Why I'm Anti-Theistic

[Crowns&Laurels]

There's so much atheist and moral self assurance on this thread it's almost humorous.

Rape is wrong, molestation is wrong. Absolute truth ~repeat twice over~. Oppression of gays and women, gays and women oppressed, religion is the problem, anti-theist, anti-theist.

Hey, I have an idea, pull out some candles and chant it. It really sets the mood, it's how the religious do it!

For a philosophy section, it seems like none of these discussions can even begin before the atheists outright scourge religion and already pretty much limit it to a pointless riff-raff.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I thought that was one thing you were saying at the start.

I maybe am not helpful to this discussion?? If so I will leave

Actually, the point I was getting at about respect is that it's not important at all. If, for example, I met someone who believed in "psychic readings" and it was then explained to this person in detail how they work...how the deception is created...and they continued to believe, should I still respect that person's belief regarding psychic readings?

 

[Blank Stair]

Wrong again.

Gnostic relates to knowledge - an agnostic does not "know".
Atheists do not "believe".

Please read a dictionary

And yet an atheist can't actually truly state there is no God. They believe there is no such thing as God. Atheists are in truth agnostics.
In order for an Atheist to be correct they'd have to prove no thing could possibly be God. All they do is argue they don't believe anything exists that can be identified as that which is characterized as god. It is a belief system. They believe they're right in making what is an impossible to prove absolute proclamation of null in matters of a source of all that is.
What they disbelieve in is what has been presented to them by religions as god. When nature itself, and science has no definitive answers either as to first cause, is proof at the very least that no thing as source is an untenable delusion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suppose it would depend on the specific deception.

Yes. I suppose it would...

To say intelligence is the sole determining factor in regards to whether or not a person is deceived would be wrong.

I agree, of course. Intelligence itself can't completely enable one to detect all forms of deception.

The best deceptions, the most effective that is, seem to play off emotions that we're all subject to...greed, hope, fear, etc. In those kind of deceptions, I think the ability to recognize the emotion being manipulated and disregard it so it doesn't disrupt cold reason is more important than intellect.

Again, I agree; the emotional track of deception can be very effective, especially when the deceiver is offering the victim the very kind of thing she may want most. But, again, I would insist that the possible infusion of additional outside data could also contribute to the victim's level of awareness regarding the situation into which she is falling. [I just love the following scene...]

2PhiloVoid

 

[dms1972]

Actually, the point I was getting at about respect is that it's not important at all. If, for example, I met someone who believed in "psychic readings" and it was then explained to this person in detail how they work...how the deception is created...and they continued to believe, should I still respect that person's belief regarding psychic readings?

Not sure what you mean by 'respect', or if I am projecting.

If you think someone believes a deception, then why not just avoid?

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.

....what you see might depend on how you high you can count. (No, don't ask me to elucidate. )

p.s. Yes, I'm sure the scene itself has it's own embedded ideology given it by its producers. However, it makes great analogy, kind of like the red pill/blue pill scene in the Matrix.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. I suppose it would...

I agree, of course. Intelligence itself can't completely enable one to detect all forms of deception.

Again, I agree; the emotional track of deception can be very effective, especially when the deceiver is offering the victim the very kind of thing she may want most. But, again, I would insist that the possible infusion of additional outside data could also contribute to the victim's level of awareness regarding the situation into which she is falling. [I just love the following scene...]

2PhiloVoid

Lol that's not the only great scene in that movie...but yea...

Now when I see it, I imagine that he's a conservative and the glasses are made by Fox news.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not sure what you mean by 'respect', or if I am projecting.

If you think someone believes a deception, then why not just avoid?

What kind of person would I be if I did that? Just go with the flow...pretend things don't matter...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol that's not the only great scene in that movie...but yea...

Now when I see it, I imagine that he's a conservative and the glasses are made by Fox news.

lol ! It's good to see you have a sense of humor, Ana.

 

[dms1972]

What kind of person would I be if I did that? Just go with the flow...pretend things don't matter...

No, but what can you do if someone is deceived, they are choosing to be to some extent are they not?

Am i correct in thinking that you see 'theists' as not caring or sharing your concern about truth?

