Atheism ends today

[Outrider]

If you insist, that's probably why I have given up on them.

So you used to believe in them? But now you don't?

Zeus comes from a dramatised effort at theology, a kind of cosmic JR Ewing

Uh-huh... As opposed to the serious theology of driving demon-possessed pigs over a cliff and sending bears to rend apart children for taunting a bald man...

Well Zeus is senior but his supremacy is in question since there seems to be a time when he didn't exist.

So you can't 'rise' to supremacy?

Your argument that the abrahamic monotheistic God comes from people who once were pantheistic leaves me asking ''so what?''.

Well, apart from the point that if your supreme being has always been so supreme, how come he was so bad at communicating early on, but more to the point I wasn't making the point that Yahweh was once just one god amongst a pantheon but rather the claim to monotheism from Christians and Muslims is at best questionable, what with Satan and various ranks of divine angelic beings.

That;s a bit like saying the Wright brother's originally built Bicycles so planes are just Bicycles.

No, it's a bit like saying the Emperor's new clothes weren't invisible, they just weren't there, so his claims of an invisible plane probably merit at least a little scepticism.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Popping out of nothing is a bit too Humeian for me and suffers from the critique that whatever the popper out of nothing is it could have alternatively been beamed in from somewhere but yes since it itself is the creator then there can be no moral sphere without it. The moral sphere is dependent on the supreme being. I see no need for everything to be a partaker of it, just as not everything is a partaker of the connections recognised by intellect or consciousness.

Even if humans have adopted the concept of a moral sphere in the way they live their lives, there is such a wide variety of morals that people follow based on their perceptions, interpretations, nature and culture, it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate that any particular moral value is right. Even if there was a supreme moral being, that being has left the moral decisions to humans, hence people end up being, as you put it, the hero of their own story

As part of our evolutionary development we seem to keep re-evaluating our morals, and maybe the morals that help us survive are the ones that persist e.g the morals that benefit social cohesion and co-operation. The people who follow morals that don't give them a biological advantage presumably die out along with their morals. I am not aware of a method to measure and demonstrate that one moral is better than another or that a moral is objectively true or objectively good. It seems to be individual people deciding this even when they phrase it as this is what I think God wants me to do - in what way is this not people being heroes of their own story?

Have you looked into moral fictionalism in philosophy? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you used to believe in them? But now you don't?
Uh-huh... As opposed to the serious theology of driving demon-possessed pigs over a cliff and sending bears to rend apart children for taunting a bald man...

There is a genre of writing I believe is called pious fiction and certainly big religious works and the various scriptures contain myths and legends. So to me a story concerning a pantheon of warring and shagging gods holds less attraction and indeed genuine divinity than the big narrative of a monotheism revealing itself and it's nature to humanity through and in unspectacular, history characters who have lonely encounters with demoniacs and less spectacular people with relatively mundane problems. 

So you can't 'rise' to supremacy?

In the human experience the struggle for supremacy is certainly something that catches the imagination. I can certainly manage to view the story of the fall of man as part of the human struggle for supremacy for instance

Well, apart from the point that if your supreme being has always been so supreme, how come he was so bad at communicating early on,

Any problem has been on the recieving end

but more to the point I wasn't making the point that Yahweh was once just one god amongst a pantheon

I think you are being sloppy with the term pantheon and the modern atheist view of God being one of many. If that really is a pantheon it has the singularity of being a pantheon invented by atheism. I think there is a more specific term called Henotheism

but rather the claim to monotheism from Christians and Muslims is at best questionable, what with Satan and various ranks of divine angelic beings.

