The Folly of Atheism

You're a funny guy. So, you claim you have never been disrespectful of anyone, or used ad hominem, or any such juvenile tactic?
Just about every encounter i have with you, this is your MO.. so why are you trying, now, to pretend you are above such things?

I think with too many leftists, they get caught up in spinning the propaganda, & trying to get the emotional appeals working in unison, that they forget about Truth. Facts & reality become tools to manipulate for their agenda. It is a tragic commentary on our public discourse, but it is plainly evident.

 

Why, would you care to provide your definition of god.

 

It is indeed a false narrative. However, it is not narrative that atheists promulgate. It is a narrative that theists ascribe to atheists. A strawman.

Can you show a few well known atheists who have said or written that 'christianity has caused all the evils in humanity'?

Atheists would be more apt to say that religion, not just Christianity, but certainly including Christianity, is responsible for many of the evils in the world.

For many years the European Continent was in a state of war mainly waged by Christians against Christians.
The speeches and writings of Christian Martin Luther were responsible for the death of many Jews.
Tens of thousands were killed in the 14th - 15th Century Christian witch hunts.

 

That same argument can be applied to Religion. However, religions begin their indoctrination long before a child can even read and understand what the words 'Attention, Attention' even mean, so I guess it's not necessary.

How much of the above have you applied toward Christianity? Are you not at all skeptical of any of the things in the Bible. Do you just accept everything in the Bible as Absolute Truth Given By God?

 

A fictional supernatural entity.

 

Well, we have a correlation/causation problem here. Was it atheism that brought about the atrocities or were they both brought about by communism? If atheism brought atrocities, then atheism is bad, if atheism was an effect communism, then that gives us no information on whether atheism is bad if it is uncoupled from communism (just like Stalin and Hitler had moustaches, but that does not make moustaches bad). The examples you provide don't make a distinction between the two.

It seems to me "the narrative" that "christianity has caused all the evils in humanity" isn't really the argument. You might get it from the book title "Root of all evil?" but even Dawkins who wrote it concluded "the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous". I'm sure there are people who will say things along those lines, but as long as you focus on that wording, the great majority of atheists are just going to think that you've completely missed the point and don't know what you're talking about. Atheists are aware of the atrocities of communism, and they share the idea that atrocities are bad, so obviously, if they found atheism being incompatible with not performing atrocities, they would have left atheism.

Most atheists base their understanding of freedom and human equality on humanism and the Rawlsian notion of the veil of ignorance. This is consistent with naturalism and atheism. Elitism is not a part of that narrative, the progressive left has always been for equality based in humanism (even though the exactly what that means and how it is supposed to come about is open to interpretation, which is sometimes misconstrued as disregarding it). Humanism and Rawlsian ethics do not derive from atheism, but they are consistent with atheism. That is why atheists can stand behind humanism and still reject ideas like Stalinism.

 

Sorry but just because religious indoctrination does not work 100% does not prove that it is not effective. That should not be too complicated a concept.

 

No, it makes the participation of all the rest of you rather pointless. My pointing that out counts as providing elightenment.

 

Theists use the descriptor "theist" (or their religious designation) because they "believe" or guess that at least one god exists...or that it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none do.

Atheists use the descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" or guess that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

They are two sides of one coin...making blind guesses about the unknown.

Each group has a right to make those guesses...and should not be disparaged because they do.

 

Do you really want to open that can of worms again? Your position that anything unproven could possibly exist led to the conclusion that your position is that telepathic snowflakes could possibly exist.

 

That is what i have been saying! I am not correlating atheism with human evils, but showing that man's inhumanity to man is not COMPLETELY dependent on the underlying, stated ideology. Some are, like the islamists & bolsheviks, that i mentioned earlier. But with communism, you can rightly correlate the ideology, which is dependent on atheism, for a basis. You can follow their reasoning, if the assumption of atheism is made, & the belief in any theistic beliefs being inherently evil for society. So their persecution of theism, in whatever form it takes, is a logical outgrowth of the marxist/communist ideology.

Dawkins is clearly anti-religious, and not at all with a 'live & let live', tolerance based belief system. He rails against christianity, especially, when he has no basis for assuming his atheism is any more 'empirical reality' than anything else.

I definitely see the false narrative of 'christianity is the root of all evil', in academia, these forums, & most contemporary philosophical discussions. It is promoted in movies, the political realm, & just about anywhere the topic might come up. I don't see a basis for this, historically, but it is promoted with religious zeal.

