Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:36 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:32 am
Well you hold a belief for which there is no evidence....

Funny. A lot of people seem to think there's quite a lot of evidence for God. Creation, complexity, cognition, morality, conscience, revelation, the existence of order...all kinds of things. And that's made belief in God rather easy for most of the people for most of history.

A lot of people seem to be successfully deluding themselves that there is evidence for God, I think you mean.

But maybe the real problem is this: that nothing is "evidence" for somebody who refuses the evidence. One can always say, of any such evidence, "Well, I don't accept that AS evidence."

No, the problem is that when you start from the position, God exists, you see everything else that exists as supporting evidence.

However, for Atheism, there isn't even the potential of evidence. So that puts Theism quite a step ahead of Atheism.

Don't know what that means.

For a very obvious reason: that wishing doesn't make things true. That's exactly what Atheists also are aware of, and that's why they don't want to give up their pretense to a right to argue with others, even with no evidence. They want to be able to say, "I know there's no God."

You keep asserting that all atheists think alike in every respect. Okay then, I'm an atheist, so whatever I think, all other atheists are bound to think the same thing. Well I always want the truth, even when I would prefer the truth to be other than what it turns out to be. And I don't actually want there not to be a God; I honestly don't mind either way. Some people are convinced there is a monster living in Loch Ness. I don't believe that there is, but if it were ever proved to be true, I would find that fascinating, just as I would find it fascinating if God's existence were proved to be true, or even slightly likely to be true. So there you have it from the horses mouth, you now know the attitude of all atheists.

But there's a second reason: that "evidence" for the Atheist, is impossible to get. But the possibility of evidence for Theism is actually extremely high.

Oh yes, I don't doubt that theism exists, there's more than enough evidence of that. Any supposed evidence for the existence of God is only evidence when interpreted creatively with a predetermined outcome from the start. On the other hand, it is logically impossible to prove the none existance of absolutely anything; as was pointed out earlier with the example of Russell's teapot.

But it doesn't matter, anyway. I am quite content that there is absolutely no good reason to believe in God, and I don't mind in the slightest that others do believe in God. I only have a problem when those others say there is something wrong with me for not joining in there delusion.

So if there was such a thing as one genuine revelation -- at any time in history -- or one creation, or one miracle, or one incarnation, or one objective moral truth, or one of anything that might genuinely be evidence of God, then Theism is proved and Atheism is dead...it can no longer be believed at all. But to prove a negation is incredibly hard: it means to be able to prove that there was NEVER any such thing, at any time, in any place. That burden-to-prove is so demanding that no human being can ever meet it. So it's not even plausible to pretend that Atheism has met the burden of fulfilling its promise to "know" that there is no God.

If that makes you feel more secure in your belief, then good for you, but I'm afraid it doesn't move me an inch.

So Atheism isn't just "behind the 8 ball" on this: it's actuall not on the table at all. But Theism has a straight line on the green ball in the side pocket.

So how come I'm still an atheist?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:41 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:37 am
Quote me.

Here are just a few...

Atheists are amoral.

Never said.

Although it is true that Atheism is certainly amoral. Atheists are often proud of that fact. If you look back, you'll find they say it has no responsibility at all to have any particular view of morality. So they agree with me about that. You have no grounds to complain, therefore.

Atheism is never rational.

Self-evidently true. So you can't deny that. But it's a description of the belief system itself.

Atheism is always a failure of logic.[/i]

And it is, again, demonstrably.

But not one of those is remotely a slander. They're all manifestly true. And none of them are even comments on "Atheists". They're comments on an extremely faulty belief system, Atheism.

By contrasts, an "Atheist" can be an extremely pleasant, moral, and even intelligent individual, who, for her own reasons, is simply addicted to an irrational belief system that rationalizes none of what she is.

I'm the last person to claim to be an authority on Christianity, but from what I thought I new about it, I can't help thinking that this sort of thing is directly at odds with what a Christian attitude is supposed to be. This is confrontational, and, seemingly, intentionally offensive. The typical atheist is not a Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins; he/she is just someone who doesn't subscribe to a belief system that includes the existence of God. Is that really deserving of this sort of contempt? I don't particularly want to offend Christians because they believe something I don't, but when faced with this sort of stuff, it is very difficult to resist the urge to retaliate. It is as though you want to deliberately cause a rift, and antagonism, between Christians and atheists. If that is acting within the spirit of Christianity, it is one more reason to deny it any respect.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:41 pm Although it is true that Atheism is certainly amoral. Atheists are often proud of that fact. If you look back, you'll find they say it has no responsibility at all to have any particular view of morality. So they agree with me about that. You have no grounds to complain, therefore.

