The Folly of Atheism, part 2

• It's intuitively obvious that the earth cannot be a sphere. People would fall off the bottom.
• It's intuitively obvious that the earth cannot be spinning around its axis at 1000 miles per hour. Have you ever been on a playground merry-go-round?
• It's intuitively obvious that the sun goes around the earth, it rises in the east, traverses the earth and sets in the west.

Anything intuitively obvious must be right.

 

How are you measuring this 'designedness'?

 

I agree, however, the question is whether saying "I don't believe gods exist" is or isn't the same as "I believe no gods exist". To believe something is to hold that it is true. It is possible to hold neither "it is true" or "it is false", for instance being undecided or unaware of the question. An atheist, by this definition becomes someone who does not answer "I hold it to be true", regardless of what else they would answer, including "I don't know" and "there are no gods" as well as failure to even understand the question.

In particular note the problems you listed. By this definition, science doesn't have to have proven that there are no gods in order for atheism to be consistent with science. It includes not adding any information to the system, which means it's not unreasonable to call it a lack of a belief rather than a belief.

Well, the paragraph above is probably a large part in why it keeps coming up. Because of ambiguous wordings, people keep being held accountable for beliefs they do not hold. No wonder that becomes annoying.

While I'm not convinced that the concerns you have brought up relegates atheism to an emotional failure of thought, I don't pretend like atheists are all flawless logic machines. Atheism, or even naturalism, does not deny the reality of emotions or some concepts that has a certain ring of spirituality (but which don't go above the naturally explainable).

 

I get the desire to differentiate.. & i think i understand why. I don't find it a rational exercise, but one filled with emotional angst, over terminology.
For me, a very simple minded person, the 2 phrases,
'I don't believe gods exist'
'I believe no gods exist'
..to be functionally equivalent. One statement is phrased as a positive belief, negating the subject, while the other is phrased with a negating qualifier on the predicate. But the same concept is communicated. The first negating qualifier is attached to the verb, 'believe', while the second is attached to the subject, 'gods'. It is a negating statement regarding the 'believe gods' concept. I see no logical or linguistic reason to differentiate between what is merely negating qualifiers for a basic concept.

Now, if the desire is to communicate, 'i don't know if gods exist', then the concept is different. That is agnosticism. And, if someone wants to say, 'i lean toward atheism, but i'm not sure, or i don't feel i have enough information to make a declarative statement', i have no problem with that. That seems to be a common AND rational position. There is only a slight degree of difference between that agnostic statement, & this one: 'I lean toward theism, but i'm not sure'.

I doubt that any one person holds exactly to any regimented belief system, and the terms are used to only generally describe the core belief in the subject of gods.

For me, the 'lack of a belief' implies a blank slate. It is total indifference & thoughtlessness toward the topic. I do not see that as applying, to most atheists. They have clearly thought this through, & have many influences in their lives that have led to this conclusion. They do not merely say, 'i have no opinion, feeling, or leaning regarding this subject.' Instead, most are very clear as to their opinion, & express it with zeal & conviction. As i'm sure you know, these same ones who claim a purely neutral, emotionless lack of belief, are very intense in attacking 'flying spaghetti monsters', or 'sky fairies', and make caricatures of ridicule for other people's beliefs IN the supernatural.

That is why i don't buy it. It is a pretended position, that the evidence does not support. They not only do not act in accordance with this emotionless, indifferent, neutral lack of any belief, but they vigorously defend & attack friends & enemies of the atheistic belief, respectively.

If a person cannot say, 'i don't believe in god or the supernatural', then why would they take the 'atheist' identifier? If they are truly uncertain, or if they have ambiguous beliefs regarding this central belief to any ideology, they have other, better descriptors for their beliefs.

I'm beginning to think that the angst & irrational thinking displayed by some atheists is merely a 'cry in the dark', for Something of substance in their life. It reflects the deep, inner belief that there is more to life than the material world, instinctively, they know it. There is an inner metaphysical gnawing in their souls, that no amount of rage or mental masturbations can satisfy. That may be the 'ring of spirituality' you speak of. Perhaps, there is a growing inner awareness that this 'feeling' cannot be dismissed with volitional statements of belief. It is NOT, 'naturally explainable', & it dogs them to the grave. Maybe it is just a fear of death.. a survival instinct. But maybe, it is more. Maybe it is the 'reason' that most human beings, for all of human history, have believed in a supernatural realm. This is not merely dogmatically taught by religious ideologues, but seems to be the default position for all of humanity, regardless of the majority opinion in society.

