The Folly of Atheism

I gave you the logic flaw. If you deny the existance of the accepted logical flaws then you deny logic.

 

Well if your assertion is that the existance of a god is just a matter of definition one assumes you have a working definition of god. I posted mine early in the discussion

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

 

Why do you invent things like that?

Where have I ever asserted that the existence of a god is just a matter of definition?

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Which definition of a sphere states it has no sharp angles?

 

"ANYTHING that is not ESTABLISHED as impossible...is possible. It is a function of definition...not, as you incorrectly are supposing, a logical fallacy. It is like saying that a sphere cannot have any sharp angles.

A sphere, by definition, has no sharp angles; unless a thing has been established as impossible, by definition, it is POSSIBLE.

Can you think of ANYTHING that is IMPOSSIBLE...that has not been established as impossible? "

From your post. I assumed you were talking about the possibility of existance of a god and using that as your rational.

 

Everyone I've ever seen.

- - - Updated - - -

It IS POSSIBLE that gods exist. It also IS POSSIBLE that no gods exist.

Work from there!

 

Sure I did...

There are two possible realities regarding gods:

• They are man made constructs
• They are REAL gods

So, again, show me one god that isn't created by man.

If you answer "Any of them could be" again you will just continue to demonstrate your complete lack of credibility.

 

DO NOT ALTER MY POSTS.
I did not underline

Moving on.

Are you denying that you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
Are you denying that your bible states it is the Word of God?

Besides the Bible, where do you get the idea that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

NO...YOU ABSOLUTELY, 100% DID NOT!

Which is why I wrote in response:

"You didn't ask me which is the real god, Ecco.
I don't even know if there is a god.
You did ask me to show you one god that isn't created by man.
I just informed you that any of them may be such a god."

I stand by that answer.

Oh, I love lists.

Especially self-serving ones...which almost all are in discussion forums.

Anyway...ANY of the gods you consider "man made constructs" MAY BE a "real" god.

No...and that is not necessary. All I have to do is to say that ANY OF THEM...MAY be a real god.

You are arbitrarily saying they are all man-invented.

Why?

Did some god reveal to you that all the gods ever proposed by humans are man-invented?

Or did you just make it up?

I am not especially interested in your considerations about my credibility, Ecco. I treat those considerations as entertainment. I laugh at them.

 

What probability? Are you interested in (*)(*)(*)(*)ing listening to what I have to say or are you just wanting to jump down my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing throat, make your mind up or just (*)(*)(*)(*) off.

- - - Updated - - -

You did nothing of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sort, I have no interest in your communication issues.

 

He did make a sound point there is no way to say all deities in the cosmos if they exist are man-made, my position is far sounder than most here act as a species as if there are none until evidence says otherwise and they demonstrate we have to act upon this knowledge do they threaten us or do things for us for doing so. This is why a Practical Atheist stance is superior we ignore the god and goddess question and simple act as if they are all fictional even if they might exist.

 

There is no way I can conceive of to even name ALL the deities that have been worshiped here on planet Earth...so there is no logical, reasonable way to determine that ALL are man-made.

I have no problem with someone suggesting that of the gods we know have been worshiped...all appear to have characteristics which makes the guess "this most likely is a man-invented god" seem appropriate. But it would still just be a guess...not even an educated or justified guess in many cases.

That is a bit of a jumble. I honestly do not understand what you are saying here other than that you consider your position to be sounder (superior) to any other positions offered.

I'm not really sure what "your position" is.

My position is that I do not know if gods exist or not...and I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which I can base a meaningful guess on the issue.

Not sure how yours is sounder than that...but if you explain it, I'll listen.

Why use "atheist" in there? What is the purpose of that word in whatever it is you are trying to describe?

I offered my position without using the word "agnostic." It was not needed. Why not offer YOUR position without using "atheist?"

 

I have now reached the point of boredom with your constant repetitions on this subject, just as I have on other subjects with you. Bye.

 

A much easier move for you than simply acknowledging that what I said was all correct.

Hey...you'll be back.

We both know that.

And I will be happy when you are, because despite the differences, I enjoy talking with you.

 

low IQ folks can easily reject God because they cant see him; thus they are atheists. Many high IQ folks think of Christianity as Platonism for the masses, thus God is a philosophical question, and atheism is folly because it is brain dead.

