Why atheism doesn't make any sense

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;28108 wrote:

You mean this ?

I will just ask again: if you can't explain something you see as very complex and apparently inexplicable - Why is that you MUST bring something of an infinite more complexity into existence, something of supernatural origin ? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's only supernatural if you label it that. For me, God is the most natural concept there is.

1 Reply

@Stormalv,

Stormalv wrote:

It's only supernatural if you label it that. For me, God is the most natural concept there is.

It's also a most natural activity for a person to look for their horse, while being institutionalized in a mental facility for believing they are Napoleon. They truly honestly believe it, there's nothing unnatural or supernatural going on from their point of view. Things change if lots of people believe it though, we don't have enough room in these institutions so ... Why not start a religion instead ?

0 Replies

@Stormalv,

Stormalv;28104 wrote:

Please be sure to read my whole post and understand the point before you post (not aimed at everyone here of course), consciousness is the deal here, not cells or evolution. And I won't read that stupid article either. ^^

Can you separate consciousness from cells and evolution?

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;28112 wrote:

Can you separate consciousness from cells and evolution?

Of course. They are not the same.

1 Reply

@Stormalv,

Stormalv;28114 wrote:

Of course. They are not the same.

A fuel pump is not an engine, nor is a carburator. But if you break the chain they form, the engine is useless.

Without cells and evolution, where is consciousness?

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

It is folly to consider consciousness only of the mind, the entire body is consciousness, these creationists, DUH!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

If is folly to consider consciousness only of the mind, the entire body is consciousness, these creationists, DUH!!

Non-sense ! Consciousness is spirit ! It waits in Heaven for a mommy and daddy to love each other and only then it comes down to earth ! Right ? RIGHT ?!?!?!?!!!?

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;28109 wrote:

By twisted around, I mean I could say, "1+1 often equals 2, but not always."
Were someone to protest, I could then say, "What does 1 drop of water plus 1 drop of water equal?"

The semantic twist comes about by misdirection or lack of clarity (whether unintentional or not) in the original statement or problem. Saying "what does 1 drop of water combined with one drop of water equal" is a totally different proposition than 1 drop of water plus one drop of water.

Yes, there is a lack of clarity once you bring words into the equation, which don't have an absolute mathematical value. 1+1 as a mathematical statement though is always equal to 2 (ok, there might be some math phds out there who are working in the realm of advanced theory who would say something else).

Of course the real realization should be that while 1+1 always equals 2, there is not really any meaning here, it simply defines a math convention. You could abolish the number 2 and replace it with (1+1) for a math equation, and it has the same meaning. Agreeing that 1+1=2 (or that 1+1=1+1) is like two english speakers both agreeing that an apple is called an apple.

Introducing the phrase "drop of water" is what changed the meaning, because that phrase in itself could be anything to anyone. The numbers stay the same. So in that sense, it is not a valid analogy.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;28122 wrote:

Yes, there is a lack of clarity once you bring words into the equation, which don't have an absolute mathematical value. 1+1 as a mathematical statement though is always equal to 2 (ok, there might be some math phds out there who are working in the realm of advanced theory who would say something else).

Of course the real realization should be that while 1+1 always equals 2, there is not really any meaning here, it simply defines a math convention. You could abolish the number 2 and replace it with (1+1) for a math equation, and it has the same meaning. Agreeing that 1+1=2 (or that 1+1=1+1) is like two english speakers both agreeing that an apple is called an apple.

Introducing the phrase "drop of water" is what changed the meaning, because that phrase in itself could be anything to anyone. The numbers stay the same. So in that sense, it is not a valid analogy.

Yes, you are absolutely correct about my faulty analogy. However, I do feel that your response validates what I was trying to say. I could be misinterpreting what you're saying though.

I was trying to make some sort of point about the use of language (which was suggested by my reading of post number 15 of this topic by ariciunervos) and the inherent semantic twists that can be either consciously or unconsciously introduced, in particular, in any discussion involving the existence or non-existence of God, or in discussions of the meaning of "self." Actually, it's a risk in most day to day conversations. It's just more pronounced in conversations where the parties involved are in disagreement. Doubly dangerous in theological discussions.

