The Folly of Atheism

[Twilight Hue]

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.

It's just a simple you can't acknowledge something that isn't there.

There's nothing fallacious about being straightforward.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What evidence do you need that I don't? I didn't have to make anything up. I can see with my own eyes that material creation didn't just pop up out of nowhere and that what exists on earth is too well designed not to have a designer....too well programmed not to have programmer.

You see, the atheists among us just don't get it....and probably never will, because it requires an invitation from the Creator to get to know him in the first place. You guys have already said to God, "we don't need you, and we don't want to have anything to do with you...we'd be happy if you just go away!"......so that's fine, God will never force himself on anyone. He will not invite unbelievers because he doesn't particularly like the company of those who think he's just a figment of a someone's imagination. What would be the point.....? You need evidence? No amount of evidence would convince you anyway. You'd just explain it all away as something "nature" did...all by itself.

What if God is the "natural" explanation for everything....and atheists just don't want to see it?

The undecided are the agnostics.....not convinced one way or another. But so many who identify as agnostics are actually full blown atheists...they don't like to come out and say so, just in case there is a God and he is listening....kind of an each way bet.....except that it doesn't work like that.

God is actually allowing us to choose where we want to spend eternity......with him or not. They are the only two choices. No one is making anything up because its all recorded in a book that has survived for thousands of years despite every attempt to destroy it...the same message for a different audience.



Jesus does not have an ego so there is nothing to turn down.
We either qualify for citizenship in the only world there will be in the future....or we forfeit life altogether. Since this is what atheists expect anyway, I do not see God doing them a disservice...do you? He gave us life and allowed us to determine our own future by our own choices. He owes us nothing.....so if you expect nothing then that is what you'll get. How is that not fair?

Doesn't it strike you as strange that there would be a 1 time act of supernatural poofing things into existence, and the rest go by natural processes thereafter? Like God suddenly got tired of poofing and stopped ?

I think a lot of people don't have a low standard of believability where if a book is old, it's got to be true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

......
How did God put us in an absurd situation?

I tend to think people have put themselves in an absurd position.

 

[Valjean]

There is only one problem with agnosticism.....its a fence-sitting position when there is no fence.....sorry. It requires a decision. Jesus said "whoever is not for me, is against me"...seems pretty simple...."I dunno" is obviously not a valid position.

"I dunno" is a perfectly valid position in situations where one doesn't know.

 

[Valjean]

What evidence do you need that I don't? I didn't have to make anything up. I can see with my own eyes that material creation didn't just pop up out of nowhere and that what exists on earth is too well designed not to have a designer....too well programmed not to have programmer.

Ignorance of mechanism is not evidence for magic. Complexity is not evidence of intentional design.

You see, the atheists among us just don't get it....and probably never will, because it requires an invitation from the Creator to get to know him in the first place. You guys have already said to God, "we don't need you, and we don't want to have anything to do with you...we'd be happy if you just go away!"......

We said no such thing. We reserve judgement pending evidence, just as we do for unicorns, faeries and Bigfoot.

You need evidence? No amount of evidence would convince you anyway. You'd just explain it all away as something "nature" did...all by itself.

Where do you come up with these absurd conclusions? We follow the evidence, whether we like it or not. So far, we've seen no evidence for any unnatural phenomena.

What if God is the "natural" explanation for everything....and atheists just don't want to see it?

We don't "want" any particular outcome, we just want the truth, and following the evidence is the most reasonable way to discern it. If convincing evidence for God emerges, He would simply take His place as another "natural" phenomenon.

The undecided are the agnostics.....not convinced one way or another. But so many who identify as agnostics are actually full blown atheists...they don't like to come out and say so, just in case there is a God and he is listening....kind of an each way bet.....except that it doesn't work like that.

How are you defining "full blown atheist?"
There are various flavors of atheist, usually distinguished with qualifiers like "weak" or "strong," With no qualifier, "atheism" is reduced to its lowest common denominator; to the single, definitive feature common to all varieties: lack of belief.

God is actually allowing us to choose where we want to spend eternity......with him or not. They are the only two choices. No one is making anything up because its all recorded in a book that has survived for thousands of years despite every attempt to destroy it...the same message for a different audience.

But this is unevidenced mythology. You're positing God as an axiomatic major premise. You can't use the conclusion as a premise supporting that conclusion.
"Recorded in a book" is not evidence. The Bible is one of many books of religion and mythology, and it isn't the oldest. What makes it authoritative?

