Atheism and God

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
8,607
( Hey Brad, here's another attempt at a new non political thread :D )

I have a question that puzzles me when some atheists say that they hate God.
How can somebody hate something they think doesn't exist?
Hating religion I can understand.
While the concept of 'God' concerns the existence of an entity, supernatural, .....religion is a structured and rigid belief about that entity. That concept exists, as an abstract.
So, do these particular atheists hate the concept that there is the existence of God, the rigid beliefs/abstracts that frequently offend, or perhaps a combination? How does that work out if they don't think God exists in the first place?

Also, where is the logic when a religious person claims atheists hate God because they don't think God exists? How does someone hate nothing?
Maybe they just hate what they see as offensive aspects of religion?
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
19,697
.......................................................................Maybe they just hate what they see as offensive aspects of religion?
This is probably closest to truth, at least from my perspective. I don't hate god(s) or his/their followers - it's more astonishment they believe the biblical claptrap, or superstition of other religions not based on a book written by man. Any deity, from ancient times thru now are all ridiculous and have been for all times a crutch for coping with life no matter which stage of human development thru the ages of homo erectus. Nothing more than an ark for the weak. IMHO :)

No god or gods exist. Never have, never will, and pure logic dictates no proof required.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
19,697
All religions are akin to grifters - swindles you by means of deception or fraud.
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
8,607
Thanks for your input, Wino.

It presents a logic that's not irrational, but I am focusing on the illogical. From both points of view, as hard core haters of each other.
For example, the evolution debates some 10 - 15 years ago.
Often expressed were arguments by some fundamentalists that those denying the 'Inerrant word of God' were haters of God.
In past discussions about religion, I've seen atheists comment about their hatred for the Abrahamic God (of the Old Testament ).

Imo, both groups are a minority. So I hope sensible members reading this thread don't think I'm trying to conjure up absolutes.

I guess you might say, I'm searching to find out what makes the illogical tic. ( :D )
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
19,697
If I understood or even had a clue as to what makes the illogical "tic" or "tick", then I would understand how Trump got elected. Sorry Brad. LOL
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
8,607
If I understood or even had a clue as to what makes the illogical "tic" or "tick", then I would understand how Trump got elected. Sorry Brad. LOL
Off the track I was intending, but.....to expand on your point, it is an incredible contradiction of Christian morality and ethics to see more and more evangelicals approving of and supporting the current policies of the Trump administration.
So, if a religion can be bought with political promises, I think that would make it a sham and it's members hypocrites.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
19,697
Christian Morality is a fable, and religion in and of itself are scams. They are not "bought" by political promises, but by fear and hate - the underbelly of the uber religious - has been there from the gitgo. Begs the question, if one knows s/he is a hypocrite, can they be called a hypocrite?? Like a liar that believes his own lies - should s/he be called a liar? A poser for the religious, an enigma for others, and simple for an atheist.

I am a heathen, lived a hedonistic lifestyle (not so much these days) - and I'm more christian than professed christians. IMHO I'm also not gullible nor easily swayed by falsehoods, be it from religion, false prophets or politicians, pseudo or real.
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
8,607
Christian Morality is a fable, and religion in and of itself are scams. They are not "bought" by political promises, but by fear and hate - the underbelly of the uber religious - has been there from the gitgo. Begs the question, if one knows s/he is a hypocrite, can they be called a hypocrite?? Like a liar that believes his own lies - should s/he be called a liar? A poser for the religious, an enigma for others, and simple for an atheist.

I am a heathen, lived a hedonistic lifestyle (not so much these days) - and I'm more christian than professed christians. IMHO I'm also not gullible nor easily swayed by falsehoods, be it from religion, false prophets or politicians, pseudo or real.
I disagree on Christian Morality being a fable.
It's definitely not an absolute by any means in the Christian community, though.
Perhaps even a minority.
I have met them, known some over a period of time and think they are/were sincere.

