The Folly of Atheism

Then, instead of this...

Do this...
(my emphasis)

That way everyone reading knows the emphasis was not in the original.


RE: I do not like my quotes edited to remove part of the quote.

If person 1 writes:

And person 2 responds:

That's acceptable, because person 2 was responding to just one part of the original post and not changing the meaning of the original post.

If person 1 writes:

And person 2 responds:

That's obviously wrong because it changes the meaning of person 1's post.


Sorry to sound like I'm preaching but there have been several instances in just the past week where people have placed emphases on portions of my post without indicating that they, not I, placed the emphasis.

 

So then I'm a "traditional" atheist according to the bolded as I stated. It's all semantics to me anyway.

 

I did not say the discussion was meaningless. I said the search was meaningless.

Let me try to put it into context...
Gods are supernatural entities.

If you want to accept the possibility, however remote, that supernatural entities actually exist, then you must give equal credence to all of the following:

• God created everything in a period of six days about 6000 years ago.
• God created something that resulted in the Big Bang.
• God created everything Last Thursday.
• The Cherokee Creation Story.
• The Enuma Elish Epic of Creation.
• The Hindu Creation Myth.
• Currently Unknown Deity

None is any more or any less probable or possible than any other.
If you accept the possibility of any one of them, you must equally accept the possibility of any other of them. I don't.


If you want to accept the possibility, however remote, of the supernatural, then you must accept the possibility of the actuality of...

• Clairvoyants
• Psychics
• Ghosts
• Reincarnation
• Faith Healers Eliminating Cancer
• An Eternal Afterlife

If you accept the possibility of any one of them, you must equally accept the possibility of any other of them. I don't.

 

I was talking strictly in the personal sense (knowing is personal). I can't possibly KNOW if gods exist or not or that they may exist or not. The former means it has proven (to my satisfaction) that they do or don't exist and the latter means there is at least one valid theory that may show they exist or at least one valid theory that may show they don't exist. And I acknowledge one of these.

In this case I KNOW of none of the above. To me, the god issue is vaporware and I'll yield to the late, brilliant George Carlin.

[video=youtube;8r-e2NDSTuE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE&t=217s[/video]

 

Originally you wrote:

"I am an atheist (traditional definition) because I absolutely, without a doubt don't believe any god exists."

You were saying that you are a traditional atheist BECAUSE you DON'T BELIEVE any god exists.

That is different from someone who "believes that gods do not exist."

That has been discussed a dozen times in this thread.

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between:

I do not believe any gods exist...and...

I believe no gods exist.

The former talks about an absence of belief...the latter about a belief.

It is much more than semantics. It is the difference between the so-called weak atheist...and a strong (or true) atheist.

 

So another thought regarding the equivalency of atheism and theism is the matter of warranted belief. Is there equivalency between the statements "you can't prove God exists" and "you can't prove God does not exist"?

I'm sure everyone has heard of Bertrand Russell's teapot. Here is a cool graphic I found online for a reminder.

 

Sorry I wasn't in on the discussion and I don't see the difference, never mind "significant", nor do I see any point to "weak" or "strong" atheist. IMO you're either an atheist or you're not, plain and simple. The rest is BS contrived semantics good for mental masturbation. To clarify my position (for the sake of this discussion), I don't believe god or gods exist nor do I believe any god or gods exist, despite my religious indoctrination back when I was a child a few decades ago. Can I prove or disprove the myth or has it been proved or disproved to my satisfaction? NO, therefore it's impossible for me to say I know.

 

Except for the entire observable universe. There is nothing that humans have ever observed that requires any god to explain.

 

Show me just one phenomena in the observed universe that requires a god to explain?

 

What unknown phenomenon requires a naturalistic explanation? We are talking about the Big Questions, here.. not the origins of skittles. There are no empirical facts to make any conclusive statement. They are both a matter of belief. Why is this so hard to grasp? Some BELIEVE there to be a supernatural explanation of the universe.. with no empirical evidence. Some BELIEVE there to be only naturalistic explanations. Not only do the Big Questions NOT have an empirical answer, there is no 'requirement' for any explanation. We don't know, so we can only guess. Perhaps some day we will know the 'cause', & perhaps it will reveal a supernatural cause. Or, maybe there will be a clear chain of natural events, that indicate a naturalistic cause. But until then, i see no reason for anyone to act smug or superior for their beliefs, over anyone else's. But, that seems to be the MO of many atheists in this thread, alone. They feign omniscience. Hence, The Folly of Atheism.

