Atheism Disproven?

[Freth]

At a much lower rate, compare the crime stats of the close to majority non-religious European countries to the very religious Central American ones. Note how the murder rates are an order of magnitude hither in Central America.




...of course you are and of course you are not, you just do not recognize it.

Just because you do not recognize it does not mean it is not so.

One study from 2013. Others may vary.

Peace and Religion Report (2013) by the Institute for Economics and Peace

• "Of the 21 conflicts involving religion, seven involved one other cause, four involved two other causes and ten involved three or more other causes. Therefore, although religion is a factor in conflict it is not the major factor, albeit 14 per cent did have the religion and the specific establishment of an Islamic state as driving causes. Notably, religion alone was not the sole cause of conflict for any armed conflicts in 2013."

 

[Freth]

But not sorry that what you said was offensive: just sorry that I took offence?

I apologize that what I said was offensive to you. As I said, it wasn't my intention to be offensive.

 

[honey badger]

I also don't believe in the gods you don't believe in.

Jesus referred to all the prophets that came before him as robbers and thieves, which is to say they were all liars .... and no different from those who preach and theories and hold others to doctrines in the churches today ... not that this is out of the order of things thou ...

 

[Bradskii]

"Worship is against human nature..."
History would disagree with this point. Look at ancient civilizations.

The "secular" definition of worship most definitely fits things in our lives, therefore, it is worship.

I disagree. Here's a dictionary definition that could be considered secular: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.

Now I guess that could include a devotion to a sports team. Or maybe a band? To money? I guess so...

But it's not the same definition as the term used for worshipping God except used in a secular form. It means something different. This is similar to when someone mentions faith in God and you say that atheists have faith in things as well. Faith that the bridge won't collapse or faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. It's the same word but used in a difference sense.

As it is with worship. There is zero comparison with how you worship God and how I 'worship' my footy team (Go the Roosters!). I even have to put scare quotes around it to emphasise that fact. If someone does use it in conversation, it's always used as an exaggeration. So if I want to go the the football as opposed to shopping with my wife she might say 'Gee, you worship that team!'

So no. What you do doesn't compare to what atheists do. To be honest, it seems a little odd. No offence meant.

 

[Desk trauma]

One study from 2013. Others may vary.

Peace and Religion Report (2013) by the Institute for Economics and Peace

• "Of the 21 conflicts involving religion, seven involved one other cause, four involved two other causes and ten involved three or more other causes. Therefore, although religion is a factor in conflict it is not the major factor, albeit 14 per cent did have the religion and the specific establishment of an Islamic state as driving causes. Notably, religion alone was not the sole cause of conflict for any armed conflicts in 2013."

Sweden:
Murder rate: 1 per 100,000 of population

El Salvador:
Murder rate 61 per 100,000 of population

Both rates rounded down and taken from here.

 

[Desk trauma]

Jesus referred to all the prophets that came before him as robbers and thieves, which is to say they were all liars .... and no different from those who preach and theories and hold others to doctrines in the churches today ... not that this is out of the order of things thou ...

I do not recall ordering a word salad.

 

[Bradskii]

One study from 2013. Others may vary.

Peace and Religion Report (2013) by the Institute for Economics and Peace

• "Of the 21 conflicts involving religion, seven involved one other cause, four involved two other causes and ten involved three or more other causes. Therefore, although religion is a factor in conflict it is not the major factor, albeit 14 per cent did have the religion and the specific establishment of an Islamic state as driving causes. Notably, religion alone was not the sole cause of conflict for any armed conflicts in 2013."

I'm not sure the point being made was that religion causes the violence. But that the people involved in it are religious. For a different perspective, you could check the percentages of Christians v atheists in prison perhaps.

Being a Christian doesn't seem to stop quite a lot of people doing wrong. Which is why atheists tend to bristle when it's declared that there is no obtainable system of morals for them.

 

[honey badger]

Sorry to hear about this dire level of myopia.

seeing is hearing and when you hear you see ...

 

[honey badger]

I do not recall ordering a word salad.

its a freebie ...

