The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[KRYPTON INC.]

The theological perspective is as much about the appeal the Christian mythology has for each follower as it is about some kind of lack of information. From many a perspective through the ages, it hits the right notes to give solace.

For myself... At some point what's lost from abandoning a world view with the Christian god is simply outweighed by the satisfaction that comes from seeing things as they are, and not just as what is most appealing to myself.

 

[MrsKent26]

For myself... At some point what's lost from abandoning a world view with the Christian god is simply outweighed by the satisfaction that comes from seeing things as they are, and not just as what is most appealing to myself.

That's how I feel as well.

The world is harsh. Sometimes it would be nice to believe there was someone out there watching out for us all the time. It's a lovely idea and much preferable to the idea that we are on our own and have to look out for ourselves and each other, but it's just not true. All the evidence points to the latter being the case. God is just that. A nice idea. He never really looks after us. Awful things still happen. We can either believe that is because he has a "plan" that we aren't privy to (and in which case his treatment of us is just as brutal as the realities of life we invented him to counter) or that he doesn't exist. Considering there is no evidence of him ever existing, I chose that route. I'd rather believe the brutal truth than brutal falsehoods.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

That's how I feel as well.

The world is harsh. Sometimes it would be nice to believe there was someone out there watching out for us all the time. It's a lovely idea and much preferable to the idea that we are on our own and have to look out for ourselves and each other, but it's just not true. All the evidence points to the latter being the case. God is just that. A nice idea. He never really looks after us. Awful things still happen. We can either believe that is because he has a "plan" that we aren't privy to (and in which case his treatment of us is just as brutal as the realities of life we invented him to counter) or that he doesn't exist. Considering there is no evidence of him ever existing, I chose that route. I'd rather believe the brutal truth than brutal falsehoods.

I like that last flourish MrsK.

You know, long ago, in the days of ancient Greece, there was a period where the latest plays were considered so important to the individual and society that even prisoners were allowed to see them. People knew these were authored by human hands, but the ideas and concepts they explored and presented resonated, in my opinion, with the same parts of our minds that came up with gods and monsters. That part of us that perhaps, can never truly take in the entirety of rational existence because we as species are not now, nor have we ever been, well, "rationality machines". We can not live by pure rationality alone, despite it's obvious advantages and the various leaps that our rational side has given us as a whole.

Or to quote one Batman, from a little film called THE DARK KNIGHT: "Sometimes the truth, isn't good enough. Sometimes, people deserve more. Sometimes, people deserve to have their faith rewarded." The world, existence itself can be cold and cruel. As beings that can even contemplate coldness and cruelty, well is it a surprise that people come up with all sorts of fantastical "reasons" for how the world is? Is it a surprise that people through time have wanted to believe in something that transcends the mundane and places each and every individual into some kind of context that says to them, "You are loved and you are special, and that there is a good reasoning behind your and the world's suffering"?

 

[Marvolo]

I gotta say, I've never been one to cling and hope that there is a loving God. The world just says otherwise. If there is a God like being it is a natural highly evolved being that is so separated from us that our problems seem to it like the problems of an ant seem to us or it is a dick and capable of being petty and toying with us.

I've always preferred the mercurial gods of the pagans to the all knowing all loving God of the Christians. It's just more fascinating and it's fits in with the whole evolutionary nature of the universe. If there are God's or God like beings we are but ants to them. I don't expect them to dote upon me and make everything all better when I go crying to them so I don't.

I do believe in the possibility of higher powers, and by that I mean natural beings that exist within the fabric of the universe and beyond. Maybe they can here us when we pray maybe they can't. I don't really care. I don't believe cause it makes me feel better. I believe because I'm a pragmatist. In the argument of whether there are higher powers we don't know enough nor have we seen enough to rule it out. We are barely babies in the eyes of the universe. There might be some God like being hiding out somewhere in the universe or in between dimensions. I'm not confident enough to say yes or no just that I accept the possibility and that whether it does exist it likely doesn't affect me or my life.

 

[MrsKent26]

I like that last flourish MrsK.

You know, long ago, in the days of ancient Greece, there was a period where the latest plays were considered so important to the individual and society that even prisoners were allowed to see them. People knew these were authored by human hands, but the ideas and concepts they explored and presented resonated, in my opinion, with the same parts of our minds that came up with gods and monsters. That part of us that perhaps, can never truly take in the entirety of rational existence because we as species are not now, nor have we ever been, well, "rationality machines". We can not live by pure rationality alone, despite it's obvious advantages and the various leaps that our rational side has given us as a whole.

