The absurdity of atheism

[tonyrey]

You do not believe in the existence of all those other “gods”, except one. We make no exception. If and when you will understand why you don’t believe in all those deities, you will understand why we don’t believe in yours. Go and examine your own reasons, why you refuse to believe in Zeus, Jupiter, Zoroaster, Kali, etc… write down your reasons and share them with us.

There is one very simple reason. They are all **inadequate **- like atheism…

 

[Spock]

There is one very simple reason. They are all **inadequate **- like atheism…

One does not “believe” in atheism. It is the default positon - the lack of belief in all the gods. But it would be interesting to enumerate why do you find those other gods “inadequately” supported - and why do you find the supporting evidence for yours - adequate. Make a list, and let’s do a comparision. Sounds like fun. If you prefer, let’s explore it in a new thread. Send me a PM when ready, otherwise I might miss it.

 

[Fran65]

I would lovet to take part in the proposed new thread, but am leaving today for a week’s vacation. Please don’t take my lack of reply as agreement with your argument.

Cheers.

 

[tonyrey]

One does not “believe” in atheism. It is the default position - the lack of belief in all the gods.

It is the default position for a materialist or physicalist - unless you believe the default position is belief in nothing, which is self-contradictory. Belief in nothing implies that there is no believer, no belief and no object of belief…

But it would be interesting to enumerate why do you find those other gods “inadequately” supported - and why do you find the supporting evidence for yours - adequate.

Occam’s Razor dispenses with polytheism. Christianity satisfies the principles of economy and adequacy because it postulates one Supreme Being Who is the source of creativity, consciousness, rationality, goodness, beauty, free will, purpose and love. Discussion of other versions of monotheism would take us away from the topic of the absurdity of atheism.

 

[Spock]

Occam’s Razor dispenses with polytheism.

Occam’s razor dispenses with nothing. It is merely a principle to weed out unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses not an epistemological tool to decide what is correct and what is not.

Christianity satisfies the principles of economy and adequacy because it postulates one Supreme Being Who is the source of creativity, consciousness, rationality, goodness, beauty, free will, purpose and love. Discussion of other versions of monotheism would take us away from the topic of the absurdity of atheism.

That is why I suggested a new thread. You said that all the other religions have inadequate evidence for them. Let’s go and examine whay those evidences are inadequate and why the evidence of Christianity is not.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It is the default position for a materialist or physicalist - unless you believe the default position is belief in nothing, which is self-contradictory. Belief in nothing implies that there is no believer, no belief and no object of belief…

It is the default position for everything.

Are you trying to say that you start off believing in everything, and you still believe in everything you can’t disprove?

Of course you don’t, you start of lacking belief, then build beliefs. The question is what should we believe and why? What is the system we use for gaining knowledge and ensuring our beliefs are true.

Bare in mind most people are brought up with religion, therefore they have this belief system forced onto them when they are not capable of critical though. People normaly accept god at the same time their life that they accept the existence of santa and the tooth fairy.

 

[tonyrey]

Occam’s razor dispenses with nothing. It is merely a principle to weed out unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses not an epistemological tool to decide what is correct and what is not.

Originally the principle was applied to entities, then to causes (e.g. by Newton) and finally to scientific hypotheses but there is no reason why it should not be used to assess the value of metaphysical explanations. Why should entities be multiplied unnecessarily? The principle of parsimony is used by atheists to show there is no need to postulate a God given that the universe exists yet they conveniently reject it when they are confronted with the choice between one Ultimate Being or a multitude of particles…

That is why I suggested a new thread. You said that all the other religions have inadequate evidence for them. Let’s go and examine why those evidences are inadequate and why the evidence of Christianity is not.

I am sure it would revolve around the nature of God because the main contenders are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Probably it would be better if you phrase the question so that it p(name removed by moderator)oints your objections.

 

[tonyrey]

It is the default position for everything.

?

Are you trying to say that you start off believing in everything, and you still believe in everything you can’t disprove?

No.

Of course you don’t, you start off lacking belief, then build beliefs.

We start off with the beliefs of our parents and/or carers.It is only later that we construct our own beliefs.

The question is what should we believe and why? What is the system we use for gaining knowledge and ensuring our beliefs are true?.

