Question for KevinSim- biblical gospel articulation request

[Philo Sofee]

Exactly. Atheism offers no hope for justice, whereas religion does. Believers pretend there is a heaven without knowing, and that justice will be served; atheism pretends there is annihilation with no justice for atrocities in this life, literally no hope whatsoever for the vast majority of people. Far too glib and depressing for me.

I wouldn't say that I pretend there is a heaven without knowing. I would say that I have a hope of heaven without knowing.

Nicely, nicely put.

[Philo Sofee]

Doc
and that includes the consciousness mechanisms taking place in our brain, and further in our limbic system.

That simply cannot be known. There is certainly no agreement across the board here scientifically.

[Philo Sofee]

Doc
This isn’t a both sides situation. To equate atheism with the hubris of theism is wildly out of order. One ‘ism asses this world for what it is, and the other assesses this world for what it isn’t.

Far too simplistic. It's not merely an either/or

[Chap]

Exactly. Atheism offers no hope for justice, whereas religion does. Believers pretend there is a heaven without knowing, and that justice will be served; atheism pretends there is annihilation with no justice for atrocities in this life, literally no hope whatsoever for the vast majority of people. Far too glib and depressing for me.

Um, surely the point here is not whether theism or atheism makes you feel good or bad, but which one is true?

I mean, if the universe is a certain way, is it not better to recognise it rather than to pretend that it is something else?

Yes, and no one can say which one is true, since all we have at this point is a mere 5% knowledge (and that changes) of the universe. There can be no final judgment call as to what is true or not with such a meager grasp. We have only 5% understanding IF the universe is anyway at all, surely not the same forever based on such meager grasp of understanding. That would simply be arrogance beyond control for both sides. We all have to say we just don't know. Faith in a God is no more idiotic than atheist faith in the Cosmos working coherently and intelligibly day by day so we can study it with our science. We all have faith of one thing or another, there is no other way.

I do not have "faith in the Cosmos working coherently and intelligibly day by day so we can study it with our science".

I have however used science in theory and practice enough to have concluded that it does seem on the basis of my experience that the approach of trying to discover long-term regularities in the world and apply them to solving problems has so far worked pretty well, not just for me but also for a lot of other people. So, until things start turning out otherwise, I am proceeding on that basis. Of course I have no way of being sure that things will always be that way. But until it turns out otherwise, I shall carry on pursing what seems to be a winning strategy. That's a practical and common sense judgement - no 'faith' is involved.

As for believing in a deity - especially one of the ones whose followers have surrounded it with all kinds of metaphysical defences against any fact ever counting against its existence (as in "<our deity> allowed that bad thing to happen to test us" or "<our deity> can't ever do anything that would be clear evidence of its existence, because that would eliminate the need for faith"), well that is a whole different ball game.

[dastardly stem]

Dastardly Stem
Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:18 pm

A JUST God is the key to grasping that hoping for someone's torment is not religious, it is nonsense.

That’d make sense if it weren’t the teaching, hence the hope, of all western religion. And the teaching found in sacred texts like the Bible.

Then why use that as the basis for your thinking? If that were the only game in town, it would make sense. Just because we live in the west, doesn't mean we have to accept the West's point of view...

What point of view is preferrable?

It's not that I want to stick to considering western religion, but since we're in this context in more ways then one it is the most reasonable one to address currently.

[dastardly stem]

I don’t expect a non-believer to understand, but believers are given the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of what is to come.

From my perspective that is simply an assumption--you know more and others can't possible know because God has taught you more. What if the Holy Spirit is not? It is simply all a confirmation of your own bias?

Eph. 1:13-14
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

This is why believers are certain in the afterlife and promises of God, and held secure.

I'm aware. I simply don't buy their presupposition. to think we are in a world where we can't relate to each other and come to a resolution using our ability to reason is a big problem. That's really all we have. It also presumes religion holds a position of untouchability--a place of pre-eminence. And the only way to believe is to assume. Unfortunately there are tons of avenues claiming truth on such grounds and they are all lacking when one applies actual reason to their claims, or so it seems. I look forward to a better existence where religion isn't trying to hold such things over our heads and we can actually move on from it, endorsing goodness over dogma, and such.

[dastardly stem]

This isn’t a both sides situation. To equate atheism with the hubris of theism is wildly out of order. One ‘ism asses this world for what it is, and the other assesses this world for what it isn’t.

That is so nicely summarized, right there, Doctor Cam. To say we don't know everything therefore it's possible religion really describes the reality we can't detect, is not only hubris, but it's an approach to understanding reality that has gained us nothing but backward thinking--a continual failure that persists on grounds of tradition and the sacred.

I suppose we'll always expect space for religious people thinking they have a handle on the unknown. But there is no comparison between a good faith effort to try and understand reality as we can ascertain it and a shameless attempt to force into every unknowable crevice silly ideas that get replaced as soon as we learn to fill them (provisionally). Only to see these silly ideas surrender back into other dark crevices simply to appease an odd notion that we ought to value bad ideas for the sake of tradition.

Seriously "atheism" shouldn't be considered an "-ism" at all nor even a thing. It's simply a reasonable conclusion to a question people pose. if you're gonna be reasonable on that question you might as well continue that reasonableness forward and accept our world as we can ascertain it. Every theist wishes to compare the "atheistic" worldview to a "theistic" worldview. What's really under comparison is does naturalism best describe reality or shall we presume there is magic and fairy lands and make believe, all hidden from view, all hidden from inspection.

[Philo Sofee]

Dastardly
Seriously "atheism" shouldn't be considered an "-ism" at all nor even a thing. It's simply a reasonable conclusion to a question people pose.

Behold your "thing...

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc
That’s a straw man. Atheism, as far as I see it, doesn’t claim the universe is coherent, but neither is it not intelligible. We can actually figure things out, and just because we haven’t figured everything there is to figure out now doesn’t negate the things we’ve figured out that demonstrate consistent scientific results.

And it works because we have faith in its coherence and intelligibility to continue doing so. We don't know it will continue being this way. It's why Einstein said every good scientist has to have that faith, that the universe is coherent and intelligible - i.e., we can learn about it, otherwise we would not do mathematics and physics in the first place. There is nothing strawman about it. Our discoveries are consistent because it is intelligible, and remains so, and that is what we hope will continue being the case, we have no guarantee it will hold. Just because it has for billions of years is no proof it will be like this always, as any simple logic tells us.

What does that actually mean? Can you give a concrete illustrative description of your paragraph above?

Also, when you talk about universe-coherence, and faith in the such, that’s a theistic position because I don’t know of any atheists, prominent or otherwise, who would describe the universe as coherent. It’s the theist or spiritualist that assigns coherency to the universe - they imbue it with human structuralism.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc
and that includes the consciousness mechanisms taking place in our brain, and further in our limbic system.

That simply cannot be known. There is certainly no agreement across the board here scientifically.

Here’s my entire statement quoted to offer context to the above:

I mean, we see bodies decompose and turn to dust. Whatever one thinks of any number of wishful theories that exist for the continuation of the spirit, the body 100% dies and that includes the consciousness mechanisms taking place in our brain, and further in our limbic system. Physical death is incontrovertible, so it follows whatever state we exist in, in this dimension, is annihilated. It’s not hubris to see with your eyeballs and reason it out given what we have at our disposal.

I strongly disagree with you. When your brain withers away leaving behind a skull that is 100% proof of physical death, of annihilation. The mechanisms that literally take place in your brain 100% cease upon death - death death - you’re not coming back death. It’s annihilation, unless of course you want to describe, specifically, what it is you’re getting at that rejects plain and obvious observations.

- Doc