Atheism: new religion?

[Cyclone]

As above, remind me what your example was please.

 

I've referred to it several times since.

 

Demonstrating the ability to break the laws of causality. Specifically by demonstrating an aspect of omniscience.

[flamingjimmy]

Share my horror?

 

Possibly, but from your posts on this thread, and others, it seems more like you wish to convince that my a'theism is obnoxious. Nobody else on this forum has gone to further lengths to redefine a'theism to what they want it to mean than yourself. This is no different to those that edit their dictionaries to define a'theism as "wickedness".

 

Well that's hit the nail on the head!

[six45ive]

Yes. But I thought the context was of a being presenting themselves as God and 'proving' it by suspending gravity at will, and, at the will of others.

 

You seem to be adding extra stipulations i.e. it will let you open up it's head and check for chips.

 

that seems somewhat dubious- is it the behaviour of God to allow such invasion?

 

and of course, for each extra stipulation you add, i think you know, deep down, that i will immediately counter by doing the same- e.g. in the case of chips, simply, using advanced technology, made them undetectable by lesser technologies.

 

It all comes back to the same end- that there is no evidence that would convince a true rationalist that God exists.

 

 

 

Now you're talking about things which are logically impossible.

 

For a clearer example, defining a triangle as a 3 sided object (which automatically means that, by the laws of logic alone, an object with 2,4,5,100 sides is, by definition, not a trinagle) and then asking the being in question to produce a trinagle with 4 sides.

 

My bold.

That's precisely what I meant by suspending the laws of physics/nature and doing it at anybody's will irrespective of any advanced technology being used or not. That's the very reason why I put the term 'at will' there in the first place.

On top of that if a so called god can't suspend the laws of physics/nature (which includes logic) then what use is that as a god?

[flamingjimmy]

Atheism is passé, IMO.

 

Lol, your history of pathetic sniping on threads like this kind of tells me that it really irks you quite a bit in actuality. You just can't help yourself

[onewheeldave]

It's not omnipotent then, it's constrained by the rules of the universe and logic.

Surely an omnipotent being, by definition, created the universe and can vary the rules of logic at whim.

 

My bold.

That's precisely what I meant by suspending the laws of physics/nature and doing it at anybody's will irrespective of any advanced technology being used or not. That's the very reason why I put the term 'at will' there in the first place.

On top of that if a so called god can't suspend the laws of physics/nature (which includes logic) then what use is that as a god?

 

Sorry, this is something I covered during my degree in philosophy, so maybe I'm guilty of assuming that people in general also distinguish between physical and logical impossibility.

 

The laws of physics cover actual physical systems, such as the universe and the matter/energy contained within. Those laws are contingent- the strength of gravity and the other forces are determined by whatever intial conditions were around at the big-bang.

 

If those conditions had been different, the strengh of gravity could be entirely different to what it is.

 

That's what I mean when I say the laws of gravity are contingent- in other universes they could be different.

 

In contrast, the laws of logic are necessary- they cannot be other than what they are.

 

So, if a triangle is defined as 'a three-sided figure', then, necessarily, it cannot have 4 sides.

 

If someone claims to possess a '4 sided triangle' (assuming they accept our definition of tirangle), then we can say 'no you don't' without even having to look at it.

 

Because a '4 sided triangle' cannot be- if we expand it out to include the original def of a triangle, we get 'a 4 sided 3 sided object', which is logically impossible.

 

Anyone claiming to possess such a thing is deluded- what they've probably got is a square

 

Now- that applies not just in our universe, but in every possible universe.

 

There could be a universe where gravity is a different value to ours, but not a universe that contains a 4 sided triangle.

 

So, if an omnipotent being created a world, they could vary the laws of physics at will, but they can't dabble with the laws of logic.

 

An omnipotent being, by definition, can do anything that is possible- it cannot do what is (logically) impossible.

 

And, if you think about it, it's easy to see why, the very act of creating a world, and indeed of being an omnipotent being in the first place, pre-supposes the laws of logic.

 

To be omnipotent is a characteristic, in opposition to not being omnipotent and that distinction is one of logic- for any characteristics to be, including those of God logic must be prior to them i.e. logic precedes God.

[flamingjimmy]

They could also not conclude that it isn't. They'd conclude that they couldn't distinguish between god and godlike technology (by definition). And that they were now an agnostic.

 

I think if we ever got to that stage then Pascal's wager would actually apply. I'd pick whichever religion seemed the closest to what we observe and go with that.

[onewheeldave]

 

 

If a person feels they need to express what they are 'feeling' to somebody else then it shows a basic respect to be as honest as possible with the other person and you can only do that by acruing as much knowledge on a particular subject as possible otherwise the respectful thing to do is to say; 'I don't know', 'I'm not sure'. To declare that 'I feel I have a connection with god' shows that you've already 'proved' to yourself that this is the case so you would be hypocritical, if not a downright liar, to say that you're not interested in 'proving' it to yourself or anybody else.

 

 

Remember we're talking about a believer, not a rationalist atheist, as such they do not share the atheists preoccupation with accruing as much knowledge as possible.

 

They show respect by being respectful- masses of knowledge are no prerequisite for respect (maybe for you it is, but, that's you- others think and feel differently).

 

When a believer talks about the presence of God within their lives, in no way does that mean they believe God exists in the physically provable way that many atheists demand.

