The Folly of Atheism

I agree with your definitions. What's your point?

 

How are they not, for usage in the term, 'theist'? If you have some supernatural entity, with the power to create the universe, & other mysterious traits, how is that any different than a definition for a 'god'? I have used 'supernatural' as a broader brush, to avoid any correlation with a specific god or religious belief.

In the same way, i consider NOT believing in god & atheism as equivalent. So i cannot see how you could claim to 'believe in the supernatural', yet declare, 'there is no god'. That seems to be a logical disconnect, with no rationality.

 

When even the concept of "god" is logically inconsistent, I don't need complete knowledge of the universe to know that one doesn't exist.

 

When the theist (USFAN in this case) declares what he believes the atheist declares he is usually demonstrably wrong. That is the case here.

'There is no God'. So far, so good.

'he is asserting that he knows all the mysteries in the universe, inhabits infinity & eternity, & has all knowledge.' Completely wrong.


You can find many of my posts in this forum where I declare 'I am an atheist' and 'There is no God'.

You cannot find a single post of mine where I declare that I know 'all the mysteries in the universe'
You cannot find a single post of mine where I declare that I inhabit 'infinity & eternity'
You cannot find a single post of mine where I declare that I have 'all knowledge'

Thanks for the brief interlude of an actual fact.

Highly over simplified, but generally OK.

And now you've returned to your fantasy land.

• There is abundant evidence that all gods are the product of man's imaginings.
• There is abundant evidence that all psychic snowflakes are the product of man's imaginings.
• There is abundant evidence that all ghosts, goblins, santas, tooth fairies, et al are the product of man's imaginings.
• There is abundant evidence that all things supernatural are the product of man's imaginings.

One does not have to know 'all the mysteries in the universe' to dismiss, out of hand, any and all supernatural entities and beliefs that are the product of man's imaginings.

 

One would have to have total knowledge of all information in the universe to declare absolutely what is logical and what isn't.

 

I am sure there are lots of things you know, Contrails, but for absolutely certain, you DO NOT KNOW that no gods exist.

 

You really lose all credibility when you start off by trying to insert your own definitions for common words. Naturalism is not Religion. You asserting it does not make it so.

People like Ken Hamm want you to believe that the Grand Canyon is evidence for and a direct result of The Flood. For a while there were even pamphlets at the park promoting this nonsense. Naturalists had them removed because they were promoting a religion (ie attempting indoctrination).

Care to give some actual examples of anti-god philosophies being 'driven into impressionable children from infancy'?

Care to compare those to TV channels that broadcast belief in god 24/7?
Care to compare those to parents taking their infants to church services every week.
Care to compare those to parents sending the kids to bible study classes from the time they can walk.



Apparently religious indoctrination is still occurring in public schools today and we can see the effects of that indoctrination: (my emphasis)

Mrs. Thomas is obviously OK with early biblical indoctrination into a belief in god.

 

In the case of your dad, I think you are conflating religion with god. His appreciation of the religion has nothing to do with believing god exists.
It sounds like he is an agnostic atheist because your dad likes the religion, but has no reason to believe the deity exists.

The orderliness of the universe, the consistency of the laws of physics, and our sensory and intellectual capacity to engage in empirical investigation indicate that faith is at least as likely to be a dead end.

If there is a deity who made everything with intention, then it makes far more sense to assume a rationalist god who will damn to eternal punishment anyone who would refuse to require evidence, and would instead accept a proposition on faith alone.

 

Even if I give in that Atheists have a belief in science and "naturalism" its based on clear scientific evidence based on using our reason to provide a solid basis while faith doesn't, so which belief is far superior - naturalism. Which moves the folly to theism, deism and other faith based epistemologies.

 

Your version of qualifiers throughout have been "most" and "many" and the only atheist group you've described is the militant New Atheists. That's not open minded moderation, usfan, that's propaganda and it most certainly does negate your observations. Overgeneralisation always negates a conclusion.

No. "Many" atheists are not "very dogmatic", some are, and I would posit they are a tiny, noisy minority: that's why the world and his wife know Richard Dawkins is an atheist but have no idea the colleague at the next desk is, too. New Atheists certainly are dogmatic. They're on a mission from not-God to proselytise. The rest of our tiny little subset of humanity aren’t and never have been, and we've been around for a very long time.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25300818-battling-the-gods




It wouldn't get us very far even if we felt the urge. We're a tiny minority in a theist majority, as you noted, and we've been persecuted for all of human history. Do a quick google search of "atheist" and you'll find gems like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eligious-people-intelligent-claims-study.html
Which states we are psychopaths who lack empathy.

