The Absurdity of Atheism

[Aloysium]

But you haven’t done anything with truth. You type in vague terms.

If you want to know about God, there is one important thing to keep in mind, and that is that as the ultimate Ground of being, He who creates and knows all, He is unknowable other that through what is revealed by the Son and the grace of the Holy Spirit. The ultimate truth is unknowable otherwise. Every statement about Him, that is not is not a step in the journey towards Him will be a distortion of the Truth. My speaking about Him Is in essence simply a form of prayer and meditation. These words are not so much to be taken as any sort of proof, but rather hopefully to be contemplated as one would listen to the wind, waves breaking on the shore, the laughter of a small child. The hope is that they may awaken something within the heart.

 

[NM505StKate]

If you want to know about God, there is one important thing to keep in mind, and that is that as the ultimate Ground of being, He who creates and knows all, He is unknowable other that through what is revealed by the Son and the grace of the Holy Spirit. The ultimate truth is unknowable otherwise. Every statement about Him, that is not is not a step in the journey towards Him will be a distortion of the Truth. My speaking about Him Is in essence simply a form of prayer and meditation. These words are not so much to be taken as any sort of proof, but rather hopefully to be contemplated as one would listen to the wind, waves breaking on the shore, the laughter of a small child. The hope is that they may awaken something within the heart.

So you want me to consider your words like that of me enjoying the waves of the sea or enjoying a breeze?

 

[NM505StKate]

Whenever one says that God is a god, they are often failing at making this distinction.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe in Thor?

What is Being as such? It’s like something that is purely actual, and gives being to all of us lower beings.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

That doesn’t sound like anything. Just a word salad.

 

[NM505StKate]

As opposed to non-being. We have existence (or more accurately, participate in the action of existence). God is existence itself. Not in a pantheist way, mind.

How is God existence itself?

And God is not comparable to a unicorn, or Santa, or the Easter Bunny. He is not a contigent being. God is understood as a metaphysical necessity.

Why is God a metaphysical necessity?

And it’s not applying God in reverse to fill in the metaphysical gap, it’s following the arguments to what is metaphysically necessary, determining it’s attributes through reason, and only then realizing it’s to that being that we’ve been referring to historically as God and as the only being which could be thought of as a God in the western sense of the word.

And I think he’s referring to the “You’re an atheist for 3,000 other gods, why not one more?” argument that’s hurled around.

Is this not a fair argument? Do you believe in Ishtar? If no then you are an atheist of Ishtar. How about Hathor? Again if no you are an atheist of Hathor. See the connection?

 

[Lucretius]

Let me ask you this. Do you believe in Thor?

I’m sorry, but I’ve been explaining this over and over again. Are you sure your rejection of Christianity is informed?

Because comparing the existence of God and the existence of Thor over and over again indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you aren’t willing to listen!

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

How is God existence itself?

Why is God a metaphysical necessity?

If God exists, He is the explanation for contigent being, because contigent being required necessary being by its very nature.

Is this not a fair argument? Do you believe in Ishtar? If no then you are an atheist of Ishtar. How about Hathor? Again if no you are an atheist of Hathor. See the connection?

Do you even know what we believe?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[inocente]

But your profile states you are Catholic. Why? Why do you keep dodging the question? You consider yourself an Atheist. I messaged you a while ago, and you told me you were. Why continue to label yourself Catholic on your profile?

Perhaps you missed the moderator’s warning a few days back to discuss the subject, not each other. I think the poster said she was raised as a Catholic, so it’s not for anyone to tell her she isn’t. Perhaps she has not fully made up her mind, perhaps there’s another reason, but it’s not our business. If she believes she’s Catholic then she is a Catholic, and the forum rules don’t allow anyone to question her sincerity.

 

[owr39]

Perhaps you missed the moderator’s warning a few days back to discuss the subject, not each other. I think the poster said she was raised as a Catholic, so it’s not for anyone to tell her she isn’t. Perhaps she has not fully made up her mind, perhaps there’s another reason, but it’s not our business. If she believes she’s Catholic then she is a Catholic, and the forum rules don’t allow anyone to question her sincerity.

The she is a he. I find an issue with that, because it’s misleading, and can be confusing for people. Plus, why can’t they declare if they are, or aren’t Catholic, especially if they label themselves Catholic on their profile. When I first joined the forum, I sought out people who seemed to have trouble with their faith, but then found a solid ground with it. I messaged him, and he told me he was an Atheist. Maybe someone like me again will come along, and also be mislead by him. At the very least, own up to it.

 

[Aloysium]

So you want me to consider your words like that of me enjoying the waves of the sea or enjoying a breeze?

This is, but the previous post was not a personal communication.
This is a public forum and I talk past you really, to whomever drops in.
I don’t want you to do anything. Do what you will.
If what I say has any meaning for you, great; if not, meh.