Some circumspection.. a little humility.. a lot of tolerance for other people's opinions.. some objective reflection.. this would indicate some awareness of this issue, & would prevent the dogmatic assertions tossed about like they are proven fact.

 

If there is no empirical evidence then why waste the hours of human time and the vast resources on faith and religion when science and reason dealing with the naturalistic has a proven record of being of value to human civilization? I would argue its folly to refuse the one means we have to advance the human race our reason and science and spend human hours of life time and the resources of our planet on that which isn't of value faith and religion.

 

So you start with ad hominem, and then complain about it at the end. Your usual MO.

Pot calling kettle black. You haven't provided any logic upon which a rebuttal can be made. Until you provide logical evidence that a lack of belief is a belief, how am I to rebut you with logic of my own?

I have not belief in God or gods. That is not a belief. That is a lack of it. Prove that is a belief, as you claimed it is. It should be simple for you to outline your alleged logic. Or will you throw out the strawman that I fear some words again and then complain about my strawman response?

I've seen you construct a lot of sentences. I wouldn't claim it to be logic, facts and, Truth <sic> if I were you. But I'm not you. I'm pointing out the obvious lack of logic, facts, or Truth<sic>.

That you hypocritically resort to ad hominem and then call out others for it comes as no surprise to me. That's another MO of yours. I use fire when others use fire; it's fun. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

I just had to look that word up-
"Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you."- Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian

Yes, it could tie in with this verse that suggests we should sometimes chill and try to tune into the universe.-
"Be still, and know that I am God.." (Psalm 46:10)
In fact Jesus used to sometimes go off alone for some peace and quite to get a power download from God-
"After Jesus spent the night in prayer,everybody tried to touch him because power was coming from him" (Luke 6:12-19)
Waddya say Lord Vader?

"The Force is strong in that one!"

 

Yes, but the Bible covers all sci-fi films and TV shows..

ALIEN VISITOR - Jesus said "I am not of this world" (John 8:23)
MOTHERSHIP -"Praise to the Lord, to him who rides the ancient skies above, whose power is in the skies." (Psalm 68:33-34)
RADIATION SHIELDING- God said "When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by" (Exodus 33:22)
GENESIS PROJECT -"God made the worlds.." (Hebrews 11:3 KJV)
ORBITAL TRAJECTORY - "God sits on the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22)
WARP DRIVE - "God rides upon a swift cloud" (Isaiah 19:1)
CLOAKING DEVICE - "God goes by me but I see him not" (Job 9:10)
TIME DILATION - "With God a thousand years are as one day" (2 Peter 3:
SCOUT SHIP- "I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north, the center of the fire looked like glowing metal" (Ezekiel 1:4)
STARGATE- Jesus said - "Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."(Matt 7:13)

BATTLECRUISER-
"And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the Lord looked and relented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, “It is enough; now restrain your hand.”
Then David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord standing between earth and heaven, having in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem" (1 Chron 21:16/16)

 

Well...if you read the rest of the thread...AND DAMN NEAR EVERY THREAD ON THIS ISSUE...you would see that the difference between those two things is very important to our atheistic population.

YOU, Bob...ARE an atheist. YOU are what most people think of when we think of an atheist.

But many of these guys are trying to pass off their "I just lack belief" nonsense...instead of showing some backbone.

Read post #812 above...where a guy is trying to get away with that it is just a lack belief.

 

There is absolutely nothing that humans have ever observed that requires gnats to explain.

So what? Gnats exist.

EVERYTHING....MAY BE a reason for a god.

The fact that humans, the dominant species on this minor league planet at this moment...cannot do something...IS NOT REASON to suggest it cannot exist.

It is POSSIBLE that gods exist.

Now, if theists want to blindly guess that at least one does...or that it is likely that one does...

...or if atheists want to blingly guess that none do...or that it is likely that none do...

...FINE.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MAKING BLIND GUESSES ON THE ISSUE.

 

Athiests are not making blind guesses. They base their position on the total lack of any evidence to support the existance of any god. In the history of man there have been so many different gods with different attributes and yet not one shred of evidence has been found to justify belief in a single one of those gods.

The fact that theists need to divert the discussion to the issue of whether or not athiests can prove there is no god is basically a red herring.

 

Well for theists anything that science has yet to explain is evidence for a god. That territory is getting smaller all the time. About all that is left to cling to is the origin of the universe uncertainty.

 

Any atheist who asserts that there are no gods...or who asserts it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...IS MAKING A BLIND GUESS.

They have no idea if there is a lack of evidence. EVERYTHING that exists might be evidence of a god...if a creator god exists. But we don't know.

So...theists blindly guess that there is a god...and atheists blindly guess there are no gods.

