The Folly of Atheism

[ArtieE]

Atheism is a belief in 'no God'

No it isn't. "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities." Not the belief in the non-existence of deities.

Theists believe in some kind of supernatural Entity. Atheists do not. Both are beliefs

I think you must have some trouble with the English language. Theists believe, atheists do NOT. The word NOT describes NO BELIEF.

 

[usfan]

OK... I'm an atheist... can you name four things I need to believe to be an atheist? A "system" requires several beliefs.

1. No belief in the existence of gods.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6. Denial of the obvious.



A 'belief system', or worldview, ideology, or however you define it, is the lens through which you view yourself, others, and the universe. The, 'God vs no God', dichotomy is a central factor in that worldview.

Your list equally applies to any theist.. 4 things?

1. A belief in God and/or the supernatural.
2.
3.
4.

Other factors and/or influences combine into a person's belief system, worldview, ideology, or whatever term you prefer.

 

[usfan]

No it isn't. "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

You can phrase it, and believe however you want.
Everybody believes something.

Why pretend you don't?

 

[ArtieE]

A 'belief system', or worldview, ideology, or however you define it, is the lens through which you view yourself, others, and the universe.

"The belief system of a person or society is the set of beliefs that they have about what is right and wrong and what is true and false."
Belief system definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Now, would you please list five beliefs I need to have in order to qualify as an atheist?!

 

[ArtieE]

You can phrase it, and believe however you want.
Everybody believes something.

Why pretend you don't?

What do I need to believe to qualify as an atheist?! My other beliefs are completely irrelevant!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I want you to see something I believe shows you to be in a pretty straightforward state of cognitive dissonance:

I COMPLETELY recognize belief, as a subjective opinion, based on the influences, information, background, and Indoctrination we have experienced.

Juxtapose the above quote from you with this earlier post (also you):

I've provided a complete thread, dedicated to 'evidence' for God. It is there, for those who seek truth.

See that word "truth" that you used in there? That belies that you do not, at all, recognize your beliefs as "subjective opinion." You've created your own fantasy world. One in which you rationally recognize belief as subjective opinion, but also somehow label your own beliefs as "truth" for everyone (any who seek truth apparently), all while still (supposedly) maintaining your rationality. How does that work exactly?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here's @ArtieE's post:

OK... I'm an atheist... can you name four things I need to believe to be an atheist? A "system" requires several beliefs.

1. No belief in the existence of gods.
2.
3.
4.
5.

And here's your reply:

Your list equally applies to any theist.. 4 things?

1. A belief in God and/or the supernatural.
2.
3.
4.

False. It doesn't, at all, apply to "any theist." There's a reason you used the broad term, "theist", by the way. I know that you understand that. "Theism" is not "A SYSTEM." Not an individual system... you understand that too, I assume?

So, let's try again with the list idea and substitute, instead, "Christianity":
1. A belief in God and/or the supernatural.
2. A belief that Jesus is God's human incarnate son.
3. A belief in "sin"
4. A belief that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected
5. A belief that God has delivered his word to humanity in the form of The Bible
6. Need I go on... ?

So, you see exactly the point being made, and I am pretty sure you knew it all along. Which (if true) would prove you dishonest. Not that I didn't already believe this about you, so it would be no surprise to me - but, quite seriously, I think it may actually come as a surprise to you. See my example of your "cognitive dissonance" just above this post for more clarity on this.

 

[Left Coast]

But that does not mean my criteria is wrong or that my Messengers are wrong (or that their criteria is wrong or that their Messengers are wrong.).

Nor does it mean your criteria are right, obviously. If your criteria and their criteria are contradictory, clearly someone is wrong, if not all of you.

Again, it is not God’s problem, but God does not have problems, since God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining, so God has NO need for our belief nor does it matter to God if we think He is unjust.

If God doesn't care if we believe in him, and he imposes no negative afterlife repercussions on non-believers, okay fine. Then this whole conversation is sorta irrelevant.

That is the ONLY WAY God can communicate to humans, because God is not a man so God cannot talk to humans. That is why God sends Intermediaries.

Trail: that's a self-imposed limitation on God's part, is it not? Is he not all powerful? Did he not create us/the universe? If so, he chose to create a situation to prevent himself from directly communicating with us.

Which for the 8th time, is...absurd, friend. And is 100% his choice and his fault.

I do not have to get an intermediary because I am a human being so I am an intermediary, a messenger for the Messenger so to speak.

So you actually have better communication skills than your own deity. And yet you think your deity created this whole situation by design. Again, that's...say it with me now...

I have no reason to give up my religion, since it is hot off the press, not thousands of years old.

