The Folly of Atheism, part 2

Why pretend you ask? Because without a strawman argument they have no argument.

 

The crew of Destiny in 'Stargate Universe' in the episode entitled 'Faith' accidentally found an earth-like planet in their path and wondered if it'd been deliberately created for them by unseen aliens as a gift.
Some decided to go live permanently on the planet, but some preferred staying aboard Destiny.
Personally I'd have stayed on Destiny too..

[video=youtube;Fe7l_Z2cNmw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe7l_Z2cNmw[/video]

 

Not sure I understand mate, what position do the majority of atheists hold about what?

 

Depends how you define "faith" mate..
Most Christians look at the whole Jesus thing in a Sherlock Holmes way and deduce that there's definitely something in it, so they therefore have faith in their powers of logical deduction and commonsense..
For example Jesus said-
"I am not of this world ....though you do not believe me, believe the miracles.....i'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:23,John 10:38,Matt 13:35)
Hey Spock will you listen to him?

"Affirmative, it would be illogical not to listen to an alien visitor, I'm all ears"..

 

But atheism doesn't make claims, and isn't an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas or beliefs. Being a system excludes atheism as my not believing in God or gods is not a system. It is the response to the consideration of a concept, and the answer being negative.

Just because you would do something doesn't make it a good idea, or give me, or anyone else a reason to join you. You prefer to call atheism a belief, presumably because it gives you the illusion that we are deniers of something factual. Misrepresentations, however personally satisfying, are not a good foundation for honest conversation. Telling us how other people think is probably just as poor a foundation without evidence of it, and until you and I develop mind-reading skills, you can't provide it

You do know, though. A belief is accepting something as true. Atheism is accepting that one thing, belief in God or gods, is not true. Once again, the insistence that atheism is a belief is to serve the purpose of painting us as deniers, and you don't get the privilege until you prove your claims.

Say that again, but this time into a mirror.

It's not. The polar opposite of someone with a particular belief is someone without that particular belief.

Seems to me if people keep pointing out a mistake you're making, and they explain clearly what that mistake is, and you refuse to accept it, then you're not mystified, you're in denial.

Note also nobody KNOWS, empirically, that God or gods do exist, and this is merely their belief. Or do you prefer 'opinion'?

Further, atheism doesn't say anything about knowledge. The subject there is belief, not knowledge. You might want to make those interchangeable for convenience; you shouldn't.

I'm curious how many atheists you have actually known, and checked these presumptions with. I don't believe the numbers will be all that impressive on either side of it. As such, there's no reason to take too much stock of your 'analysis'. This is us back at the need for mind-reading abilities, to start. As for the basis for naturalistic views, have you taken, even for a moment, into consideration, that these faith based belief systems do such a poor job defending nonsense as we learn more about the world around us? You're trying to scapegoat science here, when the fault lies on something that defies the natural world and then has it's followers get bent out of shape when others start not following along. Blame the poorly crafted fantasy story when people discover the lack of veracity in it.

I wouldn't. Theism can, but doesn't have to. And atheists can have all sorts of worldviews that just don't even take the question of God or gods as a part of it.

Strong might be, but I don't personally use it. Gnostic or agnostic speaks to knowledge, not belief. Dogmatic doesn't apply to atheism, except when folks like you try to wrongfully apply it where it doesn't belong.

Based on what you said after, I don't think you're completely not getting it, but maybe you haven't thought it completely out. You seem to be treating agnosticism as a type of atheism, or lesser version of it. Theism/atheism concerns belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism concerns knowledge. People are normally one of each. That means you can get an agnostic theist and the next person would be a gnostic atheist. I don't believe an atheist or theist should be gnostic without evidence to back it up. The atheist who say they know there is no god, is as lacking in credibility as the theist who say they know there is one.

Which would explain why as evidence presents itself, that beliefs become less believable. This goes hand in hand with your note about how beliefs are just opinions. What you can provide evidence for should be the proper judgement of it all.

Or, and bear with me here, they don't share your opinion and as such, don't support it. It's up to you to do something to get their agreement, and 'because I said so' clearly isn't good enough.