 

[asherahSamaria]

And yet an atheist can't actually truly state there is no God. They believe there is no such thing as God. Atheists are in truth agnostics.
In order for an Atheist to be correct they'd have to prove no thing could possibly be God. All they do is argue they don't believe anything exists that can be identified as that which is characterized as god. It is a belief system. They believe they're right in making what is an impossible to prove absolute proclamation of null in matters of a source of all that is.
What they disbelieve in is what has been presented to them by religions as god. When nature itself, and science has no definitive answers either as to first cause, is proof at the very least that no thing as source is an untenable delusion.

They could - but most don't - which is what I wrote.

"In order for an Atheist to be correct they'd have to prove no thing could possibly be God" - Completely wrong. For an atheist to be shown to have the wrong belief a god would have to be proven.

When nature itself, and science has no definitive answers either as to first cause - That's just an argument from ignorance.

 

[asherahSamaria]

On naturalism, what evidence could there be for God? Your conceptual framework is the problem. Not only are you unwilling to explore all possibilities, you're unable to.

So you admit there is no actual evidence for any God? Great - that's progress

 

[asherahSamaria]

not at all.

actually there is indeed "evidence" to suggest a god or designer of sorts.
the most obvious is consciousness.
there is nothing at all about physical laws that explains this.
the various aspects of molecular biology, the genetic code is another less obvious piece of evidence.
there is nothing in nature that explains this either.
the fact that base-pair sequences represent a coded scheme for producing proteins is yet another.
the placebo effect is faith based.
all of the above are right off the top of my head.
what do you do as an atheist?
you dismiss every single one of them, that's what.

now, you are no doubt going to accuse me of being a creationist, but nothing could be further from the truth.
i actually find the concept of god absurd, but yet i can see why and how there very well may be that sort of thing.

the most obvious is consciousness - how so?

there is nothing at all about physical laws that explains this - argument from personal incredulity

the various aspects of molecular biology, the genetic code is another less obvious piece of evidence - how so?

there is nothing in nature that explains this either - explains what?

the fact that base-pair sequences represent a coded scheme for producing proteins is yet another - isn't nature fascinating - and entirely based in the real world too..

the placebo effect is faith based - are you confusing "faith" as in hope with faith as in "belief"

you dismiss every single one of them, that's what - after careful consideration - yes they do not point their way to a deity. They are mostly arguments from ignorance. A couple of hundred years ago you could have pointed to an person with mental health problems and shouted "demons" - same type of arguement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, but what can you do if someone is deceived, they are choosing to be to some extent are they not?

Am i correct in thinking that you see 'theists' as not caring or sharing your concern about truth?

I don't think that most do....no.

Please keep in mind though, typically anti theism is opposition to religion. That's the context I've used it for here. Your non-religious theist is someone I've really only got one problem with lol

 

[Eudaimonist]

actually there is indeed "evidence" to suggest a god or designer of sorts.
the most obvious is consciousness.
there is nothing at all about physical laws that explains this.

The hard problem of consciousness has not been answered, but consciousness is ambiguous evidence at best for gods. Failing (as of yet) to explain something on naturalistic grounds is not evidence for something supernatural.

I'd say that consciousness is much more strongly evidence for brains. For instance, if I were to discover a new species of animal, and it shows signs in its behavior that it was aware of my existence, I would take that as evidence that it has a functioning brain of some sort. Why wouldn't I? Science has established a strong link between brains and conscious awareness. It would make perfect sense.

I would see no reason to think that this was evidence for gods. Why would I? Just because I can't give an answer to the hard problem of consciousness, that doesn't mean I get to explain consciousness with whatever I might want to be real. That's just an argument from ignorance fallacy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's so much atheist and moral self assurance on this thread it's almost humorous.

There is nothing inconsistent about being an atheist and being morally self-assured. Morality doesn't depend on the existence of gods.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

atheist do not believe there is a god, and are unwilling at all to explore the possibilities.

I'm not unwilling to explore possibilities. However, I am unwilling to lower my epistemological standards. It's good to have an open mind, but not one so open that one's brain falls out.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Matt 7:9 ""Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

Now here we are, the atheists, asking for bread. And we are presented with stones. And have to listen to the Christian's excuses why the stone is exactly what we asked for, what we need.


After having gone through such exchanges a number of times, I can state: yes, I, too, am an anti-theist.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think its ccommendable that humans try to be independent of the contingencies of "Gods will" and "divine providence". Why, because it tends to get things done.