The Paradox of Atheism and God

[ChristineM]

What is good per you? Why do you atheists write books about ethics or teach about ethics then? Why write books about human rights? Why have government enforce rules to do with morality?

If you have to ask what good is then .. well you know.
Why shouldn't an atheist write books on ethics. But you know very well i was talking of religious books, that is why i mentioned religious books, it's a kind of clue,

Which rules? Remember, the majority of people are religious, including those in government. So don't try and pass government as being atheist.

 

[Echogem222]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

Some people may say that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible, but what is hell? Is it a literal place of fire and torment, or is it a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others? Is hell something that God imposes on us, or something that we impose on ourselves? Is hell eternal, or can it be overcome?

Perhaps hell is just especially real if one makes it a fear of theirs and a mental reality. Perhaps hell is the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death, but something that we experience in life.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion.

Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do. Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom.

Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God.

I like this view, though atheism is like theism, in that theism is classifying a collection of beliefs that cause a person to believe in God or Gods existing, and atheism is classifying a collection of beliefs that cause a person to believe God or Gods do not exist. This is why your reasoning for atheism is indeed off since you're describing a certain type of atheistic belief system, though the dictionary definition of atheism is also off since belief is required to be an atheist, just as belief is required to be a theist (it's just that the type of reasoning used for beliefs tends to be very different between theists and atheists).

 

[Link]

If you have to ask what good is then .. well you know.
Why shouldn't an atheist write books on ethics. But you know very well i was talking of religious books, that is why i mentioned religious books, it's a kind of clue,

Which rules? Remember, the majority of people are religious, including those in government. So don't try and pass government as being atheist.

So atheists can talk about ethics, human rights, discourse, but God should not?

 

[Link]

I like this view, though atheism is like theism, in that theism is classifying a collection of beliefs that cause a person to believe in God or Gods existing, and atheism is classifying a collection of beliefs that cause a person to believe God or Gods do not exist. This is why your reasoning for atheism is indeed off since you're describing a certain type of atheistic belief system, though the dictionary definition of atheism is also off since belief is required to be an atheist, just as belief is required to be a theist (it's just that the type of reasoning used for beliefs tends to be very different between theists and atheists).

In order to be an atheist, in practicality, although technically you are right, comes with leaps of belief as well.

I will give some:

(1) That we are a soul is not an obvious fact (expected to be obvious if we are a soul).
(2) That what we recall the idea of God it's just a concept and we aren't connecting/seeing real thing.
(3) That a God has not been proven by arguments such as cosmological.
(4) That believers experiencing God or spiritual entities can't distinguish reality and real connection from ideas
(5) That there is no proof of design in what we experience of ourselves, world, etc.

And it goes on. Technically, none of these have to believed in. And you would be right. In practicality, there is assumptions and leaps of faith as well.

 

[Echogem222]

In order to be an atheist, in practicality, although technically you are right, comes with leaps of belief as well.

I will give some:

(1) That we are a soul is not an obvious fact (expected to be obvious if we are a soul).
(2) That what we recall the idea of God it's just a concept and we aren't connecting/seeing real thing.
(3) That a God has not been proven by arguments such as cosmological.
(4) That believers experiencing God or spiritual entities can't distinguish reality and real connection from ideas
(5) That there is no proof of design in what we experience of ourselves, world, etc.

And it goes on. Technically, none of these have to believed in. And you would be right. In practicality, there is assumptions and leaps of faith as well.

All of what you've said requires belief, none of it is proven as logical fact. In other words, your understanding of what proof is to any belief system, is incorrect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion. Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do.

It looks like theism is becoming atheism for many. I just saw something very similar in another thread. He described theism in a way that the god could be left out of it, as you have. Your words are something this atheist might have written but without using the word god. Atheists reject all notions of god as anything more than an unfalsifiable, unnecessary claim. They worship nothing. The intuitions of beauty and spirituality when contemplating the cosmos needs no god belief. Atheistic humanists reject blindly following anything and do not obey the words men say gods told them to tell us. Humanists seek "truth and knowledge through reason and evidence," and can live moral lives and express love and kindness. Gods are not needed for any of that.

Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom.

Or maybe there is no god. Or maybe if there was a conscious creator of our universe, it had no knowledge of or interest in our existence.

