Through the eyes of Atheism

Originally posted by nenothtu


I'm unaware of ANY primitive societies entirely lacking in the concept of some deity or another, but am willing to entertain the notion that such may exist somewhere. Two things you say here do seem to have direct bearing on the differences of opinion - that there is a lack of comprehension of the idea of a god is self-evident, I would think, and that the faith, belief, or lack of belief of either side is irrelevant to the truth of what does or does not exist.

It was purely hypothetical. I do not think anything we believe or not would have impact upon the truth of the universe and everything- that would be solipsism of the most arrogant nature. Similiarly, the idea that all cultures have had forms of Gods is not a fair test- the influence of other cultures and chronology of the whole subject makes it almost impossible to find cultures and societies which are 'purely' their own discoveries/ invention.

Who's what? I'm sort of new to this debate, and haven't quite captured all the nuances of it yet.

Bertrand Russell's teapot, just google it. This is unsurprisingly a subject which has been discussed since people wouldn't be killed for discussing it (and heart- warmingly before that too).

reply to post by nenothtu

It is your lucky day. My buddy George, has an extra round bale. He doesn't like leaving them in that particular field. He's just kinda weird like that. Anyways, it's all ready to go. Go ahead and U2U me your address, and I will make sure you receive it ASAP.

It probably won't be near enough, but it should hold you over for a week or so. You should be able to get at least 25 more straw men out of that bale. (as long as you do so sparingly, and don't try to bulk them up too much)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aba5dba4ba70.jpg[/atsimg]

There is a simple detail, that you (and many others), do not seem to notice or realize.

I do not care. I could not care any less about what you do, or do not, believe in.

Regardless of how you choose to word your statements, you will never convince me that I hold some sort of belief, when I know for a fact that I do not.

I am inside of my head. There may be multiple versions of me inside there, but that is an entirely different subject. The point is that you are not in my head. I do not believe, nor care.



P.S.

[color=CFECEC]Dis- (prefix)[color=CFECEC]

deprived of (i.e. obsolete)

absence of

excluded

which all mean the same as 'a lack of.'

reply to post by nenothtu


do you ever feel like your too smart, just get of the house for a bit and have some fun. or is fun just a deep philosothical beleif/ disbeleive that can not be proven/disproven to really exist in the ........ does not compute, does not compute........ beep beeep beeeep BOOM *sound of head imploding*

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I'm not a Gnostic, since I cannot fathom how one can "know" something which is unobservable. "Wisdom of the ages" is nothing more than dogma or "tradition" as far as I can tell until it is directly observable by the individual, rather than relying upon what others, perhaps more ancient, perhaps not, make claims to.

Something "known" should be observable or experienceable by all comers, and should be neither esoteric nor hidden and mysterious.

Thank you for your reply, it's nice to know that that post wasn't completely ignored by everyone, as I painfully observe the continued rotation of this hamster wheel of a "debate" proceed unabated.

The problem I think is the way our minds have been trained since Aristotle's catagorization of the world into a bunch of "things" wherein rhetoric, as the teaching mechanism, was itself cut under the dualistic knife of dialectical reasoning.

There was a time however, before that, when rhetoric was employed to teach another kind of knowledge, who's apex of reason and logic was not divided, but instead converged on an ideal of perfection founded on and capped by things like Quality, and Integrity (which is wholeness), where whatever was broken apart in distinction, was always summed up again, through a processing of differentiation and reintegration.

You say that you cannot accept the idea of a gnosis of anything that cannot be observed, first hand, presumably involving your senses, or faculty of reason (1+1=2). Well then, I ask you this - what is Quality, what is Integrity, what is real Love?

You see God then, from this perspective and way of knowing, was quite simply the Absolute, and it was discovered by these wisdom schools of taught gnosis, that the Absolute possessed many of these qualities, and may even be considered a first/last cause, of existence itself.

