The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Davian]

I will need you to reference the post so I can read the entire post. Only then will I be able to explain to you what I meant when I said that, if I even said that.

Nevermind. I did reference it, and it was only on the previous page, so I thought you would also remember what you wrote, but it was just me having a moment where I had a feeling that you might answer a question without the usual evasion and obfuscation. The feeling has passed.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The nontheistic position is one which is materialistic or naturalistic in nature.

It may or may not be. Lack of belief in a God doesn't necessarily do much to narrow down the type of beliefs the individual in question may actually hold too. Certain nontheists who are also into new age thinking might have a strong belief in the "supernatural" and make it a central focus of their world view for example. Non Theistic Buddhists might reject materialism and instead view reality as "mind only". They would also reject the very idea of self nature and instead stress emptiness.

I think three counter examples to this generalization can be found in certain non theistic streams of Buddhist, Confucian (especially Neo Confucian) and Daoist thought. Certain forms of extreme skepticism (Pyrrhonism) or subjective idealism held to by non theists might not fall into your description of "non theists" either.

Lumping together all the people who lack belief in one of your own views as if they belong to a collective ideology of "non-your-beliefism" can distort things.
Non theism in and of itself isn't an ideology it's just a designation for people who either lack belief in God , consider the term meaningless, were never exposed to the idea, etc... This includes a whole range of people who might disagree adamantly about nearly everything under the sun.

 

[Elioenai26]

Nevermind. I did reference it, and it was only on the previous page, so I thought you would also remember what you wrote, but it was just me having a moment where I had a feeling that you might answer a question without the usual evasion and obfuscation. The feeling has passed.

You referenced it?

Where?


Is this the post you are referring to?


"It is true, people of various religions say that in some way or another, their convictions are deep and true.

But we know that these convictions cannot all be actually true. I can say that I feel Jesus in my heart all day long, but if this "feeling" is actually nothing more than wishful thinking, then I am deceived and misled." ......
So no, I do not expect you to all of a sudden drop everything, confess Christ is Lord and Savior, and there on out, live a life of love and obedience to Him just because I tell you He lives in me or because I tell you I have a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart..."

I am sure you do not need me to tell you that I am speaking hypothetically here.

I have never said that I feel Jesus in my heart all day long and that is why I believe in Him. What I said was that I can say that, but if this feeling is actually nothing but wishful thinking, then I am deceived....

It is called hypothetically speaking and I was speaking as those who often times use that line of reasoning to display why it is not the best argument for one to use when witnessing to unbelievers.

Likewise I said also that just because I tell someone I have a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart, that does not mean necessarily that God lives in me. It could be that that feeling is indigestion.

Nowhere have I ever said that I believe in Christ because I have a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart. Once again, I am speaking hypothetically.

But then, I think you knew that already....

 

[Elioenai26]

It may or may not be. Lack of belief in a God doesn't necessarily do much to narrow down the type of beliefs the individual in question may actually hold too. Certain nontheists who are also into new age thinking might have a strong belief in the "supernatural" and make it a central focus of their very world view for example. Non Theistic Buddhists might reject materialism and instead view reality as "mind only". They would also reject the very idea of self nature and instead stress emptiness.

I think three counter examples to this generalization can be found in certain non theistic streams of Buddhist, Confucian (especially Neo Confucian) and Daoist thought. Certain forms of extreme skepticism (Pyrrhonism) or subjective idealism held to by non theists might not fall into your description of "non theists" either.

Lumping together all the people who lack belief in one of your own views as if they belong to a collective ideology of "non-your-beliefism" can distort things.
Non theism in and of itself isn't an ideology it's just a designation for people who either lack belief in God , consider the term meaningless, were never exposed to the idea, etc... This includes a whole range of people who might disagree adamantly about nearly everything under the sun.

In academia, the term "nontheism" is understood to encompass a wide array of non-theistic theories regarding sundry topics such as origins, meaning of life, the nature of man etc. etc. These topics are viewed from a predominately materialistic/naturalistic view of reality.

