The Folly of Atheism

It's not just you, I have been banging my head against this brick wall for weeks.

 

Neither have we observed gravity, only its effects...

...but since, unlike God, it can be objectified, it's no threat to an atheist's ego.

That kind of knowledge and the kind of knowledge I'm talking about are mutually exclusive.

You can't make a point that lends itself to understanding when you glaringly contradict yourself, as you surely did.

WRT the point under consideration, you can have the trappings of respect or you can have the truth, but you can't have both. Deal.

Yeah, I said that. I didn't say what you said I said.

Your conduct suggests you're not open to the answers.

I never said or implied I know a true Christian when I see one.

No, honest would be "I don't know" or "that's what I was taught."

What the hell do I care?

Again, I doubt it.

How very amusing.

More to the point in the present case, it's more than some people can handle.

Because of your demonstrated proclivity for twisting what I say.

Then you have no insight. Which is sad, but hardly a surprise at this point.

Yes you do - either that or you have me confused with the voices in your head. In either case, it's stereotypical internet atheist behavior, even if you're more genteel about it than most.

 

Well, i'm taking a break, here.. I'm going up for my annual winter grand canyon visit, with my SO for some R&R. I might have some wifi, but i might not bother getting online. I expect it will be pretty much the same, arguing over what 'beliefs!' are, or if atheists have them. If you guys figure it out, let me know.

 

Apparently YOU do not understand the definition of "need." You seemed to be tying in the "need" for gods to "whether gods exist."

The fact that we humans have less "need" for gods...does not impact on whether gods exist.

You MAY BE observing "its effects" on the universe...IF IT IS THE KIND OF GOD THAT DOES THAT KIND OF THING. Maybe it just doesn't effect the universe...OR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we humans are not able to see its impact. We are creatures relatively recently down from the trees...on a small planet circling a not especially impressive star.

I have said that IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...whatever created it is a god.

I CAN say that it is POSSIBLE that such a god exists.

Are you saying it is IMPOSSIBLE that this "universe" is a creation...and that a god is IMPOSSIBLE? If so, we can certainly discuss how you came to that "knowledge."

So do it. Although the statue of Alice in Central Park is one of the most beautiful statues on the planet...and the "Slithy toves" are discussed on plaques surrounding it.

It is uncomfortable for atheists to be shown they are blindly guessing about the REALITY of existence just like the theists. Sorry about that, but one of the reasons I am here...it to do just that.

 

Why don't you do that?

YOU did not "cause this definition crisis." This nonsense enters almost every discussion with atheists as they try to weasel away from the fact that their blind guesses about the REALITY...are just blind guesses.

- - - Updated - - -

Have fun, US. I envy you.

We'll be here when you get back.

 

Hardly. This 'definition crisis' (great term, btw!), has been going on for a long time, in these forums. I'm not sure why.. most of the old time atheists just admit, 'i don't believe in God', & we go from there. But these new, orwellian approved atheists say, 'I have no beliefs at all! And, there is no God.' But, that they can put these 2 conflicting concepts together into a single head, is really quite impressive.

Your point about 'warranted belief' is valid, for making conclusions or plans about something that is historically true. But i'm sure you know people who have been denied vacation, because it conflicted with the timing, or the boss's vacation, or busy season, or some other factor. i don't really see how this applies, as neither theists or atheists have a 'warranted belief' from their views. They have only beliefs.. some theists might CLAIM a subjective experience, but it is not empirically verifiable.

I don't call anyone anything, unless they want to. If you identify as 'atheist', i would expect that a simple statement like 'i don't believe in god', would be accurate. Now, if you're not sure, or are wishing to hedge your bets, perhaps 'agnostic, with atheist leanings', or even 'agnostic, with theist leanings', or perhaps, 'theist, with agnostic leanings. ..seems easier to just state your current beliefs, subject to change without notice.

I just try to used words as they are defined & intended. 'Atheist' is used to describe someone who does not believe in god, gods, supernatural, etc. 'Theist' is one who does. Agnostic does not know. I do not see the need or desire to fuzzy up the terms with wild orwellian definitions.

 

Have fun. It will be hard not having both sides of the same coin around for a while.

 

I think it actually clarifies things quite a bit. The term agnostic atheist is part of that 4 part chart that someone so nicely found for me. It really does help me to understand things a bit better.

Ken Hamm would be an example of a gnostic theist. He has created a museum that is supposed to present evidence that the bible is literally true.

My father and mother would never try to defend God's existence scientifically. They were Agnostic Theists and advised me that religion is a matter of faith, not evidence.

Richard Dawkin is an example of a gnostic atheist. He claims to know God doesn't exist.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an example of an agnostic atheist. He sees no evidence for the existence of God but doesn't claim one doesn't exist he just says it's not an effective way to understand the natural universe.

It's not an Orwellian conspiracy it's just great way to understand the different positions in the debate. Can you think of other positions in the debate that aren't described by the diagram?

 

It was William Dea that brought out the chart. Thanks again William.

And just to clarify. The chart doesn't change the definitions of agnostic or atheist or gnostic or theist. It just clarifies the different positions in the debate.

 

Simple: the hidden premises and the logical consequences of their beliefs are intellectually and morally bankrupt, so naturally they are disinclined to expose them to examination.

 

The chart actually is a silly one...giving false choices.