But that is more of a psychological issue, & is certainly open to theorizing & evidencing. But the issue remains, of irrational, hysterical fear of certain words or concepts, by SOME who take the 'atheist' moniker. I tend to believe it is an attempt to take the 'high road' over theists, whom most atheists despise. By elevating THEIR opinion about the universe to a different plane, they think they have a superior, more intellectual, more 'scientific' position than mere theists, who only have beliefs or superstition. THAT is the big problem, it seems to me. They wish to see themselves as special, not fraught with the same foibles as the rest of humanity, but they are on an enlightened plane of existence. It is crushing to them, to think they are just like everyone else, but only have a different opinion. I'm sure there are some who do not share this obsession to see themselves as unique, special snowflakes of human existence, but i certainly see many who do. It is a valid 'theory' anyway, of the logophobia displayed in atheist threads.

 

1. So the clear imperfections in things in the universe is a sign of intelligent design?

2. So you don't understand the scientific method or the level of evidence required for a Hypothesis to become accepted as a Theory?

 

IMO, agnosticism is the only honest religious position. I don't know. Although, its far more logical to believe something doesn't exist because their is no evidence or really sound logic as to why it exists than to believe something exists without that.

I don't really have problem with people believing in a god and life after death and what not. What is completely asinine to me is believing some ancient text written by people that knew nothing of the natural world and has a bunch of ridiculous magic and inconsistencies, explains the meaning of life. I'm pretty sure there is a evolutionary characteristics in humans that make them believe in god to have so many be so illogical about it.

Nobody knows the meaning of life, what happens after death, or how god wants us to live our lives. I think the worst are those that are ultra religion, give away their living and don't enjoy life, solely based on their religious beliefs for an afterlife that likely will never come. It's a shame. What's even worse are people that use it, against the actual teachings of their religious books, to hurt others

 

We were talking about 'evidence' for naturalism, not speculative theories with no evidence. And, your 'beliefs' about these things are merely that: beliefs. You do not have any empirical evidence for those beliefs. THAT was the point.

There is not really a 'theory' of abiogenesis. There is no mechanism.. no repeatable, observable event taking place. We cannot replicate it, or explain HOW it could happen, much less explain how it DID happen. it is only a statement of belief.. no different, really, than someone who believes in a supernatural 'cause'.

This was the statement i was asking you to support. I don't think this is an accurate statement, but is merely a belief. I know of NO SINGLE piece of evidence that supports a naturalistic belief about origins.

 

So you are ignorant of the scientific method and how much evidence is required in order for something to be a theory.

Why should I consider anything else you have posted when you can't even get basic science right?

 

There will never be sufficient data to convince you as it happened long ago and no one can do it in front of you. That said...you have never answered the questions of others yet keep asking us to answer your which when answered are dismissed as insufficient and then asked again. Abiogenesis is hypothesis working toward theory relatively quickly....what is your alternate hypothesis that we might assist it on the road to theory?

For now you might at least look at available data before dismissing it as invalid.
http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/

 

I see a difference between the two phrases. As you say, the negation in "I don't believe" is on the verb, indicating that no action is described. Of course, other actions can take place, be it believe there are no gods or be undecided or otherwise. The phrase "I don't believe" doesn't say anything other than the answer isn't "yes" (regardless of what one might answer instead).

Given that the religious debate is common between religion and non-religion, it can be relevant to distinguish the religious from the non-religious. However, as I showed in the last thread, the difference between agnosticism and "I believe there are no gods" is less important in practice. Therefore, it can be reasonable not to drag agnosticism vs hard atheism into the debate. It's not that those people might not be agnostics, the distinction just isn't important when discussing with the religious. Basically, when you say "If the desire is to communicate 'i don't know if gods exist'", I would imagine that can be true even though one has no interest in communicating that, because the difference between that and hard atheism isn't important when it comes to debating religious people.

The debate of the exact meaning of atheism is an open and infected debate. I don't claim that the definition of atheism I have provided is the only true meaning of atheism, I'm just saying that both exist, and you might miss the point of some arguments if you don't understand both versions.

