The absurdity of atheism

[ThinkingSapien]

Since they are scientific minds at work in the modern world, rather than the world of say an Isaac Newton, I’m thinking they can’t bring themselves to utter the possibility that God is directing our need to “connect with a deeper, more spiritual part of ourselves.”

In the first edition it looked that one of the authors ended up in a transitional state as far as his views on religion were concerned as a result of the research. Or, to borrow Bradski’s metaphor, his flywheel of belief was influenced but still had momentum.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism is the dogmatic belief that** everything**

I agree, Charlie. They were both honest men with integrity. They had the courage of their convictions and from the wreckage of atheism they tried to recover a foundation for morality and found it in humanism even though they knew it is an arbitrary decision to put our own species before all the others but obviously it is better than succumbing to the logical extreme of absurdity. It is ironic that humanism is now usually identified with atheism when in reality it implies that man is “primus inter pares”: all life is valuable but not equally valuable. We all exist for a reason but some reasons are more significant than others. We are intended to be the stewards of Creation not parasites…

 

[Protestor]

It bothers me that so many could believe something so illogical… which I did at one time, but I feel that I was tricked into it.

What is illogical about an uncaring universe? I didn’t see the answer to this if you have already answered this point pls link the post #

 

[Aloysium]

I would consider an uncaring creation illogical in that I am part of it and I do care and act accordingly, although I should do more.
Anyone who has battled the elements is acutely aware that Nature does not give a hoot about us.
As physical beings we are part of the natural order, existing in accordance to its processes as determined by God.
As spiritual beings, this is all about relationship. As God relates to us as Father, we are to return in filial obedience, His love.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The absurdity of atheism is that it can find no purpose in anything. Everything just is.

 

[inocente]

Atheism is the dogmatic belief that** everything** is ultimately valueless yet that belief presupposes its own value!

I just caught up with the thread since my last post nine days back.

The OED has two definitions of “absurd”. One is “arousing amusement or derision; ridiculous”. That’s highly subjective of course, and some folk will mock any values other than their own.

The other definition is “wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate”, which is an objective assessment and how I think you mean it, but I can’t see that anyone was shown either atheism or theism to be absurd in that sense, since judgments of values can only be value judgments.

Secular Buddhism says that belief in deities isn’t even relevant to a life with value. As I understand it, there have long been branches of Hinduism which don’t believe in a god as creator or person, or at all. For instance, some argue, if karma exists then it exists without need of any moral author. Jainism also denies a creator god.

Are these beliefs absurd? Do they arouse derision? Are they wildly illogical? Nope.

So I still think that if you want to argue against atheism, you need a more logical slogan.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So I still think that if you want to argue against atheism, you need a more logical slogan.

Even atheists cannot object to reality being called absurd … illogical.

The reason being that there is no Reason that orders Reality.

The universe just is, and without a reason.

 

[Bradski]

The universe just is, and without a reason.

Nothing but net!

 

[inocente]

inocente;13470757:

Secular Buddhism says that belief in deities isn’t even relevant to a life with value. As I understand it, there have long been branches of Hinduism which don’t believe in a god as creator or person, or at all. For instance, some argue, if karma exists then it exists without need of any moral author. Jainism also denies a creator god.

Are these beliefs absurd? Do they arouse derision? Are they wildly illogical? Nope.

So I still think that if you want to argue against atheism, you need a more logical slogan.

Even atheists cannot object to reality being called absurd … illogical.

The reason being that there is no Reason that orders Reality.

The universe just is, and without a reason.

Can’t see any philosophical arguments there, just slogans. We might call it Trumpism, “Doing a Donald” .

Where exactly are Buddhism, Jainism and those branches of Hinduism illogical? They’ve all been around longer than Christianity, and I guess their adherents might say our beliefs are illogical, but where does it get anyone?

I really can’t see the point of calling other sincerely held beliefs illogical or absurd. It might make us feel superior, but it builds artificial walls between people. To coin a phrase, doing a Donald.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I really can’t see the point of calling other sincerely held beliefs illogical or absurd. It might make us feel superior, but it builds artificial walls between people. To coin a phrase, doing a Donald.

