Premiss: "Atheism" is for people who can't handle "Religion".

[FixMyIgnorance]

@mishagoe

If you don’t like the term spiriutal truth then how would describe the experience of feeling that there is more to this world than the mechanical grinding along of a really big machine? The way I see it you can either say the whole notion is bunk, which I guess you did say, or you can accept that not everyone experiences the world as just a really big machine grinding along until it just sort of fades into the coldness of infinit space.

Why should it be any more than the “mechanical grinding of a really big machine”?

Just because you want the universe to be one way versus another doesn’t change the truth of the matter. You also have to try to understand where your feelings are coming from. Feelings and emotions are evolved constructs. Just because you feel something doesn’t mean it’s true. There are plenty of ways humans can experience positive utility from a falsehood.

As Richard Dawkins would say, “You don’t like that there isn’t any objective meaning or purpose to the universe? Well, that’s too bad!” Doesn’t change the truth.

[Marley23]

@mishagoe

Ok, I’ll stop. There is something more.

I’m not sure you understood my point. I’m saying that if you compare life to a grind and a machine and an accident, then the whole “there must be something else” idea looks appealing. If you take a more balanced perspective on life that includes its dullness but also includes the beauty and horrors and confusion and overwhelmingness of the whole experience, then maybe you start to realize “life is already a lot.” And then maybe there’s not so much of a pressing need for something else.

[Chimera]

@The_Hamster_King

Personally I find that my awareness of our aloneness in the universe sharpens my appreciation for the beauty of the human experience. If there is going to be meaning at all in the universe, it’s our job to CREATE it.

That’s how I feel. The Universe is incredibly inhospitable to life, but the Earth shows us that it can be equally incredibly hospitable to life. Shiva and Kali. Fairness doesn’t exist in the Universe. It never enters into the equation. Neither does Justice. But we Humans are capable of conceiving of Fairness and Justice, and we are capable of creating it in our (illusory) World.

[DianaG]

@mishagoe

If you don’t like the term spiriutal truth then how would describe the experience of feeling that there is more to this world than the mechanical grinding along of a really big machine?

I’d describe it as a feeling. I also feel that life is not simply a mechanical grinding, I just don’t happen to believe in god. Your feelings are not more convincing to me than mine are to you, but then, I’m not trying to convince you. Why do you feel the need to convince me?

[mishagoe]

@Marley23

“life is already a lot.” And then maybe there’s not so much of a pressing need for something else.

It’s possible I didn’t understand, but I don’t agree that the experience that there is more is because there is a need for that experience to make life more full. I rather think the experience exists because there is more. The experience is not subject to scientific examination. You can ask some useful questions about it from an anthropological, sociological and psychological standpoint, but then you only get at the external impacts of that experience.

How do you validate something that is purely experential? Well you don’t at least not by anyone external to that conscious experience. It is unfortunate that we can’t experience each other’s mental events, this is clearly a limit and raises all sorts of opportunities for misunderstanding.

[mishagoe]

@DianaG

I’d describe it as a feeling. I also feel that life is not simply a mechanical grinding, I just don’t happen to believe in god. Your feelings are not more convincing to me than mine are to you, but then, I’m not trying to convince you. Why do you feel the need to convince me?

I’m not trying to convince you that my feelings are more valid than yours. I’m just equating the following two as equally vacuous and non rational beliefs

Religion is for people who can’t handle atheism
Atheism is for people who can’t handle religion

[Lobohan]

@mishagoe

I’m not trying to convince you that my feelings are more valid than yours. I’m just equating the following two as equally vacuous and non rational beliefs

Religion is for people who can’t handle atheism
Atheism is for people who can’t handle religion

That ignores that religion is *far *easier, since it teaches you to ignore painful realities. Specifically, ending at death, meaning and justice.