While it is true there are some nontheists who may adhere to some sort of "new age spirituality" akin to some of the ones you have mentioned, in philosophical discourse (which is what we are concerned with seeing as how this is a philosophy forum) nontheism is seen as being predominately materialistic or naturalistic in nature with regards to explanations regarding the origin(s) of the universe as we know it.

This is not debatable.

 

[quatona]

In academia, the term "nontheism" is understood to encompass a wide array of non-theistic theories regarding sundry topics such as origins, meaning of life, the nature of man etc. etc. These topics are viewed from a predominately materialistic/naturalistic view of reality.

While it is true there are some nontheists who may adhere to some sort of "new age spirituality" akin to some of the ones you have mentioned, in philosophical discourse (which is what we are concerned with seeing as how this is a philosophy forum) nontheism is seen as being predominately materialistic or naturalistic in nature with regards to explanations regarding the origin(s) of the universe as we know it.

This is not debatable.

Well, yes, it is.
At least Wikipedia does not support your claim and says almost the opposite:
Nontheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now before you remind me that Wikipedia doesn´t match standards of "academia" you may want to reveal those "academia" sources that prove your assertions "not debatable".

It´s funny, btw., how you changed the horses midstream. You made a thread about "atheism", and now we are at "'nontheism' in the definition of academia".

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I don't believe because to me, all of these concepts are unbelievable.

How so?

 

[Davian]

You referenced it?

Where?


Is this the post you are referring to?


"It is true, people of various religions say that in some way or another, their convictions are deep and true.

But we know that these convictions cannot all be actually true. I can say that I feel Jesus in my heart all day long, but if this "feeling" is actually nothing more than wishful thinking, then I am deceived and misled." ......
So no, I do not expect you to all of a sudden drop everything, confess Christ is Lord and Savior, and there on out, live a life of love and obedience to Him just because I tell you He lives in me or because I tell you I have a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart..."

I am sure you do not need me to tell you that I am speaking hypothetically here.

I have never said that I feel Jesus in my heart all day long and that is why I believe in Him. What I said was that I can say that, but if this feeling is actually nothing but wishful thinking, then I am deceived....

It is called hypothetically speaking and I was speaking as those who often times use that line of reasoning to display why it is not the best argument for one to use when witnessing to unbelievers.

Likewise I said also that just because I tell someone I have a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart, that does not mean necessarily that God lives in me. It could be that that feeling is indigestion.

Nowhere have I ever said that I believe in Christ because I have a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart. Once again, I am speaking hypothetically.

But then, I think you knew that already....

Technically true, I have not seen you use the word "fuzzy".

You do use the word "heart" a lot, as in this post.

Was Pascal speaking hypothetically?

Perhaps if you had some arguments that appealed to the brain....

 

[Illuminaughty]

While it is true there are some nontheists who may adhere to some sort of "new age spirituality" akin to some of the ones you have mentioned,

"New Age" was only one of the examples I gave. Neither Buddhism, Confucianism, or Daoism are specifically new age. I don't believe anyone would be able to label Pyrrhonism or extreme skepticism a form of New Age even if they did try to excessively broaden the term so as to include the other three religions I mentioned. I try to do some reading and listening on philosophy when I get the chance and I've seen most of those paradigms labeled "non-theistic" by academics.

, in philosophical discourse (which is what we are concerned with seeing as how this is a philosophy forum) nontheism is seen as being predominately materialistic or naturalistic in nature with regards to explanations regarding the origin(s) of the universe as we know it.

It's possible that the majority of academics who lack belief in a God are also materialists but the later doesn't necessarily follow from the former and debunking it would in no way show the supposed Achilles heel of non theism.

It would be like me saying I've debunked theism by showing that hell really doesn't exist. Some theists (possibly even the majority of them) may embrace the idea of hells existence and others may not. A God could exist regardless of the existence or lack of existence of hell.

