Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

[Dark Matter]

Some of us think philosophy has something to do with reality. We know nothing of the infinite and eternal, if they exist or how they exist. Perhaps there are a multitude of infinities and eternities or perhaps exactly nine or three or none. It is nothing more than image making and the belief that the cosmos fits your image. And in so far as you worship your god you are worshipping images of your own making.

Now of course you are free to worship your own creation, but you are not free to insist that what you have created is God or that others should have no other gods before yours. But this is exactly what you have done, repeatedly. And you are not free to insist that those who do not believe that you have created God or believe in any god are illogical or in some way deficient, as you have done, repeatedly.

Steve: I ask you, what does the above have to do with anything I said?

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson rather famously refuses to call himself an atheist and a simple google search will reveal many interviews with the man as to exactly why this is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's an agnostic who uses all cliche arguments atheists use, but hates being called an atheist. Sounds like cognitive dissonance.

-- Updated February 15th, 2017, 2:23 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter:

Yes, really. I've seen threads dedicated to the notion that atheists "spiritual" and public figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson, a vocal atheist, argue that scientific wonder is equivalent to being spiritual.

That wasn't the proposition we were talking about. The proposition was: "There is either one God, lots of gods or no god". I'm sure Neil deGrasse Tyson would agree with that because it's not a statement that applies just to gods. It's about the rules of language. Specifically the "law of the excluded middle". Anybody who agrees with the rules of language agrees with it.

Regarding this new idea that you've introduced: the idea that scientific wonder is equivalent to being spiritual. I don't know for sure what it means to be spiritual. If it means having some kind of sense of awe and humility at the grandeur of Nature, or something like that, then I'd say it's obviously true that anyone can have that. Does it mean that?

It's as though deep down they know "spirit" has real meaning but can't get themselves to admit that the idea of spirit is incongruent with their stated atheism.

Does it have real meaning? What does it mean?

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."

[Eduk]

Dark matter you believe in cognitive dissonance?

[Dark Matter]

Dark matter you believe in cognitive dissonance?

I dunno, but I wonder if atheism is so untenable that its proponents feel it is necessary to go off on unrelated tangents or insert red herrings when something they don't like is proposed.

-- Updated February 15th, 2017, 4:22 pm to add the following --

Hey, here's a suggestion: Instead of "skeptical inquiry," why not "open-minded inquiry," but not so open-minded that the brains fall out?

[Fooloso4]

Eduk:

I think the evidence is firmly to the contrary of this point. I assume what you mean is that it is unreasonable and unkind to do so?

Yes, you are right.

I was playing off the duality of freedom and necessity that he thinks he has unified in his art. With regard to the practice of philosophy the constraint on freedom is the truth. We should not allow ourselves the freedom to insist that others believe what we do not know.

Dark Matter:

There's also the likes of Fooloso4, who, rather than dealing with the question at hand by proffering a philosophical alternative to materialism or pantheism, goes off on an unrelated tangent.

First, let’s retrace the argument. I asked Sage:

What are the beliefs of that “system” that all atheists have in common?

To which you responded:

Materialism.

Me:

Certainly not! I expect we will hear from atheists who are not materialists. In addition, the same question I asked about an atheist belief system can be asked about a materialist belief system. Materialists may share a basic assumption, but that is not a belief system. They may define materialism differently and hold different beliefs.

You:

So much for consistency and intellectual integrity.

Followed by:

This is a philosophy forum. Atheism can pontificate, deny, qualify and nuance all it likes, but “To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism.” Either unconscious matter-energy is the bottom line, or the universe itself is God.

You claim that materialism is the belief system that all atheists hold in common, but in response to my question as to what the materialist belief system is you make a vague remark about consistency and intellectual integrity.

Rather than respond to the question you move on to claim that the only alternatives to your god is materialism and pantheism. You ignore the following:

Disagreement arises with regard to a) your claims about the option you choose. It is not simply God that you affirm but a specific concept of God, and b) the way you frame the alternatives. It has been argued that Spinoza was a materialist.

Spinoza is also considered by some to be a pantheist. What you either do not understand or wish to ignore is that our concepts do not fit neatly into your categorical framework. It is not a matter of offering an alternative to materialism and pantheism, it is to point out that the way you divide the world is problematic.

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.

It's as though deep down they know "spirit" has real meaning but can't get themselves to admit that the idea of spirit is incongruent with their stated atheism.

Why do some theists want deep down to believe that what they believe we know deep down?

The problem is that ‘spirit’ has so many different meanings. One of the fundamental meanings of the term is breath. It denotes a thing that breathes, is alive, is animate. The breath, so to speak, comes to take on a life of its own. The term ’soul’ has a similar history, and the two are sometimes used interchangeably. They are imbued with religious significance that is not original to them. It stands to reason that if spirit is to be associated with God or divinity then it is incongruent with atheism.

Spirit also means feelings. One might say that they are a spiritual person and mean by that someone who loves, who cares, is deeply moved, etc., but in wholly natural ways by wholly natural things.

