The Folly of Atheism

What you have actually done is used philosophical apologetics to cast doubt based upon ignorance and then to fill the doubt with god. It really is not as subtle as you seem to think that it is.

 

That is not so!

Some people...I am one of them...are neither theists nor atheists.

Now you can pretend that dichotomy exists and is unavoidable...but you are wrong.

Perhaps getting away from the descriptor is the way to go.

There are people who "believe" or guess that at least one god exists.

There are others who "believe" or guess that no gods exist.

There are others who neither "believe" nor guess about the existence of gods.

 

What I have provided is merely the truth, which you refuse to recognize. You continue to attempt to draw others into whatever foolish game you are playing to attempt to achieve your "gotcha" moment. Adults try to teach children as I have you. Adolescents fight and throw a fit when they fail to learn.

 

Then define yourself, & state your beliefs. We'll put you in a box, if you fit.

show me. Provide another 'category' exists that is not either/or theist/atheist.

Obfuscating with terminology does not change reality.

That is merely appealing to ignorance, which i included in the earlier list. There may be some truly unbiased people who claim ignorance for this perception, but they are rare. Most of them hide behind a quantifier for their agnosticism, which is usually stated like this:
'I don't know if there is a god/supernatural'... 'AND, nobody else does, either'. This is just as dogmatic as either the theist or atheist making the positive claim about the existence of god/supernatural. It is a mere statement of belief, without evidence. For how can anyone 'know' that everyone else's beliefs are untrue, contrived, or imagined? Would not YOUR beliefs be included in that dogmatic observation?

I have included true agnosticism as a category, but it is not really a separate one, for those who like such things. It is merely ignorance, which is not a positive statement of anything. But when it becomes 'institutional ignorance', then it goes to the positive claim of greek skepticism which claims all knowledge to be unknowable.

 

1. The game is reasoned debate.
2. I am following reason & arguments, as they are presented.
3. You seem to be illustrating irrational, emotional, adolescent behavior.
4. What 'truth' have you provided? I don't even see any arguments, just fallacies.. mostly ad hominem

 

You seem obsessed with some conspiracy from me, to manipulate people for my own agenda. Seriously? Paranoid, much? Put down the bong, & discuss the points made, not your conspiracy theories about strangers on the internet. I'm poking some holes in the 'religion' of atheism, but your projections or extrapolations as to what that means is your own thinking process, & does not reflect mine. I am a seeker of Truth, & a philosopher. I enjoy a reasoned debate, on a great many topics. That is my only motivation. But you can believe whatever you want, & call out warnings for the conspiracies you see sneaking into this forum.

 

This is pretty good.
https://youtu.be/0JxvoSV2plQ

 

The issue here is simple. Theists claim a God exists. I don't believe them. Where is the folly?

 

I do not do "believing."

I have defined what I am...more thoroughly and more often than anyone else in this forum.

Here it is again:

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.

By the way...YOU do not get to put me in a box.

Vegetarian.

Here's another: Hemophiliac.

No, it doesn't.
But I am not obfuscating. I am stating some basic facts.

If that is so (I am not suggesting it is)...it appears I have appealed to the right person.

I have not stated that.

I will state this: Anyone asserting there are no gods...is merely sharing a blind guess about the REALITY.

One...I do not make that assertion.

Two...I do not do "believing."

You said, "But, IMO, these are mere dodges, & if you question these 2, it soon becomes evident that they are really either an atheist or theist."

I am disputing that.

It does not become evident at all. In fact, it shows you are wrong.

 

Do you believe any of the human defined God entities are things to consider seriously?

 

Na, na na na, a theist can believe, think, suspect, theorize speculate be convinced that there is a Creator and Judge without knowing the Creator and Judge, purely by theorizing with evidence. No different from the atheist who does the same for his beliefs. Neither can prove what they are convinced to believe, because they can’t prove what they don’t know. They can only deal with what they have experience with (know). Its been documented that those who know, walk with the Creator and Judge the Creator and Judge has proved His existence and or will to others that are in contact with those who walk with Him. And they are priest, not in the traditions of say a Catholic priest, but a priest of the God served. And priests are supposed to have a relationship with their god. Being able to contact and get requests granted. Which theists don’t participate in, they theorize what they don’t experience for themselves.

and atheism isn't necessarily folly because they are not claiming something they haven't experienced for themselves. a man isn't a fool because he is in darkness, he becomes a fool when he rejects the Light.

