A Challenge to Atheism

[AlyOshA]

It’s been a very long time since I have visited this forum. If anyone remembers me I would like to say that my absence has been from cowardice not because I’ve been insanely busy (Sarcasm? It’s hard to tell with the written word isn't it?)

A challenge to Atheism using some of the championed concepts from the Genius Forum:

This is still a very rough skeleton of what I would eventually like to elaborate on and hone down but it presents enough for people to refute and pick apart (which is what I am aspiring for most of all).

The Atheism distillation and refutation dissertation (HA! Really I am thinking of calling it simply "A Challenge To Atheism") starts with several precepts and questions and works best in a question and answer environment (especially with one who professes to be an Atheist). I would like to give you a more formal, concise, and well-presented representation but I think I can give you a hint and maybe you will be able to disprove it anyway (if anyone can y'all can). My hypothesis is that Atheists have built their philosophy on two precepts 1.) A rejection of the Abrahamic/ Middle Eastern religions: namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and therefore have no belief system outside of a negation or criticism. Which in itself is not a valid belief system. For instance if you hate George Bush that is fine and dandy, but you cannot base your belief system on simply a rejection of an existing system (like the democrats are doing) you have to disprove one belief by proposing an alternate belief. (Is it impossible to prove the nonexistence of something?)
And 2.) Atheism is simply an argument of semantics concerning the word "God". So Finally my hypothesis is that when Atheism is distilled to its very essence, the very roots independent of Abrahamic belief systems and honest to the true intention of the inquiry into the existence of «God» - then Atheism is a fundamentally illogical, irrational, and detrimental belief system.

I start first by asking the Atheist to comment on this common phrase of condolence, "It's no longer in your hands". Meaning, does an Atheist believe that there are aspects of life that they cannot control. For instance a hurricane, or the death of a child or maybe if your wife has Cancer or loves another man - things like that. Of course my favorite prayer comes to mind. "Grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference." But I digress. If the Atheist will admit that there are aspects of life that are not in his or her control then I move on to question # 2. Do you believe in a "higher power" (a common alternative to the word God)? Now of course they will be up in arms about this, but if they slow down and start to distill meaning from the phrase, further questions will arise. "Higher" than what? Well, higher than yourself. Do you believe that there is a force greater than yourself - if not, then are you saying that your will and force is greater than the sun, the stars and the galaxy, greater than birth and death, greater than wars and earthquakes, greater than the galactic ionizing radiation, the astronomical implosions of compressed gases, the nuclear fusion, black holes, and the interactions of matter and antimatter - you get my point. Not since the Christians gave Galileo a death sentence, has there been a more human-centric way of viewing the world than to say, «I am the highest power» – therefore an Atheist would be ridiculous to deny the existence of a higher power (of course I am not going into the exact traits of what this higher power exactly is, I am just confirming that it exists). This can also segue into the concept of a Totality – meaning everything in existence – what does an Atheist think about the concept of The Totality?

Question # 3. Do you believe in Cause and Effect? Well if an Atheist is to deny cause and effect then we have a serious problem because our whole system of science and the very concept of evolution are totally dependent on cause and effect. According to the concept they will agree that if their mother had not met their father and copulated - they would not be born. Then you can take this back to the proposed Big Bang which set in motion all of the causes and effects of our solar system and so on and so forth backwards in time for infinity. Then I ask, do you believe that there was an original cause or do you believe that this process of cause and effect goes on ad infinitum? Many will say that either they don't know or that it is ad infinitum (if they say ad infinitum then it confirms many of the Judaic descriptors that God is Eternal).

So if we have established A.) That the Atheist believes that there are aspects of life that they cannot control B.) That there are higher or greater powers and forces than ourselves, and if existence (and non-existence for that matter) when taken in as a Totality, then the sum accumulation of everything is one and all (or as God told Moses in the burning bush when asked «what is your name?» - The reply being «I shall be as I shall be, or I am what I am» - or as philosophers like to postulate: A equals A). – And finally C.) That the constant progression and evolution of cause and effect was set in motion at some indefinite point of time or (more likely the case) is Eternal… Now without the convolution of semantics, the term God will be used as a blanket descriptor to encompass A.) The aspects of life that are out of our control B.) The power Higher than ourselves or better yet the Totality of all and C.) The (potentially eternal) Cause(s) of all causes and effects. -- Then we are left with two options – to be an Atheist and oppose this force (or totality of forces) - or to accept and maybe even embrace this force. To be an Atheist and not embrace, accept, or acknowledge the existence of God (by the above criteria) is futile, detrimental, and totally illogical. That would be like saying that you deny what is and what shall be, that you deny cause and effect - essentially you are denying existence.

[Iolaus]

Have you heard of scientific pantheism? They say that they have a spiritual feeling, and they certainly understand a totality. Yet they are atheists. What is the difference?

