The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

No, that's still not an excuse for plagiarism. Sources should be named where used.

If you don't want one of your respected researche....ok, I can't finish that with a straight face - if you don't want one of your heroes slandered, too bad.

I shall reference my sources if I need to use any.

Thank you for Gadarene for all that you help me with in these threads. I have learned a lot about your position, and how people think. It is quite rewarding and once again I thank you.

 

[Gadarene]

Is not the fact that we are cognizant of the concept of meaning, an evidence that the universe is meaningful?

Is not the fact we are cognisant of the concept of a flat earth an evidence that the world is flat?

Is not the fact we are cognisant of the concept of a flying spaghetti monster an evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists?

I could go on.

Is not the fact that we actually maintain that our thoughts, words, and actions are meaningful, an evidence that the universe is meaningful?

Meaningful in what sense? If we define our own meaning, and we exist in the universe, then yes, surely it is. Not in the transcendent defined-from-above sense of meaning that Christians like to assert while presenting zero evidence whatsoever, but meaning nonetheless.

Think about this question for a minute. Is this not the most frequently asked, most fundamental question of mankind? The question of why something exists rather than nothing? The question of meaning in our lives. Is the concept of meaning illusory or real. If it is illusory, how did we come to have this illusion?

As pointed out earlier, we can conceive of a lot of things that aren't so, and they aren't so simply because we can conceive of them.

Theism has a remarkable propensity for jury-rigging whatever is observed into evidence for itself, but I will say this propensity for turning the mere asking of questions into evidence for itself is barrel-scraping so epic one is now scraping the air molecules underneath said barrel.

Lets start from the bottom. Im sure you would maintain that your statements in this forum are meaningful. If they were'nt, i doubt you would waste your time by making them. I agree that they are meaningful. Now if your statements are meaningful, then that means they are significant or that they signify something. In other words they have a purpose. Now, what is it that you are signifying? What purpose are you using these words for? You are using these words for the purpose of conveying your thoughts on the nature of the universe. Now, if the nature of the universe is one that is without purpose, you are arguing up to nothing!

Aaaaaaaand total non-sequitur. Words have meaning because we humans agree on their intended meaning, it does not have anything necessarily to do with the nature of the universe (or at least, only inasmuch that things exist in it and have consistent properties that allow them to be defined and be made reference to). This again makes the same category error of falsely assuming that because we attribute meaning that means there is a meaning to the universe.

You are making meaningful purposeful claims about something that is meaningless, and purposeless. This amounts to nothing more than a linguistical excercise in futility.

Again, there is meaning and purpose in the sense that we attribute, sure.

But Christians have a hard time processing that this is all the meaning and purpose there can ever be said to truly be.

In light of this, it is not possible that God would need an externally given meaning to make Him meaningful. He is the paradigm or source of meaning. He is meaning in the purest, truest since of the word.

Why should God need anything, including to create us?

Especially since he's going to toss the bulk of us into hell anyway because he couldn't care enough to give proper evidence?

It cannot be shown that God is immoral from the arguments given by those who seek to prove that He is for the following:

In every instance where verses are taken from scripture to prove that God is immoral, correct exegesis of said scripture within it's immediate context, and the context of the Bible as whole, show that God is not immoral but moral in His judgments and decisions. Of course volumes and volumes of material have been written on these matters by biblical scholars and this is best approached from the theological discipline of hermeneutics. This is a matter that is dealt with in theological academia, and to treat it properly here would require a separate thread. I shall start one if I think it is necessary and if anyone wants me to.

Yes, yes, when you nitpick it enough and selectively use "hermeneutics", of course a contorted enough interpretation can be found to explain why an omnipotent deity could think of no way round murdering entire civilisations.

Showing that the Judeo-Christian God is immoral is to show that He is not the Judeo-Christian God at all. For all Christians maintain that God is omnibenevolent.

*gasp!* Then that means they would be wrong, regardless of what they maintain!

All Christians whether theologians or biblical scholars, or your everyday person like me, will maintain that the Christian God is omnibenevolent, or that He is all-good. Therefore He is in no way immoral. This is the Christian view of God.

Again, maintain away. What Christians maintain has nothing to do with validity.

 

[Gadarene]

So basically atheists lack a belief in gods or God because they want to? Is this more correct?

How does that follow from what he said?

 

[Redac]

So basically atheists lack a belief in gods or God because they want to? Is this more correct?

You didn't ask for why atheists disbelieve, and I didn't write about it.

But my experience is that, no, it's not a matter of wanting.

 

[Elioenai26]

Is not the fact we are cognisant of the concept of a flat earth an evidence that the universe is flat?

Is not the fact we are cognisant of the concept of a flying spaghetti monster an evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists?

I could go on.

