What if we atheist here were the ones fooled?

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alembé's picture
Hi Logic,

Hi Logic,

You may be on to something.

The following is by John Compere in an article in Free Inquiry (1).

“The perfect, infallible, and inerrant “Word of God” (or Yahweh or Allah) is, in truth and reality, the imperfect, fallible, and errant word of unknown men marketing their own manufactured versions of the Abrahamic religions.

When asked, a few honest clergy have acknowledged these historical facts and offered two revealing rationalizations. First, the laity cannot handle these truths, and, second, they undermine the credibility and authority of the church that has preached otherwise for centuries.”

1. John Compere, Why I retired from Religion, Free Inquiry, June/July 2015 Vol 35, No. 4, Pages 58-60

Someone's picture
What evidence did you have

What evidence did you have that objects corresponding to your experience existed in a "physical" world? (consider a Matrix type situation)

Terminal Dogma's picture
Personally I don't seek

Personally I don't seek evidence further than my experience which is enough for my survival. If we are in a matrix it is reliable enough for me to go about my business. I accept this reality as fact and will continue to do so until it is no longer reliable for my survival.

We are all locked in the same matrix so that quest that it is a matrix is irrelevant...it's just reality.

Someone's picture
But maybe you are in a

But maybe you are in a situation where you are given the experience and you are in a "God exists" scenario, where there is no physical. And the point is that you have no evidence that this is not the case. Whereas you have evidence that it is a "God exists" scenario whether the "physical" exists or not. See: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design

arakish's picture
Violation Rule #5. No

Violation Rule #5. No unrelated topics. Trying to derail this thread for a continuation of what was posted in this thread: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design.

Violation Rule #12. No advertising or self-promotion. Advertising and self-promotion of what was posted in this thread:http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design.


LogicFTW's picture


"What evidence did you have that objects corresponding to your experience existed in a "physical" world? (consider a Matrix type situation)"

Seems off topic to this thread, but I will bite:

We are our memories, our brains utilize sensory input, reference memory, and previous thought patterns to "re-create" the real world in our heads, colored by perception, knowledge, biases, the whole lot.

Engaging and putting together thought patterns, responses etc all happen in this world we create in our heads, it all happens a couple hundred milliseconds (or more) after reality already occured.

So in many ways we already live in a matrix like setting in our heads. Except unlike the matrix movie series, it is not created by robots or humans, but our natural biological reality.

All this makes simple sense, like how taking certain substances can completely alter our "reality" for a time. Or when people see/hear/etc things that are not there. Why there are tricks of illusion that work so well, etc. The reality in our heads does not perfectly mirror actual reality.

Sheldon's picture
What evidence have you that

What evidence have you that anything other than reality exists? We can do this all day, reversing the burden of proof is fallacious nonsense.

Terminal Dogma's picture
As long as you are making

As long as you are making pure speculations then whatever I falsifiable claim you make COULD be the case.

How do you propose you might prove it IS the case?

You are in a far worse position than me, you have two epistemological loops to verify.

I have no such burden I just accept my experience is reality without proof beyond my experiencing it and go about my life, you?

Someone's picture
It is not a matter of proving

It is not a matter of proving, it is just a matter of what conclusion would an unbiased person draw, as the evidence stands?

You seemed to ignore the evidence. How is it in your framework/story you react to the experience?

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Someone - "How is it in

Re: Someone - "How is it in your framework/story you react to the experience?"

I would love to answer Someone's question, but my reality is currently pending based on what self-appointed god Term-dog can do for me for twenty bucks.

Someone's picture
Tin-Man seems to be

Tin-Man seems to be irrationally all in.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Until you can prove you are

Until you can prove you are not just a thought in my mind I do not have to prove anything to you.

So Someone prove you exist as more than a thought in my mind, hint, you can't.

Someone's picture
No I can't. But you

No I can't. But you presumably realise you are not sufficient for the world you experience to follow the laws of physics (you do not know the rules). And presumably you realise that once you look in the mirror you cannot justify believing you are the only form that appears like you that is being experienced.

Terminal Dogma's picture
I am both necessary and

I am both necessary and sufficient for my experience.

Anything beyond that is just guessing that only the deluded and arrogant would claim knowledge about.

Do you Someone have knowledge of a different reality that you can verify exists?

