Argument against atheism

[Whateverist]

IF ontology, axiology and philosophy (I'm fucked if I'm going to read it on your advice) say I cannot prove myself or anything, then they are WRONG. Yes, WRONG. Starts with a "W", ends with a "G". Has a fucking "RON" in the middle.

Do you understand? WRONG.

WRONG.

That is the opposite of RIGHT. Just in case you or any other babblers still don't get it.

That is perhaps the most eloquent argument by repetition that I've read in a while. Yes I get it. That would be wrong as in not correct. Thank you so much for breaking it down like this.

Are you just a random word generator?.

I probably shouldn't but I just have to ask. How can you be sure the words are random if don't know them and you won't look them up?

For the record, I too do not know what axiology is about but if I thought it would get me fucked I might just read some.

[Perhaps]

IF ontology, axiology and philosophy (I'm fucked if I'm going to read it on your advice) say I cannot prove myself or anything, then they are WRONG. Yes, WRONG. Starts with a "W", ends with a "G". Has a fucking "RON" in the middle.

Do you understand? WRONG.

WRONG.

That is the opposite of RIGHT. Just in case you or any other babblers still don't get it.

I'd sincerely appreciate if you could write down a proof of your existence. Mind you, a true proof assumes no axioms, it must be true objectively without the need for assumption.

Are you just a random word generator?.

Every word in that response has a meaning, it only requires you to look them up if you don't know what that meaning is.

I probably shouldn't but I just have to ask. How can you be sure the words are random if don't know them and you won't look them up?

For the record, I too do not know what axiology is about but if I thought it would get me fucked I might just read some.

Axiology is the study of value. Ontology is the study of existence or being. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. My personal favorite though, Etiology is the study of causation (Essentially the study of 'why').

---

The only reason I began with a philosophical analysis of the topic was because it related to the premise of the original argument. I'm not one to impose deep thought on others if they don't wish to think deeply. I don't think, however, that this argument can be simply thrown away because of its philosophical nature.

That being said, I do agree that any God which man claims to know or understand can be determined false by methods which man also knows such as science. If, however, God is objective and simply exists outside of our conscious being we cannot apply something that is subjective to ourselves - namely science - to the outside existence.

If we do apply a subjective analysis to an objective existence then we create a warped view of something which is outside of ourselves entirely. This warped view could be disproved using our subjective analysis again, but the objective existence still remains, no matter how we choose to subjectively view it.

I am fully aware that just as an objective existence outside of ourselves cannot be disproved, it also cannot be proven. It all comes back to the discussion we had pages back about metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism. Once one assumes the answer to this discussion then they are able to construct the rest of their thought processes and beliefs.

---

[Edit:] I would like to also add a question for any who feel they wish to answer. It relates to a thought experiment I've been constructing for the past month or so. Assuming evolution is true, is there an end goal to evolution? Does it conceivably have a purpose or reason? If the answer is no then does that simply mean that evolution is and that the process of natural selection will never end even as 'perfection' is reached?

[The Grand Nudger]

With all of this talk of objective or subjective existence, it's just entirely too much to ask for evidence of either isn't it? Much easier to let words fall out of our heads. I have no problem with philosophy at all, until we get to the point of religious philosophy, at which point shit seems to just fly off the track. Very frustrating. It all seems to revolve around our opinions and thoughts of a concept that we have created and called god and then projected onto the cosmos. So much time and effort spent on a manufactured "problem". It's like creating a puzzle with the intention of it being unsolvable, and then wondering why we cannot solve the puzzle, ignoring that there was never a solution in the first place, and that this was intentional. Religion and god was once very much about explaining things, now it's about making things inexplicable to salvage the idea and save it from ourselves. It's the nuclear energy of thought, so filled with promise and potential for good, but strapped onto a weapon and pointed at those who disagree with us instead.

