Atheism

What are this forum's views with atheism? I'm one

The vast majority of people here are atheistic, and many, albeit not all, are ferociously anti-religion in any sense, with one or two being specifically anti-Semitic.

I personally am an Orthodox Jew. I get along reasonably well with a few of the atheists (they know who they are), clash with many (they ALSO know who they are), and naturally have no tolerance for the one or two anti-Semites (who MOST CERTAINLY know who they are).

In any case, although the primary "theorists" of "Flat Earth Theory" were mostly devout Christians, and used the Christian Bible to shore up their beliefs (think Rowbotham, Voliva, et al.), most of the FEers in here have been Atheists in my experience. Then again, So have most of the REers.

I am a Round Earther myself. And there certainly are other believers here, although I think most are Christian. One or two are Muslim, perhaps as many as five. I know there IS another Jew here, but he is not a religious one, to my knowledge.

So, my friend, you are in good company. Although I don't in any wise agree with you, welcome aboard. And do enjoy your stay.

I would say there are several fundamental Christians on the FE side, as they love to quote the KJV Bible literally.

Could you join me on the vegan debate? Thanks.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65849.510

There have always been a few Christian fundies on this site, but now it seems there are a lot more. I suspect most of them think they're trolling the FES with their bible quotes. Same with the Islamic bunch. Roundies can't help replying to every thread they make.

I am agnostic, leaning towards atheism. Having been raised Baptist, it's difficult to completely wipe out the possibility of there being some god out there, but realistically there's no reason to think a higher power created all this bullshit.

Not sure what to call myself. I consider the idea of a physical god, i.e. a god that could be observed as part of the empirical universe, to be not wrong, but incoherent. The attributes generally attributed to god are impossible to observe, so we can certainly never gain any emprical knowledge of god.

Since, evidently, we also don't have any a-priori knowledge of god, what remains is the pure idea of god, that our reason seems to be compelled to produce to avoid the problem of infinite regression. Based on that idea, one may hope for a god, or one may conclude that this god is really just an ideal for ourselves to strive after. I like the notion that everyone carries their god around in themselves, as an ideal containing a perfect version of themselves and the universe.

I would really like to talk about God without being constantly insulted. There is one argument for his existence that makes some sense to me: the argument from desire. Basically, it's that all the human beings evidently, since there has always been some form of religion, have a desire for God. Well, when we naturally desire something, we can assume it exists. Human beings naturally desire water, and water exists. Human beings naturally desire food, and there is such thing as food. Why then wouldn't god exist? Of course, there is still a problem of evil, but it assumes that, if there is a god, it's omnipotent. It doesn't have to be. So, what do you think about it?

I would really like to talk about God without being constantly insulted. There is one argument for his existence that makes some sense to me: the argument from desire. Basically, it's that all the human beings evidently, since there has always been some form of religion, have a desire for God. Well, when we naturally desire something, we can assume it exists. Human beings naturally desire water, and water exists. Human beings naturally desire food, and there is such thing as food. Why then wouldn't god exist? Of course, there is still a problem of evil, but it assumes that, if there is a god, it's omnipotent. It doesn't have to be. So, what do you think about it?

That is an interesting idea, but the difference here is that food and water aren't desires, they are necessities. You will die without them. The desire for a god, to me, is a desire to think there's something else besides this life. Something more meaningful. We invented gods to fill that desire.

When it comes to desiring food, it's not nutrition you desire, it's flavor and texture. If you're hungry you will eat plain food and feel satisfied. I think most of us don't know hunger.

The number of religious people, even on the RE side, has increased significantly during the last 2 years. Strange that there are no real Neopagan New Age Hippie Cranks. FE should be attractive to those kind of people. There are also no Buddhists, no Hindus. That's sad, their presence would add colour to the often occuring religious questions on this forum. I find that the identification of Religion with Belief in God is a fallacy, that makes the whole debate of religion somewhat irrelevant to me.

As for me, I am quite 100% certain that God does not exist, because I can observe how this concept has originated in history. I am 100% certain that there is no Pink Unicorn for the same reason (I know who invented it). I am completely unbiased agnostic about the existence of fairies, because in this case I can't.

FalseProphet, that is simply a stupid response, if I may be so bold. To say you know that no G-d exists implies that you are absolutely CERTAIN that the Universe came about by chance or accident. It simply isn't possible to know that. And the odds are so far against it anyway that...

I would really like to talk about God without being constantly insulted. There is one argument for his existence that makes some sense to me: the argument from desire. Basically, it's that all the human beings evidently, since there has always been some form of religion, have a desire for God. Well, when we naturally desire something, we can assume it exists. Human beings naturally desire water, and water exists. Human beings naturally desire food, and there is such thing as food. Why then wouldn't god exist? Of course, there is still a problem of evil, but it assumes that, if there is a god, it's omnipotent. It doesn't have to be. So, what do you think about it?