 

[usfan]

It's just a simple you can't acknowledge something that isn't there.
There's nothing fallacious about being straightforward.

Something is there.

Humans have agonized over the Big Questions for millennia. There are forums dedicated to this cosmic mystery. Beliefs abound, and speculations, plausible scenarios, and guesses fill the landscape.

SOMETHING gnaws at the innermost psyche, soul, mind, or primal awareness of us humans. The majority of human beings, for ALL of human history, have 'felt', 'known', 'perceived', or sensed this Something. Only a small, militant, vocal, hostile minority, ALL products of state ideological Indoctrination, deny this primal human perception.

..their senses filled with man made distractions, their hapless souls pounded with anti-God propaganda from infancy; eyes, ears, and thoughts filled with human centered, self absorbed devotion.. It is no wonder the still, small voice of God is drowned out, amidst the carnival atmosphere of self worship.

It is folly.. madness and folly.. to close one's innermost being to Divine Possibility. There are times in everyone's life, when the Hand of God intervenes in our mundane, self absorbed existence, and urges us to rise to the heavens, opening our eyes to Spiritual Reality.

Only a fool would willfully ignore that Drawing.

That is the choice before us:
Respond to the innermost Call of God, or ignore Him, and fill our senses with distractions, self justification, madness, and folly.

What would it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul? What would YOU give, in exchange for your soul?

 

[usfan]

i know that atheism is often portrayed as a dour, grumpy philosophy, devoid of hope, meaning, & humor. But i find issue with that caricature, & see no reason why we cannot be good natured in our examination of one of the fastest growing beliefs in the world.

My premise is that there is some folly in atheism. It is a normal, human kind of folly, that is common to man. Here are a few points of 'folly', in the belief of 'no God'.

• Redefine Science. Among many atheists, especially the militant ones, a common theme is, 'Theists have religion, atheists have science!'. This is fundamentally flawed on many levels. 1. Science is indifferent to worldviews, & only provides facts or evidence for a belief system. 2. There are NO scientific facts or evidence that compels an atheistic worldview. Naturalism is a belief, & is not a proven concept, scientifically. It is not even a good theory of origins, but is filled with assumptions, flaws, & logical fallacies.
• Presumption of Omniscience. This is another logical flaw in the Atheistic worldview. When the atheist declares, 'There is no God', he is asserting that he knows all the mysteries in the universe, inhabits infinity & eternity, & has all knowledge. It is a statement of divine omniscience. But this is absurd. How can any human being claim to have all knowledge about everything, & categorically declare anything like this?
• Indoctrination. Naturalism has become the state religion. It is promoted in national parks, public media, entertainment, schools, universities, & driven into impressionable children from infancy. Movies are filled with sci-fi imaginings of evolution. The media, entertainers, celebrities, govt leaders... everyone of influence & status present a unified front of naturalistic origins. Even if it is blended with some nostalgic references to a deity, there is NEVER any question of the implications, the narrative, or the ideology.
• Orwellian Newspeak. This is the irrational logophobia that seems to be common with many atheists. It takes several forms, but it's roots are in definitional dodges, or redefined terms. Many will not use the word, 'belief' to describe their world view, as it implies a mere opinion, rather than Absolute Fact. But this ignores reality. Any of the beliefs about the nature of the universe, and the supernatural (or not) are ALL BELIEFS. Masking that in techno babble or newspeak changes nothing.
• All or Nothing. This is the fallacy that if you believe in ONE supernatural entity or event, you must believe in all of them. And, if you doubt the existence of fairies, for example, you must doubt the existence of all supernatural entities. This is flawed on the surface, as there are many things we differentiate between in our worldview, distinguishing valid beliefs from those we disbelieve.
• Rabid Dogmatism. This is the attempt to put more weight on a belief by extreme insistence, or dogmatism about the belief. By insisting that MY VIEW is Absolute Truth, and not merely a belief, like other's have, MY BELIEF has more substance. But this is not 'strong', or 'gnostic' belief, just human dogmatism. This is very common with all philosophical beliefs & opinions.

What it comes down to, is that atheists are human, with the same foibles, biases, and dogmatism as any other human belief. Welcome to the human race..

