The Folly of Atheism

That is a false dichotomy. The things we have learned about the universe have only ended superstition, which is not the same as theism, even though many try to make that correlation. Gravity, for the theist, does not point to a naturalistic cause for the universe. Many brilliant scientists throughout history have made discoveries about the natural world, 'to see what God hath wrought'. Understanding the nature of the universe, & some of the 'hows' of its function, is not an atheistic pursuit, or any evidence for atheism. That is just a phony narrative, or part of the Folly of Atheism, to try & force that caricature.

The origin of the universe is The Big Question. All the little subsets of that question, such as 'why do things fall down?', or 'how do living things propagate?' are questions that scientific methodology can answer. Even if someday there is an evidenced 'how' for the origin of the universe, that would not conclude the 'supernatural vs naturalism only' debate. There seems to be a gnawing desire or inkling of/for some kind of 'otherworldly' existence or dimension. That is a universal human trait, that does not have a naturalistic explanation.

 

That's why it is handy to have a "Joseph Campbell" working on the project.

 

Actually theists often use God to explain things they don't understand. Neil deGrasse Tyson used the example of Isaac Newton. Isaac was a great scientist who used mathematics to describe the movements of heavenly bodies. When he reached the limit of what his mathematics could do however he used the concept of God to explain away what he could not use science to do. Later Einstein would pick up where Newton left off and what Newton attributed to God Einstein discovered had a natural cause.

The same can be said of many things throughout the advancement of science. Some people today put God as the initiator of the Big Bang but theoretical physics is pointing to the collision of two branes as the cause. When experimental physics catches up to theoretical physics and proves string theory then it is likely some will then say god initiated the collision of the two branes. Even now some are wondering if Dark energy/matter are god since scientists haven't nailed down exactly what it is yet.

It's pretty normal really. As humans what sets us apart from other species is our increased intelligence and ability to look for the cause of effects. When something comes along that we don't understand it eases the burden to attribute it to something so we can move on to problems we can solve. So it's normal for the pagan mind to think that rainfall is caused by a god and then it follows that they can maybe encourage a rainfall by pleasing that god in some way.

The philosophy if science however is to avoid human tendencies to be distracted by false causes and so we have a system of experimentation and observation that includes controls to be certain that the variable we are attempting to measure is not being altered by some other factor.

 

Belief in gods is the very essence of superstition.

What is phony, is your phony narrative. Can you post any atheists who state that Mendel, Galileo, Copernicus or Darwin were atheists?

Back in the day it was the Church that accused Galileo and Copernicus of heresy. Today many Christians associate Hitler with Darwin.

It has a very naturalistic explanation as you yourself have alluded to. Man's desire to know; Man's quest for knowledge. That is a very natural thing. It is also the very origin of the concept of god(s):

Questions: Where do we come from? What happens to us when we die?

Honest answer: Don't know

Alternative answer: GodDidIt

 

Understanding the universe doesn't require atheism but it's important to separate the bible from science. It's not a guide to how the natural universe works.

 

Not interested.

Then you can't discuss anything related to the "still small voice" intelligently.

No, I didn't.

Surely you know Christ said as much Himself.

You never will, as long as you insist on a checklist I haven't got.

That isn't responsive in the least.

Just glancing over those links, neither seems to provide a basis for defining "law" as the Pentateuch in that passage, and I'm not about to go rummaging through either for what probably isn't there in the first place.

Doesn't matter, because we don't execute murderers just to watch them die.

You think reality is limited to what you've experienced?

You have me confused with someone else.

Of course none of this is responsive in the least, but it's worth noting that anything labelled morality which does not proceed from God is counterfeit.

I know He exists, and that knowledge is immediately accessible to any human being worthy of the name.

Evidently you don't see how you're contradicting yourself.

This is only credible coming from someone who has a complete understanding of every phenomenon ever observed; and that's a bit of a problem, seeing there isn't a scientist alive who can claim such understanding of ANY phenomenon ever observed.

 

We haven't observed god in the small part of the universe we've observed so far. What makes you think we'll find it somewhere else? I thought god was supposed to be everywhere.

 

Yeah I also "knew" he existed when they told me he did as a child in religious school. When I got older, I realized I was being taken for a ride. But like I always say, to each his own.

Evidently you don't understand the point.

 

Four comments:

=> The successful scientists who believed in a god are careful to keep their religious ideas away from the science they do.

=> Yes, science can not prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. Basically, there is no way to control an experiment such that an act of god could be isolated. There isn't even any way to prove that God isn't providing gravity by making everything move in the manner of what gravity would cause, plus dicking with the equipment at Cern. And, of course religion can't prove anything at all about how our universe works.


=> The gigantic number of religions created by mankind demonstrates that it is totally within the power of MAN to create religions. Of course, one can ask whether mankind was EVER right on this - even just once. We see the many benefits that religion provides - political organization, comfort in an after-life promise, a framework for morality, etc,. Those are ample motivators for the creation of religion.

=> ALL of the benefits of religion are available REGARDLESS of whether there is a supernatural consciousness or god.

 

That's not very respectful.

post 659
"Then again, perhaps the "holy rollers" are nowhere near God."

You have made a judgement call against these people. Why are you saying they are "nowhere near God"?

I wasn't asking about Christ. The question was directed at you. How do you decide one Christian is nominal and the other isn't?

Not insisting, just asking how you make your discernment. Again.

It's honest. It's been a few years since I've studied the bible, I remember a few things but I don't consider myself infallible.

Again, it's really not that controversial. If you have an alternative interpretation to it I'm open to hearing about it but if you have no interest in it then let's not waste each other's time. It's easy to just say "you're wrong" to people without offering something back. Why not enhance the conversation by elaborating? To be frank I appreciate a good conversation but I find it a bore to respond to one line critiques that offer nothing interesting to think about.