Or to quote one Batman, from a little film called THE DARK KNIGHT: "Sometimes the truth, isn't good enough. Sometimes, people deserve more. Sometimes, people deserve to have their faith rewarded." The world, existence itself can be cold and cruel. As beings that can even contemplate coldness and cruelty, well is it a surprise that people come up with all sorts of fantastical "reasons" for how the world is? Is it a surprise that people through time have wanted to believe in something that transcends the mundane and places each and every individual into some kind of context that says to them, "You are loved and you are special, and that there is a good reasoning behind your and the world's suffering"?

Thank you for that, Krypton. Very insightful post.

And you know what, it isn't surprising. There's even a whiff of survival instinct to it. It's a coping mechanism for sentient beings who live amongst many elements beyond their control (and beyond their comprehension now and even more so historically) to use to feel that at least some of these things are in the hands of someone greater and wiser, rather than randomness. Like you said, it is far easier (and maybe more natural, especially in the past) to believe the voice that says "you are loved, you are special, you will live forever in heaven and there is reason for your suffering" than the voice of reality that says "you may be loved (if another flawed being happens to love you or you might die alone), you are special (but so is everyone else and you aren't immune to anything because of it), you'll just be worm food when you die, and your suffering is just random because that bus was early and you tripped in front of it." It's harsh. The need to have some way to cope is powerful indeed, but it seems the need for truth is more powerful to some (or perhaps truth is simply how those folks cope).

 

[regwec]

I don't think I'd want to go to a heaven that had people like rodhulk in it.

 

[MrsKent26]

Just keep on being a non-believer and you won't make it in anyways. Here's hoping that whole rapture bit is pure hogwash.

 

[The End]

You haven't shown me any interpretations that don't require as many assumptions that you say I am using, you've just shown me what you ended your post with, "ignorance" to the word of God.

So now you're a liar. I have, at length, went over this - describing occam's razor, showing you interpretations of the same passage that require far less assumptions, and I've done that multiple times now.

Rodhulk...

I don't really feel like you're listening to any body at all.

Let's go through a simple example so you can understand why people think you're 'stretching out metaphors to the breaking point'.

It would be cool if you could acknowledge that you're doing this with at least this one passage. I feel if I can get you to acknowledge this is a stretch, then we'll have made some progress.

"Job 9:8 God stretches out the heavens. Think the big bang here."


Job 9:8

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

It's a big leap to get from a passage like that, to say that this passage describes the big bang. It's an absolutely massive leap.

Here's what even the ancient people of several thousands of years ago would be able to see when looking up at the night sky.

Think about it for a moment, I don't just want to hand the answers to you.

....


....

....


Okay. Isn't it likely that the passage is based on simple observation?

Isn't it MORE likely, that this is the case, than it is that the passage describes something as complex as the big bang?

This is the thing I've noticed with you, Rodhulk. Again and again and again and again, you choose the more complex interpretations over the more simple, obvious interpretations. You choose the interpretation that contains more assumptions. There's a term for this mistake in thinking in philosophy and its called Occam's Razor.

The passage simply isn't sufficient for describing the big bang. I was gonna write out a description in my own words, but I might as well just copy and paste the description from wikipedia.



If you think to yourself, "obviously that's what 'stretching out the heavens' is supposed to describe", you're allowing some very serious biases to cloud your judgement. Think about Occam's Razor.

Prior to Job 9:8,

9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not.

The Earth rests on pillars, and the Sun moves around the Earth.

The sun rising is based on simple observation, but they had no way of knowing that its the Earth that's moving around the sun, which is why there's no mention of it in the bible.

Some sort of acknowledgement Rodhulk that you could be wrong, and progress will have been made.

Oh for crying out loud.

Job 9:8!! It's simply too big a leap, there are simply too many assumptions, in believing that 'stretching out the heavens' is a reference to the big bang, and believing in that over other interpretations with less assumptions is a big fat fallacy in thinking.

Just because you won't acknowledge your mistakes, doesn't mean you haven't made any.

The point I've been trying to make is, if you can't recognize the flaw in your thinking with Job 9:8, you're not going to recognize the same flaw when you talk about end time prophecies or anything else in the bible. You'll keep on thinking that you're correct, no matter how big the leaps in logic you make.

And you're STILL at it. You're STILL playing dumb. You're massively, grotesquely intellectually dishonest.

It should be trivial for anyone to understand why believing 'stretching out the heavens' is a reference to the big bang, is too big a leap.

 

[The End]

One more time.


Follow me now, Rodhulk.



Anyone with the naked eye, thousands of years ago, on a clear night can see a sky that just goes on and on. Anyone can make that simple observation.


Do you get it?

Do you understand?

Anyone can make the simple observation that the sky reaches from one horizon to the other.

The prevailing belief in the church for a long time was the geocentric model. So why didn't they understand Job 9:8, as you interpret it?

Because you're interpreting it with hindsight, trying to make it fit with what we now know.

Giodano Bruno challenged the geocentric model in the 16th century. Be believed the night sky was infinite, he believed the sun was just another star, and that all the stars in the sky were other suns, and that there were other worlds, and the church persecuted him for that belief.

