Argument against atheism

[Erinome]

[...] If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

I have found the above quote to be quite haunting in my life-long struggle with depression (currently winning!), both as a reminder of the dangers of the abyss, and the sick comfort I find there in my darkest hours. Difficult to explain.

I get it. I really do.

[Mister Agenda]

Atheism is correctly termed as a belief that there are no gods and is no God; it is not a lack of belief, a simple lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheism is a conviction.

If you have to change the definition of atheism to win, you've already lost.

Any belief, if sound, must logically be taken to it's ultimate conclusion to be proven.

What logic did you use to come to this conclusion? Please show your work, otherwise it is merely an assertion and can be rejected out of hand.

A belief that some things are inherently good or bad, that there is purpose, value, meaning, or any objective reality aty all outside of human perception, necessitates faith. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that murder is "bad". Such a hypothesis necessarily denotes that value judgements are true.

That last sentence? Another assertion you didn't bother to back up.

Value judgements are only possible through observation of a conscious entity.

Word salad. Please rephrase into something meaningful.

A belief that value judgements are true necessitates consciousness as a primary function of the universe, rather than a purely mechanical universe.

Another baseless assertion. I'm noticing a pattern of you not supporting the statements that most need support.

A belief that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, that consciousness pervades everything and is true apart from time or space, that things are in fact "real", that some things are inherently bad or good, right or wrong, true or not true, would be correctly termed a belief in "God".

Except for the part I've bolded, you could say that's a belief in a version of God.

If consciouness is a primary function of the universe; if there is a particle that peervades everything, if any of our observations are actually correct, that particle or consciousness would be best described as a singular and constant thing rather than multiple different things. If consciousness exists outside the sphere of humanity, and is inherent rather than an emergent function of complex systems, that necessitates a belief in what would be correctly termed a monotheistic deity.

If pigs had wings, they still wouldn't be aerodynamically viable.

A belief that this "God" does not exist is illogical. it is committing a fallicy of ignorance and contrary to all scientific observation and acheivment.

Another baseless assertion. I'm beginning to think you don't have any work to show and are just spouting obfuscated twaddle.

A belief that objective truth does not exist is a belief that nothing actually exists outside of our own consciousness.

How so?

That the only reason things are real is due to our perceptions and out brain, chemical reactions, neuroscience. A truely atheistic world view necessitates that gravity does not "exist", laws of physics are mere conscious observations that have no inherent truth besides that which humans ascribe them. Atheism can not coexist in a sceintifically objective worldview.

Again, mere assertions. You can do it all day, but it's just mental maturbation. And I see signs that it may be causing you to go blind. And you know something that makes hash out of a scientifically objective worldview? An entity that can change reality on a whim.

Religion and "God" are not the same. If "God" exists, it exists apart from man-made religions and inspite of them, not beccause of them.

Sure.

Religion was created by primitive man to explain how and why things are objectively true. All religion, includinng science, was inspired by a belief in objective reality, in real truth, a belief in "God'.

And you're off the rails again with more unsupported assertions. And science isn't a religion, it's a method of gaining knowledge about the universe.

Atheism is a belief that things are not real.

Everything is all turvy-topsy in your world, huh?

Most atheists, with their limited intellects (which usually surpass the intellects of their theist counterparts) believe that they attack or disbelieve iin "God" when in reality they are simply attacking religion.

Duh. Theistic religions are the only part of theism that ever gives us any trouble. You can't attack people's imaginary friends. I suppose we might alarm the people who have them if we pretended to, maybe.

Logically, if one was being intellectually honest, most atheists actually believe in what would correctly be termed a montheistic deity, of "God", that truth and reality exist outside of human comprehension and understanding, even if they say they don't. .

You sound like you've got atheists confused with solipsists.

This is not an attempt to force my beliefs on anyone.

That's a relief.

I offer no truth about religion or flying spaghetti monsters. It is simply my own logical observations.

So far, very little that you've said has been either logical or an observation. Mostly it's just stuff you say is true without backing it up.

I do not claim to know the "mind" of "God". I am not stating unequivicolly that God exists, although I believe that to be true. It is entirely logical that reality is, in fact, purely subjective. That the universe is entirely mechanical.

Atheism has no requirement that reality be purely subjective. It's a scientific fact that we are incapable of perceiving it in a way that isn't subjective.

