The absurdity of atheism

[tonyrey]

Yes, an atheist would think that if killing someone were defined as permissible by a society, it would become permissible. As I said, this has already happened. Cannibalism and wars. Note I said society and not “governing body”.

I’m sure many atheists would disagree with you.

They are not rational beings, but with such a standard we are the ONLY rational being… and yet we are not. In fact, humans are notoriously irrational about many things.

At least we are rational some of the time - and some of us are rational most of the time (that includes you and me of course. )

Also, most animals refrain from killing their own species, probably because doing so would be an evolutionary disadvantage.

That suggests that we can override our instincts.

In fact, we are in the minority as a species that wilfully kills itself all the time. It’s interesting indeed we hold such ideals but our history shows different.

And that suggests we can choose to behave unnaturally…

I can’t speak for everyone, but I feel the “value of life” is what we hold it to be.

In other words you think it’s just an idea we can reject if it proves to be inconvenient…

We certainly don’t value all life, and we certainly don’t have a good history of valuing the life of others in our species.

Your use of the term “good” implies that there is an objective standard of morality!

 

[bobzills]

I would go further back than cats to the “simple” cell. There is a distinct difference between an inanimate molecular compound and a living organism, not of degree but of kind. To attribute the emergence of life to an increase in complexity requires an act of faith because no explanation has been given of the mechanism involved. What transforms aimless molecules into goal-seeking entities? A type of directive energy unknown to science. The exact term we use to describe this non-physical energy is unimportant because it demarcates the limits of science and takes us into another dimension of reality beyond the closed system of the atheist.

Do cats have souls?

 

[tonyrey]

Do cats have souls?

Certainly, if “soul” means a type of non-physical energy not possessed by inanimate molecules. I regard “soul” as a religious rather than a philosophical term.

 

[bobzills]

Certainly, if “soul” means a type of non-physical energy not possessed by inanimate molecules. I regard “soul” as a religious rather than a philosophical term.

So according to what you say here, a cat has a non-physical soul? Is a spiritual soul the same as a non-physical soul?

 

[tonyrey]

So according to what you say here, a cat has a non-physical soul? Is a spiritual soul the same as a non-physical soul?

Occam’s razor! I don’t see the need to differentiate. There is no doubt that the powers of a cat or even an amoeba cannot be explained entirely in terms of physics and chemistry. Even primitive man recognised intuitively the difference between body and spirit. Consciousness and purpose belong to a higher dimension of reality that we cannot analyse like material objects. We cannot understand, for example, how an amoeba is goal-seeking. So that power must be “infused”, for want of a better word. God is the ultimate Source of all power and energy but I believe the terms “souls” or “spirits” refer to the immediate sources of the power of living beings - which varies according to their degree of consciousness, insight and.autonomy.

There is no evidence that an amoeba has insight into intangible realities like truth, goodness, justice and love but it certainly exists at a higher level than an inanimate molecule. This presupposes a more advanced source of energy but less advanced than that of cat and still less than that of a person. Just as there is a hierarchy of purposes there is a hierarchy of spirits or souls. It is a more adequate and less simplistic explanation than the derivation of all forms of existence, consciousness, insight and autonomy from the fortuitous combinations of molecules. Yet theism itself is simpler and more economical than the atheism of a neoDarwinist who ascribes evolution to chance and necessity, life to fortuitous combinations of molecules and matter to… who knows what?

 

[liquidpele]

I’m sure many atheists would disagree with you.

At least we are rational some of the time - and some of us are rational most of the time (that includes you and me of course. )
That suggests that we can override our instincts. And that suggests we can choose to behave unnaturally…

In other words you think it’s just an idea we can reject if it proves to be inconvenient… Your use of the term “good” implies that there is an objective standard of morality!

Perhaps.

True.

Of course we can. I can decide to ignore my “fight or flight” instinct for instance. Instincts are strong, but most are not impossible to override.

It’s more than something that we can just choose to go against though. There are social consequences, and then you have the whole conscience thing. Since I know you’ll ask, I believe the conscience is our built in preference to certain situations and social organization. We care for each other because we are social creatures, and our conscience is the force behind why we are social creatures.

I use the term “good” because it has a generally accepted definition, not because I think it implies divine origin.

