Exposing Atheistic Myths

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe I'm confused. Is a man walking on water a violation of a physical property of the universe? Namely, the strength of water's surface tension? Is it not a miracle for a man to walk on water compared to a water bug?

Well, if you don't believe that surface tension is a law that God must follow, but rather consider God's will to be a law that the water must follow, the whole thing looks a bit different.

Of course we can observe and make predictions based on verifiable scientific laws about water and tension and bugs and water bugs and the interface between water bugs and surface tension and we can extrapolate those observations and predictions into other equally verifiable fields and test our predictions.

The whole "god" thing with all its attendant woo woo and inability to be verified then looks a bit different.

 

[atrib]

Maybe I'm confused. Is a man walking on water a violation of a physical property of the universe? Namely, the strength of water's surface tension? Is it not a miracle for a man to walk on water compared to a water bug?

Well, if you don't believe that surface tension is a law that God must follow, but rather consider God's will to be a law that the water must follow, the whole thing looks a bit different.

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

 

[Half-Life]

That's not how it works. The reasoning goes that it is because "God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads..." then you have no evidence demonstrating that God is perfectly good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. And that if God is all these things by definition then there is no evidence that God exists.

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us." I look outside and see a traffic jam. "Why would God allow me to drive in his traffic? He can easily just teleport us to our jobs. Therefore, God doesn't exist." But then you think, "If God can teleport us to our jobs, why doesn't he just do our jobs for us? Heck, why do we have to do ANYTHING AT ALL?"

That's ultimately where the argument goes. Do you agree God should do everything for us or not? You're laying on the couch and you don't want to get up for a beer. You say, "If God was my friend, he'd get me my beer! He must not exist!" Crazy, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us."

No,y ou don't get it.
The argument is, if GOD is as the religious describe it, why is it not doing ______?

The easiest answer is that there is no god as the religious describe it.

That's ultimately where the argument goes.

No, i don't think you understand where the argument si coming from, therefore you're hampered in efforts to predict its trajectory.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us."

No,y ou don't get it.
The argument is, if GOD is as the religious describe it, why is it not doing ______?

The easiest answer is that there is no god as the religious describe it.

Gods are ghosts. Why do religious folk use ghosts to explain behavior? That's the real question that ghost believers need to ask themselves.

 

[Half-Life]

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us."

No,y ou don't get it.
The argument is, if GOD is as the religious describe it, why is it not doing ______?

The easiest answer is that there is no god as the religious describe it.

That's ultimately where the argument goes.

No, i don't think you understand where the argument si coming from, therefore you're hampered in efforts to predict its trajectory.

The bold is a positive claim, Keith. Please provide evidence for this claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No,y ou don't get it.
The argument is, if GOD is as the religious describe it, why is it not doing ______?

The easiest answer is that there is no god as the religious describe it.
No, i don't think you understand where the argument si coming from, therefore you're hampered in efforts to predict its trajectory.

The bold is a positive claim, Keith. Please provide evidence for this claim.

You haveca long, long backlog of requests for you to support your claims, Halfie. Make even a decent START on ponying up your support before i will do anything but laugh at your hypocrisy, here.

Ha.

And ha once more.

And a freebie, heh.

 

[abaddon]

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us." I look outside and see a traffic jam. "Why would God allow me to drive in his traffic? He can easily just teleport us to our jobs. Therefore, God doesn't exist." But then you think, "If God can teleport us to our jobs, why doesn't he just do our jobs for us? Heck, why do we have to do ANYTHING AT ALL?"

That's ultimately where the argument goes. Do you agree God should do everything for us or not? You're laying on the couch and you don't want to get up for a beer. You say, "If God was my friend, he'd get me my beer! He must not exist!" Crazy, right?

Theists believe in God because they wish things were different. The universe isn't like how they want it. Death looks like finality, so they wish a powerful entity would remove the finality. Unusual events are taken as signs and miracles because, instead of invisibly doing his usual routine, it seems like the powerful entity has done something to get noticed. Which is reassuring because, however crappy life can be, at least there's a powerful entity around who MIGHT do something nice for you if you're a good boy.

Atheists say "it really doesn't look like your powerful entity is running the show or has any influence on it".

