Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Colter]

Some of them, perhaps. But I assure you that many atheists die atheists. Religious customs are not all-powerful.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Lucifer died an atheist.

 

[bhsmte]

Lucifer died an atheist.

Do you believe that on faith, or can you share objective evidence with us?

 

[Colter]

Really?

What evidence are you basing this on?

The impending age of enlightenment is based on prophesy in the Urantia revelation.

 

[Colter]

Do you believe that on faith, or can you share objective evidence with us?

That was revealed in the Urantia revelation of 1955.

 

[bhsmte]

That was revealed in the Urantia revelation of 1955.

Didn't answer my question.

Do you believe this on faith, or do you have objective evidence that you can share with us?

 

[bhsmte]

The impending age of enlightenment is based on prophesy in the Urantia revelation.

Not objective verifiable evidence.

No problem if you believe it on faith though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Lucifer died an atheist.

Putting the fictional nature of Lucifer aside, he wasn't even supposed to be human. I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you admitting that you were mistaken that "there is nothing more stronger[sic] than religious customs that were shaped for thousand of years"? Or are you saying that Lucifer died an atheist because those religious customs did not have time to form? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PsychoSarah]

Lucifer died an atheist.

Would such a being be considered alive to begin with? An you know, technically one can be a theist and still actively choose not to worship the deity/deities they think exist

 

[Loudmouth]

I argued that time doesn't bring any changed if the conditions aren't right so i talk about time as part of the Universe.

What gives time direction is entropy. The movement of the universe towards energy equilibriums is unavoidable, and it is perhaps the only process that gives time the characteristic of movement.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ISo, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

For the same reason that there are still people around today that still believe that Elvis is alive and well.

People want to believe.

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

They failed to apply the same standards to their theistic beliefs as they do to any other claims.

That's at least my observation.

Just about every reason a christian gives me to justify his beliefs can be used to justify belief in Islam, hinduism, or just about any other faith-based belief.

But for some reason, they hold double standards.

When a muslim claims a supernatural experience with Allah, for some reason it is dissmissed at face value. But when the same claim is made concerning Jesus, then suddenly it is accepted.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The only problem with comparisons like these (and FSMs, etc.) is that they implicitly beg the question by equating God with something nobody takes seriously and is ridiculous. It begs the question by making God equivalent to ridiculousness; rather than making an argument from this, it appeals to images.

Which is missing the point of the analogy.

The fact of the matter is that god as a concept is no different then the FSM as a concept.

In fact, saying that "god" is somehow special as opposed to the FSM "because people believe in god and not the FSM" is an argument ad populum.

The fact is that if both entities are claimed to exist, there is no way whatsoever to validate one claim over the other. Because both have exactly the same objective evidence: none.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which is begging the question by assuming that there is as much support for God as imaginary creatures nobody takes seriously.

That's not an assumption. That's an objective fact.
If it weren't a fact, then we wouldn't be having this conversation and "faith" would not be required.

 

[Received]

Which is missing the point of the analogy.

The fact of the matter is that god as a concept is no different then the FSM as a concept.

In fact, saying that "god" is somehow special as opposed to the FSM "because people believe in god and not the FSM" is an argument ad populum.

The fact is that if both entities are claimed to exist, there is no way whatsoever to validate one claim over the other. Because both have exactly the same objective evidence: none.

Should we include science with the FSM, given that there's no way to validate its existence either along positivist or empirical lines?

And what are the metaphysical qualities of the FSM? Is he, I don't know, omnipresent, eternal, occupying no space, etc? All I'm seeing is a physical entity who exists in a completely different way than any necessary conception of God given his role as a creator.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Should we include science with the FSM, given that there's no way to validate its existence either along positivist or empirical lines?

Science, like cooking, is an activity. The existence of both can be empirically shown.

 

[JimFit]

Which is missing the point of the analogy.

The fact of the matter is that god as a concept is no different then the FSM as a concept.

In fact, saying that "god" is somehow special as opposed to the FSM "because people believe in god and not the FSM" is an argument ad populum.

