Conflicts for Atheism- something to think about
Offline Maybe you can "sticky" this too for the Atheist, seeing that you have anti-Theism and anti-Christian posts along the same lines...maybe even it out a little; if you acknowledge freedom of speech and promotion of thought anyway...
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I am not trying to argue. I am not even stating my own beliefs. I am simply giving you some things to think about.
Some Problems with Atheism:
The term G-D.
Atheism= greek: A=no Thesim=god; therefore Atheism is No-G-D, not just No-christian G-D, or No-Islam G-D, etc... it is clearly NO-G-D.
G-D=One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed. (American Heritage Dictionary)
So G-D is NOT JUST a creator, and NOT JUST a saviour, G-D is anything you worship, idealize, or follow- if you follow this thing you must also trust it or be submissive to it.
If G-D is anything you worship or follow (submit to or trust) then nobody is an Atheist because everyone follows something. Maybe you obey social laws, therefore social laws are your god.
Maybe you worship Dawkins, then Dawkins is your god, or at the very bottom of the spectrum, maybe you worship or only follow yourself; that means you are your own god, and if you are your own god one thing is clear, you are NOT an Atheist.
You can not simply assume all gods are the same or even supernatural, etc... To do so is to ignore the full context. Maybe you don't believe in a creator, but a creator is not the only type of god.
The Problem of Absolute Knowledge:
In order to be an Atheist or atleast believe there is no Biblical concept of G-D, you must either A) Know there is No-G-D or B) Have faith in atheism.
However this is the oldest argument in the book.
In order to Know without a doubt there is no G-D you would have to know absolutely everything about the entire universe, BUT if you knew everything about the entire universe you would have to be omniscient. If you are omniscient you have now takin on one of the very characteristics you have sought to disprove, therefore contradicting your orignal question.
OR
If you admit it is just a faith, well then how can you criticize a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc... for having faith in a G-D, you have the same type of faith, just in the opposite direction. Therefore to call them stupid for having faith is to call yourself stupidf or having faith. You are both only believing by faith.
The Kalam Argument:
The Big Bang Theory is the top held scientific concept for the Universes Origin.
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was CREATED sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
Kalam:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Then one must ask, "What causes an act?" Obviously an agent does. Well then, what causes an agent to act? Even more so in this situation, where did the agent come from? As Norman Geisler noted " To suppose something can pop into existence out of nothing goes against all scientific observance and rationality." The Kalam argument and Big Bang Theory leave us wondering about the initial cause, what agent was there and where did it come from?
The Problem of Purpose:
What purpose does Atheism leave us with? Atheism infact leaves us to look towards nihilism. With no purpose, how does one discern between good & bad, right and wrong? Nothing would be the greater good, but all would be equally meaningless. If everything is equally meaningless, then why even live (nihilism). To continue to live would be in contradiction to your own belief. If you believe that truth is relative then you have an another problem. If truth is relative then everything is right and wrong at any given time. Therefore Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism are all correct and there is no point to say any Theist is wrong. Besides, to hold that truth is relative would mean that the statement that truth is itself relative and therefore sometimes truth is absolute. Otherwise, the statement that truth is relative is an absolute showing again truth is absolute. However, if there are absolutes, then purposeless atheism leaves us without a way to define good and bad, right and wrong.
One may claim that Atheism leaves us with the purpose to evolve. Well how do we know humanity is good? Where does the human get its value? Maybe humanity shouldn't be continued. Perhaps we could take the Nietzschean outlook on it and practice a sort of "Social Darwinism." However, Hitler put this theory into practice and look at how Hitler was responded to and is now viewed. Perhaps one could claim that we are to live for ourselves and do what is good for us, but perhaps for me it is good to kill as many people as I can, but how would this be good for them? What gives me right to kill them and take away their rights? What gives them the right not to be killed and take away my right to kill?
You get the point- Atheism leaves us without Purpose and Ethics...
