The Folly of Atheism

Perhaps it is telling that you liken conscience to something a human being shouldn't have.

I meant precisely what I said.

But thanks for confirming the diagnosis.

 

The diagnosis of your intellectual confusion? No need to thank me. It is obvious.

 

No, the diagnosis of your abject (or contrived) ignorance WRT the meaning of conscience, obviously. You're welcome.

 

I understand why you are pushing so hard to make people believe that saying there are no gods requires a burden of proof, it is impossible to prove which validates your world view. However, this is wrong. I have given you metaphors, analogies, thought exercises, quotes and logic, but all you have done is repeat the same line, over and over, with nothing to back it up except for your word. If you can't give me even a link supporting your view on burden of proof, then this debate is over. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is just going to regurgitate the same old stuff and not even listen to logic.

 

Your god does not solve the problem you try to solve. It just divert you from asking the question.
Now I can say that I do not know how the universe originated, or if there was an origin in time or space at all.
I will try to draw you a simple analogy.
Assume you lived 200 years ago, now someone came to you and said:
When ever someone gets sick it is an act of God. Now the fact that 200 years ago no one knew how people get sick and did not know anything about microbes or viruses doen not prove his God exists.
Simple, I do not need pretend I know everything like you do in order to assume one wrong thing as the existance of gods ro pixies.

 

I find the back & forth to be very interesting. the way people defend their 'belief system', or whatever you want to call it, & at times attack what they perceive to be threats to that system.. the one liners, witty comebacks, & definitional dodges.. it is a fascinating study in human nature, to be sure!

I guess the main thing i can conclude from a thread like this, is: 'Humans are funny!' the bizarre thinking processes. the mental gymnastics (and perhaps masterbations!). The dodge & weave. The overt logical fallacies from those claiming a logical response. And, of course, almost everyone has valid points, especially if taken from their own relative position.

But this brings up another question:
Are philosophical opinions merely relative? Is there a possibility of Objective Reality, that does not depend on the beliefs, experiences, & relativity to the individual?

I think i can make the following statement, & present it as a premise for further discussion, if anyone wishes to address it.

'Ideologies are made, not born'.

Nobody is born in a vacuum, or grows into adulthood without any influences on their beliefs or world view. There are many things that mold & shape us into the 'thinking machines' that we become, & we become reflections of our influences.

I think simple observation of the rise of atheism is an illustration of that. It is not like there have been any more startling discoveries, that have proven how life or the universe originated, or that somehow have disproved any possibility of the existence of the supernatural. No, the rise of atheism is more due to indoctrination from the educational system. So instead of churches indoctrinating people to become theists, we have the progressive educational system indoctrinating people to become atheists. Does that make any sense? Does anyone else see that correlation? Is that a plausible 'theory' as to the 'cause' of increasing atheism?

Please don't take this as a pejorative.. i mean it as a simple analysis, or search for 'why' for this cultural trend. And, if you disagree, let me know why, or what your 'theory' is, for why atheism has been increasing rapidly in western culture.

I'll show a study that presents evidence for this phenomenon, of increasingly atheistic worldviews in our society.


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%).
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

I see a study like this, & i am forced to conclude that the correlation of the ideology, & the consistency of the worldviews, makes a conclusion of indoctrination hard to miss. There seems to be a steady, state sponsored indoctrination trend to produce ideological followers of progressivism. Almost all the individual beliefs fall in lock step with the agenda of progressivism.

If anyone has any other theories as to the 'why?' for these trends, i would love to hear them.

 

Frank, the amount of times that you use the word, 'I' and regurgitate what you believe about agnosticism says much about how respectful you are of the thread topic. If you want to talk about atheism and not you and what you believe then let's do it.

Many of us atheists would be interested in talking about atheism Frank, why aren't you interested in discussing any topics other than yourself and what you believe, in a thread about atheism?

You can do it Frank, I'm sure that you are able to make a post the doesn't contain multiple self references, you can show us that you don't tend towards a narcissistic world view.

Besides that Frank, you protest too much, I can tell you want me really by the way that you find it impossible not to respond to me. Problem is, I'm not into necrophilia Frank so your intellect would be a turn off for me. Have you tried Grindr or anything like that? It's not my kind of thing but, I understand there are some people on there not quite as fussy as me.

 

And for the agnostic apparently.

