The Folly of Atheism

[Revoltingest]

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?

It's clear that you ain't got no Bible learn'n.
Read it.
Believe it.
And all is obviouis.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

So circular it bites you in the butt.

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

Science does not propose that the universe created itself, nor that it happened by chance. This is a foolish notion by theists with a lack of basic knowledge of science.

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

Philosophical question without an answer. Our physical existence simply exists (unless as many Hindus believe it is only an illusion and only exists in the minds of humans.), and the questions as to whether our universe is eternal or temporal, nor infinite or finite cannot be falsified by objective verifiable evidence.

As a theist I consider the above views and questions ridiculous

 

[Quintessence]

I've got some other possibilities to add to the opening post (sadly, I can't figure out how to renumber these):

1. Proof in the sense intended by the speaker isn't the point of honoring and acknowledging the gods in the first place.
2. Proofs are rejected by the speaker because it doesn't match their personal criteria for what proof looks like.
3. "God" is defined by the speaker in a way that will inevitably make it fail to meet their own criteria for proof and/or existence.
4. Existence is defined by the speaker in a way that does not cover the full spectrum of what it might mean to exist.

I could probably keep going. The point of all these is to remark upon how our own narratives about key elements of this story fully determine the conclusions we draw about it. That's all we are doing at the end of the day - telling stories about what we think is going on, none of which are the territory itself. It's good to be self-aware enough to recognize how one's on expectations and assumptions shape one's conclusions. It's not hard to make a case for gods. It's not hard to make a case against gods. It all depends on how you decide to tell the story and shape the terms of the discussion. In any case, the discussion is a great deal more complicated than a simple dichotomy taken in sum.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's clear that you ain't got no Bible learn'n.
Read it.
Believe it.
And all is obviouis.

I completely forgot about "Obviouis" - the son of Olivia and Luis Ob, and only remaining member of the deific family unit! His parents were the co-creators of the universe we now find ourselves in - which actually just washes around the bottom of a test-tube in their gargantuan laboratory.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Number 1-5 are all addressed in the Bible, I love the Bible's reasons and logic!

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, that was what i said.. it can be stated in many ways, but it is basically,

No evidence = no God

Sure, but the key distinction is between simply not believing the God being proposed exists and specifically denying that God could possibly exist. “No evidence = God unproven” over “No evidence = No God”.

Both positions are held by some people and both can be considered atheism, rendering the word unhelpful at best. That’s why addressing specific statements and opinions is better than just talking about atheism generically.

Also, at some point it would probably be necessary to distinguish between the specific God you believe in, any other specifically defined gods and the general idea of some kind of divine being since they inevitably involve different evidence and different conclusions.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

You are describing gnostic atheism i.e the belief that one can know with certainty that God/gods don't exist. I agree that this is folly. However, agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position to take. No one has proven the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore agnosticism is the only rational position.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

There is a giant invisible dragon following you! If you believe in It, It will convey you to paradise upon your death. If you don't, it will burn your soul to ashes. It chooses not to reveal Itself as a test.

Do you believe in it?

Atheists don't believe because there is not sufficient evidence for them and there are very good reasons for someone to make up a scenario like this.

One could bring up Pascal's wager, that one may as well believe on the off chance the scenario is correct. But then, there's the problem of choosing to worship or believe in something that punishes disbelief without providing adequate proof.

 

[ChristineM]

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!

No secret, just facts.

Without definition of words then what you have is guess, that way total anarchy lies.

Atheism : from the greek a-theos meaning without god.
In todays today's language atheism is refined as - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So you see, its important to know the definitions of words otherwise someone could make anything up.

 

[viole]

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.

Not many atheists would say that God surely does not exist. But many would probably say that Gods, and invisible fairies, for instance, might both exist with the same likelihood, since they have the same evidence. Same of course for all other possible gods, like jesus, apollo, the great juju, etc.

Better? Or shall we start a thread about the folly of afairism, too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[usfan]

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.

Yes, everyone is a product of their upbringing, genetics, peer influence, Indoctrination/education, personal experiences, and personal preferences. Many beliefs are based on expediency, or self justification.

That is a human thing.

..and no, don't hold your breath. Tantrums would not seem effective, in seeking a Divine Cause for our existence.

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 -

It's pretty simple to me..