[Perhaps]

With all of this talk of objective or subjective existence, it's just entirely too much to ask for evidence of either isn't it? Much easier to let words fall out of our heads. I have no problem with philosophy at all, until we get to the point of religious philosophy, at which point shit seems to just fly off the track. Very frustrating. It all seems to revolve around our opinions and thoughts of a concept that we have created and called god and then projected onto the cosmos. So much time and effort spent on a manufactured "problem". It's like creating a puzzle with the intention of it being unsolvable, and then wondering why we cannot solve the puzzle, ignoring that there was never a solution in the first place, and that this was intentional. Religion and god was once very much about explaining things, now it's about making things inexplicable to salvage the idea and save it from ourselves. It's the nuclear energy of thought, so filled with promise and potential for good, but strapped onto a weapon and pointed at those who disagree with us instead.

I understand your frustration. I'll stop, as I don't wish to pursue a discussion which is circular. Much of philosophy is self taught and self reflected. Enlightenment isn't something which can be understood by anyone other than the self. I don't like bringing it up in a scientific context because it does not subject itself to evidence or proof - simply thought.

Your last sentences are an accurate description of dogmatic philosophy. Like I said, philosophy should be about the self, aimed at humility and enlightenment, not at those who choose to think differently.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh man, don't stop on my count. This place is the perfect place to just let the words flow. I'm a professional buzz-killer, that's all..lol. It's a compulsion. I guess I just like rattling the cages from time to time..hehe

[Whateverist]

Oh man, don't stop on my count. This place is the perfect place to just let the words flow. I'm a professional buzz-killer, that's all..lol. It's a compulsion. I guess I just like rattling the cages from time to time..hehe

At least you have a calling.

[The Grand Nudger]

Calling? I don't know about that. I'd call it a mild to moderate interest fostered by wasting considerable amounts of time down the rabbit hole.

For a very long time I've wondered how we went from tossing people into holes filled with beautiful red ochre and useful shit to where we are now. Spirituality seemed to have been a sort of practicality leveraged towards the uncertain and now it's impracticality leveraged in spite of things which are certain.

[Epimethean]

But at least you're never late for a very important date ...

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehehe, I have an "argument against atheism".

It isn't an argument of technicality, or an argument for the existence or non-existence of gods at all. Let's see if you guys can help me whittle down my thoughts into a compact sound byte that describes the sort duality in my perceptions that lead me to being a myth loving but militant anti-theist.

As has been mentioned by many posters, atheism is not a worldview, it has no value or merit in and of itself extended beyond a lack of belief in gods. I do feel that the notion or concept of a god could be extremely useful as a focal point for positive beliefs, regardless of the veracity of the claims (and even with full knowledge of their factual inaccuracy). I do feel that there are many things in the natural world that can very easily be leveraged to form a workable worldview, and that the addition of mystery, magic, or the numinous even if it's approached only as a metaphor can re-enforce those positive beliefs, that workable worldview. The stumbling stone thusfar has not been belief itself, but the god's that we have manufactured as a focal point for those beliefs. It's not beyond possibility that we may be able to do better. Especially if we retain the approach under the stairs, and behind the curtains, that we are intentionally constructing a myth so as to be useful, not contradictory with reality in our interpretations, and open to revision and change. In short, constructing a useful myth out of truth that is not to be taken dogmatically, but instead as a means of communicating complicated ideas in ways which have been shown to be appealing to us (through the example of types of religions and types of gods that have enjoyed wide support throughout time). If we want to use the god concept, lets own it, lets improve upon it, lets not fall prey to repeating our history surrounding the concept. I wouldn't argue that it's something that we need, or something that we should do. I do believe that it's something that would enhance some of our lives, that it's something that we could do.

As an example; The notion of the connectedness of life has a great vehicle in the concept of energy binding us all, flowing through us all, and ultimately being shared by us all. If all of the superstition and baggage that comes along with the notion of "shared energy, shared life force" could be removed and re-tasked as a poetic description of a thing worthy of worship and reverence, imagine the possibilities. A life affirming faith, for a change. Not just our own but all life, as the source and spring of our own. This sort of definition of the divine could be useful in my opinion, as long as we do not insist upon taking it literally and creating a sort of authority out of it. If we understand these manufactured gods as concepts that we as a species have found useful in describing this or that feeling. That familiar sense of awe when considering something greater than ourselves. I've heard it said that god can be shorthand for truth, well, let's make it so rather than attempting to shoehorn truth into a preconceived notion of a god. I read a great book about the sort of religion that I would definitely be behind, called A Religion of Nature. One of the authors described how every benefit of religion that can be conceived of can be drawn from the observable world (and argued that this is probably exactly what we did in the first place). That religion and gods could be religious without being dogamtic, could be faithful to a god without insisting that the god actually existed.

