• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Atheism

segovius said:
His arguments that religion is anti-scientific are true only in a Western context. Hinduism contributed much to scientific thought and the Islamic contribution to science is a purely religious one but which underpins a large majority of western thought and science to this day.



Christianity isn't the same as anti-science. I've often wondered where this idea that just because you hold belief in a supreme deity you cannot function as a rational scientist. We tend not to think of our scientists as Christian but pre-19th Century most western inventions, ideas and science were carried out by people who ascribed to the Christian belief system and many times their science was carried out so that they could understand the world and better understand God.
 
And science isn't anti-religion. Scientists don't set out to disprove the existence of God or anything else like that, but they are concerned with evidence, tests and reproducible results, none of which is compatible with religion.

When scientists speak out against religion it is because of people trying to bring creationism into science classes or preventing them from studying stem cells because God wouldn't like it.

You can be a scientist and a Christian, just keep the two separate.
 
It's also worth inquiring what Hinduism, Islam and Christianity have brought to the scientific table in the last couple of hundred years. The fact that at some time in the distant past they may have struggled in some fashion towards scientific knowledge does not mean that they are compatible today.
 
hokum6 said:
When scientists speak out against religion it is because of people trying to bring creationism into science classes or preventing them from studying stem cells because God wouldn't like it.

I'm not sure that's true. There was a time when an individual might describe themselves as Christian on a census for any reason from a fondness for church music, architecture and community welfare to an unquestioning belief in the Old Testament. Christianity was indeed a broad church and post-reformation at least, nobody picked at the stitches too often.

The move now is to portray certain strands, typically Southern Baptists who are over-represented politically, as mainstream Christian thinkers and apocalyptic world views as a norm. Before last week when a charming and somewhat innocent Jahovah's Witness lady knocked on the side door to discuss things I can't recall when a religious person posed a question directly to me. Militant atheists have become the new Cromwellians, knocking the heads off icons and seeing seduction and pernicion where none exists. Freethinking atheists and conscience Christians have been sidelined while the popular debate is left to fundies or the Dawkins witch hunt.

I've never seen any evidence that religious belief and scientific method in an individual can't coexist. Didn't find any yesterday at Isaac Newton's house either.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
It's also worth inquiring what Hinduism, Islam and Christianity have brought to the scientific table in the last couple of hundred years. The fact that at some time in the distant past they may have struggled in some fashion towards scientific knowledge does not mean that they are compatible today.

Christianity hasn't changed its position with regard to science - so I don't see what your point is. Unless you mean that the scientific establishment has become intolerant to anyone who isn't a straight down the line athiest.

As if somehow because you believe in God you cannot make any other rational judegment. Would you deny merit to Conan Doyle just because he believed in fairies?
 
rjmrjmrjm said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
It's also worth inquiring what Hinduism, Islam and Christianity have brought to the scientific table in the last couple of hundred years. The fact that at some time in the distant past they may have struggled in some fashion towards scientific knowledge does not mean that they are compatible today.

Christianity hasn't changed its position with regard to science - so I don't see what your point is. Unless you mean that the scientific establishment has become intolerant to anyone who isn't a straight down the line athiest.

As if somehow because you believe in God you cannot make any other rational judegment. Would you deny merit to Conan Doyle just because he believed in fairies?

I'm not sure that the diverse religion known as Christianity can be portrayed as having a unified view on an equally diverse set of ideas posing under the label of science. The point I'm making, in reference to the notion that the aforementioned religions have contributed to scientific knowledge as a consequence and not in spite of their doctrines/beliefs, is that whatever contribution it has made in the past it is not doing so today. Of course, people of various faiths may contribute to the collective wisdom of science but it would be difficult to argue that such contributions have been made as a consequence of religious belief or instruction.
 
Christianity isn't the same as anti-science.