 

[bobzills]

Occam’s razor! I don’t see the need to differentiate. There is no doubt that the powers of a cat or even an amoeba cannot be explained entirely in terms of physics and chemistry. Even primitive man recognised intuitively the difference between body and spirit. Consciousness and purpose belong to a higher dimension of reality that we cannot analyse like material objects. We cannot understand, for example, how an amoeba is goal-seeking. So that power must be “infused”, for want of a better word. God is the ultimate Source of all power and energy but I believe the terms “souls” or “spirits” refer to the immediate sources of the power of living beings - which varies according to their degree of consciousness, insight and.autonomy.

There is no evidence that an amoeba has insight into intangible realities like truth, goodness, justice and love but it certainly exists at a higher level than an inanimate molecule. This presupposes a more advanced source of energy but less advanced than that of cat and still less than that of a person. Just as there is a hierarchy of purposes there is a hierarchy of spirits or souls. It is a more adequate and less simplistic explanation than the derivation of all forms of existence, consciousness, insight and autonomy from the fortuitous combinations of molecules. Yet theism itself is simpler and more economical than the atheism of a neoDarwinist who ascribes evolution to chance and necessity, life to fortuitous combinations of molecules and matter to… who knows what?

Cardinal Mahony has come out in favor of a “cat heaven” for cats. Do you believe that the soul of a cat will continue to live in “cat heaven”?

 

[liquidpele]

Cardinal Mahony has come out in favor of a “cat heaven” for cats. Do you believe that the soul of a cat will continue to live in “cat heaven”?

Hahaha… this reminds me of this very humorous image:

linkognito.com/content/2008/09/15/church.gif

 

[bobzills]

Hahaha… this reminds me of this very humorous image:

linkognito.com/content/2008/09/15/church.gif

Unfortunately, the signs on your pictures are wrong according to Cardinal Mahony, since cats go to cat heaven.
Cardinal Mahony: Animals are a great gift of God for all of us! Our pastor at the Cathedral has a dog, and he gets along great with my cats.

Jillian J.: what happened to Miguel?

Cardinal Mahony: Miguel went to Cat Heaven in 2004.

recongress.org/chat2007s.htm

 

[severntofall]

The typical atheist makes the following assumptions:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
   To our knowledge, correct.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
   To an atheist he universe does not exist to serve a purpose. To an agnostic, perhaps it does but probably it doesn’t.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
   Value is a purely subjective concept. To those of us for whom the universe possesses value, it is not valueless. This is true whether there is a god or not.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
   Not sure what it means for a physical object (or universe) to have meaning. It can have a use, but a meaning, perhaps as I’m not sure what you mean.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
   Do you mean to say that the universe itself does not possess a consciousness or that there are no consciousnesses contained within. The first would be true the second false.
   Even those who advocate strcit/hard determinism believe in consciousness as the concept does not contradict their understanding of the world.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
   Very few atheists would agree with this. Most I know admit to the possibility that they are wrong. To prove something of that nature would be an insurmountable task. Most atheist believe all the evidence indicates that there is no god and few go beyond that.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
   purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

Totally incorrect, even to a strict nihilist I would assume. You asked if the universe has a purpose and an atheist would say no, but that does not mean that an indivdual action cannot be take with a purpose. Again, value is totaly a subjective term and consciousness exists by virtue of the fact that I can engage in this conversation.

 

[severntofall]

Cardinal Mahony has come out in favor of a “cat heaven” for cats. Do you believe that the soul of a cat will continue to live in “cat heaven”?

The concepts of heaven and hell seem to constantly be evolving, almost as if they were totally made up and were being used as a tool of exploitation.

 

[liquidpele]

The concepts of heaven and hell seem to constantly be evolving, almost as if they were totally made up and were being used as a tool of exploitation.

Ha, you are so going to hell for that comment.
In case someone is interested, a good documentary on the history of the devil here.

 

[tonyrey]

The concepts of heaven and hell seem to constantly be evolving, almost as if they were totally made up and were being used as a tool of exploitation.

Do we regard scientific concepts as made up and tools for exploitation because they are constantly evolving?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Only the physical universe exists.
To our knowledge, correct.

But it is not regarded as the ultimate reality…

2.* The physical universe is purposeless.*
To an atheist the universe does not exist to serve a purpose.
To an agnostic, perhaps it does but probably it doesn’t.

(We shall deal with agnosticism another occasion.)

1. The physical universe is valueless.
   Value is a purely subjective concept.

How would you prove that? The fact that you are reasoning implies that you believe reason is valuable.