Atheism = no God

It can be blinged up with qualifiers, Intellectual sounding terms, or dazzling deflections, but it is still a 'no God' premise.

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.

'God or no God,' is the basic question. Perceptions of the Divine may vary, but not the core belief in a Supreme Spiritual Being.

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.

You worry too much about individual perceptions.. this is just a simple,'God/no God' dichotomy.

Science does not propose that the universe created itself, nor that it happened by chance.

'Science' is not an anthropomorphic projection, but a method. It has no clue how or why we are here, or any of the abstract, angst driven Questions for our existence.

The Deification of 'Science!', like it is some kind of sentient Being is just anthropomorphic projection..

It's good to be self-aware enough to recognize how one's on expectations and assumptions shape one's conclusions. It's not hard to make a case for gods. It's not hard to make a case against gods. It all depends on how you decide to tell the story and shape the terms of the discussion. In any case, the discussion is a great deal more complicated than a simple dichotomy taken in sum

Its really a simple question, even if beliefs about details vary.

God... no God

Any evidence is either for, against, or neutral for this question.

Also, at some point it would probably be necessary to distinguish between the specific God you believe in, any other specifically defined gods and the general idea of some kind of divine being since they inevitably involve different evidence and different conclusions

Not necessary. An atheist generally believes in 'no God/gods'. Specifying each surmise of deities is not important.

If you say, 'I'm an atheist!', i don't start grilling you about each and every possibility of deities that you disbelieve in. I get it. If someone says they believe in Allah, you don't ask them about each and every Deity that could be possible.

You are describing gnostic atheism i.e the belief that one can know with certainty that God/gods don't exist. I agree that this is folly. However, agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position to take. No one has proven the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore agnosticism is the only rational position.

True Agnosticism is just admitted ignorance.. 'i don't know..' but if the qualifier is added, '..and nobody else does, either!', it goes from a mere statement of ignorance, to a positive claim of knowledge.

There is a giant invisible dragon following you! If you believe in It, It will convey you to paradise upon your death. If you don't, it will burn your soul to ashes. It chooses not to reveal Itself as a test.

Sure, you can ridicule the 'other side!' with absurd caricatures, but that does not really strengthen the rationality of the 'no God' belief..

Atheism : from the greek a-theos meaning without god.
In todays today's language atheism is refined as - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
So you see, its important to know the definitions of words otherwise someone could make anything up.

..should be obvious.. I'm not sure why there is such outrage over stating it in only one way..

..part of memorized dogma, i guess. It has to be parroted in just the right way, as indoctrinated, to instill the primal childhood feelings..

But it's still a simple, 'God/no God dichotomy, regardless of the correct mantra for the belief..

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If it exists it is an evil psycho if unbelief has dire consequences.

You probably don't care, at least not now, but for the sake of others who might read this....

There are no dire consequences.....when the time comes, everyone will know, then make their own decisions based on that knowledge.

For the vast majority, it will be at their resurrection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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!

You make claims that run contrary to fact and then complain when corrected. I have not seen any atheists with the beliefs that you say that they have. But then without strawman arguments you appear to have nothing.

You should surprise us some day with a well formed argument. No shifting of the burden of proof. No strawman arguments. Is it too much to hope for?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sure, you can ridicule the 'other side!' with absurd caricatures, but that does not really strengthen the rationality of the 'no God' belief..

Not meant as ridicule. The invisible dragon is preposterous; obviously unreal, but carries the same evidence and attributes of God. It is meant to show the philosophical position of atheism.

 

[Jim]

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.

I’m not sure that anyone has said that if you can’t prove God’s existence, he does not exist. What I’ve seen looks to me like people denouncing and depreciating people for believing things without satisfying their requirements for evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The dilemma presented is usually like this: 'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

That's how theists that can't be bothered to learn what an atheist is say. Most of us make no such assertion. But you've been told that multiple times. It never makes any impact. You just keep repeating this error

But, there are other possibilities

You began with an unshared premise of what an atheist is, so nothing that follows is of any value to the agnostic atheist, which is most of us. OP refuted.

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.

It's your argument and that of the atheist who says there is no god.

I've mostly noticed deluges of threads promoting caricatures and false narratives of Christianity

I've seen the opposite - deluges of threads like this one from you promoting your caricature of what an atheist is.

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

Yes, your argument was dismissed because you couldn't define an atheist. Figure out what an atheist is and then come back. Hint - ask an atheist what he actually believes rather than listening to your preacher or reading your holy book.