 

[inocente]

The she is a he. I find an issue with that, because it’s misleading, and can be confusing for people.

I call everyone a she when I don’t know. There’s a Baptist who every so often is a Sikh or a Muslim. Sometimes, to fit in with friends, she tries to see things as a Jehovah’s Witness or an evangelical or an atheist or a Catholic. Is she me? Is she a he? Some people find it harder than others to cope with ambiguities. Let it be bro. Or sis .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you’re_a_dog

 

[owr39]

I call everyone a she when I don’t know. There’s a Baptist who every so often is a Sikh or a Muslim. Sometimes, to fit in with friends, she tries to see things as a Jehovah’s Witness or an evangelical or an atheist or a Catholic. Is she me? Is she a he? Some people find it harder than others to cope with ambiguities. Let it be bro. Or sis .

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you’re_a_dog

Cool story bro

 

[tonyrey]

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.

That is an excellent example of the genetic fallacy! Explaining the brain’s activity tells us nothing about the truth or falsity of religion - or any other belief for that matter (including the truth or falsity of scientific hypotheses). Science is incapable of explaining itself…

 

[Lucretius]

That is an excellent example of the genetic fallacy! Explaining the brain’s activity tells us nothing about the truth or falsity of religion - or any other belief for that matter (including the truth or falsity of scientific hypotheses). Science is incapable of explaining itself…

Science was invented by the medievals to be the handmaiden of philosophy…the moderns made it to be the handmaiden of engineering…and we are making it to be the handmaiden of ideology, especially political ideology.

I find many things scientists say are true to be as much of a fairy tale as any myth. Just because a fantasy doesn’t have magic or miracles, doesn’t make it not a fantasy, or better than fantasies with magic and miracles.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

All I’m saying is there isn’t a reason not to trust many of these witnesses, except for dogmatic materialism, of course.

Then there is no reason not to trust the tens of thousands (make that hundreds of thousands) who saw the Virgin Mary at Zeitoun. But I’ll wager that you put more trust in second hand reports of 4 people written decades after a one off event two thousand years ago than you do of first hand reports and pictures (and film surely) of an event that happened many times over a period of many months just a few years ago. Why would that be?

When I read this thread all I saw was the atheist side continuously sayig the “atheism is a lack of belief,” “atheism is an absence of belief.” I just took you all at your word…

And extrapolated that to a claim that atheists are apathetic. Do you still want to hold to that?

Of course. Humans naturally believe in meaningful universe.

They do? Well, if they have a belief system similar to yours, then yes. Otherwise not so much. It certainly doesn’t seem like it was created for us. Seems like an awful waste of space.

So, wouldn’t that mean that some, or even all nations are wrong, at least some of the time?

Make that people. Not nations.

In the same way, if atheists don’t see evidence for God, shouldn’t they act as if God exists, just as the police act as if there are innocents, until proven otherwise?

And if a Hindu uses the same argument? Which diva should I choose?

God isn’t a being among beings, but Being. This objection is based on a category error. Monotheism is reduced polytheism. The fact that most atheists make this basic mistake here makes me skeptical if you have ever seriously understood what you are rejecting…

Ah, if that were the only description of God. If that were the only thing we had to believe, then there may be a planet-full of believers. Not Christians, you’ll note. Just people who believe in Being (another word that takes on mystical qualities when capitalised). Your problem is that there are countless other matters that must be taken on board in order to become a Christian. Otherwise you are just, at best, a deist.

There is a HUGE leap from: ‘Look, it appears as if something created the Universe’ to ‘contraception is wrong, you will go to hell if you are immoral, you can’t marry this person, He had a son who rose from the grave, He is one, but really three, there is original sin and an original couple…’ Et cetera. Did I say a leap? Correction. There is no connection.

 

[Lucretius]

Then there is no reason not to trust the tens of thousands (make that hundreds of thousands) who saw the Virgin Mary at Zeitoun.

Well, they said they witnessed a miracle. We even have after effects of the miracle, like healings and the like. Seems pretty trustworthy to me. What reasons shouldn’t we trust them, I wonder?

You say we have no reason to trust them? Do I have a reason to trust anyone, even myself, my senses?

You sound like you want the crowd to be untrustworthy because they’ve seen a miracle. You want to say that we have no evidence for miracles, and then when evidence is presented, you say it’s not trustworthy, because it shows evidence of miracles!

But I’ll wager that you put more trust in second hand reports of 4 people written decades after a one off event two thousand years ago than you do of first hand reports and pictures (and film surely) of an event that happened many times over a period of many months just a few years ago. Why would that be?

I put my trust where I put my trust. The reason I’m Christian is because of the witness of the Saints throughout the ages, and not just four witnesses. I have very, very many witnesses.

And if a Hindu uses the same argument? Which diva should I choose?

By far, the closest correspondence to God in Hinduism is Brahmin, not divas. In fact, “god” and “diva” don’t really correspond either.

