The Folly of Atheism

Okay but first let's establish that you believe the different levels of folly can exist in different subjects, right? In other words some people are stupider than others.

 

Sorry but you have not actually made any points. You have given your opinions to which you are certainly entitled. There is no point in discussing opinions that have no actual basis either in science or philosophy.

 

God is an entity so different from man that it is beyond man's understanding.

 

Atheism is actually just a lack of a belief in gods. A lack of belief is a rational response to anything for which we have insufficient evidence, but most people are selectively rational towards emotional issues like the afterlife or their kids. That is why some smart people have faith. There is really nothing else to it.

 

That seems to be observable reality.

My only problem was applying it universally to any particular belief system, without evidence. But there is also something to be said of the collective stupidity of Man.

 

Okay so would you say that there is any observable evidence of God?

 

Observable? Hardly. That seems to be the major problem. The only 'evidence' for God is inferred, or personal anecdote. That does not negate the evidence, or mean it is invalid, but it is not empirical, subject to objective, observable analysis.

IMO, naturalism is much the same thing. The only 'evidence' for a naturalistic view of origins is inferred, based on many assumptions & beliefs. It is no more subject to objective, observable analysis than the supernatural belief.

I know this rubs many believers in naturalism the wrong way, as they like to believe their faith is based on facts & proven scientific concepts. But it is not. That is merely the ideological illusion, that naturalism presents to the faithful. They must redefine science, to make it work.

 

Great post. Thanks for the interesting, reasoned reply.

Practical conclusions? I'm not sure what that means. If you mean both of them live normal lives, marry, have kids, live as responsible, productive members of society, i will agree. I put theists in there, as well. For the most part, human beings are consistent, regardless of their philosophical or religious beliefs.

Of course, there are radical extremes, in any ideology, & some who are hell bent on dominating others, with or without a justifying ideology.

And, of course, there are actual ideologies that cater to this base nature of man, & are magnets for the controlling, aggressive element of humanity. That is another discussion.. which came first, the aggressor or the ideology? Its a chicken & egg debate.

That is a valid argument, imo. If someone cannot prove their premise with evidence or sound logic, why should i accept their assertions? It matters little to me which belief system declares their beliefs with dogmatic assurance.. anyone can do that. But for the logical, scientifically minded person, the question is, 'what is the evidence?'

This is not a discussion about whether to follow natural laws of physics, or make up our own. That is absurd. We live in the real world, with real natural laws to govern the universe. We have harnessed many of those laws, & can fly in the air, float over the ocean, & travel in space. But none of those things tells us anything about origins. THAT remains the great cosmic mystery, that no one can explain with empirical science. That is not the fault of science. It may have the answer some day, but our own dullness & stupidity may be blocking our perceptions. Science deals only in what is, & observable, empirical reality. Speculations about origins or meaning, or destiny have no scientific explanation.

I don't see the dichotomy, if you are addressing moral absolutes, or political maneuvering, & correlating them to beliefs about origins, or the existence of the supernatural. There have been many atheistic despots, as well as believers in a great many theistic systems. Those are human foibles, & come in the name of many different ideologies.. some of which give license to their actions, & some of which condemn them, but they do it anyway.

I do not see sexuality as having a basis in the belief of a deity or not. Plenty of atheists have different views on that, as do plenty of theists. I think you are trying to correlate progressive leftism with atheism. I do not see a necessary correlation between one's core beliefs in a deity & their political outlook. I would venture to say that there are many atheists who oppose abortion, gay marriage, & deficit spending, & plenty of theists who promote global warming, open borders, & free stuff for everyone. Those are political views, that have been embraced for a variety of reasons, including indoctrination. And, while i believe indoctrination is a big part of atheism, it is not the only one.

 

I am not "conflicted" about religion and my path has not been "darkened" by any interaction with any Christian. You're talking to a person who, as a kid, attempted to explain how Santa could do his thing in one night by using time zones and earth's rotation to explain how Christmas could be done in a night. I was raised a "good Baptist." Church three times a week, pray before meals, pray before bed, bible study and all the rest. And I enjoyed it. But, as I came to understand the world around me the stories in the Bible made less and less sense. Not the lessons, the stories. The lessons and parables are mostly universal truths.

The right thing to do...

The best reason for doing anything.

I assume you know that there are millions of people on this earth who've never heard of "God" or anything to do with the "great religions." And yet, they do the right thing. They protect one another, take care of their families, don't steal, don't murder. How is it these people can have a sense of right/wrong good/evil without a "God?"

