The Folly of Atheism

..funny thing to say..

• theist does not equal creationist
• creationist equals theist
• evolutionist does not equal atheist
• atheist equals evolutionist

Would you agree with these bullet points?

I have admitted openly to being a theist. I believe in a Supreme Being, who is the First Cause of all things. Now, how this God did it, is still a mystery to me. I don't know HOW the methodology took place, whether it was in a short time, or long time, gradually, or all at once. I don't have enough information to make that conclusion, based on scientific facts. I am an agnostic, regarding origins. But it is ok.. i figure we are here, so God did something to make it all happen. It is quite liberating, from a philosophical & scientific standpoint. I can search for answers, based on reality, & not worry about how it will fit in my philosophical ideology. I can objectively search for Truth, & look for evidence for the HOW.

I can see how an atheist does not have this kind of liberty. He is forced to conclude a naturalistic view of origins, & the only plausible one for now is evolution, combined with some unknown abiogenesis event. It must be quite disconcerting, to have to defend evolution & an imaginary process, while attempting to keep a scientific 'high road' attitude toward theists. You cannot objectively view science, & let the facts speak for themselves, because you have to force the facts to fit into your preconceived biases toward naturalism, & specifically, evolution.

IMO, that is why you are so irrational on the evolution thread, in the science subforum. You cannot deal with the science, because it does not fit into your atheistic worldview, if there are any cracks in the theory. I do not have that problem. I can see the flaws, both scientifically & logically, & give it an objective evaluation.

But it doesn't matter. You'll probably make some kind of outrageous demand, or spew a stream of ad hominem, as is your typical response. I don't really care, & i can understand your frustration, trying to appear rational & scientific, but having to constantly defend something that is inherently religious. It must drive you crazy.

 

So if I understand correctly you think your god created man exactly as is and created all the previous versions and all the fossils and all the species that no longer exist. No evolution, no species changed unless god did it. Any actual ideas why it bothered with all those species that turned out to be unsucessful? Seems like so many bad ideas is incompatable with the current god myth. Seems to me if the divinity was all that bright it would have just created evolution and saved itself a lot of useless and unsucessful effort.

 

Scientists are pushing ahead and expanding our knowledge base daily around the world and one area is how existance began and they do have working hypothesis on these areas. Once we can create simple life in a lab using common compounds we suspect were there in the process at the beginning or find life of any kind outside our world that isn't the same as we have on Earth with distinct DNA the game changer happens life is no longer special its another mechanical process. In time we will do one or the other or both.

As for how reality began we might never find out but I don't know is an acceptable response and more honest than invoking some creative force that is beyond the material world we see and can deal with.

But Atheism isn't a folly we simply ask for proof of supernatural claims about a deity or deities, one good example, any deity would do with sufficient proof and then you might change our minds.

 

Obviously, not! Better to read the posts, first, before giving a 'lot of useless & unsuccessful effort'.

 

I read your posts which is why it is necessary to try and get enough clarification to have them make some degree of sense. As I interpret your position you believe it is more logical to believe in a god for which there is no evidence at all than to be not believe in A god and thus become dependent on a belief in evolution to explain human existance.

To quote from your post:

" I can search for answers, based on reality, & not worry about how it will fit in my philosophical ideology. I can objectively search for Truth, & look for evidence for the HOW."

Now if you can explain how a belief in a god for which there is no objective evidence fits into that search criteria I am all ears.

 

The subject was searching for evidence.. for any 'theory' of origins. A belief in God does not limit you as much as atheism, IMO, as you can look for many different explanations as to 'how'.

Any belief about origins is just that: A Belief. The quest for scientific answers can fit in either, one, or neither of those belief systems. My quest for answers is different than a belief about origins, whether it is natural or supernatural in its basis. Since neither belief has 'objective evidence' for it, any quest for evidence will have to fit within the belief system, not the other way around. IMO, theism is better equipped for objectivity, as they do not dismiss a possibility of a supernatural 'cause', & can only concern themselves with understanding the 'how' of this cause. Naturalism is not an enemy of theism, like supernaturalism is to atheism. The theist can discover a naturalistic process, & say, 'Oh, so that is how God did it!' There is no conflict with any valid scientific explanations & theism. But there is a conflict with ANY possible supernatural explanation & atheism. It will die if anything supernatural is confirmed.

There is no conflict in any search for truth & evidence. That is separate & different than beliefs about said evidence. Evidence is merely there. Where belief comes in is in the interpretation of what that evidence means.

I'll also repeat the part you quoted, where the misunderstanding evidently began:

I believe in a Supreme Being, who is the First Cause of all things. Now, how this God did it, is still a mystery to me. I don't know HOW the methodology took place, whether it was in a short time, or long time, gradually, or all at once. I don't have enough information to make that conclusion, based on scientific facts. I am an agnostic, regarding origins. But it is ok.. i figure we are here, so God did something to make it all happen. It is quite liberating, from a philosophical & scientific standpoint. I can search for answers, based on reality, & not worry about how it will fit in my philosophical ideology. I can objectively search for Truth, & look for evidence for the HOW.

