The absurdity of atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77:
An old atheist is a bitter person (usually), more mad at God than disbelieving in God.
While most definitely an asset for a software engineer and a regular on this philosophy subform, engaging in precise definitions, classifications and categorizations can miss a certain amount of intended meaning.

The point about angry and bitter atheists has to do with motivation. They would be self-proclaimed disbelievers, who actually do believe but are unaccepting of what life has brought them or horrified at the thought of the mean and vindictive god that they project onto scripture.

I don’t wish to deconstruct such a position, just wanted to clarify what I understood the poster to be saying. Were you to tell any such person that they were actually believers in God, I am sure the rancor would pour all over you.
 
While most definitely an asset for a software engineer and a regular on this philosophy subform, engaging in precise definitions, classifications and categorizations can miss a certain amount of intended meaning.
I didn’t miss the intended meaning. If I assume their consistent unwavering expressions are genuine there are people within these forums (and places elsewhere) that seem to believe that anyone that identifies as an atheist actually believes there is a God and are expressing hatred for him. Sometimes this view is in no way impacted when a non-believer declares not having hatred for God. I think it may be possible that even through discussions that they read that others have on the topic here might in someway help them one day have a more nuanced view.
Were you to tell any such person that they were actually believers in God, I am sure the rancor would pour all over you.
I’d be more inclined to ask someone whether or not s/he believes than tell them. As you might infer from the paragraph above I think that telling someone what they believe especially if the person declares something else to generally be problematic.

On the topic of one’s intended usage there was a thread titled “Fear of Hell” in which the intended usage of one’s expressions were discussed at length. I’m a proponent of taking one’s intended usage into consideration (if their intended usage can be discovered, it’s not always possible). A good thing about dialog is that when an interpretation of an expression doesn’t match the intentions of the speaker there’s a chance to correct it. I was surprised to find that there are many that don’t take that position.
 
Put another way, I don’t need a supernatural God in order to find value in my life.

In the grand scheme of things, I suppose nothing has value, as everything will decay and the universe itself will one day cease to exist.

Good thing that isn’t today, so I’ll enjoy the time I have.

The religious view is dependent upon blind faith. I know there’s nothing after death, you hope there’s something.

I’m at peace with there being nothing.

Nothing terrifies a lot of believers. They want to live forever.
You do not “know” that there is nothing after death any more than I “know” that there is life after death. Basically because neither one of us can know. Neither one of us can prove our position one way or another. It boils down to faith.

You have made your leap of faith toward atheism. You have made peace with that.
I have made my leap of faith toward God. I have found peace with that.
 
Personally I do not accept the OP’s position. Atheism is not an absurdity. To make that claim is to minimize the importance of faith. Saint Therese of Liseiux struggled within herself the arguments of atheism. We can not minimize nor explain away the valid arguments of those who can not or will not believe.

Faith comes when we wrestle with God.
 
Personally I do not accept the OP’s position. Atheism is not an absurdity. To make that claim is to minimize the importance of faith. Saint Therese of Liseiux struggled within herself the arguments of atheism. We can not minimize nor explain away the valid arguments of those who can not or will not believe.
For the life of me I cannot think of a valid argument against the existence of God.

When I was an atheist, I’m sure I thought all of my arguments were valid.

The problem of evil is no argument against the existence of God, though it might validly call into question why God allows evil to exist.
 
You do not “know” that there is nothing after death any more than I “know” that there is life after death. Basically because neither one of us can know. Neither one of us can prove our position one way or another. It boils down to faith.

You have made your leap of faith toward atheism. You have made peace with that.
I have made my leap of faith toward God. I have found peace with that.
Love it! Me too.
 
So you can see why I have a great deal of skepticism with regard to your posts.

Bolded #1 and Bolded #2 violate the principle of non-contradiction.

Both A and Not-A cannot both be true.

You deny me the sentiment or you permit me the sentiment.

You can’t say both, (especially in the same post!) and expect me to take this seriously.

At any rate, I really have no investment in this tributary.

Suffice it to say that you stated that there were studies that support your assertion.

You cited one, and it is doubtful that it even addressed death bed conversions.

NB: no need to feverishly search the internet now to find some ostensible studies which support your assertion.