What you're calling "Moral Law" isn't something some "intelligent designer" gives us because we worship him. It is bred into us via evolution. We've all seen the stories about some dog or cat sacrificing itself to protect a person. Animals staying with a sick or injured peer to protect it, keep it warm, help it heal. Stories of animals nursing the young of other species. How is it these beasts "do the right thing" without some "God" to guide them? Because it is built into their DNA. We are mammals and the "urge" to care for our herd/pride/pack/family, to "do the right thing" is part of our genetic makeup.

Personally I'm not looking to resolve any questions about the existence of any "God." Whether "God" exists or not is irrelevant. No promise or threat from any "God" has any relevance to my life. If "God" exists I will live my life no differently than if "God" does not. Religion is no answer. I can "do the right thing" without dogma clouding my life.

 

Observation and interaction with Christians who preached one thing while doing another is a source my my rejection of Christianity. I eventually returned to a belief in God, but a deistic rather than Christian interpretation.

You made many arguments, perhaps something I will address later, but reading over it I do not think that there is much I would take issue with.

 

Exactly.

Given that there is no observable evidence of God that is how I am determining that there is a order to the folly. The most true thing that we know is that we don't know. Without any evidence we will never know for sure. Second we know for sure that is more likely that something we cannot sense does not exist. Finally the third option is to believe that God exists without any observable evidence.

The first option is agnosticism. The second is atheism. The third is theism.

I am willing to concede that's perhaps naturalism is not true, but I will also warn you that naturalism is not a thing. It is a made-up term by people who wish to debate atheists.

 

The problem for agnostics is what I call the 'regression of ignorance'.

Basically, the agnostic invokes ignorance about an assertion and by consequence immediately assigns equal weight to the truth or falsehood of that assertion but, more importantly, unless they are special pleading for 'gods' then, they logically also have to accept that their ignorance has to regress all the way back to the truth of reality. If the agnostic position is truly superior and agnostics do not consistently make any assumptions about reality then they cannot make any claim about reality including that they don't know. By the way, if you truly don't know about reality then you have no way to know what is a 'most truth'. To be consistent, agnostics cannot use any evidence to decide on the truth of a proposition because they have already declared their ignorance of reality and therefore cannot be sure of any evidence. All of the above means that, to be consistent, an agnostic has to declare ignorance and give equal weight to any assertion that I pull out of my backside including faeries, leprechauns and pink unicorns. That is simply not satisfactory because, it is not logical or rational.

I noticed that you used the word 'God' which signifies a proper noun normally allocated to the Christian 'God'. I am going to avoid that particular nonsense, if you want to discuss the evidence for God then I am not your person for that.

You can know for sure that something is more likely if you can calculate a probability for it but, to do that you need data from which to make a calculation and primarily you need to know that it is possible. If I cannot obtain data or 'sense' for an assertion then I cannot even state that it is possible let alone that it is probable. So, in the absence of evidence that some specific definition of 'gods' is even possible, I will reject the assertion, not even be bothered by the probability and, lack belief in it. By lacking belief, I can be consistent in not giving equal weight to any absurdity which is the logical conclusion of agnosticism.

Now, I have said this many times that, in my experience, atheists use, 'I do not believe' as shorthand for, 'I lack belief' rather than, 'gods do not exist'. One simple way to find this out is to ask the atheist rather than to just argue against something that is not their position. If what I have said about the core agnostic belief above is not what you believe then I would be very interested in hearing corrections or clarifications from you.

I have never had any troublesome conversations with agnostics up until recently because I have had more in common with them than not. I have not felt the need to put three categories on a scale like you did, partly because I felt that agnosticism was not mutually exclusive to atheism or theism. It appears that we have some kind of 'new agnosticism' emerging and it does make me curious so, why do you believe that agnosticism is inherently superior?

 

No you did not logically assume it, you did so because you do not understand that the only common factor atheist's have is a lack of belief in god/gods.

It is would appear that it is very difficult for anyone who has a belief in god/gods to accept that I lack a belief in god/gods.

It is like you asking me who will win the Superbowl this year? I lack a belief that any side will win, its of no concern to me, it is not relevant, there is no need for me to form a belief one way or another. I simply lack any belief in who will win the Superbowl !

 

I'll show you the difference in your analogy. If you say, 'I don't have any belief on who will win the superbowl', you are making a statement of indifference. You don't care. You do not imply any belief about anything, regarding the superbowl.