The ignorance we are all suffering from, made ever more obvious as this thread hurles on, and the hamster wheel of insanity turns envolves the tragic fall of this type of teaching and reasoning, and it's replacement with another type of reason of a much much more simplistic WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) operating system. The CONVENIENCE, of those in power, at all level, from the university, to the palaces, churches and the institutuons of government came to dominate and subjugated the ideal of Quality and God-realization that the teaching and contemplation of such thing inevitably invoked in the initiate, when taken to its rational and supra-rational conclusion.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I remember when I would write like you while taking the metaphysical journey. My writings were just as personal. I took a Jungian approach to interpreting mine. Could you write in a manner that the rest of meatbags, who aren't you, can understand?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu
Any claim of fact has the burden of proof, whether religion or anti religion.

Atheists generally don't make any claim other than they don't believe in deities. Some may claim there are no deities but they place the burden of proof upon themselves when they do.

On this we agree. Some have a rather odd tendency to ridicule others for having such beliefs, as if that somehow had some bearing on their own beliefs, and I've never quite understood that. Same for the other side of the debate. I don't quite understand why they get their panties in a wad over atheism, as if that has some bearing on their own belief.

Well, apparently you continue to misunderstand atheism as well as burden of proof. The theist makes claims & has the burden of proof to support those claims, yet cannot satisfy that burden to establish the claim. The atheist simply rejects those unproven claims. A rejection of an unsupported, unproven claim is not a claim. A lack of faith is not a faith. "Not X" does not equal "X". I'm not sure how else to say it.

Atheism I understand as a belief that gods don't exist, or if you prefer the semantic corollary, a lack of belief that they do. Both are rooted in belief, and defined by it.

I am a theist, and do not make claims that gods exist - that would be up to the gods themselves to prove, not me. The claim I DO make is that I believe that a god or gods exist. I have no burden of proof, it's a belief. Similarly, atheists who make no definite statement as to existence or non existence of gods have no burden of proof - that is THEIR belief. It really doesn't hurt my feelings at all. That's between themselves and whatever comes, or nothingness. Not my problem.

One can give reasons for their belief or disbelief all day long, and that doesn't rise to the level of "proof". The reasons are generally purely subjective, and "proof" must necessarily be objective. A burden of proof is not levied until one makes a statement as fact, i.e. "there is a god, bow before him or suffer" or "there is no god, you are a primitive superstitionist for believing there is". Such statements incur a burden of proof, statements of personal belief do not.

Another thing which has always confused me is the insistence of many theists that they must, for some odd reason, kill for their gods. I can't get behind that concept. If it's truly a god, can it not do it's own killing if that becomes necessary? Likewise, if it's truly a god, I'll leave it to the deity to defend it's own existence from opponents. That's not my job. All I'm pointing out is that atheists are stating a belief, until they state it as fact, at which point they incur the same burden of proof as anyone else.

Here's another interesting thought that gets a lot of folks going - nowhere in the christian bible does it deny the existence of other gods. It actually supports the existence of other gods beyond the christian god, and admonishes christians to eschew those gods in favor of their own.

Bet I draw fire from both sides for that!

"Thou shalt hold no other gods before me" does not say "there are no other gods to hold before me", and is not the same thing. Matter of fact, that commandment would be unnecessary if given in the second form, wouldn't it?

Whether I go to hell for saying that is between myself and a god... the decision is not in the hands of any mortal christian, whether they claim it is or not.

Originally posted by nenothtu
On this we agree. Some have a rather odd tendency to ridicule others for having such beliefs, as if that somehow had some bearing on their own beliefs, and I've never quite understood that.

Well, some people are just jerks to each other over stuff that really doesn't matter. And, to be preemptive, if I have come across that way it was unintentional. I was simply trying my best to explain atheism as it is commonly understood by most atheists.

The rest of your post had some good points and revealed that you are an intelligent and well-meaning person and I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. Again, if I came of as a jackass it was entirely unintended. Thanks for the interesting conversation.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by nenothtu

 

It is your lucky day. My buddy George, has an extra round bale. He doesn't like leaving them in that particular field. He's just kinda weird like that. Anyways, it's all ready to go. Go ahead and U2U me your address, and I will make sure you receive it ASAP.

