The God Delusion
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
NO you didn't. You told us what to believe the bible isn't. "It isn't history it isn't science"
That's not answering my specific questions on exactly how you differentiate between passages that are metaphor, those that are allegory, yet others that are fantasy
So I will be specific, please answer with specifics as to which category the following fall into, and your reasoning as to why.
The virgin birth?
The darkness at noon
The Jewish zombies wandering around Jerusalem at the resurrection:
The Wedding at Canaa (Water into wine)
The loaves and fishes incident
The raising of Lazarus
The existence of the biblical jesus as described in the gospels.
Simple. Follow your own directions.
The universe and everything within it has always existed. Fuck proving it. Just take it on faith.
If you mean that, you have develped to a higher, more matrue thinking level, ahead of Sheldon and his cohorts. And I thought it was Shedon who had potential, but you are the front runner right now.
BWAH... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damnit. Now I have to start wearing diapers when reading these posts. I done laughed so hard I pissed all over the place.
***tree shambles off to look for mop and bucket***
@Apollo Re: "Similarily, medications don't help atheists who believe they know what happened or didn't happen prior the the Big Bang. There is no evidence for that atheist claim..."
Ummmm.... Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but unless I missed it somewhere, I do not recall any atheist on here EVER claiming to know what did or did not happen prior to the Big Bang. The ONLY answer I have ever heard in regards to what was happening before the Big Bang is, "I don't know." Or, more accurately (in my case), "I don't have a fucking clue." Soooooo, who exactly on here (or anywhere else, for that matter) has made any claim about knowing what happened prior to the BB? Plus, as I have mentioned more than a few times already, what in the unholy name of pygmy hermit crab poop does any of that have to do with my being an atheist??? Even IF you were to have a "Gotchya!" moment with one or two dumbass atheists somewhere who claim to know what happened before the BB, how - pray tell - do you account for the rest of us?
(Oh, and for the record, my concept of Ginormous Cosmic Bunnies grazing on dark matter and pooping galaxies prior to the BB is just my personal belief/hypothesis. I am not stating it as fact........ yet. I still have a few logistical matters to untangle relating to bunny digestive systems and required amounts of dark matter intake vs. regular matter output. Very complicated math.)
many atheists claim they know nature and natural process are all that exist. That implies they know God does not exist.
But physics says the universe had a beginning. Atheists claim to know there is no Creator God, so it must be that material created itself; or Physics is wrong, the universe did not have a beginning, and material alwasys existed.
What ever precipitated the Big Bang happened before the Big Bang, and athiests claim to know it wasn't God, so it must be one of the other possibilites.
The fact that agnostics say "I don't know" doesn't mean atheists claim they don't know. Quite the contrary, the title of the book, "The God Delusion" implies directly that Dawkins knows God does not exist. But then Dawkins leaves us hanging in mid air. He doesn't prove either of the atheist hypothesis, namely,
1. material created itself, or
2. material alwasy existed.
If he backs off on proving one or the other his credibility evaproates. If he retreats into "I don't know", then its a retreat into agnosticism. In that case all his claims to the role of science proving God doesn't exist is just blustering.
Re: "many atheists claim they know nature and natural process are all that exist."
Good for them. What's that got to do with me and other atheists.
Re: "Atheists claim to know there is no Creator God..."
There you go again with that "all atheists" bullocks. Just can't help yourself, can you? Certainly, there are SOME atheists who claim to KNOW there is no god. Okay, fine. Go talk to THEM about what proof they may have. But as for myself and most others on here, we simply DO... NOT... BELIEVE... A... GOD... OR... GODS.... EXIST(S). Do you suffer some type of legitimate reading comprehension disability, or do you just intentionally ignore those little points that are inconvenient to you? Astounding....
Re: "The fact that agnostics say "I don't know" doesn't mean atheists claim they don't know."
