Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[BreezeWood]

.
in your case for an informed answer what would be the difference between religion and science ...

your query is a Red herring when the religionist is satisfied with the ambiguity which already exists as the means to support their belief ... with the caveat a burning bush will in time give them further information if they behave themselves.

I knew you were really an atheist.

.
my belief 4th century christianity is an agenda disguised as a religion is no secret as history attests and work to replace the desert religions with the true religion of the Almighty, the Triumph of Good vs Evil to take its rightful place - for that religion as prescribed is for all humanity to survive or fail (together), does not make me an atheist - - for the last time.

 

[ding]

.
in your case for an informed answer what would be the difference between religion and science ...

your query is a Red herring when the religionist is satisfied with the ambiguity which already exists as the means to support their belief ... with the caveat a burning bush will in time give them further information if they behave themselves.

I knew you were really an atheist.

.
my belief 4th century christianity is an agenda disguised as a religion is no secret as history attests and work to replace the desert religions with the true religion of the Almighty, the Triumph of Good vs Evil to take its rightful place - for that religion as prescribed is for all humanity to survive or fail (together), does not make me an atheist - - for the last time.

It does if your "true" religion is humanism.

 

[Right Smarts]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

 

[Crick]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural. And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Save that belief in the supernatural requires accepting the occurrence of that which all our other experience tells us is impossible.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

It is normally presented as a supposition: "I do not believe any gods exist". Or, more lexicologically, "I do not believe", or "I reject", "theism".

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

You claim your god always existed. We claim the universe always existed.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement.

Yet you find such stimulation in 2,000 year old fantasy stories?

What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

You started this diatribe with the nonsensical contention that an acceptance of your god was a rational conclusion. That doesn't really speak all that well for your judgement. Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

That's awfully nice of you. I consider a belief in god(s) to be a delusion stemming from a failure to very justifiably question authority.



* - RATIONALISM:
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2.
Philosophy.

1. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
2. (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.

3.
Theology. the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
******************************************************************************
and, as long as we're hanging out in the dictionary:

theism
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)
******************************************************************************

where I see no use of anything resembling "likely". As in "Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists".

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

 

[Mudda]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

We don't know. Us admitting we don't know doesn't give God any credibility. The truth is we don't know.

Think about what you're claiming to believe. You believe you are a God. Not yet but after you die your soul lives on in paradise for all eternity. is this what you believe or are you arguing a generic creator that never visited?

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?

I'm using right smarts logic against him.

Theism is belief in God but now he's claiming they don't admit knowing.

I'm confused.

OK, so a theist is someone who doesn't know but believes, right? An agnostic is someone doesn't believe either way. What do you call someone who doesn't know but doesn't believe? That's me

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

Based on your arguments which are all fatally flawed of course you don't find us stimulating. That's the problem with theists they can't imagine any other way. That's your problem. It's why religion holds us back. It presumes to know. Willful ignorance.

 

[Crick]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?

I'm using right smarts logic against him.

Theism is belief in God but now he's claiming they don't admit knowing.

I'm confused.

OK, so a theist is someone who doesn't know but believes, right? An agnostic is someone doesn't believe either way. What do you call someone who doesn't know but doesn't believe? That's me

Agnosticism is based on the belief that we cannot know either way.

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?

I'm using right smarts logic against him.

Theism is belief in God but now he's claiming they don't admit knowing.

I'm confused.

OK, so a theist is someone who doesn't know but believes, right? An agnostic is someone doesn't believe either way. What do you call someone who doesn't know but doesn't believe? That's me

Agnosticism is based on the belief that we cannot know either way.

I asked what do you call a guy who admits we can not know either way but doubts there is a God.

 

[Mudda]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?

I'm using right smarts logic against him.

Theism is belief in God but now he's claiming they don't admit knowing.

I'm confused.

OK, so a theist is someone who doesn't know but believes, right? An agnostic is someone doesn't believe either way. What do you call someone who doesn't know but doesn't believe? That's me

How can you make the determination not to believe in something you have no clue about? It's not logical.

 

[Mudda]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?

I'm using right smarts logic against him.