It probably won't be near enough, but it should hold you over for a week or so. You should be able to get at least 25 more straw men out of that bale. (as long as you do so sparingly, and don't try to bulk them up too much)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aba5dba4ba70.jpg[/atsimg]

Those round bails typically weigh around 1500 pounds. Only 25 straw men would be a horrid waste.

There is a simple detail, that you (and many others), do not seem to notice or realize.

I do not care. I could not care any less about what you do, or do not, believe in.

As far as it goes, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. No reason that any man should care what another chooses to believe. Then you add this:

Regardless of how you choose to word your statements, you will never convince me that I hold some sort of belief, when I know for a fact that I do not.

I am inside of my head. There may be multiple versions of me inside there, but that is an entirely different subject. The point is that you are not in my head. I do not believe, nor care.

which belies the above statement. Apparently you DO care that I think your belief is a belief, or you wouldn't be trying to counter it so vociferously.

 

P.S.

[color=CFECEC]Dis- (prefix)[color=CFECEC]

deprived of (i.e. obsolete)

absence of

excluded

which all mean the same as 'a lack of.'

No, excluded does not mean "lack of", it means "actively rejected". Otherwise, there is no reason for exclusion. Similarly, the same could be said of "deprived of", but that appears to be an obsolete useage, and so doesn't factor in here.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by nenothtu

 

do you ever feel like your too smart, just get of the house for a bit and have some fun. or is fun just a deep philosothical beleif/ disbeleive that can not be proven/disproven to really exist in the ........ does not compute, does not compute........ beep beeep beeeep BOOM *sound of head imploding*

Nope. I'm not ll that bright, although once my dad DID call me "son". I think he was just confused. "Fun" is pretty over rated, but I find it where I can anyhow, whether indoors or out.

Now that you mention it, I suppose "fun" could be considered a philosophical belief/disbelief, since it's purely subjective, and notions of what constitute it vary from person to person.

I hope you didn't get any of that imploding head on you - it's hard to clean up....

@nenothtu

As has already been said your point is effectively one of semantics. The only purpose of the word 'Atheist' is to state that someone is not a 'Theist'. Therefore those that consider themselves 'Atheists' must always be associated, and effectively defined by, the conditions of the original 'theist' word.

That isn't to say that in practice one must consider it 'faith based' to not believe in something. That was my point earlier- is it faith to not believe in something despite having no knowledge of it? I understand your argument and it's definitely something to be considered but it implies that the practice of not believing is performed in the same manner as the words constructed for it- i.e. that disbelief is only possible/ relevant because of belief.

I hope that isn't too jumbled and theoretical.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


No worries. I didn't take any offense. We've crossed paths on the boards before, sometimes we agree, more often we don't, some times strenuously. It's just conversation, I don't hold it against you, and hope you don't hold it against me.

I actually appreciate the opposition - it forces me to re-evaluate my positions, sometimes to revise them, sometimes to abandon them altogether, sometimes to confirm them. In any event, adversity makes us stronger.

There's more where that came from - and it generally sets christians on edge as much as it does atheists. For example, I'm not an "evangelical", I don't believe in "preaching the word" to people who simply don't want to hear it. I think that does more harm to the cause of the evangelicals than it does good, and tends to drive away even further those they want to attract. Evangelicals get all indignant and point to this bible verse or that which they think says "force your ideas on others", but in an objective analysis it says no such thing. I believe that one should live as well as he can, and if anyone wants to know why that is, they'll ask - no export required, wanted, nor needed. If they don't want to know, it's useless to force them to listen any way.

Evangelicals don't like me much. I've had far more strenuous conversations with them than I have atheists!

Originally posted by yes4141
@nenothtu

As has already been said your point is effectively one of semantics. The only purpose of the word 'Atheist' is to state that someone is not a 'Theist'. Therefore those that consider themselves 'Atheists' must always be associated, and effectively defined by, the conditions of the original 'theist' word.

That isn't to say that in practice one must consider it 'faith based' to not believe in something. That was my point earlier- is it faith to not believe in something despite having no knowledge of it? I understand your argument and it's definitely something to be considered but it implies that the practice of not believing is performed in the same manner as the words constructed for it- i.e. that disbelief is only possible/ relevant because of belief.

