The absurdity of atheism

[Peter_Plato]

I am not claiming anything. I am telling you, as plainly as I possibly can, that what you and other Catholics and other Christians have as a concept of God, as far as I am concerned, from the evidence that has been presented to me for that concept, does not, beyond any reasonable doubt that I have, exist.

I, personally, have no concept of God other than the ones that have been presented to me. I have no personal concept of God myself. If I describe God, I am using other people’s descriptions of that concept.

I REALLY didn’t think I would ever have to explain that.

It seems you are deflecting here. In order to dismiss a concept it is necessary to have a well-formed understanding of that concept.

The problem is that you have the formal requirements down but you don’t seem to get the substantial requirements.

If you were to use the same strategy to dismiss, say, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, it would be proper for others to question what you are substantively doing in the process.

It is all well and good to claim "I, personally, have no concept of General Relativity other than the one that Einstein has presented to me. I have no personal concept of General Relativity myself. If I describe General Relativity, I am using Einstein’s descriptions of that concept.

What does the even mean, Bradski?

It means you abrogate the right to yourself to dismiss concepts merely because you can. Hardly intellectually honest, from where I stand.

If someone were to push you on why you dismiss Einstein’s theory, would you keep insisting that you don’t need to explain his theory because, well, it’s his theory and not yours, after all? And, because it is his theory and not yours, you don’t need to do anything except dismiss it?

No need to explain what YOU think Einstein means by his theory and no need to provide evidence for why the theory doesn’t satisfy you, merely that you dismiss his theory BECAUSE he provides no evidence that satisfies you without even discussing why that evidence doesn’t, in any objective sense, work to establish the theory?

No need to accept the theory, well… because you don’t find it acceptable? 'Nuff said?

That might work for shutting doors on snake oil peddlers, but surely questions of epistemology and metaphysics require just a little more in the substance department, wouldn’t you suppose?

In fact, I would think this willingness to consider – at something beyond a superficial level – what classical theists are actually proposing, is what separates the serious atheists who inquire after the truth with a desire to know it from the nominal “atheists” who stake out and defend (with snake venom, pitchforks and pickaxes) a claim to their own subjective viewpoint merely because it is their cherished viewpoint. From what you have said so far, it appears you are in the pitchfork camp, Brad.

So, too, by the way, seems to be the purple-green checkerboard elephant guy in this thread, since in his view the God of classical theism is no different than proposing purple-green checkerboard elephants or IPUs. Clearly, if that is his view of what classical theists propose by the word “God,” then reading comprehension is, for him, a problem. Or, to give the benefit of the doubt, he probably hasn’t read any works of classical theism.

Either that, or he has found a convenient whipping boy of an idea that satisfies his rather limited intellectual curiosity. :yukonjoe:

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you take these assumptions seriously, then you are under obligation to come to MY turf and present your evidence according to MY standards.

Doesn’t this presume you have a viable set of standards to begin with – standards which you will also apply consistently?

The references you make to “MY turf” and “MY standards” as if you own some tract of epistemic real estate down by the river that you would (all bets are on) defend with “snake venom, pitchforks and pickaxes,” doesn’t bode well for anyone hoping for a reasoned discourse from a “serious atheist,” in the best sense of the word.

 

[zyzz]

Doesn’t this presume you have a viable set of standards to begin with – standards which you will also apply consistently?

Of course. When it comes to the objective, external reality, then you must present a method to allow me to separate true and false propositions - in other words, to verify or falsify your claims. When it comes to the abstract, axiomatic sciences, your claims must be the logical corollaries of the axioms. Nothing special or outlandish about this. By the way, the method does NOT have to be physical. But it must be objective and must lead to the same result when applied repeatedly.

The references you make to “MY turf” and “MY standards” as if you own some tract of epistemic real estate down by the river that you would (all bets are on) defend with “snake venom, pitchforks and pickaxes,” doesn’t bode well for anyone hoping for a reasoned discourse from a “serious atheist,” in the best sense of the word.

