The Folly of Atheism

I am also atheist and in agreement with your analysis of fundamentalism. I am merely using fundamentalist evangelical agnosticism as a target of criticism as opposed to theistic fundamentalism. They are two sides of the same coin but, it should be borne in mind that it's not just theists that have a dogmatic fundamentalism.

 

From your signature it became apparent to me that you are only willing to believe in those things which you can physically perceive. If someone believes God is a material body floating around somewhere and you can perceive Him as such; it would definitely be reasonable for you to ask them to furnish evidence to that end.

But we believe God is not a physical body; He transcends time and space. Besides, how can we perceive His Essence through our limited physical faculties. He is pure Light. We cannot even look directly into the face of the sun without being blinded. How can we withstand the Light of God Himself?

God is perceived through the inner vision of the heart. But if the heart is blind then it cannot perceive that which is so apparent and obvious. You have to sharpen the faculty which is not being used. In other words, when you begin to see with the inner light of the soul to such an extent that your other physical faculties are overwhelmed by it then you will even see God with your own two eyes and hear Him with your own two ears. But it requires purification of the heart in order to sharpen the inner senses.

 

It is just more Folly of Agnosticism to claim, you are just getting on with life while simultaneously declaring and being an 'activist' for a fundamentalist agnostic dogma. It's like a theist saying, 'I'm just getting on with life' while they are knocking on your door to tell you the good news! More good reason to believe that agnosticism is the other side of the same coin as theism.

 

Thanks! I was trying to find a chart like that! The one I found wasn't as good.

This one is great.

 

Have any declared atheist here had clairvoyant experiences?

Known something before you could logically know it. ​

An epidemic of those experiences knocked the atheism out of me.

With personal experience it is no longer a matter of faith to acknowledge something beyond the physical world.


Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

I figure it's how some people set themselves apart from perceived negative extremes. Theists and atheists love to vilify one another, so each group can end up looking bad outwardly, which leaves the agnostics looking like the enlightened ones somehow above it all for staying neutral.

But yeah, I also have to wonder about their personal beliefs. Do they believe in a god or not? It's a binary proposition when you get down to it, which comes back to the "atheist in practice" bit I mentioned earlier. No matter how agnostic we might want to be, when it comes to a god with rules and promises of punishments and rewards for belief and non-belief and various actions, we have to decide whether or not we're going to "believe" in that god and follow its rules. There is no pure agnosticism - you accept this god and its rules, or you don't.

But then there are the deists and their rather pacific god(s). Believing in such a god really seems to change nothing, since it entails nothing beyond how one fundamentally perceives the universe. And in this, a rather theistic belief may be hidden. One might embrace such a god to find comfort in the face of mortality and suffering the way a theist attempts to do. Here we must question the basic motives behind belief in a god. To me, there is no factual motive, no purely scientific, evidence-based motive for such a belief, and so it must be something else. I see it invariably being linked to the fear and dread of mortality, hoping for some 'divine order' to resurrect us or otherwise continue our existence after death in a way deemed impossible without a god. A godless universe is likely indifferent and doesn't care about us at all, and so will never give us a second chance at life.

 

I'm not sure what this means.

"God is perceived through the inner vision of the heart."

please elaborate.

"But it requires purification of the heart in order to sharpen the inner senses."
What is the process of purification?

 

Well it's hard to explain since words are kind of imprecise. But I will try my best:

Perception of the heart refers to when you perceive the existence of a distinct entity apart from yourself; but that perception is internal not external. The closest thing to this you might understand is instinct or intuition. You intuitively know many things perhaps because they have been programmed into your DNA, which explains why you behave in certain ways. This intuition is knowledge that is acquired internally and not externally through study or observation.

The purer your heart becomes, removed of vain desires and attachments, the better it is able to intuitively recognize things internally. The procedure to purify the heart or soul involves the internal struggle to detach oneself from evil characteristics like pride, jealousy, malice, etc. This will sharpen the heart so it is better able to perceive intuitively.

In Islam, the process to purify the heart involves worship and intensive remembrance of God, by repeating His Names (Zikr), and going into seclusion (Khalwa) for significant periods of time on a regular basis.