I hope that isn't too jumbled and theoretical.

Sorry for the delay. I had to step out and take care of some business ahead of the hurricane.

No, an absence of belief in the face of no prior knowledge is neither "faith" nor "not-faith". It could be argued that it is ignorance, in the sense of a lack of knowledge of the possible, NOT in the sense of stupidity, but it can't be either "faith" or "non-faith", since it has no chance to be either. A choice is not possible.

Once knowledge of the concept is presented, however, the individual has to make a choice in the matter to either embrace it or reject it. In the absence of evidence either way, either choice is necessarily based in faith or belief. When evidence is presented, there is no longer a need for faith, the choice becomes one between fact and fancy.

"Proof", either for or against the existence of a god, destroys "faith" utterly. Note that well - proof positive that a god does exist would eliminate faith altogether, just as surely as proof positive that one doesn't exist. One would KNOW, rather than believe, at that point. I personally think that it might have been set up that way on purpose...

But you consider yourself a Theist despite being technically an agnostic- quite rightly so, much like almost all people who haven't got a malevolent or greedy motive.

Therefore the same is entirely applicable in reverse- it is obvious that no one actually knows the reality of these matters, it is all subjective and therefore all a matter with no (foreseeable) resolution.

However, I must ask you again to properly read about Bertrand Russell's teapot- it is relevant despite the name, though it has largely already been covered in here but simply worded very well and concise.

It goes against all aspects of the history and methodology of the human thirst for knowledge that evidence is required to negate the existence of something- it is entirely practically un-feasible as we could never construct anything as there would be no absolute proof it wouldn't fall down.

To imply that it is equally important to gain evidence for something's existence as it is against it seems to be entirely under special dispensation for religious matters.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by grahag
This one quote sums it up quite nicely:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

What an absolutely disgraceful assumption.

Would you care to tackle it? If God exists, where is he? What has he done? What is he doing? If evil persists, then how can God exist?

I'm not sure what's disgraceful about that quote. Care to explain why you think that way?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Keep in mind that the "seeds" of Christianity would have been supplied by Christ himself. So in order to replant those seeds, you'd need another entity equally as potent to do that. Belief will only take people so far.

While someone of faith says, "Look! That single child was unharmed in that terrible crash! It's a miracle!"
A thinking person would say, "Yeah, but what about that child's 2 parents and 4 other siblings that died? Where is THEIR miracle?"

I'm afraid that for people to believe in God again, you'll need some sort of biblical proportion "miracle" that couldn't possibly be explained away.

Originally posted by yes4141
But you consider yourself a Theist despite being technically an agnostic- quite rightly so, much like almost all people who haven't got a malevolent or greedy motive.

Technically, i suppose I AM an agnostic, since I acknowledge that there is just no way to know, no way to prove the existence of God. It's not a scientific question, and I don't personally think it to be a philosophical one, either, although I can see how that argument can be made. I consider myself a theist because I have a pretty much unshakable faith that at least one God exists, despite the fact that it isn't subject to scientific investigation.

I don't expect everyone to think the same way. My faith is not dependent on their belief, nor should their notions be dependent on mine. The one thing I insist on is a taste for beer - how else can I commune with them over a beer? Matters of "metaphysics" are entirely optional as far as I'm concerned. An atheist's individually held notions are between he and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and not my concern. My experiences of life and those of an atheist will necessarily be entirely different, and our individual beliefs will be based upon those. I'll never convince him that mine are an objective "truth" any more than he will convince me that his are, so we ought to just be friends and have a beer.

Therefore the same is entirely applicable in reverse- it is obvious that no one actually knows the reality of these matters, it is all subjective and therefore all a matter with no (foreseeable) resolution.

That's precisely how I see it. The existence or non-existence of a god is not anything worth arguing over for mere mortals, for exactly that reason - it's not resolveable.

I don't think "resolveable" is a word, but you get my drift.

However, I must ask you again to properly read about Bertrand Russell's teapot- it is relevant despite the name, though it has largely already been covered in here but simply worded very well and concise.