 

I find your reasoning sound in this, Frank. I am not sure what the phobia is about, trying to deny that someone has a 'belief system', when they obviously do. Any positive claim about the universe is merely a reflection of that belief system.. or world view, or ideology.. or religion.. or whatever term you wish to define it as. Nobody is really a blank slate, but they reflect their upbringing, indoctrination, experiences, & hopefully, reason.

That said, i find your attempts to 'rise above' all this to be equally amusing. You repeat, 'i don't do, believing'. But this is a definitional dodge, only. You DO have a world view. You DO have a belief system. YOU are a product of your upbringing, indoctrination, experience, & reasoning, too.

I can appreciate your attempts to be consistent, & the attacks from atheists who try to have it both ways shows you hit the nerve, with the 'belief system' argument.

I see it like this. I will state some facts that should be obvious to anyone.

1. There is NO empirical evidence to compel any conclusion about the origins of the universe & life.
2. A BELIEF in a supernatural or natural explanation for the origins of the universe & life is just that: A Belief.
3. Some people believe in a supernatural 'cause', others believe in a naturalistic 'cause'. But there is no evidence to elevate one over the other, as a preferred belief system for origins.
4. Someone can pretend they are above the fray, & have no beliefs, but that is a dodge, & is demonstrated when they make dogmatic statements of belief, when they claim otherwise.
5. ANY positive claim about the nature of the universe, man, origins, or the supernatural is a belief system, with no empirical evidence.

I hear over & over, 'I am not saying i don't believe in god, I am saying i have no evidence for god', as if that hides their positive claim of 'no gods', which they usually go on to declare. When someone attacks or ridicules a theist for THEIR beliefs, it is obvious they are not neutral, impartial, ignorant, & non partisan. They are actively attacking theism, which is the same as promoting atheism. They are 'militant atheists', who definitely promote a world view.

And the reverse is also true. Anytime an atheist claims, 'there is no god,' that puts the burden of proof on him, to prove his dogmatic belief, since he has no proof that this is absolute fact. it is, merely, a belief.

Of course it is a 'belief system'. You base it on a naturalistic interpretation of the universe, which has no more empirical evidence that a supernatural view. it is only your belief.. for you to ridicule others for theirs is mere bigotry.

Yes. As long as a positive claim is being made about the nature of the universe, or if that is implied when another claim is attacked, the only conclusion is that they ALSO have a 'belief system', which they defend or promote with religious zeal.

That is dogmatic bias. You are merely stating that YOUR belief is superior than anyone else's. You have no more facts or evidence for your beliefs, you just dogmatically assert them, as if that makes them more credible. You basically state it like this:

• Naturalism only sees what is natural, so it is a better way to view the universe.
• Supernaturalism is not naturalism, so it is bad.

You have no evidence or proof to back up YOUR belief that naturalism is better, or is a superior way to view the universe. I doubt you are consistent in this, anyway, as you probably believe that evolution, for example, is 'settled science' or somehow is Absolute Truth. But it is not, & you have no basis for a naturalistic view of the universe, other than belief.

It seems to me you ARE terrified of the term, 'belief'. You seem to consider it a pejorative, that implies religious fanaticism. It does not. It is merely a synonym of your other terms, 'estimate, opinion, guesses, supposition,' etc. IMO, that is the only flaw in your reasoning, the irrational phobia for this term.

It is actually quite common, especially among atheists, who loathe the term, & will not apply it to themselves. You correctly note the hypocrisy of some who do this, but try to keep the 'intellectual high ground' by exempting yourself.

But everyone has a belief system. It may have a mix of ignorance, dogmatism, indoctrination, & perhaps even logic, but it is a world view that provides the basis for their lives. It is what you live by, & what forms the basis for your core perceptions. I suspect you have a naturalistic belief about origins, for example. You probably 'estimate, guess, or surmise', that everything came about via natural processes, millions or billions of years ago. You probably 'estimate, guess, or speculate', that evolution is the engine for the origin of species, & specifically, man. This is what you were taught, & this is your 'belief system'. You can label it differently, if it makes you feel better, but in reality, it is your world view, & is the foundation for your beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with this. It is common to man, for all of the human experience. You are a human being, & you share this foible with the rest of humanity. It is usually an attempt, from my perspective, to try to 'rise above' the base nature of man, but it doesn't work. it is just a pretense of superiority, when none exists. You are a human being, like everyone else.

 

Of course not. The 'problem' i try to solve is to answer 'why, what, how, when'.. the Big Questions for the universe. I look for real, factual answers for these questions, as humans have done for millennia. And of course, a belief in God does NOT divert from any questions.