That truth, love, hate, morality, value, purpose, logic, consciousness, etc are not inherent qualities that things have but merely perceptions of the human brain.

They are inherent qualities of properly functioning human brains.

If that is what you believe, you are an atheist. If it's not, you're not, even though you may claim to be. Most atheists, in my opinion, are just as confused as theists they disagree with. Atheists have been disillusioned by the plight that man has created in the name of religion and ignorantly rejected the idea of God, but in reality any argument made by atheists is ultimately not an argument against God, it is an argument against particular religious beliefs.

Some of our arguments are arguments against belief in God not being imaginary not being justified. We argue about a lot of stuff, though, like most humans.

Reality is not subject to the limits of human knowledge

True.

I encourage lively and respectful debate.

That's nice. It wasn't very nice to start off by telling everyone what they believe though. You may think you're being respectful, but you're actually being very rude. If you really want to be respectful, maybe you might try one point at a time, in the form of a question, like 'Must one actively deny the existence of God to be an atheist?' That would foster respectful debate.

---

"atheism is but a response to theistic claims" - I completely agree with you. Atheism offers no insight to whether something that would correctly be termed "God" exists at all.

Correct. That is because atheism is not believing in God. It is not a claim about God's existence. Neither is theism, for that matter. They're different opinions on the same topic. Why would you expect insight from them?

---

whateverist: i have never said I was a Christian, you have only perceived that in your mind.

Otana: agnosticism is simply acknowledging your own ignorance. I have not defined God. I can not define God. I have simply stated that any belief in an objective reality necessitates a belief in something that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity. Consciousness as a primary function and law of the universe, like gravity.

Without giving us a single reason to think you're right about that.

---

Otana: "no claims made"... Balderdash, everything you stated is a claim.

You claimed that you don't believe in God and in the same breath claim that you don't know whether a God exists and that it is quite possibly unknowable. The irony is tragic. If you don't believe in God necessarily you believe that God doesn't exist. If you simply lack any belief about God or gods you are simply acknowledging your own ignorance, again. That is not atheism. Atheism is conviction. Any belief that there is objective reality or truth necessarily stems from a belief in what would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity. You don't believe in the Christian interpretation of God, or the Muslim, or the Greek gods, fine. But if you belief in inherent morality or objective truth you must believe in an idea that would correctly be called "God".

Darwinning: the hair on my second head is blond

If I don't believe you have a $50 in your pocket I must believe you don't have a $50 in your pocket. Sigh. What are they teaching in schools these days?

---

Darwinning it is not the job of a theist to convinnce you. Surely, no one is capable of convincing anyone else of anything at all if that person is not open to the possibility of being convinced or persuaded. In my original post I clearly laid out why a belief in objective reality necessarily stems from a belief in something that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity. You have chosen to reject the idea of objective reality, which is completely rational, but illogical. It goes against all scientific achievement and human knowledge.

You did no such thing. You just claimed it without backing up your assertions.

[Darwinning]

Maybe I'm a crazy optimist but I think amkerman might be coming close to a rational position. If we can only get him to stop conflating judgments about things and the things themselves. That seems to be the sticking point.

I agree our new found friend is making headway. Not sure how close he is to a rational position, because he has not coherently expressed his current position yet.

Judgement about things and things themselves are indeed mixed in his utterances, as are the existence of a truth and knowledge of that truth. If he manages to separate those he might be able to construct an actual coherent argument, which we can subsequently discuss.

As a write the above I wonder, are these four distinct things? What, if any, is the relation between a thing and a truth and judgement about a thing and knowledge of a truth? Not to go off on a tangent here, but I can't say these things are completely solidified in my own mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see(knowledge) that my neighbor is in a homosexual relationship(thing) and not give him shit(judgement) about it. You can ask him if I'm lying(truth, and knowledge of truth).

Does that help to make a distinction between these things?

[Darwinning]

I can see(knowledge)

Seeing is believing; not knowing.

that my neighbor is in a homosexual relationship(thing)

I would think a relationship is a mental construct, not a thing. It does not really exist outside the mind. Your neighbor and his friend apparently both have a 'thing', though.

and not give him shit(judgement) about it.

Good for you.

You can ask him if I'm lying(truth, and knowledge of truth).

Well, no. But thanks for trying to explain. :-)

[Shell B]

I would think a relationship is a mental construct, not a thing. It does not really exist outside the mind. Your neighbor and his friend apparently both have a 'thing', though.