Or that person's opinions are just fully wrong. Which is why when one person says something is a fact, and the other person disagrees, the person who says the thing is a fact, needs to be able to evidence that thing.

.
Conversely, a person who doesn't believe in God or gods, can believe in things like luck or karma, or Bigfoot and the Jersey Devil, or the worst Alex Jones and that ilk has to offer about the illuminati.

You apply terms that don't belong to describe me, tell me what or how I think, or just flat out misrepresent me to try and drive home false claims. Was it about me specifically? Of course not. But I am a part of this group called atheists, and as a member of that group, your fictions, labels, and false claims address me as much as the next person.

You're not 'critically examining' anything either. It's called pushing an agenda.

Abuse is the use of something for bad purposes. Normally here it's one term at a time, but you used a litany of terms improperly. Specific charge, for something clearly on display.

If that's your premise, then everything stands or falls based on it. Atheism isn't a belief, so it follows, it is not folly. Your attempts to demonstrate it as such, are the only foolishness present. Your attempts to keep this going only exacerbate the foolishness on your part.

Unless there's something else you want to try, I guess we'll part here. Good luck to you.

 

Yes indeed. It strengthens the faith that was instilled into him in early childhood. If your point is that childhood religious indoctrination lasts well into adulthood - point made.

 

Let's see...

That should not be surprising. Either GodDitIt or GodDidn'tDoIt. Atheists don't believe God so they don't believe GodDitIt. If GodDidn'tDoIt, then what did. Evolution explains what did it.

Evolution, by itself, is not the basis for my naturalistic views. There is also History, Geology, Astro-Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Chemistry just to name a few. All of the sciences contradict the Genesis view of reality. All of the sciences contradict the Creationism/Intelligent Designer view of reality.

"cling". Sounds so desperate doesn't it? USFAN does have a way with words. He is adept at making strawmen, large and small. How about...

Definition of belief

1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing <her belief in God> <a belief in democracy> <I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.> <contrary to popular belief>
2
: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed <an individual's religious or political beliefs>; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group <the beliefs of the Catholic Church>
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence <belief in the validity of scientific statements>​

We rightfully dodge the theistic definition of "belief".
2
: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed <an individual's religious or political beliefs>; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group <the beliefs of the Catholic Church>

I, for one, accept the secular definition of "belief".
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence <belief in the validity of scientific statements

I refuse to let theists try to conflate the two definitions.

There is much more Empiricism supporting the sciences, including evolution, than there is Empiricism supporting theism. There is no 'Empirical Evidence" supporting theism.

 

No. A belief is the accepting of something as true. That's good. That's right, right there. But there is no point to adding that extra step to something you accept as false. If I don't accept the truth of something, I don't possess a belief in it. I don't need to possess a belief that something is false.

I don't believe God or gods exist. That's complete right there.

For me to believe that God or gods don't exist, implies that the default is they exist and I'm denying their existence. That's not the case. It's subtle, but it's trickery, whether you intended it or not.

 

An exposition that is worth repeating again in this reply.

 

The entire universe was created at the moment I became conscious. It will cease to exist if my consciousness ends. All of you are an illusion and no one can prove otherwise.

I am the only being that truly exists.

 

It's even worse for those who indoctrinate themselves as adults. Ask Preacher Brady. He knows all about that.

 

or to say it decided to create itself? << this is NOT a position a majority of atheists hold. Here's the deal: listen to what atheists actually think or believe, not what you want them to think or believe.

 

Okay what do atheists (or anybody else) choose to think (1 to 5) about a typical atom like this?-

1- A Creator created it.
2- Its always existed and therefore didn't need a creator
3- It decided to created itself.
4- It's an illusion and doesn't exist at all
5- Is there a 5th possibility that I've overlooked?

 

I go with number 2

 

That's "Its always existed and therefore didn't need a creator".
Ok, but in that case where was the atom before the Big Bang?

 

You are completely full of it. This is my consciousness. You are just an illusion in my consciousness. You cannot prove me wrong.

BTW: My god created all this Last Thursday.

 

5- !

Don't ask me to explain it to you. You should be able to figure it out for yourself.