You'll post the Dictionary definition. And I'll say "You know that statement is true how?"

Definitions aren't true or false. Their meanings are assigned conventionally, and we are all free to define words as we see fit. If our definition is atypical, we'll need to provide it explicitly, but if somebody tells me it's wrong, I know I'm dealing with a lexical prescriptionist, hear how he uses the word (and insist that others do as well), tell him what I mean when I use the word, and then go on as before

Others often use definitions that exclude agnostic atheists, but I don't call those definitions wrong, just not useful. My definition of atheist is the one that suits me and includes me. It's what I mean when I use the word, so it can't be right or wrong, any more than a nickname can be wrong.

Likewise with my definition of faith (in the religious sense). Many theists bristle at it - "insufficiently justified belief" - but that's not a reason for me to define the word differently. That's what *I* mean when I use the word. They mean something else.

Likewise with many other words - truth, knowledge, exist, real. Many don't like my definitions of those words as when they refer to spiritual truth, since they exclude their god beliefs. Their faith-based beliefs aren't any of those things to me - not truth or knowledge.

For example, to exist means to be in some place through some series of consecutive instants and to be able to interact with other things that exist. Many theists don't like that definition, because it excludes their gods, who they say exist outside of time and space and are undetectable. That's my definition of the nonexistent. That describes Superman and Santa Claus just as well as Odin and the god of Abraham.

 

[Link]

All of what you've said requires belief, none of it is proven as logical fact. In other words, your understanding of what proof is to any belief system, is incorrect.

As I said technically, none of those need to believed in. In reality, practically speaking, those leaps of faith happen.

 

[Echogem222]

As I said technically, none of those need to believed in. In reality, practically speaking, those leaps of faith happen.

Fine, then explain to me how this one: "(5) That there is no proof of design in what we experience of ourselves, world, etc." requires a leap of faith.

 

[Link]

Fine, then explain to me how this one: "(5) That there is no proof of design in what we experience of ourselves, world, etc." requires a leap of faith.

There is proof is the reason.

 

[Echogem222]

There is proof is the reason.

Then explain to me what the proof is.

 

[Link]

Then explain to me what the proof is.

Before I can prove to you, do you acknowledge that if a system is proven irreducibly complex, it requires a designer? I can than point you to such systems in nature.

 

[ChristineM]

So atheists can talk about ethics, human rights, discourse, but God should not?

When you provide evidence that god provides anything then feel free to argue your point.

 

[Link]

When you provide evidence that god provides anything then feel free to argue your point.

Glad I've done that already.

 

[ChristineM]

Glad I've done that already.

Oh no, you have done opinion, if you had provided evidence of god you would be famous beyond avarice, you would be on first name terms with all the worlds religious leaders, no, you have not provided evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Before I can prove to you, do you acknowledge that if a system is proven irreducibly complex, it requires a designer? I can than point you to such systems in nature.

The old irreducible complexity argument had been debunked so often I'm surprised you would even mention it

 

[Echogem222]

Before I can prove to you, do you acknowledge that if a system is proven irreducibly complex, it requires a designer? I can than point you to such systems in nature.

Alright, so some people talk about this idea of “irreducible complexity”. It’s like saying, if you have a super complicated thing, and you can’t take any part away without it stopping working, then it must have been designed by someone or something—like a creator or a designer. If we did find something like that, something really and truly irreducibly complex, it would definitely make us scratch our heads and wonder about how it came to be.

But here’s the kicker—scientists haven’t found any examples of things in nature that are truly irreducibly complex. Every time someone points to something and says, “Look, this is too complex, it must have been designed,” scientists have been able to figure out ways that thing could have been built up step by step, each step making sense along the way.

Take the eye, for example. Some folks say, “An eye is so complicated, it must have been designed.” But scientists have shown how eyes could have developed step by step, starting from simple light-sensitive spots, getting more and more complex over time, each step being useful in its own way. So, it’s not like one day, boom, an eye appeared out of nowhere, fully formed and complicated.

So, when you dig into how nature actually works, this idea of “irreducible complexity” doesn’t really hold up. Nature is full of amazing and complex things, but we can see how they got built up bit by bit, all by natural processes, without needing a designer to put them together.

