:up:

Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe. — Harry Hindu

Aliens are just a part of the universe. They are created by gods too. And life can't be created by creatures of the gods. Who says the reasons of the gods are unknown? That's what you presume, assume, hypothesize. Science just can't explain the reason or meaning of life. I, on the other hand, can, and dance happy through life, without science able to explain me.

Science has explained the reason and meaning of life. As I said, reasons and meanings are just particular types of causes. The problem is that you simply don't like the reasons or meanings they provide. Your delusions of grandeur prompt you to believe that you are more important than you really are in that you believe that gods find you and your life interesting enough to watch. Watching you take a shit on the toilet or sitting in a doctor's waiting room for an hour must be very interesting to watch. :rofl:

"Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe. — Harry Hindu

How can you speak for @Haglund? If you tell me that you are not comforted by knowing there was a motive for creating the universe when you cannot know what the motive was, I can only believe you. By the same token, I'm not sure how you can tell someone else they are not comforted when they've told you they are.

I guess your argument is that it does not logically follow that he be comforted, which only means he fails logically to explain why his belief is comforting, but it doesn't mean that he's not. The best you can argue is that he's found comfort where he should not have and his response would be that comfort is comfort regardless of whether logically it should be.

Your delusions of grandeu — Harry Hindu

It's you having the delusion of grandeur. You can't stand it not being able to explain me. The thought of being able to explain me is exactly your illusion of grandeur! The gods laugh about you! :lol:

My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.

I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth.

How can you speak for Haglund? If you tell me that you are not comforted by knowing there was a motive for creating the universe when you cannot know what the motive was, I can only believe you. By the same token, I'm not sure how you can tell someone else they are not comforted when they've told you they are. — Hanover

:up:

It's you having the delusion of grandeur. You can't stand it not being able to explain me. The thought of being able to explain me is exactly your illusion of grandeur! The gods laugh about you! :lol: — Haglund

Asking questions are not the symptoms of delusions of grandeur. Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. I can point to observations and reason as evidence for our existence. You cannot. When you can I am willing to change my mind. I have in the past, as I said I was a believer, but now I am not - based on observable evidence and logic. I am the one here that has made a complete 180 on my beliefs based on the evidence. I am the one with an open-mind and having an open mind means that you are willing to accept that you are wrong and willing to listen to others, but also having the right to ask questions when what is being said isn't clear or reasonable.

When you can I am willing to change my mind — Harry Hindu

I consider the existence of the universe as proof of the gods. I can give you a description of the singularity the universes inflating from it into existence periodically, etc. but that doesn't explain the universe. For me it's the opposite. I believed in god when a kid, university took that away (I even had to sign I was a Christian...), and now I can only conclude there are gods. So from theist to atheist (always arguing with Jehova witnessnes who always know to find me) back to theist.

I can point to observations and reason as evidence for our existence — Harry Hindu

The evidence for our existence is not hard to give. But that's no reason for existence. The big bang is not the reason for existence.

Asking questions are not the symptoms of delusions of grandeur — Harry Hindu

Just look at CERN.

My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.

I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth. — Harry Hindu

It's obvious that our personal comfort in believing something has no bearing on the truth of it. To the extent one can choose to believe or not when there's a lack of evidence of something, that would be a nod towards pragmatism. That is, if I choose to believe in a fantastical claim that in no way interferes with my daily existence, but it does offer me comfort, then that would be a basis to believe in it, while admittedly not making the belief true. I choose to believe for the positive effects, not because of a delusion that I have arrived at empirical evidence or that my position is logically entailed.

Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. — Harry Hindu

There might be some degree of cognitive dissonance in maintaining a belief in God that you should know is not valid, but I wouldn't describe that as having special access to the divine that would amount to a delusion of grandeur. The typical theist claims that knowledge of the divine is available to anyone who seeks it, so I don't agree with your psychological assessment.

My point here is simply that decisions of how one wishes to live one's life, including what foundational truths one wishes to adopt, need not be based upon upon empirical evidence or logical dictates, but it could just be a matter of personal preference. If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs?

I find the objection that one must accept atheism as true because it is true, even if it means a life a despair, to be ironically antithetical to the ideology of secular humanism. That is, if all there is to this great big universe in terms of meaning is what we humans give it, then why deprive it of sacred meaning if that will elevate the lives of humanity?

I'm submitting that we should hold to beliefs that make life meaningful as opposed to insisting we live with the cold reality of meaningless if meaningless is what there really is behind the curtain.

