The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

Which goes back to Hawisher's point that the cosmological argument is as good as the argument from squirrels.

For me, yes. For when I look at a squirrel, or any other created being, I see the awesomeness and creativity of the Creator who made the squirrel.

For you, or for anyone else, I cannot say what is a "good" argument at all. For I am not privy to how you make the determination of what is "good" or "bad". I am not privy to the inner workings and reasonings of your mind and heart.

How does one have an emotional resistance to a being they do not believe to exist?

An atheist is one who simply "lacks belief in God or gods", as so I have been repeatedly told, and therefore generally speaking, an atheist can have any number of psychological reasons for lacking belief in God. They may perceive God in any number of ways which precludes them from accepting the proposition: "God exists".

An atheist is not necessarily one who does not believe in God. In fact, a person may be an anti-theistic atheist, or an apatheistic atheist, or an agnostic atheist. None of the preceding entails necessarily the idea of not believing God exists. The anti-theistic atheist lacks belief in God because he is positively against the notion, the apatheistic atheist lacks belief because he is apathetic about the whole matter, the agnostic atheist lacks belief because he does not know if God exists or not. Some of them may not believe God exists, but most would tell you that they simply lack belief. They do make it a point to differentiate between the two notions. Which is what I have done, and which you have failed to to.

The emotion canard is convenient because it can be applied to just about anything. For example: "If you don't support clean coal then that must be because you have some emotional reason that prevents you from being convinced by the case for clean coal".

Whether it is convenient or not is not a matter that concerns me. All I have stated, and this without controversy, is that some atheists have emotional reasons for being atheists. I.e. the reasons for them being atheists has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof for God's existence, but rather an emotional resistance to their perceived idea of who God is. They think the idea of God to be repugnant etc. etc. Or, they hate the idea of God holding them accountable for their very thoughts etc. etc. The words "repugnant", and "hate" connote emotion.

Or they have considered the arguments given and have concluded that they do not provide a good reason to believe by faith.

I am not speaking of all atheists, only those who have admitted to having misgivings about God not based on the lack of evidence, but rather, based on misgivings about who they perceive God to be or what He represents.

 

[Skavau]

The anti-theistic atheist lacks belief in God because he is positively against the notion, the apatheistic atheist lacks belief because he is apathetic about the whole matter, the agnostic atheist lacks belief because he does not know if God exists or not.

Untrue.

Why I lack belief in God and why I'm against God are two different things.

 

[Elioenai26]

Untrue.

Why I lack belief in God and why I'm against God are two different things.

You are not the only anti-theist in the world, nor was I referring to you specifically.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For me, yes. For when I look at a squirrel, or any other created being, I see the awesomeness and creativity of the Creator who made the squirrel.

If everything can be construed as evidence for a deity, how is that not begging the question for a deity?

An atheist is one who simply "lacks belief in God or gods", as so I have been repeatedly told, and therefore generally speaking, an atheist can have any number of psychological reasons for lacking belief in God. They may perceive God in any number of ways which precludes them from accepting the proposition: "God exists".

An atheist is not necessarily one who does not believe in God. In fact, a person may be an anti-theistic atheist, or an apatheistic atheist, or an agnostic atheist. None of the preceding entails necessarily the idea of not believing God exists. The anti-theistic atheist lacks belief in God because he is positively against the notion, the apatheistic atheist lacks belief because he is apathetic about the whole matter, the agnostic atheist lacks belief because he does not know if God exists or not. Some of them may not believe God exists, but most would tell you that they simply lack belief. They do make it a point to differentiate between the two notions. Which is what I have done, and which you have failed to to.

Whether it is convenient or not is not a matter that concerns me. All I have stated, and this without controversy, is that some atheists have emotional reasons for being atheists. I.e. the reasons for them being atheists has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof for God's existence, but rather an emotional resistance to their perceived idea of who God is. They think the idea of God to be repugnant etc. etc. Or, they hate the idea of God holding them accountable for their very thoughts etc. etc. The words "repugnant", and "hate" connote emotion.

Or they view a particular God concept as "repugnant"? You're assuming that atheists having "perceived ideas of who God is" is not at all connected with the God concepts that theists have proposed they should believe in.

