The Ignorance of Atheistic Denial of God

[lewisnotmiller]

Dear Lewisnotmiller,

Greetings of Peace. I was still waiting for an answer to my original question but looking over this thread and others, it would seems that despite requests to the contrary that there is no kind of proof that an atheist would consider satisfying. The proof in this case is an active engagement in activities that he or she would not consider worthwhile because of the predisposition toward a negative conclusion. I am reminded of Frithjof Schuon's apt analogy posted elsewhere that it is like "the alphabet has become bankrupt in a class where the pupils are determined not to learn it."

In Peace,
Desmond

Hi Desmond...
As I mentioned in my first post, I wasnt 100% sure what your question was.
Made an attempt to address the key points in the quoted piece, but if you could list your main question (s) based on that, I'm happy to respond.

 

[Stonepillar]

I compare atheists to that of theists who think one specific denomination is detrimental to ones salvation. Ignorant.

 

[LuisDantas]

I compare atheists to that of theists who think obe specific denomination is detrimental to ones salvation. Ignorant.

Excuse me? I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

(An excerpt from James Cutsinger's The Sound of a Lecture Undelivered)

In responding to the opening question tonight, I began by pointing out that it actually included a trinity of related issues all rolled into one, and unless I’m mistaken that’s true as well of the challenge you’ve posed. Your three questions might be expressed in a more or less rhetorical form—though unlike you I’m far from thinking them rhetorical questions. First, isn’t it obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, something weak or childish people use to cope with a world that’s otherwise too harsh to bear? Second, isn’t it true there’s no evidence for the claims of religion? Third, doesn’t it follow that atheism is a more intelligent position than theism?

Let me assure you I can understand where you’re coming from, and frankly I admire your chutzpah in speaking out as you have, though your question is a bit of a tangent to my main theme tonight. In an academic climate that is in many quarters growing less and less hospitable to religious conviction, it’s inevitable that thoughtful people, including believers themselves, would be asking such questions. Obviously a book might be written in answer to each. About all I can do here tonight is provide just a hint—just the briefest of intimations, really—as to where I might start were I authoring these books. My answers, as you probably expected in any case, are no, no, and no.

First of all, no, it’s not obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, or at least it’s not obvious that it’s necessarily so. I add this qualification because I agree that certain forms or levels of belief can be rather childish, as is the faith of the grownup who still thinks God has a beard, or sits on a throne, or exists for the sole purpose of dispensing chocolate. But there’s also such a thing as childish disbelief. In my experience, many atheists haven’t been given all the chocolate they want and are therefore mad at God for not existing. William James’s distinction between the tough- and tender-minded applies to both theists and atheists. In both groups we find people whose perspective on life is based on what they regard as objective facts and good reasons (those are the tough- minded in James’s terms) as well as other people whose perspective is based on purely subjective desires (those are the tender-minded). In any case, it’s important to realize that the sophistical dismissiveness skeptics often employ in debate, which takes the form of saying, “Oh, you just think that because you’re immature, or uneducated, or depressed, or had a dysfunctional family, or are subject to some sort of chemical imbalance”, is a game two can play. Perhaps the atheist is just afraid of commitment or responsibility or being thought a fool by his friends. According to Freud, religion is really just repressed sexuality, but there’s nothing to stop us from countering that sexuality is really just repressed religion.

No again, it isn’t true that there’s no evidence for the claims of religion. The crucial word here, of course, is “evidence”. I’m pretty sure when you use the term you’re thinking exclusively of empirical evidence, and thus buying into the assumptions I was critiquing earlier in responding to my first two interlocutors. Like many people on today’s college campuses, you’re assuming the only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for—and for which we might apply for some grant money!—things we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, either directly through one or more of these five natural senses or indirectly through the mediation of an instrument, like a microscope, that’s been designed to magnify or amplify the reach of those senses. What I’m not sure you’ve noticed, however, is that the statement “The only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for” is not something there is, or could be, any physical evidence for. The claim of the empiricist or positivist is therefore just as metaphysical as the claims of the world’s religions, which he means to deprecate. For he asserts a truth, or in this case a falsehood, about the way things ultimately are, and he does so in a way presupposing some non-empirical, or supersensible, intuition or insight.

