Zone1 Is Atheism Depressing?

No. Not anything will do. It's yours to define. The Christian concept is that God is transcendent. In other words, beyond anything we can relate to as material beings. Beyond energy and matter. That God is more like mind. That God is every extant INCORPOREAL attribute of existence.

But it's YOUR perception/definition of God that matters, right? Because YOU can't possibly find the evidence YOU are looking for if YOU don't even have some perception of what YOU are looking for.
There's no set "definition", simply tests. And I can think of a million tests. It's also not how an argument works. I don't accept the God hypothesis, you do. It's on you to provide the evidence for it, since you feel you have good reason to believe it.

I just threw up a ball ten times, thinking I would believe in this omnipotent God. If he could stop it from falling.

The ball fell every time.

I brought up the double blind prayer study. That wasn't a random thing. It was set up by scientists testing if prayer have a benefitial effect on health. They found it provided no benefit better than random chance.

If God exists he doesn't provide evidence. As such as an hypothesis he's useless because the hypothesis isn't falsifiable.
 
Last edited:
You mean like the universe popping into existence defying the paired particle principle leaving behind a matter filled universe when it should have been just filled with radiation with the matter being inexplicably hard wired to produce beings that know and create?
We don't know it simply "popped into existence", there's other hypothesis that claim something else. We do know quite a lot of the process of how things are created. So it's not "inexplicable", it's been explained within the natural world.

I've played this game with you before. You consider anything that's unexplained as "evidence", for God. The God of the gaps argument. In truth, lack of evidence for one explanation is not evidence that another (supernatural) explanation is correct. It's an appeal to ignorance.
 
Wait, you think there will be DIRECT evidence of a creator? If you were a character in a sim would you expect to find DIRECT evidence of the programmer?
Sure. Why not. There's nothing preventing the programmer of my sim to insert the knowledge of him into my brain.
 
Of course not. I believe everyone is a material and spiritual being. But Forkup doesn't. He believes everyone is only a material being.
That's the only thing I have evidence for. Until I have a reason to believe otherwise I can only express, (extreme skepticism), for the spiritual. And the reason I'm skeptical is because there's actually people who offer rewards for anyone who can prove this "spiritual being", and no one is capable of passing the experiments for it.
 
Neither did I. I studied the evidence we have at our disposal (the creation and evolution of existence) to answer the question of was the universe created to produce intelligence intentionally? Or was it happenstance.

Apparently you started from the position that a Creator does not exist and back filled that position. That unless God gives you a sign of his existence, God cannot exist. I find this to be an illogical, anti-intellectual and disingenuous position. If you need for me to enumerate why, please let me know and I'd be happy to oblige.
I didn't backfill anything. Since I don't know how the universe was created and the evolution of existence has plenty of natural explanations within the confines of the natural world after it's initial stage, and quite a lot of circumstancial evidence to support a natural explanation before it.

I just don't jump to the conclusion you do. "I don't know, therefore God".
 
Atheism and agnosticism are depressing.

I am NOT saying atheists are wrong because atheism is depressing.

I am only suggesting atheism is a bleak philosophy.

Some quotes:

“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” Bertrand Russell



“I know no study which is so unutterably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity, as it is set forth in the annals of history. Out of the darkness of prehistoric ages man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than the other brutes, a blind prey to impulses, which as often as not lead him to destruction; a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and battle.” Thomas Huxley



“Humanity has in the course of time had to endure from the hands of science two great outrages upon its naive self-love. The first was when it realized that our earth was not the center of the universe, but only a tiny speck in a world-system of a magnitude hardly conceivable; this is associated in our minds with the name of Copernicus, although Alexandrian doctrines taught something very similar. The second was when biological research robbed man of his peculiar privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world, implying an ineradicable animal nature in him: this transvaluation has been accomplished in our own time upon the instigation of Charles Darwin, Wallace, and their predecessors, and not without the most violent opposition from their contemporaries. But man's craving for grandiosity is now suffering the third and most bitter blow from present-day psychological research which is endeavoring to prove to the ego of each one of us that he is not even master in his own house, but that he must remain content with the veriest scraps of information about what is going on unconsciously in his own mind. We psycho-analysts were neither the first nor the only ones to propose to mankind that they should look inward; but it appears to be our lot to advocate it most insistently and to support it by empirical evidence which touches every man closely.” Sigmund Freud


Atheism is based on reality.

