What's the strongest argument for atheism?

[Black Rose]

It's why scientists use maths in the first place.

If everything is in relative terms, we cannot know much about reality.

But if there is a fundamental reality, that reality would be absolute in some way or

or there is no basis for knowing anything at all.

probability in science must relate to something tangible.

I do not believe in quantum woo (things do not exist until you look at them)

That denies that computations are real and you can run Halo on a kilobyte processor.

some computers ARE doing more calculations inside themselves than others meaning the scenes are not just the only parts that exist. The GPU is a real thing.

 

[scorpiomover]

1) G-d gives us life, air, working bowels, tasty food and neuroreceptors that allow us to taste food and enjoy it. This entire universe was made by G-d. G-d lets us live in the universe that G-d built, and you can't even be bothered to follow his rules? What a horrible houseguest you must be. Any sensible host would show you the door and tell you to leave (the universe).

threat of hell

Only if hell was not an entity in itself, and only the absence of the good things in life, such as not being in Heaven. But the Earth is not Heaven either. In which case, you would be perceiving the Earth as a living Hell for yourself.

 

[scorpiomover]

When someone flies from New York to LA, can they see LA from New York? How can they aim for a target they cannot see?

they can see intermediate targets

and they can hold a compass heading

which they can see with their eyes

So they can't see their target. But they can use their mind to figure out what would make most sense to do to get closer to their target.

Same with this.

 

[scorpiomover]

Yes. Because G-d is omniscient. G-d knows everything, including everything we know. so we can't realistically talk as if G-d didn't know something that we think is true, because then G-d would also know what we think is true, and would also know WHY we think it's true.

Yes. This is why I think Truth with a capital T is a one way path.

Yes. But Truth takes into account every possibility. So Truth as an absolute, exists on a very abstract level that . That is extremely difficult to filter down to cases with the simplistic empirical observations that humans have access to, and so is tricky to convert to real-life situations.

 

[Old Things]

but they don't produce the same sort of resolute change in the person

are you measuring "truth" by how convincing it is ?


it's pretty well documented that scaring the shit out of someone will make them remember you longer than if you did something nice

No. Both positive and negative experiences in NDEs tend to have a lasting effect on people.

 

[Old Things]

Yes. Because G-d is omniscient. G-d knows everything, including everything we know. so we can't realistically talk as if G-d didn't know something that we think is true, because then G-d would also know what we think is true, and would also know WHY we think it's true.

Yes. This is why I think Truth with a capital T is a one way path.

Yes. But Truth takes into account every possibility. So Truth as an absolute, exists on a very abstract level that . That is extremely difficult to filter down to cases with the simplistic empirical observations that humans have access to, and so is tricky to convert to real-life situations.

Yeah. I would argue it's not only difficult but impossible since we do not have the right minds to encapsulate all that Truth actually is. Our brains are too tiny for such things.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You have reasons to be moral, because you are a human being.
Theists are also human beings and so have all the reasons to be moral that non-theists have. They just have more reasons to be moral.

I count myself theist in some sense, probably however not in biblical sense.
I think my reasons for doing good is because I was made to be good in some sense. Departing from the good is simply an error.
I am legit not sure how much of accepting some higher organizing principal above human existence makes me a better person. I cannot point to anything objective and tangible that makes me better. I am pretty sure there might be something, but I got no objective way of finding out.

1) You're conflating 99.99% agency with 0% agency.
2) If theists had 0% agency over doing good deeds, then they'd all always do good deeds and never not do good deeds. In that case, theists would be super-saints. You'd always want to hang with theists, because they'd always be doing good things which would make things better for you.
3) People have choice to do what they are told, or not, even when it's from someone where it makes sense to do what that person says, such as doing your homeworks that your teacher sets you to do, which people also have choice over, and some

I mean agency is term that comes with territory. I think most of my agency comes from circumstances that I am given. Sure I can do more than mere circumstance, but at the same time, I feel as though part of my existence is defined by having both adverse and positive circumstances. Maybe I am just undervaluing my agency here not sure.