Finally, no, atheism is not the more intelligent position. On the contrary, atheism is self-contradictory. Think about it. The atheist says, “There is no God.” Now anyone who says, “There is no _____,” is giving voice to what a logician would call a universal negative proposition, whatever might be placed in that blank. It’s negative because it says “no” and denies something, and it’s universal because the field it encompasses is unlimited. If I said, “There is no platypus in this chapel,” I would also be uttering a negative statement, but it wouldn’t be universal because the context would be restricted to this building, and we could verify, or disconfirm, the truth of my statement by arming everyone in the room with a flashlight, fanning out throughout the building, and engaging in a systematic platypus-hunting exercise. Notice, however, that when atheists say, “There is no God,” they’re not saying, “There’s no God in this chapel,” or “There’s no God in Greenville,” or “There’s no God in our galaxy.” They’re saying, “There is no God anywhere in the entire universe, no God at all wherever one might look throughout the full extent of reality.” But in doing so they’re implying that they’ve done the looking. They’ve carefully inspected all the nooks and crannies of existence, even as we’d need to inspect all the nooks and crannies of this building to know there’s no platypus in it. If however they’ve truly looked everywhere there is to look—if they can honestly say they’re personally acquainted with the full extent of reality—it follows that they must be omniscient. But omniscience is an attribute of God. Therefore, in saying “There is no God,” atheists are implicitly claiming to be God, and thus inevitably contradicting themselves.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you a couple quick questions before moving on. Just nod or shake your head. In my lecture I referred to a number of key authorities on what might be called the “technology” of the spiritual life, and I’m wondering whether you’d ever heard of them. How about Patanjali? No, I didn’t think so. Nicephorus the Solitary? No, again. Maybe Jalal al-Din Rumi? You’re cautiously nodding on this one, so I guess the name rings a bell, probably because of the popularity of his poetry. But have you actually studied his teachings? No. Well, let me ask you this: have you ever tried to concentrate on only one thought, and have you noticed that it’s almost impossible to do so for more than three or four seconds? Yes, good, so that’s a familiar experience. You’re familiar with the fact that your ordinary, day-to-day consciousness is highly undisciplined—in fact, almost completely out of control.

Here’s my point: each of the three sages I mentioned—the first, Patanjali, was the most renowned of all Hindu teachers of yoga; the second, Nicephorus the Solitary, was a Hesychast master of the Christian East; and the third, Jalal al-Din Rumi, was a great Sufi shaykh—each of them taught his students a method for gaining control of their consciousness, for bringing it into a state of stillness or stability that could in turn serve as a portal (I’m tempted to say “as a launching pad”!) to levels, modalities, or dimensions of consciousness ordinarily hidden or dormant, dimensions through which and in which they might come to experience directly the Ultimate Source of All Things.

You wish to have evidence. You want somebody to “show” you God, you said. Very well, these and other great masters, both past and present, are fully prepared to assist. But they’re going to require what any “serious, scientific person” like yourself already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until you’ve done that, I’m sorry to say it’s just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the world’s religions are not verifiable—an ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until you’ve done that, I’m sorry to say it’s just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the world’s religions are not verifiable—an ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites!

Nope nope nope

 

[Stonepillar]

Excuse me? I don't understand what you mean.

Knock off the victimization, and/or the offense you seem to have taken. We both know it's merely an opinion of mine. Remain open minded and I'll explain.

What sets my teeth on edge is when I hear any individual under the tree of Christianity say that a specific denomination is the only and correct path to 'salvation', if you even think such a term should be taken literally. They act like love and grace of an apparent God of love is too shallow to take into consideration the mess we make of religion. The irony to support this is that all religions share similar virtues and truths that are demonstrated differently. We can Even include non theistic religions. If you'd like further details I can explain but for now I'll conpare atheists to the ignorance of such people who claim the above statements in my first two sentences.

Atheism, to me, as a generalization, is a retaliation to religion. It's the effect. Personally, I stand with them because religion is a mess, and it's not needed because as we can see, it's not good for the world as a whole. That cannot be argued. The arguments, however, that they use tying religion to 'God' is what also sets my teeth on edge. It's is NOT a valid argument to support their beliefs. To those atheists specifically, I call ignorance.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism, to me, as a generalization, is a retaliation to religion. It's the effect.

I never retaliated against religion. I was a non-believer before I ever even heard of religion.

Personally, I stand with them because religion is a mess, and it's not needed because as we can see, it's not good for the world as a whole. That cannot be argued. The arguments, however, that they use tying religion to 'God' is what also sets my teeth on edge. It's is NOT a valid argument to support their beliefs. To those atheists specifically, I call ignorance.

I am an atheist because I'm ignorant of any reason to believe otherwise.
Ignorance works for me.
(Btw, I'm an atheist in the speculative sense because one cannot prove there are no gods.)

 

[Sapiens]

I never retaliated against religion. I was a non-believer before I ever even heard of religion.

Same here.

I expected better from Cutsinger that just another piece of stawman BS.

 

[Stonepillar]

I never retaliated against religion. I was a non-believer before I ever even heard of religion.


I am an atheist because I'm ignorant of any reason to believe otherwise.
Ignorance works for me.
(Btw, I'm an atheist in the speculative sense because one cannot prove there are no gods.)

Then what's your grounds? Or are there none?

 

[Stonepillar]

Same here.

I expected better from Cutsinger that just another piece of stawman BS.

And what's your grounds? And I don't appreciate the insult. Especially from an openly ignorant atheist who can easily play as a median to truth and lie.

 

[outhouse]

Knock off the victimization, .

No dude, you did not make any sense at all.

I wasn't going to reply until you clarified your position.

Atheism, to me, as a generalization, is a retaliation to religion

That's fine and dandy.

All though it does not seem to apply to most

now I'll conpare atheists

Compare what you want, but with your hostile attitude, you wont get far.


