USING EVOLUTION TO ARGUE AGAINST ATHEISM???

[TB2]

It would be helpful if you gave a few references to the articles you are discussing.

If you are referring to "new atheists" I agree but your phrasing appears to be referring to all or most.

Perhaps, then again, perhaps not.

https://www.psypost.org/2022/12/new...ts-are-just-as-healthy-as-the-religious-64420
Personally, I believe religions that encourage meditation would have better mental health outcomes. However, one does not need to be religious to practice meditation.

We live in a stressful world and an extreme stressful time. Everyone, religious of not, should practice meditation to reduce stress.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/understanding-the-stress-response

The OP contains screenshot examples of quotes that you can look up. Like I say in the OP this isn't some formal comprehensive literature review I've done just the quotes I ran across (screenshots in OP) struck me as ironic. I wasn't giving a formal proof.

 

[Frank Robert]

The OP contains screenshot examples of quotes that you can look up. Like I say in the OP this isn't some formal comprehensive literature review I've done just the quotes I ran across (screenshots in OP) struck me as ironic. I wasn't giving a formal proof.

What do you think about?
https://www.psypost.org/2022/12/new...ts-are-just-as-healthy-as-the-religious-64420
and my other comments?

 

[TB2]

What do you think about?
https://www.psypost.org/2022/12/new...ts-are-just-as-healthy-as-the-religious-64420
and my other comments?

Haven't had a chance to look at it yet. But even if so it just shows their own self deception so to speak. All humans, atheists and theists alike, to function have to believe their life and what they do has value, meaning, and purpose. And yet if atheism is true, life has no objective value, meaning, or purpose, and atheists have to believe in the self deceiving illusion of meaning, value, and purpose to function (and to avoid spiraling out the way of Camus and others who recognized the logical end of atheism should be abject despair). So healthy, well adjusted, hopeful, and even 'moral' atheists (which is an illusion too--objective morality--if atheism is true) are delusions atheists must maintain and is living above and beyond what the logical end of their metaphysics warrants.

They have to believe one way, but act another

 

[Gus Bovona]

Haven't had a chance to look at it yet. But even if so it just shows their own self deception so to speak. All humans, atheists and theists alike, to function have to believe their life and what they do has value, meaning, and purpose. And yet if atheism is true, life has no objective value, meaning, or purpose, and atheists have to believe in the self deceiving illusion of meaning, value, and purpose to function (and to avoid spiraling out the way of Camus and others who recognized the logical end of atheism should be abject despair). So healthy, well adjusted, hopeful, and even 'moral' atheists (which is an illusion too--objective morality--if atheism is true) are delusions atheists must maintain and is living above and beyond what the logical end of their metaphysics warrants.

They have to believe one way, but act another

Would you say that (1) objective value and (2) a" self-deceiving illusion of meaning," etc., are the only possibilities? If there are others, what might they be?

(edited for clarity)

 

[Frank Robert]

Haven't had a chance to look at it yet.

Let me know when you do.

But even if so it just shows their own self deception so to speak. All humans, atheists and theists alike, to function have to believe their life and what they do has value, meaning, and purpose. And yet if atheism is true, life has no objective value, meaning, or purpose,

I am not an atheist but I do have atheist friends who would disagree with you. You can learn more if you discussed your thinking with atheists and agnostics as well as Christians. A good place to do so is the forum at: Peaceful Science.
https://peacefulscience.org/

and atheists have to believe in the self deceiving illusion of meaning, value, and purpose to function (and to avoid spiraling out the way of Camus and others who recognized the logical end of atheism should be abject despair).

My first thought was that Camus was depressed but on reading and learning more, I now think that Camus' based his though on the idea that we should embrace the absurd and find happiness within it. Camus compares the absurdity of life with Sisyphus who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. The essay concludes, The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy".

So healthy, well adjusted, hopeful, and even 'moral' atheists (which is an illusion too--objective morality--if atheism is true) are delusions atheists must maintain and are living above and beyond what the logical end of their metaphysics warrants.

What is morality? Religions give different definitions but all disapprove of killing, stealing, lying and promiscuity, and promote altruistic, helpful and kindly behavior. Do you think atheism prevents moral living? If so why?

 

[TB2]

Do you think atheism prevents moral living? If so why?

Not at all. Atheists can absolutely be good, moral people. But if atheism is true, then it's still objectively meaningless. If atheism is true, it's still subjective, relative morality is it not?

 

[Frank Robert]

If atheism is true, it's still subjective, relative morality is it not?

I think that is what a religious apologetic would claim. I also think that the way we incorporate morality in ourselves is both more complicated and simpler in some ways than apologetics would lead one to believe.

In Just Babies, Paul Bloom argues that humans are in fact hardwired with a sense of morality. Drawing on groundbreaking research at Yale, Bloom demonstrates that, even before they can speak or walk, babies judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; feel empathy and compassion; act to soothe those in distress; and have a rudimentary sense of justice.​

 

[TB2]

I think that is what a religious apologetic would claim. I also think that the way we incorporate morality in ourselves is both more complicated and simpler in some ways than apologetics would lead one to believe.

In Just Babies, Paul Bloom argues that humans are in fact hardwired with a sense of morality. Drawing on groundbreaking research at Yale, Bloom demonstrates that, even before they can speak or walk, babies judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; feel empathy and compassion; act to soothe those in distress; and have a rudimentary sense of justice.​

Yes, but the question is is if there is an objective basis for morality. Hardwired morality traced to evolution (as well as altruism in nature) due to group and kin selection would explain it, but I don't see how that provides an objective basis for morality. What am I missing?

 

[TB2]

I am not an atheist but I do have atheist friends who would disagree with you. You can learn more if you discussed your thinking with atheists and agnostics as well as Christians. A good place to do so is the forum at: Peaceful Science.

Yes, I've seen peaceful science and explored it a bit. Looks like a great site. I was thinking about signing up.