The Absurdity of Atheism

[NM505StKate]

I mean we must choose if it has meaning or not. Read my post above to see where I’m getting at.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

The meaning of life is what you make of it.

 

[Lucretius]

The meaning of life is what you make of it.

But that assumed that reality really doesn’t have meaning! I agree that everyone needs a story, but is there a true story, or all narratives fantasies? Or does our need for a story reveal that there must be a true story?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[An_Atheist]

But by the way you speak, you demonstrate that you are not neutral. You speak as if those who believe that the heart of the world is Love are delusional. You speak as if reality is oppression, mechanical, dead…

Man must choose whether the world is personal or oppressive! Both theories fit the facts, both interpretations can explain the evidence.

I sympathize with you on wanting to stay neutral, but we can’t. This decision is too important to everything that we can only delude ourselves if we think we haven’t chosen.

Ultimately all Roads lead to Rome, but a man can either travel towards or away from the eternal city.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I have to respectfully disagree.

But by the way you speak, you demonstrate that you are not neutral.

I lack belief because I see no reason to believe. How am I not neutral?

You speak as if those who believe that the heart of the world is Love are delusional.

I can interpret you in a literal context, which is to say that the planet earth possess a “heart” and that this heart is “love.” I assume you spoke in an allegorical sense particular to your religion, so is this a roundabout way of accusing me of calling theists delusional?

I don’t consider theists delusional. I used to be one. Speaking for myself, I believed because I feared death. Eventually, I got tired of the mental gymnastics required to remain a believer; in order to accept the Bible, I had to assume that archaeologists, scholars, evolutionary biologists, and geologists were secretly conspiring against it. Once I concluded that such an assumption was absurd, I realized that I needed to kick away the crutch of religion. The religious are folks who aren’t able to make this leap. They’re not “delusional,” but they prefer the comfort of a crutch in a wobbly world. I get that. For me, however, it’s not good enough.

You believe your reason is God-given, yes? The same reason that guides you through life must not be abandoned if it finds holes in your most cherished beliefs. If you believe your deity gave you reason, then you have a right to use it. And if reason leads you away from your religion–and your deity–then you’ve saved yourself a life of falsehoods. (If one guy sees a problem in your religion, it might just be that guy who’s at fault. But when millions see the holes–the *same *holes–and if those millions are intelligent people whose reason serves them in every other area of life, then one must conclude that either your religion’s deity is a cruel comic who delights in bestowing reason only to force them to believe in unreasonable things, or that your religion is false.)

You speak as if reality is oppression, mechanical, dead…

Reality is neither dead nor alive. The sun rises, the birds chirp, and all is as it has been and ever will be. Planets will continue to orbit stars and electrons will continue to orbit atoms. I see no reason to include Yahweh in my worldview. If you have evidence for Yahweh, then I’d be curious to see it.

Man must choose whether the world is personal or oppressive! Both theories fit the facts, both interpretations can explain the evidence.

I’m an atheist and I’ve never been this happy in my life. I can read any science article about neurology or biology or cosmology or geology and not wonder if I’m going to need to engage in more mental gymnastics to defend Christianity. I can read about history and textual criticism and not worry about finding “an opposing view” that credits my religious dependence on the texts as being literal.

I’m happy to be released from that burden.

If there is a “higher intelligence,” then I am fully confident it hasn’t revealed itself in any religion, which means that, if it does exist–and if it knows I’m here, and if it cares about morality, and if it has an afterlife waiting for me–it doesn’t want me being religious.

I sympathize with you on wanting to stay neutral, but we can’t. This decision is too important to everything that we can only delude ourselves if we think we haven’t chosen.

Such choices are important to you because your religion tells you this. I don’t accept your religion, so I don’t accept your religion’s claims that I will burn in hell for rejecting your religion.

 

[NM505StKate]

I have to respectfully disagree.

I lack belief because I see no reason to believe. How am I not neutral?

I can interpret you in a literal context, which is to say that the planet earth possess a “heart” and that this heart is “love.” I assume you spoke in an allegorical sense particular to your religion, so is this a roundabout way of accusing me of calling theists delusional?

