The absurdity of atheism

[PRmerger]

Doest 1 contradict “not many?”

Awww, I’m just messin’ with you, TS.

It was just amusing to me that almost immediately after your “not many (if any)” comment, here came 987mk declaring exactly what you said wasn’t the case.

 

[987mk]

You have yet to refute a single point of Catholicism, mk.

And you have demonstrated a glaring double standard in which you permit yourself to believe something without a shred of evidence.

Without. a. shred. of. evidence.

This thread isn’t about refuting Catholicism.

I admit I do not know what happens when I die. I am very confident that nothing happens.

The difference between you and I, is that you claim to know what happens when you die.

Without. a. shred. of. evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

This thread isn’t about refuting Catholicism.

I admit I do not know what happens when I die. I am very confident that nothing happens.

The difference between you and I, is that you claim to know what happens when you die.

Without. a. shred. of. evidence.

So, I asked you this question earlier which you have yet to answer…

Are you saying it’s bad to believe something without a shred of evidence?

And remember, think veryyyyy carefully about how you answer this because I have…er, evidence, of a post you made. A very convicting post.

So what, again, is the answer to my question?

 

[987mk]

So, I asked you this question earlier which you have yet to answer…

Are you saying it’s bad to believe something without a shred of evidence?

And remember, think veryyyyy carefully about how you answer this because I have…er, evidence, of a post you made. A very convicting post.

So what, again, is the answer to my question?

It’s faulty to believe in the supernatural, as there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

I don’t know what happens after our death. I know there is no evidence that the supernatural exists, so I can safely dismiss any notion of the supernatural. What am I left with? Nothingness.

Enjoy a slice with your popcorn.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what happens after our death.

Excellent.

I am glad to hear you amend your previous statement, which was, amusingly and peculiarly, a doctrinal statement made WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

So it’s nice to see you are amenable to correction.

Death is nothingness and nothingness is nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I don’t know what happens after our death. I know there is no evidence that the supernatural exists, so I can safely dismiss any notion of the supernatural. What am I left with? Nothingness.

I’m not sure what that means to you. Let’s just consider this world then and nothing more.

I would agree that everything I have accumulated will belong to someone else. I will be gradually forgotten. Whatever pleasures I derived from this body, it will end in pain. Although I have considerable autonomy and a number of people to do my bidding, I will end my days powerless, even over my own mind and body.

But, it is not nothing that remains. What one does in love and kindness to others spreads through time. The body is gone, but the works remain a fertile loam nurturing generations to come.

What is to be our legacy. Is nothingness but the hope of a life squandered?

YOLO does not mean that anything goes; you get one kick at the can - What will you do?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you for the laugh of the century. Let’s see… the supernatural concept of “behind” actively cooperates with the supernatural concept of “honor” and together they beget the supernatural concept of “beauty”… which in turn creates the supernatural concept of “next to”… hmmm. Who would’ve thunk it?

As opposed to what natural event would have caused someone to “thunk” in the first place?

Your use of “supernatural” with the word “concept” is redundant by the way.

You still haven’t demonstrated that concepts are natural or physical, which makes them, by default and definition, “supernatural.”

How about demonstrating they are ONLY natural if you suppose they are.

Your wry sense of humour does not constitute proof that what you find laughable is, therefore, incorrect or false.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s take a look at what a certain British philosopher has to say on this.

There are, then, four positions which philosophers may adopt with respect to the proposition ‘There is a God’, as follows:
(1) It is meaningless and neither true nor false.
(2) It is meaningful and false
(3) It is meaningful and may be true or false
(4) It is meaningful and true: Theism.

This paper discusses more the topic of Apophatic/negative theology but it also included a decent amount of discussion on the variations of atheism.

Which of the 4 is your position, TS?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s faulty to believe in the supernatural, as there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

I don’t know what happens after our death. I know there is no evidence that the supernatural exists, so I can safely dismiss any notion of the supernatural. What am I left with? Nothingness.

Enjoy a slice with your popcorn.

