The Absurdity of Atheism

[Randy_Carson]

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).

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.

Words mean things. Here are some words and their meanings:

GOD

God is the supernatural creator of the universe, a being that is necessary (cannot fail to exist), eternal (not bound by time), immaterial (not bound by space), all-powerful, and all-knowing. Finally, most Western theologians and philosophers claim that God is all-good, or he is the perfect embodiment of the virtues of love, justice, and every other good we know. He is, as St. Anselm of Canterbury declared, the being “than which no greater can be thought.”

ATHEISM – God does not exist.

Atheism literally means “without God” and can be divided into either strong or weak types. Strong or positive atheism holds that God does not exist with certainty. Weak or negative atheism merely holds that there is not enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Another name for atheism is naturalism, or the view that only the natural world exists. Naturalists may admit that there are things in our universe we cannot detect (like particles that are smaller than atoms) or natural objects outside of our universe (like “multiverses”), but they deny the existence of a supernatural being that transcends nature. Atheism is also sometimes called materialism, or the belief that only matter exists, and therefore an immaterial being like God does not. But atheism is not the same thing as materialism, because some atheists believe in the existence of immaterial things that are not God (like minds or numbers).

AGNOSTICISM – Cannot know or does not know if God exists.

Agnosticism (from gnosis, the Greek word for knowledge) is the position that a person cannot know if God exists. A strong agnostic claims that no one is able to know whether God exists. A weak agnostic merely claims that while he doesn’t know if God exists, it is possible that someone else may know. Agnosticism and weak atheism are similar in that both groups claim to be “without belief in God.”

THEISM – God Exists.

Theists believe that a personal God exists who interacts with the world. There are several types of theists.

Pantheism. The term pantheism is built upon the Greek roots pan, which means all, and theos, which means god; thus, pantheism is either the belief that the universe is God and worthy of worship, or that God is the sum total of all there is and that the combined substances, forces, and natural laws which we see around us are but manifestations of God.

Panentheism. The term panentheism is Greek for “all-in-God,” pan-en-theos. A panentheistic belief system is one which posits a god that interpenetrates every part of nature, but is nevertheless fully distinct from nature. So this god is part of nature, but still retains an independent identity.

Polytheism. The term polytheism is based on the Greek roots poly, which means many, and theos, which means god. Thus, the label polytheism is used where a plurality of gods are acknowledged and/or worshipped. Through the course of human history, polytheistic religions of one sort or another have been a dominant majority by far.

Monolatry – many gods exist but only one is to be worshipped

Dualism – one good god, one bad god

Monotheism. The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos, which means one, and theos, which means god. Thus, monotheism is a belief in the existence of a single god. Monotheism is usually contrasted with polytheism, which is the belief in many gods, and atheism, which is the absence of any belief in gods.

Deism. Deism is actually a form of monotheism, but distinct in character and development. In addition to adopting general monotheism, deists also accept the specific ideas that the single existing god is personal in nature and transcendent from the created universe. However,  they reject the idea that this this god is immanent, which is to say presently active in the created universe.

Among the religiously unaffiliated is what sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Denton call moralistic therapeutic deism, which claims that:

1. God exists and watches over the world.
2. God wants people to be nice, and good people go to heaven.
3. God is not needed in life unless there is a problem he can solve, because the purpose of life is to be happy.
   
   Judaism.
   Christianity.
   Islam.

NIHILISM – Nothing Matters.

 

[Lucretius]

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

This isn’t a reason to doubt, but an assertion to doubt, a purely arbitrary doubt that can be used to deny, well, whatever you want. For example:

“Evolution must be true. So many scientists couldn’t be wrong…”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Words mean things. Here are some words and their meanings:

Is that from Trent Horn?

 

[Lion_IRC]

If it’s from Trent Horn what then?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If it’s from Trent Horn what then?

I ask from curiosity. There is no conditional statement to follow based on the source being affirmed or not affirmed.

In either case there is a potential side discussion on a prescriptive view of language v a descriptive view of language. But a discussion of that and the evolution of words and their usages /meanings might be both derailing and is already discussed elsewhere in this forum.