No, no, no. There are many aspects of a relationship. Some of them are mental, sure, but some certainly exist outside of the mind. You're confusing thoughts with feelings. Feelings are fully tangible things that produce physical reactions. Beyond that, relationships are visible to others and verifiable by others. They produce cooperative works, such as families and homes. Relationships are most certainly things. Come to think of it, mental constructs are things too. Darlosing at the moment, but I think you can catch up.

Welcome, by the way, if I haven't given you one yet.

[Darwinning]

No, no, no. There are many aspects of a relationship. Some of them are mental, sure, but some certainly exist outside of the mind.

I think we could have a discussion about what to include as part of a 'relationship'.

You're confusing thoughts with feelings.

I don't think I am. Relationships are neither. I can understand there are thoughts and feelings about a relationship, but those are not the relationship itself. Thinking about a duck doesn't make it a duck.

Feelings are fully tangible things that produce physical reactions.

Agreed.

Beyond that, relationships are visible to others and verifiable by others. They produce cooperative works, such as families and homes.

Relationships are visible? You give examples of things that may result from a relationship, but are not in themselves the relationship. Proof by proxy? Sure, I use that all the time, but that does not make the relationship a thing.

Relationships are most certainly things. Come to think of it, mental constructs are things too. Darlosing at the moment, but I think you can catch up.

I'm trying. Im trying. :-D

Welcome, by the way, if I haven't given you one yet.

Thanks! I already felt welcome, so don't worry. :-)

[Shell B]

I think we could have a discussion about what to include as part of a 'relationship'.

We certainly could. In my mind, a relationship is the sum of many things. If you oversimplify it, it loses its meaning.

I don't think I am. Relationships are neither.

If a relationship is not feelings, what is it? Without feelings, you cannot have relationships. Those feelings define relationships.

I can understand there are thoughts and feelings about a relationship, but those are not the relationship itself. Thinking about a duck doesn't make it a duck.

Not in the case of a duck, no. In the case of a relationship, yes.

Relationships are visible?

Yes. You have never seen a relationship?

You give examples of things that may result from a relationship, but are not in themselves the relationship. Proof by proxy? Sure, I use that all the time, but that does not make the relationship a thing.

If it is not a thing, how can it produce things?

In the basest of terms, a relationship is a thing, as evidenced by our grammar. "Relationship" is a noun, correct? Is it a person or a place? No? Then, it is a thing.

[J.D.]

I don't really understand the purpose of theists and atheists debating their positions. Is it done merely for entertainment, is each trying to convert the other? There is no evidence for the existence of deities, so how does one debate something that is not based in reality?

It does not matter to me whether I lack a belief in gods or that I believe there are no gods. I see both as the same statement. I lack a belief that blue unicorns fly around the moon, and I also believe that blue unicorns do not fly around the moon. I lack a belief that the universe was created by a supernatural being, and I believe there is no supernatural being who created the universe.

You believe that there is a supernatural being who created all, knows all, and punishes those who do not worship said being, and that this belief must be based on faith. How does any one debate such a position?

[Darwinning]

I don't really understand the purpose of theists and atheists debating their positions.

I don't think we were debating the validity of our positions. This thread is titled "Argument against atheism". I thought we were debating whether the argument made sense (or whether it is an argument at all, for that matter).

---

We certainly could. In my mind, a relationship is the sum of many things. If you oversimplify it, it loses its meaning.

I think that may be true. Sometimes simplification seems to destroy truth, rather than uncover it.

If a relationship is not feelings, what is it? Without feelings, you cannot have relationships. Those feelings define relationships.

Maybe my computing science background acting up here. A relationship between to objects exists if there is a pointer from one to the other. But I am unsure whether the pointer is the relationship, or whether the relationship is just a name I use to describe the fact that there is a pointer.

Not in the case of a duck, no. In the case of a relationship, yes.

If you define the thought to be (part of) the relationship, then yes.

Yes. You have never seen a relationship?

I have seen people act as if they have a relationship. Is that the same thing?

If it is not a thing, how can it produce things?

Good question. I'm trying to think of other concepts that produce behavior, but that I am not sure are things. Is pain a thing? Is love a thing?

In the basest of terms, a relationship is a thing, as evidenced by our grammar. "Relationship" is a noun, correct? Is it a person or a place? No? Then, it is a thing.

All nouns are one of those three? "God" is a noun.