A Passage from MIT Engineering Professor Thomas Sheridan's Book, 'Respectful Atheism' (Creator, delusion)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I don't even care if I'm an 'atheist' or not, or if anyone else is, or isn't, whatever that label is. At this point in my life, I'm so over all of it and could not care less.

I know that the Noah story, for example, is a myth, as is the rest of it. That's an obvious fact of deduction to me, and something I'm not in denial about, like perhaps others are about it. The creation stories are not actual reality.

The Christian God character clearly falls into the same boat, and the magical supernatural Jesus claims. However, yes, maybe some kind of deist type entity created the universe and planned all of this- none of us could have any clue about that.

As far as respect, I only respect the people that deserve it, and that show an equal respect and decency and thoughtfulness themselves. And I respect only the ideas/notions that deserve it. I think that's pretty fair.

As an atheist spokesperson (my Authority is proven by my habitual use of the word "We") that looks fine. Those who are not against us are for us, pretty much, including the apatheists (don't care -ists) and the Atheist church of satano -Dawkinism has no problem with that, if it has no problem with anyone not only being atheist (bad enough rap) but is activist about it, which threatens to bring down civilization, put all Christian in prison camps and cause the destruction of the world.

All kidding (and fundamentalist projection) aside, the universal pink goo preached in the gospels (where it is not threatening utter destruction for everyone) is a bad moral system, and as you say, we have to exercise judgement. And that is not on the religious agenda any more than critical thinking or the scientific method.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz

I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement, that expresses belief in nonbelief: Namely, 'I don't believe, even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay. You can have a hypothesis; you have to have some evidence against or for that.'

He's a liar and a fraud and he has cleverly crafted a Straw Man.

I didn't just "declare" myself an Atheist one day on a whim.

I only did so after years of intensive study of the evidence he pretends doesn't exist.

And he's bereft of intelligence. You can tell him from me he's a liar and stupid.

Anyone who studies the evidence he claims doesn't exist can see the shift in theological thought over the millennium.

The Deluge was caused by a celestial phenomenon that the "gods" were powerless to stop.

Millenia later it shifts to the Deluge was caused by a celestial phenomenon that the "gods" could have prevented but didn't because they're mean spirited bastards.

Millenia later it shifts to the Deluge was caused by the "gods" as punishment.

Those shifts parallel the shifts from polytheism to henotheism to monolatry.

I'm sorry, but neither Jews nor x-tians are monotheists. There were other gods. Yahweh says so and we have the Book of the Wars of Yahweh where he sided with gods against other gods and while that book no longer exists we do have three parallel source texts that give us an idea of what was going on.

Additionally, those shifts parallel reward and punishment. Yahweh has to reward or punish people in the here and now because once they die they cannot be rewarded or punished because neither Heaven nor Hell exist.

B-b-b-b-b-b-but Sheol!

That's called an anachronism. That fact that Jews say it means Hell now is not proof it always meant Hell and it's crystal clear from the texts it does not mean Hell.

Hell didn't exist until the Greeks concocted it and they conjured it up based on the mistranslation of one Sumerian word: AB.ZU.

The Greeks believed the Earth was flat and as far as they were concerned there was nothing south of the Sahara or Ethiopia. If you don't believe that read Ptolemy.

Ptolemy lists all the know kingdoms/territories and the center of Ptolemy's World was a point, well, there's nothing there, but it's in northwest Iraq. I got close to there when I was in Iraq. It's near the border of Syria and Turkey and all desert. Units from the US VII Corps were training there in 1989-1990 so's they could invade Iraq later. It's roughly 37°N 42.5°E.

The Greeks just couldn't accept that something could be "down under" and to them that meant down under the Earth and Hell was born.

But, people were in the AB.ZU.

The discovery of ancient wooden logs in the banks of a river in Zambia has changed archaeologists' understanding of ancient human life.

Researchers found evidence the wood had been used to build a structure almost half a million years ago.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66846772

That guy smells like an x-tian masquerading as an Atheist/Agnostic because like all x-tians he commits the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Why are there x-tians? Because the Greeks were suckers. The Jews rightfully rejected Jesus because he didn't fit any of the prophecies but the Greeks no nothing of the prophecies so it was easy to lie to them.

What came before x-tians? Judaism.

What came before Judaism?