 

So go cry about it to somebody who gives a damn.

I've no need to deny or confirm any of this just now. All I need do is point out that, yet again, you've made a pronouncement about my beliefs on no other basis than your own prejudices.

Wrong question. Here's the right question: where do you get the idea that I believe that?

 

You apparently don't know the difference a pronouncement and a question.
(That was a pronouncement)

Why are you afraid to admit to your beliefs?
Are you ashamed of them?
(Those were questions)

 

I tend to agree with Frank, here. The chart seems silly, & merely is a definitional muddying of terms.. The only difference between 'gnostic & agnostic' is dogmatism. One is claiming Absolute Knowledge, with no empirical evidence, while the other acknowledges some holes in their knowledge base. It is more a level of delusion than a statement of reality.

If we dispensed with the terms 'atheist & agnostic', & merely addressed the basic beliefs, it would be much simpler. There seems to be a lot of intensity in labels, here.. from those who use them on themselves.

How many pages in this thread have been dominated by these word games? If anything illustrates 'the folly of atheism', it would be this hysterical quibbling over terminology to describe a simple belief.

1. 'I believe in god & the supernatural'
2. 'I DON'T believe in god or the supernatural'
3. 'I don't know'.
4. 'The question is absurd, nothing is knowable, or i don't like the options'.

I cannot think of any other basic statements about the nature of the universe, life, & origins.

I do not see differentiating between 'strong' or 'weak' atheists as being anything useful in our definitions. Those are mostly euphemistic terms, used to promote a narrative. Here is the difference, as it seems to be displayed here:

Weak Atheist = 'I don't believe in god or the supernatural, but, i could be wrong. Maybe they exist, but i'll need proof.'
Strong Atheist = 'I don't believe in god or the supernatural. It is a fact that the supernatural is man made superstition, & there is no possibility of any gods existing'.

Both are atheists, as neither 'believes' in god. The 'strong' atheist is just more dogmatic, believing his opinion to be Absolute Truth. IOW, the 'strong atheist' is claiming omniscience & superior knowledge over the rest of humanity, claiming to have inside information into all the mysteries of the universe.

The 'strong' atheist is a clear illustration of the OP, as the 'folly' of claiming complete knowledge about something they cannot possibly know. Yet, in their arrogance (or strength, if you like that imagery better! ), they claim to 'know' that there is no god.

The 'weak' atheist is merely a human being with more introspection. He knows he isn't omniscient, & gives himself some leeway for possibilities of knowledge he may just be unaware of. He is not dogmatically declaring, 'there is no god', but is merely stating a belief, 'i don't believe in god'. So, if that is all this chart is describing, it is no different than with other human belief systems. There are ALWAYS those who are more dogmatic, militant, & zealous for their beliefs than others. Atheists are no exception.

Early on, i replied with this:

My point here is in revealing the dogmatism in many different world views. Most people see it in certain theistic arenas.. radical islam, & religious fundamentalism in whatever 'religion' is being examined. But cannot we see the same thing among atheists? Whether you label them, 'militant', dogmatic, strong, or fundamentalist, they are just the same as their religious counterparts. IOW, they are human beings, with the same foibles, mental hangups, & excesses as other human beings. They are not as 'special' as they like to believe. That belief is just part of their folly, & so is their humanity.

So, i could have easily titled this thread, 'the folly of humanity', or 'the folly of dogmatism', & said much the same things. But by narrowing it down to 'atheism', the folly of humanity is exhibited in them, as well. So this is not a slur, or a smear toward your belief system. If you embrace atheism as part of your worldview, it is an inclusion of you into the folly of humanity. Welcome to the club.

 

"Religion" is an oldfashioned word mate..
The bottom line is that Jesus said straight out he was an alien with awesome powers-
"I am not of this world ....though you do not believe me, believe the miracles.....i'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:23,John 10:38,Matt 13:35)
So isn't it only logical to want to check him out?
Hey Spock will you listen to an alien visitor?