I don't know about your 'most atheist' claim. I don't see that in practice here in the forums, nor in my many philosophical discussions with atheists over the years. That may be a lofty aspiration, but it does not carry over in actual practice, and it is not reflected in any toleration & acceptance of alternate views. There are a lot of 'militant' atheists, especially in forums, & they certainly don't walk that talk.

 

It certainly is something I would discuss.

Let's discuss it. Here it is again:

I never said "anything unproven could possibly exist."

Get your facts straight...and if you would like to discuss them, I am willing to do so.

 

I think you are making assumptions & accusations that have no basis. I have a very clear topic, & have addressed what i see as logical flaws in atheism. I'm not done, either. There is more! My reasoning is very sound, & for you to claim otherwise is absurd. You make no rebuttal to any specific points, but make a broad brush dismissal, based on NOTHING! I have ignored nothing. Point it out, if you claim it exists. My vision is excellent with this topic, & IMO, you reaction here just shows the accuracy of my perceptions. You have an irrational, emotional response, with no reasoning or evidence for your beliefs & statements.

If you want to have a logical debate on this subject, you will have to employ logic.

Now just going for ad hominem.. a typical response when your own arguments are impotent.

You are merely deflecting with irrlevant, semantical details. Beliefs about deities or the supernatural are mostly binary.. i included an 'absurdist' view, to include that possibility, but as others have said, they are functionally atheistic in their worldview, so there is really only the 2 mutually exclusive beliefs.

Theism: Belief in a deity or supernatural entity.
Atheism: NO belief in a deity or supernatural entity.

This is not about political views, though the core beliefs about deities does affect that. Look at all your subcategories. You can go through them & put them in either 'atheist' or 'theist'. You merely muddy the waters of understanding by trying to make a 'special' category for your beliefs, or some kind of elevated, lofty realm that the super-intelligentsia live in, that do not fall into categories like everyone else.

But, to keep everyone happy, i will make another category of beliefs on this topic.

1. Theism
2. Atheism
3. Agnosticism/absurdism
4. Special Snowflakism

That should cover everyone's core beliefs. I believe that #4 is just a dodge by some who don't like to be seen as having a categorical view, & wish to see themselves in an enlightened, superior plane of existence, that the stupid common people can't imagine. But this could also be just a category of atheism.. call it 'arrogant atheism'. But that is more about the individual, rather than the core belief.

How can you deny the correlation between marxism & darwinism? It is historically there, we have multiple letters from the actual people involved which correlate their views, & the expansion that they each brought the other. You also have tons of analysis from historians & philosophers that correlate them Your assertion has NO evidence. That is merely your belief, with no corroborating evidence.

I'll give you the string of quotes i gave you earlier, with a couple of others, as evidence for that correlation. If you wish to dispute that, historically or philosophically, you'll have to do better than just making an assertion of belief.

Two scientists can hardly be named who have, in the second half of the 19th century, dominated the human mind to a greater degree than Darwin and Marx. Their teachings revolutionized the conception that the great masses had about the world. For decades their names have been on the tongues of everybody, and their teachings have become the central point of the mental struggles which accompany the social struggles of today. The cause of this lies primarily in the highly scientific contents of their teachings.
...
The scientific importance of Marxism as well as of Darwinism consists in their following out the theory of evolution, the one upon the domain of the organic world, of things animate; the other, upon the domain of society. ~Anton Pannekoek, 1909

Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect. Engels, letter to Marx, 1859

“Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Evolution, of course, was just what the founders of communism needed to explain how mankind could have come into being without the intervention of any supernatural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy.” ~Conway Zirkle

Darwin had an undeniable and profound influence on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the development of Communism. Although not intended by Darwin, the effect of the theory of evolution emerged as the single most significant social engineering movement of the twentieth century. 'Darwin, Here & Now', Richard William Nelson

"..after the Newtonian Theory of the universe had been developed, almost all thinking tended to express itself in the analogies of the Newtonian Theory, and since the Darwinian Theory has reigned amongst us, everybody is likely to express whatever he wishes to expound in terms of development and accommodation to environment." ~Woodrow WilsonDarwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. Marx, 1861

Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of mankind. Darwin letter to Marx, 1873

 

I'd be interested in why you consider that dichotomy the end-all.

Why not:

Theism: Belief (or guess) that at least one god exists.
Atheism: Belief (or guess) that no gods exist.

Especially since you expressed: "...so there is really only the 2 mutually exclusive beliefs."

That means, as I read it, there are TWO BELIEFS...not a "belief" and a "lack of belief."