I don’t consider theists delusional. I used to be one. Speaking for myself, I believed because I feared death. Eventually, I got tired of the mental gymnastics required to remain a believer; in order to accept the Bible, I had to assume that archaeologists, scholars, evolutionary biologists, and geologists were secretly conspiring against it. Once I concluded that such an assumption was absurd, I realized that I needed to kick away the crutch of religion. The religious are folks who aren’t able to make this leap. They’re not “delusional,” but they prefer the comfort of a crutch in a wobbly world. I get that. For me, however, it’s not good enough.

You believe your reason is God-given, yes? The same reason that guides you through life must not be abandoned if it finds holes in your most cherished beliefs. If you believe your deity gave you reason, then you have a right to use it. And if reason leads you away from your religion–and your deity–then you’ve saved yourself a life of falsehoods. (If one guy sees a problem in your religion, it might just be that guy who’s at fault. But when millions see the holes–the *same *holes–and if those millions are intelligent people whose reason serves them in every other area of life, then one must conclude that either your religion’s deity is a cruel comic who delights in bestowing reason only to force them to believe in unreasonable things, or that your religion is false.)

Reality is neither dead nor alive. The sun rises, the birds chirp, and all is as it has been and ever will be. Planets will continue to orbit stars and electrons will continue to orbit atoms. I see no reason to include Yahweh in my worldview. If you have evidence for Yahweh, then I’d be curious to see it.

I’m an atheist and I’ve never been this happy in my life. I can read any science article about neurology or biology or cosmology or geology and not wonder if I’m going to need to engage in more mental gymnastics to defend Christianity. I can read about history and textual criticism and not worry about finding “an opposing view” that credits my religious dependence on the texts as being literal.

I’m happy to be released from that burden.

If there is a “higher intelligence,” then I am fully confident it hasn’t revealed itself in any religion, which means that, if it does exist–and if it knows I’m here, and if it cares about morality, and if it has an afterlife waiting for me–it doesn’t want me being religious.

Such choices are important to you because your religion tells you this. I don’t accept your religion, so I don’t accept your religion’s claims that I will burn in hell for rejecting your religion.

Sir/Ma’am this is beautiful. Thank you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My question is why are you attacking non-belief?

Because non-belief deserves to be attacked.

As Plato said, “Man is a being in search of meaning.”

There is no meaning to be found in atheism.

All is meaningless. Atheism is a dead-end philosophy. All it say is there is no God. It says nothing else that is meaningful or answer’s Plato’s question.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What evidence? No one has presented any evidence.

O.K. I see you are new to philosophy. You might want to consider taking a course of instruction or buying a book. Your question’s answers are too vast to approach in this thread.

When you have found a proof for the existence of God, start a thread if you like and we’ll see where it leads.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
-George Bernard Shaw.

Bernard Shaw was a very shallow man who fancied himself very clever.

It is no fact at all that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

By my observations, the opposite is more likely than not.

We should be happy with the truth.

How does atheism bring us happiness?

Do some web research. Notice that on average atheists are more likely to commit suicide than theists. Why do you suppose that is? Does religion offer something atheists don’t get?

What might that be?

 

[Lucretius]

Once I concluded that such an assumption was absurd, I realized that I needed to kick away the crutch of religion. The religious are folks who aren’t able to make this leap. They’re not “delusional,” but they prefer the comfort of a crutch in a wobbly world. I get that. For me, however, it’s not good enough.

Do you believe that reality is meaningless? The fact that you use “crutch” indicates that you do

Everyone needs a story to tell themselves, a “crutch.” In this case, the only difference between us is that I believe the stories I tell myslef to help me sleep at night are true, and you think yours are fantasies.

But when millions see the holes–the *same *holes–and if those millions are intelligent people whose reason serves them in every other area of life, then one must conclude that either your religion’s deity is a cruel comic who delights in bestowing reason only to force them to believe in unreasonable things, or that your religion is false.

Or, the historians and the intellectuals assume Christianity false beforehand by assuming materialism. There’s no conspiracy, just different metaphysics.

Reality is neither dead nor alive. The sun rises, the birds chirp, and all is as it has been and ever will be. Planets will continue to orbit stars and electrons will continue to orbit atoms. I see no reason to include Yahweh in my worldview. If you have evidence for Yahweh, then I’d be curious to see it.

When I say alive, I mean does it have meaning?

The Church and her witness is the evidence for God.

I’m an atheist and I’ve never been this happy in my life. I can read any science article about neurology or biology or cosmology or geology and not wonder if I’m going to need to engage in more mental gymnastics to defend Christianity.

