Misrepresentation of atheism with respect to materialism

[watsup]

PART 2.

The second rationale is that of WIDESPREAD AFFIRMATION. Materialists like to claim that archaic religious experiences were fantasies thought up by clever con-men who tricked the rank and file into believing their wish-dreams of benevolent gods. This facile condemnation, though, is a little harder to sell in modern times, when the scientific theories beloved by materialists have gained so much persuasive power. The results of a 2002 Gallup poll show a wide dispersion of American citizens-- 1,509 in all, contacted via telephone interviews and thus not restricted to one area-- testifying as to religious experiences.






Why should there be, according to Gallup, an increase in such experiences in comparison to a similar Gallup poll in 1962? Given the familiar claim that Americans aren't going to church very much in the 21st century, why should there be any increase in testimonies of religious experience? Again, this is a form of "metaphysical evidence" that the materialist cannot countenance, because there is no way to prove it with the tools of the laboratory. To materialists, if you cannot place a phenomenon under a microscope, it must not exist-- and of course, their fancied "evidence" for this posture remains entirely tautological.

Similar hogwash to that we get from DrewPaul or Frank. You all are very good at repetition,

 

[watsup]

I've never failed to acknowledge that every god that's received sustained worship (not the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his relations, in other words) has been propagated through culture. That's not the same as saying that all of them were imaginary entities invented purely by culture. It remains a possibility that there are entities that impact on humankind who are without actual cultural characteristics, but who are reworked into cultural icons according to whether the perceiving humans are Greeks or Persians or Inuit.

Name one.

 

[watsup]

PART 2.

The second rationale is that of WIDESPREAD AFFIRMATION. Materialists like to claim that archaic religious experiences were fantasies thought up by clever con-men who tricked the rank and file into believing their wish-dreams of benevolent gods. This facile condemnation, though, is a little harder to sell in modern times, when the scientific theories beloved by materialists have gained so much persuasive power. The results of a 2002 Gallup poll show a wide dispersion of American citizens-- 1,509 in all, contacted via telephone interviews and thus not restricted to one area-- testifying as to religious experiences.






Why should there be, according to Gallup, an increase in such experiences in comparison to a similar Gallup poll in 1962? Given the familiar claim that Americans aren't going to church very much in the 21st century, why should there be any increase in testimonies of religious experience? Again, this is a form of "metaphysical evidence" that the materialist cannot countenance, because there is no way to prove it with the tools of the laboratory. To materialists, if you cannot place a phenomenon under a microscope, it must not exist-- and of course, their fancied "evidence" for this posture remains entirely tautological.

After reading the agnostic claims of yourself, DrewPaul, and Frank over the last few days, weeks, and months, I have become quite satisfied with my personal atheism. I have seen some atheists say that religionists have rejected all gods except one, and the atheist simply rejects that one, too. That sounds very much like you agnostics in that you all seem to hold on for dear life to that one last god, the Creator God, and you all even often use the very same arguments that the religionists due to "justify" your claims. Sorry, but I, as an athiest, reject your gods, too. No way I could be a fence-sitting agnostic who actually thinks that some sort of super and extranatural entity "could be" out there to just "create" an entire universe. That's crazy.

 

[Revelation]

After reading the agnostic claims of yourself, DrewPaul, and Frank over the last few days, weeks, and months, I have become quite satisfied with my personal atheism. I have seen some atheists say that religionists have rejected all gods except one, and the atheist simply rejects that one, too. That sounds very much like you agnostics in that you all seem to hold on for dear life to that one last god, the Creator God, and you all even often use the very same arguments that the religionists due to "justify" your claims. Sorry, but I, as an athiest, reject your gods, too. No way I could be a fence-sitting agnostic who actually thinks that some sort of super and extranatural entity "could be" out there to just "create" an entire universe. That's crazy.

i think the Agnostic is more accurate in his beliefs.

no one can check all knowledge out there, or even know 1% of the knowledge on the planet. being Agnostic at least acknowledges that there is a possibility of knowing in the future.

 

[watsup]

i think the Agnostic is more accurate in his beliefs.

no one can check all knowledge out there, or even know 1% of the knowledge on the planet. being Agnostic at least acknowledges that there is a possibility of knowing in the future.

No evidence, no God. It's just that simple.

 

[Revelation]

No evidence, no God. It's just that simple.

you couldn't have possibly checked any more than 1% of the knowledge that is out there, but claim that God can't be found in the 99% of the knowledge you will never have access too.

hmmm, takes faith.......more than i have.

 

[watsup]

you couldn't have possibly checked any more than 1% of the knowledge that is out there, but claim that God can't be found in the 99% of the knowledge you will never have access too.

hmmm, takes faith.......more than i have.

You are always welcome to show me the evidence.

 

[Revelation]

You are always welcome to show me the evidence.

and how can we do that being limited finite believers?

i am in the same Boat as you, my knowledge is less than 1% of all available knowledge.

 

[Gordy327]

and how can we do that being limited finite believers?

i am in the same Boat as you, my knowledge is less than 1% of all available knowledge.

There are a lot of believers out there. Are you saying not 1 among them or over thousands of years and with our current level of science and discovery can produce even the slightest shred of objective evidence for god? Well that's not surprising, as there is no evidence for a god. So no reason to believe in one.

 

[Ouroboros]

If they disbelieved in obvious scams, they would be called atheists.

