Why I am not an atheist.

[John D. Brey]

In a book I authored twenty-years ago, I pointed out that a successful argument against Darwinism and scientific materialism in general demands that the arguer step outside the circumscription of the principles and ideas that make Darwinism and scientific materialism appear to be viable in the first place. Darwinism and scientific materialism can be seen to be false from root to branch so long as the wrong-headed conceptualism in which they sprouted is doused with a good dose of the weed-killer known as truth.

In that spirit, rather than go point-by-point through Evangelicalhumanist's list (and discussion) for why he's an atheist, it seems more propitious to cut to the chase concerning Evangelicalhumanist's list since every element suffers from the same fundamental conceptual error.



John

 

[Polymath257]

And what might that error be?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In a book I authored twenty-years ago, I pointed out that a successful argument against Darwinism and scientific materialism in general demands that the arguer step outside the circumscription of the principles and ideas that make Darwinism and scientific materialism appear to be viable in the first place. Darwinism and scientific materialism can be seen to be false from root to branch so long as the wrong-headed conceptualism in which they sprouted is doused with a good dose of the weed-killer known as truth.

In that spirit, rather than go point-by-point through Evangelicalhumanist's list (and discussion) for why he's an atheist, it seems more propitious to cut to the chase concerning Evangelicalhumanist's list since every element suffers from the same fundamental conceptual error.



John

Can you name one in an objective way to target the idea rather than the author's intent?

 

[John D. Brey]

In that spirit, rather than go point-by-point through Evangelicalhumanist's list (and discussion) for why he's an atheist, it seems more propitious to cut to the chase concerning Evangelicalhumanist's list since every element suffers from the same fundamental conceptual error.

Say an alien from a far away galaxy with technology beyond our wildest dreams appeared in the heavens one day sporting a first-century loin-cloth doused in blood, with holes in his giant, illuminated, hands and feet. Say he came to earth and turned water to wine while he held a banquet where for ****s and giggles he quoted the Bible from "In the beginning . . ." to "Amen" from memory.

When his dotting admirers got bored of the wine and scripture cantillation he raised a dead man or two to moonwalk over each other's grave.

All the world, or most that is, swooned in worshipful admiration at the promised re-appearance of God in the flesh. Yet a few philosophers and theologians withold their admiration and worship to their own demise.

Before they're turned into a puff of purple smoke they point out a fundamental conceptual error in accepting this would-be godman as God.



John

 

[Altfish]

In a book I authored twenty-years ago, I pointed out that a successful argument against Darwinism and scientific materialism in general demands that the arguer step outside the circumscription of the principles and ideas that make Darwinism and scientific materialism appear to be viable in the first place. Darwinism and scientific materialism can be seen to be false from root to branch so long as the wrong-headed conceptualism in which they sprouted is doused with a good dose of the weed-killer known as truth.

In that spirit, rather than go point-by-point through Evangelicalhumanist's list (and discussion) for why he's an atheist, it seems more propitious to cut to the chase concerning Evangelicalhumanist's list since every element suffers from the same fundamental conceptual error.



John

Are you expecting us to read your book to be able to partake in this thread?

 

[MikeF]

In a book I authored twenty-years ago, I pointed out that a successful argument against Darwinism and scientific materialism in general demands that the arguer step outside the circumscription of the principles and ideas that make Darwinism and scientific materialism appear to be viable in the first place. Darwinism and scientific materialism can be seen to be false from root to branch so long as the wrong-headed conceptualism in which they sprouted is doused with a good dose of the weed-killer known as truth.

In that spirit, rather than go point-by-point through Evangelicalhumanist's list (and discussion) for why he's an atheist, it seems more propitious to cut to the chase concerning Evangelicalhumanist's list since every element suffers from the same fundamental conceptual error.

John

Maybe we should leave one individuals arguments aside and begin the discussion with yours. How do you define "scientific materialism", and how is it, whatever it is to you, not viable? I think once we have that, we can begin to evaluate the potential merits of any argument you may make.

Regards.

 

[John D. Brey]

Can you name one[,] in an objective way[,] to target the idea rather than the author's intent?

The author's intent seemed to be to justify/explain his atheism? So as best I can tell, his intent, and his idea (in his thread on his atheism) are one and the same?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Are you expecting us to read your book to be able to partake in this thread?

