*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[leibowde84]

On the atheist worldview, you're just a pack of blind mechanisms aimlessly playing themselves out.

Not true. You are thinking of materialism, not atheism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The atheist has a teleonomic view of the world.

Again, wrong. The only view atheists share is the absence of belief in a God. Any other views are unrelated to their atheism.

This is in contradistinction to theist who has a teleological one. In the teleonomic worldview of the atheist, there is no purpose; there is just the appearance of purpose which can be explained away (at least, in theory) by blind mechanism. In the teleological worldview of the theist, there is a real (as opposed to an apparent) purpose. Everything is seeking the good where the ultimate good is God (a.k.a. the uncaused cause, the final cause).

Since this argument is based on a false premise, it already fails at the first hurdle.

Atheistic existentialism is quite aware that the atheistic worldview entails nihilism and absurdism.

Claims are not demonstrations. Please demonstrate your claims, not just make further baseless claims to support your baseless claims.

You have to rationally defend implications of your disbelief in God as you are attempting to do now. If not, then you concede the debate by virtue of default.

There are no necessary implications beyond "disbelief in a God". You can attach any other implications you want, you'll still be making a strawman argument.

You cannot rationally demonstrate that you create your own purpose without presupposing some higher purpose upon which you are acting.

This argument is completely baseless. Please rationally demonstrate that you have to presuppose "some higher purpose" in order to create a purpose for something. Please tell me how assigning purpose to a fork and then using it for that intended purposes isn't demonstrating a created purpose.

On the atheistic worldview,

Again, atheism isn't a worldview. The only "view" atheists share is the absence of belief in a God. Anything else you attach to that is baseless.

all teleological explanations reduce to blind mechanisms playing themselves out. As such, all teleological explanations must be deemed illusory.

Except purpose isn't determined by "mechanisms", it's a subjective, abstract concept enforced on things by agency.

 

[leibowde84]

There are no necessary implications beyond "disbelief in a God". You can attach any other implications you want, you'll still be making a strawman argument.


This argument is completely baseless. Please rationally demonstrate that you have to presuppose "some higher purpose" in order to create a purpose for something. Please tell me how assigning purpose to a fork and then using it for that intended purposes isn't demonstrating a created purpose.


Again, atheism isn't a worldview. The only "view" atheists share is the absence of belief in a God. Anything else you attach to that is baseless.


Except purpose isn't determined by "mechanisms", it's a subjective, abstract concept enforced on things by agency.

This is a great post. Truly shows the fallacies and assumptions present in Gambit's "logic".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheism is a Godless worldview which has implications.

Atheism itself is not a world view and atheists could hold any number of different world views.

 

[Reflex]

Atheism itself is not a world view and atheists could hold any number of different world views.

That is in itself a worldview, and a self-contradicting one at at that. It proves the original premise: atheism is absurd. It's special pleading because theism, too, has any number of different world views.

 

[McBell]

That is in itself a worldview, and a self-contradicting one at at that. It proves the original premise: atheism is absurd. It's special pleading because theism, too, has any number of different world views.

try reading it again.
This time try to understand it before you reply.
Otherwise, you will continue to look foolish.

 

[Son of Logic]

That is in itself a worldview, and a self-contradicting one at at that. It proves the original premise: atheism is absurd. It's special pleading because theism, too, has any number of different world views.

Atheism is no more a 'world view' than the non belief in magical pixies is a worldview. Atheism simply addresses one conclusion to one proposition. That's it. To say that a person is an atheist tells you nothing of what else they believe, how they view reality or what types of people they are. A person can tell you that they don't find golf enjoyable. However, that tells you absolutely nothing else.

While being an atheist can inform your actual worldview, it cannot- in and of itself- be a worldview. If a person says that they don't like golf, you can make certain assumptions about them. Maybe they don't like sports at all. or maybe they only like contact sport. Maybe they hate golf clothes, or maybe they don't enjoy the outdoors. But, you can't know for sure until you ask.

The same holds true for an atheist. You could make certain assumptions that may or may not be true. The only way to know if they holds certain views, beliefs, etc., is to actually do the work of asking them...because, as I stated, being an atheist only answers a single question.

 

[Reflex]

Atheism is no more a 'world view' than the non belief in magical pixies is a worldview. Atheism simply addresses one conclusion to one proposition. That's it. To say that a person is an atheist tells you nothing of what else they believe, how they view reality or what types of people they are. A person can tell you that they don't find golf enjoyable. However, that tells you absolutely nothing else.

While being an atheist can inform your actual worldview, it cannot- in and of itself- be a worldview. If a person says that they don't like golf, you can make certain assumptions about them. Maybe they don't like sports at all. or maybe they only like contact sport. Maybe they hate golf clothes, or maybe they don't enjoy the outdoors. But, you can't know for sure until you ask.

