The Religion of Atheism

ALTER2EGO -to- MEGADETH FAN:
Your initial premise about the Catholic Nazis being taught Biblical truths is an outright falsehood. I gave the history of Catholicism and provided weblinks and reference sources—which indicate the sentiments are not mine but are based on historical facts. Your lame position is that I'm bashing Catholicism. It's a clever ploy and an obvious attempt on your part to divert attention away from the fact that you've been debunked. Well, guess what? Your ploy didn't work.

Your statement that the Nazis were learning religious truths amidst their outrageous crimes against humanity is so blatantly false that it's almost laughable. The learning of Biblical truths causes people to become better citizens rather than having them commit genocide. I can't believe the intellectual dishonesty you are willing to revert to by making such a ridiculous argument. Had the Catholic Nazi Germans learned religious truths, they would not have done what they did. You know that very well, because logic says people who apply truths do not revert to such behavior. You know it, but you will never concede it because you are fighting to win a winless argument that atheism is not itself a religion.

 

I can't help but notice that you ignored the post that was actually directed at you. Don't you think discussions would be better if we all kept to actually acknowledging the opposite side?

One definition, which is held by many atheists and which is included in your above definitions is the disbelief in a god, as opposed to the belief that there is no god.

For instance, a new born child will not deny a god (because it does not know of the concept), but it will still lack a belief in the same god, for the same reason. That child will be an atheist, as dictated by the definitions, without denying a god, which was your previous definition.

The distinction becomes important whenever the burden of proof lies on theists. An atheist does not have to believe that the statement "no gods exist" is false in order to believe that all the evidence provided by theists is not enough to justify a belief in a god.

 

But that is patently false. A "biblical truth" is not an objective thing, its a subjective description. As a result ANYONE can say they teach 'biblical truth' - including the Catholic church and they would be correct in that description, since it is meaningless.

Which "truths"?

No, logic says such truths are nonexistent - they are entirely dependent on preference and subjective individual choice.

I have already shown atheism is not a religion because it has no ethical code.

 

Define "Biblical truth".

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MEGADETH FAN:
I'm well aware that people who don't understand what the Bible teaches can be manipulated by slicksters. However, your argument that "biblical truth is non-existent" does not wash. That's like saying black is white depending on what one chooses to believe. In reality, black is black regardless of people's willingness to face reality. Truth does not change to suit "the eye of the beholder." If that were the case, there would be no truth. The Bible, which is God's inspired Word, establishes truth from the viewpoint of the Creator. Jehovah's viewpoint of truth is what makes all opposing definitions of truth erroneous. Will people who are atheists accept this? Certainly not. But that does not change the fact that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. Any teaching that conflicts with Bible teachings is considered false religion.

ALTER2EGO -to- MEGADETH FAN:
Atheism is a religious belief in which people get on the Internet and argue tooth and nails that there is no God. They do so with great RELIGIOUS passion, as you are presently doing. Two different courts in the USA defined secular humanism aka atheism as a religion. You are an atheist, and you belong to the religion of Atheism. Get over it.

ALTER2EGO -to- MEGADETH FAN:
Yes, the court can define the sun as a god. It would be a false god, but a god just the same. Likewise, the courts defined atheism as a religion. Since atheists reject the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, atheism amounts to false religion.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MEGADETH FAN:

To a confirmed atheist like you? What's the point, after you claimed the Catholic Nazis with their long history of false teachings were in reality teaching "Biblical" truths? If you can't figure out the difference between Biblical truth and religious falsehoods, after what I already told you, then there isn't much I can do for you.

DEFINITION OF "RELIGIOUS FALSEHOOD":
If a certain teaching is not in the Judeo-Christian Bible but a religion insists it is a Bible teaching, that is a false religious teaching. ANY religious teaching that is not supported by the Judeo-Christian Bible is a false religious teaching.