The Metaphysical Problem:
Nihilism: A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Science can not answer metaphysical questions. Atheism gives no answers to metaphysical problems other than to be the leading path to nihilism. In short, this leads to the end of
free-thinking, because Atheism concludes that there is no after-life (which can't be scientifically proven either way). Atheism concludes there is no G-D (which also can't be scientifically proven either way). Atheism leads to a lack of purpose, so why even continue to think, it is meaningless to find answers anyway. Relativity of truth or skepticism also leads to the hault of thinking:
Philosophy-from Greek philosophiā, from philosophos, lover of wisdom.
Wisdom-accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment
Knowledge- acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.
(All American Heritage Dictionary)
The Point: If one believes there to be no absolute truth or no way of knowing if there even is truth; then one can know this for sure, he is not a philosopher. To be a philosopher is to love wisdom, which is knowledge, which is truth. Therefore to be a philosopher you must assume a truth can be reached meaning anyone who is agnostic of truth can not a philosopher because their assumption is that one can not know.
Atheism is unlivable:
True Atheism is unlivable because it leads to nihilism which basically leads to meaninglessness. Why then would we communicate, no truth will ever be found. Why would we attempt to love, love is not even there. Why think, no answers will be found. Why even live, life is simply a meaningless pursuit to nothing that will never mean anything.
Think now: Do you live life this way? If so, how do you make decisions, nothing you can do can be of greater benefit even to yourself, all is meaningless. Why are you reading this, it is pointless anyway... Why do you communicate, isn't communication to get across points and ideas, but if those points and ideas are meaningless, why even bother? You can't say its fun, because what is fun anyway? If fun is whats good and we can't define good, there is no way to define fun... You aren't learning, everything means nothing so you are simply learning nothing.
Atheism is intellectual suicide.
A final quote to think upon:
But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy 1909
I will also explain my name, since I am sure you have jumped to a million conclusions by now.
A Fool Curses G-D.
If you don't believe in G-D and you curse Him, you look foolish for cursing what you don't think is there, and yet if you believe G-D is there cursing Him is equally as foolish, because to curse G-D is to curse your very idea of means to a good life.
I'm not claiming these are all the conflicts or even the worst conflicts; but they are some to think about.
- Login to post comments
Fittest does not always mean strongest. Smarts, teamwork, etc. can all come in to play.
One should ask someone for their opinion before assuming it.
Hmmm, I probably should have used the word "culture" instead of "country" in my thought experiment.
War isn't the only way to settle conflicts. One group of people could adopt another group's culture. Thus spreading their values.
If country C has one set of values and is currently living in mud huts and operating on subsistence farming, while country D is living in stable warm shelter and is able to feed themselves and each other well, then, if people from country C meet people from country D, they may decide to adopt aspects of the culture of country D (technology, values.)
It's a constant ongoing process (common misconception applied to evolution) so it never "works out."
Personally, and this is my opinion, I'd say country 2 would either change its values or end up eating itself from the inside. Either that or countries 3-5 would gang up on country 2.
And to clarify:
My thought experiment was not to say "the values of X are better than Y's" but to illustrate the process by which we have our values (natural selection). Saying one set is better than the other is a subjective statement based on the values we have.
-Triften
For what god?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I never said you siad that!
No it's not!
OK since THEISM is 99% sure of it's correctness... prove me wrong!
But then again you seem to think the burdon of proof is on the negative side! You also have to help use dis-prove gods you don't believe in also!
Vessel made the claim Atheism was 99% sure it was right. I never claimed Theism was 99% sure it was right...so I don't have to prove it, Vessel does. The burden is on Vessel.
I don't think you can prove non-existence but there are reasons to think that existence is highly unlikely.
You can look at the description of god that is given and see if it contradicts itself or what you already know about the world.
For example if god is the omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything and the judge of all people then that definition is self contradictory and it can't be true. By being the first three things god would make himself resonsible for everything that occurs. There would be no point in judging anyone.
Or if god is perfect and he wants you to do certain things, that would be impossible. Because wanting is something you can't do unless you are imperfect. It means that you would be better with something you don't already have.