I wouldn't class angels as divine. I think you are stretching divinity too far.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if humans have adopted the concept of a moral sphere in the way they live their lives, there is such a wide variety of morals that people follow based on their perceptions, interpretations, nature and culture, it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate that any particular moral value is right. Even if there was a supreme moral being, that being has left the moral decisions to humans, hence people end up being, as you put it, the hero of their own story

As part of our evolutionary development we seem to keep re-evaluating our morals, and maybe the morals that help us survive are the ones that persist e.g the morals that benefit social cohesion and co-operation. The people who follow morals that don't give them a biological advantage presumably die out along with their morals. I am not aware of a method to measure and demonstrate that one moral is better than another or that a moral is objectively true or objectively good. It seems to be individual people deciding this even when they phrase it as this is what I think God wants me to do - in what way is this not people being heroes of their own story?

Have you looked into moral fictionalism in philosophy?

I'm happy that there is a moral sphere, a moral dimension that we cannot but help be sensitive to and partakers of. Our response seems to be homeostatic heck we even have a phrase based in homeostasis namely ''one's moral compass''. This in turn portrays human existence as being one of moral navigation and that then asks the question....''navigation to where?''.

Regarding moral fictionalism, I shall look into that, I may have come across it.

[Outrider]

I think there is a more specific term called Henotheism I wouldn't class angels as divine. I think you are stretching divinity too far.

And I think you're creating artificial distinctions to try to make your story more special than the rest... Angels are considered divine in the psalms, apparently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity#:~:text=The%20divinity%20in%20the%20Bible,spirit%20beings%2C%20in%20God's%20form.. And then there's the trinity, of course. And Satan.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I think you're creating artificial distinctions to try to make your story more special than the rest... Angels are considered divine in the psalms, apparently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity#:~:text=The%20divinity%20in%20the%20Bible,spirit%20beings%2C%20in%20God's%20form.. And then there's the trinity, of course. And Satan.

O.

Come of it, Plato's monotheism was far more sophisticated and philosophically satisfying than Zeus and the pantheon which frankly was more entertainment.

Satan is not God or even a god. That flies in the face of the narratives of the Good and evil God. Equals, opposed and fighting until Good wins.

Pious fiction even infiltrates pop science and the public understanding of science vis Cox's ''woonder of the universe'', Any title of a Dawkin's book, Ann Dreyers famous phrase, the kindness of chance being examples.

Are you not worried that your critique and understanding of monotheism and Christianity seems to start with an iffy view of foreigners of low socio economic and technical sophistication rather than the greats of philosophy?

[Outrider]

Come of it, Plato's monotheism was far more sophisticated and philosophically satisfying than Zeus and the pantheon which frankly was more entertainment.

Sophisticated in what way? I'm not that familiar with Plato's monotheism, but Christian attempts at monotheism inevitably falter at trying to account for the variety of outcomes humanity undergoes  with a single personality.

Satan is not God or even a god.

So how come your apparently all-powerful god can't stop it, then?

That flies in the face of the narratives of the Good and evil God. Equals, opposed and fighting until Good wins.

Weren't you the one telling me not long ago that presuming we're making progress and improving is an illusion, or does good win in heaven when we're all screwed down here?

Pious fiction even infiltrates pop science and the public understanding of science vis Cox's ''woonder of the universe'', Any title of a Dawkin's book, Ann Dreyers famous phrase, the kindness of chance being examples.

If you can't see wonder in the universe, I suppose it's no surprise you turned to fairy tales.

Are you not worried that your critique and understanding of monotheism and Christianity seems to start with an iffy view of foreigners of low socio economic and technical sophistication rather than the greats of philosophy?

No, I see no reason to get into an exhaustive study of Christian theology's post-hoc rationalisations of an over-attachment to one particular version of Clash of the Titans.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sophisticated in what way? I'm not that familiar with Plato's monotheism, but Christian attempts at monotheism inevitably falter at trying to account for the variety of outcomes humanity undergoes  with a single personality.

So how come your apparently all-powerful god can't stop it, then?

Weren't you the one telling me not long ago that presuming we're making progress and improving is an illusion, or does good win in heaven when we're all screwed down here?

If you can't see wonder in the universe, I suppose it's no surprise you turned to fairy tales.