The 'Moral Majority' wasn't moral and probably not a majority, Falwell's political push fizzled out as the Republican Party stole their thunder.
I do think the current evangelical support of Trump was 'bought' by the promises Trump made/inferred.
It's certainly the fear they have of becoming irrelevant as a social entity, but few seem to realize the hate associated with the politics drives them only further into the shadows of history.


if one knows s/he is a hypocrite, can they be called a hypocrite??
I think so.
I think it even makes them more vicious in trying to prove themselves. Perhaps even to the point of supporting wars.

It seemed easy for the GW Bush administration to convince 70% or so of the public to support a second war in Iraq. And as I remember, there were many claims in the US by religious leaders and followers to enter on religious reasoning.
But not all Christians followed.
The US Methodist Bishop wrote to Bush requesting he rethink going to war.
No doubt there were other Christians that actually respected the 10 Commandments and teachings of Christ.
But a lot obviously didn't.

Like a liar that believes his own lies - should s/he be called a liar?
:D
I think so.
 

Drabdr

Brad
Moderator
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
12,823
If I understood or even had a clue as to what makes the illogical "tic" or "tick", then I would understand how Trump got elected. Sorry Brad. LOL
Hey.... that one kind of fell in your lap. :D
 

Chawbacon

Jack
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
627
What makes this conversation even more fun is the fact that even Atheists place their faith in something. In this particular case, most Atheists places their faith into a big ball of mud and gas that somehow created itself and decided to explode, creating the universe. Granted, I am completely confident that a supreme being (God) created the universe, however, I am not judging the Atheist here... I am simply observing the obvious correlations.

Have a great day all.
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
8,607
What makes this conversation even more fun is the fact that even Atheists place their faith in something. In this particular case, most Atheists places their faith into a big ball of mud and gas that somehow created itself and decided to explode, creating the universe. Granted, I am completely confident that a supreme being (God) created the universe, however, I am not judging the Atheist here... I am simply observing the obvious correlations.

Have a great day all.
Thanks for posting your views.

While your science is a bit off, there is the issue of why there is the reality of existence. That being matter, energy, the relationships that are called laws and the emergence from inorganic matter of what we see as life.
Few atheists seem to question what mechanism brought about 'existence'. For most, it seems it 'just is'.

However, believing in a scientific process as you posted, isn't faith related. It's non religious.
The context of scientific discovery is a descriptor of existence, not a religious rationalization.
Scientific discovery can not be a faith or a religion. It's configured to constantly keep open the possibility of challenge for both correctness and expand knowledge of our reality.
Faith and religion are fixed concepts that offer determinations that are not to be challenged.

Successfully challenging and correcting scientific knowledge only corrects our understanding of reality.
Challenging and correcting religion breaks faith.

I think is correct to say atheists believe, but not in the context of faith.
IMO, they tend to rely on empirical observation. If it can't be observed, it doesn't exist.
Of course, that kind of belief depends on the ability to correctly observe in the first place :D
 

Chawbacon

Jack
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
627
I appreciate the feedback Johnny.

And believe it, or not, I agree with most of your reply. Admittedly, I left the science behind the creation of the universe deliberately vague; because, science has yet to prove exactly how everything started (and to possibly provoke a response on that front - Guilty!).

Where I respectively diverge from your opinion is with the concept that atheists do not have faith. In this instance the atheist clearly places faith in science, in exactly the same way a creationist places faith in a supreme being.

The creationist sees proof of an intelligent design in every human, animal, and plant in existence; subsequently, placing faith in a supreme being (hopefully true and not a hoax); however, the creationist cannot prove the existence of a supreme being to a non-believer. Conversely the atheist sees no proof of anything except for what is directly observed (empirical, or not), placing faith in only what has been personally seen, or proven by others (hopefully true and not a hoax); however, the atheist cannot prove that a supreme being does not exist to a creationist.

