*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[ArtieE]

"If the will to write the post activated a chain of physical effects, then will exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events.

If this "will" exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events something must have made you want to write the post anyway and you're back to square one just with a different chain.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because atheism is absurd, I'm not surprised that some supporters of that particular worldview would make a distinction between naturalism and atheism in a world where 99.999% of the human population does not. Nor am I surprised that, rather than taking a serious look into the matter, atheists would be silent about the misrepresentation of theistic arguments, ask silly questions (like 'who made God' and 'what is ultimate reality--both of which indicate a serious lack of research) and avoid at all costs talking about about the logical consequences of their beliefs (or lack of belief if I were to adopt a similar bumper sticker mentality).

I have a friend who is both an atheist and an avid ghost hunter. Do you consider him a naturalist?

 

[Shad]

"If the will to write the post activated a chain of physical effects, then will exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events. If the will to post was instead activated by the chain of events, then "meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures. . . . The opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. . . . This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms.""

You should of read the rest, if you did you would of realized it was a strawman put forward by Watts. He called the above pure nonsense in the following paragraph then goes on to make a failed inductive argument.

Beside objective evidence can, and has, been used to show one opinion has more merit than another. Watts spouts nonsense in this regard.

 

[Reflex]

If this "will" exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events something must have made you want to write the post anyway and you're back to square one just with a different chain.

Only if the "something" is part of the physical chain of events am I back to square one.

I have a friend who is both an atheist and an avid ghost hunter. Do you consider him a naturalist?

I call him "superstitious" or inconsistent in his thinking.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only if the "something" is part of the physical chain of events am I back to square one.
I call him "superstitious" or inconsistent in his thinking.

But still a naturalist?

 

[ArtieE]

Only if the "something" is part of the physical chain of events am I back to square one.

What does it matter if the chain of events is physical or non-physical?

I call him "superstitious" or inconsistent in his thinking.

Why? Just because you don't believe in gods why shouldn't you be interested in ghosts?

 

[Reflex]

What does it matter if the chain of events is physical or non-physical?Why?

See? This is why atheism is absurd. There's no logic here. I find myself going over the same thing again and again. (And endlessly following red herrings if I permitted myself to pursue the other comment.)

Because if the will to post was activated by the chain of events, then "meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures. . . . The opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. . . . This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms.

 

[ArtieE]

See? This is why atheism is absurd. There's no logic here. I find myself going over the same thing again and again.

Stop quoting the same thing and just explain why a non-physical chain of events would be different from a physical. Obviously the non-physical will to post was activated by a previous non-physical event and didn't just come from nothing.

 

[Reflex]

Stop quoting the same thing and just explain why a non-physical chain of events would be different from a physical. Obviously the non-physical will to post was activated by a previous non-physical event and didn't just come from nothing.

That's the point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's the point.

So how is the problem presented by your quote alleviated by a prior cause (theistic or otherwise)?

 

[ArtieE]

That's the point.

So what does it matter if a chain is physical or non-physical? What's the difference between non-physical link -> non-physical link -> non-physical link and physical link -> physical link -> physical link?

 

[Curious George]

"If the will to write the post [was not] activated a chain of physical effects, then will exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events. If the will to post was instead activated by the chain of events, then "meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures. . . . The opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. . . . This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms.""

(I carelessly omitted the bracketed words in the original post.)

You are creating a false dichotomy for the poster based on the acceptance of a proposition "that every thing that begins to exist has caused." You are trying to start from a point that , perhaps you feel is self evident, on which we do not agree. This point is not entailed by atheism, as far as I can see. So please explain your concept of causality and how atheism entails such.

Though I do find this little corner that @viole has found you in amusing, I am not trying to discuss your assertion and its ramifications on your view, I.e. what the person gives up by arguing for first cause in the manner in which you have chosen to do.

I am dealing with your assertion that atheism is absurd. So let's work with that.

 

[ArtieE]

I am dealing with your assertion that atheism is absurd. So let's work with that.

A monotheist can't possibly believe that not believing in gods is absurd because he's not believing in 99.9% of all gods himself and he wouldn't call himself absurd would he? If a monotheist says that atheism is absurd he must mean that not believing his particular god exists is absurd. Which means that all other theists are absurd for not believing in his particular god. So why single out atheism as absurd in the first place?

 

[Curious George]

A monotheist can't possibly believe that not believing in gods is absurd because he's not believing in 99.9% of all gods himself and he wouldn't call himself absurd would he? If a monotheist says that atheism is absurd he must mean that not believing his particular god exists is absurd. Which means that all other theists are absurd for not believing in his particular god. So why single out atheism as absurd in the first place?