 

[inocente]

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

I don’t know if all Christians accept soul competency - that each person is accountable to God for her own salvation. For those who do believe it, a person justifies her beliefs to God alone, since she is the only one competent to determine her own path. Baptists believe in this, in the liberty and responsibility of each soul, and so if she decides to join another religion or to not join any, that’s her decision which only she can make, and it’s for God not us to judge whether she chose well.

Probably the main reason for not believing something, is having no good reason to believe. So if you presented the reasons why you chose your own faith, you might convince others. Evangelize not criticize, as it were.

 

[inocente]

Words mean things. Here are some words and their meanings:

An issue on this thread has been definitions. I disagree with yours, which seem rather Catholic oriented.

Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, rather it’s a lack of belief in any deities. Nor is it a synonym for naturalism or materialism. For instance many cultures are animist, they believe in souls or spirits but not in deities - they are atheist but believe that more than the natural world exists. I know two atheists who believe in angels.

Theism is not a belief in a personal God, it’s a belief in one or more deities. Nor is monotheism confined to your definition of God, for instance in Jainism there is no creator since the world has always existed. Indeed, some Christians would say, me included, that God cannot be defined, that He surpasses any definition other than his own (I AM WHO I AM).

But you and others will disagree with my definitions, particularly when it comes to their own beliefs.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . there is a potential side discussion on a prescriptive view of language v a descriptive view of language. But a discussion of that and the evolution of words and their usages /meanings might be both derailing and is already discussed elsewhere in this forum.

The meaning of atheism, what it should mean and how the term is actually used would be relevant to a discussion regarding its absurdity. Whatever the approach however, it seems clear that the person thus self-defined, wishes to communicate a view of a universe that is without God. Clearly, this would be understood in different ways and held with different degrees of conviction.

If we try to conceptualize this “as if” universe without God, we see that it very closely approximates what we read in history and science books and what is portrayed in the media. It is a meaningless world of violence, power and death.

Pantheists and other such perspectives on the Divine aside, without God, death, the dust of which we are formed, is understood to be the essence of our being. Things exist on their own, disconnected as part of some complex clockwork of a universe, self-made and ticking its way to oblivion, as we are all as individuals (whatever that may be).

“Artificial intelligence” brought about as part of the advancement in computer programming has been portrayed as being the equivalent of human reason. Disconnected minds, perhaps existing, perhaps illusion, inexplicable and therefore discounted by some, impute moral standards, real or desired, to the realm of social interaction.

Mirroring this world, atheism in its various forms is as absurd as the fruitless search for meaning within the transient and illusory mundane.

A life without God constitutes a reality rooted in death. Jesus the innocent Lamb, took every expression of death upon Himself: the physical suffering, the powerlessness, loss of everything including His life, the humiliation, the abandonment. In overcoming and vanquishing death, in the resurrection, He brings us to the eternal Life that is the true Centre from which all comes into being. All is Life, eternal, joyous, beautiful and glorious in its grandeur.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The meaning of atheism, what it should mean and how the term is actually used would be relevant to a discussion regarding its absurdity.

Ambiguity can be avoided if one shares their usage when they invoke the word knowing that their usage might not match that of another. I don’t think much traction is going to be made on getting everyone to conform to specific semantics here. But if you feel you can do so without derailing the thread have at it.

An issue on this thread has been definitions.

I was catching up on one of my radio shows/podcast and on 22 March part of the discussion was titled “‘None’ and Religious Identity Today” (Nones being inclusive of atheists but not limited to them). There were a couple of places in it when they also mentioned problems of language.

Around 9 minutes in
Phil Zuckerman:

“…we have to be careful about the labels Atheist and Agnostics and the orientations of Atheist and Agnostic. Most people don’t like to self label as either of those, especially Atheist; they are highly stigmatized. But if we ask people not how they identify but just in terms of their orientation the American Religious Identification Survey found that about 47% of the Nones are Atheist or Agnostic in orientation but not necessarily self labeling because these are highly stigmatized identities.”

