Why can't atheists just be wrong?

[jabeady]

God is very handy to fill the hole of knowledge that we don't know. What created life the universe and everything? God the supreme being creator of life the universe and everything.
What is God? God is beyond comprehension and description. See, it is perfect. What are atheists going to tell their children when they ask that question? I dunno everything created itself maybe? Probably a load of random chaos out there, whatever. What happens when we die? It's lights out forever...oblivion. See that's not a good answer is it. Going to paradise if your good is a much more reassuring answer is it not?
People believe what they want to believe in. Why choose the bleakness of Godlessness?

I asked for evidence; you give me arguments.

" What happens when we die? It's lights out forever...oblivion. See that's not a good answer is it. Going to paradise if your good is a much more reassuring answer is it not?"

Yes it is. It's a very easy answer, and very comforting. But that does not make it the right answer; it's just a feel-good, easy answer that, as you yourself say, is intended for children.

"God is very handy to fill the hole of knowledge that we don't know."

Yup. You don't know, therefore God. Very convenient. Convenient and lazy. Just invoke God for everything unknown and you never have to learn anything again. I prefer to admit that I don't know, and then try to find out.

"Why choose the bleakness of Godlessness?"

I don't choose it; I follow the evidence and that's where it leads.

And why do you think it's bleak? I've been a believer, and I prefer unbelief. Without gods I can see and appreciate the universe for its own sake. I am not subject to the fear of things that go bump in the night, like ghosts, jinns and satans. I also don't have to pledge allegiance to a deity who threatens to burn me for all eternity if I don't love him enough.

Now, back to evidence. Do you have any? If your god has done everything you say he has done, he must have left at least one footprint somewhere in the universe. Show it to me.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Now, back to evidence. Do you have any? If your god has done everything you say he has done, he must have left at least one footprint somewhere in the universe. Show it to me.

Something has left the universe as a footprint. That is exactly the whole point.

 

[Pygoscelis]

But seriously is this conjecture? or do you have any journal/institution that actually makes the claim that Hindus and other religious people are in a mental disorder (delusion)? For example the NHS in the UK doesn't say anything about it.

No. As I said above, and as your own definition says, delusion need not be a mental disorder.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Something has left the universe as a footprint. That is exactly the whole point.

Ok, but even then, why imagine that something to be a benevolent sentient self-contradictory all powerful being that has communicated to humans through messengers in a way making it so he can't be proved to exist? Because you want to? Because it is comforting and makes you feel good? Unless you've got more to go on that you're not telling us, that isn't rational. That is wishful thinking.

 

[M.I.A.]

ok so i can post a pic now?

i dont understand it..

coincidence?

irony? satire?

delusion? propaganda?

..the invention of lying?


lucky i dint find him in a superman pose.. that would be harder to explain.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

That's Ricky Gervais. Atheist. "Comedian".

Posed like that on purpose to try and mock "Jesus".

 

[M.I.A.]

an anotha one. :|

...meh.. maybe its not deliberately done.


Maybe one day he converts to islam and everyone takes seats in a different part of the theatre.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Ok, but even then, why imagine that something to be a benevolent sentient self-contradictory all powerful being that has communicated to humans through messengers in a way making it so he can't be proved to exist?

When you look at the beginning of times, and approach it back in time, you can see a first cause for which it is sustainable to assume that it triggered all causal chains, and that it is the principle of causality to everything else. From the right, you cannot approach it, because in the absence of time itself, causality and hence understanding break down. So, you are staring at something that is on one side indeed a very powerful principle, i.e. the most powerful principle in the universe, and on the other side, something totally incomprehensible. So, yes, it is all powerful, and that is even visible from where we are. Concerning "benevolent" and "sentient", this is part of metaphysics. Any non-contradictory set of statements will be exactly that: non-contradictory. You will impossibly be able to say anything more about it, because that is exactly how the realm of metaphysics is. I treat metaphysics like I treat new theories in category theory in math: if they sounds attractive, I will simply enjoy them. It is mostly intuition anyway. At first, I do not even read the proof. It is my intuition that "just knows" that the theorem will have an elegant proof, just because it is beautiful and attractive. You can fly a lot further with intuition than with reason. Just maximize the beauty of the construct, and you will see that the proof will pretty much automatically materialize out of the fricking blue. With metaphysics, you can never find a proof, but the same intuitive sensation of attractive beauty will still guide you.