Do you think your smarter then everyone else to judge people blindly like that?

 

[outhouse]

. Especially from an openly ignorant atheist.

What do you know about religion? or life to make claims like that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then what's your grounds? Or are there none?

My grounds would be the lack of any evidence for gods.
While they're possible, I speculate that there are none.
Tis the same for fairies, ghosts, angels, Santa, etc.
Think of this as more of a perspective than a rigorous logical position.

 

[LuisDantas]

Knock off the victimization, and/or the offense you seem to have taken.

That will have to wait until I read further in your post and get a chance to attain victimization or offense, for I honestly don't see any meaning in your previous post. Was it sent from a smartphone and altered by a spelling corrector of some kind?

We both know it's merely an opinion of mine. Remain open minded and I'll explain.

What sets my teeth on edge is when I hear any individual under the tree of Christianity say that a specific denomination is the only and correct path to 'salvation', if you even think such a term should be taken literally. They act like love and grace of an apparent God of love is too shallow to take into consideration the mess we make of religion. The irony to support this is that all religions share similar virtues and truths that are demonstrated differently.

Many do, but you would have to define what a religion makes before "all" could be considered. This may look like a trivial task, but it really is not.

We can Even include non theistic religions.

"Even"?

If you'd like further details I can explain but for now I'll conpare atheists to the ignorance of such people who claim the above statements in my first two sentences.

Atheism, to me, as a generalization, is a retaliation to religion. It's the effect.

Hardly. The concept, of course, is a reaction to theism (but not to religion). But atheism simply is. It is what exists when theism fails to take hold.

Personally, I stand with them because religion is a mess, and it's not needed because as we can see, it's not good for the world as a whole. That cannot be argued.

Of course it can be argued.

The arguments, however, that they use tying religion to 'God' is what also sets my teeth on edge. It's is NOT a valid argument to support their beliefs. To those atheists specifically, I call ignorance.

This will need some further clarification.

 

[Stonepillar]

No dude, you did not make any sense at all.

I wasn't going to reply until you clarified your position.




That's fine and dandy.

All though it does not seem to apply to most




Compare what you want, but with your hostile attitude, you wont get far.


Do you think your smarter then everyone else to judge people blindly like that?

You, yes, Good sir. I've seen PLENTY of your posts. Im so sorry for coming off as hostile to you, if thats what you think, though I know I wasn't.
I compared the ignorance of both atheists and theists, thats it good sir.

 

[outhouse]

You, yes, Good sir. I've seen PLENTY of your posts. Im so sorry for coming off as hostile to you, if thats what you think, though I know I wasn't.
I compared the ignorance of both atheists and theists, thats it good sir.

Fair enough. I have seen plenty from both.

 

[Stonepillar]

That will have to wait until I read further in your post and get a chance to attain victimization or offense, for I honestly don't see any meaning in your previous post. Was it sent from a smartphone and altered by a spelling corrector of some kind?




Many do, but you would have to define what a religion makes before "all" could be considered. This may look like a trivial task, but it really is not.




"Even"?



Hardly. The concept, of course, is a reaction to theism (but not to religion). But atheism simply is. It is what exists when theism fails to take hold.




Of course it can be argued.




This will need some further clarification.

Idk why you bother breaking apart every single sentence when I prefer that you look at the message as a whole. Im not a writer. Keep it short and simple, please.

From 'speculation', whether it really applies to the few of you on here who disagree or not, it appears as a balance to religion in my perspective, yes. Perhaps I shouldn't of used the word retaliation then. I used the word assuming you guys would take atheism, in the sense I meant to portray it, at a level of bigger proportions. Meaning the general consensus of ALL atheists, its movement, its ideals, etc.

In reference to "even non theistic religions", like Buddhism, you cannot say there are not comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism. From my speculation, especially from a spiritual perspective, they are more similar than even some christian denominations that exist. Had you not read what I wrote per sentence, You may have 'speculated' that. Personally, im rather fond of buddhism, except some things that are just.. to crazy and irrelevant like that of half of christianities denominations

 

[Sapiens]

And what's your grounds? And I don't appreciate the insult. Especially from an openly ignorant atheist who can easily play as a median to truth and lie.

I do not recall either addressing you or insulting you. But I could arrange either ... or both if you so desire.

 

[Stonepillar]

My grounds would be the lack of any evidence for gods.
While they're possible, I speculate that there are none.
Tis the same for fairies, ghosts, angels, Santa, etc.
Think of this as more of a perspective than a rigorous logical position.

Any evidence, Good sir, pertaining to physical ones?

 

[Revoltingest]

Any evidence, Good sir, pertaining to physical ones?

I don't understand the question.
...pertaining to physical gods?

 

[Stonepillar]

I do not recall either addressing you or insulting you. But I could arrange either ... or both if you so desire.

Oh, No, dude. You surely did.
Apparently my thoughts originated from cutsinger, one of hundreds of theologists and philosophers out there both past and present, who you deem pathetic by your post. Need I go further? Or would You rather I ask for you to insult me by your terms?

Whats your grounds?
You never answered my question.