How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[CHRISTINE77]

“If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we’re alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.” - Damon Linker,
theweek.com/articles/466865/where-are-honest-atheists

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for your question. The answer is a bit complicated in addition to being long.

The statement that “Atheists are more prone to evil” has two distinct parts which must be considered. The first part “are more prone to evil” describes a possible action. While we could debate the issue that the atheistic position is truly more prone to evil, we would never get close to the “respect the person” issue.

The second part of the statement “Atheists are more prone to evil” is that real human persons are being addressed. A real human person is worthy of profound respect because of the person’s human nature. This may sound like I am going in circles; however, both ends of the circle are true.

Both of us have different world views. Still, we both can find sufficient reasons as to why human nature should be respected regardless of any actions. My bet is that both of us can find reasonable aspects of human nature which are why the human person is worthy of profound respect.

I would start by saying that human nature has a spiritual soul directly given by God and therefore the human person is worthy of profound respect. That statement is part of my world view. Even when you disagree with my world view, you can understand, not necessarily accept, how I base my respect for the human person.

As an atheist, you can find other reasons that a human person is worthy of profound respect. You do not have to include God because God is not part of your world view. You could check out the physical/material world.

The atheist needs to review the inhabitants of the physical/material world. Immediately, there is an observable difference between species. When it comes to observing the human species, there is no doubt that it is peerless. It can be considered the summit of living organisms. That in itself can be the reason why the human person is worthy of profound respect. Yet, there is more when one takes a closer look at the difference between the human person and birds, bears, and buffalo. This difference is visual when one compares a beaver dam with the Hoover Dam.

Different world views can understand and accept the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

When one is convinced that the human person is worthy of profound respect, then one can open oneself to additional questions.

 

[aclausen]

“If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we’re alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.” - Damon Linker,
theweek.com/articles/466865/where-are-honest-atheists

The argument from aesthetics is really not all that convincing. Why should reality be required to provide us with catharsis?

 

[aclausen]

The atheist needs to review the inhabitants of the physical/material world. Immediately, there is an observable difference between species. When it comes to observing the human species, there is no doubt that it is peerless. It can be considered the summit of living organisms. That in itself can be the reason why the human person is worthy of profound respect. Yet, there is more when one takes a closer look at the difference between the human person and birds, bears, and buffalo. This difference is visual when one compares a beaver dam with the Hoover Dam.

Different world views can understand and accept the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

When one is convinced that the human person is worthy of profound respect, then one can open oneself to additional questions.

How are we peerless? In sheer biomass and success at reproduction alone, E. coli have us beat.

The differences you bring up are differences of degree. A chimp cannot create a fully formed language, but is capable of at least some degree of proto-language. He cannot construct complex tools, but he is capable of constructing some form of tool.

 

[grannymh]

How are we peerless? In sheer biomass and success at reproduction alone, E. coli have us beat.

And do mention that most of the animals have us beat in speed. We are peerless (different in kind) because beavers or bears or bacteria did not build the Hoover Dam.

The differences you bring up are differences of degree. A chimp cannot create a fully formed language, but is capable of at least some degree of proto-language. He cannot construct complex tools, but he is capable of constructing some form of tool.

Yes, one can look at differences of degree. However, it is the observable fact that the degrees evinced in beavers, bears, birds, buffalo, and the rest of the various living species (we can skip bacteria) were not enough for them to be hired as engineers for the Hoover Dam. This is known as difference in kind which makes humans peerless.

A sidebar. The way to spot eagles in Alaska is to look for golf balls toward the top of trees. The nests of birds are magnificent in efficiency. While “magnificent in efficiency” can be different in degrees in some tall apartment buildings, there is still the difference in kind between flapping our arms (a degree similar to bird wings) to get to a high outdoor bed and taking an elevator to one’s home.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

“If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we’re alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.” - Damon Linker,
theweek.com/articles/466865/where-are-honest-atheists

Appeal to consequences.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The argument from aesthetics is really not all that convincing. Why should reality be required to provide us with catharsis?

Damon is an atheist.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Appeal to consequences.

clear as mud. ?? How about you explaining.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t understand why he thinks that if no god exists it means we don’t have intrinsic dignity, that our sufferings are pointless, and that our lives and loves don’t largely matter. And the rest.

.

Did you read the whole article? He is an atheist. He thinks atheists should be more honest. Here’s more:

"That godlessness might be both true and terrible is something that the new atheists refuse to entertain, no doubt in part because they want to sell books — and greeting cards do a brisk business. But honesty requires more than sentimental, superficial happy talk.

