The Absurdity of Atheism

[Lucretius]

Atheism is not a religion or a philosophy. To repeat: It’s a disbelief in gods, that is all.

Why are you an atheist?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[tonyrey]

The power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love.

Then it’s not surprising you’re an atheist! If we dig below the surface we discover with Hamlet that “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Because non-belief is unreflective apathy…]

It doesn’t care about the answer.

There is a term that is more specific to the disposition you are describing. It’s “Apatheism.”

 

[Lucretius]

There is a term that is more specific to the disposition you are describing. It’s “Apatheism.”

Maybe. I don’t like atheists who delude themselves into thinking they are “neutral.” Kant argued that we couldn’t know if God existed or not, yet he was also a theist. Even if he thought reason couldn’t demonstrate God’s existence, he believed. The atheist, then, is one who thinks reason can’t or hasn’t demonstrated God’s existence, yet doesn’t believe.

The point is that we have to decide if reality is meaningful or not: atheist must assert the latter, and thus are not in a neutral position.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

To quote that same atheist I think you are quoting: “You’re an atheist, too, because you don’t believe in all the other gods; I just believe in one less god than you do.”

.

moan God is not a god. Zeus can exist, but is not God, and can never be God. Monotheism isn’t polytheism with only one god. This sort of error bugs me, because it shows minimal understanding of theism, although not as badly as the “skydaddy” strawman

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Oh, boy. Is this what you think an atheist thinks??!! This explains a lot.

Of course they care. Why in the world do you think they don’t care??!!

I distinguish between accepting God’s existence, denying His existence, and apathy regrading His existence. What choice does an atheist have but the second and third?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Why are you assuming that atheists don’t reflect on the meaning of the universe and are apathetic? (if I’m perceiving you correctly)

What do you mean by “lack of belief?” I thought you wanted to create a position between “denying God’s existence” and “accepting God’s existence.”

I even see people on this forum tell others not to attend masses in other churches or read too much about other religions for fear it would expose them to new ideas that would sway them, like a weak blade of grass in the breeze.

The intellect, like all things, must be trained. It is wise to tell a green not to run a marathon, correct? And so we tell those with weak hearts not to dive into things they aren’t ready for. Especially since they won’t understand that most of modern intellectual conclusions against Christianity beg the question. For example, modern Biblical meathods often assume materialism a priori, which is another way of dismissing Christianity a priori.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[rose_kelly]

**Charlesmagne …have you ever had an actual, deep, face-to face conversation with a real, live atheist? **
Because it sounds as though you are repeating by rote thoughts you have been taught to believe and say…rather than speaking from observation and experience.

I know many atheists and theists and I can honestly tell you that the atheists on the whole have more purpose and less despair.
And in fact…being an atheist can lead to all that you list above: rationality, beauty, morals, explanations, and a lot of good in the world.
Many former theists find much more of these experiences *after *they leave religion.

But…perhaps some people find more of these things when believing in a religion–I will assume so.
But it works both ways, then.

Because however “narrow” you think atheism is…for others it opens up brand new worlds-- new galaxies–of ideas, life, information, emotions, self-esteem, goodness, and creativity.

And that’s a fact.

.

If he hadn’t he wouldn’t know so much about them.
Don’t assume all theists never communicate face-to face with atheists, some of us even manage to live with them.

 

[Lucretius]

Actually, I must correct myself because I think I misunderstood your question.

I have indeed studied the psychology and physiology of belief and love. And that is one reason why I am an atheist—especially after studying why the brain believes what it does regarding religion and gods.
Have you ever read Steven Pinker’s book, “How the Mind Works”?
That’s a good one of many.

So I’ve studied this, yes. But I’m not an expert that I can repeat it all here from memory. I can tell you which books that I’ve read that explain it, though–Pinker’s being one of them.

Does he assume before hand that religion is bunk, and then go on to psychoanalyze us in order to “explain our belief?”

