Thread: Why Is Atheism Synonymous With Folly?

Psalm 14:1

The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.

What makes this a true statement?

If someone were to say that, in the entire universe, a purples stone with yellow dots on it does not exist then it would be necessary to ask how they had sufficient knowledge of the universe to make such an assertion. To state an absolute negative requires absolute knowledge. This makes the agnostic more honest, and less deluded, than the atheist. Agnosticism is an admission of not knowing, whereas atheism claims to know.

To claim absolute knowledge of the infinite from a finite position is pure folly. It's also arrogant self delusion to try to claim that this is more than a simple belief system; a statement of faith no different to that of any theist.

Atheists will frequently put down spiritual experience as subjective, try to explain away or deny spiritual healing and miracles. Yet the subjective experience, specially when supported by the subjective experience of others, carries more weight than an absolute denial based on the argument that if science has not discovered God then God cannot exist. Science has failed to find the elusive Higgs boson so does this mean that nuclear physics doesn't really exist?

Atheism is a belief system, plain and simple, held in faith and built on a premise of false knowledge. To try to argue that it's more than this really is folly.

In this modern age I don't think one has to be a fool to be an atheist. You'll agree you (and I) can think of people like Olly, Sam, and NonServ that easily come to mind (my apology if I missed others).

The possibility of cloning - human cloning - posses some challenges to Christian and religious doctrines of the "soul." There is no God whispering constantly in all human ears and informing people of X, Y, Z. Science has made great advancements in understanding the natural world we live in as well as writing a fairly objective history of the origins of life - which includes human life. As objective as science can be with hypothesis and theories combined with cellular and morphological evidence.

What I find is disfavorable as a trait in any atheist, for any that have this trait, are clear political bias for one religion over another, and worse of all I hate when they fall into their own hypocrisy (but this is a human condition for us all to varying degrees) and logical fallacy. And there are also some atheist (like religious) who are quite evil, and it shows on their face.

Frankly, I think most humanity is more subject, and fallen prey to, propaganda from interest groups, political parties, and governments today more than ever in human history. I think it's very bad actually and I only foresee it getting worse. Within the Christian religion specifically, and even more especially with Catholicism, I find a greater foolishness going on: rejection of modern society rather than taking the initiative to once again be a major cultural leader through the arts, sciences, and philosophies.

Whatever Mel Gibson's personal faults he is one of the best and leading Catholic and Christian persons alive today producing high quality art - and Christian message - through film. Evangelical Protestants recognized this and must be given credit for promoting his Passion of the Christ whereas the Catholic world was largely too ignorant, too foolish, too victimized by propaganda to realize what was before them.

I'm a big proponent of fighting propaganda with propaganda. That's why I have my own. And that's why under my propaganda the crucifix will be pictured or imagined, fallen between the bronzed breasts of some Latina. The era of Europe I proclaim is coming to a close. Secular Europe (Christian has already closed). Not Islamic Europe.

You've completely missed the point made in the OP, Writ. It is possible for an intelligent person to say that they don't believe in a God but it's foolish to make the absolute statement that there is no God. To say this as an absolute statement is to claim infinite knowledge of a universe where there is no God. Nobody has such absolute knowledge, therefore atheism is just another belief system. What makes it foolish is the claim to have absolute knowledge that the Absolute does not exist.

Originally Posted by Baron

Atheists will frequently put down spiritual experience as subjective, try to explain away or deny spiritual healing and miracles.

Speaking of which... this is ongoing in the homeland of TheFuhrer02 and better helps explain to me why he writes so attractively in the English language (the devil).

Philippine priest in ancient battle with 'demons' - Yahoo! News

MANILA (AFP) – A blood-curdling scream echoes through the Roman Catholic chapel in Manila as Father Jose Francisco Syquia says a prayer of exorcism over a Satanic cult member believed to be possessed by the devil.