Why have hostility for somebody else's beliefs?

Who started a thread called the folly of atheism?

My contempt for your religion derives in part from the filth it spreads about atheists, a law-abiding, hardworking class of citizens trying to raise their families well and make their communities better places to live. People like you have been commissioned to beset atheists and atheism - to demonize and marginalize them.

But as I've stated elsewhere, you live in a glass house. Your religion is extremely vulnerable to scathing treatments of its flawed moral code, its tepid version of spirituality, its deformed views of love, justice, and mercy. You have no

If everyone was 'hostile' toward any dissenting beliefs, there would only be war and conflict. Why not try toleration and freedom of conscience?

Hypocrite much? It's your religion promoting this war. It teaches people like you to see people like me as immoral, as the rebellious group of people that resists religion because we want to be bad people. Well, we have a voice today thanks to the Internet and the rise of atheism, and now you'll have to hear what the people your religion has been maligning think about that.

What kind of reaction do you think the atheist should have to your hostility toward him? Respect? Affection?

Let me rewrite a couple of your scriptures, but make them about Christians rather than "unbelievers," and tell me how you feel about it.

• "The fool says in his heart,'Jesus is God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good"

Got that? You're vile and corrupt. Not one of you is any good. Why? Because it is written. I just wrote it.

• “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than a Christian.”

Is that even possible - being worse than a Christian?

• "But the fearful, and the Christians, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

How does that make you feel? You're the moral equivalent of a murderer or whoremonger. Why? Because it is written.

How would you feel to know that an institution has been set up to disseminate those ideas to uncritical thinkers willing to believe them by the millions, one that wrote it in a book that it gives away free to as many people as they can get to take one?

You're a Golden Rule kind of guy, right? Is this how you wish to be treated? If so, fine.

If not, why do you promote a religion that does exactly that?

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).

He doesn't care. He has his caricature of atheism to promote.

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

No it's not. The universe is evidence that it is here, how it works, and how it evolved, not its origin. All we can do is list the logical possibilities, unable to rule any in or out at this time. It's very possible that there are no gods.

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."

The noise seems to be coming from Christianity, this thread being the latest example.

I can assert with confidence that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist, but I can't say that no god exists. The Christian god allegedly reached out to man wanting to be known, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped. The evidence for the theory of evolution rules that possibility out. Even if the theory were falsified tomorrow, you would still be left with the evidence that preceded it, now needing reinterpretation, but still not allowing for any kind of god or other agent that wasn't a great deceiver.

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

That's not credible. Faith is always based on nothing more substantial than the willingness to belief an insufficiently supported idea. If you have evidence, then you aren't believing by faith.

 

[ChristineM]

should be obvious.. I'm not sure why there is such outrage over stating it in only one way..

..part of memorized dogma, i guess. It has to be parroted in just the right way, as indoctrinated, to instill the primal childhood feelings..

But it's still a simple, 'God/no God dichotomy, regardless of the correct mantra for the belief..

Because stating words in an alternative way is fuel for anarchy with everyone talking the same words and meaning different thingd.

 

[usfan]

That's how theists that can't be bothered to learn what an atheist is say. Most of us make no such assertion. But you've been told that multiple times. It never makes any impact. You just keep repeating this error

You believe whatever you want.. im not talking about personal beliefs, but the 'no God' concept. Can you grasp that we can talk about abstract, philosophical subjects without feeling threatened and becoming defensive?


Such outrage and groupthink loyalties..
Progressive indoctrinees always surprise me with the intensity and personal vendetta sense of their opinions.. circumspection and perspective are not communicable concepts in Progresso World..

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe whatever you want.. im not talking about personal beliefs, but the 'no God' concept. Can you grasp that we can talk about abstract, philosophical subjects without feeling threatened and becoming defensive?


Such outrage and groupthink loyalties..
Progressive indoctrinees always surprise me with the intensity and personal vendetta sense of their opinions.. circumspection and perspective are not communicable concepts in Progresso World..

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

When all you can come up with are false claims and strawman of course you are going to face some resistance. Of course your hysterical description of corrections is always fairly humorous.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You worry too much about individual perceptions.. this is just a simple,'God/no God' dichotomy.

And what else do you think that I have available to me for perceiving besides my individual perceptions?