The absurdity of atheism

[HerCrazierHalf]

Isn’t there something ignoble about the need to be dead forever? What could motivate it other than cowardly fear of life eternal and the judgment of a just and merciful God?

I think the confusion is calling it a “need”. I don’t see it as a need, but a best guess and appreciation of that.

I suppose motivations cold also be a fear of boredom once a great deal of the universe or beyond is discovered at some point into eternity. Or uncertainties about the conditions of eternity.

Fear of judgement would require a God, whom is not believed in in the first place

 

[tonyrey]

Swift has described “immortality” in his wonderful book of “Gulliver’s Travels”. In Luggnagg there are the unfortunate struldbrugs, who look like normal people, but are actually immortal. These poor people are “cursed” with eternal life, but they do not have eternal health and youth. They keep on aging, getting more and more deformed and sick, their mind deteriorates… a truly horrifying existence.

The truth is that people don’t want “eternal” life, they simply do not want to age and die. Even if someone would be in perfect health, but deprived of CHANGE (is there a change in heaven?) a frozen, unchanging existence is undesirable whether it is “pleasurable” or “painful”. Just imagine a playful “tickling”, which is not stopped, no matter how much you would wish to have it stopped. It would turn into a horrible torture.

Of course there is change in heaven because love is not static but dynamic. Creation is not a once-for-all affair but an ongoing process. God doesn’t change but He causes change and so do we. We retain our identity without losing our originality and creativity just as we do in this life. In fact there must be continuity between this life and the next if we are to remain the same persons, make amends for the unnecessary suffering we have caused or condoned and be compensated for our unnecessary suffering caused or condoned by others. Belief in justice implies that ultimately we all get what we deserve. That is another reason why atheism is absurd. Why believe in justice at all if evil triumphs and has the last word - as it so often does in this life?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Isn’t there something ignoble about the need to be dead forever? What could motivate it other than cowardly fear of life eternal and the judgment of a just and merciful God?

For to fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise without really being wise, for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For no one knows whether death may not be the greatest good that can happen to man.

• Socrates

Isn’t one life more than enough? Should we be so dissatisfied? Has God shortchanged us? Do you think he owes us more?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Fear of judgement would require a God, whom is not believed in in the first place

But then we have to ask whether the individual atheist does not believe in God because there is evidence for that lack of belief, or whether the atheist does not believe in God for another reason, such as the fear of being judged, or the fear of being able to call all the shots with God looking over his shoulder.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

• Socrates

Isn’t one life more than enough? Should we be so dissatisfied? Has God shortchanged us? Do you think he owes us more?

Well and good, but surely you know that Socrates believed in the afterlife.

 

[Rohzek]

But then we have to ask whether the individual atheist does not believe in God because there is evidence for that lack of belief, or whether the atheist does not believe in God for another reason, such as the fear of being judged, or the fear of being able to call all the shots with God looking over his shoulder.

The latter is a very cynical view of atheism. Many atheists have moral principles that they consider objective. Here is a survey sample of philosophers and their percentages as moral realists: commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371

 

[claymcdermott]

If I were an atheist, I’d probably be an absurdist. So, that’s, what… I didn’t read anything other than the thread title.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The latter is a very cynical view of atheism. Many atheists have moral principles that they consider objective. Here is a survey sample of philosophers and their percentages as moral realists: commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371

Your talking points are based on atheist propaganda at atheist websites?

The only bona fide atheist moral objectivist I am familiar with is Ayn Rand.

Can you provide me a passage from any other atheist that argues for moral objectivism?

Virtually all the other atheist/agnostic philosophers I am familiar with are moral relativists.

Take Bertrand Russell, for example.

faithdefenders.com/articles/apologetics/relative_logic_atheists_aP.html

 

[PRmerger]

The desire for eternal life could be construed as a bottomless egotistical avarice.

Can you think of any desire that the human person has for something that doesn’t exist?

Borrowing from St. Augustine and CS Lewis–everything that the human person desires we desire because it exists.

We desire food. Food exists.
We desire sex. Sex exists.

We desire eternal life…

 

[Rohzek]

Your talking points are based on atheist propaganda at atheist websites?

The only bona fide atheist moral objectivist I am familiar with is Ayn Rand.

Can you provide me a passage from any other atheist that argues for moral objectivism?

