Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization?

[xellos88330]

Gather yourself and form a cogent thought. Decide how you want to present it. Read it to yourself, ask yourself if it makes sense. When you've done that I might continue with you. I'm being sincere, even if you're not.

What if I told you that virtual particles pop in and out of existence (with no real explanation why) in our physical reality and have the capability to exist permanently in our universe? Some particles are even known to exist and not exist simultaneously until we attempt to measure them. I speak from an agnostic point of view because the acceptance of that possibility is necessary for you to progress with an open mind. Everything I have stated before is justifiable according to laws of physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and pilot wave theory.

I had previously stated that I choose to believe in a transcendent god. Virtual particles transcend our physical reality and others exist and do not exist simultaneously and have the potential to affect our physical universe or reality in accordance with quantum mechanics and pilot wave theory. This also allows gives particles the capability to bypass the laws of thermodynamics. You require proof of transcendence and quantum physics explains and proves that transcending physical reality is justifiable. I also stated that I am looking for truth. The truth is simply just given a name. God. To me, god is the creator of the universe. If god is a tiny particle, then so be it. I owe my existence to that tiny particle.

Stating that I am a theist is actually a SERIOUS mistake on my part (most likely damages my credibility if you had any for me to begin with LOL!!!). I fall further within the realm of a deist. I had no idea what deism was until a pastor explained it to me this morning. I love the ideas of theism though. They help make me feel more human, so I will never ignore them because their effect on me is real.

So where to begin. Hmmmm...

#1 You once stated that atheism has a stance of non belief. Non belief according to the dictionary, states that it is simply a lack of belief. So wouldn't atheism fall in the justification for truth w/o belief category? You cannot claim knowledge if you don't believe it, so therefore is argument from nonbelief actually plausible when applied to this diagram? If so, I would like to see how. I am genuinely curious as to how it is done using an atheistic point of view.

#2 The word justification states that it is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. This seems simple enough right?

#3 In the previous 2 circle examples, the justification was already included. That was the purpose of the two separate examples. The first example I had stated is used as the justification of the second example because it shows that it is reasonable or correct to assume that an existence beyond our knowledge is possible.

[xellos88330]

I love my history, but I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization that is still successful by modern standards.

This lead me to ask the question. Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization? It is a straightforward question. I have no choice but to create a straw man argument because no atheist is adding their input to answer the question. I don't create it just to create it, I create it from lack of data. Don't just say I am creating a straw man, help set the er on fire. Merely stating it, doesn't do anything.

[DMC]

What if I told you that virtual particles pop in and out of existence (with no real explanation why) in our physical reality and have the capability to exist permanently in our universe? Some particles are even known to exist and not exist simultaneously until we attempt to measure them. I speak from an agnostic point of view because the acceptance of that possibility is necessary for you to progress with an open mind. Everything I have stated before is justifiable according to laws of physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and pilot wave theory.

What if I told you particle physics is my profession and they have absolutely nothing to do with theism or atheism?

You cannot speak from an agnostic point if view if you're not agnostic.

I had previously stated that I choose to believe in a transcendent god. Virtual particles transcend our physical reality and others exist and do not exist simultaneously and have the potential to affect our physical universe or reality in accordance with quantum mechanics and pilot wave theory. This also allows gives particles the capability to bypass the laws of thermodynamics. You require proof of transcendence and quantum physics explains and proves that transcending physical reality is justifiable. I also stated that I am looking for truth. The truth is simply just given a name. God. To me, god is the creator of the universe. If god is a tiny particle, then so be it. I owe my existence to that tiny particle.

Nothing we understand transcends our reality. If they are real and we know of them, they aren't transcendent. Just because you don't understand them doesn't make them transcendent.
You cannot tell me about something, describe its properties and such, then say it transcends reality. This is a logical disconnect you seem to struggle with, these incompatible views from one mind.

Stating that I am a theist is actually a SERIOUS mistake on my part (most likely damages my credibility if you had any for me to begin with LOL!!!). I fall further within the realm of a deist. I had no idea what deism was until a pastor explained it to me this morning. I love the ideas of theism though. They help make me feel more human, so I will never ignore them because their effect on me is real.

