The Absurdity of Atheism

[Aloysium]

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

I’m off to get some shirikodamas

I didn’t think for a moment that I could convince you.
I’m just taking some time to exercise my mind.
Kappa is convinced by what Kappa says.

 

[tonyrey]

Over 100 posts in two days shows there is still plenty of scope for discussion despite criticism that there have been too many threads on this subject!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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

So lets take a theory:
The sky is blue.
If someone told me that this was an atheistic theory, I would understand them to mean “this theory in no way invokes God” and agree with them. In this sense of the word, science is atheistic.
Lets take another theory:
God is not good.
If someone told me that this was a theistic theory, I would understand them to mean “this theory invokes God” and agree with their assessment.

Now it certainly is possible to define the terms differently. We could say that atheistic theories are those that are only available to atheists. In that sense of the word, you are correct to say that science is not atheistic. Scientific theories are available to both theists and atheists.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

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.

I’m saying something altogether different than Christians who give the best impression of Christianity are the best argument for Christianity. I’m glad you responded the way you did, because was I struggling to make myself clear in my original reply to Daddygirl. Like I said it’s an important point to me personally, and I think it deserves to be made well…

Three specific very great people have influenced me a great deal. It’s not that they’re the best Christianity has to offer, but I’ve seen in these people, perhaps only partially, what living close to Christ looks like in real life. There’s a wholly spiritual aspect to what they have that to me naturalism utterly fails to explain. This is an unfair point for me to make in an argument with an atheist, because what can you say to that? It’s my experience and not anyone else’s. I’m being honest, I’m not trying to argue…

It’s not that these people give the best impression of Christianity–my point was that what they are is explained by Christianity and nothing else. DaddyGirl asked about my reasons for believing and that’s one of the ones I gave. All the others, too, in my mind can be argued against. This was the only one that’s tough to make a comment on.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I’m not sure what would convince me Christianity is true if I were an atheist.

I can think of three people I’ve met in my life so obviously holy I can’t imagine an atheist spending extended periods of time with them without being attracted to what they seem to have.

Perhaps if I was humble and open-minded I would begin to draw a connection between my lack of fulfillment and my lack of religion. It would take me time, though, and a great deal of open-mindedness to accept any organized religion, since I would have explained away long ago the beliefs and customs of any organized religion as mere mechanisms for making and keeping converts.

It would depend of course on God’s grace–furthermore, I would have to become aware of God’s grace in my life. For sure it wouldn’t be something I’d do on my own; I would have to have at least one or two holy friends to help me.

Hi Catholic Greg So you are still a Catholic! My family and friends are religious and non-religious. They are people who are kind and loving. My best friend became an atheist because she lost a child due to cancer. By the grace of God we have been dear friends for the last 4 years, and I remind her that she is a Christian because she is so loving and kind. She had a luncheon at her home yesterday. All the ladies (one Catholic, one atheist, and one Muslim) sat around laughing and giggling, and talking about our husbands. It was a blast! One of the ladies is pregnant, we are going to give her a baby shower and each of us will invite 5 woman friends to attend the baby shower

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m not sure what would convince me Christianity is true if I were an atheist.

I’ve thought about this a bit, and I think there are a few good candidates.

First would be a successful theological prediction of some fact about the universe we don’t currently know. A really nuanced and quantitative prediction. Maybe it would predict an elementary particle, or offer a successful account of quantum gravity, or some universal constant. A prediction of the form:

God exists. Therefore, by deductive reasoning, ξ = 2.08642 x 10^-23 where ξ is some universal constant.

That would really impress me, and I would suddenly assign a very high probability to the existence of God.

Second would be a private revelation. Of course mental illness is always a big concern in these sorts of things. But I think that I would be convinced if I received a few small but completely accurate predictions about the future. As with the previous example, they would have to be nuanced, quantitative, and not easily manipulated. Perhaps the exact closing value of a dozen big stocks a week out, or a months worth of daily temperature highs and lows.

 

[DrTaffy]

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

Of course there are, especially in the field of the origin of life or consciousness, which is what we were discussing.

As JK points out, and as I pointed out back in post #70, ‘theistic’ theories are those which reference a God, ‘atheistic’ theories are those which do not.

