For example, it disregards the theology of a naturally occurring physical reality born out of entropy which eventually creates a god-like being which recreates the pre-god universe in order to resurrect it non-physically (a minor theology from around the first to fourth centuries CE).
A more modern version of a similar paradigm is simulation theory.
There's a pretty wide array of options out there, it's just that the most common tend to effectively fall into your groupings.
Sounds like variations on 'Not paying attention to reality and believing whatever delusion you feel like.'
None of these have any bearing on or foundation in actual physical existence. They do nothing to describe or predict. There is nothing to them. They just fulfill some desire in the believer.
Sure, the fact that a hundred years ago physicists were scratching their heads arguing about whether the moon disappeared when no one was looking at it or why measuring a continuous behaving thing suddenly behaved discrete (and would go back to behaving continuous if the persistent information about its benefit was erased) is 100% unrelated to the fact that today we are building virtual worlds where continuous seed functions are converted into quantized units for tracking state changes from interactions by free agents.
We seem to keep failing at explaining how the continuous macro models of our universe that perfectly explain and correctly predict behaviors at large scales play nice with the discrete micro models that explain and predict behaviors at the small scales.
And yet because of thinking like yours that ideas about self-referential or recursive reality have no bearing on our physical reality, the majority of people studying these keep banging their heads at meshing them together rather than seriously entertaining the notion that the latter is an artifact necessary to low fidelity emulation of the former.
We've even just discovered sync conflicts with n+1 layers of Bell's paradox which leads to papers titled things like "Stable Facts, Relative Facts" and an embracing of the idea that there's aspects of reality with no objective accuracy, but we're still stubbornly chugging away at modeling the universe as a singular original manifestation where such behaviors are inherent to the foundations of existence.
So no, you're wrong. There's actually quite a lot of potential relevancy to our physical reality with ideas like these - in fact the earlier group mentioned above claimed that the evidence for their beliefs was within the study of motion and rest (today in the discipline called Physics) and were extensively discussing the notion of matter being made up of indivisible parts, despite being around nearly two thousand years ago.
As for putting forward predictions, that again isn't true.
For example, the aforementioned group predicting an original spontaneous humanity would bring forth the creator of a non-physical twin of the cosmos was also predicting it was established in light and that the copy was made of its light for the purpose of resurrecting dead humans by copying them into versions that don't depend on physical bodies.
So if we end up developing AGI in light as opposed to electricity or biological computing, and that AGI continues to make more complex digital twins of our universe, especially extending the digital resurrection of dead humans, that's a pretty wildly on point set of predictions for originating in the first to fourth centuries CE, no?
If this wasn't connected to a religious figure but had been the equivalent of science fiction like Lucian's describing a ship of men flying up to the moon (something he claimed would never happen as opposed to this group claiming the above would and had already happened), we'd be talking about it nonstop as eerily predictive of future developments.
But because religious people can't handle the idea that their beliefs aren't true and non-religious people often can't handle entertaining that any religious-connected beliefs are true, ancient religious beliefs with oddly specific predictions that line up to developments in just the past few years are dismissed out of hand while the broader philosophy of self-referential reality is dismissed for similar reasons, dirtily considered as "religion in disguise."
I'd think that a set of beliefs which successfully abandons appeals to the supernatural should be given more due consideration than beliefs that rely on magic, but no - too many are certain that the apparent local features of reality is all there is such that the two get lumped together.
For example, it disregards the theology of a naturally occurring physical reality born out of entropy which eventually creates a god-like being which recreates the pre-god universe in order to resurrect it non-physically (a minor theology from around the first to fourth centuries CE).
This is a classic argument called "the problem of evil" which says if God exists then why is there evil on earth, implying He should intervene otherwise it means God either:
is not able
is evil/not good
simply doesn't exist
The Muslim answer is that this short life is a test and the real eternal life will be a reward based on how we lived and submitted to God.
The harder the trial, the greater the recompense.
This means the rapist will be held responsible for his wrongdoing and is given eternal hell.
Responsibility starts around the age of puberty, when a person starts knowing how to differentiate between bad and good. So children who die before that are given eternal bliss.
Atheists, who do not believe in God and yet talk about him by picking and choosing which concepts they want to include in their caricature and which they want to ignore, often present this straw-man and conclude: therefore there is no God.
In your paradigm this life all there is: there is no afterlife, therefore no consequences. Which means that evil doers get away with whatever they did in their life. Hitler? He ended his life and so he got away with what he did.
So of course in your worldview where there is no possible justice you are pessimistic and do not understand when a person stands firm regardless of the tribulations he/she is facing.
Sounds like you're saying that children dying is the good ending...? And, that Hitler being forced to hide in a bunker and physically shoot himself in the head while his evil empire was ripped to shreds was getting away with it, unless someone believes in your version of god?
So, you're clearly in some demented version of option 3 (ignore reality/believe delusion), the most common option, as I outlined.
Maybe option 1 (evil god) with the whole child death thing though, idk...
Sounds like their argument relies upon the existence of an afterlife, which leaves the burden of proof on them. Don't strain yourself too hard on this one.