 

So, you are basing your atheism on hopeful future discoveries, that you believe will provide the empirical basis for your beliefs? Isn't that just admitting that as of now, you don't have anything empirical to base them on? Isn't the quest for knowledge more important than propping up a belief system? For over 150yrs, & likely long before that, man has been trying to prove a naturalistic theory of origins. It has always been out of reach, & we are really no closer now to a material explanation of life & the universe than we were 1000 yrs ago. There is only speculation & belief, the same as any religious opinion.

 

What limitation? What does atheism prevent me from doing or discovering?

 

The default position of whether or not there are gods is that there are not. Why? Because if someone was raised without being taught about gods, they would never even question whether there are gods or not. They would simply not believe because the concept would not even exist for them. However, is some has been raised with the concept of gods, then they could question whether gods are real or not. Burden of proof then goes to the one arguing against the default position.

 

And this is the heart of your misconception, this assumption. Atheists do, in fact, have just as much claim to this kind of liberty as you do. Your assumption that hard questions can be brushed aside by theists, but must be debilitating to atheists is just that: an assumption. And one with little grounding.

 

I thought i explained it in several previous posts.. like this one:

I have admitted openly to being a theist. I believe in a Supreme Being, who is the First Cause of all things. Now, how this God did it, is still a mystery to me. I don't know HOW the methodology took place, whether it was in a short time, or long time, gradually, or all at once. I don't have enough information to make that conclusion, based on scientific facts. I am an agnostic, regarding origins. But it is ok.. i figure we are here, so God did something to make it all happen. It is quite liberating, from a philosophical & scientific standpoint. I can search for answers, based on reality, & not worry about how it will fit in my philosophical ideology. I can objectively search for Truth, & look for evidence for the HOW.

I can see how an atheist does not have this kind of liberty. He is forced to conclude a naturalistic view of origins, & the only plausible one for now is evolution, combined with some unknown abiogenesis event. It must be quite disconcerting, to have to defend evolution & an imaginary process, while attempting to keep a scientific 'high road' attitude toward theists. You cannot objectively view science, & let the facts speak for themselves, because you have to force the facts to fit into your preconceived biases toward naturalism, & specifically, evolution.

I think this should be fairly obvious, as we have very few atheists arguing against the ToE, for example. Many theists argue for or against it, without a problem either way. But the atheist does not have this liberty, & must cling with desperation to the current naturalistic theory of origins of the day.

 

That is the silly position that atheists want to assert.

It is not so. The default position on whether or not gods exist in the REALITY of existence is...we do not know.

There is nothing wrong with theists blindly guessing there is at least one...nor with atheists blindly guessing that there are none. But all they are...are guesses.

When the guesses are presented as assertions..."there is a god" or "there are no gods"...the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion.

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the person making the assertion.

If the assertion is "there is a god"...the burden of proof is on THAT PERSON.

If the assertion is "there are no gods"j...the burden of proof is on THAT PERSON.

 

Then address my arguments, instead of dodging them. I present philosophical, logical arguments why atheists cannot examine all 'theories' with objectivity, because they have a 'dog in the hunt' for a naturalistic, NON-theistic view. Younger earth dates, for example, are immediately discarded by evolutionists, who MUST have ancient earth times to mask the impotence of the theory. So they cannot respond logically to any criticism of dating methods, or the assumptions made, but instead use ad hominem, poison the well, or other fallacies to try to discredit the unthinkable alternative, that the earth is not as old as they believe.

 

I have admitted openly to being a naturalist. I believe in nature, which is the cause of all things. Now, how nature did it is still a mystery to me. I don't know HOW the methodology took place, whether it was in a short time, or a long time, gradually, or all at once. I don't have enough information to make that conclusion, based on scientific facts. I am an agnostic, regarding origins. But it is okay. I figure we are here, so natural laws did something to make it happen. It is quite liberating, from a philosophical and scientific standpoint. I can search for answers, based on reality and not worry how it will fit with my philosophical ideology. I can objectively search for truth and look for evidence of the HOW.

 

You arguments are merely assertions.

If that were true, then you cannot examine all theories. You have a dog in the hunt for a supernaturalist, theistic view.

The notion of a young earth can't be matched with observation. It is a clumsy attempt by biblical literalists who MUST have young earth times to mask the impotence of their theory.

Actually, they have responded logically to all such criticisms. I can give you resources if you want to get specific. The idea of an old earth is not the product of one branch of science, such as biology/evolution. It is the product of every branch of science that has independently broached the subject.

Then why were they able to provide me with facts when I tried approaching them as a young earth creationist?