Because you want to? Because it is comforting and makes you feel good? Unless you've got more to go on that you're not telling us, that isn't rational. That is wishful thinking.

Well, without intuition, you will not be good at anything in the physical realm either. Without intuition, you will never discover or stumble upon anything of value, because you cannot have any proof, before you actually have found what you wanted to prove. Therefore, you just need to aimlessly maximize beauty, just because you feel attracted to it, until you stumble upon something that you really like. In my opinion, the most beautiful proof ever is John Nash' Equilibrium in n-player strategy games. You see, in mathematics, we say that the thing is beautiful, elegant, intuitive, and surprising. Someone who has no intuitive sense of beauty can never discover a thing like that at all. Ever. In fact, such person will also never understand anything at all. Ever. In metaphysics, you maximize beauty, until you stumble upon something intuitively very attractive, without trying to prove it, because that is simply not possible. That is the only difference with math.

 

[jabeady]

"Something has left the universe as a footprint. That is exactly the whole point."

This is called the Watchmaker Analogy: The presence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. It is so old and so well-known, and has been refuted so often by so many, that I don't have to waste my own time on it. See, for example,

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

This article points out how hackneyed the argument is ("To be fair, it’s not that the argument won’t die, it’s that people ignorant of it’s failure simply won’t stop trotting it out, as if restating it over and over again somehow means that the previous refutations didn’t happen"): http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/02/27/the-watchmaker-analogy-not-an-argument/

I could go on, but you get the idea. Point being, you still only offer arguments, and discredited arguments at that, but no evidence. Is there no evidence of God anywhere in all of existence?

 

[Pygoscelis]

When you look at the beginning of times, and approach it back in time, you can see a first cause for which it is sustainable to assume that it triggered all causal chains, and that it is the principle of causality to everything else. From the right, you cannot approach it, because in the absence of time itself, causality and hence understanding break down. So, you are staring at something that is on one side indeed a very powerful principle, i.e. the most powerful principle in the universe, and on the other side, something totally incomprehensible. So, yes, it is all powerful, and that is even visible from where we are. Concerning "benevolent" and "sentient", this is part of metaphysics. Any non-contradictory set of statements will be exactly that: non-contradictory. You will impossibly be able to say anything more about it, because that is exactly how the realm of metaphysics is. I treat metaphysics like I treat new theories in category theory in math: if they sounds attractive, I will simply enjoy them. It is mostly intuition anyway. At first, I do not even read the proof. It is my intuition that "just knows" that the theorem will have an elegant proof, just because it is beautiful and attractive. You can fly a lot further with intuition than with reason. Just maximize the beauty of the construct, and you will see that the proof will pretty much automatically materialize out of the fricking blue. With metaphysics, you can never find a proof, but the same intuitive sensation of attractive beauty will still guide you.

Well, without intuition, you will not be good at anything in the physical realm either. Without intuition, you will never discover or stumble upon anything of value, because you cannot have any proof, before you actually have found what you wanted to prove. Therefore, you just need to aimlessly maximize beauty, just because you feel attracted to it, until you stumble upon something that you really like. In my opinion, the most beautiful proof ever is John Nash' Equilibrium in n-player strategy games. You see, in mathematics, we say that the thing is beautiful, elegant, intuitive, and surprising. Someone who has no intuitive sense of beauty can never discover a thing like that at all. Ever. In fact, such person will also never understand anything at all. Ever. In metaphysics, you maximize beauty, until you stumble upon something intuitively very attractive, without trying to prove it, because that is simply not possible. That is the only difference with math.