+++

However, it’s not like we can definitively prove that there’s no designer or creator. The universe is full of mysteries, and there’s a lot we don’t know. What we can do, though, is look at the world around us and try to understand it as best as we can, using the tools and methods we have, like science and observation.

Science doesn’t deal in proving things absolutely, but in building the most reliable and supported explanations for the natural world based on the evidence available. So far, the evidence supports the idea that natural processes, like evolution, can account for the complexity and diversity of life we see around us, without needing to invoke a designer.

That doesn’t rule out beliefs in creation or design, and people are free to have faith in those. It just means that, from a scientific standpoint, we don’t have a basis to claim that a designer is a necessary part of the picture. Everyone’s got their own perspectives and beliefs, and it’s important to have open conversations about them, respecting each other’s views, while also being clear about what the evidence does and doesn’t show.

Personally, my belief system in atheism allows me to have faith that yes, indeed, our reality was designed, but I do so using faith as the main reason why I believe such a thing. This is because the reason why our reality was designed in my belief system was done so by something which fully exceeds our comprehension, existing in a state fully greater than infinity, something which does not go on forever, but something greater than that, existing within a value system which allows this to be possible. This is why it can't be defined as singular, plural, or infinite, and by extension God, Gods, a creator, creators, etc.

 

[Link]

Alright, so some people talk about this idea of “irreducible complexity”. It’s like saying, if you have a super complicated thing, and you can’t take any part away without it stopping working, then it must have been designed by someone or something—like a creator or a designer. If we did find something like that, something really and truly irreducibly complex, it would definitely make us scratch our heads and wonder about how it came to be.

But here’s the kicker—scientists haven’t found any examples of things in nature that are truly irreducibly complex. Every time someone points to something and says, “Look, this is too complex, it must have been designed,” scientists have been able to figure out ways that thing could have been built up step by step, each step making sense along the way.

Take the eye, for example. Some folks say, “An eye is so complicated, it must have been designed.” But scientists have shown how eyes could have developed step by step, starting from simple light-sensitive spots, getting more and more complex over time, each step being useful in its own way. So, it’s not like one day, boom, an eye appeared out of nowhere, fully formed and complicated.

So, when you dig into how nature actually works, this idea of “irreducible complexity” doesn’t really hold up. Nature is full of amazing and complex things, but we can see how they got built up bit by bit, all by natural processes, without needing a designer to put them together.

+++

However, it’s not like we can definitively prove that there’s no designer or creator. The universe is full of mysteries, and there’s a lot we don’t know. What we can do, though, is look at the world around us and try to understand it as best as we can, using the tools and methods we have, like science and observation.

Science doesn’t deal in proving things absolutely, but in building the most reliable and supported explanations for the natural world based on the evidence available. So far, the evidence supports the idea that natural processes, like evolution, can account for the complexity and diversity of life we see around us, without needing to invoke a designer.

That doesn’t rule out beliefs in creation or design, and people are free to have faith in those. It just means that, from a scientific standpoint, we don’t have a basis to claim that a designer is a necessary part of the picture. Everyone’s got their own perspectives and beliefs, and it’s important to have open conversations about them, respecting each other’s views, while also being clear about what the evidence does and doesn’t show.

Personally, my belief system in atheism allows me to have faith that yes, indeed, our reality was designed, but I do so using faith as the main reason why I believe such a thing. This is because the reason why our reality was designed in my belief system was done so by something which fully exceeds our comprehension, existing in a state fully greater than infinity, something which does not go on forever, but something greater than that, existing within a value system which allows this to be possible. This is why it can't be defined as singular, plural, or infinite, and by extension God, Gods, a creator, creators, etc.

Eye would be a bad example since it's transitive, and you can increase from simple steps to it. However, if I can show a binary system, than it would prove it.

I would say the mind is a system that is non-transitive, and irreducibly complex. What I mean by mind is the ghost in the machine type mind.

The reason being is that components all have to work together to produce the "ghost". You have "non-ghost" organism, there would have to plenty of mutations all going right at the same time, for it to go from that to "ghost" state. That's not going to happen.