There is no one system. There are a variety of ways in which we acquire and test our knowledge - and the most important element is unscientific.

Bear in mind most people are brought up with religion, therefore they have this belief system forced onto them when they are not capable of critical though.

Most beliefs, both religious and secular, are “forced” on young children. A more appropriate term is “communicated to”.

People normally accept god at the same time their life that they accept the existence of santa and the tooth fairy.

Children are taught about God in a much larger context related to morality, love and the purpose of life. They soon realize that Santa and fairies are fantasies.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

?

No.
We start off with the beliefs of our parents and/or carers.It is only later that we construct our own beliefs.There is no one system. There are a variety of ways in which we acquire and test our knowledge - and the most important element is unscientific.

Most beliefs, both religious and secular, are “forced” on young children. A more appropriate term is “communicated to”. Children are taught about God in a much larger context related to morality, love and the purpose of life. They soon realize that Santa and fairies are fantasies.

The point is when you are presented with a major claim you don’t accept that major claim until such time you have good reason. If you reject the claim you just go back to the default status.

For example if i told you that a magic three headed green rabbit created the universe. Do you believe me until you can prove me wrong? If you dont believe me are you rejecting my claim or are you running from the fact of the magic three headed green rabbit?

Atheists are just people that are still at the default status. I.E we to not “reject” of “deny” gods. We just don’t believe any of the claims have met there burden of proof.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists are just people that are still at the default status. I.E we do not “reject” or “deny” gods. We just don’t believe any of the claims have met their burden of proof.

You are assuming you know what the default status is!

1. How do you know the physical universe is the **only **reality?
2. How do you know the physical universe is the fundamental reality?
   The default status is that you know only that your mind exists and you infer that the universe and other minds exist.
   Atheists have certainly **defaulted **on that score!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You are assuming you know what the default status is!

1. How do you know the physical universe is the **only **reality?
2. How do you know the physical universe is the fundamental reality?
   The default status is that you know only that your mind exists and you infer that the universe and other minds exist.
   Atheists have certainly **defaulted **on that score!

Thats the point I DONT KNOW. I dont believe in things we have no evidence of. Its not rocket science.

So i will correct you…

1. I DONT know the physical universe is the **only **reality?
2. I DONT know the physical universe is the fundamental reality?

but until i am presented with evidence to suggest otherwise it is pointless to draw any sort of conclusion regarding other realities! Get it?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Thats the point I DONT KNOW. I dont believe in things we have no evidence of. Its not rocket science.

So i will correct you…

1. I DONT know the physical universe is the **only **reality?
2. I DONT know the physical universe is the fundamental reality?

but until i am presented with evidence to suggest otherwise it is pointless to draw any sort of conclusion regarding other realities! Get it?

Thus minds don’t exist. Your really intelligent, did you know that? Of coarse not!! You don’t exist, i don’t have any evidence of your existence. Wait a darn minute!! I’ve been talking to my self all this time? This must be the case since its not legitimate to draw conclusions from logical inference or intuition!!! Silly me.

 

[Spock]

Originally the principle was applied to entities, then to causes (e.g. by Newton) and finally to scientific hypotheses but there is no reason why it should not be used to assess the value of metaphysical explanations. Why should entities be multiplied unnecessarily? The principle of parsimony is used by atheists to show there is no need to postulate a God given that the universe exists yet they conveniently reject it when they are confronted with the choice between one Ultimate Being or a multitude of particles…

Occam’s razor is used only if two hypotheses explain the same phenomena equally well, and in that case we choose tentatively the one which uses fewer assumptions. This does not apply to montheism and polytheism, since both of them use the same kind of hypothesis - namely some “supernatural” entities. The number of these entities is just quantitative difference, not qualitiative. But, be as it may, Occam’s razor is never a deciding factor in choosing which one of the hypotheses is correct. Sometimes the one which used more assumptions proves to be correct.

I am sure it would revolve around the nature of God because the main contenders are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Probably it would be better if you phrase the question so that it p(name removed by moderator)oints your objections.