Meaningful in what sense? If we define our own meaning, and we exist in the universe, then yes, surely it is. Not in the transcendent defined-from-above sense of meaning that Christians like to assert while presenting zero evidence whatsoever, but meaning nonetheless.

As pointed out earlier, we can conceive of a lot of things that aren't so, and they aren't so simply because we can conceive of them.

Theism has a remarkable propensity for jury-rigging whatever is observed into evidence for itself, but I will say this propensity for turning the mere asking of questions into evidence for itself is barrel-scraping so epic one is now scraping the air molecules underneath said barrel.

Aaaaaaaand total non-sequitur. Words have meaning because we humans agree on their intended meaning, it does not have anything necessarily to do with the nature of the universe (or at least, only inasmuch that things exist in it and have consistent properties that allow them to be defined and be made reference to). This again makes the same category error of falsely assuming that because we attribute meaning that means there is a meaning to the universe.

Again, there is meaning and purpose in the sense that we attribute, sure.

But Christians have a hard time processing that this is all the meaning and purpose there can ever be said to truly be.

Why should God need anything, including to create us?

Especially since he's going to toss the bulk of us into hell anyway because he couldn't care enough to give proper evidence?

Yes, yes, when you nitpick it enough to and selectively used "hermeneutics", of course a contorted enough interpretation can be found to explain why an omnipotent deity could think of no way round murdering entire civilisations.

*gasp!* Then that means they would be wrong, regardless of what they maintain!

Again, maintain away. What Christians maintain has nothing to do with validity.

And instead of responding to each of your points, I could say that everything you just wrote is your opinion and you are entitled to it! But do we learn anything by doing this?

 

[Gadarene]

And instead of responding to each of your points, I could say that everything you just wrote is your opinion and you are entitled to it! But do we learn anything by doing this?

And I could say that you're doing a really poor impersonation of the view you're opposing, and that we are operating on agreed laws of logic, definitions, etc, so stop pratting about and provide an actual response.

But hey, if you think chanting "but that's your opinion, that's your opinion" is a valid point, knock yourself out. I would have thought you'd want to be taken more seriously here than you currently are, though.

 

[Ken-1122]

Now Ken-1122, I have two questions.

You say that just because a person does not believe in God....

Is this your definition of atheism?

I define atheism as anyone who is not a theist. As an atheist I do recognize that which you might call God may indeed exist! But because I wouldn't call it God I am an atheist. If you ask me if I believe in God I would ask you to define God because as a theist, you can call anything God! Some may worship nature, the bible speaks of people worshipping a golden calf, I heard one guy say he worshipped his money! Now it would be foolish to say these things don’t exist! I just don’t call them God; I call nature our environment, the gold a statute, and money is currency. Since there is nothing that exist that I would call God I am referred to as an atheist.

Secondly, would you mind elaborating for us what you mean when you say "stuff"? Can you specifically state what it is that atheists do not believe with regards to what I have written.

Thank you for your time in considering this reply!

Even though I didn’t read your entire OP I did scan over it a bit and some of my objections were as follows:

You said: “The nontheistic position is one which is materialistic or naturalistic in nature.”

I say; you can still be an atheist and believe in ghosts spirits, and the supernatural; just not God.
You also seemed to suggest that the atheist position means we have no purpose or meaning to our lives, that we believe life is senseless and indifferent.
I say, you don’t need a God belief to have purpose and meaning to your life.
I also say that even though “fiction” is usually more exciting than the truth; that doesn’t make the truth an Achilles heel.

Ken

 

[JGG]

So basically atheists lack a belief in gods or God because they want to? Is this more correct?

No, it's not that I want to not believe in God, I just don't. I don't really have a choice in the matter. I can't believe that there's actually some teenager named Spider-man swinging through New York City either.

See if you can get yourself to believe in Zeus or Thor.

For that matter, the inverse of the question would be: Do theists hold a belief in God because they want to?

 

[BuffMonkey5]

If you dont mind, and if you have time, please explain to us how an atheist can adopt non-material entities into their ontology and still be an atheist. Im sure we can all learn from what you have to say.

Alright, I'll explain it to you. I'll try to make it as clear as possible because it seems you aren't comprehending certain elementary principles regarding atheism. That's fine. Sometimes they aren't clear.

So let's start with the fundamental premise that is disputed in the atheist debate. It's a very simple existential quantifier that claims:

"Some god exists."

A theist (not be be confused with an atheist) assigns this premise with a truth-value of "true." An atheist does not. It's that simple. Let me restate it: An atheist is someone who does not find the statement "some god exists" as true.

I hope I haven't lost you so far. Now, let's dive a little deeper.

From this, you cannot logically infer ANYTHING else. You cannot conclude from this premise, for example, that all atheists subscribe to an ontology of only material beings. That's just an invalid argument that has a simplistic form of "A therefore B." It just doesn't go anywhere.

