Why I Am An Atheist

[Arising_uk]

And now, you and I are done. For precisely the same reasons as uwot.

See this, "He has definite terms on which He will condescend to reveal Himself to us. it would seem that He chooses to leave the cynical and hard-hearted in the state they choose for themselves: " but you say that everything we are is because of 'it' which presumably means including being an atheist and then that 'it' wants us to choose but will punish us for not choosing correctly and being disrespectful all-in-all makes it the very definition of the colloquial bastard. Add to that that according to you it doesn't have a father then it is also a literal one.

Still, I understand why you live in fear of being associated with us given the nature of your 'God' so go in peace on my part.

[Lacewing]

Rather, what you're describing as the alternative seems not to refer to what ordinary folks mean by "truth" at all.

I'm not claiming what truth is... as I think, it too, is made up. I'm pointing out what cannot be truth, such as: How can there be ONE truth among vast varying perspectives across time and space?

[Skip]

Don't you also have to wonder why somebody would love a horrible person?
Stockholm syndrome? Battered child syndrome?
They often refuse to hear a words against their tormentor.

[Arising_uk]

No. There is no "interfering" implicated. ...

Really? So your 'God' makes no action in this world?

And of course, as a Theist or Deist, one would never assume the purpose of the universe was simply "us."

Tell that to the millions of Catholic theists as the Church did exactly that to deal with Copernicus.

No, actually, you wouldn't. The idea that the attitude of other people could "give" me some kind of rights is absurd, since it must surely be manifest to everyone that their assessment could simply be wrong. ...

You're right, rights are asserted not granted. Although I presume your 'God' would not be so happy with such a thought.

WWII Nazis decided Jews had no special dignity; we don't say they had to be right about that merely because their view was more popular than the opposite, do we? ...

Who said anything about being right? It's about asserting your rights.

Moreover, what is there beyond other people to reassure me that I have some kind of dignity if they decide I do not?

Nothing but yourself and others who agree with you. Although I presume you think 'God' gives you the right.

[Arising_uk]

The only reason some people (3%) are atheist is because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and they have never had a very hard life. ...

And what of those before theism who presumably had a pretty hard life but did not believe in one 'God'?

They have never crouched in a foxhole and clung to a gun.

Have you? I know some soldiers and to a man they are not theists.

They have never needed anything at all besides their trust baby money.

Speak for yourself.

They have grown up sheltered.

If you mean they have grown-up in the world of Rationalism, Science and Technology then for sure. You want to go back to superstition and poverty just to please your 'God'?

And they have become fairly useless to society.

Speak for yourself.

[Arising_uk]

Logic is utterly human. How could it be otherwise?

It does not "apply to"; it is "applied to". Think it over. its' the difference between a Platonic fantasy and reality.

I disagree as it's not to do with ideal forms but with there being things and states of affairs, i.e. reality.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Logic is utterly human. How could it be otherwise?

It does not "apply to"; it is "applied to". Think it over. its' the difference between a Platonic fantasy and reality.

I disagree as it's not to do with ideal forms but with there being things and states of affairs, i.e. reality.

Logic dies with the human race. You are not making any sense. It has everything to do with Forms.
Who sustains logic without humans?

[Arising_uk]

Logic dies with the human race. You are not making any sense. It has everything to do with Forms.
Who sustains logic without humans?

If you mean who symbolises it I agree, unless of course another rational being evolves but Logic occurs because there are things and states of affairs, i.e. as soon as there is a thing or state of affairs then it cannot be and not be, etc, regardless of whether there is anything about to say so. Just my opinion mind.

[Skip]

The relationships of objects and energies in the real world have a consistency and reliability which eventually give rise to life, then intelligent life, then life that can invent logic. I don't think we could have done that without a rational universe on which to model our thought-structures.

Logic is a human invention, though not necessaraily restricted to the use of earthlings. Rationality is universal. OK?

[Dalek Prime]

In all fairness IC, I know of a similar test which I often pose to people to show the strength of belief. I ask them for one month (perhaps I should ask them to do two as well,) to set up a small alter, and pray each day to a coke bottle. At the end of this time, I ask them to throw out that coke bottle, unceremoniously. They all have difficulty parting with it. It's human nature. And all it proves is that people can convince themselves of almost anything, including whatever it is we decide to worship, as worthy of worship.