DEFINITION OF "BIBLICAL TRUTH":
"Religious truths" OR "Biblical truths" refers to teachings that are supported by scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible--based upon the context in which the scriptures are written in the Bible. Context refers to surrounding words, verses, and chapters.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- SWENSSON:

I've had long, drawn out discussions with you in the past in my "Precision in Nature" thread, in which you evaded all of my direct questions. I'm not interested in that routine again, so I'll pass. Besides, I've responded to most of the other people in this thread and don't feel obligated to respond to every single atheist who can't stand the fact that they belong to a religion.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MEGADETH FAN:
Anyone can say anything about a source, until what they say is tested against what the source actually says. What is it about that don't you get?

ALTER2EGO -to- MEGADETH FAN:
In that case, why are you up here arguing that atheism is not a religion? Since subjective opinion is all that matters, why are we having this conversation about the courts having defined atheism as a religion? It's all subjection; remember?


I see hypocrisy here.

 

And I maintain that your question assumed things that weren't necessarily true. If you have no interest in determining what is true and what isn't, then I can't stop you.

If you think that's an accurate representation of my posts in this thread, then you clearly don't read them.

 

But this, too, begs the question, since it assumes the conclusion you have already come to: that there is nothing that establishes the existence of God. Theists, of course, would disagree.

 

Where is your evidence for this? Catholics were about the only people that protesting anything the Nazis did when they protested Aktion T4.

This is a cartoon version of history. Where is your evidence that Catholicism acquired its doctrines from polytheism? Where is your evidence that Catholicism led to slavery? In fact, slavery was the common practice of all societies throughout history, before, during, and directly after the period the Church was dominant. It mostly died out only during the Middle Ages, replaced by relatively less severe forms of forced labor, and only rose again at a time when the Church's power was waning.

 

I don't think atheism is necessarily the default position, because someone could have a properly basic belief in the existence of God.

Additionally, while I don't know of any arguments for God that a committed atheist would find persuasive, there are arguments that could ground a reasonable belief in the existence of God. For example, take the kalam cosmological argument.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Both premises are reasonable to accept, so the conclusion is likewise reasonable to accept. William Lane Craig explains how the argument goes from there.

"In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists."
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

Again, nothing that would convert an atheist, but a theist could reasonably accept all of this as reasonable grounding for his theism.

 

They did but Hitler became greedy for power. Thus, stabbing Stalin in the back.

The world could use a few less psycho- & sociopaths as political leaders.

Next dream...

 

LOL! Certainly not by Hitler's actions. As always, actions speak louder than words.

FYI:

The Nazi party was founded in Munich, the capital of Bavaria, which was the most Catholic area of Germany. It has been insinuated that its Catholic culture was the seed-bed for this evil creed. From a distance this insinuation may seem credible, but closer examination disproves it...

Few of those involved with the founding of the Nazi party, or preparing its ideological roots, were Bavarians. Darwin, Galton, Spencer, Chamberlain and Besant were English. Gobineau was French, while Blavatsky came from Russia. List, Lanz and Hitler were Austrians. Rosenberg came from Estonia. Sebottendorff and Ludendorff were born In Prussia. Goebbels was a Rheinlander and Eckart a Wurtenburger. Hess, Hitler’s deputy, was born and educated in Egypt.

Four early Nazi leaders were Bavarians: Goering, Rohm, Streicher and Strasser. Goering, to become Hitler's third in command, was from a Protestant family, Rohm was an anti-Catholic homosexual ((WS 26 and 39)). Streicher taught in Protestant Nuremburg so as to avoid the opposition of the Catholic clergy. ((See: “Hitler's Rise to Power” on this web site)). Only Gregor Strasser, despite repeated condemnations of Nazism by the bishops, claimed he could be both a Nazi party member and remain a Catholic. Even so, he was very anti-Rome, opposed the Catholic parties, fought against the signing of Concordats between the Church and local states and helped the neo-pagan elements within the Protestant Church ((PDS 59)). In 1932 he led 60 moderate Nazi Reichstag members in a revolt against Hitler ((PDS 111)). Having failed, he resigned from office ((PDS 122)) and the next year called the Nazi leaders: ‘criminals’ ((PDS 121)). Hitler had him murdered in 1934 ((WLS 222)).

As most Bavarians were baptised Catholic, it is not surprising that the Nazi party was able to attract the electoral support of some who had rejected, or drifted from, their religious upbringing. But it was in the Protestant districts of Bavaria that the early Nazi party recruited the bulk of its members and electoral support ((See “Hitler’s Rise to Power’’ on this web site))...