But with regard to the supernatural, you may say, 'i don't have any beliefs in the supernatural', but this implies, & indeed reveals a positive statement of belief. You actually do NOT believe in the supernatural. It is your opinion, & you argue for it, that belief in the supernatural is a flawed belief.

I do not understand the mental gymnastics undertaken to set up a semantical dodge like this. The only reason is to attempt to take some kind of philosophical 'high road', & pretend that a belief in the supernatural is 'religion', & a belief in naturalism only is 'science'. That was the point i addressed in the 'Redefine Science' post.

IMO, it is an illogical distortion, to attempt to define 'atheism' as something special, & not just another human belief system. But that is just wrangling with words. Of course atheism is a belief system. It is making a statement of belief about the universe. Claiming otherwise is absurd.

 

That are good points. So rather than say simply an Atheist lacks a belief in a god or gods we should use this: Due to lack of empirical evidence there is a lack of belief in the proposition there are deities until such time evidence is presented sufficient to alter my (our) position, and we do not consider circumstantial and personal claims as sufficient (NDE, visions, rare spontaneous healing and religious tests on their own). That would be more precise perhaps.

 

We had a chaplain at school who used to stride around in his long black cassock glaring at us with a face as sour as sh(-)(-), he must have put hundreds of kids off Jesus over the years and made them decide to become atheists. Not me though, because I can think for myself and I knew he in no way represented Jesus..

 

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? The atheist is not just saying, 'I have no evidence of the supernatural', but is making a positive statement of belief.. that there IS NO GOD. He is claiming that nobody could ever have any interaction with the supernatural, but every anecdotal story about it is contrived, or imagined. All of these claims are made without any evidence.


Now, some atheists move easily between agnosticism & atheism, & wriggle out of the above fallacy by claiming ignorance. When challenged, he changes the tune, & revises the claim, 'I have no evidence of a God, therefore i do not believe in a god'. This is better, as a subjective statement of belief, but more often the claim is hiding the dogmatic disclaimer, 'And no one else has any evidence of a god, either!' They do not merely claim personal ignorance, but move back into the state of omniscience, where they can declare themselves to be the 'knower of all things'. Because of their own limited experience, or lack of understanding, they project that on everyone else, & declare EVERYONE'S knowledge or experience invalid, if it conflicts with their own. So whether the claim is made under atheism or the quick revision of agnosticism, the same pretense of omniscience is made.


IMO, this is why many atheists are so arrogant.. they truly believe themselves at the end all, peak of knowledge, & there is nothing more for them to learn. Everything is neatly defined, & dogmatically presented. Now, of course, many theists do this as well, which is another evidence that both beliefs are religious in nature. They both are zealously defended, promoted, & the opposite attacked. Either belief system seems to attract zealots & dogmatists for their cause.

 

You left out the follow up for my 'hardly'. I included BOTH belief systems in that folly. It is mere prejudice & word juggling to label one 'wise, empirical science', & the other, 'stupid superstition'. NEITHER has any empirical evidence to support their belief. They are inferred & believed, so how can the folly of one be more than the folly of the other?

I do not see agnosticism as an option.. it is merely pleading ignorance. I addressed that point earlier. Now, if the agnostic carries his ignorance into a dogmatic statement of belief, such as, 'And nobody else can know, either!', then it is a statement of faith, not merely ignorance. I had put that in the same category as the greek skeptics, where knowledge is claimed to be unknowable, everything is a dream, & the universe is absurd. Simple ignorance is not a category of belief, unless some dogmatic statements of belief accompany it.

You can pick whatever term you like, if 'naturalism' is offensive. I merely use it to describe the concept.. that of believing that everything there is came about via natural processes. They are unknown, but assumed & inferred. It also carries with it the presumption of non existence of supernatural. Because, why do you need a supernatural explanation, if there exists a natural one? The reverse is also true.

These are all hypothetical conjectures for the origin of life & the universe. NOBODY knows how, why, when, or any of the Big Questions. They surmise. They hypothesize. They speculate. But we have NO facts to support any belief system for origins of matter, life, or the universe. We Exist. We think we know that. But 'how?' has eluded us to this point.

If we cannot sense something, or know anything about it, how can you assume it does not exist? We exist, or think we do. How can we conclude anything about the universe based on that simple knowledge? It is really all we know. So it is no more 'folly' to declare one belief over the other. Both are opinions about the nature of the universe, with no empirical evidence to support them.

 

Good post. Lots of interesting points & solid reasoning there.