Someone's picture
You claim you are sufficient

You claim you are sufficient for your experience. But would that not depend upon what you are?

As I asked in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/what-if-we-atheist-her...

How is it in your framework/story you react to the experience?

As I pointed out earlier it is not about knowledge, or verifying. It is just about what conclusion would an unbiased person draw, as the evidence stands.

Sapporo's picture
You should not proclaim

You should not proclaim certainties about the outside world that you could not make about yourself.

LogicFTW's picture
"As I pointed out earlier it

"As I pointed out earlier it is not about knowledge, or verifying. It is just about what conclusion would an unbiased person draw, as the evidence stands."

When we get into what is our reality, and accept that our reality is what the brain creates in our head, then there is no objective evidence, everything is not objective, everything is our sensory input + memories/thought process/paths.

HOWEVER: the individuals that are able to correctly use sensory input, better use their central nervous system to better plan for actual reality that impacts the individual organism or possibly in more advanced organisms; the entire group/species of organisms, the more likely that organism is to survive and thrive.

Human beings are unique with their highly complex brains, that many of us have gone way beyond simple survival, and are thriving to the extent that our existence/drive/concern is no longer centered around survival anymore but instead other pursuits, sort of freed to live life beyond simply surviving long enough to continue the cycle of reproduction and consumption.

So the conclusion I would think an unbiased person would draw is: in their heads, everything is a recreation, if they want to seek advantage they use their sensory and thinking tools to give them an edge in survival. To seek out what their sensory inputs aided via tools made and sound reasoning processes to give the individual human an even greater advantage.

Understanding and realizing that the various gods and religions, while a nice warm comfortable idea, is actually frequently a tool a few individuals use to control and seek advantage over others, can give the individual an edge. People taking part in this process even manage to deluded themselves into thinking their cause is righteous and is the correct "morale" thing to do.

Like for me I know not to waste my short time on earth with religious crap, not to donate my precious time or any money to it. Knowing there is no god or ghosts, or monsters, or afterlife free's me to spend time on things that give me more advantage in my short life, such as counting on myself and a few trusted others to build a good life for myself instead of praying to some god for benefit to befall me. That when I see someone offering a miracle cure I know w/o solid scientific backing the only cure it gives is the ancient, powerful remedy of the placebo effect that while great in many ways, is superseded greatly by things like penicillin. As we have biological bodies that house a mind that recreates reality that does not necessarily pertain to the reality they body is in.

Terminal Dogma's picture
You can make any conclusions

You can make any conclusions you want and they Cana silly as you want. The only thing that matters for humans to function is knowledge and experience.

All you have are tired old word games that contribute nothing to knowledge.

Someone's picture
Other than the nature of

Other than the nature of reality that is.... and what possible difference could the realisation of that make?

Sheldon's picture
"Other than the nature of

"Other than the nature of reality that is.... and what possible difference could the realisation of that make?"

Where in reality is that pesky objective evidence hiding, as you have yet to demonstrate any? Note the word objective, this does not extend to your vapid fallacious semantics.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Err no, to understand reality

Err no, to understand reality you have to gain knowledge of it based on the very good axiom that it exists to study. You are proposing another reality exists eg some matrix that you have no justification for or any ability to verify it even exists and no way to study it, you have nothing more than a fairytale reality You can not even interact with. You have nothing more than words.

Romman_khan's picture
If there's no god then what's

If there's no god then what's death? You said you are strongest atheist so clear my doubt and. Prove god is false iam ready to accept Atheism

LogicFTW's picture
@Romman khan

@Romman khan
I am guessing english is not your first language?

I assume your reply is directed to my original (first) post in this thread.

I said I am a strong atheist, not the "strongest" atheist.

Very easy to prove god is false: No one has been able to prove god is even a little bit real.

Think about it: why do you dismiss Santa Claus, why do you dismiss the tooth fairy as not real? How about Dragons? Or the flying spaghetti monster? Rainbow farting unicorns?

It is not that you can prove that these entities (as well as any number of gods or monsters or fairies etc are false,) it instead is simply you cannot prove these as real. And that is all you need to know god is not real.

It is an ancient and effective trick: create a need for something, even if it not real, then shift the burden of proof. Peoples want/need for it to be real, readily allows them to accept the shifting of the burden of proof trick. Most people for many other things in life do not accept the shifting of burden of proof.