And even though i said 'race!', its not really a competition. We do not need to battle each other for ideological supremacy, but can live in freedom and tolerance. Unfortunately, progressive ideology does not promote tolerance and freedom, but forced homogeneity.

 

[osgart]

Something is there.

Humans have agonized over the Big Questions for millennia. There are forums dedicated to this cosmic mystery. Beliefs abound, and speculations, plausible scenarios, and guesses fill the landscape.

SOMETHING gnaws at the innermost psyche, soul, mind, or primal awareness of us humans. The majority of human beings, for ALL of human history, have 'felt', 'known', 'perceived', or sensed this Something. Only a small, militant, vocal, hostile minority, ALL products of state ideological Indoctrination, deny this primal human perception.

..their senses filled with man made distractions, their hapless souls pounded with anti-God propaganda from infancy; eyes, ears, and thoughts filled with human centered, self absorbed devotion.. It is no wonder the still, small voice of God is drowned out, amidst the carnival atmosphere of self worship.

It is folly.. madness and folly.. to close one's innermost being to Divine Possibility. There are times in everyone's life, when the Hand of God intervenes in our mundane, self absorbed existence, and urges us to rise to the heavens, opening our eyes to Spiritual Reality.

Only a fool would willfully ignore that Drawing.

That is the choice before us:
Respond to the innermost Call of God, or ignore Him, and fill our senses with distractions, self justification, madness, and folly.

What would it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul? What would YOU give, in exchange for your soul?

If God is too holy to be in our presence then there would have to be another, obvious way in order for us humans to fulfill a belief requirement.

Since there is no obvious way to God i would consider belief unimportant.

Why would belief, or any intellectual commitment matter so much when nature itself is so indifferent, wild and violent?

What if non believers are being honest in their disbelief?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Something is there.

Humans have agonized over the Big Questions for millennia. There are forums dedicated to this cosmic mystery. Beliefs abound, and speculations, plausible scenarios, and guesses fill the landscape.

SOMETHING gnaws at the innermost psyche, soul, mind, or primal awareness of us humans. The majority of human beings, for ALL of human history, have 'felt', 'known', 'perceived', or sensed this Something. Only a small, militant, vocal, hostile minority, ALL products of state ideological Indoctrination, deny this primal human perception.

..their senses filled with man made distractions, their hapless souls pounded with anti-God propaganda from infancy; eyes, ears, and thoughts filled with human centered, self absorbed devotion.. It is no wonder the still, small voice of God is drowned out, amidst the carnival atmosphere of self worship.

It is folly.. madness and folly.. to close one's innermost being to Divine Possibility. There are times in everyone's life, when the Hand of God intervenes in our mundane, self absorbed existence, and urges us to rise to the heavens, opening our eyes to Spiritual Reality.

Only a fool would willfully ignore that Drawing.

That is the choice before us:
Respond to the innermost Call of God, or ignore Him, and fill our senses with distractions, self justification, madness, and folly.

What would it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul? What would YOU give, in exchange for your soul?

My standard of believability isn't that low anymore. It has since gone much higher.

Subjectiveness doesn't do much, any more than a bout of paranoia.

The bottom line for those with higher standards of believability, is you just can't acknowledge something/anything that isn't actually there.

That includes god's, souls, and everything else that falls within the realm of one's mental volition.

 

[Valjean]

If the author of the universe cared what we thought about Him I'm sure He could make his presence clear to us.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Something is there.

Humans have agonized over the Big Questions for millennia. There are forums dedicated to this cosmic mystery. Beliefs abound, and speculations, plausible scenarios, and guesses fill the landscape.

SOMETHING gnaws at the innermost psyche, soul, mind, or primal awareness of us humans. The majority of human beings, for ALL of human history, have 'felt', 'known', 'perceived', or sensed this Something. Only a small, militant, vocal, hostile minority, ALL products of state ideological Indoctrination, deny this primal human perception.

..their senses filled with man made distractions, their hapless souls pounded with anti-God propaganda from infancy; eyes, ears, and thoughts filled with human centered, self absorbed devotion.. It is no wonder the still, small voice of God is drowned out, amidst the carnival atmosphere of self worship.

It is folly.. madness and folly.. to close one's innermost being to Divine Possibility. There are times in everyone's life, when the Hand of God intervenes in our mundane, self absorbed existence, and urges us to rise to the heavens, opening our eyes to Spiritual Reality.

Only a fool would willfully ignore that Drawing.