Bruno wasn't a scientist. He made a lucky guess.

And he goes much further, he was much more on the mark with what we now know, than simply stating 'god stretched out the heavens'.

'Stretched out the heavens' is a banal observation, and anyone that believes this references the big bang is a moron. I'm sorry, they just are. They're not being honest with themselves. You're not being honest with yourself.

 

[regwec]

I'm afraid that, as a believer in the literal truth of the bible, rodhulk will be well accustomed to shutting out evidence and bending reason, even when it is right in front of his eyes.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Cognitive bias.

 

[regwec]

One more time.


Follow me now, Rodhulk.



Anyone with the naked eye, thousands of years ago, on a clear night can see a sky that just goes on and on. Anyone can make that simple observation.


Do you get it?

Do you understand?

Joshua 11:4

And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many.

This tells us that we will find sand by the sea- which is totally true!- and science would not know this until thousands of years later. Amen.

 

[MrsKent26]

I wonder what rodhulk is trying to accomplish with this "the Bible already knew scientific truths" thing. Even if true, it doesn't prove God exists. It may prove that writers of the Bible could observe things, but that's about it. The observations are still what a human could/would observe. No link to divinity has been established.

 

[KevanG]

I think that the idea is that god hid these things in the bible to prove it was true once we hit a certain scientific standing. It seems like it's supposed to tie into revelations being true as well if he can prove various other things.

 

[MrsKent26]

I see. Maybe he should have forgot about hiding these things in the Bible and just appeared? I reckon that would have saved many folks some strife.

 

[KevanG]

All part of the 'plan'.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I see. Maybe he should have forgot about hiding these things in the Bible and just appeared? I reckon that would have saved many folks some strife.

Well, his M.O. is beyond our comprehension.

 

[MrsKent26]

To quote the Joker: "Nobody complains when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying."

 

[The End]

How would you write real scientific facts in a holy book from thousands of years ago, in a way that wouldn't be banal and would actually be impressive?

"And lo, the universe did exist in a super-dense state no bigger than a fist, and did explode and expand, and particles invisible to the naked eye began to form, and the elements began to attract one another to form the stars".

"I tell thee, that our sun keeps the planets in motion around it, the sun is at the centre of our system, our system is not the centre of the heavens but is on the arm of but one galaxy containing uncountable billions of other stars and worlds, and beyond our galaxy exists many billions of galaxies".


They didn't believe anything remotely like that. The biblical view of the universe is small. But if they had described it like that, that'd at least be impressive.

 

[KevanG]

Jeez End, that's why it's all incredibly vague. If it was obvious then how would you be able to determine the meaning?

 

[The End]

I think really this is one of the things that's harmful about religion. In general, I don't really mind what personal beliefs a person has. But its when people start denying reality, start twisting and violating logic, leaping to truly absurd conclusions, just so they can hold onto their belief, that's harmful.

There's a BIG problem today with scientific illiteracy and religion holds a lot of the blame for that.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Eh... This may be a more, "human nature" thing (which after all IS the well spring of all religious thought), than a specifically religious thing. Take a look at Hitler in WWII. He rejected the cutting edge physics of his time? Why. "I do not believe in Jewish mathematics." He didn't need some purely religious foundation for thinking that and denying reality. Because after all, there is no such thing as "Jewish mathematics", or "Western mathematics" or "Eastern mathematics".... There's just mathematics. The consequences of such thinking? You and I are communicating in English rather than German.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Humor is a powerful tool to show people the absurdity of their religion. South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker said that most Mormon viewers responded well to the episode All About Mormons.

YouTube comedian The Amazing Atheist convinced hundreds of Christians they should approach their beliefs critically, and influenced many of those to give up theism altogether.

 

[Dr.]

How would you write real scientific facts in a holy book from thousands of years ago, in a way that wouldn't be banal and would actually be impressive?

“Know thee that the waters are sculpted from two parts sunlight and one part sky.” Meaning: a water molecule is 2 atoms of hydrogen (the Sun’s main fuel) and 1 atom of oxygen (actually, nitrogen is the dominant gas in air/“sky”... but close enough). If a scientific statement like this appeared in the Bible, I’d be impressed. Also - “slavery is unconscionable,” “women are the equal of men” and “pity - but don’t burn! - unbelievers” would be wise guidance. (“Worship me” seems like a colossal waste of a Commandment.)

 

[KevanG]

No matter what I post here I'm not really one for trying to make people lose faith in their religions. I'm just trying to make them see that religion shouldn't be considered perfect and that they need to think outside the box if they want to take it literally. Also, picking and choosing what you want to believe when there's things in the books that you like against what you don't when it's supposed to be followed the same way isn't really going to convince people to join you. It just shows that you do as you please no matter what the book says.