Then a theist says "You guys are saying my powerful entity doesn't exist because you believe things should be different!"

Uh, yeah... things should be different if there were a powerful entity along the line that Christians describe. Motherfucking duh.

But, no, it's not wishing things were different and then resenting that God isn't there to do it. You're assuming we're secret theists, following our dumb impulses to wish things to be different. Rationality involves noticing such impulses and not making an entire worldview out of them, as theists have done.

 

[Half-Life]

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us." I look outside and see a traffic jam. "Why would God allow me to drive in his traffic? He can easily just teleport us to our jobs. Therefore, God doesn't exist." But then you think, "If God can teleport us to our jobs, why doesn't he just do our jobs for us? Heck, why do we have to do ANYTHING AT ALL?"

That's ultimately where the argument goes. Do you agree God should do everything for us or not? You're laying on the couch and you don't want to get up for a beer. You say, "If God was my friend, he'd get me my beer! He must not exist!" Crazy, right?

Theists believe in God because they wish things were different. The universe isn't like how they want it. Death looks like finality, so they wish a powerful entity would remove the finality. Unusual events are taken as signs and miracles because, instead of invisibly doing his usual routine, it seems like the powerful entity has done something to get noticed. Which is reassuring because, however crappy life can be, at least there's a powerful entity around who MIGHT do something nice for you if you're a good boy.

Atheists say "it really doesn't look like your powerful entity is running the show or has any influence on it".

Then a theist says "You guys are saying my powerful entity doesn't exist because you believe things should be different!"

Uh, yeah... things should be different if there were a powerful entity along the line that Christians describe. Motherfucking duh.

But, no, it's not wishing things were different and then resenting that God isn't there to do it. You're assuming we're secret theists, following our dumb impulses to wish things to be different. Rationality involves noticing such impulses and not making an entire worldview out of them, as theists have done.

Putting you on the hot seat:

So if you were to believe there is a God, you would expect it to do everything for us or not?

 

[abaddon]

"A God"? Not the omnimax God?

No, I wouldn't expect that. Because if I were a theist I wouldn't propose THAT God.

 

[Atheos]

There is no Santa Claus in a hidden workshop at the North Pole as believed by many.

Such a positive claim. And I have absolutely no evidence with which to back it up.

 

[skepticalbip]

"A God"? Not the omnimax God?

No, I wouldn't expect that. Because if I were a theist I wouldn't propose THAT God.

Yes, if there were such a critter as a god then a trickster god like Loki would make more sense. Fucking with humans and their gullibility would at least provide some distraction for him to break up the monotony an eternal existence.

ETA;
It is rather funny that the ego of theists makes them think that there is some supreme being that is so concerned with their personal well being as though humans are the most important thing in the universe.

 

[Rhea]

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us." I look outside and see a traffic jam. "Why would God allow me to drive in his traffic? He can easily just teleport us to our jobs. Therefore, God doesn't exist." But then you think, "If God can teleport us to our jobs, why doesn't he just do our jobs for us? Heck, why do we have to do ANYTHING AT ALL?"

That's ultimately where the argument goes. Do you agree God should do everything for us or not? You're laying on the couch and you don't want to get up for a beer. You say, "If God was my friend, he'd get me my beer! He must not exist!" Crazy, right?

Theists believe in God because they wish things were different. The universe isn't like how they want it. Death looks like finality, so they wish a powerful entity would remove the finality. Unusual events are taken as signs and miracles because, instead of invisibly doing his usual routine, it seems like the powerful entity has done something to get noticed. Which is reassuring because, however crappy life can be, at least there's a powerful entity around who MIGHT do something nice for you if you're a good boy.

Indeed , the theist idea of an intercessory god and the belief in a heaven with no suffering is more than dangerously close to the idea that “god should do everything for us, eventually.”

That’s what heaven is. God making everything better, for you. You, the theist actually believes that.
While the atheist merely says, you totally do not have a convincing story, human theist.

 

[Politesse]

Maybe I'm confused. Is a man walking on water a violation of a physical property of the universe? Namely, the strength of water's surface tension? Is it not a miracle for a man to walk on water compared to a water bug?

Well, if you don't believe that surface tension is a law that God must follow, but rather consider God's will to be a law that the water must follow, the whole thing looks a bit different.