Not that this comes as a surprise, but I think it supports the view that the labels might not be a good way for knowing about what one believes and what their position is with these matters. Less related to Atheists and more about others within a set of ‘Nones’ at a divinity school at Harvard Divinity School there was a group there that had problems with finding a label for identifying themselves. About 26 minutes in:
Angie Thurston:

…that goes to show that one of the great challenges we’re facing right now is around language. And when we started the religious ‘Nones’ group we looked at first for positive language. One of the early names of the groups was the HDS humanist. But when we looked at the group of us that started that program we realized that none of us identified positively as humanist. So at the moment of nothing in particular, none of the above, spiritual but not religious, and the longer explanations of the kind that Daniel is giving, that is what we are resorting to. But when we are striving to come together that is one of the challenges that we face; how to we speak each other and speak to the larger society about who and what we are as Daniel said as people of this earth.

 

[NM505StKate]

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”.

How? How is being an atheist self-contradictory? You are not making any sense in saying completely negative.

 

[NM505StKate]

A life without God constitutes a reality rooted in death.

How do you get to this reasoning?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;13775782:

If it’s from Trent Horn what then?

I ask from curiosity. There is no conditional statement to follow based on the source being affirmed or not affirmed.

In either case there is a potential side discussion on a prescriptive view of language v a descriptive view of language. But a discussion of that and the evolution of words and their usages /meanings might be both derailing and is already discussed elsewhere in this forum.

Right.
And that would be yet another derail just like the potential discussion about Trent Horn.
It would distract us from discussing the actual substance of Randy Carsons post.
wink

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It would distract us from discussing the actual substance of Randy Carsons post.

I had already expressed thoughts applicable to the post earlier within the thread (ex: second paragraph #648). No need to repeat them. I don’t think I’ve distracted from his post. If you would like to discuss his post or bring attention to some part of it you are equipped and free to do so.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[tonyrey]

How? How is being an atheist self-contradictory? You are not making any sense in saying completely negative.

Being an atheist per se is completely negative = “God does not exist”. It implies there is no reason why anything or anyone exists - including atheists! This is obviously self-destructive because it includes not only atheists but their view:

There is no reason for the atheist’s view that “God does not exist”…

 

[Bradski]

“Evolution must be true. So many scientists couldn’t be wrong…”

So many scientists could be wrong. It’s not the numbers of people who believe something that makes it more likely. It is the weight of evidence.

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.

There is an explanation. After all, tens of thousands all reporting the same thing can’t be wrong. The papal residence in Cairo says the explanation is that Mary actually appeared. Many times. So the biggest event in world history since the Resurrection and…the most you will find out about it is on a few badly presented web sites.

So much for the reliability of tens of thousands of witnesses in recent memory. And for the Resurrection itself? A second hand account of 4 people two millennium ago. And you are astonished at my scepticism.

 

[Solmyr]

After all, tens of thousands all reporting the same thing can’t be wrong.

Oh, my friend! You almost killed me, the coffee came back thorough my nose. When I read this sentence, I had to remember an old poster (several decades ago), which depicted a beautifully laid table, with china, silverware and crystal glasses. On the central plate where was a “steaming pile of (ahem…) waste product”… and the caption ran: “One billion flies can’t all be wrong… what don’t you taste it, too?”

 

[Lion_IRC]

Bradski,

I think you’re not being specific enough in your skepticism of the various different elements contained in the one sentence.

Thousands of people saw some ‘thing’.

You can dispute whether there were thousands of people - as opposed to hundreds or dozens or none.

You can dispute whether they were actually people - as opposed to monkeys or robots or Martians.

You can dispute whether they were actually ‘seeing’ the thing empirically or just imagining, hallucinating, dreaming, etc.

You can dispute whether the ‘thing’ they claimed to see was in fact that which they claimed to see - as opposed to a fake, a mirage, a trompe L’oeil, a real albeit incorrectly identified thing, etc.

But don’t you nonetheless accept that if ten thousand people really did see something then it’s gonna take more than the opinion of just one single (skeptical/fallible) human to discredit so much anecdotal evidence.

Remember, your gainsaying statement of disbelief is itself nothing more than a claim to the contrary. So why shouldn’t we be skeptical of your belief that nobody ever saw anything?