Ah, if that were the only description of God. If that were the only thing we had to believe, then there may be a planet-full of believers. Not Christians, you’ll note. Just people who believe in Being (another word that takes on mystical qualities when capitalised). Your problem is that there are countless other matters that must be taken on board in order to become a Christian. Otherwise you are just, at best, a deist.

Most people do believe in a kind of Classical Theism, and it is noticeable in both the Hindu’s Brahmin and the Chinese Heaven.

God in deism is just a god, and not God, BTW. He isn’t Being, but rather a being.

There is a HUGE leap from: ‘Look, it appears as if something created the Universe’ to ‘contraception is wrong, you will go to hell if you are immoral, you can’t marry this person, He had a son who rose from the grave, He is one, but really three, there is original sin and an original couple…’ Et cetera. Did I say a leap? Correction. There is no connection.

Hahaha hahaha. Impatient, are we? Why is it that modern people want everything complex proved in three easy steps? It took 500 years to ruin metaphysics, so it might just take a while to fix that, not alone everything else

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

Well, they said they witnessed a miracle. We even have after effects of the miracle, like healings and the like. Seems pretty trustworthy to me. What reasons shouldn’t we trust them, I wonder?

You say we have no reason to trust them?

I didn’t say that they were untrustworthy. I wanted to know if you thought a greater number of witnesses were an indication of greater veracity. And as you said, you just don’t rely on 4, you are Christian because you have very many. But are the 4 not enough? Is your belief stronger because there are more witnesses?

Just imagine that your witnesses were the hundreds of thousands that said they saw the Virgin Mary just a few years ago. Not just once, but multiple times. There are pictures of the event. Trustworthy people reported it. How could I possibly deny what those thousands said they saw? You have a cast iron case.

But then I bring forward my case which consists of witnesses who contradict what you believe. And your response would be: ‘Are you kidding me? A couple of second hand stories which actually contradict each other in the details, written decades after the event which took place TWO THOUSAND YEARS ago, in a place rife with superstition, supposedly told by 3 or 4 ill-educated and itinerant sheep herders? Are you serious? There isn’t even any certainty that the people you say wrote these stories actually did so and even the originals are long lost and have been translated I don’t know how many times’.

I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. In fact, I don’t think I’d bother making a case, it being so weak.

But now we have a situation where the recent miracle with hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses is ignored by your church and the ancient one with 4 is treated as, excuse the pun, gospel.

Go figure.

 

[Nixbits]

Lucretius:

And then I have an example to when the burden of proof is given to the police to prove there aren’t innocents in a building before they shoot into it. They don’t have evidence that there are innocents, but they still have to prove that there aren’t. Why isn’t the burden of proof like this with the Existence of God?

The trivially obvious difference is that the police have very good evidence that innocent people do exist in the world, so there is a possibility that innocent people could conceivably be in the vicinity when they are shooting.

 

[Nixbits]

owr39:

I find an issue with that, because it’s misleading, and can be confusing for people. Plus, why can’t they declare if they are, or aren’t Catholic, especially if they label themselves Catholic on their profile.

As an aside, since it’s not really on-topic for this thread, one of the problems is the Catholic Church’s own definitions. To the RCC, I’m a Catholic. I was baptised and confirmed. I don’t consider myself a Catholic, however, because I’m an agnostic atheist. But the RCC disagrees, it seems. So it’s at least reasonable that I’m unsure about how to describe myself on this forum. In another thread I explained that I was an atheist Catholic, but that didn’t meet with universal approval (to say the least!) and the thread was later deleted altogether.

The forum doesn’t require contributors to identify the religious affiliation (if any) of their upbringing as distinct from their own self-identification of their current religious beliefs (if any). Without such a distinction, it’s unwise to assume much about a person from the ‘Religion’ specified in their profile, and inappropriate to complain when some people choose to interpret it differently to yourself.

 

[Aloysium]

Only one witness is necessary and required, and that person is oneself. But, if one doesn’t look, there is nothing to witness. When the light and the scope reveal nothing, it’s time for something different. There’s no standing still in this game; one moves either toward or away from the Light.

 

[Lucretius]

The more sensible approach would be that a person acts as though a god does not exist until it’s proven that it does.

Why? I see this asserted, but arguments don’t come with such a priori baggage. In fact, I think this assertion is an attempt to make this baggage conventional That’s whybi gave an example where we take the opposite approach: it isn’t clear whybwe should take this approach when it comes to the existence of God, since the existence of God is a keystone in two vastly different metaphysics, which radically change how people approach and act in the world.

It’s a lack of belief…in gods.
But atheists have beliefs about *other *things.

Atheists have to believe in a lot of things, in order to reject arguments for the existence of God. In fact, Nietzsche laid down a lot of what atheists have to believe if they were serious and logically consistent.

Christi pax,

Lucretius