No, you merely assume no existence of the supernatural, which is a very small percentage of humanity, as a belief system. You pretend superior knowledge, when you cannot possibly know everything in eternity, infinity, & the vast mysteries of the universe. You merely try to cherry pick a few gods, here & there, that you can find fault with, & use that OPINION, to extrapolate that to ALL the supernatural, which is not a logical conclusion. Even if you posit that SOME beliefs about the universe might be wrong, you cannot conclude they ALL are, based on that.

200 years ago, when people got sick, they sought help from a physician, as they do now. Medical advances have certainly been made, but you cannot correlate those with an atheistic worldview, as it has been primarily theists, over the centuries, that have discovered these things. There is no conflict with seeking medical or technical help & theism. That is a phony narrative that some atheists like to present, as if all scientific knowledge has only come from atheists, & theists are stupid & superstitious, & can't ask the right questions for scientific inquiry.

 

I'm sure you do. And everyone i have ever known or read about can fit into one of these worldviews.. they are not mutually exclusive, & sometimes there are hybrids of all elements in some, but usually there is one that is more descriptive of the individual's world view.

Read it again:
So, the 3 main worldviews can be summarized like this:
Skepticism
Relativism
Empiricism
Skepticism has its roots in the Greek philosophers who basically claimed that knowledge is unknowable. Life is an illusion, has no meaning, & is absurd. There are, of course, blends of this belief system in the others, but there is a logical disconnect. But for the skeptic, & even the relativist, logic really has no purpose, as Absolute Truth is a meaningless concept.
Relativism is the basic worldview of the progressive left. It is based in naturalism, which concludes there are no rules for human behavior, other than what man decides. Morality is relative. Law is relative. Even Truth, as a concept, is relative.
Empiricism is the worldview that sprang from the age of Reason, the Enlightenment, & scientific methodology. It presumes that knowledge can be known, & that humanity was tasked with discovering 'what God hath wrought'. It is rooted in Natural Law, & the belief in a Creative Force in the universe.. a supernatural explanation.
I would also like to point out that all of these worldviews are mere beliefs. There is no empirical evidence to compel a conclusion of one over the others. More on that, later.

I see a correlation between the philosophical beliefs about origins & the universe, AND the ideological & political beliefs. That was my attempt in correlating them as a common denominator. The atheist study i quoted in the earlier post indicates that to me, as well. You see consistency in political beliefs as they correlate to the philosophical beliefs, so they are definitely related.

It is a very fascinating topic, & has a lot of subtle undercurrents, which is why the OP was so long. Even with that, i could not address all the complexities of the issue, & we have been bouncing around to many places since. But, if you really give some thought into what i posted, i think you can see the POV i present, even if you disagree, or have a different opinion.. which i suspect you have.

But to conclude you don't have a worldview is pretty absurd. Present your opinions or beliefs about the universe, man, life, etc, & i'm sure everyone here will give you a nice label for your worldview.

 

Humanism is a belief system, atheism is not a belief system, it is a single solitary position regarding the existence of deities. Theism is not a belief system, it is a single solitary statement regarding the existence of deities however, religion is a belief system.

If you want to see how much atheism is NOT a belief system then look at how Atheism+ imploded when a group of atheists tried to attach a system of belief to their atheism. 'Atheist' is not the sharing of common cultural beliefs, political beliefs, practices or rituals.

I do not find it odd that you agree with Frank on this since Frank's arguments are religious in nature. The, 'well atheism is just another religion' argument has been used by apologists for years, I come across it regularly on apologetics forums. I also come across religious apologists using the 'argument from ignorance' that Frank uses regularly on here. That is one of the main reasons that I dropped agnosticism and became an atheist because I saw how people were quite prepared to use philosophical tricks to evangelise. I also saw that the only rational counter to that was to accept that if I do make some basal assumptions about reality and then simply lack belief then that is the only honest rational position to take and it is applicable universally. I do not need to special plead for any definition of gods or try any philosophical tricks to make it work. If you can't show it, you don't know it.

 

well, i just see that as a dodge.. an attempt to redefine terms.

But, i have not made a big deal about 'atheism is a belief system!' but only that EVERYONE has a belief system, & if they are atheists, it is part of that system. It might not be EXCLUSIVELY atheism, but it is still a big part of it. So i find the protests about 'I don't have a belief system!' to be a definitional nit pick, & an attempt to take some kind of intellectual high ground over everyone else.

