What would it take to disprove atheism?

[Belk]

Heh, yea.

Well, those who believe it will either be vindicated or highly shocked and humbled. We will all see undeniable truth very soon - even as soon as we die.

Not if atheists are correct. You won't be anything at all.

 

[Aldebaran]

What if I told you i had a god who created me for a specific purpose, who loved me and had a plan for my whole life, who watched over me, who created everything in this world for me and a universe for my world, who died for me, who came to earth to extend an invitation to be with him forever when I die....and it's all for me and not anyone who believes otherwise....?

Would that sound less or more arrogant than simply saying "god doesn't exist"?

If it was something one of us made up in our own mind without documentation backed up by history and archeology, then I suppose it could be called arrogant, especially if it was made up with the idea that we deserve for it to be true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If it was something one of us made up in our own mind without documentation backed up by history and archeology, then I suppose it could be called arrogant, especially if it was made up with the idea that we deserve for it to be true.

As far as I know, none of the claims in that run-on sentence have been "backed up" by either history or archeology.

Regardless of that though, why would it make the claims more credible if some guy 2000+ years ago made them? I'm confident in saying I know a fair bit more about the world and they way things work than he did. If anything, the claims should be more credible coming from me.

 

[Aldebaran]

As far as I know, none of the claims in that run-on sentence have been "backed up" by either history or archeology.

Regardless of that though, why would it make the claims more credible if some guy 2000+ years ago made them? I'm confident in saying I know a fair bit more about the world and they way things work than he did. If anything, the claims should be more credible coming from me.

Run-on sentence? It was only 2 lines long.
You don't think there are any archeological finds that back up the bible? You'd have to be living under a rock to believe that after all that has been discovered.

 

[True Scotsman]

Can you tell me how the concept which is called "God" does not violate the primacy of existence principle?

Well?

 

[Aldebaran]

Well?

Not familiar with the term, so I hope you're not asking me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Run-on sentence? It was only 2 lines long.
You don't think there are any archeological finds that back up the bible? You'd have to be living under a rock to believe that after all that has been discovered.

It looked longer than two lines because I post from my phone lol. I didn't say that there aren't any archeological finds that confirm what is in the bible....i said none of the claims i stated are confirmed. Not only are they not confirmed by history or archeology....but science or any other discipline fails to confirm them either. There are real people and places in the mythologies of every religion that I'm aware of (now that I think of it, it would be odd if there weren't) but that doesn't make every claim in those mythologies true. Im certain you don't think Zeus exists simply because Mt. Olympus is a real place.

 

[Aldebaran]

It looked longer than two lines because I post from my phone lol. I didn't say that there aren't any archeological finds that confirm what is in the bible....i said none of the claims i stated are confirmed. Not only are they not confirmed by history or archeology....but science or any other discipline fails to confirm them either. There are real people and places in the mythologies of every religion that I'm aware of (now that I think of it, it would be odd if there weren't) but that doesn't make every claim in those mythologies true. Im certain you don't think Zeus exists simply because Mt. Olympus is a real place.

Well, you never know! Before the flood in Noah's time, there was some rather strange stuff going on. Supernatural beings were mating with women and having offspring that were called giants, either physically or otherwise. Goliath was over 9 feet tall. People before the flood lived for hundreds of years. So it's possible that people like Zeus or Hercules and others lived back then--whoever or whatever they really were. Humanity itself was altered in those days. Little wonder God would have wiped them all out to start over with Noah and his sons.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, you never know! Before the flood in Noah's time, there was some rather strange stuff going on. Supernatural beings were mating with women and having offspring that were called giants, either physically or otherwise. Goliath was over 9 feet tall. People before the flood lived for hundreds of years. So it's possible that people like Zeus or Hercules and others lived back then--whoever or whatever they really were. Humanity itself was altered in those days. Little wonder God would have wiped them all out to start over with Noah and his sons.