What nonsense.

If you wish to communicate with me, you must use a language I understand. If you would use Swahili as a means of communication, I would not understand your argument. It does NOT mean that “MY” language is superior, it only means that this is the language that makes sense to me.

The same applies to presenting an argument for God’s existence. If you wish to make sense, use the types of arguments which are purely rational and secular. No “revelation”, no “hearsay”, no “authority” will be accepted, UNLESS that authority can present an argument which is not based on another “authority” (no infinite descent is allowed). No undefined or loosely defined categories, like “soul” and “omnipotent” or “omniscient”, unless you can present a crystal clear, unambiguous definition for them, along with a “soul-o-meter” to find out if a being has this “soul” or not. When you wish to use simple, everyday terms, like “love”, “justice” or “mercy”, they must mean the same thing when they are applied to humans. No “special” vocabulary for God.

But there is nothing problematic about these requirements. When one wishes to conduct a conversation, the language must be the same, and the meaning of the terms must be agreed upon. Otherwise we would talk past each other.

By the way, I am not unique. Most atheists are on the same epistemic platform. And most believers demand the same method for all the claims - EXCEPT their own religious propositions. When someone of a different religious “flavor” present their claims, you will become as skeptical as I am… Or maybe not? If you are willing to accept other people’s claims without verifying them, then I have a nice, slightly used bridge in Brooklyn available at a special discount.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course. When it comes to the objective, external reality, then you must present a method to allow me to separate true and false propositions - in other words, to verify or falsify your claims. When it comes to the abstract, axiomatic sciences, your claims must be the logical corollaries of the axioms. Nothing special or outlandish about this. By the way, the method does NOT have to be physical. But it must be objective and must lead to the same result when applied repeatedly.

What nonsense.

If you wish to communicate with me, you must use a language I understand. If you would use Swahili as a means of communication, I would not understand your argument. It does NOT mean that “MY” language is superior, it only means that this is the language that makes sense to me.

The same applies to presenting an argument for God’s existence. If you wish to make sense, use the types of arguments which are purely rational and secular. No “revelation”, no “hearsay”, no “authority” will be accepted, UNLESS that authority can present an argument which is not based on another “authority” (no infinite descent is allowed). No undefined or loosely defined categories, like “soul” and “omnipotent” or “omniscient”, unless you can present a crystal clear, unambiguous definition for them, along with a “soul-o-meter” to find out if a being has this “soul” or not. When you wish to use simple, everyday terms, like “love”, “justice” or “mercy”, they must mean the same thing when they are applied to humans. No “special” vocabulary for God.

But there is nothing problematic about these requirements. When one wishes to conduct a conversation, the language must be the same, and the meaning of the terms must be agreed upon. Otherwise we would talk past each other.

By the way, I am not unique. Most atheists are on the same epistemic platform. And most believers demand the same method for all the claims - EXCEPT their own religious propositions. When someone of a different religious “flavor” present their claims, you will become as skeptical as I am… Or maybe not? If you are willing to accept other people’s claims without verifying them, then I have a nice, slightly used bridge in Brooklyn available at a special discount.

What “objective platform?” There is no “platform,” because under your parameters, everything is fair game and there is no room on your alleged “platform” except for what you sneak in through the back door as if it has withstood all your “tests” for “objective, external reality.”

It is possible to deny every proposition, every construct without remorse precisely because that is the way you want it, all the while purporting to retain some kind of objectivity on the matter. In reality, what it means is nothing really matters and all that is required from you is that you defend nothing.

Name something that does stand up to your “objectivity test” besides what you arbitrarily permit to, based upon some allegedly “intuitive” principle or “axiom” or some other presumption.

You know as well as I that it is a game you play which keeps you from investing in anything whatsoever except your own cherished opinions. :yukonjoe:

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC:

No. I believe you. You seem honest enough.
But as I said to you earlier, go back and tell your unicorn my answer is “NO”.