With your definitions, 'religion' is not a 'belief system' either, as there is nothing consistent or agreeable among the different religions, but they fight & squabble as much as any group of atheists. So to not get bogged down in specifics, & especially semantics, i prefer to just go with the more basic concept of 'atheism & theism'. I tossed in absurdism for those who don't want to be with the other 2, & a special 'snowflakism' for Frank..

This is not a thread about specific beliefs, whether they are theistic or atheistic in their basis. It is a general thread about atheism, & some of the fallacies i see in the general concept of atheism. I make no attempt to critique any specific humanist or atheist based institution or organization.

 

Note - I added to my post after usfan responded so, usfan has not in any way edited my post when he responded. Just to make it clear.

In answer to your point usfan, I don't see how it is a dodge, 'atheism' is what it says on the tin just as 'theism' is. It is actually genuine 'agnosticism' that is more of a belief system more than atheism since it makes claims about what can be known about deities which requires a philosophy about reality. I agree with you that people do have belief systems and that atheism can be a component of that, many people call that Humanism, for a theist they might call it Christianity.

I would like nothing more than to talk about atheism in a thread about atheism usfan but, it seems to have been taken over by a pseudo-agnostic activist that overuses the word, 'I' and continually make self references.

Perhaps we can have a good discussion about it?

 

Not scared of you...or your arguments, Rahl.

Fact is, you almost never make any.

Mostly, you come here to provide laughs.

At that...you succeed.

 

I'm more than happy for a 'good discussion'.. that is why i started the thread!

I'll repost the points i made with Frank, in a previous post, as a premise for further discussion:

1. There is NO empirical evidence to compel any conclusion about the origins of the universe & life.
2. A BELIEF in a supernatural or natural explanation for the origins of the universe & life is just that: A Belief.
3. Some people believe in a supernatural 'cause', others believe in a naturalistic 'cause'. But there is no evidence to elevate one over the other, as a preferred belief system for origins.
4. Someone can pretend they are above the fray, & have no beliefs, but that is a dodge, & is demonstrated when they make dogmatic statements of belief, when they claim otherwise.
5. ANY positive claim about the nature of the universe, man, origins, or the supernatural is part of a belief system, with no empirical evidence.

Anyone care to address any of these points? Any problem with them? They seem obvious to me, but they might not to others. Before we can address the 'belief systems' of people, we need to define what 'beliefs' are. Are any of these statements false, or flawed in some way? I would appreciate an honest rebuttal, & a reasoned reply for why not, if you take an opposing view.

it seems to me we get bogged down in the term 'beliefs', when it is merely a descriptor of a set of opinions that we have. I contrast it to 'facts', which can be empirically verified. Since none of these things are open to empirical verification, is it a flaw to call them 'beliefs'?

 

My world view...is that I do not know if REALITY contains any gods or not.

As for why I am saying that the assertion "There are no gods" bears a burden of proof...

...it is because the assertion "there are no gods" (like every assertion)...bears the burden of proof.

Google it...or go to a university and ask a philosophy professor. Or ask any reasonably intelligent person.

The burden of proof falls on the person making an assertion.

Not sure why you think that is so for all assertions except the assertion, "there are no gods"...but you are incorrect.

I listen to logic. What you are spouting is FAR from logical. It is, in fact, INCORRECT nonsense.

If you say you are finished...fine.

 

Since I do not do "believing"...your comment about what I regurgitate is an absurdity. I am totally willing to talk about the topic...and do with most people other than you and Rahl.

YOU are the one talking about me.

You are still talking about me...not the topic.

YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT ME...NOT THE TOPIC.

AND YOU FINISHED BY TALKING ABOUT ME...RATHER THAN THE TOPIC.

 

So, since there appears to be a rallying cry to return to talking about the OP let's see if we can do that.

First usfan, science and atheism are not synonyms so I am going to ignore the latter parts of your exposition on science as irrelevant to the question of atheism which leaves us with your opening paragraphs that I have quoted.

Regarding the quoted section of your OP, the first problems that I have are with your straw man of atheism and the false dichotomy that it draws in the sentence, 'What made them change from the societal norm of believing in a Greater Power, to total disbelief?'. Atheism is not 'total disbelief' this is a straw man because you are arguing a definition of atheism that does not recognise that, at it's core, atheism is simply the rejection of unjustified belief in a deity. Now, that is what you might have meant to say, in which case you should clarify however, as I have said, over and over again in here, atheism is not a positive assertion on existence, it is a lack of belief. Even when atheists on here use the short hand 'I do not believe that gods exist', if you dig deeper you cannot avoid that the greater meaning that they ascribe to their atheism is that they lack a belief because there is no reason to have justified belief.

