The Absurdity of Atheism

[Charlemagne_III]

I guess, you don’t see it. Atheism is the default position: WYSIWYG

Atheism has never been the default position. There are some scientists who are atheists, but that does not make atheism the default position because there are also many scientists, including Newton, Einstein, and Darwin who denied atheism the default position . No reputable scientist living today has offered proof that there is no God. Such proof, if ever it were offered, would be farcical.

God made us to have body and soul. There would be no human body without a human soul.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Look in your BAPTIST MIRROR and tell me it was molecules, not God, who produced your purposeful activity.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium, I have enjoyed and learned from your posts in the past, but with your last post you have done yourself a disservice, I think.

Aloysium:

Atheism is absurd to me on several levels, primarily because it provides nothing of value in merely stating that God does not exist.

Your statement relates only to so-called strong atheism, not to the weak-atheism that is perhaps more prevalent. Don’t you think that living one’s life believing as many true things and as few false things as possible, based on evidence, is something of value?

Aloysium:

it truly itself sheds no light by which the darkness that is at the core of the human condition can be illuminated.

What is this ‘darkness that is the core of the human condition’? In any case, this is a straw man argument. The rejection of a claim through lack of evidence is never, by itself, going to shed light on an issue.

Aloysium:

it is completely dependent on theism. As such, I consider it to be a heretical Christian cult.

Do you also consider atheism to be, at the same time, a pagan cult, a Hindu cult, an Islamic cult, and a heretical cult of several thousand other religions, some long forgotten? I don’t see how such thinking is in any way justified or useful.

Aloysium:

I find that it’s proponents typically present poorly thought out ideas, completely ignoring the most basic questions to which humanity seeks an answer.

If you think that the proponents of atheism ignore the most pressing human questions, then I can only assume that you have not been paying attention to the more intelligent thinkers in the field. They may not have answers to these questions, but they have certainly been trying to address them and continue to do so.

Aloysium:

The reality of it is that if one believes in love, in justice, in truth, in beauty, one believes in God.

I ‘believe’ in love, justice, truth and beauty, inasmuch as I know that such things can and do exist and are valuable. But I do not as a consequence believe in God. To suggest that atheists do not value love, justice, truth and beauty is insulting. It is precisely because they value truth that they cannot accept the God claim without sufficient evidence.

Just as you said you could go on about the absurdity of atheism, I could go on about the absurdity of the views expressed in your post. But sadly I think it would be a waste of my time and yours.

 

[Aloysium]

Look in your BAPTIST MIRROR and tell me it was molecules, not God, who produced your purposeful activity.

Molecules no more exist than do human beings.
The vast majority of mankind understands both to be wholes composed of constituents parts.
These wholes may decompose and thereby lose the properties that defined them.
The parts that remain may in turn also be decomposed, down the line until we reach the subatomic.
And, what we imagine as primary today merely describes the limits of our ability to probe into the structure of matter.

What gives wholeness to an atom, a molecule, also does so to biological beings. That is how creation is structured.

As to purposeful activity, try doing this:

• Walk out the door . . . I would guess that you did not do this.
• Now, feel the pressure of the chair on your backside . . . Reading this command, you could not, not do this.

The reason for the different response is that first event involves purposeful action requiring a decision; the second, an automatic reflex associated with the attention “circuitry” of the brain.

Purposeful action, while requiring a frontal cortex, is determined by the person.
A person, in their wholeness perceives, thinks, feels and acts.
A person is composed of matter continuous with the rest of the universe.
The person, material, is at the same time an individual entity, who relates to everything that is other.
The self itself can be other to the person, who can use their reason.

It is a person who acts.
That person is spiritual/relational/rational.
That person is material.
The person is a psychosomatic-spiritual whole.

