The Folly of Atheism

Let's not change the bar, Marcus.

I am not dealing with the question of whether or not I can prove something does not exist. I am dealing with the question of whether a negative can be proved. Have been all along. You can check. I am saying (dozens of times now) that one can prove a negative. Rahl has been insisting that a negative cannot be proven.

I hope you and I can agree that THAT is what I have been dealing with.

Now, I thought it prudent to be sure we agreed on what a "negative (statement)" is...so I asked a question that I want Rahl to answer.

The question:

I am assuming we can all agree that the assertion "There are no gods in the REALITY of existence" is a negative assertion...and if I can prove that negative...we will have proved that a negative can be proven.


Marcus...I'd love to hear your answer to that question also.

 

My intent was not to change the bar, but to define the bar and clarify where it is.

I assume that by "in the reality of existence" we mean exists independent of conceptualization or consciousness of other beings. (Just because I write a story about Zeus does not mean Zeus is in the reality of existence. e.g.,the mere fact that there is a word for something does not confer on it a place in the reality of existence.)

Absolutely, if you can prove that there are no gods in the reality of existence, you would have demonstrated that a negative can be proven.

Go for it!

 

Then explain the logical consistency in the following:

I have come to no conclusion on the existence of gods, but I've concluded there is no god.​

 

Perhaps you're overcomplicating things for yourself by being certain most atheists have some kind of dogmatic belief system? Focusing on the militant New Atheists as you have may have misled you. They're a tiny subset of us best known for attacking faith like it stole their wallet. I cringe when I hear one on a TV show, aggressively vilifying Islam and Muslims like they're declaring war. I don't hear much of scientific dispassion in it. It's one thing for an atheist to attack a faith, quite another to attack the faithful. That's getting personal, and faith is so deeply personal a lot of one's self is invested in it . What are they trying to do, deprogram faith through derogation? Or get on the telly? I suspect they really believe an atheistic world would be peaceful, and I suspect they're wrong. People would just find some other way to play the nasty in-group/ out-group tribalist game Homo sapiens sapiens is hardwired to play.

I'm a strong atheist, meaning I don't believe in a diety or a soul or anything else supernatural.
I'm not a militant atheist and I feel no urge to proselytise, but I'm always happy to discuss religious belief with people of faith. The myriad of beliefs to be found under the heading "Christian" for example is a thing of wonder to me. I often think that if the world's people categorised their religion in accordance with their actual personal beliefs, the 4300 estimated religions in the world would go up to about 4300000000000000. There is enormous diversity in faith beliefs. Individuals bring their imagination to their faith, and people of faith have given me some lovely mental images to mull over.

There's enormous diversity in atheists, too. They do and don't believe all kinds of things. Atheism is not a synonym for skepticism. Many believe in souls. Some don't believe in a diety but do believe in some kind of indifferent governing supernatural force and they have all kinds of different names, descriptions and theories about it. One explanation popular at the moment is a quantum mechanics governing force that is natural rather than supernatural. Quantum scientists call it quantum woo. Some believe in ghosts and/or ESP. Some believe in tarot cards. Some are hard atheists but they believe we were visited by aliens from the stars in prehistory and are visited still. Some are some of the hardest line antivaxxers, GMO suspectors and even climate change deniers I've ever met in my life: so much for atheists being in thrall to science!

It's hard for people of faith to understand how one becomes an atheist. Many seem to think we had to have something horrible happen in our lives - that we shook our fist at God and rejected him. Or that we rebelled against a church. All I can tell you is in my case it was a slowly dawning realisation. I can remember feeling for awhile like the small child at Christmas who found out about Santa, but still wanted to believe in him just a little bit longer. In retrospect, it was vanity: I didn't want to give up my immortal soul. Or ghosts! Silly, eh?Horror movies have never been the same for me, but on the odd occasion one creeps me out, the cognitive dissonance cracks me up.

The day I realised I didn't believe in gods or souls or ghosts or anything else supernatural was a bit like my birthday. I felt free. Colours and textures were sharper. People were more interesting. Thoughts were vivid and entertaining. Then it hit me like a train that I was on my own and fully accountable.

There's a rumour going around that atheists are a byproduct of the age of science and technology, but research into the subject has turned up the surprising evidence that we've always been around. We were around in ancient times, too. We're not a modern phenomenon. I sometimes wonder if the theory of the faith gene is true, and I simply don't have one.