What does the age of a religion have to do with whether you should give it up? It's irrelevant if your religion started 5 minutes ago or 5 millennia ago. You should give up your religion if you dont have rational reasons/strong evidence to believe it's true.

It never ceases to amaze me how illogical people are, but that is what happens when people are emotionally attached to their religions, usually ones they were brought up in.

And your religion is no different in that regard.

God cannot show up on Earth and talk because God is Spirit. That is some kind of fantasy.

Then God is not all-powerful, and yet he chose to create this silly situation where his ability to communicate would be limited to middle men.

My religion did not invent the middlemen. They have always existed, even though other religions do not refer to them that way, how do you think those religions were founded?

Again there's no evidence they've "always" existed. Yes, obviously, religions have founders. As I said before, men claiming they are needed to be mediators of the divine is exactly what one would expect in a godless universe.

I would not call you crazy. I had to do a lot of investigation before I believed that Bahaullah was a Manifestation of God. What you or anyone else should need, according to Baha’u’llah, is to investigate His claim to be a Manifestation of God (Messenger).

Before that, you would need to demonstrate your God exists in the first place.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly.

On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

You just got through telling me you believe there have "always" been divine messengers, even before we have written evidence for them, because Baha'u'llah told you so. How is that not blind faith?

No, I am not saying that is WHY Christianity is large, a process took place that caused the religion to spread.

Yes. The process is called theocracy.

You and all the other atheists. I have been posting on forums 24/7 almost exclusively to atheists for over five years, so I have been listening to protestations regarding God using Messengers for five years. I have explained why God uses Messengers in many different ways, yet I have yet to hear one atheist give me a logical argument as to why God should communicate in some other way, how that would work, or why it would work better than Messengers.

I've already done so, right here. We both have a lifetime of experience seeing that directly communicating with others is the most effective way to do so. As small children we play the game telephone to learn exactly that.

There. Your search is over, Trail! Congrats!

After all these years the only conclusion I have come to us that atheists do not like the idea of Messengers because they think God should speak to them directly, and many atheists even tell me this. Yet when I explain why God does not speak to everyone directly, and why God does not speak to anyone other than His chosen Messengers, what I say is not acceptable.

Of course not, because all you've said is, "well he's spirit, he just can't." Lol, that's not an argument or a rationale, it's just a declaration. And again, God invented the game, which means he's responsible for the rules.

So I have hit a brick wall. However, some of these atheists have become my friends and some of them now say they believe God exists, although they still do not like the idea of Messengers. I feel good that at least they believe God exists because that is the most important thing, IMO.

Believe it or not, this isn't my first rodeo, either. I used to be a theist myself. I've also spent years listening to and talking to people of different faith backgrounds re: their reasons for believing. The more widely and deeply I allowed myself to read and study, the more liberal and nuanced my theological views became, till I realized I had no good reason to believe any of it other than as a kind of metaphor. So, the blinders are off. I can't put them back on again. But I continue to be fascinated by religion and continue considering what religious people have to say and encouraging them to think critically. Which is why I'm here.

 

[usfan]

I want you to see something I believe shows you to be in a pretty straightforward state of cognitive dissonance:

That belies that you do not, at all, recognize your beliefs as "subjective opinion."

... prove you dishonest. Not that I didn't already believe this about you, so it would be no surprise to me - .

Funny thing about some atheists..

They can't debate or discuss concepts, but have to find evil intent, and 'Lying!'.

The topic here is not 'atheists vs Christians!', that some are obsessed with, but a philosophical discussion about atheism as a belief, worldview, ideology, or whatever you want to call it. Some of you guys can't handle simple logic, but have too attack with accusations and ad hominem, focused on a poster and their nefarious motives & agenda.

The question i was 'debating' with Artie was whether atheism is a belief, and you pounce on some 'gotcha!' phrase, and see, 'Liar!' Cognitive Dissonance!' 'Evil Christians!'

Projection? Religious bigotry? Tools for deception? Paranoia? ..i don't know..

..progressive indoctrinees..

 

[usfan]

What do I need to believe to qualify as an atheist?! My other beliefs are completely irrelevant!

Easy. 'No God'

Your other beliefs are irrelevant.

And in ANY dichotomy, the 'God/no God' one is about that question, ONLY. A theist who believes in God does not have to provide lists of irrelevant beliefs, either.

 

[usfan]

I had no good reason to believe any of it other than as a kind of metaphor. So, the blinders are off. I can't put them back on again. But I continue to be fascinated by religion and continue considering what religious people have to say and encouraging them to think critically. Which is why I'm here.

