Tuesday, July 27, 2021

On Medium: The Inevitability of Atheism

Here's an article that turns the tables on “Backyard Church’s” case for the impossibility of atheism, to show theism's incoherence and some tricks of theistic arguments.

15 comments:

  1. Stupid white men usually have too much space in the media...
    This is a true expression of white privilege.
    In an ideal world this idiot would have no chance to express his mistaken opinions...

    ''Foster goes on to say that “everybody, whether they are willing to admit it or not, worships someone or something. And therefore, everyone has a god of some sort. And if everyone has a god, then no one is an atheist.” And he concludes by saying that “ultimately, we all place our existential purpose in something. Therefore, we all have a god or two — yes, even the atheist… Atheism is not an option.”

    A minute of silence for the neurons from whom who bought this argument...

    ''Then there’s a broader sense in which “god” can mean “any deified person or object.”

    I'm going to buy a vibrator and call it God...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a very stupid argument, but it's also a free country, of course, and anyone can write on Medium. I suspect, though, that the argument is so obviously flawed that Foster must have intended it more as a preaching device than as a logical proof of anything. His point must have been more rhetorical, to highlight this or that rather than to literally prove that atheism is impossible. That's my charitable reading anyway.

      Delete
    2. Yes, an argument designed to convince other groups that are more vulnerable to brainwashing of religion and not us.

      To prove that the possibility of atheism is impossible, he would need to prove the existence of what he firstly believes.

      Delete
  2. Theism is not even a real belief in god, but in what s/he/it is supposed to offer

    protection in earthly life

    eternal life five stars after death

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's an interesting video by an avowed efilist who claims to be inspired by existential pessimism and his own version of absurdism: https://youtu.be/6uu_Nyus7WI

    The person also has a transcript of the video in the description. He recites the routine arguments about the moral necessity of AN, which I already replied to in that and his previous videos (you might figure out my username from the comments section!). He also claims that one of the few "good things* that humanity is doing is creating the conditions for the mass extinction of animals. It seems to me that the juxtaposition of such a view with the article you recently published regarding wildlife is quite stark. As an optimist, I am certainly baffled by how a person could ignore the potential for all goods and the fact the that people can find their lives to be meaningful despite of suffering. I also don't view needs to be something that's inherently bad. This one assumption seems to be the driving force behind their bizarre conclusions, such as the claim that even a perfect life doesn't need to exist. Nevertheless, the efilist landscape is an intriguing phenomenon that's quite different from your form of affirmative view of the world, which is obviously the view I agree with. I wonder how much the internet seems to reinforce such beliefs. The fact that these people are constantly consuming pessimistic content (of a particular variety) day after day does seem to influence their conscious or subconscious devaluing of all the positives. Of course, Inmendham is still out there perpetuating his *radical pessimism*, as you called it. I wish that people were willing to have a more comprehensive perspective instead of believing dogmas (both optimistic and pessimistic ones) that will inevitably lead to serious harm. Will love your thoughts on the video, although, you could also read the transcript that's given in the description box if you want to. As always, I hope that you have a wonderful day and a great life!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read the article. It’s somewhat rambling and scattershot, but I think one dubious premise is the same crude reductivism that Inmendham employs: “Man, however, the most powerful of beings and the most intelligent of creatures, has not become anything other than he was, he remained an animal, a poor little animal, as terrified of the world as any other.”

      That’s just not so. People are special kinds of animals, although some humans are more personal (existentially authentic) than others. Only if we reduce people purely to animals could we feel better about mass murder or about the prospect of a supervillainous termination of our species via sanctimonious antinatalism.

      The author, Daymoon, commits something like Benatar’s error of the bogus asymmetry. He says there’s nothing wrong with not reproducing, since the unborn can’t feel bad about it. But he adds that there’s something great about slaughtering all wildlife to prevent the suffering of future generations of animals. So the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad.

      That’s nonsense, and this is the heart of the existential reason for continuing life, as symbolized by the passing of the Olympic torch or as portrayed in Cormac McCarthy’s "The Road," in which the father resists the post-apocalypse by protecting his son, to pass on the torch of life. The point is to preserve the anomaly of intelligent life because of its transcendent potential. We can create dystopias or utopias. We have godlike creativity and harping about the negative aspects of our nature doesn’t eliminate the positive ones. That’s just a rhetorical distraction.