IMHO, I cannot fathom the exact mechanism of creation. So far (at a macro level), I have been unsuccessful at observing my hand and creating a cup of coffee out of nothing (I try this every morning... sigh!) and I am not aware of any individual that has successfully accomplished this task. Science has proven that energy can be transferred; but, never created/destroyed; however, science cannot explain how the energy, or the components to create said energy, came into existence. Additionally, science is known for discoveries that redefine how we understand the world around us. By that enlightenment process, is it not extremely naive to have a world view that states something is not possible unless it can be proven? If we follow that mantra, the earth would still be flat, and the theory of relativity would be mocked on a daily basis (and it was mocked by prominent scientists until proven).

Oh well, enough of my ramblings. Have a great day.
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
8,607
I appreciate the feedback Johnny.

And believe it, or not, I agree with most of your reply. Admittedly, I left the science behind the creation of the universe deliberately vague; because, science has yet to prove exactly how everything started (and to possibly provoke a response on that front - Guilty!).

Where I respectively diverge from your opinion is with the concept that atheists do not have faith. In this instance the atheist clearly places faith in science, in exactly the same way a creationist places faith in a supreme being.

The creationist sees proof of an intelligent design in every human, animal, and plant in existence; subsequently, placing faith in a supreme being (hopefully true and not a hoax); however, the creationist cannot prove the existence of a supreme being to a non-believer. Conversely the atheist sees no proof of anything except for what is directly observed (empirical, or not), placing faith in only what has been personally seen, or proven by others (hopefully true and not a hoax); however, the atheist cannot prove that a supreme being does not exist to a creationist.

IMHO, I cannot fathom the exact mechanism of creation. So far (at a macro level), I have been unsuccessful at observing my hand and creating a cup of coffee out of nothing (I try this every morning... sigh!) and I am not aware of any individual that has successfully accomplished this task. Science has proven that energy can be transferred; but, never created/destroyed; however, science cannot explain how the energy, or the components to create said energy, came into existence. Additionally, science is known for discoveries that redefine how we understand the world around us. By that enlightenment process, is it not extremely naive to have a world view that states something is not possible unless it can be proven? If we follow that mantra, the earth would still be flat, and the theory of relativity would be mocked on a daily basis (and it was mocked by prominent scientists until proven).

Oh well, enough of my ramblings. Have a great day.
And believe it, or not, I agree with most of your reply. Admittedly, I left the science behind the creation of the universe deliberately vague; because, science has yet to prove exactly how everything started
:D
You rascal.
Semantics.
Science, a tool devised by mankind, can't prove what it can't test, but it can provide hypotheses and theories with limited data.

Where I respectively diverge from your opinion is with the concept that atheists do not have faith. In this instance the atheist clearly places faith in science, in exactly the same way a creationist places faith in a supreme being.
This is exactly the type of opinion I hoped to see posted.
Thanks for being open on the topic, few are from either side of the argument.

The creationist sees proof of an intelligent design in every human, animal, and plant in existence; subsequently, placing faith in a supreme being
I can relate to that but not in the way most creationists seem to understand.
I see an orderly progression of development of and in our Universe from it's beginning as a singular object. An order, a planned progression scientists see as laws of nature, the physical laws that account for matter and energy relationships. And yet allow for change as seen in the obvious such as planet, star, solar and galaxy formation....and.....evolution of life.
But that isn't creationism as creationists represent our reality.
Creationism is the instantaneous creation of those observations as seen, not in regard to their development into more complex systems.
A creationist has faith that God essentially ordained it be so.
An atheist has no faith. In the fields of science, just tools to investigate. Not even faith in those tools, otherwise newer tools would not be needed to improve his investigation. And that search for newer/better tools has been more the rule than the exception.

I think this is one reason why all scientists are often confused with atheists.
Not all scientists are creationists or atheists, indeed. Not all scientists deny God.
It's an issue where an absolute is a fallacy.