What I find interesting is that these twists can be both implied and inferred. If you prefer, rather than using the phrase "semantic twists," you could say miscommunication and misunderstanding.

As you say about 1+1 always equaling 2 not having any real meaning, I believe the same could be said of any discussion involving the use of the word "self". There is no real meaning here, it simply defines a philosophical or intellectual convention. I believe that the word "self" has no absolute value, and as such is susceptible to a host of interpretations which may bear little or no relation to the speaker's viewpoint.

Perhaps a bit off the original post/topic here (although the original poster did make a reference or two to the concept of the self, so maybe I'm not that far off topic), but an interesting experiment is to try to get through a day of interaction with others without ever using the words "me" or "I" or "my" or any other self-referential term. It's very difficult, and it definitely forces a different perspective on things. What did God mean when He said "I am that I am" (or something very similar, depending on the translation) when Moses asked what His name was? If God had instead said, "One is that One is," how would that have been interpreted? Would the entire message of Judeo-Christian religion be different than what it is now? Or would it be like abolishing the number 2, where even though the words, or symbols, have changed the final equation still adds up to what we have already determined to be the correct and logical answer.

Just some thoughts. I'm not particularly attached to any of them. At this point, I've managed to confuse myself with what I mean by myself and am no longer sure what I mean. I'm looking forward to further clarification on this forum.

Regards,
Tock.

1 Reply

@Stormalv,

Stormalv,

Thanks for the opportunity to sound off on our beliefs. You've stated yours very honestly and succinctly - your candor is to be commended.

Stormalv wrote:

... It boils down to this, consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead. Intelligent can't suddenly appear out of a universe that is stupid...

Why not?

Although I respect your beliefs here, I must say I find this line of reasoning very limited. Lack of knowledge on how something came to be doesn't, to me, justify making up an explanation. Also, this atheist believes that consciousness (whether we define that as mental, cellular, a product of evolution or simply a dynamic that exists as all these work together) can very easily exist as a result of so many active substances coming together as I believe they have. Is this so much of a stretch?

Further, I feel that - for all of us - our logic is limited by the framework in which we've learned. The child locked in a box, from birth, knows only that box. Has he the basis for making postulations on what lies outside? What might that be? In any case, the considered atheist (in my humble opinion) cannot proclaim "there is not" since its unlikely he has such absolute knowledge. But to say "I've no reason to believe this stuff" is quite reasonable (and speaks to a respect that acknowledges our gaps in knowledge and seeks to fill them).

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Okay, I also see your point, but still, the existance of God is so likely (simply because of lack of another reasonal answer to my philosophical dilemma) that I can't understand how anyone can think he doesn't exist, rather than believing he does.

1 Reply

@Stormalv,

Storm,

I understand and even admire your conviction, even if I don't share it. But I might be able to help you on this next point, if you want to hear it.

Stormalv wrote:

... I can't understand how anyone can think he doesn't exist, rather than believing he does.

Well, I can't speak for others, but I can tell you why I don't. Now, a lot of what I'm going to say below will apply to all theistic systems while some of it applies to almost none. It's very important to differentiate that theism is a broad term; as such, how much of this applies to any flavor of theism will vary. I work very hard not to generalize; so, that being said:

Mainly, it has to do with a reason to believe in something. Lack of a reason to not believe isn't justification to believe, to me.

Many theistic philosophies are of a nature as to remove personal responsibility (placing it on the shoulders of Divine Providence or God's Will), thereby reducing the chance that we'll realize, understand and take responsibility for what's taken place.

Some of the more institutionalized theistic systems are of a deeply-ingrained nature that they actually divide and polarize us, as humans. I can't see anything good coming from positing one human against another.

There's an arrogance that says we have "dominion" over the earth and its contents whose mindset has lead us to a destructive place. There's an arrogance that says females are not worth as much, that that sacrifices are necessary, that you'll be resurrected in a higher form, that you're of a "chosen" people, that some humans are dark skined due to a punishment long-ago, etc., etc., etc. Many forms of theism breed an arrogant nature that elevates the one over another; and in so doing, hurts us as a species by breeding sectionalized arrogance.