[Eduk]

Fooloso4 I applaud the effort but dark matter is not likely to respond well. I think you have already adequately addressed any points which you have charitably attributed to him but at this point all you will get back is repetition, insults and further vagueness and illlogic.
Personally I have been rather enjoying dark matters comments for what they are.

[Sy Borg]

I've seen threads dedicated to the notion that atheists "spiritual" and public figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson, a vocal atheist, argue that scientific wonder is equivalent to being spiritual.

Neil deGrasse Tyson rather famously refuses to call himself an atheist and a simple google search will reveal many interviews with the man as to exactly why this is.

Regarding this new idea that you've introduced: the idea that scientific wonder is equivalent to being spiritual. I don't know for sure what it means to be spiritual. If it means having some kind of sense of awe and humility at the grandeur of Nature, or something like that, then I'd say it's obviously true that anyone can have that. Does it mean that?

Eduk is correct.

Besides, if Neil DGT claims that his awe of nature evokes spiritual feelings within him, then who are we to tell him what he is feeling? What else can one call that sense awe and love one feels in the face of this familiar mystery of reality that we so often taken for granted?

In fact, I consider taking time out to really appreciate and pay attention to the extraordinariness of reality to be a rejuvenating activity, along with sleep, meditation, play and lazing. Not taking time out to relax and focus is akin to the false economy of not allowing time for rest breaks or. worse, a good night's sleep. The result being burnout. I'm not sure but this may pertain to DM's earlier caution to me about over-reliance on intellectualism.

Moral of the story: Sometimes you just gotta feeel the luuurve :)

What is spirituality in essence? See above ↑↑

[Eduk]

Ranvier you mischaracterise the atheist position. Atheist's do not believe a random event lead to the creation of the universe. Or at least this is not part of the definition of athiesm. Atheism is simply believing that no one knows what lead to the creation of the universe. These are two very different things. Religions claim to know what created the universe all atheism is is a denial of that claim due to no evidence.
For example if you imagined that a creator revealed itself to us. And this creator didn't resemble a single religion then the athiest position would have been correct.

[Dark Matter]

Rather than respond to the question you move on to claim that the only alternatives to your god is materialism and pantheism. You ignore the following:

Disagreement arises with regard to a) your claims about the option you choose. It is not simply God that you affirm but a specific concept of God, and b) the way you frame the alternatives. It has been argued that Spinoza was a materialist.

I ignored it because it is complete nonsense.

Spinoza is also considered by some to be a pantheist. What you either do not understand or wish to ignore is that our concepts do not fit neatly into your categorical framework. It is not a matter of offering an alternative to materialism and pantheism, it is to point out that the way you divide the world is problematic.

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.

There ya go: all you seem capable of doing is equivocate, pontificate, deny, qualify, nuance and throw up smokescreens. Below is a perfect example of equivocation:

The problem is that ‘spirit’ has so many different meanings. One of the fundamental meanings of the term is breath. It denotes a thing that breathes, is alive, is animate. The breath, so to speak, comes to take on a life of its own. The term ’soul’ has a similar history, and the two are sometimes used interchangeably. They are imbued with religious significance that is not original to them. It stands to reason that if spirit is to be associated with God or divinity then it is incongruent with atheism.

Spirit also means feelings. One might say that they are a spiritual person and mean by that someone who loves, who cares, is deeply moved, etc., but in wholly natural ways by wholly natural things.

Greta: Yes, Neil deGrasse Tyson does indeed claim to be agnostic, but he uses all the cliche arguments atheists use.

Besides, if Neil DGT claims that his awe of nature evokes spiritual feelings within him, then who are we to tell him what he is feeling? What else can one call that sense awe and love one feels in the face of this familiar mystery of reality that we so often taken for granted?

In fact, I consider taking time out to really appreciate and pay attention to the extraordinariness of reality to be a rejuvenating activity, along with sleep, meditation, play and lazing. Not taking time out to relax and focus is akin to the false economy of not allowing time for rest breaks or. worse, a good night's sleep. The result being burnout. I'm not sure but this may pertain to DM's earlier caution to me about over-reliance on intellectualism.

Moral of the story: Sometimes you just gotta feeel the luuurve

What is spirituality in essence? See above ↑↑

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.

-- Updated February 15th, 2017, 8:04 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 was right about one thing: "It stands to reason that if spirit is to be associated with God or divinity then it is incongruent with atheism."

[Rr6]

Few if any in this thread have the foggiest idea of what a rational, logical, common sense definition for God or spirit.

Spirit-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

[Fooloso4]

EduK:

Fooloso4 I applaud the effort but dark matter is not likely to respond well. I think you have already adequately addressed any points which you have charitably attributed to him but at this point all you will get back is repetition, insults and further vagueness and illlogic.

This is not my first go round with DM. There are a few other threads and earlier in this thread where he has gone through the same evasive tactics. The funny thing is that more than once after a prolonged argument he ends up saying things that I had previously said and arguing against me, claiming exactly what I had already said. When I point out to him that these are things I previously said he changes the subject, hurls insults, or falls silent.

Personally I have been rather enjoying dark matters comments for what they are.