What if you read an article that demonstrates Christian truths? Do you have to do gymnastics then?

Also, like I said, most scientists assume materialism a priori, which means that to use this information against Christianity begs the question. That’s why much of the conclusion of modern Bible archeology is uninteresting: they are based on a false worldview.

If there is a “higher intelligence,” then I am fully confident it hasn’t revealed itself in any religion, which means that, if it does exist–and if it knows I’m here, and if it cares about morality, and if it has an afterlife waiting for me–it doesn’t want me being religious.[/quite]

But than you aren’t neutral: you believe Christianity is false, period.

Such choices are important to you because your religion tells you this. I don’t accept your religion, so I don’t accept your religion’s claims that I will burn in hell for rejecting your religion.

Everyone makes these decisions. They are reflected in everything we do, and everything we think. This is just the truth: most religious and the wise atheists like Nietzsche realize this.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have to respectfully disagree.

I lack belief because I see no reason to believe. How am I not neutral?

I can interpret you in a literal context, which is to say that the planet earth possess a “heart” and that this heart is “love.” I assume you spoke in an allegorical sense particular to your religion, so is this a roundabout way of accusing me of calling theists delusional?

I don’t consider theists delusional. I used to be one. Speaking for myself, I believed because I feared death. Eventually, I got tired of the mental gymnastics required to remain a believer; in order to accept the Bible, I had to assume that archaeologists, scholars, evolutionary biologists, and geologists were secretly conspiring against it. Once I concluded that such an assumption was absurd, I realized that I needed to kick away the crutch of religion. The religious are folks who aren’t able to make this leap. They’re not “delusional,” but they prefer the comfort of a crutch in a wobbly world. I get that. For me, however, it’s not good enough.

You believe your reason is God-given, yes? The same reason that guides you through life must not be abandoned if it finds holes in your most cherished beliefs. If you believe your deity gave you reason, then you have a right to use it. And if reason leads you away from your religion–and your deity–then you’ve saved yourself a life of falsehoods. (If one guy sees a problem in your religion, it might just be that guy who’s at fault. But when millions see the holes–the *same *holes–and if those millions are intelligent people whose reason serves them in every other area of life, then one must conclude that either your religion’s deity is a cruel comic who delights in bestowing reason only to force them to believe in unreasonable things, or that your religion is false.)

Reality is neither dead nor alive. The sun rises, the birds chirp, and all is as it has been and ever will be. Planets will continue to orbit stars and electrons will continue to orbit atoms. I see no reason to include Yahweh in my worldview. If you have evidence for Yahweh, then I’d be curious to see it.

I’m an atheist and I’ve never been this happy in my life. I can read any science article about neurology or biology or cosmology or geology and not wonder if I’m going to need to engage in more mental gymnastics to defend Christianity. I can read about history and textual criticism and not worry about finding “an opposing view” that credits my religious dependence on the texts as being literal.

I’m happy to be released from that burden.

If there is a “higher intelligence,” then I am fully confident it hasn’t revealed itself in any religion, which means that, if it does exist–and if it knows I’m here, and if it cares about morality, and if it has an afterlife waiting for me–it doesn’t want me being religious.

Such choices are important to you because your religion tells you this. I don’t accept your religion, so I don’t accept your religion’s claims that I will burn in hell for rejecting your religion.

I guess your hoping that the more you throw up against the wall, the more likely some of it will stick.

Sounds like a lot of whistling in the dark to me.

 

[Lucretius]

Bernard Shaw was a very shallow man who fancied himself very clever.

It is no fact at all that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

Mr. Shaw was very courageous, and very intellegent!

He reveals the mindset of the “neutral” atheists: that all meaning is fantasy.

Evil people can be happy, rich, intelligent, etc., while good people can be depressed, poor, stupid, etc. This is Christ’s truth! This paradox can only exist because we exist in a state between the beginning and the end, a place where the impassible barrier between good and evil is blurred.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[NM505StKate]

Because non-belief deserves to be attacked.

As Plato said, “Man is a being in search of meaning.”

There is no meaning to be found in atheism.

All is meaningless. Atheism is a dead-end philosophy. All it say is there is no God. It says nothing else that is meaningful or answer’s Plato’s question.

