The absurdity of atheism

[bobzills]

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.

Yes, of course I agree. But this is an example of morality formed by American social patriotism or cohesiveness. The historical fact is that the United States of America did drop the A-Bomb on Japan, killing innocent civilian women and children whose only crime was that they were residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and we have seen many arguments trying to justify the morality of this.

 

[tonyrey]

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

You have not explained how it is possible for a person without free will to do this. If you believe in free will you need to explain how free will originated.

Yes, we can ignore social consequences, but most of the time we don’t.

Is there any reason why we shouldn’t ignore social consequences all the time? if so what is the reason?

At the very basic level, yes, I think conscience is how we are programmed to both act and to think.

If conscience is how we are programmed it implies we do not have any choice in the matter. You agree?

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).

If all morality is based on our social nature how do you explain the principle of equality? Or do you reject it as no more than a human convention?

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.

So good is just a human convention?

 

[liquidpele]

You have not explained how it is possible for a person without free will to do this. If you believe in free will you need to explain how free will originated.

Is there any reason why we shouldn’t ignore social consequences all the time? if so what is the reason?

If conscience is how we are programmed it implies we do not have any choice in the matter. You agree? If all morality is based on our social nature how do you explain the principle of equality? Or do you reject it as no more than a human convention?

So good is just a human convention?

I think what we call free will is simply (okay, well maybe not “simply”) the ability to think about our thoughts. I’m not sure why you want me to explain it to you when it’s not understood. I do grow tired of being asked to explain it in perfect detail, as happens a lot on this site or so it seems. The fact that myself (or science) doesn’t completely understand it yet doesn’t mean that any other options about it are therefore suddenly right or even more probable.

Why should we not ignore social consequences all the time? Umm… is that not obvious? Social consequences are there to progress the society. Ignoring them all the time means the society has issues. It’s also why we have police and jails.

Correct, you don’t have any choice in the matter as to whether you have a conscience or not. As I said before, you can override instinct (including conscience) though. Interestingly, sociopaths are an example of people without such a thing.

I had to google this equality principal, I’ll assume that’s the definition you mean. I think the equality principal is just like the right to life, it’s a human idea we hold ourselves to. In nature, it’s hardly this way and weak things die while strong things live on to reproduce. I do think it’s a good principal, if only because it allows for stability and a good foundational pillar for morality in my opinion.

Yes, the word “good” is just a human convention. Surely those killing Nazis in WWII thought it was “good”, but I likely think the Nazis didn’t agree. An extreme example of course, but you get the idea - people disagree on what is Good just like they disagree on simple images based on their relative experiences.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

Are these propositions consistent? *

The question I understand you to be asking is whether if the universe is defined in a certain way, all its parts must be defined in the same way. Good question.

If a mountain of rock exists, all the parts of the mountain must be rocky. If an ocean exists, all its drops must be salty. These pairs of statements are consistent.

However, if the universe at large is unconscious, how can any of its parts be conscious? If the universe at large is without ultimate purpose, how can I have ultimate purpose?

You are right about the atheist position being absurd … that is to say, meaningless, without value, and for us a real downer.

Only by positing God does consciousness in man make him no longer a freak or accident of nature. Only by positing God does the universe have a reason for being. Only by positing God can life be something more than a downer.

Sartre and Camus dealt with atheism as a real downer. The central question of life is whether without God we have any moral obligation to see life through. The theist must see an obligation of some sort, and hope spurs him on. The atheist is free to spur hope as well as God.

Or he is free to whistle his way down the yellow-brick road to nothingness.

 

[tonyrey]

However, if the universe at large is unconscious, how can any of its parts be conscious? If the universe at large is without ultimate purpose, how can I have ultimate purpose?

You are right about the atheist position being absurd … that is to say, meaningless, without value, and for us a real downer.

Only by positing God does consciousness in man make him no longer a freak or accident of nature. Only by positing God does the universe have a reason for being. Only by positing God can life be something more than a downer.

Sartre and Camus dealt with atheism as a real downer. The central question of life is whether without God we have any moral obligation to see life through. The theist must see an obligation of some sort, and hope spurs him on. The atheist is free to spur hope as well as God.

Or he is free to whistle his way down the yellow-brick road to nothingness.

A delightful image to conclude with.

