Atheism is a delusion - I'm not just saying this, I'm serious!

[Keith_]

Selective acceptance and rejection of evidence to preserve what one wants to believe is an indicator for self deception. Examples that come to mind are "free will is an illusion", "our consciousness is an illusion", and "the evidence of design in nature is an illusion". Another example from science includes seeing entropy rule the natural in everything with one exception - evolution is unguided. Really? Does that seem likely? This is only reasonable if you circularly presuppose that it must be so.

How about dismissing the need for a supernatural cause for space time matter and energy exploding into existence? Infinite universes? There is no actual evidence whatsoever supporting that conclusion, but those who want to believe in material infinities embrace the idea anyway. 

And our longing for spirituality and something greater than us? This evolved? How could such an unproductive thing be selected over something that works ( on natural is). This idea can't be believed without the presupposition that it must have happened that way. Talk about leaps of faith!

How could a quantum event occur when there is nowhere and no-when for the occurrence There is no actual evidence to support this belief either. And believing God would not allow suffering? That's not the biblical God. It seems only atheists think they are as smart as a god, and that nothing is hidden from them. Why? Circular reasoning- a god that doesn't exist knows less than you, and has no hidden reasons for anything.

It looks to me as though being an atheist requires some serious evidence denial and nearly all (maybe even all) atheist arguments start and end with the assumption of atheism - this is circular reasoning. Of course evevidence for God doesn't exist if you assume it is impossible. As I said in the subject line, and I'm not just saying this for effect, atheism looks to me like a mass delusion. Have you read /r/atheism lately? Wow.

Does this pattern of atheist self-deception only look like a powerful apologetic case to me?

-Keith

[Nelvan]

Hi Keith.  Have you seen any of the Great Courses? 
There is a professor I think you would be interested in if you haven't seen his classes.  His name is Steven L. Goldman.  The two courses I've seen of his are "Science Wars:  What Science Knows and How it Knows It" and "Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World".
He is quite objective and lectures about the philosophy of science.  More importantly, he is not a proponent of scienticism. 

[Nunovalente]

Keith,

Take a look at kids and nature programs today. It's completely Hollywood. In particular Jurassic claims.
Watching the programs, you'd think we know all about what these creatures look like and did.

What we think they were,did,how, when and why, is passed off as established fact. The same scepticism that applies to theism is completely absent. Yet their faith in nature no different to the theists in God.
But for some reason it's ok to make outlandish claims about nature, but you cannot make any claims about God.

[Emuse]

Nobody claims that evolution is unguided.  Non random selection is the guide.

As you say, we shouldn't ignore details just because they don't fit with our beliefs.

[Emuse]

Selective acceptance and rejection of evidence to preserve what one wants to believe is an indicator for self deception. Examples that come to mind are "free will is an illusion", "our consciousness is an illusion", and "the evidence of design in nature is an illusion". Another example from science includes seeing entropy rule the natural in everything with one exception - evolution is unguided. Really? Does that seem likely? This is only reasonable if you circularly presuppose that it must be so.

How about dismissing the need for a supernatural cause for space time matter and energy exploding into existence? Infinite universes? There is no actual evidence whatsoever supporting that conclusion, but those who want to believe in material infinities embrace the idea anyway. 

And our longing for spirituality and something greater than us? This evolved? How could such an unproductive thing be selected over something that works ( on natural is). This idea can't be believed without the presupposition that it must have happened that way. Talk about leaps of faith!

How could a quantum event occur when there is nowhere and no-when for the occurrence There is no actual evidence to support this belief either. And believing God would not allow suffering? That's not the biblical God. It seems only atheists think they are as smart as a god, and that nothing is hidden from them. Why? Circular reasoning- a god that doesn't exist knows less than you, and has no hidden reasons for anything.

It looks to me as though being an atheist requires some serious evidence denial and nearly all (maybe even all) atheist arguments start and end with the assumption of atheism - this is circular reasoning. Of course evevidence for God doesn't exist if you assume it is impossible. As I said in the subject line, and I'm not just saying this for effect, atheism looks to me like a mass delusion. Have you read /r/atheism lately? Wow.

Does this pattern of atheist self-deception only look like a powerful apologetic case to me?

-Keith

It (atheism) only requires skepticism toward theistic claims because it is recognised (by the atheist) that the evidence offered in support of theistic claims can be interpreted in more than one way.