 

[oldcelt]

Being an atheist per se is completely negative = “God does not exist”. It implies there is no reason why anything or anyone exists - including atheists! This is obviously self-destructive because it includes not only atheists but their view:

There is no reason for the atheist’s view that “God does not exist”…

Tony, Do you never tire of this same argument? There are many here among us who do not need a god to find meaning in this life. Therefore, your continued statements are false. It is really that simple.

John

 

[Bradski]

But don’t you nonetheless accept that if ten thousand people really did see something then it’s gonna take more than the opinion of just one single (skeptical/fallible) human to discredit so much anecdotal evidence.

Remember, your gainsaying statement of disbelief is itself nothing more than a claim to the contrary. So why shouldn’t we be skeptical of your belief that nobody ever saw anything?

You are completely missing the point. I’ll try again…

It has been claimed that the Resurrection must be true because we have eye witness accounts. Which is not true in the first instance. What we have are contradictory second hand reports written many decades after the event saying that 4 people possibly saw something as a one off event.

In regard to Zeitoun, many hundreds of thousands of people saw what has been claimed as the Virgin Mary herself making multiple appearances over many months. This a few decades ago. Yet this event, which if true, and your argument is that if so many people claim it to be true then who are we to discredit so much evidence, is a non-event.

The site at which this is meant to have occurred, if true, must be one of the most holy places on earth. With the exception of the Second Coming, I can’t imagine an event that would galvanise the Catholic faith more.

So how many Catholics know about this? Ask around. Next to none. Maybe you’d never heard of it. And what does the Vatican say about it. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Zip. As far as they are concerned, it’s a non event. Not worth commenting on. In other words…it didn’t happen.

People didn’t actually see what they kept saying they could see. Thousands of them. Tens of thousands. Maybe even hundreds of thousands. A few years back. All wrong. At least, according to the Vatican (can you imagine their response if they thought it was true?).

And you want me to believe second hand reports about 4 people two thousand years ago.

 

[inocente]

I was catching up on one of my radio shows/podcast and on 22 March part of the discussion was titled “‘None’ and Religious Identity Today” (Nones being inclusive of atheists but not limited to them). There were a couple of places in it when they also mentioned problems of language.

Around 9 minutes in

"…we have to be careful about the labels Atheist and Agnostics and the orientations of Atheist and Agnostic. Most people don’t like to self label as either of those, especially Atheist; they are highly stigmatized. But if we ask people not how they identify but just in terms of their orientation the American Religious Identification Survey found that about 47% of the Nones are Atheist or Agnostic in orientation but not necessarily self labeling because these are highly stigmatized identities."

Not that this comes as a surprise, but I think it supports the view that the labels might not be a good way for knowing about what one believes and what their position is with these matters. Less related to Atheists and more about others within a set of ‘Nones’ at a divinity school at Harvard Divinity School there was a group there that had problems with finding a label for identifying themselves. About 26 minutes in:
Angie Thurston:

…that goes to show that one of the great challenges we’re facing right now is around language. And when we started the religious ‘Nones’ group we looked at first for positive language. One of the early names of the groups was the HDS humanist. But when we looked at the group of us that started that program we realized that none of us identified positively as humanist. So at the moment of nothing in particular, none of the above, spiritual but not religious, and the longer explanations of the kind that Daniel is giving, that is what we are resorting to. But when we are striving to come together that is one of the challenges that we face; how to we speak each other and speak to the larger society about who and what we are as Daniel said as people of this earth.

Thanks for posting that, it was interesting to hear.

There’s a monthly opinion poll taken for Congress here in Spain - 60% of people say they almost never go to church or mosque etc., but 72% say they have a religion. In the poll for February ten years ago, the results were 47% and 80% respectively. So there’s a large and growing group who aren’t active in their religion, and a shrinking number of those who don’t want to say they’re agnostic or atheist.

Seems the “Nones” are not confined to your side of the Pond. Whether it represents a protest against organized religions, a long-term shift, or both, is above my pay grade. But I think people still need spirituality and to join together, that can’t change, it’s in our nature.