The Absurdity of Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bahman said:
That is a good definition but not the best. We are merely a biological robot conditioned to react to a situation by deciding rationally. Do you have any evidence to show that we are more than this?
Click to expand...
Do you regard biological robots as responsible for their activity? If not why not?
 
NM505StKate said:
Dude this is a whole lot of nothing. You said “God does exist”. You have the burden of proof to show that is true.
Click to expand...
You have the burden of proof to show that we are rational beings in an irrational universe - an assumption you take for granted… How can mindless processes produce the power of reason?
 
tonyrey said:
Do you regard biological robots as responsible for their activity? If not why not?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how your comment is related but I answer that. No, we are not responsible for our actions if the related decisions are made rationally.
 
Nixbits said:
I think this may be the key reason why we disagree and why you think atheism is absurd. I think it is a failure of imagination. I can imagine a universe with a God (or gods) and a universe without any god. I can imagine a universe without me in it. I can even, at a stretch, imagine a universe without light where ‘vision’ works by sound waves.

If you cannot even imagine the other person’s point of view, it is no wonder that you dismiss it as absurd. By contrast, I don’t dismiss the view of a theist as absurd. I just think that it is (most likely) wrong.
Click to expand...
I must say that I am reality oriented. Being that way has done well for me in this world, at least with respect to what is under my control, given God’s many blessings.

I don’t have to imagine a world without God; I see it first hand, in the media and the history books.

A universe without you and me, unique and irreplaceable in ourselves does not and hence never could exist. Many of us have taken on the world’s view which we possess and transmit, that everyone including ourselves can in reality, be replaced by someone else. Taking this view to its conclusion, we do not truly exist - ridiculous.

You don’t know me. I can very well imagine your point of view. What does not conform to reality, which is the probable reason why you say that God does not exist, is that your understanding of God does not conform to reality. I am guessing that you are attempting to form a relationship with Him. My knowledge includes the fact that He works in mysterious ways, guiding us to goodness and truth.

God is Love within Himself. He is a transcendent being who is Love as a Trinity.
Through His Word, He brings creation into being, everywhere and in every time. Wherever you are, whenever you are, you are in the moment, brought into being by Existence itself, as a being who can decide who he wants to be. This is all real and the consequences are real in the one life we have to live.
Creation is cared about. Every thought, every feeling is known in His infinite compassion.
The reality of everything rooted on the eternal Font of existence, is beautiful and good. It is true and real, “living”. God is the Source of everything that is.
We as one humanity, as a result of sin, have damaged the relationship between ourselves and the Ground of our being. We are left with imaginations that conjure up whatever they want; the further from the Truth the more absurd and horrific our relationship with what is. The aim is to harness one’s imagination and focus on what is real. Sad to say most philosophy operates from mankind’s default position of ignorance, attempting to capture what remains outside it grasp.
In the end it is meaningless to the extent that what is important has to do withthe why’s and what’s of our actions.
 
NM505StKate said:
Actually my parents are what brought me to be. And yes their parents all the way down to a common ancestor. Myself existing is a horrible argument for God existing.
Click to expand...
Really your parents brought you to be? All on their own, right? They willed you into being, right?
Because every time they had sex you came to be right?
Oh…wait a sec…
How is it you are a unique unrepeatable person, if you parents having sex -per se- is what brings you into being?
Would’t there be a bunch of you?

And your answer will be no, just the one time. Or what we can call the “accident” theory of existence. It’s all just accidental.🤷
 
tonyrey said:
You have the burden of proof to show that we are rational beings in an irrational universe - an assumption you take for granted… How can mindless processes produce the power of reason?
Click to expand...
I see that you are still using this argument, but seem unwilling to take the wager I offered very early on in this thread:
JapaneseKappa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I suspect that your reasons for not taking this wager are that you actually do think that it is logically possible for mindless chemistry to produce consciousness, and therefore think you would lose the bet. If that is the case, then StKate has no burden of proof because she is only asserting that there exists a logically possible (i.e. non-absurd) a-theistic explanation for our rationality.
 
tonyrey said:
Our starting point is not “stuff” but our mind. We **infer **the existence of things from what we perceive.
Click to expand...
Your mind did not preexist your body.
*Freedom is making intelligent choices but Sartre never explained **how ***we can do that or even why we should choose to be moral in an absurd (irrational) universe.
Click to expand...
There’s no reason to single out Sartre when most the books in any library, including the philosophical section, also don’t try to tell you how our minds work.

Having spent all my life in the universe, I can assure you it meets neither of the OED definitions of absurd - “wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate” or “arousing amusement or derision; ridiculous”.
It is not a moral but a logical judgment. Without the Deity there is no explanation of our power of reason. As Pascal pointed out, we are superior to the universe in that respect.
Click to expand...
There’s an excellent explanation for our power of reason, which far surpasses any other in depth, accuracy and quality, and is expanding with every passing day.

It’s to be found in the science section of the library. We don’t need to put our heads in the sand or always be on the defensive, truth cannot contradict truth.
Taking freedom for granted…
Click to expand...
The very last thing Sartre does is take freedom for granted. Perhaps you ought to go to the library and read him again.
 
clem456 said:
And you saw that the biology was disputed where exactly?
Click to expand...
Post #166, “How is it you are a unique unrepeatable person, if you parents having sex -per se- is what brings you into being?”
Did you understand what I said?
Click to expand...
Yes, but you’ll need to tell me why you think I didn’t understand before I can know for sure.
 
inocente said:
You’ll need to tell me why you think I didn’t understand, then I’ll know for sure.
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM505StKate View Post
Actually my parents are what brought me to be. And yes their parents all the way down to a common ancestor. Myself existing is a horrible argument for God existing.
Click to expand...
clem456 said:
Really your parents brought you to be? All on their own, right? They willed you into being, right?
Because every time they had sex you came to be right?
Oh…wait a sec…
How is it you are a unique unrepeatable person, if you parents having sex -per se- is what brings you into being?
Would’t there be a bunch of you?

