The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

From what I've read, you don't understand Nietzsche at all, and I doubt you've read anything of his beyond the selected snippets you've seen on apologist websites. So when you say "Ahh Nietzsche!!!", as though you have some inkling of what Nietzsche was on about, I take it a with a grain of salt.

Then tell me, if you can in one or two sentences, what Nietzsche's most central theme of all of his work was when taken as a whole....

I mean since now you know more about him than I do....

Please enlighten me, since I have got him wrong....

 

[quatona]

So now you are not a naturalist?

I didn´t say that. I said I am not what you said you observed naturalists say about themselves.

Hmmm...what are you then?

I´m just thinking around. It takes quite a long time until I form a hypothesis, and it takes even longer for me to present it as a conclusive position.

The weakness of a naturalistic view of society is that everybody is their own god, determining meaning, and determining what is right and wrong for themselves and therefore no one is ultimately right or wrong, better off or worse off....ultimately that is...

See, there´s the very argument from consequence you denied you were making. An argument from consequence - apart from the fact that it is invalid anyway - gets particularly poor when the described consequence is undistinguishable from reality.
Yes, we see subjective meanings, purposes, ethics and morals competing. We observe people disagreeing on all those things.
Thus, as I said, the existence of subjective meaning isn´t under dispute. You even concede as much.
Now, until you can demonstrate that there is a God (or whatever objective or ultimate faculty) who shares your values, your moral convictions, your opinions you are just one of all those who are "their own gods".

It´s somewhat frustrating that when I responded to all this you said it wasn´t your argument, and now you are presenting exactly this as your argument. So I guess I should just refer you to the post in wich I addressed those arguments that you later said they weren´t yours and now come up with, nonetheless.

Because all leads to death...

I don´t know what the "because" does in this sentence, but apart from that: See above:
An argument from consequence - apart from the fact that it is invalid anyway - gets particularly poor when the described consequence is undistinguishable from reality.

 

[quatona]

The Achilles Heel of my conviction that my fridge is empty and I have no money left: I am going to stay hungry.
Evidence that my fridge is full and there´s plenty of money in my pocket.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then tell me, if you can in one or two sentences, what Nietzsche's most central theme of all of his work was when taken as a whole....

I mean since now you know more about him than I do....

Please enlighten me, since I have got him wrong....

I've already enlightened you in another thread months ago. You never bothered to reply after having been enlightened.

 

[Elioenai26]

I didn´t say that. I said I am not what you said you observed naturalists say about themselves.


I´m just thinking around. It takes quite a long time until I form a hypothesis, and it takes even longer for me to present it as a conclusive position.




See, there´s the very argument from consequence you denied you were making. An argument from consequence - apart from the fact that it is invalid anyway - gets particularly poor when the described consequence is undistinguishable from reality.
Yes, we see subjective meanings, purposes, ethics and morals competing. We observe people disagreeing on all those things.
Thus, as I said, the existence of subjective meaning isn´t under dispute. You even concede as much.
Now, until you can demonstrate that there is a God (or whatever objective or ultimate faculty) who shares your values, your moral convictions, your opinions you are just one of all those who are "their own gods".

It´s somewhat frustrating that when I responded to all this you said it wasn´t your argument, and now you are presenting exactly this as your argument. So I guess I should just refer you to the post in wich I addressed those arguments that you later said they weren´t yours and now come up with, nonetheless.


I don´t know what the "because" does in this sentence, but apart from that: See above:
An argument from consequence - apart from the fact that it is invalid anyway - gets particularly poor when the described consequence is undistinguishable from reality.

I am not making an argument.

I am stating the truth.

Surely you agree.

Under naturalism, we are no better or worse off ultimately than maggots on a dead dog's carcass. We all go to the same place, the grave, and cease to be.

 

[Davian]

Ahh Nietzsche!!!!

He understood the implications of naturalism so very well....

It is a shame that others cannot see it for what it really is.