To those of us for whom the universe possesses value, it is not valueless.

If value is a purely subjective concept the universe is objectively valueless and we are deluded. We are living in a fool’s paradise. Or is it a fool’s inferno?

4. The physical universe is meaningless.
Not sure what it means for a physical object (or universe) to have meaning.

Traffic lights have a meaning for those who understand their purpose. The physical universe is meaningless for those who believe it has no purpose. (Meaning and purpose are related but they are not synonyms.)

1. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
   Do you mean to say that the universe itself does not possess a consciousness or that there are no consciousnesses contained within.

The first .

Even those who advocate strict/hard determinism believe in consciousness as the concept does not contradict their understanding of the world.

To believe in consciousness is not to explain its origin.

6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
Very few atheists would agree with this. Most I know admit to the possibility that they are wrong.

In that case they are agnostics, strictly speaking.

Most atheists believe all the evidence indicates that there is no god and few go beyond that.

How would you defend the assumption that all the evidence indicates there is no God? And presumably they believe there is no evidence for the existence of God?

1. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

Totally incorrect, even to a strict nihilist I would assume. You asked if the universe has a purpose and an atheist would say no, but that does not mean that an individual action cannot be taken with a purpose.

Even if an individual action is purposeful it is ultimately purposeless for the simple reason that it can be explained in terms of the purposeless activity of molecules - according to the atheist.

Again, value is totally a subjective term and consciousness exists by virtue of the fact that I can engage in this conversation.

It is possible that consciousness, like value, is an illusion. Even if it is real it is still the result of the unconscious activity of molecules - according to the atheist. And then you have a real problem on your hands…

 

[tonyrey]

I can decide to ignore my “fight or flight” instinct for instance. Instincts are strong, but most are not impossible to override.

The question is how can we override them?

It’s more than something that we can just choose to go against though.

Precisely. That means it is not completely subjective.

There are social consequences, and then you have the whole conscience thing

.
We can, and we often do, ignore the social consequences.

Since I know you’ll ask, I believe the conscience is our built-in preference to certain situations and social organization.

Do you believe our conscience is entirely the result of the way we have been programmed?

We care for each other because we are social creatures, and our conscience is the force behind why we are social creatures.

Can **all **morality be explained by the fact that we are social creatures?

I use the term “good” because it has a generally accepted definition, not because I think it implies divine origin.

Do you believe it is a true definition or do you accept it because it is generally accepted?

 

[liquidpele]

The question is how can we override them?

Precisely. That means it is not completely subjective.

We can, and we often do, ignore the social consequences.

Do you believe our conscience is entirely the result of the way we have been programmed?

Can **all **morality be explained by the fact that we are social creatures?

Do you believe it is a true definition or do you accept it because it is generally accepted?

You’ve never overridden an instinct? You should know how to do this already…

I never said it was completely subjective. It’s also not completely objective.

Yes, we can ignore social consequences, but most of the time we don’t. Usually if we do, it’s something we thought about, not something we just decided to do for no reason… otherwise we’d be quite a bit more random in our behavior.

At the very basic level, yes, I think conscience is how we are programmed to both act and to think. We have expectations of ourselves, and we basically project ourselves onto others and thus hurting others in a way hurts ourselves… it’s quite an interesting branch of psychology. This is of course also why the “us vs them” mentality is typically used as rationalization for fights, war, etc.

I believe all morality is based on us being social creatures, whether it’s physical (in our DNA like it is a wolf pack) or from social norms handed down such as laws and codes of conduct (and religion).

I use the word because it’s generally accepted… words only have meaning to one another because people agree on a meaning. Otherwise we’re all speaking gibberish.

 

[severntofall]

But it is not regarded as the ultimate reality…

Sure it is, why wouldn’t it be? To an atheist ulimate reality is physical reality.

How would you prove that? The fact that you are reasoning implies that you believe reason is valuable. If value is a purely subjective concept the universe is objectively valueless and we are deluded. We are living in a fool’s paradise. Or is it a fool’s inferno?

