The Folly of Atheism

[HonestJoe]

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

But if you're only challenging the lack of belief in the specific definition of the Christian God you believe in, you're not necessarily challenging atheism. Believers in different kinds of gods or wider spiritual philosophies could be just as likely to say your God doesn't exist. If you want to challenge the "folly" of atheism, you have to address the lack of belief/denial of any and all gods by definition.

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.

I never say "'I'm an atheist!" though. What would be the point? If someone proposes the existence of a god I'll listen and consider what (if any) evidence they offer. It just happens that nobody has convinced me yet.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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..

As you sit here purposefully invoking the term "atheist" to mean precisely the "no god" half of your dichotomy. To be a bit more correct, your title should have been: "The Folly of Gnostic Atheism"

And even then I would have been skeptical of the content of your post, because I feel that even that stance ("gnostic atheism") still has leagues more honesty to it when compared with what we can actually perceive and how well descriptions of any god match up to our reality, or when contemplating the things we could possibly expect from those gods (given available descriptions of their past behavior) in our modern world that simply do not happen.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Begging the Question big time!

 

[shunyadragon]

↑

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

Still waiting for a reasonable rational response.

'Science' is not an anthropomorphic projection, but a method.

True

It has no clue how or why we are here, or any of the abstract, angst driven Questions for our existence.

Huh? Not meaningful in a response to anything I have posted.

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

Meaningless anti-science soap box rhetoric.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

I don't make that claim that nobody else knows. However, I have yet to see a valid proof of God's existence or non-existence.

 

[usfan]

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

..OTHER'S.. specific, individual perceptions, instead of the generic concepts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

..OTHER'S.. specific, individual perceptions, instead of the generic concepts.

But even then, I have no choice but to utilize my own perceptive resources to first perceive of and then evaluate the more "generic concept" of "god" or "no god." And if my perceptive resources inform me that, due to the very nature of this purported "god", I can make no determination either way? That I can sit in neither the camp "god" nor the camp "no god?" What then? Do I rely on OTHER'S perceptions, and distrust my own, when my own perceptions have proven to have a very high success rate when compared with others reports of what is actually being perceived? This seems entirely counter-intuitive and unnecessary. God's existence or lack thereof seems to have absolutely no bearing on my ability to mete out my own life and existence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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

Absolutely false. Atheism is simply stating that "If you cannot provide verifiable evidence for God's existence, then there is no valid reason to believe that a God exists."

I'm sick of hearing theist blatantly misrepresent what atheism is, just because there are SOME atheists who take it a step further and declare that NO GODS EXIST.

 

[usfan]

Still waiting for a reasonable rational response.

I hope Science gets back to you, then, and affirms your trust in His/Her wisdom and faithfulness..

Huh? Not meaningful in a response to anything I have posted.

..not if you're looking to 'Science!' to propose things to you...but it makes sense if you see it as a method of discovery, instead of an Omniscient Affirming Entity for belief in naturalism.

Meaningless anti-science soap box rhetoric.

Good outrage, for anyone who dares to blaspheme your god..

Do I rely on OTHER'S perceptions, and distrust my own,

You're changing the argument. You objected to the 'God/no God' dichotomy because of 'so many perceptions about God!' This was not about trusting in our own perceptions, vs others.

Absolutely false. Atheism is simply stating that "If you cannot provide verifiable evidence for God's existence, then there is no valid reason to believe that a God exists.

Yes.. 'no evidence = no God'.. that is what i said.
Why the righteous indignation for phrasing it more simply, without all the muddy verbiage?

Is it the need to have the 'mantra' for atheism 'just right!'? The Indoctrination doesn't return the proper affirmation unless you use those precise words?

I'm sick of hearing theist blatantly misrepresent what atheism is, just because there are SOME atheists who take it a step further and declare that NO GODS EXIST.

I hope you get better.. it sure seems like a petty thing to get outraged over.. 'Blatant Misrepresentation!!' BLASPHEMY!!


What, then, IS the logical basis, or evidence FOR, a belief in 'no God'? Is it not the lack of suitable evidence that might convince you that God does indeed, exist? Lacking evidence to the contrary, you conclude, 'no God.' If there WAS compelling evidence, you would conclude, 'God'.. right?

 

[shunyadragon]

I hope Science gets back to you, then, and affirms your trust in His/Her wisdom and faithfulness..

..not if you're looking to 'Science!' to propose things to you...but it makes sense if you see it as a method of discovery, instead of an Omniscient Affirming Entity for belief in naturalism.

Your responses still do not make sense. Still waiting for a reasonable rational response.

Good outrage, for anyone who dares to blaspheme your god..

No outrage. At present you cannot cite anywhere I blaspheme God, you are definitely dishonestly misrepresenting science to justify your agenda.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If God cannot be explicitly demonstrated, then he doesn't exist.
Also, if God is "beyond existence" then he doesn't exist.

 

[usfan]

Your responses still do not make sense. Still waiting for a reasonable rational response.

.. sigh..
..progressive indoctrinees...

You: 'Science Proposes!'
Me: "'Science' is not an anthropomorphic projection, but a method."

Your outrage over my 'blasphemy!' of the Science god still indicates anthropomorphic projection..

