Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

[Ranvier]

As Agnostic, I reject the possibility of "nothing" and hence state that the creation of the Universe must have been a God but not any specific God described by any religion.

That seems closest to deism - an existent but non-interventionist god (small "g").

I prefer the term Agnostic because I can't be sure of God's (god's) non intervention.

-- Updated February 15th, 2017, 11:22 pm to add the following --

I suppose that I'm a "religion of one" by One.

[Steve3007]

Dark Matter:

The proposition we were talking about is (or was), "To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism." You interjected the red herring, "There is either one God, lots of gods or no god."

It doesn't seem to be a red herring. It seems to be pretty much what you're saying.

I speculated earlier that this strange term that you've used: "the personality of the First Source and Center" sounds like a waffley term for the thing people often refer to as "God". You didn't seem to disagree with that. Do you disagree now? Then's there's the term "materialism". From your earlier words it seems clear that you use that word to mean a world without any of these god things in it, yes? And "pantheism", as I understand it, means gods everywhere, or gods in everything or some such thing.

Is any of the above wildly incorrect?

If not, then your phrase:

"To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism."

roughly translates to:

"To deny the existence of one God leaves only the choice of no gods or lots of gods all over the place".

Pretty close to what I said. So why is it a red herring?

[Sy Borg]

(Nested quote removed.)

That seems closest to deism - an existent but non-interventionist god (small "g").

I prefer the term Agnostic because I can't be sure of God's (god's) non intervention.

You used the more generic definition of the word "agnostic":

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

This would be fine in a different topic, but in discussions about religion the word "agnostic" has a specific meaning:

someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists

I'm technically an "agnostic" because I don't know if any kind of god exists or not. I like to think that something cool is going on behind the scenes of our reality but I don't know. Really, our understanding of our planet - or ourselves, of the nature of energy and matter etc - is very incomplete so fully understanding the nature of reality seems a tad ambitious.

I don't much care for any label, though, as I go through phases where I might lean this way or that, and I am confident from your earlier comments that you'd relate to that.

[Ranvier]

I'm drawn to this Philosophy forum, thankful for the thoughts of others. I hold a belief that Philosophy is an art of thought that is derived from pure logic and skill of observation. However, I often find that modern Philosophy is an art of argument based on the Ideas of other people that are long gone. I want to learn the thoughts of others who are here and now, capable of pure thought without ego and posturing of who is better versed in the study of Philosophy.

With this said, in line with the topic of this thread "why atheism can't be logically supported", I offered my opinion. I also hope to learn the Atheist view on our reality that in my mind demands answer as to the source of our creation and existence.

P.S. If I may, Greta I truly appreciate your thoughts thus far.

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

My aim in boiling it all down to three choices -- theism, materialism or pantheism -- is to get past all the mental masterbation that we see here.

You ignored my post where I clearly show that it does not boil down to three choices. I have repeated it below.

It's really just a first step.

And that explains why you have to ignore it. If it does not boil down to three choices then you cannot take the next step.

From my post #2719:

Did Spinoza believe in God? Yes. Was Spinoza a materialist? Yes. Was Spinoza a pantheist? Yes.


One might be believe in God but not believe that God created the world, that we can understand nature without resorting to supernatural explanations, in other words, one might believe in God and be a materialist.

One might believe in materialistic pantheism.

One might be an atheist but not a materialist, holding to some form of dualism.

One might hold that consciousness is fundamental without associating consciousness with God or reducing it to a form of materialism. There is a thread on this.

Each of these positions are real, have proponents, and are discussed in various places on the net and elsewhere.

[Steve3007]

Fooloso4:

One might believe in materialistic pantheism.

One might be an atheist but not a materialist, holding to some form of dualism.

I think Dark Matter can deny this because he has opted to go with his own definition of the word "materialism". He seems to have essentially decided to define materialism as an approximate synonym for atheism, for example here:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 55#p283955

That is why, if we accept his personal definitions of words, his statement is true. Because, according his definitions of the words he is using, it is a tautology. He is saying that either there is one god, many gods or no gods. A true but not very enlightening statement. A statement about the structure of language, not about reality.