Now, this is really interesting because, the definition that you choose to use for 'gods' changes the context of the responses that an atheist would make quite markedly, and I think that atheist responses are the whole point of this thread since it is a discussion on atheism. This is the whole point of the Leprechauns and Faeries analogy that many want to avoid on here and it is why many atheists will respond with this analogy. In the set or classification of 'gods' there are some definitions that I would actually say do not exist because they are logically and rationally impossible and there are some that I would reject exactly as we would reject leprechauns and faeries, as figments of fantasy with no basis in evidence. It has to be clear that the classification is everything here, if you simply reduce 'gods' to being a 'creator' or 'creative event' for a reality that you are not even sure exists then you have basically defined your 'god' into philosophical existence. This definition is reductive to the point that it is no longer a 'god' by any complete definition that any mainstream religious person argues so in the end, it is a pointless philosophical game to do this. However you make the argument in this manner, you are not arguing for 'gods' just for a definition of 'gods' that occupies a gap of ignorance. It doesn't matter if 'creator' for example, is part of the definition of 'gods' because it is not the complete definition and the only purpose I can see for giving an incomplete definition like this is not pleasant to consider. Why is that so important for an atheist? Well, atheism only exists in denial of the positive assertion that 'gods' exist so, if you cannot define 'gods' in any meaningful way that can be examined then you have basically admitted defeat. Over to you.

 

Rather than handle all that you directed to me here, US, I am going to deal only with the question of whether or not I do "believing."

Most of the time, use of the words "believe" or "belief" is not particularly important to a discussion. Most people understand what is meant when someone says, "I believe the Patriots are going to win the game on Sunday" or "I believe I'm gonna take a nap before dinner."

When in a discussion about religion, however, the word is not so set in stone.

A person saying, "I believe there is a GOD" is almost certainly saying, "My guess is that there is a GOD." A person saying, "I believe there are no gods" definitely is saying, "My guess is that there are no gods."

"Believe" and "belief" in the god-discussion context is almost always a disguise for a guess...an absolutely blind guess at that. When discussing the existence or non-existence of gods, the comment, "But I firmly, strongly believe..." is just another way of saying, "But I firmly, strongly blindly guess...!"

There is NO unambiguous evidence that any gods exist...there is NO unambiguous evidence that no gods exist...since there is no reason logically to suppose gods cannot exist...it is possible that at least one god exists...and since there is no reason logically to suppose a god must exist...it is possible that no gods exist.

I decided many years ago that because of that...I would NEVER use "believe" or "belief" when stating my position on the question of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...specifically about whether at least one god exists or if no gods exist.

In order to insure that I not slip in that regard, I decide NEVER to use "believe" or "belief" even when talking about something like my guess about who is going to win the Super Bowl...or my estimate of which club is best to use from a particular spot on the fairway...or my supposition about the long-term political composition of the Supreme Court.

I do not use the words "believe" or "belief" (except in commentary like this) EVER.

So...I do not do "believing."

Yes...I have a world view...I have opinions...I make guesses, estimates, suppositions, predictions...and all the other stuff.

BUT I DO NOT DO "BELIEVING." I will not disguise the fact that I am guessing when I am guessing.

If you want to discuss this for a bit...I would love the opportunity.

If you want to dismiss it as trivial (many people will)...I will understand and accept it.

I'll respond to anything else you want me to respond to if you ask.

 

I can't speak for all atheists nor did any atheists have any influence in my rejection of all religions. Instead it was the acquisition of knowledge that lead to the rejection of all religious beliefs. In studying "religion" and "religious beliefs" based upon historical documentation we find commonality between them.

1. ALL religions were created by man. There are no exceptions.

2. The evidence is overwhelming that all religions originate from prior "religious" beliefs from one or more religions where tenets are adopted, modified, discarded, and/or new tenets are added in the creation of the religion.

3. All religions rely upon ignorance (a lack of knowledge and intellectualism) that results in insecurity for the common person because they're not intellectuals that can establish their own personal philosophy that provides meaning for their own existence.

4. Religion provides a "packaged" philosophy where imagination answers the questions and where "rules" establish the values so that the person does not have to think and reason to overcome their insecurity. Religion is the "security blanket for Linus" that's only the illusion of security.