That is a lot of words used when "yes" would suffice. You find it beautiful and you want to believe it, so you self-delude yourself into believing it is true. That may be an ability atheists aren't so good at, and maybe that is what sets us apart.No matter how attractive you made your God look to me, I still couldn't will myself to believe it is true absent good evidence. Indeed I know some apostates who left religious belief because they could no longer maintain it despite desperately wanting to. The clergy project (priests, imams, etc who have lost their faith) comes to mind.

 

[M.I.A.]

"Something has left the universe as a footprint. That is exactly the whole point."

This is called the Watchmaker Analogy: The presence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. It is so old and so well-known, and has been refuted so often by so many, that I don't have to waste my own time on it. See, for example,

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

This article points out how hackneyed the argument is ("To be fair, it’s not that the argument won’t die, it’s that people ignorant of it’s failure simply won’t stop trotting it out, as if restating it over and over again somehow means that the previous refutations didn’t happen"): http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/02/27/the-watchmaker-analogy-not-an-argument/

I could go on, but you get the idea. Point being, you still only offer arguments, and discredited arguments at that, but no evidence. Is there no evidence of God anywhere in all of existence?

..up until that watchmaker link i thought you were almost semi competent..

your not.



The Watchmaker argument

"What awe we have ought to be reserved for the richness of the ways in which simplicity can masquerade as complexity" -- P. W. Atkins (The Second Law, 2nd Edit., 1994)
For the uneducated man one of the most convincing of all "proofs" for the existance of a god is the watchmaker argument. It was presented by William Paley in Natural Theology, and the opening passage begins like this (Paley, 1802):
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there."
Further down Paley continues:
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
The argument is wrong for several reasons:
Contradiction

The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which is uncomplicated and random. It then states that since the universe is so complicated, complex, and ordered it too must have a creator. Thus, the argument gives the universe two incompatible qualities.


...

...
nature is not uncomplicated and random.. if you want to even try and imply it is, go ahead.. by the way its bolded on the website not something i tried to highlight.

for gods sake!! (no pun intended)

you cannot be serious... this is not a serious source.. this is not athiest ammo.. this is not the par in the tit for tat of life..

it should not be tolerated by you.. nevermind me!

or am i missing something?

do i give you too much credit because you write in paragraphs?

i refuse to believe that.. that website is your go to answer.. if it is..

then the watchmaker should have chucked a sun dial at you.


edit..

here you go.

...and its darwin and evolution!

not some made of person you wont believe.

but heres the thing, even if things seem random and uncomplicated..

at any given point.. in "time"

https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/oct/02/moth-tongues-orchids-darwin-evolution

 

[kritikvernunft]

This is called the Watchmaker Analogy: The presence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. It is so old and so well-known, and has been refuted so often by so many, that I don't have to waste my own time on it.

I really don't trade in non-math theorems. Aristotle's first cause is a math theorem. Aristotle nor his theorem would be discredited. It is not that simple to do that. "Refuting" is terminology from inferior fields and ways of thinking. We never "refute" something in math. We just point out a flaw in the proof. All of this is the same atheist hubris again. You cannot possibly attack a math theorem, or its proof, by using the inferior methods and interior terminology from your inferior field. "To refute", "special pleading" ... where does that cr.a.p come from?

 

[kritikvernunft]

You find it beautiful and you want to believe it, so you self-delude yourself into believing it is true.

It is indeed that belief that motives a mathematician to look for proof. If you have no sense of beauty, you will never know when to look for proof. What you did at high school, is not math, and that is why you are completely missing the point.

That may be an ability atheists aren't so good at, and maybe that is what sets us apart.

Entirely true, and that is why atheists are not good at these things. The entire body of math was created by people who see its beauty. You would not just fail to discover anything worth mentioning, worse, you will not even understand what a discovery means, because that would require you to see its beauty first. So, yes, conceded, you have no talent whatsoever for these things. That sets us indeed apart. In anything you do, you need to be driven by the thing itself, and its beauty, or you will be lousy at it. So, enjoy your total lack of talent, for as long as it lasts.