[Ranvier]

Let me reiterate my reasoning:
Intellectual conversation begins with the fact that we are here, which means we are conscious beings in whatever form we imagine that is capable to ponder one's own existence. Beside the obvious that each of us was born, as those before us, all the way to the first spec of DNA code for all life. The planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the Universe. Where did it all come from? Why would the first human consciousness ponder one's own existence? Most likely by making an observation that none of the fellow beings could be capable of such creation to offer the answer for their purpose. This is a rational thought of even the earliest consciousness that understood the cause and effect in purpose. Irrational thought can be defined as performing an action without any purpose, a repetitive irrational action amounts to Insanity. So, the early humans concluded that there must be some purpose to the existence of their reality, created by some supreme rational "being" they decided to call God. But that doesn't explain the purpose, hence multiple gods and later One God were conceived as religious interpretations of God's purpose for human. But given the human nature, Religions became a tool of control and oppression. In resistance to that oppression different "schools" of thought had risen including the idea of absence of God all together as Atheism, which has nothing to do with the original question and purpose of religion in the first place, where did all of it come from and why are we here? Therefore, Atheism is not any type of rational reasoning to answer such questions but argument against religion. Our modern world is Insane, without purpose, in part by human depravity of religion and irrational Atheist view of meaningless existence. Hence, insanity can't be logically supported.

[Eduk]

As Agnostic, I reject the possibility of "nothing" and hence state that the creation of the Universe must have been a God but not any specific God described by any religion. Unless you can come up with some other alternative method of Universe creation, then Atheist's stance on the matter must be existence of "nothing" and such must be shown to exist somewhere. Otherwise not taking any position is an argument, "I don't know" position, is not a position to take in an argument to the point of having a name for such a stance. If Atheist can come up with some other source of logical explanation for the creation of the Universe, such position would have to be supported with evidence or simply disprove the possibility of God.

Ok terms like Agnostic and Atheist can get mixed up and muddled. Personally when reading comments on the internet I like to apply the principle of charity. Which basically means you look for ways in which the person is making sense as opposed to ways in which they aren't making sense. For example a lot of disagreements come about simply due to how people may define words differently. So it's possible for both of us to be correct in our points with our understanding of the words being used. As an example it is possible that by your definition many people calling themselves atheist are closer to how you define agnostic. If I agree with your definition of Atheism then I agree with the conclusion. But in that case I'm not an atheist (by your definition).

Having said that I will attempt to define how I use the words and how I see the difference. This is of course my take, it's open for discussion.

Agnostic: nothing is known or can be known about the existence of God. God cannot be proven or disproven. The question that comes to my mind (and where our interpretations perhaps start to defer?) is which God? And how do you define God? For example are you talking about the christian god? or a different god? How does agnosticism relate to religions that don't have gods? To my mind agnostic means religion A,B,C,...(and so on) can't be proven or disproven. I also try to strengthen this slightly to the odds of religion A being right as 50% and religion A being wrong as 50%. Otherwise Agnosticism starts to look exactly the same as Atheism (to me). Again this is my interpretation, others will use this word differently and mean different things.
Under your definition of Agnostic you are talking about a God which is not specific to any religion, I hesitate to offer a description but lets just say an undefined creator, then how you define Agnosticism means the same as how I define atheism (more or less).
Atheist: Each and every religion A, B, C,.... is made up by humans and therefore as real as Sauron. It is known that each religion is a falsehood in the same way it is known that Uri Geller can't bend spoons with his mind. That is the strong Atheist stance. Some people find this too strong and believe that there may be a teapot behind mars so call themselves agnostic as a matter of principle. Personally I reduce this to chance, if you think the teapot is 50/50 then sure that's agnosticism. If you think the chance of the teapot is tending towards 0 then you are a lot closer to atheist than agnostic (again in my opinion - other opinions exist). In this sense atheism takes a very strong position?
How atheism relates to a non specific creator depends on how you define this creator. Even using the word creator is an issue as it introduces all kinds of bias. Atheists, in general, do believe we are here but understand nothing about the how. Literally nothing. How may even not make sense as a question.

So in short, in my opinion, saying you are an atheist is not saying we were 100% created from nothing. Atheism does not make positive claims. Atheism is merely that religion A, B, C,..... has evidence that it is baseless.

To give one last example. Neil deGrasse Tyson says he is closer to agnostic than anything but at the end of the day would prefer not to have a label. Dark Matter refutes this and using his, in my opinion rather harsh and misguided, views defines Neil as being an Atheist. Personally I can see Neil's point. It is hard to get the depth of expression from one label, as it depends how you define that label. Under one definition you may be correct and under another you may be wrong.

