The Absurdity of Atheism

[JapaneseKappa]

It sounds to me like a science of the Big Gap argument! In other words an appeal to ignorance… whereas we have constant, immediate evidence of our conscious, intangible mind which infers the existence of chemical and mathematical laws.

We have direct experience of our consciousness which is intangible.Everything else is supposition. Charity begins at home - in our mind.

First off, just because something is “intangible” doesn’t mean we’ve got to declare it to be supernatural. It is equally possible that we haven’t figured out how to “touch” it yet.

If you have an argument for why a mind is necessarily non-physical that’s one thing, but given our lack of understanding, I don’t think that there are many facts about consciousness you can appeal to other than “it seems like it” which sounds an awful lot like

Now you’re not even bothering to make the full God of the Gaps argument and simply making assertions. What I’m hearing is:

It is obvious to -]Aloysium/-] Tonyrey that we have a supernatural component, therefore we have a supernatural component.

Second, no one is arguing that consciousness doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that it doesn’t behave the way you assert that it does.

I feel as though an ancient Roman is claiming that my position is “earthquakes don’t exist” since I’m saying “Poseidon doesn’t cause the earth to shake.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Is this your “idée fixe”, tony? At least one other thread was submitted with the exact same title as this one… here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=987591&highlight=atheism just last year.

Yep, there were 2 of which I know.
2015 Edition
2009 Edition

You’ve probably noticed the internet today has a great deal of atheists. Many of them not only lack belief in any religion but also ridicule religious people.

Welcome to the Internet. People ridicule each other’s positions in general. I suspect that in disconnected anonymous forms of communication that people don’t extend the same courtesies that they might face-to-face or that they might if their real word identities were known.

I think given time, and in spite of all our flaws, one of the best ‘arguments’ for Christianity is hanging out with dedicated Christians.

There’s evidence to support this. It’s been found that having a person spend time with someone of an “other” position is often the most effective way to change their thoughts about that “other” category.

Tony - perhaps compiling your points into an argument in one piece would help people understand what you’re trying to say? Your answers to objections are sort of flippant without any substance and I’d like to see your thought process from beginning to end.

From a previous version of this thread:

The typical atheist makes the following assumptions:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
   purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

Are these propositions consistent?

 

[Rhubarb]

From a previous version of this thread:

I don’t know what a ‘typical’ atheist is but I don’t really think all the propositions listed are true of most atheists. Most of them are broad and quite open to objection. There’s nothing explicitly stated in believing God doesn’t exist that makes that list necessary.

But more to the point, it doesn’t constitute an argument. There’s no conclusion that I can see (except maybe that atheism is absurd) and that conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the list of propositions listed as they are listed. I’d also like to know what Tony means by ‘absurd’. Entailing a contradiction? Just plain silly? Demonstratively false? Also, there are distinctions between ‘value’, ‘purpose’, and ‘meaning’ that seems muddled. These are not co-extensive terms. Without clear premises and a conclusion, we don’t have an argument to analyze - we just have rambling. Ideas have been presented that we’re owed explanations for, otherwise we’re justified in simply dismissing them.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;13732312:

The so called atheist theories are built on the evidence.

What evidence is there for atheism?

‘Atheism’ is just a lack of a belief in God. So ‘evidence for atheism’ (i.e. that atheism exist) is direct observation.

What I actually referred to were ‘so called atheist theories’ - theories that happen not yo rely on the existence of God. What evidence they are based on will obviously depend on which theory you are referring to, but in the case of consciousness direct experimental evidence would include investigations into the structure of the brain, neurones and his they work and interact, studies of people and animals with various forms of brain damage, artificial neural nets and how they work, and so on.

 

[tonyrey]

Yep, there were 2 of which I know.
2015 Edition
2009 Edition

Welcome to the Internet. People ridicule each other’s positions in general. I suspect that in disconnected anonymous forms of communication that people don’t extend the same courtesies that they might face-to-face or that they might if their real word identities were known.

There’s evidence to support this. It’s been found that having a person spend time with someone of an “other” position is often the most effective way to change their thoughts about that “other” category.

From a previous version of this thread:

The obsession with the number of threads about I have submitted about atheism implies that there is nothing more to discuss on the subject - an assumption which is almost as absurd as the hypothesis that there is no reason why the universe exists!