Well, the statement that "atheism is certainly amoral" is actually not entirely accurate. While atheism itself is simply the lack of belief in a deity or deities, it doesn't necessarily mean that atheists are inherently amoral or lack a moral compass.

In fact, many atheists hold strong ethical and moral values that guide their behavior and decision-making. The difference is that these values are not necessarily derived from religious or divine authority, but rather from their own reasoning and experiences.

It's also worth noting that not all atheists agree with the idea that they have "no responsibility at all to have any particular view of morality." While it's true that some may argue that morality is subjective or culturally relative, others may hold a more objective or universal view of ethics.

So, while atheists may not believe in a deity or divine commandments as the basis for their moral beliefs, it doesn't mean they are necessarily amoral or lack a sense of responsibility to behave in a moral and ethical manner.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:36 pm Funny. A lot of people seem to think there's quite a lot of evidence for God. Creation, complexity, cognition, morality, conscience, revelation, the existence of order...all kinds of things. And that's made belief in God rather easy for most of the people for most of history.

Here, again, is the core of an interesting problem and issue: to say that there is "evidence for God. Creation, complexity, cognition, morality, conscience, revelation, the existence of order...all kinds of things" may indeed be true, but the problem is that all that we see, all that comprises the *world* that is in front of us, and indeed *existence* and *existing*, these do not point to the existence of the sort of god that is pictured by all theologies.

Creation and complexity are being addressed by scientists who discover, especially in complexity, what points to complex design that it becomes very difficult not to imagine a designer. Yet they propose nothing, they locate nothing, and 'god' remains as elusive as ever. And the world created by this god, again, is utterly incompatible with the god-concept and the god-picture of Christianity and Judaism certainly, but also of any theological picture that I am aware of.

Now, cognition, morality and conscience are indeed tremendous puzzles, but there too the 'god' that could be supposed as being *behind these things* is always completely invisible and is only known by the suppositions of imagination. There is no way to extrapolate a specific god from these imaginings so one must stand rather mute before something (creation, existence) that remains completely incomprehensible.

If a god exists, if god exists, what sort of being is it and what sort of a world is this? In my view Christianity does not answer at all. It actually avoids answering because all its imagery, all its pictures, all its representations, are unreal. They are fantasies. So this mode of seeing actually keeps one from seeing the world -- and the world is too utterly bizarre to be comprehended.

The existence of order is really part of the question of creation and complexity. That out of a proposed energetic event in some incomprehensible form all that now exists -- unbelievable order -- really is worthy of thought and meditation. But it does not produce *the Christian fantasy* as even a possible answer. So, for someone still with theistic leanings its back to the drawing board. One would have to empty oneself of all previous conceptions and start over again.

Cognition, the *heart* of man, awareness and conscience -- those are also incomprehensibles. The classical religious description and picture of them would have to be revised completely when facing the world defined by biology and science.

Again, the more that *the world* is looked at and *seen* the less likely the Christian god is possible as the originator of it. So how could one even give a voice a picture or a personality to such a god?

It is not possible (in my view).

Now revelation, that is an extremely strange and difficult topic. By its very nature it is deeply subjective and linked with imagination, dream and fantasy. But the entire *voice* of the god we discuss here (Yahweh) is recognized not as the voice of a god or a personality but a contrivance of that priestly class. Once seen this cannot be unseen!

'God' remains undefined then. And if it *spoke* what could it possibly say? When the god who created this strange reality is questioned by moral beings, god is taken to task. The world created is so unlike a moral god that the only alternative is to blame man for having messed up a perfect creation (and here the doctrine of The Fall becomes necessary).

Everything was good and perfect and you, human scum! you fucked it all up.

Really, that is what Christianity reduces too.

But maybe the real problem is this: that nothing is "evidence" for somebody who refuses the evidence. One can always say, of any such evidence, "Well, I don't accept that AS evidence."

What you fail to grasp, Immanuel, is that your god-definition must be rejected. And the further that you insist on it, the farther you drive people away from it as well as any sort of 'divine creator'. You are in fact an enemy of theistic or desist thinking! You are atheism's best helper!

However, for Atheism, there isn't even the potential of evidence. So that puts Theism quite a step ahead of Atheism.

Here you are wrong. But you cannot discern why you are wrong.

An 'atheist' can live as well and possibly much better than a victim of bad-thinking and bad-perceiving Christian projection. To become free of these mental and spiritual traps can fairly be described as a step up. And were one to leave that and advance to the stance of being an atheist (not bothering to have to think about it) one could very well do much better in life.

