I would certainly concur that religion is a form of wishful thinking, one that is quite indisputably drilled into many children as a form of indoctrination.
It may be drilled into children (or may not be) but that doesn't mean religion is a product of wishful thinking. In many cases, religions are built around observation not wishful thinking. I've been trying to dispel this presumptuous notion. Atheists wouldn't know, but spirituality opposes the natural response of what people "wish" to be the case.
I never said it is wishful thinking because it is indoctrination. I am saying that it is both, independently and separately. It is pretty much understood and accepted that humans are predisposed toward superstitious thinking, pareidolia, and wishful thinking. Religion is merely a product of that. (#1)
The flaw here is you think it simply comes down to what is more obvious.
That's not a flaw, every man is free to interpret the world how they see fits with reality. This goes the same for your personal interpretation. To me, it's obvious that the universe is a product of intelligence... and indoctrination, wishful thinking and what I want play no role in that assessment. You might assume it does, as long as you understand it's your own speculation.
It is a flaw because it's false. You assume that everyone is simply assuming the world view based on what is most obvious. While that may be the case for you, I would appreciate it if you did not assume it is the case for me. (#2)
it seems that - amazingly - the universe does not find itself bound by the limits or wishes of human cognition.
That's my question. When you take the universe at face value and accept as true only what is most obvious, that caries with it the implicit assumption that the universe somehow conforms to what is obvious to humans.
It has become increasingly clear that what is "obvious" to our brains is simply what promotes survival in macroscopic, Earth-like conditions.
When I say that it is obvious, I mean that it is obvious once we apply critical thinking, logic and commonsense that it becomes obvious the universe is a product of a Creator. Now I admit, that's my own interpretation but one that is based on reality.
I use the term obvious to be what is apparent and self-evident prior to applying reason or critical thinking. Because that's it's definition.
The revelations of science show us that, outside these narrow constraints the universe is rather bizarre and counter-intuitive. The observations of relativity and quantum mechanics are some of the most non-obvious statements ever to be formulated by man. And yet the most accurate in describing the world around us.
What I find, is that quantum mechanics aligns with my own propositions about creation. And since science is a neutral study there's no need to assume that anything it establishes is a product of materialism or atheism. What science "shows us" is how things work and by what processes, not why such processes occurred in the first place. Science can be interpreted as understanding the works of God, I don't see quantum mechanics or science as anything in contrast to my interpretation of the world.
I haven't presented it as a counter argument to theism or any particular world view other than the world view that the universe is as it appears to the human eye and sensibilities. This, admittedly, was under the assumption you were using term "obvious" in accordance with its common meaning. Now that you've explained what you mean by "obvious" this section of my reply is obsoleted.
Atheists assume that scientific studies and the scientific method support materialism and atheism, which is absolute nonsense. They get this silly idea from atheistic preachers who try and use theories of science to undermine religion lol, they think that because they can use science to show how things operate that they can use it to peddle their nonsensical worldviews. Science doesn't make any claims about Gods existence OR nonexistence, that's not its field of study.
So let me get this out of the way now, the scientific method, evolution and scientific studies are compatible with Theism.
See above. At no point did I present scientific studies as incompatible with theism. (#3)
You do realize that religion, for the most part, has a history steeped in oppression, persecution, inquisition, and judgement toward those that do not accept it in whole cloth?
I thought I made that pretty clear. This applies to both believers and nonbelievers. So the attitude of atheists towards theists is moot.
It applies to both believers and non-believers in the same way that the term "murderer" applies to a person that has murdered 1,000 people as it does to a person that has murdered 1. While both theists and atheists have engaged in the above behavior, theists currently hold the gold medal with respect to duration, intensity, and geographic breadth.
Your question makes sense only when considered in a vacuum ignorant of the history of mankind on this planet.
Sure, maybe your reading comprehension needs help? lets read what I wrote again...
"Now to be fair to atheists I am well aware of how you've been treated, at least in the past but theists of all kinds have also been persecuted so that doesn't just apply to atheists. I'm not stupid, I'm well informed of how snot-nosed religious people are prone to condemn unbelievers and anyone that doesn't support their special ideas of the world. I'm sick of that too, but at some point we all need to move past that and be open-minded of each others knowledge. In todays world, it's not so much the case where any of you atheists are being ridiculed or persecuted and actually it seems to be more the case that Theists are ridiculed especially in what seems to be a majority of a secular environment."