And your answer will be no, just the one time. Or what we can call the “accident” theory of existence. It’s all just accidental.🤷
Click to expand...
We are talking about an argument for God.
The poster is making the argument that her parents having sex is what brought her into being, in a vacuum. And that there can be no demonstration of God’s hand in that
That is at best partially true.
It can’t be wholly true, as her parents have had sex (let’s assume) many times.
So the act of sex, and the will of her parents, do not bring her into being, of their own.

Consider, her parents may have had sex again and conceived, and carried a child who is also completely unique. Or had sex and not conceived. etc…

So the will and act of the parents to create a child cannot be said to produce this unique person “without help”. The most you can say is, the parents participate in the creation of that unique child through their openness. Or what we call pro-creation.

I hope that clears it up. There is no dispute about biology. The dispute is about whether or not an “other” can be demonstrated to have a hand in her creation. Demonstrably, the parents do not will a unique child into existence. So the proof for God is in that mystery behind human creation and existence.

Or you may just prefer to call it an accident or mystery.
 
clem456 said:
We are talking about an argument for God.
The poster is making the argument that her parents having sex is what brought her into being, in a vacuum. And that there can be no demonstration of God’s hand in that
That is at best partially true.
It can’t be wholly true, as her parents have had sex (let’s assume) many times.
So the act of sex, and the will of her parents, do not bring her into being, of their own.

Consider, her parents may have had sex again and conceived, and carried a child who is also completely unique. Or had sex and not conceived. etc…

So the will and act of the parents to create a child cannot be said to produce this unique person “without help”. The most you can say is, the parents participate in the creation of that unique child through their openness. Or what we call pro-creation.

I hope that clears it up. There is no dispute about biology. The dispute is about whether or not an “other” can be demonstrated to have a hand in her creation. Demonstrably, the parents do not will a unique child into existence. So the proof for God is in that mystery behind human creation and existence.

Or you may just prefer to call it an accident or mystery.
Click to expand...
I realize your Church teaches that God gives a person his soul, but I think you went a bit further than that, into dangerous territory.

For instance, a belief that God intervenes in the biological process would entail having to explain a baby who lives in constant pain until early death, who arose from a sperm carrying a mutation fertilizing the egg rather than some other sperm. A belief that God gives a baby his nature would entail having to explain why God gave Hitler his nature. And so on. As you say, probably best to leave it to the known biological and nurturing processes.
 
inocente said:
I realize your Church teaches that God gives a person his soul, but I think you went a bit further than that, into dangerous territory.

For instance, a belief that God intervenes in the biological process would entail having to explain a baby who lives in constant pain until early death, who arose from a sperm carrying a mutation fertilizing the egg rather than some other sperm. A belief that God gives a baby his nature would entail having to explain why God gave Hitler his nature. And so on. As you say, probably best to leave it to the known biological and nurturing processes.
Click to expand...
I thought every Christian church believed that God is ultimately responsible for creation, and so is responsible for ensoulment. If not God, then who?

I am coming from the assumption that only God can give a person a soul. Don’t ask me how, that is not the purview of science.

Satan cannot create life, so yes, God is the actor who gave Adolph Hitler a soul.

Evil exists.
God does not will evil.
People will evil.
 
clem456 said:
We are talking about an argument for God.
The poster is making the argument that her parents having sex is what brought her into being, in a vacuum. And that there can be no demonstration of God’s hand in that
That is at best partially true.
It can’t be wholly true, as her parents have had sex (let’s assume) many times.
So the act of sex, and the will of her parents, do not bring her into being, of their own.

Consider, her parents may have had sex again and conceived, and carried a child who is also completely unique. Or had sex and not conceived. etc…

So the will and act of the parents to create a child cannot be said to produce this unique person “without help”. The most you can say is, the parents participate in the creation of that unique child through their openness. Or what we call pro-creation.

I hope that clears it up. There is no dispute about biology. The dispute is about whether or not an “other” can be demonstrated to have a hand in her creation. Demonstrably, the parents do not will a unique child into existence. So the proof for God is in that mystery behind human creation and existence.

Or you may just prefer to call it an accident or mystery.
Click to expand...
The biological fact that many efforts may be needed to attain conception is no proof of intervention by a god-force. It is just how it is. Adding in the god-force is purely a matter of faith and, therefore, un-provable. If the idea makes people feel better, I have no problem with that.
The biological process can be studied and observed, so it falls into the realm of fact. Nowhere is there any need for a god-force to result in a unique individual…it happens every time. Birth is not a miracle…it is a routine event that has occurred many millions of times.

Be well,

John
 
inocente said:
Post #166, “How is it you are a unique unrepeatable person, if you parents having sex -per se- is what brings you into being?”.
Click to expand...
We are unique, unrepeatable persons because God, not our parents, gives us an immortal soul.

I assume as a Baptist you understand this. 🤷
 
DaddyGirl said:
Naturally, an atheist may teach their children gods do not exist. In the same way that theists teach their kids that gods do exist.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. Not sure what confused you, but the confusion seems to be cleared up.
 
DaddyGirl said:
The theory of evolution was supportive of atheism because it gave an alternative to how the world and people were created.
So now atheists had some science to support their non-belief.
Click to expand...
None of this is true.

The Big Bang, not evolution, explains how the world was created.

But it does nothing to explain why the world was created.

Evolution does nothing to explain why people were created. Neither does atheism.

Religion does.

If we ask why, evolution and atheism are useless.

If we ask why, religion is the path to the ultimate answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top