Atheism is not Logical

[Tegularius]

The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man.

Sounds like something a James Bond supervillain would say while stroking a cat and addressing world leaders via a conference call on Teams. Lighten up Fred.

The truth of what Nietzsche wrote is no-longer debatable, and I certainly can't visualize it the way you have.

[Newme]

Atheism - or really, most herd mentalities that can be labeled - are illogical. To even suggest you don’t believe in something that hasn’t even been properly defined, is illogical.

The "it's not properly defined" tactic is bs. It reminds me of the stupid "No one is a hipster because you can't define 'hipster'" sort of nonsense that some people are attracted to.

People who believe that there is a God have something in mind that they are referring to in that belief. You can simply use what they're referring to in order to determine whether you believe there is such a thing or not.

Ok. So what have I been referring to?

[Newme]

…Also, people who say things like "I don't believe in God" are sometimes told that, in saying that, they're following a herd. They're rarely told that if they say something like "I don't believe it's Friday today". If you were brought up in an environment in which God and religion didn't really feature one way or another, and if you're then introduced to the idea and if you state that the idea, as it's been introduced to you, seems improbable, it's strange to be told that, in saying that, you're following a herd.

It’s assumed that by “herd mentality” - it is something that people follow without good reason. There are plenty of reasonable things many are encouraged to do - eat well, shower, floss, agree to time/calendar schedules, etc. These make sense & help life run smoothly, so there’s no need to point out the poison, so to speak.

My opinion is that the majority (at least most I’ve come across) of both Theists & Atheists - have defined God in ways that are unreasonable, not helpful - & often, psychologically unhealthy. And why? Because others have paved the broad way & they go along. They don’t think for themselves, about what they believe… If- they did, they wouldn’t be so quick to label themselves & others “pantheist,” “Catholic,” “Atheist,” etc. Eg., I agree with SOME aspects of all those - but none entirely.

[Tegularius]

When atheists try to disparage God by calling him a "fairy tale", they fail. That's because fairy tales also help make us what we are (to a lesser extent than religion). I tried to point that out when I quoted G.K. Chesterton's chapter "The Ethics of Elfland". Our ethics, our modes of thinking, and our vision of the world are influenced (even "created") by both religion and fairy tales. They probably have more influence on human ethics (even those of the atheists posting here) than philosophy.

I can't imagine any atheist who strives against god as a conceptual metaphor which is a completely different story from accepting it as actual. It's true especially in the case of religion that Our ethics, our modes of thinking, and our vision of the world are influenced (even "created") by both religion and fairy tales.That in itself however does not, in any way, attest to the credibility of there being a god. Also, considering how god centered religions have behaved throughout history, it's necessary to examine its effect on human ethics based on that influence. Past narrations prove that to be much more dubious...to say the least.

[PoeticUniverse]

The Almighty Tale

There is an Eternal Super-Person known as ‘God’ in Heaven somewhere with a Super Mind (and whatever else constitutes the Person) who thought of, planned, and created our universe with life on Earth especially in mind at some moment during Eternity while having ever been doing something or other for all that time, this ‘God’ having been always fully formed and intact with no Beginning or End.

The ‘Super’ part includes infinite power, infinite foresight, infinite knowledge, and instantly being in touch with everything that was created by being everywhere.

This is all known from ancient humans saying so as dogma. ‘God’ is silent.

The implementation of the universe was not instant and took as long as it naturally would have, with not anything Super going on to speed it up or as seen as any part of it. Earth is in the Goldilocks zone, just where it ought to be, naturally. Life was not made instantly and it almost went extinct five times, and now the Earth is heating up exponentially.

Throughout history, everyone did not live happily ever after, but they can do so when they go to Heaven after they die.

This is the word of humans. ‘God’ doesn’t speak.

The curious problem is that ‘God’ cannot be shown or known; thus ‘faith’, as a hope and a wish for Love in an eternal life with their Creator.


Alternately, naturally, but still a mighty tale of a zillion great balls of fire burning all over in the humongous universe:

The Fundamental Unity

The quantum fields’ unity is the Whole,
Being ever, exhausting Reality,
Unbreakable and Unmakeable,
As partless and continuous monads.

Indivisible

All that emerges is still the fields at heart,
Though secondary and temporary,
Arising and at some time returning;
There’s no separation among the fields.

The Permanent Spawns the Temporaries

The Eterne Existent Fields have to be,
For non-existence can’t, and thus must move,
For stillness can’t, e’er rearranging itself
As stable quanta elementaries.

Skeletons and Ghosts

We’re the flesh to the backbones of the stars,
Those ghosts of the suns that no longer are—
They having transformed their energy’s ways
To base atoms, more from supernovae.

The Missive

The Message of Eternity is to be,
That carries on in lives led to survive,
The brain’s output aiming for future,
Conscious experience granting the focus.


(This is a serious post. If more far out Biblical and religious suppositions could get used then that would be another post in which many jokes and fairy tales could be added.)