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/roots(n)-2.htm

 

Skeptics demand evidence and sound reasoning for a claim, and an atheist is a skeptic who does not accept claims that there exists a theos.

I certainly find the "first cause" argument inadequate, particularly because of the part I highlighted in your post. I don't see where the assumption that the cause behind the universe's existence needs to be a "personal agent" comes from. This is basically claiming that when you get to the most fundamental basis of the universe, there's a mind of some sort operating behind it. I see no evidence to support that notion, and neither is it even reasonable to postulate as much. A mind as we know it is the product of a brain, after all, something that's been developing in life on Earth and is obviously in no position to create and govern a universe.

 

Strong words highlighted above being used by a possible skeptic. Is the use of such words implying that there is no other intelligence in the universe that might be superior to that of human-kind?

 

Does the use of those words mean that those words are the final answer to the riddle of the subject of mind?

 

The reason that the original and fundamental basis of existence would have intelligence is that exists as absolute Being, boundless and encompassing all existential qualities, which necessarily include intelligence. The key is whether the most basic and primordial state upon which all else is corollary is absolute Nothingness or absolute Being. I would argue that it can't be Nothingness because nothingness is not a state at all and logically cannot exist (how can non-existence exist?) and because nothingness can't cause anything.

 

Of course not. For all I know, the universe itself could constitute a mind or even be the dreamy product of one, BUT.. such a thing is pure speculation. It's all far into the realm of the Unknown for us humans, whether we're talking about our flat-earther ancestors or you and me today, we're only discussing possibilities.

When I turned atheist, I did so because I was through trying to convince myself of a biblical view of the universe that ran contrary to science. I have a fundamental love and respect for science because it is an honest enterprise (on the whole) and it gets results -- spectacular results at that! World-transforming results.

Both science and plain old skepticism can't find a theos operating anywhere. Simultaneously, these faculties can identify (rather easily at that) elements of the human psyche that can and do explain why people believe in gods, and believe in things contrary to observable facts. Some people look at a couple of knots in a wooden door and see the eyes of Jesus, for crying out loud, or see an image of the Virgin Mary in toast. Then we have more rational minds, which nonetheless are human and are prone to conditioning and bias, and any number of other faults. Add to that our basic fear of death, our bias towards recognising patterns in randomness, our little complexes such as needing a mother- a/o father-figure, our inherent superstition which, among other things, would have us associate natural events with human thoughts and actions... To me, this all adds up to a very obvious conclusion that god claims are bollocks, and nothing more. It's incredibly arrogant for someone to claim they know something they cannot actually know, and to preach it like The Truth to others. This is just what god believers do!

Now, fellas like Dawkins and myself (not trying to elevate myself here, but I've been accused of similar things to what he has before) are accused of behaving in like manner. When atheists get "militant" and go after religious claims head-on, they tend to be seen as arrogant, closed-minded and so forth by the religious. Very funny! Why is that? Thing is, even Dawkins doesn't say as an absolute that there is no God, but he does say the sensible thing: The existence of a god is highly unlikely, based on what we know about the universe. God's existence certainly begs the question of what God is and how it came into being. Of course, the biblical answers are simply something along the lines of "God is love" and "God has always existed." That, of course, is emotional gobbledegook & arrogance.

When a biologist, for instance, speaks of evolution, however, then you've got someone who's aware of how the theory works, i.e. is aware of the facts involved and can present them to an audience in order to make a convincing argument for evolution. In fact, there's a world full of scientists in various fields who do this, though primarily within the scientific community and in the college/university classroom. Well, this tends to limit who gets to understand the facts of evolution, because not only are they addressing a limited audience to begin with, but it takes a lot of brains and effort on the part of a potential learner to study and grasp it all in the first place. Most bible thumpers aren't going to do that, and many others won't approach it with an open mind, but will keep their divine creator in mind all the while, I suppose filtering the information through a sort of god-filter to try and keep their god belief compatible with the facts, even if it means distorting or ignoring certain facts.

