*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Shadow Wolf]

If you want consistency and coherence, you are left only the choice between two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism

There are many other alternatives than just those two. IMO, the only consistent approach is to profess ignorance and take in what you can - we are only human, after all, and there is still much we don't know about ourselves or even the planet we live on. And because we don't even know if there is actually intelligent life on other planets, the question of god is outside of our scope.

However, and I want to stress this, those who deny God are almost never consistent or coherent.

Do you have any evidence to support this absurd claim?

 

[Reflex]

There are many other alternatives than just those two. IMO, the only consistent approach is to profess ignorance and take in what you can - we are only human, after all, and there is still much we don't know about ourselves or even the planet we live on. And because we don't even know if there is actually intelligent life on other planets, the question of god is outside of our scope.

Do you have any evidence to support this absurd claim?

Sure. "There are many other alternatives than just those two." What's a third (consistent) alternative?

"I dunno" has no epistemic value.

 

[Willamena]

There are any number of actual worldviews an atheist can hold.

Like what?

An atheist can hold a gazillion worldviews, but we were talking about the one view he undoubtedly holds, the atheist worldview.

That's it? Doesn't seem like much of a worldview to me.

Obviously you have higher expectations of what a worldview is. Why's that?

 

[outhouse]

those who deny God are almost never consistent or coherent.

What is inconsistent about not believing in mythology?

Theist are far worse in how inconsistent they are in how they describe the concept. You will not get a coherent definition based on evidence either out of a theist .


Don't YOU define the concept differently from most every theist that exist?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure. "There are many other alternatives than just those two." What's a third (consistent) alternative?

Classic theism, deism, panentheism, Western LHP, and various spiritual views are just a few.

"I dunno" has no epistemic value.

Many, such as Socrates, would disagree. "I don't know" is how any honest investigation begins, and remains until conclusive evidence is discovered or procured. If "I don't know" didn't have any such value, then pretty much all of academia, including science, would collapse on itself.

 

[Reflex]

Classic theism, deism, panentheism, Western LHP, and various spiritual views are just a few.

Though all are more or less inconsistent, all those come under the theist umbrella.

Many, such as Socrates, would disagree. "I don't know" is how any honest investigation begins, and remains until conclusive evidence is discovered or procured. If "I don't know" didn't have any such value, then pretty much all of academia, including science, would collapse on itself.

Actually, pretty much all of academia, including science, would collapse if they were not grounded in presumptions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If you want consistency and coherence, you are left only the choice between two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism. However, and I want to stress this, those who deny God are almost never consistent or coherent.

Bahahaha!!

Thanks. It's been a tough day, always nice to finish it with a chuckle.

*hands him a banana*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All of those come under theist umbrella.

Your statement was that you can either follow materialism or pantheism.

Actually, pretty much all of academia, including science, would collapse if they were not grounded in presumptions.

If it worked like that, the scientific method would be a failure, and there would be little room for testing, data collection, research, and asking "I wonder...?" The lovely thing about such an approach, is you can have your assumptions, but the data can prove you wrong (I know a grad student whose thesis proved him wrong and he's beginning to regret things he's done based on his incorrect assumption, and even I've had plenty of research that took different directions than what I anticipated).

 

[Curious George]

That's Viewpoint 2.

.

It is the observation that the two are different. That is all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

An atheist can hold a gazillion worldviews, but we were talking about the one view he undoubtedly holds, the atheist worldview.

No, a world-view is singular and is comprised of many elements for each individual.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

Like what?

An atheist can hold a gazillion worldviews, but we were talking about the one view he undoubtedly holds, the atheist worldview.


Obviously you have higher expectations of what a worldview is. Why's that?

If I am not mistaken, an Atheist is someone who does not believe that there is a God. But don't you have to be God to say there is no God. As fallible human beings, we are totally incapable of properly entertaining all the information in the universe so that we can say emphatically that there is no God. Therefore for a person to say there is no God is ridiculous and unprovable. Christ's prophet. Certainty for eternity.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

ADigitalArtist,

The word "absurd," like most words, has multiple uses and meanings depending on context. One synonym of absurd is "meaningless." (I documented that. So, I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of simply ignoring that fact.) I'm employing the term absurd to be synonymous with meaningless. If you are an atheist, then you have an absurd worldview because you view the world as ultimately purposeless and therefore meaningless.