What naturalism implies is not what naturalism is, therein lies the strawman. Naturalism is not nihilism.

But you said earlier you were not a naturalist, so tell me, what are you?

Irrelevant.

 

[Elioenai26]

What naturalism implies is not what naturalism is, therein lies the strawman. Naturalism is not nihilism.

Irrelevant.

Convenient for you then.

You get to sit back and simply demand proof and evidence from others while keeping your position below the radar of the burden of proof.

Now I know why you will not debate me.

You position is probably defenseless.

 

[quatona]

I am not making an argument.

Yes, you are. You are trying to make the argument that naturalism implies nihilism.

I am stating the truth.

Ipse dixit. You are stating your opinion.

Surely you agree.

I have already told you where I agree and where I disagree.

Under naturalism, we are no better or worse off ultimately than maggots on a dead dog's carcass. We all go to the same place, the grave, and cease to be.

You haven´t established that there´s such a thing as "ultimately".
However, if you ignore the differences any two things are the same - "ultimately" or whatever.
The "ultimate" (if you insist on using such dubious terms) difference between a maggot and us, however, is that we are able to experience things as meaningful to us. That´s what "meaning" means. You can try to elevate this term into beyond-realms you are unable to demonstrate as existing until the cows come home: The fact that you are unable to demonstrate that they exist anywhere else than in your fantasy is the Achilles Heel of your worldview. Don´t make it look as if it were my problem.

 

[Elioenai26]

You haven´t established that there´s such a thing as "ultimately".

I think the Big Crunch will be the ultimate end of life as we know it. Unless you think humans can survive it. Or either the slow, cold, spreading out of the universe until it is so thin that.....well....you get the picture.

Either scenario is pretty ultimate and final. Either way you slice it.

we are able to experience things as meaningful to us. That´s what "meaning" means. You can try to elevate this term into beyond-realms you are unable to demonstrate as existing until the cows come home: The fact that you are unable to demonstrate that they exist anywhere else than in your fantasy is the Achilles Heel of your worldview. Don´t make it look as if it were my problem.

It is all still ultimately illusory. You die, the maggot dies. The maggot ceases to be, you cease to be, there is no memory of the former things for the maggot, neither is there any memory of the notable things you did in life......the maggot ate dead flesh, you ate dead flesh (unless you are a vegetarian, then you ate dead ....plants???)...


The cosmos is indifferent, everything fades to black.....drowned in an abyss of nothingness....

 

[Aeroflotte]

It is all still ultimately illusory. You die, the maggot dies. The maggot ceases to be, you cease to be, there is no memory of the former things for the maggot, neither is there any memory of the notable things you did in life......the maggot ate dead flesh, you ate dead flesh (unless you are a vegetarian, then you ate dead ....plants???)...


The cosmos is indifferent, everything fades to black.....drowned in an abyss of nothingness....

Atheism isn't easy.

 

[quatona]

I think the Big Crunch will be the ultimate end of life as we know it. Unless you think humans can survive it. Or either the slow, cold, spreading out of the universe until it is so thin that.....well....you get the picture.

Either scenario is pretty ultimate and final. Either way you slice it.

Well, minus all the rhethoric you are stating that life is finite. This I agree with.
Now, that this is not to your liking doesn´t make it an Achilles Heel of atheism, it would just show that your expectations are unrealistic.

It is all still ultimately illusory.

No, it isn´t. It requires you to call everything that´s not "ultimate" "illusory". Since you haven´t established that there is such a thing as an "ultimate meaning", the term "realistic" is the appropriate term. And the correct term for your "ultimate meaning" is "wishful thinking" - until you can demonstrate the existence of what you call "ultimate meaning" the lack thereof is not an Achilles Heel of atheism or naturalism but your Achilles Heel.

You die, the maggot dies. The maggot ceases to be, you cease to be, there is no memory of the former things for the maggot, neither is there any memory of the notable things you did in life......the maggot ate dead flesh, you ate dead flesh (unless you are a vegetarian, then you ate dead ....plants???)...