 

So if I said that everyone needs to paint themselves blue as to not scare the garglesnarfs, would you argue that there were no garglesnarfs or would you paint yourself blue?

 

I'd probably do neither...I'd just laugh at you. (I'm kinda laughing at ya now.)

Anyway...everything I said in my previous post is right on the button...which is probably the reason you went with this nonsense.

 

No. Because you inaccurately dump all theists into one group.

All theists do not believe in holy scripture to the same degree. Some take their creation stories like Genesis as allegory. Some take their creation stories stories in Genesis as fundamentalist absolute truthful fact.

Therefore, there are at least two entirely different groups of theists. I usually refer to the latter as Creationists or Fundamentalists.

In regards to your list I'll use the terms liberalists and fundamentalists.


Here is a more accurate list.

• atheist does not equal creationist
• liberalist does not equal creationist
• fundamentalist equals creationist
• atheist equals evolutionist
• liberalist may equal evolutionist
• liberalist may equal don't know, don't care
• fundamentalist does not equal evolutionist

So you are stating categorically that you do not take the Creation story in Genesis as absolute truthful fact.

<snip> rest of post while awaiting answer.

 

Here's the thing. Anytime a theist mentions a god of any type, that automatically puts the burden of proof on the theist, since there is no reason to believe any gods exist. Any time an atheist says there are no gods, this is merely a statement that the theists did not provide enough evidence to prove their god exists.

 

This isn't "folly of atheism" it's "some follies that some atheists fall into."

Should we call Christians engaged in warfare the "folly of Christianity"?

And, no, atheism is not a belief system. Theism is a belief in a God (or gods) that is creator and ruler of the world (or, perhaps, the universe.) Denying that such an entity exists is no different than denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

 

See, above is why this doesn't work. You can't say this, & insist on ancient dating assumptions. So the rationale is flawed, as you can ONLY have a 'long time' option. the short time, all at once option does not fit with the rest of your system.

 

Here's the thing actually.

If a theist asserts there is a god...that theist bears a burden of proof for the assertion.

If an atheist simply says, "I don't buy that. Prove it"...that ends it. The burden of proof is squarely on the theist for the assertion.

BUT there are atheists (including some in this forum) who assert that there are no gods.

Anyone asserting that there are no gods...bears the same burden of proof that someone who asserts there is one has.

Not sure why you cannot simply acknowledge that...but that is your problem.

Horse manure.

If an atheist says, "there are no gods"...the atheist is asserting that there are no gods.

An atheist can say, "Prove your assertion" (which many do.)

But if the atheist goes further, as you suggested, and asserts that there are no gods...he/she has shifted the burden of proof from the other guy to him/herself.

 

I carry no such assumption. I arrived at that conclusion through evidence.

 

For many atheists...IT IS A BELIEF SYSTEM.

I suspect for you...it is a belief.

In any case, for any atheist who asserts, "There are no gods"...IT IS A BELIEF SYSTEM. (Actually, it is nothing but pure blind guessing.)

 

No, i can examine any claims, for any processes, & it can fit into a theistic system of belief. Long time, short, gradual evolution, sudden appearance.. any of these options can fit in the theistic belief system.

Case in point. You merely declare this as your belief, when you have nothing empirical to base it on. It is fraught with assumptions, conjecture, & forced data interpretation. I don't have to have a young earth, but if the data points that way, it is not inconvenient to me, as a theist. But you MUST have ancient earth times, as recent dating conflicts with the rest of your theory. You are too invested in the ancient earth belief to examine it objectively.

Well, this has been my experience, in 'debates' with atheists regarding long dating methods. I have spent a great amount of time explaining & presenting rational, evidence based arguments critiquing the 'ancient dating' methods, & almost always get ad hominem, poison well, & appeals to authority as replies.. hardly ever, IF EVER, have i gotten a rational, scientific based response, & i don't pretend to be a YEC!

I have openly declared myself as an origins agnostic, regarding the HOW or WHEN of the universe & life. I believe that a Supernatural Entity is at the root of the business, but i don't know how or when it came about, though it has been a fascinating study for me for over 40 years. The evidence, for me, supports the theistic view better than an atheistic view, but perhaps i am biased..

But i still say, & can see the reasoning behind it, that there are more difficulties for the atheist, in searching for evidence for his beliefs, than for the theist. Any hint of supernaturalism, or shorter dates would be disastrous to the atheistic worldview. The theist, OTOH, can accept either, & is not constrained by ideological beliefs when searching for truth. There is NO discovery about any naturalistic process that would render a theistic view invalid. But there are many possibilities of serious flaws in the atheistic world view, should a few foundational beliefs start to crumble.

I don' t think this is a criticism of atheism, just a logical conclusion of the limits of the belief system, which excludes certain possibilities, that the theistic system does not. It seem fairly obvious to me.