The Folly of Atheism, part 2

On the logic thing, I'm not sure if it's the right tool to use in this discussion. Frankly I'm totally unable to understand anything about how the universe was created, who created it, if it was created or if it just came into existence or it was always there. If I think about it too much I find myself not just confused but bereft of anything approaching an explanation which satisfies my own thinking. I just give up. I retreat to my own beliefs and I find some solace there.

I also find it a bit difficult to wear a label. For me that means that somehow (this is just me) I find myself straitjacketed. I know I can choose. Atheist, weak atheist, strong atheist and so on right through to agnostic and then the various types of belief. But I do know they're just beliefs, not knowledge. If I say I have knowledge of any of these things then I'm kidding myself. I have to settle for not being a believer. As far as the universe is concerned, I know not a damn thing apart from what I'm told from those with superior knowledge who have gained that knowledge through scientific exploration of the universe.

 

What about Apatheism which simply states the whole deity question for or against doesn't matter at all. Seriously people the only two reasons I care about these questions at all are the intrusion of religion into the civil society including politics and the utter waste of resources on religion since there is no evidence for a deity. Atheism has other issues it fights so hard against religion its amusing since your not going to change the religionists positions. So why not just consider the question unanswerable and so it doesn't matter and push this in society it would seem to be with real church attendance and how people live the practical option.

So I would say my real position is: The deity question doesn't matter at this time, if they show up and start demanding things or offering to do things we can reconsider this position, but for now we should not act for or against deities nor give deities any special considerations or their followers. Likewise Atheists should not try to convert the deities followers your position although superior can neither prove or disprove deities in the end so why bother unless arguing this is amusing to you as a recreation.

So my question to Theists okay why should we give your position any credence without evidence of deities, your asking us to spend money and time on them so is that sensible to expect of us on the critical side of whether they exist?

So my question for Atheists since you cannot disprove the ultimate question since the supernatural would be outside the natural why bother with your position it seems equally pointless save its entertaining?

 

At the risk of inviting a rehash, I offer what was nothing new in some other threads, but wasn’t mentioned in part 1 unless I missed it:
------------------------------------------------
You are more than your physical body
------------------------------------------------

The skeptics will say that this is just an assumption. It probably deserves more weight than that, but for purposes of further discussion it’s what we could go with, since you now agree that continuation must be fueled by more than just empiricism.

While relying on ordinary reason and philosophy (and religion?) may get a lot of bulk traction, I don’t think the task can be properly fulfilled without contributions from advanced science (QM) and occultism (ufology, cosmology, NDEs, telepathy, & remote viewing) as some part of the mix.

The prospect of extra dimensions existing beyond the familiar 4 are hard to ignore; humans have direct sensory access to only a smidgeon of the known electromagnetic spectrum, and must rely on sophisticated equipment to detect and utilize the rest of it. One doesn’t need empirical proof that the wrong move can be deadly around the exposed live connections of a 277-volt lighting fixture that is silent and unlit for some reason. These are not religious or philosophical concerns.

I agree we should get to the nitty gritty: personal pursuit of the God/No God issue should focus on the nature of reality.

How do you make any meaningful progress in this direction without departing from familiar worn-out banter? Your leap from the empirical loose end to a personal belief seems to leave out way too much in between. I don’t see where filling it in as much as sensible with a careful screening of the best available information is not going to get you the most satisfactory picture. The picture I get is sure not one of an ultimate Big Cheese guy. The picture is complex and its range is out of our reach, but it doesn’t necessarily exclude some Big Cheese operators in between. The cosmos seems to be run on cycles big and small, fundamental energy, and fundamental intelligence. It surely benefits from growing some awesome Big Cheese operators but presently seems to be grown like everything else: from scratch. Whatever is the next discovery after source vacuum/void should be very interesting.

 

Brady and Glenn use the argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy, to support their religious faith. Fancy that.

 

Does it really exist at all?

"The [quantum] atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts"- Prof. Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize winner in Physics)
"If you can explain this [the Double Slit Experiment] using common sense and logic, do let me know, because there is a Nobel Prize for you"- Jim Al-Khalili OBE, Professor of Theoretical Physics

 

So we are sentient holograms it doesn't change anything, we must assume we are in a reality, so what is the point?

 

Well give me your belief and then we will see if it is arrogance or ability. That said of course I should have worded my offer better since any belief is grounded in belief. So sad that I had to be the one to point out my own failure. So as a revised offer just give me your belief and I will tell you whether it is grounded in fact or just in prejudice.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the beginning of a circle is any point you choose.

