*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Reflex]

Even a third grader knows that two sets that do not contain exactly the same elements are not equal. Science and math are not exactly your cup of tea, right?

Not when it's used dishonestly.

So, not inspired by what they believed in. Correct?

No.

The impasse is only in your mind.

So there is nothing indeterminate with respect to ultimate reality? Hmmm. So all those book I have that are written by physicists and the article I linked to are bogus?

Well, it does not. Unless you found out a violation of the conservation of information because of human thought. In that case I will offer you dinner when you come to Stockholm to collect your Nobel prize.

Is this a dodge, straw man or a red herring? Or did you just forget what was said? Something that is uncaused is ontologically distinct than what you're talking about.

You are losing your cool

Nah. Just tired of your unwillingness to confront the logical consequences of scientism.

 

[viole]

Not when it's used dishonestly.

Honesty has nothing to do with logic. Atheism does not entail naturalism. Period. But if you want I can honestly tell you illogical things.

So there is nothing indeterminate with respect to ultimate reality? Hmmm. So all those book I have that are written by physicists and the article I linked to are bogus?

Do you think you can salvage free will by introducing inherently random processes in your brain?

Incidentally, the evolution of the state function of anything physical is completely deterministic. By the way: what is ultimate reality?

Is this a dodge, straw man or a red herring? Or did you just forget what was said? Something that is uncaused is ontologically distinct than what you're talking about.

So, my question is: how many things can be uncaused? I thought there was only a first uncaused cause. You seem to indicate that uncaused causes can cause things at any time.

Nah. Just tired of your unwillingness to confront the logical consequences of scientism.

And you seem unwilling to confront the logical consequences of basic physics.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

So there is nothing indeterminate with respect to ultimate reality?

You do not get define ultimate reality, it cannot be used in YOUR context.

. So all those book I have that are written by physicists and the article I linked to are bogus?

Yes.

They are apologetically cherry picked and only one side of an argument that was never substantiated by anyone

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is the lack of belief in God... Please do not confuse naturalism with atheism. The former is a strict subset of the latter.

How do you figure? How are apples a subset of oranges?

 

[Reflex]

Because atheism is absurd, I'm not surprised that some supporters of that particular worldview would make a distinction between naturalism and atheism in a world where 99.999% of the human population does not. Nor am I surprised that, rather than taking a serious look into the matter, atheists would be silent about the misrepresentation of theistic arguments, ask silly questions (like 'who made God' and 'what is ultimate reality--both of which indicate a serious lack of research) and avoid at all costs talking about about the logical consequences of their beliefs (or lack of belief if I were to adopt a similar bumper sticker mentality).

 

[outhouse]

atheists would be silent about the misrepresentation of theistic arguments, ask silly questions (like 'who made God'

FALLACY ALERT

WE already know who made god. We enjoy watching you dance around the evidence at hand

 

[outhouse]

Because atheism is absurd,

Yes because we see through faith and mythology and have taken on the more educated path in life with higher morals then faith based theism, yes we are absurd. But only to you.

 

[psychoslice]

*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview..........I cannot even see how anyone could even come up with this ridiculers statement, its mind boggling, and quite frankly, ignorant, someone had to say it.

 

[ArtieE]

Because atheism is absurd, I'm not surprised that some supporters of that particular worldview would make a distinction between naturalism and atheism in a world where 99.999% of the human population does not. Nor am I surprised that, rather than taking a serious look into the matter, atheists would be silent about the misrepresentation of theistic arguments, ask silly questions (like 'who made God' and 'what is ultimate reality--both of which indicate a serious lack of research) and avoid at all costs talking about about the logical consequences of their beliefs (or lack of belief if I were to adopt a similar bumper sticker mentality).

And for the logical consequences of theism just remember Paris and see what Islamic State and al-Qaida and Boko Haram are up to.

 

[outhouse]

*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview..........I cannot even see how anyone could even come up with this ridiculers statement, its mind boggling, and quite frankly, ignorant, someone had to say it.

What is funny is we are absurd for not following his mythology, yet he discounts all the other mythology that does not agree with his own.

He is forced to avoid discussing the foundation for his own belief and then throws away mythology, while trashing others for doing the same thing he does himself.

 

[Willamena]

FALLACY ALERT

WE already know who made god. We enjoy watching you dance around the evidence at hand

You do.

Don't lump us with you.

 

[outhouse]

You do.

Don't lump us with you.

Don't worry your not in my group.

As an atheist I have more passion for types of theism then he does.

Maybe you to?

 

[Willamena]

Don't worry your not in my group.

As an atheist I have more passion for types of theism then he does.

Maybe you to?

As an atheist, passion doesn't figure in.

 

[Yerda]

Reflex, thanks for your response.

Some scientists, perhaps most, assume that randomness is therefore the ultimate cause of everything. The “God of the gaps” is replaced with “chance in the gaps.” It's a philosophical assumption that requires the blind faith of a religious fanatic to believe.

