Atheists and superiority complexes

[jfuh]

A few posters here have stated (or at least implied) that logic proves that God does not exist. In this argument, the non-existence is the positive, not the negative.

Logic demands that there be proof/anecdotal evidence to show the existence of god. As there is none God is as valid as the tooth fairy or the flying spaggetti monster.

 

[Arcana XV]

Let's say the universe as we know it is "something".
Can something arise from nothing? No.

Therefore reality is, and always was and will be. There is no "Start" to an infinite line in both directions....some consistency to that.

But in this reality everything has a beginning and an end. Nothing is infinite. How can I wrap my head around something that has no beginning and no end when everything around me does?

It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit. It takes just as much faith to believe that reality always was and always will be, infinitely, than to believe that something created it all from scratch including the illusion that there is no beginning and no end.

 

[jfuh]

But in this reality everything has a beginning and an end. Nothing is infinite. How can I wrap my head around something that has no beginning and no end when everything around me does?

It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit. It takes just as much faith to believe that reality always was and always will be, infinitely, than to believe that something created it all from scratch including the illusion that there is no beginning and no end.

In that a 2 dimensional being (should one exist) never be able to imagine that there is a 3rd spacial dimension, nor can we who live in this 3 dimensional space conviece of a 4th dimension or as there are hypotheses to suggest that there be 11 dimensions.
So it could in every hypothetical sense be, that something from our 3 dimensional space measurable by our instrumentation could come out of one of those higher spacial dimensions.
ie big bang.

 

[WI Crippler]

Faith is a belief that is absent of evidence(by definition). Why do atheists try to require evidence for faith? You are asking for something that cannot be given.

 

[Duke]

Faith is a belief that is absent of evidence(by definition). Why do atheists try to require evidence for faith? You are asking for something that cannot be given.

It seems to me that atheists more often require evidence for beliefs or claims, such as the claim that there is a god, or the claim that the earth was created in only a few days, or the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Evidence for these beliefs and others is painfully absent.


Duke

 

[justone]

Mach,

I appreciate your lengthy contribution. I'll probably have to read it one or two more times before I understand what you are getting at.

Look back into history of debates between Mach (do not confuse with Ernst Mach, please do not) and me. You have made me laugh... When you understand I will accept your superiority ... at this moment you and I are on the same level in relation to Mach.

 

[Captain America]

Faith is a belief that is absent of evidence(by definition). Why do atheists try to require evidence for faith? You are asking for something that cannot be given.

"Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." - Archie Bunker :rofl

 

[justone]

P.S. It is not like Mach does not have an ability to speak, try to make him before I agree with you superioroty.

 

[justone]

"Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." - Archie Bunker :rofl

It seems like you really have to exert yourself anytime when you try to produce something funny. This may be a more proper site for you to post your humor Don’t let Chronic Constipation keep you from moving to your own beat.

 

[mikhail]

Like a bunch of babies the theists come in like they are some minority being picked on.Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa almost like an army that totally out numbers and has more money than their opponents yet they feel sacred.The basis of this thread is "Atheists are being mean too me"

 

[Dogger807]

In short, yes I can see where a placebo effect has value. However, I never said, nor do I agree that it renders truth unimportant. When truth itself cannot be ascertained, how does it possibly apply? We're not talking about a person believing something that is proven untrue afterall.

ah but we are. look at the creationists. Their 2000 year old superstition is more important to them than truth to the point where they believe they are entitled to as much if not more respect than evolution.

This may be easier to see than the lack of proof in the existence of a god simple because due to the gathered evidence creationism has been disproved.

Try this on for size. Assume for a moment that evolution is wrong. We found bunnies in the Cambrian!!!! OMFG!!!! No more linear progress of life!!!!

ok, there you go. Clean slate. Now...prove creationism. Where is your evidence?

Now I'm not implying that your debating evolution. You've clearly stated the contrary. What I'm getting at is people do believe things that are proven untrue. (flat earthers come to mind) Their belief does not make their claims valid.

People used to believe wrapping broken limbs in cow dung would aid in the healing. At the time it was unable to be disproven and because people believed it it made them feel good. Is this belief valid?

You've steadily presented the god of the gaps as proof that ignorance is validity for belief. I'm saying that whether the out come is good or bad, how something makes you feel has no bearing on the validity of believing it.

Because believing in the easter bunny makes you feel good does not validate that belief. The same holds true all up and down the scale of human ignorance. The mystacism required to believe in a god does not change that.

 

[Proteus]

Oh, and which faith might this be? Oh wait, you're just dodging the question and making a bald-faced assertion. Piss poor performance.
/QUOTE]

Okie dokie.

No, not usually. Mostly they're simply asserting that God does everything good, which again, is an empty assertion without a shred of validation.

Hmmm, now who's refusing to acknowledge a very real possibility and making a bald-faced assertion??? Piss poor performance indeed. :2wave:

 

[Cephus]

Faith is a belief that is absent of evidence(by definition). Why do atheists try to require evidence for faith? You are asking for something that cannot be given.