You might look at, say, someone living in a form of paganism that you see as 'demonic' and celebrate being rescued from it. Similarly, I can imagine being rescued from many different Christian cult-like factions and 'coming back to the real world' as a step up.

There is nothing about you as a person Immanuel that induces one to say "Wow, here is an especially moral man, a profound thinker, an aware person: I desire to be like him! and so will consider his Christianity".

Very much the opposite!

Interestingly, your preaching and apologetic method fails completely . . . and you double-down on it.

Little do you know that as of today at 11:54 AM my time I have achieved 1,211 subscribers to my Ten Week Email Self-Transformation Course! Soon I will start to post some of the testimonials.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:41 pm Never said.

Yes, you have. The instance I noted before is no longer coming up in the Search (perhaps you found it ). In it you said: Atheists are not immoral; Atheists are amoral. Sound like you?

Here's another one...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:44 pm Atheist are amoral.

Yes, those of us who have been here long enough noticed when you changed your strategy to bash 'atheism' (instead) since your arguments were failing in bashing atheists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:36 pm
However, for Atheism, there isn't even the potential of evidence. So that puts Theism quite a step ahead of Atheism.

So what's the evidence for theism at the expense of atheism that confirms your statement? Ancient scrolls are not evidence aside from the fact that humans wrote it. I asked you before but no reply...surprise, surprise!

As expected, no further response as to what that evidence may consist of; could it be because there is none which collates to evidence!

So your only recourse is to make unsubstantiated, inaccurate stupid statements regarding atheism of which you have zero understanding!

I'll tell you a secret. To be a half-way successful theist, one must have some degree of comprehension regarding atheism. It requires some fine-tuning admittedly which, as your statement proves, you are totally incapable of. Simply throwing big chunks of negatives against atheists and atheism in terms of putting a minus sign in front of anything they say as you habitually do, is a sign of one not trained enough to defend his position but instead only defends by attacking.

That is the reason you never respond to suchlike questions as, what is your evidence for theism since you've denied all evidence for atheism. Only fair to ask, don't you think!

Theists, of whatever ilk, have for the last 2000 years been the biggest hypocrites, liars, corrupters and truth-fakers the world has ever been cursed with. They are, as they've always been, among the main misery agents and producers to infect the planet. They have made god into a curse word much more than Satan ever was!

The REAL Original Sin were the events that led to such a decrepit outcome, establishing itself as a long-term festering sore on the psyche. Original sin, in its effect, is the exact inverse of what it means in Genesis.

If Jesus allows entry to one like you, then the division between up and down, heaven or hell, no-longer exists; one may as well be as good as the other!

I'm in church atm. Such beautiful aesthetics, as I am typing RIGHT NOW, a cloud must have parted and golden light from the Sun of God shone on my right side....ah it's dimmed again. I love Jesus the Christ, even though I've experienced the WRATH of God, never shall I 3at of the Tree again.

www.androcies.com (evidence)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 7:21 am

I'm in church atm. Such beautiful aesthetics, as I am typing RIGHT NOW, a cloud must have parted and golden light from the Sun of God shone on my right side....ah it's dimmed again. I love Jesus the Christ, even though I've experienced the WRATH of God, never shall I 3at of the Tree again.

www.androcies.com (evidence)

Oh, so let me get this straight. The sun's rays have got you all starry-eyed and you're giving credit to your homie God or Jesus for the stunning view. And wait, hold up, you're saying you're done with learning and gaining wisdom? You're not gonna munch on that tree of knowledge again? Did I nail it or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:36 am All the versions of [the argument for the problem of evil] I've found don't make a lot of sense.

My condolences on the atrophying of your powers of comprehension.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:36 am So do you know a better argument?

No. That's the best I know of.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:36 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 9:06 pm How would the argument for [the problem of evil] go?

You ask that as though you don't already know or couldn't look it up.

All the versions of it I've found don't make a lot of sense. They require assumptions nobody actually has to accept, such as that God is the only ultimately effective will in the universe, or that suffering cannot be explained even in theory, or even by an omniscient observer. Or that all human beings are essentially innocent victims. Or that Atheists have a way of knowing that suffering is simply inexplicable. Or that this world as it stands is in proper relationship to God. I can't see any reasons to accept those sorts of assumptions.

So do you know a better argument?

