ATTENTION ATHEISTS: Your argument is weak! [edited title]

[Tellme_my_rites]

Without God, atheists try to comprehend knowledge & understanding with their own finite minds. If their is a greater intelligence on other planets, what makes man so prideful so as to think that man will eventually learn or evolve to comprehend the knowledge the greater intelligence possesses? What makes an atheist think their own finite minds are capable of all the answers? Is it not quite possible that a mentally impaired man can know more about the unknown than a man of intelligence if the mentally impaired man has opened the door to the Spirit, allowing the Spirit to permeate his own spirit - while the man of intelligence remains closed to the Spirit’s knowledge and ways of understanding thorough the Spirit? Though man can learn more when he welcomes the Spirit, or the knowledge of a greater intelligence, man has to humbly admit with his finite mind he will never be able to grasp all the knowledge (most likely not even a majority of the knowledge) of a Being that is Infinite or of a being that has an intelligence well above the plane man’s finite mind sets.

 

[Sarpedon]

Atheists seem to think the accuracy and potential of the human cluster of atoms (assembled by blind forces) is a given. They often seem to think that any possible question to the contrary is not valid, although I have not seen any scientific-type arguments by them to support this assertation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hear, Hear brothers!

Atheism presupposes the human ability to understand any concept, yet there are obvious physical limitations on the human brains ability to perceive and process information, we only have so much gray matter just as a microchip has just so many transistors on its die. Therefore there is a finite amount of processing power of which we are capable.
atheism presupposes there is no limit to what we can understand in practical application of our minds. in effect this denies the very rationality they claim is the basis for their disbelief.
Frankly from what I have seen most atheists are simply parroting the shoddy logic that they were impressed with from men like dawkins and hitchens. I doubt any rational system that denies obvious basic truths. they have yet to come to a cogent, rational, reasonable and believable response to that most basic of philosophical tenets expressed by Aquinas as First Cause. they fail to understand the cosmology of faith. When it is explained to them sneer and claim that we have retreated behind theological walls from which no rational argument could dissuade us. They are right! but for the wrong reasons, they think we are defending our faith with those walls, instead we are saying that there is no rational argument of which men are capable of making that could dissuade us because men by our nature and physicality are unable to process the infinite with our finite minds.

or to put it bluntly- you cant do calculus on a wristwatch calculator

but let me suggest that baiting them to argument is a waste of time, indeed i doubt the sincerity of their beliefs, after all in the simplest terms they are really implying that something comes from nothing, whether you can get them to admit it or not. So their stated beliefs are ludicrous on the face of them. i must believe that most of them do not truly believe these things.

[Edited]

 

[Devoutness]

With atheists being less than 3% of the world population and 1% of the US population, I don’t worry about them as much as the “unaffliated”. They insult religions just as bad as atheists. =/

 

[Leela]

Hear, Hear brothers!

Atheism presupposes the human ability to understand any concept…

On the contrary, I find that atheists simply prefer not to pretend to know things that they don’t know.

Best,
Leela

 

[Sideline]

This is one of the funniest threads I’ve ever read.

Atheists claim there is no god. That’s all they claim. So… the rest of your argument is moot.

For future reference, if the premise of your argument is that others are intellectually inferior, you really ought to spell things correctly.

 

[Sarpedon]

On the contrary, I find that atheists simply prefer not to pretend to know things that they don’t know.

Best,
Leela

An how they know what they do or do not know is the other critical question.

 

[Sarpedon]

This is one of the funniest threads I’ve ever read.

Atheists claim there is no god. That’s all they claim. So… the rest of your argument is moot.

For future reference, if the premise of your argument is that others are intellectually inferior, you really ought to spell things correctly.

It’s not so much a question of whether atheists have inferior minds to theists but rather a question of whether the the mind of the human species itself has the capabilities atheists and theists assume it has.

Both atheists and theists assume the mind can know at least some truth, but there is not necessarily any reason to assume this is the case if the mind is the result of blind natural forces shaping atoms to no purpose.

