The absurdity of atheism

[buffalo]

They are tributes to the scientific method, catholic, protestant, athiest, jew, its utterly irrelevant.

But it all depends what type of knowledge we are talking about. Why philosophy may be a useful persuit, it is redundant when it comes to futhering our knowledge of the cosmos. How the cosmos was created is a question for science.

You do realize that many inventions we enjoy today were found quite by accident? They were found by tinkerers in the garage so to speak. Hardly the scientific method. Having said that the scientific method has been a positive.

Right - and you have a one track mind - the cosmos. If one excludes portions of truth from serious investigation the resultant reasoning cannot be trustworthy. The Catholic position is that science should be done illuminated by the light of absolute truth. Only then can we have confidence in it.

 

[buffalo]

lol… ok.

Neither of you actually understood what atheism is, when it was explained to you, your response is we’re being “Intellectually childish”. OOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKK.

There used to be what is known as a Catholic heresy - gnosticism. It meant “secret knowledge”. One had to know this secret info. Only a certain few had access or could understand it. Your claim - no one here knows what atheism is and no one here knows evolution. If we did we wouldn’t reject it. If only we could educate you dumb Catholics. This has been the position of every atheist that has debated here. Your assumption is wrong.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You do realize that many inventions we enjoy today were found quite by accident? They were found by tinkerers in the garage so to speak. Hardly the scientific method. Having said that the scientific method has been a positive.

Right - and you have a one track mind - the cosmos. If one excludes portions of truth from serious investigation the resultant reasoning cannot be trustworthy. The Catholic position is that science should be done illuminated by the light of absolute truth. Only then can we have confidence in it.

Science excludes nothing? Do you even understand why god IS “excluded” form science?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

There used to be what is known as a Catholic heresy - gnosticism. It meant “secret knowledge”. One had to know this secret info. Only a certain few had access or could understand it. Your claim - no one here knows what atheism is and no one here knows evolution. If we did we wouldn’t reject it. If only we could educate you dumb Catholics. This has been the position of every atheist that has debated here. Your assumption is wrong.

No i dont, i claim you didnt understand the common meaning of athesim, and you didn’t. You also don’t understand evolution. It’s not a secret, you just don’t understand it.

 

[buffalo]

No i dont, i claim you didnt understand the common meaning of athesim, and you didn’t. You also don’t understand evolution. It’s not a secret, you just don’t understand it.

You might well look at my numerous posts over the years to see if that is true.

Atheism
[2123](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2123.htm’) "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58
2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60
[2125](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2125.htm’) Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62
[2126](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2126.htm’) Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You might well look at my numerous posts over the years to see if that is true.

Atheism
[2123](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2123.htm’) "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58
2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60
[2125](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2125.htm’) Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62
[2126](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2126.htm’) Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65

my brain can’t much more of this. Atheism A-theism = without theism. THAT IS IT!!!

 

[buffalo]

my brain can’t much more of this. Atheism A-theism = without theism. THAT IS IT!!!

more brain pain

Atheism

 

[Charles_Darwin]

more brain pain

Atheism

I can’t believe how much misunderstanding there is surrounding this stance. Its absurd.

 

[antunesaa]

1. 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.

So atheists are only uber-skeptical people who only believe what is proven to them without the shadow of a doubt. Fair enough. Except that nothing can be proven beyond a doubt, so most should take the logical step to believe in nothing. This suggests that the only perfectly comfortable position for an atheist is nihilism. I realized this when I was slipping towards agnosticism many years ago. This is what led me to reconsider my options at the time.

 

[j1akey]

antunesaa:

So atheists are only uber-skeptical people who only believe what is proven to them without the shadow of a doubt. Fair enough. Except that nothing can be proven beyond a doubt, so most should take the logical step to believe in nothing. This suggests that the only perfectly comfortable position for an atheist is nihilism. I realized this when I was slipping towards agnosticism many years ago. This is what led me to reconsider my options at the time.

Well, it’s not that people are athiests because they’re uber-skeptical. I’m skeptical about most things until I see evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. We just like to go with what we consider the most reasonable answer when it comes to things like religion. Also none of us are looking for anyone to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, we’re just looking for reasonable explanations.

You are correct that from a scientific standpoint nothing can be proven beyond a doubt 100%. The same things goes for earth being round, the speed of light, gravity, but most people don’t dispute these things as scientific theory (although some do). The question of the universe isn’t really any different, it’s just another problem that needs to be solved. Not that it will ever be solved but we just don’t tend to look at things from a mystical or supernatural perspective.

 

[tonyrey]

The question of the universe isn’t really any different, it’s just another problem that needs to be solved. Not that it will ever be solved but we just don’t tend to look at things from a mystical or supernatural perspective.

It doesn’t really matter whether the question of the universe is solved. More important is the question of our existence:

What a piece of worke is a man! how Noble in
Reason? how infinite in faculty? in forme and mouing
how expresse and admirable? in Action, how like an Angel?
in apprehension, how like a God? the beauty of the
world, the Parragon of Animals; and yet to me, what is
this Quintessence of Dust? (Hamlet)

This is where the problem of defining “natural” arises. Isn’t our power to transcend physical laws super-natural? Is it likely it originated in “dust”? In spite of his world-weariness Hamlet has his doubts:

“To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause…”

 

[tonyrey]

An excellent example of the absurdity of atheism is David Hume’s use of thought to reach the conclusion that thought is merely “a little agitation of the brain”!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Voltaire is often thought of as a skeptic and enemy of the Church. He was both, but he was no atheist. Here is his comment on atheism.

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic."

 

[tonyrey]

Voltaire is often thought of as a skeptic and enemy of the Church. He was both, but he was no atheist.