That is the choice before us:
Respond to the innermost Call of God, or ignore Him, and fill our senses with distractions, self justification, madness, and folly.

What would it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul? What would YOU give, in exchange for your soul?

Or, y'know, you could just be wrong and the atheists have a point?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

You don't even pay attention, do you?

My initial post was about how fictitious any of the claims surrounding God are when contrasted with what we know and can witness/evidence of the world around us.

All those "gods" I mentioned were a joke... fabrications that I had made-up on the spot. And THEREIN LIES THE ULTIMATE IRONY! You seem to have actually thought I was listing real, plausible gods worshiped by someone else. Do you see now how ridiculous it all is? When one can't even tell the difference between a "real" god claim and a simple, imaginative fiction? Thank you for displaying my point with a short burst of the most amazing, flying colors! You truly are a credit to atheists everywhere, my friend. Well done.

 

[usfan]

If God is too holy to be in our presence then there would have to be another, obvious way in order for us humans to fulfill a belief requirement.

Since there is no obvious way to God i would consider belief unimportant.

Why would belief, or any intellectual commitment matter so much when nature itself is so indifferent, wild and violent?

What if non believers are being honest in their disbelief?

1. Why would 'belief' in God make a difference? Mental assent to a Divine Reality does not seem consequential. 'The devil believes, and trembles'.
2. Perhaps God HAS provided a Way for our reconciliation?
3. Honesty is essential, in any interaction with the Divine. Bluff, posturing, and pretense will not fool the Omniscient Creator of the universe.

IMO, 'belief!' has become a trivialized and corrupted term, to describe a vehicle for approaching God. How would mental assent, for the existence of God be meritorious? Do we perceive God as an insecure, worried Being, pacing about, wringing His hands wishing people would believe in Him? That is an absurd caricature, of the Almighty Creator.

No, 'belief' is much deeper, and the term has lost its intent, replaced by the caricature.

All that aside, it comes down to each of us responding to the inner 'Draw' of God. Will we respond to that cosmic attraction, or distract ourselves with noise and materialism, and risk infinite loss?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You don't know what Gnostic means.

A Gnostic Atheist would believe that, for instance, Yahweh is real but he is not the real god and there is no god that actually created the universe.

That would be an example of actual Gnostic Atheism.


You mean to call it "strong-atheism".

Obviously we differ in our definitions. Because even after your "correction", I still believe strongly that you are wrong, and I am the one between us using the term correctly. "Gnostic" DOES NOT mean knowledge specifically about "gods." Not at all. Here is the definition of "gnostic" that I am using:

gnostic - adjective

1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

Here we can see that the first entry doesn't even mention anything about "god" - only knowledge, and that the second entry mentions only "spiritual matters" preceded by the qualifier "especially" - which implies "not always."

And besides, your claim is specifically that "gnostic" pertains to knowledge that god necessarily exists. But within the definition I am using, one only need have or claim definitive knowledge "of spiritual matters," Which does not necessarily mean that the knowledge is about something you believe/think exists. It could very well be that you claim knowledge about spiritual matters saying you know that something spiritual "doesn't exist."

And there we have it - "gnostic" imparts having/claiming concrete knowledge, and "atheist" imparts nonbelief in god. So a "gnostic atheist", from my perspective, is one who claims that their nonbelief in God is rooted in knowledge that there is no god to be believed.

And finally, what I meant by the term was a person who believes that they KNOW that no gods exist. That's what I meant. What you want to pretend I necessarily meant is irrelevant. If you can - go find me a definition of "gnostic" that necessarily has as its basest of components a positive belief in a god's existence. I have a feeling you'll be looking for quite a while, so good luck.

 

[usfan]

My standard of believability isn't that low anymore. It has since gone much higher.
Subjectiveness doesn't do much, any more than a bout of paranoia.
The bottom line for those with higher standards of believability, is you just can't acknowledge something/anything that isn't actually there.
That includes god's, souls, and everything else that falls within the realm of one's mental volition.

I have no problem with this. Blind faith would not seem meritorious, for an unseen, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creature of the universe. To ascribe petty human emotions to such a Being seems to be the height of anthropomorphic projection.

But one would not logically expect to discover Spiritual Reality, or the Meaning of life, with ears full of distractions, deception, and Indoctrination. There would needs be some kind of vehicle to transport us to a spiritual, God-aware condition. The profane cannot be expected to reveal the Sublime.