I can't help you with the ideology of atheism, I'm afraid . I'm just an atheist, not an ideologue.

 

Well to the common man a god cares about humans and is believed to act in their behalf. Ghosts, leprechauns, trolls, etc. are independent entities with no allegiance and often hostile intentions toward man. Of course there is the belief in a malevolent deity which I guess could be equivalent and is perhaps more supported by reality than the belief in a benevolent deity.

 

Thanks for reading my post!

Here is a Wikipedia link to clarify my of agnostic atheist.

 

Well you have stated that you have basal assumptions and yet have only listed one which is that reality exists. Care to post your other basal assumptions

 

Just to clarify a bit better, I have no evidence that god exists (agnosticism) so I choose not to believe in a god (atheism). My Dad on the other hand always said he has no evidence that god exists but he found that the philosophy and organization of the church made sense for him so he chose to go to church. He would be an agnostic theist.

From my thinking the bible sort of promotes agnostic theism. Consider the definition of faith offered by Paul (maybe) in Hebrews I linked to bible hub in case you want to look at how multiple versions of the bible render that quote.

King James Bible

So personally I always feel that when people try to offer evidence of God (like guys like Ken Hamm do) they are sort of acting like the Apostle Thomas who had to stick his hands in Christ's wounds to believe. Or they are catering to people like Thomas. Either way I have always felt like these people are missing the point. No offence to anyone. I'm probably wrong and of course the bible has no monopoly on how people understand gods.

 

None of that matters when the claim can be refuted with a single counterexample, of which there are millions. You get that, right?

Then again, perhaps the "holy rollers" are nowhere near God.

You think such states exclude pangs of conscience?

Such grandiosity is hardly necessary.

Not really.

If whatever passed for belief in God in your mind can reasonably be likened to a belief in Santa, then indeed you lost nothing; but not everyone's belief in God qualifies as such a shallow conceit.

 

Let's keep it simple. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so simply deliver the proof of what ever religion you claim and skip the convoluted pseudo logic. For once please, provide the proof.

 

Well as an agnostic atheist etc I don't really consider anyone "near God". Why do you refute the experience of people who experience speaking in tongues? Why should I consider their experience any less valid than another Christian's experience?

 

That we can learn about it.

That we can model it and make predictions.

They are assumptions.

 

(A)gnosticism is about what you can know.

(A)theism is about belief or, lack of.

 

I have listed 3 premises, so far, that illustrate, IMO, the Folly of Atheism. I have heard these arguments repeatedly, even in this thread. I'll present them here as a summary, since we have a tendency to go on tangents & squabble over terminology, rather than follow reason & deal with reality. I am adding a 4th, & the many pages on this thread alone are evidence for this.

Redefine Science. Among many atheists, especially the militant ones, a common theme is, 'Theists are religious, atheists follow science'. This is fundamentally flawed on many levels.

1. Science is indifferent to worldviews, & only provides facts or evidence for a belief system.
2. There are NO scientific facts or evidence that compels an atheistic worldview. Naturalism is a belief, & is not a proven concept, scientifically. It is not even a good theory of origins, but is filled with assumptions, flaws, & logical fallacies.
3. The scientific method is one of discovery, & is not dependent on one's religious beliefs.
4. Atheism is every much a belief system.. a 'religion'.. as any theistic based one.
5. This is merely an argument by definition, or using circular reasoning. It is merely a definitional dodge, not a logical conclusion.
6. It is false by observation, as many brilliant scientists have been theists, & have made astounding discoveries. There is no conflict in using the scientific method & personal beliefs.
7. Many atheists are not scientists, nor have the tools for critical thinking & inquiry, and do not know the scientific basis for their beliefs. Theirs is a religious belief, based on trust for an indoctrinating elite.
8. 'Science' is used as an umbrella, when specific disciplines should be referenced individually. Biology, cosmology, genetics, physics, mathematics, etc, are the actual disciplines, & even in them, specific issues or studies should be referred to, instead of a general appeal to 'genetics', or 'biology' as if mentioning them proves a point.