That is true but a deist who believes God creates the world and takes no further interest in it seems hardly different from an atheist for all practical purposes (apart from his belief in an afterlife of course). His satire in Candide directed at Leibniz leaves one wondering what kind of God would create a world that is not the best of all possible worlds!

 

[wanstronian]

An excellent example of the absurdity of atheism is David Hume’s use of thought to reach the conclusion that thought is merely “a little agitation of the brain”!

Only if you take a straw man approach. Atheism makes no claims about the origin of thought, so if you think your example is valid then you need to think again.

 

[tonyrey]

Only if you take a straw man approach. Atheism makes no claims about the origin of thought, so if you think your example is valid then you need to think again.

Atheism is impregnable! It makes no positive claims about the origin of anything… “Nothing shall come of nothing”…

 

[wanstronian]

Atheism is impregnable! It makes no positive claims about the origin of anything… “Nothing shall come of nothing”…

That’s right. That doesn’t mean that atheists don’t make positive claims, just that within the scope of *religious *atheism (which is what we’re discussing here, and which is by far the most common meaning of atheism), the only subject is the existence of God. Within this scope, atheists make no positive claims, for obvious reasons.

Now, you’re clearly trying to make atheists sound irrational by projecting their position on the existence of God onto their position on the world at large. You do yourself a disservice with this approach, because it just serves to make you sound ignorant. (I assume you are aware of your disingenuity - the alternative is that you are ignorant.)

 

[tonyrey]

That’s right. That doesn’t mean that atheists don’t make positive claims, just that within the scope of *religious *atheism (which is what we’re discussing here, and which is by far the most common meaning of atheism), the only subject is the existence of God. Within this scope, atheists make no positive claims, for obvious reasons.

According to you, atheists are claiming that God does not exist without giving any reason why God does not exist - because they confine themselves to the subject of God without considering anything else. In your view then atheists have no positive foundation for their argument. They simply seek to show that belief in God is false by attempting to explain how it is defective. Yet any critique of a belief presupposes definite criteria by which to assess that belief. That is obviously why you have evaded the question:
What do you regard as evidence for the existence of a person?

Precisely what are your criteria?

Your version of atheism is indeed impregnable but it is based on… nothing… if we take you at your word.

You do yourself a disservice with your abuse. An argumentum ad hominem serves only to weaken your position…

 

[wanstronian]

According to you, atheists are claiming that God does not exist without giving any reason why God does not exist

You’re making the same basic mistake that so many others on this forum do - assuming that atheism has a point to prove. The basic tenet of atheism is a lack of belief in God, based on a total lack of evidence for his existence. It’s as simple as that, yet you theists are consistently unable to grasp it.

• because they confine themselves to the subject of God without considering anything else.

You claim we are not considering anything else - please, tell me what else I should be considering. I have an open mind, but I need to be convinced by evidence, not by rhetoric or by dogma dressed up as fact.

In your view then atheists have no positive foundation for their argument.

Obviously not, because the position of the atheist is to deny the thing for which there is no evidence. A “positive foundation” is impossible - but that doesn’t invalidate the argument.

They simply seek to show that belief in God is false by attempting to explain how it is defective.

Well, more by asking the believer for evidence of the belief, then pointing out that that which has been presented as evidence does not meet the generally accepted criteria for ‘evidence.’ From the OED, evidence is: “Facts or testimony in support of a conclusion, statement, or belief.” If you show me evidence, I swear to you that I will believe.

Yet any critique of a belief presupposes definite criteria by which to assess that belief. That is obviously why you have evaded the question:
What do you regard as evidence for the existence of a person?

Precisely what are your criteria?

Not quite sure what you were saying in the first part of this, but I haven’t evaded anything. I could answer your question by saying, “I regard their physical manifestation as evidence of their existence. I can see them, touch them, hear them, smell them… and so can everybody else.” I’m not sure I’m answering the question in the context in which you intended it though, because the answer seems too simple.

Your version of atheism is indeed impregnable but it is based on… nothing… if we take you at your word.

Well, it’s based on nothing in that there is no evidence for God. But in the abstract, it’s based on the fundamental logical position that there is no objective reason to believe in anything for which no evidence exists. Otherwise, why not believe in unicorns, fairies and the Kraken? The only difference, as far as I can see, is that God gives his believers two things: superficial and objectively unsatisfying ‘answers’ to questions about the human race and its origin, that science can’t (yet) answer; and the illusion of a higher purpose to their lives. I genuinely can’t see any other reason why someone might believe in God without evidence.

You do yourself a disservice with your abuse. An argumentum ad hominem serves only to weaken your position…

There was no abuse. If you weren’t aware of what you were doing, then you are ignorant. Definition of ignorant from OED:
adj. 1 Lacking knowledge (general or particular); not versed in a subject, unaware of a fact, that. LME.
Personally, I believe you were aware of what you were saying, which makes you disingenuous. Pick one, because you can’t be neither.

But in any event, no insult was intended.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The only difference, as far as I can see, is that God gives his believers two things: superficial and objectively unsatisfying ‘answers’ to questions about the human race and its origin, that science can’t (yet) answer; and the illusion of a higher purpose to their lives. I genuinely can’t see any other reason why someone might believe in God without evidence.

And i suppose its your Job to free us from that delusion? The existence of God has been proven numerous times on this Forum. The fact that you don’t understand the arguments does not reflect on the validity of the arguments. In my opinion you refuse to understand and take God seriously, because its not in the best interest of somebody trying to be God; Pride rules when man tries to be the root of his own purpose meaning and joy. Some people don’t want a God they can’t control and manipulate to their own ends.