 

I do not do "believing."

If you are asking my opinion or guess about the gods humans have worshiped over the centuries...

...I would say they are almost certainly man-made...a search for an answer to an unknown that can terrify.

 

My problem wasn't with the original atheist/theist/agnostic divide, which doesn't have many problems. My problem was with your attempt (accompanied by no reason or justification) to equate those to skeptic, relativist and empiricist worldviews. There are theists who are skeptics, theists who are relativists, theists who are empiricists and theist who don't fit in any of these three categories. Same goes for atheist. Same goes for agnostics. Your claim that empiricism is rooted in belief in the supernatural can't be justified. Sure, there are plenty of theists who are empiricists, but honestly, I've seen empiricism way more popular with atheists and agnostics.

I'm afraid you have completely misconstrued the entire post you are criticizing. I spoke of other people, not myself, and intelligence has nothing to do with it. Too many highly influential philosophers and normal everyday people don't fit into your atheist/relativist, theist/empiricist, agnostic/skeptic/absurdist buckets. These buckets are not a useful tool. They are full of holes and are primarily designed to advance an agenda, not to accurately describe the breadth of worldviews that exist in the real world.

How is it an issue of "superiority" and "enlightenment" for someone to say: "Hey, I'm a theist, but I don't see why you are lumping me in with empiricists. Faith is important to me and I strongly believe in things that are beyond the detection of our senses"? Hell, nearly all theists I've met have said something like this.

It isn't intellectually honest to blame the failure of these buckets on the imagined "superiority" of people they fail to describe, most of whom predate your buckets and nearly all of whom have never heard of them.

Then you didn't read the post, otherwise you would have seen that I mention plenty of theists in there. It isn't "arrogance" to ask people to represent someone's views accurately instead of shoehorning them to try to advance your own worldview as superior. It is just asking for common courtesy and intellectual honesty.

Which is fine. I just don't see the need to create strawman worldviews in order to talk about "core beliefs."

I've already given you my reasons, but I'll go into more detail.

Okay, first we start with some context. Let me know if you need me to expand on anything. There is a lot of information to look at, so if you need any more links, I can provide those too. Marx based his philosophy largely around his modifications to Hegel's dialectic, creating what he called dialectical materialism. This was the cornerstone of his worldview -- a worldview not shared by the majority of atheists. If you want to get a lot of detail on it, you can read Capital, but it basically goes like this: history follows a very specific, predictable, metaphysical pattern of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Every point in history is a thesis, which is followed by a time period of antithesis (philosophical backlash), and ends up as a sythesis time period that resolves the conflict between the two. The synthesis becomes the next thesis, followed by another antithesis, etc. etc.

TL;DR -- In short, Marx had his own atheistic teleology and strongly believed that progress, and specifically human progress, is inevitable. This is why he thought that communism was inevitable. Capitalism was the thesis, socialism was the antithesis, and his brand of communism was the upcoming synthesis. Hell, the Soviets banned science fiction books that did not comply with this vision of inevitable human progress and betterment.

Marx was obsessed with insisting that this view of history was undeniable and scientific. It, of course, is not. This biased him against any scientific opinion that characterized nature in a competitive, survivalist way, contrary to his optimistic view of inevitable progress. This cropped up a lot in his rants against Malthus and Hobbes.

For a little more on this:
https://mises.org/library/marx-and-inevitability
http://science.jrank.org/pages/10867/Progress-Idea-Inevitable-Progress.html

Now, anyone familiar with Darwinism can see the obvious problem here. Darwin leaves no room for such inevitability, rejects evolutionary "progress" leaving only adaptation, and the struggle for survival is as central to his philosophy as the dialectic is to Marx's. Yes, Marx was initially excited by Darwin's defense of naturalism. That didn't stick once he started seeing how Darwin's thoughts conflicted with his precious dialectic.