You do understand that many philosophers view “nothingness” as an ontological impossibility, do you not? Ergo, ex nihilo nihil fit.

That would mean eschewing something because you see “no evidence” for it and replacing that something with a logical impossibility – i.e., nothingness – would not be such an intelligent or pragmatic thing to do.

Now, given that there is and has to be something and that something had the wherewithal to bring the subjective YOU, as YOU, into existence in the first place, it wouldn’t be such a logical stretch to think that something could sustain YOU, as YOU, in existence after you think you will become “nothingness,” given that “nothingness” is, after all, a logical impossibility.

Now, given that YOU, as YOU, did not have the power to bring YOU into existence in the first place, to now presume you have the wherewithal to decide what will happen after you die, just because it suits you better, would seem rather unwise.

It seems to me that YOU lacked the power to even conceive of yourself, let alone bring yourself into being in the first place, meaning that the little conceptual power you happen to have at the moment is inconsequential with regard to making determinations with anything like certainty regarding what will happen to YOU after you die.

Ex nihilo nihil fit means that there was something before you existed and, therefore, there will be after you die. The question, then, becomes: What is the nature of that “something” and if it intended your existence as YOU in the first place, what is its intent for you after your death?

I would suppose you will have little say in the matter just as you had little say in the matter of your becoming in the first instance. Now, the question is: How will you respond to that “something,” since apparently your mere thoughts on the matter of what will happen are just as inefficacious as they were on the matter of what did happen to bring YOU into being in the first place?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Death is nothingness and nothingness is nothing to be afraid of.

Is somethingness necessarily something “to be afraid of?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s faulty to believe in the supernatural, as there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that the supernatural does not exist.

 

[zyzz]

Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that the supernatural does not exist.

Can you bring up “evidence” that there is no purple-pink checkered elephant in your basement? Of course you could invite me and say: “look around in my basement. You can see that there is no purple-pink checkered elephant here. The evidence of nonexistence is the nonexistence of evidence”. And that applies not just to that elephant, it also applies to all nonexistent objects… the supernatural ones included. Of course this has been pointed out far too many times… so I just wasted 3 minutes to point it out again.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that the supernatural does not exist.

I realise you are saying this tongue-in-cheek but you can see from zyzz’s reply that comments like this are pretty difficult and unhelpful. (Evidence that something doesn’t exist is problematic.)

It’s quite reasonable for zyzz to point out the unfairness of expecting atheists to disprove God at all times in all places everywhere in every universe/multiverse.

It would be the same if the atheist demanded ongoing daily proof from us that God continues to exist. “Yes”, the atheist might agree, God could have existed 1000 years ago but can we prove that God STILL exists? How?

All I ask zyzz to accept is that many, many other human beings throughout time - theists - have had evidence of various types to convince them that theism is justified.

How does the atheist deny evidence they themselves havent even experienced?

 

[PRmerger]

It would be the same if the atheist demanded ongoing daily proof from us that God continues to exist. “Yes”, the atheist might agree, God could have existed 1000 years ago but can we prove that God STILL exists? How?

Then this is not God that was proven to have existed 1000 years ago.

God, by definition, is eternal, and thus can never cease to exist.

Whatever it was that the atheist accepted proof of, it wasn’t God.

 

[zyzz]

I realise you are saying this tongue-in-cheek but you can see from zyzz’s reply that comments like this are pretty difficult and unhelpful. (Evidence that something doesn’t exist is problematic.)

I wish it would be just a tongue-in-cheek playful observation. But I suspect it is not, since it is seriously presented quite frequently with many posters without an accompanying “smiley”. Some people try to introduce an epistemological principle: if something cannot be disproven, it is rational and reasonable to base one’s life on that unproven concept. They are most certainly welcome to do so, but they should not complain if others will point out the total irrationality of this principle.

All I ask zyzz to accept is that many, many other human beings throughout time - theists - have had evidence of various types to convince them that theism is justified.

I have no quarrels with that. People believed in all sorts of deities, and they found the presented evidence sufficient. Of course they never found the presented evidence for the OTHER gods sufficient.