And before you say that atheism is what gives your life meaning, however that might be, please recall my prior comment, which is that simply because you've found the fountain of meaning in your atheism, that doesn't mean you need to proselytize it to others because it is likely some are not constructed as you are and they do find meaning in what you think to be delusions.

I couldn't have said it better. :smile:

Reality (i.e. ineluctable limits, facts-of-the-matter, facticity) is independent of faith.

Truth (i.e. truth-bearer plus truth-maker) is independent of feelings.

A "meaningful life" (i.e. optimal agency), at minimum, consists in striving daily to overcome habits of maladaptive judgment (e.g. faith-dependent expectations of reality (biases, superstitions, delusions)) and maladaptive conduct (e.g. feelings-dependent motives / decision-making (vices)).

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". Like other forms of intoxication, religious faith exchanges sobriety for "comfort" (often to the point of delusion (e.g. Haglund)).

I consider the existence of the universe as proof of the gods. — Haglund

:roll: First, prove the universe exists ...

Reality (i.e. ineluctable limits, facts-of-the-matter, facticity) is independent of faith.

Truth (i.e. truth-bearer plus truth-maker) is independent of feelings.

A "meaningful life" (i.e. optimal agency), at minimum, consists in striving daily to overcome habits of maladaptive judgment (e.g. faith-dependent expectations of reality (biases, superstitions, delusions)) and maladaptive conduct (e.g. feelings-dependent motives / decision-making (vices))

Divine reality (i.e., the ineluctable limits of the gods, their facticity) is independent of scientific faith.

Truth (the gods plus their creation) is independent of anti-religious feelings.


A "meaningful life" (i.e. optimal agency), besides the minimum, i.e., striving daily to overcome habits of maladaptive scientific judgment, means acknowledging faith-dependent expectations of reality (biases, superstitions, delusions) and maladaptive conduct (e.g. feelings-dependent motives) as the only viable grounds of for reason and meaning. It acknowledges scientific reality as contingent and fun, being part of the larger meaning of life in a universe resembling heaven, where life is still the miracle it ought to be.

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". Like other forms of intoxication, religious faith exchanges sobriety for "comfort" (often to the point of delusion (e.g. Haglund)). — 180 Proof

I trust you in your statement that you would not find any value to holding to religious faith and that it would not enhance your life in any way. I find your assessment that I would have as meaningful of a life without faith as pretty non-sensical, as if you know better than me what I'm actually experiencing. That is, I'm not in a position to assess your subjective state and you're not in a position to assess mine. We're just left having to trust one another when we tell each other what affords our respective lives meaning.

As I've also said:

If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs? — Hanover

In order to make your analogy apt, that religion is akin to alcohol and other toxins, you will need to demonstrate that like the alcoholic whose life often ends in broken relationships, destroyed families, financial ruin, desperation, legal troubles, and general instability, so goes the person of faith.

Does that describe the typical life of the devout Jew, Muslim, or Christian?

And it's an odd twist here, with the atheist knocking at my door and handing me his literature so that I can see his Way. If you find atheism the way to a meaningful or productive life (or whatever your objective might be), then do that. Even if I had positive proof that God existed, if you have found happiness in your belief he didn't exist, why would I impose?

I find your assessment that I would have as meaningful of a life without faith as pretty non-sensical, as if you know better than me what I'm actually experiencing. That is, I'm not in a position to assess your subjective state and you're not in a position to assess mine. — Hanover

If I were trying "to assess your subjective state ... actually experiencing", I would agree with you, sir, but I have not claimed or implied any such thing. Your non sequitur is what's "non-sensical". Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound.

If I were trying "to assess your subjective state ... actually experiencing", I would agree with you, sir, but I have not claimed or implied any such thing. Your non sequitur is what's "non-sensical". Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound. — 180 Proof

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof

You have offered an opinion as to what "seems to you," which is how you think things must seem to me, namely that I derive the same sort of benefit an alcoholic receives from his drink. I'm telling you that I don't. It's different. My faith doesn't cause me to wreck my car, divorce my wife, lose my job, and destroy my liver. In fact, it causes me no internal strife. So how do you assess what my faith does to me from your vantage point at your keyboard?

Your final sentence ("Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound") attempts to wedge in what you want desperately to argue, which is that my beliefs are factually wrong. I've, at best, argued from pragmatism. I'm not asserting what reality is, but just how best to live my life. "My" is in bold because I trust you when you say that what I say works for me doesn't work for you.

