/atheism/ - Atheism

What's interesting is that you don't even have to be in a religious situation to experience some things. People can be brought to tears or to the highest of joys when seeing old friends, losing someone, falling in love, etc. People can be emotionally moved by music, movies, literature, and shit, even video games.

What people need to be aware of is that these experiences, whether they're tied to religion or not aren't divine. They're natural processes.

>>7837

I was once a christian and know what "feeling the spirit" is and have to emphasize that theists don't have a monopoly on spirituality. I still get this feeling sometimes when I slow down and concentrate on easing my mind and feeling oneness with the world.

I think there's a lot of theists in it for that feeling, that's their only means of achieving it or so they view it as such and what I'd call practical theism. They don't necessarily believe it as a truth and may have doubts but because that feeling of spirituality helps them in everyday life they practice it. Then you have some that acquaint this feeling as one only coming from a deity. Because their only exposure to it is from what they think is a deity, they assume all the rest of their holy texts are true and come from that deity. What's universally true and what works on a practical level are sometimes two different things.

But I consider religions some of the biggest illusions of modern day man.

>>7837

What is this feeling? Does it feel like a revelation, an intense opening up of the world? A tranquil desire to stay some way forever? The first one is not special, common enough in dreams, I think. The second is barely worth mentioning very easy to have.

>higher purpose

I don't know, the very notion - and, by extension, existentialism - is completely alien to me. Did Camus mean that the universe not having one is a problem?

>>7857

No poet could tell a story without end. A common thread with gods and life: lack of alternatives. They say gods are good because they cannot see any other. And you see life is beautiful.

Feelings are beautiful, and strange, and precious. But what of the lack of them?

>>7840

And yet, most people attribute them to divinity, so why would that be?

>>7933

>What argument can you provide that concludes God does not exist?

This is a textbook negative proof fallacy. Instead of 'God', I can fill in anyagical entity I like and the argument would stay exactly the same.

Furthermore, Aquinas' arguments aren't nearly as good as you probably think they are, and they're certainly not infallible. Let me give you 5 criticisms of the unmoved mover/5 ways/etc.

1. In each argument, God is defined at the end of the argument. Terms are usually defined at the beginning

2. This argument is an argument from ignorance. Aquinas claims a perspective outside of reality and causality, a perspective he never demonstrates to have in the first place

3. The argument is special pleading. It declares that everything moves and therefore needs a mover. He never explains why God doesn't need a mover, he merely asserts this, without any justidication

4. Aquinas assumes that the unmoved mover is a top down mover with a conscious will. He never explains why it needs to have a conscious will and in the structure of organization, top down organization isn't the only option. There's also bottom-up organization, where small interactions lead to big patterns. Aquinas never explains why it needs to be top down organization, he merely asserts it.

5. None of the claims that Aquinas makes are testable. This means that you cannot seperate the veracity from the falsity of the argument, nor can it tell you the degree of consistency his argument has with reality. This makes his argument nothing more than a semantic game

Anyway, back to what I believe. I lack a believe in God because it's a claim for which there exists zero evidence. If evidence in favor of it is presented, I'd be more than happy to believe it, until then I will not

>>7933

>Would you be so kind as to show me this proof that God does not exist?

He never stated that there were any.

>The argument that is your post seems to be.

People have spiritual experiences, therefore people attribute these experiences to oddly specific scenarios and entities that they have no evidence for.

FTFY

>I have to tell you that does not make any sense.

>The conclusion does not follow.

That would probably be because that was not the conclusion that he gave.

>There are several arguments for the existence of God.

And none of them are any good.

>What argument can you provide that concludes God does not exist?

>i.e.

>Why shouldn't I believe in God?

Nobody said that you shouldn't believe in a god, we're just saying that you're stupid for believing in anything that has no evidence, and still has evidence against his existence.

You can believe in anything without evidence, but you're still an idiot for it.

>>7939

>I wasn't the one who made the claim that there were "irresistible onslaught of sound atheistic proofs and arguments".

Not against a god's existence, but for the concept of religion. You must have misunderstood what the OP was saying.

>So what, it's not like anyone changed the definition of God to match the conclusion.

Are you so sure about that?

>An argument from ignorance is more like your argument.

>You say "There is no proof of God, therefore He does not exist."

And this is where you prove yourself to be a complete idiot. Where did he say that a god doesn't exist? He stated that he doesn't believe a god exists until evidence for such a claim is presented.

>Aquinas was talking about things we know, not about the unknown.

The minute that god was brought up was the moment your statement ceased to be true.

>We know the universe had a beginning. I assume you agree.

I do not. And anyone who does, doesn't understand the big bang.