[Steve3007]

My opinion is that the majority (at least most I’ve come across) of both Theists & Atheists - have defined God in ways that are unreasonable, not helpful - & often, psychologically unhealthy. And why? Because others have paved the broad way & they go along. They don’t think for themselves, about what they believe… If- they did, they wouldn’t be so quick to label themselves & others “pantheist,” “Catholic,” “Atheist,” etc. Eg., I agree with SOME aspects of all those - but none entirely.

A label is just a convenient shorthand for a collection of ideas or views. No doubt your collection of views could be given a label just as easily as anyone else's could. In communicating any set of views there is always a trade-off between brevity and accuracy. The greater the brevity, the more likely it is that other people will not get a fully rounded picture of one's views. The greater the accuracy, the longer it takes to describe one's views so the greater the likelihood that people will tune out before having properly heard them - the greater the chance that the speaker is wasting his efforts. A label, being usually just one word, is at the extreme brevity end of the spectrum. But it often makes a good starting point.

If somebody is asked what, if any, religious views they have then quite often they'll at least start with one of those labels of which you gave some examples above. If the asker wants to know more, then they might go into more detail and perhaps have a discussion about it - put meat on the bones. But most people won't launch into a detailed description of their views straight off the bat because it might turn out to be a waste of their time. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're sheep following a herd. But, in my experience of your posts, you seem to me to be an example of one of the posters here for which the "most people except me are sheep" theme is a strong one. In my experience, when people have a strong theme like that they tend to see it more often than it actually occurs. There are a lot of "strong single theme" posters who have come and gone here over the years. Some keep coming back year after year to say almost exactly the same thing, and to try to move all topics towards that theme. I think places like this attract them.

Anyway, this is all basic stuff about how language and communication work.

[Sculptor1]

…Also, people who say things like "I don't believe in God" are sometimes told that, in saying that, they're following a herd. They're rarely told that if they say something like "I don't believe it's Friday today". If you were brought up in an environment in which God and religion didn't really feature one way or another, and if you're then introduced to the idea and if you state that the idea, as it's been introduced to you, seems improbable, it's strange to be told that, in saying that, you're following a herd.

It’s assumed that by “herd mentality” - it is something that people follow without good reason. There are plenty of reasonable things many are encouraged to do - eat well, shower, floss, agree to time/calendar schedules, etc. These make sense & help life run smoothly, so there’s no need to point out the poison, so to speak.

That is not the issue though. The herd mentality is to follow these "norms" without thought for their usefulness or meaning. If they follow without regard for their meaning they are following a ritual, if without usefulness they are acting with futility.
Often this useless activity is followed in the interests of "tradition" or habit.
Religion is one of those dirty habits.
If the norms are not challenged society is stagnant.

My opinion is that the majority (at least most I’ve come across) of both Theists & Atheists - have defined God in ways that are unreasonable, not helpful - & often, psychologically unhealthy. And why? Because others have paved the broad way & they go along. They don’t think for themselves, about what they believe… If- they did, they wouldn’t be so quick to label themselves & others “pantheist,” “Catholic,” “Atheist,” etc. Eg., I agree with SOME aspects of all those - but none entirely.

My label is unrequired as it is contentless. It is only a fact whilst there are theists in the world.
Were all others to abandon the idea of god, then there would be no need to call me an atheist, as I usually have no need to refer to that word unless and until I am confronted with a funeral, birth or wedding when it becomes necessary to assert by disbelief.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's not about whether we reject 'fantasy', but how we recognise it, and how we distinguish it from non-fantasy?

Seriously?
If it looks, smells, tastes, feels like fantasy than it probably is.
Ask yourself what distiguishes a religion from fantasy?
If the answer is nothing, then religion is also fantasy.
So tell me about any version of God that you think is convincing and I'll show you why it cannot pass the test.

What test? I asked a simple question, and it is clear you cannot answer it. You decry "fantasy", and you say we should avoid it, but you offer no means by which "fantasy" might be recognised, and how it might be distinguished from that which is not "fantasy". It seems you rail against something you can't even describe?

[Sculptor1]

It's not about whether we reject 'fantasy', but how we recognise it, and how we distinguish it from non-fantasy?

Seriously?
If it looks, smells, tastes, feels like fantasy than it probably is.
Ask yourself what distiguishes a religion from fantasy?
If the answer is nothing, then religion is also fantasy.
So tell me about any version of God that you think is convincing and I'll show you why it cannot pass the test.

What test? I asked a simple question, and it is clear you cannot answer it. You decry "fantasy", and you say we should avoid it, but you offer no means by which "fantasy" might be recognised, and how it might be distinguished from that which is not "fantasy". It seems you rail against something you can't even describe?

What do you mot understand about my answer?
I have little trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy.
For everything else inbetween where there might be doubt I simply refuse to apply belief.
It really is quite easy.

Reality furnishes me with enough practical information to live life to the full.
Perhaps if you would care to probe my knoweldge, that is what I take to be knoweldge and quiz me on it you might find some cracks. I'd be happy to make any adjustments necessary.
Consider it a challenge if you like!