. . . I think we both know that would be a fool's errand. <s>



John

 

[Altfish]

. . . I think we both know that would be a fool's errand. <s>



John

But I don't understand what you are trying to say?
I don't understand why you are not an atheists; you talk about conceptual errors - but which conceptual error?

 

[John D. Brey]

And what might that error be?

The thread-seeder on the source and merits of a particular person's atheism listed finite observations and questions as the basis for making an absolute determination. That's a fool's errand that will fail every single time.

Which is why I gave the story of an alien coming to earth gallivanting as Jesus. If the alien comes from a society advanced enough in respect to us, there would be no person on earth who could deny that this alien appeared to possess every power thought to justify Jesus as God.

Ergo, to the extent that a high-tech alien can answer all finite questions concerning the absolute nature of his deity, he should find no one who could refuse to worship him notwithstanding the fact that with his high-tech he can turn them to a puff of purple smoke if they do.



John

 

[MikeF]

Say an alien from a far away galaxy with technology beyond our wildest dreams appeared in the heavens one day sporting a first-century loin-cloth doused in blood, with holes in his giant, illuminated, hands and feet. Say he came to earth and turned water to wine while he held a banquet where for ****s and giggles he quoted the Bible from "In the beginning . . ." to "Amen" from memory.

When his dotting admirers got bored of the wine and scripture cantillation he raised a dead man or two to moonwalk over each other's grave.

All the world, or most that is, swooned in worshipful admiration at the promised re-appearance of God in the flesh. Yet a few philosophers and theologians withold their admiration and worship to their own demise.

Before they're turned into a puff of purple smoke they point out a fundamental conceptual error in accepting this would-be godman as God.



John

What time period in human history are we talking? Can the hypothetical be today, and we are evaluating the event we our current level of knowledge and understanding of the world, or are we to assume some previous, more ignorant point in our history?

I'm flummuxed as to how this hypothetical relates to anything said by @Evangelicalhumanist, but I will be a little patient as you develop your argument.

To be clear, an alien is imitating Jesus, and those that don't believe that the alien is Jesus are destroyed in a puff of purple smoke ( Is the color purple significant? Does it have literal or figurative implications?), destroyed in some manner by the alien. Did I get the gist of this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The author's intent seemed to be to justify/explain his atheism? So as best I can tell, his intent, and his idea (in his thread on his atheism) are one and the same?



John

He had two long posts though. Which were the points you'd like to discuss?

What I mean is taking the shift from the author to the ideas he spoke about. (Ideas rather than the person)

 

[John D. Brey]

Maybe we should leave one individuals arguments aside and begin the discussion with yours. How do you define "scientific materialism", and how is it, whatever it is to you, not viable? I think once we have that, we can begin to evaluate the potential merits of any argument you may make.

Scientific materialism is a tautological oxymoron. The arguments given in this forum (in a recent thread) to support atheism were likewise tautologically oxymoronic.

What that means, in a nut-shell, is that a person uses observations that are clearly, and undeniably, circumscribed within an impermeable cell membrane (of one kind or other) as the basis for positing what they consider viable truth statements about what exists on the other side of the impermeable membrane of their finite means of observation.

An atheist could viably claim they don't interpret the world of their experience as proof of a God who exists outside of and who created their world, without that claim in any way stepping out of line or creating a tautology or an oxymoron.

But the minute they move from their particular, or even peculiar, interpretation of their world, to statements not dependent on, or subject to, their finite means of observations, they've moved into the netherworld of falsehood, tautology, and oxymoronicism.



John

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The thread-seeder on the source and merits of a particular person's atheism listed finite observations and questions as the basis for making an absolute determination. That's a fool's errand that will fail every single time.

Are you saying it's not overall beneficial for him to make a determinate or fixed conclusion based on the observations and questions he brought up?

 

[John D. Brey]

What time period in human history are we talking? Can the hypothetical be today, and we are evaluating the event we our current level of knowledge and understanding of the world, or are we to assume some previous, more ignorant point in our history?

I'm flummuxed as to how this hypothetical relates to anything said by @Evangelicalhumanist, but I will be a little patient as you develop your argument.