I don't think lack of belief implies indifference. If I own stock, I don't hold a belief that it will go up or down, but that does not mean I haven't thought about it or I am indifferent. Nor does it mean that I am unaware of arguments for or against. Just that I don't have a preconceived belief.

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the like, I'm not sure I follow your argument. The arguments I have seen have been in favour of the FSM in order to highlight the poor reasoning behind religion, not attacking the FSM. Making it ridiculous is just there to make sure nobody misunderstands the argument and think that the atheists actually believe it.

One of the points of the FSM argument is to point out that there isn't a dichotomy between Christianity and atheism. If there was, simply rejecting total naturalism would be enough to become a Christian. However, if there exists an infinite spectrum of god concepts, then even a rejection of naturalism does not lead to Christianity or else in particular. It's also designed to mimic God to the point that any argument you can make against the FSM also applies to God.

In what sense would those descriptors be better? The public debate surrounding religion is quite uninterested in the difference between agnosticism and "there are no gods". It is also true that many who use the descriptor indeed believe that there are no gods, but they don't want to bring up pieces of argument that don't matter (since even if you managed to persuade them, they'd become agnostics, which in practice is no different, they would still have the same criticisms against religion).

I don't see the arguments about meaning of words or the thinking usually presented to be anything above what I would expect from simply having the linguistic framework I have described. I don't see that a deep, repressed angst is any better an explanation of your observations.

Given the arguments I have presented, I think the concern for definitions is reasonable. If one uses the definitions I have provided, the arguments are not so irrational. I wouldn't have thought any elevation atheists do of their opinions as "superior" is any more irrational than you concluding that all of atheism is irrational, even though the definitions I have given show the arguments consistent (albeit maybe poorly presented).

 

Like Frank, you deny the clear position that atheists actually assert and explain to you because it is easier to argue against the position that you want them to hold. I don't bother much with you any more because all you are interested in doing is making a god sized gap in science and philosophy and arguing a straw man, even when atheists explain their position precisely.

What you just in effect said is, 'I don't care about your explanation, I will continue to argue a position that I will incorrectly attribute to you'.

 

You mean like anyone who understands the proper use of the English language?

 

Sorry but thousands of years of ignorance is not compelling evidence for the supernatural any more than it is evidence that the earth is flat or the sun orbits around the earth or ... There is not one piece of evidence for the supernatul although there are certainly many things not yet totally understood but lack of kmowledge is only proof of lack of knowledge.

The common confusion that something not understood is proof of the supernatural seems to be the main arguement currently used to support the existance of a god. Like the common, science can't explain the origin of the universe so that proves a god must have done it.

 

I'm beginning to think that the angst & irrational thinking displayed by some atheists is merely a 'cry in the dark', for Something of substance in their life.

That is probably a better description of the need theists have for an imaginary friend.

 

Probably the only times I ever cried in the dark for missing something "Something of substance" is when I got sent to bed without getting desert because I didn't eat my vegetables. By age six I had stopped whining about the loss of Santa Claus and also stopped hunting for eggs hidden by a magical bunny.

I put god and santa and bunny into the same bucket called superstitious sillyness. It's called growing up.

The Teddy bear went even earlier.


What is amazing to me, but no longer surprising, is that theists constantly try to project their fears and insecurities onto atheists.

You, theists, are the ones who need to believe in some supernatural entity. If not to fill a void, then why?

 

Has God shown his face since the last thread? Until that time, lets hear no more of this foolishness. The folly is not coming from the Atheist camp.

 

The Hubble telescope has images of deep space that approach 12 billion light years old. That means the light was generated 12 billion years ago and we are now witnessing that event from a distance of 12 billion light years. Let us assume that something like this can be found in every corner of the night sky in every direction. I think this has been tested and verified. In all that expanse and time, nothing has been found outside of the natural realm. God must inhabit some realm and consist of something. If God does not exist in any realm and consists of nothing, how can one argue that God exists at all? If one postulates that God exists in a separate, unknowable and unreachable realm outside of our natural realm, then prove it. If God consists of something, what are Gods elemental particles or characteristics? Does God have atoms or a brain or a body? If the answer is yes, then how did those atoms, brain and body come to be? The answer would have to be found exactly where physics and science is looking today, quantum mechanics. If the arguments leads us to yet another big bang, why bother with God at all since there is absolutely no evidence or proof of Gods existence. He is no where to be found in the known universe. If he was outside this universe, what is in his realm? Should we just make the whole thing up like a science fiction writer? The answer of course is that this is exactly what man did. Every God is a man made creation. There is no other answer.