The difference has to do with awareness. No awareness + atheist. Awareness / intent = God.

[AlyOshA]

No I have not heard of Scientific Pantheism but now I am going to check it out.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Aleksei Fyodorovich: Iolaus is correct. Once you take out the assumption that the Totality is intelligent, you are a pantheist.

Only the most stubborn jerks refuse to be pantheists. There are two kinds: one are idiots who misuse the word God to refer to some superstitious feeling or other, and the other are knee-jerk atheists. Neither can be reasoned with.

[AlyOshA]

Well I've done my research on Pantheism and was for the most part satisfied with what they believe. But I also read that Richard Dawkins and others like to weave Atheism and Pantheism together and I do not agree with this.

http://protestantism.suite101.com/blog. ... s_on_deism

I will admit that this article is half-assed but it makes some good points. Tell me what you think.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Although Richard Dawkins lacks wisdom, I agree with him on one point: I would not consider pantheism to be supernatural. The pantheist God is Nature.

However, Dawkins' inability to shut up makes me want to disagree with him somewhere. Oh well, he'll shut up when he dies.

[AlyOshA]

How do you think Pantheism differs from Taoism? Well I guess the ideas of Pantheism are more simplified but still...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Taoism and pantheism have different names. I can't think of any other way they differ.

[AlyOshA]

Yeah I agree that Pantheism isn't supernatural. But that is simply because it doesn't try to inquire into or articulate about those "feelings" that they cannot explain rationally and with material references. Once you give the "unknown" characteristics or personifications of any type, you subject yourself to fallibility. They say, "Mystical union with Reality consists in total abandonment of consciousness to the sensory experience of nature or material reality. The self becomes simply the vehicle for the self-awareness of reality. The self is transcended, and re-united with the whole of which it is part." Pantheists meditate and according to many on this forum meditation is a type of mysticism. I disagree of course but if I were to try to articulate about what happens when I meditate (that is at the advanced levels of meditation that took me a lifetime to achieve) then I would be subjecting myself to rational criticism and fallibility simply because there are no material references which accurately describe it. I would never dare bastardize those experiences by trying to convince someone who has never experienced them - that they exist. It's just a waste of time for both of us.

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm an Athiest.. so I'll answer these questions.

I start first by asking the Atheist to comment on this common phrase of condolence, "It's no longer in your hands". Meaning, does an Atheist believe that there are aspects of life that they cannot control. For instance a hurricane, or the death of a child or maybe if your wife has Cancer or loves another man - things like that.

There are things that I cannot control.

# 2. Do you believe in a "higher power" (a common alternative to the word God)? Now of course they will be up in arms about this, but if they slow down and start to distill meaning from the phrase, further questions will arise. "Higher" than what? Well, higher than yourself. Do you believe that there is a force greater than yourself - if not, then are you saying that your will and force is greater than the sun, the stars and the galaxy, greater than birth and death, greater than wars and earthquakes, greater than the galactic ionizing radiation, the astronomical implosions of compressed gases, the nuclear fusion, black holes, and the interactions of matter and antimatter - you get my point.

Here you have changed the meaning of higher power to win your point. Higher power is usually related to a higher sentient power. However, there are possibly higher sentient powers than myself. Not sure.

Question # 3. Do you believe in Cause and Effect? Well if an Atheist is to deny cause and effect then we have a serious problem because our whole system of science and the very concept of evolution are totally dependent on cause and effect. According to the concept they will agree that if their mother had not met their father and copulated - they would not be born. Then you can take this back to the proposed Big Bang which set in motion all of the causes and effects of our solar system and so on and so forth backwards in time for infinity. Then I ask, do you believe that there was an original cause or do you believe that this process of cause and effect goes on ad infinitum? Many will say that either they don't know or that it is ad infinitum (if they say ad infinitum then it confirms many of the Judaic descriptors that God is Eternal).

I believe that 1 cause can create a gate of effects. So this destroys the linear aspect of nature. And I don't believe in the Big Bang.

So if we have established A.) That the Atheist believes that there are aspects of life that they cannot control B.) That there are higher or greater powers and forces than ourselves, and if existence (and non-existence for that matter) when taken in as a Totality, then the sum accumulation of everything is one and all (or as God told Moses in the burning bush when asked «what is your name?» - The reply being «I shall be as I shall be, or I am what I am» - or as philosophers like to postulate: A equals A). – And finally C.) That the constant progression and evolution of cause and effect was set in motion at some indefinite point of time or (more likely the case) is Eternal… Now without the convolution of semantics, the term God will be used as a blanket descriptor to encompass A.) The aspects of life that are out of our control B.) The power Higher than ourselves or better yet the Totality of all and C.) The (potentially eternal) Cause(s) of all causes and effects. -- Then we are left with two options – to be an Atheist and oppose this force (or totality of forces) - or to accept and maybe even embrace this force. To be an Atheist and not embrace, accept, or acknowledge the existence of God (by the above criteria) is futile, detrimental, and totally illogical. That would be like saying that you deny what is and what shall be, that you deny cause and effect - essentially you are denying existence.