I am not speaking of all atheists, only those who have admitted to having misgivings about God not based on the lack of evidence, but rather, based on misgivings about who they perceive God to be or what He represents.

But those misgivings aren't necessarily the basis for a lack of belief. Instead they reflect judgments on the character of a God concept that a theist has proposed. When someone makes a judgment about a fictional character or a hypothetical scenario, we do not ordinarily assume that their judgment has any bearing upon their belief regarding whether the character is fictional or not.

 

[Elioenai26]

If everything can be construed as evidence for a deity, how is that not begging the question for a deity?

I have never argued the following:

1. If everything can be construed as evidence for a deity, then a deity exists.
2. Everything can be construed as evidence for a deity.
3. Therefore a deity exists.

I have never argued the above.

What I have said is that I view the world as one in which everything that exists owes its existence to God who created the heavens and the earth. This is not an argument and you need to stop thinking that everything I am saying to you is some type of argument or debate. I am simply telling you how I view reality. If you do not agree with it then that is fine. You can think whatever you want, the choice is yours. I am not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you will, you will anyway.

Or they view a particular God concept as "repugnant"? You're assuming that atheists having "perceived ideas of who God is" is not at all connected with the God concepts that theists have proposed they should believe in.

You may see God as a celestial tyrant after reading Genesis. I may see Him as a Loving Heavenly Father.

We both have read the same passage, but our perceptions on it are different.

Why?

There are numerous factors that one must take into account when answering that question.

But those misgivings aren't necessarily the basis for a lack of belief. Instead they reflect judgments on the character of a God concept that a theist has proposed. When someone makes a judgment about a fictional character or a hypothetical scenario, we do not ordinarily assume that their judgment has any bearing upon their belief regarding whether the character is fictional or not.

You must speak for yourself, not every atheist.

 

[willlowbee]

I don't think Christianity can be argued to be absolutely moral what with the example many Christians afford the faith in their own practice representing something in the faith inspires them to immoral practice.

While with the atheist community I do not agree in any respect that they are immoral simply because they are non-theist. Theism does not implant morality. Morality precedes religious belief.

If we read the scriptures of any of the Abrahamic faiths immoral examples abound. Therefore it can not be said, using scripture, that faith in scripture imparts a moral platform in the believer in them.

I think if we realize how we came to know our faith, we may realize we're actually Roman and Pauline before we are anything close to that of what Jesus originally said.
Therefore it's incumbent upon us to find our own connection to source within and live our moral example for the sake of being decent people. If we ascribe our moral standing strictly to what we glean from written words of others we'll stand to be called on the carpet and fail miserably defending those writings as what rightly directs our integrity.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't think Christianity can be argued to be absolutely moral what with the example many Christians afford the faith in their own practice representing something in the faith inspires them to immoral practice.

While with the atheist community I do not agree in any respect that they are immoral simply because they are non-theist. Theism does not implant morality. Morality precedes religious belief.

If we read the scriptures of any of the Abrahamic faiths immoral examples abound. Therefore it can not be said, using scripture, that faith in scripture imparts a moral platform in the believer in them.

I think if we realize how we came to know our faith, we may realize we're actually Roman and Pauline before we are anything close to that of what Jesus originally said.
Therefore it's incumbent upon us to find our own connection to source within and live our moral example for the sake of being decent people. If we ascribe our moral standing strictly to what we glean from written words of others we'll stand to be called on the carpet and fail miserably defending those writings as what rightly directs our integrity.

No one has argued that you have to believe in God to be a "moral" person.

No one has argued that you have to believe in Christ to be a "moral" person.

No one has argued that you cannot be "moral" until you become a Christian.

No one has argued or even insinuated any of the above. In fact, I will be charitable here and say that there may be some atheists who live "moral" lives while there may be some "Christians" who live "immoral" lives.

The issue at hand is whether or not morality is grounded in the very nature of an All-Good God or whether it is simply something that is a by-product of socio-biological evolution.

The question is a matter of ontology, not epistemology.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never argued the following:

1. If everything can be construed as evidence for a deity, then a deity exists.
2. Everything can be construed as evidence for a deity.
3. Therefore a deity exists.