 

[Aloysium]

Actually, to many…just this belief alone provides great value.
Huh?? Atheism a heretical Christian cult? LOL!
First of all, atheists were around before christianity. In fact, Christians were the first “atheists” and this word was used about them because they refused to believe in all the other gods everyone else was believing in. An atheist just happens to believe in one less god than a Christian.
There are many beliefs and philosophies and ideologies that atheists follow that sheds light on the human condition etc…
Most Catholics I know don’t believe in “the real presence.”
This makes no sense to an atheist.
Not true. Atheists have a lot of meaning in their lives, morality, love, and reason to exist.
Really?
Are you talking about the Judeo-Christiain God…the one who flooded the world and sent bears to maul children and helped the Israelites murder everyone in Jericho, Heshbon, Bashan and more–killing women, children and animals at the same time–and the one who ordered Abraham to kill his own son and took everything away from good-guy Job for no good reason and sent plagues to the people killing hundreds of thousands and struck one man dead just because he didn’t want to have sex/babies with his brother’s wife…and, most of all, when he had a chance to “forgive” people for their transgressions, his only idea to do this was to have his son tortured and killed in such a horrifying way?
That’s the God who is all about goodness, truth, beauty, and life itself?
.

As I said, I also do not believe in the God you envision.

Some posters here report that they were atheists before their conversion. In my youth, Christianity seemed to be all about rules, contorted philosophical concepts, stories of unusual happenings, long-winded sermons and pleadings for money during painfully long hours of mass where the redeeming factor was that you could learn Latin. Although “Catholic” up until recent years was a designation to be used on forms, I would never have considered myself an atheist. Why do people label themselves? I do it now as part of a commitment to spread the good news.

I’m sure you have not understood what apologists have explained about scripture, particularly those difficult parts of the Old Testament. I won’t go through the pointless exercise again. Suffice to say that the world is in keeping with those stories that you present: innocents are killed and brutalized, illness and death seemingly happens at random, tsunamis kill and displace thousands. What I see is that God is with us every step of the way, guiding us to our eternal Home with Him.

Perhaps what I should be saying to be more precise is that atheism provides nothing for me. It sheds no light on the mysteries of existence. I have misplaced a copy of the Upanishads, it’s back broken and pages out of place, worn through decades of contemplation. Everything is online now. Many books on Buddhism sit in boxes; pretty much all of Freud’s writings, much of Jung’s, and a rag-tag collection of assorted psychological and philosophical works keep them company. They have all contributed to my understanding of the world. And, they are nothing compared to the primary source of illumination which has always been there behind the scenes.

As to a cult, you do make a good point. Atheism is more accurately a Judeo-Christian cult. Look at what you provide as evidence for your belief - the Old Testament. Shamanists, pantheists, pagans are not atheists in that they have a belief system which they will proclaim provides a vision of the world and their place in it. To say that atheists believe in goodness and beauty adds to the confusion that surrounds the label. It seems to have little meaning other than to point out that the person is opposed to something or other, probably the idea of eternal life, but I have no idea.

Let me put it this way. We are grounded outside of time in a relationship with the Source of our being. We are brought into existence in every moment of our lives through an act of love. We exist within an ocean of compassion and everything is known and cared about. This relationship is maintained outside of time, encompassing our entire lives; from the beginning to the end, here we are. We can lose our way; we as one humanity have done so. Some are so lost they appear to no longer have an address to go back to. There is one way back - love. Nowhere other than in Christianity do you find this truth so clearly stated. And, the Catholic Church provides the sure-fire means to get back Home.

 

[inocente]

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

Non sequitur.

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.

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.

I didn’t set any dilemmas, nor even ask any questions.

By “precedes”, Sartre means logical order, not time. I know he’s a difficult read but am surprised you’d use his name and yet make such a basic mistake.

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

The Creator transcends His creatures and so does His knowledge!*

Again it’s not clear whether you understand what Sartre is saying, but the point would be this: you have perfect freedom to believe whatever you wish, but unless you can will that all humanity shares your belief, you are in “bad faith”, in other words acting immorally. If you want to say that other peoples’ beliefs are absurd or wrong, you must either accept the same for your own beliefs, or you are in bad faith, since you are putting yourself above others. There is a connection with Matthew 7 and Romans 14.

 

[inocente]

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

False dichotomy, there is no either/or.

Unless - do you think molecules were made by some other creator and came as a big surprise to God?

 

[inocente]

Science isn’t atheistic nor religious thus a theory is strictly meant to be as I previously posted.

Methinks secular.

 

[inocente]

Atheism has never been the default position.

Of course it’s the default position.

The OED defines default as “usual or standard”, which is surely always going to be relative to culture.

Fuggghetaboutit.