Also. I don't see how you can think of replacing the sun with God. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever. You need to understand cause and effect better as well.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Aleksei (I happen to be re-reading that book right now. I only wish I knew Russian so I could read the original text.),

"Mystical union with Reality consists in total abandonment of consciousness to the sensory experience of nature or material reality. The self becomes simply the vehicle for the self-awareness of reality. The self is transcended, and re-united with the whole of which it is part."

To rephrase this such that someone doesn't pretend that this is a belief system that can be avoided: "a pantheist has admitted that he, including his consciousness, is a part of the Totality. He understands that the only access he will ever have to the world is through his consciousness (Heidegger would call this organ "Dasein"; Sartre the "for-itself"). Once this has been admitted, the pantheist then understands that he, like everything else, is a causal part of the universe. Thenceforth, he doesn't need to believe in the eternity of the soul, or the primacy of himself, to appreciate the glory of Nature. In this way, the pantheist is identical to the Taoist; as well, he has expressed his Buddha-nature; and, not to mention, he comprehends the parables of Christ intimately: as such, he has mastered and superceded the metaphysical, epistemological, and moral teachings of the great sages. Being thus enlightened, he can now continue on the grand tradition of truth-seeking, as should be the birthright of every man of reason."

[AlyOshA]

"Here you have changed the meaning of higher power to win your point. Higher power is usually related to a higher sentient power. However, there are possibly higher sentient powers than myself. Not sure."

No I have not changed the meaning of higher power you have changed the meaning of higher power by adding the descriptor higher sentient power. Once you give this power a personification you have subjected yourself to fallibility and that suites your purpose nicely. But that has nothing to do with what I am saying.

"I believe that 1 cause can create a gate of effects. So this destroys the linear aspect of nature. And I don't believe in the Big Bang." That is why I said "proposed" Big Bang (in case you did not know proposed means that something is a suggestion not an accepted fact). Yes I agree that 1 cause can create many effects but I do not see why "this destroys the linear aspect of nature". By non-linear logic your mother copulated with your father and effect was that Kevin Solway was born and an earthquake hit California? What?

"Also. I don't see how you can think of replacing the sun with God. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever. You need to understand cause and effect better as well."

When did I replace sun with God - I think you have totally missed my point. God is the blanket descriptor for the MANY elements I mentioned (or you could say the totality of elements) not just the sun.

[Pincho Paxton]

No I have not changed the meaning of higher power you have changed the meaning of higher power by adding the descriptor higher sentient power. Once you give this power a personification you have subjected yourself to fallibility and that suites your purpose nicely. But that has nothing to do with what I am saying.

"I believe that 1 cause can create a gate of effects. So this destroys the linear aspect of nature. And I don't believe in the Big Bang." That is why I said "proposed" Big Bang (in case you did not know proposed means that something is a suggestion not an accepted fact). Yes I agree that 1 cause can create many effects but I do not see why "this destroys the linear aspect of nature". By non-linear logic your mother copulated with your father and effect was that Kevin Solway was born and an earthquake hit California? What?

"Also. I don't see how you can think of replacing the sun with God. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever. You need to understand cause and effect better as well."

When did I replace sun with God - I think you have totally missed my point. God is the blanket descriptor for the MANY elements I mentioned (or you could say the totality of elements) not just the sun.

So you want me to say that the sun, and many other things are a higher power than me because they can destroy me? Then you want to use those things that can destroy me as a blanket descriptor for God? How do they compare with God? I thought that God was sentient.

By none linear I mean that we have choices beyond natures natural flow of events, because we can think (sentiently, not physically) faster than nature can flow through its video construction.

[AlyOshA]

Well Trevor Salyzyn I have (for what reason I do not know) been criticized in the past for taking sides and choosing favorites, but I would like to say (by giving credit where credit is due - but without jacking you off) that I find your elucidation of that Pantheist quote thoroughly enlightening.

"So you want me to say that the sun, and many other things are a higher power than me because they can destroy me? Then you want to use those things that can destroy me as a blanket descriptor for God? How do they compare with God? I thought that God was sentient."

What made you think that God was sentient? You are simply arguing semantics that do not relate to what I am saying. That is why I prefaced in my hypothesis that Atheism is simply an argument of semantics without distilling a belief system or promoting any progress of thought. Atheism is simply a means to criticize an existing belief system and when taken to its inevitable conclusion - it is solely destructive. I agree that tearing down an erroneous belief system is important, but eventually it becomes necessary to propose an alternate belief system or no progress will ever be made. I am not saying that you should allow the higher powers that can destroy - to you destroy you. I am simply saying that you should acknowledge, embrace, and accept what is beyond you (and according to the totality a part of you - or rather the other way around - you a part of it) What is the point of rejecting or denying what you cannot change?