I have never argued the above.

What I have said is that I view the world as one in which everything that exists owes its existence to God who created the heavens and the earth. This is not an argument and you need to stop thinking that everything I am saying to you is some type of argument or debate. I am simply telling you how I view reality. If you do not agree with it then that is fine. You can think whatever you want, the choice is yours. I am not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you will, you will anyway.

I never claimed that you did make such an argument. My point was simply that if everything can be construed as evidence for a deity then you are inevitably begging the question for a deity. Any argument you make will subsume God's existence in its premises and its conclusion.

You may see God as a celestial tyrant after reading Genesis. I may see Him as a Loving Heavenly Father.

We both have read the same passage, but our perceptions on it are different.

Why?

There are numerous factors that one must take into account when answering that question.


You must speak for yourself, not every atheist.

I think I speak for everyone who has ever been asked to evaluate the character of a fictional person. Suppose I described to you a fictional tyrant who was responsible for numerous acts of genocide in a fictional world. Based on this description, you may call him an evil monster. I wouldn't assume that your evaluation of his character had anything to do with your belief in whether this person is fictional or not. They are separate issues. The fact that you regard this fictional person a monster isn't the reason you regard him as a fiction.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No one has argued that you have to believe in God to be a "moral" person.

No one has argued that you have to believe in Christ to be a "moral" person.

No one has argued that you cannot be "moral" until you become a Christian.

No one has argued or even insinuated any of the above. In fact, I will be charitable here and say that there may be some atheists who live "moral" lives while there may be some "Christians" who live "immoral" lives.

Yes, it has been insinuated multiple times. In this very thread, for instance, you alluded to the idea that atheists do not believe because they do not want to be held accountable for their thoughts and actions.

The issue at hand is whether or not morality is grounded in the very nature of an All-Good God or whether it is simply something that is a by-product of socio-biological evolution.

The question is a matter of ontology, not epistemology.

Yet an epistemic question inevitably arises: if values are grounded in divinity, then how are we able to obtain knowledge of these values?

 

[Elioenai26]

I never claimed that you did make such an argument.

I was addressing willlowbee and what he said in his post.

My point was simply that if everything can be construed as evidence for a deity then you are inevitably begging the question for a deity. Any argument you make will subsume God's existence in its premises and its conclusion.

And your point is a bad one. You basically say that a Christian cannot provide an argument for the existence of God without begging the question because for them, everything can be construed as evidence for God.

This is the same as saying that an atheist cannot present an argument for naturalism or materialism without begging the question because for them, everything can be construed as evidence for a naturalistic view of reality.

It is fallacious because an argument's premises determine whether or not an argument is question begging, not the beliefs of the one presenting the argument. The beliefs of the one presenting the argument are immaterial to the premises of the argument.

In fact, I know God exists. This knowledge does not prevent me from presenting a sound argument for His existence to an unbeliever. So long as the premises are more plausibly true than their contradictory's, and the argument is logically valid and the conclusion follows from the premises, then the argument is sound.

I think I speak for everyone who has ever been asked to evaluate the character of a fictional person. Suppose I described to you a fictional tyrant who was responsible for numerous acts of genocide in a fictional world. Based on this description, you may call him an evil monster. I wouldn't assume that your evaluation of his character had anything to do with your belief in whether this person is fictional or not.

My evaluation of his character would be based on his actions and the context in which those actions were produced.

You once again are trying to speak for every atheist. That is something you should understand you cannot do.

They are separate issues. The fact that you regard this fictional person a monster isn't the reason you regard him as a fiction.

You once again are trying to speak for every atheist. That is something you should understand you cannot do.

In fact, in the above, you are doing the one thing you falsely accused me of and that is begging the question when you say: "Fictional Character". The God of the Bible has yet to be shown to be a fictional character by you or any other atheist. You simply assume this. This is very bad logic and reasoning my friend. It is also hypocritical of you.

 

[KCfromNC]

We are empirical evidence for God.

Before you get to claim this you need to present a god hypothesis which is testable and falsifiable. Without a testable claim, there's no way to know if an observation is consistent with or contradicts that claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I was addressing willlowbee and what he said in his post.



