The absurdity of atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
inocente;13477931:
Seems unlikely as yours is the first reference to absurdism on this thread. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, not the absence of religion. Religions such as Buddhism, Jainism and atheistic Hinduism find spiritual meaning without subscribing to a deity. There are atheist Quakers (nontheistfriends.org/
Click to expand...
). Imho the OP confuses atheism with nihilism.
The logical outcome of atheism is nihilism as Camus and Sartre realised - and there were not thinkers to be underestimated, as I’m sure you’ll agree. In a purposeless universe everything is absurd because there is no reason why anyone or anything exists. We can invent purposes but that is all they are - inventions, expedients to distract us from the harsh truth (in the atheists’ scheme of things). In practice both Camus and Sartre were humanists because they knew it is impossible to live as if everything is pointless but they would have admitted it is a **human **decision which doesn’t correspond to objective reality. Goodness, justice and love are supposed to exist only in human minds although in fact they are more important than anything else. That is why atheism is not only absurd but incoherent…
Click to expand...
Three of the religions I mentioned predate those philosophers by millennia. They also predate Christianity, and their adherents could say Christians have invented purposes to distract us from the truth.

Also, I think Camus actually says that since there’s no evident purpose to objective reality, we can either accept that or believe in something which transcends objective reality, which can therefore never be proven. In other words, such beliefs depend on faith. Jesus tells us the same, he doesn’t say proof will move a mountain, he says faith. Faith doesn’t need to be theistic, there are other forms of transcendence than a personal deity.

But whether we believe in or deny a transcendent domain, we might say that purpose emerges rather than being built-in. For instance, love and a sense of fairness are not confined to humans:

Justice in capuchins youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo
Empathy in gorillas youtube.com/watch?v=EWxCM6llL60
Love and bereavement in gorillas youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg
 
inocente said:
. . . But whether we believe in or deny a transcendent domain, we might say that purpose emerges rather than being built-in. For instance, love and a sense of fairness are not confined to humans. . .
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of believing in the transcendent but rather believing in what people have communicated and passed on.
Within one’s relationship with God, the religious life becomes a matter of unending discovery.
When the Holy Spirit opens your eyes, you no longer believe, you know. Through His grace, we can all know God.

Transcending one’s condition can be an ongoing process throughout life, usually coming in inches, other times leaps.
If anything, that would be a purpose - to grow, while everything physical, including our faculties, decline.
I would say that the realization of the built-in purpose is what emerges.

A sense of love and fairness may be anthropomorphically attributed to animals, but such feelings merely reflect the instincts of social animals.
Other social instincts among primates are to tear the faces off the competition and rape their females.
The difference between man and animal is not in our having certain feelings, as it is not in having different organs - all very similar.
What we have is a rational soul which contains the body and these feelings, making it all one whole existing in relation to the world, each other and God.

It is through our actions as spiritual beings that we construct our eternal selves through time.
Those acts occuring in their context have a reality which is known by God.
The knowledge of who we are in reality is our judgement.
Ignoring what is real, speaking bluntly here, leads to the absurdity of atheism.
 
inocente said:
. Jesus tells us the same, he doesn’t say proof will move a mountain, he says faith. Faith doesn’t need to be theistic, there are other forms of transcendence than a personal deity.
Click to expand...
As a Baptist do you actually believe that?

I mean do you believe these other types of transcendence (Buddhist, for example) actually exist, or do you think that they are only subjectively imagined to exist by those who believe in them?
 
Bradski said:
But again, can you point some out? Just a couple would do. I’m sure they’d be happy to clarify their position.
Click to expand...
Why not compose a list of fellow atheists in this forum and invite them to weigh in?

In other words, if the matter means that much to you, do all the grunt work yourself instead of asking others to.

🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Why not compose a list of fellow atheists in this forum and invite them to weigh in?

In other words, if the matter means that much to you, do all the grunt work yourself instead of asking others to.
Click to expand...
Charles, a claim has been made which I don’t think is justified - that most atheists on this forum are anti-theists. It would be a simple matter to name some that you think fit that description. In all my time here, I can only think of one that might possibly fit and he or she may disagree with that assessment.

So a few names are required, otherwise I’m going to put the claim down as so much hot air.
 
Aloysium said:
It’s not a matter of believing in the transcendent but rather believing in what people have communicated and passed on.
Within one’s relationship with God, the religious life becomes a matter of unending discovery.
When the Holy Spirit opens your eyes, you no longer believe, you know. Through His grace, we can all know God.

Transcending one’s condition can be an ongoing process throughout life, usually coming in inches, other times leaps.
If anything, that would be a purpose - to grow, while everything physical, including our faculties, decline.
I would say that the realization of the built-in purpose is what emerges.

