A False Dilemma, in Atheism

What I find interesting is that some cultured despisers of religion claim that theism is only an anthropomorphic projection of finite human characteristics into an Infinite Being (Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 1847). But what is it projected onto? And yet these same persons are quick to anthropomorphize artificial intelligence which is also a projection. I am not just making an analogy, but pointing out a specific tendency of human behavior. Anthropomorphizing A.I. is a great marketing tool, as with religion.

 

I agree. Being the best person one can be in this life is all we have. It doesn't require a god to be the best person one can be. In fact, given god's supposed gift of free will, it comes from the choices each human makes about doing so.

If some people need god to be their best person - great. For those of us who don't need it - great. In the end its all in the doing.

 

As C.S. Lewis observed, you cannot study people, you can only get to know them; but of course some kinds of people, especially bureaucrats and leftist politicians, love to reduce individuals to members of demographic groups so as to transform them into objects to be managed. To actually get to know those people would put their sense of superiority in jeopardy. Likewise, if you could focus on God's anatomical structure (if He has any) or other such trivia, you could avoid ever having to know Him.

Do feel free to specify.

I see your dissembling skills have not diminished since our last conversation. Congratulations, I guess.

Since when is that a synonym for "never"?

Happily, as to what I've said here, no such possibility exists.

Seeing I've yet to run into an atheist in this subforum who qualifies as such, I daresay the admonition is about as interesting as a dog howling at the moon.

 

Arrogant and dishonest as ever I see. Time for you to grow up.

 

A Guide to Mental Masturbation

Step 1: Use your imagination. Imagine a thing, no matter how fantastic, implausible or impossible and say you believe it is real.

Step 2: Challenge anyone to disprove it.

Step 3: Begin the process.

 

1. ..like, 'There is no God? ..a fantastic imagination for those who know better.
2. 'Disprove the assertion, 'There is no God!'
3. Mock and ridicule those who believe differently.
4. Heckle and disrupt any philosophical discussions with irrelevant ridicule of 'Christians!'
5. Watch Reason die, amidst thunderous applause..
6. Welcome to Progresso World.

 

7. Have a cigarette and fall asleep.

 

8. Numb brain with chemicals, and fill eyes and ears with pointless amusements.

 

What does 'best' mean, in a godless universe? What standards are 'good', and which are 'bad', and why would there be a difference?

Mother Theresa, or Joseph Stalin, are both (and neither), 'good or bad', in a godless universe. They just chose their way, and everyone else chooses theirs.

'Morals!' are meaningless, subjective platitudes, in a godless universe..

 

Who are you to say that this 'God' cares, or defines, or speaks about morals. God is as likely to be amoral and indifferent to morality as he is likely to be good or evil. If mankind can create a morality and ascribe it to God, and mankind has been doing that for millennium , I can create a morality and ascribe to me with just as much validity. Both are just as likely to meaningless subjective platitudes.

 

This is true. Even if there IS a God, does not make 'morality' Real. This God would have to embed a 'moral code' into humanity, to provide a guide for behavior.

But in a godless universe, morality cannot be Real, but is a man made delusion, to manipulate people.

My opinion, based on observation and lifelong study of the human animal, is that there is, indeed, a moral code, or conscience in human beings. This, and other compelling evidences, compel me to conclude a God ordered universe.

This does not directly relate to the dilemma, but it is the Big Question of the Universe, for some..

Why would Stalin be 'bad!', in a godless universe?
..scratch that.. in a progressive forum, i have to use Official Villains...
Why would Hitler be 'bad!', in a godless universe?

 

No the issue is there is no evidence that a god exists so intelligence would lead one to believe god is just a figment of delusional thinking.

 

In a godless universe bad is what decreases species diversity.

 

I have to be somebody special to state the obvious?

On the contrary, were He amoral, conscience would not exist.

 

Morality is as likely in Godless or Godfull universe. It may be documented into a moral code in a Godless or Godfull universe. Conscience may develop in the human animal regardless of how it was created as well. So far you have not pointed out a single valid distinction in a theist or atheist world, regarding how morality gets created or communicated .

 

Conscience may exist as part of a process of evolution and cultural indoctrination irrespective of God.

 

All of the questions you just asked exist even if their is a God. If morals are meaningless in a godless universe then they are just as meaningless in a god-created universe.