That is what I say to the hypothetical God.

Yep. That’s what I figured. Isn’t that a bit disingenuous?
Pretending to speak to the unicorn.

…you are commanded to spread the “good news”, you are supposed to bring everyone into the church, so we all can be “saved”. And God allegedly “desires” that we could be saved.

Yes, God desires. He doesn’t compel.
On your reckoning, spreading the Good News is just hearsay and you don’t (or won’t) accept the word of someone else about God. So you will have to wait it out.

As for the IPU, you failed the test. You should have pointed out that “invisible” and “pink” are mutually exclusive, therefore such entity cannot exist

I don’t agree that just because we can’t see something that means it doesn’t exist.
And a pink unicorn is still a pink unicorn irrespective of how many or how few people can see it.

…just like a “married bachelor” is an impossibility.

You would be surprised who they are allowing to get married these days.
Tell me, do you think it is possible for a man to be called a woman?

…You don’t get it. That is a “specific” negative and not a “universal” negative. A universal negative would be “present evidence that there are no purple-green checkerboard elephants ANYWHERE in the whole universe”.

The universality or specificity is irrelevant. You don’t have to argue for a universal negative about God. You can just argue that you personally have not experienced real-time, individually revealed/discovered evidence in your own world. But why then does atheist proselytizing typically include a universal rejection of any and all gods anywhere and at anytime?

This contrasts with their demand for specific here-and-now, ‘show me’ type of proof.

 

[zyzz]

What “objective platform?” There is no “platform,” because under your parameters, everything is fair game and there is no room on your alleged “platform” except for what you sneak in through the back door as if it has withstood all your “tests” for “objective, external reality.”

It is possible to deny every proposition, every construct without remorse precisely because that is the way you want it, all the while purporting to retain some kind of objectivity on the matter. In reality, what it means is nothing really matters and all that is required from you is that you defend nothing.

Name something that does stand up to your “objectivity test” besides what you arbitrarily permit to, based upon some allegedly “intuitive” principle or “axiom” or some other presumption.

You know as well as I that it is a game you play which keeps you from investing in anything whatsoever except your own cherished opinions. :yukonjoe:

You could have just said: “No, I have no evidence which could be objectively evaluated when it comes to God”. Not even when you are not restricted to “physical evidence”. As for the objective evidence for the existence of the universe, all you have to do is “observe”. So the universe DOES stand up to my test along with all its subsets.

 

[zyzz]

Yes, God desires.

He does not desire or care enough to present the necessary evidence. And you (along with all the other apologists) are unable to present the evidence. You just badmouth those people who decline to rely on “faith”.

On your reckoning, spreading the Good News is just hearsay and you don’t (or won’t) accept the word of someone else about God.

If that is the best you can do…

And a pink unicorn is still a pink unicorn irrespective of how many or how few people can see it.

You would be surprised who they are allowing to get married these days.

That pretty much sums it up. The next one is the square circle.

The universality or specificity is irrelevant. You don’t have to argue for a universal negative about God.

Yep, you just don’t get it. When I ask for evidence to show that God exists, there is the “counter argument”: “Prove to me that God does NOT exist”. Yes, they demand me to argue for the universal nonexistence of God. They wish to have a “proof” of nonexistence, which is impossible.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Yep, you just don’t get it. When I ask for evidence to show that God exists, there is the “counter argument”: “Prove to me that God does NOT exist”. Yes, they demand me to argue for the universal nonexistence of God. They wish to have a “proof” of nonexistence, which is impossible.

I don’t expect the atheist to universally disprove the existence of any and all gods.

You can limit the scope of your atheism solely to your own personal lack of information.

You can just say…Well I’ve never seen a burning bush or had a Road-to-Damascus experience but maybe others have.

