What is the most common mistake that atheists make?

[Reflex]

The most common mistake atheists make most absolutely is a category mistake. Another mistake they commonly make while in the process making the category mistake is invoking scientism without realizing it.

 

[outhouse]

The most common mistake atheists make most absolutely is a category mistake.

because all theist worship the same exact category of god as you?

 

[outhouse]

Another mistake they commonly make while in the process making the category mistake is invoking scientism without realizing it.

Most of the time scientism is used is by certain theist who do not like truth and often rely on one fallacy after another.

Oh wait! that is exactly what academia says too.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to religious criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'".[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

[McBell]

The most common mistake that atheists make is a category mistake. They mistakenly believe that polytheistic deities belong to the same ontological frame of reference as the monotheistic Deity. This category mistake is made in a variety of (inane) arguments that atheists commonly make. For instance, atheists often argue that atheism is simply believing in one less god than you do. But this is a category mistake. Polytheistic deities (if they do exist) are celestial beings that belong to the same ontological level that angels do; they do not belong to the same ontological level that the monotheistic Deity does.

So basically, you dislike when people who do not know the difference between granny apples and smith apples say they dislike apples?

 

[Valjean]

Salinger said: ↑
The most common mistake that atheists make is a category mistake. They mistakenly believe that polytheistic deities belong to the same ontological frame of reference as the monotheistic Deity

Hard to believe this non-argument has gone on for 40 posts.
Atheists do not believe in polytheistic deities. They don't believe in monotheistic deities. They don't believe in deities at all. They very concept of deities rarely, if ever, enters their minds.

If I claimed Salinger's belief that solid color unicorns belonged to a different ontological frame of reference than striped unicorns was a category mistake, would that make any sense? Would it be a controversy worthy of a 40 post thread?

 

[George-ananda]

What is the most common mistake that atheists make?

I would say the most common mistake is thinking that criticism of the Bible and the Abrahamic God concept are sufficient reasons for atheism.

 

[prometheus11]

Really?

I've never witnessed an atheist satisfied with his stance based on that criterion. I've only witnessed atheists who argued for not having enough reasons to believe in gods as a concept.

 

[Reflex]

How's this for a common mistake atheists make?

“Because the law of gravity and the quantum vacuum exist, therefore, the universe will create itself from nothing.” This is the central argument in Hawking and Mlodinow’s book, The Grand Design and is the same argument being used by atheists in this forum.

Pretty neat, huh?

Translated into a simpler, logical format it reads: “Because something and something else exists, therefore, some other thing will create itself from nothing.”

 

[Reflex]

Hard to believe this non-argument has gone on for 40 posts.
Atheists do not believe in polytheistic deities. They don't believe in monotheistic deities. They don't believe in deities at all. They very concept of deities rarely, if ever, enters their minds.

If I claimed Salinger's belief that solid color unicorns belonged to a different ontological frame of reference than striped unicorns was a category mistake, would that make any sense? Would it be a controversy worthy of a 40 post thread?

That, my dear Valjean, is a classic example of a category mistake.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is the most common mistake that atheists make?

I would say the most common mistake is thinking that criticism of the Bible and the Abrahamic God concept are sufficient reasons for atheism.

I've never heard that argument made by any atheist I know.
What is common though, is noticing the problems (historical, scientific, moral) with the Bible.
This has inspired many to leave the faith.
A great many atheists I know left Catholicism.....a major source of atheists.

 

[prometheus11]

How's this for a common mistake atheists make?

“Because the law of gravity and the quantum vacuum exist, therefore, the universe will create itself from nothing.” This is the central argument in Hawking and Mlodinow’s book, The Grand Design and is the same argument being used by atheists in this forum.

Pretty neat, huh?

Translated into a simpler, logical format it reads: “Because something and something else exists, therefore, some other thing will create itself from nothing.”