This is about Hanover being Hanover, accepting whatever abuse you wish to throw my way in terms of my believing in complete and utter bullshit. I do accept those criticisms smugly, to be sure, because I have lived it both ways, and I know personally what offers my life meaning and direction and what does not.

And the point of all of this is to offer elbow room in this crowded world of ideas for religion, which does have a role, and for which I think is the primary motivation behind your objections, although correct me if I'm wrong.

technically Atheism is a view that God does not exists rather than nothing supernatural exists.
There are many supernatural phenomena that have nothing to do with God or religious point of view.

Knowing that it's also worth knowing there are 2 kinds of Atheism existing today:
1. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist and it doesn't care about God, something not worth discussing any further by such people (true atheism)
2. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist but with firm belief it's so and desire to spread the word about God nonexistence. (this is a form of religion, strong belief there is no God and desire to get followers)

Then also God and deity are 2 very different things, I think you may want to know this.

I don't think either of mentioned points of views are asinine because lack of knowledge is what makes these points of view foolish, I would say that these points of view are contradictory rather than asinine.

First, prove the universe exists ... — 180 Proof

What's your obsession with proof? Why should I proof what's obvious? You are like a teacher opening a model skull and taking a model brain out to proof the 7- or 8-year old they have a mind...

Knowing that it's also worth knowing there are 2 kinds of Atheism existing today:
1. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist and it doesn't care about God, something not worth discussing any further by such people (true atheism)
2. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist but with firm belief it's so and desire to spread the word about God nonexistence. (this is a form of religion, strong belief there is no God and desire to get followers) — SpaceDweller

Elric who wrote the OP was banned a week ago.

Some tweaks to your ideas.

Firstly there is no 'true atheism' - this is as erroneous as claiming there is one true Christianity, or one true American.

Many atheists these days simply argue that they don't accept the claim that god/s exist. The evidence is unconvincing. They do not say there is no god. In the same way we might say we don't accept the claim Bigfoot exists, but we don't need to say it does not exist. Ditto the Loch Ness Monster.

Atheism is simply any view that holds that god claims are worthless. But an atheist could be a secular humanist or believe in ghosts and astrology. It's only about a god claim, nothing more.

Some atheists think that religions cause harm - Hinduism, Islam, Christianity - faiths all try to change the world via laws and social policy. Many atheists think this is harmful. This is why they sometimes work to educate the community about god claims. Is it about gaining followers? The word follower is wrong because atheism doesn't follow any teaching. It is an 'unteaching'.

Firstly there is no 'true atheism' - this is as erroneous as claiming there is one true Christianity, or one true American.

This is a good point, and there seems (to me) to be tension around whether the definition of athiesm is a denial of the existence of gods or an assertion that God/gods do not exist.

However I do want to point out that

Atheism is simply any view that holds that god claims are worthless

and (perhap the antitheist claim)

Some atheists think that religions cause harm

seem contradictory to me. Maybe you can assert that atheism is the view that god claims are meaningless (in a similar way to how moral non-cognitivists assert that ethical claims have no truth value). But if you assert that religions cause harm, then religious claims (and thus claims about God or gods) has the capacity to hold (in this case) negative worth.

And while atheism may not follow any teaching, there are followers of prominent atheist figures such as Dawkins, Dennett, JL Mackie, Russell, etc. In a sense, the evangelical nature of the new athiests (which to me are more antitheists than atheists) are a very interesting parallel to evangelical religions. Both host talks, publish books, give awards etc.

In a sense, the evangelical nature of the new athiests (which to me are more antitheists than atheists) are a very interesting parallel to evangelical religions. — Paulm12

I think people often point this out. But for me their work is better understood as activism. Which could be about race or poverty, or in their case theisms.

I generally see the work of Dawkins and co as fundamentalist busting - be they Christian or Islamic fundie views.

seem contradictory to me. Maybe you can assert that atheism is the view that god claims are meaningless (in a similar way to how moral non-cognitivists assert that ethical claims have no truth value). But if you assert that religions cause harm, then religious claims (and thus claims about God or gods) has the capacity to hold (in this case) negative worth. — Paulm12

The ideas are not contradictory but are interrelated. God claims are meaningless is one idea. Religions founded on meaningless claims (which cannot be substantiated) hold views and influence social policy in a manner which many consider to be harmful - views on women, gays, abortion, education, etc. Note the strong Evangelical support of Trump... So we have the situation wherein lives are being influenced (often in negative ways) by ideas which are supported by appeals to god (and are often antithetical to other Christian believers).