 

Ah the joys of forums. People don't just say things, they write them. And then those words are there forever, for all to see.

 

This probably should be in another thread, but it does relate. It is about logic & arguments. There are 3 basic differences in arguments or statements, which include forum posts!

1. Empirical. These are evidence based arguments, which rely on sound logic & scientific methodology. It is also called objectivism.
2. Religious. These are assertions or declarations of faith, with no evidence. It is something the claimant believes, perhaps very strongly, but cannot support with empirical evidence.
3. Fallacious. These are arguments of absurdity, which attempt to either muddy the waters, deflect with irrelevancy, poison the well, or other logical fallacies

As i have said before, if anyone can see any other categories for arguments, statements, or beliefs that do not fall in these basic categories, i would love to hear them.

The empirical argument should be obvious. That is what the scientific method is based on, & it relies on evidence for the argument. In philosophy, the evidence can be historical, material, or philosophical, but they all have to fit together logically, for it to work in an empirical based argument.

The religious argument is one of subjectivism. It is a feeling based argument, based on the beliefs or opinions of the claimant, who may feel absolutely convinced that his opinion is Absolute Truth. But they have no empirical evidence, & their arguments have no basis in objective reality, so they are all subjective, relative to the beliefs of the person making them.

The 3rd category of arguments is based on fallacy. The arguments are presented, not with appeals to empirical data, or even personal beliefs, but fallacies that deflect from the argument completely. These can be ad hominem, poison the well, strawman, false equivalence, & dozens more. They are, perhaps, the most common arguments in this forum. They are not beliefs about the topic, or evidence presented FOR the topic, but are diversions FROM the topic, with attempts to ridicule, demean, or disparage the opponent or the actual arguments being made.

What is most interesting to me, is the correlation between the 3 basic perceptions in the topic of this thread, that of the existence of deity or the supernatural. I also see the political/ideological correlation as it relates to beliefs in that arena. It is my conviction that none of these beliefs are in a vacuum, but are interrelated, building on each other, & combining for a basic World View. There certainly is some overlap in some areas.. many atheists are pro life, or fiscal conservatives, & many theists are socialists, or anti-American in their views. So not all 'talking points' of political issues are neatly divided by the 'atheism/theism' dichotomy. But there is a correlation, & i see it increasing. That is a result more of state sponsored indoctrination, where the ideological followers of the progressive world view, with a big emphasis on atheism, is pounded into people from infancy. All the political talking points are promoted constantly in schools, public television & radio, govt, entertainment, & news media. That is why you see a difference. Many 'old atheists' are conservative, pro life, & don't believe in global warming. But almost ALL the younger atheists follow in lock step with all the left wing political issues. They are conformists, for the most part, & do not employ empiricism or scientific methodology in their lives. They hold to the relative views of Truth, or can switch back & forth between relativity & absurdism, depending on the argument.

That is another topic, & has more to do with the 'evolution' of atheism in our society.

 

Okay...I said (you can read it right up above)..."I never said 'anything unproven could possibly exist.'"

So...unless you can show me saying "anything unproven could possibly exist"...get off your high horse.

I wrote what I actually wrote, using the words I actually used...for a reason. If you want to quote what I actually wrote...rather than paraphrasing...do so. Don't get so haughty because I object to it.

Oh...and at some point you really should explain what this diversion has to do with the topic of this thread.

 

That says the same thing, imo. It is just a semantical difference.

'I don't believe in god',
'I have no beliefs in god'.
'I don't believe anything about any god, at any time'.
' Theists are stupid'.

IMO, these beliefs are the same.. just semantical quibbling over the obvious. If there is no expressed belief in a god or the supernatural, then they are an atheist. Ignorance is not a belief. So someone who says, 'i don't know' is not making a positive argument, or declaring a view, but is merely in limbo, undecided about what world view to take. When the agnostic crosses the line, is when he says,
'And nobody else knows, either!' Then, it is a statement of belief, with no more empirical evidence than the other 2 belief systems. IMO, it is used as a dodge, to deflect from their actual beliefs, which are usually atheistic, but they try to hide that opinion behind a pretense of ignorance. I can probably count on one hand those who are pure 'agnostic' in their views.. they claim ignorance, only, without the subsequent attack on theism that the pseudo agnostics employ.

 

It is MUCH more than just a "semantical difference."

It is the essence of the jarring difference between people who label themselves "strong atheists" and "weak atheists."

There is a difference...and a considerable difference between:

I do not believe any gods exist...and...

I believe no gods exist.

If you consider that inconsequential...then it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion on the issue.