I'm with Space Cowgirl in that your analogy doesn't really fit. Belief in a higher being isn't that kind of need. But it does seem to be an intellectual desire - perhaps even a necessity - for emotional and logical reasons. Emotional because we cannot imagine ourselves being gone, so we assume an afterlife which often, but not necessarily, includes a god. Logical because we try to find unifying principle behind all our experience, and that leads us to the highest unity, the absolutely necessary being, aka God.

FalseProphet, that is simply a stupid response, if I may be so bold. To say you know that no G-d exists implies that you are absolutely CERTAIN that the Universe came about by chance or accident. It simply isn't possible to know that. And the odds are so far against it anyway that...

It's possible to conclude that that which has no empirical evidence to support it doesn't empirically (physicall) exist. This isn't "certainity" in the strictest sense, but it is as close as we can get. Nevertheless, I do agree with you insofar as the (non-)existance of a metaphysical God is impossible to know.

As to "knowing" the Universe came about by chance or accident: It's a necessary conclusion. Science cannot possibly supply evidence of creation. By looking at the universe through the lense of possible experience, we will always only see the laws of nature (which in reality are all in our heads) at work, never a creator. Our perception distills the laws and regularities from that which we experience and would, even if a creator exists, always hide his hands behind the laws.

FalseProphet, that is simply a stupid response, if I may be so bold. To say you know that no G-d exists implies that you are absolutely CERTAIN that the Universe came about by chance or accident. It simply isn't possible to know that. And the odds are so far against it anyway that...

No, I am not certain of that. All I say is that there is much more than  a choice between  Atheism in the common sense (=Ontological Reductionism) and Theism (=Belief in a personal ruler and creator of the universe). Both ideas seem rather primitive for me. That's what I mean, when I say, that this whole Atheism\Theism debate between those two sides is rather irrelevant to me. The only remarkable statement that I know in this context stems from the director of the Vatican Observatory, Father George V. Coyne, when he said to Richard Dawkins: "God is not a designer." God is also no ruler and no judge. God is not even a cause. God is not G-d at all.

God is not G-d at all.

In the sense that they are spelled differently then yes.

Otherwise, another epic logical fail from the Clown Derf posse.

This thread has great potential for lulz; atheists are easily the most hapless of all the woebegone creatures inhabiting the interwebz.

Why?

Because they believe they're the smartest...

And, as Laurel & Hardy proved, dumb people who believe they're smart are an endless source of slapstick fun.

dumb people who believe they're smart are an endless source of slapstick fun.

I used to think so when I first found this site. It is still funny somehow, but it is also sad. Laurel and Hardy are funny because they are not real. Real life idiots are sad. Sometimes they are funny, but actually they are sad.

Real life idiots are sad. Sometimes they are funny, but actually they are sad.

No.

No; to me you're just funny.

Are you hungover btw?

You're funny.

Thanks. But I hope it's a disinterested compliment.

Thanks. But I hope it's a disinterested compliment.

You are hungover aren't you?

Because that was the worst attempt at a 'NO U!!!' by any Clown Derfer, ever.

Kinda creepy too...

But creepiness comes with the territory when you're dealing with the JREF disinfo-hive.

It may have something to do with the fact that JREF was founded by a predatory homosexual paedophile?

Toodle-pip, time-wasting sock-puppet shill who's not Dinosaur Neil at all, no siree-bob not him!

(lol it is DN cuz no-one else could sound that much like a chintzy old dyke! Well, except markjo on occasion; & we all know what HIS kink is, don't we?)

Not a Designer, eh? Well, I am not a Catholic, so I don't have to agree with said priest. And it is equally stupid to say he is not a Cause, Ruler, or Judge.

To even make the argument that G-d might exist but isn't really G-d is nonsensical. If the Ontological Argument has been forgotten or never learned, allow me to spark your memory.

I can conceive of a Being a Greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.

Existence is greater than nonexistence.

Ergo, G-d exists.

Your statements purportedly make hash of that. In reality, they do not. They merely make you look foolish.

So where do we go from here?  Atheism is a fundamentally stupid and destructive perspective that leads to the exaltation of man over all Creation, as if WE were  actually responsible for it. We have seen what unbridled atheism accomplishes. To set oneself up as G-d, to make man the master of all he surveys is a very dangerous thing.

Quote from: Clare Balding on April 24, 2016, 03:30:54 AM

Thanks. But I hope it's a disinterested compliment.

brabbelbrabbel

You are creepy.

To set oneself up as G-d, to make man the master of all he surveys is a very dangerous thing.

You are correct.

But this is a very thorny issue.

For knowledge of all the sephirot bar Keter will make a Man believe he is G-d, and give him great power.

But the final gate before Keter is Impassable.

And the oldest name for the keeper of that gate is Legba.

Realising that the gate to Keter can never be opened is the beginning of Enlightenment.

But realising why the gate can never be opened is a very destructive process.

Which is why so many strictures are put upon the study of Kabbalah.

Because it will destroy the unprepared & foolhardy.

This comment has an audience of one, Yaakov; yourself.

No-one else here has the slightest chance of understanding it.

