Where did all the (HubPages) Pro-atheists retire?

1. 61

   God shetposted 8 years ago

   What a joke! I returned here to fight (have a chat?!!) with them, and lo - they're all gone! (excepting a few, of course). What happens here?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Lucid Psycheposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Atheism has lost it's scientific underpinnings and is philosophically bankrupt. Atheism has also turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does.  It stands to reason that as people become more tuned in to the foibles and shortcomings of adamant atheists they will lose interest in identifying themselves as such.
      That may or may not be the reason for the attrition of Hubpages atheists if such is the case (I've encountered relatively few here myself).  Speaking as a former YouTube atheist I found that my position became untenable in that I had to purposefully ignore a landslide of damaging evidence and give the false appearance of being unperturbed by it all.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         "Atheism has lost it's scientific underpinnings and is philosophically bankrupt." What is the atheist philosophy?
         
         "Atheism has also turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does." I understand the careerists, but I would like you to name some frauds and psychopaths.
         
           It stands to reason that as people become more tuned in to the foibles and shortcomings of adamant atheists they will lose interest in identifying themselves as such.
         That may or may not be the reason for the attrition of Hubpages atheists if such is the case (I've encountered relatively few here myself).  Speaking as a former YouTube atheist I found that my position became untenable in that I had to purposefully ignore a landslide of damaging evidence and give the false appearance of being unperturbed by it all.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Lucid Psycheposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            "What is the atheist philosophy?"
            
            I said that atheism is philosophically bankrupt. The opening gambit when someone attacks atheism from a superior philosophical vantage is to claim that atheism is not a philosophy. Without a philosophy to support it's assumption(s) atheism has no fundamental basis to claim that it is correct. But Naturalism (which is atheism's  foundational philosophy) is extremely vulnerable to rational attack. Not a pretty situation. All you can do is stall.
            
            "I understand the careerists, but I would like you to name some frauds and psychopaths."
            
            Start with James Randi, an honest look at his career should ring all the bells.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               OK - what "assumptions" do atheists make?
               
               And what "rational attack" is possible on Naturalism, even though that is not the atheist philosophy?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Lucid Psycheposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  "OK - what "assumptions" do atheists make?"
                  
                  That Naturalism is true. You will find that they have this in common even though when pressed some or most will try to evade.
                  
                  "And what "rational attack" is possible on Naturalism...?"
                  
                  I assume you were present for our past discussions? Naturalism is self annihilating as I've explained. Would you like a copy and paste our would you prefer to look for yourself?
                  
                  " ... even though that is not the atheist philosophy?"
                  
                  That's the party line (LOL) ... but let's assume it's true. As I said earlier in this conversation, "Without a philosophy to support it's assumption(s) atheism has no fundamental basis to claim that it is correct." And since there is no proof that God does not exist and in fact there is plentiful evidence to contravene that "lack of belief" (LOL) ... it is an assumption. Do atheists claim they are correct? The ones I know do!
                  The only possible fact is that they have a lack of belief. The currently accepted definition of atheism is a legalistic evasion precisely because of it's inherent vulnerability.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Naturalism: the concept that things we can see exist.  That the natural laws we investigate are pretty much correct.  No "assumption" necessary as all are thoroughly tested and checked. 
                     
                     No, there is no "self annihilation" as tests show the concept is correct, and no "philosophy" needed to corroborate those tests.
                     
                     No reasonable atheist will claim there is no god; that is primarily a tactic of believers to discredit the atheist, but one without basis in fact (although there ARE atheists foolish enough to make the claim, just as there are believers to claim the opposite without proof).  Zero evidence that there is a god has ever been produced; just philosophy that cannot be verified as true.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Castlepalomaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        To be an atheist, don't you have to know there is no god, or your an agnostic? OR  be 99% sure that god dose not exist like world champion atheist R Dawkins. Who in this world knows the 99% unknowns?

                        replyreport
                     2. 60

                        Lucid Psycheposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        "Naturalism: the concept that things we can see exist.  That the natural laws we investigate are pretty much correct.  No "assumption" necessary as all are thoroughly tested and checked."
                        
                        Naturalism is the concept that only the "natural" realm exists. As I've proven in earlier posts that is incorrect. Again ... you were present for those discussions.
                        
                        "No reasonable atheist will claim there is no god; that is primarily a tactic of believers to discredit the atheist ..."
                        The original definition was changed from a belief that there is no God to a "lack of belief". That is a evasion on the part of the atheist because they were getting hammered by evidence to the contrary. Look at the word itself and research it's origins. A - theist.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           You have never "proven" anything of the sort (that there are other realms besides the natural one).  You've made the claim, but have totally failed to provide even a shred of evidence outside of opinions unsupported by anything at all.
                           