No, I see no reason to get into an exhaustive study of Christian theology's post-hoc rationalisations of an over-attachment to one particular version of Clash of the Titans.

O.

Hopeless. So much goes over your head.

[Outrider]

Hopeless. So much goes over your head.

Is that, in your opinion, a worse thing than when it goes in one of your ears and straight out the other?

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So how come your apparently all-powerful god can't stop it, then?


O.

I don't know if this question is one of the key things that differentiate theists from atheists.

My experience of being an atheist is that I thought what's the point of a god if the god does not stop all the bad things that happen to people.

When I became a theist my outlook became more introspective and the struggles I saw in the world - many of them horrific -  seemed to be a manifestation of the multiple smaller human internal struggles about morality we each face where we have to decide multiple times on a daily basis about what the "right" thing to do is or how far we put someone else's needs above our own, how much we are prepared to sacrifice for someone else or what the least "bad" thing to do is in trying to be a "good" citizen, friend, relation or a "good" human.

I know I feel I do nowhere near enough to help others - I could sacrifice far more of my wealth and time and my children's future outcomes to help improve other children's future outcomes; I could be far more patient and put up with far more physical and emotional discomforts in order to help others. I see examples of other people who do make these sacrifices that I am too selfish to do, and how this really makes a difference to the lives of other people.

I observe that as a theist I don't have that expectation that a god is there to solve all problems so god not solving all problems does not lessen my faith. The religious framing of these struggles suddenly interested me, which is presumably why I became a theist, but I can see why the religious framing would bore or irritate others. it used to bore and irritate me as an atheist.

To me, putting the burden on me to help others seems to be one of the aspects of being human - if I am attaching my understanding of a moral or spiritual meaning to the word "human". And I am fairly certain I felt the same way when I was an atheist.

I am still not sure what Vlad means by god-dodging. For example I am not dodging Marxism - I've looked into it and it have more of an affinity to capitalism. Not subscribing to a particular concept of a god or morality seems no different to not subscribing to any particular philosopher or political outlook that does not appeal. These concepts of morality and spirituality and political outlook are constructed by individual people based on their interpretations of ideas, their experiences and perceptions.

[jeremyp]

You mean your wrong assumption of an immediate result or the result you predicted within the limitations of your theological understanding?

Why wouldn't it be an immediate result? If God exists and he wants everybody to love and worship him, wouldn't he take immediate steps to end atheism? In fact, it's odd that anybody would have to pray for him to do that. Maybe he's getting old and it slipped his mind.

I can't find any reference to this event at all.

What? Not even on the Facebook page for the event that I linked in the first post on this thread?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why wouldn't it be an immediate result? If God exists and he wants everybody to love and worship him, wouldn't he take immediate steps to end atheism? In fact, it's odd that anybody would have to pray for him to do that. Maybe he's getting old and it slipped his mind.What? Not even on the Facebook page for the event that I linked in the first post on this thread?

You seem to be equating wanting someone to love you with forcing someone to love you.

[jeremyp]

You seem to be equating wanting someone to love you with forcing someone to love you.

If you want somebody to love you, they need to know you exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want somebody to love you, they need to know you exist.

I think the world is split thus Jeremy those who know he exists but cannot prove it, Those who know he exists but cannot face it, those who don't know if he exists but cannot prove he doesn't, those who don't know he exists and wouldn't want to anyway, those who suspect he might but don't wish to pursue the issue......and you can probably add a few more categories in yourself. 

[jeremyp]

I think the world is split thus Jeremy those who know he exists but cannot prove it

These people don't know he exists. They believe he exists, but knowing requires strong evidence.

Those who know he exists but cannot face it

So can these people prove God exists? Or do they not really know either.

those who don't know if he exists but cannot prove he doesn't, those who don't know he exists and wouldn't want to anyway, those who suspect he might but don't wish to pursue the issue......and you can probably add a few more categories in yourself.

