What do you do to combat atheism?

[PhiriTalk]

The atheist claim is: “gods do not exist”. Under basic empirical logic this is a testable hypothesis.

If an “atheist” is refusing to be absolute about this claim, then they aren’t even an atheist in the first place, they’re an agnostic.

 

[Neithan]

That statement, “I disbelieve in one more god than you do” includes a false ontological equivocation between “gods” and supreme being per se. I don’t believe in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva like you don’t believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; but those are religious concepts about how the supernatural is revealed. Supreme being, summum bonum, necessary existent, prime mover etc. are philosophical concepts about the source of existence or reality in toto. If we clarify our semantics, there cannot be a number of supreme being; either it is, or is not.

 

[Jimbo]

Logically? I think you are correct.

Pragmatically? If it’s their forum they get to decide. You can be upset. Outraged. Miffed. But you have no authority.

I’d shake the dust from your internet sandals.

I know and respect a few atheists. They are decent people who treat me decently and are happy to talk about God respectfully, even if they don’t believe.

Honestly, keep the person, with whom you were debating, in your prayers. It has been my (albeit limited) experience that when you bump into someone like that they might be harboring some really strong emotions because of something in their past. Maybe even abuse at the hands of a Christian.

 

[Bradskii]

That statement, “I disbelieve in one more god than you do” includes a false ontological equivocation between “gods” and supreme being per se. I don’t believe in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva like you don’t believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; but those are religious concepts about how the supernatural is revealed. Supreme being, summum bonum, necessary existent, prime mover etc. are philosophical concepts about the source of existence or reality in toto. If we clarify our semantics, there cannot be a number of supreme being; either it is, or is not.

Well, by definition, you are stating the obvious. One supreme being (or none) is the answer. But that then leads to the question: Which supreme being?

We’re not trimming all the proposed Supreme Beings to two or three. We are deciding which claim is correct. I have rejected four out of four. You have rejected three.

Please don’t tell me that only your choice can be the only one we can consider because…well, God is the only supreme being. That’s kinda reaching the conclusion before we start asking questions.

 

[PhiriTalk]

Where do atheistic religions such as Buddhism and Jainism fit into this?

 

[Bradskii]

Ask a Buddhist or a Jainist.

 

[Neithan]

Supreme being is the philosophical concept and there can only be one. After accepting that, then you’ve moved from atheism to deism. From there, it’s a matter of faith (mostly). So yes, “my choice” is the only choice, because, that’s the definition of supreme being. We’re far from comparing the Trinity to the Trimurti if we haven’t even agreed on the existence of supreme being simply considered.

 

[PhiriTalk]

I guess, I’m asking how those who subscribe New Atheism, account for the existence of atheistic religions, which do not preclude the existence of supernatural events.

Is the atheistic crusade against belief in the belief in deities alone, or in the complete and total belief in the supernatural?

 

[Bradskii]

I guess, I’m asking how those who subscribe New Atheism, account for the existence of atheistic religions, which do not preclude the existence of supernatural events.

Is the atheistic crusade against belief in the belief in deities alone, or in the complete and total belief in the supernatural?

It’s not a crusade. It’s a disbelief in gods. Disbelief in the supernatural includes gods but atheism doesn’t include the supernatural.

 

[Pattylt]

Is the atheistic crusade against belief in the belief in deities alone, or in the complete and total belief in the supernatural?

This is the question that needs to be asked!

One can reject gods but still accept that there is some type of supernatural entity or layer to reality while some reject any supernatural at all.

 

[PhiriTalk]

What do you do to combat atheism? Philosophy

It’s not a crusade. It’s a disbelief in gods. Disbelief in the supernatural includes gods but atheism doesn’t include the supernatural.

What are you basing that disbelief on though? Is it an aesthetic choice? I don’t understand. Please help me understand the rationality of atheism.

Jainism and Buddhism are both fully atheistic (they disbelieve in gods) and definitely don’t preclude the supernatural.

 

[Bradskii]

What do you do to combat atheism? - #49 by Bradskii

What are you basing that disbelief on though? Is it an aesthetic choice? I don’t understand. Please help me understand the rationality of atheism.

Lack of credible evidence. You tell me what you believe and why you believe it and I decide if what you have presented is credible.

Pretty straightforward really. We all do for many aspects of our lives. And I think that someone mentioned critical thinking recently.

 

[Bradskii]

Supreme being is the philosophical concept and there can only be one. After accepting that, then you’ve moved from atheism to deism. From there, it’s a matter of faith (mostly). So yes, “my choice” is the only choice, because, that’s the definition of supreme being.

Yeah. The other three guys said exactly the same. Funny how they all think they are the only ones to hold the truth as well. ‘No’, each of them said. ‘My choice IS the only choice’.

I could have shown you what you’ve written above to you before you had written it and asked you what religion the person was that wrote it. And it could have been any number of religions.

My guess would be that you’d say Christian because it rings true to you. But you seem to miss the point that it rings true for everyone who worships a supreme deity.

 

[IWantGod]

If I reject Aristotlean and Thomist metaphysics, then we end up just talking past each other.

Well, these systems rely on the principle of non-contradiction, and the reason why these arguments succeed is because you have to reject the principle of non-contradiction, the very foundation of reason itself, in-order to justify any doubt.