Or this:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

Which tells us Americans distrust atheists as much as rapists. Of course you'll get other hits on articles reassuring the world that atheists are just people who don't believe there is a god, too, because in a world that believes atheists are raping psychopaths we need all the good press we can get to keep the mob with torches and pitchforks away from our door. Think I'm exaggerating? Google "most hated group in the world" and you'll get:

http://www.worldreligionnews.com/re...n-most-disliked-religious-minority-in-the-u-s

which tells you we remain the most disliked minority and is dated September 2016. And the gods know you burnt us at the stake in the past. Your brother monotheists are still beheading us today.

So. Yeah. Most atheists don’t get up on that soapbox and declare the Absolute Truth. We leave that to the theists and keep our thoughts to ourselves. Much safer.

For someone who acknowledges " Atheism is a minority view, among humans, for all of recorded history" you ascribe an inordinate amount of power to us. I wouldn't have picked you as a Marxist, but there you go. Apparently we are "indoctrinating" the western world into our atheistic viewpoint. Our pulpit is the public school and our bible is evolution. There's just one problem with your theory: most theists in the western world don't see evolution as an argument against God. Darwin didn’t either. Faith based Christian schools teach natural selection straight after mass. The many church going Christians I know see it as a divine mechanism. You might recall a gentleman from Rome endorsed the theory of evolution publicly. Only in America, as the old saying goes, are Christians bashed over the head with the notion that belief in one precludes belief in the other, so they must choose. Only in America is the teaching of evolution an issue worthy of public notice, but because America is so big and so loud, Americans get the impression that it is an issue for all theists all over the world - especially Christians. It isn't, though dogmatic Muslim nations share your concern, I'm sure . What a shame there's no way to exploit this monotheistic mutuality for world peace.

I noticed your little treatise on evolution stopped just at the period in history when the overwhelming, rich, abundant fossil record evidence of natural selection starts to really pour in and pile up. You give the impression that nothing happened to advance the theory of evolution after 1967. In fact, the bulk of the evidence has turned up in the past few decades- a direct result of technological advances. Yet inspite of all the evidence, "Atheism is a minority view, among humans" even now. The great Marxist Atheist progressive conspiracy to impose their indoctrinated beliefs on everyone else just doesn’t seem to be working, does it? Theism - not Naturalism- remains the state religion all over the world. It appears you're boxing shadows, sir.

 

There is a difference between believing something based on indoctrination and believing something based on assumptions that lead inevitably to particular conclusions.

While I have never been indoctrinated into the belief that the color of my living room wall is goldish brown, my assumption that my vision is an actual and reliable interface between the world and my brain leads me to conclude that the wall is a goldish brown. Arguably, I have been indoctrinated into the roots of empiricism by being encouraged to look around and trust my senses more than what people tell me. This would be similar to being indoctrinated into the belief that the Bible is infallibly true.

No. I just think that the insistence that a poorly defined concept for which there is no evidence (either for or against its existence) must absolutely not exist is just as irrational as the equally unfounded assertion that it must absolutely exist. Thoughtful and honest skepticism cuts both ways.

Where I get hung up is that I don't see any reason to think any of the folks arguing for one side or the other have any clear idea of what they are talking about.

The most consistent answer I get when I ask people to define their concept of god is "What created and sustains the universe."
That means that the laws of physics are among the myriad and nebulous supernatural explanations for the universe' existence and continuation. Well, I actually do know what people mean by the laws of physics. Moreover, I believe in the laws of physics, so if that is what we mean by god, then call me a theist.

For pretty much every other concept of deity, I see no possible excuse for me to absolutely accept or discount any of that crap. show me some evidence held together by logic. Failing that, I am not stupid enough to insist on believing an unsupported proposition.

Yes, I did use the word stupid. I definitely think people who believe religions are true are poor thinkers. By the same token, I think people who insist, despite lack of evidence to support the conclusion, there cannot possibly be any deity, are idiots IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON.

This is not caused by the vestiges my religiously bent confirmation bias, but rather the vestiges of a logic class I took 30 years ago. My confirmation bias is bent toward the proposition that until I have evidence, I do not know.

 

Wifi and Ken Hamm: Australian exports. You're welcome for the former, apologies for the latter.

 

I don't need total knowledge to know that your statement is illogical.

I've been looking for a logically consistent definition of 'god' for a long time now. If one exists, I haven't seen it.

 

The trouble here, as I have pointed out several times, is that people are trying to use the descriptor "atheist" in so many different ways...it ceases to have meaning.

It would help if everyone who uses the descriptor would DESCRIBE their atheism...totally and clearly.

It would be even more helpful if atheists, in general, would get away from the fiction that atheism is a function of "lack of belief"...because for the most part...it isn't. It is obvious from just casual conversations with most atheists that they use the descriptor because they "believe" or guess that there are no gods.

We have people who:

1) "Believe" or guess there is at least one god.

2) "Believe" or guess it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

3) "Believe" or guess there are no gods.

4) "Believe" or guess that it is more likely that there are none than that there is at least one.

5) ...and finally there are those who do not make what is essentially an meaningless, blind guess in any of those directions.

Oh...there are also those who want to use the descriptor "atheist" but who want to pretend it is only because they lack a "belief" in a deity.