Again with the "all atheists" garbage?... Really?... *in the voice of Yoda*... "Mmm... A special kind of special you are." Or, better yet, "The farce is strong with this one." Anyway, once again, yippie-yippie-hooray for those atheists who supposedly claim they know. Go give them a cookie or something. But what part of, "I don't know," confused you the first time I said it? Was it the "I", the "don't", or the "know"? Oh, I think I see the problem. Perhaps the "don't" contraction was too difficult for you. It means "do not". And, because it is worth repeating, what in the insufferable name of blue-bellied barefoot Brahma bull dookie does the Big Bang or Dawkins have to do with my being an atheist? (Pssst..... *whispering*....I'll give you a hint: It starts with "no" and it ends with "thing".)
Now you're funny too. "Many atheists" for you is "All atheists".
Feel free to be accurate in lieu of equating "many" with "all".
I know atheists don't believe God exists. Fine by me.
Agnostics claim they "don't know". Fine by me. They suspend judgement. But atheists, unlike agnostics, don't suspend judgement.
You seem to be suggesting there is no differnece between atheist and agnostic.
The Big Bang is not an atheist claim.
Never said it was.
Even so, contemporary science puts an age on the universe.
And the starting point, the beginning, is what contemporary science calls the Big Bang.
So what is the atheist claim on the age and beginning of the universe? Is it different from contemporary science?
Incidently, I don't care if you are anyone else is an atheist. I'm a pluralist. I believe in freedom of belief, and tolerance for differing perspectives.
Since you are ignoring the posts where Sheldon and I challenged you to figure out why you are wrong about this:
"And the starting point, the beginning, is what contemporary science calls the Big Bang."
I will point out where you are wrong. The Big Bang, and there was no "bang" or explosion as many Religious Absolutists call it, is when the Universe began its expansion phase. It is NOT the "beginning" of the Universe. There was a beginning before the Big Bang occurred. We do not know what this "beginning" was. And this is where the Religious Absolutist Apologists insert "god" into that gap.
And finally, as chimp3 has said, the Big Bang Theory is not atheist. Someone said that when it comes to being dense, a neutron star is light and fluffy compared to you (Tin-Man).
He really is as thick as pig shit.
1. I'm not a "religous absolutist" so I have no idea what you are talking about when "they" insert God into some "gap". I didn't say the Big Bang theory was or wasn't an atheist theory. I think I said it was a contemporary scientific theory.
there is a brief article about hawking's final theory on "the big Bang" there is no mention that the Big Bang theory is a "religious absolutist" theory where god gets inserted int some gap. Those scientists in that artice seem comfortable with there theory of a bang.
3. Even so, science, as it continually seeks to understand God's work, God's creation, may have decided recently that the word "bang" is not accurate. If so, so what?
4. According to you there was a beginning. That comports well with Christian belief that in the beginning God created the universe. If it was a bang, or not a bang, is a moot point.
5. I am not about proving atheism wrong, or right. I am not about trying to prove God exists. These things are not provable, and are matters of faith. We can only see the universe from within it. Science can only see the universe from with in it. We can not get out side of it to describe it from the outside. So both theists, and atheist are in the same boat. We are in it, part of it, trying to understand it from our perspective.
Mods/Admins: I have to apologize, but this person has finally shredded what little patience I had left for this Religious Absolutist Apologist.
Sun, 09/16/2018 - 18:25
Apollo (BTW: I have changed your name, keep reading...)
ALL of your posts definitively say your ARE a RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTIST. Additionally, you are the worst sort of Religious Absolutist, a Religious Absolutist Apologist. Your posts definitively say you are absolute in your religious beliefs and you are spewing the mind diarrhea and mental vomit of an apologist in failed attempt after failed attempt after failed attempt to force your beliefs onto others. Gander at My Fourth Commandment of Humanity:
And before your stupid, dumb ass, retarded self says a word, I do "respect" your right to have whatsoever beliefs you may have. However, I do not have to respect your beliefs. Huge difference there Creatard. Furthermore, the only reason I am now additionally attacking you is because you have called me a liar by misquoting me and putting "your words" into my speech.