Actually it would not be the focal point. You asserted that all the other religions are unadequately supported, and also that Christianity is adequately supported by some nebulous evidence. I am asking what kind of evidence you see for other religions, and for Christianity and show why the those pertaining to other religions are found wanting.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Thus minds don’t exist. Your really intelligent, did you know that? Of coarse not!! You don’t exist, i don’t have any evidence of your existence. Wait a darn minute!! I’ve been talking to my self all this time? This must be the case since its not legitimate to draw conclusions from logical inference or intuition!!! Silly me.

Tell you what René, if you don’t think i exist PM me your bank details. What harm can it do? After all i don’t exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Tell you what René, if you don’t think i exist PM me your bank details. What harm can it do? After all i don’t exist.

You don’t exist so why would i post you anything?

 

[tonyrey]

Occam’s razor is used only if two hypotheses explain the same phenomena equally well, and in that case we choose tentatively the one which uses fewer assumptions.

In that case monotheism is clearly superior because it makes only assumption - that there is one rational, conscious, purposeful Being who created the universe whereas atheism makes several assumptions:

1. There were originally a multitude of irrational, non-conscious, purposeless particles
2. Some of these purposeless particles have somehow become purposeful
3. Some of these non-conscious particles have somehow become conscious
4. Some of these irrational particles have somehow become rational

But, be as it may, Occam’s razor is never a deciding factor in choosing which one of the hypotheses is correct. Sometimes the one which used more assumptions proves to be correct.

The deciding factors in this case are adequacy, intelligibility, probability and predictive power. Theism is superior to atheism on all counts.

You asserted that all the other religions are inadequately supported, and also that Christianity is adequately supported by some nebulous evidence.

I did not assert that Christianity is adequately supported by some nebulous evidence!

I am asking what kind of evidence you see for other religions, and for Christianity and show why those pertaining to other religions are found wanting.

There is evidence for all religions in the spiritual and non-physical aspects of existence, particularly the evidence for Design. Christianity is the only religion which provides an intellectual and practical solution to the Problem of Evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Thats the point I DONT KNOW. I dont believe in things we have no evidence of. Its not rocket science.

So i will correct you…

1. I DONT know the physical universe is the **only **reality?
2. I DONT know the physical universe is the fundamental reality?

but until i am presented with evidence to suggest otherwise it is pointless to draw any sort of conclusion regarding other realities! Get it?

What exactly do you know? Nothing? BTW The internet equivalent of shouting weakens your case rather than strengthens it. “Methinks he protesteth too much…”

 

[liquidpele]

What exactly do you know? Nothing? BTW The internet equivalent of shouting weakens your case rather than strengthens it. “Methinks he protesteth too much…”

Oh come now, that’s not what he was saying and you know it. And then you insult his use of bold? Lets keep it productive here please.

 

[Spock]

In that case monotheism is clearly superior because it makes only assumption - that there is one rational, conscious, purposeful Being who created the universe whereas atheism makes several assumptions:

The deciding factors in this case are adequacy, intelligibility, probability and predictive power. Theism is superior to atheism on all counts.

I grant you that based on parsimony nothing beats theism. But as for explanatory and predictive power it can summed up in one sentence: “An unknowable being, using magical means made it somehow happen” - which is the exact antithesis of an explanation.

I did not assert that Christianity is adequately supported by some nebulous evidence!

As long as you don’t spell out the evidence, it remains nebulous.

There is evidence for all religions in the spiritual and non-physical aspects of existence, particularly the evidence for Design.

Except there is no evidence of design.

Christianity is the only religion which provides an intellectual and practical solution to the Problem of Evil.

Well, buddy then you are almost alone. Most Christians will readily and honestly admit that the biggest “thorn” in the side of Christianity is the Problem of Evil, which it cannot explain.

 

[tonyrey]

I grant you that based on parsimony nothing beats theism.

I admire your honesty.

But as for explanatory and predictive power it can summed up in one sentence: “An unknowable being, using magical means made it somehow happen” - which is the exact antithesis of an explanation.

God is only unknowable to those who reject His existence. All rational beings share in His creative, directive energy. You yourself are an unknowable being using “magical” means which makes things happen…

Except there is no evidence of design.

Please refer to post 272.

Most Christians will readily and honestly admit that the biggest “thorn” in the side of Christianity is the Problem of Evil, which it cannot explain.

Most Christians have not specialised in the subject. Please refer to my posts in “Did God create evil?”, “Why is God so mean?”, etc.