Why do I need to prove it? Nothing is worth more that what it’s value is percieved or understood to be (of course that understanding or perception varries from individual to individual). 1000 years ago electricity was valued by nobody, now it’s the third most valuable commodity in the world (water and food being the first two). Electricity hasn’t changed over the last 1000 years, but our understanding of it and ability to harness it has. Taking religion out of the picture for a second, can you think of anything that has value beyond it’s percived utilitarian value?
I do believe reasoning is valuable, sadly others do not.
Again, what is paradise is a matter of perception? I can enjoy a well cooked piece of meat regardless as to whether it has intrinsic value or not. A god does not need to exist for me to know that Apple is my favorite pie. Value does not have to be intrinsic (in fact it’s a tautology to say that something is valuable because it is valuable) and it doesn’t have to make sense…it’s a matter of perception and applicibility.

Traffic lights have a meaning for those who understand their purpose.

Correct, and it’s meaning was assigned to it (as opposed to being intrinsic), red could mean go just as easily as green. What does a universe “mean”.

The physical universe is meaningless for those who believe it has no purpose.

Meaning and purpose have two seperate meanings. Even if you agree that the universe has a purpose or value that still doesn’t mean it has a meaning. The word makes no sense to me in this context.

(Meaning and purpose are related but they are not synonyms.)

Agreed. Red light means ‘stop’ and the purpose of stopping is to avoid car accidents.

(The first.

Do catholics believe that the universe possess a conciousness? I was one for most of my life and never heard this. I know most people like to say that the god is apart of everything, but logically god cannot be apart of his creation.

(To believe in consciousness is not to explain its origin.

I agree.

In that case they are agnostics, strictly speaking.

I actually agree with you on this. Most people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics. I myself am a strong agnostic, in that I feel that it is impossible to exclude the possbility of a god’s existence, but assume the negative until shown otherwise.

How would you defend the assumption that all the evidence indicates there is no God? And presumably they believe there is no evidence for the existence of God?

I make no attempt to defend that assumption, as there could not possibly be evidence to prove that a non-physical being that resides in another realm of existence in fact does not exist. IMHO the evidence for a god’s existence is actually most likely evidence of other more plausible alternatives. In a court of law both sides present evidence to support their claim, however when the claims are contradictory then only one can be correct (this does not necessarily mean that their evidence was false, just that the conclusions based upon that evidence were unnecessary). Some people believe that natural disasters are evidence of a god’s existence and wrath and perhaps they are, or perhaps they are evidence of something else entirely.

Even if an individual action is purposeful it is ultimately purposeless for the simple reason that it can be explained in terms of the purposeless activity of molecules - according to the atheist.

Again, I believe that purpose is a soley subjective concept, god or no.

It is possible that consciousness, like value, is an illusion.

It’s just barely concievable that mine is the only true consciousness, and everyone else is an illusion. Even then, there is at least one conscious individual so consciousness does exist.

Even if it is real it is still the result of the unconscious activity of molecules - according to the atheist. And then you have a real problem on your hands…

This would not discredit consciousness even remotely as it would still exist and still be just as real as it would be if your beliefs are true…it will just end once an individual’s brain dies. Just out of curiosity, what would that problem be?

 

[bobzills]

Can **all **morality be explained by the fact that we are social creatures?

Take for example, the morality of dropping the A-Bomb on innocent people in Japan. It has been argued on CAF that this was moral because it saved American lives. Since when is killing innocent people in accord with the moral laws? This concept that it was OK to drop an A-Bomb and kill innocent people was justified because it saved American lives is explained by an American social cohesiveness.

 

[MindOverMatter]

It has been argued on CAF that this was moral because it saved American lives. Since when is killing innocent people in accord with the moral laws? This concept that it was OK to drop an A-Bomb and kill innocent people was justified because it saved American lives is explained by an American social cohesiveness.

The person who made this arguement is obviously a victim of strong nationalistic concepts, and thus believes that the lives of Americans are more important then the lives of other countries. Its seen as being in the best interests of any leader of any country, that is in a power struggle with other countries, to brain wash their populations into thinking that their country is at the center of moral, social, and existential significance. Survival of the fittest and all the mind games that go with it. The perils of nationalism.

 

[severntofall]

The person who made this arguement is obviously a victim of strong nationalistic concepts, and thus believes that the lives of Americans are more important then the lives of other countries. Its seen as being in the best interests of any leader of any country, that is in a power struggle with other countries, to brain wash their populations into thinking that their country is at the center of moral, social, and existential significance. Survival of the fittest and all the mind games that go with it. The perils of nationalism.

Agree 100%. Of course, I would go on to say the same thing about religion or any fanatically held beliefs or ideologies.