[Terrapin Station]

It's not about whether we reject 'fantasy', but how we recognise it, and how we distinguish it from non-fantasy?

Seriously?
If it looks, smells, tastes, feels like fantasy than it probably is.
Ask yourself what distiguishes a religion from fantasy?
If the answer is nothing, then religion is also fantasy.
So tell me about any version of God that you think is convincing and I'll show you why it cannot pass the test.

What test? I asked a simple question, and it is clear you cannot answer it. You decry "fantasy", and you say we should avoid it, but you offer no means by which "fantasy" might be recognised, and how it might be distinguished from that which is not "fantasy". It seems you rail against something you can't even describe?

For one, we're not talking about a sensory fantasy here, right? In other words, it's not something that we're saying is a hallucination basically.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's not about whether we reject 'fantasy', but how we recognise it, and how we distinguish it from non-fantasy?

Seriously?
If it looks, smells, tastes, feels like fantasy than it probably is.
Ask yourself what distiguishes a religion from fantasy?
If the answer is nothing, then religion is also fantasy.
So tell me about any version of God that you think is convincing and I'll show you why it cannot pass the test.

What test? I asked a simple question, and it is clear you cannot answer it. You decry "fantasy", and you say we should avoid it, but you offer no means by which "fantasy" might be recognised, and how it might be distinguished from that which is not "fantasy". It seems you rail against something you can't even describe?

For one, we're not talking about a sensory fantasy here, right? In other words, it's not something that we're saying is a hallucination basically.

I don't know, which is rather the point. I've complained elsewhere about others demanding a precise definition. A precise definition is not always required. But to ask for a general description of what is meant is reasonable, I think?

[3017Metaphysician]

You have recently posted about the need to define what is meant by "God" so that it/he/she can be accepted or denied.

In the same way, I wonder how you can reject "fantasy"? What is the definition or description of fantasy that you use to recognise and reject it? Is it just something you consider to be fantastic?

Why?
Don't you aslo reject fantasy as truth? I thought we all did that?

The evidence of god is all from a jewish myth. I treat it in the same way as Homer and Virgil, or in the same way as Beowulf and King Arthur. Why would you think otherwise?
You might like to extend your POV to include the foundational myths of Cambodia and Laos too. Ancient Egypt, South America: all very interesting and conforming to what you might call cultural logic. But far from truth.

I may have missed it, did you explain your 'fantasy v truth' yet? Just an observation, and I hope I'm wrong, but your responses seem to feed into the Einsteinian 'grudge' meme. Are you angry about something? Are you an Atheist?

You are not interested in what I have to say so why ask.
WTF is an Einsteinian 'grudge' meme?

Sculptor!

Is your "WTF" an emotional or logical response? If it is emotional, then it is quite possible that it may to feed into this meme (from the OP):

"... let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."


Since I'm not an Atheist, is that statement from Einstein false? The reason I ask is after reviewing your contribution to the OP, it seems painfully obvious that you are angry about something (?).

[Belindi]

Since I'm not an Atheist, is that statement from Einstein false? The reason I ask is after reviewing your contribution to the OP, it seems painfully obvious that you are angry about something (?).

The poster is entitled to their feelings. You yourself are entitled to feel pained if you so choose. Please keep your discussion relevant to the topic.

[PoeticUniverse]

Worshipping the Creator

Humans say that ‘God’, as infinitely great as He is, is to be adored, worshipped, and followed with full acceptance, although ‘God’ presumably didn’t do anything to earn His Heavenly throne. Unborn, but still as having the silver spoon, ‘God’ is the source of All and so humans doth sing, praise, bow, and honor Him to say ‘Thank God’.

Millions of churches were built, their spires and steeples pointing upward to Him, with services and lessons given every day, without knowing if the ‘God’ idea is true but dishonestly acting as if it were. It would be a mortal sin to miss the Sunday service, damning to Hell. Praise the Lord. Ye shall have eternal life.

Billions of prayers go out daily to try to get ‘God’ to change His perfect mind and grant what the humans are asking for, such as don’t send any more variant viruses.

Requests times a million through the eclipse
Sent to the darkening moon from our lips
To change God’s absolutely perfect mind…
God says, “All is as I’ve intended it!”

There is an extreme holiness and reverence about the adoration of the Great One, with the closing of eyes and holding one’s hands out with palms upturned to receive whatever blessings are forthcoming.

The Postering Cleric

I just love how the religious preacher
Talks so firm and sure and then gets louder,
As if to show how true his warnings are,
Eyes closing, head tilting up toward afar.

Such is the word of humans. Amen.

[3017Metaphysician]

Since I'm not an Atheist, is that statement from Einstein false? The reason I ask is after reviewing your contribution to the OP, it seems painfully obvious that you are angry about something (?).

The poster is entitled to their feelings. You yourself are entitled to feel pained if you so choose. Please keep your discussion relevant to the topic.

Belindi!

Absolutely! Feelings are powerful things-in-themselves; they are neither wrong nor right, they're just feelings! Ontologically (and existentially) they provide for much meaning and purpose. The deconstruction of feelings and logic is part of the OP, right?