In actuality, my fourth commandment reads thusly:
I usually drop the "under penalty of death" because most Religious Absolutists (such as you), especially the Apologist sub-species (such as you), find it a bit harsh and offensive. I am now following Stephen Fry's take on offending your sub-species, "You're offended? So the fuck what?"
And just to prove to you I do have a Ten Commandments of Humanity:
My Ten Commandments of Humanity
And as a bonus:
My Philosophy Of Life: The ONE and ONLY True Truth
So quit being a child and sticking your nose where it don't belong.
And you are so dense that really and truly it is like comparing an ingot of lead to a cloud as a neutron star is to your mind (got this from Tin-Man, thanks dude).
When did I ever say, "the Big Bang theory is a "religious absolutist" theory". I want you to directly blockquote where I said this AND link to the post. Otherwise, shut your god-damned lying mouth.
What I said was:
Se álla lógia — since we still do not know what the "beginning" of the universe was before the Big Bang Theory (a.k.a. Universal Expansion Theory), you Religious Absolutists, especially Apologists, insert your Sky Faerie in the "gap" of the "beginning" of the universe. Gads, you are so thick and dense...
If all you are going to do is misquote people and lie about what they say, get the fuck off my planet, preferably without a self-contained environmental apparatus.
Science ain't trying to understand "god's work." Science is seeking explanations to the natural world. Big difference there "he who possesses greatest object of density". I am going to start calling you BHB (Black Hole Brain) instead of Apollo. And it is actually you Religious Absolutist Apologists who play on the word "bang," not us people who actually possess intelligence and comprehension.
"According to you there was a beginning." You fucking liar! This "beginning" is not according to me. It is according to other scientists out there. I am only repeating what they have said. You are the stupidest, dumbest, most retarded idiotic moron I have ever seen. You talk as if you have intelligence, yet you always prove you have none.
My hypothesis is that that universe has ALWAYS EXISTED. And here is something I know to be true for you to cogitate, WE SHALL NEVER KNOW HOW OLD THE UNIVERSE TRULY IS. There never has been any such thing as a "time" when there was "nothing." The universe is infinitely old. The only reason we say it is about 13.7 billion years old is due to the fact that as you work backwards from where the universe is now, it would be about 13.7 billion years when the universe existed in that hot, dense state known as the Infinite Singularity. What existed before the Universal Expansion began is still an "I do not know" answer. We have some fairly decent ideas and working models, but we have to rectify them.
"I am not about proving atheism wrong, or right." Oh yes you are. Simply by stating you believe in a "god," you are also trying to prove atheism wrong. You come here and say you believe in a "god," but I say, "I do not believe you. Show me the OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE." And you cannot do so. Then you resort to your standard religious apologetics and beguiling dialectical semantic bullshit which is the standard indoctrination procedure of the tyrannical megalomaniacal psychotic sociopathic Religious Absolutists. The same group of sub-species of humans to which you belong. Then again, that last sentence probably used adjectives that are beyond your comprehension. Hell, the word "comprehension" is probably beyond your comprehension.
Here a couple of definitions for you to shat upon:
Religious Absolutist – anyone belonging to and possessing an inexorable belief in any religion and is truly applicable to any inexorable religious believers, especially the worst subset, Religious Absolutist Apologists.
Religious Absolutist Apologist – a dastardly subset of the Religious Absolutists who practices apologetics, which is the assumption of presupposed conclusions that have nothing to do with reason and rationality and the actual natural world, creating irrational excuses and whatever conflicting ideas justifying their baseless assumptions, regardless of what the true facts are, using beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiney–ass pleas, due to an indoctrination conditioning that is so ingrained they never question the veracity of the nonsense they offer, or why they need to defend their faith at all.
Kai teliká, and I may have said this to you before...
What Absolutists Abdicate and Abandon For Their Faith
Critical Thinking: The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form an objective judgment.
Analytical Thought: The abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations in a coherent and logical process.
Deductive Reasoning/Analysis: A process of reasoning from one or more statements or premises to reach a logically certain conclusion.
Rational Thought: Having reason or understanding to reflect on and to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference in orderly ways or processes.