I think where the Teapot analogy breaks down is that it will likely, at some point in the future as technology advances, be subject to verification or falsification. In other words, it still relies too heavily on science, or more precisely on our current lack of ability at science. At some point, it's likely that every dust grain in the solar system will be cataloged. In contrast, deity defies verification or falsification by science. Perhaps "defies" is a poor choice of words, since it's not a scientific question at all.

It goes against all aspects of the history and methodology of the human thirst for knowledge that evidence is required to negate the existence of something- it is entirely practically un-feasible as we could never construct anything as there would be no absolute proof it wouldn't fall down.

Exactly so. They key there may be the phrase "thirst for knowledge". Pursuit of knowledge is the purview of science, not religion. I think too many conflate the two, and can't seem to clearly separate them. A "creationist" trying to use science to "prove" his belief is just as ridiculous as a scientist trying to negate a spiritual belief through science. They are different arenas, and I don't see them as mutually exclusive, although many folks do. Because so many see them as mutually exclusive, we get these battles between the two, as if one or the other MUST prevail.

To imply that it is equally important to gain evidence for something's existence as it is against it seems to be entirely under special dispensation for religious matters.

Science deals with the physical, how and why things work in a physical sense. Insisting on evidence of the spiritual, either for or against, from scientific inquiry seems to me to be nothing more than tilting at windmills, a futile effort. As I said above, to prove or disprove the existence of a god empirically would absolutely destroy faith, and I believe it was set up that way on purpose - a "test of the heart" so to speak. I don't think religious matters ought to deal in "evidence" at all, but scientific matters should insist on nothing less.

If folks want to believe that god created the Earth in six days, and was then so tuckered out that he had to rest, and has been resting ever since, fine, let them believe as they will. That absolutely files in the face of the evidence to the contrary, from a physical standpoint, but they are free to believe as they will, unfettered by reason. If they want to believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created invisible pink unicorns to watch over mankind, fine, let them believe that as well. I have no evidence to the contrary, but it's not what I choose to believe myself. What I believe in no way affects them, nor they me, so live and let live.

My issue with either side is when they attempt to claim matters of faith as matters of "fact", somehow empirically supported by evidence in realms that are not properly within that purview. Science deals with evidence, belief deals with choice in the absence of evidence. Either theism or atheism are beliefs, as they are not directly addressable by science in either case. Let them believe as they will, but let them also acknowledge that it is a belief, not a "fact".

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I have to admit that I acknowledged that post because I thought I could somewhat comprehend it. I read all posts, but frankly a lot of yours are over my head. It's not that I ignore them, it's more like I can't comprehend them.

I ask you this - what is Quality, what is Integrity, what is real Love?

Those qualities seem to me to be subjective rather than objective, and will vary from person to person, as they have experienced life. I can tell you what I think them to be, but that may not mesh with what you think them to be. They are not quantifiable absolutes, with a common definition recognized by all.

A God may be absolute, but he wouldn't be quantifiable, just given the nature of the beast. Anything that can create a universe, god or not, logically stands outside that universe, greater than, and so would not likely be subject to quantification from inside that universe. If it isn't quantifiable, it's not addressable by science, which deals with quantification of physical properties to offer as evidence.

Definitely a religious question rather than a scientific one, although I can see how there could be a slight bleed-through into the philosophical realm.

"Gnosis", meaning "knowledge", would necessarily be a science related question, simply in the implication that it can be "known". Religion deals with belief or "faith", rather than knowledge, which is the arena where science prevails.

It's not a scientific question, and I don't personally think it to be a philosophical one, either

Ahh, the old separate spheres argument. I'm sorry but I must agree with Dawkins and Sam Harris on this. I don't want to be rude but I think this is a form of intellectual cowardice which enables people to think entirely differently about two different subjects.

If there were to be a God then why and how is that not a matter relevant to science?