The same holds true for an atheist. You could make certain assumptions that may or may not be true. The only way to know if they holds certain views, beliefs, etc., is to actually do the work of asking them...because, as I stated, being an atheist only answers a single question.

Uh....right. Whatever.

Everyone has a worldview. Some are atheistic, some are not. Someone who argues that atheism is not a belief or a worldview is someone who would have an up without a down. It's obfuscation, totally ridiculous and epistemically empty -- it's a convenient way of avoiding the difficulty of having to defend one's point of view. It's a worldview not worthy of the time of day.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Uh....right. Whatever.

Everyone has a worldview.

Nobody is claiming anybody doesn't. We're just explaining that atheism isn't a worldview.

Some are atheistic, some are not.

While it could be said that there is such a thing as an atheistic worldview (that being a worldview which, amongst other things, includes a disbelief in God), that doesn't make atheism itself a worldview.

Someone who argues that atheism is not a belief or a worldview is someone who would have an up without a down. It's obfuscation, totally ridiculous and epistemically empty -- it's a convenient way of avoiding the difficulty of having to defend one's point of view. It's a worldview not worthy of the time of day.

Atheism is a single position on a single subject. If someone says to you "I am an atheist" it infers precisely one thing: they don't believe in a God. If this counts as a belief or a worldview to you, then you very seriously need to readjust your perspective on this issue. Not holding a belief is, by definition, not a belief; Nor can one singular position that deals with a single prong of a two-pronged problem be considered "a worldview". It's like saying that "not having a hamburger" is a worldview, or "disbelieving in flipmonkip" is a worldview.

Also, this ridiculous claim that saying such things is just "a convenient way of avoiding the difficulty of having to defend one's point of view" is patently absurd when you actually read the forum (or just this very thread itself) and realize that atheists defend their positions constantly. It's bad enough to show ignorance of the definitions of atheism and worldviews, but its outright laughable to claim that atheists somehow need or want an excuse to avoid debate when they are constantly debating.

 

[Reflex]

No comment. (To comment would validate an absurd worldview.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No comment. (To comment would validate an absurd worldview.)

Why not just admit defeat gracefully?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Everyone has a worldview. Some are atheistic, some are not. Someone who argues that atheism is not a belief or a worldview is someone who would have an up without a down. It's obfuscation, totally ridiculous and epistemically empty -- it's a convenient way of avoiding the difficulty of having to defend one's point of view. It's a worldview not worthy of the time of day.

Atheism is generally a part of somebody's world-view, but it certainly isn't a world-view in and of itself.

 

[Yerda]

It's an essential interrogative.

Yes, but is the grammatical mood of a sentence the same thing as its purpose?

 

[Magic Man]

Uh....right. Whatever.

Everyone has a worldview. Some are atheistic, some are not. Someone who argues that atheism is not a belief or a worldview is someone who would have an up without a down. It's obfuscation, totally ridiculous and epistemically empty -- it's a convenient way of avoiding the difficulty of having to defend one's point of view. It's a worldview not worthy of the time of day.

You're confusing things here.

1) No one said everyone didn't have a worldview, just that atheism isn't one in and of itself.

2) Some worldviews are atheistic, but that doesn't make atheism itself a worldview. Humanism is an atheistic worldview. Atheism is not a worldview.

3) Atheism is neither a belief nor a worldview. At its core, it's the absence of one belief. However, even if you want to go with a more narrow definition, and assume it's a belief, that's still different from a worldview. One belief doesn't make a worldview. Notice the second definition here from thefreedictionary.com:

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.

A Collection of beliefs, not just one single belief (or lack thereof).

No one is saying you can't criticize atheism. You certainly can, if you wish. But criticize it as what it actually is, at least.

 

[McBell]

Why not just admit defeat gracefully?

um...
They have not heard the saying "it is better to let people think you the fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"?

 

[RedDragon94]

The atheistic worldview is an absurd one. Why? Because the atheist views the world as ultimately meaningless and therefore as absurd.

I don't think so. Meaning is determined by the individual. When I read the Bible I realize that people may or may not come to the same conclusions that I do.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism itself is not a world view and atheists could hold any number of different world views.

Out of curiosity, what sort of thing do you consider to be a worldview?

 

[McBell]

Out of curiosity, what sort of thing do you consider to be a worldview?

Seems to me that there are quite a few things that can be turned into a worldveiw...
Veganism for example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Out of curiosity, what sort of thing do you consider to be a worldview?

Nihilism
Existentialism
Humanism

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is in itself a worldview, and a self-contradicting one at at that. It proves the original premise: atheism is absurd. It's special pleading because theism, too, has any number of different world views.

How is it a worldview, and how is it self-contradicting?