But I am going to assume that you do not comprehend this. My assumption is based on the fact that many people have already stated this in numerous ways, and you still seem to be confused. So let me try to break this down into a very clear format for you. Let's revisit your argument.

Your original argument restated is this:

1. All materialists believe all things are material.
2. All atheists are materialists.
3. All materialists believe in a theory.
4. A theory is not material.

5. Therefore, all atheists believe that not all things are material.

Take a look at your argument. Let it sink in. Now look at premise two. This is the premise that we are contesting. How do you defend this premise? This is what we need from you. We need a defense.

BUT HERE'S THE KICKER

You can't defend it because you cannot infer from the definition of atheism that atheism has the same ontology as materialism. The only way you can do this is by somehow redefining atheism, and once you do this, we won't be talking about the same thing. Your definition of atheism won't be ours. And your argument won't pertain to us.

So how do you prove an atheist wrong then? How do you show us the errors of our ways? Here's how: You simply show that "some god exists" is true by either creating a valid argument where all the premises are undoubtably true and the conclusion is "some god exists" OR you appeal to an atheist's method of discovering truth for fundamental, basic premises. Often this method is empirical or scientific. Put simply, you show us its true (this is that pesky evidence we keep asking for).

I hope you see that your argument is not satisfactory. If you're going to claim that you have discovered the Achilles' Heel of Atheism, you need an argument that concludes that some god exists. Since this argument says nothing of the sort, I have a hard time seeing how this puts any atheist in a predicament.

 

[Ken-1122]

I know these points were directed at “buffmonkey” rather than me me, but I gotta add my bit

My point, and this is what half of my post was about, was that when one maintains this position, they do so at the expense of internal coherence and consistency. They appeal to a moral standard to say that something is immoral or moral. But this moral standard which they appeal to must be objective. It cannot be subjective which simply means subject to the person.

I believe many moral laws are subjective and do change according to the times. Most of the laws of the land are based upon morality and even though many laws do remain the same, many do change as people change.

However, for morality to be of any effect, it must come from outside of ourselves, not from among ourselves. It must transcend the fleeting ideas and motives of men and rise above them in order to make a statement about all men.

I believe the opposite is true. How many of your God’s laws are actually obeyed by the majority of mankind? (assuming your God exists) Your God can spit out as many moral laws as he wants; if nobody is listening he isn’t having any effect is he? I would say the only laws of your God that has any effect on mankind are the ones which also come from the “fleeting ideas and motives” of mankind.

If not, then morals become like the waves of the ocean, always changing, always moving, never stable, never solid, but rolling and shifting to the dictates of the billions of diverse ideas and thoughts and motives and intentions of men.

Like it or not, that is how the world works!

But throughout the world, through all ages of human history, there have been some things that have been held as universally wrong, wicked and evil, and things that have been universally held to be right, virtuous, and good. These things are held regardless of location, race, religious influence, or the lack of religious influence.

There have also been some things that used to be held up as universally wrong, wicked and evil that no longer are, and some things are currently seen as universally wrong wicked and evil that previously did not

Ken

 

[Skavau]

You are the one that claims my signatures are speaking of or somehow incorrectly "representing" atheists.

Your signature incorrectly states that atheists do not believe in God because of a refusal to admit they need God. It is untrue of most atheists, I'd wager and a misrepresentation.

 

[Amber Bird]

This work is actually my own.

This is not true.

The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

This excerpt found under the heading, First Part - Matter and Mind , in the original post, is an exact copy & paste from Wikipedia's entry for "Materialism".
Unless you,Elioenai26, wish to propose that you are the Wiki-author of the Materialism article at Wikipedia. Which would still require that you enter a source for Materialism, as your own work. And would even be expected, so as to credit your research into that particular topic at another site.

What also calls into question the originality of this Elioenai26 work at first sight is this: 　

That symbol, which I do not know the name for, that appears in the original posting, is not something that appears on a forum when someone is drafting an original thread at their keyboard. Nor is it something that appears when they're drafting a thread for posting somewhere, while working on their word or notepad.

However, it is something that appears when someone is copying and pasting from a printed work found online.

In any event, your assertion: "I shall reference my sources if I need to use any." on post #41 at page 5, reiterates that in your mind the OP is your original work. Which Wikipedia's Materialism entry and the excerpt from there that appears here verbatim as noted above, is proof you intentionally omitted your source in that one matter. And that you twice affirm you need not note sources to your original post because it is your original work. Which, is not true.

This and the odd symbol that does not appear in original works, makes the OP in it's entirety non-credible as an original work. And as such, in my opinion, can be said to be the true Achilles heel of your position on this matter of the flaws you personally find in and the issues you address, regarding Atheism.