Polytheism.

There are no Jews or Hebrews or Israelites. There's only Terah, the chief priest for the god El Shaddai (NIN.UR.TA in Sumerian) who lives in the Akkadian city of Ur.

El Shaddai's father is EN.LIL and his brother is AD.DAD aka Hadad and his sister is I.AN.NA.

Everyone in the ancient Near East worshipped a pantheon of 12 gods, 11 men and 1 woman and the Hebrews were right there with them worshipping the same gods.

Terah takes Abram/Abraham to Haran which is the principle city of El Shaddai in the Hurrian kingdom.

When Arbram comes to Canaan he brings 14 clay tablets with him consisting of the 7 tablets of creation and 3 tablets about the Deluge and 4 tablets of miscellaneous stories like the division of Earth. He may have started a 15th tablet but it was Jacob who finished the 15th and 16th tablets because those two deal with the Edomites who were founded by Jacob's brother Esau.

Those 16 tablets comprise the first 36 chapters of Genesis which the Hebrews revised quite often over the centuries.

It will be delightfully delicious when they find the pre-756 BCE E or P Texts because it will have the names of Enki, Ningishiddza and Ninhursag and when there'll be lots of suicides when x-tians realize the "Satan" they've been hating on all this time is the one who created humans according to the stories.

That's right, elohim does not mean "god" in the singular. It means gods in the plural and the fact that Jews claim it means god in the singular is not proof it never meant gods in the plural.

The Nippurian Calendar is a 6,000 year calendar with a specific end-date for a particular reason and the Hebrews adopted it so it's called the Jewish calendar now, but if you go to Jewish websites they'll say the calendar extends beyond 6,000 years.

Sorry, no, wrong, but it proves my point.

No one has ever seen a god or had contact with one because none exist and we know that to be true because x-tians have repeatedly failed for 6 centuries to translate 100s of passages in the texts correctly.

Even worse, the Hebrews have failed to correctly translate 100s of passages for 2,000+ years and it's because they are not in contact with any god or inspired by any god or guided by any god.

So, Judaism, x-tianity and by extension Islam are all concocted religions with no gods.

One day of the Brahmin is 4,320,000,000 and one night the same number of years. Life can only exist in the day of the Brahmin and Earth has been around for 4.5 Billion years so either we have a defective Brahmin or it doesn't exist.

Hinduism is a crap religion and there are no gods there. All other religions are variations of those 4 so they're all crap. Shintoism? Yeah, worship your dead ancestors if you want, but they are not gods.

Why elohim?

Do you know who Kilosquah is?

Squah = woman. Kilo = sun. Sun Woman. She's the granddaughter of Me-shi-kin-no-quah.

Do you know who he is? Nope. How about Pa-pa-kee-chee? No, you don't and as far as you and everyone else is concerned they're "Injuns."

Wait a few centuries and people will say Injuns means one person in the singular.

I know who they are.

Their god put them in a clam shell which washed up on a beach in British Columbia. That beach is still called that name to this day but I can't remember what it is.

They lived in Canada and then after White people came to the Americas they illegally immigrated to Indiana and Ohio.

I know that because I used to shoot at archery competitions at Miami University with Mah-kah-la-kee-chee (Black Belly) who was a Miami Indian.

Who's to say their god is not the right god?

It just proves humans conjured up gods in their image and their likeness.

If I mix Sodium Hydroxide with Hydrochloric Acid I get water and NaCl, you know, table salt.

Why?

The default position is not "god did it."

If I heat Green River Shale Oil in a cracking still I will get a variety of petro-chemicals but I won't get any gasoline.

Why? The default position is not "god did it." I don't get gasoline because Green River Shale Oil like most shale oils has no C8H18 (Octane) but I do get constituent chemical components that turn into vapors when heated.

For the same reason, the default position for "Who created the Universe?" is not "god did it."

In fact, it's just as plausible that humanoids created it. We're not alone in this Universe and we all know it.

We'll be able to sustain a fusion reaction within the next year or two and from there we'll be able to create black holes and then ultimately mini-verses.

The short answer is people who want to believe in god-things are defective.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by Mircea

For the same reason, the default position for "Who created the Universe?" is not "god did it."