[Emuse]

One of the reasons I very reluctantly lost my faith was because I couldn't continue to ignore evidence and interpretations of data that didn't fit with my beliefs at the time.  I made myself stop and that got me to where I am now.

 It is quite obvious that many atheists are intelligent and lucid people who think very deeply about the nature of reality by incorporating as much available data as they can into their conclusions.  Of course, many theists do the same.  But this alone is strong evidence that the issue is complex and not simply governed by denial (especially where people shift positions reluctantly).

As has been pointed out to you before Keith (ad nauseum), why not ask atheists why they think the way they do and address the reasons given rather than just making negative claims about the people presenting those reasons? The irony is (given the accusation you are making in the OP), it appears that you will continue to ignore these replies and that advice because it doesn't fit with your beliefs about atheism.

[igr]

Nunovalente #2,  You said "Yet their faith in nature no different to the theists in God." 

Maybe the ideas about ancient creatures are based (in part) on the fossil record, so it is not really (only) faith.

When we find God bones in the fossil record we can use the same process to speculate about God.  Until then we have nothing material that relates to God.  We have many different ideas and claims about a non-material God, but God is conjecture, a plot device to explain some of the unknown.


To call aTheism a delusion is to mis-represent the word aTheism - aTheism is the "a" (lack of) of an "ism" but is not an "ism" itself.

[rstrats]

igr,
re:  " aTheism is the 'a' (lack of) of an 'ism' but is not an 'ism' itself."


It might be.  According to Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage it is "a belief...that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism"   Strong atheists say that they actually believe - are convinced - that deities do not exist.

[Emuse]

Fair comment.  But most people are going to say something like "I don't know what (if anything) caused the universe but because of that, I can't claim to know that God did it.  On that basis, I don't possess a belief that God did it and the term for a person who lacks belief in God is ....?". But a person in that position isn't guilty of most of the accusations being thrown out indiscriminately in the OP.

[Soren]

Selective acceptance and rejection of evidence to preserve what one wants to believe is an indicator for self deception. Examples that come to mind are "free will is an illusion", "our consciousness is an illusion", and "the evidence of design in nature is an illusion". Another example from science includes seeing entropy rule the natural in everything with one exception - evolution is unguided. Really? Does that seem likely? This is only reasonable if you circularly presuppose that it must be so.

How about dismissing the need for a supernatural cause for space time matter and energy exploding into existence? Infinite universes? There is no actual evidence whatsoever supporting that conclusion, but those who want to believe in material infinities embrace the idea anyway. 

And our longing for spirituality and something greater than us? This evolved? How could such an unproductive thing be selected over something that works ( on natural is). This idea can't be believed without the presupposition that it must have happened that way. Talk about leaps of faith!

How could a quantum event occur when there is nowhere and no-when for the occurrence There is no actual evidence to support this belief either. And believing God would not allow suffering? That's not the biblical God. It seems only atheists think they are as smart as a god, and that nothing is hidden from them. Why? Circular reasoning- a god that doesn't exist knows less than you, and has no hidden reasons for anything.

It looks to me as though being an atheist requires some serious evidence denial and nearly all (maybe even all) atheist arguments start and end with the assumption of atheism - this is circular reasoning. Of course evevidence for God doesn't exist if you assume it is impossible. As I said in the subject line, and I'm not just saying this for effect, atheism looks to me like a mass delusion. Have you read /r/atheism lately? Wow.

Does this pattern of atheist self-deception only look like a powerful apologetic case to me?

-Keith

So what's the point of this? Every one of your assertions has been argued about at length here and elsewhere, and you must be aware that there are counterarguments to everything you say. (Your point about entropy and evolution, for example, repeats a common misunderstanding of the concept of entropy in science.) You are of course entitled to argue your opinion, but it seems rude and childish -- not to mention counter-apologetic -- to just assert that anyone who disagrees with you is deluded.

[Nunovalente]

Nunovalente #2,  You said "Yet their faith in nature no different to the theists in God." 

Maybe the ideas about ancient creatures are based (in part) on the fossil record, so it is not really (only) faith.

When we find God bones in the fossil record we can use the same process to speculate about God.  Until then we have nothing material that relates to God.  We have many different ideas and claims about a non-material God, but God is conjecture, a plot device to explain some of the unknown.


To call aTheism a delusion is to mis-represent the word aTheism - aTheism is the "a" (lack of) of an "ism" but is not an "ism" itself.