Perhaps ... but a faith which preaches that one can come back to life after being dead long enough to rot is hardly scientific, is it? In fact, any belief that has no supporting evidence is inherently unscientific, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing (whatever gets you through the night, and all that). The problem is when the people who hold these unsupported beliefs start thinking that there is something wrong with those who think otherwise. After all, upon what basis does a militant Christian/Muslim/whatever assume superiority over someone who believes that the universe was shat into existence by a giant, asymmetric cosmic squid called Kevin? At least the agnostic (and to some extent, the atheist) can boast of having the weight of evidence on his or her side.
 
Context is all BP. Biblical religions came out of a similar middle-eastern well spring a few thousand years ago, and with key differences, are still around because they speak to the human condition, one in which spag-bol monsters are conspicuous by their absense. A few boffs with a glint in their eye and a pop science book to promote are not going to undo divine speculation, at least over night.

On another level Forteans recognise the universe as essentially dyspeptic and the farts and belches as being at least as interesting as a well mannered continuum.
 
Context is all BP. Biblical religions came out of a similar middle-eastern well spring a few thousand years ago, and with key differences, are still around because they speak to the human condition, one in which spag-bol monsters are conspicuous by their absense.

Well, perhaps - if your context is solely Biblical. But what about certain tribal animisms, where it is believed, amongst other things, that rocks have life? Or the various religions of the Pacific, with their cargo-cults inspired by American military manuevers and Prince Philip? True, these are, by their very nature, distinctly small scale belief systems, but if numbers count (which they don't - otherwise, society would see respectability in such widespread prejudices as anti-semitism) then what about the Hindu pantheon, with its elephant headed deities and monkey gods? They all, in their own way, speak to the human condition; one cannot claim that one religion has sway over another because a) more people believe in it, or b) there is something, wholly subjective, about it that is apparently less ridiculous than any other supernaturalist belief system. Frankly, in the wider scheme of things, context actually appears to have very little to do with it.
 
Context is still important. Until quite recently - and in many places still - life was indeed nasty, brutish and short. Today we have the illusion of a fulfilling existence because there's TV and the internet to distract us and stop us pondering the abyss (or the night sky, whichever takes your fancy), plus the mechanics of opening ourselves up to replace worn parts and fairly successful narcotics to put a tolerable haze on the proceedure.

Mankind is self absorbed. That absorbtion does not stop with didactics or semantics, mind ponders its own brevity, limitations and possibilities. Creativity is often about taking two seemingly incompatible notions and putting them together. Religion is an institutionalised form of that juxtaposition. People will ponder, whether their notions fall under faith headings or the pursuit of personal enlightenment.

Some people will never get the idea of a greater whole, guiding intelligence, Gaia, personal god and it's useless to try and explain, in much the same way that people don't have an appreciation of colour and its counterpoints. That doesn't mean their sentiments are rubbish. That way lies totalitarianism.
Science isn't the gold standard for whole swathes of human experience, particularly in how one should spend a life and it's absurdly misplaced to imagine it is (IMO).
 
I'd say that rather than some people being incapable of conceiving of a deity or of some divine order it's actually the case that those who promote such conception often lack the ability to conceive of its absence. More frequently than not I find myself in discussions on the subject being asked what the purpose of life is without such imaginings. Faith seems to come more from a desire that there must be a purpose than it does from examining any evidence for its existence.

I'd suggest that arguing for the salve rather than the salvation of religion rather strengthens the claims of its man-made origins. In fact the idea that science seeks to replace such conceptions is to misunderstand the argument presented by science. It has no need to replace them since there is no real need for the more complex and magical ideas presented by religion to exist in the first place. It would also be wrong to assume that the function of life and how it might be lived must be anything more than philosophy. As for fulfilment - well, many atheists seem happy enough without conjuring spectres or following those presented by others so once again perhaps the deficiency is with those who require more than life itself.
 
The idea that life would have no meaning without the existence of God seems a particularly lame one - but it does not in itself mean there could not be a God and life STILL be meaningless. God may not even know of our existence.

We could be like atoms in his bloodstream. Or His braincells maybe. Maybe not on second thoughts....