The major non-theist religions include philosophic ideas and speculation that have become an integral part of the discussion in modern Western academic philosophy. Even outside religious philosophy proper you will find non-theist skeptics, subjective idealists, panexperientialists, etc.. all of whom could not be labeled materialists.

I'm not a theist and I wouldn't accept the claim "all that exists is energy and matter" for example. Even if you mounted a slam dunk case against materialism it wouldn't change anything in my mind. In fact I might even agree with some of the points you might make.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"New Age" was only one of the examples I gave. Neither Buddhism, Confucianism, or Daoism are specifically new age. I don't believe anyone would be able to label Pyrrhonism or extreme skepticism a form of New Age even if they did try to excessively broaden the term so as to include the other three religions I mentioned. I try to do some reading and listening on philosophy when I get the chance and I've seen most of those paradigms labeled "non-theistic" by academics.

It's possible that the majority of academics who lack belief in a God are also materialists but the later doesn't necessarily follow from the former and debunking it would in no way show the supposed Achilles heel of non theism.

It would be like me saying I've debunked theism by showing that hell really doesn't exist. Some theists (possibly even the majority of them) may embrace the idea of hells existence and others may not. A God could exist regardless of the existence or lack of existence of hell.

The major non-theist religions include philosophic ideas and speculation that have become an integral part of the discussion in modern Western academic philosophy. Even outside religious philosophy proper you will find non-theist skeptics, subjective idealists, panexperientialists, etc.. all of whom could not be labeled materialists.

I'm not a theist and I wouldn't accept the claim "all that exists is energy and matter" for example. Even if you mounted a slam dunk case against materialism it wouldn't change anything in my mind. In fact I might even agree with some of the points you might make.

In a recent book, Thomas Nagel put forth an argument for a teleological, as opposed to materialist, view of nature. Nagel is an atheist. Atheism and materialism aren't necessarily related. The one thing that all atheists share, by definition, is a lack of belief in deities. That is all. Beyond that, their views on ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, art, etc., can (and does) differ. Sometimes religious apologists like to lump all atheists into a single category of atheist-materialist-emotivist-liberal-progressives. Contrary to what they may believe, we are not the Borg.

(Though if we were the Borg, we would find your religion unworthy of assimilation )

 

[Illuminaughty]

In a recent book, Thomas Nagel put forth an argument for a teleological, as opposed to materialist, view of nature. Nagel is an atheist. Atheism and materialism aren't necessarily related

Lately I've been reading and thinking a bit about consciousness, especially the so called "hard problem of consciousness", and his name comes up a lot. I find some of the points he makes in that arena really fascinating.

Contrary to what they may believe, we are not the Borg.

Speak for yourself I've transcended mere humanity and uploaded my mind into a more efficient machine body. That's what we do in the Illuminati.

 

[JGG]

How so?

In that I can see no reasonable path of deduction that would lead me to believe that any one is true. Most demand faith, which I don't possess. Others require me to rely on the word and knowledge of another without allowing me to verify for myself. I have different reasons for different concepts, but if you wish to present one that you think I would find believable, by all means present it.

On a side note: Do you know that I had to go back and reference my post from nearly a year ago to find context for this question?

 

[Elioenai26]

In that I can see no reasonable path of deduction that would lead me to believe that any one is true. Most demand faith, which I don't possess. Others require me to rely on the word and knowledge of another without allowing me to verify for myself. I have different reasons for different concepts, but if you wish to present one that you think I would find believable, by all means present it.

On a side note: Do you know that I had to go back and reference my post from nearly a year ago to find context for this question?

And I could ask you several simple questions to get to the heart of why you are an atheist...

One of them is as follows:

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists', to be true?"

Yes or no?

Do you even care?

 

[JGG]

And I could ask you several simple questions to get to the heart of why you are an atheist...

One of them is as follows:

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists', to be true?"

Yes or no?

Do you even care?

That depends a fair bit on how we look at God.