Indeed, Papa Legba do I see your point. And that is PRECISELY why it becomes so silly when people with shallow minds like Madonna attempt to study Kabbalah.

 However, if it were only silly I could live it. The problem is that it is positively dangerous. And these Kabbalist institutions, once respectable, that now cater and pander to that kind of thing, the training of the unprepared and unqualified, to get gain, and to get their name in the media and thus obtain the glory of men, will one day have to answer to a Judge whose opinion is far more relevant than mine.

The problem with celebrities like Madonna getting into 'Kabbalah' is that their profession is entirely reliant upon their having huge egos.

True, they also rely on manipulating emotions, & Kabbalistic knowledge will certainly help them achieve this...

But the single greatest obstacle between Man & Keter is Ego.

Which is why even gaining a glimpse of why Keter is inaccessible can be so destructive.

It is also why all prophets, from all religions, speak of 'awe', 'humility', 'fearing God', 'becoming as a little child', 'having no mind', etc, when coming anywhere close to the knowing of the will of God...

Legba is the oldest Deity of all mankind; yet he, & all the other voodoo Loa, slot neatly into the structure of Kabbalah...

All Deities from all religions do; this is why Kabbalah is the greatest intellectual achievement of Judaism, if not of all mankind.

Seriously; props to the Jews, they ain't anyone's mugs.

Respect is due.

And now one can begin to understand Moshe Rabinu (Moses our Teacher) at the Burning Bush. Papa Legba indeed!

"'Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?

And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'""  Exodus 3:13-14, NKJV.

Moshe Rabinu truly spoke with Papa Legba. Legba is but a Face of the Great I AM. 3400 years ago did the I AM choose to speak with a humble shepherd, once a prince of Egypt, and in so choosing, did he set a People free.

And that People has blessed the world through Torah and Prophets, and Writings. Through the People of Israel has the bulk of civilisation been derived. European laws, customs, and culture, are mostly biblically based, and the NT is based on the Hebrew Bible it claims (but fails utterly) to supercede.

I knew you'd get it.

Judaism took the basic principles of animism & refined them to logico-philosophical perfection.

Burning bush/burning ego (I AM); a glimpse of Keter through the bonfire of the Idols...

And that one glimpse of Keter made them all, as one, vow to never be any man's slave again.

And they've stuck to that vow through hell & high water.

Props to them Jews...

Still; I like the old ways.

I have to.

I owe Legba.

Some things are non-negotiable.

The key to G-d has ALWAYS been to see His face as you are able. After all, only Moses has ever seen the true Face of G-d and lived.

Some see Jesus. Others see Papa Legba. Others see that which is. Krishna. Buddha. In these and countless other manifestations we are seeing what the Lord LETS us see. Jews may be the Chosen People, but even we have not been able to see the True Face of G-d. Only Moses has been granted that, AND the ability not to die doing it!

Dunno, Yaakov; you seem to be straying close to anthropomorphising here & that's the lulziest mistake of the atheists...

Their conception of God is similar to that of a 6-year old kid's conception of Santa Claus; thus they act like sulking little brats who never got over being told Santa's not real & are continually acting out.

All deities are ultimately Abstractions of one form or other; the Judaic G-d, however, is a different matter.

To say it is the fount from which all Abstractions flow is not enough; it is more than that.

It is impossible to speak of, frankly; words do not suffice.

The commentaries of Maimonides are good in this regard.

Enough of that for now though; where are all these Atheists?

I have questions for them...

Good questions!

Oh, I agree. Seeing G-d in human form is lazy. It is what is permitted for those who won't work harder. What WAS the Face of G-d that Moshe saw? I don't know. But it was something that no ordinary human could see and survive. Clearly NOT a typical human face!

Seeing the true Face of G-d is NOT Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, or any of those things. They are pale imitations of the True and Only G-d. For Moshe to even survive the Burning Bush experience must have been something, let alone the Revelation of Torah.

G-d is Spirit. And yet he has a Face. What is it? What is the sound of one hand clapping to a deaf man? A sentence with no meaning, yet full of significance to the blind man who would truly see.

G-d is all, and yet he is null. He who hath an ear, let him hear!

Multifundamentalist Rubbish

It is fascinating to see that you can express yourself in articulated sentences, but you shouldn't. You sound like a freaky poser, who pretends to understand something about Kabbala and Voodoo. (except for Yaakov, who applauds to everybody who bootlicks his Jewish ass.).

To even make the argument that G-d might exist but isn't really G-d is nonsensical. If the Ontological Argument has been forgotten or never learned, allow me to spark your memory.

I can conceive of a Being a Greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.

Existence is greater than nonexistence.

Ergo, G-d exists.

And the argument is bullshit. Terms can be empty without being imperfect, the second premise is unfounded. Existence and nonexistence are relations of a term to reality. By changing the relation of the term to reality (from "existance" to "nonexistance" or vice versa) I do not change the contents of the term.

While I can treat existance as a quasi-predicate and incorporate it into a term, this makes the argument tautological.