The absurdity of atheism

[tonyrey]

I’ll set aside reasons for existence, because that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Suffice it to say, I disagree that atheism commits one to believe there’s no reason for anything to exist.

What I do want to say is that if values are a human convention, then there are still values. Human beings have a remarkable way of instilling meaning into what otherwise would be meaningless. Sentimental value is a real and true thing. Whatever the underlying principles of reality (be them natural or supernatural), we assign value daily on things, people, actions, and etc. There are plenty of theories about value, morality, and reasons-for-existence that don’t rely on the existence of God. They’re perfectly coherent and consistent. (At least, as much as any philosophical theory can be) I don’t say this to defend Atheism - I’m not an atheist and I think that the atheist claim requires as much faith as the theist claim. I say this because the above quote needs much more fleshing out.

For instance, if there is no reason for anything to exist, why can there not be value? Why do you think that value-as-convention is not a proper value? If we find a reason for existence that doesn’t rely on God, does value still vanish? If value is merely human convention, what would be unwelcome consequences? I realize being a Catholic forum that many posters will grant the quote without question but I’d be interested in hearing some thoughts on what I posted above.

If objective values don’t exist all values are wishful thinking because they don’t correspond to reality.They are fantasies and there is no reason wny a cynic or criminal should respect them.

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t agree that that is the basic premise of atheism. Rather, atheism proposes that value is limited, not eternal. Thus, life may have value, but only to those alive. The dead are simply dead. Their value to themselves and others has ended, except in what they may have contributed to others in their lifetime and their posterity.

An atheist proposes but God disposes! We can propose anything we like but if our proposition doesn’t correspond to reality we are deceiving ourselves.

My view is that atheism is blind to the totality of all that is. It presupposes that life is random and chaotic, thus it has no purpose beyond mere existence. This closes off many aspects of life which must be argued away as mere chemical reactions or delusions.

Its adherents have to ignore any evidence to the contrary. It’s a closed circle that demands that one not look beyond its boundaries.

It ultimately says individuals have no bonds to others except those which they find personally pleasing or which benefit them.

Adherents believe they are free from any eternal negative results of their actions since death ends life.

Conscience is mere social engineering and beliefs imposed rules with no meaning beyond the human need to live with one another peacefully enough to reproduce the species.

Others may find such a bleak belief system enthralling, but not I. I may be a northerner but even I find it too cold–too narcissistic, and too limiting.

I entirely agree. In other words, to quote Hamlet, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in their philosophy…

 

[tonyrey]

The values to which people commit are varied.
Each of us, in our families, at work, citizens, criminals and terrorists, we all have our reasons to do what we do.
Each of us decides from what is given us, to become who we are.

That said, there is one purpose that is the same for all; and, that purpose is to be happy.
I will assert that for all the suffering that we encounter, real happiness, solid and true, comes with a love of life and one another.
It is to be found in God, who is Love.

The reason why there is something cannot be captured intellectually.
It is in our very being, to be found in prayer and meditation, in the smile of a new-born baby, in our lover’s eyes.
In that mystery, in the silence that thunders throughout creation, one discerns the Divine.

Irrefutable! Anyone who denies the transcendence of love is not alive…

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, but Tony said ultimately valueless. He seems unable to grasp that life for an atheist has value to that individual, but that individual generally considers that they live in an uncaring universe.

I grasp the fact that an atheist invents values. There is no reason to believe the universe is caring but so what? It doesn’t explain itself or anything else!

In a few generations no-one will remember Tony or myself. Life will drift on as if we never existed. Atheists have no problem with this fact, but it seems to frustrate Christians no end. I was going to say terrify them, but that would only be if they had some doubt in their belief.

For Christians death is not a frustration but a consolation! It means we all get what we deserve.

Kinda funny. Christians will embrace the concept of eternal torment but will recoil in horror at the thought of an uncaring universe.

No reasonable person expects the universe to be caring. Why should it be? It doesn’t even know what it’s doing!