 

[zootjeff]

Without God, atheists try to comprehend knowledge & understanding with their own finite minds. If their is a greater intelligence on other planets, what makes man so prideful so as to think that man will eventually learn or evolve to comprehend the knowledge the greater intelligence possesses? What makes an atheist think their own finite minds are capable of all the answers? Is it not quite possible that a mentally impaired man can know more about the unknown than a man of intelligence if the mentally impaired man has opened the door to the Spirit, allowing the Spirit to permeate his own spirit - while the man of intelligence remains closed to the Spirit’s knowledge and ways of understanding thorough the Spirit? Though man can learn more when he welcomes the Spirit, or the knowledge of a greater intelligence, man has to humbly admit with his finite mind he will never be able to grasp all the knowledge (most likely not even a majority of the knowledge) of a Being that is Infinite or of a being that has an intelligence well above the plane man’s finite mind sets.

What many Atheists want to know is what makes the Spirit inclined to bestow this said knowledge upon man? I mean if God is omnipotent, and omniscient, meaning he is a lot more capable of a being then say man. Probably more so then man is above say, Earth Worms. Then why does he care what we want?

So using this analogy, if I’m king of the earthworms, what do I care if an earthworm wants me to blab his “non-ear” off at the “earthworms level of comprehension” about how the world works because he “professed his earthworm faith” to me?

I think God would be more sophisticated then that…

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Well, as a Catholic, I must say that’s not very nice.

Yeah, Atheists can be a little stubborn or intolerant towards Christians, but that doesn’t make them weak …sometimes]. There have been many atheists who were great people, like Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson!

…

Now, Agnostics… the right ones you meet in life can be the most insightful people that you could never win a debate against. I know… I’ve tried.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Sideline]

Both atheists and theists assume the mind can know at least some truth, but there is not necessarily any reason to assume this is the case if the mind is the result of blind natural forces shaping atoms to no purpose.

Well, actually that is an excellent reason to assume we have knowledge. If, in fact, we have correctly deduced the functional nature of the universe with our “weak” little minds, it strongly suggests that they are up to the task.

 

[Starwynd]

Here we go again with the silly demonization of atheists. I wish i had a dollar for every time they’ve been maligned by Christians in these ways.

Atheism does not claim a thing. It is a lack of belief in God or supernatural beings.

Anybody who claims otherwise is just making things up.

And there are far more people do not not believe in God or some sort of higher power that you might think.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, actually that is an excellent reason to assume we have knowledge. If, in fact, we have correctly deduced the functional nature of the universe with our “weak” little minds, it strongly suggests that they are up to the task.

How do we know that our minds have correctly figured out the functional nature of the universe?

We used our brains and figured it out?

This is circular.

I don’t mean to argue for solipism, because I think faith in a God that designed our minds to know truth is enough to bridge the logical question of the accuracy of the mind.

 

[Sideline]

How do we know that our minds have correctly figured out the functional nature of the universe?

We don’t, but you suggested that… if we had… it was a bad reason to think are brains were capable of doing it. My argument might be circular, but yours in contradictory, and I’ll take circular over contradictory any day.

The answer to why our brains are capable of comprehension doesn’t address the question of how we know whether they are. You’ve just tacked to word “god” to your explanation like it is a “get out of questions free” card. I simply say I don’t know why or how.

It’s pretty much the same answer, but it gives me time to sleep in on Sunday mornings.

 

[Sarpedon]

We don’t, but you suggested that… if we had… it was a bad reason to think are brains were capable of doing it. My argument might be circular, but yours in contradictory, and I’ll take circular over contradictory any day.

How exactly is mine contradictory?

The answer to why our brains are capable of comprehension doesn’t address the question of how we know whether they are. You’ve just tacked to word “god” to your explanation like it is a “get out of questions free” card. I simply say I don’t know why or how.

You admit that you do not know how or why. I admit the same thing. I don’t think it is possible to verify the accuracy of the mind through mental thought, because it is circular.

Here’s the key part, though. We both assume something that we can’t have proof for. I believe that God designed our minds to apprehend truth. You believe it just “happened” through blind natural forces shaping atoms, to no purpose.