It’s interesting to observe how the two French atheists “solved” the problem of absurdity. They were both humanists: Sartre stressed our freedom while Camus stressed our value. Yet on the slope: absolutism-humanism-egoism-nihilism any stopping-place is arbitrary. Why single out one aspect of reality as uniquely valuable?

Nihilism is absurd. Egoism is egocentric. Humanism is anthropocentric. Reality does not have its source in nothing or the self or the human race. Everything has some value because everything is created by Love…

 

[tonyrey]

I think what we call free will is simply (okay, well maybe not “simply”) the ability to think about our thoughts.

Thinking about our thoughts does not explain free will. It just leads to an infinite regress: thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about…

I’m not sure why you want me to explain it to you when it’s not understood. I do grow tired of being asked to explain it in perfect detail, as happens a lot on this site or so it seems.

I regret your dislike of the subject but free will happens to be one of the most significant facts of existence. It’s not a question of explaining it in perfect detail but of showing how it is even possible if all our thoughts and decisions are caused by physical events. If you cannot even begin to explain it your interpretation of reality is clearly inadequate.

The fact that myself (or science) doesn’t completely understand it yet doesn’t mean that any other options about it are therefore suddenly right or even more probable.

It is not a matter of “complete understanding” but of any understanding at all. The best available explanation is that free will, like rationality and purpose, is a fundamental element of reality.

Why should we not ignore social consequences all the time? Umm… is that not obvious? Social consequences are there to progress the society. Ignoring them all the time means the society has issues. It’s also why we have police and jails.

But criminals are not concerned about social consequences, social progress, social issues, police and jails. The really smart ones make sure they are not caught. They are only concerned about the consequences for themselves. Why do you think they are misguided? Why should we be bothered about society?

Correct, you don’t have any choice about your conscience.

Then why bother to take any notice of it? Or, more to the point, why do you have choice about anything at all?

I had to google this equality principal, I’ll assume that’s the definition you mean.

I mean the principle of equality!

I think the equality principle is just like the right to life, it’s a human idea we hold ourselves to. In nature, it’s hardly this way and weak things die while strong things live on to reproduce. I do think it’s a good principle, if only because it allows for stability and a good foundational pillar for morality in my opinion.

A criminal would laugh at you! It’s certainly a good principle for the majority because it enables the really clever minority to get along very nicely. It’s easier to cheat, rob, rape and murder people when they trust you…

Surely those killing Nazis in WWII thought it was “good”, but I likely think the Nazis didn’t agree. An extreme example of course, but you get the idea - people disagree on what is Good just like they disagree on simple images based on their relative experiences.

So the fact that people disagree implies that killing people is good if **you **decide it is good?

 

[liquidpele]

Thinking about our thoughts does not explain free will. It just leads to an infinite regress: thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about…

I regret your dislike of the subject but free will happens to be one of the most significant facts of existence. It’s not a question of explaining it in perfect detail but of showing how it is even possible if all our thoughts and decisions are caused by physical events. If you cannot even begin to explain it your interpretation of reality is clearly inadequate.
It is not a matter of “complete understanding” but of any understanding at all. The best available explanation is that free will, like rationality and purpose, is a fundamental element of reality.
But criminals are not concerned about social consequences, social progress, social issues, police and jails. The really smart ones make sure they are not caught. They are only concerned about the consequences for themselves. Why do you think they are misguided? Why should we be bothered about society?
Then why bother to take any notice of it? Or, more to the point, why do you have choice about anything at all? I mean the principle of equality!
A criminal would laugh at you! It’s certainly a good principle for the majority because it enables the really clever minority to get along very nicely. It’s easier to cheat, rob, rape and murder people when they trust you…

So the fact that people disagree implies that killing people is good if **you **decide it is good?

I didn’t say that provided free will, I said it provided consciousness. Free will may or may not actually exist, but for all intensive purposes we assume it does because even if it doesn’t we certainly are complicated enough that it seems that way.

Just because I can’t explain it doesn’t mean your thoughts on the matter are right, that’s all I’m saying. I believe free will is a very interesting idea and something I thought about a lot while doing AI logic in college. The difference between us is that you can’t see how something so incredible can come from just the physical. I can. That’s not to say either of us has the upper hand, I’m just stating my viewpoint. When you say an element of reality, I’m not sure what you mean… I’ll assume you mean things like the monads you mentioned earlier. I believe it is an element of the complex structure, not of reality itself.

Very few criminals are not concerned about those things, they are people after all. Don’t demonize them carelessly. I won’t go into detail… take a sociology course, there is far too much information on the subject for me to touch on it all.

