When you break it down: is atheism unappealing?

[TomC]

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are not differences in evidence or information but rather how I personally perceive the information and evidence.

That's not how I see it.

You think that the important question is whether or not you borrowed, and now owe, $10K.

I'd be thinking, "Dang, another human with an agenda but no evidence of importance."
Tom

What is "evidence of importance?" The phrase can be taken several ways at least. What is your meaning.

No evidence that makes your assertions more plausible than the other contradictory assertions.

Really, you found that hard to grasp?

Do you understand that this question is evidence? To me?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are not differences in evidence or information but rather how I personally perceive the information and evidence.

That's not how I see it.

You think that the important question is whether or not you borrowed, and now owe, $10K.

I'd be thinking, "Dang, another human with an agenda but no evidence of importance."
Tom

What is "evidence of importance?" The phrase can be taken several ways at least. What is your meaning.

No evidence that makes your assertions more plausible than the other contradictory assertions.

Really, you found that hard to grasp?

He said he saw multiple meanings and asked for clarification... and you decide to be snarky about it?

Get over yourself.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are not differences in evidence or information but rather how I personally perceive the information and evidence.

That's not how I see it.

You think that the important question is whether or not you borrowed, and now owe, $10K.

I'd be thinking, "Dang, another human with an agenda but no evidence of importance."
Tom

What is "evidence of importance?" The phrase can be taken several ways at least. What is your meaning.

No evidence that makes your assertions more plausible than the other contradictory assertions.

Really, you found that hard to grasp?

Do you understand that this question is evidence? To me?
Tom

Please give me an example that distinguishes between evidence and evidence of importance so I can better understand your meaning.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problems of the theoretical Judeo-Christian concept of God are evidence that God does not exist. The problem of existence of evil and an omnipotent, perfectly good God. Omniscience and free will. And many more problems. A mythology in the Bible, Quran et AL that paint GOd as a stupid, bumbling God that has bad problem solving abilities. Taking the theological claims of a perfect being God to their logical conclusion demonstrates that God is technically nonsense and impossible. There are other concepts of God(s) but these concepts are just as bad, and eventually we get down to concepts like fairies and leprechauns and nobody cares any more.

An agnostic is simply someone who has not thought this counter evidence about theological claims to their logical conclusions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

An agnostic is simply someone who has not thought this counter evidence about theological claims to their logical conclusions.

That is true but the question is how it occurs. The same evidence yields two different outcomes, two different conclusions about what the evidence demonstrates in two different individuals. That can only be the result of something internal to the processor and its programming. What exactly is a "divine spark?" For someone who processes information dispassionately it's recognized as nothing more than just a bunch of woo. For someone who processes their environment through different channels dominated by different priorities it's the result of some important command in the program.

 

[TomC]

The problems of the theoretical Judeo-Christian concept of God are evidence that God does not exist.

An agnostic is simply someone who has not thought this counter evidence about theological claims to their logical conclusions.

I find it frustrating that so many atheists cannot get past the Abrahamic image of god.
The many and varied images of "bumbling Sky King with superpowers" are not the only conception of the Divine. They're among the most primitive images. Even many Abrahamic religionists aren't as attached to that primitive god as many atheists.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...conception of the Divine.

What exactly is that?

 

[atrib]

Both theism and atheism are opinions held with little or no evidence on the subject. They're opinions about god or the supernatural or something.

Wrong. Modern physics has effectively ruled out the existence of gods that interfere in human lives beyond any reasonable doubt. That you are ignorant about this fact, after numerous debates on this very subject in these very forums, says more about you than you realize. If you like I can post some links to specific posts where this is explained by bilby, myself and others so you can stop repeating this false claim.

Moreover, since we have no evidence regarding the evidence of gods, it is irrational to believe that gods exist. It is irrational to believe things without a good reason. I am certain you are not an agnostic regarding the existence of undetectable supernatural goblins that live in your attic, for example. So then why the fuck are you agnostic about the existence of gods?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...conception of the Divine.

What exactly is that?

I believe a drag queen.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Perhaps it goes back to the very opening post here. Maybe people (some, many, or most?) are theists because it is appealing to believe in a god.

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

 

[TomC]

...conception of the Divine.

What exactly is that?

I believe a drag queen.

Heh.
Must be nice to be a part of the woke ideological bubble.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

Exactly. It's like any other lesson learned based on observation and experience. It's not a big deal, except to religious people who think they have a god.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...conception of the Divine.

What exactly is that?

I believe a drag queen.

If a god can be anything as has been intimated in this thread then you are correct. Would your drag queen be "divine?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...conception of the Divine.

What exactly is that?

I believe a drag queen.

Heh.
Must be nice to be a part of the woke ideological bubble.

That doesn't make any sense, but it is becoming a pattern. Believe what you need to, even if it means denying Divine is a drag queen.

 

[TomC]

...conception of the Divine.

What exactly is that?

I believe a drag queen.

Heh.
Must be nice to be a part of the woke ideological bubble.

That doesn't make any sense, but it is becoming a pattern. Believe what you need to, even if it means denying Divine is a drag queen.

Bless Your Heart.

 

[Jarhyn]

1) No evidence for atheism (can't prove a negative)
2) Tiny itty bitty evidence for theism.
3) Therefore agnosticism is right.

You didn't need 2 in there.

Strictly speaking I recognize no evidence of theism. Zero.

I recognize that atheism is the most likely correct answer.

I also recognize that there's no way to prove that, only to disprove it.

I find that this is evidence of an interesting juxtaposition: if there is a god they seem to prefer the atheist, since the atheist is the one who appears most likely to be correct.

