Topic: The Treadmill of Atheism (Read 7058 times)

I am really sorry that I stopped receiving emails that this thread was still alive and thriving and have lost a lot of ground in this conversation.  I reviewed a couple pages since my last involvement and wanted to throw my hat in. 

I have been doing a lot of watching of Sam Harris and the old Hitchens material and that, not so much for the content as the structure of the conversation.  Hitchens was very witty and very able to tear down his opponent in a linguistic majesty that few will be able to rival, as well as keep the conversation structured and to the point.  Harris I find is often trapped by his opponents deviating the conversation into meaningless banter over nothing.  Something very common I find about his exchanges with theists or even other Atheists (see the Young Turks interview last month) is that it becomes a discussion of whether or not Islam or Christianity would be better had one or the other been real.  I think this conversation is going in a similar manner.

When I was reviewing the content (and I apologize for re hashing old convo) I saw someone referencing the dictionary definitions of atheist and agnostic and I just want to throw in my opinion that this was a tremendous and unfortunate deviation from any substantive conversation.  A simple review of the etymology of the word will reveal it's relevant meaning (the root form of the word was Greek, meaning "godless, ungodly, unruly" but it is not relevant history to the meaning applied here) was derived from the early English church, and was initially not even a term used to describe a person, but rather was more of a pejorative.  My point is, bickering over a word made up by the church is as frivolous as going to the Bible for your source of "facts" to back up your arguments. 

From my perspective anyone who wants to engage in this debate has to answer these three questions.  Again I apologize if these have come up already, but I am here now and (hopefully) will keep up this time. 

1) The basis of belief for all religions, particularly the Abrahamic traditions, is that God made man intentionally inferior to Himself and His lot in Heaven, only to debase us and further punish us for acting exactly the way he made us to be.  This fact is masqueraded by the "Free Will gift" bestowed upon us by God, (which, by the way, ever other human and otherwise creature on this planet seems to have outside the purview of God, but that is never mentioned) and any faults on our part are blamed on this "gift" that we cannot cope with, and not in any way relative to the way God made us.  Question: Why should we have to worship someone who intentionally made us inferior to him and also imposed laws upon us that we would never be able to fulfill due to the way He made us. 

2) My wife constantly reminds me that omission is as much a lie as a lie itself.  In the garden of Eden, when God refuses knowledge to humanity, is he not engaging in an act of deception about the true nature of reality?  It seems to me that the Serpent didn't deceive anyone, but only revealed Truth to man.  If God is so omniscient and almighty, surly He should have known the nature of His creation and thought better of putting this tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden?

3) The main tenant of Christianity is that God sent His "only begotten Son" to Earth to die on the cross "for our sins".  Is it really something worthy of worship that, knowing exactly how it would play out, God sent Jesus, who at some point also knew fully what was going to happen?  Jesus eventually died only to go to Heaven and live happily ever after until the End Times when He comes back like a super hero and wipes the slate of humanity clean and starts over fresh with the short list of good boys and girls in New Jerusalem.  How come literally none of the going-ons in the New Testament are mentioned literally anywhere else from that time?  No clay pots expounding the miracles of Jesus healing blind and diseased people and raising people from the dead...especially in a time where everything found its way onto a piece of parchment or clay tablet or something.  There is literally nothing to substantiate anything in the Bible, but most curiously this miracle birth occurs, and then nothing for years, and then the temple teaching as a boy, and then nothing, and then three years of preaching and miracles and now nothing again.  I mean literally nothing that even made it into the Bible was written within 50 years of the supposed events taking place.  Arguably a century.  How do you account for this utter lack of interest in such a miraculous fellow?

Sorry I know that last part was actually two questions, but it should give you enough to chew on without having to lower yourself to my inability to account for my questions...

While I agree with most of your assertions I do take argument with one of your points...
We know which lake the Loch Ness monster supposedly lives in. Which lake do we look for evidence of God in? You are assuming we even have a frame of reference for the search to begin with when there is literally zero evidence.