But it isn’t a philosophy. I do not believe. Simple. Why? Because there isn’t enough evidence shown for belief.

 

[Lucretius]

But it isn’t a philosophy. I do not believe. Simple. Why? Because there isn’t enough evidence shown for belief.

What would evidence look like? Would a guy raising from the dead count?

Do you believe the world has inherent meaning?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[JapaneseKappa]

We can’t reify nothing. Nothing doesn’t exist, in every possible sense. Nothing is a hole, not a thing

That’s cute, but we can even ask if a state where nothing exists is even logically possible. If we think of nothingness as a hole, then it only makes sense if we can ask “a hole in what?” So it may turn out that it is not even logically possible for there to be a state where nothing exists. Then right there we immediately have an a-theistic reason why something exists instead of nothing: the “nothing” state is logically impossible.

 

[Lucretius]

That’s cute, but we can even ask if a state where nothing exists is even logically possible. If we think of nothingness as a hole, then it only makes sense if we can ask “a hole in what?” So it may turn out that it is not even logically possible for there to be a state where nothing exists. Then right there we immediately have an a-theistic reason why something exists instead of nothing: the “nothing” state is logically impossible.

Which is why I prefer “what is being?”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[NM505StKate]

What would evidence look like? What if a guy rose from the dead?

Do you believe the world has inherent meaning?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I don’t know what the evidence looks like. If there is a god it would know and would have showed it. The world has no meaning. It is there. If a guy rose from the dead I would expect there would be a study on why that happened but since there is no evidence that such an event occurred.

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t know what the evidence looks like. If there is a god it would know and would have showed it. It is there. If a guy rose from the dead I would expect there would be a study on why that happened but since there is no evidence that such an event occurred.

But God has shown it. He has done miracles, and has risen the dead. We do have evidence of these things because witnesses have told us of them, and have recorded their witness. Some even see miracles firsthand.

The world has no meaning.

Which is a choice, and the reason why you can’t see the evidence of God. The evidence is there, and it is “obvious!” The miracles, the motion of creation, the Prophets… You have to dismiss them a priori in order to claim “there isn’t evidence.”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[NM505StKate]

But God has shown it. He has down miracles, and has risen the dead. We do have evidence of these things because witnesses have told us of them, and have recorded their witness.

Which is a choice, and the reason why you can’t see the evidence of God. The evidence is there, and it is “obvious!” The miracles, the motion of creation, the Prophets… You have to dismiss them a priori in order to claim “there isn’t evidence.”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

It isn’t “obvious” though. The “miracles” have been explained away with modern science. I don’t know what the motion of creation is. There have been many prophets saying things so which ones do I listen to?

 

[Aloysium]

That’s cute, but we can even ask if a state where nothing exists is even logically possible. If we think of nothingness as a hole, then it only makes sense if we can ask “a hole in what?” So it may turn out that it is not even logically possible for there to be a state where nothing exists. Then right there we immediately have an a-theistic reason why something exists instead of nothing: the “nothing” state is logically impossible.

Nothing cannot exist unless it is something.
God did not create the universe out of Himself.
Every level of its structure, comprised of the variety of beings as they are in themselves, is a new.creation and not merely a moulding of what comes before.
Thus we can understand how we emerge as a new being, more than our components and we are not God.

 

[Lucretius]

Where are they recorded? One book is not evidence enough.

We have four. Plus all the other witnesses that passed through tradition.

As for say events like Fatima, nothing is concise that was reported here.

Seriously? I’m sorry if this sounds mean, but that is just an arbitrary dismissal. A Crowd(!) saw the miracle! Will you trust no witnesses? Why do you trust the witness of the scientist?

Also some of the “prophecies” were told after the fact they happened.

Which ones?

It isn’t “obvious” though. The “miracles” have been explained away with modern science.

For someone who glorified science, you don’t really understand it, do you? How can you test a miracle? That doesn’t even make sense: they aren’t the sort of thing that can be experimented!

I don’t know what the motion of creation is.

I had in mind the Five Ways here, and the First Way in particular.

There have been many prophets saying things so which ones do I listen to?

The ones that bear good fruit, of course! You believe in scientists and engineers because of their fruit, correct?

Did the Prophet make a good prediction? Does he lead us into evil?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t…don’t…make me bring up Santa Claus again!

.

Non sequitur!