And your point is a bad one. You basically say that a Christian cannot provide an argument for the existence of God without begging the question because for them, everything can be construed as evidence for God.

This is the same as saying that an atheist cannot present an argument for naturalism or materialism without begging the question because for them, everything can be construed as evidence for a naturalistic view of reality.

It is fallacious because an argument's premises determine whether or not an argument is question begging, not the beliefs of the one presenting the argument. The beliefs of the one presenting the argument are immaterial to the premises of the argument.

If the premises subsume a deity and the conclusion subsumes a deity then the argument begs the question for a deity. Your version of the moral argument illustrates this point.

In fact, I know God exists. This knowledge does not prevent me from presenting a sound argument for His existence to an unbeliever. So long as the premises are more plausibly true than their contradictory's, and the argument is logically valid and the conclusion follows from the premises, then the argument is sound.

I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate how you came by this knowledge. Specifically, I have asked you how one is able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural.

My evaluation of his character would be based on his actions and the context in which those actions were produced.

You once again are trying to speak for every atheist. That is something you should understand you cannot do.

You once again are trying to speak for every atheist. That is something you should understand you cannot do.

I've made clear the context - fiction. Your evaluation of the character of a fictional entity is separate from whether you believe such an entity exists or not. You are assuming that atheists are somehow an exception to this principle; that their lack of belief is connected to their evaluation of the character of the entity they are being asked to believe in. Not only is this interpretation uncharitable, it doesn't seem at all tenable given what has been said to date.

 

[Elioenai26]

Before you get to claim this you need to present a god hypothesis which is testable and falsifiable. Without a testable claim, there's no way to know if an observation is consistent with or contradicts that claim.

If you want to believe you are an accidental collocation of atoms with no intrinsic worth, no intrinsic value, no destiny, and no different fundamentally than a maggot or worm, and if you believe this is where the evidence leads you, then I assure you my friend, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

To each his own!

 

[KCfromNC]

I am not speaking of all atheists, only those who have admitted to having misgivings about God not based on the lack of evidence, but rather, based on misgivings about who they perceive God to be or what He represents.

But again, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with an emotional response. I have misgivings that the Christian god as presented by believers is irrational and logically contradictory. That isn't an emotional response, it's a logical deduction from the claims made about it.

Are you talking about any real atheists here, or are you just making up imaginary people to argue against?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you want to believe you are an accidental collocation of atoms with no intrinsic worth, no intrinsic value, no destiny, and no different fundamentally than a maggot or worm, and if you believe this is where the evidence leads you, then I assure you my friend, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

To each his own!

There you go again, conflating atheism with nihilism.

So much for "I never insinuated anything of the sort".

 

[KCfromNC]

If you want to believe you are an accidental collocation of atoms with no intrinsic worth, no intrinsic value, no destiny, and no different fundamentally than a maggot or worm

Why are you pretending I said anything like this? Seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to dodge the fact that you can't back up claims of empirical backing for your god concept.

 

[Elioenai26]

If the premises subsume a deity and the conclusion subsumes a deity then the argument begs the question for a deity. Your version of the moral argument illustrates this point.

Then why do those contemporary philosophers who object to the argument not simply object by saying it is question begging and be done with it there?

They know that none of the arguments are question begging that is why.

I would suggest you look at some of the objections that come from actual philosophers who understand how the arguments are formulated.

Your opinions demonstrate a lack of understanding both in what a syllogism is and what question begging is.

I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate how you came by this knowledge. Specifically, I have asked you how one is able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural.

I have obtained knowledge of the supernatural primarily through a relationship with God.

I've made clear the context - fiction. Your evaluation of the character of a fictional entity is separate from whether you believe such an entity exists or not. You are assuming that atheists are somehow an exception to this principle; that their lack of belief is connected to their evaluation of the character of the entity they are being asked to believe in. Not only is that interpretation uncharitable, it doesn't seem at all tenable given what has been said to date.

But we are not talking about fiction, we are talking about the God of the Bible, which you have yet to demonstrate is fictional.