Logical Reasoning/Analysis: The process of using a rational, systematic series of steps based on sound procedures and given statements to arrive at an objective conclusion.
The above is what Absolutists abdicate and abandon. Let’s look at what they replace it with…
Faith: The practice of training one’s mind to ignore evidence, logic, and reason, while being able to believe in fairy tales, and being proud of it rather than ashamed. Your biblical definition for faith is just a cop-out for the true definition. Faith is the belief in anything that cannot be proven to exist.
And what I find most shameful is that some otherwise very intelligent people sacrifice that intelligence for their faith. Damnit, what the hell is wrong with you people? One of you could actually be the next Nobel Prize winner who discovers something so profound…
Thus, little child, go away. Adults are trying to have a conversation which does not involve misquoting and lying about what others say. Run along, little boy.
Wild applause from the bleachers....
Apollo " I have no idea what you are talking about when "they" insert God into some "gap"."
The concept, but not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man. Where he (Drummond) chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"
The phrase was coined in TGD by Professor Dawkins, and if you had read it then you could not fail to know what the phrase meant. As I have said, I don't believe you have read TGD at all, and paraphrasing criticisms of it you have read. This is a very popular and dishonest tactic amongst religious apologists.
"Even so, science (dishonest begging the question fallacy removed) may have decided recently that the word "bang" is not accurate. If so, so what?"
The phrase big bang was coined initially by detractors of the theory to disparage it, nothing about the scientific theory ever involved a bang or an explosion of any kind, You really don't have the first clue do you, and dropping Stephen Hawking's name into your post won't fool anyone.
"According to you there was a beginning. That comports well with Christian belief that in the beginning God created the universe. If it was a bang, or not a bang, is a moot point."
Not really, as time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang, so it's something of a misnomer to call it a beginning, rather it is a point of origin and our ability to conceptualise here is deeply flawed as we have no point of reference. However it is axiomatic . that nothing in the big bang theory evidences the existence of any deity or anything supernatural.
"I am not about proving atheism wrong, or right."
You can' prove it wrong or right, as atheism is just the ;lack or absence of a belief. The best you could do is demonstrate some evidence of r a deity, and so far you have failed, producing the usually cliched apologetic with ubiquitous common logical fallacies.
"These things are not provable, and are matters of faith. "
Faith is useless for validating claims or beliefs, because you can quite demonstrably believe literally anything using faith.
"We can only see the universe from within it. Science can only see the universe from with in it. "
Wow, wrong yet again, we can view residual effects of the big bang, such as background radiation. There really is no topic on which you can't make a spurious claim is there. (rhetorical)
"We can not get out side of it to describe it from the outside. So both theists, and atheist are in the same boat."
Except its theism and not atheism that is making unevidenced claims here. I am happy to accept the fact that the evidence shows only natural material phenomena, you on the other hand are not and keep making irrational and unevidenced claims.
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 16:26 (Reply to #98)
chimp3 " The Big Bang is not an atheist claim."
Sat, 09/15/2018 - 18:10
Apollo "Never said it was."
Not exactly, but you did post this moronic lie.
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 09:57 (Reply to #85)
Apollo "atheists who believe they know what happened or didn't happen prior the the Big Bang."
You are quite possibly the most dishonest theists we've seen on here, and that's some indictment. No atheists has made any such claim, and you are an unabashed liar.
"atheists who believe they know what happened or didn't happen prior the the Big Bang."
No atheists has ever claimed to know this on here since I've been here. In fact I have never heard of any atheist claiming this ever?
I am calling you on this, as it seems like more of your mendacious BS to me.
Atheists asert knowledge that there is no creator God. Dawkins, for instance, reportedly claims that as a child he was brought up a Christian. Apparently, once he became aware of the theory of evolution, he decided that proved there was no God. Antoerh poster here has said there was a beginning to the universe. But if Dawkins views are correct, God didn't exist before the beginning, and therfroe an athiest is claiming to have some knowledge of the state of affaires before the beginning of the universe.