I should mention that this test, and your variation of it, is a standard exercise in psychology circles, to observe this phenomenon.

That's not the test I'm proposing. I'm not suggesting that Arising should pray to a Bible so he will get affection for it and not throw it out. I'm not asking him to engage in totemism or to evoke feelings without evidence.

I don't doubt your intentions, IC. And I understand you, personally, are not referring to totems or fetishes. However, the exercise itself being profoundly similar, how would Arising, or anyone else, know the difference between having found a connection with God, or merely having found an attachment to the desire to find Him, through practise?

[uwot]

I do not agree with anything about your characterization of God...

Mr Can, need I remind you that I am an atheist? The only characteristic I ascribe to god is that if it exists, the chances of it being as described in any 'holy' book I am familiar with are between nil and not much.

...and I find the manner of your questions abusive...

If ever your opinion counts for anything, I'll try and give a monkey's. You are a hypocrite. You routinely imply that the reason people fail to agree with you is stupidity. Here's an example:

Then there are conceptual-analytic arguments like the Ontological Argument of Plantinga...but most people don't even understand those, let alone have a chance of refuting them....

But believe it or not, that does not mean I dislike you so much I want to see you judged for it. In your interest -- not because of what you believe, but because of what I believe -- I will not provide you the chance to heap up judgment to yourself.

You have spoken as you feel, apparently. For your own good, we are done.

Oh please! God can go fuck himself quite independently of you. Whatever punishment god thinks I deserve for being the way he made me is preferable to having to thank him for it for eternity.

Male, fifties; by training, a philosopher and theologian both.

Socrates said he knew nothing. I am sure, therefore, that my own wisdom is strictly limited. I cannot account for most of what goes on in the universe...

But Immanuel can..

Can he Mr Can? If so, ask him about this ontological argument.

[marjoram_blues]

Don't you also have to wonder why somebody would love a horrible person?
Stockholm syndrome? Battered child syndrome?
They often refuse to hear a words against their tormentor.

Hmm. Yes, I suppose so. I never thought about it in those terms before.

Yes, the idea of God and being part of a religion can be captivating in more ways than one. Some people aren't held captive by either parental or societal force - they choose it for reasons best known, or unknoiwn, to them. They are captivated by the positives and accept any negatives as part of the deal.
What is the deal-breaker...in such a relationship?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Logic dies with the human race. You are not making any sense. It has everything to do with Forms.
Who sustains logic without humans?

If you mean who symbolises it I agree, unless of course another rational being evolves but Logic occurs because there are things and states of affairs, i.e. as soon as there is a thing or state of affairs then it cannot be and not be, etc, regardless of whether there is anything about to say so. Just my opinion mind.

You are insisting on a world of perfect forms. Nature does not recognise logic any more than it can recognise an integer, a straight line, or an irrational number. These are all things that humans have invented to model the world and are all theory laden constructive and analytical, being self referral and circular in argumentation .
A "state of affairs" is a human conceit.

[Dalek Prime]

Don't you also have to wonder why somebody would love a horrible person?
Stockholm syndrome? Battered child syndrome?
They often refuse to hear a words against their tormentor.

Hmm. Yes, I suppose so. I never thought about it in those terms before.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15568

[Immanuel Can]

The relationships of objects and energies in the real world have a consistency and reliability which eventually give rise to life, then intelligent life, then life that can invent logic. I don't think we could have done that without a rational universe on which to model our thought-structures.

Logic is a human invention, though not necessaraily restricted to the use of earthlings. Rationality is universal. OK?

Well, let me repeat back what I'm hearing you say, and you can tell me why I've got your intention all wrong.

1. "Objects and energies" spontaneously give rise to life.
2. Intelligent life "invents" logic, but logic is inherent to the universe itself (i.e. "rational universe"), so it's not actually invented.
3. We "model our thought structures" on this notion of "logic" we "invented" ourselves, and which somehow became inherent to the universe even though we invented it.
4. We "couldn't have done without" this rational universe we invented, and on which we model our thought structures, so it must be right.

You'll see why I have questions about that explanation.