"She would have levitated had she not been restrained," Syquia said of the woman in the video, portions of which were shown to AFP during a rare interview at his office in the basement of a seminary in Manila.

Syquia believes he is in the frontline of the battle between good and evil on earth.

"There is a great dramatic increase of possessions right now," said the 44-year-old priest. "More and more the demons are gaining a foothold into this society."

"I have seen scratches suddenly appearing on their skin, of inverted crosses on the forehead. These persons would be conscious at the time, and they tell me its like razor cutting from the inside of the skin," he said.

Syquia was ordained only 11 years ago, after he had already obtained a degree in psychology at one of the Philippines' leading Catholic universities.

The second of four sons of a former diplomat, he said he left a comfortable life in one of Manila's exclusive, gated communities and employment in a family-owned business after he heard God's call to serve the church.

Syquia recalled an accomplished female doctor who said she was befriended by demons that had appeared to her as benign dwarves that showered her with good luck in the form of financial rewards.

Her troubles began when she decided to return to the Catholic Church and offer all her blessings to God.

Soon after, the demons took over her body for hours at a time, while unexplained paranormal activity began terrorising members of her family, Syquia said.

Then we have the Belgian Bishop in Belgium that had admitted to being sexually active with two of his nephews since they were 5 years old, and described it as "...a little bit of intimacy."

And for the record... I've never liked dwarves. Little b*$%#$#@.

Originally Posted by Baron

You've completely missed the point made in the OP, Writ. It is possible for an intelligent person to say that they don't believe in a God but it's foolish to make the absolute statement that there is no God. To say this as an absolute statement is to claim infinite knowledge of a universe where there is no God. Nobody has such absolute knowledge, therefore atheism is just another belief system. What makes it foolish is the claim to have absolute knowledge that the Absolute does not exist.

Ah... Okay.

Well... atheists can be rational people that have faith, which they conclude from the evidence as they interpret it, that no God exists. Yes? Or you disagree?

I agree spiritual experiences can reasonably give you faith. Like I've said... I know demons exist because I've been bothered by them be for. I've sensed one or more of their presence before. Not to mention on at least one occasion some force pressed down on my leg with enough force that it cause my mattress to sink a bit where my legs was at. I was in the room alone. But to exhausted to get too scared.

I think the only really effective form of atheism you can explore is a "your god doesn't exist as you've portrayed him/her" form of position. I don't think any of us can proclaim with certainty much of anything, let alone if there is a god.

But what you can do is dispute recounting of events, and challenge perceptions derived from them. That's why it's a lot easier to challenge a religion like Scientology or Mormonism as opposed to Christianity or Islam, their origins are close enough to modern times that we can more accurately refute assertations made regarding events and persons involved.

So Atheism can be pursued, but to be truthful in its exploration one must limit the scope to what facts can be proved. If not, I agree that it becomes based too much on faith.

But then, I think science is based on faith at its core anyway, so who am I to judge? :p

I don't understand the debate. If you're trying to argue that somebody cannot have full knowledge of the universe then I don't think you'll get much opposition Baron. I don't know many Atheist's who say that they 'know God doesn't exist', but I know many who 'believe he doesn't'. The word there is 'believe', not knowing - two completely different meanings. I don't think Atheism itself is a folly, but I'm sure there are a few arguments they throw at Theists which very much are.

There are more people in this world than just christians and atheists.

Aethism is the lack of belief in God. So to say, "there is no God", is simply reafirming the lack of belief. If you have no evidence to see something as a possibility, (God's existance), then is doesn't require any belief to say it doesn't exist.

(Personally, I'm undecided whether I'm Aethist or Agnostic.)

Originally Posted by Candra H

There are more people in this world than just christians and atheists.

It isn't only Christians who believe in God.

Originally Posted by Baron

It isn't only Christians who believe in God.

That wasn't my point.

Atheism is a belief system, yet I wonder how many atheists would change their beliefs if they lived in a Muslim country. My hunch is all, or close to all. And, probably the few who remained atheists wouldn't be too vocal about it.