I understand you find this regrettable. I find it regrettable that rain isn´t made of wine.
Beyond that I don´t know what your point could possibly be, except i an attempt of combining two fallacies: shooting the messenger and arguing from consequence.

The cosmos is indifferent,

Yes, why would you expect differently, in the first place?

everything fades to black.....drowned in an abyss of nothingness....

Oh my, so much pathos to merely describe that the world isn´t like you wish it were in your dreams.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, minus all the rhethoric you are stating that life is finite. This I agree with.
Now, that this is not to your liking doesn´t make it an Achilles Heel of atheism, it would just show that your expectations are unrealistic.

It is not a view that I personally hold, and I honestly neither like it nor dislike it. I am apathetic towards it actually because I have good reason to believe that that is not what my ultimate destiny will be at all.

No, it isn´t. It requires you to call everything that´s not "ultimate" "illusory". Since you haven´t established that there is such a thing as an "ultimate meaning", the term "realistic" is the appropriate term. And the correct term for your "ultimate meaning" is "wishful thinking" - until you can demonstrate the existence of what you call "ultimate meaning" the lack thereof is not an Achilles Heel of atheism or naturalism but your Achilles Heel.

As a Christian, my position has no Achilles Heel at all. There is no "weakness" in Christianity. It is strong, impenetrable, and solid from head to toe.

Several quotes immediately come to the forefront of my mind:

“Infidels of eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book [the bible], and yet it stands today as solid rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt." H.L. Hastings

“When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, ‘Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.’ So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives.”


“No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet? The Bible is still loved by millions, and studied by millions.

I understand you find this regrettable. I find it regrettable that rain isn´t made of wine.
Beyond that I don´t know what your point could possibly be, except i an attempt of combining two fallacies: shooting the messenger and arguing from consequence.

I actually am indifferent to the view, because as I stated earlier, it is not my view at all. I allow people the freedom to believe what they want. If you want to believe that then that is fine. I will not try to stop you. I am just glad you acknowledge that is what your position entails.

Yes, why would you expect differently, in the first place?

Oh my, so much pathos to merely describe that the world isn´t like you wish it were in your dreams.

I could not ask for anything better than what God has willed is best for me. Right now it is best for me to live in this world as I currently am and would desire nothing different for myself at the present.

 

[Davian]

Convenient for you then.

You get to sit back and simply demand proof and evidence from others while keeping your position below the radar of the burden of proof.

A common complaint that I hear from those that appear to be without evidence for their claims.

Now I know why you will not debate me.

You position is probably defenseless.

I have, on more than one occasion, provided to you, or provided links to my positions and associated supporting evidence for many subjects relevant to this forum. It would appear that you have forgotten those.

Also, it was my understanding the the topics of debate were to be subjects *you* were positing to be true, not mine. In that event, the position(s) I hold, other than not accepting your debate position as true, would be irrelevant.

So what are you complaining about then?

 

[Davian]

It is not a view that I personally hold, and I honestly neither like it nor dislike it. I am apathetic towards it actually because I have good reason to believe that that is not what my ultimate destiny will be at all.

As a Christian, my position has no Achilles Heel at all. There is no "weakness" in Christianity. It is strong, impenetrable, and solid from head to toe.

...except for the absence of robust, independently verifiable evidence for the resurrection, outside of a bible story. That is a "weakness".

Several quotes immediately come to the forefront of my mind:

“Infidels of eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book [the bible], and yet it stands today as solid rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt." H.L. Hastings

“When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, ‘Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.’ So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives.”


“No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet? The Bible is still loved by millions, and studied by millions.
...

The appeal to popularity fallacy. Must be true then.

Fail.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Why? Because all atheists are supposed to be intelligent and skeptics?
Just because someone doesn't accept your particular god claim, doesn't make them a skeptic on every subject. And there's nothing in the definition of atheist that says you can't be an atheist if you believe in aliens. Look at raelians.