As for Hell It has its compensations; otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Even in this world the lust for power can overcome all other considerations…

 

[tonyrey]

Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

No matter how insignificant anyone’s life may seem, every person’s mere existence has made an impact on the world.

The Doctor (Doctor Who), when asking who someone was and receiving the answer of “I’m no one important”, said: “I’ve travelled through all of space and time, but I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t important.” (Quoting to the best of my memory.).

Indeed. Even a still-born baby makes a big difference - as I well know from personal experience.

 

[tonyrey]

It is indeed absurd. I tried atheism off and on during my college days and it was miserable . It just is so difficult to live without the Lord.

It is the oddest thing though. I find when I have a more active relationship with God, I have a better ability to discern what is wise and what is not. Not just the morality of actions/inactions but the very wisdom of being precoccupied with a certain problem/grievance, and whether it is such a wise thing to be aggrieved over or not.

The Jesus train is really a good trip :extrahappy:

I too was seven years in the wilderness. It has always helped me understand how religion appears to many people as outdated, sentimental nonsense but I hadn’t gone into the subject deeply enough until I was eighteen and my professor of Spanish noticed I had attended a Catholic primary school. I reluctantly agreed to have a chat with a priest and that was it! A few months later I was speaking for the Catholic Evidence Guild facing hecklers in public…

 

[Rhubarb]

If objective values don’t exist all values are wishful thinking because they don’t correspond to reality.They are fantasies and there is no reason wny a cynic or criminal should respect them.

I had a post written up, but I’m confused. Do you mean “value” or “values.” They seem different to me. They’re both normative ideas, but the latter I associate more with morality. (Which is the other area I’ve heard this argument made) Maybe you mean both, but I want to address one thing at a time.

 

[Bradski]

Its adherents have to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

You had a lot right in your post. I agreed with almost all of it except the quote above. People who are atheists don’t ignore any evidence. It’s that they have examined it and found it to be unconvincing. Well, I’m speaking personally here.

I tried atheism off and on during my college days…

That will be the oddest statement I’ll read today.

If objective values don’t exist all values are wishful thinking because they don’t correspond to reality.

It’s odd that you think that if something is subjective, it doesn’t really exist. I value the mug on my desk because my daughter painted it when she was a child. That’s a subjective feeling. The mug has subjective value. Are you saying that the mug is worthless to me?

I grasp the fact that an atheist invents values.

Uh? I didn’t ‘invent’ the value in the mug. It’s not something I made up. It is inherent in the mug itself by dint of it being made by my daughter. For any of your claims to make any sense you would have to argue that if I were not an atheist then the mug would have objective value.

 

[tonyrey]

Uh? I didn’t ‘invent’ the value in the mug. It’s not something I made up. It is inherent in the mug itself by dint of it being made by my daughter. For any of your claims to make any sense you would have to argue that if I were not an atheist then the mug would have objective value.

An excellent analogy! The original mug “happened” to be “designed”…

 

[tonyrey]

I had a post written up, but I’m confused. Do you mean “value” or “values.” They seem different to me. They’re both normative ideas, but the latter I associate more with morality. (Which is the other area I’ve heard this argument made) Maybe you mean both, but I want to address one thing at a time.

The question is whether all values are human prescriptions or are they immutable features of reality. Is life intrinsically valuable or do we impose value on it?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

You had a lot right in your post. I agreed with almost all of it except the quote above. People who are atheists don’t ignore any evidence. It’s that they have examined it and found it to be unconvincing. Well, I’m speaking personally here.

…

As what is grouped as “atheism” is a gradation of views, and as on a good day we all try to look at all the evidence we can look at and to be convinced (as far as it goes and provisionally) by what we “find convincing”, and as what is grouped as the opposite of “atheism” is a gradation of views, I personally don’t find much contrast between most forms of most views on the question of whether an adherent troubles to become convinced or not.

Personally I put thirst for knowledge first. I’m less concerned about looking down my nose at people I’m trying to portray as less trendy.

Is there a sub-text?

 

[Bradski]

The question is whether all values are human prescriptions or are they immutable features of reality. Is life intrinsically valuable or do we impose value on it?