5. Successful religions are based upon the marketing strategy.

6. The motive for the creation of the religion by men is political power over the people.

All if this is well documented in the written history of mankind and it applies to all religions

Only #1 is based upon observation. #2, #3, & #4 are all inventions of man.

Was the misrepresentation of "Empiricism" intentional or accidental? There's nothing "supernatural" in Empiricism as it is exclusively based upon nature.

That is not to say that references to "supernatural" were omitted completely in the presentation of arguments but we find that those references were to gain the attention of an audience that was religious.

For example in John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government he makes numerous references to Biblical passages nd to "God" but none of his arguments hinge upon those references. His authority for his conclusions are based upon the "Natural laws of survival of a species" in establishing the Natural Right "Of Property" in Chapter 5 for example. The laws of nature that determine survival of the species requires that the individual members must be able to secure from nature, individual and/or collectively, that which is required for their individual survival. If they don't then one by one the members die eventually leading to the extinction of the species. At the same time in taking what's required for survival they must leave "enough, and as good" as for others of the species because if they don't they will consume all that nature provides for their survival and once again the species will become extinct.

God and the Bible are referenced but have no importance to the logic of natural rights. They were mentioned because the society that Locke was addressing was highly religions and his arguments were against "laws of property" that were established based upon religious beliefs.

This is false because Empiricism is based upon empirical evidence while the others are not.

This is all opinion with out supportive arguments or evidence. Attempts are made, for example, with the use of the word "many" that doesn't establish any valid criteria.

We can also note that the "worldview" itself is an opinion typically based upon ignorance because few people are intellectuals with the capacity to understand even a fraction of the knowledge that we have. I'm relatively well informed on many subjects but I also freely admit that in many subjects it a general knowledge as opposed to an encompassing knowledge of he subject. I can address a subject such as physics that I know very little compared to what the physicist knows. It doesn't imply that I'm completely ignorant but I'm certainly not one of those that is on the cutting edge of knowledge in the subject.

 

OK, I will be clear about this, even if other people do not use this convention I do. When I talk about 'belief', I am talking about 'justified belief' and definitely not 'faith' which is an unjustified belief held without evidence or despite evidence. In this case 'evidence' is based upon the underlying assumptions that, reality exists, we can learn about reality, we can make models about reality and these can be used to make reasonable predictions about reality. Evidence is what you can demonstrate to be true, I am not interested in proving things in the context of atheism since, any kind of reliable evidence would make me change my mind about the existence of 'gods' even if I found the demonstrated 'god' to be completely unworthy of praise and worship.

So usfan, starting with question 1, I don't understand if this is really meant as a science or a philosophy question however, in the context of a thread on atheism I would expect it to be philosophical since atheism and science are not synonyms. On that basis, I would say that if you are attributing creation to a deity then my answer as an atheist would be that you should first provide evidence that a deity exists. In the absence of evidence for a deity I lack belief that it exists so I logically cannot believe that it might have created anything. The question of any kind of origin other than a natural one then becomes moot because a logical extension of my atheism is that any supernatural cause for origins, however fanciful, has no basis in evidence and I lack belief in it.

 

there's no reason for modern people to postulate an afterlife or a "god". That crud arose out of fear, ignorance and manipulations by the witch/doctor/priests. When you die, you're gone, that's it. Why can't you just accept that fact? cause you're SO wonderful that SURELY there's more, right? I mean, you DESERVE to live forever, right?? Right? of course you do and of course God himself is going to see to it that you do! what a crock, what weakness, arrogance and self-aggrandizement.

 

You seem to be a very intelligent individual, Shiva. I have trouble understanding why you would word that thought that way.

But you did...so my question has to be:

How do you know that?

Have you been everywhere at every moment so that you KNOW that?

 

That's because every time you encounter someone who can't fit into one of these worldviews, you attack them with ad hominems, call them a snowflake and ignore their existence. Besides, they aren't worldviews, they are only epistemologies. A worldview consists of a combination of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and sometimes even expands to things like aesthetics, politics and beyond. If your "worldviews" were so intuitive, we'd expect to find the same sort of list all over the place. We don't. Instead, I haven't even encountered a book or article on epistemology that relies on exactly these buckets.

In a supreme irony, you credit a vague "supernaturalism" for empricism, while also arguing in another post that naturalism is open to objective empirical exploration and supernaturalism is not.