Which position are you inclined to believe in? Both are “get out of questions free cards”. I think the theistic card is a bit more reasonable. If the atheistic explanation is right, then we are simply incredibly lucky that our minds just happened to form that certain way. There’s no reason to assume it would work out that way, but we’ll just assume its true anyway…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

let me say first that i dont have the sheer mental horsepower that so many of you display, so if i fall prey to some obvious logical fallacy or fail to be as precise as one may wish dont laugh.

that said i wish to address this idea that atheism is somehow simply an acknowledgement of a lack of empirical evidence in favor of a G-d, or in other words “I find that atheists simply prefer not to pretend to know things that they don’t know.” -leela

If that is a whole and complete description of atheism, then what is the motivation to argue the case? the implication is that others are simply pretending to know things that they dont.

in ordinary society people who believe in giant invisible rabbits, ala “Harvey” are considered delusional, paranoid, or just plain crazy.

what then could be the motivation to argue with those who suffer from the G-d delusion? no one argues with a supposed alien abductee, or man who believes he is the king of France. indeed one grins, shakes his head, and wonders if he is off his meds.

if atheism is solely a lack of pretension to knowledge then why bother to belabor the point, why bother to argue with the crazies, when one wouldnt do that in any other situation?

it seems then that there is something more to it, something is being left unsaid, there is a some motivation to act differently in this situation.

though surely many atheists dont engage in the debate, if one takes a quick tour of this forum, or the wider internet, one can see that thousands upon thousands do engage in the debate. quite enthusiastically in fact.

so, i am left to wonder why? why defend a disbelief in anothers delusion?

 

[ateista]

let me say first that i dont have the sheer mental horsepower that so many of you display, so if i fall prey to some obvious logical fallacy or fail to be as precise as one may wish dont laugh.

that said i wish to address this idea that atheism is somehow simply an acknowledgement of a lack of empirical evidence in favor of a G-d, or in other words “I find that atheists simply prefer not to pretend to know things that they don’t know.” -leela

If that is a whole and complete description of atheism, then what is the motivation to argue the case? the implication is that others are simply pretending to know things that they dont.

in ordinary society people who believe in giant invisible rabbits, ala “Harvey” are considered delusional, paranoid, or just plain crazy.

what then could be the motivation to argue with those who suffer from the G-d delusion? no one argues with a supposed alien abductee, or man who believes he is the king of France. indeed one grins, shakes his head, and wonders if he is off his meds.

if atheism is solely a lack of pretension to knowledge then why bother to belabor the point, why bother to argue with the crazies, when one wouldnt do that in any other situation?

it seems then that there is something more to it, something is being left unsaid, there is a some motivation to act differently in this situation.

though surely many atheists dont engage in the debate, if one takes a quick tour of this forum, or the wider internet, one can see that thousands upon thousands do engage in the debate. quite enthusiastically in fact.

so, i am left to wonder why? why defend a disbelief in anothers delusion?

Excellent question!

Answer #1: because it is fun.

Answer #2: because some of us atheists are open to the possibility that we are wrong, and would like to see if there is any convincing argument which would show the error of our ways.

But the real answer is this: Because the “delusional” ones (pardon me, not my word, yours!) are not satisfied to have their “delusions” and adhere to them in the privacy of their homes (also in their churches, temples and synagoges), but want to “spread” the “good word” and drag us into their fantasy world. Even that could be overlooked, but they want to go further: they want to codify their “delusions” into laws, and force us unbelivers to live our life according to their “delusions”. That cannot be overlooked. A passive “delusion” is irrelevant, an active one which tries to spread the “delusion” is unpardonable.

I do not think that the believers on these boards are actively seeking to impose their “morality” on the rest of use, though there might be some who do. However, there innumerable ones who do.

Sorry to be so blunt. I would not have offered this point of view, had you not asked for it. I never called religion a “delusion” on these boards (nor have I characterized it in any offensive terms), and I have been around for years. Now you did. I never wanted to offend, and do not wish to be offensive now. But you asked, and I offer my answer.

 

[Sarpedon]

But the real answer is this: Because the “delusional” ones (pardon me, not my word, yours!) are not satisfied to have their “delusions” and adhere to them in the privacy of their homes (also in their churches, temples and synagoges), but want to “spread” the “good word” and drag us into their fantasy world. Even that could be overlooked, but they want to go further: they want to codify their “delusions” into laws, and force us unbelivers to live our life according to their “delusions”. That cannot be overlooked. A passive “delusion” is irrelevant, an active one which tries to spread the “delusion” is unpardonable.