 

In response to various post, most notably #720, #725, #726, #727 and #728…allow me to say this:

ANYONE who asserts “There are no gods” or “It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one” or “There is more evidence for no gods than for a god”…

…is merely sharing a self-serving blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Mostly it doesn’t matter…and I recognize that most atheists will never be able to see or acknowledge it. But since so many atheists spend so much time mocking theists and agnostics…I enjoy giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Any person here who identifies using the descriptor atheist...no matter how modified...who thinks his/her position is more logical or reasonable than the most devout theist...is in delusion.

 

I am with you. The problem is that most words relating to spirituality, parapsychology, and the supernatural are not particularly well defined. Concrete nouns have a physical referent that we can experience, and then use that experience to support the definition, fill in for any of Webster's omissions or inadequacies, and verify whether we have a common experience. When defining words for this topic, there is a question whether the things we are defining (or failing to define) even exist. There is no referent to supplement the definitions.

Moreover, much of what people seem to be doing is saying/writing/"believing" things they think sound good. There are a lot of things that sound good that are nonsense. "Could an omnipotent god make a rock so heavy he could not lift it?" The question has an intrinsically self-contradictory structure, and as such manages to completely bypass asking anything about either power or deity.

Often people's religious statements obscure the fact that they don't know what they mean because they use metaphors without recognizing that they are metaphors. Typical of this is "God is love" which literally means, when analyzed to its root definitions that god is either identical to, or a function of, human neurochemical processes and hormonal states, and a result of various classes of human behavior which may or may not be altruistic. I have been repeatedly told by people that this is not at all what they mean, that it means that god is loving, yet they can never quite clarify what sort of being this loving god is.

True. I think that indicates that even the clergy, who "explain" these things, skirt the issue of having no clear idea of what they are talking about.

There are many other terms that people think make sense because they apply to nouns that are functionally pronouns, but have never been tied to sufficiently described referents. Again, the reason this can happen is because there is no concrete noun to check against. These words include god, soul, spirit, ghost, etc. This, combined with the metaphoric language makes it well nigh impossible for people to even notice that when they talk to each other about this topic, that they are saying things without using common definitions.

This often continues because people are explicitly told that apostasy will be severely punished both temporally and eternally. The desire not to be stoned to death, or eternally roasted is a powerful discouragement to close examination of terms and whether they are used to make sensible statements. Clear understanding could easily lead to disbelief, apostasy, and being socially outcast, murdered, and "eternal agony", so people avoid thinking too carefully or questioning to closely.

You bring up a good point. The polytheistic nature-based and anthropomorphic religions (e.g., classical paganism, shamanic religions, and many aspects of Hinduism) do not have the same problem (or not to the same degree) with nebulous terms because the terms are more likely to be literal and physical. In many religions and philosophical circles, clarity problems are created or exacerbated by this attempt at an all-encompassing monotheism.

Empiricism and modern science-based cosmologies have forced the retreat from literalism. Metaphor is a necessary stopgap once people photograph and map Mt. Olympus, and thereby demonstrate to all concerned that Zeus and company are not there eating ambrosia or sipping nectar. As people came to demand more concrete evidence for everything, religion seems to have retreated into more general and all-encompassing metaphor.

 

Devout theists describe their belief in god as "faith", which is defined as a belief that is not supported by evidence. So what you're saying here is that a belief based upon reason and evidence is no more logical or reasonable than a belief that lacks evidence. Are you sure you want to stick with that argument?

 

ABSOLUTELY.

Anyone who thinks an atheist bases his "beliefs" or blind guesses on reason and evidence...is kidding him/herself.

Just as there is NO unambiguous evidence that there is at least one god...there is NO unambiguous evidence that there are no gods.

 

How can one "purify the heart" by engaging in "intensive remembrance of God" if one does not yet have a heart pure enough to have intuitively recognized god internally?

What do you mean by the heart?

 

Actually, questions like this are part of why I am not an atheist. I have to know what people are talking about before I have any way of evaluating whether the thing is possible, impossible, or inevitable. Metaphorically speaking, what if Brahman and the Tao are just primitive shorthand for the laws of physics? I would not want to assert the non-existence of principles I clearly believe in under another name.