Yet whenever you hear one target religion--it's always the Christians whom they stone. To me, this is as great a mystery as the creation of the universe is.

I think there's a lot of voice about christian religion because in our western societies it was the default religion for so long. Endemic.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Speaking of which... this is ongoing in the homeland of TheFuhrer02 and better helps explain to me why he writes so attractively in the English language (the devil).

Uhm, how do I respond with this? Or should I not respond at all? In hindsight, I've already responded to it, as such, the latter question is well, out of the question.

In any case, could you enlighten me to what you meant in this statement so I may not misinterpret it? Thanks!

To OP: Hmmm... So the main point of the debate is that if believing in the inexistence of God is folly.

Here's my opinion: God must exist. A creator, a bringer of life, a prime mover, whatever you want to call it, a "God" must exist. Why? Because it would be irrational if there shall be no beginning. Everything has a beginning, and the source of that beginning, that prime mover, is the essence of God.

Now, whether or not a personal relationship with this God, or a submission to this God must be established is irrelevant. Indeed, to argue about religion with this question is irrelevant, for religion accounts for a relationship with this God. However, we are not to dispute this relationship, whether or not it should be established, but rather we are to dispute the existence of God. Simply put: the existence of God is unequivocal. There must be a beginning, a sole one, to make it rational, to make it logically sound. Now to ask, "How did the beginning begin?" or effectively, "Who created the creator?" is irrational, as this will go into infinity, and that wouldn't make any sense, would it?

In perspective, what defines rationality, anyway? What defines logical thinking? Is it not true that we ourselves have defined what is logical or not? If so, could it be possible, that with our feeble minds, we may think something as rational when it is not? That there may be reasons to things that reason itself could not understand? As such, then how can we be sure that the existence of God is unequivocal, despite its logically sound reason?

But, the rationality remains, for it is this rationality that makes sense to us, and therefore, bound by this absolute logic, we can infer safely and soundly, that God must exist, and to think that God does not exist, is nothing more than, as what the OP have said, folly.

Originally Posted by TheFuhrer02

Uhm, how do I respond with this? Or should I not respond at all? In hindsight, I've already responded to it, as such, the latter question is well, out of the question.

In any case, could you enlighten me to what you meant in this statement so I may not misinterpret it? Thanks!

To OP: Hmmm... So the main point of the debate is that if believing in the inexistence of God is folly.

Here's my opinion: God must exist. A creator, a bringer of life, a prime mover, whatever you want to call it, a "God" must exist. Why? Because it would be irrational if there shall be no beginning. Everything has a beginning, and the source of that beginning, that prime mover, is the essence of God.

Now, whether or not a personal relationship with this God, or a submission to this God must be established is irrelevant. Indeed, to argue about religion with this question is irrelevant, for religion accounts for a relationship with this God. However, we are not to dispute this relationship, whether or not it should be established, but rather we are to dispute the existence of God. Simply put: the existence of God is unequivocal. There must be a beginning, a sole one, to make it rational, to make it logically sound. Now to ask, "How did the beginning begin?" or effectively, "Who created the creator?" is irrational, as this will go into infinity, and that wouldn't make any sense, would it?

In perspective, what defines rationality, anyway? What defines logical thinking? Is it not true that we ourselves have defined what is logical or not? If so, could it be possible, that with our feeble minds, we may think something as rational when it is not? That there may be reasons to things that reason itself could not understand? As such, then how can we be sure that the existence of God is unequivocal, despite its logically sound reason?

But, the rationality remains, for it is this rationality that makes sense to us, and therefore, bound by this absolute logic, we can infer safely and soundly, that God must exist, and to think that God does not exist, is nothing more than, as what the OP have said, folly.

The OP is saying the opposite to the way that you're quoting it. It implies that it's folly to claim, absolutely, that there is no God.