Many arguments for Christianity stand regardless of psychology. And, of course, much of psychology has fallen into being the handmaiden of policy and ideology

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Philosophy is defined as the pursuit of “wisdom”.

If you are saying that atheism is not wisdom, I will agree.

 

[Solmyr]

Philosophy is defined as the pursuit of “wisdom”.

Philosophy has many “definitions”. My favorite one is:

Q: What is philosophy?
A: A man in a totally black room chases a totally black cat.
Q: What is theistic philosophy?
A: A man in a totally black room chases a nonexistent black cat.
Q: What is Christian philosophy?
A: A man in a totally black room chases a nonexistent black cat, and keeps on shouting: “I got it! I got it”.

So much for your “definition”.

 

[Lucretius]

An atheist has a lot more choices than those two. There may be a true god we do not know of yet…or many real gods we do not know of yet. If they reveal themselves in the future with full evidence and proof, I imagine your faith will tell you that they are “false” gods and not to take heed.
An atheist is free to make a choice where the evidence presents itself–be it in science, religion, biology, etc, etc. So an atheist has many more choices than you think.

Anyone can be apathetic–including theists.

.

God is not a god, so you haven’t shown how there are more than two choices…what choices do you have but acceptance or denial?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The agnostics/atheists get involved helping people not because atheism “commands charity” --as you point out-- or because they want to convince people to change their religious beliefs…but because their own hearts want to help others.

And that, as you say, is the best motive of all.

It is the best motive of all, but again, there are plenty of atheists who do not have any such motive … and if they do not, without Christ there is no moral mandate for them that they should.

I have to correct you. Christian charity is not conditioned by conversion. Christ tells us we must be charitable not so as to gain a convert, but so as to save our souls from selfish perdition.

Long story short. If there is no divine command, there is no human obligation.

Aan atheist can flaunt his selfishness as much as he likes without consequence.

A Christian cannot if he believes in divine justice promised in Matthew 25.

 

[Lucretius]

Philosophy has many “definitions”. My favorite one is:

Q: What is philosophy?
A: A man in a totally black room chases a totally black cat.
Q: What is theistic philosophy?
A: A man in a totally black room chases a nonexistent black cat.
Q: What is Christian philosophy?
A: A man in a totally black room chases a nonexistent black cat, and keeps on shouting: “I got it! I got it”.

So much for your “definition”.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahacracklehahahahahahahahahahahahacracklehahahahahahahahahahahahacracklehahahahahahahahahahahahacracklehahahahahahahahahahahahacracklehahahahahahahahahahahahacrackle



Huh. Ok, I’m better now Why do people always live by mindless catch phrases that inhibit thought? Especially those who claim to worship the cerebral! (Not that you fall into this error, Solmyr Someone had to, to come up with that stupid saying ).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Charlemagne…have you ever had an actual, deep, face-to-face conversation with a real, live atheist?

Because however “narrow” you think atheism is…for others it opens up brand new worlds-- new galaxies–of ideas, life, information, emotions, self-esteem, goodness, and creativity.

I have been an atheist, so you can fly down from that superior perch of yours.

I’ve been solidly in both camps. Age and experience helped me to judge rightly at last.

If you think atheism is so meaningful and wonderful, you will have to explain why the suicide rate for atheists is generally higher than for theists … that’s world wide.

And that’s a fact.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

 

[An_Atheist]

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.

You’re so patronizing.

 

[An_Atheist]

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

I don’t have a belief regarding “the meaning of life,” nor do I accept the claims of any religion regarding meaning.

I can’t definitely say “I believe that life is meaningless” because I have no evidence. But, as an atheist, I can neither believe any of the many “meanings” proposed by the various religions. At best, I can only say that if there is a meaning, I have seen no evidence of it.

The logical side of me will say, “There is no evidence for the existence of objective meaning in life, and I reject all the proposed meanings of every religion.” The emotional side of me will say, “I don’t believe there’s meaning to life.”

A person doesn’t “believe that something doesn’t exist.” A person doesn’t believe that something exists.