>Anyways the universe is not eternal in the past, and indeed had a beginning.

How are you so sure of that? Where is your evidence?

>Some folks agree with Hawking in that quantum fluctuations was the cause of the universe.

Oh boy, here we go.

>The problem is, if these quantum fluctuations existed eternally, and they are the cause of the universe, then the universe should also be eternal.

Okay, now we're on the same page.

>Either the cause is an infinite regress, which is impossible.

How do you know?

>Because if a cause is eternal, so also is the effect.

False equivalency.

>I'd say the best evidence is found in DNA.

You don't think that evolution is a thing, right?

>It should seem obvious to anyone that computer code does not arise from chaos, but is in fact the result of a mind.

God of the gaps fallacy.

>You wind up with an infinite regress, which we know is impossible.

By this logic, who created god?

>>7933

>People have spiritual experiences, therefore God does not exist.

The argument is more like: people are able to have spiritual experiences despite believing in completely different things so it's more likely that these spiritual experiences aren't of divine origin

>>7934

>And yet, most people attribute them to divinity, so why would that be?

Because most people already believe in gods and it's become a common idea in society that these experiences are divine in origin. Humanity has a long record of misattributing perfectly natural things to the divine from comets to plagues so it's not so unreasonable to suspect that mankind is wrong about this as well.

>>7939

>I wasn't the one who made the claim that there were "irresistible onslaught of sound atheistic proofs and arguments".

Neither was I, I stated what I believe as this:

>I lack a believe in God because it's a claim for which there exists zero evidence. If evidence in favor of it is presented, I'd be more than happy to believe it, until then I will not

>So what, it's not like anyone changed the definition of God to match the conclusion.

You're right, the conclusion is already made in advance. Aquinas' arguments are basically nothing but deductions from the Bible, which means that he assumes the Bible is 100% true, which is the very thing he has to prove

>You say "There is no proof of God, therefore He does not exist."

No, I didn't. Also, it very much is an argument from ignorance. Essentially, nobody knows what the origin of the universe is. We can argue that we don't even know how to properly ask the questions that can get us to the answer. Instead of concluding that therefore, we shouldn't draw any conclusions on the origins of the universe whatsoever, Aquinas concludes that it therefore must be the handywork of God, which is a baseless conclusion

>For if there were we would be standing on the end of infinity.

We don't know, since infinity is a concept that makes next to no sense to us. For instance, I can solve your riddle by saying that your infinity was balanced out by an opposing minus infinity. The point is that no one really works with infinity, because it's a concept that's almost completely useless

>We know the universe had a beginning. I assume you agree.

Sure

>Imagine a bowling ball resting on a couch cushion. (pic related)

>Now this bowling ball, and cushion are eternal, and have always existed.

>Gravity also exists.

>Now there will be a dent in the cushion due to the weight of the ball, and the effects of gravity.

>I ask you. How long has the dent been there?

>Answer: Always.

>Why?

>Because if a cause is eternal, so also is the effect.

So far, so good

>The only way around this is if the cause has personal agency, and can decide to at some point place the ball on the cushion.

Wow, wow, wow, slow down, where did this personal agency suddenly come from? One moment you're basically talking about cause and effect and the next you're talking about not only an agency, but a personal agency as well. How did you get from cause and effect to personal agency?

>In the example of potential ice aka water, we know for a fact that it takes actual cold air to produce actual ice.

No one in psychics uses potentialities and actualities anymore, and for very good reasons. These terms are broad to the point of meaninglessness.

Anyway, the most important part about a test is the ability to falsify a proposition. Also, you should be able to measure the thing you're testing. None of that happens in Aquinas' arguments

>I'd say the best evidence is found in DNA.

DNA is self-replicating and requires no intelligent input whatsoever

>It should seem obvious to anyone that computer code does not arise from chaos, but is in fact the result of a mind.

Not really, I gave you an example of something that directly contradicts this, namely bottom-up organization. Another term for this type of organization is self-organization and it's very well studied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

>>7940

>He never stated that there were any.

I suppose you missed the part I quoted.

"despite the otherwise irresistible onslaught of sound atheistic proofs and arguments."- Post >>7837

>people attribute these experiences to oddly specific scenarios and entities that they have no evidence for.

Even so, this does not refute God's existence.

He was using this notion as an argument against God, and it fails to refute God even in the slightest.

>That would probably be because that was not the conclusion that he gave.

Oh. Well then what is the conclusion of the post?

>You can believe in anything without evidence, but you're still an idiot for it.

Fair enough. Where is your evidence that Atheism is true?

If you are being intellectually honest, you get Agnosticism at best.

>Not against a god's existence, but for the concept of religion

That still does not follow.

People have spiritual experiences, therefore all religions are false.

