Atheism

[monster_magnet]

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

Bloody lawyers - they spoil everything.
Although, on reflection, atheists should have grown some bollocks and gone with the 'there is no god' headline. It would have been an outstanding way to get the debate going with very little, if any, consequences.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

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

Bloody lawyers - they spoil everything.
Although, on reflection, atheists should have grown some bollocks and gone with the 'there is no god' headline. It would have been an outstanding way to get the debate going with very little, if any, consequences.

Yes, but most of that debate would have turned in to defending an untenable position.

Unless there was an asterisk next to God and small print saying:

"Actual god may not resemble your god and bears no resemblance to any persons living or dead"

 

[segovius]

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.

Maybe if most people don't know who Yahweh is then there's no need for a campaign just yet?

Or is a campaign just what one does? I know religious fundies can't stop having them so I guess it's good to have an even playing field...

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

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.

Maybe if most people don't know who Yahweh is then there's no need for a campaign just yet?

Or is a campaign just what one does? I know religious fundies can't stop having them so I guess it's good to have an even playing field...

They do know who he is. They just know him as simply "God", hence the use of that word.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

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....

No we can understand this very well. Unfortunately it's the vast majority of religious believers who can not. It's a moot point since atheists do not base their beliefs on whether or not religion speaks to the human condition - on the contrary the realisation of such a fact is likely to lead one to conclude its claims might well be no more than balm and self-encouragement.

 

[segovius]

I guess they put the 'probably' to remain within the bounds of perceived rationality.

But they obviously haven't read their Pascal - the idea that if God exists He would be incomprehensible to reason (and a God comprehensible to reason is the only God the atheists will allow in their game of cards with the stacked deck) and as such one must wager is routinely ignored by them.

Now wonder, because as Pascal said, if it all comes down to a wager the only thing to do is to bet on God.

But it might not even go that way; there is certainly the possibility that if a God existed he may - for whatever reason - wish to conceal His existence. And being God, He could do this perfectly - conceal all evidence and allow the development of nonsensical religious beliefs.

This doesn't ever figure in atheistic 'reasoning' either. They don't seem to have much imagination. It's all very pedestrian and makes me fall asleep...

 

[stu neville]

Sorry to roll this back a page or two, but I had to address this:

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.

Well, for myself, I didn't say that. What I said, here, was:

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.

Not all atheists. For many though, the non-belief in a deity is coupled with a non-belief in any paranormal phenomena as well.

I think it may be useful to revisit the Militant Atheism thread, which in turn begat the Militant Agnosticism thread, within which we discussed the proposition that sceptical agnosticism is almost a default Fortean mindset.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

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.

Of course, it could come down to the reader being unable to conceive of any truth outwith their own narrow frame of reference. Many others seem to be able to grasp their points without misrepresenting it or spilling invective all over it.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I guess they put the 'probably' to remain within the bounds of perceived rationality.

But they obviously haven't read their Pascal - the idea that if God exists He would be incomprehensible to reason (and a God comprehensible to reason is the only God the atheists will allow in their game of cards with the stacked deck) and as such one must wager is routinely ignored by them.

Now wonder, because as Pascal said, if it all comes down to a wager the only thing to do is to bet on God.

But it might not even go that way; there is certainly the possibility that if a God existed he may - for whatever reason - wish to conceal His existence. And being God, He could do this perfectly - conceal all evidence and allow the development of nonsensical religious beliefs.

This doesn't ever figure in atheistic 'reasoning' either. They don't seem to have much imagination. It's all very pedestrian and makes me fall asleep...

Is it really a lack of imagination or just the ability to recognise that that is all it is - imagining? I can certainly imagine the details that you've just outlined but then I can also imagine many scenarios which add nothing to an understanding of the origins or meaning of life. The fact that I choose not to excessively ponder any number of absurd scenarios is not down to a lack of imagination but a lack of credulity.

 

[rynner2]

...as Pascal said, if it all comes down to a wager the only thing to do is to bet on God.

This only makes sense if the God in question is seen as a judge of the dead, with only the alternatives of Heaven or Hell on offer.

But since there is no evidence for God's existence or nature, we cannot be at all sure of this.

Maybe God (if he does exist) values free-thinking and honesty above other qualities, and lets all agnostics into Heaven, but consigns those dimwits who accepted cobbled-together fantasies such as organised religions to Hell!