Obviously this isn't really an argument for any specific god, or any specific faith, but a practical set of beliefs that could very easily be described as a religion. The acknowledgement of the usefulness of concepts which could be very easily be described as "gods". Take the good, leave the bad, be honest about what we've done, and leave it open for improvement. Now, one might argue that this religion would still be atheism, that these would be atheist's gods. I suppose that this is true. But I do feel that there might be a way to retain the magic that these sorts of narratives can have (and that many of us remember from our childhoods) without literally believing in magic. To that effect a religion with these sorts of gods as the focal point may be more useful than a worldview which has no such focal point. This isn't to say that atheists don't find the "divine" in other ways, other areas, simply that we know that mythical and legendary narratives are effective, and we might be able to leverage them in a way that is both honest, practical, and filled with faith and reverence for concepts which would do a great service to us and our continued existence here. You might be able to draw from this little rant that I have a great respect for what we attempted to do with religion and gods (in my optimists view of it all). Similarly it's pretty easy to see why I'm so disappointed with what we actually did with these concepts. I wish we had done a better job, and I think that we probably could do a better job if we were so inclined, and that this sort of exercise could be very useful for us.

(Looking back at this post it's no wonder to me that we spoke before we wrote. So much easier to let it roll off the tongue than write it down)

[Whateverist]

The only reason I began with a philosophical analysis of the topic was because it related to the premise of the original argument. I'm not one to impose deep thought on others if they don't wish to think deeply. I don't think, however, that this argument can be simply thrown away because of its philosophical nature.

I'd say philosophy is the way we first grasp what may eventually become science. Most of science was the domain of philosophy until ways were found to decide things empirically. Consciousness is something I expect will gain more sure empirical footing eventually.

That being said, I do agree that any God which man claims to know or understand can be determined false by methods which man also knows such as science. If, however, God is objective and simply exists outside of our conscious being we cannot apply something that is subjective to ourselves - namely science - to the outside existence.

You just lost me. You seem to begin by saying that anything which man may say god is, can be shown not to be so. With you so far.

I'm not sure what you mean by the premise: if god is objective (material?) and outside of our conscious being (but possibly an aspect of our unconscious being?). I need clarification here.

The conclusion seems false by any interpretation I can think of. I don't think of science as being anything that is "subjective to ourselves" and I'm not at all sure what that phrase means. But by "outside existence" I assume you mean the objective world, whatever is and would be whether or not anyone were there to perceive it. If that is what you mean then I think that is exactly what science is for. It is our formal attempt to exclude what is subjective from our understanding of what is objective.

If we do apply a subjective analysis to an objective existence then we create a warped view of something which is outside of ourselves entirely. This warped view could be disproved using our subjective analysis again, but the objective existence still remains, no matter how we choose to subjectively view it.

I am fully aware that just as an objective existence outside of ourselves cannot be disproved, it also cannot be proven. It all comes back to the discussion we had pages back about metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism. Once one assumes the answer to this discussion then they are able to construct the rest of their thought processes and beliefs.

I assume that there is an objective world and that is what effects my field of consciousness to give rise to perception. Is the objective world exactly as it is perceived? I have no way of knowing. But our manner of perception has been at least as useful for interacting with the objective world as that of every other creature that still survives, and given the degree of our domination of the biosphere some might even say more so.

Now if God is not a part of the objective world, then I would say He either does not exist at all or He exists only in our psyches. If He is part of the objective world then I see no in principle reason why we should not be able to discover Him scientifically. Are you suggesting some other place for God to be?

[Edit:] I would like to also add a question for any who feel they wish to answer. It relates to a thought experiment I've been constructing for the past month or so. Assuming evolution is true, is there an end goal to evolution? Does it conceivably have a purpose or reason? If the answer is no then does that simply mean that evolution is and that the process of natural selection will never end even as 'perfection' is reached?

Not in my opinion. I don't think evolution has any teleological intentions. But how should I know really?