You twisted my words! I said (the obvious) that you don’t have a choice about if you have a conscience or not, I never said you didn’t have a choice on whether to listen to it!

Are you referencing my horrible spelling skills?

I’m not sure where I said we should trust everyone… I guess you were putting up a strawman? I said the principal of all people being equal (as in no caste system or slavery) was a good one, not that we should blindly trust others.

You make it sound absolute… like I said, good is defined by people, but people usually don’t agree. Is that a hard concept?

 

[liquidpele]

Nihilism is absurd. Egoism is egocentric. Humanism is anthropocentric. Reality does not have its source in nothing or the self or the human race. Everything has some value because everything is created by Love…

What about Parkinsons? AIDS? Katrina? Nuclear weapons? Guns? Antibiotic resistant bacteria? The chubacabra?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

• A criminal would laugh at you! It’s certainly a good principle for the majority because it enables the really clever minority to get along very nicely. It’s easier to cheat, rob, rape and murder people when they trust you…*

And for a criminal it’s really a lot “easier to cheat, rob, rape and murder people” when there is no God (or rather you think there is no God) looking over your shoulder.

 

[tonyrey]

The difference between us is that you can’t see how something so incredible can come from just the physical. I can.

I’m glad you admit it is incredible. If you can’t explain how free will can come from the physical it must be a matter of faith on your part that everything comes from physical processes. How would you justify that assumption?

I believe it is an element of the complex structure, not of reality itself.

Why and how could a complex physical structure produce free will or consciousness? In the absence of any explanation or evidence that too is a matter of faith. After all they are unique phenomena which which have no parallel in our experience, contradict all the laws of nature and reveal the limitations of science.

Criminals are not concerned about those things, are people after all.

I am asking you why criminals are mistaken - assuming you think they are mistaken. Or do you believe they have a right to their opinion and a right to commit crimes?

Take a sociology course, there is far too much information on the subject for me to touch on it all.

As well as being uncivil that is a facile evasion of the issue which fools nobody.

I never said you didn’t have a choice on whether to listen to it!

You gave the impression that your conscience is programmed for you and there’s not much you can do about it.

I said the principle of all people being equal (as in no caste system or slavery) was a good one, not that we should blindly trust others.

Your exact words: “I think it’s a good principle, if only because it allows for stability and a good foundational pillar for morality in my opinion”. You still have not explained why everyone should abide by that principle. Criminals choose not to and I am asking you whether they are entitled to reject the principle of equality - given that it is just a human convention.

You make it sound absolute… like I said, good is defined by people, but people usually don’t agree. Is that a hard concept?

Uncivil and irrelevant. Your exact words: “People disagree on what is Good just like they disagree on simple images based on their relative experiences”. This implies that good is relative to the individual. So why should criminals be regarded as guilty and punished for their crimes?

 

[tonyrey]

What about Parkinsons? AIDS? Katrina? Nuclear weapons? Guns? Antibiotic resistant bacteria? The chubacabra?

You are that moral and physical evil are unnecessary. Can you justify that assumption?

 

[liquidpele]

You are that moral and physical evil are unnecessary. Can you justify that assumption?

I mentioned things that don’t have anything to do with morality or evil. Parkinsons disease is just part of life. Why is made from love as you claimed?

 

[liquidpele]

I’m glad you admit it is incredible. If you can’t explain how free will can come from the physical it must be a matter of faith on your part that everything comes from physical processes. How would you justify that assumption?

Why and how could a complex physical structure produce free will or consciousness? In the absence of any explanation or evidence that too is a matter of faith. After all they are unique phenomena which which have no parallel in our experience, contradict all the laws of nature and reveal the limitations of science.

I am asking you why criminals are mistaken - assuming you think they are mistaken. Or do you believe they have a right to their opinion and a right to commit crimes?

As well as being uncivil that is a facile evasion of the issue which fools nobody.

You gave the impression that your conscience is programmed for you and there’s not much you can do about it.

Your exact words: “I think it’s a good principle, if only because it allows for stability and a good foundational pillar for morality in my opinion”. You still have not explained why everyone should abide by that principle. Criminals choose not to and I am asking you whether they are entitled to reject the principle of equality - given that it is just a human convention.
Uncivil and irrelevant. Your exact words: “People disagree on what is Good just like they disagree on simple images based on their relative experiences”. This implies that good is relative to the individual. So why should criminals be regarded as guilty and punished for their crimes?