:roll: Another D-K troll just as I'd suspected.

The more you make the topic under discussion all about you, Hanover, the more you merely rationalize your "faith" (i.e. cosmic lollipop) rather than reason against my stated position in what I propose a meaningful life (which is the Socratic "examined life" translated into a more Peircean-Deweyan milieu) consists. :death: :flower:

But for me their work is better understood as activism. Which could be about race or poverty, or in their case theisms

In this case, would you also hold that religious fundamentalists who believe that those they are preaching to could spend eternity in hell are also activists in a similar sense? Perhaps "after-life activists"? Furthermore, what about any activism based on such beliefs (i.e. pro-life stances)?

I generally see the work of Dawkins and co as fundamentalist busting - be they Christian or Islamic fundie views.

Yeah that's the way I see it too. Unfortunately, I think they take it too far and become alienating. This has been especially apparent in recent years as we see their work as a knee-jerk response to 9/11. Especially because Dawkins is like Trump on twitter “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.” To the point that I don't even know if they're intentionally trying to imitate fundamentalist claims or have merged with the far right themselves. And I apologize that this article reads (and basically is) a tabloid.

Religions founded on meaningless claims (which cannot be substantiated) hold views and influence social policy in a manner which many consider to be harmful

I think I understand the point that you're trying to make. With that being said, the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s). But I don't think the particular issue is the fact that the claims are unsubstantiated. The issue is that the behaviors themselves are harmful (and like you point out, both plenty of other religious people and nonreligious people speak out about this).
I say this because I tend to fall onto the side of having difficulty substantiating any (objective) moral claims. Yes I do believe they exist, but I don't think I'd really be able to provide evidence as to why they exist or why someone should adopt them.

In this case, would you also hold that religious fundamentalists who believe that those they are preaching to could spend eternity in hell are also activists in a similar sense? — Paulm12

Sure, if you count religious activity as activism. But they would say the were doing apologetics, activism generally being secular.

I think I understand the point that you're trying to make. With that being said, the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s). But I don't think the particular issue is the fact that the claims are unsubstantiated. The issue is that the behaviors themselves are harmful (and like you point out, both plenty of other religious people and nonreligious people speak out about this).
I say this because I tend to fall onto the side of having difficulty substantiating any (objective) moral claims. Yes I do believe they exist, but I don't think I'd really be able to provide evidence as to why they exist or why someone should adopt them. — Paulm12

I hear you - lots of direction one could go with these points. I would hold that there are no good reasons to accept the premise god/s exist. And even fewer to establish that you know what god/s want - their will and views on morality.

So any claims made to be following god's will are based on three layers of dubiousness - that we accept the existence of god; that we accept the existence of a particular god; and that we know the views of that particular god. I think this is unreasonable.

I don't think we can demonstrate that moral claims are objective. They are intersubjective agreements held by communities (with outliers and dissenters) based on empathy and cooperation and they serve to support the preferred social order. That does not make them pointless. Traffic lights do not convey truth, but they provide a valuable tool to make roads predictable and much safer.

the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s) — Paulm12

Not a great counter argument, however, since this is hardly a reliable tool for justification or reliability and it could readily be argued the conflicting 'experiences' of other believers cancel each other out. One person's Jesus tell us her 'fags' are to be condemned. Another person's Jesus holds up a rainbow flag...

I considered very seriously what @Hanover proposed: we can't demand to know or direct what philosophical belief causes comfort for another person.

My only objection is that it's a two-way street. Much like we, atheists, can't tell @Haglund to not feel comfort based on religious considerations, @Haglund also makes a mistake by categorically stating that atheists can't feel comfort, because they lack religious considerations.

Further to my previous post here, @Haglund has also made the mistake for claiming that only religious considerations can make one feel their life has meaning, purpose. I contest that. I asked @Haglund what is the meaning of life he gets from being religious, and he blabbered on, but basically could not answer the question.

I say @Haglund has a feeling of comfort from believing he has found a meaning for his life via religion, but I contest that it is via religion that he found a meaning for life; in fact, he found no meaning for life; this still does not take away from the facts that 1. He feels comforted and 2. He feels comforted because he mistakenly believes he's found a meaning for his life via religion.

:up:

Thanks. I always appreciate positive support, as I am a VERY SENSITIVE PERSON.