Or if he is all-powerful and all-good then why would bad things happen. He would have the desire and ability to stop them.
God can't be these things because they don't make any sense. So we can at least say that god as it is commonly defined doesn't exist.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I want a response to my questions about your A & B countries and moral evolution...
"Should you describe a man's friends as those who seem to him to be, or those who really are, honestmen, though they may not seem so And do you define a man's enemies on the same principle?... But do not people make mistakes in this matter and fancy many persons to be honest who are not really honest, and many wicked who are not really wicked?" -Plato, the Republic on judging others...
So in order to be the judge of any you would have to know all things, simple logic...
You are also conveniently forgetting the concept of free will. The G-D you are discussing created humans to be free acting agents. This is the idea of a choice. The idea of G-D you are talking of gives man a choice, either do this and benefit or do this and lose. So he gave humans the ability to choose, which makes humans accountible for their choice, but humans are also told the outcomes of each decision, so they have fair warning... He also wants humans to choose benefit, this does not take away from G-D's own perfection by any means...I have a 4.0 gpa, my friend does not, I want him to have a 4.0, does this mean I don't have a 4.0?
The idea of bad...
If G-D defines the bad that happens and bad happens by that definition, then you must presuppose G-D is there in order to use the definition of bad you are using. If you have to pressupose G-D you can not also deny him, the very means you are using to deny him relies on that G-D created.
These G-Ds
The Gnostics G-D
The Jewish G-D
The Christian G-D
The Hindus G-Ds
Buddhistic G-Ds
The Mormon G-D
start there...
I hope you aren't demanding Gauche answer the question you appeared to pose to me (which I did above). Since there are many people posting here (we aren't responding as a single entity), please make who you are addressing clearer. Thanks.
Free will cannot exist in the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. If god is responsible for making everything around us and knew when he made the universe how everything would turn out, then you aren't making any decisions. You are just following the path he has set out for you. You can't go against his will because he is responsible for making everything. You can't make any "choices" because he made the world as he chose and he made you as he chose.
Also, "Follow my rules or go to hell for eternity" is coercion and so not a free choice.
A question for you: Do Unicorns exist?
-Triften
One at a time, and please list the qualities the specific god you are referring to possesses since different people interepret the same god in different ways. I will then show how the god you list is either logically contradictory or undefinable as a rational concept and for each one I do you will respond to a point of my choosing which you have conveniently ducked in previous posts. If you are simply going to neglect addressing points that you can not answer as if they hadn't been made then there is no point in continuing this conversation. You have so far in this thread shown a complete lack of honesty by simply ignoring any point you arbitrarily decide not to address. Try not to live so fully up to the expectations I have come to have of theists.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Not all buddhists believe in a god, or gods.
Which god do you believe in? We'll start with that one.
I wasn't forgetting about free will. Free will in this situation would be meaningless even if you had it. God created free will, he defined what it is and he decided to give it to you, and had the power to make it different or not create it at all. Then god created you and your disposition, your desires and your fears; all things that that you have no control over that affect what you do.Then he created the situation that you're in with the free will.
If god made any of those things different then the outcome would be different. So god chose this specific outcome knowing in advance exactly what would happen. That makes god responsible whether you have free will or not.
That is not the same thing at all. Having a 4.0 gpa doesn't make you perfect in every way. You are imperfect in the way that you would be better or happier if your friend had a 4.0 gpa.
But god is supposed to be perfect in every way, not just one way. So god is not lacking in any department and is incapable of want.
That's not true I could think that bad things happen for no reason. And that doesn't even address the fact that if god was all good and all powerful he would stop bad things from happening.
If you have the power to stop something bad from happening with no effort and you let it happen anyway then you are not good much less omnibenevolent.
Furthermore if god defines what is bad then bad is arbitrary. If you've read Plato then you already know that. Try the Euthyphro.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
As I stated in the beginning, my intention was never to try to convert anyone or anything, I just wanted to ask some questions, and thats what I am doing....
So since I am just asking questions for you to think about and pointing out things that seem problematic, here are some final questions...