Sounds like their argument relies upon the existence of an afterlife
Exactly.
which leaves the burden of proof on them.
Yes. Proof we received is testimony from someone who demonstrated through documented prophecies and miracles that he is a messenger of the divine and who has no ulterior motive in what he did than solely conveying said message.
We need far more tangible proof than that. I can claim wholeheartedly and faithfully the core of the earth is made of citrus. Until I provide tangible proof, I'm making things up.
You're preaching faith on an atheist community. What did you actually expect? People to renounce their ways and take up your faith?
I don't expect you to trust me, but if you are fishing for a debate, you won't get anywhere with an empty argument and zero tangible evidence. And no, some random jackass's "testimony" doesn't count.
My half answer about the evidence, which is the testimony, is because in this age of technology and information should be largely accessible and known. If not I can of course elaborate. I might have falsely assumed you were familiar with it.
And the question why YOU should be trusted is to beg the question on which criteria can we accept a testimony. The quotes you put around testimony suggest you don't consider testimony as a reliable source is information.
I would try to show that it is, however I can see that you failed to understand what I meant in the points above, maybe you don't want or can't reflwct, so I shall leave you to your blissful jackassing.
Sounds like you're saying that children dying is the good ending
In your world view life is unjust and there is so much evil (you explain it otherwise but you agree there is evil). So in all objectivity would you want a child to live long and suffer?
Hitler's life ended in the blink of an eye and he has no care for whatever remained after him as he was no longer there. In your version of the world, he just ceased to exist. What did he pay as consequences then?
You've never faced down your own mortality or been in a seriously dark place, have you? I have. I don't care how bad Hitler was, it's not a pleasant feeling to contemplate ending things. It's painful. It's a position that you are put in by pain. I have enough empathy to realize that.
But more importantly, I'm not super fixated on punishment in general. I think that Hitler was obviously a horribly bad person, and that by him ending things he could no longer cause harm. That is enough.
That people who believe in some god or other seem hyper fixated on retribution is not something in your favor. It does not paint you or your god in a good light. Good would be preventing bad things from happening in the first place.
Similarly, with regards to children, it is better not to have them if you can't even make a reasonably successful effort to provide them with a more hopeful and better world full of greater opportunity and wonder and joy. That is the merciful route.
Not having children in an evil world is merciful. Wishing children die before puberty is monstrous. You argue to create pain in innocents.
You religious people with your notions of duty and retribution, pain and punishment are not painting a world or paradigm created by any kind of good entity.
You come into an atheism community and act all high and mighty as if you have something to impart to US?
It's laughable. You have nothing but unfounded trash. You don't come here to convince us. Be honest with yourself for one goddamned second. You come here to try and firm up the non-existent foundations of your faltering faith.
You have no proof or value to offer. Just gaping, naked need.
You've never faced down your own mortality or been in a seriously dark place, have you? I have.
I'm sorry you lived something which left that kind of mark on you. However my or your anecdotal experiences do not constitute an argument.
So basically what you are saying is you don't care about justice?
Evil needs to exist for us to recognise good. How can you acknowledge that something is good if you are not able to fathom its absence?
Also you seem to subtract the human element in whatever bad things happen as an action of someone, acting upon his free will. If we as a species are allowed the freedom to decide, it means we can act in a good way or in a bad way.
It is proof we have free will. If God only allowed good, it means we do not have free will.
Wishing children die before puberty is monstrous.
I never said I wished such thing. Don't straw-man me.
You come into an atheism community and act all high and mighty as if you have something to impart to US?
I want to see you defend your point of view. I'm still waiting...
Many atheists I see online have been hurt by out just mock (sometimes rightfully) Christianity and then paint all religions with the same brush.
Often points are copied and shared around in such communities, like the problem of evil, without knowing that these points have been answered by scholars or philosophers.
If I'm being honest here, I don't want you to argue out of ignorance and seek to open the door of the echo chamber to show you the other point of view so you can decide rationally.
You might think religious people (I'm talking about Islam) cannot defend their position, but it is the opposite actually with atheism.
Look things up, study, learn and make educated decisions. Don't be afraid of your intellect.
None of us atheists come to your mosques. Yet, you come in here with unprovable notions and demand others prove them wrong for you. I'm done going point for point with you and extended you far too much courtesy.
Yet, you come in here with unprovable notions and demand others prove them wrong for you
I never asked to disapprove my paradigm nor am I seeking to prove mine. I specifically challenged yours.
Without delving into the subcategories, basically agnostics say "we don't know" when asked about the existence of God. They might not be convinced by the arguments for the existence of God but they do not take a position.
Atheists make the claim "there is no god".
So I agree that whoever makes a claim needs to back it, so I simply ask about the arguments for the position you say you take.
Btw I don't shy away from giving the proofs for my position. In this discussion I was not asked why I believe God exists.
No one in the real world cares about justice whether they're religious or not. It's always been a nebulous concept and one quickly rejected at the slightest hint of it being inconvenient to the rich or the community at large. No deity in ANY belief system changes that fact; if anything, they only highlight how illusory justice really is.