Well, you're right there.... i don't "know". It could be that all mythological figures were real at one point and then god wiped away all evidence of their existence with a flood...then wiped away the evidence of the flood. Figures like the titan Cronos or the goddess Durga (or just about every figure of Sumerian mythology) seem to stretch beyond the limits of what's possible even by christian mythological standards....but it's a "possibility".

Of course, there's also the possibility that these are just stories. Told and eventually written for various purposes... often which seems to be teaching people a lesson that's either based on morality or tradition. I consider this possibility to be more likely...maybe you consider the other possibility to be more likely. I didn't really make my original statement to examine the possibilities of mythologies being true. I made that statement in response to the accusation that denying the existence of god is inherently arrogant. To state that a claim is arrogant implies that it has some measure of self-indulgence or is self serving in some way....

So with that in mind, try your best to pretend that you don't actually believe either of the following statements. Indeed, try to pretend that you hadn't actually ever even considered either of these claims and then tell me which sounds more arrogant.

1. I have a god who created me for a specific purpose, who loved me and had a plan for my whole life, who watched over me, who created everything in this world for me and a universe for my world, who died for me, who came to earth to extend an invitation to be with him forever when I die....and it's all for me and not anyone who believes otherwise.

2. God doesn't exist.

I M O...even if I weren't an atheist, the first statement seems entirely self-serving and arrogant. Perhaps even childish. The second seems as if it's only concern is truth...whether it's a true statement or not.

 

[True Scotsman]

Not familiar with the term, so I hope you're not asking me.

No. I was asking VProud.

 

[True Scotsman]

Not familiar with the term, so I hope you're not asking me.

Aldebaran,

The issue of metaphysical primacy is the most fundamental question in philosophy. It refers to the necessary relationship between consciousness and existence. Does the subject of consciousness hold primacy over the objects of consciousness or is it the other way around. In other words do the objects we perceive conform to consciousness or does consciousness conform to its objects.

 

[Lollerskates]

Not if atheists are correct. You won't be anything at all.

That is why I said atheists will either be vindicated, or shocked and humbled. It was either-or.

 

[Lollerskates]

My friend, who is currently completing his PhD in microbiology, is a Christian, and very open about it. To my knowledge, he has experienced no adverse social ramifications for his belief.

I know several MSE, and Ph.D. colleagues who go through ridicule and disdain for their beliefs (Christian, anti-man-made-global warming, Islam, Pagan, anti-standard ideas, etc.) They are biologists, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, civil engineers, physicists and mathematicians. It happens; I didn't say it is guaranteed. I know of professors who have had mentors that are brilliant, but ridiculed and even had scholarly articles removed for their opinions. It happens.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is why I said atheists will either be vindicated, or shocked and humbled. It was either-or.

It isn't a pride thing to be atheist, at least not for me.

 

[Lollerskates]

It isn't a pride thing to be atheist, at least not for me.

With more and more explanation demanded, the overall message becomes lost in details.

I have conversed with you. I believe we [sometimes vehemently] disagree, but I don't think you badge yourself on a perceived intellectual exaltation as an atheist. I do not believe you are "proud" to be an atheist in a toxic way. But, realistically you are only one person. There are atheists who feed on causing theists to lose their faith - whether out of seemingly benign "education," or something more sinister. There are people who are so sure that people who believe in a god are illogical unreasonable that they ridicule them. I especially pay attention tk subtle ridicule packaged as debate, or questions and learning. And, I understand this is not all atheists. Some Christians are just as bad, because we are all humans.

My main point was that death is the only thing that will vindicate, or "disprove" atheism, as per the OP. Everyone has a measure of faith, so questions answered in the "other life," or lack there of will be the only logical way one could ever prove or disprove a theology (or atheism.) When we die we will be able to see the truth, excluding infinite metaphysical and philosophical issues (like, is this like a dream...will the next one be... will we retain consciousness of our person, etc.) Before we get to the parenthetical, it would be nice to get past minutia.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, death in and of itself actually might not prove anything. A deity could exist without having anything to do with us, and whether or not a deity exists is generally unrelated to whether or not an afterlife does (a deity could exist and an afterlife wouldn't necessarily be a consequence of that existence). Dying only proves whether or not an afterlife exists (and only to those already dead), it might not prove anything about deities.