-----------------------------------
If you make a clay sculpture, would it be wrong to break it if you wanted to?
If you decide to break the clay sculpture, would it be wrong to stomp on the broken pieces until they are crushed into dust?
Can you show me proof that Socratese existed?
Can you show me proof that Paul Revere existed, rode a horse to warn of the british, and said "The British are coming!"
(How do you know to trust this proof?)
Since you have informed me in other posts that value to life is necessary for a living creature to have to preserve existence, this means at the begining of life value was also created. Where did the value for life come from for the first living organisms that hadn't experienced death yet? Assuming nothing has experienced death and lived to tell about it, how did it come to be known that death IS bad and not just a phase of life to lead to something better?
Is love real? How do we prove it? If love is not real, how do you prove that?
How can love make someone sacrifice their life & die for one they love? If the value of self-life is of nature for humans to have, how can love conquer or remove this value of our own nature?
Show me the proof that there is no life after death. (No I can not prove there is life after death, simply tell me how you know there is no life after death or why you believe there is no life after death. Lack of proof for an afterlife is not disproof of an afterlife either.)
Do you care about our responses or what?
Is a clay sculpture a living, thinking creature?
If it were, and it pleaded with me and screamed, and I crushed it anyway, I'd still be a jerk.
There's much more solid proof of Socrates and Paul Revere than there is of Jesus (the bible character).
The proof we have of these people is sensical, not highly contradictory (perhaps some disagree about what he wore), and not un-corroborated.
BTW, Who showed up to discover Jesus' tomb empty on Sunday and what time did they arrive?
I don't know. It could have happened by chance. If life arose without a value for life, it would have died off long ago.
I think love is real. We can see the chemistry that causes those emotions. Real things happen in your brain when you feel love. A mother who has no love of her children soon finds herself without offspring and so that trait doesn't get passed on.
Love (and other emotions) are evidenced in the real world. A person who loves someone might hug them, or console them, or provide for them in some other material or emotional way. Someone who is angry might be tensed up, their heart racing, their pupils dilated. Actual evidence.
The value of life doesn't necessarily focus on the individual (another mistaken notion often applied to evolution.) If parents care mroe about themselves than their children, they end up not taking very good care of their children, then their children are less likely to have offspring and so the trait dies off.
I don't think anyone claimed there's no life after death. If you claimed that there is life after death it's your job to prove the claim. That's how these things work. If I tell you that there's an Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be Her Hooves), then it would be my job to prove she exists, not your job to prove that she doesn't. Otherwise, we'd have to take every claim ever made as true until proven false.
-Triften
Triften
You're a better person than I am for responding to that nonsense. I mean what the hell did any of that have to do with what we were talking about? First this person wants everyone to prove a negative then when you try to dialogue they go off on this tangent about clay sculptures and Paul Revere.
Only A Fool Curses G-D says he/she wants to point out the problems with everybody elses position but refuses to examine their own. It's like talking to a brick wall.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
My questions have much to do with the topic. I am glad triften answered them seeminly pretty honestly.
As I think I have made clear, I believe the topic of G-D to be beyond our comprehnsion, you all claim to comprehend, therefore I'll let you show me since you seem to be able to grasp it.
But you don't really address what other people say. I could get the same effect if I wrote it on a peice of paper and flushed it down the toilet.
If it's beyond comprehension why bother saying anything about it? Why not just say it's beyond comprehension and leave it at that? If something is beyond comprehension wouldn't anything you think you know about it most likely be wrong?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
To make any comments about God at all is claiming comprehension. To say God is good is to comprehend God as being good. To say he is all-powerful is to comprehend him as all-powerful. Even to say he exist at all is comprehension. Therefore if God is beyond comprehension, then that must mean God does not exist.
Sorry to hijack this conversation, but I just gotta know. Did I miss it somewhere? Did this person explain why he/she cannot type an 'O' between the letters 'G' and 'D'?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yeah, I've been wondering that as well.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
I think we have a Jew in our midst!