And yet, despite that apparent awareness, you ask a question that only makes sense when considered in a vacuum ignorant of the history of mankind on this planet.
Or perhaps maybe it is the case that I have been debating about religion for more than the median user age on this site and have yet to see new arguments or information.
Oh please son, I've been in this game for more than 15 years and I'm 43 years of age. The information and topics I've been launching are certainly fresh ideas. I know they are because I've been around the block a few hundred times.
Nothing you've said here is novel or fresh.
The quickness in which I reject the god belief is less an automatic response because of brainwashing and close-mindedness and more an automatic response because I've probably heard it before. Why waste time in addressing already debunked nonsense?
Just because you believe you've debunked a few religious ideas you think that makes your worldview anymore legit?
I have never claimed to debunk any religious ideas. My point here is you interpret the dismissal by atheists of theistic ideas of closemindedness and I have provided and alternate explanation. (#4)
and because you don't find religions convincing that puts a cap on your preconceived materialistic assumptions about the world? if that satisfies your intellect so be it. It's a shame but whatever.
You don't even need religion to put together a theistic interpretation of the universe so you have to do more than debunk ideas of other people. For me, I'm not satisfied with religion (even though there is valuable information available) and I'm certainly not satisfied with accepting materialism or atheism because they are absurd estimations. So I certainly evaluate all the information available and consider what is useful but I put the pieces together for myself, if I thought for one second that flawed religious ideals were the end of consideration I'd be quite disturbed.
I've seen your posts throughout the years, they are typical examples of presumptuous atheistic attitudes and behavior trying to hijack science to support them, it's ludicrous. Your views are not that complicated, there's only two options and your opinion falls on one side. Big deal. There's many realistic ideas within the Theistic spectrum which involves not just the universe, but every aspect of human experience and so to say it's all nonsense is not very thought provoking.
I'd be interested in any specific post or view of mine you can think of where you think I've hijacked science.
So because theists have been dicks to each other atheists should ignore how theists have been dicks to atheists? No thank you.
Is it possible you missed my point there lol??
If there was a point there, you did not make it "obvious" enough.
At this point you may be wondering what is with the numbering I scattered throughout this reply. I did this to highly exactly how atheists develop and form this "attitude" against theists that you are lamenting. And I am using this as a constructive opportunity to show exactly how this happens.
#1 - In this exchange I merely said that theism is both indoctrinated and a form of wishful thinking. I did not assign any relationship between the two and certainly did not assign and form of causality. Yet you replied to my comment as if I did. That is, you created an argument I did not create myself, then assigned it to me as if I had created it. This is frustrating because now I have to reply and respond to points I haven't made, spending time trying to set the record straight that you have fouled up with false attribution.
#2 - In your original post you have claimed that "it simply comes down to what is more obvious to the person's estimations", implying that people simply adopt a world view based on what is most obvious to them. I have attempted to refute this, but you have decided to double down. You don't know what my world view is and you certainly don't know how I have arrived at it. Your claim that people based world views on what is most obvious is an assumption of yours and I explicitly refute that my world view is based in such a way. Now, you may consider me "blind" to my own speculation, but denying a person the autonomy in setting their own world view, and instead insisting it must be what you say it is, is insulting and not conducive to conversation. If you are going to assume what my world view is and how it came to be, then this undercuts any notion that your post here is a genuine inquiry and renders irrelevant any attempt at conversation. You might as well be conversing with yourself.
#3 - As with #1, you have assigned to me an argument I haven't made. In this case, that science is incompatible with theism.
#4 - Again, false claims and attributions. You take something I said, twist it and push it further than intended, then throw it back to me as if it is something I've said. If you are going to make my arguments for me, what is my role in this conversation?
All of these are how and why atheists develop "attitudes" in these kinds of conversations. Repeated over dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of times, any given atheist is then likely to come to the conversation with this attitude already set up.
So, if I am developing an attitude it is because you aren't actually responding or listening to the things I've written. You've taken arguments and stances I haven't asserted and attributed them to me. I'd just as soon you reply to what I've actually said and only that.