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

What is it that "makes" things follow physical laws? What has "fixed" these properties.

 

[skepticalbip]

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

What is it that "makes" things follow physical laws? What has "fixed" these properties.

Such a question seem to be making the assumption that only some powerful intelligence could 'make' things follow physical laws. This should, if you are rational, cause you to wonder what 'made' this powerful intelligence... then what 'made' the maker... what 'made' the 'maker' of of the 'maker' of that powerful intelligence.. etc. etc.

For physicists, things are always observed to follow physical laws. That is sufficient.

 

[Half-Life]

"A God"? Not the omnimax God?

No, I wouldn't expect that. Because if I were a theist I wouldn't propose THAT God.

So you agree with the ontological argument, too?

 

[Treedbear]

That's not how it works. The reasoning goes that it is because "God can't keep kids from being born encephaletic, can't keep tsunamis from wiping out a quarter of a million people, can't keep a lunatic from sending dozens of kindergartners to their graves with bullets in their heads..." then you have no evidence demonstrating that God is perfectly good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. And that if God is all these things by definition then there is no evidence that God exists.

But you are getting dangerously close to the argument of, "God should do everything for us." I look outside and see a traffic jam. "Why would God allow me to drive in his traffic? He can easily just teleport us to our jobs. Therefore, God doesn't exist." But then you think, "If God can teleport us to our jobs, why doesn't he just do our jobs for us? Heck, why do we have to do ANYTHING AT ALL?"

That's ultimately where the argument goes. Do you agree God should do everything for us or not? You're laying on the couch and you don't want to get up for a beer. You say, "If God was my friend, he'd get me my beer! He must not exist!" Crazy, right?

But that's exactly where the argument leads to for the vast majority of believers. The holy books promise every desire will be fulfilled if one truly believes. They think praying and trying to do what they think God wants will deliver them from traffic jams and favor them above all others by providing the winning lottery ticket. That's the intellectual level people sink to when they abandon rational decision making for a omnimax God who is willing to forgive them any sins due to their willful ignorance. And when life doesn't treat them fairly they become depressed and overwhelmed with guilt for being a wretched sinner.

 

[Politesse]

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

What is it that "makes" things follow physical laws? What has "fixed" these properties.

Such a question seem to be making the assumption that only some powerful intelligence could 'make' things follow physical laws. This should, if you are rational, cause you to wonder what 'made' this powerful intelligence... then what 'made' the maker... what 'made' the 'maker' of of the 'maker' of that powerful intelligence.. etc. etc.

For physicists, things are always observed to follow physical laws. That is sufficient.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking what you mean.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

What is it that "makes" things follow physical laws? What has "fixed" these properties.

Such a question seem to be making the assumption that only some powerful intelligence could 'make' things follow physical laws. This should, if you are rational, cause you to wonder what 'made' this powerful intelligence... then what 'made' the maker... what 'made' the 'maker' of of the 'maker' of that powerful intelligence.. etc. etc.

For physicists, things are always observed to follow physical laws. That is sufficient.

I've been in enough discussions where this point always arrives and I cannot explain it, I can only observe it and accept my observations as accurate. That a person states that visible, sensory, predictable physicality just happening to exist is an absurd claim. But an alleged magical creature infinitely more complex and intelligent similarly just happening to exist is not. For the latter we need no explanation, accounting, or proof, but for the former, we do not accept any of it as real without the latter. It's simply astounding to experience, a gift.

This will always be the most fascinating, revealing and fulfilling observation I shall ever make of the human species.

 

[skepticalbip]

Such a question seem to be making the assumption that only some powerful intelligence could 'make' things follow physical laws. This should, if you are rational, cause you to wonder what 'made' this powerful intelligence... then what 'made' the maker... what 'made' the 'maker' of of the 'maker' of that powerful intelligence.. etc. etc.

For physicists, things are always observed to follow physical laws. That is sufficient.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking what you mean.

What I mean? I mean that I have never seen any reason to assume that inanimate objects have independent will (animism) or that some divine intelligence and power is required to understand that inanimate objects actions predictably are governed by the laws of physics.

If you can demonstrate where this isn't true then there could be a Nobel prize in your future.