I presume you may reply "because we cannot know the answer" but we COULD know the answer it is just very unlikely that we will. It is about something within our existence therefore it is something that "trespasses" on the turf of science.
There are all manner of things which are considered religious but are very much a potential scientific matter, not necessarily the science of today but a far, far more advanced version in the future. Not necessarily, but it is feasible. Just because we couldn't comprehend ever having an answer now doesn't make it impossible forever.

I shan't comment on the "here to test us" comments as I consider that to be astronomically sadistic and narcissistic (by the God, not yourself!).

The existence or non-existence of a god is not anything worth arguing over for mere mortals

It is however worth arguing over when people claim divine license to commit horrendous acts or to control others.

but it's not what I choose to believe myself.

This is something I think I have a problem with and it is a very common statement. I do not consider beliefs as something you choose, you either believe in it or you do not but it is not a matter of what you want. People can lie to themselves and others about this but the truth of what they genuinely feel is not something which is a conscious decision.

Originally posted by yes4141

It's not a scientific question, and I don't personally think it to be a philosophical one, either

Ahh, the old separate spheres argument. I'm sorry but I must agree with Dawkins and Sam Harris on this. I don't want to be rude but I think this is a form of intellectual cowardice which enables people to think entirely differently about two different subjects.

If there were to be a God then why and how is that not a matter relevant to science?

I think I addressed my ideas on that more fully in this post. I guess it goes without saying that I don't agree with Dawkins on much of anything at all. he is attempting to convert atheism into a regular, organized, dogmatic religion, and proselytizing to that end. Dawkins is an evangelist for atheism, and I've already spoken to my disagreements with evangelists. I'm not in the least sure why what I believe would injure him, or why he feels a need to crusade against it, any more than I can fathom why Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or some others of a religious stripe feel a need to interrupt my lunch to give me the good word. I already have my good word, and while I don't begrudge them theirs, I neither need nor want it for myself.

I presume you may reply "because we cannot know the answer" but we COULD know the answer it is just very unlikely that we will. It is about something within our existence therefore it is something that "trespasses" on the turf of science.

There are all manner of things which are considered religious but are very much a potential scientific matter, not necessarily the science of today but a far, far more advanced version in the future. Not necessarily, but it is feasible. Just because we couldn't comprehend ever having an answer now doesn't make it impossible forever.

Agreed. There is not very much that is impossible however vanishingly unlikely. If spirituality ever becomes quantifiable, THEN it may be within the realm of scientific inquiry, but as things stand now, it isn't.

I shan't comment on the "here to test us" comments as I consider that to be astronomically sadistic and narcissistic (by the God, not yourself!).

That's probably a good decision, as it would delve into theological musings internal to religion, which isn't really the subject here. I didn't much like tests in high school and college either, but those blasted instructors kept throwing them at me, regardless of what I liked. In hindsight, they probably did the right thing, but it sure didn't seem so at the time!

The existence or non-existence of a god is not anything worth arguing over for mere mortals

It is however worth arguing over when people claim divine license to commit horrendous acts or to control others.

Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly. Sometimes, it's worth more than arguing over. If a man tells me that his god says he's gotta take me out or run my world, there's going to be big trouble. What sort of a god has to have mortals do his killing and/or administrating for him? A really weak one, I would contend. He can come down and do his own killing or administrating, and until he does, I'll be taking out his "chosen" just as fast as I can toss lead.

but it's not what I choose to believe myself.

This is something I think I have a problem with and it is a very common statement. I do not consider beliefs as something you choose, you either believe in it or you do not but it is not a matter of what you want. People can lie to themselves and others about this but the truth of what they genuinely feel is not something which is a conscious decision.

I would contend that there is a choice to be made, but concede that one might not have as much control over it as appears at first blush. The degree of choice that is up to the individual could conceivably get back into the "sadistic god" argument. We have a choice in the matter, but that choice may well be predetermined, or at the very least colored, by prior experiences, rather than personal preference.

The cause of those experiences, whether random fate, good or bad choice, or external direction, could be a part of the discussion.

Originally posted by grahag


I'm afraid that for people to believe in God again, you'll need some sort of biblical proportion "miracle" that couldn't possibly be explained away.

That is both frightening and very disheartening, to say the least!