You say that a massive group “delusion” trying to impose its views on morality on others is unpardonable, but in previous threads you have stated that morality is derived from group consensus. If the vast majority of the world consensually approves a “delusion” that affects morality, on what grounds can you characterize its attempts to impose itself on others as unpardonable?

Atheism has very little popular support compared to theism. It seems that your view of morality and your statement above are in conflict.

 

[ateista]

You say that a massive group “delusion” trying to impose its views on morality on others is unpardonable, but in previous threads you have stated that morality is derived from group consensus. If the vast majority of the world consensually approves a “delusion” that affects morality, on what grounds can you characterize its attempts to impose itself on others as unpardonable?

Very smart observation.

However, the group that tries to impose their version of morality is not a majority at all. Besides I have never asserted that I (or any other person) should accept the prevailing moral system.

Suppose that some militant atheists would become a majority, and they would attempt to impose their version of “morality” unto the religious people, for example by forcing religious people to practice against their deep beliefs. I would be just as vocal in defending their rights to be left alone, as long as their practices do not actively hurt other people.

You see, in my eyes personal freedom is very higly regarded, with the only limitation described in the old adage: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. And a minority of the religious people (I think a small minority, though very loud indeed) wishes to go beyond that.

Atheism has very little popular support compared to theism. It seems that your view of morality and your statement above are in conflict.

No, they are not, as per what I said above. Besides, I don’t hold morality as “sacrosanct”. It is just the prevaling opinion in a society (however it is defined) and I (personally) do not care about the opinion of any majority.

As long as my actions do not hurt others, I wish to be left alone. The cruical problem is “hurt”. If - for example - I were to walk around naked (I don’t want to, of course) that would not hurt anyone, yet in some societies it is regarded not only “immoral” but criminal. And that kind of interference is what I fight against - no matter who imposes their value system on others.

I am just as adamantly opposed to the tyranny of the communists as I am against the tyranny of a theocracy - or the tyranny of any majority or minority.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

ateista,
Not to worry i don’t offend easily. indeed you are correct those are the terms i used. I have no problem with you using them either. please don’t be offended with this line of questioning. I want to stress that this is not personal in any way.

that said i would like to discuss your response to my inquiry.

First, it may well be fun to argue with delusional(my word) theists but i cant imagine that one would stand about arguing with an alien abductee about the subject of his delusions. it seems strange to me, that this delusion is worthy of your time and effort yet his is not.
unless you equally combat every other delusion of which you are aware, you are giving us special attention, why? what is the motive to combat us yet not him? one should be as fun as another.

i admire the nobility of your second reason, indeed the possibility of being wrong is an appropriate motivator for vigorous debate. Yet these arguments have stretched for millennium with no truly new or significant philosophical breakthroughs, of which i am aware. (allow me to qualify that by saying there are many things in this arena of which i am not aware)

so the possibility of one finding new arguments convincing to one in support of theism would seem to be so vanishingly small as to be insignificant. as they say there is nothing new under the sun.

so unless one claims to be an inexperienced or newly minted atheist, we should also call this motivation to be questionable at best.

the next contention presented seems to be that people are not content to have private delusions, indeed they wish for you to hear about them also. since their desire is passive in that regard you dismiss it as something that can be overlooked

i agree with this contention, indeed simply being made aware of someone else’s delusion may be annoying but it is as harmless as the drunk guy at the bar insisting that you listen to his latest alien abduction dream.

You further write about the codification of these delusions into law. I agree, to me living under sharia would be quite annoying and unbearable. but that is because i have an opposing system of morality

to my understanding atheism is a simple lack of belief in gods. lacking an opposing moral system, at least one based on atheism, why would one care? in that case one moral system should be just as good as another.

if one has a personal system of morality that is commendable but not universally applicable.

Under the assumption that you too reside in a secular culture, you have had and will have recourse to the courts for any law which you find truly egregious. Frankly there are few places in the developed world where you could ever be held to account for violations of religious law any more. in effect you have already won that battle

so i believe we can safely dispose of that argument as a serious motivation to tilt with the windmills of another’s delusion.

having examined those four arguments and having found them to be insufficient motivation to defend a disbelief in another’s delusion.

i am left to ask the same question.

if atheism is completely described as a lack of belief in gods then why would one bother to defend ones disbelief in another’s delusion?