 

Let's believe in a Jewish zombie that created the universe.....instead of that it was always here

 

If I consider the question of whether or not I believe God, or gods, exist, the answer is no. I've heard people make what they must have thought were good arguments, and they failed to convince me of this being's or beings existence.

It's not that complicated. There was a question with only two answers available, and the answer was no.

A philosophy is a study or system of thought. Atheism is the answer to one question, so it is not a philosophy. If anything, it is the non-acceptance of or non-belief in a philosophy, but is not a philosophy in itself.

A belief is an acceptance that something is true. Atheism is the acceptance that something is false, namely a belief in God or gods. Atheism is the lack of a particular belief, not a belief itself.

My not believing in God or Gods has no bearing on my thoughts about science. These topics don't overlap for me, and probably many others. If they must for you, then that's your preference, but it doesn't apply to me.

A worldview is the entirety of a person's knowledge and understanding. Atheism is still just one answer to one question. Atheism is not a worldview. An atheist is a person whose worldview doesn't include God or gods.

Atheists don't declare there are no gods. Gnostics do, because they're pretending they know. You don't ask atheists if God or gods exist, you merely ask them if they believe there is one or the other.

Atheists don't indoctrinate others. You're thinking of our public school system and religions. You thinking we are indoctrinating other because we disagree with you in public is you having a tantrum.

Beliefs aren't 'absolute facts'. Compare an atheist saying they don't believe God or gods exist with the religious person who KNOWS God or gods exist for an ABSOLUTE FACT, and whatever else they pull off a shelf, like the wants or needs or rules or desires of said God or gods. Also remember only Sith deal in absolutes. Just sayin'.

The all or nothing thing is a fiction. Show me one Christian who also believes in Vishnu or that Muhammad rode up to Heaven on a winged horse.

And you should do an extensive entry on how you differentiate between valid beliefs and things you disbelieve. Show us how it's done. It'll be fascinating.

Dogma is a system of beliefs that are considered ABSOLUTE FACT by their adherents. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God or gods. It's not a system. We're not making any statements about absolute truths, just one statement about one belief. Atheism isn't dogma.

The ABSOLUTE only folly of these threads is your abuse of language.

Instead of baseless attacks against us, please consider making something worth engaging in.

Thanks and good luck to you.

 

Perhaps we can add another label called " irrelevance" based on a statement such as there is no evidence for any god having any impact on man's existance at any time in history, excluding of course uses and abuses of the concept of a god to justify various forms of human behaviors both positive and negative towards other humans.

 

As I said...
If all you are going to do is rehash the last 1000 posts...I guess you are.

Besides, you still haven't finished with your thread on the Fallacies of Evolution. A couple of people there, including me, have raised some questions which you have not addressed (ya know, textbooks).

 

Thanks for the honest answer. this is an examination of the basic claims of atheism, & of course, many people have slight variations of that belief system. And, i am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but am engaged in a general discussion about atheism, in particular, & how it has some foibles as an ideology.

I don't know about 'answer'.. i would put it as 'belief'. I also would put the belief of atheism as a basis for many philosophies.. and it would be a core belief for most of them. Without atheism as the starting point, the subsequent 'beliefs' or conclusions within a particular philosophy might break down.

Non belief? I don't know if you're just trying to wriggle out of defining your atheism as a 'belief', by declaring it a 'non belief'. That was one of the flaws in the OP, & a heated point in the last thread.

It seems you are in the same boat as others, here, who vigorously deny their 'opinions' are beliefs. Of course atheism is a belief. It is a belief in 'no gods'. It is the polar opposite of theist.. which is a belief in a god or gods. I am constantly mystified at the difficulty some have over this simple definition. You do not KNOW, empirically, that 'no gods exist'... that is merely your belief.

Well, i am a skeptic, & i doubt that this is really true. Most atheists i have ever known have been fully invested in the theory of evolution, as the basis for their naturalistic views, & cling heavily to their view of 'science' to give weight to their beliefs. It is a way to dodge the 'belief' label, but presuming they have 'Empirical Truth' behind their opinions.

I would say that a belief in either atheism or theism provides the basis for a worldview.. it is not an insignificant detail. It is usually the central tenet of the worldview, around which all other beliefs/opinions/conclusions revolve.