 

[zyzz]

I don’t expect the atheist to universally disprove the existence of any and all gods.

That is not what they demand. They simply want me to disprove the existence of the Christian God. And their “reasoning” is rather strange. They say: “if the existence of the Christian God cannot be disproven, then it is rational and reasonable to believe its existence - and moreover, it is rational and reasonable to make it the central belief of our life”. Now, let’s substitute “Russell’s teapot” for God and see if this principle is acceptable. Hint: it is not.

You can limit the scope of your atheism solely to your own personal lack of information.

That is exactly what I do.

You can just say…Well I’ve never seen a burning bush or had a Road-to-Damascus experience but maybe others have.

Sure. But so-called “private revelations” are not accepted by the church. Not even the believers are required to accept them. So, as evidence they simply don’t count. Moreover, the church declared that the time for “public revelations” is over. (I wonder how do they KNOW that?)

The central problem is this: “people make all sorts of claims, not just religious ones”. There is a need for a method to separate valid claims from the invalid ones. Without such method we cannot separate “true” and “false” claims. I hope you can agree to that. If not, then there is no reason to continue.

If you do, then the question arises, how to decide if a claim is correct or not? Obviously such a method must rely on the actual discipline. Claims about chemistry or claims about microbiology must be decided by using the appropriate method of the specific science. Mathematical claims must be proven deductively, starting from the axioms.

But what about the religious claims? You (not personally you, but the apologists) are required to present an epistemological method to decide this problem. Do you have one? Does the church have one? You are free to present some objective decision-tree type of method. It does not have to be strictly physical, but it needs to be repeatable, and it cannot use circular logic. Using “authority” is not incorrect per se. But “authority” cannot be self-proclaimed. One can only be accepted as “authority” if one is able to demonstrate the validity of one’s claim - WITHOUT resorting to another (self-proclaimed) authority. As always, the chain cannot go to infinity.

There are all sorts of claims: “knock and the door will be opened” and “ask and you will be answered”… but as soon as I point out that it simply does not happen, the “apologists” turn their coat and start to snarl at “me” - “how do you dare to demand that God jumps according to your wish”? (Sounds familiar? ) Or “God is not a vending machine”. They conveniently forget their own principle: “ask and you will be answered”. So how is it? If I ask will I be answered? If I knock, will the door be opened? And the insults just continue. “You are too impatient!”. Or “God will answer when he wishes”. It is always the atheist who is blamed for the invalid propositions of the church.

And, of course there is the final cop-out. When you ask for something, it is required to add the “get-out-of-jail-free” card: “if it be thy will” or “Insh’Allah”. So if your request is “granted” you are grateful to God, but if your request is “denied” then it simply was not God’s will. “Masha’Allah” God did not will it… How very convenient! You know: your game is based upon the “pay-off matrix”: If it is heads, you win, if it is tails, I lose.

Now, I wasted more than an hour to formulate my thoughts. Was it really a “waste” of time? Only you can decide that.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is the disconnect between what I believe and what you say I believe

Right.

As Bishop Robert Barron says: I reject the same god you reject.

 

[987mk]

This is the most anti-scientific thing I’ve heard in a long time.

Imagine if scientists in the past had embraced your parochial point of view:

“Without evidence that we can prevent polio, I’ll put in in the impossible category”.

“Without evidence that we can fly to the moon, I’ll put it in the impossible category”.

“Without evidence that I can chat with a man in Australia while I am sitting in my living room in Nepal, I’ll put that in the impossible category”.

There is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

Stating there isn’t a supernatural God isn’t unscientific.

It’s no different than stating that there isn’t a purple ghost living in side my fireplace.

Once again, your logic states I have to accept that maybe there is a ghost living inside my fireplace, after all, I can’t prove there isn’t.

Do you even understand the logical corners you paint yourself into?

 

[PRmerger]

There is no evidence that the supernatural exists

Let’s say I accept that. I assert there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. But yet I believe in the supernatural.