Theism is belief in God but now he's claiming they don't admit knowing.

I'm confused.

OK, so a theist is someone who doesn't know but believes, right? An agnostic is someone doesn't believe either way. What do you call someone who doesn't know but doesn't believe? That's me

Agnosticism is based on the belief that we cannot know either way.

Because it is not provable to say that we cannot know, I take it a step further and say that I'll keep an open mind in case anyone ever comes up with proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

 

[Mudda]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?

I'm using right smarts logic against him.

Theism is belief in God but now he's claiming they don't admit knowing.

I'm confused.

OK, so a theist is someone who doesn't know but believes, right? An agnostic is someone doesn't believe either way. What do you call someone who doesn't know but doesn't believe? That's me

Agnosticism is based on the belief that we cannot know either way.

I asked what do you call a guy who admits we can not know either way but doubts there is a God.

Sealyboob.

 

[Crick]

[
How can you make the determination not to believe in something you have no clue about? It's not logical.

You think its logical to believe in everything about which you haven't a clue? Really?

 

[badger2]

#992 asks the question of negative theology, except that the question is a stolen one. Oz never gave a thing to the Tin Man that he didn't always already have.

Elementarnye eticheskie zhest iavliaetsia otritsatel'nym, odni iz blokirovaniia priamogo ugla naklona.
The elementary ethical gesture is a negative one, the one of blocking one's direct inclination.

Etot besplatnyi zakon kardinal'no meniaet koordinat y vsei situatsii kotoraia lomaet zakrytie vozmozhnosti Budushchego/Proshloe.
This free act fundamentally changes the coordinates of the entire situation and breaks the closure of Future/Past possibility.

 

[Mudda]

[
How can you make the determination not to believe in something you have no clue about? It's not logical.

You think its logical to believe in everything about which you haven't a clue? Really?

Like what?

 

[Right Smarts]

So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.

I believe theism is the most rational conclusion, yes. The agnostic prefix is redundant; it in no way alters the meaning of theism.

 

[Right Smarts]

Hi Crick,

Most of your post was a redundant rant on the supernatural, so I've trimmed it down.

It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural. And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.

Sorry, Crick, but I reject your supernatural wordplay. For those unaware, the game goes like this:

• Define natural as anything which exists.
• Define supernatural as anything which is not natural.
• Classify God as supernatural.
• Use this classification as an argument against God's existence.

Those of you who are adept at logical thinking will realize that this "argument" is circular nonsense, which in no way has any bearing on whether or not God exists.

So, how do you deal with atheists who play this game? Well, for one, you point it out. Once you've done that, you deliver a single line:

If anything which exists is natural, and God exists, then God is natural.

They have no comeback for this. In other words: Game Over

Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?

Atheism undermines the credibility of the human mind by claiming it to be merely chemical reactions which have been optimized for survival, but not necessarily discovering truth. In turn, this undercuts everything which relies on said human mind. You know, things like rational thought, science, philosophy, etc.

Atheism is the single worst heuristics possible for science. Theism is the best. It's no surprise, then, that nearly all of science was the fruit of theists. It makes sense that if existence is the product of a cosmic engineer, it would be capable of being reverse engineered. And it is.

 

[Czernobog]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

No, the rational worldview is the one that science defaults to - the null condition. The null condition does not assert esxistence of anything without objective evidence. To assert that it is more likely that God exists than not, one would need to demonstrate the objective evidence to makes that likelihood more probable.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Even were your statement true - which it is not - then this contradicts your first contention, which is that theism is the most rational position.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

You are clearly not familiar with what a "positive claim" is. You are engaing in the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. In other words, you are shifting the burden of proof to those who deny a positive claim. "Thing 'A' exists" is the positive claim. Those who refute that, and say, "Until such time as evidence is presente, object 'A' does not exist" is a refutaion of the positive claim, and, therefore, is not, itself, a positive claim. Sorry pal. The burden of proof has always, does, and will always fall on the claimants who insist that God exists.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Why? This argument presumes facts not in evidence - specifically that existence must have a purpose. What evidence do you have to support this claim?