Virtually all the other atheist/agnostic philosophers I am familiar with are moral relativists.

Take Bertrand Russell, for example.

faithdefenders.com/articles/apologetics/relative_logic_atheists_aP.html

The blog, which has detailed explanations that I found useful, links to the actual survey:

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Such can hardly be called atheist propaganda.

Oh no! How dare those atheists try to represent themselves using survey’s that did not solely concern themselves with the question of faith! It’s almost as bad as Catholics forming their own website to represent themselves. Oh wait…

 

[PRmerger]

Your talking points are based on atheist propaganda at atheist websites?

The only bona fide atheist moral objectivist I am familiar with is Ayn Rand.

Can you provide me a passage from any other atheist that argues for moral objectivism?

Virtually all the other atheist/agnostic philosophers I am familiar with are moral relativists.

Take Bertrand Russell, for example.

faithdefenders.com/articles/apologetics/relative_logic_atheists_aP.html

Regardless–IF there are atheists who are moral objectivists, that’s a good thing! For if one follows the logic, there can only be one conclusion: a Moral Lawgiver exists.

Any atheist who is intellectually honest (and a moral objectivist) will come to that conclusion, as Leah Libresco did.

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/my-journey-atheist-catholic-11-questions-leah-libresco

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Regardless–IF there are atheists who are moral objectivists, that’s a good thing! For if one follows the logic, there can only be one conclusion: a Moral Lawgiver exists.

Any atheist who is intellectually honest (and a moral objectivist) will come to that conclusion, as Leah Libresco did.

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/my-journey-atheist-catholic-11-questions-leah-libresco

But Ayn Rand did not.

Atheism allows one to be intellectually dishonest, since it is fearless in the face of Nogod!

The atheist argues there is no absolute God,.

It is therefore difficult to see how he can believe in absolute truth, moral or otherwise.

In which case, if the atheist says he believes in objective truth, he has only himself as the authority for that objective truth. And he has to allow his neighbor the same “objective” truth even when it disagrees with his own.

Or he has to allow the majority opinion, as Russell did in the article I cited above.

So in a court of law, the atheist will not swear on a Bible. He will only swear on his own veracity, which may or may not be objective. He certainly is not allowed to swear by the majority opinion.

And if people ask why they should believe him, about all he can say is, “Because I said so,” as Russell tongue-in-cheek argued in the same article.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The blog, which has detailed explanations that I found useful, links to the actual survey:

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Such can hardly be called atheist propaganda.

Oh no! How dare those atheists try to represent themselves using survey’s that did not solely concern themselves with the question of faith! It’s almost as bad as Catholics forming their own website to represent themselves. Oh wait…

Sorry, but I don’t visit atheist websites any more. I cannot read the article you reference, nor can I verify that the survey is authentic or reliable.

But since you seem to cast aspersions on a Catholic website you regularly visit (this one) perhaps you might cast an aspersion now and then on a an atheist website as well.

What are you orthodox about, atheism?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The atheist argues there is no absolute God,.

My, that’s a broad brush. Let me narrow it down a bit.

The strong atheist argues there are no -]absolute /-] gods

Carry on.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The strong atheist argues there are no -]absolute /-] gods . . …

There is but one God.
What people refer to as gods are very different things.

The weather is a god, lets call it Neptune, who is fickle, uncaring, powerful. It is real and some may personify it when their existence depends on it. We’ve got a sort of mystical-scientific view now that we are suffering from the effects of global climate change. Paying attention to that relationship will be very important to our survival.

There are many other gods; some are psychological. The Trickster creates havoc presenting himself one way to one person and the opposite to another, shaking up the mundane, and leading to profound change. Possibly introducing great heartache, it is most often the best thing that ever happened. The Trickster is beyond the rules and with subterfuge and doing the unexpected, he is a guide to transcendence, leading the person to the truth that lies at the core of those rules. Very real, my friend, although invisible to the concrete of thought, at least until he appears.

Sex, let’s call him Eros, is a very powerful god. I believe that many atheist reject God because of his influence. Power, his brother, is likewise mighty and to be desired. Possibly he is less influential in modern society, at least the way it is portrayed in the media as being in blind pursuit of bovine bliss. Of course, cousin Honour, preening and strutting to be adored, offering us all the chance of being somebody, as if we weren’t already. Worship any of these, have them as your master at your peril.