What is your response?

Now, before you answer, think verrrrrryyy hard about what you’re going to say.

And remember what you have stated here in the past few days.

You have said that you believe in the nothingness of existence post death…despite there being no evidence for it.

Despite. there. being. no. evidence. for. it.

Remember.

You said that.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

Stating there isn’t a supernatural God isn’t unscientific.

It’s no different than stating that there isn’t a purple ghost living in side my fireplace.

Once again, your logic states I have to accept that maybe there is a ghost living inside my fireplace, after all, I can’t prove there isn’t.

Do you even understand the logical corners you paint yourself into?

Incidentally, you didn’t address my post.

The logical conclusion to your paradigm (“Without evidence that such a God exists, I’ll put it in the impossible category”) is what I stated below:

“Without evidence that we can prevent polio, I’ll put it in the impossible category”.

“Without evidence that we can fly to the moon, I’ll put it in the impossible category”.

“Without evidence that I can chat with a man in Australia while I am sitting in my living room in Nepal, I’ll put that in the impossible category”.

Do you see how ridiculous the statements in red are, should a man from, say, the 17th century, have said such things?

Yes?

Then you can see how ridiculous your statement “Without evidence that such a God exists, I’ll put it in the impossible category” is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

Stating there isn’t a supernatural God isn’t unscientific.

It’s no different than stating that there isn’t a purple ghost living in side my fireplace.

Once again, your logic states I have to accept that maybe there is a ghost living inside my fireplace, after all, I can’t prove there isn’t.

Do you even understand the logical corners you paint yourself into?

Actually, my “logic” states that all you have to accept is that there are ideas living inside your head that chemistry or physics do not or cannot account for. Do you want to set about proving there are no ideas in your head?

I suppose you can’t prove that there are ideas living there, either, unfortunately. Strictly speaking, you can’t provide “evidence” for ideas. Or evidence that proves the existence of you as a personal subjective identity. Can you?

Ergo, there is evidence that the supernatural exists as long as you are willing to accept that ideas live inside your head. No need to prove purple ghosts in your fireplace, then.

I suppose I have no more warrant for thinking you as a person exists than you would have for thinking God does, either.

Concepts, consciousness, intentions, qualia, imaginings, morality, values, ideas, numbers, desires, abstractions, generalizations and a host of other mental phenomena are “supernatural” in the strict sense of the word. Those are not “scientific,” nor amenable to scientific demonstration either, but no less real.

Your presumption is that only the “scientific” counts as being real and existing, but that would presume that only that which is amenable to scientific evidence can be proven. How do you prove that claim scientifically, however?

The problem is that where the natural “ends” and the supernatural begins is not a well-defined distinction and many aspects of reality that are not physical or material are simply subsumed into the material realm by those who wish to deny the supernatural by fiat.

It is like playing craps with a pair of loaded dice. :jrbirdman:

 

[tonyrey]

There are all sorts of claims: “knock and the door will be opened” and “ask and you will be answered”… but as soon as I point out that it simply does not happen…

How do you know it **never **happens? It is unreasonable to take one precept in isolation from others. Does it apply to hypocrites like the Pharisees for example?

And, of course there is the final cop-out. When you ask for something, it is required to add the “get-out-of-jail-free” card: “if it be thy will” or “Insh’Allah”. So if your request is “granted” you are grateful to God, but if your request is “denied” then it simply was not God’s will. “Masha’Allah” God did not will it… How very convenient! You know: your game is based upon the “pay-off matrix”: If it is heads, you win, if it is tails, I lose.

It isn’t a cop-out but common sense. It isn’t always in our interest to get what we want…

Now, I wasted more than an hour to formulate my thoughts. Was it really a “waste” of time? Only you can decide that.