As much to the point, it is fun to point out to the self-righteous that they are not making as much sense as they think they are, and that things are not obvious in the ways we like to insist that they are.

One of the great things about this site is that we all get the advantage of people telling us when we are full of crap, or making unfounded assumptions.

 

A theistic morality is not required for people to develop a sense of kindness, nor is a "heavenly proclamation" prerequisite to a societal preference for mercy and self-restraint over violent self-gratification.

I personally think at the root of ethics and morality is a set of aesthetic preferences, not a deity.

 

My point is that I think it is all unintelligible crap, timeless or not.

 

When you declare, 'there is no god', you are claiming 'complete knowledge of the universe', by your statement. You claim that a supernatural, creative entity is 'illogical & impossible'. How do you know this, unless you have exhaustive, omniscient knowledge of All Things?

No, that is your claim. By declaring, 'there is no god', you pretend to have all knowledge, & some secret insight into all the mysteries of the universe. How can you KNOW such a thing? You may believe it, but it is not 'knowledge'. It is an opinion, at best. To claim it as Absolute Truth is absurd. It is merely your belief.

That is the logical conclusion, & the implied assertion, with your 'there is no god', claim.

• There is NO evidence for a naturalistic belief in origins.
• There is NO evidence for the statement, 'there is no god'.
• There is NO evidence for any conclusive, scientific explanation for origins of life & the universe.
• There is abundant evidence that the belief in naturalistic origins are the product of man's imaginings.

You have to claim that 'knowledge', in order to make that dogmatic declaration. That is what you do, & that is your claim. You pretend to know every mystery in the universe, in order to come to the fantastic conclusion, 'there is no god'. How else could you 'know' such a thing?

IF.. IF.. IF... if you can KNOW that naturalism is indeed, 'based on clear scientific evidence,' THEN you could make such a conclusion, & it would be rational. BUT... since that is merely a belief, & is NOT a fact, THEN your belief is just another belief about the nature of the universe.. it is no more rational or irrational than anyone else's belief.

Why? Who says? There is no reason NOT to believe that, either. You are just declaring your beliefs dogmatically. You have no evidence for your opinion, it is just your belief.

Well, i'll dispute the 'any scientist' claim.. which is mostly a fallacy, anyway. Who are these 'any scientists'? But i agree that there is 'so much about it that is unknown at this time'. The 'clues' are inconclusive, & can have multiple explanations.

Agreed. And the atheists are equally dogmatic, making claims 'not supported by any observable fact'.

I would dispute your 'known facts', as being mostly beliefs & conjectures, but that is another thread. And, if you reject theistic claims because they are not 'evidently true', cannot the same be said for atheism? There is nothing 'evident' about a naturalistic universe, clearly empty of anything supernatural. Humans have believed & suspected something supernatural for millennia.. it is the majority perception. How can you be sure that a small, vocal, militant minority have Absolute Truth on their side, when it is no more evidenced, empirically, than the other?

 

Go to the image
right click
Select "copy image url"
Return to the forum
Click the "Insert Image box" Middle row, 4th from the right)
Select the "From URL box" tab
Paste Ctrl-V url
UnCheck "Retrieve remote file and reference locally"
Click OK

Wa La


My problem is primarily with Agnostic Atheist.

• If you don't know there are no gods, you are an Agnostic.
• If you know there are no gods, you are an Atheist.

These words are clearly defined by English dictionaries.

 

N O P E

Consider:
Mother of a teenage girl sits up waiting for daughter to return, knowing something bad has happened.
Daughter comes home.
Rinse and repeat for a couple of years
Conclusion - No clairvoyant experience

Consider:
Mother of a teenage girl sits up waiting for daughter to return, knowing something bad has happened.
Daughter comes home.
Rinse and repeat for a year
Daughter is killed in a car accident
Conclusion - Mother had a premonition. She KNEW something before she could logically know it.

 

BINGO!

Nail hit squarely on its head.

 

That makes no sense, no one can "know" whether god(s) exist or not. One can only believe god(s) exist or not. Anyone who claims to know is full of dung.

 

I have not defined the 'supernatural' narrowly. It is the opposite of a 'natural' belief about origins, life, & the universe. It is a binary belief.. either you believe in a supernatural 'cause', or you don't. Defining the entity, specifically, is beyond this discussion.