Okay...so what?

Gods may exist even if no human can even fathom what a god could be like.

Yeah.

But the real problem here is the insistence of atheists like you that you are not making a blind guess...when, in fact, you are.

- - - Updated - - -

Better yet...don't bother even with that.

Better for atheists to stick with their blind guess that gods do not exist...the reverse side of the theistic coin.

 

It's not important to me personally and I don't consider myself a part of a group-think class you apparently call "our atheistic population". I'm just me and this is my personal belief (or non-belief if you will). Others may share similar or related beliefs but that does not mean those who do are all part of a sect.

That's pretty much what I said, I'm an atheist (the popularly accepted meaning of the term).

That's their issue (or problem), not my concern, to each his/her own as long as it doesn't affect me or anyone else.

 

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard on this forum, and that is saying a lot. Anyone who has been out walking in the evening has probably encountered an annoying swarm of small flying insects. Try explaining that without gnats.

It is only possible for something to exist if it is logically consistent. That is why I can say with certainty that square circles don't exist even though I have not observed every circle in the universe. Saying that "god" is whatever created the universe does nothing to define it, only what it might have done.

 

Wake up, man.

I encounter gnats every time I golf.

But one of your attempts to make your blind guesses about gods seem like something more than just a blind guess...was the argument: "There is nothing that humans have ever observed that requires any god to explain."

There is no need for an explanation of gods or gnats...for them to be or possibly be.

Therefore it IS POSSIBLE THAT GODS EXIST.

Ahhh...I see now what you are saying. You are saying that unless I, Frank Apisa, am able to define gods in some other way than as the creator of what we humans call "the universe"...

...then they cannot exist.

Wow. I never realized how important I was to this issue.



It sure is hard for people like you to just say, "I do not know."



<<MOD EDIT - Rule 2 - Insults to a Group>>

 

I've said it before on here, if you define 'gods' simply as 'creators' then when you are discussing 'gods' then all you are discussing is 'creators'. If being honest and open to a discussion is what you really want in a discussion then, it would be more honest to use the word 'creators'. You are simply not defining 'gods' in any complete way that anyone else, especially an atheist would recognise as 'gods'. The only reason I can see for doing this is to create as much mayhem as possible in the discussion, in the knowledge that the way you are defining and using a word avoids the obvious pitfall that you have pointed out with your point about the square circle. An honest and complete description of 'gods' includes some definitions of 'gods' that logically or definitionally cannot exist. In the set of 'gods' there could be a subset of 'gods' that are simply 'creators' but in the context of a discussion about Atheism, it is simply a dishonest debating tactic to only use a part definition like this. It is the Folly of Agnosticism to be mendacious like this and especially to continue to debate like this when the obvious folly has been pointed out.

 

That is what humans do. We seek. We question. We want to Know. During this quest, we have made many amazing discoveries, on how the world works. But our information is incomplete, & we are still looking.

The angst & dread of death has also filled us for all of human history. The Big Questions gnaw at us, & have been the life obsession of many people. Some have claimed the know the Answers. But we still keep looking. Some ridicule the questions. But we still keep looking. I don't see any way you can discourage people from asking these Questions, or try to shame them into accepting your naturalistic belief. We have too long a history of searching for these things, & very few people are satisfied with the atheistic, naturalistic explanation of the universe. It may work for you, & you may feel smug or superior for believing it, but there have been wiser men & women over the millennia who have not accepted that belief, & many more who have experienced what they believe to be a glimpse into the supernatural.

You don't believe in that.. which is fine. Everyone has to be true to their own minds, & their life experiences. The folly is in one belief system pretending it has inside information into the Big Questions, when they are mere beliefs.

 

Stop, William...you honestly are deep enough.

The 2.2 billions of adherents of Christianity around the world describe their GOD as the CREATOR; the 1.6 billions of adherents of Islam describe their GOD as the CREATOR; the 1.8 billions of adherents of Hinduism call their cheif GOD the CREATOR...

...and the best you can do is to claim there is an amount of dishonesty and an amount of folly in my doing the same thing.

Get off it.

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation (something we do not know for certain)...then there is a creator...which is a GOD.

You apparently do not have what it takes to declare we do not know if gods exist or not...so you are resorting to absurd tactics to fight what is being said here.

At least you are being consistent.

Atheists often use absurd tactics when heaping scorn and contempt on theists for theistic blind guesses on the question. And then you guys get all up tight when people call attention to the fact that YOUR blind guesses about it are no more based on logic, reason, or science than theirs.

Kinda funny to watch.

At least to me it is funny. Hilarious, in fact.