No matter how attractive you made your God look to me, I still couldn't will myself to believe it is true absent good evidence.

The rules of the game say that metaphysics are not provable. Otherwise, it would not be metaphysics. If you do not like the game, then do not play it. Asserting 'yes' or 'no' that there is a singular God, amounts to doing metaphysics, but if you really do not like that field, then why don't you just stop doing it? Isn't that easy peasy?

 

[Zafran]

That is a lot of words used when "yes" would suffice. You find it beautiful and you want to believe it, so you self-delude yourself into believing it is true. That may be an ability atheists aren't so good at, and maybe that is what sets us apart.No matter how attractive you made your God look to me, I still couldn't will myself to believe it is true absent good evidence. Indeed I know some apostates who left religious belief because they could no longer maintain it despite desperately wanting to. The clergy project (priests, imams, etc who have lost their faith) comes to mind.

However non of the "good evidences" that you list will ever make you believe in a God anyway so then why state it in the first place?

 

[jabeady]

nature is not uncomplicated and random.. if you want to even try and imply it is, go ahead.. by the way its bolded on the website not something i tried to highlight.

for gods sake!! (no pun intended)

you cannot be serious... this is not a serious source.. this is not athiest ammo.. this is not the par in the tit for tat of life..

it should not be tolerated by you.. nevermind me!

or am i missing something?

do i give you too much credit because you write in paragraphs?

i refuse to believe that.. that website is your go to answer.. if it is..

then the watchmaker should have chucked a sun dial at you.

You appear to be confusing Complicated (as in difficult to analyze) and Complex (as in having many interconnected parts).

Nature *is* complex. It is made up of myriad parts ranging in size from galaxies to the subatomic, and they all work in concert, in a sort of wheels within wheels arrangement.

But it is also uncomplicated. Virtually every single piece can notionally be broken down to its components for study, and analyzed. It all works according to a set of straightforward laws which, so far as is known, are uniform throughout the universe. These laws can be expressed as mathematical formulae, and then used to forecast various phenomena.

An analogy might be that nature is uncomplicated in pretty much the same sense that a person can be uncomplicated.

As for random: The components of a watch each have a purpose, and nothing about the assemblage is in there by accident. Remove a single part and the entire machine stops. In nature, what is the purpose of a beetle? How much planning went into its design? What would be harmed if we managed to eradicate beetles? Remove the beetles from earth and Europa will continue to orbit Jupiter, which will continue to orbit the sun, which will continue to orbit the galactic center.

That's as far as I care to get into it, at present. Feel free to disagree, but my point is that the Watchmaker Argument is flawed and has been refuted numerous times. It's so hackneyed that there's a great temptation to let it pass, just so we don't have to deal with it yet again.

It's interesting, though, that of that entire site, you chose to object to a pretty minor point.

 

[kritikvernunft]

An analogy might be that nature is uncomplicated in pretty much the same sense that a person can be uncomplicated.

Just like that watch maker story, what you just wrote here has nothing incontrovertible. Arguing the opposite of what you have written, does not lead to an inconsistency, aka, an ambiguity in its truth status. That is why someone else could happily argue the opposite of what you just wrote. What is the value in conjecturing and counter-conjecturing statements about "complicated" or "uncomplicated" things? That kind of methods are simply inferior.

If you really want to drag in "complexity", then at least start by asserting something like Kolmogorov's definition for complexity. From there on, logically derive your conjecture. If you do not like Kolmogorov's approach -- and this is perfectly possible -- then why don't you propose an alternative? By just ignoring Kolmogorov work, the only thing that you are proving, is your own ignorance, and most likely your inability to understand what he said, which is otherwise absolutely beautiful, but you obviously do not see the beauty in it.

 

[M.I.A.]

You appear to be confusing Complicated (as in difficult to analyze) and Complex (as in having many interconnected parts).