I do know atheists by the way who do believe in an afterlife, but not deities. There are in fact atheistic religions, all atheism is is a lack of belief in deities, it doesn't mean there aren't atheists who believe in other supernatural things. Heck, I used to believe in ghosts.

 

[Lollerskates]

Well, death in and of itself actually might not prove anything. A deity could exist without having anything to do with us,

That is right, and many do. The One in question, however, is very involved in our lives.

and whether or not a deity exists is generally unrelated to whether or not an afterlife does (a deity could exist and an afterlife wouldn't necessarily be a consequence of that existence). Dying only proves whether or not an afterlife exists (and only to those already dead), it might not prove anything about deities.

The philosophic context is about vindicating either Christian or atheist ideas about existence, and [dis]belief. Philosophically, I agree; death does not necessarily prove deities, as you can be in a spin cycle of reincarnation before you ever meet a deity. In terms of Christianity, it is appointed for man to die once, then judgment. So, death to me would be the answer to the question. As I said, we all have faith - even if we mask it as logic, or "fact." So, the real OP issue about disproving or vindication atheism is primarily a faith issue. Logic, and science are accessories.

I do know atheists by the way who do believe in an afterlife, but not deities. There are in fact atheistic religions, all atheism is is a lack of belief in deities, it doesn't mean there aren't atheists who believe in other supernatural things. Heck, I used to believe in ghosts.

O.k. this is why I say all will be revealed at death. If you retain consciousness, and remember a reincarnation, then the options for that branch drop accordingly. If you retain consciousness, and awaken to an all powerful, seeing, and present entity, then you follow that branch. If you wake up on Arcturus, then follow that branch. Death will answer the questions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

With more and more explanation demanded, the overall message becomes lost in details.

I have conversed with you. I believe we [sometimes vehemently] disagree, but I don't think you badge yourself on a perceived intellectual exaltation as an atheist. I do not believe you are "proud" to be an atheist in a toxic way. But, realistically you are only one person. There are atheists who feed on causing theists to lose their faith - whether out of seemingly benign "education," or something more sinister. There are people who are so sure that people who believe in a god are illogical unreasonable that they ridicule them. I especially pay attention tk subtle ridicule packaged as debate, or questions and learning. And, I understand this is not all atheists. Some Christians are just as bad, because we are all humans.

My main point was that death is the only thing that will vindicate, or "disprove" atheism, as per the OP. Everyone has a measure of faith, so questions answered in the "other life," or lack there of will be the only logical way one could ever prove or disprove a theology (or atheism.) When we die we will be able to see the truth, excluding infinite metaphysical and philosophical issues (like, is this like a dream...will the next one be... will we retain consciousness of our person, etc.) Before we get to the parenthetical, it would be nice to get past minutia.

"There are atheists who feed on causing theists to lose their faith - whether out of seemingly benign "education," or something more sinister. "

In my whole life I've only brought three people to atheism. Three people who genuinely believed (at least in their opinion) and are now every bit an atheist as I am. I can only assure you, it didn't seem the least bit benign to me when I became atheist and I don't think it did for them either. The thing you said about it (motivations, i assume) being sinister....is awful.

Imagine what you would think if someone described your bringing someone to believe in Christ as something "sinister". I only do what I think is right. You do what you think is right. I don't see anything selfish or indulgent in my bringing someone to atheism. To me, I imagine it feels like freeing a slave who's been bonded half by his own choosing. The world may seem more frightening once those chains which have been so comfortable for so long are removed...but none of the three I brought ever expressed any resent or regret towards me for my help. Quite the opposite.

So please, rethink your whole "sinister" angle. Try to imagine that probably every case of an atheist deconverting someone is done entirely without malice. I certainly don't think such things of those poor folk who knock on my door every weekend while I'm still in my boxers. It may anger me at first, but I forgive them since they know not what they do.