It seems to me that both the attitudes of 'faith' and 'atheism' are antithetical to a Fortean perspective. Both seem like the scientists who absolutely MUST explain away something they find anomalous. That red sand MUST be from the Sahara. Or perhaps it never existed at all......

Religion, to me, is a confrontation with the numinous in exactly the same way as if one saw a ghost, came face to face with a Bunyip or had one's kitchen invaded by miniature gnomes driving a Noddy car.

The thing is, maybe we don't NEED to explain it or pin it down. Just accept it as an amazing thing that happened once.

Of course, this presupposes that the religious experience is experienced as 'real' and not just 'made up'. It seems in many cases this happens.

Certainly the blue-rinse Sunday pew-warmers don't have an equivalent experience to someone in the grip of the Oz factor and for every 'real' abduction there are probably thousands who actually make it up, suffer from wishful thinking or are stark staring mad.

So it is with religionists I suppose but that doesn't mean that someone somewhere is not having an experience.
 
The God's honest truth of the matter is none of us can fully accomodate the phenomenon of religious faith. We are born into a world in which vast numbers of individuals believe in a guiding influence of one kind or another and how we confront that fact is largely a matter of predisposition.

Some (sit up at the front Dawkins) will say a plague on all your houses and reduce religion to something they feel comfortable with (explaining away) and use it as a magnet for all the bad stuff that happens, however reasonable or unlikely. Others will explore belief as a phenomenon, tracking consistent themes - or memes - and hope a meaningful narrative reveals they're not wasting their time while yet more will absorb the cultural aspects of a religion they were brought up with and feel neither qualified nor bovvered to trace its minutiae or hold them up to scrutiny.

However one approaches it 'religion' continues to maintain a sphere of influence because it resembles how life might be if there was a moral order that resembled the scientific. Those who like method and observation with their conclusions won't like religion but it won't stop people coming to answers informed by following their nose.
 
colpepper1 said:
The God's honest truth of the matter is none of us can fully accomodate the phenomenon of religious faith. We are born into a world in which vast numbers of individuals believe in a guiding influence of one kind or another and how we confront that fact is largely a matter of predisposition.

Some (sit up at the front Dawkins) will say a plague on all your houses and reduce religion to something they feel comfortable with (explaining away) and use it as a magnet for all the bad stuff that happens, however reasonable or unlikely. Others will explore belief as a phenomenon, tracking consistent themes - or memes - and hope a meaningful narrative reveals they're not wasting their time while yet more will absorb the cultural aspects of a religion they were brought up with and feel neither qualified nor bovvered to trace its minutiae or hold them up to scrutiny.

However one approaches it 'religion' continues to maintain a sphere of influence because it resembles how life might be if there was a moral order that resembled the scientific. Those who like method and observation with their conclusions won't like religion but it won't stop people coming to answers informed by following their nose.

True but if the same criteria were applied to any other subject it would make its claims seem laughable. Were somebody to forego evidence in favour of instinct in a court of law, a GP's surgery or any other area of real import they would be seen as utterly irrational and probably not to be trusted when making decisions. The problem for people following their own instincts is that its historically not atheists who they've had to fear persecution from but other people for whom evidence is not required in their own belief systems.

Again, however, it does seem that the justification for religion (and spirituality) in general here is that if it didn't exist someone would invent it. On that score an atheist could hardly disagree.
 
The vast majority of atheists I know do want to stop people coming to the many disparate and incompatible conclusions they currently come to through religion, not in any kind of enforced way, but through the medium of debate.

To those claiming atheism is not a neutral position, bear in mind atheism only even exists as a reactionary position to groundless positive ontological claims made by others. If there was nobody preaching theism there would be no atheists, in the same way that there is nobody preaching dogdooism, so there are no adogdooists.

Once you realise that the religious approach to gaining knowledge, i.e. following gut feelings and speculating on the possible (whilst completely ignoring its probability) is inherently flawed, the whole house of cards of religious thinking will often come crashing down around you.

If I simply followed my nose in living my life, I'd be dead of a heart attack by now, as I really love the taste and smell of fatty food; people shouldn't put too much faith in their instsincts.
 