(Of course, Heaven and Hell may not exist either! )

 

[segovius]

Is it really a lack of imagination or just the ability to recognise that that is all it is - imagining? I can certainly imagine the details that you've just outlined but then I can also imagine many scenarios which add nothing to an understanding of the origins or meaning of life. The fact that I choose not to excessively ponder any number of absurd scenarios is not down to a lack of imagination but a lack of credulity.

It may be a lack of imagination or it may be just bad logic and irrationality. Or both.

Let's break it down:

When an atheist denies God (or the possibility of God if you prefer) then what he is actually denying is essentially the concept of God as defined by traditional religion as we know it historically.

More specifically they are refuting the Judeo/Christian God. But here is where the problem arises - there is no reason to conflate the concept of God or the possibility of His existence with religion...none at all.

The only reason that the two are accepted as synonymous is because religionists have defined it that way.

It was religionists who equated the concept of God with sin and morality.
It was religionists who equated the concept of God with creation of the universe.
It was religionists who equated the concept of God with restrictive codes of behaviour.

But if you think about it, if religion had never existed, we could still be discussing the possibility of God (without all the religionist trappings). It is therefore a valid issue which stands independent on its own.

But atheists do not accept that - the God they deny is a concept purely and wrongly created by religionists. So in essence they are accepting the terms of the debate as defined by the religionists.

Ergo they are both playing the same game, by the same rules, on the same pitch. They are just on opposing sides because they are playing each other.

Personally I don't accept the rules as these two define it and I certainly don't want either side to win...in fact I want the whole game banned hahah!

 

[segovius]

This only makes sense if the God in question is seen as a judge of the dead, with only the alternatives of Heaven or Hell on offer

True...but this is the scenario that most atheists are thinking of when they state their position.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Now wonder, because as Pascal said, if it all comes down to a wager the only thing to do is to bet on God.

I hope you've bet on the 'right' god.

Then again, for all you know, the 'right' god might give atheists everlasting life and all theists are damned to eternal purgatory.

That wager's not looking quite so safe now.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

True...but this is the scenario that most atheists are thinking of when they state their position.

I'm glad you feel qualified to speak on their behalf.

 

[rynner2]

This only makes sense if the God in question is seen as a judge of the dead, with only the alternatives of Heaven or Hell on offer

True...but this is the scenario that most atheists are thinking of when they state their position.

You seem to have a privileged insight into the minds of all atheists!

I do so hate it when somebody tells me what I think, and then tells me I'm wrong!

But there's little point replying, because such people don't believe a word I say anyway...

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Let's break it down:

When an atheist denies God (or the possibility of God if you prefer) then what he is actually denying is essentially the concept of God as defined by traditional religion as we know it historically.

More specifically they are refuting the Judeo/Christian God.

Again, you show remarkable insight into the hearts and minds of all atheists.

the God they deny is a concept purely and wrongly created by religionists.

How can you know that?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

rynner, we seem to be...er...singing from the same hymn sheet

 

[segovius]

I do so hate it when somebody tells me what I think, and then tells me I'm wrong!

Me too....

But there's little point replying, because such people don't believe a word I say anyway...

Oh look, it's happened to me...are we quits now?

 

[rynner2]

rynner, we seem to be...er...singing from the same hymn sheet

Happily, I'm not the kind of atheist who is upset by that particular metaphor! 8)

 

[monster_magnet]

Could part of the athiest congregation explain their definition of god. Does it necessrily have any religious overtones or agenda?

 

[rynner2]

Could part of the athiest congregation explain their definition of god.

It's the theists who 'define' God, claiming to know all his activities and attributes.

Atheists merely respond by saying "What's your evidence for that?"

(Much as I did with the case of the alleged WMD in Iraq... )

 

[segovius]

Could part of the athiest congregation explain their definition of god.

It's the theists who 'define' God, claiming to know all his activities and attributes.

Atheists merely respond by saying "What's your evidence for that?"

(Much as I did with the case of the alleged WMD in Iraq... )

Catch 22: to be demobbed from the war one must be insane but to want to be sent home from the war is the action of a rational man and proves your sanity.

The army can never lose because it is the only one allowed (by itself) of defining the rules...

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Catch 22: to be demobbed from the war one must be insane but to want to be sent home from the war is the action of a rational man and proves your sanity.

The army can never lose because it is the only one allowed (by itself) of defining the rules...

What? What rynner has described is nothing like a Catch 22.

 

[monster_magnet]

OK, Is atheism merely a reactionary position?

 

[segovius]

Catch 22: to be demobbed from the war one must be insane but to want to be sent home from the war is the action of a rational man and proves your sanity.

The army can never lose because it is the only one allowed (by itself) of defining the rules...