A sense of love and fairness may be anthropomorphically attributed to animals, but such feelings merely reflect the instincts of social animals.
Other social instincts among primates are to tear the faces off the competition and rape their females.
The difference between man and animal is not in our having certain feelings, as it is not in having different organs - all very similar.
What we have is a rational soul which contains the body and these feelings, making it all one whole existing in relation to the world, each other and God.

It is through our actions as spiritual beings that we construct our eternal selves through time.
Those acts occuring in their context have a reality which is known by God.
The knowledge of who we are in reality is our judgement.
Ignoring what is real, speaking bluntly here, leads to the absurdity of atheism.
Click to expand...
I think you’re using transcendence to mean something a little different from Camus.

In Christianity, I think transcendence is the aspect of God that’s separate from Creation, God transcends the physical - theopedia.com/transcendence-of-god. In other religions it may mean something different - a uniqueness, an unknowable, and so on. But in every case it’s something which surmounts reality rather than being part of reality.

Therefore it can’t be objectively proved or tested. You feel you know the Spirit for sure but a Buddhist will know something else for sure, a Muslim will know something else again, and there’s no objective means for any of you to prove the others wrong.

And also, in every case, it’s this transcendent aspect of each of your beliefs which supplies the meaning and purpose missing from objective reality, which allows each belief to transcend the absurd.

For instance, you appear to be saying there’s an aspect of you which transcends the physical, but that animals don’t have that aspect. There’s no way you can prove that’s the case. There’s no way anyone else can prove that’s not the case. Same for eternal life or karma or reincarnation or nirvana and so on. There are no objective means to prove any given transcendent realm, in other words no objective way to prove any religion. In every case it’s a question of faith.

Now some atheists believe in some form of transcendence, others don’t. Atheism means a lack of belief in deities, not a lack of belief in transcendence.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
As a Baptist do you actually believe that?

I mean do you believe these other types of transcendence (Buddhist, for example) actually exist, or do you think that they are only subjectively imagined to exist by those who believe in them?
Click to expand...
I think it’s a big mistake to confuse faith with certainty. When Christians try to prove some aspect of transcendence, Baptists have the phrase “putting God in their back pocket”. Meaning that in order to make the “proof”, it’s always necessary to cut God down to a convenient definition, and so deny that God transcends definition - I AM who I AM.
 
inocente said:
. . . You feel you know the Spirit for sure but a Buddhist will know something else for sure, . . . . Atheism means a lack of belief in deities, not a lack of belief in transcendence.
Click to expand...
When I first went on these forums, I mentioned it to my older son, who replied that he had always thought I was a Buddhist.
It’s not a good idea to pigeon-hole people, especially in regards to faith.
I am Christian and more accuarately Catholic because it fulfills every requirement needed to know God ever more deeply.
While the philosophical system that accompanies Catholicism pretty much explains everything, that is the least part of the religion.
Transcendence is not to be believed, but rather to be sought, to be lived.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I don’t see any “atheists” dashing to defend themselves!🙂
Click to expand...
Why should they? You made the positive claim that: “Most of the “athiests” here are actually “anti-theists” especially towards our Christian God.”

As I see it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that claim is true and not on any atheists to prove that it’s false.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
Why should they? You made the positive claim that: “Most of the “athiests” here are actually “anti-theists” especially towards our Christian God.”

As I see it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that claim is true and not on any atheists to prove that it’s false.
Click to expand...
Indeed. As I’ve been included in a remarkably short list, maybe someone could point out any comments that have made that could be construed as anti-theist.

I think we can drop this in any case. It’s simply not true.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
Why should they? You made the positive claim that: “Most of the “athiests” here are actually “anti-theists” especially towards our Christian God.”

As I see it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that claim is true and not on any atheists to prove that it’s false.
Click to expand...
Yep, that’s how you people operate. But I’m out of here too. I really dislike even conversing with atheists. Bye!
 
Bradski said:
Indeed. As I’ve been included in a remarkably short list, maybe someone could point out any comments that have made that could be construed as anti-theist.

I think we can drop this in any case. It’s simply not true.
Click to expand...
You are either theist or anti-theist. You can’t straddle the middle.

“Whoever is not with me is against me.” Matthew 12:30
 
Bradski said:
Indeed. As I’ve been included in a remarkably short list, maybe someone could point out any comments that have made that could be construed as anti-theist.

I think we can drop this in any case. It’s simply not true.
Click to expand...
I believe you wrote this a little while ago:

**“But again, can you point some out? Just a couple would do. I’m sure they’d be happy to clarify their position.” **

I thought you’d be happy to clarify your position!
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I believe you wrote this a little while ago:

**“But again, can you point some out? Just a couple would do. I’m sure they’d be happy to clarify their position.” **

I thought you’d be happy to clarify your position!
Click to expand...
Everything I write is clarification of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top