To deny that we're part of this planet; that it's survival and ours are not mutually-reliant is destructive. We are but another life form on this planet, this is undeniable. Many (most?) theistic notions remove us from this community - in the mindsets they inculcate. So who here thinks this is a good thing?

Successful interpersonal interaction - for what pale potential there is - relies on common ground. Common ground, in this context, is that which we can see, touch, feel or rationalize together as humans. The instant perspective of the one transitions into the supernatural, unless the other has the same identical perception, successful interaction tends to stop.

As a basis for ethical behavior, some theism mindsets rely on threats. There are many other, better, reasons to "do the right thing" to hour fellows. Basing good behavior on quantifiable rationale (such as effects, humane treatment and respect) are much more easily conceptualized, more easily taught, more reliable to enforce and innumerably more accepted - than threats of damnation.

For those flavors of theism that proport life after death, these are particularly destructive in that they attempt to deny the benefits that underlie one of humanity's most-basic truths: Life will end. This end is a reason to be good, a reason to embrace one another and a reason to take responsibility. Those who believe this works the other way around might do well to realize that "reasons to" and "reasons not to", for anything, are just such in the mind because that's how one has been taught or socialized.

When the answer "Yes" to the question "Is this all that I am" comes, I believe we touch a note of truth that is humbling and productive. This "despair" is a scary thing, and I believe it should be. But acceptance has more benefits to the human animal than any fantasy that removes this and relegates us to invented sillyness.

There may be a creator, a binding mystical force to all things, a spirit for the living and a place wherein we all go after death. Indeed, there could be many things; possibilities we can't quantify or even imagine. But to accept the as a-priori truth that we don't know spurs our desire to ask the questions, seek the answers and learn, grow and develop. The term "I don't know" pushes us to philosophize and seek. What better way to hamstring the pursuit of knowledge than to relegate such matters to incense, robes, spirit-travel, old myths, taken out of context, hallucination and ambiguity?

We all want for something more, there is (I believe) an innate desire of the human animal to conceive of something greater than oneself. This is good, this is admirable, this is precious. But it is not a reason to conjure up what our senses tell us is not. It is productive to all aspects of the full human existence to accept our lack of knowledge, our gaps in understanding and our mortality. This breeds a humility and sense of awe that spurs a full life, love and respect.

Although most theists don't like it being brought up, need I remind anyone of the continual damage done in the name of any god? We all know of such damage in the past, but it continues now through conflict, hate, deep-seeded and long-fought conflict, interpersonal distancing, polarization, cultists, pedaphiles and much, much more. What better way to mobilize a people than a holy war? What better way to ensure conscious subscription to wrong-doing than by proporting that this is what god wants?

In any such discussion, I'll tell the faithful that I admire their faith - that their belief is a good thing. I do this on an interpersonal level because even though I believe that belief to be wrong, even though its my assertion that this belief is damaging, its still a part of the human heart that "... wants for more".

I doubt this rant helps much practically. But I do hope it helps pass along some understanding behind the nature of this atheist's sytem.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;28141 wrote:

Perhaps a bit off the original post/topic here (although the original poster did make a reference or two to the concept of the self, so maybe I'm not that far off topic), but an interesting experiment is to try to get through a day of interaction with others without ever using the words "me" or "I" or "my" or any other self-referential term. It's very difficult, and it definitely forces a different perspective on things. What did God mean when He said "I am that I am" (or something very similar, depending on the translation) when Moses asked what His name was? If God had instead said, "One is that One is," how would that have been interpreted? Would the entire message of Judeo-Christian religion be different than what it is now? Or would it be like abolishing the number 2, where even though the words, or symbols, have changed the final equation still adds up to what we have already determined to be the correct and logical answer.

Yea, I agree that language is a very poor medium for true communication (seems like you are saying this). Especially when reading something such as the bible, which could have been edited, revised, translated a few times, and censored before we read it, we shouldn't really put a lot of stock in the direct quotations from such a book. I think many religious writings can be rightly interpreted allegorically, and if you allow yourself to do this, rather than take everything literally, then the main religions appear that they could all be describing the same thing, though the words are different.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;28186 wrote:

[*] Mainly, it has to do with a reason to believe in something. Lack of a reason to not believe isn't justification to believe, to me.