The fact is that if both entities are claimed to exist, there is no way whatsoever to validate one claim over the other. Because both have exactly the same objective evidence: none.

FSM is a pagan figure, God is not an idol, God is the Mind that created the Universe, He exists before the physical Universe and that makes Him transcendental. I know that the stupidity of new atheists is unbeatable but i want you to answer me a question , if nothing is a separate entity that creates Universes on its will isn't exactly the same as God?

 

[Received]

Science, like cooking, is an activity. The existence of both can be empirically shown.

The activity of the applied set of principles is different than the set of principles which come together to form its application. Science is this set of principles based on philosophical presuppositions with truth value. That it's put into action is a completely different thing when speaking of it as an empirically showable sort of thing.

 

[Received]

FSM is a pagan figure, God is not an idol, God is the Mind that created the Universe, He exists before the physical Universe and that makes Him transcendental. I know that the stupidity of new atheists is unbeatable but i want you to answer me a question , if nothing is a separate entity that creates Universes on its will isn't exactly the same as God?

And the moment you take God seriously as a creator, you come to necessary qualities that the FSM doesn't have. Such as omnipresence, timelessness, and spacelessness -- all of which are required if there is a creator of everything (including time, matter, and space).

"Okay, so let's say the FSM is such a creator." Then you're just playing semantics and hiddenly appealing to emotions by equating the same referent (omnipresent, timeless, spaceless creator) with two different names, God and FSM.

It's totally emotional, or at least reveals the epistemological bias and possible contempt people have against God by even creating such a figure as an analog to God. Shocking it comes from the unphilosophical mind of Richard Dawkins.

 

[JimFit]

And the moment you take God seriously as a creator, you come to necessary qualities that the FSM doesn't have. Such as omnipresence, timelessness, and spacelessness -- all of which are required if there is a creator of everything (including time, matter, and space).

"Okay, so let's say the FSM is such a creator." Then you're just playing semantics and hiddenly appealing to emotions by equating the same referent (omnipresent, timeless, spaceless creator) with two different names, God and FSM.

It's totally emotional, or at least reveals the epistemological bias and possible contempt people have against God by even creating such a figure as an analog to God. Shocking it comes from the unphilosophical mind of Richard Dawkins.

Believers of Nothingness Randomness and Luck (atheists) don't know that they just replaced God with a Pagan figure, they returned to the Paganistic Era.

 

[Freodin]

And the moment you take God seriously as a creator, you come to necessary qualities that the FSM doesn't have. Such as omnipresence, timelessness, and spacelessness -- all of which are required if there is a creator of everything (including time, matter, and space).

"Okay, so let's say the FSM is such a creator." Then you're just playing semantics and hiddenly appealing to emotions by equating the same referent (omnipresent, timeless, spaceless creator) with two different names, God and FSM.

It's totally emotional, or at least reveals the epistemological bias and possible contempt people have against God by even creating such a figure as an analog to God. Shocking it comes from the unphilosophical mind of Richard Dawkins.

If you have come to "necessary qualities" of omnipresence, timelessness and spacelessness... it only shows that in your attempt to remove your concept of God from all reasoning, you have managed to remove him from all reason.

Christians who do that want to eat their cake and keep it as well. They want to define an unreasonable God, a God of pure conceptionality. But they also want to keep the God as a loving, sex-obsessed, vengeful, mercyful, rational, emotional, personal creator, ruler, judge, father, friend.

Guess what, I almost agree with you on the pure conceptionality of timeless, spaceless, everything-lessness. But the FSM is a version of the superhuman God that even the philosophical Christians cannot get rid of - not the conceptual principle they still want to call "God".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Christians who do that want to eat their cake and keep it as well. They want to define an unreasonable God, a God of pure conceptionality. But they also want to keep the God as a loving, sex-obsessed, vengeful, mercyful, rational, emotional, personal creator, ruler, judge, father, friend.

Look here... Yahweh is an immaterial, supernatural, atemporal, aspacial, transcendent mind that hates gay people, impregnates virgins and loves the smell of burning goat flesh. Why is this so hard to believe in?