My point has been made.
I guess it really is foolish to listen to someone who won’t listen to you. Enjoy the bliss of ignorance, which oddly seems to buttress your faith.

My simply contradiction due to the lack of “but” at the beginning of bolded statement #2 in no way overturns the fact that I provided a source, which you refuse to read because it shakes your feeble glass house of preconceived notions on the supposed cognitive dissonance of atheists. You doubt the source I provided without even reading it. And furthermore, you don’t even provide a reason for doubting it. If that doesn’t speak volumes about your own lack of seriousness or critical thought, then I do not know what does. However, if it really does make you feel better, then by all means continue onwards. After all, not every Christian can face reality with the fortitude that I have. I don’t think myself to be more comfortable with my own life than any atheist. There are probably many of them far more comfortable with life and even death than I am.
 
For the life of me I cannot think of a valid argument against the existence of God.

When I was an atheist, I’m sure I thought all of my arguments were valid.

The problem of evil is no argument against the existence of God, though it might validly call into question why God allows evil to exist.
I never was an atheist but I have at times circled that black hole.

When an atheist says that he or she “makes peace” with nothingness, I wonder how anyone could be able to do that. How can one make peace with knowing that there is no reason for anything?

It isn’t a matter of my fearing nothingness. But the emptiness of nothing saddens me to the very core of my being.

Atheists look at complete death, complete darkness. I can’t. I could never make peace with that. I would die inside.

Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants…”

I will choose life. I choose purpose. I choose reason. I choose God.
 
. . . The problem of evil is no argument against the existence of God, though it might validly call into question why God allows evil to exist.
The question then, angels and demons aside, is why God created mankind.

Would it have been better to stop with animals, beings which come into existence and perish much like the more elaborate supernovas which brighten the sky and are gone, no one to mourn?

There really is something quite special in humanity, although one might deprecate this existence.
Consider none of all this, being.
Well, whether we understand or not, we are significantly loved in that He became one of us and died that we might all know and join Him in eternity.

BTW: I love this song:

O Holy Night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of the dear Saviour’s birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining.
Till He appeared and the Soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was born;
O night, O night divine!

Truly He taught us to love one another,
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains he shall break, the slave is our brother.
And in his name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
With all within us praise His holy name.
Christ is the Lord! Then ever, ever praise we,
His power and glory ever more proclaim!
His power and glory ever more proclaim!
Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was born;
O night, O night divine!
 
I never was an atheist but I have at times circled that black hole.

When an atheist says that he or she “makes peace” with nothingness, I wonder how anyone could be able to do that. How can one make peace with knowing that there is no reason for anything?

It isn’t a matter of my fearing nothingness. But the emptiness of nothing saddens me to the very core of my being.

Atheists look at complete death, complete darkness. I can’t. I could never make peace with that. I would die inside.

Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants…”

I will choose life. I choose purpose. I choose reason. I choose God.
Good for you! Like every rational person who appreciates the immense privilege of being alive…
 
I guess it really is foolish to listen to someone who won’t listen to you. Enjoy the bliss of ignorance, which oddly seems to buttress your faith.

My simply contradiction due to the lack of “but” at the beginning of bolded statement #2 in no way overturns the fact that I provided a source, which you refuse to read because it shakes your feeble glass house of preconceived notions on the supposed cognitive dissonance of atheists. You doubt the source I provided without even reading it. And furthermore, you don’t even provide a reason for doubting it. If that doesn’t speak volumes about your own lack of seriousness or critical thought, then I do not know what does. However, if it really does make you feel better, then by all means continue onwards. After all, not every Christian can face reality with the fortitude that I have. I don’t think myself to be more comfortable with my own life than any atheist. There are probably many of them far more comfortable with life and even death than I am.
Comfort shouldn’t be the main value but love which always entails a degree of suffering…
 
For the life of me I cannot think of a valid argument against the existence of God.

When I was an atheist, I’m sure I thought all of my arguments were valid.

The problem of evil is no argument against the existence of God, though it might validly call into question why God allows evil to exist.
The “problem” of evil is not a problem but a proof of our free will and power of discernment.
 
Comfort shouldn’t be the main value but love which always entails a degree of suffering…
I agree. However, just to provide the context of how this side debate started, what initially sparked the debate was the claim that atheists only remain atheists because of the comforts afforded to them allow them not to think about death. Stripping any of these comforts, such as youth from them, invariably they will become more inclined towards faith (or so the argument goes).