So you don't understand religious terminology nor do you understand logical fallacies yet you're here with an epiphany regarding the role of atheism over the history of mankind? You're theist, this is certain because you feel strongly that a god exists. If you're deist, you'd think a god once existed and doesn't do anything now. Since you don't know that a god does nothing now, by your own words it's possible that a god does something now, so you then believe it (blue circle).

So where to begin. Hmmmm...

#1 You once stated that atheism has a stance of non belief. Non belief according to the dictionary, states that it is simply a lack of belief. So wouldn't atheism fall in the justification for truth w/o belief category? You cannot claim knowledge if you don't believe it, so therefore is argument from nonbelief actually plausible when applied to this diagram? If so, I would like to see how. I am genuinely curious as to how it is done using an atheistic point of view.

No. You're calling non-belief a belief.The non-belief doesn't enter into a belief diagram.

#2 The word justification states that it is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. This seems simple enough right?

I'd accept that, but you cannot remove words like "showing" and keep the meaning intact, which I feel you'll try to do. Justification doesn't need to be to someone else, it can be to yourself. Justification for belief is something your mind settles on, it's that "compelling" part I mentioned earlier. If I tell you there's 20 dollars across the street on the ground, you might walk over there and look. You'd have justification if I wasn't a known liar (I'm not a known liar). If the money wasn't there you still had justification for looking. If I told you there was a pink flying fairy with a magic wand on an island in the pacific somewhere, you'd not have justification for going through the trouble to search for it. Consider the second example to be the existence of god, and the first to be the acceptance that religion is bunk.

#3 In the previous 2 circle examples, the justification was already included. That was the purpose of the two separate examples. The first example I had stated is used as the justification of the second example because it shows that it is reasonable or correct to assume that an existence beyond our knowledge is possible.

You haven't shown that it's possible however. You only expect to posit that as a priori truth when it's simply not. You have to show that it's possible for something you have no test for, to exist. There's a maybe, but maybe doesn't mean possible. It means you don't know. Not knowing is fine, but you cannot establish what's possible from ignorance of fact. Otherwise ignorance of fact increases possibility, and it simply doesn't.

Is it possible to have a square circle? These are conflicting concepts so it's not possible, anywhere in the reality of the world. In fact you cannot even imagine it. If you didn't understand what a square or a circle was, it wouldn't mean squared circles are possible. It just means you don't know.

Is it possible for a god to exist? We don't know. Since we don't know, there's no reason to create a god just to fill the void until it magically appears and replaces our mental concept of it. Even atheists would believe a god existed if it became apparent. No one has a problem believing the sun exists. You never hear of the possibilities that the sun doesn't exist. We don't know, it could be a mirage.... so does that make it possible that the sun doesn't exist? Not really. Do you struggle with accepting its existence? Can you chose to not believe the sun exists?

[DMC]

This lead me to ask the question. Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization? It is a straightforward question. I have no choice but to create a straw man argument because no atheist is adding their input to answer the question. I don't create it just to create it, I create it from lack of data. Don't just say I am creating a straw man, help set the er on fire. Merely stating it, doesn't do anything.

You misunderstand the term "strawman". It would do you good to learn these things if you're going to enter into forum discussions because you'll encounter them a lot. It will also keep you from making those mistakes in reasoning.

A strawman isn't a hypothetical. It's making a caricature of the actual position someone holds, and trying to attack that instead of their actual position.

Example:

Person A says "The price of gas is too high"

Person B argues "Well, you might not want to pay for the gas you use but it's only fair that we pay for what we take, otherwise we are stealing it"

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. How can that be tied to a civilization's rise or fall unless you think a god is punishing people or that the belief in a god somehow enables cultures to survive? You should make a positive assertion, not challenge people to disprove your negative one.

List the fallen societies that were atheistic.

When you do, I'll show you there weren't atheistic. Even NK isn't atheist. They just don't believe in your god. They believe their leader is a god. Believing in a god, even a living god, is theism.

Atheists aren't a group of people. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, and it often extends to lack of belief in anything supernatural. It develops to dismissal of all the supernatural suggestions and "hocus pocus". Because there's such a stark dichotomy between theism and atheism in society, dialogue develops. Some atheists become militant about it, some never even mention it. Same is true for religion, however with atheism there's no edict on how you should behave, no rules.