 

[tonyrey]

‘Atheism’ is just a lack of a belief in God. So ‘evidence for atheism’ (i.e. that atheism exist) is direct observation…

Atheism implies that there is a superior interpretation of reality without which it is valueless.

 

[inocente]

I think tonyrey’s point is demonstrated by the Urey-Miller experiment of 1952 and all subsequent attempts, which failed to prove that molecules left to themselves can produce purposeful activity.

This, you will note, was an intelligently designed experiment.

Que? A basic aspect of science is that an experiment tests the specific hypothesis under question. Which was that the complex molecules needed for life could be produced spontaneously. Not that four billion years of evolution can be reproduced in one afternoon, or whatever else you think it should have tested.

For an experiment to test the hypothesis that molecules produce purposeful activity, look in the mirror.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know what a ‘typical’ atheist is but I don’t really think all the propositions listed are true of most atheists. Most of them are broad and quite open to objection. There’s nothing explicitly stated in believing God doesn’t exist that makes that list necessary.

But more to the point, it doesn’t constitute an argument. There’s no conclusion that I can see (except maybe that atheism is absurd) and that conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the list of propositions listed as they are listed. I’d also like to know what Tony means by ‘absurd’. Entailing a contradiction? Just plain silly? Demonstratively false? Also, there are distinctions between ‘value’, ‘purpose’, and ‘meaning’ that seems muddled. These are not co-extensive terms. Without clear premises and a conclusion, we don’t have an argument to analyze - we just have rambling. Ideas have been presented that we’re owed explanations for, otherwise we’re justified in simply dismissing them.

Anyone who knows anything about philosophy is aware that Camus and Sartre espoused belief in absurdity but became humanists because they realised that the flight from reason leads nowhere and leads to nihilism. No one else seems to have had any difficulty in grasping the meaning of the term…

 

[tonyrey]

Que? A basic aspect of science is that an experiment tests the specific hypothesis under question. Which was that the complex molecules needed for life could be produced spontaneously. Not that four billion years of evolution can be reproduced in one afternoon, or whatever else you think it should have tested.

For an experiment to test the hypothesis that molecules produce purposeful activity, look in the mirror.

In other words it amounts to an appeal to ignorance and an act of faith in the power of chance and physical necessity!

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know what a ‘typical’ atheist is but I don’t really think all the propositions listed are true of most atheists. Most of them are broad and quite open to objection. There’s nothing explicitly stated in believing God doesn’t exist that makes that list necessary.

But more to the point, it doesn’t constitute an argument. There’s no conclusion that I can see (except maybe that atheism is absurd) and that conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the list of propositions listed as they are listed. I’d also like to know what Tony means by ‘absurd’. Entailing a contradiction? Just plain silly? Demonstratively false? Also, there are distinctions between ‘value’, ‘purpose’, and ‘meaning’ that seems muddled. These are not co-extensive terms. Without clear premises and a conclusion, we don’t have an argument to analyze - we just have rambling. Ideas have been presented that we’re owed explanations for, otherwise we’re justified in simply dismissing them.

Anyone who knows anything about philosophy is aware that Camus and Sartre espoused belief in absurdity but became humanists because they realised that the flight from reason leads nowhere and leads to nihilism. No one else seems to have had any difficulty in grasping the meaning of the term…

 

[tonyrey]

First off, just because something is “intangible” doesn’t mean we’ve got to declare it to be supernatural. It is equally possible that we haven’t figured out how to “touch” it yet.

If you have an argument for why a mind is necessarily non-physical that’s one thing, but given our lack of understanding, I don’t think that there are many facts about consciousness you can appeal to other than “it seems like it” which sounds an awful lot likeSecond, no one is arguing that consciousness doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that it doesn’t behave the way you assert that it does.

I feel as though an ancient Roman is claiming that my position is “earthquakes don’t exist” since I’m saying “Poseidon doesn’t cause the earth to shake.”

You have overlooked the primacy of the mind which infers that matter exists…

Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible **posits **comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer.’

Willard Van Orman Quine - *Two Dogmas of Empiricism

*Quinewas an atheist but he realised that we infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions. The default position is the reality of **mind **not matter.

 

[Aloysium]

First off, just because something is “intangible” doesn’t mean we’ve got to declare it to be supernatural. It is equally possible that we haven’t figured out how to “touch” it yet.