It’s true that people who are religious from mid-age forward tend to become more spiritual or religious as they age. The data backs this point. However, there is no indication that atheists follow the same trend. The atheists or non-religious mostly remain where they are. The best celebrity example of this is probably Christopher Hitchens, who died from a long battle with cancer. Never once did he regret or express doubt or fear about his convictions about there not being a god or an afterlife.
 
I agree. However, just to provide the context of how this side debate started, what initially sparked the debate was the claim that atheists only remain atheists because of the comforts afforded to them allow them not to think about death. Stripping any of these comforts, such as youth from them, invariably they will become more inclined towards faith (or so the argument goes).

It’s true that people who are religious from mid-age forward tend to become more spiritual or religious as they age. The data backs this point. However, there is no indication that atheists follow the same trend. The atheists or non-religious mostly remain where they are. The best celebrity example of this is probably Christopher Hitchens, who died from a long battle with cancer. Never once did he regret or express doubt or fear about his convictions about there not being a god or an afterlife.
I think what you’ve written is quite true. When I first rejected Catholicism and then shortly after, all of Christianity, followed by all believe in the supernatural, I was quite zealous in my Atheism.

Now nearly a decade later, I’m quite a bit more reserved in my unbelief.

As far as death goes, I have no fear, other than not wanting to suffer needlessly for a lengthy period of time. However I live in Canada and our courts have just given us the right to euthanasia when terminally ill, so that has been taken care of.

With control over my own end, the only actual fear of death, has thankfully been resolved.

Death is nothingness and nothingness is nothing to be afraid of.
 
I totally agree. I wonder what the numbers are? I would say most atheists are relatively young, healthy and worry-free. They think they are basically immortal. I remember those days in my own life. An old atheist is a bitter person (usually), more mad at God than disbelieving in God.
I’m Atheist.

I’m 40 a recovering addict, have chronic pancreatitis, had cancer ( in remission) have a significant mental health issue ( is under control with medication).

Please don’t pretend that Atheists are mad at God. If you do, which God are we mad at? The Christian God, Hindu or Sikh Gods?

I cannot be any clearer, I do not believe in God. I do not accept that he exists. I am not mad at your God and I think life is grand.

I do not know a single non-believer who is mad at a God they don’t believe in.

23% of the Canadian population represent as Atheists, so don’t make sweeping generalizations about our health or state of mind.
 
This is, ironically, a statement of great faith.
There is no evidence that there is life after death.

It takes faith to believe there is life after bodily death.

All evidence points to there being nothing beyond our physical life within the natural universe.

No one can fly unassisted.

Is that an objective fact or is a statement of faith?

According to you, it’s a statement of faith, as apparently someone somewhere can fly, only we’re not permitted to see this person fly.
 
There is no evidence that there is life after death.

It takes faith to believe there is life after bodily death.

All evidence points to there being nothing beyond our physical life within the natural universe.

No one can fly unassisted.

Is that an objective fact or is a statement of faith?

According to you, it’s a statement of faith, as apparently someone somewhere can fly, only we’re not permitted to see this person fly.
Even if it’s granted that “there is no evidence that there is life after death” (which would mean that you would have to deny the belief system of almost EVERY SINGLE human culture throughout history)…

you made a positive statement: “Death is nothingness and nothingness is nothing to be afraid of”.

As such, you need to offer evidence for it.

Otherwise, it’s something you profess without a shred of evidence.

And coming from an atheist, that is most egregious. 🤷
 
There is no evidence that there is life after death.
What “evidence” did YOU have before YOU were born that YOU would be born?

Zippo, zilch, nada. And yet there you were.

Seems to me the unexpected is the way of things in the cases of things that really matter.

Sure, with contingent things that aren’t very critical, well, I suppose, induction as a method for “certainty” is as good as any.

Tell me, what “evidence” did you personally have, coming down the birth canal, that you would be who and what you are? I don’t recall any existing for birth before life. Do you?

I remember thinking about the stubby little things at the end of my arms and I couldn’t, for the life of me, come up with any purpose for them – but being born answered a whole lot of puzzles for me. No prior evidence, just a whole lot of surprises. :jrbirdman:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top