Presumption of Omniscience. This is another logical flaw in the Atheistic worldview. When the atheist declares, 'There is no God', he is asserting that he knows all the mysteries in the universe, inhabits infinity & eternity, & has all knowledge. It is a statement of divine omniscience. But this is absurd. How can any human being claim to have all knowledge about everything, & categorically declare anything like this? The atheist is not just saying, 'I have no evidence of the supernatural', but is making a positive statement of belief.. that there IS NO GOD. He is claiming that nobody could ever have any interaction with the supernatural, but every anecdotal story about it is contrived, or imagined. All of these claims are made without any evidence.

Now, some atheists move easily between agnosticism & atheism, & wriggle out of the above fallacy by claiming ignorance. When challenged, he changes the tune, & revises the claim, 'I have no evidence of a God, therefore i do not believe in a god'. This is better, as a subjective statement of belief, but more often the claim is hiding the dogmatic disclaimer, 'And no one else has any evidence of a god, either!' They do not merely claim personal ignorance, but move back into the state of omniscience, where they can declare themselves to be the 'knower of all things'. Because of their own limited experience, or lack of understanding, they project that on everyone else, & declare EVERYONE'S knowledge or experience invalid, if it conflicts with their own. So whether the claim is made under atheism or the quick revision of agnosticism, the same pretense of omniscience is made.

Indoctrination
Naturalism has become the state religion. It is promoted in national parks, public media shows, entertainment, schools, universities, & driven into impressionable children from infancy. Movies are filled with sci-fi imaginings of evolution. The media, entertainers, celebrities, govt leaders... everyone of influence & status present a unified, constant drumbeat of naturalistic origins. Even if it is blended with some nostalgic references to a deity, there is NEVER any question of the science presented, the narrative, or the ideology.

Since the ToE is the cornerstone of the naturalistic world view, & since every atheist i have ever known has professed a belief in this theory, it is not hard to correlate the expansion of atheism with the promotion & eventual monopoly of this belief system on origins.

Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 68% are men, and the median age of atheist adults in the U.S. is 34 (compared with 46 for all U.S. adults). Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% are Caucasian vs. 66% for the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public.

Self-identified atheists tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism. About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as Democrats (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political liberals(compared with just one-in-ten who say they are conservatives). Atheists overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriage (92%) and legal abortion (87%). source

The timeline & correlation of the subjects of indoctrination are impossible to miss. Atheists just happen to be mostly progressive, in their political views, & fall in line with most of the progressive talking points. Even the few that do not, mostly older atheists, have the same indoctrination about the ToE. They believe it to be Proven Scientific Fact, & allow no questioning or examination of the science behind it. And, when you add the progressive doctrines of global warming, sexual identity, abortion, social justice, & other neo marxist/darwinist agendas, the evidence of it being a politically indoctrinated worldview is overwhelming.

Atheists are made, not born. They are the result of a series of indoctrinating processes, put together in unison by a manipulative philosophical belief system. Progressive ideology is at the root of this indoctrination, & it controls every institution in America.

Orwellian Newspeak. This is the irrational logophobia that seems to be common with many atheists, and especially many posting on this thread. It takes several forms, but it's roots are in definitional dodges, or redefined terms. Many will not use the word, 'belief' to describe their world view, as it implies a mere opinion, rather than Absolute Fact. But this ignores reality. Any of the beliefs about the nature of the universe, or the supernatural (or not) are ALL BELIEFS. There is NOTHING empirical to compel a conclusion for naturalism, or supernaturalism, regarding the origins of the universe or life. So we hear bizarre statements of non-belief.
'I don't believe anything. I know my opinions are Absolute Truth'.
'There might be a supernatural entity, but there is no God.'
'I don't have evidence for any supernatural entity, therefore none exists'.
'I'm an agnos-atheistic spiritualist. I don't know what that means, but it sounds cool'.
'I don't know anything about the supernatural, but i know there is no god.'
'Nobody can know anything, but i know everything.'

The bizarre mental gymnastics needed to make these kinds of conflicting statements are more aligned with Absurdism, or the Greek skeptics that were mentioned in the OP. These are not valid descriptions of a world view, but irrational absurd usage of language to try to reconcile terms that are mutually exclusive. It is an attempt to equate ignorance with knowledge, or reason & absurdity, truth with falsehoods, or facts with beliefs. It is orwellian newspeak, using opposite definitions for words, to muddy knowledge & obfuscate understanding. It is nothing but a newer version of Greek skepticism, or the absurd view of the universe. It is not an attempt at clarifying or enlightening concepts or communication, but is a deflection of absurdity, that implies any knowledge is unknowable... except for theirs, which is somehow exempt.