Back the truck up a little, Tony. You said: ‘If objective values don’t exist all values are wishful thinking because they don’t correspond to reality.’

Is the value I put on my mug real? It can’t be an objective value because I am the only person to whom it has value. So it must be subjective.

Presumably, if you had a mug that your daughter made for you, the value you’d place on it would be real for you, again in a subjective sense.

So we have a Christian with a subjective view of value and an atheist with exactly the same subjective view of value. Unless you’d like to argue that your sense of value is real because you are a Christian and mine isn’t because I am not, then that should answer your question.

 

[Della]

"Della:

Its adherents have to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

You had a lot right in your post. I agreed with almost all of it except the quote above. People who are atheists don’t ignore any evidence. It’s that they have examined it and found it to be unconvincing. Well, I’m speaking personally here.

What I mean is that no evidence that is not in line with atheism will convince because it cannot be allowed within the premise. For example, “miracles do not exist therefore they cannot exist” is one argument I’ve read by an atheist even though the evidence for a miracle would be convincing to anyone who does not need to deny that miracles can exist

Atheism does not allow evidence against itself even if the person looks into such evidence because the presupposition is that all such evidence is not/cannot be true. Thus atheism is a closed system, a circle of beliefs that cannot be violated not even by reason and/or evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Kinda funny. Christians will embrace the concept of eternal torment but will recoil in horror at the thought of an uncaring universe.

Not kinda funny.

Christians do not embrace the concept of eternal torment. What they embrace is the choice between eternal torment and eternal bliss.

Only atheists embrace the hopelessness of getting out of this life alive.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What I mean is that no evidence that is not in line with atheism will convince because it cannot be allowed within the premise. For example, “miracles do not exist therefore they cannot exist” is one argument I’ve read by an atheist even though the evidence for a miracle would be convincing to anyone who does not need to deny that miracles can exist

I think it’s worth noting that there is a difference between being convinced by *experiencing *what one thinks to be a miracle and being convinced of an account of a miracle that came from another person. If one takes the position that “miracles might be possible” and someone tells them about an event that is thought to be miraculous a person might still be unconvinced that a miracle happened at that event.

Atheism does not allow evidence against itself even if the person looks into such evidence because the presupposition is that all such evidence is not/cannot be true.

There are people that once identified as being an atheist or non-theist of some type that became convinced by an experience. So I don’t think the above is necessarily true. For those that were convinced and adopted a religion they probably would not call themselves an atheist anymore. There are people within these forums that say they’ve had such an experience and it convinced them of God. If their stories are true then they are examples of people that were Atheist that were open to the possibility of a miracle and eventually convinced of an experience. But even for those that positively assert that miracles do occur you might find that they do not necessarily evaluate an event that another labels as a miracle as being authentic/true.

Thus atheism is a closed system, a circle of beliefs that cannot be violated not even by reason and/or evidence.

Not necessarily. A person might take the position that “Miracles are impossible.” A person might also take the position “Miracles may be possible, but I’ve not yet encountered one that I am confident happened as described from supernatural causes.” Someone self identifying as an atheist might take either position. A person that takes the position that “Miracles may be possible” isn’t necessarily contradicting that position if she says “I don’t believe that specific event is a Miracle.”

 

[Della]

I think it’s worth noting that there is a difference between being convinced by *experiencing *what one thinks to be a miracle and being convinced of an account of a miracle that came from another person. If one takes the position that “miracles might be possible” and someone tells them about an event that is thought to be miraculous a person might still be unconvinced that a miracle happened at that event.

There are people that once identified as being an atheist or non-theist of some type that became convinced by an experience. So I don’t think the above is necessarily true. For those that were convinced and adopted a religion they probably would not call themselves an atheist anymore. There are people within these forums that say they’ve had such an experience and it convinced them of God. If their stories are true then they are examples of people that were Atheist that were open to the possibility of a miracle and eventually convinced of an experience. But even for those that positively assert that miracles do occur you might find that they do not necessarily evaluate an event that another labels as a miracle as being authentic/true.