Even without reading the book, it's obvious that your strawman analysis is incorrect. The universe isnt creating itself out of nothing, if it's arising from the quantum vacuum and gravity.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is the most common mistake that atheists make?

I would say the most common mistake is thinking that criticism of the Bible and the Abrahamic God concept are sufficient reasons for atheism.

Criticism certainly isn't a "reason", I feel that criticism is just one of the tools atheists use to attempt to get others to question. By the time someone is employing those types of tools, that person has likely already reached the ultimate conclusion of their belief - that it is all just hogwash. It's not as if the well of "criticism" suddenly drying up would cause most atheists to immediately convert to some deity-centric belief system. Even you can appreciate that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

“Because the law of gravity and the quantum vacuum exist, therefore, the universe will create itself from nothing.” This is the central argument in Hawking and Mlodinow’s book, The Grand Design and is the same argument being used by atheists in this forum.

Pretty neat, huh?

Being "atheist" myself (in that I lack any belief in the existence of deities), I would never assert this. You know what I would assert, however? I would assert that I am completely fine with not knowing how the universe was created. I'm fine without "facts", fine without making up stories, fine without lies. We can keep looking for answers, sure - but am I going to lament not knowing? No. Especially not to any point that I begin believing in fantasies to satisfy my desire for being able to impress others with how much I "know". Saying you "know" is a joke. And not of the funny variety.

 

[Reflex]

Being "atheist" myself (in that I lack any belief in the existence of deities), I would never assert this. You know what I would assert, however? I would assert that I am completely fine with not knowing how the universe was created. I'm fine without "facts", fine without making up stories, fine without lies. We can keep looking for answers, sure - but am I going to lament not knowing? No. Especially not to any point that I begin believing in fantasies to satisfy my desire for being able to impress others with how much I "know". Saying you "know" is a joke. And not of the funny variety.

From another thread: Ah, yes. The famous "I dunno" argument -- mere chatter designed to circumvent the discomfort in considering the actual question, or to escape having to dispense with the understandably irritating task of justifying one’s beliefs. That does not change the fact that agnosticism is a meaningless epistemic state. The only mindset that can possibly justify agnosticism, as the word suggests, is one of absolute ignorance. Dogs are agnostic. Humans merely pretend to be.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

From another thread: Ah, yes. The famous "I dunno" argument -- mere chatter designed to circumvent the discomfort in considering the actual question, or to escape having to dispense with the understandably irritating task of justifying one’s beliefs. That does not change the fact that agnosticism is a meaningless epistemic state. The only mindset that can possibly justify agnosticism, as the word suggests, is one of absolute ignorance. Dogs are agnostic. Humans merely pretend to be.

Give me a break. You couldn't insult me (nor my intelligence) if you tried.

 

[prometheus11]

Reflex has me on "ignore" because he didn't like me admitting that science doesn't know everything. Somewhat odd considering most believers appreciate that honesty.

 

[Reflex]

Reflex has me on "ignore" because he didn't like me admitting that science doesn't know everything. Somewhat odd considering most believers appreciate that honesty.

That is a lie--and you know it.

 

[prometheus11]

That is a lie--and you know it.

Post #1493 on the thread "Is God's Existence Necessary"

Your post to me.

Care to explain your lie?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Post #1493 on the thread "Is God's Existence Necessary"

Your post to me.

Care to explain your lie?

I can explain it - he certainly doesn't want to ignore you - he's too much of a glutton for drama. You can tell he thrives on insulting people and pretending he "won" arguments with them. There are plenty of believers I know who would look at his brand of writing/responding and immediately feel the need to "forgive" him his transgressions on behalf of all believers. He's a textual train-wreck.

 

[George-ananda]

I've never heard that argument made by any atheist I know.

Hmm. You say you never heard that argument then you go on below to pretty much make the argument.

What is common though, is noticing the problems (historical, scientific, moral) with the Bible.
This has inspired many to leave the faith.
A great many atheists I know left Catholicism.....a major source of atheists.