Many gods, and one God.

Is atheism anything but a lack of imagination?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There is but one God.

I’m not personally making a statement on the count of gods. If you say there is one God (Yahweh) I’m fine with that and won’t challenge it.

What people refer to as gods are very different things.
…]
Many gods, and one God.

Is atheism anything but a lack of imagination?

Generically it’s a person that is not convinced of the existence of any god. If someone were not convinced of the existence of God(Yahweh) but convinced of the existence of one or more other gods then he or she wouldn’t be an atheist. The dichotomy of being convinced of Yahweh or not convinced would generally be labeled as “Judaeo-christian” or “not Judaeo-Christian.” Those that are not Judaeo-Christian could be atheist or of some other religion.

Not to loose sight of the context of my previous statement Charles had made a statement that atheist say that there is no God. Some atheist say this. Some do not. The ones that do make this argument are often labeled as “strong atheist” separating them from weak atheist/soft atheist/agnostic atheist. Whether you are referring to a god or a God someone that is a strong atheist would label the entity as non-existent. Many usages of the lower case g word are inclusive of the uppercase G. Parsing out the statement “There exist no gods except God” the lowercase god in this sentence is inclusive of all god concepts including God (Yahweh) before separating them on what is thought to exist or non exist.

Generally within this forum I’ve seen people use the term “deity” to refer to any god-concept that is not God (Yahweh). I’ve not yet checked to see if that usage extends far beyond these forums.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Many usages of the lower case g word are inclusive of the uppercase G. Parsing out the statement “There exist no gods except God” the lowercase god in this sentence is inclusive of all god concepts including God (Yahweh) before separating them on what is thought to exist or non exist.

Generally within this forum I’ve seen people use the term “deity” to refer to any god-concept that is not God (Yahweh). I’ve not yet checked to see if that usage extends far beyond these forums.

Not arguing with you, but wishing to take the opportunity to sound off:

This gets confusing because I would include you and I, all of us, as being lowercase gods.
Whether someone thinks so or not, we exist as creative beings, who can imagine and know beauty and truth.

I do not know how I do this, because I am not God, but I am able to contemplate all this in which we are now participating.
Amazingly, words appear as ideas form, are considered and communicated. From my personal being I reach out to others.

Around me are the chair, table, laptop, walls, phones, all these inanimate objects that are, and were formed through human endeavour.
They’re not gods, they’re stuff. Stuff that we use in our daily lives to carry on in relation to reality and to one another.

It is through our actions that we accomplish what is truly miraculous, the creation of ourselves within the passage of time, someone eternal.
What we have done is what we have done; it is unchanging.
The only hope that some may have is that oblivion will swallow it all up. I am going to assert that if that were the case, it would not now exist, but I cannot demonstrate it.

So, what I am trying to say is that it is not a matter of what we think does or does not exist, when we speak of gods or God; rather, it is an attempt to describe the fundamental truths of Reality.

 

[Rohzek]

Sorry, but I don’t visit atheist websites any more. I cannot read the article you reference, nor can I verify that the survey is authentic or reliable.

But since you seem to cast aspersions on a Catholic website you regularly visit (this one) perhaps you might cast an aspersion now and then on a an atheist website as well.

What are you orthodox about, atheism?

First, I did not attack this website. In fact, this website is a very good place to discuss things at. I just merely pointed out how absurd and close-minded your logic is for discounting an entire survey of philosophers solely because an atheist happened to write an informative blog about it. If an atheist tries to present themselves in a light that finds common ground with us theists, then according to you it’s propaganda instead of legitimate common ground…

As for what I am Orthodox about, I’ll be more than happy to recite the Nicene Creed upon request if it makes you feel better, although I don’t see the reason for you to doubt my own faith solely because I don’t tow your line of ill logic.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This gets confusing because I would include you and I, all of us, as being lowercase gods.

I wouldn’t suggest that. It may carry some connotations that you might not intend. Try telling someone else that you are a god to see what I mean.

Whether someone thinks so or not, we exist as creative beings, who can imagine and know beauty and truth.

For those attributes I might just stay on what is more to the point and say “Humans are creative and imaginative” without deifying humans.

 

[PRmerger]

But Ayn Rand did not.

Yes. And I think this is because she didn’t connect the dots.