4 ms·

> they’re largely based on fairy tales and fear and shame I can just as simply say that atheism is based on ego worship, narcissism, and hyper-individuality.

> they’re largely based on fairy tales and fear and shame I can just as simply say that atheism is based on ego worship, narcissism, and hyper-individuality. That is to say, you dressing your conclusion as an axiom. We're better off without atheistic delusions.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
Athiesm is actually just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable as Theism.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    This is a subtle and fascinating reference I had to Google. It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot The problem with the argument is that the Athiestic viewpoint is indeed just as fantastical as the Thiestic viewpoint. It's basically switching out "Yahweh" with "Chance". It basically comes down to which God you believe in and how you define God. In my reading, a definition of God that is "caused everything, exists onto itself, is in all places at all times, and completely miraculous" is the definition that best describes our universe and what we know about the Big Bang. I'm happy to hear other definitions, but let's not pretend the fact that anything exists at all is totally mundane and explicable.
    - macrocosmos 2y ago
      Good points. When I hear some people talk about reality and the Universe, I cannot find any distinction between the definitions for those concepts people use and between what other people call God. I would find it hard to believe someone was being genuine if they said they reject the concept of God. Now for Christianity, I can see why people would refuse to believe that God came down to Earth in human form. And then they... washed feat and performed miracles. And the people then crucified the Son of God. But then that Son forgave them. Why would God let that happen and why so much forgiveness? And if that did happen, what would that mean?
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        Those questions are what make Christianity endlessly fascinating. We debate these things all the time at our house. Makes for fun conversation, if the participants are able to be civil.
    - grahamj 2y ago
      That’s a fine definition but it doesn’t encompass the ramifications. Christianity doesn’t simply define god, it dictates what will happen to you if you disagree or go against its presumed will. The universe won’t damn you to an eternity of suffering if you don’t live by some standard. That’s a pretty big difference from any biblical definition.
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    Please don't perpetuate religious flamewars (or any flamewars) on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      Yeah, agreed: it's not what this site is for. No argument there.
grahamj 2y ago
Yes you can say that. Why would we be better off without saying these things? There’s nothing wrong with speaking out when we see people saying things we believe to be false and it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to hedge every single thing they say simply because, well, we don’t really know anything. I know there’s no omnipotent being who cares so much about the minutiae of our lives yet allows terrible things to happen. I know the bible was written by people who never experienced the magical things written about. The onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim and religion is firmly on the side of the extraordinary. Focusing on the impossibility of knowing is just skirting the issue of the impossibility of the claims.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  "The onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim and religion is firmly on the side of the extraordinary" Except the fact that something exists rather than nothing at all is absolutely extraordinary. I would put the burden of proof on anyone claiming it's completely explicable and mundane.
  - grahamj 2y ago
    Existence is all we know; there is nothing more ordinary. The idea of nothing existing is just that: an idea. Like god.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Existence is not all we know. There was a time when you did not exist. Unless your claim is that you always existed, you must admit that nothing is more than an idea. And also, something existing for all of eternity forever is just as extraordinary as something coming from nothing. Those are our two options and they both are extraordinary and imply something many people would call "God"

cynicalpeace 2y ago

Athiesm is actually just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable as Theism.

CamperBob2 2y ago
[flagged]
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  This is a subtle and fascinating reference I had to Google. It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot The problem with the argument is that the Athiestic viewpoint is indeed just as fantastical as the Thiestic viewpoint. It's basically switching out "Yahweh" with "Chance". It basically comes down to which God you believe in and how you define God. In my reading, a definition of God that is "caused everything, exists onto itself, is in all places at all times, and completely miraculous" is the definition that best describes our universe and what we know about the Big Bang. I'm happy to hear other definitions, but let's not pretend the fact that anything exists at all is totally mundane and explicable.
  - macrocosmos 2y ago
    Good points. When I hear some people talk about reality and the Universe, I cannot find any distinction between the definitions for those concepts people use and between what other people call God. I would find it hard to believe someone was being genuine if they said they reject the concept of God. Now for Christianity, I can see why people would refuse to believe that God came down to Earth in human form. And then they... washed feat and performed miracles. And the people then crucified the Son of God. But then that Son forgave them. Why would God let that happen and why so much forgiveness? And if that did happen, what would that mean?
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Those questions are what make Christianity endlessly fascinating. We debate these things all the time at our house. Makes for fun conversation, if the participants are able to be civil.
  - grahamj 2y ago
    That’s a fine definition but it doesn’t encompass the ramifications. Christianity doesn’t simply define god, it dictates what will happen to you if you disagree or go against its presumed will. The universe won’t damn you to an eternity of suffering if you don’t live by some standard. That’s a pretty big difference from any biblical definition.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      [flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Please don't perpetuate religious flamewars (or any flamewars) on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Yeah, agreed: it's not what this site is for. No argument there.

grahamj 2y ago

Yes you can say that. Why would we be better off without saying these things? There’s nothing wrong with speaking out when we see people saying things we believe to be false and it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to hedge every single thing they say simply because, well, we don’t really know anything. I know there’s no omnipotent being who cares so much about the minutiae of our lives yet allows terrible things to happen. I know the bible was written by people who never experienced the magical things written about. The onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim and religion is firmly on the side of the extraordinary. Focusing on the impossibility of knowing is just skirting the issue of the impossibility of the claims.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
"The onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim and religion is firmly on the side of the extraordinary" Except the fact that something exists rather than nothing at all is absolutely extraordinary. I would put the burden of proof on anyone claiming it's completely explicable and mundane.
- grahamj 2y ago
  Existence is all we know; there is nothing more ordinary. The idea of nothing existing is just that: an idea. Like god.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    Existence is not all we know. There was a time when you did not exist. Unless your claim is that you always existed, you must admit that nothing is more than an idea. And also, something existing for all of eternity forever is just as extraordinary as something coming from nothing. Those are our two options and they both are extraordinary and imply something many people would call "God"