Atheism

[Dr_Baltar]

That might indicate the information has not been approached objectively. An open-minded appraisal would suggest individuals with belief and none, the gullible and determinedly sceptical see 'ghosts'. It stretches (my) credulity that every one of many thousands of stories, in different historical periods and unconnected cultures are lying. I even know a couple of level headed individuals who sat for years on what they perceived because it didn't equate with their world view.

An open-minded appraisal could equally suggest that individuals believe themselves to have seen 'ghosts' whether or not they have, in fact, actually seen anything at all. Testimony is quite simply unreliable as evidence of anything, as Fats has been trying to make clear for some pages now. It doesn't require every one of many thousands of stories to be a lie. Those that aren't lying (or even "mentally suspect") could simply be mistaken.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I think i might be asceptical.

Ha! Reminds me of Dr Sinister, who used to bait atheists on alt.atheism some years ago, who claimed to be an aatheist.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

If you were to apply Occams Razor the simplest explanation is that the phenomenon did occur and those involved are telling the truth.

That depends which way you shave. The simplest explanation (for me) is that a phenomenon occured. What that phenomenon was is, in cases of "the unknown", always up for debate. And there's a world of difference between telling the truth and knowing the truth.

 

[colpepper1]

Those that aren't lying (or even "mentally suspect") could simply be mistaken.

They could and many undoubtedly are but if you study the testimonies it's counter intuitive that they all are. Again to go back to Dawkins his position is that certain phenomena cannot a priori be real, therefore we look elsewhere. That dogged evasion of what might be valuable and informative is as perverse as a 'believer' eschewing the scientific community because they may all be boffins suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.
Casting aspersions saves lots of time but can't claim rigour.

Because I believe people see ghosts based on key testimonies does not mean I believe every account of such sighting, or even many but like all closely studied phenomena one develops a nose for interesting cases based on the narrative medium through which they're encountered, the people involved and what they have to say. On balance I feel weird shit does indeed happen. We're back to what not whether IMO.

 

[monster_magnet]

That depends which way you shave. The simplest explanation (for me) is that a phenomenon occured. What that phenomenon was is, in cases of "the unknown", always up for debate. And there's a world of difference between telling the truth and knowing the truth.

I absolutely agree. The 'what' of it all is often left un-debated because the evidence is dismissed out of hand.

If we assume that some evidence in 'religious' experiences or supernatural occurances withstands scrutiny and defies natural explanation then WHAT is it?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

They could and many undoubtedly are but if you study the testimonies it's counter intuitive that they all are.

I've never found it counter-intuitive to believe that humans are mistaken

Again to go back to Dawkins his position is that certain phenomena cannot a priori be real, therefore we look elsewhere. That dogged evasion of what might be valuable and informative is as perverse as a 'believer' eschewing the scientific community because they may all be boffins suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.
Casting aspersions saves lots of time but can't claim rigour.

That's not what I take from Dawkins. Then again, I'm a human and likely mistaken.

We're back to what not whether IMO.

I think we've always been at what, it's the nature of the what that's up for debate.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

If we assume that some evidence in 'religious' experiences or supernatural occurances withstands scrutiny and defies natural explanation then WHAT is it?

Do we assume that?

 

[monster_magnet]

The simplest explanation (for me) is that a phenomenon occured. What that phenomenon was is, in cases of "the unknown", always up for debate..

Can we assume a phenomenon occurred?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Can we assume a phenomenon occurred?

I suppose that depends on your definition of "phenomenon".


Excuse me, is this the five minute argument or the full half-hour?

 

[Analis]

At the same time, I have to ask myself "do I believe this proposed entity exists?" and the answer is "no", so I'm an atheist.

Your belief is that god doesn't exist. Therefore, You are not agnostic.

Wrong again - if we take the most basic definitions of god (rather than Yahweh, for which the evidence of lack of existence is damning), I don't believe god doesn't exist any more than I don't believe aliens don't exist.

Until evidence comes in, holding belief is an irrelevant stance.

Consider these two statements that mean entirely different things.

I believe there is no god
I don't believe there is a god

If you think they mean the same thing - you are missing the crux of the atheist position.

...

