The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Gadarene]

Thank you Redac, for your contribution to this thread. I see that you assert that atheism does not necessarily imply any of the other stuff in my post.

Are you saying that there are other theories that attempt to explain the existence of the material universe that atheists adhere to? If so, what are they?

The point that you keep missing is that atheism does not require acceptance of naturalism. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.

 

[Elioenai26]

I think it's important you understand that materialism and atheism are not the same thing. Someone can adopt non-material entities into their ontology and still be an atheist.

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.

Also, you need to understand what "objective" means when someone talks about objective morality. One can still believe in morality and meaning and still reject the notion of objective morals and final causes.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. One can most certainly believe that the idea of morality exists and reject that it is objective. There are several people who I have been in discussion with that maintain this position.

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. Why must it be objective? Because morality implies purpose and purpose implies meaning and these three are interconnected. When divorced from each other they cannot stand alone. If we divorce meaning from the equation and say that meaning is determinate upon the individual, i.e. subjective and not objective, then purpose, and morality can also be said to be determinate upon the individual and therefore up to the interpretation of the individual.

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. 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.

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.

Because of this, to say that one can determine what one's own meaning, purpose, and morality is is akin to saying that one is completely justified in becoming a law unto himself.

Now if history has taught us anything, it is this......

When men, who have been given positions of authority and power, become a law unto themselves, devastating consequences have always resulted. When unbridled power, authority and self-seeking, combined with no objective moral restraint are brought together, men fall to unfathomable depts of depravity and wickedness. I will not mention some very well known men who are examples of this, im sure we are well aware of their evil deeds.

For it is oftentimes maintained that men are naturally good and that sometimes they just "slip up". However, this could not be further from the truth! For whenever men have procured the freedom to do as they please and have unlimited resources and license to do so, they have always ended up exalting themselves in their self-seeking, self-centered, pursuits at the expense of the lives of those who are caught up in their depraved ideological machinations. Joseph Conrad's The Heart of Darkness portrays this stark and condemning truth in a compelling way. And again, for those who are familiar with the movie: Apocalypse Now (which was inspired by Conrad's work), the lamentable Col. Kurtz is the epitome of the man who makes himself to be a god. What destruction, what despair and depravity was left in his wake as he ascended to the top of the proverbial totem pole to rule as god over his fellow men!

You seem to be confused as to what atheism actually is.

This is your opinion, this is what you believe. You are entitled to it. I believe I am justified in saying the same to you. I say so amicably and with no ill will.

 

[Elioenai26]

The point that you keep missing is that atheism does not require acceptance of naturalism. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.

What is this lack of belief in a god or Gods based on?

Personal preference?

Or reason?

I also do not think Gadarene, that you appreciate the fact that many atheists do not agree with your defintion. You do understand this dont you?

 

[Gadarene]

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.

Adopt whatever non-material entities you want, the only thing atheism lacks belief in is gods.

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.

As has been pointed out multiple times already, subjectivity does not rule out commonality, often to a large degree.

Why must it be objective? Because morality implies purpose and purpose implies meaning and these three are interconnected. When divorced from each other they cannot stand alone. If we divorce meaning from the equation and say that meaning is determinate upon the individual, i.e. subjective and not objective, then purpose, and morality can also be said to be determinate upon the individual and therefore up to the interpretation of the individual.

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. 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.

Yet again, the Christian response to the merest hint of subjectivity is to throw up one's hands and assume it implies chaos.

The notion that morals must say something about all men is an unjustified assertion.

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.

Because of this, to say that one can determine what one's own meaning, purpose, and morality is is akin to saying that one is completely justified in becoming a law unto himself.

Now if history has taught us anything, it is this......

When men, who have been given positions of authority and power, become a law unto themselves, devastating consequences have always resulted. When unbridled power, authority and self-seeking, combined with no objective moral restraint are brought together, men fall to unfathomable depts of depravity and wickedness. I will not mention some very well known men who are examples of this, im sure we are well aware of their evil deeds.

For it is oftentimes maintained that men are naturally good and that sometimes they just "slip up". However, this could not be further from the truth! For whenever men have procured the freedom to do as they please and have unlimited resources and license to do so, they have always ended up exalting themselves in their self-seeking, self-centered, pursuits at the expense of the lives of those who are caught up in their depraved ideological machinations. Joseph Conrad's The Heart of Darkness portrays this stark and condemning truth in a compelling way. And again, for those who are familiar with the movie: Apocalypse Now (which was inspired by Conrad's work), the lamentable Col. Kurtz is the epitome of the man who makes himself to be a god. What destruction, what despair and depravity was left in his wake as he ascended to the top of the proverbial totem pole to rule as god over his fellow men!

It's telling that your two sources are two fictional works

 

[Gadarene]

What is this lack of belief in a god or Gods based on?

Personal preference?

Or reason?

Lack of evidence, lack of compelling arguments.

In general, one does not believe a thing to exist when there is no positive evidence for it or no good argument to justify belief in it.