If you have an argument for why a mind is necessarily non-physical that’s one thing, but given our lack of understanding, I don’t think that there are many facts about consciousness you can appeal to other than “it seems like it” which sounds an awful lot likeSecond, no one is arguing that consciousness doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that it doesn’t behave the way you assert that it does.

I feel as though an ancient Roman is claiming that my position is “earthquakes don’t exist” since I’m saying “Poseidon doesn’t cause the earth to shake.”

You should be aware that you are the only one on this thread talking about “supernatural”.
It is not a term I use, falling far short as it does from expressing what here people are talking about which is holiness, love, the will and God.

I think you would have trouble speaking to ancient Romans as well.
Poseidon is the personification of the elements.
They would understand you as saying there are no earthquakes.
When the seas rose and heaved, he was angry. A beautiful clear day, he was content.
The pagans worshipped the strength and majesty of the earth.
They recognized their dependency on him and submitted to his will, worshipping and trying to discern his whims.
One hears echoes of this attitude when Carl Sagan speaks in awe of the billions and billions of galaxies.
I must say that most atheists, in contrast, come across as desiccated pantheists.
They would never consider making useless sacrifices, demonstrating their need of and love for nature, which is to be overcome and controlled.

In the Upanishads (paraphrasing), God visits such deities as Poseidon, asking them who they are.
Each and everyone is unable to demonstrate their powers. Finally, I believe it is the god of fire recognizes Him as the ultimate Cause of every thing and the Source of their being.

Persons, you yourself reading this, are whole, existing separate from but a part of and connected to everything else.
We are relational in nature, existing as self-other.
This is not only true of ourselves who connect with reality through our reason, but also of the most basic of the material components which make up the physical universe, each atom interacting with another.
It is ultimately all about relationality, in human terms involving a connection through a giving of oneself to what is other - love.

 

[tonyrey]

The key word is “person”. That is our primary datum and sole certainty. We infer the existence of everything else including other persons.

Indeed. The highest form of knowledge is love without which our lives are empty and meaningless. It enables us to overcome the gulf of empirical knowledge between oneself and everyone and everything else. Time, space and sense data become irrelevant because we exist in the** personal **dimension of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love which converge in the Supreme Reality…

 

[inocente]

Is bleeding a purposeful activity? Or is it the product of Design?

False dichotomy. And then some.

Theism is not a belief in intelligent design or your “Design”.

If we consist solely of a molecular structure how do you explain purposeful activity?

When you put food in the bowl, the dog runs purposefully to eat. When flowers boom, bees purposefully fly to them to collect pollen and nectar. There is no evidence that a dog or bee is anything other than a molecular structure.

Theism is not a belief in substance dualism.

 

[Solmyr]

Anyone who knows anything about philosophy is aware that Camus and Sartre espoused belief in absurdity but became humanists because they realised that the flight from reason leads nowhere and leads to nihilism. No one else seems to have had any difficulty in grasping the meaning of the term…

Anyone who spends even a little time on these forums sees that there are TWO atheists tony is obsessed with. Camus and Sartre. As if humanism would not be a subset of atheism (hint: IT IS). And there are only the bloodiest tyrants (Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot) who are his TYPICAL atheist rulers (Hitler was not an atheist.). The word “blinders” comes to mind, except in this case they are self-applied by tony.

By the way, tony, you still have not presented an example of a “bodyless mind”… though I cannot say the same thing about the opposite.

 

[rose_kelly]

Anyone who spends even a little time on these forums sees that there are TWO atheists tony is obsessed with. Camus and Sartre. As if humanism would not be a subset of atheism (hint: IT IS). And there are only the bloodiest tyrants (Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot) who are his TYPICAL atheist rulers (Hitler was not an atheist.). The word “blinders” comes to mind, except in this case they are self-applied by tony.

By the way, tony, you still have not presented an example of a “bodyless mind”… though I cannot say the same thing about the opposite.

Hitler the megalomaniac shouldn’t be defined as a theist or an atheist, and should be more accurately described as a devil worshiper obsessed with the occult.