Check out this snippet, and pay especially attention to the three premises highlighted in blue that precede the conclusion:

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:52 am My reason #2 for not believing in a deity or deities: Logical inconsistencies

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:41 pm Although it is true that Atheism is certainly amoral. Atheists are often proud of that fact. If you look back, you'll find they say it has no responsibility at all to have any particular view of morality. So they agree with me about that. You have no grounds to complain, therefore.

Oh Really! Is that really true, or just something you wish to be true?

"The only thing about me that is religious is my disgust for the world." — Emil Cioran

The only thing about the avatar known as Immanuel Can that is religious is his disgust for the world. - DAM

Amoral:lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:36 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:45 am

You ask that as though you don't already know or couldn't look it up.

All the versions of it I've found don't make a lot of sense. They require assumptions nobody actually has to accept, such as that God is the only ultimately effective will in the universe, or that suffering cannot be explained even in theory, or even by an omniscient observer. Or that all human beings are essentially innocent victims. Or that Atheists have a way of knowing that suffering is simply inexplicable. Or that this world as it stands is in proper relationship to God. I can't see any reasons to accept those sorts of assumptions.

So do you know a better argument?

Check out this snippet, and pay especially attention to the three premises highlighted in blue that precede the conclusion:

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:52 am My reason #2 for not believing in a deity or deities: Logical inconsistencies

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

Where did those assumptions come from? Idiocy surely that one would attribute all loving with an entity that has warned of hell.

Prey do tell where in the buy_bull God is declared as ALL loving.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:43 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 7:21 am

I'm in church atm. Such beautiful aesthetics, as I am typing RIGHT NOW, a cloud must have parted and golden light from the Sun of God shone on my right side....ah it's dimmed again. I love Jesus the Christ, even though I've experienced the WRATH of God, never shall I 3at of the Tree again.

www.androcies.com (evidence)

Oh, so let me get this straight. The sun's rays have got you all starry-eyed and you're giving credit to your homie God or Jesus for the stunning view. And wait, hold up, you're saying you're done with learning and gaining wisdom? You're not gonna munch on that tree of knowledge again? Did I nail it or am I barking up the wrong tree?

You are fucking right mate. Not gonna sip on that nectar again, the EVIL side of God makes it very hard to LIVE - i've gotten all the wisdom of a sage from it, and I'd be a fool to return.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:35 pm

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

The idea of a deity is logically inconsistent with our everyday experience of the world. We never encounter deities in our everyday lives, and when things occasionally hapen that we can't explain, it isn't logically necessary to attribute them to a deity; there could be countless other explanations that we are simply not aware of. But, if we do make the break from logic by inferring the presence of a deity when inexplicable things happen, it seems foolish to then expect that deity to act in a way that we consider to be logical. In other words: if we abandon logic by accepting the existence of God, we can hardly question it when the implications that come from that don't make sense.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:55 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:36 am
All the versions of it I've found don't make a lot of sense. They require assumptions nobody actually has to accept, such as that God is the only ultimately effective will in the universe, or that suffering cannot be explained even in theory, or even by an omniscient observer. Or that all human beings are essentially innocent victims. Or that Atheists have a way of knowing that suffering is simply inexplicable. Or that this world as it stands is in proper relationship to God. I can't see any reasons to accept those sorts of assumptions.

So do you know a better argument?

Check out this snippet, and pay especially attention to the three premises highlighted in blue that precede the conclusion:

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:52 am My reason #2 for not believing in a deity or deities: Logical inconsistencies

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

Where did those assumptions come from? Idiocy surely that one would attribute all loving with an entity that has warned of hell.

Prey do tell where in the buy_bull God is declared as ALL loving.

Sure! Many religions believe that God is all-loving and this belief is supported by their respective holy scriptures. For instance, Christians believe that God's love for humanity is demonstrated through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ, while Muslims believe that God is the most merciful and compassionate and that his love and mercy extend to all of his creation. Hindus also believe that God is all-loving and that his love is the source of all creation. So, the idea of God being all-loving is a central belief for many people around the world and is documented in their holy texts.

In Christianity, the Bible teaches that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) and that God's love for humanity is demonstrated through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16). The Bible also teaches that God's love is unconditional and that nothing can separate us from his love (Romans 8:38-39).

In Islam, the Quran teaches that God is the most merciful and compassionate (Quran 2:143) and that his love and mercy extend to all of his creation. Muslims also believe that God's love is unconditional and that he forgives those who repent and seek his forgiveness (Quran 39:53).

In Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita teaches that God is all-loving and that he is present in all beings. Hindus believe that God's love is the source of all creation and that he is constantly working for the benefit of all living beings.