 

I find it incredible that in this day and age, tens (hundreds?) of millions not only still buy into this myth but live their lives according to it. I attended religious school as a child and went through the indoctrination, but eventually, I grew up. I guess some just never grow the **** up.

 

He is the "whence".

That word doesn't mean anything like what you think it means.

The question is nonsensical. You might as well ask whether a 747 is "more designed" than an oxcart.

I'm not aware of any, other than on this planet.

There is nothing to be understood, because that's a meaningless catch-phrase which, in the present context, has no greater purpose than to justify acceptance or rejection of a proposition according to prejudices of the one presuming to render judgment.

precisely what I said, obviously. You're welcome.

 

I kinda go with the currently accepted definitions of words:

in·tu·i·tive·ly
inˈt(y)o͞oədivlē/
adverb
without conscious reasoning; instinctively.
​

How were you using it when you stated: "That there is intelligence in the design of the universe is intuitively obvious"?

So, your belief is that He created Himself.

That's interesting. There are thousands of Creation Stories. Most do not discuss the origin of the Deity. Many adherents claim their Deity is eternal, has always existed, exists outside of space and time. The "Creations" all start with a Deity creating other things: The Universe; plants; humans.

I don't know of any Creation Story that posits that the Deity Created Itself. You have applied more mental gymnastics than thousands of other Creation Story authors. You really should start a religion based on this unique niche.

 

No, it gets to the heart of the problem. You actually asserted that our Universe 'looks designed' so, I am asking you how you assess that? What is your measure of 'designedness'? If you can't tell me what it is then basically all you are doing is pointing at stuff and saying that it looks designed. I'm looking forward to your exposition on specified complexity by the way.

 

Atheism is a belief.. a part of an ideology, philosophy, worldview, or whatever you want to call it.

How is atheism NOT a a basis for a worldview? How is it NOT a foundational belief for someone's ideology? How is it NOT, at its very core, a religious belief?

IMO, the only reason to parse words is to deflect from this fact. Atheism is indeed a religious belief. The howling atheists who deny this are relying on ambiguity of terms to try to take an intellectual or scientific 'high road', by excluding themselves from a 'belief system' that every other human being in the history of the world has had. It is merely a logical fallacy.. an attempt to be a special snowflake, & deny that their 'opinions' about the nature of the universe is just another opinion of man. They 'believe' their position to be Absolute Truth, when it is just their opinion.

Why make the deflection, otherwise? Why pretend they do not have a belief?

'Do you believe in God?'
'Yes' = Theist
'No' = Atheist

What is so hard about that? Why do atheists insist on making this discussion into an Abbot & Costello routine? Deflecting from the obvious by using the ambiguity of words does not change reality.

To what end is the argument, 'I don't have any beliefs', when they then declare, 'But there is no god!' How is that NOT a belief? It's not an empirical fact. It cannot be proved or evidenced by the scientific method. It is EXACTLY a religious/philosophical belief. The mental masturbations taken to deflect from this obvious reality makes no logical sense, & exposes this argument as an irrational, propaganda meme, based on folly, distortions, & phony narratives. The same leftist tactics that are used in the political & science arenas are used promoting atheism & attacking theism. It is part of the marxist/darwinist/progressive ideology.

I have no problem accepting other people's beliefs. I am a traditional American, & believe that freedom of conscience & religion are the best ideals for a collective governing system. I have my beliefs, & you can have yours. We can live together in social harmony & tolerance. That is the American Ideal, that Christians & other theists have held for over 200 yrs, with a decent record of functional harmony.

So why is militant atheism changing that? Why do they attack every visible expression of 'religion' (AKA, Christianity), with the intent to force it underground, so only THEIR militant, atheistic, humanist, naturalist worldview can be seen or established as the societal norm?