And of course, there are more exceptions.
One being the non scientist atheist, which many if most probably are.
It needs to be considered, since they aren't at the forefront of scientific discovery, why do they believe the scientist and their conclusions?
Is it faith? Again, depends on the definition and context of 'faith'.

There are at least two popular considerations:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=faith&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
As is obvious, context makes a considerable difference.

The belief that science and scientists provide knowledge of our reality is a trust that is always open to be reviewed as knowledge is improved. Not an issue of worship. Belief in this sense, is an issue of trust. Worship is not involved to generate trust.

Belief in a religious sense is faith about the unknowable that science can not address. It is belief that that is only supported by faith. Worship supports that belief.

There are, of course, other differences. But the above issue is semantics.
A belief in the religious sense is not the same as a belief in the scientific sense.
The two concepts do not compare well.

intelligent design
The concept is a fallacy.
Why? Because it actually denies itself when it's main purpose is to deny one of the strongest arguments for order.
It claims evolution is is a process of chaos. A process of chance. That human existence could only occur by direct design as in poof, here's the creation of the first human.
But if you look at the intricacies and complex relationships of matter and energy from the 'big bang' forward to now, you'd observe not ever lasting chaos, but relationships that bring about order and more complex systems. From matter and energy starting out as a singular point that has little resemblance to matter and energy today, a universe formed. One that supports stars planets and ecosystems that life evolved in. To deny evolution, imo, is to deny God.
Reality isn't chaos but elements can seem to be chaotic at times. Perhaps by design? Perhaps to drive the process of evolution.
Examples:
Star formation starts and ends in chaotic moments. But with out stars, none of the basic elements that life needs would have been created deep within their nuclear furnaces.

The end point of a non evolutionary biological history is called extinction. Life that successfully changes to meet the stress of changing environments progresses through time.

If not, maybe we'd all be slime molds today? Or politicians (about the same thing) :D

So, is that chaos, or progress? I go with progress, not the creationist's projection of 'intelligent design'. I go with a general design from the 'ground up' so to speak, rather than an argument for 'poof magic' by creationists using made up scientific jargon.

Science has proven that energy can be transferred; but, never created/destroyed; however, science cannot explain how the energy, or the components to create said energy, came into existence.
Agreed. The ability to test and observe directly is not possible. Science can only go so far as proposing theories in this case.


Additionally, science is known for discoveries that redefine how we understand the world around us. By that enlightenment process, is it not extremely naive to have a world view that states something is not possible unless it can be proven?
Basic logical fallacy..
A negative can't be proven.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence.
This applies to creationists and atheists.

If we follow that mantra, the earth would still be flat, and the theory of relativity would be mocked on a daily basis
But it can easily be proven the Earth is round ( a globe ), curvature can be seen from a passenger plane and relativity a proven factor simply by the needed GPS satellite correction due to their relative speeds, even as slow as they are compared to the speed of light.
Further, time dilation ( relativity ) can even be measured with atomic clocks between locations at the base of tall mountains and their tops.

Your two examples fail at 'not being testable'.
200 years ago, those tests could not have been done.
The absence of evidence fallacy also applies while there isn't a means to test for evidence.
This is a major factor why science strives to discover new concepts and fresh aspects.
Not to prove something unprovable, but to search for new ways to generate understandings and proofs for the difficult and the unusual that currently defy insight.

And this is another difference between the belief structures of religion and science.
Religion does not accept new evidence. What was evident in the past is embraced as an absolute, faith.


Thanks for the conversation :)
 
Last edited:

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
8,607
As an atheist, it is logic, not faith.
How would you address my comments with logic:

I see an orderly progression of development of and in our Universe from it's beginning as a singular object. An order, a planned progression scientists see as laws of nature, the physical laws that account for matter and energy relationships. And yet allow for change as seen in the obvious such as planet, star, solar and galaxy formation....and.....evolution of life.
Why would that exist?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top