We do not bring ourselves into being.
Our existence, with its free will, is created by the eternal transcendent Font of compassion that is existence itself.
The purpose of humanity’s existence is to unite with all creation in the eternal love that is the Triune Godhead.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I ‘believe’ in love, justice, truth and beauty, inasmuch as I know that such things can and do exist and are valuable. But I do not as a consequence believe in God. To suggest that atheists do not value love, justice, truth and beauty is insulting. It is precisely because they value truth that they cannot accept the God claim without sufficient evidence. . . .

IMHO, you believe in God. Not much more I can say other than one should pursue those truths, which are ultimately One.

As an aside, not wishing to intrude, I find it interesting that one would not proclaim that “love, justice, truth and beauty, inasmuch as I know that such things can and do exist and are valuable” but the converse that the Source, the Reality of these truths does not exist. That is what I see as odd.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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…
I find that it’s proponents typically present poorly thought out ideas, completely ignoring the most basic questions to which humanity seeks an answer. The problem lies in not having a relationship with 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.

I’ve been trying not to point this out for a while, but when you say it so clearly, I must. All of those assertions are fundamentally useless. If meaning, morality or love didn’t actually exist, we’d just have to deal with it. Objective reality doesn’t care that we would really like those things to exist. It might be an emotional or political problem if they didn’t exist, but it’s not some kind of metaphysical impossibility. Your argument is an appeal to consequences.

Secondly, atheism’s “necessary conclusions” aren’t somehow decided just because you think they are. I have no doubt that there are a large number of christian apologists who peddle these ideas because they know there is a receptive audience among the laity; you may have even bought some of their products. But real philosophers are quite capable of making reasonable secular arguments for the existence of morality and purpose and all that. You can’t write those philosophers off any more than atheists can simply write off the more serious theologians.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Objective reality doesn’t care that we would really like those things to exist. . . . atheism’s “necessary conclusions” aren’t somehow decided just because (Kappa) think(s) they are. . …

They do exist and Objective Reality cares.

Accordingly, we will conduct our lives to their fulfillment. Where are you going, dude?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

I think it’s a false dilemma as far as God is concerned. “precedes” implies that the Creator exists in time and space instead of being transcendent.

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.

Again it’s a false dilemma. God creates and designs us to fulfil the purpose of creating and designing our own purposes within the context of knowing, loving and serving Him…

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.

If God is a designer and not a creator He is not omnipotent.If God is a creator and not a designer He is not omniscient. Both views are heterodox…

Quine was 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.

Non sequitur. The mind reasons and the physical senses perceive. In us they co-exist but God has no physical senses.

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

The Creator transcends His creatures and so does His knowledge!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

They do exist and Objective Reality cares.

You’'ll forgive me if I’m unconvinced by the argument “Atheism is absurd because Aloysium says so.”

Accordingly, we will conduct our lives to their fulfillment. Where are you going, dude?

I’m off to get some shirikodamas

 

[Gregory_Olson]

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.

Hey ThinkingSapien,

One of the best arguments for Christianity is hanging out with dedicated Christians. On a separate note, it’s expectable that spending time with someone of an other position is often the most effective way to change their thoughts about that other category. There’s a difference between becoming a convert to a belief and learning more about or changing one’s thoughts on a belief. Regardless, if the two are correlated, far from explaining away the reasonableness of a belief this would bolster it.

Anyway. Instead of talking about it it’d be good to actually do it. Spend some time with dedicated followers of Christ and judge for yourself whether there’s any substance in what Christianity has to say about its followers. Is the appeal merely psychological/social or is there something more? Go and see for yourself! I know some monasteries accept volunteer workers; it depends on the order. Or whatever really–there’s Catholic Charities, a lot of parishes are involved at nearby hospitals or health centers, etc.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

One of the best arguments for Christianity is hanging out with dedicated Christians.

The best argument for Scotland is hanging out with True Scotsmen.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

The best argument for Scotland is hanging out with True Scotsmen.

Hey again JapaneseKappa,

I don’t understand you. Are you saying the difference between a dedicated Christian and a lukewarm Christian is arbitrary?

You know, I never responded to your comment on that other thread; I should go do that. I think I was going to reply that you had created a false dilemma or something like that.