"Affirmative, I'm all ears"

 

Oh, i think you are taking this way too seriously. Derisive words? Not me. I like colorful words that convey accuracy, but any 'derision' is subjective. And, i am ruthless with logic, so if it hits you where it hurts, my point has been made. Complaining that my points of reason have too much 'point' to them is not a valid complaint. I have not used ad hominem, but only reason & accurate terms.

1. If your 'argument' is 'there is no god', then that is NOT 'reality', but is just your opinion. For you to declare this belief as Absolute Truth is absurd, arrogant, & folly. If you BELIEVE this to be 'reality', it says more about your fantasy world than about anyone who disagrees with you. You have not established, 'My opinion=reality'. That is just dogmatically asserted.
2. What 'evidence' supports your belief system, that there is no god? That is merely your belief. You have no 'evidence' for this. How could you? You are not omnipotent, with all knowledge of all mysteries in the universe.. Yet you pretend to 'know' this?
3. Your ad hominem replies to my points of reason are noted. It is ironic that you project this onto me. I have pointed out the illogical flaws in your replies, & you take this as 'derision', then return insults & assertions, as if that rebuts my points. But specious claims about my motives are just ad hominem, & a 'poison the well' fallacy. Address the issues, & leave speculations about my mental state, or motives, or knowledge out of it. Including those are the essence of ad hominem.

No thanks. We have enough self appointed 'thought police' without giving some the actual power to enforce their beliefs on everyone else. This is the last bastion of open expression left, & it is shaky much of the time. You want some human moderators who will enforce their view of 'logic' on the rest of us?

But regarding 'argumentum ad ignorantiam', here is the definition from wiki:

If anything, the opposite is taking place. Here is the actual 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'.

1. All beliefs in gods are superstition.
2. Superstitions are false.
3. Your belief in gods or supernatural is superstition.
4. Your beliefs are false.

By claiming the assumption that 'all beliefs in gods are superstition', you appeal to ignorance. Just because you cannot PROVE that statement false, does not imply it is true. There are other possibilities. So the fallacy being used here is by those claiming the premise of 'there is no god'. Just because you cannot PROVE there IS a god, does not prove the antithesis. And, of course, the reverse is also true. But i have not made this argument. It has come exclusively from the 'strong' atheists, who have claimed that lacking any empirical proof OF god, proves there is no god.

I find it amusingly ironic how you project the very fallacy you are guilty of using. I am making no arguments that 'God exists because nobody can disprove Him'. I am clearly recognizing BELIEFS about God or the supernatural to be that: Beliefs. The 'strong atheists' here are using this fallacy. By asserting that if nobody can prove there is a specific god, that proves the opposite to be true.. i.e., 'there is no specific god'.

The caveat i see here is:

Be careful what logical flaw you accuse others of.. it may be your own.

 

May I ask which is the bigger FOLLY that of spending untold trillions on holy places, paid clergy, man hours, material wealth and other things with ZERO hard evidence it does anything useful either defensive to appease some supreme beings or practical these beings doing comparable or more value back in aid to the human race. <OR> Not doing that and using all that in other ways which could be far more productive such as one example advancing our general scientific knowledge.

That is the essence of my THEIST VS. ATHEISM position in simple terms I say the folly falls hard on the THEISTS on this.

 

We spend lots of money on golf courses. Golfers are glad we do that...and by and large, are the source of the money that is spent.

Religion provides something for some humans that you claim you do not need. Most of the funds use for these "holy places" come from people who need or want religion.

Fine. Let them have it. We waste money on all sorts of things. So...we waste money.

Gotta be out-front with you on this, Kolter...it sounds as though "the essence" of your position is a LOT more complicated than you suppose here.

 

Indeed it was, and it's every bit as retarded as the one to which I was obviously referring, to wit:

And again, they're the wrong questions. Here's the right question: why do you insist on making pronouncements about my beliefs based on nothing but your own prejudices?

 

I'll keep in mind that you consider the following colorful but not derisive...

fools, irrational, hysterical​

...please don't be offended if, in the future I use these, as well as any others, in referring to you.

You "logic" doesn't hurt and neither does your ignorant arrogance. I recognize you are just the result of your early childhood indoctrination.

 

First you admit they are questions. Then you state they are pronouncements. They can't be both!

Are they wrong questions because you don't want to answer them?

• Why are you afraid to admit to your beliefs?
• Are you ashamed of them?