The Absurdity of Atheism

[Lucretius]

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’.

Which is why you don’t understand me, because that isn’t what I would say (if I’m in a good mood: I find that I become dogmatic when I’m irritable. But latter on I calm down and think clearer).

My first response is that it is ludicrous to think “educated” people are better witnesses.

My second response is that we are fairly certain that they did write these down or dictated then. It is only this stupid modern attempt to make everything 100% certain, which Descartes introduced, that trips people up. News flash: when it comes to the personal dimension of life, nothing is that certain, which is why trust and faith is a virtue.

My third response is that we know the text hasn’t been changed in any meaningful way, in part because we have close enough documents to the originals, and we have reference to the original texts in other documents.

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.

Most texts throughout history come from monks in the high medieval ages (the New Testament is a rarity), and so we should doubt most of history, in your view.

However, the deeper problem with your critique is that it implicitly believes are intellectual examinations of evidence ultimately reduce to the bias of the examiner, which is false. People have bias, sure…but people can become conscious of their bias, and use it as a means to overcome it, to see the truth.

Ask yourself, are you dogmatically rejecting miracles, because there is so much evidence for miracles, it’s ridiculous. Just look at all the reports throughout history and the world, and tell me how every single person, young and old, intellegent and stupid were dead wrong. Not mistaken in their interpretation, but completely wrong on their face: you don’t need science to tell you that the dead don’t raise, or fire doesn’t come from the sky!

(The writers of the New Testement, like St. John and St. Paul, were clearly highly educated, BTW).

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.

What are you talking about?

Also, just because a witness is old, doesn’t make him bad witness, or less of a witness than youth. That’s chronological snobbery right there

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[owr39]

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.

Being unsure of how to describe yourself if understandable, and you have left your religion blank, so nobody should assume what religion you practice. The only issue is if you’re unsure, don’t label yourself Catholic, because it can be confusing to other posters. Perhaps it’s not a requirement, but alas, it has been confusing to people. At the very least, acknowledge or address the confusion as a courtesy to fellow users of the forum.

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t know if science is incapable of explaining itself, but it seems that psychology can often explain why we believe something without any evidence.

Which is exactly why it begs the question against the religous person: religious people actually have arguments for their positions.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Entwhistler]

Metaphysics is not a true philosophy because it only works if one assumes a contested premise–namely, the existence of the supernatural.

Just passing through and reading a bit of the conversation…and…Whoah! Um…wow…

 

[Lucretius]

Just passing through and reading a bit of the conversation…and…Whoah! Um…wow…

People using metaphysics to deny metaphysics, right? :hypno:

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[tonyrey]

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…

Such as the truth of atheism?

 

[NM505StKate]

Such as the truth of atheism?

That is a non-belief in god(s).

 

[tonyrey]

*Such as the truth of atheism? *

Non-belief is based on reasons if it is rational. It cannot be completely negative because as King Lear said, “Nothing shall come from nothing”.

That is why nihilism is self-contradictory. “I am a nihilist” is a positive statement! So is “I am an atheist”.

 

[tonyrey]

Metaphysics is not a true philosophy because it only works if one assumes a contested premise–namely, the existence of the supernatural.

I share your reaction!

Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality: it goes beyond physics which is not the be-all and end-all of life unless one is a materialist. Materialism itself presupposes the existence of a rational mind unless inanimate molecules can understand themselves!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Non-belief is based on reasons if it is rational.

How would you determine if someone not yet being convinced is rational or non-rational⸮?

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a religion. It’s a non-belief.

If atheism is not a belief then it must be a certainty.
And if it’s a certainty then we would expect you to provide the evidentiary basis for that certainty. The belief that God does not exist is not a “non-belief”

There’s only 3 options.

God/gods?

1. Yes (theist)
2. No. (atheist)
3. Don’t know / Don’t care. (agnostic)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If atheism is not a belief then it must be a certainty.

What you are saying seems more applicable to what are sometimes labeled as “strong atheist.” Most (though not all) of those self-identifying as “atheist” that I’ve encountered in these forums seem to conform to the descriptions I’ve seen for the label “agnostic atheist.”

A lot of disagreement that is occurring within this thread is from what seems to be a difference in semantics. Within Catholic materiel that I’ve looked at the usage of “atheist” seems to denote a person that asserts that there is no God (or gods). Self-identified atheist that you encounter mI got not have explored those materials and their usage is probably derive from a different usage that what is used in many Catholic materials. They simply have not been convinced of the existence of God (or gods) or have lost the previously held conviction.