You might find making up some story about a loving God great, but then God killed all but 8 people in the Noah's Ark flood. That's pretty depressing to me. Religion makes people fear sex, kind of depressing to me.
 
Multiple passages in the New Testament encourage slaves to respect or obey their masters. And from the list you can see it’s hardly once off: Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-20; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; as well as the entire book of Philemon. And more so, slave masters, even Christian ones, are never told to automatically free their slaves and be done with the institution of slavery.

So? I'm not here to defend every single Secular philosophy that ever was. I'm simple responding to your claim that the Bible from which you draw your belief are entirely uplifting. An appeal to hypocrisy doesn't work.

I never claimed I know anything. Neither do I know objective reality exist. "Knowing" something is incredibly hard if not impossible. However, there's lots of things I consider so unlikely, that it makes little to no practical difference from knowing it's untrue. One of these things is most human concepts of Gods, for a variety of reasons. Among them the statistical probability for any one of the literally thousands of completely different beliefs throughout history actually being correct. The clearly erroneous and easily disproven claims made in holy books. The changing nature of religions throughout time and geography. All pointing to the conclusion that religions are constructs of humans, not some "divine truth" send from upstairs.

Does that mean I don't believe in a Supreme being of some kind? I don't know is the only thing I can claim. Maybe it's an alien so advanced it might as well be a God. It's just as good of a hypothesis as many other dealings with who, if anyone, created creation.

The point is that when you don't know, you don't know. What you don't do, is guess and then claim it's true.
Jesus never said slavery is okay.

Some of the letter writers in the New Testament advised slaves to obey their masters. If you didn’t obey your master you could be severely punished or killed.

The New Testament also advises slaves to seek freedom.

1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

Slaves should be equal.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul thought slaves should no longer be slaves but “dear brothers”.

Philemon 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

 
Multiple passages in the New Testament encourage slaves to respect or obey their masters. And from the list you can see it’s hardly once off: Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-20; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; as well as the entire book of Philemon. And more so, slave masters, even Christian ones, are never told to automatically free their slaves and be done with the institution of slavery.

So? I'm not here to defend every single Secular philosophy that ever was. I'm simple responding to your claim that the Bible from which you draw your belief are entirely uplifting. An appeal to hypocrisy doesn't work.

I never claimed I know anything. Neither do I know objective reality exist. "Knowing" something is incredibly hard if not impossible. However, there's lots of things I consider so unlikely, that it makes little to no practical difference from knowing it's untrue. One of these things is most human concepts of Gods, for a variety of reasons. Among them the statistical probability for any one of the literally thousands of completely different beliefs throughout history actually being correct. The clearly erroneous and easily disproven claims made in holy books. The changing nature of religions throughout time and geography. All pointing to the conclusion that religions are constructs of humans, not some "divine truth" send from upstairs.

Does that mean I don't believe in a Supreme being of some kind? I don't know is the only thing I can claim. Maybe it's an alien so advanced it might as well be a God. It's just as good of a hypothesis as many other dealings with who, if anyone, created creation.

The point is that when you don't know, you don't know. What you don't do, is guess and then claim it's true.
First you tell me knowing something is incredibly hard if not impossible. But then somehow you seem very sure there is no God. You even feel we should act as if we know belief in God is untrue.

Later you condemn those who guess and then make truth claims. Maybe you should listen to your own advice.

I don’t know why you feel there is no God. Consider:






Religions vary, but there are similarities also. Many thinkers in diverse cultures have accepted the idea of a powerful beneficent God who created a beautiful and orderly universe.


 
Last edited:
Jesus never said slavery is okay.

Some of the letter writers in the New Testament advised slaves to obey their masters. If you didn’t obey your master you could be severely punished or killed.

The New Testament also advises slaves to seek freedom.

1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

Slaves should be equal.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul thought slaves should no longer be slaves but “dear brothers”.