Well, there are several things that are going on here. First, the idea being proposed is that atheism entails nihilism. So, if I said that a man without any money is broke, and you said while a man with only a penny is still without most forms of money--therefore, we cannot say that being without money means you are broke--then I would say you have missed the point. The idea being portrayed is that without any god, one cannot offer meaning to life. If that was all, then I would probably think, oh the assumptions, and let it go. Instead, what is done is a movement from "atheists believe life is meaningless" to "life is absurd". Now this, in itself isn't too much different. Absurd can esoterically be used to refer to without meaning. So, what is the purpose of switching the words? The idea is that the meaning of absurd, as we commonly use it, be fixed upon atheism. This is dishonest-- an equivocation that serves no purpose but to support ad hominem and illustrate "a superficial individual." Still, that is not even where this stops... Posters have taken it a step further and said not only that an atheist believes life is absurd, but have now fixed upon atheism itself the label of absurd.

For this assertion we have not seen any support. We have not seen that Atheism entails nihilism, we have not seen that the acceptance of life with meaning shows any subsequent thing is devoid of meaning. We have only seen rhetoric fixated on using the term absurd because that somehow allows those doing such to say how they really feel, under the pretense that they are just using it to mean "meaningless." In actuality, it is like repeating..."I make errors in logic." So, there is either form to the argument that is just left unspoken, or those who are saying that atheism is absurd, really don't understand basic concepts of logic.

I suppose this is a false dichotomy: there also exists the possibility of intellectual dishonesty or simply trying to raise atheists hackles.

 

[Reflex]

You are creating a false dichotomy for the poster based on the acceptance of a proposition "that every thing that begins to exist has caused." You are trying to start from a point that , perhaps you feel is self evident, on which we do not agree.

All I ask for is an example of something that has a beginning that is not caused and all I get is evasion and accusations. It's absurd. We can (possibly) have an infinite sequence of effects, but not an infinite hierarchy of causations. If that is not true, present some alternative scenario.

So please explain your concept of causality and how atheism entails such.

This is a case in point. There is no final explanation for causality, but the fact that things are the way they are has unavoidable consequences. Rather than deal with the real issues, atheists here just engage in a meaningless dance. "Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it."

Another rampant absurdity, at least among the atheists I've seen here, is that there is no understanding of the difference between contingent and non-contingent being.

Though I do find this little corner that @viole has found you in amusing, I am not trying to discuss your assertion and its ramifications on your view, I.e. what the person gives up by arguing for first cause in the manner in which you have chosen to do.

Viole is a "dancer," one that has said some things that, if true, would force me reject virtually all the books I have written by physicists--the no increase of information, for example, or asking what ultimate reality is (if you have to as you cannot possibly understand), not to mention not knowing the difference between a philosophic assertion and a scientific one. There's just no credibility there. In many respects, I might as well be talking to outhouse.

 

[Reflex]

A monotheist can't possibly believe that not believing in gods is absurd because he's not believing in 99.9% of all gods himself and he wouldn't call himself absurd would he? If a monotheist says that atheism is absurd he must mean that not believing his particular god exists is absurd. Which means that all other theists are absurd for not believing in his particular god. So why single out atheism as absurd in the first place?

You should be writing bumper stickers.

 

[Curious George]

All I ask for is an example of something that has a beginning that is not caused and all I get is evasion and accusations. It's absurd. We can (possibly) have an infinite sequence of effects, but not an infinite hierarchy of causations. If that is not true, present some alternative scenario.

This is a case in point. There is no final explanation for causality, but the fact that things are the way they are has unavoidable consequences. Rather than deal with the real issues, atheists here just engage in a meaningless dance. "Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it."

I am not so sure this is a meaningless dance. You are the one who answered my post with a quote about causality. If you want to jump down that rabbit hole, I will follow. But at least you can honestly head that pursuit off at the pass and agree there is no final explanation. So, if there is no final explanation why are you employing it as though there was? Those are big concepts in those dichotomies. What do you mean by conscious- simply aware of oneself? What do you mean by alive- subject to death?

No, the last sentence is not a necessity, nor is the "meaning which man gives to it" not relevant, this can be true if and only if we accept the causality argument which is not proven. You cannot simply say atheism entails determinism and determinism entails nihilism. You do not get to make such sweeping unfounded logical leaps and then accuse others of engaging in a dance. This is a classic dance of those who want to prove something to their self. Wanting it to be true does not make it true.

 

[Willamena]

All I ask for is an example of something that has a beginning that is not caused and all I get is evasion and accusations. It's absurd. We can (possibly) have an infinite sequence of effects, but not an infinite hierarchy of causations. If that is not true, present some alternative scenario.

Is the universe, in its entirety, one event?

 

[Curious George]

All I ask for is an example of something that has a beginning that is not caused and all I get is evasion and accusations. It's absurd. We can (possibly) have an infinite sequence of effects, but not an infinite hierarchy of causations. If that is not true, present some alternative scenario.

.

I will give you four scenarios:

1) Time and space are infinitely divisible

2) Time and space are illusions

3) There are more temporal and spatial dimensions

4) Causality is misunderstood

 

[outhouse]

This is why atheism is absurd. There's no logic here

Are you looking in a mirror?

Your replies are not credible and rhetorical at best and typical ad hominem's