Feel free to reject the principle of non-contradiction; but that’s not a win in my book; it just looks like wilful ignorance to me.

I am sure we have discussed this before.

 

[PhiriTalk]

What do you do to combat atheism? Philosophy

Lack of credible evidence. You tell me what you believe and why you believe it and I decide if what you have presented is credible. Pretty straightforward really. We all do for many aspects of our lives. And I think that someone mentioned critical thinking recently.

Until 1930, there was no credible evidence for the existence of Pluto, yet it existed nonetheless long before humans gathered the requisite evidence to prove it’s existence.

I view truth and fact as being epistemologically independent. I don’t view the question of any particular god’s existence as being a falsifiable one. An empirical hypothesis must be falsifiable, in other words, to prove that something doesn’t exist, you must do exactly that, you can’t make an absolute determination with incomplete information. It simply remains an open question. The question of whether any god does or does not exist, in my mind, is one of philosophy, not science. God isn’t in my mind an elderly bearded white guy sitting on a cloud over my head. My belief in God is much more of an aesthetic choice, like that of Einstein or Carl Sagan. And I don’t see this as being inconsistent with Catholic teaching at all, because the appearance of God is not a constant.

I have not seen the hypothesis: “God does not exist”, falsified. It remains an open question to me scientifically, but not philosophically. If a god does physically exist in the universe, whether or not I believe in said god, isn’t going to change whether or not it exists or not. It just does or doesn’t.

 

[PhiriTalk]

What do you do to combat atheism? Philosophy

Yeah. The other three guys said exactly the same. Funny how they all think they are the only ones to hold the truth as well. ‘No’, each of them said. ‘My choice IS the only choice’. I could have shown you what you’ve written above to you before you had written it and asked you what religion the person was that wrote it. And it could have been any number of religions. My guess would be that you’d say Christian because it rings true to you. But you seem to miss the point that it rings true for …

One of the beauties of Catholicism, in my personal opinion, is that it does not preclude the existence of other religions and viewpoints.

 

[Neithan]

Supreme being is not necessarily an object of worship. It’s a philosophical idea. We’re not comparing the Christian understanding of the divine nature with the Hindu understanding of the divine nature. I’m referring to the underlying metaphysical source of these understandings, whether there even is supernature or not. Either supreme being is, or isn’t, and that’s an important rational conclusion before even investigating religion, or “which supreme being” if you mean, which understanding of how it is revealed to us (or even if it is, which is another question). That’s putting the cart before the horse — on a cosmic level.

 

[Bradskii]

What do you do to combat atheism? - #52 by Bradskii

Until 1930, there was no credible evidence for the existence of Pluto, yet it existed nonetheless long before humans gathered the requisite evidence to prove it’s existence.

I view truth and fact as being epistemologically independent. I don’t view the question of any particular god’s existence as being a falsifiable one. An empirical hypothesis must be falsifiable, in other words, to prove that something doesn’t exist, you must do exactly that, you can’t make an absolute determination with incomplete information. It simply remains an open question. The question of whether any god does or does not exist, in my mind, is one of philosophy, not science. God isn’t in my mind an elderly bearded white guy sitting on a cloud over my head. My belief in God is much more of an aesthetic choice, like that of Einstein or Carl Sagan. And I don’t see this as being inconsistent with Catholic teaching at all, because the appearance of God is not a constant.

I have not seen the hypothesis: “God does not exist”, falsified. It remains an open question to me scientifically, but not philosophically. If a god does physically exist in the universe, whether or not I believe in said god, isn’t going to change whether or not it exists or not. It just does or doesn’t.

Belief or non belief are not falsifiable. Correct. And to clarify, I am not saying that God does not exist. I am saying that the evidence presented for his existence is not credible.

And you make a personal decision based on evidence presented. And you need someone to make a claim first and then back it up with evidence. So if no-one claimed that Pluto existed then there’s no call to make. Once someone makes that claim, then you investigate the evidence and make a decision.

 

[PhiriTalk]

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/u/Bradskii

So then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. As you are willing to say that maybe gods do exist.

New Atheists, in the strain of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher, make the absolute claim that gods do not exist and Dawkins makes it clear that he views this as a testable hypothesis.

I don’t like making decisions based on incomplete knowledge.

People for a long time before Pluto existed made the claim, without evidence, that a planet fitting the description of Pluto existed. They were correct.

 

[Bradskii]

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/u/Bradskii

So then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. As you are willing to say that maybe gods do exist.

New Atheists, in the strain of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher, make the absolute claim that gods do not exist and Dawkins makes it clear that he views this as a testable hypothesis.

I don’t like making decisions based on incomplete knowledge.

People for a long time before Pluto existed made the claim, without evidence, that a planet fitting the description of Pluto existed. They were correct.

I characterise myself as an atheist. It’s a simple term that doesn’t need to go into shades of gnosticism to have people understand it. You know whatnit means and so does everyone else. The fact that I don’t claim that gods do not exist doesn’t change that.

And Dawkins, probably the most well known atheist, self describes as an agnostic. He is a scientist and likes his terminology to be exact.

And Pluto…gee, if someone claimed it existed then they must have had a reason for saying so. So the result woukd be that the rest of us would examine those reasons - the evidence, and made a decisions as to whether the reasons - the evidence, was credible.

Don’t make this harder than it is.