Well, we already know God doesn't exist. The prayer to end atheism failed and that is conclusive.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

These people don't know he exists. They believe he exists, but knowing requires strong evidence.

unfortunately such a statement is indistinguishable from an assertion of empiricism.

So can these people prove God exists? Or do they not really know either.

They know through encounter. They have recourse to arguments far more convincing than ''The universe just is'' or indeed arguments for empiricism.

Well, we already know God doesn't exist. The prayer to end atheism failed and that is conclusive.

Not quite potty....more potesque.

[jeremyp]

unfortunately such a statement is indistinguishable from an assertion of empiricism.

So? How can you be sure anything is true unless you have evidence for it?

They know through encounter.

Do you have any evidence at all that anybody has ever encountered God?

They have recourse to arguments far more convincing than ''The universe just is''.

The argument (if we can call it an argument) "God just is" is no more convincing than "the Universe just is". At least we have evidence that the Universe is.

At the end of the day, Christians prayed for God to do something. Their prayer failed, so either God does not exist, or, if he does, he ignores his followers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So? How can you be sure anything is true unless you have evidence for it?
Do you have any evidence at all that anybody has ever encountered God?

The argument (if we can call it an argument) "God just is" is no more convincing than "the Universe just is". At least we have evidence that the Universe is.

At the end of the day, Christians prayed for God to do something. Their prayer failed, so either God does not exist, or, if he does, he ignores his followers.

Surely it is the nature of the truth that determines the nature of the evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely it is the nature of the truth that determines the nature of the evidence.

Wrong way round - you don't make the evidence fit the conclusion, you make the conclusion fit the evidence.

[Roses]

Wrong way round - you don't make the evidence fit the conclusion, you make the conclusion fit the evidence.

Very true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong way round - you don't make the evidence fit the conclusion, you make the conclusion fit the evidence.

Sometimes the evidence is the thing itself. Conclusion is another of your red herrings, a handwave if you like.
We know anyway Davey that an appeal for evidence in the hands of you guys really ends up as a manifesto for empiricism......that is why Jeremy moves from evidence to 'strong evidence.' Now, Davey................... I reckon you are at the point of upping the ante and trumping Jeremy with an appeal for 'extraordinary evidence'. 

[jeremyp]

Sometimes the evidence is the thing itself. Conclusion is another of your red herrings, a handwave if you like.
We know anyway Davey that an appeal for evidence in the hands of you guys really ends up as a manifesto for empiricism......that is why Jeremy moves from evidence to 'strong evidence.' Now, Davey................... I reckon you are at the point of upping the ante and trumping Jeremy with an appeal for 'extraordinary evidence'.

If by "empiricism" you mean "no evidence for God means we don't have to pretend he exists", it doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Can you explain why it is bad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If by "empiricism" you mean "no evidence for God means we don't have to pretend he exists"

That equates Empiricism with atheism, Empiricism excludes a lot of things e.g. a sixth sense for instance. Of course the notion that the universe only comprises of things that can be empirically demonstrated cannot itself be empirically demonstrated and that is why it is so unreasonable.....that's just philosophy 101.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sometimes the evidence is the thing itself.

But without evidence there can be no conclusion. A conclusion based on nothing is merely assertion and handwaving. Now that conclusion could be true, but we'd have no way of knowing that and no way to discriminate between that which is true and that which is not true except through evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

That equates Empiricism with atheism,

Nope - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - hence lack of evidence for god leads to agnosticism (not knowing whether or not god exists) rather than atheism (a lack of belief that god exists). Jeremy's point (I think) was that in the absence of evidence for god (agnosticism) we should not be required to prima face presume or believe that god exists (theism) - a more sensible default position in the absence of evidence (and one that can be applied consistently) is to take a starting point that the thing without any evidence for its existence does not exist, until or unless evidence arises for its existence. Vlad - you no doubt take this position for all sorts of purported entities for which there is no evidence of their existence, including leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, the majority of purported gods. You are expressing double standard in not applying the same default position to your purported god.