Search This Blog

Monday, March 22, 2021

On 'atheism' and the mockery of 'atheists'

 Seen on the internet --

=====

Atheists who mock us for believing in God must feel hopeless when shit hits the fan and there's no one to turn to in their final moments.

=====

My response --

God-deniers -- every last one of them -- are intellectually dishonest (*).  They do not *really* believe what they assert, for if they did, they would believe and assert -- at all times, and not just when it is convenient -- the propositions which logically follow from "There is no God", which include, non-exhaustively:

1) My knowledge of the (alleged) truth that there is no God, and thus that there is no "immortal soul" gains me no real or ultimate advantage with respect to those (allegedly) benighted Christians -- dead is dead, and non-existent is non-existent; 

2) If it is true that "God is not", then it is true that the world is not a deliberate creation of an actually existing mind; that is, if it is true that "God is not", then it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at the "beginning" of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe";

3) If is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at the "beginning" of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe", then it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at any subsequent node of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe".  For there is no way to derive an agent from that-which-is-not-an-agent;

4) If it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at any subsequent node of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe", then it is true that my assertion that "There is no God" is not the result of an act of reason, but merely the out-working of prior states and events in the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe".  That is, "God is not" logically entails that "Knowledge is not";

5) If it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at any subsequent node of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe", then it is true that *I* do not even exist.  That is, "God is not" logically entails that "I am not";


(*) that is, they are 'fools', and they are morally worse than mere liars, for liars lie episodically, but fools lie systemically.


EDIT: I should have been more clear on the point of this post -- Given that the denial of the reality of the Creator-God logically entails, among other things: the denial of any possibility of any knowledge at all; and the denial of any possibility of there being any rational agents/selves who can reason from known truth to as-yet unknown truth; and indeed the denial of the reality of one's own self; what rational being gives a damn about the mockery of God-deniers?  According to their "-ism", they don't even exist.

3 comments:

K T Cat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
K T Cat said...

Brilliantly argued. I'd never thought of this: "there is no way to derive an agent from that-which-is-not-an-agent." I've never heard it expressed, either. It makes sense, though. You can't introduce free will at some random point in history before which it didn't exist.

(Edited to add the initial quotation marks in my excerpt of your prose.)

Ilíon said...

"You can't introduce free will at some random point in history before which it didn't exist."

Famous/prominent 'atheists' (*) understand this ... and will publicly acknowledge this fact *when* it is convenient or advantageous to do so, and will obfuscate or even openly deny it when doing that is the more convenient or advantageous tack. Dawkins and Dennett immediately come to mind.

Some 'atheists' try to dodge the problem by positing that some sort of free-floating 'Mind' or 'Consciousness' is fundamental to reality. But 'Mind' and 'Consciousness' are themselves mental concepts which do not even exist unless there is some actually existing mind who entertains the concepts.



(*) I generally place the word 'atheist' in quotes, because I have yet to encounter or learn of any living self-proclaimed atheist who is intellectually consistent in his God-denial. Even Paul and Patricia Churchland are not intellectually consistent in their God-denial, nor their affirmation of the propositions which logically follow from God-denial, for they pose as though it were possible to know and state and rationally persuade others to understand and acknowledge at least some truths about the nature of reality.