Where Atheists Fear to Tread

[uwot]

What...you don't read your own posts?

Can you indicate what you think I have missed, Inglorious?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Atheists here rely almost exclusively on promissory materialism to justify excluding the divine from the natural order of things. That would be fine if there was the slightest glimmer of hope that science can eventually discover why things are the way they are, but there isn't, nor is it even equipped to do so.
.

You you have much less than they do. Your entire proposition is without merit and totally incoherent.

[uwot]

What...you don't read your own posts?

Which ones do you think support your claim?

[sthitapragya]

My primary filed of interest is ontology, the branch of metaphysics that studies of the nature of being and existence. It sounds like something even atheists should have an interest in, but it has been made abundantly clear to me they avoid the subject-matter like a plague ―

This is a false statement. The study of the nature of being and existence interests every atheists and a lot of science and physics goes into the study of this. I suppose you have heard of the big bang theory.

and probably for good reason: pursuing ontology to an ultimate conclusion inexorably leads to some kind of theism.

This is a personal opinion. Theists tend to start their study with an assumption that God exists and so they see God every time the encounter something unexplainable. The atheist simply terms it unexplainable for now and moves on.

Atheists seem to take a certain pride in their lack of belief of any kind.

There is no pride involved. It is the logical way to approach life if you don't want your thought process to be hindered by a previously held bias.

They claim to operate from 'working hypotheses' that are subject to change instead of beliefs, which is just a funny way of saying they don't cling to their beliefs like theists cling to their belief in God ― as though what people believe about God is not subject to change.

Not really. It is not just about God. It is about trying to avoid any kind of belief which is a pretty tough state of mind to attain. I, frankly. am not there yet. But the less I believe the more things become clear to me personally.

In any other context they would be accused of bigotry, but in today's secular climate it's perfectly acceptable.

I don't understand why this is bigotry. We don't think believers are bad people and dangerous. We just think they are misguided. There is no bigotry involved. I think most theists like most atheists are perfectly decent human beings living a life of honour with integrity and hard work.

Often, atheists take on an air of superiority as though confessing ignorance makes them wise in the way Socrates was wise.

Not really. We take on an air of superiority just as much as theists take on an air of superiority. And confessing ignorance does not make anyone wise. It just makes them honest. What you don't know, you don't know. We just have a problem with the theist's insistence on God as a solution for every unknown. The prehistoric man did it with lightning. We have moved on to more sophisticated things now.

More silliness. What's forgotten in their self-adulation is that Socrates admitted to an internal voice that he regarded as divine or semi-divine which they vehemently deny for themselves.

Of course I admire myself. But not because I am an atheist. I am just a very good looking guy. And I don't see any reason to vehemently deny my internal voice. I would be the first one to admit it if I heard one. Unfortunately, so far I have not. The minute I hear my internal voice, I promise you will be the first one to know. I don't understand why I would vehemently deny any belief in God. What would I get out of it? As it is, I am an outcast in my society. If I believed, I would have so many advantages. So I would actually like to hear an internal voice so that I could say I believe and join the crowd.

Let's take the question 'what must be in order to for what is to be as it is?' for example. The question requires an ontological answer, but the closest thing to an answer atheistic 'science' has to offer is fluctuations in a quantum field whose values of mysterious origin mysteriously average in such a way as to form a universe in which self-consciousness can emerge. When asked about the mysterious parts of their 'working hypothesis,' the atheist invariably responds in one of several ways ― all of which expresses ignorance:

• Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are

And what is wrong with that. What we don't know, we don't know.

'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief.

Well, so far it does seem like things are as they are just because. Even if we assume that God created the world, then the question would become, "why did God create a world where things are as they are?" And I am pretty sure you have no answer for that. So let us revise this and see the question from both eyes:

Atheist: Things are as they are just because.

Theist: No. Things are as they are because God created things to be just as they are.

Atheist: Why did God do that?

Theist: Just because.

I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can

Absolutely false accusation. I don't know. If you do, tell me. If someone else does, I am willing to listen. But do not expect me to accept it without proper reasons.

I don't know, but not that (referring to God)

Again a false accusation. I don't know, but don't insist it is God without giving reasons and asking me to accept it on faith. You cannot say "God. Just because." That is what we argue against.

Anything that can happen does (with God being the sole exception), so God isn't necessary.[/list]

Pretty much.

None of there serve so much as a 'working hypothesis.'

Neither does God. If you ask "why did God do....?" No theist can give a working answer. You ask, "Why did God..?" The atheist asks , "Why did...?"

And when it is pointed out that self-consciousness is not and cannot be something apart from the self-existing quantum field even if it is ontologically distinct from it, their minds shut down.

If you gave a detailed study of this, I am pretty sure they would accept it. Just declarations don't work with atheists.

They illogically deny any connection to or attribution of consciousness to the quantum field from which it emerges

They LOGICALLY deny it because there is no evidence to suggest a connection. If you have any, submit it. I am pretty sure it will be accepted.

― and their denial is as adamant as any religious fanatic.

Again, try submitting your hypothesis with evidence and I am sure they will accept it.