"It is remarkable how among beasts and plants Darwin rediscovers his English society with its division of labor, competition, opening up of new markets, 'discoveries' and Malthusian 'struggle for existence.' It is Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes, and it is reminiscent of Hegel in Phenomenology, where civil society figures as 'spiritual animal kingdom,' while with Darwin the animal kingdom figures as civil society." - Marx

In response to Engels's praise of Darwin, Marx complained:

"With Darwin, whom I have looked at again, it amuses me that he says he applied the 'Malthusian' theory also to plants and animals." - Marx

Yep, that's Marx complaining that Darwinism is too capitalist. Marx eventually abandoned Darwin altogether for a pseudoscientist that better complied with his dialectic: Tremaux. Tremaux parted with Darwin's ideas about competition (too captialist!) fueling evolution, and instead claimed that the land itself somehow drove evolution in animals.

"Tremaux based his entire theory of evolution on the following law: THE PERFECTION OF BEINGS IS OR BECOMES PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOIL ON WHICH THEY LIVE!" - Marx's praise of Tremaux's theory. The inevitable perfection of beings was much more Marxist than Darwin's evolution through natural selection.

"Tremaux's fundamental idea . . . is, in my view, an idea that only needs to be uttered to gain for itself once and for all permanent acceptance in science." - Marx's failed prophecy of Tremaux's theory gaining acceptance over Darwin's.

"[Tremeax is] a very significant advance over Darwin." - Marx

And the Darwin vs Marx, survivalism vs inevitable progress debate didn't die with either man. It kept going. Hence why the Stalinists replaced Darwinism (through the firing, imprisoning and executing Darwinian biologists) in science education with the less competitive, more optimistic Lamarckism/Lysenkoism. Abandoning Darwinism for Lamarckism is part of why the Soviet crop experiments failed.

If you are interested in learning more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

 

Expanding on Marx's preference for Tremeax over Darwin:

"A very important work which I shall send on to you (but on condition that you send it back, as it is not my property) as soon as I have made the necessary notes, is: ‘P. Trémaux, Origine et Transformations de l’Homme et des autres Êtres, Paris 1865. In spite of all the shortcomings that I have noted, it represents a very significant advance over Darwin. The two chief theses are: croisements [crossings] do not produce, as is commonly thought, variety, but, on the contrary, a unity typical of the espèces. The physical features of the earth, on the other hand, differentiate (they are the chief, though not the only basis). Progress, which Darwin regards as purely accidental, is essential here on the basis of the stages of the earth’s development, dégénérescence, which Darwin cannot explain, is straightforward here; ditto the rapid extinction of merely transitional forms, compared with the slow development of the type of the espece, so that the gaps in palaeontology, which Darwin finds disturbing, are necessary here. Ditto the fixity of the espece, once established, which is explained as a necessary law (apart from individual, etc., variations). Here hybridisation, which raises problems for Darwin, on the contrary supports the system, as it is shown that an espece is in fact first established as soon as croisement with others ceases to produce offspring or to be possible, etc.

In its historical and political applications far more significant and pregnant than Darwin." - Marx

 

..which reveals you do have a 'belief' about some things. You are not a purely rational vulcan, that only uses empiricism & logic, but you rely on faith more than you realize, even if you do not define it as such.

do you understand everything about aerodynamics, & the inner workings of a modern jet? Does this lack of personal verifying of information deter you from flying? Since you didn't build the jet yourself, & know all about the physics of flying, you must take it on 'faith', when you decide to fly. It is not an irrational 'leap' of faith, but it does require confidence & a belief that the pilots & mechanics are competent. I would suggest that many theists have the same view of God.. they are not rabid religionists, with an axe to grind, but regular folks, who go about their lives with a basic belief in something else.. that they might have personal experience with, or they observed this confidence from others.

But it is ok with me, if you want to be in your own category, & not be included with all the rest of humanity. That would put you in the 'special snowflake' category..