To note a distinction between theism and atheism is not to build a wall, any more than noting a distinction between chocolate and vanilla, though chocolate is definitely superior to vanilla.

 

[Aloysium]

To note a distinction between theism and atheism is not to build a wall, any more than noting a distinction . . .

I would say that it is noting a distinction that has been decided upon by the person calling themselves an atheist.

I do understand that some, maybe most people take the label “atheist” as being serious.
But, I ask myself, what kind of self-image does a person have to have to identify oneself as being not something else (i.e.; not a theist).
I am many things, the list of those I am not would seem endless.
Is it not more rational to determine one’s beliefs and if any need be, identify oneself with the particular philosophical, ideological, theological system?

I don’t get it. Atheism to me always comes across as some sort of judo-christian heretical cult.

Honestly, I don’t believe in pretty much everything atheists don’t believe in.
That said, the odd occasion does arise where someone seems to get close to the truth but then starts up with their brand of logic, facts and skepticism(lol) to disprove what is clear and obvious.
Actually, it’s just the words that are close; the meanings are nowhere in sight of one another.

According to the feedback, I supposedly believe in kitten whiskers . . . seriously . . . yes . . . wow.

Guess it’s obvious I’m having an ornery day.

 

[Bradski]

Is it not more rational to determine one’s beliefs and if any need be, identify oneself with the particular philosophical, ideological, theological system?

Probably the most intelligent thing I’ll read today…

 

[drac16]

Atheism is the dogmatic belief that** everything** is ultimately valueless yet that belief presupposes its own value! What is your view?

No, that’s what Nihilism is. An atheist is not necessarily a nihilist. I think a consistent atheist would naturally lead to Nihilism, but I am grateful that there are atheists who, on some level, believe in purpose. I don’t think they’re consistent, but they do exist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, that’s what Nihilism is. An atheist is not necessarily a nihilist. I think a consistent atheist would naturally lead to Nihilism, but I am grateful that there are atheists who, on some level, believe in purpose. I don’t think they’re consistent, but they do exist.

Well, the purpose of atheism seems to be to deny the existence of God, but no, I’m not grateful for that.

 

[inocente]

To note a distinction between theism and atheism is not to build a wall, any more than noting a distinction between chocolate and vanilla, though chocolate is definitely superior to vanilla.

By that analogy you just proved that it’s a matter of taste.

And the OP doesn’t just note a distinction, it calls one of them absurd. We can note a distinction between male and female, or Caucasian and Hispanic, or Christian and Muslim without calling one of them absurd, for we all know that anyone doing so is only showing his own bias.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But, I ask myself, what kind of self-image does a person have to have to identify oneself as being not something else (i.e.; not a theist).
I am many things, the list of those I am not would seem endless.

A few things come to mind.

 If you are in the environment where it's generally expected that one will have a certain attribute and a person in question doesn't have that attribute then it would make sense. Ex: say a person that doesn't smoke is asked to join someone in a bar in which smoking is allowed for an after hours chat about business in the office. I could see why that person would make it known that she is a non-smoker. If you put a non-religious person in an environment in which most of the people are religious I could see that person at some point being asked to pray over some food, pray for the needs of some other person, or asked to share thoughts about a particular day that God has made. The person may use that label or some other phrase to make known that an action or perspective is not one that is relevant to her.

For some that use the label their religious classification isn’t necessarily something that might be considered a significant attribute of self identity. For someone in the secular activist spectrum I would expect it to be. For someone that’s not an activist it might not be the case. The person could also be apatheistic.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And the OP doesn’t just note a distinction, it calls one of them absurd. We can note a distinction between male and female, or Caucasian and Hispanic, or Christian and Muslim without calling one of them absurd, for we all know that anyone doing so is only showing his own bias.

I’m thinking we don’t read the OP the same way…

The OP seems to refer to atheism as absurd using the criteria of existentialism itself, not the criteria of the ridiculous or the laughable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Absurdism as a philosophy simply stresses the irrationality of existence. That is to say, there are no rational explanations for why anything exists. Things just are.