I also have not said that every atheist feels this way, but SOME.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why are you pretending I said anything like this? Seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to dodge the fact that you can't back up claims of empirical backing for your god concept.

It's ironic, isn't it? Elioenai26 argues that many atheists refuse to believe in God for "emotional reasons". Perhaps we should be as uncharitable as he is by assuming that he believes in God for "emotional reasons"? Emotional reasons such as not wanting to believe that he is "an accidental collocation of atoms with no intrinsic worth, no intrinsic value, no destiny, and no different fundamentally than a maggot or worm."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then why do those contemporary philosophers who object to the argument not simply object by saying it is question begging and be done with it there?

They know that none of the arguments are question begging that is why.

I would suggest you look at some of the objections that come from actual philosophers who understand how the arguments are formulated.

Appealing to contemporary philosophers won't save you. We are talking about your arguments, not theirs.

Your opinions demonstrate a lack of understanding both in what a syllogism is and what question begging is.

I've demonstrated your question-begging on at least one previous occasion. Your premises and your conclusion both subsumed the existence of a deity, thus begging the question for a deity.

I have obtained knowledge of the supernatural primarily through a relationship with God.

Could you elaborate on that? What is the nature of this relationship?

But we are not talking about fiction, we are talking about the God of the Bible, which you have yet to demonstrate is fictional.

You're switching the burden of proof.

I also have not said that every atheist feels this way, but SOME.

Which makes the interpretation no less uncharitable than assuming that your belief in a deity stems from "emotional reasons".

 

[Elioenai26]

Why are you pretending I said anything like this? Seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to dodge the fact that you can't back up claims of empirical backing for your god concept.

I am not "pretending" you said anything like that at all.

I am plainly stating that that is what you are if you deny the existence of God.

If there is no God who made you in His Image, then you are an accident, a miniscule speck in a colossal accident of cosmic proportions. You, like the cockroach or worm, have no ultimate purpose, you were not made for a specific end, you have no intrinsic worth or value imbued upon you by a Creator who made you, you are simply atoms arranged in a certain way and one day, when your biological functions cease due to age, illness, disease, you will cease to be. You will return to the dust from whence your ancestors arose....

You are the accidental result of natural forces acting upon matter. The cosmos is indifferent to you, you are nothing special at all in the face of the vast cosmos. You are no better off or no worse off than the maggot that eats its fill on a dead dog's guts.

To think any differently is to be guilty of species-ism.

Read Nietzsche's the Madman....

Jean-Paul Sartre observed, several hours or several years make no difference once you have lost eternity. Sartre writes elsewhere of the "nausea" of existence.

Camus expresses the same sentiment. At the end of his brief novel The Stranger, Camus's protagonist finds that in one overwhelming epiphany that the universe has no meaning because there is no God to give it meaning.

Kai Nielsen, an atheist philosopher in the end confesses: "We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality." Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984): 90.

​

One philosopher has written: "Human life is mounted upon a subhuman pedestal and must shift for itself alone in the heart of a silent and mindless universe.''W.E. Hocking, Types of Philosophy (New York: Scribner's, 1959), 27.

Bertrand Russell wrote that: we must build our lives upon "the firm foundation of unyielding despair." Bertrand Russell, "A Free Man's Worship," in Why I Am Not a Christian, ed. P. Edwards (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 107.

​

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god#_edn6

Ernst Bloch when speaking of how modern men who deny God in order to live, must borrow the belief in immortality writes: "modern man does not feel the chasm that unceasingly surrounds him and that will certainly engulf him at last. Through these remnants, he saves his sense of self-identity. Through them the impression arises that man is not perishing, but only that one day the world has the whim no longer to appear to him." "This quite shallow courage feasts on a borrowed credit card. It lives from earlier hopes and the support that they once had provided." Ernst Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1959), 2:360-1

​

When addressing the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue saw where all of this hopelessness and meaningless was leading to and advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some "Noble Lie" into thinking that we and the universe still have value. (Loyal D. Rue, "The Saving Grace of Noble Lies," address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, February, 1991)


So KC, if there is no God, then like these men have concluded, you are no better off or worse off than anything else that has ever lived and perished.

This is atheism, this is what you must come to terms with.

​

​

​

​

​

​