What? What rynner has described is nothing like a Catch 22.

It's a position that has been set up to create a situation where one party (the atheist) cannot lose because they alone are defining the terms which they would 'be convinced' - ie by 'rational proof' - whereas the subject in question does not fall into that category and cannot do by it's very nature.

The other party (the religionist) therefore cannot win: to continue to hold to their belief system is 'proof' that their belief is false as it does not follow logic as defined by the atheist. To give up their belief system means to admit the atheist is right.

That's Catch 22.

It's ok though, it all evens out....the religionists do exactly the same thing with their scriptural framework when the boot's on the other foot so we have an equality of sorts.

 

[monster_magnet]

It's a position that has been set up to create a situation where one party (the atheist) cannot lose because they alone are defining the terms which they would 'be convinced' - ie by 'rational proof' - whereas the subject in question does not fall into that category and cannot do by it's very nature.

Indeed, the James Randi of beliefs.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Catch 22: to be demobbed from the war one must be insane but to want to be sent home from the war is the action of a rational man and proves your sanity.

The army can never lose because it is the only one allowed (by itself) of defining the rules...

What? What rynner has described is nothing like a Catch 22.

It's a position that has been set up to create a situation where one party (the atheist) cannot lose because they alone are defining the terms which they would 'be convinced' - ie by 'rational proof' - whereas the subject in question does not fall into that category and cannot do by it's very nature.

The other party (the religionist) therefore cannot win: to continue to hold to their belief system is 'proof' that their belief is false as it does not follow logic as defined by the atheist. To give up their belief system means to admit the atheist is right.

That's Catch 22.

It's ok though, it all evens out....the religionists do exactly the same thing with their scriptural framework when the boot's on the other foot so we have an equality of sorts.

The atheist position would be, that since they don't believe in a god, or gods, any attempt to prove the unprovable is largely an irrelevance anyway. It does not matter, to an atheist, no proof is needed.

That's not really a Catch 22 argument.

Whereas, the religious seem to believe that even though atheists insist that they do not believe in god, or gods, they must believe somewhere, deep down. They are merely in denial.

Now, that is a sort of Catch 22.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

It's a position that has been set up to create a situation where one party (the atheist) cannot lose because they alone are defining the terms which they would 'be convinced' - ie by 'rational proof' - whereas the subject in question does not fall into that category and cannot do by it's very nature.

The other party (the religionist) therefore cannot win: to continue to hold to their belief system is 'proof' that their belief is false as it does not follow logic as defined by the atheist. To give up their belief system means to admit the atheist is right.

That's Catch 22.

It's ok though, it all evens out....the religionists do exactly the same thing with their scriptural framework when the boot's on the other foot so we have an equality of sorts.

'Religionists' present a case, by which the 'atheist' is simply unconvinced. We all, alone, define the terms of our own credibility. That's not Catch 22, that's just a difference of opinion.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Is it really a lack of imagination or just the ability to recognise that that is all it is - imagining? I can certainly imagine the details that you've just outlined but then I can also imagine many scenarios which add nothing to an understanding of the origins or meaning of life. The fact that I choose not to excessively ponder any number of absurd scenarios is not down to a lack of imagination but a lack of credulity.

It may be a lack of imagination or it may be just bad logic and irrationality. Or both.

Let's break it down:

When an atheist denies God (or the possibility of God if you prefer) then what he is actually denying is essentially the concept of God as defined by traditional religion as we know it historically.

More specifically they are refuting the Judeo/Christian God. But here is where the problem arises - there is no reason to conflate the concept of God or the possibility of His existence with religion...none at all.

No, they are denying explanations of the universe for which there is no corroborating evidence - nothing more, nothing less. The atheist is refuting claims made by theists hence the description 'atheist' rather than 'areligious'.

But if you think about it, if religion had never existed, we could still be discussing the possibility of God (without all the religionist trappings). It is therefore a valid issue which stands independent on its own.

But atheists do not accept that - the God they deny is a concept purely and wrongly created by religionists. So in essence they are accepting the terms of the debate as defined by the religionists.

Ergo they are both playing the same game, by the same rules, on the same pitch. They are just on opposing sides because they are playing each other.

Again, no - there is no logical reason why atheism can't involve refutating any given theistic claim whilst considering other possible Gods. All it precludes is the acceptance of any other theory emerging from it. With atheism there is certainly plenty of room for uncertainty with regards to the exist of divinity. With theism there is only debate about what form it takes.

 

[monster_magnet]

Is it true to say that atheism is completely reliant on the existence of theist belief.