[mishagoe]

@FixMyIgnorance

Why should it be any more than the “mechanical grinding of a really big machine”? As Richard Dawkins would say, “You don’t like that there isn’t any objective meaning or purpose to the universe? Well, that’s too bad!” Doesn’t change the truth.

Fair enough. And lot’s of people would disagree with Dawkins. The argument I’m making is that what Dawkins states is a matter of his personal belief informed by everything he accepts to be true about the world. How could Dawkins possibly know what the absolute purpose and meaning of the world is?

[FixMyIgnorance]

@mishagoe

Fair enough. And lot’s of people would disagree with Dawkins. The argument I’m making is that what Dawkins states is a matter of his personal belief informed by everything he accepts to be true about the world. How could Dawkins possibly know what the absolute purpose and meaning of the world is?

He’s not claiming to know the absolute purpose and meaning of the world. None of us are.

What I am saying is that nobody CAN claim to know if there is any objective or absolute meaning/purpose. What we do know is that our universe is INDISTINGUISHABLE from one that does NOT have absolute purpose.

Therefore, we can live our lives making our own meaning without worrying too much about it.

[Voyager]

@mishagoe

Of course I can prove it: self-consious beings exist. Stating that is no more self-important than to state: planets exist and are an outcome of the starting conditions. Why should self-conscious being be any less or more priveledged to exist than planets?

You exist. Does that mean you had to exist? Any number of random circumstances could have prevented the genetic called you or the entity called me from existing.
Now, I agree that it looks like planets are inevitable. When we get a sample size of more than 1 for intelligent life we might find out that is inevitable also, given the size of the universe. At the moment we don’t know. Humanity, on the other hand, is far from inevitable.

[Der_Trihs]

@mishagoe

You mean the stories in the various religious text didn’t happen the way they claim? Probably true. Are you saying because the stories range from “not completely true” to “outright unbelievable”, that there is no truth to be found in any religion? You dismiss outright the underlying existential spiritual truth that these myths reference?

There’s no “spiritual truth”, or spiritual anything. Religion is just a collection of lies and delusions; myths that people insist on believing in for no sane reason. Religion is an intellectual garbage heap; it’s where people put ideas that are too blatantly stupid or evil to be defensible. So instead of trying to defend them, they slap the “religion” label on those ideas and demand that people pretend respect for them regardless of how blatantly stupid or vile they are.

If an idea is a good one, if a belief is a true one then it isn’t likely to get labeled religious in the first place since it can stand on its own merits without the false respect of religion.

@FixMyIgnorance

Every single religion thread devolves into this. Every single time.

I always wonder if there is some way to break the pattern.

A god could post to the thread; that would take the debate in a different direction I expect.

@mishagoe

Any attempt to take spiritual experience at face value and discuss it seriously is mostly doomed and outright dismissed as being delusional.

Because it is.

@mishagoe

How do you validate something that is purely experential?

Sufficiently sophisticated brain scans. That is, if you mean “validate” in the sense of demonstrating that something unusual is actually going on in the person’s mind and they aren’t just lying. That doesn’t make it more real than any other dream or hallucination though.

[The_Hamster_King]

@mishagoe

How could Dawkins possibly know what the absolute purpose and meaning of the world is?

Dawkins DOESN’T claim to know the “absolute purpose and meaning of the world”. Instead, he puts forward a provisional model of reality that happens to matches the evidence at hand.

If a model of reality that included a deity suddenly became a better match for the evidence, then I suspect Dawkin would adopt it. I know I would, and I’m about as hardcore an atheist as there is. Of course, my newfound theistic belief would also be provisional, subject to future amendment if more new evidence suggested I was mistaken … .

[FixMyIgnorance]

This ultimately gets into a concept called the Anthropic Principle. In a nutshell, if things were any different, we wouldn’t be here in the same way.

For instance, let’s assume for a moment that there is no God. Let’s also assume something like a multiverse.