Numbers 1 and 2 are obviously theists...although few people actually describe themselves as theists.

Numbers 3 and 4 are atheists. They are NOT non-believers...they simply have beliefs in the opposite direction from the beliefs of theists.

We're all agnostics. But the group in number 5 are the only ones who really should call themselves agnostics.

The people in the add-on are atheists deluding themselves...or who are dishonest.

Under any circumstances...EVERY person using the descriptor "atheist" or "agnostic" ought to have a comprehensive, clear statement of their particular "atheism" or "agnosticism"...so that we can be clear with each other in these discussions

 

I've given one.

We do not know if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not. IF it is...whatever created it is what I mean by a "god"...a creator entity.

It is not something that has to be worshiped or feared or loved...or anything.

 

It's illogical compared to the information you currently have. I just might happen to have more.

 

The large majority of atheists are best described as agnostic atheists, or weak atheists, meaning they don't know and they don't believe god exists. In other words, they simply "lack the belief" that god exists.

Only a minority of atheists like myself call themselves gnostic atheists, or strong atheists, who have a basis for their belief that god does not exist. The reason you get these groups confused is because while the minority, it is the gnostic atheists who are the most vocal about their lack of belief.

- - - Updated - - -

The large majority of atheists are best described as agnostic atheists, or weak atheists, meaning they don't know and they don't believe god exists. In other words, they simply "lack the belief" that god exists.

Only a minority of atheists like myself call themselves gnostic atheists, or strong atheists, who have a basis for their belief that god does not exist. The reason you get these groups confused is because while the minority, it is the gnostic atheists who are the most vocal about their lack of belief.

 

If the universe was created through a natural process, would you call that process "god"? When people typically talk about a "creator entity" they are talking about something that has consciousness. There is no reason to believe that creation of the universe requires a conscious entity.

 

Do please share this information.

 

There is an order and laws to the universe. There is no logical reason to believe that just happens by accident any more than a road just happens by accident.

 

Every honest person is ultimately going to be agnostic about how the universe came to be, simply because there is so much about it that is unknown at this time. We have various factual clues to go on, but it's still not a matter of certainty by any stretch. Any scientist would likely agree with that.

Meanwhile, religionists maintain gnostic beliefs about this, claiming they know that there is a god, however defined, and that this god somehow created the universe. They claim something they do not know and must, if they're honest, be agnostic about, instead asserting positive claims where they are not warranted and not supported by any observable fact, but rather based on religious claims made by others.

As for atheists, we reject theistic claims and beliefs because they are not evidently true. They are, as I've already indicated, unsubstantiated. They also often contradict known facts today, especially in the arena of the evolution of the earth and the life upon it.

 

Indoctrinated is a strong word. However, you have been taught what the word "brown" means.

Most children are taught to believe in the same holy scripture their parents believe in. Most children are taught to believe in the same interpretations of that holy scripture as their parents interpret it. Hence we have Protestants and Catholics and Sunnis and Shiites, all believing the same infallible truths as their parents.

Early childhood teachings are difficult to overcome. Atheists become atheists when their skepticism overrides their early teachings.

I disagree. I think that most people on all sides have a very clear idea of what they are talking about. Just look at the posters in this thread.

For most theists, it goes far beyond that.

If you believe the universe has supernatural origins, then you are indeed a theist. If not, you're not.

Again, it's difficult to overcome early childhood teachings. If you were born and raised in Alabama, chances are you will always speak with a Southern accent.

My disbelief in god came about around age 10 when I was sent to Sunday School and was "taught" about Talking Snakes ,Noah and The Flood - all accompanied by colorful cartoon pictures.

Over the (many) years since then, there is nothing I have seen or heard to change my mind. I have learned that gods are the product of man's imaginings. As such, there is no more reason to assign them credibility then there is reason to assign credibility to psychic snowflakes.

If facts lead you to understand that gods are the product of man's imaginings, then logic compels you to accept the proposition that gods belong in the same realm as psychic snowflakes.

 

If the "natural process" was CREATED...I would call whatever created it...a god.

If the entire thing was not a CREATION...but simply always was...then there would be no gods.

I am only responsible for what I am saying...not what "people" typically say.

So...don't guess that way.

There also is no reason to guess that "creation" (if there was one) happened without a creator.



BOTTOM LINE: You may KNOW many things...but one thing you do NOT KNOW (as you asserted you did) is that there are no gods.

 

Agnostic atheists...are atheists.

If you are saying the majority of atheists do not "believe" or guess that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does...

...MY GUESS is that you are totally wrong.

 

Who needs absolute certainty to say there is no evidence of supernatural beings called deities so we say various positions on that I say without evidence and a clear value in doing so we should act as a species as if there are no deities spending all those resources and manpower elsewhere and others have other positions on the Atheist side. Its another bullcrap argument position in my opinion used by desperate theists.