If you think that the theory of evolution cannot explain the diversity of life on Earth then you have not understood it properly. It explains this very well, that is why it is so popular. Of course it doesn't prove it 100% - logically nothing can prove anything with absolute certainty.


Please stop with this "atheism is a religion" nonsense. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It could be described as an ideology I suppose, and there are certain archaic definitions of religion that it may fit, but it abso-fucking-lutely does not come under the modern definition of "Religion".

I don't want to argue about the semantics, but when people say "Religion", they're implying that a supernatural god exists. They also tend to imply that there exists a moral code which is in line with the supernatural god's wishes, amongst other unprovable, supernatural beliefs. Atheists are simply rejecting that ideology. ALthough it could be argued that they adhere to an "organized system of beliefs", this does not make atheism a religion in the general sense of the word.

I don't quite know what you mean by "high priests called scientists" and "a god of self".

But seriously, think about it. Are people who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster part of a religion? They adhere to an organized system of beliefs, such as "I believe that the lake is too small and does not contain enough prey to sustain such a huge creature", or "If the monster existed, then some good video footage would have been taken by now." Does that make anyone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster (or my flying huskies mentioned earlier) religious? No.

While atheism has similarities with religion, it is by the general definition not an actual religion.

If there is evidence, you have shown none. But i don't think that you can find one, since you seem adamant in asserting a small god, made by small minds. Your refusal of basic science (see the above fallacious sentence. Protip: calculate the numbers in entropy, then compare the numbers gained by hydrogen fusion in the sun to the entropy lost by all of Earth's life and its complexity. Divide by area and you won't scratch the orders of magnitude) shows this, but the polished rethoric makes it likely that you know that. What kind of god would demand his adherents to close their eyes and minds to the universe for fear of disrupting some words in a book? The minds and eyes, that according to your faith should be part of creation?

And because it is an organized system of beliefs, having high priests called scientists, and a god of self (because atheists claim they are the ones who are right), Atheism is a religion, and the word should be capitalized.

Rejecting that a light bulb is off is by definition a proclamation that it is not on. Your conclusion is by definition at the exclusion of the opposing view point. You are now taking quite wide liberties with definitions of words and sentence structure of the English language, even contradicting your own statements. Your conclusion with complete lack of evidence is not substantiated. I understand your argument for burden of proof, but THAT EQUALLY APPLIES TO YOUR STANCE. Your premise is God does not exist. I argue you can not possibly have evidence for this. You claim you need no proof because it is self evident (sound like theists much?) As a person with no stake in either argument, I am quite comfortable pointing out your circular logic in this regard.

That is some quite impressive mental gymnastics you are doing there to justify your bias. Saying you reject something "on the principal that it is baseless" is not the same as actually stating an actual principal. If that is your standard of evidence we could sit here making conclusions ALL DAY about things we couldn't possibly have a clue about, and just chock up any doubts to being wrong because they are "baseless", even though there is no evidence one way or the other. Do aliens exist? Yes? No? How would we even begin to know? Making conclusions SOLELY on the lack of evidence is flawed and a fallacy.

I completely reject the first statement here because it is nothing but back flips with a complete lack of sense or logic. This is you again offering a false dichotomy stating what you wish a definition of words were, not what they actually are. You are confusing evidence for having a belief, with the ability to have a belief, as if you can not make a conclusion that is a belief unless belief alone is your only motivation. BTW, tell me, how does one reject an idea on the grounds of opposing it? That is not evidence, or even logic. That is basically you saying you reject it because you reject it.

Lack of evidence + conclusion = belief
Atheism BY DEFINITION is a belief.

ATHEISM:
Full Definition of ATHEIST
:  one who believes that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Origin

late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

All right. So we can't prove that God exists, or that He doesn't exist.

The evidence in favor of God is far greater than anything else that makes sense.

There is nothing (certainly not evolution) that can explain the diversity of life on earth along with the complexity of the universe.

The laws of probability along with the apparent entropy show that evolution is absolutely impossible with finality in any way we can formulate it.

The things that evolution scientists are interpreting as evolution are simply a form of complex programming.