I've read dozens of theological books that gave lots of reasons how you should do G-d's will NOT in order to get a reward. They are extremely popular, and cited from often in religious circles and in religious talks. It's so common, that it's pretty much a household idea amongst the religious. You'd have to go pretty far to find someone religious who doesn't know of it, and even then, a guy like that would probably not be too bothered about his religion.

That reminds of this movie...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-828wM9lpLw

 

[Old Things]

1) G-d gives us life, air, working bowels, tasty food and neuroreceptors that allow us to taste food and enjoy it. This entire universe was made by G-d. G-d lets us live in the universe that G-d built, and you can't even be bothered to follow his rules? What a horrible houseguest you must be. Any sensible host would show you the door and tell you to leave (the universe).

threat of hell

Only if hell was not an entity in itself, and only the absence of the good things in life, such as not being in Heaven. But the Earth is not Heaven either. In which case, you would be perceiving the Earth as a living Hell for yourself.

@LOGICZOMBIE, I would ask @scorpiomover to correct me on this if this is wrong, but I think in Judaism they believe hell is not eternal. The number I have heard is that hell only lasts for like 11 months or something like that. Totally different from much of Christianity who believe that hell is either eternal or there is an eternal punishment (such as conditional immortality or something). There is also universal reconciliation which is basically that all humans (at least if not demons, and Satan himself) will eventually "repent" in hell and go to the New Jerusalem, which is talked about in several places in the New Testament. Jesus has a much stronger emphasis on the afterlife than most of Judaism.

 

[ZenRaiden]

matheology, transphysicalism, interdimensional sciences etc.
We need them and we need to start NOW!

 

[scorpiomover]

@LOGICZOMBIE, I would ask @scorpiomover to correct me on this if this is wrong, but I think in Judaism they believe hell is not eternal. The number I have heard is that hell only lasts for like 11 months or something like that.

That is correct.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

hey only need to examine the argument mathematically

no mathematics detected in statement

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What has he to gain by hating you?

an infinite being by definition loves and hates everything equally

 

[scorpiomover]

hey only need to examine the argument mathematically

no mathematics detected in statement

Then it ought to be worked out that way, or you'll probably have gaps in your reasoning, which if corrected for, could show that reality is the complete opposite of what you're reasoning reality is, and then you could end up suffering by going against what makes sense.

 

[scorpiomover]

What has he to gain by hating you?

an infinite being by definition loves and hates everything equally

An infinite being would know what it would be to hate everything equally with such certainty as if it was already happening right now. So it would not have a reason to actually be in the state of hating you, as it already possesses all that could be gained from such an experience.

 

[Black Rose]

hey only need to examine the argument mathematically

no mathematics detected in statement

Then it ought to be worked out that way, or you'll probably have gaps in your reasoning, which if corrected for, could show that reality is the complete opposite of what you're reasoning reality is, and then you could end up suffering by going against what makes sense.

What is a mathematically perfect God then?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Only if hell was not an entity in itself, and only the absence of the good things in life, such as not being in Heaven. But the Earth is not Heaven either. In which case, you would be perceiving the Earth as a living Hell for yourself.

according to kalam

true and complete separation from OOC

is simply

non-existence

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So they can't see their target. But they can use their mind to figure out what would make most sense to do to get closer to their target.