Your dedication and passion for your beliefs is plainly evident. ..ironic you seem to think your proselytizing is ok, but a 'religious' ..person who does that is 'forcing their beliefs!'

How are your perceptions about the universe based more in objective reality, than those who believe differently? Are they all not just opinions about the nature of the universe?

 

[ArtieE]

The topic here is not 'atheists vs Christians!', that some are obsessed with, but a philosophical discussion about atheism as a belief, worldview, ideology, or whatever you want to call it. Some of you guys can't handle simple logic, but have too attack with accusations and ad hominem, focused on a poster and their nefarious motives & agenda.

What nefarious motives & agenda do you have for claiming that atheism is a belief "system" and yet won't produce a single belief I would need to have in order to qualify as an atheist?

 

[usfan]

What nefarious motives & agenda do you have for claiming that atheism is a belief "system" and yet won't produce a single belief I would need to have in order to qualify as an atheist?

I gave you a single belief: 'no God'. What is nefarious about that?

 

[Left Coast]

Your dedication and passion for your beliefs is plainly evident. ..ironic you seem to think your proselytizing is ok, but a 'religious' ..person who does that is 'forcing their beliefs!'

When did I say that? Religious people can proselytize all they want, as long as they don't impose on the rights and freedoms of others.

How are your perceptions about the universe based more in objective reality, than those who believe differently? Are they all not just opinions about the nature of the universe?

I think it's fair to say a perception is objectively accurate if it can be independently verified and empirically measured. If you're a hard solipsist, all that is irrelevant I know. But I think most people believe there is really an objective world outside their heads, so that's the common ground I'm working with.

So no, with that understanding all opinions are not equally valid/accurate.

 

[ArtieE]

Easy. 'No God'

Your other beliefs are irrelevant.

And in ANY dichotomy, the 'God/no God' one is about that question, ONLY. A theist who believes in God does not have to provide lists of irrelevant beliefs, either.

It appears you can't tell the difference between not believing something and believing something. You also appear to falsely believe that there's a dichotomy between believing gods exist and believing gods don't exist. I shall try to make it simple for you.

Theist: Believes one or more gods exist
(Weak) atheist: Doesn't believe gods exist, doesn't believe gods don't exist
Strong atheist: Doesn't believe gods exist, believes gods don't exist

 

[usfan]

I believe most people arrive at their beliefs through multiple influences.. experience, childhood, parents, teachers, peers, and perhaps some personal study. Nobody exists in a vacuum, but we are all products of the influences & experiences of our lives. Our 'world views' are molded through these experiences, which might or might not include personally acquired evidence. This is not empirical, but subjective, so it is not useful in scientific methodology. But, there is evidence there, & a logical conclusion to the belief or world view.

At least, with some. Some people are just dogmatists, believing in what others have told them. They esteem or respect some personality, & it flavors their outlook on origins & the supernatural. They do not inquire themselves, but 'trust' what they have been taught. This is the 'indoctrination' that i have stated in this thread & others. Few people, if any, can completely escape the indoctrination of the surrounding status quo

 

[ArtieE]

I gave you a single belief: 'no God'. What is nefarious about that?

That is not a belief! That is the absence of belief in God not a belief in no God! Learn the difference between having a belief and not having a belief! Can you blame people for questioning your motives?

 

[usfan]

It appears you can't tell the difference between not believing something and believing something. You also appear to falsely believe that there's a dichotomy. I shall try to make it simple for you.

I like the melodrama..

'Fool!!' 'Bow before your Masters!!'

Lol!

Dance about with quaifiers, or The Official, Approved Terminology, but all that does is illustrate the Folly of Atheism.

God/no God

That is the difference between theism and atheism. You believe one or the other, or you say, 'i don't know' (Agnosticism). Pick the label you like, or not. ..matters not to me..

But this, 'YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE!', is just a demeaning way of saying you disagree.

Why not just say, 'I disagree?' Why must your enemy be bashed and ridiculed for gross ignorance?

 

[usfan]

That is not a belief! That is the absence of belief in God not a belief in no God! Learn the difference between having a belief and not having a belief! Can you blame people for questioning your motives?

Nevermind. You believe, or lack belief in whatever you want..

 

[ArtieE]

God/no God

That is the difference between theism and atheism. You believe one or the other,

Now you are deliberately demonstrating your nefarious motives by spreading false information. For the rest of the people reading this the difference between theism and atheism is that a theist believes in the existence of one or more gods an atheist does not. There's no requirement for an atheist to believe in the non-existence of gods although some atheists do. They are a subgroup of all atheists called strong atheists.

or you say, 'i don't know' (Agnosticism).

More ignorance. Agnostics can be both theists and atheists.