Philemon 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

So, let's recap your position.

You first responded to my position that the Bible endorses some objectively horrible things.

So you claimed that the OT did, but the NT didn't.

I responded by citing passages from the NT that endorse slavery.

To which you now respond, and I'm paraphrasing. "Well some parts of the NT didn't and Jesus didn't."

You keep moving the goalposts, and as I said cutting out the bits you don't like as irrelevant to the pieces you do like as conclusive. I understand why you do that, but it does show the inherent futility of using the Bible, old or new testament, as a source of truth. What's the value of claiming to follow a book that contradicts itself?
 
Atheism and agnosticism are depressing.

I am NOT saying atheists are wrong because atheism is depressing.

I am only suggesting atheism is a bleak philosophy.

Some quotes:

“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” Bertrand Russell



“I know no study which is so unutterably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity, as it is set forth in the annals of history. Out of the darkness of prehistoric ages man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than the other brutes, a blind prey to impulses, which as often as not lead him to destruction; a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and battle.” Thomas Huxley



“Humanity has in the course of time had to endure from the hands of science two great outrages upon its naive self-love. The first was when it realized that our earth was not the center of the universe, but only a tiny speck in a world-system of a magnitude hardly conceivable; this is associated in our minds with the name of Copernicus, although Alexandrian doctrines taught something very similar. The second was when biological research robbed man of his peculiar privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world, implying an ineradicable animal nature in him: this transvaluation has been accomplished in our own time upon the instigation of Charles Darwin, Wallace, and their predecessors, and not without the most violent opposition from their contemporaries. But man's craving for grandiosity is now suffering the third and most bitter blow from present-day psychological research which is endeavoring to prove to the ego of each one of us that he is not even master in his own house, but that he must remain content with the veriest scraps of information about what is going on unconsciously in his own mind. We psycho-analysts were neither the first nor the only ones to propose to mankind that they should look inward; but it appears to be our lot to advocate it most insistently and to support it by empirical evidence which touches every man closely.” Sigmund Freud

Sadly, it keeps expanding, bringing out the worst in humanity.

Our species will end itself due to our flaws, increased due to Atheism which guides us to regress not progress.
 
First you tell me knowing something is incredibly hard if not impossible. But then somehow you seem very sure there is no God. You even feel we should act as if we know belief in God is untrue.

Then you condemn those who guess and then make truth claims. Maybe you should listen to your own advice.
However, there's lots of things I consider so unlikely, that it makes little to no practical difference from knowing it's untrue.
That's what I said, not that I'm very sure.

Read what I write please, instead of putting up strawmen.

I have no desire to tell you what you should believe. I'm simply explaining my reasoning for believing what I believe.

I'm sorry you don't like that, and are perfectly free to not respond. I think, and I'm perfectly capable of giving a reasoned argument for my position, on the other hand I don't find your arguments persuasive. You probably think mine aren't either and that's fine.

The point is this. If you decide to engage with me I will do the same with you.

As for listening to my own advice. I can support what I say. If I can't, I change my mind. I have done so, more than once even on this board. In a conversation with Ding even. I doubt there are 3 people on this entire board who can show to have simply reversed their entire premise, and have done so publicly. Who can admit not just that they were wrong about some detail but can say, look what I believed before is not sustainable, so I will change that.
 
So, let's recap your position.

You first responded to my position that the Bible endorses some objectively horrible things.

So you claimed that the OT did, but the NT didn't.

I responded by citing passages from the NT that endorse slavery.

To which you now respond, and I'm paraphrasing. "Well some parts of the NT didn't and Jesus didn't."

You keep moving the goalposts, and as I said cutting out the bits you don't like as irrelevant to the pieces you do like as conclusive. I understand why you do that, but it does show the inherent futility of using the Bible, old or new testament, as a source of truth. What's the value of claiming to follow a book that contradicts itself?
Some parts of the Bible are of central importance to Christians, especially the teachings of Jesus. I think you are misinterpreting the letters of the NT.

You claim knowing is incredibly hard if not impossible. Yet you seem quite sure there is no God despite the arguments I mentioned above, arguments which you have failed to disprove.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, it keeps expanding, bringing out the worst in humanity.

