The Folly of Atheism

[Revoltingest]

Ah, the Definition Nazis have arrived!

Dismissal by definition? Ignorance by decree? Pretended secret insight as to what some term 'really means!'?

..can't have a forum discussion without them!

Definitions are useful.
<hint>
It prevents the embarrassment of railing against the wrong thing.
<hint> <hint>

 

[HonestJoe]

I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism

Seriously? Have you read the forum? There is as much rubbish written about atheism (for and against) as there is about religion.

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

That isn’t atheism though. Atheism is just the characteristic of not believing in any god or gods. The reasons (or lack thereof) any individual might have goes beyond atheism in and of itself. It’s like if you’re wearing a hat you can be identified as a hat wearer but it doesn’t automatically mean you’re wearing it because your head is cold. There are other reasons for wearing a hat so having a cold head isn’t a fundamental aspect of wearing a hat.

Some individuals may well make that argument (seriously or in jest) but that’s something to be taken up with them, not to attribute to millions of other people who have literally nothing to do with them.

We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.

The argument you presented above is indeed fallacious. The lack of evidence is sufficient reason simply not to believe in the existence of any particular god though. Some kind of god might exist (including countless possible gods very different to the one you believe in) but that’s no good reason to act as if one specific god does.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are these not 5 logical possibilities? The Silence of God, if we assume that, could be due to these, and perhaps other, possibilities:

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

It is a false dilemma, that non-perception of God can only mean nonexistence. There are other possibilities.

Actually dominant view of atheists by far is, 'There is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) exists, therefore there is no reason to believe in God(s).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism.

And, since there is a disproportionately high number of vocal, proactive atheists here, a light hearted look at atheism should be welcome relief from the seriousness and intensity that some display.

A false dilemma
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)

The dilemma presented is usually like this:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.

Yes, I would broadly agree with this. Said argument is fallacious, and you have provided some reasons why it may be the case.

 

[usfan]

The lack of evidence is sufficient reason simply not to believe in the existence of any particular god though

Yes, that was what i said.. it can be stated in many ways, but it is basically,
No evidence = no God

It can be phrased in 'belief', or 'evidence', or 'objective reality', but it is, in essence, a 'no evidence = no God' conclusion.

Actually dominant view by far is, 'There is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) exists, therefore there is no reason to believe in God(s).

Yes, that is another way of phrasing it, for some unknown reason..

No evidence = no God

It could be a belief, or it could be reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, IF.. there IS a God, then disbelief isn't a very viable possibility.. it would be a major misperception of reality.

Not necessarily. Again, look the reasons you provided in the OP. If any one of them is true, it's not a misperception to disbelieve, it can simply be not having sufficient reason to believe God exists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, that was what i said.. it can be stated in many ways, but it is basically,
No evidence = no God

It can be prhrased in 'belief', or 'evidence', or 'objective reality', but it is, in essence, a 'no evidence = no God' conclusion.

Not quite. See, not believing in something is different to believing something doesn't exist. Case in point, before you were ever given any good reason to believe in the existence of Australia, would you say that you actively believed Australia didn't exist? As in, if somebody told you Australia existed you would actively deny it?

 

[Catholicus]

Firstly, most atheists think something along the lines of...
“I can find no evidence for god’s existence therefore I’ll live my life assuming she does not exist”

Going through the list of 5-reasons…

1. That is the same with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Fairies, it is a pretty poor reason.

2. True, but again, is she not the ‘god of all’ why does she have her chosen ones?

3. Grief, we are scraping the barrel, think she may have a long wait.

4. Blinded us humans… must be alcohol and drugs and homosexuality, I suppose.

5. This is by far the best explanation, I’m struggling to find fault with it

The existence of God is self-evident from the existence of the universe.

So explanation 5. is tosh.

 

[Revoltingest]

The existence of God is self-evident from the existence of the universe.

So explanation 5. is tosh.

Why limit it to a single god?

 

[Catholicus]

Not quite. See, not believing in something is different to believing something doesn't exist. Case in point, before you were ever given any good reason to believe in the existence of Australia, would you say that you actively believed Australia didn't exist? As in, if somebody told you Australia existed you would actively deny it?

Many Atheists go far beyond saying "I don't believe in God."