                           I know the listed origins, and even agree with them.  The definition USED to be a belief there is no god (why I never classified myself as an atheist), but it has changed.  Words do that, you know.
                           
                           If you wish to use the older definition it would be wise to make that clear; that you are using outdated language which does not have the same definition today as the one you wish to use.  It would be even wiser to resist making such claims as that there is evidence of a god - as there isn't any whatsoever, it makes the statement completely false and calls your credibility into question.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Lucid Psycheposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              wildernes: "You have never "proven" anything of the sort (that there are other realms besides the natural one).  You've made the claim, but have totally failed to provide even a shred of evidence outside of opinions unsupported by anything at all."
                              
                              As a matter of public record, I have.
                              Me: "One thing we can deduce from the facts at hand is that there was no natural realm preexisting the physical universe. Time, space, and matter, (the natural realm) which according to GTR are co-relative, began to exist simultaneously and thus could not have caused themselves to begin to exist.
                              
                              The universe had to have a cause if one accepts The Principle of Causality, which is one of the First Principles of Logic. That cause therefore could not have been "natural" as that word is described in the philosophical and scientific position of Naturalism."
                              
                              This has been covered numerous times for you. If you can't accept the fact it's on ideological grounds (not scientific) which is not my problem but is something for you to reconcile for yourself. Established science and correctly applied logic is and always has been my standard of application. If you prefer evasive blue sky speculation it's your reputation at stake ... not mine.
                              
                              wilderness: "I know the listed origins, and even agree with them.  The definition USED to be a belief there is no god (why I never classified myself as an atheist), but it has changed.  Words do that, you know.
                              
                              And I explained the reason why. The simple straightforward pronouncement that an atheist does not believe in God is far too vulnerable to scientific fact and correctly applied logic. Thus the definition HAD to be changed to a mere legalistic evasion to prevent atheist from looking dumb. Simple.
                              Atheism has become agnosticsm and agnosticism has become a stance that the truth is unknowable. Neither position is rational by the standard of scientific fact and correctly applied logic.
                              
                              wilderness: "If you wish to use the older definition it would be wise to make that clear; that you are using outdated language which does not have the same definition today as the one you wish to use.  It would be even wiser to resist making such claims as that there is evidence of a god - as there isn't any whatsoever, it makes the statement completely false and calls your credibility into question."
                              
                              I've always made my position perfectly clear and if you will remember was the one who pointed out the shifting definition of the word atheism. As for there being no evidence, a denial of the evidence isn't the same as it not existing. In point of fact the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming. As is certainly the case for Anthony Flew for instance. The difference being that he was ultimately honest enough to admit to the facts and forego the evasions.

                              replyreport
      2. 68

         A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, I agree with psyche. We just got bored.

         replyreport
      3. 61

         God shetposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         +!!

         replyreport
   2. 68

      A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      To be honest, I got busy. Although, I don't know if I technically count because I'm not an Atheist if you define them as people who deny the existence of a God or Gods or some kind of transcendent and ever-pervasive "invisible" source of life without reason and contrary to any actual evidence that might point towards the existence of such entities. If however, you define an Atheist as someone who does not definitely believe in these things because there is no sound evidence (but are open to the idea of such entities and may or may not have opinions that aren't considered fact), then I am an Atheist. And I have simply gotten busy. Just earned my Bachelors, got a new job, got a new boyfriend (well he's not new anymore), and I'm about to start a graduate program. So I don't have much free time. I also agree with psyche because it does get boring having circular arguments with people that literally never to anywhere. But I've come to accept that (and I think a lot of us have) so there's seldom a need for such conversations, though I do pop up in the forums every once in a while.

      replyreport
2. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 8 years ago

   We got bored.

   replyreport
3. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 8 years ago

   I identify myself very clearly as atheist when it is relevant to do so. 
   I just got sick of having the same discussion over and over again.

   replyreport
4. 76

   Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

   Thousand
   that's complicated. You are obviously an agnostic. Why then cling to the word atheist? For what reason? You are a straightforward garden variety meat and potatoes agnostic. Its ok.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, there are few labels that I "cling" to, but technically any agnostic is by default an atheist. People often use the word "agnostic" when they mean to use the term "deist," who is a person that believes in some kind of higher power, though may not believe any specific one and/or they may not adhere to any specific religion. I do not necessarily fall in that category, because I have opinions but no real "beliefs."

      replyreport
5. 76

   Castlepalomaposted 8 years ago

   Being spirtual sided, it seem, I don't fit in on either oneside Christians or Atheists extremes. How onesided of any group can claim to narrowly know the 99% unknown is beyond me. Love the World, nature, people, so must try to understand people. Must say, it's much easier to get along with my vetern artists and close friends than trying to question why they hang on to these ultimate core beliefs or ways of thinking.

   replyreport
6. 61

   God shetposted 8 years ago

   What a contribution to humanity!

   replyreport