As I said, its mere speculation. A few bones, and from it we have incredibly details images of skin, moving pictures, sounds, food, behaviour, all played out in Hollywood style, and the public lap it up as if its all absolutely true. Talk about evidence.
Once you apply what you believe (from Fossil records or whatever) and put it into action, your expressing it by faith. You do not know. Your just confident about unseen facts. This is deemed acceptable.

Yet how quickly the biblical narrative is dismissed, regardless of the evidence, when all of those who drafted it were real people, with real testimonies, of real events.

None of the biblical narrative indicates God has bones. So no point looking for them. Other than Jesus bones, but we won't find them either.

[Emuse]

We can't know if we have found the bones of Jesus because, for any bones we do find, we wouldn't be able to know if they belonged to Jesus or not (and even if they did).  But thankfully, nobody is required to falsify (or believe) unfalsifiable claims (eg, the bones of Jesus will never be found).

[Keith_]

Hi Keith.  Have you seen any of the Great Courses? 
There is a professor I think you would be interested in if you haven't seen his classes.  His name is Steven L. Goldman.  The two courses I've seen of his are "Science Wars:  What Science Knows and How it Knows It" and "Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World".
He is quite objective and lectures about the philosophy of science.  More importantly, he is not a proponent of scienticism.

At a glance, this looks like a good source. It's on my list of things to look at this weekend. One thing that inspired this topic is the number of atheistic sources pointing out that the emperor has no cloths.  The book I'm reading now is:

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False 1st Edition
by Thomas Nagel.

I've been in science all my life, and I've drilled down into quiet a lot of these topics from purely academic sources. I follow a couple philosophers of science, who provide a very interesting analysis.  The more I look, the more the pattern emerges - science is a great and wonderful tool, but it is revealing every topic in science dead-ends exactly where it must if human beings and the universe had non-material supernatural origins.

-Keith

[Emuse]

Selective acceptance and rejection of evidence to preserve what one wants to believe is an indicator for self deception. Examples that come to mind are "free will is an illusion", "our consciousness is an illusion", and "the evidence of design in nature is an illusion". Another example from science includes seeing entropy rule the natural in everything with one exception - evolution is unguided. Really? Does that seem likely? This is only reasonable if you circularly presuppose that it must be so.

How about dismissing the need for a supernatural cause for space time matter and energy exploding into existence? Infinite universes? There is no actual evidence whatsoever supporting that conclusion, but those who want to believe in material infinities embrace the idea anyway. 

And our longing for spirituality and something greater than us? This evolved? How could such an unproductive thing be selected over something that works ( on natural is). This idea can't be believed without the presupposition that it must have happened that way. Talk about leaps of faith!

How could a quantum event occur when there is nowhere and no-when for the occurrence There is no actual evidence to support this belief either. And believing God would not allow suffering? That's not the biblical God. It seems only atheists think they are as smart as a god, and that nothing is hidden from them. Why? Circular reasoning- a god that doesn't exist knows less than you, and has no hidden reasons for anything.

It looks to me as though being an atheist requires some serious evidence denial and nearly all (maybe even all) atheist arguments start and end with the assumption of atheism - this is circular reasoning. Of course evevidence for God doesn't exist if you assume it is impossible. As I said in the subject line, and I'm not just saying this for effect, atheism looks to me like a mass delusion. Have you read /r/atheism lately? Wow.

Does this pattern of atheist self-deception only look like a powerful apologetic case to me?

-Keith

So what's the point of this? Every one of your assertions has been argued about at length here and elsewhere, and you must be aware that there are counterarguments to everything you say. (Your point about entropy and evolution, for example, repeats a common misunderstanding of the concept of entropy in science.) You are of course entitled to argue your opinion, but it seems rude and childish -- not to mention counter-apologetic -- to just assert that anyone who disagrees with you is deluded.

It appears that ignoring those you disagree with and are making accusations about requires the help of the Holy Spirit.  It's certainly something I find myself unable to do, just out of a sense of mutual respect.  Ah well.  At least I tried to engage.

[Keith_]

Nobody claims that evolution is unguided.  Non random selection is the guide.

As you say, we shouldn't ignore details just because they don't fit with our beliefs.

To be guided implies an intended purpose, a plan, or a course set in advance. As in guided missiles, guided tours, or the guides on a fishing rod. Few people,  not even young earth creationists, deny that there are genetic errors or that natural selection can alter organisms over time.

A question for you, Emuse: Why do organisms evolve?

-Keith