'Do you believe in God?'
'No! Of course not.. that is for superstitious fools.'
'So, you do not believe in God?'
'Don't put words in my mouth. I have no beliefs'
'So you think there might be a god or supernatural entity?'
'Absolutely not. Those are fig mints of your imagination.'
'Do you have any fig mints?'
'No. Fig mints are not factors in my Enlightened Awareness.'
'How did life & the universe come to be?'
'By naturalistic means'.
'How do you know this?'
'It is proven fact'.
'can you name one fact that proves this assertion?'
'I don't have to. Anyone who is smart already knows this'
'So, if your opinion is based on an unproven assumption of naturalism, how is that not a belief?'
'Because only stupid religious people have beliefs. I'm smart & have science.'
'But you have no science to back your assertion'
'No, science has proved there is no god'
'How? What evidence is there for this assertion?'
'I don't have beliefs. These are facts. Beliefs don't have evidence, & all evidence proves naturalism'
'What evidence?'
'All the evidence for naturalism. Everybody knows this, & every scientist believes it'.
'Can you produce one bit of evidence that indicates naturalism? I thought scientists don't have beliefs?'
'They don't. Only superstitious religious people have beliefs. All the evidence proves naturalism'.

This is a fairly typical 'debate' i have had with atheists, over the years, regarding naturalism. In reality, there is no empirical evidence for a naturalistic assumption for origins of life & the universe, but it is only asserted, and usually with religious intolerance & indignation.

This is kind of what it reminds me of..
[video=youtube;Q_TGQ7rGL-Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TGQ7rGL-Q[/video]

 

How do you 'know' the above bolded statement? I understand that you may believe this, but you have no way of knowing, with absolute certainty, that all experiences with the supernatural are contrived or imagined.

Seriously? I DEMAND the scientific method. So, instead of giving me your unevidenced OPINIONS about reality, you have to show me. Otherwise, all you have are assertions. You made the bold declaration:

I challenged you to provide ONE piece of evidence that would indicate naturalism. THAT is the scientific way. You must prove or evidence your assertions, else they will be dismissed.

I see no purpose in making this distinction. Atheism is a belief or an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is not empirical fact, & it is a basic part of an ideology or worldview.

To what end, is the demand that, 'Atheism is not a belief!!' made? What difference, functionally, does it make? You still answer, 'no' to the query, 'Do you believe in the supernatural?' So how does dodging the 'belief!' term make any difference to objective reality? I can see no explanation other than the desire to be special snowflakes, who do not have 'beliefs' like other, common people have. Why make a big fuss over this distinction, otherwise? Why the irrational deflecting about words & definitions?

No, what i say is that reality is reality, & logic is logic, in spite of your goal to muddy the issue with revisionist definitions, word games, & deflections with no point. How does your logophobia detract from the obvious reality that you have a belief in atheism?

Good illustration of the OP! Denigrate & demean other people's beliefs, while assuming the Absolute Truth of your own! Perfect example!

'This day & age?' Seriously? You think we have somehow 'Arrived' at pure knowledge & Enlightened Awareness? You think all the mysteries of the universe have been solved? You believe the Big Questions of origins, purpose, & others have empirical answers?

Sorry. You are mistaken. This is only your belief, & it is no more 'evidenced' than anyone else's. I doubt you will accept this, as i'm sure you are deeply convinced of the Absolute Truth of your opinion. But i challenge you to present ONE bit of empirical evidence that supports your naturalistic beliefs.

Humans are peculiar creatures. We are a fascinating blend of reason, altruism, selfishness, madness & folly. None illustrate this better than many atheists in public discourse.

 

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ~Arthur C. Clarke

I submit that EITHER belief is (or can be) a 'cry in the dark'.

'Theism is an attempt to explain the unknown eternal aspects of human existence'.
'Atheism is an attempt to explain the unknown eternal aspects of human existence'.

Neither of these beliefs has much comfort, to the thoughtful seeker of truth. A theist could argue that the atheist disbelieving in God is an attempt to avoid the uncomfortable concept of the soul, accountability, & eternal existence.

So, since neither 'belief' has any empirical evidence, & since neither has any substantial psychological benefits over the other, & since both are merely beliefs about the nature of the universe, how can you call one, 'religion!' and the other 'science!', other than by prejudicial labelling? If i am to accept that religious opinions are outside the realm of science, I cannot help but correlate that to atheism which is also outside the realm of science. If one is a 'belief', so is the other. If one is 'well thought out philosophy', why is the other dismissed as 'superstition!'? These are merely prejudicial labels, to promote the one, & smear the other. It is not based on objective reason.

 

You stated the Theory of Abiogenesis doesn't have evidence to support it. For someone who supposedly demands the scientific method, you seem pretty okay with rejecting scientific theories arbitrarily if they don't comport with your worldview.