There are atheists...who are people who either claim no gods exist; who "believe" no gods exist; or who "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does. (Feel free to substituted "blindly guesses" for all those "believes" in there.)

There are theists...who are people who either claim at least one god exists; who "believe" at least one god exists; or who "believe" it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none exist. (Feel free to make that same substitution.)''

So-called agnostic atheists are atheists! The are trying to hedge their bets so that no one can challenge them on "belief"...but the "belief" is there. The reason for inclusion of the "atheist" in the descriptor has to do with "BELIEF"...or as I call it, blind guess.

To borrow and paraphrase a comment from a famous atheist of a while back, "So-called agnostic atheists are atheists without the guts to claim agnosticism."

And then, of course, there are agnostics.

I am one.

Here is my agnosticism in its extended form. Most true agnostics take a position close to this:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

 

Frank apparently has difficulty is understanding the use of adjectives and the nuances they often provide.

 

OF course it is possible. That doesn't mean that it is not totally improbable. If you don't want to deal with evidence or probability that is your right but you can't expect the more rational among us to accept that inability to prove a negative is proof of a positive.

 

Nonsense. Most agnostics believe that the overwhelming absence of evidence for the existance of a god is conclusive enough evidence that there is no god.

 

yguy projects quite well. He has significant experience doing so.

 

Thanks, I'll take this to mean you can't find fault with anything I said.

As usual.

 

Don't Vulcans have higher midichlorian counts compared to humans?
Cats must have the highest.

 

I believe that the most important things to take away from it is that (a)gnostic and (a)theist are not mutually exclusive and that agnostic, which is often mistakenly thought to be a half way position, is actually a position on what can be known not a position on what you believe. The chart shows for example, that you can be theist and agnostic such that you believe a god exists but, you don't know it for sure. I don't see how this chart could be controversial, I thought it would be a good way to raise the level of discussion in the context of this thread but, I note that once again it is both sides of the same coin that are having trouble with it which is further evidence that the Folly of Agnosticism is to make itself the other side of that coin from theism.

To be honest, on the chart I am closest to agnostic-atheist but, I am clearly not fully defined by that and, I would still call myself atheist as short hand since I don't dogmatically claim ignorance; claiming ignorance is redundant except as a sometimes interesting but often dull philosophical game (often played by theists and agnostics). Ignorance is a tool abused by both sides of the same coin, both the theist and the agnostic appear to play games with definitions of ignorance and belief. I could not trust an agnostic that is not consistent with the application of ignorance and belief to the extent that they start to sound like a presuppositional apologist for theism, I guess that is the Folly of Agnosticism to place itself there.

If anyone should ask me what I specifically believe about 'gods' I would say that I lack belief in the positive assertion because there is no justification for belief and that is absolutely consistent with how I approach all positive assertions. I just don't feel the need to redefine words to try to win a cheap philosophical word game.

 

No I don't.

I do understand, though, when people are trying, vainly, to hide the truth.

Atheists try to modify the word almost out of existence, because they realize at heart, the word means a person doing the reverse of what a theist does.

A theist blindly guesses that there is at least one god or that it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

An atheist blindly guesses that there are no gods or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

BOTH blindly guess about the REALITY.

Theists are more honest about it. They acknowledge that it is a "belief"...an act of "faith."

Atheists, on the other hand, are laughable about it. They pretend their blind guess is the result of reason, logic, and science.

Just trying to explain that to you guys...I'm not missing any nuances

 

Yes, of course it is possible.

And when applied to whether or not gods exist in the REALITY of existence...you are not able to make any determination on probability.

You ought really to stop pretending you can.

I am the more rational among us.

Whatever makes you suppose I am saying that the inability to prove a negative is proof of a positive?

 

Any agnostic doing that kind of "believing" is kidding him/herself that he/she IS AN AGNOSTIC.

Anyone who supposes that the "overwhelming absence of evidence" for ANYTHING is "conclusive enough evidence" that the thing doesn't exist...simply does not know how to think logically.

There is an "overwhelming absence of evidence" for sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...but anyone who thinks that is conclusive enough evidence to suppose that sentient life therefore does not exist there...is an illogical person.

You are floundering here, CourtJester. What you are doing is the atheistic equivalent of a theist insisting "you can know GOD exists if you just LET GOD into your heart!"

 

Except that you gave been unable to provide on single piece of evidence for the existance of a god. No evidence makes then probability close to zero.

And you repeated use the fact that the existance of god cannot be disproves as support for your belief in the existance of a god.in fact thst appears to be the only " evidence" you have.

 

The key of course is your waffle of " conclusive enough". That should be enough to give any logical thinker a hearty chuckle.

 

Why would I even try?

There is no unambiguous evidence FOR the existence of any gods...and anyone who asserts there are gods...is just sharing a blind guess about the REALITY.

Likewise there is no unambiguous evidence THAT NO GODS exist...and anyone who asserts there are no gods...is just sharing a blind guess about the REALITY.

That is absurd. Learn some logic or refrain from comments of that sort.

You no longer know what you are talking about.

I HAVE NO BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY GODS.

I KNOW it is POSSIBLE that gods exists...just as I KNOW it is POSSIBLE that there are no gods.

Get with the discussion...or sign off.

- - - Updated - - -

YOU most assuredly are not a "logical thinker"...so you are probably just guessing about this too.

In any case, I am having a chuckle at this supposed logic of yours...so perhaps I am a logical thinker.