This is seemingly a very hard concept for many theist to grasp, so I will simplify it further:
Say I want to convince you to run across a very busy 8 lane highway blindfolded. Say every car is going 70 mph or 110kph (for the rest of the world.) Now you and just about everyone else will never agree to that, for obvious, rational, sane reasons.

Obviously I got to incentivize you or just about anyone else to do so. So I say, I will give you a million bucks if you make it across!

Again just about anyone would not do so. 1. They have no way to know I have a million and would actually pay them a million if they made it across, and 2. They cannot collect their 1 million if they are dead and it would serve no use to them.

So in response to these valid points made by you and anyone else, I say well: can you prove to me that you won't collect 1 million from me? Can you prove to me that you will likely die trying and therefore the money will be useless?

Again just about anyone would say no, that is crazy, just because I cannot definitively prove that I could die and that I cannot collect 1 million doesnt mean I will suddenly try to cross a very busy fast moving highway blindfolded.

We already have all this basic logic in place, it is a big reason we are still alive and thriving today. Just about everyone would refuse to cross a highway blindfolded in these circumstances.

Now: switch out the million dollar reward for the promise of answers and afterlife in religion, switch out the real blindfold for a metaphorical one (faith,) and switch out the promises, (proof?) of actual risk and reward, with the same promises (proof?) that religion and the accompanying "god idea" uses.

We do not accept shifting of the burden of truth as an answer in the above simple scenario, well: the god/religion idea is also a simple scenario, it just many of us have been "tricked" by most of our most important peers, parents and teachers growing up to actually swallow this trick whole and not question it. And our endless ability to rationalize to defend a decision we already made carries us through the rest. Just like someone could conceivably rationalize why they should try to cross a highway blindfolded on an unproven promise for a million dollars if they were desperate enough.

Sapporo's picture
@Romman khan

@Romman khan
if you believe in something without evidence, then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. Only challenging your justification for believing something unobservable is likely to change your mind.

Cognostic's picture
@Romman khan: "Prove god is

@Romman khan: "Prove god is false iam ready to accept Atheism."
Fist, there is no accepting atheism. You are confused. There is nothing in atheism to accept. There is only letting go of your silly ideas.

Second: It is not the job of atheists to prove your god does not exist. That appears self evident as you have no evidence for its existence, There is as much evidence for your magical god as there is for dragons, leprechauns, fairies, and the real Peter Pan. That which can be asserted to be true without evidence can be rejected without evidence. You are making an unfalsifiable claim, that in and of itself it enough for any intelligent person to reject the claim.

Prove that I do not have a magical, invisible, non-corporal dragon in my back yard. I can show you its foot print. I can show you the chain that broke when he grew too strong for it to hold him.. I can show you his water dish that I have to refill twice on hot days. I can show you the fence that he sat on and bent. I also have a book that says non-corporal, invisible dragons are real. If you can prove my dragon does not exist, I will convert to Islam.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: Invisible Dragon

@Cog Re: Invisible Dragon

Hey, Cog, not that I want to see you convert to Islam, but I'm afraid I can prove your invisible dragon does not exist....(anymore). Uh, ya see, wutta-happened-was, uh, Logic and I took it for a walk one day. And along the way Logic decided it would be fun to blindfold it and convince it to run across eight lanes of busy interstate traffic. (We promised it a cave full of gold and jewels.) So, uh, yeah, that worked out about as well as you might expect. I swear, I never knew invisible dragons were so gullible. (Guess we should have thought that through a little better....*scratching back of head*)

Anyway, point is, we ended up have a fabulous cremation (aka: barbeque) ceremony for the big guy. I have ashes in my back yard to prove it. (Tastes like chicken, by the way.) So, like I said, your invisible dragon no longer exists. Sorry about that....*hanging head in shame*

LogicFTW's picture
You should of seen the look

You should of seen the look on peoples faces when they slammed into an invisible blindfolded dragon though. I think the drivers of the cars found a new religion when they tried to clean dragon guts off their windshield.

"Thati s a big goddamn... ummm.. dragon... fly? Did you see it before we hit it honey? Should of gotten full windshield replacement coverage on our insurance policy!"

Admittedly most of them were staring at Tin-man on the side of the road instead of paying attention to the road. Most people have not seen a real live tin man before, only in the movies. I think that is why cars hitting an invisible dragon did not make the news.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.