A receptive, perceptive condition would be expected, to approach the metaphysical. Wallowing in the noise and commotion of materialism only deadens that ability.

 

[Mudramoksha]

Obviously we differ in our definitions. Because even after your "correction", I still believe strongly that you are wrong, and I am the one between us using the term correctly. "Gnostic" DOES NOT mean knowledge specifically about "gods."

Then why use the term "Gnostic Atheist" when it is entirely incorrect, just use "Strong-Atheist" and call it a day.

And besides, your claim is specifically that "gnostic" pertains to knowledge that god necessarily exists. But the within the definition I am using, one only need to have or claim definitive knowledge "of spiritual matters," Which does not necessarily mean that the knowledge is about something you believe/think exists. It could very well be that you claim knowledge about spiritual matters saying you know that something spiritual "doesn't exist."

It's of spiritual experience, of the transcendent type, to be more semantically true. To be Gnostic is to actually commune with the divine, call it God or Brahman, whatever. Being an Atheist requires the rejection of such knowledge entirely.

And there we have it - "gnostic" imparts having/claiming concrete knowledge, and "atheist" imparts nonbelief in god. So a "gnostic atheist", from my perspective, is one who claims that their nonbelief in God is rooted in the knowledge that the existence of God cannot be believed.

Again, this is blatantly contradicting itself. This Gnosis is not physical or material knowledge, it is direct transcendent knowledge. If you're an atheist, then you clearly believe there is nothing to transcend and nothing to learn that is far beyond this realm of existence.

And finally, what I meant by the term was a person who believes that they KNOW that no gods exist.

From what? materialism? You can't experience void of fullness, being Gnostic does not work that way.

go find me a definition of "gnostic" that necessarily has as its basest of components a positive belief in a god's existence. I have a feeling you'll be looking for quite a while, so good luck.

What is Gnosis?

Aside from the phenomenon only this year of Atheists trying to shoehorn the word "Gnostic" into the conversation to be a polar of "Agnostic". The words "Gnostic" and "Gnosis" have always historically had a very particular association and context, and still do today.
You've got to use the words given to you by your own, such as the commonly used:

"Strong Atheist"
"Hard Atheist"
"Strong Theist"
"Hard Theist"

Gnostic

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Then why use the term "Gnostic Atheist" when it is entirely incorrect, just use "Strong-Atheist" and call it a day.



It's of spiritual experience, of the transcendent type, to be more semantically true. To be Gnostic is to actually commune with the divine, call it God or Brahman, whatever. Being an Atheist requires the rejection of such knowledge entirely.



Again, this is blatantly contradicting itself. This Gnosis is not physical or material knowledge, it is direct transcendent knowledge. If you're an atheist, then you clearly believe there is nothing to transcend and nothing to learn that is far beyond this realm of existence.



From what? materialism? You can't experience void of fullness, being Gnostic does not work that way.



What is Gnosis?

Aside from the phenomenon only this year of Atheists trying to shoehorn the word "Gnostic" into the conversation to be a polar of "Agnostic". The words "Gnostic" and "Gnosis" have always historically had a very particular association and context, and still do today.
You've got to use the words given to you by your own, such as the commonly used:

"Strong Atheist"
"Hard Atheist"
"Strong Theist"
"Hard Theist"

Gnostic

Your confusion is between the word "gnostic" (lower-case "g" and an adjective!) and the category of people labeled "Gnostics" (proper noun). YOU are still the one confused here.

 

[Mudramoksha]

Your confusion is between the word "gnostic" (lower-case "g" and an adjective!) and the category of people labeled "Gnostics" (proper noun). YOU are still the one confused here.

Nope, "Gnostic", period. No confusion. You're the one here who just uses words without knowing their meanings or history. Learn some more and then we will talk

 

[Mudramoksha]

category of people

A person who is a Gnostic, doesn't have to associate with any group of people or any religion. It is a knowledge that transcends religion(s), it's the point of a Gnostic.

Whether someone follows a form of GnosticISM is a different topic entirely.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

You meant "Strong Atheist" and that's the point I'll end on

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I do not think you would like it if God put in an appearance.

Indeed. The god you believe in is nothing short of a Monster. You would be correct.

However-- the existence of obvious Progress, generally among Humans? Is absolute proof that your god isn't real.