You may argue that the above is an agnostic stance, and much of it is, but it still comes down to the fundamental question - do I subscribe to theism? And the answer is no, and so I am an atheist.

Our misunderstanding lies on different definitions of atheism or agnosticism. In my opinion, not to believe there is a god is not an atheistic stance. The atheist believes that there is no god. For him, it is an absolute certainty. But haven no knowledge of the deep nature of reality, he cannot prove that. Hence, it is a belief. It's not true that agnosticism says nothing about belief. It rejects it, as a dangerous and unwise behaviour ; standing in the way of understanding the world. The confusion comes from that at first, the distinction between the two words was not so sharp. They were new, their meaning was relatively imprecise, as it is the case with every new word. And it is true that they were often viewed as somewhat interchangeable. But the evolution of their meanings towards the distinctions I made is now widely accepted. "Great" atheists like Dawkins refer to it. I know that this distinction exists, because as an agnostic I had discussions with atheists. We certainly had very different opinions, and we agreed on that.

Your stance would rather fall into the categories of moral or functionnal atheism. People who have no definitive opinion about the existence or non existence of a supreme being, god etc. But who think that if it existed, it would be a distant and vague deity. So that this existence would have no bearing on our lives. They're atheists because for them, this absence of influence is a certainty. This is not an agnostic statement. Their certainty marks them as believers.

You could just as easily be a theistic agnostic, who admits that god's existence can't be known, but believes gods exist any way.

Buddhists and jainists apart, do you refer to the many western people who believe that there is a supreme being, but that we know nothing of it (and for many, that we can know nothing of it) ? But the existence of this god is something they can't come to prove. Therefore, it falls into the belief category. They shouldn't be called agnostic. Maybe a more appropriate name would be non religious theists. But a number retain religious feelings. For them, this supreme god still embodies notions of hope, mystical approach, etc... if only vague. Deist would be the most appropriate way to call them. This word grew more or less outfashionned, it is paradoxical, as there are probably more deists than ever. Many thinkers of the XVII and XVIIIth century called themselves deists. Not all of them retained a religious approach, but some of them did.
As to why so many people share a belief, however tenuous, that they can't come to justify, more than any other belief. I think that usually, they are from a christian (or jewish) background. The image of an all-powerful god remains ingrained in them. They didn't completely severed the umbilical chord to Christianism. Their opinion is filled with religious belief.

 

[colpepper1]

The image of an all-powerful god remains ingrained in them. They didn't completely severed the umbilical chord to Christianism. Their opinion is filled with religious belief.

Though I disagree with the imagery that's an important point. Religious form is embedded in society at profound levels of state and judiciary. Someone who is not moved to believe in a god must necessarily stand outside societal boundaries at practical levels. To do so means taking an oppositional stance to implicit value systems.

Atheists are generally antagonistic to other implied values and seek to create a new one, humanism, which is itself an arbitrary model heavily biased towards religious style morals but called other things such as enlightened philanthropy. I profoundly disagree that it is rationalistic as claimed. It is, to be blunt, completely made up but offers comfortable and familiar western style reciprochal interaction. No fault there but hardly a child of the enlightenment, more a middle class talking shop to ward off the dark corners of the psyche.
Which is why I believe atheists inhabit websites where their (dis)belief can be confirmed and find FT a challenge with its relativism and ambivalence. Nothing else can explain the intervention of militant atheists in areas that on the face of it have little rewarding to offer them except more opposition.

It would be interesting to know which atheists actually buy and read the magazine, and why.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Unsurprisingly I disagree. It's precisely that kind of wilful (or accidental) ignorance of testimony I find perverse in militant disbelief. To deny diverse, cross-cultural anecdotes nor trace remarkable similarities seems irrational. We can put them down to psychological factors or as-yet-unknown cerebral activity but to say they have no currency worth the mention seems entirely prejudicial.

I think the misunderstanding is not on the part of the atheist here. Nobody is denying diverse, cross-cultural anecdotes or ignoring remarkable similarities. Nobody is suggesting that they have no currency. There is merely a refusal to accept the explanations lying behind them. For the atheist, however, it would be foolish to proceed on the basis that these experiences unmask some deeper, divine truth when there are other more likely explanations. It is not a question of belief but merely the balance of probabilities. As pointed out to treat all unverifiable claims about reality with credibility would lead to a complete paralysis. Some construction of reality based on probability is really the only sane way to live.