He does? There is 'more evidence that no gods exist', than there is that they do? Really? What is this 'evidence' that you possess?

And, there is fundamental atheism, or 'strong' atheism, or 'militant' atheism, or whatever counterpart to the agnostic or theistic dogmatist you wish to compare them to.

This is very common. I know many atheists, myself included, who became theists after an experience with a supernatural force. It is not 'empirical evidence' because it is subjective. But to the individual, it is powerful evidence of the existence of the supernatural. IMO, this is also a 'rational' conclusion, given the evidence they have acquired to base this upon. It is not 'blind faith', but an evidentiary based conclusion, from personal experience. The only caveat is that it is not subject to scrutiny or scientific methodology, which is why it cannot be considered, 'empirical' evidence.

Now, there have been many 'theists' who have also converted to atheism. But i have heard of none based on any personally acquired evidence.. only from incredulity, or disillusionment, indoctrination, & perhaps a few other reasons. Was there anything 'empirical' in their lives, that compelled such a conclusion? No. It was based on many non empirical factors in their lives. If anything, it is a conclusion based on NON evidence. There was nothing to make them think, 'there is no god', except belief. They were offended by a religious person, or indoctrinated by fake science, or imbued with prejudice over selective history & propaganda. There is NOTHING empirical to base a conclusion of 'atheism' upon. All of the influences are sociological and/or psychological. There is nothing empirical, or even subjective, to base it upon. Hence, the Folly of Atheism.

 

It is a fallacy to think that majority opinions are automatically true or at least based in truth. The Earth wasn't flat thousands of years ago just because a majority of humans back then believed it.

Spirituality is indicative of an innate quality of human thinking, and humans are not alone in this either. We and other intelligent animals tend to see agency in the world around us, even where there is none. It is an absolutely fascinating subject of scientific research, of course.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3436893/
Abstract

Children may treat an invisible entity as a live and thinking entity, known as an imaginary companion (IC). Some researchers suggest that this is simply pretend play, but it is possible that children experience agency in their interactions with ICs. Given the literature on cognitive science and social brain research, we hypothesize that young children may have an agent-perception system that responds to an invisible agent by which they may experience realistic agency in their interactions with ICs. In this study, children were introduced to an invisible agent and an invisible stone. However, they assigned biological and psychological properties to the agent but not the stone. The tendency of assigning such properties was stronger in children with ICs than in those without ICs. These results contribute to our understanding of cognitive and neural development in typical and atypical children.

...
--------------

https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/JCSR/article/view/24483

Priming with Religion and Supernatural Agency Enhances the Perception of Intentionality in Natural Phenomena
Wieteke Nieuwboer, Hein T. van Schie, Daniël Wigboldus

Abstract
Cognitive theories of religion suggest that belief in supernatural agents finds a basis in the human tendency to (over) detect agency in the environment. The present research investigated whether activation of religious concepts enhances the attribution of agency in natural phenomena. In two experiments we administered a religion prime (a religion questionnaire in Experiment 1; a subliminal God prime in Experiment 2) and measured the amount of intentionality and free will that participants ascribed to images of natural phenomena and agents. In both experiments participants ascribed more agency to natural phenomena if they had been presented with a religion prime. Item analyses for both experiments furthermore revealed that the effect of religious priming was most pronounced for items of natural phenomena that were perceived as beyond personal control. These findings provide empirical support for the hypothesized relation between religion and agency detection.



And, no, atheists are not "equally dogmatic" and creationist dribblings are not equivalent at all to scientific theories. Get off the internet and do some reading, you. Or at least search up the right kinds of videos on YouTube or something.

 

I can know that the versions humans worship are not Gods....thus am considered Atheist.
I cannot know there isn't something else....thus am I an Agnostic.

 

There was the time I "knew" of a friends house fire before I could know.
Over 4 nights, 4 dreams and woke up talking the morning of the fourth.
I do not dream that I remember. These 4 dreams were vivid. Cinemascope. Technicolor.

And then there were times I made medical diagnosis using testing to zero in on what I "knew".


Moi, M.D. ret.

r > g

View attachment 47245
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​