-- Updated February 16th, 2017, 6:15 am to add the following --

Oh, I don't doubt his feelings are genuine, but that doesn't translate into spirituality. Interactions can be had with non-personal things, but not fellowship. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law. To appropriate the word "spirit" and use it in a way that impinges on its religious intent is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

You don't own the word spirituality, fellowship, supplicate, worship etc. These concepts existed before your religion and will exist after. They are part of the human condition. All humans experience spirituality. Otherwise you are dehumanising about a billion people who are religiously unaffiliated? As to your view on the remainder who don't practice your specific religion I don't know?

-- Updated February 16th, 2017, 6:45 am to add the following --

Irrational thought can be defined as performing an action without any purpose, a repetitive irrational action amounts to Insanity. So, the early humans concluded that there must be some purpose to the existence of their reality,

I may be misunderstanding you here. Are you saying because humans are rational then existence must be rational and if existence is rational it must have a purpose?

Also Atheism doesn't say existence is meaningless (I mean some atheists might but this is not the definition of Atheism). It might be meaningless of course, it could be that human purpose is emergent from a purposeless universe (so you can have both). In human terms it doesn't seem likely though but these are very human terms. But lets say that existence 100% does have a purpose. We still know nothing about that purpose. Why should that purpose have anything to do with humans for example.

By the way I'm running out of ways to say it. But when defining the atheist position is it worth listening to atheists? If not then you can define it however you like and that definition will logically have everything to do with you personally and little to do with millions of people. That is what I would call insanity.

[Rr6]

1} "U"niverse aka God

.....1a} There exists metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and they are not spatial. No spatial things

............1a1} There exists absolute{ non-variable } and relative{ variable } truths ergo absolute and relative existence.

............1a2} I-verse ergo ego.

--------------------------line-of-demarcation------------------------------------

.......1b} There exists metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space. No things in this location of space.

........1c} There exists occupied space. These things are physical/energy/time/motion and have an associated sine-wave ^v- /\/\/\/\/\/-v^.

The above are the primary set of existence aka God.

Our finite, occupied space Universe--- aka Uni-V-erse ----is a subset of the greater set of 1, 1, 1aa, 1b and 1c.

None have offerred any rational, logical common sense, that, adds to or invalidates my above givens as stated. None ever will. imho

I-verse ie. ego allows for expression of absolute truths and perversions of relative truths.

The greatest perversion of ego/I-verse, is the statement 'I am God'. This is one of the greatest perversions because the two are diametric <------> opposites.

I exist within my environment.

I and my environment together, are God/Universe/"U"niverse.

Fuller states itt his way.

Universe is everything including me,
Environment is everything excluding me.

85% of conflict can be resolved via communication.

....note...I snipped this first comment here as Greta wants to ban me for it and others........
Spirit-1{ metaphysical-1} is spirit-of-intent ergo metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts,
----line of demarcation------------------------------------
Spirit-2 is fermions bosons and any aggregate combination thereof,

Spirt-3{ metaphysical-3 } is gravity ergo positive shaped geodesic of space,

Spirit-4{ metaphysical-4 } is dark energy ergo negative shaped geodesic of space.
Spirituality is the encouragement and support of the ecological environment that sustains humans and all biological life on Earth.

This is relatively simple conclusion for those who are seeking truth and have not placed a mental ego blockage in pathway of self and others.

r6

[Eduk]

1} "U"niverse aka God

by "1}" do you just mean point 1? or does the "}" have any special significance?

Why are you writing universe as

"U"niverse

? What is the special meaning of quotations around the U?

When you say universe also known as God, what do you mean? Do you mean the universe is God?

How do you define God?

And how do you define universe?

[Fooloso4]

Steve3007:

I think Dark Matter can deny this because he has opted to go with his own definition of the word "materialism". He seems to have essentially decided to define materialism as an approximate synonym for atheism, for example here:

Right, but when in the next post I asked him what a materialist "belief system" is he refused to answer.

He also ignored my post where I pointed out that spirit was not originally a religious term.

He also ignores it when it is pointed out that his God is only one of many concepts of God. The funny thing is that not too long ago Plotinus was his favorite philosopher. We had an extended argument on this in the “If there is a God, why is there evil” topic, it was after this that he switched to Tillich. Plotinus’ God is not and does not have a personality. In that topic criticized those who believed in a personal God, but now his new version of God, a personal God, is the only God.