I also do not think Gadarene, that you appreciate the fact that many atheists do not agree with your defintion. You do understand this dont you?

Many? How many? What is this alternative definition of atheism? And why should I take the word of someone who has consistently misrepresented atheists about anything to do with atheism?

Your main problem is that you keep treating atheism like an entire worldview even though it is not.

 

[Belk]

What is this lack of belief in a god or Gods based on?

Personal preference?

Or reason?

I also do not think Gadarene, that you appreciate the fact that many atheists do not agree with your defintion. You do understand this dont you?

I'm fairly sure that most atheists do agree with his definition since it is the standard definition. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god.

 

[Elioenai26]

I´m not sure I understand why something can not be meaningful to me unless there is an externally given meaning to the universe. Reeks like an equivocation fallacy of sorts.

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


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


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?


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

Btw., if an uncreated god existed, this very condition of having no externally given meaning would apply to this very god. A condition that´s good enough for a god should be good enough for me.

I think this can be answered by simply saying that the greatest conceivable being is not only aseitic (uncaused by another) but is also pure actuality (that which is existence with no possibility to not exist or to be anything other than it is.)

This pure actuality flows from it's aseity. Since the greatest conceivable being would be the uncaused Cause of all that exists, we can say that what has no cause of it's existence is not actualized (caused) by another. And what is not actualized has no potentiality, for potentiality for actualization is a condition for being actualized. Therefore, God as the uncaused Cause of all that exists had no potentiality for existence or nonexistence. He simply exists, pure and simple. (Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology in one volume, Chapter 30 pg. 418)

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.

On another note: When your conceptions of something (here: god) are shown to be inconsistent this doesn´t necessarily mean that the subject of your conceptions doesn´t exist - it might merely mean that your conception is inconcistent. Showing that creator-god is not benevolent doesn´t equal showing that creator-god doesn´t exist. It merely would show that your conception of creator-god (omnibenevolent) is incorrect.

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.

In response to your second assertion:

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.

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.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm fairly sure that most atheists do agree with his definition since it is the standard definition. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god.

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?

 

[Elioenai26]

Let´s for a moment contemplate on the following hypothetical:
There is a Creator Entity. This Creator´s motive for creating the universe is His desire to destroy. For to destroy something It first had to create it. Everything destructive is pleasure to this Creator. Hardly anything pleases the Creator more than seeing his creatures making each others´ lives the living hell.

IOW the ExternalPurpose/Meaning given to the universe is destruction.

Now, why would I as one of the creatures adopt this meaning/purpose for myself? To me (a creature within the created system), the wellbeing of my fellow creatures will still be meaningful and one of the main purposes of my actions. I am not the Creator - so why should I see things with It´s eyes, in the first place?

Points:
1. For me to experience something as meaningful no externally given ("ultimate") meaning is required.
2. Even if there were an externally given meaning to the universe, it would be completely irrelevant for the way I experience meaning/purpose.
3. If there happens to be a clash between the externally given UltimateMeaning and the meaning as I experience it from within the system, as a part of this system I will still use the language that is established within the system - a language in which e.g. "longing for others to suffer and be destroyed" is the very opposite of "omnibenevolent".

Needless to say that all this wouldn´t take away from the fact that this CreatorEntity exists, that It is all-powerful and completely within It´s right to give whatever Meaning/Purpose to It´s creation; that indeed this would have to be called the externally given UltimateMeaning/Purpose; that destructive, atrocious, bellicious acts would be the preceipt of UltimateMorality.

IOW - as opposed to someone who is willing to comply with an externally given UltimatePurpose/Meaning, no matter what it is - I am keeping the ability to call a spade a spade. Thereby I am avoiding cognitive dissonance - which is an epistemological Achilles Heel if there ever was one.

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!

 

[Elioenai26]

False. Try again.

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

 

[Elioenai26]

Which book did Craigy Zacharias plagiarise this spiel from this time?

And the usual assertion about how life simply MUST have an external meaning otherwise we should is still state uncritically despite the number of times it's been pointed out that this is merely an assertion rides again.

Hey Mr. Gadarene! Sorry it took me so long to get to your post. I am trying to respond intently and respectably to everyone's post.

This work is actually my own. I did not want to cause anyone to stumble by referencing someone who has been described by a member here as "an idiot with a thesaurus". In order to prevent any slander by members here towards those who are respected authorities in their fields of research, I will not reference anyone else's work unless it is a direct quotation.

 

[Elioenai26]

If I bother to type out where I disagree with your post will you listen?

Of course I will Belk! You know I like talking with you. Now whats on your mind?

 

[Gadarene]

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?

Whether they are strong atheists or weak atheists, what is common to both is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

[Amber Bird]

In my relationship with Samuel, an Atheist, I would browse Atheist forums so as to see what others like him would discuss on the subject. Ironically, by and large their discussions were about religion and the religious.

I guess then it shouldn't come as a surprise conversely when I find here that Christians seem to find Atheism of interest.