"Who created the universe?" is in itself a dumb question, which in itself makes a strange assumption that someone or some kind of entity created existence itself. And assumes that's even a valid question (as far as whether time/space can be created, etc.) I understand people want to put a human face on things, and to have a 'reason why' for their understanding of things, but that doesn't seem to be the type of universe that we live in... one where anything is created, I mean. There's no "Who created Jupiter", or "Why was Jupiter created"... it just formed apathetically from the interactions of matter and gravity in a particular area of space... and so did everything else in the universe, and... probably the entire universe itself.

Not to mention the fact that what we call the universe... we have no evidence to say that that's the only universe that's ever been, or that's out there now. Maybe there are a hundred billion universes in space, just like there are a hundred billion galaxies in this universe.

A more pertinent question would be... why is there anything at all. Why does existence itself exist? Not just the matter and everything that exists within existence, but just, existence itself. That I don't know, and any explanations I've heard are mostly just speculation (that pure nothingness is unstable, or impossible, etc.) And also of course the usual "God did it" lazy theistic type explanation for the unknown.

Also, was there a prime mover/"uncaused cause", at the beginning of existence. Does time, or the concept of events or causality even make sense at that scale, etc.

Any decent atheist or rational or science-informed person, will admit that most of the answers are "we don't know". We have no way of knowing, and probably as humans will never really know these answers. But that's a better position than the over confident theists. Who just pick an answer they want/like, and just assume that's correct without any real objective verification.

God/religion/heaven/all that, in inherently biased as what people want to be true. People believe in it because they want it to be true and it's comforting to them. That's an inherent bias and evidence against any of it being real. Existence is not the comforting or nice or warm place we might wish it was.

It's harsh, cold, nature. Nature is not sentimental. Nor should it be anthropomorphized (e.g. God.)

[TRANSPONDER]

As I go on, the 'don't know' response seems more and more significant, because it really doesn't matter. Even if Cosmic origins,morality of Consciousness made for a theistic case (They don't) that might accomplish the goal of disproving atheism, but we'd just be at 'which god?'. The response 'There is only one god' is as much of an invalid faithclaim as any other and appeals to personal experiences, answered prayer and - of course - the Bible are all invalid.

The fact (if one accepts logic) is that theist arguments just about all fail, from kalam to Gospel reliability because they are based on faith in a god - (and mostly a particular god) to begin with,and that shews the logic and making is,thus, illogical from start to finish. This not just a logical technicality but a practical invalidation of all theist argument because Kalam (though Cosmic origins is a puzzle) it is only relevant if a god is posited as this claimed origin. The protest that I have sometimes seen that Kalam doesn't mention a god, is simply crafty and dishonest because proving a god is obviously the only point in the argument in a religious debate as otherwise it would be a (poor) science argument (1).

But given it is a god claim, the Bible is supposed to say which god. Ot rather which religion, because the OT leads to three competing religions. Bottom line, the resurrection -claim fails through contradiction. An there the excuses and invented explanations fail because they are the less probable explanation and only look good to someone who wants to beleive it - the a priori faithclaim again.

They are all arguing under the illogical belief that God, Jesus and the Bible are the default theory and they are not and really never were. Disbelief until better validation, is the default hypothesis. But Theists can never understand, much less credit that.

(1) I also have a bit of a beef with religious philosophers. These arguments smack of what I see as a fault - philosophy trying to do the job of research science. Kalam or ontological or indeed argument from morality or consciousness are all invalid because they try to make probability arguments come out as verified data when we really don't know until science finds out.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

As I go on, the 'don't know' response seems more and more significant, because it really doesn't matter. Even if Cosmic origins,morality of Consciousness made for a theistic case (They don't) that might accomplish the goal of disproving atheism, but we'd just be at 'which god?'. The response 'There is only one god' is as much of an invalid faithclaim as any other and appeals to personal experiences, answered prayer and - of course - the Bible are all invalid.

The fact (if one accepts logic) is that theist arguments just about all fail, from kalam to Gospel reliability because they are based on faith in a god - (and mostly a particular god) to begin with,and that shews the logic and making is,thus, illogical from start to finish. This not just a logical technicality but a practical invalidation of all theist argument because Kalam (though Cosmic origins is a puzzle) it is only relevant if a god is posited as this claimed origin. The protest that I have sometimes seen that Kalam doesn't mention a god, is simply crafty and dishonest because proving a god is obviously the only point in the argument in a religious debate as otherwise it would be a (poor) science argument (1).