Yes I'm aware of that and I'm also aware of the bulk of atheists that i encounter have a nice laugh when I mention the holy ghost . It's generally this point that they scoff at my belief in the supernatural and pummel me with points about matter being all there is. I suppose if an individual is going to take this stance yet poke fun of my beliefs ( or anyone elses beliefs ) in the supernatural then he/she had better be prepared to take some ribbing.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

The reasoning is simply that if God can be shown to be immoral from passages taken from the Holy Bible i.e. the appeal to the the doctrine of eternal punishment, and or by appealing to instances where people associated with the Church have committed immoral acts, then believing in Him and worshiping Him and propagating the gospel is also immoral and therefore the Christian is guilty of immoral acts based upon their adherence to the Christian Faith.

These arguments, according to the nontheist, justifies one in not believing that the Abrahmaic God is God at all, but merely an invention of men's minds. In other words, these arguments are used in an attempt to make a case that the position of one who maintains that this Abrahmaic God is God, and that He has revealed Himself through The Holy Bible is a position that is baseless, inconsistent, internally contradictory, and at best discrepant.

Lets tale a look at this absurdity.

Do you believe in Biblical inerrancy? If you do then that means God justified such actions int he past regardless of the old testament being nullified.

Regardless of this issue of whether you do not believe it for whatever reason it makes no difference. Although Christians can be moral and loving although their Bible teaches otherwise, it is illogical to be a Christian and not follow the Bible.

I myself accept the Bible......as a work of fiction. It has beautiful Semitic folklore and fables, but none of in which are true and disproven.

Your entire argument provides nothing to displace Yahweh's own immorality and remove it from the equation. It only tries negating the Atheist's claims by placing him in a equivalent boat.

 

[quatona]

<snip preachings>

I actually am indifferent to the view, because as I stated earlier, it is not my view at all.

Doesn´t follow. Of course it isn´t your view. Doesn´t mean you are indifferent.
The mere existence of this thread (and your recent use of pathos dripping negative emotionalisms) says you are not.

I allow people the freedom to believe what they want. If you want to believe that then that is fine. I will not try to stop you.

How generous of you. And that equals indifference exactly how?

I am just glad you acknowledge that is what your position entails.

You make that sound as though people who don´t believe in an afterlife needed to be reminded that their view entails that their life is finite.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think the Big Crunch will be the ultimate end of life as we know it. Unless you think humans can survive it. Or either the slow, cold, spreading out of the universe until it is so thin that.....well....you get the picture.

Either scenario is pretty ultimate and final. Either way you slice it.



It is all still ultimately illusory. You die, the maggot dies. The maggot ceases to be, you cease to be, there is no memory of the former things for the maggot, neither is there any memory of the notable things you did in life......the maggot ate dead flesh, you ate dead flesh (unless you are a vegetarian, then you ate dead ....plants???)...


The cosmos is indifferent, everything fades to black.....drowned in an abyss of nothingness....

In my view, the cosmos isn't indifferent at all. We are part of the cosmos and we are not indifferent.

By the way, you still haven't answered my question about Nietzsche.

 

[KCfromNC]

You miss the point sir.

Follow me closely here:

None of this addresses what I wrote. Yes, some people find meaning in god. Other people don't. Neither opinion has any effect on one's ability to analyze beliefs and determine if they are backed by reason and evidence. In other words, even if me and a friend lack a belief in ultimate meaning, we can still agree that someone who thinks that stop signs are purple is wrong. Same with claims about magical god(s).

But surely the naturalist would reply:

Well religion causes unnecessary suffering and turmoil and should be eradicated!

Nope. Try having a conversation with the people you're discussing with rather than yourself. Pretending I'd say nonsense like this is borderline dishonest.

 

[KCfromNC]

Saying that naturalism entails that there is no ultimate meaning is not a strawman.

Only if you admit that there's zero evidence for ultimate meaning. Is this your claim?

It is what naturalists themselves say.

Made up naturalists or real ones?