Same with this.

i see

so we know OOC is all-knowing and all-powerful

so logically

if we want to be more like OOC

then we need to become more powerful and constantly accumulate power

and we need to become more knowledgeable and constantly accumulate knowledge


seems simple enough

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No. Both positive and negative experiences in NDEs tend to have a lasting effect on people.

every experience has some lasting effect

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Yeah. I would argue it's not only difficult but impossible since we do not have the right minds to encapsulate all that Truth actually is. Our brains are too tiny for such things.

bingo

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

yeah, that sounds about right

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Kalam is very basic; I would argue that other logical reasoning supports the necessity of a personal force over an impersonal one, but what do you mean by “specific mythos”?

that's what i'm looking for, "other logical reasoning that supports the necessity of a personal force" = "specific mythos"

 

[Black Rose]

Any specific manifestation within the OOC

by default, the OOC feels it

because all good and bad feelings are part of OOC

OOC then would not wish for bad feelings and negate them as much as possible

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Any specific manifestation within the OOC

by default, the OOC feels it

because all good and bad feelings are part of OOC

OOC then would not wish for bad feelings and negate them as much as possible

how many of your skin cells are lost every day ?

every hour

every minute

 

[Black Rose]

Any specific manifestation within the OOC

by default, the OOC feels it

because all good and bad feelings are part of OOC

OOC then would not wish for bad feelings and negate them as much as possible

how many of your skin cells are lost every day ?

every hour

every minute

OOC would know this

so it would resist self-bereavement

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

OOC would know this

so it would resist self-bereavement

 

[Black Rose]

God is not made of matter but can feel all things.

So you cannot say he does not feel everyone's pain and pleasure being omniscient.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

God is not made of matter but can feel all things.

So you cannot say he does not feel everyone's pain and pleasure being omniscient.

sure, OOC knows everything

and knows how you feel

it also knows how an ant feels

and a mouse

and a maggot

and it chooses not to interfere

 

[Black Rose]

it chooses not to interfere

maybe it does but not in the way we think it does

if it wants to reduce all suffering (all feels it has experienced)

then there must be constraints on the beginning and end points of reality

you could say that it was a hard beginning but in the end, it has a purpose

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

maybe it does but not in the way we think it does

if it wants to reduce all suffering (all feels it has experienced)

then there must be constraints on the beginning and end points of reality

you could say that it was a hard beginning but in the end, it has a purpose

if the goal is to obliterate suffering

we should simply obliterate consciousness

the sun will destroy the earth in about 5 billion years when it expands into a red giant

i'm not sure that counts as a "purpose"

 

[Black Rose]

if the goal is to obliterate suffering

the end product of the universe is not certain

but then things exist

meaning if the sun dies

what if god creates a new sun

so this makes it redundant to create things over and over

instead, we could say humans create new things beyond entropy

and that is the goal

 

[Old Things]

OOC would know this

so it would resist self-bereavement

 

[scorpiomover]

So they can't see their target. But they can use their mind to figure out what would make most sense to do to get closer to their target.

Same with this.

i see

so we know OOC is all-knowing and all-powerful

so logically

if we want to be more like OOC

then we need to become more powerful and constantly accumulate power

and we need to become more knowledgeable and constantly accumulate knowledge

seems simple enough

Those are only 2 attributes of G-d. To follow them to the hilt, without consideration of any other qualities, would be ignoring G-d as a totality and only focussing on the accumulation of power and knowledge to the exclusion of everything else, which includes compassion, ethics and morals.

 

[scorpiomover]

Only if hell was not an entity in itself, and only the absence of the good things in life, such as not being in Heaven. But the Earth is not Heaven either. In which case, you would be perceiving the Earth as a living Hell for yourself.

according to kalam

true and complete separation from OOC

is simply

non-existence

Good thing that I'm not a Muslim then, eh?

 

[scorpiomover]

What is a mathematically perfect God then?

G-d.

 

[Black Rose]

What is a mathematically perfect God then?

G-d.

What is the equation?

 

[Black Rose]

What is a mathematically perfect God then?

G-d.

What is the equation?

Christopher Langan cognitive theoretic model of the universe

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

instead, we could say humans create new things beyond entropy

negentropy scrapers

 

[scorpiomover]

What is a mathematically perfect God then?

G-d.

What is the equation?

Everything.

 

[Black Rose]

What is a mathematically perfect God then?

G-d.

What is the equation?

Everything.

