Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

No Offense, but Atheism Is a Really Stupid Philosophy 

By: De_Composed in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (3)
Tue, 03 Sep 24 8:40 AM | 39 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 57665 of 58514
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I had high hopes for this article but they were short-lived. I became disenchanted about half a second into it. There are too many flaws to discuss in a preamble, but I'll mention two.

• The title, "No Offense, but Atheism Is a Really Stupid Philosophy," suggests that the author doesn't really understand atheists. For reasons I'll go into below, atheists don't tend to take offense.

• It sure would help if the author would define his terms. He should give a precise definition of what he thinks an atheist is. He should define what "God" is. He should define "religion." He should define "belief." In each case, I found myself thinking that the author's answer probably wouldn't match mine.

It sounds almost like the author thinks atheism is a religion or cult, one with fanatical adherents and a defined belief system. I beg to differ. My view is that there is a probability that God exists, and a probability that He doesn't. Does that make me an atheist? If so, what about the author? He makes the same statement when he says, "It’s possible there is no God, so perhaps the atheists are right."

In my experience, the risk of "offense" is limited to those whose views have fragile foundations. Atheists and agnostics are difficult to offend since they don't have a vested interest in defending anything. If a religious person finds logical fault in an atheist's position, then great! Pretty much by definition, atheists and agnostics are short on answers. They know this. They shouldn't be offended by an argument they hadn't considered. At worst, they'll consider the argument unpersuasive or dull.

Religious people, on the other hand, have the answers. No matter that different religions usually have very DIFFERENT answers. The fact is that each religion claims to know what's going on. If a cornerstone of any religion is competently challenged, its members are likely to take offense, perhaps for personal reasons or perhaps because they think God puts his faithful soldiers on pedestals. I think it could be either of those but also that religions are houses of cards. If a chink is taken out of the house, the entire thing could collapse. After all, a religion is supposed to have the answers, not SOME of the answers.

It might be fun to watch a debate between a devout Muslim and a devout Christian. It had better be done in a ring, though, 'cuz there's a good chance that there'll be a little offense....

If you look, you'll find plenty of problems with Mr. Pinsker's article. (The discussion of the sun and the moon being the most extreme, imo.) I found so many that I was tempted to contact him and was disappointed that there was no easy mechanism for doing so. For reasons of time and space, I'll leave it to you folks to point them out should you be so inclined. Here's the article:


September 2, 2024

No Offense, but Atheism Is a Really Stupid Philosophy

by Scott Pinsker
PJmedia.com


Normally, it’s a colossal waste of time to argue to death about what happens after we die. It’s pointless. Furthermore, I absolutely, 100% guarantee you that whoever you’re arguing with doesn’t know the answer either.

Nobody does.

But sometimes, even when an answer is unknowable and/or unprovable, the thought patterns we use to decipher the riddle can be evaluated. There are good SOPs and bad SOPs. Clearly, not all thought patterns are equal.

Take atheism, for example.

It’s possible there is no God, so perhaps the atheists are right. Nobody can definitively disprove atheism, just as no one can definitively disprove Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or even Scientology. By definition, faith-based theologies aren’t scientifically testable. They fall outside of the scientific method.

So why do the atheists insist they’re right?

Most religious people are delighted to talk about their faith and explain their belief systems — especially those from an evangelical religion — but the leading atheists aren’t interested in debating ideas anymore. Instead, they’re smug and arrogant, coupled with a healthy dose of elitism. In their minds, all the smart, educated men and women — the doctors, scientists, college professors, and Nobel laureates — are card-carrying atheists, whereas those inbred rubes in Flyover Country are just too stupid to realize that Jesus and God are a bunch of silly nonsense.

Statistically, they have a point: Global numbers on atheism are difficult to ascertain, but it seems that only 7% of the world’s population is atheist or agnostic (with communist China responsible for about 40% of the total tally).

But only 65% of Nobel prize winners were either Christian or raised Christian. The award’s namesake, Alfred Nobel, became an atheist later in his life. And in a study of the “professional philosophers” from the top university’s departments of philosophy, it was revealed that a whopping 72.8% considered themselves atheists.

Atheism is overrepresented on college campuses as well. At the “elite” universities with doctoral programs, 36.5% were either agnostics or atheists.