 

[colpepper1]

I don't believe Forteans claim the universe is not a highly ordered place and are exercised by probability less than usual. Where we may differ from fundies (to borrow a term) is in the belief that anomalies do occur. An arch rationalist or 'militant' atheist is more likely to claim 'no they don't' and that the misunderstanding must be on the side of the Fortean.

This may be because if, to use a rather crass example, a glass moves of its own volition on a table their world view is open to question. A good anomalist OTOH will find it noteworthy and file it under various possibilties without feeling the desire to discover a difinitive answer beyond a certain point because, by drawing on previous such sightings, the critical tools of the observer have little to offer. If there is no vibration and the table is flat and the conditions make fraud an absurdity he will conclude that the glass decided to move, like others before it.
What the incident will not do, if he's an otherwise level-headed type, is make him believe the universe has no laws but that those governing the independent movement of an inanimate object have been temporarily suspended for reasons unknown.

If the rationalist insists the evidence is flawed without being present, or that the observer's method or mental health are impaired a Fortean may look at the motivation or predisposition of those making the claim. An insistence that the observer must be mistaken and that anomalies are impossible does not take us anywhere useful. More grievous is the idea that those who find anomalies intriguing must be selling something on the back of them, a Big Idea or that the phenomenon is a lure and an affront to reason. That may reveal more about the orthodoxy of the antagonist than whatever makes glasses move on tables.

 

[stu neville]

I don't believe Forteans claim the universe is not a highly ordered place and are exercised by probability less than usual. Where we may differ from fundies (to borrow a term) is in the belief that anomalies do occur. An arch rationalist or 'militant' atheist is more likely to claim 'no they don't' and that the misunderstanding must be on the side of the Fortean.

Precisely. Forteanism recognises that you don't need an explanation or a rationale for things to happen, and whilst acknowledging that an explanation would be nice, it doesn't depend upon that to somehow legitimise the occurrence or phenomenon itself.

Many atheists (but not all), however, will as colpepper said, deny it happened in the manner claimed, or in the case of theists who choose to accept that it happened will immediately cite their deity as the cause (and indeed will often cite their deity's will as being the reason that something can't happen.) Wittingly or otherwise, heaven's a hugely convenient place upon which to hook motives, guilts, inconvenient facts and explanations.

Interestingly, many scientists behave in exactly same way - what is string theory, etc, but a physicist's deity, a vast unknown with peculiar qualities that explain difficult stuff ?

 

[monster_magnet]

There is merely a refusal to accept the explanations lying behind them. For the atheist, however, it would be foolish to proceed on the basis that these experiences unmask some deeper, divine truth when there are other more likely explanations.

There is obviously a whole heap of phenomena, supernatural occurances, unnatural anomolies which are just fanciful wishes, propaganda and bullshit. But, there are cases that defy natural explanation and so, if there are 'more likely explanations' then what are they? and if these 'more likely explanations' exists why aren't they promoted as a rational interpretation of the events?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Every one of you anti-sceptics here keep misrepresenting the position of atheists and sceptics.

The vast majority don't "deny" the phenomena, as in rule out the possibility.

We define our own position and it's really quite simple.

Let's take the non-religious god-definition, which I seem to be having great difficulty getting through to Monster Magnet on.

I ask myself "is this god knowable?"

The answer is "clearly not, as that is in its definition, so I'm agnostic about its existence."

I think Monster Magnet is with me to this point.

I then ask myself "do I accept the assertion made by strong theists that their god definitely exists?"

The answer is "No, as their claim is unsupported by anything other than unreliable testimonial evidence, so I am an atheist".

Do I accept the argument of weaker theists that there is a strong probability that a god exists? No, as I can't see any good evidence to support this position either. Weak theists are still making an ontological claim, away from the deffault assumption of non-existence.

You have to get it into your head that a sceptical position is not a position of denial. It is simply witholding plumping for an opinion before you have enough information.