Dictionaries track word usage. As such you can find dictionaries that list both usages of the words (dictionaries don’t all have the same corpus so there are variations in definitions). This may be an issue that is better treated as one might treat people that speak a different dialect of a language. For example, rather than argue whic of British English or USA English is the correct dialect we might notice there are differences and interpret accordingly.

If you find a set of self-identified atheist there’s a pretty good chance you’ll get a uniform “no” to the question “Are you convinced that God (or gods) exists?” But you may get more variance to the question “Do you know whether or not God (or gods) exists?” You would probably label people in this group as “agnostic” When classifying them for yourself. But once again depending on semantics the person mI got wealth that label along side the “atheist” label.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Perhaps I tend to over-simplify things.

What’s wrong with atheists just admitting that either God does or does not exist.

And if you think He doesn’t exist then you’re an atheist.

And if you are undecided you are an agnostic.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What’s wrong with atheists just admitting that either God does or does not exist.

Given a specific God-concept you can probably get many to agree that there either exists or does not exists an entity that matches that description (assuming bivalent truth values. So if any one part of the description is wrong than the description would be evaluated as false, and ignoring the ignostics for now).

And if you think He doesn’t exist then you’re an atheist.

I think that’s where you’ll get into the discussion of nuances. Some people self identifying as atheist would not adopt “I think he doesn’t exists” but would be okay with “I don’t think he exists.” That’s already happened in this thread.

And if you are undecided you are an agnostic.

“Agnostic” isn’t necessarily seen as mutually exclusive. A person can see them self as being both an atheist and an agnostic, using agnostic to describe an attitude about ones knowledge position (without knowledge).

I think these discussions might go easier if a person is asked to explain their stance on the God proposition what ever their stance may be. It may help avoid the confusion that could happen from the differences in semantics for agnostic and atheist.

 

[davidv]

Given a specific God-concept

Why do you call it a concept? God, as being, either exists, or doesn’t. Sounds like a fallacious argument (straw man?).

you can probably get many to agree that there either exists or does not exists an entity that matches that description (assuming bivalent truth values. So if any one part of the description is wrong than the description would be evaluated as false, and ignoring the ignostics for now).

I think that’s where you’ll get into the discussion of nuances. Some people self identifying as atheist would not adopt “I think he doesn’t exists” but would be okay with “I don’t think he exists.” That’s already happened in this thread.

“Agnostic” isn’t necessarily seen as mutually exclusive. A person can see them self as being both an atheist and an agnostic, using agnostic to describe an attitude about ones knowledge position (without knowledge).

I think these discussions might go easier if a person is asked to explain their stance on the God proposition what ever their stance may be. It may help avoid the confusion that could happen from the differences in semantics for agnostic and atheist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why do you call it a concept? God, as being, either exists, or doesn’t. Sounds like a fallacious argument (straw man?).

Concept, abstraction, understanding,…

I could use any of these to refer to a description that one gives for an entity. This doesn’t imply that such a thing described exists or does not exists. One’s belief/position on whether or not an entity matching the description is in part the topic of discussion here. It’s not an argument or for or an argument against the real thing.

 

[Bradski]

Just look at all the reports throughout history and the world, and tell me how every single person, young and old, intellegent and stupid were dead wrong. Not mistaken in their interpretation, but completely wrong on their face:

Then it must be true. So many people couldn’t be wrong…

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lucretius:

…Just look at all the reports throughout history and the world, and tell me how every single person, young and old, intellegent and stupid were dead wrong. Not mistaken in their interpretation, but completely wrong on their face:

Then it must be true. So many people couldn’t be wrong…

It would be an extraordinary claim to assert that so many people were ALL wrong - every single one of them. And so it would be up to you to justify the claim that so many people WERE in fact all wrong.

 

[Bradski]

It would be an extraordinary claim to assert that so many people were ALL wrong - every single one of them. And so it would be up to you to justify the claim that so many people WERE in fact all wrong.

I’m not saying all of them are wrong. The claim is that there are so many people making claims that they must be true.

So if you get tens of thousands of people claiming to have seen the Virgin Mary on a rooftop, then it must be true. Because how could I justify in saying that so many people WERE in fact wrong.

Someone needs to explain that to the Vatican.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If you had tens of thousands all reporting the same thing that would demand an explanation.

One person asserting that they didn’t see anything would be a far more unbelievable claim than the original, multiple-attestations.

This is an example of why people like Frank Turek say it takes more faith to be an atheist/skeptic than he can muster.