 

[True Scotsman]

VProud,

I'm still interested in your explanation as to why the god concept does not violate the primacy of existence principle. I was really hoping you would come back with a reasoned response. You see it is always at this point in discussions when people flee and refuse to answer.

If my reasoning is flawed I'd like you to point out how. How can a concept that affirms the primacy of consciousness not contradict the primacy of existence principle, the truth of which is perceptually self evident. The only way to "perceive" a consciousness which holds primacy over its objects is to imagine it.
but I'm sure you recognize a fundamental distinction between the imaginary and the real.

 

[Lollerskates]

"There are atheists who feed on causing theists to lose their faith - whether out of seemingly benign "education," or something more sinister. "

In my whole life I've only brought three people to atheism. Three people who genuinely believed (at least in their opinion) and are now every bit an atheist as I am. I can only assure you, it didn't seem the least bit benign to me when I became atheist and I don't think it did for them either. The thing you said about it (motivations, i assume) being sinister....is awful.

Are you every atheist? And, it is awful to wear on someone so much that you cause them to lose faith. You are responsible for your own soul, so blaming others for anything is lame. But, I can comment on people that try to cause others to stumble, and lose faith.

Imagine what you would think if someone described your bringing someone to believe in Christ as something "sinister".

Despite popular belief, Christians plant the seed and move on. We aren't supposed to bash God into people's minds. If someone asks us about God, or Christ, we tell them, and that person is responsible for the information. So, unless I am picketing, or using religion to justify geopolitical activity/atrocities, there is nothing sinister about asking questions.

Affirming how much more logical, ethical, moral, reasonable, intelligent, learned, or sane based on one's belief IS bad. All facets are reasonable for this: all. But, you may need to separate the individual from the lot.

I only do what I think is right.

You work for the government; what you *think* is right may not even be right on a State level. So... this is just a personal creed.

You do what you think is right. I don't see anything selfish or indulgent in my bringing someone to atheism.

It isn't your job to bring anyone anywhere - morally or spiritualy. Every human is soverign, and endowed with the power to choose one's own trajectory. If you are "bringing" people to atheism you are doing too much (subtle ridicule, scoffing, disdain, etc.) Again, you work for the government; you should know you are always being watched - your words, attitude and demeanor. People lurk on these forums, and/or google for answers. So, there is a responsibility active.

me, I imagine it feels like freeing a slave who's been bonded half by his own choosing. The world may seem more frightening once those chains which have been so comfortable for so long are removed...but none of the three I brought ever expressed any resent or regret towards me for my help. Quite the opposite.

I personally found my 17 years of agnosticism as bondage, and everything made sense to me spiritually when I got into physics and math. Everyone is a slave; the sad part is people think they are truly free. Pick your Master. Happiness, and other emotions are just that: emotions. Electromagnetic fields, and chemistry can affect emotion easily. Truth is impervious to tricks.

So please, rethink your whole "sinister" angle.

No. What did you say, you are a bit more smarter than to overtly insult Christians who deserve it? You dont consider their feelings, or do you? Do you consider their trials and struggles? Now, there are MUCH worse people than you (as if you were a serious threat) who cant even admit they go tit for tat sometimes. It is SINISTER what some of these people - atheists - do to Christians. And, it is usually young Christians in faith. I do not go on "MuslimForums" and try to educate them on their alleged folly in faith, and I certainly do not demean and insult them because I do not believe their faith. But, it happens here, and the excuse is always about "having a debate, or reasonable, logical argument."

Try to imagine that probably every case of an atheist deconverting someone is done entirely without malice.

That is insincere. Between the arguments in culture, forums and science between Christians and Atheists, conversion today has become about Asch Conformity.

I certainly don't think such things of those poor folk who knock on my door every weekend while I'm still in my boxers. It may anger me at first, but I forgive them since they know not what they do.

Exactly what I am talking about... subtle ridicule and insult. Plausible deniability. Trained well.