It’s not really faith - if I saw something incredible like psychics or telepathy I’d probably change my mind on the matter. I take it as truth because the evidence I’ve seen appears to support it - the evidence being talks by neurologists, my own experiences, and thousands of other things I’ve learned and witnessed over the years.

How does your computer know how to properly submit your post? How does the sun know to keep shining? Incredible things and complexity don’t mean that magic is going on.

Criminals are “mistaken” in that they hurt society, which our species does better with when it’s stable. They don’t have a “right” to do what the like because society decides our rights. The “inalienable rights” are quite a new concept, and yet even they have limits set by the society (free speech vs libel for instance). Yes, I was avoiding the topic there because it’s beyond this thread’s topic. My friend who graduated with a degree in sociology used to visit maximum security prisons as part of her class - I had many a talk with her about it and it’s certainly something that I’m not prepared to explain over a forum.

I didn’t mean to give any such impression. You have a conscience, you can’t control that fact. You can of course control whether you agree with it or not.

You seem to be stuck on trying to say that by defining “good” as relative, and that consciousness is based on the physical, that suddenly there is no reason to start murdering and committing fraud for gain. This is huge fallacy, and one that religious people seem to believe a lot… so I’ll try to explain.

Consider that we have morality… we have social structure… we have what we define as good. Now… (just for arguments sake) imagine that God is just an idea, that the bible was written by inspired men but was not true, etc. Taking that as fact (just for the moment) what happens? Does our society suddenly collapse? Of course not… we had and will continue to have morality, social structure, consciousness, conscience, etc. Essentially, your view is that without God these things can’t exist… but they DO exist… that is quite obvious from reality and the only question is then if God exists… That is the atheist point of view.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*How does your computer know how to properly submit your post? How does the sun know to keep shining? Incredible things and complexity don’t mean that magic is going on. *

What would be really magic would be if you asserted that the computer evolved on its own and did not require intelligent design!!!

 

[tonyrey]

I mentioned things that don’t have anything to do with morality or evil. Parkinsons disease is just part of life. Why is made from love as you claimed?

Don’t you value the gift of life and the gift of love? Do you really believe they come about by chance? We tend to take the good things of life for granted but as soon as something goes wrong we notice it immediately. Parkinson’s disease is a part of life but it is evil, i.e. a natural evil. Sooner or later there are bound to be misfortunes for the simple reason that chance plays a large part in the unfolding of events.

The typical atheist believes everything is ultimately due to chance. The typical theist believes everything is the result of Design. They are both mistaken. The truth is rarely simple. In reality there is a framework of order and Design within which there is an element of disorder and chance. Random mutations lead to disease and deformity. Accidents and disasters occur because of fortuitous coincidences. We cannot have everything for nothing but would you prefer never to have been born?

 

[tonyrey]

I take it as truth because the evidence I’ve seen appears to support it - the evidence being talks by neurologists, my own experiences, and thousands of other things I’ve learned and witnessed over the years.

“appears” is the operative word… and appearances are often deceptive. You refer to evidence but you still have not explained what that evidence is, nor how free will can override the laws of nature. The fact that free will is an everyday experience does not make it any the less extraordinary and astonishing. How can biological machines - which is all we are according to the atheist - possibly become capable of controlling themselves and responsible for their activity? In some respects computers are far more powerful than human beings but we don’t regard them as innocent or guilty.The reason is that they are programmed by us but we programme ourselves.

Criminals are “mistaken” in that they hurt society, which our species does better with when it’s stable.

Why should our species be more valuable than individuals like you and me? Would you sacrifice your life for the sake of your species? Why should our species be more valuable than other species?

They don’t have a “right” to do what they like because society decides our rights.

Why do you think society decides our rights? Do you think society is infallible? Do you make all your decisions on the basis of what society decides? Don’t you believe you have a right to make up your own mind about what is right and wrong regardless of what society decides?

Consider that we have morality… we have social structure… we have what we define as good. Now… (just for arguments sake) imagine that God is just an idea, that the bible was written by inspired men but was not true, etc. Taking that as fact (just for the moment) what happens? Does our society suddenly collapse? Of course not… we had and will continue to have morality, social structure, consciousness, conscience, etc. Essentially, your view is that without God these things can’t exist… but they DO exist… that is quite obvious from reality and the only question is then if God exists… That is the atheist point of view.