I find your logic and beliefs meaningless, therefore, by your own definition... they are absurd.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

If you believe you can create something, then you believe you have free will. And If you believe you have free will, then you believe in final causality or teleology (which presupposes God). Unfortunately, as an atheist, you're not allowed to invoke God to rationally justify a belief in final causality and free will. And since you can't rationally justify a belief in free will, then you must accept that you cannot create anything. You do not create your own purpose because your disbelief precludes the very possibility. To reiterate: Atheism is an absurd worldview because it views the world as ultimately purposeless and meaningless and therefore absurd.

The beauty about not believing in an adult imaginary friend, and living your life rigidly according to their magic book...

... is that you can believe in free will, and subscribe to another belief, a few other beliefs, or no other beliefs. Free will.

The flaw in your logic comes with your wild assumptions... the "therefore"s. For example, a belief in free will doesn't mean 'therefore' you subscribe to any theory other than the one.

It's sort of like saying you believe in Jesus, therefore you are Roman Catholic, and therefore you believe in supporting child molesting priests. Which is absurd.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Disbelief in God has implications. One of those implications is a disbelief in God implies a disbelief in final causality or teleology (purpose). So, I'm afraid you can't run and hide by arguing you have no worldview. You most certainly do. You view the world as completely devoid of God and therefore devoid of an ultimate purpose or meaning. Such a worldview is an absurd one.

Some people feel needing an imaginary friend as an adult is absurd. Of course everyone has a world view... some just let it continually evolve.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

If you don't trust that there is a Creator then situation is that you are the creator which you are not. Thereby atheism is a pure blindness.

Thank you for proving that whole "intelligent design" thing wrong.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

You cannot create your own purpose because that would qualify as a purpose in and of itself...something which your atheism specifically precludes. The bottom line is that there is no purpose in the atheistic view of the world. So, any purpose you believe you might create for yourself must ultimately deemed illusory.

If you feel your purpose is to have a child, nurture that child, set that child off into the adult world... retire and die... you can also be an atheist. Purpose, and an atheist. It happens.

Life is more than a dictionary meaning. Try living beyond a book...

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Nonsense. To describe a post as nonsensical is not to make a nonsensical description.

Again, "intelligent design" goes back to the drawing board.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

To create a purpose presupposes a purpose to begin with. That's why atheists cannot rationally justify their belief that each individual creates his or her own purpose. Any purpose you believe you create for yourself must ultimately be deemed illusory. Such is the absurd worldview that is atheism.

You can have a purpose in the present, and say "I don't know how the universe was created... and until I see some sort of proof, I'm okay with that. A book written by a group of cult followers means nothing to me. David Koresh also had followers that lived, and if they wrote a book claiming he came back from the dead and visited them, I wouldn't buy that absurd nonsense either."

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

"Meaningless" in this context means "without meaning" or "unreasonable". "Absurd" means the same thing. But, all in all, your opening statement is merely a claim. You are CLAIMING that the atheistic world-view is without meaning and unreasonable. It's just an unsubstantiated opinion thus far ... until you back it up, of course.

So, why does the lack of belief in God necessarily make one's worldview "meaningless"? Why is God necessary to provide meaning in one's life? Atheists often make a very powerful positive impact on the world, so their lives have meaning. Is it merely the fact that they think that death is absolute? Because I fail to see why the absence of an afterlife would make one's life necessarily meaningless. Can you flesh that out a bit?

"Meaning" is relative based on perspective as well. One man's good deed, can be another man's sin... or someone's positive can create a negative for another.

Some find it a meaningless existence to worship an imaginary friend. What a waste of life constantly calling upon an invisible buddy that's just not there, and never answers. Everyone with their books about how their all powerful being is the best... it's like a big game of Pokémon.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

We need to invoke God to rationally justify a belief in a teleological world.

Absurd.

What if you don't believe in Gods, and don't subscribe to everything contained in teleological philosophy? One belief doesn't *therefore* mean you believe another. You cannot simply assign a belief to a group.

The truly intelligent don't stop at one term or definition, stick to it as a belief, a club, or a religion, and therefore refuse to intellectually evolve because of it.

Aside from a bunch or terminology, which is what the less intelligent use to try and impress, I see nothing but very immature logic.

I would suggest you define "meaning". Since apparently, you refuse to accept others' definitions of it... define "meaning" for us. What is the "meaning" of your life?