The AKUS song? youtube.com/watch?v=GMmpBsIzaB8

 

[Charlemagne_III]

??
Evidence for the disbelief of something??

.

Evidence for the non-existence of God. :yawn:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course
You say no scientist today has offered proof there is no God. Has any scientist tried to prove there is no God? I don’t think so.

And for the very good reason no such proof exists. So why do you believe something for which there is no proof, then castigate others for believing there is proof?

Actually, Richard Dawkins has said that the theory of evolution made it respectable to be an atheist. So I guess you could say the effort has been made, and it was an abysmally failed effort.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course it’s the default position. Man-oh-man.
People aren’t born believing there is a God and going to church, etc…children are taught this.

.

People also aren’t born believing there is no God. Children are taught there is no God and kept out of church.

 

[matthew_davis]

Hello, I am Matthew and new here. I am a published author who deals mostly about the apocalyptic scriptures in the Bible, especially about the Middle east, which apparently are happening now; how can anyone deny the reality of god and the prophets when they see what’s happening in the world-and just read an excellent book on the subject: Transcendent Bread by an author named John Condenzio-his work is right on the mark about it-and he is a true believer too. Bless.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I would like people to go back to page 8 and review what I presented on that page. THANK YOU in advance for your consideration in that matter.

Has any scientist tried to prove there is a God? I think so. But they have failed miserably.

Beloved Kenneth R. Miller is a Roman Catholic who believes in God. He is a scientist. NCSE is the National Center for Science Education. Miller debunks the Discovery Institute again | NCSE: ncse.com/news/2009/01/miller-debunks-discovery-institute-again-003690
Oh ya before I forget it was tonyrey who supported the Discovery Institute! I have a hard time dealing with him because he is an Intelligent Design advocate.

Let’s get back to more science! The American Association for the Advancement of Science is also good to read: sciencemag.org/

Hello, I am Matthew and new here. I am a published author who deals mostly about the apocalyptic scriptures in the Bible, especially about the Middle east, which apparently are happening now; how can anyone deny the reality of god and the prophets when they see what’s happening in the world-and just read an excellent book on the subject: Transcendent Bread by an author named John Condenzio-his work is right on the mark about it-and he is a true believer too. Bless.

Hi matthew. Well, it is my opinion you and John Condenszio are trying to teach nutter
stuff as far as I am concerned! John’s books are found here and I personally wouldn’t buy his books(!!!): amazon.co.uk/John-Condenzio/e/B00J6ZACLC/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

 

[tonyrey]

Hello, I am Matthew and new here. I am a published author who deals mostly about the apocalyptic scriptures in the Bible, especially about the Middle east, which apparently are happening now; how can anyone deny the reality of god and the prophets when they see what’s happening in the world-and just read an excellent book on the subject: Transcendent Bread by an author named John Condenzio-his work is right on the mark about it-and he is a true believer too. Bless.

A very warm welcome, Matthew.

I’m sure you can make a valuable contribution to this forum because it’s a specialised topic which is certainly relevant to the nuclear crisis. To start the balll rolling you could give us a sample of your ideas.

God bless

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Hello, I am Matthew and new here. I am a published author who deals mostly about the apocalyptic scriptures in the Bible, especially about the Middle east, which apparently are happening now; how can anyone deny the reality of god and the prophets when they see what’s happening in the world-and just read an excellent book on the subject: Transcendent Bread by an author named John Condenzio-his work is right on the mark about it-and he is a true believer too. Bless.

Earlier in this thread, I offered a wager that no one took me up on:

That is transparently a God of the gaps argument, but I’ll take you up on it. If we do discover the chemical and mathematical basis for consciousness, you will abandon theism, right? After all, your argument for his existence will have been concretely invalidated.

I, on the other hand, will accept theism if we fail to find a chemical/mathematical basis for consciousness. Naturally, we’ll need a time limit to decide when failure occurs, and 2035 sounds like a nice conservative limit.

And I would like to offer you a similar wager. If, as you seem to be implying, the end times are near, then I am willing to wager my beliefs against yours. As in my previous example, we will need an end-date to settle things. So if you’re interested, tell me when you think we will know for sure that these are actually the end times (e.g. how long it will take to get around to the final judgement.) Note that I’m not necessarily asking you to predict the “day or the hour” but only when we will know that the interpretation of current events as signs of the apocalypse are as misguided as those from antiquity.

 

[matthew_davis]

we exist; the world and life exists; we did not create it nor have control over it-so who does?
us? think not