The point is, Whomever or Whatever programmed this whole thing, is, by definition of the word, God. And He/She/It isn't simply God, but rather GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY, shown simply because of how great His creation is!

Your logic is flawed. What you are proposing is a logical fallacy called anArgument from Ignorance. This is basically the whole "Russel's Teapot"/"Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument. Although you are correct in saying that there isn't any proof that god does NOT exist, this doesn't make each side of the argument equally valid.

If this was the case then anyone could say anything at all, and then could claim that what they said was true because it can't be proven false. I could say for instance, that my electric car was powered by a pack of invisible flying huskies, that cannot be detected with any known scientific apparatus. Such a claim would rightly be ridiculed by most people as it lacks any form of evidence, even though it cannot be proven false.

Ask yourself this, and you may be able to see the flaw in your logic: Do you believe every single thing that anyone tells you? If not, why not?

And this is where your insistence that atheism is the polar opposite of theism fails because, infact, it is the rejection of theism, a lack of belief, not the belief towards the opposite.

What you are basing your 'polar opposite' argument on would be Theism v Anti-Theism.

An opposite 'belief' would be a belief based on the same principles as those constructing the theist assertion when, as I keep having to point out to you, atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion on the principle that it is baseless.

An opposite 'belief' would be the belief that there was no God and that belief would have to be the sole factor in the assertion in order to make it the polar opposite of theist belief.

Rejecting an assertion on the basis it is poorly constructed is not the same as rejecting it on the grounds of opposing it.

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF ATHEISM - THE POLAR OPPOSITE OF THEISM
You can have whatever dogmas you like, but you don't get to redefine words sorry.

This would be true if I were trying to argue God exists, but I am not. This is your mistake. I am arguing theists as well as atheists HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE for either argument.

You are the one declaring atheism to be both an assertion that there is no God AND also a belief:


You hold atheism to be asserting "There is no God" without any proof to demonstrate the absence of said deity, leading you to then state that atheism is, therefore, just as much a belief as theism.

I demonstrate that, no, atheism does not require the assertion "There is no God", it merely needs to employ the factual counter to the theist assertion, "There is no evidence to support the claimed existence of God"

No.Evidence.Of.The.Absence.Of.God.Needed.

Then please accept my apologies for assuming you to be a theist although, to be honest, you do debate like one when you keep ignoring the fact that the atheist assertion is not a belief because it doesn't need to offer the polar opposite of the theist position, it simply needs to dismiss the theist assertion on the basis of what is know about the the theist assertion, namely, that it is as baseless as a belief in any mythical character.

You are offering me a false dichotomy under which your argument is fulfilled regardless which one of your artificially limited choices I choose.

1. No, you say I say this. You don't get to speak for me. I never once said atheism is false. I said there is no evidence to support the claim of there being no God.

2. You seem unable to recognise the completely circular logic of your argument.
" the atheists, do not need evidence to prove the non-existence of God because the theist assertion is grossly flawed and lacking any evidence or objectively reasoning." HOW is it flawed? So far your only evidence to me is that there is no evidence. Declaring it illogical is still your opinion, and I am waiting for any additional evidence to support this claim but see none. Your only standard of evidence, is that there is no evidence.

My entire argument consists of this: "There is no proof." No proof for your argument, or for the opposing dialectic of which you assume that I represent.

Oh come on, please, surely you are yanking my chain, nobody could be this determinedly dense and still operate a computer keyboard!

Ok, one last time, let me walk you through it step by step:

1. You say that the atheist assertion is false because it would require evidence against the existence of a God - This I explicitly attribute to you because this is what you state as your position in the debate, yes?

2. I respond that we, the atheists, do not need evidence to prove the non-existence of God because the theist assertion is grossly flawed and lacking any evidence or objectively reasoning. - This is my response to your position, I did not attribute it to you, I responded with it to your argument that atheism was just as unfounded as theism, are you still with me here?

It is akin to asserting the existence of [insert fanciful mythological creature here] by way of "Because I say it exists then it does", and having no evidence to support any aspect of this claim. Would you then require those who reject said claim of the existence of [insert fanciful mythological creature here], to have to come up with actual evidence to prove that said creature didn't exist?