"By none linear I mean that we have choices beyond natures natural flow of events, because we can think (sentiently, not physically) faster than nature can flow through its video construction."

This is a very interesting point I think. Unfortunately I have to go. More from me later.
Peace.

[Pincho Paxton]

What made you think that God was sentient?


I am simply saying that you should acknowledge, embrace, and accept what is beyond you (and according to the totality a part of you - or rather the other way around - you a part of it) What is the point of rejecting or denying what you cannot change?

Well they are a part of me. I agree. Evolution makes us from the particles around us. Maybe you should say that God is the universe, and that we are made from the universe. Then we are made in God's image, and also from evolution. The way you are describing this is that you actually believe in evolution, but prefer to call it God.

Even Jesus was made from the universe, so again you have a Biblical comparison that Jesus was the son of the Universe, so he was the son of god.

Once you take sentience away from God, we can all agree. But it does mean that the Bible was mostly faked, because it includes a sentient God.

[Ergasiophobic]

"[...]have no belief system outside of a negation or criticism."

So atheists have no beliefs except that they don't believe in God?

"Which in itself is not a valid belief system."

Atheism is not a belief system. It tells you what I don't believe in and says nothing about what I do believe in.

"[...]you have to disprove one belief by proposing an alternate belief."

Let's first start with proving that God exists before we worry about disproving him.

And what is it with people who can't take an "I don't know (yet)" answer to the ultimate question? If I don't know how we got here it doesn't automatically make the God explanation true.

The rest of your questions seem to be you redefining God into something that you can prove exists and then tell me that God exists. (Then probably extrapolate to say that Sky-Daddy exists.) We'll this is not the kind of God that religions postulate. It isn't love. It isn't the Big Bang. It isn't the Sun. It isn't the Earth. God is a Sky-daddy. We already have words for the other things you could use to redifine God as. Like Cheri DiNovo saying, what if God is merely love, then is Dawkins saying that love doesn't exist? How rediculous. There is so much goal-post movement that it's difficult to even get a clear shot in.

"Once you take sentience away from God, we can all agree"

Exactly!

What good does it do if some people believe in Sky-Daddy as God while others believe God means Love, and still others think that God is the Sun and they can all happily say to each other, "I believe in God just like you do; we are the same, buddy", when none of them really believes the same thing. It's a farce. Sounds like a sneaky way to fit in with theists without having them attack you for non-belief.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Erg,

Atheism is not a belief system. It tells you what I don't believe in and says nothing about what I do believe in.

I would say that this statement is not always true: it depends how systematically you refuse to believe in God. There are those that, upon hearing the word "God", decide to immediately reject the argument. Such atheism is indeed a belief system -- and a kind of atheism that is worth attacking. From your post, it does not appear that you suffer from this malady, though.

[Ergasiophobic]

"I would say that this statement is not always true"

Agreed.

"From your post, it does not appear that you suffer from this malady, though."

I guess we shall see. :)

[David Quinn]

An atheist is simply someone who believes in one less god than theists do. They are still a long, long way from being entirely godless.

-

[Pincho Paxton]

An atheist is simply someone who believes in one less god than theists do. They are still a long, long way from being entirely godless.

-

Surely this is just some sort of Poetic word play.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pincho: no, there is nothing poetic about what David said. Many atheists still worship their pets, women, etc. etc.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho: no, there is nothing poetic about what David said. Many atheists still worship their pets, women, etc. etc.

Really? Which ones? The silly ones?

Treating your pet, or a woman as a God is the misuse of the English language.

I don't think of The Queen as a God. Or Jimmy Hendrix, or Elvis Presley, or Einstein.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Idolatry -- treating objects as gods -- is such a universal problem, that the Jews made "thou shalt not commit idolatry" the first commandment (well above murder).

The people you mentioned are indeed often treated as idols, and worshipped. There is nothing that distinguishes Elvis from those that praise His name, yet they act as though He is worthy of Godhood.

[Pincho Paxton]

Idolatry -- treating objects as gods -- is such a universal problem, that the Jews made "thou shalt not commit idolatry" the first commandment (well above murder).

The people you mentioned are indeed often treated as idols, and worshipped. There is nothing that distinguishes Elvis from those that praise His name, yet they act as though He is worthy of Godhood.

The Jews worship the objects because they think that the objects are God's Telephone. Not quite tha same as calling the objects Gods themselves.

And if you ask the people who worship Elvis if they think he is a God, they should say no. Even if at first they say yes, because they are being poetic.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

How does the love that an atheist feels for a wife or dog differ from the love a Christian feels for God?