 

Duplicate...please delete.

 

“...a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist....We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense,"advanced..."- Theologian C.S. Lewis wrote in his book, Mere Christianity, p. 80.

LOL....

 

That's quite impossible, as conscience is entirely independent of - and very often inimical to - cultural indoctrination.

And don't get me started on the myth of anthropic evolution.

Thanks, I'll take your refusal to address the challenge I directed at you earlier as an admission that your argument is intellectually bankrupt.

 

Conscience is often entirely independent of and very often inimical to - religious indoctrination either in any written or oral traditional form. God must work in very mysterious ways if we try to link his 'work' to any matters of conscience or its existence at all.

 

But the key question here is about the intelligibility of Nature. Newton rejected the materialist model of Nature because of interaction without contact (gravity). Mechanical philosophy cannot have interaction at a distance without physical contact (magnetism) and there must be immediate contact for influence. A purely materialistic pattern in Nature is impossible. Physical bodies become irrelevant in science. Interaction without physical contact is an incomprehensible fact of empiricism. Even in chemistry chemical laws cannot be reduced to physical laws and has no physical reality--the atom and chemistry are only calculating devices. The concept of physical law is faulty.

Newton said, "Spirit might be the cause of all movement in Nature including the power of moving our bodies by our thoughts. And the same power is in other living creatures though how this is done and by what laws we do not know. We cannot say that all Nature is not alive." John Locke wrote, "Just as God had added to material motion inconceivable affects it is not much more remote from our comprehension to conceive that God can if he pleases super-added to matter the faculty of thinking." These mysteries still have not been answered even today. That's right. Your high school teacher lied to you again.

Noam Chomsky - "The Machine, the Ghost, and the Limits of Understanding."​

​

 

Exactly. This is the fallacy of the OP:
'No evidence > No God'

You've added some ridicule to emphasize the point., but it is the same flawed reasoning examined in the OP.
IF.. the Reality of the universe is indeed, 'no God',
THEN.. any belief, or consideration of 'God', would be a 'figment of delusional thinking'.

Your dilemma is stated thusly:
'No evidence => God is figment of delusional thinking'

With the obvious correlation:

'God is figment of delusional thinking = no God'

It is still flawed reasoning, concluding a dogmatic result based on a lack of information.. (aka, ignorance). It is not a sound reason to conclude 'atheism!' as the nature of the universe.

I do appreciate the example, to refute the absurd claim by some, 'But no atheists ever say such a thing!' It is a very common argument, and it is flawed reasoning.

I see no naturalistic directive toward 'diversity!' ..just survival. Human diversity has historically been 'bad!', with wars, genocide, and mandated conformity used to compel homogeneity. Other animals do not seem drawn to 'diversity!', but homogeneity.

Morality can only be a delusion, in a godless universe. 'Conscience!' is not a Real Thing, but a human invention, to manipulate people.

If that is the source of 'conscience', then it is a delusion.. a manipulation for control. It is not an embedded Real Thing, put there by God to guide the choices of man. It is subjective and arbitrary, and can be whatever the "cultural indoctrinators' say it is. Mindless dupes can submit to this manipulation, but thinking, rational people will see through the manipulation and do what they choose, based on what is best for them.. their survival and prosperity.

In a God ordered universe, defying an inner moral 'sense' might have consequences. It might not, but the follow up question would be, 'Why this sting of conscience, if there is no Absolute 'wrong?' Why the guilt and psychic pain, if there is only consequence in this life?

It is clear, that repeated violations of conscience, dull or sear its sensitivity. Psychic scar tissue forms over the once responsive conscience, until violations are no longer felt with the same sensitivity. Many people with seared consciences have found renewal in the Christian rebirth message, which restores the scarred conscience to its intended state.

But in a godless universe, conscience and morality are meaningless delusions, used to manipulate people for some agenda. Only bobbleheaded dupes would submit to the manipulations of others, instead of pursuing their own benefit.

 

"Mock and ridicule those who believe differently""
Ya, you ARE the one who started the thread. You ARE the one who just can't believe his beliefs and leave others alone. You are the one mocking and ridiculing...

...and I ask the question WHY?"....why are you so frightened of what others believe or don't believe???

 

It's not very bright to think there are only two possible conditions , a god or no god.,


It's ignorant to think there can't be other options.