 

[Freth]

I disagree. Here's a dictionary definition that could be considered secular: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.

Now I guess that could include a devotion to a sports team. Or maybe a band? To money? I guess so...

But it's not the same definition as the term used for worshipping God except used in a secular form. It means something different. This is similar to when someone mentions faith in God and you say that atheists have faith in things as well. Faith that the bridge won't collapse or faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. It's the same word but used in a difference sense.

As it is with worship. There is zero comparison with how you worship God and how I 'worship' my footy team (Go the Roosters!). I even have to put scare quotes around it to emphasise that fact. If someone does use it in conversation, it's always used as an exaggeration. So if I want to go the the football as opposed to shopping with my wife she might say 'Gee, you worship that team!'

So no. What you do doesn't compare to what atheists do. To be honest, it seems a little odd. No offence meant.

It is true I am coming at it from a Christian perspective, which has a definition of false worship as being both other-religious and secular at the same time (Exodus 20:1-6). Anything that takes the place of God in your life is considered to be false worship. My assertion may have been a bit heavy-handed though.

 

[Bradskii]

It is true I am coming at it from a Christian perspective, which has a definition of false worship as being both other-religious and secular at the same time (Exodus 20:1-6). Anything that takes the place of God in your life is considered to be false worship. My assertion may have been a bit heavy-handed though.

I think 'false worship' would be a golden calf scenario in a religious sense. Or 'any god except God'. But the term 'worship' still wouldn't be applicable to a Christian who supported his team for example. Although it might keep him from God in some way.

But it's definitely not applicable to an atheist. You can't be kept away from something in which you do not believe.

And no, not heavy handed. We just have different views is all.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Disproving atheism requires proving the existence of one or more gods. Not whatever this is. At best it is a fallacious argument from consequences. "If gods don't exist, then my brain won't fizz in the special sparkly fizzy way I want it to fizz and assume it can only fizz if gods exist."

But just because the arguer would not like that state of affairs, doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[durangodawood]

...underlying meaning....

Is "underlying meaning" something different from ordinary meaning: loving family, enjoying nature, creating, etc?

 

[honey badger]

I think 'false worship' would be a golden calf scenario in a religious sense. Or 'any god except God'. But the term 'worship' still wouldn't be applicable to a Christian who supported his team for example. Although it might keep him from God in some way.

But it's definitely not applicable to an atheist. You can't be kept away from something in which you do not believe.

And no, not heavy handed. We just have different views is all.

actually you both be in the same boat ...

 

[Bradskii]

actually you both be in the same boat ...

Because..?

 

[honey badger]

... of the law of our mind

 

[Bradskii]

... of the law of our mind

Is this a riddle?

 

[honey badger]

Is this a riddle?

not a riddle in the sense to mislead ... but yes its the mystery of the ages ... albet it is seen in everything ... truth hidden in plain sight thing ...

 

[Larniavc]

An ism is an ist and an ist is an ant, but the ants don't like the isms and the isms don't like the ants. The point is, everyone sees from their own point of view .. and this is where isms, ants and ists are birthed out of, trying to make a name for ourselves which only brings confusion. .

Which does not change the point that the absence of a theism is not itself a theism.

 

[Astrid]

In my opinion, I find it difficult to hold onto the ideology of classical atheism after reading the following passages by two very deep thinkers:

Douglas Wilson on Atheism

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else."

C.S. Lewis on Atheism

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., Materialism and Astronomy – are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

Summary

These two passages, taken together, seem to imply that if classical atheism is true, then the following are true: That the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of humans are nothing more than accidental fizzing chemical reactions completely devoid of any underlying meaning. That humans themselves are completely devoid of any underlying meaning.

Nevertheless, when I open my eyes and look around, the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of humans seem to be pregnant with meaning. That humans themselves seem to be pregnant with meaning.

So in order to disprove classical atheism, all one has to do is open one's eyes and look around.

Any thoughts on this?

A lotta words to challenge the simple fact
that I don't believe any of the "gods" people
worship dont exist.
Like you who might disbelieve all but one you
choose.