Gnostic, strong, dogmatic.. these are just qualifiers for 'i don't believe in god'. Some atheists may border on agnosticism, not willing to be so dogmatic to declare, 'i know for a fact that there is no god!' That is a tough statement to make, for a rational person. 'I don't believe there is a god, but considering the vastness of the universe, & the amount of knowledge we do NOT have, if more or better information comes along, i would change my opinion'. Both of these are atheists, they just vary in their dogmatism. The former is what i labeled 'rabid dogmatism' (mostly for the imagery!), the latter is just a bit more balanced & introspective, realizing they are not omnipotent.

The Big Questions for all of human history have started with origins. How did we get here? For most all of human history, there have been 2 beliefs about this:

• supernatural
• natural

The belief about origins is the starting point for all other beliefs, & lay the foundation for any worldview. It is the basis for the beliefs about God or the supernatural. If you believe in a purely naturalistic 'cause' of origins, then atheism is generally a part of that worldview. If you believe in a supernatural 'cause', then generally, you take a supernatural view of origins. They are obviously closely related.

Of course they do. Go through the list of institutions in the OP. All of them promote a naturalistic belief in origins, & exclude a supernaturalistic one. Indoctrination is the domain of the status quo, & whoever is in power does the indoctrination, for their own ideological agendas. It is dangerously naive to think only one belief system indoctrinates.

That has been my point all along. Beliefs are not facts, but opinions, based on education, background, indoctrination, personal experience, & perhaps some objective analysis. Either belief system can be dogmatic, & declare their beliefs as 'absolute fact'. Or, either can be circumspective, including a dash of doubt in their beliefs. That depends on the individual.

?? perhaps you misunderstood. I am arguing against the 'all or nothing' position. Obviously, people can believe in a single supernatural entity, and disbelieve in others.

It seems to me that people are a product of their influences, regarding beliefs. People have come to quite a variety of opinions of these philosophical matters, & they are combined factors.

It obviously is, for some. Many atheists are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as any theist. Dogmatism is not the exclusive domain of any belief system. It is a human trait, & humans of all beliefs exhibit it.

You were doing so well, too, without stooping to insults. Baseless attacks? Seriously? I have been 'attacking' you? I have been examining a common belief system, & critically examining the claims. How do you conflate that as an 'attack!'?

Abuse of language? That is a pretty general charge.. i wonder about what specific thing you consider 'abuse of language'? If you have a logical problem with any of my points, feel free to scrutinize them, & offer a rebuttal or alternate view. But vague charges of 'abuse!' and 'attacks!' are impossible for me to address.

My premise here, if there is one, is that atheism is a belief fraught with folly. Now, i have said, that the same can be said of theism, depending on the claims being made. I could have titled this thread, 'the folly of humans', or 'the folly of dogmatism', & had an equally long list of points. But most people already know about human folly, & many atheists seem to exempt themselves from the rest of humanity, regarding human foibles, irrationality, & dogmatic beliefs. If anything, this is an attempt to show their inclusion with humanity. Far from attacking them, i am receiving them back into the fold of humanity. Perhaps some do not want this inclusion, & they wish to be 'special snowflakes', and be separate from all the other stupid humans, but that is a tough task. I do think i could add more points to my list of 'atheist's folly', & perhaps i will, as more of them are illustrated. But this list is sufficient for now.

 

I have that covered. I would put that in the 'absurdism' category, where 'The question is absurd, nothing is knowable, or i don't like the options'. It is an attempt to ridicule the Questions, as absurd, when they have been a central issue for humanity for millennia. Some can BELIEVE the Big Questions to be irrelevant or absurd, but that does not make it true. That is only a belief, as well.

 

If you are not interested in the topic, don't post. But some people seem to enjoy discussing these matters. I have told you many times that i have avoided your posts because i find you an irrational 'debater', who relies too much on ad hominem & other fallacies. I have no desire to bicker with irrational fools, but i can't seem to get that point across. So perhaps i will try another tack.

I cannot answer the brilliance of your logic, & the sheer power of the facts & compelling arguments you provide. I can only slink away in defeat, crediting you with superior knowledge, insight, & persuasion skills. So when i do not respond to your posts, that is the reason. I am ashamed to be posting in the same thread as you, since my arguments wilt in your presence, & my hopes dashed by your searing wit. I am humiliated by your displays of reason, & should not even be in the same forum as you. I can only bow out in respectful reverence, & beg your forgiveness & forbearance. I should not dare to even quote your holy writings, so compelling & powerful are they, filled with eternal wisdom & searing commentary on the human condition.



that better?

 

I'm glad to see you finally got it right.




Did you ever consider becoming a writer of fiction? You do have a flair for the dramatic.