Nature *is* complex. It is made up of myriad parts ranging in size from galaxies to the subatomic, and they all work in concert, in a sort of wheels within wheels arrangement.

But it is also uncomplicated. Virtually every single piece can notionally be broken down to its components for study, and analyzed. It all works according to a set of straightforward laws which, so far as is known, are uniform throughout the universe. These laws can be expressed as mathematical formulae, and then used to forecast various phenomena.

An analogy might be that nature is uncomplicated in pretty much the same sense that a person can be uncomplicated.

As for random: The components of a watch each have a purpose, and nothing about the assemblage is in there by accident. Remove a single part and the entire machine stops. In nature, what is the purpose of a beetle? How much planning went into its design? What would be harmed if we managed to eradicate beetles? Remove the beetles from earth and Europa will continue to orbit Jupiter, which will continue to orbit the sun, which will continue to orbit the galactic center.

That's as far as I care to get into it, at present. Feel free to disagree, but my point is that the Watchmaker Argument is flawed and has been refuted numerous times. It's so hackneyed that there's a great temptation to let it pass, just so we don't have to deal with it yet again.

It's interesting, though, that of that entire site, you chose to object to a pretty minor point.

at this point im pretty sure you know your wrong.. what is interesting though is that you interpreted the answer and expanded upon it..

but you stuck to it.

what a strange sort of loyalty to have, for someone unaffiliated.

for someone who has no need to be affiliated.

Maybe i should leave my answers deliberately vague.. or start most of them with "consider this"

to be fair, its not a minor point of contention.

uncomplicated plants, uncomplicated animals and uncomplicated people.. i suppose what sets them apart is higher reasoning.. an undifineable soul.

what have i got against the Beatles?

ironically the assassin of john lennon was a christian convert.. so not just muslims then..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37021385

i wouldnt wish is upon anyone. rather the beetle keeps his fans.


...you know i apolagise.. i know your not thick.

maybe you are just unaware.

maybe you could better represent the religion than those that claim to represent the religion.

it would be a learning experience of simplicity at the least.

..the uncomplicated man.

the joke is im not very good at steering the conversation irl.

i am lost for words most of the time.

the watch is a delicate creation.. i suppose even the sun dial is not entirely accurate at times..

what you need to do is have a self repairing mechanism..

maybe even a self replicating mechanism..

a watch that creates watches..

although you would never make any money.


what is the purpose of the watch? i dont know! iv never seen a watch before!

 

[jabeady]

uncomplicated plants, uncomplicated animals and uncomplicated people.. i suppose what sets them apart is higher reasoning.. an undifineable soul.

Throughout, I have asked for evidence and you have given me argument and philosophy, about which we disagree. So I repeat my call for evidence. Since the universe is so "complicated," show me a single component of your God's creation, something which can be attributed to God, and only to God. The soul, perhaps.

To the religious, the soul is or should be the single greatest and most important of God's creation. Without it, there's nothing for the religious person to care about. The soul is everything; without it there's no hope of paradise. The existence of the soul is second only to the existence of God. Without a soul, you might as well bean atheist, for all the good it will do you.

So show me a soul. This would be the footprint of God that I asked for earlier. Or if you can't do that, find something else. Anything. The only requirement is that it can be attributed to Devine intervention and to nothing else.

 

[M.I.A.]

and allah swt says..

dont covet your own soul. (no idea whatsoever.. Google it)

i dont think you are asking the right questions.

..i cant really show you anything that you could not attribute to luck, chance, chemical systems, biological systems, physical systems.. this being a byproduct of that or that being a byproduct of this..causality..

all these interactions have been experienced.. given definition and name..

show me something new he says..

and yet the world is always the same.


yay i made a ryme!

...the ghost in the machine.

 

[kritikvernunft]

So show me a soul.

Look at someone just before he dies. Then, look at him again when he is dead. Something is gone, no? Everybody can see that. The clearly visible difference, that it is gone now, was his soul. This is so obvious that absolutely nobody questions it. I wonder why you do ...