Okay, now how do we get something like humans? Well, we need a universe that allows for humans to arise in the first place. There are going to be many universes in the multiverse, all with different laws and compositions. Some universes won’t even have atoms, but other constructs entirely.

But let’s say we look at the universes that contain atoms – entities that move around and follow laws. In one subset of these universes, maybe the strong nuclear force isn’t strong enough and nuclei never form. Humans, therefore, never come to exist in that universe.

Let’s look at another – maybe one where vacuum energy is really high. Galaxies would never form.

You can look at all sorts of different universes and notice that they all have different tweaks of parameters, different structures, different laws, etc. But only a few of them are going to ultimately yield sentient life – the universes where the forces are just right to allow for galaxy, star, and planet formation (or any other structural formations that are conducive to sentience). One where conditions, in that subset, are diverse enough to allow for abiogenesis/natural selection to take place. And, eventually, we have something resembling intelligent humans.

In the paraphrased words of Douglas Adams, it isn’t really surprising to notice that if you’re a puddle of water, the hole you’re in fits you perfectly. Don’t think of human sentience as anything special. If conditions were different, you wouldn’t even be alive to know it. The only way a human can even KNOW it’s human is if it’s ABLE to physically know, and to physically know, you have to be in a universe that ultimately allows for those conditions to come about. Odds are, universes that allow for conscious sentience have some sort of mechanism involving Darwinian natural selection (simplicity to complexity).

Meh just some food for thought.

[Snarky_Kong]

@Lobohan

Because religious people are unwilling to say, “There is no evidence for my beliefs, but I still believe them.”

That would kill any religion thread, because you can’t argue about it. The problem is that religious people don’t want to admit there is no evidence, so they pussyfoot around it and try to pretend they have the answers, but won’t dignify the question with a response.

Bricker, to his credit, has said this in the past.

[Lobohan]

@Snarky_Kong

Bricker, to his credit, has said this in the past.

Has he? Must be why he never shows up in these threads.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Disagree. The OP’s suggestion is not only wrong, it’s kind of insulting.

[Princhester]

@Snarky_Kong

Bricker, to his credit, has said this in the past.

**DocCathode **has said similar things also. I suspect that there are quite a few theists who don’t participate in these threads because they know their beliefs can’t be evidenced or rationally defended. It’s the ones who haven’t realised this that keep the debate going.

[Marley23]

@mishagoe

I rather think the experience exists because there is more.

And why do you think that? [EDIT: “Is This All There Is?” by Los Lobos just came up on my iTunes, and no, I don’t think that means anything.]

@mishagoe

I’m just equating the following two as equally vacuous and non rational beliefs

Religion is for people who can’t handle atheism
Atheism is for people who can’t handle religion

This might sound good on a bumper sticker, but it doesn’t come close to describing how or why people arrive at conclusions on religious questions. People don’t adopt a belief after trying and rejecting its opposite.

[Meatros]

@Fiendish_Astronaut

I studied philosophy and history at university. I’ve always thought that history was a better indication that religion is totally bunk. The story of the human history of the world shows our ancestors making it up as they go along! No need to get into (not very complicated) philosophy to undermine religion…

I’ve studied a little philosophy at university, no history. I’ve read a bit more Phil and some history and I have to agree with you here.

[Meatros]

@raindog

The ghost of DtC lives on.

In MB atheism “There is no proof of a God”, and “There is no God” are qualitatively the same statement.

Will any of you own up to your faith?

Any of you?

So you are wrong about what atheism entails, yet you don’t correct yourself… Now you are changing tactics slightly, still telling us about our atheism, but you have the gall to issue a challenge of accepting your strawman?

When it comes to “God”, I would say that i find most concepts are unlikely (for various reasons). Some are contradictory and the rest are incoherent. I don’t find any evidence or arguments for any God compelling.

If you want a reason for rejecting whatever God you subscribe to, please tell me what that God is and if I’m familiar with it, I will give you a reason. If I’m not familiar with it, I’ll examine what info you have.