The most brilliant atheists?

[Charlemagne_III]

I am not here to advocate for or defend these views. But if this is something you’re interested in, I suggest exploring some of the herein mentioned authors’ works (if you haven’t already). They have certainly challenged my faith over time, so much so that I really am not sure where I stand on matters of faith.

As I thought. Payers for you, doubting Thomas.

 

[stavros388]

As I thought. Payers for you, doubting Thomas.

To be honest, your prayers are much appreciated at this time. Many thanks.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here are a few:
Here are a few:
Theodorus the Atheist
Democritus
Steven Weinberg
Richard Dawkins
Mark Zuckerberg
Warren Buffet
Noam Chomsky
Richard Feynman
Vladimir Lenin

That’s hilarious. I suppose you would call them brilliant. Warren Buffet??? Lenin???

 

[JapaneseKappa]

He has a book on the non-existence of God too, “De non existentia Dei”.

John Rawls (the 20th century philosopher) was not the author of “De non existentia Dei” (a lost book from the 1700s.) The author of that book was Kazimierz Łyszczyński who I mentioned as an example of a person who was killed and had his writings destroyed for being an atheist philosopher.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s hilarious. I suppose you would call them brilliant. Warren Buffet??? Lenin???

Warren Buffet is one of the most successful investors in the world.
Lenin is one of the most significant and influential figures of the 20th century.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Warren Buffet is one of the most successful investors in the world.
Lenin is one of the most significant and influential figures of the 20th century.

Brilliance at making money is a very limited kind of brilliance. Is Buffet also a great philosopher or scientist? Doubtful.

Lenin was not so successful. The communist empire he built has collapsed, in case you hadn’t heard.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Warren Buffet is one of the most successful investors in the world.
Lenin is one of the most significant and influential figures of the 20th century.

Yes Buffet is a real materialist. However, even Warren Buffet can’t take it with him. As for Lenin, we know how his ideas turned out.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

If their arguments are borrowed from older atheists, that would not be a sign of their brilliance as atheists, though it might be a sign that they are brilliant at borrowing.

So, St. Thomas Aquinas isn’t brilliant? Or he is just brilliant at borrowing? Much of his work is borrowed from Aristotle.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So, St. Thomas Aquinas isn’t brilliant? Or he is just brilliant at borrowing? Much of his work is borrowed from Aristotle.

He’s brilliant. Synthesis along with faith in God and originality is a large part of brilliance.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you suggesting that scientists might eventually disprove the existence of God?

Impossible. The scientific method is an experiential mode of knowing. The true scientist cannot prove that that Whom he never experienced, never existed.

The most brilliant atheist is, as all other atheists are, in denial. Being dyslectic, they reverse a basic rule of logic: Lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence.

 

[stavros388]

Impossible. The scientific method is an experiential mode of knowing. The true scientist cannot prove that that Whom he never experienced, never existed.

The most brilliant atheist is, as all other atheists are, in denial. Being dyslectic, they reverse a basic rule of logic: Lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence.

The first part of your post is absolutely correct. I would never suggest that empirical science can prove or disprove a God who is by definition transcendent of time and space. The second part of your post is problematic. Just because a lack of evidence doesn’t absolutely disprove that something exists, it does not then follow that said something must exist. There are many things that throughout history people have claimed to exist for which there is no evidence. Chances are pretty good that many of them don’t, or didn’t, exist.

I also posit that, contrary to the common Christian argument, many atheists would prefer that God exists but have become unconvinced that one does. To say that all atheists are in denial suggests that they know deep down, or in one way or another, that God exists but are being dishonest with themselves about it. Such a blanket generalization cannot be true of all atheists.

 

[o_mlly]

The first part of your post is absolutely correct. I would never suggest that empirical science can prove or disprove a God who is by definition transcendent of time and space. The second part of your post is problematic. Just because a lack of evidence doesn’t absolutely disprove that something exists, it does not then follow that said something must exist. There are many things that throughout history people have claimed to exist for which there is no evidence. Chances are pretty good that many of them don’t, or didn’t, exist.

I also posit that, contrary to the common Christian argument, many atheists would prefer that God exists but have become unconvinced that one does. To say that all atheists are in denial suggests that they know deep down, or in one way or another, that God exists but are being dishonest with themselves about it. Such a blanket generalization cannot be true of all atheists.

As honest scientists, they would then all be merely agnostic; not atheistic.

Perhaps I missed your point. Please strip out for me the multiple negatives in “a lack of evidence doesn’t absolutely disprove that something exists, it does not then follow that said something must exist” and I’ll have another go at commenting. Thanks.

 

[stavros388]

As honest scientists, they would then all be merely agnostic; not atheistic.

Perhaps I missed your point. Please strip out for me the multiple negatives in “a lack of evidence doesn’t absolutely disprove that something exists, it does not then follow that said something must exist” and I’ll have another go at commenting. Thanks.

First of all, why conflate science and atheism at all? Scientists aren’t all atheists. Atheists aren’t all scientists. Atheism, meaning lack of belief in a God or gods, may apply to scientists or non-scientists alike, provided that they lack said belief.

You wrote that atheists are dyslexic because: lack of evidence of something doesn’t disprove the existence of something. Am I getting this right? I was trying to point out that lack of evidence for a thing, while not disproving that said thing might exist, doesn’t add any weight to the possibility of it existing. Better?

Have you ever read about Sagan’s dragon in the garage? You can here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
There is no evidence for it, yet it cannot be disproved. However, it’s probably most sensible to dismiss claims about invisible, undetectable dragons living in peoples’ garages.

I am not here to defend or promote arguments against God’s existence (or vice versa). I only present this because I respectully disagree with what you wrote here.

 

[o_mlly]

First of all, why conflate science and atheism at all? Scientists aren’t all atheists. Atheists aren’t all scientists. Atheism, meaning lack of belief in a God or gods, may apply to scientists or non-scientists alike, provided that they lack said belief.

You wrote that atheists are dyslexic because: lack of evidence of something doesn’t disprove the existence of something. Am I getting this right? I…].

Please go back and see post #30.
Originally Posted by Charlemagne III View Post
Are you suggesting that scientists might eventually disprove the existence of God?
The dyslectic comment was my poor attempt at humor. I have science degrees and think I understand its limits. I am dyslectic so I can make fun of myself.