To be clear, an alien is imitating Jesus, and those that don't believe that the alien is Jesus are destroyed in a puff of purple smoke ( Is the color purple significant? Does it have literal or figurative implications?), destroyed in some manner by the alien. Did I get the gist of this?

Every one of our natural, physical, mental, observations and logical deductions, are based on the nature of our means for observing. Wittgenstein said the eyeball is not in the eye's line of sight.

If you didn't know you had an eyeball you might assume what you're seeing is just the god's honest truth of what there is to see. While once you know you have an eyeball, an optic nerve, and a brain able to decipher the electrical currents derived from electromagnetic vibrations, you should have the wherewithall to understand Immanuel Kant, Einstein, and Popper, concerning the fact that the design of your eyeball, optic nerve, and brain, determine what you "see" when electromagnetic waves are turned to electrical impulses that are made into qualia, experiential observations, whose only link to any kind of true reality is as thin as a strand of a spider's web.

In the true sense that there's nothing like the experience of color anywhere in the universe except in a brain, so too, and ironically, God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in a human brain. The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself.



John

 

[Audie]

In a book I authored twenty-years ago, I pointed out that a successful argument against Darwinism and scientific materialism in general demands that the arguer step outside the circumscription of the principles and ideas that make Darwinism and scientific materialism appear to be viable in the first place. Darwinism and scientific materialism can be seen to be false from root to branch so long as the wrong-headed conceptualism in which they sprouted is doused with a good dose of the weed-killer known as truth.

In that spirit, rather than go point-by-point through Evangelicalhumanist's list (and discussion) for why he's an atheist, it seems more propitious to cut to the chase concerning Evangelicalhumanist's list since every element suffers from the same fundamental conceptual error.



John

If you could disprove the theory of evolution you would be hailed as one who has done more for both religion and science than anyone, ever..

By far the greatest scientist of all time.

Your self published book somehow is not doing that.

 

[MikeF]

What that means, in a nut-shell, is that a person uses observations that are clearly, and undeniably, circumscribed within an impermeable cell membrane (of one kind or other) as the basis for positing what they consider viable truth statements about what exists on the other side of the impermeable membrane of their finite means of observation.

An atheist could viably claim they don't interpret the world of their experience as proof of a God who exists outside of and who created their world, without that claim in any way stepping out of line or creating a tautology or an oxymoron.

But the minute they move from their particular, or even peculiar, interpretation of their world, to statements not dependent on, or subject to, their finite means of observations, they've moved into the netherworld of falsehood, tautology, and oxymoronicism.
John

Let's start with "impermeable cell membrane". You must not be talking about an actual biological cell membrane, since they are all permeable in some way. So our human observer of the world is inside of some other category of cell. Is the cell a metaphor of some kind? If so, let's skip the metaphor and speak plainly of what the human observer is in, what the boundary consists of, and what is on the other side of the boundary. You indicate that the metaphorical boundary is impermeable. Is the actual boundary (that I hope you will describe) also impermeable? And impermeable to what? Specific things, or anything and everything? If impermeable to everything, it leaves us to wonder how we might know anything about the other side of such an impermeable barrier, assuming you can substantiate such a barrier to begin with.

 

[ppp]

The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself.

Which brain believes that "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't? Mine doesn't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Darwinism and scientific materialism can be seen to be false from root to branch so long as the wrong-headed conceptualism in which they sprouted is doused with a good dose of the weed-killer known as truth.

Dang! Finally! A vanquisher of wrong-headed conceptualism (WHC); a purveyor of TRUTH!!

 

[John D. Brey]

He had two long posts though. Which were the points you'd like to discuss?

What I mean is taking the shift from the author to the ideas he spoke about. (Ideas rather than the person)

Fwiw, I have nothing but respect for the person in question. And my arguments here are in no way a critique of his beliefs, person, or intellect. The arguments here are an attempt to show that there's a fundamental error in the argumentation given to support atheism.

This error is not a result of lack of intellect, or morality, or anything of the sort. It's an error so ingrained in all of us that even those who free themselves of it only by the greatest of effort and achievement remain almost completely unable and incapable not just of freeing another person from the illusion, but, far worse, even lassoing the problem in a manner it can be corralled and discussed profitably.



John