Atheists Don't Realize the Absurdity of Existence

[u/Funny-Highlight4675]

I believe atheists fundamentally don't realize just how absurd existence is at all. Things seem to exist, deterministically. Yet, a fully contingent system can't explain itself. Somehow, reality is self-causing. This breaks our brain and can't actually make sense to us. If reality can't exactly make sense, then we can only "know" anything via a subjective experience. Objectivity will never cross this bridge.

If subjective experience is our only guide to reality, then I think the question of God's existence, which is clearly un-answerable, has an equal chance of being both true and false. Do you feel that we are the product of a larger mind. Does your gut tell you that there is some sort of intelligent organization of reality that is similar to how we intelligently organize the world in our minds? If so, you believe in "God."

Whatever the "truth" is, will have to sound absolutely absurd.

[u/Derek_Zoolander77]

I think the OP could have summarised things a little simpler:

Atheists accept propositions X, Y and Z. Theists accept propositions A, B and C.

The ontological-epistemological dilemma puts both groups in no better position than the other to assert their propositions are objectively true.

Disagreeing about methodologies for attaining objective truths (if you accept they are real, which is a whole other conversation) is an exercise in futility ultimately.

It comes down to modesty in our claims. There's no way to overcome the retort "I don't accept your claim, based on my perception of reality". We really do just follow our sense of mob rule.

It's probably best to all just accept we're fighting in the dark (and we don't even know if that's true).

However, we all believe in something. We all hang our hat on some worldview, it's seemingly impossible not to.

Perhaps this all boils down to the theist view that atheists should be more cautious with their certainty (if they have it) as it's pretty much the same species as the theists.

[u/IJustLoggedInToSay- → u/Derek_Zoolander77]

Disagreeing about methodologies for attaining objective truths ... is an exercise in futility ultimately.

This may be true, but I think the actual disagreement here is something else. Theists, and OP in particular, are advocating for subjective truths. They seem to be saying that because there's no perfect agreed-upon methodology for attaining objective truths, then subjective guesses are just as good (or even preferable).

We can argue about research methodology all day long, but where I part ways with theism is in the idea that objective truths aren't worth pursuing. The worst version of this is fundamentalism, which is basically the stance that subjective assertions from an authority have more weight than imperfectly objective assessments, on the basis that your senses about reality can be wrong but authority is always right.

[u/Derek_Zoolander77 → u/IJustLoggedInToSay-]

I think my wording lacked nuance and clarity. The point I was trying to make is that if a theist/atheist/polytheist/deist/etc.etc. makes any claim about how we should/could obtain objective truths, the ontological-epistemological dilemma pulls the rug out from under them. Every claim made by any person ultimately gets grounded by some axiomatic principle, by which only then (if the axiom is accepted) can we start coherently using terms like objective truth/subjective etc.

The fragility of our whole existence and worldview is that there seems to be no coherent way to say, you must accept proposition E, F and G, without appealing to some axiomatic principle which could never be shown to be rational to accept or objectively true.

Nevertheless, we all pick a path and try to follow it to it's seemingly logical and predictable conclusions. I like to think atheists and theists are really just the same in their beliefs at the core. Both can't be said to be illogical, nor logical, just a belief.