 

This doesn't even make sense to me. What is "absolute Being" and how can it be called an intelligence? Intelligence is the product of a structured brain - how should it exist in another state? Can you be specific? I don't see why existence itself should ever be called an intelligence, a mind or any such thing.

 

Do more study. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html . In like manner, to say that God does not exist is more gobbledegook (as you stated) when you have no proof of such non-existence. Have you personally surveyed the extremes of the universe? No? Then certainly you have no proof of such non-existence.

 

All I'm saying is that the claims that God exists are unfounded and unreasonable. It doesn't even make sense to expect someone to prove the denial of an unproven claim!

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim that there is a god, same as it's on the person claiming that there's a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars.

 

Simply because you have only observed intelligences seated within brains does not mean that they are the product of brains or only the product of brains.

If we can accept that, in order for existence to exist, there must be some entity that exists out of logical necessity (i.e. because it would illogical for it to not exist), not contingent on anything else, we can try to use deductive logic to analyze the qualities of that entity. First, we note that it can't be nothingness because nothingness can't cause anything. So it must be some primordial existential state that exists necessarily and on which all else is corollary.

We must also note that such a thing is likely to be a very simply entity, meaning that it is not composed of finite parts. This is because, first, a simple entity is more likely to be the cause of a more complex entity, and, second, a simple entity is more likely to be logically necessary than a complex entity.

Therefore, the entity in most likely to be the simplest possible state of existence--other than nothingness, which cannot exist.

The simplest possible state of existence is existence without any finite boundaries or limits, since that is what creates complexity. Complex entities are composed of numerous finite parts, making them riddled with boundaries. An absolutely simple entity, on the other hand, would have no such boundaries and finite parts.

An absolutely simple entity, then, would be an absolute, infinite, boundless, limitless All-ness. It would be the precise opposite of Nothingness. We can therefore see why it would exist as the most primordial state of Being. The most primordial state of Being is not Nothingness, but the opposite of Nothingness.

And since an All-ness, in order to be an All-ness, must encompass all qualities of existence, it must also encompass the quality of intelligence. Why are some things in the Universe intelligent while others are not? It is because the Universe, a complex entity, has numerous boundaries and therefore numerous parts; there are boundaries between those parts that are intelligent and those that are not. All-ness, on the other hand, has no boundaries and no parts and so nothing to divide and restrict that quality to a certain part.

 

I have only begun to wade through this particular section, and while I am not about to jump into this fray in the middle of the discussion, I do have a few comments to make. At least as far as this particular discussion goes, Megadethfan, you have got to be the most patient (or perhaps tenacious is a better word) person I have ever read. The second the person I was debating with began to speak of truth as being objective, I would have washed my hands and moved on. ESPECIALLY in regards to religion and spirituality. It might be fun for a short time, but eventually it is going to grow too tiresome to continue. So, seriously..hats off.
And Alter2Ego, if it really really makes you feel better to call atheism a religion so that you can then pronounce it a false religion, then, by all means, have at it. Obviously you feel that every single non christian religion, and apparently every sect of Christianity which is not the one you specifically adhere to, is a false one. I can only presume that that is not quite enough for you, so you NEED atheism to be brought into the false religion fold as well. I suppose we all have our quirks, and the continuous locating and identifying of false religions is yours. At least I know that you don't have one of those "in case of rapture, this car will be unmanned" bumper stickers on your car. I really hate those.

 

What would you expect them to find? How would you expect them to detect through empirical experimentation an entity that transcends dimensional space and time? The only way is through miracles, in which the entity clearly intercedes within space and time. There have been some well-attested and likely miracles, such as when Christ appeared to 500 people after his death or when the sun "danced" and spun in the sky before 30,000-100,000 witnesses at Fatima.

However, it seems that Western atheists reject these occurrences as well, instead proffering materialistic explanations, however strained. These is because, as materialists and positivists, they are already under the assumption that materialistic entities (i.e. entities within space and time) are all that there is or all that can be detected and spoken intelligibly about.

But that's circular reasoning, isn't it? You reject the possibility of anything beyond the material because there is no evidence in the form of a miracle. Yet you reject evidence of miracles as impossible or at least more implausible then even the most roundabout and bizarre materialistic explanation because you have already rejected the possibility of anything beyond the material.