There seems to be a dispute here concerning if there was a bang or not. Its a moot point. But clearly, science has a theory called the Big Bang theory.
Still playing the dumb ass huh?
"Atheists asert knowledge that there is no creator God."
No true atheist asserts any such thing. We simply assert, "We do not believe your dumb ass preposterous claims that any god exists."
We never say, "There is no god." Only you Religious Absolutist Apologists say that.
And damnit, quit telling us what we never, ever, say. Fucking Religious Absolutist Apologist.
"Atheists asert knowledge that there is no creator God."
Yes some of them do, this does not change the definition of atheism. Stamp collectors can also be child abusers, this doesn't mean stamp collecting is defined as involving child abuse.
"Dawkins, for instance, reportedly claims that as a child he was brought up a Christian. Apparently, once he became aware of the theory of evolution, he decided that proved there was no God."
Complete fucking nonsense, he was indeed raised as a christian, but no he did not lose his belief "once he became aware of evolution" why do you make up lies like this, you're going to get caught out? What's more this absolutely shows yet again that you have not read TGD. Professor Richard Dawkins mainly cites the scientific fact of species evolution that he has dedicated his entire career to, to defend against the ignorant ravings of creatards, who keep trying to pedal their hokum superstition as deserving parity with science.
"There seems to be a dispute here concerning if there was a bang or not. Its a moot point. But clearly, science has a theory called the Big Bang theory."
Again the fact you could post this and not know how much you're embarrassing yourself speaks volumes. There is no dispute, and the term big bang was initially coined by detractors of the theory to disparage it. The theory never claimed there was a bang or any kind of explosions, it was a massive rapid expansions on an unimaginable scale. No one needs to make any claims about what did or did not exist prior to this in order to disbelieve superstitious creation myths that no one can demonstrate any evidence for.
Disbelieving a claim is not the same as making a contrary claims, and what you're doing is the very definitions of a god of the gaps argument, an argument form ignorance fallacy designed to dishonestly reverse the burden of proof. It's so common in religious apologetics it's a cliche. Though normally the apologists have a small grasp of what the basic terms like big bang theory mean, you don;t even have that.
Thanks for correcting me:
By the way, chimp3, of those sufferning from delusions that you take care of, do you find their delusions as possibly true? if so, what are they? and why do you think they are possibly true.
I had an encounter with a delusional guy who insisted there was an implant in his head that was transmitting his thoughts. He actually got his head scanned to find the implant. They told him there was nothing there, but he still didn't believe it. Anyway, that instance is more what I think of as the meaning of delusion.
Dawkins uses the word inappropriately. I agree that fundamentalist christians are operating within an untrue belief system, but their reasoning within that system isn't necessarily flawed. Stated another way, they correctly use an eroneous belief system. Since their belief system is incorrect, their correct reasoning comes to untrue conclusions.
Truely delusional people don't reason correctly, where as those with an untrue ideology are able to reason correctly within that ideology.
Johnny thinks he is a great driver. That is not an impossible thing to be but all his friends and the driver instructors at DMV think otherwise. Johnny is delusional.
"do you find their delusions as possibly true?"
Only a delusional theist could ask if beliefs that are "contradicted by reality" might possibly be true. Again I am desperately hoping for your sake that this is a wind up.
"He actually got his head scanned to find the implant. They told him there was nothing there, but he still didn't believe it"
Yes it's astonishing when people are so delusional they reject objective evidence isn't it? Irony overload.
"Dawkins uses the word inappropriately. I agree that fundamentalist christians are operating within an untrue belief system, but their reasoning within that system isn't necessarily flawed."
Please look up delusion in a dictionary, because this is painful to read. If their beliefs obviously contradict reality, then they are by definition delusional. Even allowing for the caveat that delusions is often cited as a symptom of a mental disorder, this need not always be the case.
"they correctly use an eroneous (sic) belief system"
Its erroneous, and it is axiomatic that a belief system can't be correct if it is erroneous. Good grief!
"If their beliefs obviously contradict reality, then they are by definition delusional."