Plagiarism then is your Achilles heel, when you expect to be respected for your original posting.

Anyone who would care to take the time to dissect the OP in it's entirety, based on just two examples of other source evidence, may find even more discrepancies to your repeated insistence that this is your own work.

It's a tragedy that you feel the need to sin in this way, in order to attempt to discredit Atheism, by stealing other peoples intellectual property and claiming it for your own.

 

[quatona]

Your hypothetical falls at the beginning. You as a human in this world (which is not hypothetical but actual) are created in such away that destruction is not desirable to you, but undesirable. No human, if asked, would honestly tell you that they would desire to be destroyed if an alternative to destruction were available. Its how we are and who we are. People go to great lengths just to be free of what little pain and displeasure they experience at the present.

Therefore when you (an actual human being who abhors destruction) attempt to place yourself in a hypothetical world of a god bent on destruction, you are obviously not going to desire to accept this hypothetical god's meaning and purpose! I would'nt either!

And how exactly does this make my hypothetical fail? You have just reworded my very point: there is no necessary congruence link between an externally given meaning/purpose and the meaning we ascribe to the universe.

As for your other post: I thank you for the effort you put in addressing my points, but I don´t understand most of it. Mainly due to the fact that you use the word "meaning" in a way that I don´t understand. "Meaning" in the way I use it is a relation between a subject and an object. Along with the word "meaning" there must be an explicit or silent "...to". In most cases I am not clear on the answer to "to whom?" is when you use the word "meaning". Sometimes it seems to be used as "meaning to me/you", sometimes it seems to be used as "meaning to god", sometimes it seems to be used as though it were still meaningful to you without a "to...". Unless you start spelling this out in each single case I sense that there´s false equivocation at work.

Last point: Like most other self-professing atheists here and elsewhere I work from the definition "lack of belief in gods" ("lack of belief in god concepts", to be even more precise).
In any case, when a self-professing atheist talks to you, you would be well advised to accept their definition for purposes of the conversation, or else you aren´t addressing them.
Since most atheists here agree with the definition "lack of belief in god", any elaborations of atheism in another definition means you are neither talking to nor about the persons you are having the conversation with.

 

[Gracchus]

See if you can get yourself to believe in Zeus or Thor.

Actually, if they were surrounded by friends and family who believed in Zeus or Thor, religious folks would believe.

For that matter, the inverse of the question would be: Do theists hold a belief in God because they want to?

Absolutely! Not believing would place them at a social disadvantage and confront them with unpleasant truths. The more absurd your belief, the more useful it is in reconciling cognitive dissonances. Our ancestors may have come out of Africa, but most humans are still deep in that African river.

 

[JGG]

Actually, if they were surrounded by friends and family who believed in Zeus or Thor, religious folks would believe.

That's probably true!

Absolutely! Not believing would place them at a social disadvantage and confront them with unpleasant truths. The more absurd your belief, the more useful it is in reconciling cognitive dissonances. Our ancestors may have come out of Africa, but most humans are still deep in that African river.

Well, yes...

 

[Stoneghost]

Thank you for Gadarene for all that you help me with in these threads. I have learned a lot about your position, and how people think. It is quite rewarding and once again I thank you.

Sounds pretty condescending to me. "I've learned how you monkeys like to eat bananas and it is so hilarious. Thank you for teaching me monkey. Now I need to return my human world."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

<snip>

And this is Achilles and his heel being once more vulnerable. For in the very act of trying to support their nontheistic position that all is matter and matter is all, they are forced to assume that at least one part of reality is meaningul and more than matter, namely this idea of justice! For if the whole universe has ultimately no meaning, no rhyme, no reason, then we should never have found out that it has no meaning; kind of like the cave-dwelling fish that have no functional eyes to see or pigment in their skin. They live in total darkness. The word dark, for them, has no meaning.....

You seem to assume that nihilism is a necessary consequence of atheism. It is not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So basically atheists lack a belief in gods or God because they want to? Is this more correct?

No.

In my experience the lack of belief in divine beings is usually a kind of realization or rational enlightenment. Those atheists who are ex-theists had come to realize that their belief in the existence of divine beings was just a house of cards that finally came crashing down. This is usually the end product of a long process, like wall coming down brick by brick. The process is a logical one of questioning and critical thought.

I don't mean to overgeneralize. I'm talking about what seems to be the norm.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Several atheists here, I will not name them, have stated that atheism is: not believing in God.

Are they portraying atheism in an incorrect light?

No, lacking belief and not believing are the same thing. Did you mean for your imaginary quotes from fictional atheists to say something different?

 

[KCfromNC]

Would you like to contribute to this thread in a more thorough manner? Like giving us your definition of atheism?

It's already been posted by several people, you included. What more could I add? I can't make you understand - that's on you.