beyond that it's immaterial what you, I or anyone believes - being only temporary placeholders or havens - since we'll all end up on the same cosmic trash heap along with everything else that ever lived including mice, rats and cockroaches. Until that time there's nothing wrong with having one's well-being serviced by belief in an afterlife providing one has the stamina for anything so ludicrous.

[Immanuel Can]

But really, do you think Dawkins, Hitchens, Nietzsche et al. qualify as Atheists? How about Hume? Or Russel? Or Mackie? Or Camus? They certainly all had or have a creed about God.

I'm just not interested in their views on God...

Fine: but that was nowhere near the question.

The question is, "Do you think they qualify as real Atheists?" Most people who call themselves "Atheists" think they sure do. I just want to know if you think I can rightly refer to them as examples of "Atheists" or not. You said that Atheism is merely a matter of not having opinions about gods...I argue that the most well-known exemplars of Atheists certainly have a creed.

If you don't think I am justified in referring to Camus or Nietzsche or Hume or Dawkins as real Atheists, then I would want to know why. And that seems a fair question. But if they are real Atheists, then your own claim about what Atheism entails is manifestly refuted by their examples.

What do you care if someone else believes what you think is wrong and promotes what they believe?

Because believing such men costs people their souls.

Won't the truth ultimately prevail in any struggle between truth and falsehood?

Ultimately? Beyond question.

But temporally, in the minds of the individuals who listen to the falsehoods? There's no guarantee that the truth will prevail there. Some people do embrace delusions, and live and die with those delusions...about that much, Mr. Dawkins and I do agree.

[Immanuel Can]

Why would god need humans to make IT'S presence apparent??

"Need"? Nobody said anything about "need." God does not "need" to do anything at all that He does not wish to.

Something credible should have happened to make your assertion even half true.

Well, I didn't assert God "needed" to do any such thing, so it's really not any assertion of mine at all.

...in spite of having no record of any such "actual" god visitations...

What sort of "record" did you have in mind? How about some Scriptures...we certainly have that. Did you mean the various historical manuscripts that support that central document, such as the Roman and Greek records? Or did you have something else in mind? What "record" do you suppose you would expect?

In addition, it's irrational to regard what history has no record of as a "speculation"!

Actually, that would be perfectly plausible. If someone says they think they know something, but they have no evidence of it at all, the most likely thing it is is a mere speculation.

...we'll all end up on the same cosmic trash heap along with everything else that ever lived including mice, rats and cockroaches. Until that time there's nothing wrong with having one's well-being serviced by belief in an afterlife providing one has the stamina for anything so ludicrous.

Correct: if you are right, then neither you nor I will ever know it, and you're right...it won't matter whether what you or I believed was truth or fiction, and nothing will ultimately be right or wrong for us to do or be. You and I, in fact, have nothing to argue about, as ultimately, we are just two cockroaches crawling through the same cosmic trash heap, toward inevitable oblivion. What care you how I crawl, and what care I how you crawl?

However, if I'm right, then one day you and I will stand before God at the Judgment...each in somewhat different circumstances, admittedly. Until that time, there's everything wrong with acting like that's not going to happen, and it's going to cost you your soul.

So here's the important question out of that: do you really want to wait and see who's right?

[Lacewing]

However, if I'm right, then one day you and I will stand before God at the Judgment...each in somewhat different circumstances, admittedly. Until that time, there's everything wrong with acting like that's not going to happen, and it's going to cost you your soul.

Why is "everything wrong" with not subscribing to your limited, self-indulgent beliefs?

What if your god is not what you think, and sends you back to another physical reality until you stop spinning in intoxicated fantasies?

So here's the important question out of that: do you really want to wait and see who's right?

Really, I.C.?? How do you not laugh at the absurdity and ego that drips from your tongue? Some part of you must realize what a show you are putting on, yes?

[uwot]

How do you not laugh at the absurdity and ego that drips from your tongue?

What gets me is how small Mr Can's god is - that it only has room in its heaven for people who think like Mr Can. The devil on the other hand has bags of room for all sorts of interesting ideas in hell.
Incidentally, anyone wondering where the hell and damnation type of christians got their ideas can find them in the myth of Er at the end of Plato's Republic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

[RCSaunders]

But really, do you think Dawkins, Hitchens, Nietzsche et al. qualify as Atheists? How about Hume? Or Russel? Or Mackie? Or Camus? They certainly all had or have a creed about God.

I'm just not interested in their views on God...

Fine: but that was nowhere near the question.

The question is, "Do you think they qualify as real Atheists?"

Since you regard the word, "atheist," to have a unique meaning as some kind of belief or creed, there is no way to answer your question as you ask it.

I can only answer it in this way. A theist is someone who has a belief in that which requires a kind of credulity some others do not have. There are 13 million individuals who have no belief in any God or gods in the United States (4% of Americans). You've named eight individuals who happen to be opposed to others believing in some deity (only one of whom is actually living), which you might be able to describe as regarding their view as a kind of creed or ideology.

To imply, however, that what one does not believe is a creed is an abuse of language. Belief and disbelief are antonyms. It's a contradiction. It's like calling ignorance knowledge, or health sickness.

The only honest thing that can be said about those 13 million individuals who aren't gullible enough to believe in the supernatural is that they just don't have that belief. Just because some self-described atheists are anti-theists does not mean all are anymore than just because some Evangelical Christians are con-artists does not mean all Christians are con-artists.