Not sure what you were trying to say here...but I'd like to.

I am an agnostic...although I prefer to describe my position than use the descriptor, because of the misunderstandings that often happen.

Here is my "agnosticism" spelled out:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

If you see something in there you want to contest...or consider a "dodge"...let's discuss it.

 

This is what you get when you combine arrogance, ego and delusion and try to present it as fact. What you post is your OPINION, does not apply to anyone who can think for themselves.

As is normal for one such as you, you try to cherry pick some study to support your views by posting a part of it, not all of it. I suspect that you do not even understand what you are posting.

Oh well, you cannot convince a brick wall of anything other than it is a brick wall.

 

Though I’m sure one can go the distance and try to include and categories just about every “ism” in your lists, but its been my experience that it breaks down to three. As some have already eluded to, there’s the atheist that declares there is no God, the theist (from what I understand was once called deist) who declares there must be a God or better said Creator and Judge. But there is also the priest who is to have a relationship with his God, or know his God. In other words, by the person, not the "ism" categorized.

But there is the fly in the ointment that as long as mankind worships a god, no matter if that god is a true and Living God or not, there is a god, or even god’s.

so the argument breaks down to real god or not. therefore the proof is to know, and to know is to experience. so, only God can prove He is who He is. Despite the arguments for His works, or creation.

 

If I understand this correctly, I agree for most purposes.

Well, that was my point. Not even he, with his predisposition against Christianity, would say Christianity is the root of all evil in any absolute terms. I don't doubt that people throw that kind of wordings around carelessly, but it's not a part of the understanding most people hold.

Be clear what you mean here. In what sense do you see them? Are they stated, or are you interpreting what you see to say that? Do you make a distinction between the narrative "root of all evil" and "root of some evil" or "root of a particular evil that we're looking at"? Do you propose that these narratives are especially common or just that they exist and if so, how do you quantify it and compare it to other things?

Well, humanism doesn't rely on atheism. Arguing the point of humanism is not relevant when it comes to arguing for atheism or against religion in any way, so I don't see where you think you would see it brought up.

Also not sure what you mean by acceptance. They certainly don't have to accept ideas they don't agree with as true. Nor is acceptance of others' views the same as withholding one's criticism of them. I and many with me want more religious arguments to be brought forward for examination and have no interest in suppressing them. In my opinion, the presentation and examination is actively accepting them, but sometimes gets criticised as trying to suppress them.

 

Good examples of falling back on ad hominem, when your reasoning fails you.

I have made no opinion based assertions. I have made statements supported by evidence, & i have refuted some notions of multiple layers of atheism, all somehow different, & deserving special consideration.

I don't really know how to answer your accusations, as you don't refer to anything specifically. IMO, you illustrate the 'fallacious' argument that i pointed out in the previous post:

1. Empirical. These are evidence based arguments, which rely on sound logic & scientific methodology. It is also called objectivism.
2. Religious. These are assertions or declarations of faith, with no evidence. It is something the claimant believes, perhaps very strongly, but cannot support with empirical evidence.
3. Fallacious. These are arguments of absurdity, which attempt to either muddy the waters, deflect with irrelevancy, poison the well, or other logical fallacies

So, if you are trying to rebut my arguments, you have provided neither evidence or arguments for a different view, nor support for your view, which you have not even stated.

 

I put them both as 'theist'. Claiming divine revelation for a belief is still a 'religious' or asserted statement. It is not empirical, subject to the examination by others.

So there is the 2 basic binary, mutually exclusive beliefs:

1. Theism
2. Atheism

I added the other 2 as unique situations, for those who don't like to be categorized in simplistic, binary terms.

• Agnosticism/absurdism
• Special Snowflakism

But, IMO, these are mere dodges, & if you question these 2, it soon becomes evident that they are really either an atheist or theist.

I would agree that SUBJECTIVELY, any personal experience with the supernatural would be powerful evidence for that person. But we are talking about empirical, objective reality, not subjective, so personal anecdotes, while valid as evidence, do not present empirical evidence, which is the demand from some skeptics.

I do find that part of the atheistic folly, however. They categorically dismiss any & all personal encounters with the supernatural as imagined or contrived, when they have no evidence of that belief. IOW, they are basing their skepticism of the supernatural on an assumption.. an unprovable assumption about the experiences of millions of people over the millennia.

 

All of which is a very convoluted argument that religion is true because so many people believe in it.

I dismiss claims because there is no evidence to support them there is however, lots of evidence that out minds are capable of extraordinary delusion.