Ok. It's not really an interesting point of discussion anyway so I'm beyond caring about it.

My understanding of reality is limited to what I have experienced.

No I don't but I'm not going to go back and recap it.

 

What makes you so sure you (or we) haven't?

IF there is a god...you might be seeing that god every day and not realize it. AND...try to stick with me here...why are you so sure everything that exists...can be OBSERVED by humans, the dominant life form on this tiny planet circling this not especially important star?

See above.

Is that what you thought? Really?

 

Blindly asserting that athiests are making a blind guess doesn't contribute much to logical thought. You cannot provide one single piece of evidence for the existance of anyone of the thousands of gods that have been claimed and then fallen out of favor. Now that is a fact!

 

And the absence of evidence that there are gods...does not in any way mean that there are no gods. There is an absence of evidence of all sorts of things...that may exist.

But...continue to do what the theists do. Continue to tout your blind guesses as being reasonable.

It provides entertainment.

And it helps make the main point I am attempting to make: Theism and atheism...two sides of one coin.

 

The fact that there is no evidence that would demonstrate the existance of a god makes the probability of a god vanishingly small. The need to switch the discussion to proof there is no god is a sure sign of the weakness of your position.

And just for laughs how about giving us your list of other things that might exist despite the fact that there is no evidence for their existance. I assume the list might include the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, Zombies, and many other fictional entities similar to god.

 

Humans used to think that many centuries ago, which is why they needed so many gods. The more we learn about our universe though, the less need we have for them.

So you don't think god is omnipresent? Then where is it?

 

It does nothing of the sort...except for people who are determined to blindly guess that no gods exist.

The TOTAL absence of evidence that any sentient life exists on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...does not make the probability of sentient life on any of those planets "vanishingly small."

It just indicates that we have no evidence.

Then don't do that. I will not. I am not asking for proof in either direction...BECAUSE IT IS NOT AVAILABLE.

Anything that has not been established as impossible...is possible.

 

I am not arguing that we need gods.

I am arguing that gods might exist.

(We don't need gnats, but gnats exist.)

I am also arguing that atheists and theists are two sides of one coin. (Figuratively, of course.)

Beats me if gods are omnipresent or not. I have no idea of the qualities of any gods. But IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...whatever created it...is a god.

Maybe everywhere. Maybe in just a few places or times.

I do not know.

(Take a look at that last sentence...and try it out yourself. It will not destroy you...or cause you harm.)

 

"Humans used to think that many centuries ago, which is why they needed so many gods. The more we learn about our universe though, the less need we have for them"

It is the reverse. The more science questions the universe the more the realisation sinks in. If humanity contacts intelligent life the biggest hurdle will be time. This intelligence could be millions of years ahead of us time wise, due to the the vast distances of space. To us (humanity) they would be Gods given their technological advancements.

 

1. I wish I could dump this entire thread in to an MS Word Doc and do a wordcount on how many times Frank Apisa has used the word "GUESS".
2. I wish I could dump this entire thread in to a computer program that could analyze how many times Frank Apisa has repeated the same arguments.

Probably, the answer to 1. would be "Countless"
Probably, the answer to 2. would be "Ad Nuseum"

 

No requirement for you to be here.

You are allowed to avoid or ignore my comments.

 

I don't think you understand the definition of "need". Without gnats we wouldn't be able to explain all of those little flying insects that swarm around us in the evening. The simple fact that we can observe their effects proves that they exist.

Likewise, if god existed we would be able to observe it's effects upon the universe around us, and we wouldn't be able to explain those effects without it.

How can you say that something exists if you can't even define what it is? I could just as easily dismiss the claim that slithy toves exist.

 

Pot, kettle, black? I seem to have read a few repetitions from you, as well.

Frank does not seem to mind responding to the same irrational points, like i do. I just get weary of the word games, deflections, & illogical responses.

This silly impasse over definitions has made any further discussion about atheist impossible. All we have are the same old dodges & weaves about 'I don't believe anything!! But, there is no god!'

 

I don't understand why many atheists here don't just embrace their beliefs.. or opinions, or whatever you want to call them. It is obvious that they actually have them, but the stances taken, & the arguments (or ridicule) conflict with that reality. Why not just own it? Say, 'I don't believe in God', & be content with 'atheism' as a valid description of your belief system.

But no. 'I don't have a belief system!!' 'I'm special, & know my views are proven facts!' Everybody is stupid, except for me, & those who think like me!'

Far too many of the posts here have only confirmed the OP. I have met a lot of fools in my time, but not many as foolish as those who argue against the existence of God. What is it about atheism that brings out the irrational hysteria in some people? It is supposed to be a belief based on science & logic, but i seldom see those kinds of arguments presented by the atheists on this forum, & many others i've frequented over the years. I will present the summary points that i've compiled, up to now, but unless we can get past the orwellian newspeak, we are speaking different languages at each other, that nobody can understand.

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.

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?

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.

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. Masking that in techno babble or newspeak changes nothing.

 

So let's get this right, you want me to lie about what I believe? To what end?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I understand why you have common ground on this, it is the Folly of Agnosticism that it is the other side of the same coin as theism.

- - - Updated - - -

Bingo!

 

Sometimes what I do when I reach an impasse is I will form a new debate with the sentence "suppose what you are saying is true, that would mean..." it's sort of suspending your disbelief for the purposes of relating to a person.

For example I could have said to Frank "suppose there is no validity in warranted belief, that means that it would be impossible to plan your vacation next year because your assurance that your employer will give you vacation is just a guess."

And , since I seem to be the guy that caused this definition crisis, I am fine with younjust calling me an atheist or just calling me an agnostic as you prefer. I just feel my definition is both a) widely understood and b) accurate.