The Folly of Atheism, part 2

I find it interesting that humanity doesn’t fully understand consciousness. We struggle to define it.

we struggle with knowing whether the brain - consciousness -causes us to act or if everything we are doing is a response to previous forces. This of course is the old determinism/free will debate. But set that aside and consider whether consciousness actually acts upon matter resulting in physical, measurable change. If it does, where does that transition from thought to matter occur? Obviously in the brain but where? How can we measure it? How can we observe it? What process can be defined so we may understand it? Where does that rubber hit the road so to speak?

It makes me wonder if the universe itself is a mind and that is all that exists. The universe is god and I am God and so are you and everyone else. . We are all an imagining of some greater consciousness and this is why we struggle to understand both the universe and the mind. These two things are so alike, yet so different in scale.

A fascinating and beautiful a thought as that may be there is no evidence to support it, it is mere speculation. This again is the difference between an agnostic and a gnostic. I recognize that this may be true but it’s not the only truth. Reality is far too complex a thing to just have one thought about it and then close the book. "God created the universe. The end."

TThe moment I choose to be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist then it seems I have made up my mind, the book is written, everything that needs to be known is known and everybody just better agree with me. Shut off your curiosity. I tend to think that there are many ways to look at things. Religion is one, science is another. They don’t actually overlap and can complement one another when a person does their best to remain free of prejudice.

 

But there ARE 'conclusions being made'. Many are 'concluding' from their education, experience, & influences that 'there is no God!' Many more have concluded, 'There is a God!' It is just your assumptions that either or neither has any valid evidence for their opinions. How can you conclude, empirically, that all experiences with the supernatural are contrived or imagined? Is that not the only way to dismiss them all? Is that not merely a prejudicial view? Why would you assume that every theist who has ever lived only has blind faith, with no evidence for their beliefs? How can you make that assumption?

I get it. Most atheists have not had a 'supernatural' experience, that would incline them to believe in the supernatural. But how does this lack of experience compel wholesale dismissal of everyone else's experiences?

 

You may be right! Many atheists are like big babies, whining & crying for no reason, with their diapers as a metaphor for their arguments!



And, i would like to remind everyone, that since many of our loving, childlike atheist here LOVE to engage in ridicule & mockery of theistic beliefs, & that there are many more threads dedicated to that genre, it is only appropriate to poke a little fun back at them, so they don't feel left out of the 'fun' in ridiculing one's belief system.

 

That is a bit of a false correlation. The space shuttle was not the result of 'atheism!' One could argue, that the foundation of science was built upon the theistic view of the universe.. a God of order & consistency of natural law. It certainly did NOT begin with the premise of atheism.. that was much later.

But you do present the phony caricature well.. which is one of the 'follies' mentioned in the OP.

Why is a 'metaphysical' premise, 'false?' By definition? By assertion? From incredulity? No, it seems to me that your 'non belief' in any supernatural Cause is just as much a 'false premise' as belief.

 

I daresay it's long past time you started thinking for yourself.

 

Absolutely, the space shuttle is not a result of atheism, and it wasn't built on faith; the belief in God is.

Any premise is false if it can not withstand the art of logic. In this case the metaphysical premise that is in error is the placing the primacy of consciousness (GOD) over the primacy of existence (reality), i.e., before a consciousness could know it is was aware of something, there would need to be something to be aware of. To argue a consciousness can be aware of nothing, is an error of logic, a contradiction, like arguing a square is a circle, or a woman can give birth to an elephant, (a favorite phrase of the philosopher, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual heir, and author of several books including The Ominous Parallels, and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, better known as OPAR.)

My point here is not that atheism is the source of man's greatness, but the result of reasoning, just as the space ship is not built on faith, but reason.

Furthermore, atheism does not state there is no God, because as a general rule of logic, one does not prove a negative, nor has any responsibility to. Atheism, as I understand its definition, simply means to be without a belief in a supernatural deity, nothing more, nothing less. So, for anyone to say I will become a creative genius because I am an atheist, is wrong. All it means is you have no belief in a supernatural being. In other words, being an atheist doesn't make you a hero, a moral being, a fantastic genius, or a creative mind any more than being a Christian makes you a faith healer, or St Paul. It just means you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the new testament of the bible.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

In closing, I'd remind everyone that it was the men of faith that flew jets built by the men of reason into buildings built by man's reasoning power in order to attack and destroy the idea of reason as being more powerful than faith. This is my point: Faith leads to force, death, wars, and screams of horror; reason leads to good health, prosperity, peace, and happiness.

FAITH AND FORCE: DESTROYERS OF
THE MODERN WORLD FROM THIS BOOK OF AYN RAND'S NON-FICTION

 

I don’t know what other atheists have experienced. However, I have experienced many supernatural experiences and as a result I no longer believe in the supernatural. And, truly I don’t think these experiences are "imagined or contrived". These are your words.