I enjoy taking him to task for what he says, and think it comical that when I attempt to put things in perspective, clarify concepts, and provide specific examples that run counter to his claims that there are three options he ignores it and claims that it is nonsense, that I am throwing up a smokescreen, equivocating, and a bunch of other non-specific accusations that can be applied to anything said by anyone. But in reality is simply evasiveness.

Some might think it cruel but I follow Nietzsche when he says that one of the great purposes of philosophy is to deprive stupidity of its good conscience.

[Sy Borg]

Besides, if Neil DGT claims that his awe of nature evokes spiritual feelings within him, then who are we to tell him what he is feeling? What else can one call that sense awe and love one feels in the face of this familiar mystery of reality that we so often taken for granted?

In fact, I consider taking time out to really appreciate and pay attention to the extraordinariness of reality to be a rejuvenating activity, along with sleep, meditation, play and lazing. Not taking time out to relax and focus is akin to the false economy of not allowing time for rest breaks or. worse, a good night's sleep. The result being burnout. I'm not sure but this may pertain to DM's earlier caution to me about over-reliance on intellectualism.

Moral of the story: Sometimes you just gotta feeel the luuurve :)

What is spirituality in essence? See above ↑↑

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.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy, DM - that your spiritual experiences are real and valid and NDGT's are false.

Further, you assume that he would have the same relatively insipid experiences in nature that you have (insipid compared with your communion with God). However, NDGT was so thrilled and inspired by nature that he devoted his life to its study. Some of his experiences with nature would be amongst the most significant of his life. If he says they were spiritual to him you have to take him at face value, just as we must take your claims of spiritual experiences at face value. Either that or, as you did with NDGT, others may assume to know your mind better than you know yourself, and I'm fairly sure of your reaction to anyone assuming to do that to you.

[Ranvier]

Ranvier you mischaracterise the atheist position. Atheist's do not believe a random event lead to the creation of the universe. Or at least this is not part of the definition of athiesm. Atheism is simply believing that no one knows what lead to the creation of the universe. These are two very different things. Religions claim to know what created the universe all atheism is is a denial of that claim due to no evidence.
For example if you imagined that a creator revealed itself to us. And this creator didn't resemble a single religion then the athiest position would have been correct.

Agnostic accepts the possibility of God, Atheist doesn't. Therefore the only option left is belief in "nothing" or you are actually believing in some source of creation (aka God). How would you describe your Atheism?

[Dark Matter]

Greta:

Awe is only the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. In the absence of a personal God, all the feelings you allude is reducible to unconscious matter-energy OR the consciousness that gives rise to them is intrinsic to reality itself. 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. It's really just a first step. All the mental clutter that comes with nuance drowns its spokespersons in egoism, conceit and fantasy.

More and more, as I see it now, this heartless way of thinking about God and ultimate reality dominates the mind of the contemporary world. For God or against God, “belief” or “atheism,” it makes no difference unless the inner yearning— or whatever we wish to call the cause and source of the “second breathing” — is there. And it can so easily be there, just as it can so easily be covered over and ignored, perhaps for the rest of one’s life. God or not God, “belief” or “science” — it also makes no real difference for my personal life unless the call of the Self and its need to “breathe” is heard and, ultimately, respected. Not only can thought about ultimate reality make no difference to the world or to my personal life unless we hear and respect the call of the Self, but such empty thought can bring down our personal and collective world, even our Earth itself. When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.

Jacob Needleman: What Is God?

[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. 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. I look froward to learn of any new options.

[Sy Borg]

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").

-- Updated 15 Feb 2017, 22:03 to add the following --

Greta:

Awe is only the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. In the absence of a personal God, all the feelings you allude is reducible to unconscious matter-energy OR the consciousness that gives rise to them is intrinsic to reality itself. 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. It's really just a first step. All the mental clutter that comes with nuance drowns its spokespersons in egoism, conceit and fantasy.

More and more, as I see it now, this heartless way of thinking about God and ultimate reality dominates the mind of the contemporary world. For God or against God, “belief” or “atheism,” it makes no difference unless the inner yearning— or whatever we wish to call the cause and source of the “second breathing” — is there. And it can so easily be there, just as it can so easily be covered over and ignored, perhaps for the rest of one’s life. God or not God, “belief” or “science” — it also makes no real difference for my personal life unless the call of the Self and its need to “breathe” is heard and, ultimately, respected. Not only can thought about ultimate reality make no difference to the world or to my personal life unless we hear and respect the call of the Self, but such empty thought can bring down our personal and collective world, even our Earth itself. When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.

Jacob Needleman: What Is God?

Not just awe, DM. Deep love of the kind that brings a tear to one's eye. I've enjoyed that many times, where I've been powerfully emotionally affected by the beauty of the sky or plants, by the sweet innocence and clever workings of other animals, by the poignancy of human circumstances and spirit - all the various parts of nature. This kind of experience lacks the inner dialogue (I'm guessing) of "deliberate universal engagement" but I'm all for diversity.

We each, and at different times in our lives, tend more or less towards introspective and extrospective experience, which I think are each valid if, as mentioned earlier, they are underpinned by a positive, loving, understanding attitude.