You are misrepresenting my view and the views of other theists. Of course morality exists without God but, as you have explained, without God it is entirely man-made. In your opinion, good and evil do not exist independently and there is no such thing as an objective right to life. According to you, if everyone decided we didn’t have a right to life we wouldn’t have a right to life. In other words, life does not have any intrinsic value at all. And that is why criminals are no worse than anyone else. They are simply taking your view to its logical conclusion. There is no absolute reason why we shouldn’t kill somebody if there is no reason why we or they exist. What difference does one murder make in the vastness of the eternity if there is no such thing as cosmic justice or an afterlife in which we all receive exactly what we deserve? None whatsoever if morality is a human convention…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

In reality there is a framework of order and Design within which there is an element of disorder and chance. Random mutations lead to disease and deformity. Accidents and disasters occur because of fortuitous coincidences. We cannot have everything for nothing but would you prefer never to have been born?

The randomness of accidents and disease, flood and fire, tornado and earthquake … these are all as nothing compared to the disaster of losing one’s soul. If we do lose our soul, it truly would be better if we had never been born. At least with Parkinson’s Disease, you have a chance to save your soul. Everybody is going to die … and every man’s death is the same as being caught up in a natural disaster. Might as well complain that we had even been born.

 

[liquidpele]

You are misrepresenting my view and the views of other theists. Of course morality exists without God but, as you have explained, without God it is entirely man-made. In your opinion, good and evil do not exist independently and there is no such thing as an objective right to life. According to you, if everyone decided we didn’t have a right to life we wouldn’t have a right to life. In other words, life does not have any intrinsic value at all. And that is why criminals are no worse than anyone else. They are simply taking your view to its logical conclusion. There is no absolute reason why we shouldn’t kill somebody if there is no reason why we or they exist. What difference does one murder make in the vastness of the eternity if there is no such thing as cosmic justice or an afterlife in which we all receive exactly what we deserve? None whatsoever if morality is a human convention…

You certainly don’t seem to have much faith in humanity. Perhaps God should have made something less pathetic.

 

[tonyrey]

You certainly don’t seem to have much faith in humanity. Perhaps God should have made something less pathetic.

According to you: truth, goodness, beauty, love, justice, freedom, equality, morality, purpose, value, meaning and conscience are merely human ideas and conventions. They do not really exist because the universe just “is”. Our conscience is merely our built-in preference to certain situations and social organization. The only reason we care for each other is because it is in our DNA (like a wolf pack). The value of life is merely what we hold it to be: if killing someone were defined as permissible by society it would become permissible!

We are weird, pathetic freaks of nature, fortuitous combinations of molecules which have accidentally become biological robots programmed to think and act in certain ways. Yet somehow or other we have acquired the unique power to override our instincts and infringe the laws of physics. Somehow or other the molecules of which we are composed have accidentally acquired the ability to be aware of themselves and control themselves. Surely this is the greatest miracle of all! We must be superior to the entire universe because there is no evidence that the universe is aware of itself or can override physical laws…

 

[MindOverMatter]

You certainly don’t seem to have much faith in humanity. Perhaps God should have made something less pathetic.

What do you mean by pathetic? Why should one have faith in humanity? You speak as if one ought to be something better. What is better? Why are your views more objectively reasonable then any one else’s? Without objective moral-values, your life is of no more value then cows dung. If i was to take empiricism outside of its proper domain of discovery, and then attempt to examine every object that claimed to feel oppressed and demoralized, i would come to find out that, empirically speaking, i have no real reason to think that you even have a mind, let alone die for you. Everybody is going to die and cease to exist and nothing you say or do is going to matter at all when it comes down to the cold objective truth. Your opinions and your beliefs in the end amount to nothing of any objective worth or value. Its just a subjective fantasy that you choose to indulge in, fantasizing that your better then other people because you think that your doing something good. And you spent your whole life perceiving your life as something worth living, creating fantasies and claiming them to be true. This is the fate that naturalism incurs upon humanity, hoping for nothing more then some fleeting human dream that might never be fulfilled; claiming we really give a dame while selfishly bringing more people in to this meaningless reality when we know full well of the potential horror and the fleeting joy that torments humanity. How pathetic is that? An animal that thinks its life is worth something and that it has a moral right. Either where all pathetic, or there is a God and we have a moral responsibility toward one another. We have an objective meaning and purpose to live for.

[edited].