And yeah it’s pretty difficult to not conclude that there is no god considering the lack of evidence for one. I can forgive a gnostic atheist for coming to that conclusion. Nevertheless it’s important to keep an open mind.

I don’t assume that every theist who ever lived only has blind faith. There are many who quote evidence for their beliefs. I just think they are wrong, and missing the point (of Christianity at least). I can forgive a gnostic theist for coming to that conclusion too. I’ve been there before.

 

I do, that's why I'm not afraid of Ayn Rand, nor hate her, but instead love, worship, and defend the ideals she presents, and admire her for having the courage to stand alone against an entire world and present those ideals.

If a man states the earth revolves around the sun just because Galileo said so, he is wasting his life. If he understands the meaning of the statement, and admires Galileo's courage for saying and standing by it against the ridicule of all others, than he has truly taken at least that one step closer to the heaven he seeks, not in the hereafter, but in the reality of the here and now.

Ayn Rand: "The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness."--http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors1/ayn-rand-quote-when-i-disagree-with-a-rational-man-i-let-reality-be.jpg



When I meet an irrational one, I leave him to his delusions and wish him the best of luck.

Wishing you the best of luck. You're going to need it.

 

Doubt this helps, but just in case, the process you're looking for is concept formation and it takes place in your mind. Read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,
But really, the best I can do for you is wish the best of luck.

Ayn Rand: "According to Objectivism, concepts “represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents.” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; all further quotations in this section, unless otherwise identified, are from this work.) To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.”--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concept-formation.html

 

Suuuuuure don't look like it from here, pilgrim.

Well I guess that makes you a becon of sanity relative to the dozen or so Earthlings who do fear or hate dead people.

Do you indeed? How very...odd.

Didn't bother with the rest.

 

So many theist fallacies!



Let's begin with the theist belief that their god is a parental father figure? Hard to be more childish than to need a father telling theists what to do even after they have allegedly reached adulthood.

As for whining and crying that is another theist trait. They are forever whining for their father figure to "deliver them from evil" and to "answer their prayers". The irony being that theist dogma actually teaches them to behave like children and "leave it in god's hands" and that "god knows best". The litany of dogma infantalizing believers begins with the inane meme of having to be "born again"and goes rapidly downhill from there. Theists accusing others of being "childlike" while believing themselves to be "children of god" is the height of hypocrisy. I could go on this vein but hopefully by now the message might have reached it's audience but I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

As far as this alleged "long evolving tradition of philosophical debate" goes that is an oxymoron if ever there was one. Theists consider evolution to be "evil" and there is zero evidence for their superstitions "evolving" into anything resembling actual knowledge. If fact all that they have "achieved" is to come up with the concept of blasphemy being "sinful" because it exposes the fallacy of their dead end superstitions. Compare that to those who instead put their minds to the task of understanding, learning and passing along scientific knowledge over the same time period. Thanks to them we have a far better comprehension of our universe and the principles on which it functions. Theists still quake in fear of their superstitious beliefs while atheists enjoy the astounding discoveries of science.

When it comes to folly it is hard to surpass the foolishness of believing in a superstition with zero substantiation.

 

yep sounds like an atheist to me!

 

Do tell what superstition an atheist believes in? How you doing as the agnostic who thinks a dead man wrote the bible?

 

Dead men did write the bible, otherwise please tell them to give me a call so we can chat in person.

the big bang, curved space, state is the greatest good, and all the science errors that have been proven wrong over time that atheists like to sweep under the carpet.

 

You stated JC wrote the bible, a dead man at the time the bible was written, if you intend to withdraw your assertion do so. Science has nothing to do with atheism, both theists and atheists are scientists, try again!

 

I didnt see the quote, without evidence I lack belief.

Try again.

 

You wrote it, but did not see it! Now stop trying to cover your errors and tell us whether you think a dead JC wrote the christian Bible?

 

Best of luck

 

Religions rely upon factless superstitions!

Science is self correcting! That is NOT "sweeping" anything "under the carpet".

Why do theists make up such disingenuous claptrap?

 

There you go again (in Reagan voice)..
You again equate your BELIEFS about origins with 'science!', when you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for your beliefs in atheistic natural origins. You cannot observe it. You cannot repeat it. It is a belief, only. Science has nothing to say, about your beliefs, other than they are fine opinions for a speculative belief system.

You merely hijack 'science!' & pretend it is your exclusive property, & somehow stands in opposition to a theistic worldview. But that is just the phony atheist narrative. Science is a theistic 'invention'. The scientific revolution, the age of reason, the enlightenment.. these were all rooted in a belief of a Creator, with an orderly universe, not the (then) current naturalistic belief of randomness, superstition, & fickle whimsy.