 

I think....I do not know and giggle at anyone who says they do;

 

Given the number of protons in you pictured atom, which appears to be a Nitrogen atom, it was (i) formed within a star by a fusion of other atomic elements, (ii) formed as part of a super nova explosion, (iii) formed on the surface of a red giant about to become a nova or (iv) formed when two neutron stars merged. It was not formed directly by the Big Bang. It, like all other atoms, is composed of subatomic particles. It, like all atoms, can be changed into energy and/or revert o subatomic particles. All of these are predicted by current physics. All of these have been observed. All of these have natural explanations. No sky fairy required.

 

This is effectively the God of the Gaps argument. We don't know what caused atoms to exist therefore it could have been God. However when we look at history we find that there have been lots of other ideas that were once attributed to God.

At one time it wasn't clear what breathing is for. We didn't know about oxygen and how it is collected by our lungs and then transported through our body by our blood. At one time it was thought to be our supernatural spirit. "The breath of life" or the "ruach" as the ancient Israelites called it. We knew that we could calm ourselves with it and that we could regulate our body temperature with it.

Now just because we know that the purpose of breathing is to transport oxygen into our bloodstream doesn't mean there isn't some &#8221;spiritual" value to breathing. Anyone who does yoga realizes that there is a tangible connection between our mental state and our breathing. But we also now know that when we sneeze our spirit won't be expelled from our body. (Even if non one says &#8221;gesundheit") We now know we don't have to cover our mouth when we yawn to avoid having our spirit removed from our body (but it is still more polite than showing the inside of our mouth).

The same is true of the atom. Even if we discover tomorrow that atoms were formed by the Big Bang as discussed here doesn't mean that there isn't a "spiritual" value to them. In fact understanding what atoms are and how they originated may fill us with even more "wonder and awe" which are emotions often associated with spirituality.

Einstein recognized this all the time. As a pantheist he viewed the universe itself as God and recognized that the awe inspiring complexity of it was more fascinating than anything else. To say that atoms were created by God may be true in a sense but it may just lack the finite detail that scientists crave to understand. As I said in another post once it's just a matter of perspective. To one person a car starts because a pulse of electricity ignites fuel in a combustion chamber and to another person a car starts because their father turned the key. Both perspectives have their own truth. The question really comes down to which answer has more value for the situation you are in.

If you are a scientist trying to understand the origin of matter it is important to hypothesize, experiment and revise based on conclusions. If you are spiritual (or as I prefer, "philosophical") it is better to understand "why" than "how". For a scientist, just concluding "God did it" has no value and if scientists accepted that as an answer we would still sacrificing children to the gods to make it rain. For a religious person, knowing that a process created atoms doesn't give them the sense of purpose they need to understand their world and their place within it.

My own advice is to understand things from as many perspectives as possible, to be open to new information and to be cognizant of your own fallibility. To understand an idea doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

 

Of course it does. Have you never bothered to look it up, and note the Latin origin?

All of those accurately describe a lack of belief, because it isn't anything at all.

Dunno what the hell's so hard about this...

...well actually I'm pretty sure I do, but I'll hold my peace for now.

Then you have no reason to object to the "label".

And not having a position they don't also qualifies as such; so as far as you're concerned I'm both a fairyist and and an afairyist. Got that about right, haven't I?

Then one cannot help but wonder why you saw fit to do just that.

 

Of course.

 

Of course totally lacking in all belief could be considered vacuous. Lacking in just the belief in an imaginary god could hardly qualify as vacuous. In fact believing in something for which there is no evidence could certainly meet the criteria of mindless, unintelligent, or lacking in thought although it could certainly qualify as faith.

 

That is a curiosity since you did it, not me. This was your phrasing:

When considering if I believe in God or gods or not, it comes down to believing or not believing and I don't believe, meaning I don't accept the proposition as true, or I accept it as false.

Not that I accept the belief of disbelief. You added that nonsense.

 

No doubt it could appear that way to anyone who contrives to misunderstand the term.

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

No, you did it right here:

Yes, and a perfectly reasonable inference from what I was responding to.