The phrase “ the personality of the First Source and Center” comes from The Urantia Book. If you follow his posts over time he latches on to things, puts them forth (usually without identifying the source), and treats them as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth … until he stumbles upon something else.

It doesn't seem to be a red herring. It seems to be pretty much what you're saying.

He is employing one of his standard tactics - accuse the other person of what you are doing. We have a President who does the same thing.

[Ranvier]

Eduk, Thank you for your thoughts.

I can't find a truly appropriate label to describe my view of reality. Label, word is used in human communication to ascribe a specific meaning to generally "understood" concept or abstract idea. This is necessary in exchange of thought between people but since everything is relative and subjective to individual perception, we often spend more time finding correct words than the thought about the concept or idea. Ex: we use a single term of "love" for multitude of situations and various types of human relationship, where the mother's love doesn't mean the same thing as "I love my dog".

In my view of reality, there is "God" as the conscious source of our creation that had a purpose for such cause and effect.
Observation 1. We do not know the purpose
Observation 2. We have our consciousness to ponder our existence. There must be a purpose (not just the evolutionary adaptation) in "God" giving us our consciousness. The purpose becomes the use of that consciousness and mind (collection of memories, knowledge, experience, wisdom) that should be sufficient to discover the "short term" purpose and eventually the "ultimate" purpose.
Observation 3. Religions are not the source of the ultimate truth but every religion offers a new perspective and insight to the puzzle. Hence, I don't associate with any religion but reserve the right to draw conclusions from teachings of intellectual value. Obviously all these texts were written by men, using words...I already discussed accuracy of "words". However, the thoughts that are contained in those words can offer an insight that sometimes I feel is so advanced that I can't imagine a human of that time period to conceive "alone".

There are many people that may associate themselves with the label of "Atheist" but usually with their own subjective interpretation of that word. Quite frankly it doesn't really matter as what people call themselves as long as they can communicate sufficiently their view of reality that can be of interest. I often find that "atheists" don't really offer much in terms of insight to our existence in tunnel vision around self.

[Eduk]

I often find that "atheists" don't really offer much in terms of insight to our existence in tunnel vision around self.

I'm sorry you are saying that all atheists are narcissistic? Is there a chance that you are biased in some way against atheists? For example you have been told second hand stories about what atheists believe rather than had first hand experience? Or that the atheists you have met have been due to special circumstances and don't necessarily stand for all the millions (billions) of atheists. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything negative that applied to all theists or agnostics.

For me nothing has brought more insight to our existence than the scientific method and critical thinking. Atheism follows naturally from application of the scientific method. Our model of the universe, gravity, electricity, evolution, relativity, the big bang, DNA, Quantum theory and on and on and on weren't discovered by studying religion. So much which you take as basic undeniable obvious truth isn't taken from any religious texts.

[Ranvier]

Eduk, thank you again for your thoughts.

I usually try to be careful in avoiding infinite terms, such as "all" or "never". I will also say that there were many different people of various views on reality that have contributed to human knowledge and the scientific method. Therefore, the scientific method isn't the sole achievement of Atheists when you state "our model of the universe...". I have devoted most of my life to the study of science and I can tell you that most of what we "know" is relative. Some Atheists are narcissistic and many are often catering to their ego rather than unbiased truth. If I get into a deeper discussion about Gravity, electrical charges, spacetime, Quantum mechanics, Big Bang, etc. I find that most people have no idea of what these things mean. With this said, I have not found or was able to postulate myself a scientific hypothesis that would be able to test for "our purpose". Deductive intellectual reasoning thus far has proven to be most of value, at least personally, to answer some of the more profound questions about our existence of "why are we here?" What are your thoughts?

[Dark Matter]

Jacob Needleman writes: “When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.” Take a look around. Is he wrong? In a similar vein, Tarthang Tulku writes: “Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion Being continues to roar outside the gate.” Is he wrong? More famously, G. K. Chesterton writes” “We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man’s opinion on tram cars matters; his opinion on Botticelli [an Italian painter of the Early Renaissance] matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.” If after millennia of mental masturbation, have “the foxes of the intellect” come any closer to knowing the Being that originates it?

The search for Being is the search for God; finding Being is finding God. Does rummaging through the garbage heap of others bring us closer to Being?