Another false atheist assumption. Same old same old.

 

[Ouroboros]

....and present scams of their own, as yourself and DrewPaul and Frank have shown repeatedly.

Ain't no scam like the atheist pretense of being "objective."

 

[Ouroboros]

There are a lot of believers out there. Are you saying not 1 among them or over thousands of years and with our current level of science and discovery can produce even the slightest shred of objective evidence for god? Well that's not surprising, as there is no evidence for a god. So no reason to believe in one.

Have anyone but you and your dubious allies affirmed that objective evidence is the proper criterion for belief?

 

[Ouroboros]

Similar hogwash to that we get from DrewPaul or Frank. You all are very good at repetition,

And you're good at not being able to read, or reason.

How do you explain the rise in religious experiences alongside declining participation in established religious places of worship?

 

[Ouroboros]

Name one.

As I've just named all of the authentically worshiped deities, what would be the point of naming just one?

 

[Ouroboros]

After reading the agnostic claims of yourself, DrewPaul, and Frank over the last few days, weeks, and months, I have become quite satisfied with my personal atheism. I have seen some atheists say that religionists have rejected all gods except one, and the atheist simply rejects that one, too. That sounds very much like you agnostics in that you all seem to hold on for dear life to that one last god, the Creator God, and you all even often use the very same arguments that the religionists due to "justify" your claims. Sorry, but I, as an athiest, reject your gods, too. No way I could be a fence-sitting agnostic who actually thinks that some sort of super and extranatural entity "could be" out there to just "create" an entire universe. That's crazy.

More proof that atheists don't value objective evidence. No one you've opposed has made a specific reference to a creator god as yet. It may be that Revelation or Daisy hold monotheistic beliefs, but they didn't say as yet, "I believe only a creator god." Why does monotheism threaten you so?

 

[Gordy327]

Have anyone but you and your dubious allies affirmed that objective evidence is the proper criterion for belief?

Belief itself is subjective and essentially wishful thinking. It's claims made that require objective evidence.

More proof that atheists don't value objective evidence. No one you've opposed has made a specific reference to a creator god as yet. It may be that Revelation or Daisy hold monotheistic beliefs, but they didn't say as yet, "I believe only a creator god." Why does monotheism threaten you so?

If one merely states they believe something, then they do not bear the burden of proof. Of course belief does not equal fact and does not establish any credibility.

How do you explain the rise in religious experiences alongside declining participation in established religious places of worship?

Self delusion, psychological issues, indoctrination, ignorance, emotion, possibly drugs, the list goes on. Such "experiences" is the epitome of subjective and anecdotal.

 

[watsup]

and how can we do that being limited finite believers?

i am in the same Boat as you, my knowledge is less than 1% of all available knowledge.

If you have so little knowledge, then how could you possibly know that there is a God?

 

[watsup]

Ain't no scam like the atheist pretense of being "objective."

As someone else has said, “objective” means having evidence that, like in science, can potentially be “falsified” under scrutiny. This means, of course, that mere “testimony” or “witnessing” does not qualify since they are subjective to the person making the statement. But, as always, you and the others are always welcome to offer said objective, reality-based evidence and we atheists will be glad to consider it.

 

[watsup]

How do you explain the rise in religious experiences alongside declining participation in established religious places of worship?

Prove it. But first you will need to define what you mean by “religious experiences”.

 

[watsup]

As I've just named all of the authentically worshiped deities, what would be the point of naming just one?

So the “worship” of deities prove that they are objectively real rather than just cultural imaginary entity icons? How so? What exactly do you mean by “authenticity”?

 

[Revelation]

If you have so little knowledge, then how could you possibly know that there is a God?

we all have limited knowledge, how do we know anything.

God will communicate with you, you need to know very little; that is why children and teens do better than adults. very few people become christians in their later years; the statistics are depressingly poor.

 

[watsup]

More proof that atheists don't value objective evidence. No one you've opposed has made a specific reference to a creator god as yet. It may be that Revelation or Daisy hold monotheistic beliefs, but they didn't say as yet, "I believe only a creator god." Why does monotheism threaten you so?

Actually, both DrewPaul and Frank have stated that their specific imaginary entity is indeed a Creator God. In other words, just like religionists, they reject every god except for one last one which they hold onto strongly.

 

[watsup]

we all have limited knowledge, how do we know anything.

God will communicate with you, you need to know very little; that is why children and teens do better than adults. very few people become christians in their later years; the statistics are depressingly poor.

You continue to reference “God”, and yet you now have basically admitted that you can’t possibly know that there is such an entity. As such, as regards “knowledge”, my claim of no god is at least as equally meritorious as yours.

 

[Revelation]

You continue to reference “God”, and yet you now have basically admitted that you can’t possibly know that there is such an entity. As such, as regards “knowledge”, my claim of no god is at least as equally meritorious as yours.

it is different for all people, a lady i was chatting with at church seems to have miracles going on all the time in her life, while others struggle with any kind of faith.

i just solidly believe in God, no issues.

 

[Gordy327]

it is different for all people, a lady i was chatting with at church seems to have miracles going on all the time in her life, while others struggle with any kind of faith.

i just solidly believe in God, no issues.


View attachment 67468422

Belief (aka wishful thinking) I'd all it is. But belief foes not equal fact. And since you have no actual knowledge and just belief as you say, then one cannot presume to know God or what a God wants, does, or whatever.