There is no doubt that these kinds of folly are anything except the normal folly & madness that has infected humanity forever. Theists, agnostics, atheists.. none of these are immune to this human malady. But most atheists, especially on the forums, are quick to label theists as 'superstitious & irrational', but they somehow exempt themselves from this judgment. I am pointing out here, the folly of Atheism, & their inclusion with the Rest of Humanity. They are not an elevated Super Intelligent Class, as many like to portray themselves, endued with superior wisdom & enlightenment. They are human, & as such, are subject to the same foibles, flaws, & mental defects as other humans. Perhaps one of the most pertinent quotes is from Einstein, with his commentary on the superior knowledge of Man.

 

I think i have used qualifiers, for most of my generalizations. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that does not negate my observations.
1. Many atheists are very dogmatic, & declare their beliefs as Absolute Truth. Many are as dogmatic & irrational as any theist.
2. The 'atheistic' statement of 'there is no god', is dogmatic on the surface, since there is no empirical evidence for this belief.
3. There is enormous diversity of beliefs.. but they fall under the basic categories of 'theist, atheist, absurdist'. I have omitted 'agnosticism' since by definition is it professing ignorance, not a positive statement of belief.
4. Atheism is a minority view, among humans, for all of recorded history. Atheism is taught, indoctrinated, & believed like any other belief system.
5. There are many paths to any belief system, including atheism.
6. Atheism (or theism, agnosticism, absurdism) is a part of a person's ideology. It provides a foundation for much of the subsequent conclusions & beliefs about Man, eternity, & the universe. I have used 'belief system', 'worldview', & 'ideology' pretty much synonymously, as they are representations of the core beliefs that provide the basis for everything else.

 

It is simple. There are 3 basic beliefs about the origins of life, the universe, & man. ANY of them are 'extraordinary claims'. NONE of them have 'proof'. They are all merely beliefs. That is pretty simple, but why are so many atheists disputing this, & trying to declare THEIR beliefs as Absolute Truth? That is YOUR religious claim, so can you 'provide the proof'?

 

To me, this is a rational use of language. I see no point in trying to blend opposing concepts or in shifting definitions from common, ordinary usage.

I would say, 'an absurd thing'.. If you say, 'there is no god', that is atheism. If you say, 'i don't know if there is a god', that is agnosticism. They are not the same thing, but different. The topic is the existence of the supernatural, God, or gods. You cannot be both agnostic, atheist, or theist in this. Perhaps there is a leaning, or an inclination, but that still leans to one or the others.

So you assert, but you cannot show, rationally, this to be possible. it is a belief, or a muddy word game. The terms are mutually exclusive, & merely co-opting them in some muddled definitional dodge is not a rational conclusion. It is elevating absurdity, & calling it reason.

 

Ghosts, leprechauns, trolls, etc. are supernatural entities. Gods are supernatural entities.

1. I believe in god also believe in other supernatural entities.
2. I disbelieve in god also disbelieve in other supernatural entities.
3. Neither of the above.

I'm in category 2. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone is in category 3.

 

Good post. You are dipping deeply into the philosophical well!

I certainly see dogmatism AND arrogance in any human philosophical belief. Very few humans circumspectly evaluate their own beliefs, but merely plod along, content with dogmatic assertions & blindly followed indoctrination. But i see this with most atheists as well, so there is no elevated mental state unique to their belief system.

And your point about evidence is excellent. Sometimes, we just don't see it. Or, we don't have the capacity to understand it, or process it. That is not the fault of the evidence, but is a human flaw. If there is a supernatural, it is absurd to blame it for our own lack of perception.

And your comments about matter are also insightful. I cannot see how anyone can make dogmatic statements about matter, time, the universe, or any such material thing, as if they know, somehow, that is all there is. It is arrogance at its worst, without even the pretext of considering other possibilities.

 

This is one of my all time favorites.
https://youtu.be/0JxvoSV2plQ

 

Great post! I can follow your reasoning, & it seems very sound to me. And, i sympathize with the 'wall of text' problem.. but it is difficult to discuss abstract philosophical matters with witty one liners, or a tweet.