If, in fact, all faith is devoid of evidence or reasoning or logic (to extend your definition), then I'll be the first one to say that all faith is pointless and stupid. However, faith is "believing where you cannot prove", to use the classical definition, not "believing what I cannot support via anything but empty claims" and certainly not "believing what you can damn well prove is false". which many theists practice regularly.

 

[Cephus]

Hmmm, now who's refusing to acknowledge a very real possibility and making a bald-faced assertion??? Piss poor performance indeed. :2wave:

Precisely how is that a very real possibility? In order for that to be a very real possibility, you would need to provide evidence that God is factually real. Otherwise, it's just like claiming that "unicorns only let virgins ride them" is a very real possibility.

 

[Proteus]

Precisely how is that a very real possibility? In order for that to be a very real possibility, you would need to provide evidence that God is factually real. Otherwise, it's just like claiming that "unicorns only let virgins ride them" is a very real possibility.

The possibility I was referring to was what the Christian in your example might have been thankful for, not the existence of God. :roll:

I'm still trying to decide whether your devout, closed-minded, anti-theism is knee-slappingly hilarious or just plain sad.


As for the rest of you, I've NEVER once claimed that God must exist, based on logical reasoning or any other. I'm merely acknowledging the fact that logic alone does NOT definitively prove that God does not exist. Either I've been woefully derelict in getting this point across, or you guys simply hear what you want to hear.

Perhaps I'll revisit this topic another time if the spirit moves (pun intended), but right now I'm a little spent. Not to mention all the Sarah Palin bashing going on right now is a friggin hoot! I read on another site that she actually rips the wings off defenseless butterflies! Imagine that!

 

[Ikari]

Is it possible to be an atheist and not also harbor feelings of intellectual superiority toward the faithful? I know this sounds antagonistic toward atheists, but I really don't mean it to be. I mean, I admit that I can't help but feel somewhat intellectually superior to people that visit astrologers, or psychics or habitually drop wads of cash playing the lottery. How does an atheist avoid feelings of condescending superiority for those they view as practitioners of superstition?

How can atheists not harbor feelings of intellectual superiority towards the faithful?

By not giving a **** about what you believe or practice so long as you leave us the hell out of it. Simple as that. Some of the smartest people I know are also devout theists of some religion. Being religious doesn't speak to intellect levels, some theists are smart some are dumb; same with every group in existence.

 

[DeeJayH]

How can atheists not harbor feelings of intellectual superiority towards the faithful?

By not giving a **** about what you believe or practice so long as you leave us the hell out of it. Simple as that. Some of the smartest people I know are also devout theists of some religion. Being religious doesn't speak to intellect levels, some theists are smart some are dumb; same with every group in existence.

while that is all nice and good
there are plenty of examples, just on this board, of atheists being condescending and dismissive and forgive the phrase 'holier-than-thou' when talking to the religious. if you skim the thread you will see a few even admitted to it here

 

[Ikari]

while that is all nice and good
there are plenty of examples, just on this board, of atheists being condescending and dismissive and forgive the phrase 'holier-than-thou' when talking to the religious. if you skim the thread you will see a few even admitted to it here

And the same exists on the theist front. The question wasn't whether or not condescending atheists exist, the question was is it possible as an atheist to not think yourself superior to theists. And that most definitely is possible. While there may be condescending atheists and theists out there, it doesn't speak to the fundamental that one doesn't have to be. There's jerks in every group, what does it matter? Just deal with the fact that there are jerks and go about your day.

 

[Arcana XV]

In that a 2 dimensional being (should one exist) never be able to imagine that there is a 3rd spacial dimension, nor can we who live in this 3 dimensional space conviece of a 4th dimension or as there are hypotheses to suggest that there be 11 dimensions.
So it could in every hypothetical sense be, that something from our 3 dimensional space measurable by our instrumentation could come out of one of those higher spacial dimensions.
ie big bang.

Well, by that logic, it's very possible that I'm wrong about there being no gods. They may very well reside in one or more of those 11 dimensions.

 

[jfuh]

Well, by that logic, it's very possible that I'm wrong about there being no gods. They may very well reside in one or more of those 11 dimensions.

In fact there very well may be, it's deffinetely plausible that there may be a god or godly figure beyond the dimensions which we are capable of perceiving.
As it is now though, God is about as valid as the tooth fairy.

 

[Mach]

But in this reality everything has a beginning and an end. Nothing is infinite. How can I wrap my head around something that has no beginning and no end when everything around me does?

We humans define beginnings and endings because it's useful, but do you honestly know of any? Try pointing one out and we can have some fun with showing why they don't actually exist, or an infinite number exist, which is just as delicious.

Secondly, you cannot make the claim nothing is infinite, how would you determine it? (you logically cannot as far as I know).

It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit. It takes just as much faith to believe that reality always was and always will be, infinitely, than to believe that something created it all from scratch including the illusion that there is no beginning and no end.

Actually, the evidence is that reality is and always was. It both makes sense, and evidence supports it.

I've already stated the logic, where do you object precisely?