Indeed, researchers Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn even published a study claiming that atheists were, on average, six IQ points ahead of non-atheists. So not only are they better educated, but they’re smarter, too. (So they say.)

An overwhelming majority of atheists look down on religion: 94% cite religion as divisive and intolerant; 91% believe religion encourages superstitions and illogical thinking; 73% are convinced that religion does more social harm than good. If elitism were a theology, the atheists would be… theists.

Yet, the atheists contend they’re simply relying on hardcore, empirical science. Fine. So let’s examine the science:

According to the scientific consensus, roughly 96% of the universe is comprised of either dark matter or dark energy. Somewhere between 4 and 5% is made up of “normal” mass and energy — the stuff we encounter in our day-to-day life.

Even though dark matter and dark energy share the word “dark,” it’s not at all clear that the two phenomena are linked. Scientists use the word “dark” as a general euphemism, meaning, “we don’t know what it is well enough to make an educated guess.” So basically, today’s science doesn’t have much of a clue what the hell 96% of our universe actually is! They just assume dark matter and dark energy must exist, because the current cosmology models function better when you factor them in.

Additionally, the “observable universe” — the parts we can still see — is only a tiny sliver of the total universe. The dominant scientific model measures our observable universe at approximately 93 billion light years in diameter. Anything beyond the 93 billion light year mark is expanding away from us at ever-increasing speeds, which means no information will ever reach us. We don’t know (and may never know) for sure how big it actually is, but some models predict that the total universe must be an astounding 250 times larger than the observable universe! Instead of it being “just” 93 billion light years, it’s likely about 7 trillion light years across!

Yet these scientists are so sure atheism is right… when there’s only 4% of existence they can directly observe?! And when just 1/250 of this is still visible?!

Modern science emerged in the 17th century. It’s a very new discipline — one that’s still in its infancy. There’s exponentially more we don’t know than what we do. The bottom line is, if you can’t even access 96% of reality, you simply lack the means to exclude a Creator. You’re too ignorant.

Lately, it’s become trendy to consider the Simulation Theory. Elon Musk, for example, insists it’s much more probable that we’re living in an artificial simulation, and not in a “real” world. His thought process is extremely straightforward: In the 2020s, we’re rapidly approaching the ability to create Artificial Intelligence that’s indistinguishable from human intelligence. Once we can create one human-level AI, we can create billions; once we can run one simulation, we can also run billions. Or even trillions.

If it turns out that Musk is correct and sentience is an emergent quality in a sufficiently intelligent system, then one day, AIs will achieve sentience. Therefore, one of two things must be true: Either this is the only time in the entire history of our universe that an intelligent species has developed this kind of AI technology and we’re in the “real” universe testing it for the first time, or we’re in one of the billions (or trillions) of simulations that have already begun. In Musk’s opinion, the statistics are so lopsided in favor of a simulation, it would be illogical to assume otherwise.

But even if our entire existence is an AI creation, it still necessitates the existence of a Creator. All it does is (possibly) redefine His nature and objectives.

Imagine the arrogance of the atheists! To argue that God can’t exist and mustn’t exist — because the infant science of 4% of reality says otherwise! And of the 4% we can see, only 1/250 is even visible?!

That’s a poorly reasoned conclusion.

To me, one of the more inspiring indicators of God’s possible existence is the sun and moon. Our sun is millions of times larger than the earth; our moon is ¼ the size of our planet. Yet, from our (temporary) seat in the cosmos, the sun and moon are so perfectly identical in height and width, they can literally take turns completely eclipsing the other.

It's strange. It’s bizarre. As far as we know, this doesn’t happen on any other planet.

But here we are, with the sun and moon — the two most blatantly obvious objects in the sky! — being so perfectly proportional, they’re practically twins. It’s completely contrary to what you’d expect via the laws of probability.

Ask yourself: Can you imagine a subtler, more elegant way for a Creator to demonstrate to His creations that our universe isn’t random — instead, it’s deliberate — than by making the two most obvious symbols in the sky exactly identical? And to do so in a way that makes a mockery of randomness?

Unlike atheism, it’s probably worth considering.

http://pjmedia.com/scott-pinsker/2024/09/02/no-offense-but-atheism-is-a-really-stupid-philosophy-n4932184


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next