We are not the same, and what is convincing evidence for one, might be woefully insufficient for others. That is why I would like to see “personalized” evidence fabricated by God, which is tailor made for the skeptics. If I would be teaching math for 10 years olds and also in college, I would have to “tailor” the proofs for the level of understanding of each group. Otherwise my message would not be understood. If I would wish to make a conversation with different people with different language, it would be mandatory to talk to each person using their own language that they understand.

How does the atheist deny evidence they themselves havent even experienced?

Don’t forget, the church does not require that anyone should accept the personal “revelations” of others. And the time for public “revelations” is over… I still wonder, how would anyone know this? Does the “church” read God’s mind?

Then this is not God that was proven to have existed 1000 years ago.

God, by definition, is eternal, and thus can never cease to exist.

Whatever it was that the atheist accepted proof of, it wasn’t God.

You cannot define God (or anything else) into existence. You cannot say that God is a “necessary” being. or the “foundation of all existence”, or “ipsum esse subsistens” or the worst one: “GCB - the greatest conceivable being” - of whom nothing “greater can be imagined”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Can you bring up “evidence” that there is no purple-pink checkered elephant in your basement? Of course you could invite me and say: “look around in my basement. You can see that there is no purple-pink checkered elephant here. The evidence of nonexistence is the nonexistence of evidence”. And that applies not just to that elephant, it also applies to all nonexistent objects… the supernatural ones included. Of course this has been pointed out far too many times… so I just wasted 3 minutes to point it out again.

The evidence of non-existence is the non-existence of evidence?

Are you’re willing to entertain the existence of multiverse, for which there is no evidence?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s quite reasonable for zyzz to point out the unfairness of expecting atheists to disprove God at all times in all places everywhere in every universe/multiverse.

You could ask for an equal stretch of fairness by suggesting to zyzz that the kind of proof he/she demands for God he cannot find because he is looking for the physical God to be made manifest in his presence.

That is, of course, not going to happen and the expectation that it should happen demonstrates a less than reasonable attitude toward the nature of God.

 

[zyzz]

The evidence of non-existence is the non-existence of evidence?

Yes! Of course it is not a PROOF, but a very strong evidence.

Are you’re willing to entertain the existence of multiverse, for which there is no evidence?

No. Even if there would be parallel “universes” they could not interact with each other. Just like the hypothetical beings living in a black hole could never interact with the imaginary beings in another black hole. So the existence of such “purported” universes has no value - even if it were true.

Empty hypotheses, which cannot verified or falsified are empty wool gatherings.

Now to be honest, there are many things for which I have no evidence, but still accept them as true. But these propositions are completely irrelevant for my life. For example, I believe - without any direct evidence - that there might be intelligent life somewhere among the zillions of galaxies. There is no direct evidence for this hypothesis, but the validity of this assumption is totally irrelevant.

As it was presented in a wonderful Calvin and Hobbs cartoon… Hobbs (the toy tiger) says: “The most convincing evidence that there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe is that they never tried to contact us!”

 

[zyzz]

You could ask for an equal stretch of fairness by suggesting to zyzz that the kind of proof he/she demands for God he cannot find because he is looking for the physical God to be made manifest in his presence.

Is that impossible for God to exhibit his existence physically?

That is, of course, not going to happen and the expectation that it should happen demonstrates a less than reasonable attitude toward the nature of God.

How do you know it will NEVER happen? Do you have a direct line to read God’s mind?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is that impossible for God to exhibit his existence physically?

How do you know it will NEVER happen? Do you have a direct line to read God’s mind?

It is not impossible, but the act of revealing himself must be by his will, not yours. You are expected to earn the right to see him as he is, not in this world, but in the next. This is not me reading the mind of God, but the Church which teaches this because it has been revealed to the Church by Jesus Christ.

And we have to remember that “seeing God” is a figurative expression because we are bound by the traditions of metaphor in our language. Knowing God is going to be more likely than seeing God as an atheist might require God to reveal himself.