Does not logically follow.

>Are you so sure about that?

Yes.

Well at least the God of the bible has always been described with these attributes.

>He stated that he doesn't believe a god exists until evidence for such a claim is presented.

Fair enough. So OP is agnostic?

>The minute that god was brought up was the moment your statement ceased to be true.

He used logic, and common sense to demonstrate the necessity of such a being.

How does mentioning God make a statement false?

>How do you know?

Logic, and common sense.

>False equivalency.

No its not.

How do you figure?

>God of the gaps fallacy.

No.

God of the gaps is "we don't know therefore God did it"

I'm saying we do know.

Name me one source of information, that did not originate in a mind.

>By this logic, who created god?

No one created God. God is the uncaused first cause.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html

>so it's more likely that these spiritual experiences aren't of divine origin

Now that I can agree with.

I would agree that the majority of experiences are of an emotional nature, but that does not refute God.

>>7942

>Aquinas' arguments are basically nothing but deductions from the Bible, which means that he assumes the Bible is 100% true, which is the very thing he has to prove

Is that not how we find out things?

In science someone proposes a hypothesis, and then they set out to prove it.

>Aquinas concludes that it therefore must be the handywork of God, which is a baseless conclusion

It seems to me it was based on logic.

Deductive reasoning.

>since infinity is a concept that makes next to no sense to us.

What?

The concept is quite easy. Here let me help you.

A limitless amount.

>where did this personal agency suddenly come from?

It comes from the fact that if a cause is eternal the effect is eternal.

The only way around that is to have personal agency, that way the agent could be eternal, but at some point chooses to act.

>None of that happens in Aquinas' arguments

Again it was meant only as an example.

I was asking for a similar example for an argument against God's existence.

>DNA is self-replicating and requires no intelligent input whatsoever

If DNA makes DNA, where did the first DNA come from?

If there is information in it someone must have put it there.

>self organization

The word I was using is information.

Information does not arise from chaos.

In these examples the only ones that would demonstrate information are ones with living beings.

>>7943

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

So am I correct in saying no one has any positive evidence, or logical arguments that demonstrate that God does not exist?

You seem to spend your time trying to refute my statements, without providing any positive evidence for your case.

>>7944

I could write counters to all of this but I do not have time. There are faster rebutals.

What is the nature of your God? If he is christian then I have sufficient evidence to say it is less likely your God of contradictions exists or is even remotely close to what you believe than it is is that there is simply no God. Its more plausible that a God invented by a science fiction author with a PHD In astrophysics and a working knowledge of religious history history is correct than your God, because at least his God has yet to be criticized by skeptics, and his God has the benefits of a modern lense which will make his God harder to refute than the God of primitive goat herders 2000 years ago. With the new religions we might be able able to give a breif iota of suspension of disbelief so they can make their case, but with Christianity it has been thoroughly debunked for many years.

>>7837

Here's a better question. Why does it matter if sometimes people have unusual experiences as long as these can be partially explained? At least some of the gravity and difficulties people have is due to lack of knowledge about how these feelings came to be.

>>7837

Here's a better question. Why does it matter if sometimes people have unusual experiences as long as these can be partially explained? At least some of the gravity and difficulties people have is due to lack of knowledge about how these feelings came to be.

fix 8chan Hotwheels

>>7933

>Would you be so kind as to show me this proof that God does not exist?

Can God remove his omnipotence? If he can't he is not omnipotent and if he can he isn't omnipotent either.

No one can know unknown-unknowns. There is always the possibility of this set and you can't know whats in it. Therefore omniscience is impossible.

God is omnipotent, witch means he could a wide variety of potentially evil things. Yet he is omnibenevolent, witch means he can't do all these things because that would mean he is potentially evil and thus no all good. If he is all good then he can't do evil but then he is no omnipotent.

God is supposedly divinely simple. Yet he has multiple distinct traits(omniscience, loving, jealous, etc ) but this should be impossible if he is perfectly simple. We also know that intelligence can only arise from complex systems. A single atom can't have thought so why should a single God substance should?

God also has access to unlimited knowledge yet has nothing to store that knowledge in.

God is also a timeless, space less, immaterial being. But this is non-sense what does it mean to exist but be non where, no when and not made of anything. In fact this what people usually mean when they say something doesn't exist. If I say Bigfoot doesn't exist what I am saying is that no where in the world was there at any point of clump of matter/energy witch matches the characteristics of the idea we call bigfoot.

There is the problem of evil witch has never had a good answer, but that only works if you believe in a good God. But a even better argument is the argument from disbelief witch destroys any Christian God.

>>7933

>Why shouldn't I believe in God?

because you don't have a convincing case.