Those who say "There must be a supernatural phenomenon behind ghosts", or "There is definitely a god" are making assertions, that may be proved right in time, or may not, but a sceptic is not subscribing to this assertion. They are staying in the neutral position in any ontological claim, which is assumption of non-existence. Assumption, NOT ASSERTION.

Do I accept the assertions of theists - No? Then by definition, I am without their theism, hence atheist.

I am asserting nothing.

Monster Magnet, I define my position, not you. If you want to debate this, debate my position, not your own straw-man definition of atheists.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

An insistence that the observer must be mistaken and that anomalies are impossible does not take us anywhere useful.

?????

Who exactly are you arguing against here?

Can you co and look up the difference between an assertion and an assumption, then come back and debate actual scepticism, rather than your straw man version of it?

 

[monster_magnet]

OK

I then ask myself "do I accept the assertion made by theists that this God does exist?"
The answer is "No, as their claim is unsupported by anything other than unreliable testimonial evidence, so I am an atheist".

Fats, I understand your position fully. But, I find it difficult to except the enboldened statement above as it is just not the case.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

OK

I then ask myself "do I accept the assertion made by theists that this God does exist?"
The answer is "No, as their claim is unsupported by anything other than unreliable testimonial evidence, so I am an atheist".

Fats, I understand your position fully. But, I find it difficult to except the enboldened statement above as it is just not the case.

Can you name one piece of evidence that falls outisde this category then please, because I'm not aware of it?

Bear in mind, I can't accept any testimonial evidence not backed up by corroborating evidence for extraordinary claims, the reason for which I have clearly explained in my post above.

There is absolutely no way to separate reliable from unreliable testimonial evidence and it appears likely that there are extremely strong social pressures to specifically make up such extraordinary stories.

If you produce good evidence, you will have an ex-sceptic on your hands with regards to at least one phenomenon.

 

[segovius]

In many senses atheists seem to be particularly blinkered and myopic. I suspect they are the same type of 'rationalist' that Fort described so concisely and how make it their business to 'damn' data they do not, for various personal psychological reasons, feel comfortable with.

They seem to incline to literalism very often too - in the sense that they seem to have no feeling for 'myth' or tradition. To them it is something that is claimed to be 'true' so if it is not literally true then it needs to be expunged.

The sort of people in fact, who one might find screaming at a 6-year old "But Santa Claus does not exist!!!!".

There are many readings of religion apart from the literal or even faith-based. Personally I incline to view religious scripture (as opposed to dogma inferred from scripture which I would reject) as a form of folklore - a link in a chain which encompasses jokes, oral tradition, fairy tales and right up to contemporary stories of vanishing hitch-hikers etc.

The point is not whether they are true - the point is what effect they have. Like a ghost story told by the fire on a cold winter's night, religious stories can make you feel a certain way, open your mind to certain patterns - they are archetypal myths (which is why their motifs recur in differing cultures) and what matters is not whether they are 'true' but what they say to you and what you can take from it.

Of course literalists of religious or atheistic stripe cannot understand this and will think I am talking about the 'moral' of the Bible stories or whatever....

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

No Segovius, if I read you correctly, you are saying that there are bonuses to be gained by subscribing willingly to the belief systems.

We all know the studies that show religious people live longer than non-religious:
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000809/reli ... nbelievers
and I know from my own experience when I was a Christian as a kid, the joy of the love of god etc. etc.

What this ignores however is that most atheists don't choose to be atheist. They have simply realised that the religion and ghost stories etc. are probably a pretence and are unable to subscribe to them, even if they did want to. I can't make myself choose to believe that I have an invisible apple on top of my head.

Now, this would be fine and we'd just be quiet and let those that want to carry on inside their beliefs to get on with it, disagreeing privately, if we didn't have people trying to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who has a personal religion. They're not the people atheists are currently politically organising against.

By the way, I enjoy a ghost story just as much as you. You don't need to invest full-on belief in something to get your kicks out of it. You just need temporary suspension of disbelief and a good imagination.

 

[segovius]

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who has a personal religion. They're not the people atheists are currently organising against.

Maybe you don't but that is not what comes across if you read Dawkins or Hitchens.

Perhaps you are right and they feel the same as you - but then that proves my main argument which centres around logic, reason and the lack of it in certain quarters.