Though broad brush strokes like those in the OP, are not anything I'd deem genuinely philosophical. More akin to offensive and ignorant of Atheism as a whole, while predisposed to personal prejudice predicated upon obstinate refusal to recognize and correct said ignorance.

Atheism is the rejection of Theological doctrine and it's Deities. God's, God, Goddess, or Goddesses.

Atheism is not immoral. Nor does Atheism define Theism as Immoral as a broad sweeping indictment of Religion as a whole. Though it can be said that there are a great many examples of the religious who have comported themselves in a manner that is immoral. That in itself is not anything that Atheism itself, barring the Atheists personal opinion of religion, avows.

Atheism rejects all notions of Deity as source for all things.
While Theism accepts something taken on faith to exist, not fact, is the source of all things.

If it's a matter of proofs as to which philosophy can afford a more substantive argument for it's platform it's Atheism. Atheism recognizes one simple fact. Faith in Deity is not proof of Deity. Rather, it's proof humans can hope something they personally identify and align themselves with emotionally, spiritually, physically, as Deity exists.

I say this as a Christian seeker. I am not threatened by Atheists. They are not an enemy to my personal faith or of my personal faith. I know who I am and having had a boyfriend for many years who was an Atheist, I know who he was and I know what I learned of Atheists while enjoying our time together.

As is said, Faith precludes Fact.

If someone is perfectly secure in their heart of hearts being a Theist of any kind, then the non-Theist is no threat for being who they are, when the Theist expects respect for who they also choose to believe themselves to be.

 

[Gadarene]

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.

In that case, delete your signatures that misrepresent atheists.

 

[Gadarene]

In my relationship with Samuel, an Atheist, I would browse Atheist forums so as to see what others like him would discuss on the subject. Ironically, by and large their discussions were about religion and the religious.

I guess then it shouldn't come as a surprise conversely when I find here that Christians seem to find Atheism of interest.

Exactly. What gets tiresome are the "why are you here" questions, and the presumption that God is somehow working - although the logic is never applied to the Christians who inhabit atheist boards (and they do exist). They're never presumed to be secretly wishing to be atheists.

Though broad brush strokes like those in the OP, are not anything I'd deem genuinely philosophical.

Apologia of that kind rarely are, in my experience.

More akin to offensive and ignorant of Atheism as a whole, while predisposed to personal prejudice predicated upon obstinate refusal to recognize and correct said ignorance.

Atheism is the rejection of Theological doctrine and it's Deities. God's, God, Goddess, or Goddesses.

Atheism is not immoral. Nor does Atheism define Theism as Immoral as a broad sweeping indictment of Religion as a whole. Though it can be said that there are a great many examples of the religious who have comported themselves in a manner that is immoral. That in itself is not anything that Atheism itself, barring the Atheists personal opinion of religion, avows.

In my opinion, the over-focus of atheists on the negative things that religion has done is often done in response to the level of unwillingness of the adherents of the religion to accept that they were done in the name of their religion by genuinely believing, albeit misguided, believers. That option is never even seriously considered, they're simply disregarded as not true believers.

What results is a total whitewash of religion's history, it is made to appear all good. So naturally atheists talk about the bad to provide balance, but this then comes across as "atheists think religion is all bad". Some do, to be sure, but it is not so widespread as people might think.

If it's a matter of proofs as to which philosophy can afford a more substantive argument for it's platform it's Atheism. Atheism recognizes one simple fact. Faith in Deity is not proof of Deity.

There's more to the debate than that - and it's usually not an argument, but a counter-argument to the philosophical arguments of theists, which don't hold much water at all.

 

[Gadarene]

Hey Mr. Gadarene! Sorry it took me so long to get to your post. I am trying to respond intently and respectably to everyone's post.

This work is actually my own. I did not want to cause anyone to stumble by referencing someone who has been described by a member here as "an idiot with a thesaurus". In order to prevent any slander by members here towards those who are respected authorities in their fields of research, I will not reference anyone else's work unless it is a direct quotation.

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.

 

[Redac]

Thank you Redac, for your contribution to this thread. I see that you assert that atheism does not necessarily imply any of the other stuff in my post.

Are you saying that there are other theories that attempt to explain the existence of the material universe that atheists adhere to? If so, what are they?

I cannot speak for atheists as if it's some sort of bloc with a shared belief system. The only thing atheists have in common is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One could call many Buddhists "atheists" and you'd be technically correct. Atheism in and of itself does not imply any particular metaphysical belief; heck, I've met atheists who believe in ghosts and all that.

 

[Elioenai26]

In that case, delete your signatures that misrepresent atheists.

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

 

[Elioenai26]

I cannot speak for atheists as if it's some sort of bloc with a shared belief system. The only thing atheists have in common is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One could call many Buddhists "atheists" and you'd be technically correct. Atheism in and of itself does not imply any particular metaphysical belief; heck, I've met atheists who believe in ghosts and all that.

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