Do you believe in the idea of absolute truth or true knowledge?

If so, then I think you could also agree that it seems humans will never be able to attain this knowledge. Science explains various aspects of reality, but it can't explain reality in fact. Religion and art might not explain reality, but a broad concept of "God" can. If there is absolute truth that exists, then this means there is some form of consciousness which can attain this knowledge, or verify its existence. Is it then unreasonable to conclude that 1) the universe is unexplainable by humans thus, 2) there must be something greater than humanity which can explain it.

It seems to me that there is also a certain degree of arrogance in the atheism crowd, where the belief is that the current state of the human mind is the highest form of consciousness available, and that we are deluding ourselves to believe that there is something greater. Surely while you rely on the powers of science to back many of your claims, then you can also understand some of the basic lessons we have learned in physics and astronomy: our world, solar system, and galaxy even occupy one tiny fraction of what could be an infinite realm which is the universe. So, because we don't observe God in our world regularly (though some would disagree with you), the idea is unlikely? Many scientists have agreed that, statistically, the odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe are pretty good, though it might be impossible to communicate with such life as it would have to be intelligent, and as we currently think, it would be limited by relativity and time.

If the universe is an infinite domain (as much advanced math and physics even agrees is likely), then this domain must therefore contain all possibilities. If it is likely that life exists outside of our little world, and even reasonably likely that life with intelligence similar, or perhaps superior to ours exists...then is it so difficult to contemplate the existence of a supreme consciousness? We are at the top of the "consciously awakened" animals here on earth, but does this automatically mean we are the best in the universe?

It seems to me that in all likelihood, there do exist levels of consciousness in this universe that are superior to ours. Whether this fits your definition of a "god" is another matter, though a higher form of consciousness, or thus higher power, appears to fit the concept.

You have raised several other points that are valid concerns about religion and the evils done by people in response to religion, and while these are valid concerns for religion, they really don't apply to the philosophical concept of God. Humans commit evil with or without religion...the religious interpretations of "God" help to unite people for good or bad, but this doesn't say anything about the underlying concept of God, it only further reflects on the weakness of the human condition.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Hey Pang, how goes?

Pangloss wrote:

Do you believe in the idea of absolute truth or true knowledge?

I believe that the truth on <this> or <that> does exist, although we may not ever know it, that we might only be constrained to perhaps the sly glimpse now and again

Pangloss wrote:

Religion and art might not explain reality, but a broad concept of "God" can.

I can make up a dozen such ideals that could explain X; why would I? To consciously self-invent, to me, seems disingenuous.

Pangloss wrote:

If there is absolute truth that exists, then this means there is some form of consciousness which can attain this knowledge, or verify its existence.

To me, this is an invalid leap. Although if I take your intent right here, I might modify this to say: If there is an absolute truth, then there could be some form of consciousness which can attain it. To believe absolute truth exists does not infer that anything could explain it; it only says "it's out there somewhere".

Pangloss wrote:

It seems to me that there is also a certain degree of arrogance in the atheism crowd, where the belief is that the current state of the human mind is the highest form of consciousness available, and that we are deluding ourselves to believe that there is something greater.

Yea, whomever believes the human mind is the highest form of consciousness has a bit of a pride problem. There could, indeed, be something "greater" (depending of course on ones' definition of greater).

Pangloss wrote:

Surely while you rely on the powers of science to back many of your claims, then you can also understand some of the basic lessons we have learned in physics and astronomy: our world, solar system, and galaxy even occupy one tiny fraction of what could be an infinite realm which is the universe.

I'm with you all the way on this one. But for clarification's sake, I personally don't rely on all science's claims. I think many have and hold worth, many are worthless and all are but pieces of the bigger pie (so to speak).

Pangloss wrote:

So, because we don't observe God in our world regularly (though some would disagree with you), the idea is unlikely?