Not necessarily. A person might take the position that “Miracles are impossible.” A person might also take the position “Miracles may be possible, but I’ve not yet encountered one that I am confident happened as described from supernatural causes.” Someone self identifying as an atheist might take either position. A person that takes the position that “Miracles may be possible” isn’t necessarily contradicting that position if she says “I don’t believe that specific event is a Miracle.”

All true, but the basic premise of atheism doesn’t allow for personal experience or coming to believe, it denies these things. One has to move outside of atheism’s premise to allow experience and evidence to change the atheist into a believer.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What I mean is that no evidence that is not in line with atheism will convince because it cannot be allowed within the premise. For example, “miracles do not exist therefore they cannot exist” is one argument I’ve read by an atheist even though the evidence for a miracle would be convincing to anyone who does not need to deny that miracles can exist

Atheism does not allow evidence against itself even if the person looks into such evidence because the presupposition is that all such evidence is not/cannot be true. Thus atheism is a closed system, a circle of beliefs that cannot be violated not even by reason and/or evidence.

You know, that is simply not true. Miracles are problematic, of course. The problem is that a miracle cannot have a natural explanation. That presupposes “omniscience”, which we do not have. But this approach is not correct. Even though we don’t know everything, there are many things we DO know.

For example, we know that the speed of light is an absolute maximum, or the zero Kelvin is an absolute minimum. It is easy to construct a miracle, which cannot be denied by even most ardent skeptic. We know the laws of celestial movements. It is impossible that a star would suddenly move from one place to another, where the distance would require a speed over the speed of light. That kind of miracle could not be denied. And God could add some “spices” to this phenomenon. The stars could display verses from the Bible, and could predict which verses will be displayed the next week.

The alleged miraculous healings are unconvincing. There are so many possible natural explanations. First and foremost, misdiagnosed ailments. It is no surprise that there are no miracles for those conditions which cannot be misdiagnosed. Example would be a lost limb. There are no correctly designed, double blind experiments to prove a miracle. There is the James Randi Foundation, which offers a million bucks for any paranormal or miraculous presentation.

And the lack of successful experiments is explained away by the staple answer: “you cannot test God”. It is really ironic that the believers portray God as a shameless cheater, who will falsify the result of the experiment, so he can stay hidden. Falsification of an experiment is the ultimate no-no.

It is interesting that you accuse atheism of being “immune” to actual evidence. Especially since it is theism which will create bogus explanations when its shortcomings are exposed. Atheism could be “refuted” in a heartbeat, if only God would manifest himself. And when one asks, why God does not do that, the apologists will attempt to explain AWAY the lack of such manifestation. Usually some ridiculous assertion that having positive knowledge of God’s existence would “rob us” of the virtue of (blind) “faith” and would drag the “mystery” down into sordid empiricism.

All true, but the basic premise of atheism doesn’t allow for personal experience or coming to believe, it denies these things. One has to move outside of atheism’s premise to allow experience and evidence to change the atheist into a believer.

There is no basic premise of atheism, except the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Back the truck up a little, Tony. You said: ‘If objective values don’t exist all values are wishful thinking because they don’t correspond to reality.’

I would really like to see how can one speak of “intrinsic value”, which stands alone, without someone who makes the “value-judgment”. The proper question is “object X is valuable to WHOM?”. The “truncated” question: “is object X valuable?” is unanswerable.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

All true, but the basic premise of atheism

What is the basic premise?

 

[HelenRose]

You’ve confused atheism with nihilism bro.

How can an atheist not be a nihilist?

I know very wonderful atheists whose lives are not nihilistic in their actions nor their lives.

In many ways I can respect that.

But when I try it on for size, the emptiness of atheism always speaks to me of nihilism. I can not live like that.

It seems to me that when I wear atheism, I tread a path around the edges of a black hole.

I run away from that knowing that I am nothing, nothing at all without the Love of Christ.

I can’t argue for or against atheism, or for or against the existence of God. But, for me to live, I need His love.