      I’ll likely be writing on antinatalism again soon in the context of an article that reflects on the innocence of all young creatures. Thanks for the link.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Their inability to see the potential that humans have for transcending their issues seems to be a major reason behind their idea (or delusion) that there really is no positive in the world which justifies the negatives. Throughout my debates with them, I constantly see a theme of deliberate degradation of the good aspects of the world. One guy said to me, "If life was good, we would be happy without requiring to do anything". To me, this sounds a lot like shooting oneself in thr foot in order to demonstrate that a person can be shot. You cannot just devalue all the positives and then complain that there's no good at the end of such a shallow tirade.

      Would it be better if people could be happy without any effort? Perhaps. Does that mean that it's impossible to gain happiness through effort? The majority of people would certainly disagree.

      I think these annihilationist pessimists know about this power of transcendence. This is probably why they try so hard to dismiss this ability as a "bias" or addiction", as if negativity biases don't exist, or that all "biases" are somehow bad.

      Thanks for the insightful reply. I look forward to reading your future writings! Hope you have a wonderful week ahead.

      Delete
    3. That's exactly what Inmendham did in our YouTube debate. I talked explicitly about our potential to transcend (to solve certain major problems), just as nature complexifies and novel properties emerge. I even had "Transcendence" in the title of one of my videos. He dismissed that as supernatural or religious. But he wasn't really paying attention. His personality disorder was doing the talking.

      Delete
  4. "People are special kinds of animals" That's a subjective value judgment. I don't think humans are special at all, and my value judgment is every bit as valid as yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant "special" as in objectively anomalous. People are special in a way that requires the special disciplines of psychology, sociology, politics, and economics. That's not a value judgment.

      Delete
    2. If by special you simply mean unusual, then I would agree with you. If you're suggesting that humans are superior to animals because of these characteristics, then that would be a value judgement.

      Delete
    3. Not all perspectives are beneficial, even if they're "valid". Again, you shouldn't cut off the branch you're sitting on and then complain about falling. Maybe it's just us, but I really cannot understand how pessimistic annihilationists look at humans and come to the conclusion that "people are just like animals". In some aspects, perhaps. However, there's a depth to human interactions that's undeniably potent. To dismiss it doesn't seem to be an embrace of realism; it seems to be a negation of an essential part of what makes us human: the depth of affirmative human emotions in the face of suffering. I remember having a 65 comment long "debate" with this person on YouTube. He was an antinatalist and believed the flawed idea that atheism must lead to antinatalism. I wasn't surprised by him dismissing the positives and criticising "subjective meaning". However, I was struck by his claim that my plea to consider different perspectives was simply a "postmodernist" position. To me, it seems quite obvious that the existence of different interpretations of the events that occur in life is an undeniably "objective" fact. That conversation really made me think if ideologies like efilism are another sign of the rising absolutism in the society.

      And yeah,Gary loves to dismiss anything he doesn't like as "religion". I guess he's addicted to destroying straw men.

      Delete
    4. Not all judgments of superiority are value-based. It's an objective fact that some runners are faster than others, so they're superior in that respect. Humans are superior to animals in lots of ways. We build more powerful technology, we imagine more alternatives, we have a greater range of communication, and so on.

      Delete
    5. Are primitive groups of humans that live a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, inferior to humans living in a modern technological society?

      Delete
    6. In some ways yes and in others no. Giving an overall assessment would be empty, especially since we don't have the prehistoric people before us to evaluate. There are still some primitive tribes, but the more we know about them, the more they've been influenced by modern societies.

      For me, the most important criterion in assessing a person is the nobility of his or her handling of our existential predicament. So the evaluation would be existential and aesthetic. To the extent that primitive cultures seek to blend into nature, they haven't reckoned with the upshot of scientific knowledge and with the death of God, so that would count against them. It wouldn't be a question of judging superiority or inferiority but of distinguishing between animality and behaviourally modern personhood.

      Then again, in favour of primitive tribes is their lack of falling for the con of civilization and for the devil's bargain of technological progress which seems to lead to consumerism and perhaps to the sixth mass extinction.

      That's more or less what I'd say about an overall judgment. I'm ambivalent about it.

      Delete