But given it is a god claim, the Bible is supposed to say which god. Ot rather which religion, because the OT leads to three competing religions. Bottom line, the resurrection -claim fails through contradiction. An there the excuses and invented explanations fail because they are the less probable explanation and only look good to someone who wants to beleive it - the a priori faithclaim again.

They are all arguing under the illogical belief that God, Jesus and the Bible are the default theory and they are not and really never were. Disbelief until better validation, is the default hypothesis. But Theists can never understand, much less credit that.

(1) I also have a bit of a beef with religious philosophers. These arguments smack of what I see as a fault - philosophy trying to do the job of research science. Kalam or ontological or indeed argument from morality or consciousness are all invalid because they try to make probability arguments come out as verified data when we really don't know until science finds out.

You have always been overly confident in your atheism, Arq (much as I was pre-encounter). Philosophical arguments vary in intellectual rigor and probability arguments that are NOT based on empirical datasets of occurrences (which none of the religious ones are) have limited to no actual value or validity. The latter is something Harry seems unaware of in his reliance on Bayesian analyses of religious issues (the frequency of human opinions and beliefs do not constitute an empirical dataset about Reality itself). Theism is a faith claim but it is NOT an attempt to disprove atheism which is itself a faith claim! The specific constellation of facts, experiences, and speculations about Reality that we each have determines which faith claim seems most valid to us. For theists or atheists to pretend that they somehow have the more valid default faith claim is human vanity and hubris writ large, IMO. (You do seem to have a lot of both, Arq!)

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You have always been overly confident in your atheism, Arq (much as I was pre-encounter). Philosophical arguments vary in intellectual rigor and probability arguments that are NOT based on empirical datasets of occurrences (which none of the religious ones are) have limited to no actual value or validity. The latter is something Harry seems unaware of in his reliance on Bayesian analyses of religious issues (the frequency of human opinions and beliefs do not constitute an empirical dataset about Reality itself).

How can I not be aware of this problem when I had to explain this very problem to you, Irkle an others?

Once again you pretend the flaw is in the thinking of others while once again providing ZERO evidence for your claims.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Theism is a faith claim but it is NOT an attempt to disprove atheism which is itself a faith claim! The specific constellation of facts, experiences, and speculations about Reality that we each have determines which faith claim seems most valid to us. For theists or atheists to pretend that they somehow have the more valid default faith claim is human vanity and hubris writ large, IMO. (You do seem to have a lot of both, Arq!)

It is not vanity and hubris to base your beliefs on what one knows. It IS vanity and hubris to 1) claim to know the mind of a god, and 2) to believe a god has chosen you to have a revelation.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

For theists or atheists to pretend that they somehow have the more valid default faith claim is human vanity and hubris writ large, IMO.

Atheism is not a claim, and it does not require any faith. It is the absence of. Sadly I'm not even exaggerating when I say that this has been explained to you a thousand times by a hundred people on here.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Atheism is not a claim, and it does not require any faith. It is the absence of. Sadly I'm not even exaggerating when I say that this has been explained to you a thousand times by a hundred people on here.

And the explanations are the epitome of psychological ignorance of what constitutes the cognitive state of belief. A thousand wrong ignorant explanations do not make it right. A "lack of belief" about anything is an oxymoronic reference to an "opposite or negative belief." The "cognitive state" is a belief in which you have faith (and claim it is true) or you wouldn't hold it no matter whether it is positive or negative!

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

And the explanations are the epitome of psychological ignorance of what constitutes the cognitive state of belief. A thousand wrong ignorant explanations do not make it right. A "lack of belief" about anything is an oxymoronic reference to an "opposite or negative belief." The "cognitive state" is a belief in which you have faith (and claim it is true) or you wouldn't hold it no matter whether it is positive or negative!

Since you appear to be a minority of one, your claim seems to go against simple word definitions, and nobody in over a decade has agreed with you, what reason is there that anybody should believe your claim?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Since you appear to be a minority of one, your claim seems to go against simple word definitions, and nobody in over a decade has agreed with you, what reason is there that anybody should believe your claim?

That's what I've been asking.

We have, for example, him versus the entire catholic church hierarchy over 2,000 years. Hmm.