They are also the only ones with a hope of doubting their learned truths enough to improve upon their knowledge of the universe and the principles by which it function and so to be blessed with the power to make their lives better and the clarity to perhaps actually come to understand how to do that.

So reality itself does prefer the atheist, insofar as they seek to always be better.

a stupid, bumbling God that has bad problem solving abilities.

I mean, in practice, this is generally what is observed when people play God games. There's a reason the tagline to Dwarf Fortress is "Losing is Fun!"

 

[rousseau]

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

Exactly. It's like any other lesson learned based on observation and experience. It's not a big deal, except to religious people who think they have a god.

My observation and experience led me to atheism, but my experience of the world is, viscerally, very similar to those who believe in God. I know the world around me is material and can be mathematically modeled, but I don't feel like it's intrinsically empty of meaning, just an arbitrary 'nothing' which we assign whatever we want to.

You'll scoff, but that's what we call directly experiencing the divine. If you don't see it, that's fine.

But what I'm getting at is that there is a kind of logic and correctness to God belief. That doesn't mean there literally needs to be a guy with a beard, just people with a vague perception of the mystery of the world around them. For them it's easier to understand the mystery by giving it a concrete label and ontological system.

If you want to talk about hard material facts and why, mechanically, a God can't exist, you're missing the point entirely, imo.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

Exactly. It's like any other lesson learned based on observation and experience. It's not a big deal, except to religious people who think they have a god.

My observation and experience led me to atheism, but my experience of the world is, viscerally, very similar to those who believe in God. I know the world around me is material and can be mathematically modeled, but I don't feel like it's intrinsically empty of meaning, just an arbitrary 'nothing' which we assign whatever we want to.

You'll scoff, but that's what we call directly experiencing the divine. If you don't see it, that's fine.

But what I'm getting at is that there is a kind of logic and correctness to God belief. That doesn't mean there literally needs to be a guy with a beard, just people with a vague perception of the mystery of the world around them. For them it's easier to understand the mystery by giving it a concrete label and ontological system.

If you want to talk about hard material facts and why, mechanically, a God can't exist, you're missing the point entirely, imo.

I may be missing *your* point, but that doesn't bother me.

If there actually exists *intrinsic meaning* as you suggest then an atheist might wonder from where this intrinsic meaning arises and what is meant by "meaning" if it is used in a non-subjective manner.

 

[rousseau]

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

Exactly. It's like any other lesson learned based on observation and experience. It's not a big deal, except to religious people who think they have a god.

My observation and experience led me to atheism, but my experience of the world is, viscerally, very similar to those who believe in God. I know the world around me is material and can be mathematically modeled, but I don't feel like it's intrinsically empty of meaning, just an arbitrary 'nothing' which we assign whatever we want to.

You'll scoff, but that's what we call directly experiencing the divine. If you don't see it, that's fine.

But what I'm getting at is that there is a kind of logic and correctness to God belief. That doesn't mean there literally needs to be a guy with a beard, just people with a vague perception of the mystery of the world around them. For them it's easier to understand the mystery by giving it a concrete label and ontological system.

If you want to talk about hard material facts and why, mechanically, a God can't exist, you're missing the point entirely, imo.

I may be missing *your* point, but that doesn't bother me.

If there actually exists *intrinsic meaning* as you suggest then an atheist might wonder from where this intrinsic meaning arises and what is meant by "meaning" if it is used in a non-subjective manner.

In case it wasn't clear, I was replying to T.G.G. Moogly, and not you.

But sure, you can still explore that meaning, and maybe if we take this logic to it's conclusion we decide that the universe is an arbitrary nothing. And that's fine. But what I'm getting at, is that the logical conclusion of reason isn't really nihilism, it's positivism, and the recognition that the world and our lives are ultimately a mystery tied up with a good amount of beauty, joy, and pleasure.

Those who are religious have a sense of this, but they give it concrete labels. Buddhists / Non-Dual Hindus experience it directly.

What I'm getting at is that by attacking theism, we're attacking an arbitrary label that is actually a placeholder for a real, human experience. To the hard atheist it's a cold game of logic, while missing the forest for the trees.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

Exactly. It's like any other lesson learned based on observation and experience. It's not a big deal, except to religious people who think they have a god.

My observation and experience led me to atheism, but my experience of the world is, viscerally, very similar to those who believe in God. I know the world around me is material and can be mathematically modeled, but I don't feel like it's intrinsically empty of meaning, just an arbitrary 'nothing' which we assign whatever we want to.

You'll scoff, but that's what we call directly experiencing the divine. If you don't see it, that's fine.

But what I'm getting at is that there is a kind of logic and correctness to God belief. That doesn't mean there literally needs to be a guy with a beard, just people with a vague perception of the mystery of the world around them. For them it's easier to understand the mystery by giving it a concrete label and ontological system.

If you want to talk about hard material facts and why, mechanically, a God can't exist, you're missing the point entirely, imo.

I absolutely positively experience that myself when I'm out in the back country, and even occasionally when the mood just seems to hit me. I feel wholly energized and briefly manic. Then it subsides and I miss it when it's gone. The first time I walked through Carlsbad Caverns, walked among the Redwoods, walked among the Bristlecone Pines, experienced the moonless starry sky high on a mountain, when my kids were born, lots of times. But that isn't divine to me.

Are divine and god supposed to be the same thing? It all seems great enough, real enough, awesome enough, breathtaking enough, humbling enough, etc. I've never viewed the universe in nihilistic or meaningless terms. I don't need anything else to give it beauty and meaning. It isn't mysterious to me, it isn't hiding anything that I can't learn. We're the same thing.