In a controversial column from last March, I argued that most contemporary atheists are being fundamentally dishonest in claiming that godlessness “is not only true but also unambiguously good for human beings.” It most certainly is not, I claimed, referencing passages of philosophy and poetry to show that, viewed honestly, atheism is “utterly tragic” — and that the denial of this tragedy amounted to little more than “sentimental, superficial happy talk.”

 

[JMartyr73340]

?
How does one “not believe” in Agnosticism? Is this technically possible?
There isn’t a set of beliefs here to disagree with. It’s merely a state of not being convinced either way.

LOL. How does one withhold belief about withholding belief??
That’s like saying…I don’t know the answer to this math equation, but I don’t believe that I believe that I don’t know the answer to this math equation…

Yes…this is what most Atheists and Agnostics try to do [rely on logic to evaluate the belivability of a claim].

You seems to be getting angry. Looks like I touched a nerve.

Ok. Here’s the belief system of an Agnostic, in the words of Huxley:

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”

— Thomas Henry Huxley (founder of Agnosticism)

Whether or not an Agnostic believes a claim depends on scientific verification. “Aclausen” admitted this point to me. If you’re saying that you believe a claim based purely on logic, even if there is no scientific evidence for it at all,** then you are not Agnostic**. You are certainly not an Atheist, since an Atheist would declare the claim outright false. You have placed yourself well outside those two ideologies.

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe".

• Huxley

This statement has no scientific ground for professing to know or believe it. Yet he is claiming it is certain. He believes it. Get it? Do you see the contradiction or do i need ot explain it further?

Let me try again:

"Originally coining the term in 1869, Huxley elaborated on ‘agnosticism’ in 1889 to frame the nature of claims in terms of what is knowable and what is not. Huxley states, “Agnosticism,… in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus [sic] application of a single principle… the fundamental axiom of modern science… In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration… In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”.

Huxely is talking about scientific reasoning, not logical reasoning/argumentation. Huxely says, “It’s not a creed”. Fine, but this statement he is certain of:

“In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable [by science].”.

Ok, so, the problem is that Huxely (the founder of agnosticism) is saying this conclusion is certain. BUT, and here is the problem, this conclusion is not demonstrable by science. Hence, he is contradicting himself.

Huxely’s original intent in creating this philosophy was to** avoid **philosophical/logical argumentation. ** **such as the type used by Aquinas and Augustine. Huxely would dismiss those arguments because they are not scientifically demonstrable. They rely on pure logic. The entire philosophy is based on the idea that what is not scientifically demonstrable is unknowable.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

clear as mud. ?? How about you explaining.

The quote, or indeed the whole article, may or may not be valid. However, in order for them to be relevant to this thread, it must comment on the validity of atheism.

I naturally assumed you were posting things that were on topic, and therefore that the conclusion you were drawing from the quote was that atheism was not valid. If that is in fact the case, then your argument is essentially:

1: Quote: If atheism is true, it is far from being good news

2: I don’t want to hear any bad news

3: (Therefore) atheism is false

An argument of that form is an appeal to consequences, as described in the link I provided. That you don’t like the outcome (i.e. you’ll receive bad news) has no bearing on the ultimate validity of atheism.

 

[chris62]

You say: “I think many Atheists would respond…”, so if you suggest you know how atheists would respond, we can go through the list of 5 one at a time.
For example, how do atheists respond to the Miracle Of Our Lady Of Guadalupe, given that NASA can’t?

Still waiting for Daddygirl’s response.

 

[Bradski]

Yikes. I guess no cricket and beers happening.

Apparently not. It seems that pointing out that those who are doing the investigating are far from what you would describe as being unbiased and are not qualified in their areas of so-called expertise is the sign of an immature mind.

They’re good seats, too.

You should have a look at the so-called group photo that is meant to appear in the painting’s eyes. It’s like a Rorschach test.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I read the part you posted. I will check for a link for more.
But from what you post here, I still don’t agree with him. Many of the “new Atheists” as he calls them do not “refuse” to entertain the idea that a god exists…in fact, many of them were very devout Theists at one time–two well-known ones that come to mind were in the clergy. So to say they refuse to “entertain” the idea is…just very untrue.
They once bet their entire lives on the idea that it’s true.

Also…are you sure he’s an Atheist? I’ve skimmed a few articles so far that say he’s *not *an Atheist.