Correct; well, at least in part.

Pangloss wrote:

If it is likely that life exists outside of our little world, and even reasonably likely that life with intelligence similar, or perhaps superior to ours exists...then is it so difficult to contemplate the existence of a supreme consciousness?

To acknowledge these possibilities is just that: To Acknowledge the Possibility which I, and many of similar mindsets do. Such a thing could exist, certainly; but to acknowledge a possibility does not (for me) constitute a reason to take on, as my own, this belief system.

Pangloss wrote:

We are at the top of the "consciously awakened" animals here on earth, but does this automatically mean we are the best in the universe?

Absolutely not. Again, I'm with ya! As a side note; once again I'd wonder what ones' definition of "best" might be - although I'll admit that's not the point here, just... an observation Smile

Pangloss wrote:

It seems to me that in all likelihood, there do exist levels of consciousness in this universe that are superior to ours. Whether this fits your definition of a "god" is another matter, though a higher form of consciousness, or thus higher power, appears to fit the concept.

If we say "Any superior form of consciousness is now our definition of the word 'God'" then yep, I'm there. But what is "superior" isn't necessarily a deity... is it? I suppose ones' interpretation could paint it so, but they seem to me to be two different (although related) concepts.

Pangloss wrote:

You have raised several other points that are valid concerns about religion and the evils done by people in response to religion, and while these are valid concerns for religion, they really don't apply to the philosophical concept of God. Humans commit evil with or without religion...the religious interpretations of "God" help to unite people for good or bad, but this doesn't say anything about the underlying concept of God, it only further reflects on the weakness of the human condition.

Surely; and your point's well taken. One need not a religion to commit wrongdoing. But in any point, where patterns of "agency" emerge that propagate, allow or otherwise 'push' humans down roads of destructiveness, these should be addressed as the results have shown them to be. I like chocolate, and although I'm sure some evil has been done in the name of chocolate, the proportional argument (nor human history at-large) bears this out as a point of concern.

Thank you for engaging me in an intelligent and polite manner. I'm well aware that many of this mindset are hard to talk with; and don't quite listen and for that I'm sad. I believe what I've said, but I'd like to think I'm open to new ideas and new input.

PS: I very much like your line of logic on the existence of the superior or higher consciousness, which could be a god-concept. I wouldn't mind hearing more.

Thanks and kudos to ya.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;28193 wrote:

Especially when reading something such as the bible, which could have been edited, revised, translated a few times, and censored before we read it,

Not only could have, has been. I find it interesting that one of the quotes attributed to Christ (I think it can be found in the Gnostic Doctrines) states something along the lines of "Thou shall not use my words to make a profit for thyself," was left out of the Bible.

Pangloss;28193 wrote:

I think many religious writings can be rightly interpreted allegorically, and if you allow yourself to do this, rather than take everything literally, then the main religions appear that they could all be describing the same thing, though the words are different.

I'm a fan of Joseph Campbell, so you'll get no argument from me here. If you haven't already, I'd suggest giving "The Power of Myth" a read, and/or or watching the DVD series of the same title. Amazon.com: The Power of Myth: Joseph Campbell, Bill Moyers: Books It's a fascinating exploration of this very subject.

Regards,
Tock

0 Replies

@Stormalv,

I'm trying to play devil's advocate here, because those on the side of Atheism now tend to proclaim some type of entitlement to the rational argument in the side of the God vs. No-God debate; I don't think this is true. There are reasonings you can follow which make it seem more likely that God does not exist, and there are reasonings which make it seem more likely that God does exist. On the whole, I do not think that any one reasoning is more convincing than the other, and so I am very skeptical of theists and atheists alike. I do not think it makes logical sense to declare yourself either an atheist or a theist; if you use the rational argument and processes of philosophy, you cannot adequately determine which side is more likely to be correct with any degree of accuracy, and to somehow arrive at one of these two opposite belief sets means you are shutting the door on the other very real possibility. I do not think that the prudent philosopher can rationally argue anything more than agnosticism. But this has to do with your concept of "God".