Think about it. Thirty six hundred Fifty posts, 400 words per post, that's about 1.5 million words. Consider a typical mystery novel might be in the 60,000 to 80,000 word range while a thriller could be over 100,000 words. You could have written about 20 books. If you sold just 1000 copies of each book for $15.00 you would have made $300,000.

We really appreciate you sacrificing so much just to be here to share you words of wisdom us.

 

Whatever you do instead may be idiotic or it may be brilliant, but it won't be vacuous - which is clearly an accurate description of any position defined solely by the absence of belief in this or that.

No it's not, because I'm not an afairyist.

No need, as I do already.

IOW, it's the acceptance that the belief that there is no God is true. Right?

See above.

So those who do are not atheists. Right?

 

There seems to be a certain mismatch in exactly who you are addressing. There probably are those to whom all of this applies, but to address only this version would be to ignore the most common and thoughtworthy ideas atheists present.

Basically, many who consider themselves atheists are what you call agnostics here. Whether or not the word atheism applies to them is a big debate, and I'm not fundamentally opposed to using either definition, but you should be aware that that is the context in which statements like "atheists follow science" and "it's not really a belief" are made. Of course, I won't stop you from addressing statements in any context, but the way it's presented here, it's missing the point almost completely.

Again, I don't think you've understood the real point of the arguments here. The full structure of the argument involves turning the reasoning for rejecting another religion on one's own religion. However, since religious people tend not to answer the (albeit leading) questions in the expected format, the rest of the argument isn't revealed, leading people to misunderstand the full argument. Obviously religious people don't believe all religions.

 

Sorry but absurd and irrelevant are two entirely separate issues. The dictionary can be your friend.

 

The word atheist is simply a way for the religious to label irreligious people so they can attack them, kill them, persecute them, ostracize them and so on. Atheism is simply non-belief, nothing more. No Atheist claims to have proven God does not exist so your entire thread is based upon a form of confirmation bias. Is there a word for non-belief in the idea that Socrates is still alive and living somewhere in Athens selling trinkets? When you have proof of your claims about religion, provide them. If they are sound, testable and repeatable, every person on the planet will become religious after seeing your proof. It's no more difficult than that. Prove it.

 

No, vacuous is lacking of thought or knowledge or mindless. If you spent a lot of time exploring a position to determine it lacks evidence, this certainly isn't vacuous.

An afairyist is someone who isn't a fairyist and you said you were not a fairyist, so you are an afairyist whether you admit it or not.

 

All of which are correctly attributed to a lack of belief, obviously, seeing there is, quite literally, absolutely nothing to it.

Maybe not, but we're talking about the end result, not the process that yields it.

But what you omit is that both take a position on the existence of fairies...

...which is why this is bullpuckey.

 

Vacuous doesn't mean "a lack of". It means mindless, unintelligent, or a lack of thought. Unless I am gravely misunderstanding the definition of this word, you simply aren't using it right.

And even if lacking belief because you can't find evidence is vacuous, I don't see how labeling it as vacuous makes it wrong.

If you don't have a position on their existence, then you don't have a position they are true. Not having a position they are true is what lacking belief is. You are denying you own position.

 

What is totally illogical is say somebody created the universe. Even granting the existance of a god giving it human properties is absurd.

some·bod·y
ˈsəmbədē/
pronoun
1.
some person; someone.
2.
a person of importance or authority.

 

There's the problem. That's not a position a majority of atheists hold. So why pretend it is?

 

All the evidence? How about providing a little bit of actual evidence. Let's be real. If there were evidence, believers would not be constantly using the word "faith" - a word that by definition denotes a lack of evidence. The fact that John Glenn looked at an extraordinary universe and felt compelled to align what he saw to his religious indoctrination (some would say his brainwashing) means what exactly? That being said, I wonder about the purpose of this thread. If someone has a religious belief provide your evidence and maybe some of us will convert. Creating strawman assumptions about atheists to attack seems like a strange exercise. Just state your religious believe and provide the basic evidence. That is all I ever ask of a true believer, but for some reason they cannot provide any real evidence. Just the circular logic of God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is real because it was inspired by God. Sorry this is pretty pathetic. If John Glenn's religious musings are intended as evidence, that is also pathetic. A lot of believers claim (by way of evidence) that God talks to them but these conversation never involve multiple people (say for example God addressing a church service) and never involve (for some reason) the conveying of a heretofore unknown information. Why is it that God constantly talks (silently) to believers one-on-one (or so they claim) but does not address groups?