..and, of course, 'rational response!' is the proper memorized mantra, in Progresso World.. so no, i did not have that.

 

[usfan]

If God cannot be explicitly demonstrated, then he doesn't exist.
Also, if God is "beyond existence" then he doesn't exist.

Thanks! My point exactly. You even added, 'explicitly!' to raise the bar even more.

This is the basic tenet of atheism:

No evidence? No God!

 

[Willamena]

Thanks! My point exactly. You even added, 'explicitly!' to raise the bar even more.

This is the basic tenet of atheism:

No evidence? No God!

Not quite. For something for which demonstrability is foreign to its nature, there can be no evidence.

Ever.

Things that exist are demonstrable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps because you're new here, you've not noticed the great
many threads detailing our shortcomings. We've been given much
generous advice & criticism by or fundie friends.

I don't recall a post claiming this.
Could you link one you're thinking of?

I disagree. I see completely novel straw man claims detailing the shortcomings of atheists here. The straw is flying like confetti. It's the Flying Confetti Monster.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I hope Science gets back to you, then, and affirms your trust in His/Her wisdom and faithfulness..

..not if you're looking to 'Science!' to propose things to you...but it makes sense if you see it as a method of discovery, instead of an Omniscient Affirming Entity for belief in naturalism.

Good outrage, for anyone who dares to blaspheme your god..

You're changing the argument. You objected to the 'God/no God' dichotomy because of 'so many perceptions about God!' This was not about trusting in our own perceptions, vs others.

Yes.. 'no evidence = no God'.. that is what i said.
Why the righteous indignation for phrasing it more simply, without all the muddy verbiage?

Is it the need to have the 'mantra' for atheism 'just right!'? The Indoctrination doesn't return the proper affirmation unless you use those precise words?

I hope you get better.. it sure seems like a petty thing to get outraged over.. 'Blatant Misrepresentation!!' BLASPHEMY!!


What, then, IS the logical basis, or evidence FOR, a belief in 'no God'? Is it not the lack of suitable evidence that might convince you that God does indeed, exist? Lacking evidence to the contrary, you conclude, 'no God.' If there WAS compelling evidence, you would conclude, 'God'.. right?

Yes.. 'no evidence = no God'.. that is what i said.
Why the righteous indignation for phrasing it more simply, without all the muddy verbiage?

Is it the need to have the 'mantra' for atheism 'just right!'? The Indoctrination doesn't return the proper affirmation unless you use those precise words?

Except that No Evidence does NOT equal No God. All it means is NO EVIDENCE and it's that lack of evidence which leads to a lack of belief.

I'll try and make it really simple for you.

Person A and person B both enter a room they have never been in before. In the room is a jar sitting on a desk filled to the brim with various sized marbles. Person A states "I believe that there are EXACTLY 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less." He then asked person B, " Do you ALSO believe that there are EXACTLY 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less?"

When person B responds, "No, I do not believe that there are EXACTLY 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less, because I do not have enough evidence to convince me that this is the case."

Now, does this mean that person B just stated "I do not believe that there are 448 marbles in that jar?"

The answer is NO, he did NOT. He accepts that it's POSSIBLE that there MIGHT be 448 marbles in the jar, but without any verifiable EVIDENCE that this is the number, he cannot claim that he BELIEVES that there are exactly that number of marbles.

The exact same holds true for an atheist. When a theists asks the atheist if he or she believes that there is definitely a creator god, when he or she response, "No, there isn't sufficient evidence for me to believe that there is definitively a creator god," the atheist is NOT claiming that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a creator god, ONLY that there's isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief that there definitely IS

Why do you have this need to constantly misrepresent what it is that atheists are saying? .

 

[Willamena]

There is a tea pot floating about Mars. It's been orbiting there since the 19th Century. How it got there doesn't matter. What matters is that we cannot get there to verify it. But even if we did, it wouldn't matter because the tea pot shifts its orbit every time we try to find it. We know it's there, but it cannot be demonstrated.

The thing about non-demonstrability is that it is indistinguishable from fiction.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Well, if that is the case, we must assume that God also isn't interested in whether people believe in him or not. If he's not interested, why are you?

2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.

In which case, what is it you think should persuade those left "wondering" to believe? If God isn't interested in them, why should they be interested in God?

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.

This denies your point 2, because it seems to apply to all. But in that case, since God is waiting in utter silence, how comes it that there's such a big noise about him, all based on what he's supposed to have inspired in various scriptures?

4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.

I presume you mean something has blinded the awareness of SOME humans. But isn't it just as possible, or perhaps even more possible, that something is causing SOME humans to imagine what isn't there? And given the fact delusional thinking is rife within our species, I lean to the "very likely" rather than even more possible side.

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

Well, at least this has the benefit of fitting well within Occam's Razor. It's the simplest answer to the obvious question, so might well be the best answer, too.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

So explanation 5. is tosh.

Ah, then the existence of meta-God is self-evident from the existence of God. And the existence of meta-meta-God is self-evident from the existence of meta-God, and …. help, there's no way to stop!

 

[Skwim]

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."

And I don't think many give their position enough thought to reason out the distinction.

.