 

Numbers don't exist in any physically provable way, yet, in some usable sense, they are nevertheless real.

 

(a good example is that of Pi, which, due to it's status as an 'irrational' number, combined with certain aspects of quantum physics, cannot possibly exist in the world in any physical way, yet remains a number which is highly useful and, in some sense, real)

[onewheeldave]

 

 

And, as we all know, the Quakers are hardly mainstream religiosity themselves.

The evidence I provided earlier, which you still refuse to deal with, simply proves that so called mainstream religion is not the benign force that you claim it to be on a worldwide scale.

 

"I've yet to see evidence of this so called strawman from the atheist side. I'm still waiting for a response to the fact that polls taken in the US regularly state that about 60% of the population believe the bible is literally true. That Noah and his ark actually existed and that Adam and Eve are real and that about 40% of Americans believe the Earth to be only 6000 to 10000 years old.

I've yet to see you argue against the fact that islam is an ideology that can sentence you to death for writing a critical book, drawing controversial cartoons or simply drawing an image of muhammed. An ideology that calls for the death of apostates, homosexuals and fornicaters. An ideology that imposes genital mutilation on millions of children every year. An ideology where so called 'honour killings' are still rife. An ideology that imposes strict roles of conduct on muslims and that willingly casts them out if they don't tow the line. An ideology where women are still far away from reaching emancipation/equality with their non muslim sisters and an ideology where the koran, hadith and sharia law are the only thing that matters for millions of muslims leaving millions of children ignorant of the richness of knowledge that we have accumulated over many centuries leading to the technologically advanced society that we benefit from today.

Please point out why all this is a strawman to you."

 

The above is the norm for hundreds of millions, if not billions of believers worldwide, whereas your mindset seems to come from living on a little island in the north atlantic where religion portrays itself as a kindly old vicar standing at the gate of his parish church welcoming his congregation and eating scones and tea and watching cricket on the village green after the Sunday morning service.

 

Well, i did deal with it- maybe you were'nt satisfied with what i said, but it did address it.

 

The fact is that, whereas a minority of believers today are indeed deranged fanatics, the rest aren't.

 

You'll get no arguement from me that a great deal of harm has (and is) been done by religious believers.

 

It's just that I believe that when people do evil, it's fundamentally because they are evil, not because they are religious.

 

I've previously given the example of stalinist atheists and the similar evils they committed- that example does not go down well with atheists, who insist that, in reality, the stalinists were not atheists, attributing to them a belief in some kind of personality cult which=religion, despite the fact that they did not believe in God.

 

Nevertheless, I maintain that athiests, when given the opportunity to form large communities capable of these kind of atrocites, will commit them with the same level of probability as believers.

 

Now you can insist that, at the point they do that, they are not atheists anymore, due to the afformentioned 'personality cult' which becomes their 'god', but, at a practical level, that doesn't alter the fact that you've got a community of non-believers (in God) perpetrating great evil.

 

Which is why I say the root cause of such evil has far more to do with human nature, that it does with religious belief.

[Lockjaw]

Sorry, this is something I covered during my degree in philosophy, so maybe I'm guilty of assuming that people in general also distinguish between physical and logical impossibility.

 

The laws of physics cover actual physical systems, such as the universe and the matter/energy contained within. Those laws are contingent- the strength of gravity and the other forces are determined by whatever intial conditions were around at the big-bang.

 

If those conditions had been different, the strengh of gravity could be entirely different to what it is.

 

That's what I mean when I say the laws of gravity are contingent- in other universes they could be different.

 

In contrast, the laws of logic are necessary- they cannot be other than what they are.

 

So, if a triangle is defined as 'a three-sided figure', then, necessarily, it cannot have 4 sides.

 

If someone claims to possess a '4 sided triangle' (assuming they accept our definition of tirangle), then we can say 'no you don't' without even having to look at it.

 

Because a '4 sided triangle' cannot be- if we expand it out to include the original def of a triangle, we get 'a 4 sided 3 sided object', which is logically impossible.

 

Anyone claiming to possess such a thing is deluded- what they've probably got is a square

 

Now- that applies not just in our universe, but in every possible universe.

 

There could be a universe where gravity is a different value to ours, but not a universe that contains a 4 sided triangle.

 

So, if an omnipotent being created a world, they could vary the laws of physics at will, but they can't dabble with the laws of logic.

 

An omnipotent being, by definition, can do anything that is possible- it cannot do what is (logically) impossible.

 

And, if you think about it, it's easy to see why, the very act of creating a world, and indeed of being an omnipotent being in the first place, pre-supposes the laws of logic.

 

To be omnipotent is a characteristic, in opposition to not being omnipotent and that distinction is one of logic- for any characteristics to be, including those of God logic must be prior to them i.e. logic precedes God.

 

You seem to be suggesting that "God" is bound by a human invention - logic.

 

You also appear to be assigning a limitation to the meaning of "all powerful".

 

Are you happy with this?

[Cyclone]

I think if we ever got to that stage then Pascal's wager would actually apply. I'd pick whichever religion seemed the closest to what we observe and go with that.

 

Presumably this god like being is communicating at this point, so you could ask it (it's either the real deal or pretending to be so), so it will be able to tell you which religion is the correct one and what you must do to get into heaven.