This is debateable. chimp3 gave a ncie example of a woman he met who insisted she was Harry Truman. that's delusional because her capacity to reason is impared to the core. That's a delusional false belief a belief is somthing impossible like belief in a square circle.
There is an other type of false belief, or false conclusion that isn't delusional. In this type, a person reasons correctly from within an untrue system that could be true, but actually isn't true. For example, as far as Copernicus, and Ptolemy knew, Ptolemy's view on the motion of planets could have been true. Copernicus preferred his own view partly because of its simplicity, but he didn't prove Ptolemy incorrect. Eventually, with Einstein's theory of gravity, the Copernican view was accepted as true. Although Ptolemy was mistaken about reality, he wasn't delusional as his reasoning was intact, and at the time, his premise was seen as possible. He was mistaken about reality, but he wasn't insane.
hence, there are two types of false belief: 1. Delusional in which the persons logic is impaired to the point of believeing impossible things, and 2. the correct use (logic is not impaired) of a false system. (Ptolemy's system was false, as his premise was false, but at the time it wasn't possible to know it was false, so he wasn't insane.)
Sheldon "If their beliefs obviously contradict reality, then they are by definition delusional."
Apollo "This is debateable."
No it isn't at all. Here once again is the Oxford English dictionary definition of delusional.
An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
‘the delusion of being watched’
You are just wrong, but think your bombast will help you cover your blushes.
"This is debateable. chimp3 gave a ncie example of a woman he met who insisted she was Harry Truman. that's delusional because her capacity to reason is impared to the core. "
No, as I already explained more than once a person may hold a delusional belief, though this may not necessarily affect their ability to reason. Delusions may often be typified as part of a mental disorder, but it need not be in every case.
A spots fan whose team are woeful and going nowhere can delude themselves they will do well this season, despite reality showing clearly that they won't, they are by definition delusional, but it's not part of mental disorder. Why do theists struggle with this so often?
All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. It's that simple.
"1. Delusional in which the persons logic is impaired to the point of believeing impossible things,"
So magic apples, talking snakes, virgin births, people brought back from the dead after they have been dead long enough to stink, and oddly not have a single solitary word to say about it. Beliefs that defy reason and reality, so delusional all....
"the correct use (logic is not impaired)"
Logic doesn't deny reality, or base belief on things it can demonstrate no objective evidence for. You are pretending religious beliefs are rational in order to pretend you are not completely wrong about RD's use of the word delusion in TGD, but superstitious religious beliefs are not rational, that is axiomatic.
I knew a woman who told me she was Harry Truman. The clinical definition of delusion I prefer is "an irrational or false belief that others do not share". Religion is a shared belief system. People do not rise from the dead, fly on horses, turn water into wine, heal diseases with magical incantations, or absolve themselves ov past crimes by getting dunked underwater but people believe that bullshit.
Some people believe the Bible literally, but I don't. Christians aren't required to take it literally.
"Religion is a shared belief system" Christianity is a fragmented religion with many differeing denominations. They don't all agreee with each other, nor do they necessarily talk with each other. Even within denominations they don't all agree with each other.
So your "shared belief system" idea is a false assumption concerning Christianity.
You are critiquing the literalists, and good for you. But it has no impact on me, as I am not a literalist. You are critiquing the fundamentalists, but I am not a fundamentalist.
OK so do you believe it is possible that the woman was Harry Truman? To me that's impossible, and would fit the definition of a delusion as a false belief. Too, the Fundamentalists who take metaphors, symbolic language, literary hyperbole and what not, literally - such as flying on horses and so on are delusional. But all the things you mention in the catagory of flying horses are literary devices. Many christians don't take them literally.
so Dawkins aregument, so far, seems to boil down to:
Some people are delusional, therefore God does not exist. Doesn't follow. Its incoherent.
"so Dawkins aregument, so far, seems to boil down to:
Some people are delusional, therefore God does not exist. Doesn't follow. Its incoherent."
Not even close, and again all this demonstrates is you have not read TGD.