 

Sorry, two more I meant to include:

"No question troubled [Darwin] more than the common assumption, so crucial to Victorian Britain at the height of industrial and imperial success, that progress must mark the pathways of evolutionary change. Darwin clearly understood that the basic mechanics of natural selection implied no statement about progress, for the theory only speaks of local adaptation to changing environments." - Stephen Jay Gould

Vs

"There goes with this limitation to terrestrial affairs a readiness to believe in progress as a universal law . . . It is only because of a belief in the inevitability of progress that Marx thought it possible to dispense with ethical considerations . . . Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify." - Bertrand Russell on Marx's faith in progress

 

I do not do "believing."

I am not a Vulcan...nor do I fashion myself to be like one.

I do not do "believing."

If you are asking if I make guesses, if I estimate, if I suppose, if I speculate, if I approximate, if I evaluate, if I presume...

...yeah, I do all those things. But when I do, I acknowledge that I am guessing, estimating, supposing, speculating, approximating, evaluating, or presuming. I do not hide the fact that I am doing those things by disguising what I am doing by using the word "believe" in any of its forms.

If that bothers you, as it seems to do...not much I can do about that.

If that made you feel good...great.

It was cute...maybe even clever. I got a chuckle out of it.

 

I didn't quote you saying "anything unproven could possibly exist". I stated your position...

...which is based on your comments, which I will quote ...

Now if you want to argue semantics...

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
​

... then show the difference between:

• Until a thing is established as impossible...it is possible
• Anything unproven could possibly exist

I have done that over and over. That led to...

 

(emphasis mine).

...and this is exactly the position of atheists. So, where's the problem Frank? Why the polemic against atheists when they share common ground with you? Underlying all of your posts is a snark about atheists having 'beliefs' when in fact they have positions that you basically assert are not orthodox atheism because you appear butt hurt that they share some commonality with agnostics. What's more important here Frank? That people have rational and logical positions or that they call themselves what you insist they should in order to preserve your agnostic fundamentalist orthodoxy?

 

No it's about the same level of folly. One claims god exists without direct evidence, and the other claims god doesn't exist without direct evidence. Both use circular logic and conjecture to back their claim.

 

I said I NEVER said "anything unproven could possibly exist"...

...and you countered with, "Ah the joys of forums. People don't just say things, they write them. And then those words are there forever, for all to see."

THEY ARE NOT THERE!

My "position" is not "anything unproven could possibly exist." My position is what I actually wrote, "Until a thing is established as impossible...it is possible."

Will you ever develop the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge when you are wrong?

If you want to argue with what I write...quote what I write...and deal with it. If you want to make up stuff and argue with that...no need for me or anyone else to be involved.

You have not.

I ask again...since you are saying that psychic snowflakes are impossible...please explain why?

 

Is it???

And if I produce quotes from atheists in this forum who say something MUCH more than that...will you finally acknowledge that you are wrong?

I have no problem. I am having a discussion on the Internet...where my position is that people who use the descriptor "atheist" do so because they "believe" or guess that gods do not exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that any do.

It appears to me that almost all people who use the descriptor "atheist" do indeed have "beliefs" or guesses that gods do not exist.

I merely point out that they are the reverse side of the coin for which theists are the obverse.

I'm just having a discussion, William.

And having a few laughs at people who call themselves atheists for their attitude toward theists.

That's all.

- - - Updated - - -

BINGO!

One coin...two sides.

 

I'm an atheist. I will state, unequivocally, there are no gods.

There is overwhelming evidence that all gods were created by man in the image of those men. That is not conjecture. That is not circular logic.

 

Really?
It's bad enough that you hold the position that psychic snowflakes are possible.
Now you want me explain why psychic snowflakes are impossible?
Really?

 

Previously I did quote what you wrote. I guess I'm ethically obligated to show your quotes again...

In a much later post I stated that your position was that: Anything unproven could possibly exist. In that statement I did not attribute any of those words to you. They were my words. However, if you want to argue semantics...

... I'll ask again that you show the difference between:

• Until a thing is established as impossible...it is possible
• Anything unproven could possibly exist