I have no problem with the agnostic who merely pleads ignorance. 'I don't know', should be the default view for anyone. It is only if & when we compile more information that we can make a conclusion. Now, most of the time, this 'conclusion' about the nature of the universe, is merely inducted, or arrived at through a complex combination of indoctrination, experience, peer pressure, deception, & maybe even some personal reasoning. It is possible that some people have actually experienced something supernatural, or believe they have, & this is the basis for their belief. And, it is possible that someone has had no personal experience with the supernatural, & concludes that all such stories are contrived. And, it is possible for some to believe that any knowledge about the supernatural is impossible to know, based on the fact that they, personally, don't know.

I don't believe that this 'new agnosticism' is superior. I tried to differentiate between the classic definition of agnosticism, which is simply pleading ignorance. 'I don't know.' When it become equal to the Greek skeptic is when it adds the statement, 'And, nobody else does, either.' It then moves from a statement of simple ignorance, into one of a positive statement of belief. The 'new' agnostic believes that this knowledge is unknowable. They can then take the intellectual high ground, & dismiss both the atheist & the theist. Functionally, their ideology is no different than the atheist, as many have pointed out. They don't really believe in a supernatural 'cause', but are naturalists at their core. But it keeps them from the dogmatism of atheism, they believe, by not claiming the positive claim, 'There is no god'.

And you brought up the problem that agnostics have in asserting their beliefs as Absolute.. if they claim this knowledge is unknowable, how do they 'know' this? How is any knowledge 'knowable?'

I like this quote from a greek skeptic:

"Nothing can be known, not even this". Carneades (c. 214 - 129 B.C.)

It becomes a maze of irrational, absurd thinking. If you abandon empiricism completely, you are left adrift in a sea of madness & folly. Nothing is real. All is but dream. In actual practice, nobody lives this way, even if they claim to believe it. They get up in the morning, get breakfast, drink some juice or coffee, pee, get dressed, & go to work. They interact with other humans, who live in the material world the same as they do. They are not ethereal beings, the result of a cosmic dream or some other fantasy, but are material beings in a material world.

 

Wrong because you use the word supernatural instead of god/gods. Stop rambling on about the supernatural, atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of a god/gods. It tells you nothing else about the person, nothing.

Further I made it clear that in my analogy I have no belief in who would win the Superbowl, you again added the implication that I implied I knew nothing about the Superbowl, read it again. There is no such implication, got that? Stop adding your interpretations.

This is what the theist struggles to grasp, a complete indifference to the existence of god/gods. The theists insists you must make a choice, why?

 

I think it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that their either is a god or there is no god. That said given the absense of any actual evidence for the existance of any one of the thousands of gods imagined down through history it seems fair to say that probability overwhelmingly favors the non existance of god.

 

There seems to be a comprehension problem, here. I do not understand your indignation over my post. I did not say what you believe i said. Read it again.

I added no implication about anything, regarding the superbowl. I stated clearly that you did not imply ANYTHING regarding the superbowl. So i do not understand your objection to that point. Where do you come off yelling at me to stop making implications, when i specifically did NOT make any?

Regarding the supernatural, it is a fine point to claim no belief in gods, to a possible belief in the supernatural. I see no difference, functionally, as both are unknown mysteries that are believed. I have used 'the supernatural' as a more generic term, to avoid any bickering about specific gods.

You do NOT show a complete indifference to any belief about god/gods/supernatural, but are making a positive claim, that of a non belief in god/gods/supernatural.

I do not understand why the big fuss over semantics, when a statement of belief is obviously being made. IMO, it is the STIGMA that atheists have attributed to the term, 'belief'. They believe themselves above all that, & have superior knowledge, when they only have BELIEFS, as well.

You can believe whatever you want. I don't care. This is just a logical examination of atheism, as a worldview.

 

Again you have completely ignored my point which was I said WIN the superbowl.

You wish to imply a belief system to me and other Atheists when the only knowledge you can gleam from the statement "I am an atheist" is "I lack a belief in god/gods". It appears beyond your understanding that anyone could have no interest in, or consideration of the existence of god/gods. The existence of god/gods is completely inconsequential to my world view. That is not semantics it is the crux of your misunderstanding of what atheism is.

 

Full credit to Dawkins, he admits he has doubts..




PS- some years ago he and his atheist chums paid a fortune to have these posters plastered on a fleet of Brit buses, but what was the point?

 

Try looking up the definition of probably, then you might understand why people worrying is pointless.