Our species will end itself due to our flaws, increased due to Atheism which guides us to regress not progress.
Atheism may be expanding in some wealthy and decadent countries, but atheism is not expanding in the world as a whole.

The ruling class seems to contain many atheists, but their power may be crumbling.
 
Last edited:
That's the only thing I have evidence for. Until I have a reason to believe otherwise I can only express, (extreme skepticism), for the spiritual. And the reason I'm skeptical is because there's actually people who offer rewards for anyone who can prove this "spiritual being", and no one is capable of passing the experiments for it.
Are you sure of this evidence?


 
Last edited:
Some parts of the Bible are of central importance to Christians, especially the teachings of Jesus. I think you are misinterpreting the letters of the NT.

You claim knowing is incredibly hard if not impossible. Yet you seem quite sure there is no God despite the arguments I mentioned above.

These are the teachings of Jesus what you claim are the center bits
In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

He didn't reject the OT. Why do you?

As for your arguments. I can't discern a single argument for the existence of God I'm what you've said. You haven't even gotten past the stage of giving a clear argument for why you believe the Bible is even moral. Let alone divinely inspired in any way.
 
These are the teachings of Jesus what you claim are the center bits
In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

He didn't reject the OT. Why do you?

As for your arguments. I can't discern a single argument for the existence of God I'm what you've said. You haven't even gotten past the stage of giving a clear argument for why you believe the Bible is even moral. Let alone divinely inspired in any way.
Fulfill does not mean to adhere to your hostile interpretation of scripture.

You continue to fail to disprove any of the arguments I presented above. And yet you are sure you are correct that they are wrong. Even though knowing is incredibly hard if not impossible.
 
Are you sure of this evidence?


[/QUOTE]
What do you think this proves at all? "Reality isn't real" is fine in some theoretical mystical sense. Higher physics on the quantum level is more akin to philosophy tAre you sure of this evidence?


[/QUOTE]
Of course, there is another way out for those hanging on to the conventional view of reality. This is that there is some other loophole that the experimenters have overlooked. Indeed, physicists have tried to close loopholes in similar experiments for years, although they concede that it may never be possible to close them all.

Out of your second link.

Anyway the claim that at a quantum level reality isn't real is interesting from a science perspective, it does nothing from a practical one. The idea of different dimensions with different rules and even laws of nature isn't new. It doesn't however get you any closer to
proving God.

If anything you're simply illustrating why "knowing" something is hard. There's always the chance that some future discovery will invalidate what you think you know.

So I think you're question is are you still "pretty sure" the Christian God of the Bible is wrong? To which I answer yes, for reasons I already stated.
 
There's no set "definition", simply tests. And I can think of a million tests. It's also not how an argument works. I don't accept the God hypothesis, you do. It's on you to provide the evidence for it, since you feel you have good reason to believe it.

I just threw up a ball ten times, thinking I would believe in this omnipotent God. If he could stop it from falling.

The ball fell every time.

I brought up the double blind prayer study. That wasn't a random thing. It was set up by scientists testing if prayer have a benefitial effect on health. They found it provided no benefit better than random chance.

If God exists he doesn't provide evidence. As such as an hypothesis he's useless because the hypothesis isn't falsifiable.
What God created is the evidence of his existence.
 
We don't know it simply "popped into existence", there's other hypothesis that claim something else. We do know quite a lot of the process of how things are created. So it's not "inexplicable", it's been explained within the natural world.

I've played this game with you before. You consider anything that's unexplained as "evidence", for God. The God of the gaps argument. In truth, lack of evidence for one explanation is not evidence that another (supernatural) explanation is correct. It's an appeal to ignorance.
It seems like your strategy is to dismiss all evidence so you don't have to study it.
 
Fulfill does not mean to adhere to your hostile interpretation of scripture.

You continue to fail to disprove any of the arguments I presented above. And yet you are sure you are correct that they are wrong. Even though knowing is incredibly hard if not impossible.
It tell you what. Why don't you give a clear concise argument. Quote it from your previous posts in this OP, and I'll engage them. Since I don't know what your arguments are.
 
Back
Top Bottom