Why do you accuse people you disagree with of lying? Just because you have no evidence or reason, does not mean everyone else is a liar. Your indoctrination slip is showing, & you resort to ad hom, to hide the impotence of your reasoning.

 

Oh, i get it. You believe this very strongly, & shout it at every opportunity. And, you stoop to name calling if your demands are not accepted.

You are right, that 'atheism is obvious & basic & there are few complicating nuances'. Same with theism. You either believe in a First Cause, or you don't. You believe in God, or you don't. It is a binary possibility.

And.. it is a belief. You believe in no gods. I don't see the problem with that, or why such bizarre mental gymnastics take place to deny this obvious condition. It is not a 'proven fact!', it is just your opinion, about the nature of the universe.

But i waste my fingers, i am sure, repeating this, as it has been done ad nauseum, & the hysterical New Internet Atheists stick to their guns.. 'We don't believe in anything!! We have NO beliefs!' We are above such mundane philosophical exercises, & just accept Reality as it is. And, our perceptions of Reality are Absolute, while theists are stupid & believe in superstition!'

How are your 'opinions' about the nature of reality not merely a 'belief' about the nature of reality? How can you assume, 'Absolute Truth!' about YOUR opinions, & dismiss & ridicule all others?

What is so hard to understand about this? Why do some atheists try to shroud their 'beliefs' in such mystery, pretending to be on some higher plane of reason & existence?

 

not only do they hijack science they dont have the comprehension skills to understand the difference between religion and a deity, then the hijack religious principles and call it their own, saying they no God to come to that conclusion AFTER they hijacked and adopted the Christian morals, and now they favor the state as their god, just like stalin as we read in their atheist bible.

 

Here is the simple view:

The origins of life & the universe were EITHER by:

• Natural processes, with no Intelligent Cause.
• An Intelligent Cause, with their own Creative Processes.

Reality is either one or the other. IF there is no 'Intelligent Consciousness' from a God or Higher Intelligence, THEN only natural processes can be the source of all things.

There is not an 'error', but just 2 different premises.. one of a possible intelligent Cause, & the other of no intelligent Cause, but naturalism, only. It is the ASSUMPTION of either premise that provides the rationale for the subsequent conclusions.

So i do not see a logical 'high road' for the naturalistic POV.. that is mere prejudice, to try to diminish the Intelligent Cause premise by definition. It is not a logically compelling conclusion, just different assumptions for the different premises.

Historically, the term 'atheist' was exactly correlated with 'There is no God', or at least, 'I don't believe in God'. I don't understand the current trend to mask that obvious reality behind mumbo jumbo mysticism. IMO, it is an attempt to distance themselves from the rest of humanity, who only have 'beliefs!' The New Internet Atheist has no such mundane beliefs, but is on an ethereal plane of consciousness, where beliefs do not exist. They merely 'are', & their feelings transcend any objective reality, & in fact, define objective reality. But that is only be definition or decree. Objectively, their beliefs are only subjective, by any stretch of Reason. And, they are beliefs, regardless of how they try to redefine them.

Oh, there have been plenty of 'men of faith' who were atheists. Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Pick a despot from the last century, & compare the genocide & oppression. How many of them were motivated by the naturalistic belief system? Most of them. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, & countless others, who maybe lacked the opportunity to mold a 'new man', but still promoted it. Eugenics? Social Darwinism? Marxism? All of these ideologies had a naturalistic belief and/or blatant atheism as the central motivation for their heinous acts.

So enough with the phony narrative of 'atheists are loving & peaceful! Theists (and especially christians!) are the source of all wars, killing, & oppression!'

'Reason' is not the panacea you believe it to be. Reason depends on the assumptions, & the subsequent conclusions of those assumptions. IF you premise man as a higher animal, that more advanced humans are obligated to manage or 'thin' based on undesirable traits, then genocide is a rational, logical conclusion. And that is & has been the justification from the naturalists in power, for their genocide. They wanted to create a 'new man', with none of the undesirable traits of the old ones.

And advances in science & technology have NOT come from the atheistic worldview. Science is concerned with observable, testable, provable reality, not speculations about origins & the supernatural. If a Supreme Being created the universe, & installed Natural Laws for it to operate under, how is it 'unscientific!' for a theist to inquire into 'what God hath wrought'? That has been the EXACT motivation for theistic scientists for millennia. There is no conflict between theism & science. That is merely a phony caricature promoted by the leftist atheist world view.

 

why do virulent anti-atheists ALWAYS seem to believe that morals are a christian invention and that athiest have brazenly stolen the good bits of christianity leaving them holding the bag for all the rest of the baggage.