If people are coming away from reading the current slew of atheist literature with the 'wrong impression' then that is down to the writers. If they are the intellectual colossi they think they are they should be able to outline their position clearly and succinctly.

Besides, you are missing my point about myth and folklore: why can atheists not accept this reading? It requires no belief at all and no change of position for them. It is even 'religious' in a way, many C of E vicars hold such a position and don't believe in any form of divinity.

 

[monster_magnet]

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who has a personal religion. They're not the people atheists are currently organising against.

How successful was that bus advertising campaign?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who has a personal religion. They're not the people atheists are currently organising against.

How successful was that bus advertising campaign?

The one that was put out in response to non-personal, proselytising alpha course adverts? Very well thanks. It got plenty of media attention.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who has a personal religion. They're not the people atheists are currently organising against.

Maybe you don't but that is not what comes across if you read Dawkins or Hitchens.

Perhaps you are right and they feel the same as you - but then that proves my main argument which centres around logic, reason and the lack of it in certain quarters.

If people are coming away from reading the current slew of atheist literature with the 'wrong impression' then that is down to the writers. If they are the intellectual colossi they think they are they should be able to outline their position clearly and succinctly.

Besides, you are missing my point about myth and folklore: why can atheists not accept this reading? It requires no belief at all and no change of position for them. It is even 'religious' in a way, many C of E vicars hold such a position and don't believe in any form of divinity.

Here's the thing. I don't have a problem with them holding their beliefs, but there's no way I'm ever going to say I think those beliefs make sense, just to protect their sensibilities. If we have a conversation on the subject of religion, I would express my own opinions, not pander to theirs, just as the believer would when talking to me. To expect me to do otherwise would be unreasonable - I have as much right to express my opinions as the next person.

Unfortunately, when you are arguing against the hardcore theists, you are forced to bring up the arguments against general faith. It just follows.

I may agree with Dawkins on many things, but he doesn't speak for me. Neither does Hitchens.

I was debating theists on the alt.atheism newsgroups 15 years ago, when I'd never heard of Hitchens and Dawkins was a writer of popular science books on evolution.

I wouldn't be quite as aggressive in my approach as either, for example, but after watching Dawkins go through his more moderate phase being abused by creationist idiots, I can understand why he's probably hardened up.

 

[monster_magnet]

The one that was put out in response to non-personal, proselytising alpha course adverts? Very well thanks. It got plenty of media attention.

This is probably off topic Fats but why didn't the adverts challenge the Alpha course directly? And why 'Probably not a god"?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Besides, you are missing my point about myth and folklore: why can atheists not accept this reading? It requires no belief at all and no change of position for them. It is even 'religious' in a way, many C of E vicars hold such a position and don't believe in any form of divinity.

I would say atheists generally do accept the reading as myth and folklore. My own interest in folklore is waht brings me to these groups.

It's just that a the majority of religionists in the Protestant US, Roman Catholicism and the Islamic world - those that want to legislate against or threaten me based upon their religion - don't interpret their religion in this way.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

The one that was put out in response to non-personal, proselytising alpha course adverts? Very well thanks. It got plenty of media attention.

This is probably off topic Fats but why didn't the adverts challenge the Apha course directly? And why 'Probably not a god"?

a) for legal reasons - if they said "there is no god", they wouldn't have been allowed to run the campaign

and

b) for the reasons I've been trying to explain to you in this thread: Stating "there is no god" would be an assertion and would be as unsupportable a position as "there is a god".

Bear in mind however, that the campaign is really specifically targetted at the Christian god definition, for which there is plenty of evidence that he doesn't exist, i.e. the Bible that defines him is plain wrong on its history.

 

[segovius]

a) for legal reasons - if they said "there is no god", they wouldn't have been allowed to run the campaign

heheh - but why would they say this though - I thought you said that this was not the atheists position?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

a) for legal reasons - if they said "there is no god", they wouldn't have been allowed to run the campaign

heheh - but why would they say this though - I thought you said that this was not the atheists position?

For shock value, I guess. Personally, I would have argued against the campaign if it hadn't included the word "probably".

I would have also used the word "Yahweh" rather than "God", given the choice, but most people probably wouldn't have got the meaning then.