Can something come from nothing? No.
You then go on to claim the universe sprang into being FROM nothing?
That makes no sense logically, I see no logical way to defend your position.

Don't get me wrong, I know it's strange, but damn man, the universe is seriously strange the second you look at it from ANY perspective other than your own. It's freaky out there.

-Mach

 

[Mach]

Faith is a belief that is absent of evidence(by definition). Why do atheists try to require evidence for faith? You are asking for something that cannot be given.

I agree with your line of questioning as to what faith is.

My answer would be that many times people are not aware of why they hold beliefs, and can be 100 years old and still never have pondered it. Part of many people's journey of understanding the world and themselves involves such critical thinking. But most of us many times in our lives find ourselves examining long-held personal beliefs and thinking "good grief, what was I thinking!?" I certainly have. I do it far less now, and beliefs on religion are usually just the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps some atheists believe by attempting to get people of faith to examine their beliefs critically, via evidence, those with faith may see the error of their ways. You know, the combination of HOPE and CHANGE

-Mach

 

[Arcana XV]

We humans define beginnings and endings because it's useful, but do you honestly know of any?

Well...yes. My own life. It has a beginning and an end. I was born and I'm going to die eventually.

Secondly, you cannot make the claim nothing is infinite, how would you determine it? (you logically cannot as far as I know).

Okay, so why don't you tell me about one thing, other than this infinite reality, that is actually infinite?

Actually, the evidence is that reality is and always was. It both makes sense, and evidence supports it.

I've already stated the logic, where do you object precisely?

Can something come from nothing? No.
You then go on to claim the universe sprang into being FROM nothing?
That makes no sense logically, I see no logical way to defend your position.

Don't get me wrong, I know it's strange, but damn man, the universe is seriously strange the second you look at it from ANY perspective other than your own. It's freaky out there.

-Mach

As I said earlier, at this point science can't create matter out of nothing. But what if some day it could? Would you then change your position that reality is infinite? And by reality, do you mean that matter is infinite?

 

[Cephus]

The possibility I was referring to was what the Christian in your example might have been thankful for, not the existence of God.

The problem is that there is no reason whatsoever to thank God for anything that God was not involved in. It's like thanking Zeus for doing well on a test or thanking unicorns for winning a baseball game. It's funny how sports figures will thank Jesus when they win a game but you never hear them blaming Jesus when they lose.

The fact is, you studied, you learned the material, you took the test, you deserve the credit for it, not some imaginary friend. If "God" did it for you, why'd you have to work so hard?

I'm still trying to decide whether your devout, closed-minded, anti-theism is knee-slappingly hilarious or just plain sad.

I'm sorry you find reality to be either of those things. I guess that answers my questions about what you qualify as.

As for the rest of you, I've NEVER once claimed that God must exist, based on logical reasoning or any other. I'm merely acknowledging the fact that logic alone does NOT definitively prove that God does not exist. Either I've been woefully derelict in getting this point across, or you guys simply hear what you want to hear.

You've gotten the point across, everyone is just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold water. Your argument that because we cannot prove God doesn't exist, that it's perfectly logical to believe in him is idiotic. We can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either. Is it fine and dandy to believe in him too? How about unicorns? Bigfoot? Invisible, intangible gnomes living on your shoulder? Rational, intelligent people do not simply accept things that they cannot prove wrong, they accept things that there is a sufficient amount of evidence to demonstrate likely and valid. God has none of that.

But I suppose you simply hear what you want to hear.

 

[Mach]

Well...yes. My own life. It has a beginning and an end. I was born and I'm going to die eventually.

At which precise point did it "start" though? When you were outside the womb? Was it when the first entire cell was outside the womb? Is that really a "start", or is that just you and me making sense of our perceptions because it feels right? It feels right to me, I agree, but there is no magical reality that changed when you were born, any more than changed 0.00001 seconds before you were born, or 0.00001 seconds after you were born.

Start/end are useful logical labels, they do not actually "exist".

Also, was your birth not also the end of the period that you were not born? So there are not only an infinite number of starts, but an infinite number of endings that coincide with each and every start? Sounds like reality is everything, and you and I just lable certain things that we want to, as "start" and "end". If every start is also an infinite number of endings, can you see that the contradiction of start/end is evidence it's not real?

Okay, so why don't you tell me about one thing, other than this infinite reality, that is actually infinite?

If reality is everything, then what is this "one thing other than reality" that I'd be discussing? Non-reality?

As I said earlier, at this point science can't create matter out of nothing. But what if some day it could? Would you then change your position that reality is infinite? And by reality, do you mean that matter is infinite?

Here's the rub. As humans we have no actual concept of what "nothing" is, and philosophically cannot. So to hypothesize that nothing can exist, would immediately make "nothing" into "some existing thing with the quality of <blank>". Which is something by definition. We can no more comment on nothing, than you can claim that a rock is both a rock, and a frog, simultaneously.

That's no word game either. Science is silent on "nothing". As should we all be, because discussing "nothing" is exactly that...remaining silent.

-Mach