I Am An Antitheist

@suzie1960 Are we real?

@Emosaur Is it God, or just how God has been interpreted by powerful people over time?

@WoodyAq If "god" existed and were all-powerful as christians claim, no man, no matter how powerful, could misrepresent it. It's far more likely that powerful people invented "god" (in their own image) in order to suppress the people.

@Emosaur I'm actually not up on my religion, so I may be wrong, but I don't think the bible is considered the literal word of God by Catholics. Certain sects of Christianity assert it, but the founders didn't and most Christian scholars don't.

The Koran is, however, considered to be the literal word of God.

But as to why he hasn't commissioned an update, maybe he is, and we've been slow to listen.

@suzie1960 ...not to mention the fact that if a god really created us in his own image we would all be invisible. 🤔

@suzie1960 You are assuming God has a particular modus operandi that I haven't heard before. What I've gleaned is that God has given us the tools, and gently guides us, but we need to find the answers on our own.

He's all powerful - he's not our underling, there to make life easy for us.

As for the powerful people argument: the most powerful tyrants were atheists, who used rationalism to oppress. Is rationalism therefore a tool of suppression?

@fazer1k LOL.

@WoodyAq In the UK, the most powerful person is the head of the Church of England and the most powerful people are, at least nominally, christians. The church is able to appoint its own representatives in Parliament (House of Lords). State ("public") schools are required to hold "broadly christian" religious assemblies of their students each day and to actively promote christianity.

When the Romans were converted to christianity, they used it as a means to suppress opposition. Other oppressive governments have done the same. Atheists use rational argument to educate, not to oppress.

@suzie1960 The Romans co-opted Christianity to maintain their power, taking a lot of positive elements into their rule.

As for Atheists, rational arguments and education: yeah, that explains why there were/are "re-education" camps all over the Soviet Union and China. The North Koreans are the atheists who are particularly fond of using "rational argument".

@WoodyAq Schools actively promoting christanity are really just a form of "re-education camp".

@suzie1960 My son went to a Catholic school and was never once subjected to brutal forced labour with minimal food in remote rural areas.

But what you've essentially argued is that there is no difference between atheism and religion.

@WoodyAq
[quote]But what you've essentially argued is that there is no difference between atheism and religion[/quote]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Atheism is simply non-acceptance of the claim that deities exist and, as there is no proof deities do exist, that is the rational position. A belief in something for which there is no hard evidence is irrational. There really is no comparison.

@fazer1k I'd like know too.

@WoodyAq Which country was that?

@fazer1k Well, there is no hard evidence for a Hell of a lot of things. The idea that we only can know what we can prove rules out a lot of stuff that we nonetheless think we know. We can't actually prove for example, any of the details of what global warming might do to the planet. These are conjectures about the future, for which we have simulations, but not hard evidence. Ergo, climate change doesn't exist?

For that matter, we have no hard evidence that the world we perceive is real, and not some giant simulation. (A couple of prominent physicists have asserted this).

So what you are saying is that everything that can't be demonstrated in a controlled laboratory setting doesn't exist?

You are right. There is no comparison.

@WoodyAq There is evidence that could point to climate change, the hypothesis is not based on nothing at all.

There is no evidence that "god" exists. Various things that sometimes presented as evidence are better explained otherwise by reference to demonstrable facts.

@WoodyAq I'm saying that beliefs that cannot be demonstrated via factual evidence are irrational.

There is plenty of evidence for climate change - less so for man-made climate change but the whole area of climate change research draws on evidence gathered through scientific research and is, therefore, rational.

Scientific research with regard to evolution and creation suggests intelligent design could not have been a factor so the evidence we do have actually suggests no god/gods were involved. To believe in a god when the only evidence available actually suggests deities do not exist is irrational.

So, yes, clearly there is no comparison.

@fazer1k What is the evidence that we exist, are not just reflections of information swirling around an event horizon of a black hole? (Some physicists believe this is the case).

Intelligent design is a recent theory, and it isn't the only game in town. There are other conceptions of God's role in the universe.

So you provided some evidence that one of those formulations is inconsistent, and have leapt to the idea that therefore they all are. Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

@WoodyAq [quote]What is the evidence that we exist, [/quote]

Cogito ergo sum.

Intelligent Design isn't a theory, it's just a clumsy attempt to get around a ban on teaching religion in US schools.

@suzie1960 Yes, but I actually meant in the physical form our senses perceive? That we aren't bits of 0/1 's on a mainframe in some mad scientist's basement? And if we were, would that make her God?

@WoodyAq That's what Descartes was trying to answer. In a way, everything is just a force field.

@suzie1960 Yeah, I got through his cowardly preamble, and to his big thesis, but I felt the whole thing kinda drifted after that.

@WoodyAq

We know we exist because we consist of measurable matter and have the senses to realise we do. Again the problem with the idea you cite is a complete lack of supporting evidence.

Once again if we are to talk about a deity's role in the universe we need to know a deity actually exists. I know of no evidence based scientific research supporting the idea that deities do exist - certainly nothing as compelling as the age of the earth and evolution working against the idea, anyway. I don't consider prioritising evidence over and above conjecture to be a lap of faith.

I see no more reason to believe in deities than any other mythical creatures. None have any supporting evidence at all.

@fazer1k We know we exist. And we know what our senses are telling us. And we can draw a semi-coherent picture out of some of the stuff our senses are telling us.

That's a lot, but it is really nothing. We cannot, for example, even prove that our senses are not systematically deceiving us to existence's true nature, and we will never be able to.

More broadly, to argue that the only things that exist and matter are things we can process through the scientific method is a very limited view of the universe. There is a whole lot that matters to who we are that we can't and will never be able to.

As Einstein (I think) once said, not only is the universe stranger than we suppose, it is stranger than we can suppose. Einstein believed in God.

He also, I learned yesterday, hated Asians.