It’s a very fine distinction, but it’s important and it needs to be made.

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.

I tell myself stories that I think are fantasies? Why would I do that?

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

Metaphysics is not a true philosophy because it only works if one assumes a contested premise–namely, the existence of the supernatural. Since I don’t see evidence for the existence of the supernatural, be it in the Christian or Buddhist or Hindu or any tradition, I see no reason to accept the supernatural a priori. But if you could offer me evidence for the existence of the supernatural, I will gladly look at it.

Second, why do you make such a presumption about historians and intellectuals? And what about people like me who were believers and are now not?

Here’s the crux of the matter. I made this point earlier, but I’ll make it again:

If you believe that your deity has given you reason, only to force you to believe in something unreasonable upon pain of eternal hell, then either (a) your deity is a cruel comic, or (b) your religion is unreasonable.

Looked at from another angle, a true religion will necessarily stand up under any scrutiny, no matter how intense.

Am I so foolish for choosing option B? Am I so wrong for being unable to endure the mental gymnastics required of an intelligent 21st century human being in order to believe in an ancient religion? Am I to believe that the various disciplines of science and humanities that poke holes in a religion are “hell-bent on destroying it”?

Every religion I’ve encountered yet–yours included–fails to stand up under intense scrutiny. Therefore, I can safely say that none of them is true.

This also bears repeating: If no religion is able to stand up to scrutiny, then no religion is true. If there is a higher intelligence, it therefore hasn’t revealed itself through religion, and if it hasn’t revealed itself through religion, it doesn’t want us to be religious.

If I’m wrong–if Yahweh is real–then I will ask Him why he gave me reason and demanded that I believe something foolish upon pain of eternal hell. I’d rather not worship such a petty god who demands this of its creatures.

The Church and her witness is the evidence for God.

A Muslim would just as easily say the same for the Quran.

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

No, but that’s a mighty tall order. I’ve read books that explain the evolution of Yahweh from Elamite deity to Canaanite deity to Jewish deity. I’ve read the evidence–both archaeological and scriptural–that Yahweh was worshipped alongside his wife Asherah as late as the post-Exilic period and that the Jewish authorities went through great pains to erase Asherah from the records (but missed a few spots). There’s much more that I won’t get into here, but the point is that such an article, if it could be written, is a tall order.

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.

Well, science is the study of the material. But there is a minority of scientists who are religious. There are Christian and Buddhist and Hindu scientists, and presumably more from other faiths. (One has to wonder why they aren’t all Christian if the evidence is “obvious.” These are scientists, after all. They understand evidence when they see it.)

Biblical archaeology is not based on assumptions but on fact.

Take the Exodus account. According to Exodus, “about 600,000 men on foot, besides women and children, plus many non-Israelites and livestock” left Egypt.

So that’s 600,000 plus women and children plus and unspecified number of “non-Israelites.”

So if we assume that only half of those men had a wife, that gives us 300,000 women, bringing the total to 900,000. Let’s completely ignore the non-Israelites, because these numbers will still be absurd without them. If we assume that each of those couples had two children on average, that’s an additional 600,000 people.

So now we’re at 1.5 million (non-Israelites not included).

According to the Bible, this happened around 1250 BC. The population of Egypt was 3.5 million.

Do you see the problem here?

I won’t discuss the anachronisms in the story because I’ve sufficiently argued my point.

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

Wouldn’t a Muslims say the same to you? Are you being “not neutral” for disregarding his religion?

 

[An_Atheist]

I have been an atheist, so you can fly down from that superior perch of yours.

I’ve been solidly in both camps. Age and experience helped me to judge rightly at last.

If you think atheism is so meaningful and wonderful, you will have to explain why the suicide rate for atheists is generally higher than for theists … that’s world wide.

And that’s a fact.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

Well, did you know that suicide is higher among intelligent people?

An interesting correlation between intelligence and lack of religion can be made.