Well, nothing comes from nothing, or maybe everything does...I honestly don't know or think it matters much.

How do I know that everything that has a beginning has a cause? Anything can be rationalized, so let's not make it a philosophical question. Facts, the pride and joy of atheism and the foundation of the scientific enterprise, is based on the assumption that every effect has a cause. So, let's start from there.

To grasp something, to prove it, one must isolate the object from from everything else. But, ironically, scientific reductionism has verified that either every part of creation is also the whole, or the moon isn't there when no one is looking. (Here's an interesting article on that from Nature magazine: Quanundrum). If life isn't just a part of creation but the whole of creation, then there are mysteries that cannot be grasped. The pursuit of highest truth necessarily leads beyond the confines of material science.

When scientific reasoning falters in an encounter with an insurmountable problem, “I dunno” is invariably the fallback position. That it's a vacuous position and epistemologically worthless doesn't seem matter and therefore represents a failure to follow reason to ultimate conclusions. It's next of kin, “prove it,” can't reason its way out of a paper bag if it were given a road map and instructions.

I have to be honest, I tend to say "I don't know" a lot. I don't mean it as a fall back position - just trying to convey that I am quite ignorant of many things and I would think it is the same for a lot of atheists. There is something oddly pleasing in admitting ignorance.

I won't mount a defence of atheism here, in part because I'm not equipped to do so. I would say though that most atheists tend to develop views that are more nuanced than you might think from irritable exchanges online, though sometimes we are childish (we are human).

Anyway, I don't know that I can agree with some of the things you have said here. You could be right about everything that has a beginning has a cause - it's not an unusual assumption to make - but I wonder if processes like nuclear decay can be said to be caused.

 

[Reflex]

There are what I call “indicators” that tell me when I am dealing with a very superficial individual. Among them are questions like:

• Who made God?
• Where's the proof?
• What is Ultimate Reality?

And comments like these:

• Atheism is not a belief, but the absence of belief.
• I just believe in one fewer gods than you do.
• I don't believe in a God for the same reason you don't believe in the tooth fairy.
• Atheism is the default position.

Then there are those who appeal to psychology:

• Religion is for the weak and weak-minded.
• Religion continues to influence people through “memes.”

And, of course, there's the appeal to religions sordid history and the so-called problem of evil, as if they has some bearing on God's existence.

All these indicators tell me that Francis Bacon was spot-on when he wrote, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

 

[ArtieE]

All these indicators tell me that Francis Bacon was spot-on when he wrote, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

There's an estimated 4,200 religions in the world. Are you blaming philosophy for Islamic State now and not theism?

 

[viole]

How do you figure? How are apples a subset of oranges?

Naturalists (like me) hold the position that all that exists obeys to blind, unconscious and a-teleological natural mechanisms. One of the consequences is that there is not such a thing as the supernatural.

I think it is safe to conclude that naturalism entails atheism and, therefore, the set of naturalists is a subset of the set of atheists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious George]

There are what I call “indicators” that tell me when I am dealing with a very superficial individual. Among them are questions like:

• Who made God?
• Where's the proof?
• What is Ultimate Reality?

And comments like these:

• Atheism is not a belief, but the absence of belief.
• I just believe in one fewer gods than you do.
• I don't believe in a God for the same reason you don't believe in the tooth fairy.
• Atheism is the default position.

Then there are those who appeal to psychology:

• Religion is for the weak and weak-minded.
• Religion continues to influence people through “memes.”

And, of course, there's the appeal to religions sordid history and the so-called problem of evil, as if they has some bearing on God's existence.

All these indicators tell me that Francis Bacon was spot-on when he wrote, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

I have done none of these things.

Because atheism is absurd, I'm not surprised that some supporters of that particular worldview would make a distinction between naturalism and atheism in a world where 99.999% of the human population does not. Nor am I surprised that, rather than taking a serious look into the matter, atheists would be silent about the misrepresentation of theistic arguments, ask silly questions (like 'who made God' and 'what is ultimate reality--both of which indicate a serious lack of research) and avoid at all costs talking about about the logical consequences of their beliefs (or lack of belief if I were to adopt a similar bumper sticker mentality).

Yet you persist with this equivocation?

How exactly is atheism absurd? I will gladly pursue the logical consequences with you. Have at it.

 

[Reflex]

I will gladly pursue the logical consequences with you. Have at it.

"If the will to write the post [was not] activated a chain of physical effects, then will exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events. If the will to post was instead activated by the chain of events, then "meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures. . . . The opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. . . . This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms.""

(I carelessly omitted the bracketed words in the original post.)

 

[Shad]

And, of course, there's the appeal to religions sordid history and the so-called problem of evil, as if they has some bearing on God's existence.

It does. You just ignore it as no theist proclaiming a benevolent has yet to resolve this problem. It is one of the reason the argument has survived for 2500 years.