As you are a Baptist, I suppose you would not agree with this.

On the other hand, it is the atheist who will more often than not refer to theism as absurd in the sense of ridiculous or laughable. I’ve seen that a thousand times in this forum.

Other religions than Christianity are generally and attempt to rise above the philosophy of the absurd by giving explanations that satisfy the intellect’s need to know and be comfortable with more or less rational explanations for the universe and man’s place in it.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . a non-religious person in an environment in which most of the people are religious I could see that person at some point being asked to pray over some food, pray for the needs of some other person, or asked to share thoughts about a particular day that God has made. The person may use that label or some other phrase to make known that an action or perspective is not one that is relevant to her. . .

Setting aside the point that you were addressing in your post, since this is far more interesting, what would you do in that situation?

Is there no point in feeling thankful and humbled, acknowledging one’s blessings/luck?
No point to thinking “I hope he makes it”?
Doesn’t it at the very least release all sorts of endorphins to go “Wow!!” at some wonder?

Those feelings, the caring, that beauty is for many the key in through the door to the Divine.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;13475455:

… a non-religious person in an environment in which most of the people are religious I could see that person at some point being asked to pray over some food, pray for the needs of some other person, or asked to share thoughts about a particular day that God has made. The person may use that label or some other phrase to make known that an action or perspective is not one that is relevant to her…

Setting aside the point that you were addressing in your post, since this is far more interesting, what would you do in that situation?

I’m going to change your question slightly from what would I do to what to what have I done in those situations.

It has varied, evolved, and continues to evolve. When asked to pray over the food I’ve passed on it and instead ask another person to do it. No one has ever asked me why. An old lady knocked on my door once going from door to door to try to convert people from one variation of Christianity to another. I let her know I wasn’t a Christian at all. Her response was to get mad and start yelling. I could see the veins appearing in her head and quickly ended the interaction fearful that her emotional state could endanger her health. Now when people knock on my door for that purpose I just let them know it’s not a topic of interest but ask them how their day is going and offer a cold water if it’s hot outside.

In the communities in which I have interacted I mostly interpret the requests to “keep someone in my prayers” as an expression of concern and a request for caring action and expressions. I act accordingly. No, I can’t cure the leukemia of the friend that had intense radiation therapy. I can let her know that I care, check in on her, occasionally buy groceries, help out when I can and just spend time with her when nothing else can be done.

Note: usually people that ask me to pray for them are people that I don’t know that well. People that have known me long enough know that I don’t engage in any practices that they would call religious. They also don’e seem to apply any specific term to their understanding of my non-religious disposition.

Is there no point in feeling

I’m interrupting right there. If I experience something and have a feeling about this experience that feeling usually not directly volitional. If my dog died and I felt said it would not be because I’ve decided to feel bad in the interest of a specific point. So here I see point is non-applicable. The feelings may impact me. They may impact others less directly through their impact on my behaviour. Feelings may even be contagious and influence others in a negative or positive direction.

I think this perspective of feelings may limit how I’m able to respond to the rest of your post. Now, before I interrupted you you were saying…

Is there no point in feeling thankful and humbled, acknowledging one’s blessings/luck?

As indicated above I think you and I may approach “hope” and other feelings from different perspectives. If you feel thankful to someone then I encourage expressing it. Letting someone else know you feel gratitude for them may bring a moment of joy to their life. When I feel that someone is in a position that is beneficial I may or may not express that. Because of the relative perspective from which some one evaluates their own life it may or may not be well received.

No point to thinking “I hope he makes it”?

If I had such a thought it would be because it’s how I feel; having concern for the well being of another. I don’t expect my concern for his well being to by itself to directly improve his well being. My feelings might be a motivator for taking action myself to attempt to improve his well being though.

Doesn’t it at the very least release all sorts of endorphins to go “Wow!!” at some wonder?

If you are asking me the question can positive feelings be of benefit to myself I’d say “yes.”

Those feelings, the caring, that beauty is for many the key in through the door to the Divine.

Okay, that’s good to know. Thanks!

 

[buffalo]

A pure atheist may not exist. None were born in a vacuum.