It is never a waste of time to formulate our thoughts about a subject that affects our attitude to life. In fact it is foolish not to do so…

 

[inocente]

Actually, my “logic” states that all you have to accept is that there are ideas living inside your head that chemistry or physics do not or cannot account for. Do you want to set about proving there are no ideas in your head?

I suppose you can’t prove that there are ideas living there, either, unfortunately. Strictly speaking, you can’t provide “evidence” for ideas.

Apart from copyright, patents and other forms of intellectual property rights.

 

[zyzz]

Concepts, consciousness, intentions, qualia, imaginings, morality, values, ideas, numbers, desires, abstractions, generalizations and a host of other mental phenomena are “supernatural” in the strict sense of the word.

They are not supernatural in the real sense of the word. None of these are ontologically existing “objects”. The “purple ghost in the fireplace” would be an ontologically existing object. God is supposed to be ontologically existing, so the criteria for God’s existence is the same as it is for the “purple ghost”.

Your presumption is that only the “scientific” counts as being real and existing, but that would presume that only that which is amenable to scientific evidence can be proven. How do you prove that claim scientifically, however?

You are confusing epistemology with scientific claims. Epistemology is a “meta”-science. Epistemology can only be “proven” by its results. If it works, it is good epistemology. If it does not work, it is bad epistemology.

The problem is that where the natural “ends” and the supernatural begins is not a well-defined distinction and many aspects of reality that are not physical or material are simply subsumed into the material realm by those who wish to deny the supernatural by fiat.

It is like playing craps with a pair of loaded dice.

Not true. The supernatural refers to non-physical and non-conceptual, and yet physically active “something” (gods, angels, demons, ghosts, etc…). You are the one who attempts to redefine it to be able to play with those loaded dice.

 

[987mk]

Incidentally, you didn’t address my post.

The logical conclusion to your paradigm (“Without evidence that such a God exists, I’ll put it in the impossible category”) is what I stated below:

“Without evidence that we can prevent polio, I’ll put it in the impossible category”.

“Without evidence that we can fly to the moon, I’ll put it in the impossible category”.

“Without evidence that I can chat with a man in Australia while I am sitting in my living room in Nepal, I’ll put that in the impossible category”.

Do you see how ridiculous the statements in red are, should a man from, say, the 17th century, have said such things?

Yes?

Then you can see how ridiculous your statement “Without evidence that such a God exists, I’ll put it in the impossible category” is.

There is no evidence God exists. You state I can’t prove God isn’t real, so I have to believe he’s real.

There is no evidence that flying unicorns exists. Your logic states that I can’t prove flying unicorns aren’t real, so I have to believe they’re real.

That’s ridiculous.

 

[zyzz]

How do you know it **never **happens?

It never happens to atheists, otherwise they would become believers. But that is not the point. The promises were not conditional: “Ask and you will receive”. or “Knock and the door will be opened” - unconditionally. You cannot convert them to become: “Ask and you will receive… IF God allows”. or “Knock and the door will be opened… IF God wills it”. Supposedly God was smart enough to know the difference between a conditional and unconditional promises.

It isn’t a cop-out but common sense. It isn’t always in our interest to get what we want…

In that case the bare minimum would be an explanation: “No, you will not get it, BECAUSE… followed by a detailed explanation”. By the way, how could it NOT be in our best interest to KNOW that God exists, so we can make a real decision to get close to him.

As for prayers being answered, read this little gem from the Onion: theonion.com/article/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy-475

Your “game” is still the same. You say: “If it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose”. Sorry, I decline to participate.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no evidence God exists. You state I can’t prove God isn’t real, so I have to believe he’s real.

There is no evidence that flying unicorns exists. Your logic states that I can’t prove flying unicorns aren’t real, so I have to believe they’re real.

That’s ridiculous.

I see you didn’t address any of my points.

You must see the degree of cognitive dissonance we Catholics have when we examine your arguments for being atheists.

We simply are astonished at the amount of logic that must be suppressed in order to embrace your position.