1. It is honest for you to recognize this. Many atheists will not.
2. 'Science' is a wash. There is no evidence either way, to conclude atheism or theism, by our current, material, empirical standards. What in 'science' provides evidence for a naturalistic, atheistic view of the universe?
3. Human are irrational, inconsistent, & varied. We are not addressing all the different beliefs, visions, imaginings, or doctrines of man. We're narrowing it all down to 'supernatural, or natural?' Theism, or atheism? I've included absurdism for those who believe the answer is 42.
4. That is debateable. Morality seems to be very practical, & is at the root of even the most secular law. Almost all religions are based on some kind of codified morality. Destroying morality under a 'relativistic' umbrella is not a positive thing for a culture, as the anchors for morality are lost, & society is tossed about in a sea of relativity.
5. Good to list them. IMO, it is important to know WHY we believe as we do, & to analyze how we got here, where we came from, & maybe even get a glimpse to where we're going, philosophically. Dogmatism & mental stagnation are enemies of enlightenment & critical thinking.

 

I went to and read the Wiki link you posted before my original response. It is the same as you just now posted. Here is my original response and the Wiki entry...

I believe my interpretation accurately reflects the concept expressed in the Wiki entry. Both my interpretation and the Wiki entry are logically inconsistent statements.


ETA See my post #674

 

You got most of the same answers as i did. IMO, that shows a common ground for communication, as the definitions of words can be understood, & rational discourse can have a basis.

Our only departure was in this one:
Nobody can know anything about this. It is all mysterious & beyond the human mind to comprehend.

I put this as 'absurdist', & you put it as agnostic. My reasoning was that the statement of belief, 'Nobody can know anything' went beyond pure agnosticism, & was making a positive declaration of belief.. that of 'knowledge' being unknowable. I had that in the OP as the greek skeptic view, which i have labeled 'absurdism'. I just kind of tossed it in with all the other absurd views.

And, as a reminder/disclaimer, i do not mean 'absurdism' as a pejorative. It is a description of a valid worldview, that many people hold. It is not based on empiricism, or even materialism, so common ground for discussion is often lost with them. Objective logical & rational devices do not work in the absurdist world view.

I am beginning to see how much absurdism has influenced our culture. It is more prevalent that it once was, & seems to be growing. At one time, i hardly considered it as a world view, when the cultural emphasis was on empiricism, science, & a 'just the facts, ma'am', Joe Friday outlook. But times have changed, & so has ideology. Absurdism is alive & well, in our culture, & it has an active & loyal following, even if they label it differently, which absurdists always do!

 

I responded to your #656 before reading this #658...

If you are an agnostic, you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic.
An atheist is one who has "committed to believing in ...the nonexistence of ... god"
An atheist is one who "claims ... disbelief in God"


IMHO, you may be an agnostic who is highly skeptical of the possible existence of any god, but, you are not quite an atheist.

 

The simple terms of 'atheist, agnostic & theist' are not meant to be exhaustive descriptions of someone's world view or ideology. I have never used them in that way, & i don't see how anyone would. They are GENERAL terms, used to describe a specific belief about a Big Question in universe: Are we alone? Is there a supernatural?

There is no way i would try to apply these to someone as a detailed analysis of their belief system. it is the starting point, only. I know nothing about someone who merely self identifies as a 'theist'. They could be hindu. They could be muslim. They could be wiccan or new age. 'Theist' is too general & vague to describe anything other than this basic belief in the supernatural. The same is true with atheist, & to a certain extent, agnostic. But i define 'agnostic' a little more simply. We already have 'atheist' for those who don't believe in the supernatural, so i see no point in muddying the issue by pretending that someone can be agnostic & still declare 'there is no god'. They are an atheist, & they should just admit it & embrace their beliefs.

I see your stated beliefs about this (wait.. make that guesses or opinions.. can't use the term, 'belief!' ) as being clearly in the 'agnostic' category. It is an honest view, if held consistently, & IMO, is (or should be) the default belief for this Question. I see the 'agnostic' descriptor fitting you very well. You have been logically consistent in this usage. I cannot say the same for many others, though i suspect it is more due to their absurdist views, which they have not been able to clarify, as the terms lose meaning & become relative.