 

[Bradski]

Or would you like to bet the existence of God against the possibility of a scientific answer?

It’s my default position.

Not correct. People with religious belief say: “We accept the science and we’ll wait for science to catch up.” Reason and faith do not contradict.

Except where it is claimed that something, because there is no apparent scientific explanation, is to be considered unreasonable (‘it is unreasonable to believe that the universe just “created itself”, therefore God’). There have been so many threads and innumerable posts saying exactly that.

For instance: Scientists inquire into anthropology, genetics, geology, etc… and discover things about the lineage of human beings. Theology does not say “yea or nay” really about science, that is, until science begins to say: ""because our science does not match literalist interpretations of scripture…ergo there is no God. “”
Or
““because we can demonstrate a big bang, there is no God””

But people used to say: ‘the world was created by God, this planet is proof of His existence’. Now we understand the natural processes so it’s not a supernatural event. The same with evolution: ‘God created us as we are now’ (and there are still people who believe this). But now there is a scientific explanation. Now we have people saying that the beginning of this universe cannot have happened naturally, therefore God. So where does God go if we do find out that there is a natural answer.

Finding one does not disprove God. But not knowing what the answer is does not leave a gap into which you can slip Him. What on earth is wrong in saying that everything is God’s handiwork and we are just working out the methods he used? Do you need to maintain some mystery so you can have faith? As Inocente said:

You put a smiley on it, this is just to confirm that Christians who are scientists or engineers don’t suffer permanent crippling cognitive dissonance.

There is no cognitive dissonance because that is precisely what scientists with faith believe. It’s ALL God’s work. Why you guys are intent on refusing to accept natural answers is beyond me.

Wow, the probability that we would be even talking about this based on only the existence of low entropy at the Big Bang is 10 to the 123 power to 1. This is tantamount to the same person winning the lottery a trillion-trillion-trillion times in a row.
C: Looks like supernatural is more reasonable to me.

The possibility of something happening if it has already happened is precisely 1. Otherwise we could say that the chances of everything since the beginning of time aligning so that you are sitting there reading this right at this moment are to all intents zero. But there you are…

Our understanding of history comes from witnesses, and we have witnesses for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, just as we do for the Norman Invasion of England

A few witnesses, whose second hand testimony was written many years after the event in reports that don’t agree with each other. But anyway, you are saying that witness accounts are reliable as to our understanding of events. In which case I’m sure that you’d agree that the more witnesses one has, the greater the possibility of the reported facts being true.

What if we have a few hundred? Or a few thousand? How many would you need to be sure about the veracity of the events being reported?

Atheism can be attacked on many fronts?

What good does it do? Does it explain anything? Is it rational? Is it beautiful? Is it moral?

Is a lack of belief do any good? Does a lack of belief explain anything? Is a lack of belief rational? Is a lack of belief beautiful? Is a lack of belief moral?

What nonsensical questions.

Because non-belief is unreflective apathy. It’s a fault. Humans who do not reflect on the meaning of the universe and their lives do not exist in the end.

Do you think I am unreflective? Do you think that I am apathetic? Do you think I do not reflect on life in general and my life in particular? Do you think that these claims that you make are insulting, not just to atheists and agnostics to but to everyone who has a different belief system to yours?

Do some reflection on what you have just implied. Which is that you personally have thought on the meaning of life and have reached a position where you can describe those who do but reach different conclusions as apathetic, at fault and bound for hell. I must defer to your greater insight and look forward to reading more on the meaning of my own life in your posts.

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t have a belief regarding “the meaning of life,” nor do I accept the claims of any religion regarding meaning.

I can’t definitely say “I believe that life is meaningless” because I have no evidence. But, as an atheist, I can neither believe any of the many “meanings” proposed by the various religions. At best, I can only say that if there is a meaning, I have seen no evidence of it.

The logical side of me will say, “There is no evidence for the existence of objective meaning in life, and I reject all the proposed meanings of every religion.” The emotional side of me will say, “I don’t believe there’s meaning to life.”