 

[Rhubarb]

Anyone who knows anything about philosophy is aware that Camus and Sartre espoused belief in absurdity but became humanists because they realised that the flight from reason leads nowhere and leads to nihilism. No one else seems to have had any difficulty in grasping the meaning of the term…

That doesn’t answer my question. The Absurd as far as absurdism arises from trying and failing to find value and meaning in life. That doesn’t seem to apply here. I mean, you don’t have to answer my questions, but I’m trying to give your ideas an honest go. I can’t do that if you’re going to evade questions.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You have overlooked the primacy of the mind which infers that matter exists…

Willard Van Orman Quine - *Two Dogmas of Empiricism

*Quinewas an atheist but he realised that we infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions. The default position is the reality of **mind **not matter.

So your argument is: “Atheism is absurd because it is slightly more elaborate than the default position”?

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t know what a ‘typical’ atheist is but I don’t really think all the propositions listed are true of most atheists. Most of them are broad and quite open to objection. There’s nothing explicitly stated in believing God doesn’t exist that makes that list necessary.

But more to the point, it doesn’t constitute an argument. There’s no conclusion that I can see (except maybe that atheism is absurd) and that conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the list of propositions listed as they are listed. I’d also like to know what Tony means by ‘absurd’. Entailing a contradiction? Just plain silly? Demonstratively false? Also, there are distinctions between ‘value’, ‘purpose’, and ‘meaning’ that seems muddled. These are not co-extensive terms. Without clear premises and a conclusion, we don’t have an argument to analyze - we just have rambling. Ideas have been presented that we’re owed explanations for, otherwise we’re justified in simply dismissing them.

Atheism is absurd to me on several levels, primarily because it provides nothing of value in merely stating that God does not exist.
It is more than vague, it truly itself sheds no light by which the darkness that is at the core of the human condition can be illuminated.
Boiling down to an act of saying “no” to other people’s assertions without proposing any alternative explanation, it is completely dependent on theism. As such, I consider it to be a heretical Christian cult.

I find that it’s proponents typically present poorly thought out ideas, completely ignoring the most basic questions to which humanity seeks an answer.
I recall that nonsensical bus campaign: ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’
Fact is, most of what they say they don’t believe, as a Catholic I also do not believe.

The problem lies in not having a relationship with God. It is within that context that theism begins to make sense.
The reality of it is that if one believes in love, in justice, in truth, in beauty, one believes in God.

I detest hypotheticals, but if all were to boil down to the few forces and other properties of nature, there would be no meaning, no morality, no love, no reason to exist.
It would be all an illusion. Including oneself, all would be just a multitude of transient forms, good or bad in appearance only.
And, the oblivion at the end of the dream would swallow all that was.
This nightmarish scenario is the reality of this world and the fate of those fail to establish a relationship with God.

Before anyone blows a gasket, consider first what is meant by God. He is Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Life Itself.
Follow any of these to their very end, where they take you, and you will have come to know Him, the Triune Godhead.

It is a tough journey which at least on paper, my buddy Freddy Nietzsche did not take it to the limit.
Probably rooted in his inability to deal with daddy issues and his dislike for religion, he did not seem to realize that even the quest for power is a vacant, pointless exercise. Had he gone that extra step and realized completely an existence devoid of God, I believe it would have clicked. He would have known He who had been missing in his life. That’s my fantasy for what it’s worth.

Sorry for the rambling presentations of what constitutes the absurdity of atheism. There’s more where that came from.

 

[inocente]

Anyone who knows anything about philosophy is aware that Camus and Sartre espoused belief in absurdity but became humanists because they realised that the flight from reason leads nowhere and leads to nihilism.

Nope. It’s perfectly possible to be a Christian existentialist, simply by thinking of God as creator rather than a designer. In Sartre’s terminology, God as designer means our essence precedes our existence, whereas God as creator means our existence precedes our essence.

In other words, God as designer requires that He had a purpose in mind and designed us to fulfill that purpose, whereas God as creator means He made us tabula rasa, a blank slate to find our own purpose. And by so doing, God gave us maximal freedom.

Whether you prefer God as designer or God as creator leads to very different philosophies, but a theist can believe either, theism isn’t limited to one or the other.

Quinewas an atheist but he realised that we infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions. The default position is the reality of **mind **not matter.

Another nope, since your mind did not exist prior to your body.

(And you excluded God’s mind from your argument since God does not infer the existence of physical objects from His perceptions.)