Many state (or very noisily imply !) their belief that "God does not exist."

 

[Catholicus]

Why limit it to a single god?

Because the universe is obviously not the work of a committee.

 

[Altfish]

Well, IF.. there IS a God, then disbelief isn't a very viable possibility.. it would be a major misperception of reality.

You merely view the other possibilities through a bias of atheism..

I was brought up a christian, in I admit a not very religious household but I was christened and confirmed. So I've been there and read the books, etc.

The 'bias of atheism' as you call it is founded on much reading, listening and research. I will change my mind if she appears but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Catholicus]

Actually dominant view by far is, 'There is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) exists, therefore there is no reason to believe in God(s).

The objective verifiable evidence that God exists, is the existence of the universe.

It didn't create itself, it didn't happen by chance.

"Why does something, rather than nothing, exist ?" (Leibniz)

 

[Catholicus]

I was brought up a christian, in I admit a not very religious household but I was christened and confirmed. So I've been there and read the books, etc.

The 'bias of atheism' as you call it is founded on much reading, listening and research. I will change my mind if she appears but I'm not holding my breath.

Many people's Christian faith is founded on much reading, listening and research.

 

[Altfish]

The existence of God is self-evident from the existence of the universe.

So explanation 5. is tosh.

Err, don't follow that - how does that make sense.?
Where did god come from then?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many Atheists go far beyond saying "I don't believe in God."

Many state (or very noisily imply !) their belief that "God does not exist."

Sure, many do. But that isn't necessarily what is implied when a person says that they are an atheist. Just as many people who say they are a Christian would say that the Pope isn't infallible.

Atheism is a term which can be defined most broadly as "the disbelief in the existence of God", which covers both the position "I believe that there is no God" and "I don't believe there is a God." So, when talking about atheism in general, it is helpful to keep things broad - for the same reason that, when talking about Christianity in general, it's best not to ascribe exclusively Catholic or exclusively Protestant values to the entirety of Christianity.

 

[Altfish]

Many people's Christian faith is founded on much reading, listening and research.

And I have no problem with that; as long as they don't try to foster their beliefs on me.
So don't tell me that I can't have an abortion, can't be homosexual, can't insult your beliefs, etc., etc., and we'll be fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because the universe is obviously not the work of a committee.

Obviously, the universe was designed by a committee....
Black holes, white dwarves, magnetars, regular stars, neutron stars, dark
matter, dark energy, supernovae, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, nebulae,
red giants, cosmic rays, neutrinos, gravity waves, gravity wells, etc.

 

[blü 2]

Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism

That was never a problem that good evidence couldn't fix.

The dilemma presented is usually like this:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

First, that's not a 'dilemma'

Second, it's an ordinary rule of debate that the onus of demonstration is on the one who makes the assertion in question.

So one proper reply to any assertion with which you don't agree is, Show me.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.

So may Satan, or Harry Potter, or the Easter Bunny. That's scarcely a demonstration of their objective existence, their reality.

God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

Since there's no satisfactory definition of a real God, a God with objective existence, such that we could tell one if we found one, the expression "God" can only refer to imaginary gods.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are these not 5 logical possibilities? The Silence of God, if we assume that, could be due to these, and perhaps other, possibilities:

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

It is a false dilemma, that non-perception of God can only mean nonexistence. There are other possibilities.

I think the main problem is that the specific aspects of any given "god" seem so much like whims of fantasy to many of us who are atheist.

Why not "Spliggleborf - the eight headed infernal fire-beast who dwells inside the sun and created the universe from within it?"

Why not "Meztrosesnic - a formless darkness himself from whom all matter and energy in the universe flowed and can create things only in complete darkness - hence the reason you never see him?"

Why not "Albewaz - A being of turtle-like aspect so large that our entire universe is balanced within one single particle at the very top of his shell? He swims through the mostly empty void, eating any matter he does come across and using it to perpetuate further universes within the other particles of his great shell."

Or "Wizeen" or "Baltromephasus", "Blizdokahn", "Samarkulon", "Bilbatarn" or "Ziggiziggi-ooglepop?" No... obviously it has to be "Yahweh"/"Jehovah"/"I Am." Wait... why is it so obvious again?