From the popular Christian concept of God: No, not really. In this case, I can't help but see God presented as a wish-granting, father-figure, protector, and personal vengeance-taker. Even the saviour part doesn't particularly appeal to me, as I don't quite buy into the thing I'm supposed to be saved from. It generally appears that ultimately this God is meant to serve His "followers" which doesn't appeal to me, although the idea of serving a god doesn't seem right to me either. In the former case, it feels like God was created by the believer to do the believers' bidding, in the latter to give the believer the purpose they desire. In the end, I just feel that all this, and other perspectives lead to what I find to be a very small God. I don't mean any of this to be insulting, just an honest assessment of what has been presented to me.

However, other, broader concepts of God from other philosophies do appeal to me. The ones where god is a connection between people, the universe, or all things. However, as much as it appeals to me, and find it fun to think about, I cannot claim that it is true, or that I actually believe in it.

 

[bhsmte]

And I could ask you several simple questions to get to the heart of why you are an atheist...

One of them is as follows:

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists', to be true?"

Yes or no?

Do you even care?

Interesting question.

I can answer for myself that for most of my life I wanted God to be true and I believed him to exist. I would think, since the vast majority of non-believers were introduced to the God concept as a young child, they likely had similar paths.

If one has a strong desire for God to be true or even the opposite, this gets into psychological need of each individual and will likely alter their perceptions of reality, in order to satisfy this need.

IMO, this is the case I believe with a good number of believers. They have a strong desire for God to be true (either for hope of eternal life, or just clinging to a belief they have invested much emotional currency in) and they end up going through a process of rationalizing this belief and altering their own perceptions of reality.

 

[lordistrength]

If one has a strong desire for God to be true or even the opposite, this gets into psychological need of each individual and will likely alter their perceptions of reality, in order to satisfy this need.

IMO, this is the case I believe with a good number of believers. They have a strong desire for God to be true (either for hope of eternal life, or just clinging to a belief they have invested much emotional currency in) and they end up going through a process of rationalizing this belief and altering their own perceptions of reality.

If God is the reality, who attempts to (believe) against them?

I view that post as insulting and derogatory.

Your lack of belief in God is only your opinion. It isn't of truth. The truth remains firm. God is truth. Yes this is for all that believe in God. Claiming to be wise and rejecting God shows a lack of truth.

 

[lordistrength]

IMO, this is the case I believe with a good number of believers. They have a strong desire for God to be true (either for hope of eternal life, or just clinging to a belief they have invested much emotional currency in) and they end up going through a process of rationalizing this belief and altering their own perceptions of reality.

God is true. My hope rests only in God. Your free to disagree with the truth of it. Please don't insult me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If God is the reality, who attempts to (believe) against them?

People who haven't seen enough evidence

I view that post as insulting and derogatory.

Your problem, not ours...

Your lack of belief in God is only your opinion. It isn't of truth. The truth remains firm. God is truth. Yes this is for all that believe in God. Claiming to be wise and rejecting God shows a lack of truth.

How do you know your God is true? You're essentially calling us liars for not believing the same things you do, even though you can't prove they are true. That's the truly insulting thing about this exchange.

 

[lordistrength]

People who haven't seen enough evidence

Who is that? The innocent or the ones that choose a stance, atheism instead?

Innocence isn't ignorance.

Choosing one side or the other is the choice of the individual. Choosing to reject God is beyond innocence. Innocence remains with those willing to believe in the truth, that God is true.

 

[bhsmte]

If God is the reality, who attempts to (believe) against them?

I view that post as insulting and derogatory.

Your lack of belief in God is only your opinion. It isn't of truth. The truth remains firm. God is truth. Yes this is for all that believe in God. Claiming to be wise and rejecting God shows a lack of truth.

You are perfectly free to consider God as reality.

For many others, they have come to a different conclusion, based on lack of evidence to consider him a reality.

If it insults you that someone disagrees with you, not my problem.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Who is that? The innocent or the ones that choose a stance, atheism instead?

Both categories of people you are describing would be atheists... Atheism is the default position for people who haven't seen enough evidence to convince them that your God is real.