I would say that there is surely a higher order/power and higher levels of consciousness and intelligence in this universe that are unknown to humans in general. Compare man to the other animals in this world, and then extrapolate that comparison into higher levels. We come from the same life origin as an insect. In the way that an ant's level of awareness and intelligence is comparable to ours, are we then related to some "higher" being? In this universe, probably. (Or perhaps our big brains and overly complex thoughts help to shroud the truth in reality, and that we are the most "intelligent", yet least "spiritually aware" beings on this world).

If you want to use the concept of God which most western religious people refer to: a supreme, consciously aware entity that created all with special intent for some divine purpose, then I think you can make a good logical case that it is quite unlikely that all of this is likely to be true. But even Buddhism (a major non- abrahamic religion) and Hinduism (another big one) do not hold a concept of God that falls under this definition, and many other God concepts across the world equally fall outside of this definition. If you use the concept of "God" without applying your ethnocentric bias, you have to allow for a broad concept, as imagined by the whole of beliefs and philosophies, and then consider its validity.

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

[...] I do not think that the prudent philosopher can rationally argue anything more than agnosticism. But this has to do with your concept of "God".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.gif

Over 75% of all believers have personal gods with names, attributes and purposes. Probably this is why when one says "God" he refers to supernatural beings people all over the world believe in, and not something natural like Einstein talked about.

Pangloss wrote:

I would say that there is surely a higher order/power and higher levels of consciousness and intelligence in this universe that are unknown to humans in general.

I agree, the probability of higher intelligence existing outside earth is larger than 0. The universe would be a terrible waste of space otherwise.

Pangloss wrote:

If you want to use the concept of God which most western religious people refer to: a supreme, consciously aware entity that created all with special intent for some divine purpose, then I think you can make a good logical case that it is quite unlikely that all of this is likely to be true.

:a-ok:

Pangloss wrote:

But even Buddhism (a major non- abrahamic religion) and Hinduism (another big one) do not hold a concept of God that falls under this definition, and many other God concepts across the world equally fall outside of this definition.

Buddhists (5.9%) don't worship Buddha yes, but don't Hindus have a personal trinity just like Christians ? Brahma Vishnu Shiva ?

Pangloss wrote:

If you use the concept of "God" without applying your ethnocentric bias, you have to allow for a broad concept, as imagined by the whole of beliefs and philosophies, and then consider its validity.

Deism requires agnosticism, yes, like you say in the beginning of your post. It's theism that's truly absurd. And 4 billion people fall for it.

2 Replies

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;28227 wrote:

Over 75% of all believers have personal gods with names, attributes and purposes. Probably this is why when one says "God" he refers to supernatural beings people all over the world believe in, and not something natural like Einstein talked about.

But when philosophically considering a concept of God, the idea of which is supposed to represent an absolute truth or morality, you can't rely upon the "fact by consensus" approach by simply turning to the most popular religions (Christianity and Islam). I don't know where you get the 75% figure, but I will agree that the majority of believers do have personal gods with names, attributes, and purposes. Except, of this majority, these believers do not agree upon the names of gods, their attributes, or their purposes. Of the major religions, there are different denominations/sects/cults that have very different beliefs and interpretations. If you ask a random group of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus about their concept of God, you will get very different answers within each group. Some might agree on the names, but on everything else there is interpretation involved. If you want to be fair in assessing the validity of the concept of God, you can't define it as being limited to one of the many definitions that is out there.

Quote:

Buddhists (5.9%) don't worship Buddha yes, but don't Hindus have a personal trinity just like Christians ? Brahma Vishnu Shiva ?

Hinduism as a whole has quite a broad concept of God/Gods...but it is safe to say that it does not fall within the traditional western definition for "God".

0 Replies

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;28227 wrote:

Buddhists (5.9%) don't worship Buddha

I often wonder if the statistically low percentage of people who follow Buddhism has anything to do with the Buddhist teaching that there is no outside source of salvation.

From what I gather there is no actual Buddha as a figure to be worshipped, but rather a Buddha-Nature to be emulated. Buddha simply means "Awakened One" and it is a title that is within all being's grasp.

1 Reply

Why atheism doesn't make any sense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know