 

[tonyrey]

You have overlooked the primacy of the mind which infers

It is less adequate because it takes truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love for granted without relating them to their Source or to one another…

 

[tonyrey]

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.

I don’t see why it doesn’t apply. Anyway trying and failing to find value and meaning in life is the logical consequence of believing there is no **reason **why anyone or anything exists. In other words reality is irrational.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I don’t understand you. Are you saying the difference between a dedicated Christian and a lukewarm Christian is arbitrary?

Certainly not! But I’m sure that if I told you that the time of the week when the least patient customers visit me is typically Sunday after church, I’m sure your response would be “those are not dedicated Christians.” And so I suspect your argument is closer to “the best argument for Christianity is the Christians who give the best impression of Christianity.” Which is fine, but could probably be said about nearly every organization.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see why it doesn’t apply. Anyway trying and failing to find value and meaning in life is the logical consequence of believing there is no **reason **why anyone or anything exists. In other words reality is irrational.

I mean of course “reality is thought to be irrational”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not sure how to “prove” this.
How do you prove your own assertion?

My point is that whether a person is a theist or a deist or an atheist or whatever…you will find those who are humble/egocentric, those who are close/open minded, and those who are fulfilled/non-fulfilled.

Perhaps a belief in God was what you yourself needed to bring out your better qualities and be happier…but these are not attributes that are dependent or contingent on whether a person believes in a God or not.

When it comes to the question of proving whether one’s own self is happy or others are unhappy, you are right. Proof to offer as conclusive is impossible because we cannot get inside each other’s heads. About all we can do is compare our own present state with that of a previous state. In my case I know that my life as an atheist was rather completely unfulfilled, though at the time I was an atheist I thought it was relatively fulfilled. Ceasing to be an atheist brought the realization that I could be a good deal more fulfilled (and certainly more humbled) by acknowledging that I was no longer going to make myself the godhead of my own values. Belonging to a community of believers has also enhanced my life immeasurably. When I was an atheist, there was no community of unbelievers to find. Depression was getting to me with the deaths of several important people in my life, and the dawning realization that the circle of life was closing in on me as advancing age and health issues became more problematic. I ceased altogether to believe that there was anything at all positive about atheism and absolutely nothing to lose by making the leap of faith. I’ve never looked back with regret.

Here is an article that is not the kind of proof you are looking for, but it does hint at objective proof for the advantage of religion over atheism.

adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Just pointing out that it is the theistic theories that rely on assumptions that at best have no experimental evidence, and at worst fly in the face of all our experience. Such as minds existing without bodies.

The so called atheist theories are built on the evidence.

LOL! There is no such thing as “theistic theories” or “atheist theories”.

An excerpt from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine by the National Academy of Sciences:

*In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.*

I posted the above with further details in “World News” back in November 2015.

Also, regarding religion and faith the National Center for Science Education supports the following**: Understanding Science** Funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EAR-0624436:

Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn’t have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

MISCONCEPTION: Scientists are atheists.
CORRECTION: This is far from true. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and that more than 75% believed that religions convey important truths.1 Some scientists are not religious, but many others subscribe to a specific faith and/or believe in higher powers. Science itself is a secular pursuit, but welcomes participants from all religious faiths. To learn more, visit our side trip Science and religion: Reconcilable differences.
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

Keep this in mind though that Intelligent Design creationists may have scientists which do not respect the National Center for Science Education and are not teaching science but psuedoscience.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

LOL! There is no such thing as “theistic theories” or “atheist theories”.

If someone told me that a theory was atheistic, I would simply think that the theory did not appeal to or make use of God.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

If someone told me that a theory was atheistic, I would simply think that the theory did not appeal to or make use of God.

Science isn’t atheistic nor religious thus a theory is strictly meant to be as I previously posted. I think there is a lot of misconception on your behalf. Perhaps you would like to read from the National Center for Science Education their page entitled Science and Religion Links
found on this page: ncse.com/religion/science-religion-links