Atheism is the position of ignorance.Is it?

[paarsurrey1]

Atheism is the position of ignorance.Is it, please?
Regards

___________
One may like to read post 16, thread "Science does not support Atheism, does it?"
viewtopic.php?p=888924#888924

[Divine Insight]

Atheism is the position of ignorance.Is it, please?
Regards

No, absolutely not.

Atheism is simply a disbelief in any God myths.

It's no different from say a Christian or Muslim disbelieving in Zeus.

Would you suggest that a Christian or Muslim is taking a position of ignorance by not believing in Zeus?

If not, then it would be silly to suggest that someone who doesn't believe in any mythological God tales is taking a position of ignorance.

Keep in mind that all religious people are atheists with respect to the myriad of God's they don't believe exist.

So even if you are a theist, you also happen to be an atheist to some other religion.

Everyone is an atheist to some degree.

If you are a monotheist then total atheists merely believe in one less God than you do. That's all.

In fact, if you are a monotheist you are very close to being an atheist. You only have one more God to go and you'll be an atheist!

You're so close!!! You're almost there!

[2ndRateMind]

I should not like to say atheism is equivalent to ignorance. Ignorance implies one knows nothing, and I am quite willing to admit that many atheists know more facts and theories than I do.

For me, then, atheism is more a position of unenlightenment. It's a position of intellectual darkness, where all the facts and theories one knows do not necessarily help one live a good, and decent, and worthy life. Because all ethics and morals are thought to be subjective and mere opinion only, and therefore inclined to vary according to this advantage or that desire, and have no grounding in the ultimate, objective ideals that God represents for believers.

That is not to say that all believers live a good, and decent, and worthy life, or that all unbelievers do not. But I do think believers start out with the advantage in such a quest, whether they manifest their advantage, or not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2timothy316]

Ignorance not really.
Intellectual dishonesty yes.

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

This is not only found in atheist but many theist as well. Those that use the reasoning to deny there is a God that same type of reasoning is used by those that think that a person's soul lives forever. Both groups are aware of all the facts, reference works and witnesses but will reject only certain ones so as to serve their own dogma. They are not being honest with their personal intellect because they are not being objective in their reasoning but being biased.

To put it bluntly, intellectual dishonesty is where people lie to themselves to make themselves feel better.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

One may like to read posts 15-18wherein our friend William here who is from Atheism, has given to understand that Atheism is a position of Ignorance, please. The link is:

Thread "Science does not support Atheism, does it?"
viewtopic.php?p=888924#888924

Regards

[Rufus21]

One may like to read posts 15-18wherein our friend William here who is from Atheism, has given to understand that Atheism is a position of Ignorance, please. The link is:

Thread "Science does not support Atheism, does it?"
viewtopic.php?p=888924#888924

Regards

I agree that atheism begins as a position of ignorance. (The "default position" as William says) All children are born atheists until they are taught about religion. But it is not simply a position of ignorance. The more we learn, the more we are able to find errors in religious scriptures and falsify the claims of religious teachings.

For example, an archeologist, geologist, biologist, meteorologist, and physicist can all refute the bible using different branches of science. Someone who understand several of those areas will have even more reasons to be skeptical. The more we study those areas, the more reasons an atheist will find to support their position.

So atheism begins as a position of ignorance but it is preserved through knowledge, understanding and truth.

[2ndRateMind]

One may like to read posts 15-18wherein our friend William here who is from Atheism, has given to understand that Atheism is a position of Ignorance, please. The link is:

Thread "Science does not support Atheism, does it?"
viewtopic.php?p=888924#888924

Regards

I agree that atheism begins as a position of ignorance. (The "default position" as William says) All children are born atheists until they are taught about religion. But it is not simply a position of ignorance. The more we learn, the more we are able to find errors in religious scriptures and falsify the claims of religious teachings.

For example, an archeologist, geologist, biologist, meteorologist, and physicist can all refute the bible using different branches of science. Someone who understand several of those areas will have even more reasons to be skeptical. The more we study those areas, the more reasons an atheist will find to support their position.

So atheism begins as a position of ignorance but it is preserved through knowledge, understanding and truth.

While I cannot help but agree that modern science has demonstrated errors in the Bible, I still find that no archeologist, geologist, biologist, meteorologist or physicist can refute the central theist contentions that God exists, and is good. That is not their domain of expertise, any more than it was the domain of the theologians to decide whether, for example, the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa. One would hope, after 2-4000 years since the Bible was written, humanity has made scientific and philosophical progress. One of those advancing areas might just be the definition of domains of competence specific to certain fields of study.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Rufus21]

...I still find that no archeologist, geologist, biologist, meteorologist or physicist can refute the central theist contentions that God exists, and is good.

They cannot, nor will they ever. There cannot be any proof either for or against the concept of a supernatural god. The best science can do is prove that individual gods (e.g. Zeus, Jove, God) are false and show that historically all religions thus far have been false. Just like we cannot prove that psychic mediums do not exist, we can only debunk specific ones and show that there has never been a true one so far.

[2ndRateMind]

...I still find that no archeologist, geologist, biologist, meteorologist or physicist can refute the central theist contentions that God exists, and is good.

They cannot, nor will they ever. There cannot be any proof either for or against the concept of a supernatural god.

I tend to agree with this.

The best science can do is prove that individual gods (e.g. Zeus, Jove, God) are false and show that historically all religions thus far have been false.

I tend to disagree with this, and not just because of the contradiction to your previous statement. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no experiment which data refutes the hypothesis that God exists. Or Zeus, for that matter.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Rufus21]

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no experiment which data refutes the hypothesis that God exists. Or Zeus, for that matter.

Really? We can't refute the hypotheses that a man throwing lightening bolts lives on top of Mount Olympus?

If we can refute the claims made by religious scripture then we can refute the deity it describes. The Greeks were not describing deities that actually existed. Maybe there is a god, but it clearly cannot be Zeus.

Similarly we can look at many of the claims made in the bible and see that they are not true. Some of the easiest are from the book of Genesis. We know that the creation story, the garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel, Jonah and the great fish, and others are purely myths or legends. So if a supernatural god exists, it cannot be the one described in Genesis.

We can continue this exercise through other books of the bible or any other religious scripture to separate the wheat from the chaff. The further we go, the more gods get eliminated until only the truth remains.