A person doesn’t “believe that something doesn’t exist.” A person doesn’t believe that something exists.

It’s a very fine distinction, but it’s important and it needs to be made.

The difference is in interpretation, not in fact. Neither theists nor atheists possess some sort of fact hidden from each other. The evidence can be interpreted as supporting either conclusion. You should understand this, that the same facts can work within different theories, just look at the stalemate in quantum science!

This, since we have two theories regarding the nature of the universe, and that we can’t not choose to accept one, since humans act on reasons, and whether the world and life has meaning influences every other reason, we must choose between the two theories/interpretations.

I tell myself stories that I think are fantasies? Why would I do that?

Human thought works in terms of narratives. We understand through stories. Don’t you have hopes and dreams? You know, the things meant to be the next part of the narrative that is your life?

Metaphysics is not a true philosophy because it only works if one assumes a contested premise–namely, the existence of the supernatural. Since I don’t see evidence for the existence of the supernatural, be it in the Christian or Buddhist or Hindu or any tradition, I see no reason to accept the supernatural a priori. But if you could offer me evidence for the existence of the supernatural, I will gladly look at it.

I don’t know what you mean. Metaphysics is the study of being as such, that is, of the nature of reality. Everyone has a metaphysics. Everything you think, and everything you do is influenced by it.

Second, why do you make such a presumption about historians and intellectuals? And what about people like me who were believers and are now not?

Most people I’ve encountered on these subjects work with assumptions that are false. And if the scholars want to leave it at that, that’s fine. But to use these conclusions in arguments, conclusions which are based in assumptions that reject Christianity beforehand, the scholars commit the logical error of begging the question.

My advice when reading: ask what assumptions that author is taking for granted, especially that of materialism/ naturalism and the need to reexplain religious events in anti-supernatural terms. A false naturalistic theory is no less false because it is naturalistic: a natural theory can even be just as much a fantasy as a “magical” theory.

Am I so foolish for choosing option B? Am I so wrong for being unable to endure the mental gymnastics required of an intelligent 21st century human being in order to believe in an ancient religion?

The fact that theists often have to “do mental gymnastics” is because the foundation of the contemporary intellectual world is anti-Christian. It is full of assumptions, like materialism, hatred of teleology, Biblical Literalism, and sola Scriptura. These are unconscious prejudices, they aren’t a conspiracy.

Am I to believe that the various disciplines of science and humanities that poke holes in a religion are “hell-bent on destroying it”?

No. What you should believe is that those in these various disciplines already believe that religion has been shown to be false, and base their work on the assumption.

A Muslim would just as easily say the same for the Quran.

This is weird, because you seem to be implying that religion in itself is inherently hopeless in defending itself.

Well, science is the study of the material. But there is a minority of scientists who are religious. There are Christian and Buddhist and Hindu scientists, and presumably more from other faiths. (One has to wonder why they aren’t all Christian if the evidence is “obvious.” These are scientists, after all. They understand evidence when they see it.)

The type of evidence that scientists work with is very small. Modern science is such a narrow field that to use it to strong arm theism is laughable… and disappointing. I would think someone as smart as yourself wouldn’t foolishly reduce the world to modern science…

Biblical archaeology is not based on assumptions but on fact.

Facts are understood through theories, and theories themselves are understood through metaphysics and epistemology, aka assumptions…

Wouldn’t a Muslims say the same to you? Are you being “not neutral” for disregarding his religion?

I’m not being neutral. But “lack of belief” sounds like an attempt to make a neutral position where there is none.

Regarding some of your other arguments about the Bible, you seem to be working with the assumption that the Bible is a literal, historical document. It is not, at least, not only. First and foremost it is a theology that used history: theology primarily, history secondary. Once you understand the mindset of the authors and Author, many objections from modern scholarship look like the blind leading the blind.

Most of the other pieces of interest make assumptions of materialism, which are useless in arguments with the faithful.

Christi pax,

Lucretius