Can you show me the math formula?

 

[Old Things]

What is a mathematically perfect God then?

G-d.

What is the equation?

Everything.

Can you show me the math formula?

Say no more. I already know what it is...

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Can you show me the math formula?

all they've got is an old fashioned "appeal to ignorance"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

There are no "good" arguments for atheism. There is like one maybe two POSITIVE arguments for atheism (evolution is not one of them). Everything besides that is just saying, "Nuh uh!"

here you go

 

[Old Things]

There are no "good" arguments for atheism. There is like one maybe two POSITIVE arguments for atheism (evolution is not one of them). Everything besides that is just saying, "Nuh uh!"

here you go

NDEs are good for showing there is life after death. They are not much use beyond that since it's all pretty much anecdotal.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

NDEs are good for showing there is life after death. They are not much use beyond that since it's all pretty much anecdotal.

not great evidence for favoring one particular religious view over another

 

[Old Things]

NDEs are good for showing there is life after death. They are not much use beyond that since it's all pretty much anecdotal.

not great evidence for favoring one particular religious view over another

I mostly agree.

 

[Old Things]

If I knew Latin or Hebrew, I would definitely be interested in reading the bible, but since I don't, I won't.

No offense, but no, you would not read the Bible if you just knew Hebrew or Latin (why not Greek? IDK).

There are many different translations of the Bible in English that you could read today that are really really good. We have good reason to trust that what is translated is accurate. Is it perfect? No, but it does not have to be. We have dozens of different English translations that would be perfectly fine to use.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If I knew Latin or Hebrew, I would definitely be interested in reading the bible, but since I don't, I won't.

No offense, but no, you would not read the Bible if you just knew Hebrew or Latin (why not Greek? IDK).

There are many different translations of the Bible in English that you could read today that are really really good. We have good reason to trust that what is translated is accurate. Is it perfect? No, but it does not have to be. We have dozens of different English translations that would be perfectly fine to use.

I'm pretty sure it would be a chief instrument in learning ancient languages in general.

I could also learn ancient Greek yes, I suppose that may be very close to the original, but I fear that the greek pantheon and culture may affect the translation too much.

I am native in two languages and elementary in one. I suppose Spanish wouldn't be a bad place to start since Catholicism, really took root in Spain after Celtic religions were eviscerated.

This is something you have to consider when looking at any historical text, no matter how pious certain people may be regarding such text. If you want to look at the origin of something, the closer to the source is better.

"New international version" more like PR revision.

 

[Old Things]

I could also learn ancient Greek yes, I suppose that may be very close to the original, but I fear that the greek pantheon and culture may affect the translation too much.

You do realize that the original New Testament was written in Greek and not Latin, right?

"New international version" more like PR revision.

I have no idea what your point is. Don't like that one? There are dozens of other translations to choose from. How about the ESV, or the NASB, or the CSB, or the NET, or like 20 other ones? Most Bibles have specific notes for them at the bottom so you can easily see why they translated certain things the way they did.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You do realize that the original New Testament was written in Greek and not Latin, right?

And Jesus spoke Aramaic. Middle East was culture pot.
Generally I think Jesus probably spoke a lot of languages.
Bible was written many years after Jesus. Or at least that is the claim.
How much artistic liberty was taken with what Jesus said is also in question.

 

[Black Rose]

@EndogenousRebel

I do not think that a perfect translation of the bible exists, but I don't think it has to be in order to understand it.

I have been raised in the culture of the bible since age 4 and I know most of what is inside it. I have seen it talked about and discussed from many different angles.

I think that the importance of learning what happens in the bible is necessary to understand what people believe about God in modern times.

As a start, we should look at it from Genesis. This may be taken in many ways but it fits with an oral tradition. The history of people and where they come from and why things happened as they did.

Then we should look at the important figures. Many bible studies exist that break it all down who are real scholars.

At the base is a story about leading a morally good life.

About obeying God and knowing his ways.