You can even say same is true of a cell. There is some components of a cell that are necessary, so they can remove all the other pieces of dna, but not all. You can bring it to a very simple form, but it's still with various components. You can't have simple add up progress. There needs to be various parts of it for the minimum.

And another thing to mention. Darwin didn't know there was so much more bad mutations then good. He had no idea, he thought change (positive) happens regularly and didn't know about bad mutations vs good mutations.

There is a paradox with that, that evolution is not really possible in the macro sense. That is there is two versions of irreducibly complex. One that doesn't care if there can be many changes (positive), it shows there is no pathway. There is another, that talks about probability. And nature has a lot of that design, that there is no real path way given how much bad mutations happen, and good mutations happen, with enough time, to produce the required change in time for that evolution.

 

[Link]

The old irreducible complexity argument had been debunked so often I'm surprised you would even mention it

Old arguments are still good. For example, the cosmological argument is still sound.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Definitions aren't true or false. Their meanings are assigned conventionally, and we are all free to define words as we see fit.

I think where the confusion comes in is:

In my original, unedited OP, I tried to define atheism in a certain sense. I was talking in a philosophical sense, but in the Debate forum, I still see it in the context of an "argument".

@ChristineM posted the Dictionary definition. She may have meant it in a conversational sense, but when posted in the Debate forum, I saw it in the context of an "argument", and I see arguments as something that can come under scrutiny. So in such a case, I see it as, even Dictionary definitions are free game to scrutiny if posted in a Debate board - in my opinion.

However, @ChristineM isn't the first atheist to come to a Debate, and post a Dictionary definition, as what looks like refutation, since not much other content was initially posted in response.

I've kind of been moving toward Agnosticism lately anyway, but when I see Debate OPs being posted, and the atheists posting Dictionary definitions, and sometimes debating them, I feel in my increasingly Agnostic perspective, it looks like there might be a certain form of dodges of certain subjects, either that or it's a repetitive debate tactic. And in that sense, I don't really see it as a good form of debate. It makes it look bad if I ever decide to stay with the Atheists and not change to Agnosticism.

To clarify further, my problems are not with @ChristineM . They're more with what I see as a broader issue, and also myself sometimes tripping over my own two feet.

 

[Echogem222]

Eye would be a bad example since it's transitive, and you can increase from simple steps to it. However, if I can show a binary system, than it would prove it.

I would say the mind is a system that is non-transitive, and irreducible complex. What I mean by mind is the ghost in the machine type mind.

The reason being is that components all have to work together to produce the "ghost". You have "non-ghost" organism, there would have to plenty of mutations all going right at the same time, for it to go from that to "ghost" state. That's not going to happen.

You can even say same is true of a cell. There is some components of a cell that are necessary, so they can remove all the other pieces of dna, but not all. You can bring it to a very simple form, but it's still with various components. You can't have simple add up progress. There needs to be various parts of it for the minimum.

And another thing to mention. Darwin didn't know there was so much more bad mutations then good. He had no idea, he thought change (positive) happens regularly and didn't know about bad mutations vs good mutations.

There is a paradox with that, that evolution is not really possible in the macro sense. That is there is two versions of irreducibly complex. One that doesn't care if there can be many changes (positive), it shows there is no pathway. There is another, that talks about probability. And nature has a lot of that design, that there is no real path way given how much bad mutations happen, and good mutations happen, with enough time, to produce the required change in time for that evolution.

I understand your points, and it’s clear we are diving into some deep and complex topics here. It seems there might be some misunderstandings about evolutionary biology. Evolutionary theory does account for gradual transitions in seemingly binary systems, and the evolution of life likely started with simpler replicating molecules, not the complex DNA-based cells we see today.

Concerning mutations, modern evolutionary biology recognizes that while many mutations are neutral or deleterious, beneficial mutations do occur and are selected for, contributing to the complexity and adaptiveness of life over time.

About the mind or consciousness, it’s indeed one of the profound mysteries of existence, and while it’s a topic of much philosophical and scientific exploration, invoking design due to its complexity is not supported by current scientific understanding.

It might be helpful to revisit some of the foundational concepts and evidences of evolutionary biology to clarify these points, and to explore the philosophical discussions on consciousness and the nature of the mind to appreciate the depth and nuances of these questions.