OR,

Would you accept that it is reasonable to reject the assertion on the grounds that it is based on an arbitrary declaration and is lacking any evidence to support it?

I look forward to your answer to this question.

I love how you ASSUME I am a theist because I point out the flaws in your logic, because if I don't agree with you well then OBVIOUSLY I agree with the opposing viewpoint right?

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
I don't have to agree with either position to point out the flaws in your argument.

I am not a fan of anyone atheist/theist who goes around pretending as if they know better than anyone else and telling people what they should believe. You can claim I am "misrepresenting" your argument all day and it doesn't make it reality. What you call me misrepresenting your argument is me pointing out the flaws in your bias application of logic.

You are willing to argue that it is ok to conclude there is no God because there is no evidence. Your point is there is no evidence, therefore a conclusion based on facts is IMPOSSIBLE. Just as theists have zero evidence of the existence of God, you have zero evidence that God does not exist. You are unwilling to apply the same logic to points that you disagree with, and your bias is quite clear for everyone to see no matter how many times you say I am a dishonest theist misrepresenting you.


So you didn't say this and then attribute it to my position? I am pretty sure you did, because I am looking at it right now.

Ah, so if you shout louder than everyone else, that makes it true?

I've already proven god doesn't exist.  That fact you don't understand it shows your lack of intelligence, nothing else.

LOL I do find it amusing when rock-solid objective reasoning meets wet and sloppy theist whining. It's like you lot have an in-built tantrum-trigger whereby you immediately resort to having to ignore the argument you cannot counter by dishonestly claiming flawed reasoning without actually being able to state what that flawed reasoning is. You might as well have finished that by stamping your feet and screaming, "I know you are, but what am I?"


I didn't say you said that. Try wiping the spittle flecks off your monitor and actually reading the assertion clearly.

You claim that, because atheists do not have evidence to prove the absence of a God, the atheist position is equally based on belief and I, correctly, pointed out that there is no need to seek for evidence of the absence of a God if the assertion being made for the existence of a God is baseless.

Come on now, stop being so patently dishonest in this discussion, you're not very good at it and anybody outside the confines of their own theist conditioning can clearly see the difference between the well-reasoned atheist position and your mangling of semantics coupled with blatantly misrepresenting my argument and then arguing against your own forced interpretation of it.

Actually, come to think of it, mangling semantics and forcing your own misrepresentation and interpretation of what has been said is pretty much what theism is all about, isn't it?

Hmm that was a bit too weak lol

Genesis 1:16 Symbolic
The sun is the light that does rule over the day, moon is the light in the night scientifically its reflecting light still more less true

Psalms: Still correct the earths orbit is firmly fixed

Anyways must be better arguments than that

This is a hilarious statement from an Atheist. Thank you for dancing for me and publicly admitting your hypocrisy by arguing against your own point.

P.S. I never said this: "there is absolutely no need to seek evidence of the absence of a God"
I just said you had no evidence. You don't get to speak for me sorry.

No one would "see" that, if they had looked at QM even on the trivial level, much less "in detail", and it's obvious you never did. Bell's inequality is a simple statement, and the experiments have given a simple answer. You might not like it, if you bothered to understand it, but there is no belief neccesary. A theory is vindicated by experiment, not faith and beliefs.

Oh come off it. Anybody who has looked at quantum mechanics in detail sees that QM is a compilation of every idea and theory in every way. It can be used to predict anything, and the opposite of anything.

The real reason for QM is, to give people ideas about the directions in which they want to go. The only other use it might have is to combine the belief of people in a direction - because, as QM suggests, it is the belief/faith of people that causes things to happen - so that the thing that they believe actually comes into existence.

QM is a tool. Mathematics is a tool. They are languages that we use to express the universe to ourselves. And that's okay, as long as we don't start using them to prove all kinds of things that don't exist into existence.

No combined belief of the people is ever going to overcome the believing that God does. People will only find themselves fighting against God.

If someone wants to use QM to prove that there is no pure random, he can do it just the same as he can use it to prove that pure random exists.