Who is he quoting here? I’ve never heard an Atheist say that. If he’s going to quote one or more, I’m surprised as a journalist that he’s not saying who said it.
If it isn’t, he’s making up his own general quote…and, I must say, his sentiment here is off the mark for what an Atheist would say (which is why I further think he’s not one).

The “denial of the tragedy” if a God doesn’t exist is “sentimental, superficial happy talk”? Whaaa? How is it that?
Okay, this is funny. And…makes no sense.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with him, they are not “denying” something. They are simply disagreeing.
And it may be his perception that their denial is “superficial happy talk” but…that’s just his perception. I’ve read all these so-called “new” Atheists and IMO, they don’t present it that way.
What does he see in their wording that is “sentimental, superficial happy talk”?
Do you know?
Do you agree with him?
If so…what do *you *see in an Atheist’s disagreement that is “sentimental, superficial happy talk”?

.

He’s an atheist, a responsible atheist. You should read more of his stuff, it might make you smarter.

He’s talking about his last article of which I quoted in my first quote by him. A lot of atheists were angry at him, because he was against facile atheism. What he is saying is that atheism is a very serious thing, it means there is no ultimate meaning in life, no one to answer human prayers, people are just stuff, no better than a worm or a rock, our sufferings are pointless, there is no reason to be good.

What he ultimately concludes is that existentialism is the only honest type of atheism.

More quotes by him:

"An existentialist understands that in the absence of a God who provides an ultimate answer to the question of “why,” the goodness of human life can appear to dissolve, requiring reconstruction from the ground up.

That is a monumental spiritual challenge — one that can only be undertaken on the basis of an admittedly absurd leap of faith that affirms the goodness of life despite its ultimate pointlessness. Sisyphus rolls his rock up the mountain, watches it roll back down to the bottom, and then begins the process again, in full knowledge of its futility. That is Camus’ stark vision of the human condition. And yet he insists that we should work to embrace it — and learn to treat “the struggle itself” as noble enough “to fill a man’s heart.” Only then can we begin to “imagine Sisyphus happy.”

Which is why it’s so important that atheists not deny the struggle in the first place."

 

[PRmerger]

Science is most certainly not atheistic, but it is a-theistic.

Yes. This is correct.

And for the record, I don’t deny the existence of your’s or anyone else’s god. I simply see no necessity for such a being,

This is so odd to me to see.

I simply cannot fathom how thinking individuals can swallow the idea that something magically can come from nothing.

Where else, in the entirety of one’s experience or imagination, could something ever come from nothing?

and thus lack belief. It may seem to be splitting hairs to many Christians here, but to my there’s a world of difference between actively claiming God does not exist (a completely unverifiable statement) on the one hand, and on the other simply having no belief (which I view as an application of the Null Hypothesis).

So, then, since babies “lack a belief” in God, does that make them the largest group of atheists?

 

[PRmerger]

No! Now there’s a shock. I couldn’t find one atheist who admitted that it was a miracle. Fancy that.
But apparently, all these professionals are biased.

This is a trenchant point.

If one supports the view that Guadalupe is a miracle, then, by definition, one cannot be an atheist.

It’s like someone demanding proof from non-Christian texts that Jesus actually resurrected from the dead.

Er…really? If there were texts that proclaimed that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, that would make them….Christian, right?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I read the part you posted. I will check for a link for more.
But from what you post here, I still don’t agree with him. Many of the “new Atheists” as he calls them do not “refuse” to entertain the idea that a god exists…in fact, many of them were very devout Theists at one time–two well-known ones that come to mind were in the clergy. So to say they refuse to “entertain” the idea is…just very untrue.
They once bet their entire lives on the idea that it’s true.

Also…are you sure he’s an Atheist? I’ve skimmed a few articles so far that say he’s *not *an Atheist.

.

Oops, never mind. He WAS an atheist. He’s converting to Catholicism - smart man!

 

[Bradski]

Oops, never mind. He WAS an atheist. He’s converting to Catholicism - smart man!

Not surprising. He seemed to think that not believing in God was a pretty grim situation. Honestly, it sounds like he’s making the right move.

 

[Bradski]

If one supports the view that Guadalupe is a miracle, then, by definition, one cannot be an atheist.

I wonder how many Christians are completely convinced by the evidence. And do you know how hard it was not to put that last word in scare quotes?

The eyes have it. Indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder how many Christians are completely convinced by the evidence. And do you know how hard it was not to put that last word in scare quotes?

The eyes have it. Indeed.

I don’t know what you’re saying here.