Ying needs Yang and Yang needs Ying.
Together, whilst opposite, they are complete.
 
monster_magnet said:
Ying needs Yang and Yang needs Ying.
Together, whilst opposite, they are complete.

You could argue that religionists and atheists are both yang though (or ying) - essentially they are proceeding from exactly the same mindset: a strong desire for certainty and the need to have things in a neat little box to preserve their own psychological balance.

One claims there is a God with no proof. The other claims there is no God with no proof. Both use special pleading and proceed from the position they alone are right and then fill in the blanks.

Actually one of them is right; God either exists or He doesn't but whichever one it is that has the 'objective truth' (which we will never know) then they didn't arrive there by any form of logic or reason. They just found 'something to believe' and joined the club.

If it is ever proved which one of these two is actually correct it won't be any triumph of reason and logic - more like the local village idiot stumbled into the bookies and stuck a pin at random on the race-card before insanely dropping his life savings on it....and lo, out of all the millions of village idiots who did exactly this throughout all recorded history this time the number finally came up...
 
segovius said:
monster_magnet said:
Ying needs Yang and Yang needs Ying.
Together, whilst opposite, they are complete.

You could argue that religionists and atheists are both yang though (or ying) - essentially they are proceeding from exactly the same mindset: a strong desire for certainty and the need to have things in a neat little box to preserve their own psychological balance.

One claims there is a God with no proof. The other claims there is no God with no proof. Both use special pleading and proceed from the position they alone are right and then fill in the blanks.

No, no, no, no, no. Stop using this ridiculous straw man argument. Anyone making a positive ontological claim has the burden of proof. To state otherwise is ludicrous, as you would have to meaningfully consider the existence of all possible entities which are not precluded, which would be a pointless starting position, drowning out real knowledge with noise.

An atheist is not making any positive claim. They are taking a reatctionary position to positive claims made by others and simply stating that unless those claims are properly supported, they hold no value.

If I don't subscribe to theism as the claims of theists do not persuade me, then I am by default an atheist. I don't have any choice in that matter.

segovius said:
Actually one of them is right; God either exists or He doesn't but whichever one it is that has the 'objective truth' (which we will never know) then they didn't arrive there by any form of logic or reason. They just found 'something to believe' and joined the club.

Completely wrong again. Atheism requires no belief. I am witholding belief in the theories of theists because not only are their ideas weak, in most cases making claims of the supernatural, but there are so many of them that are mutually contradictory.

Atheism is the only rational stance when faced with such nonsense.

segovius said:
If it is ever proved which one of these two is actually correct it won't be any triumph of reason and logic - more like the local village idiot stumbled into the bookies and stuck a pin at random on the race-card before insanely dropping his life savings on it....and lo, out of all the millions of village idiots who did exactly this throughout all recorded history this time the number finally came up...

It will never be proved by its very nature, and your invocation of the idea shows a mind-boggling ignorance of the subject. We're talking about probabilities, not proofs.

I do not discount the possibility of god(s). I simply and involuntarily withold belief, due to the low probability of the veracity of the claims made by theists when they are examined in detail.

I not only don't believe in god(s). I am incapable of believing in god(s), as there is no evidence for their existence. I therefore have a worldview that doesn't include them, so my default assumption is non-existence.

The same goes for any entity the existence of which is unsupported by evidence. Your starting assumption simply has to be non-existence.

There is no evidence that a giant tooth fairy exists that will punish you after death for every time you didn't brush your teeth. Your default position on this entity is assumption of non-existence, so why do you argue a special case for entities such as gods?

I not only don't believe in the evil tooth fairy. I can't believe in the evil tooth fairy, as there is no evidence for its existence. I therefore have a worldview that doesn't include them, so my default assumption is non-existence.

I can see no real difference between my 2 statements above in italics.
 
Where did all my teeth go!!

This is a very interesting and old argument. It's certainly NOT the first time it's happened, nor will it be the last.

You could argue that religionists and atheists are both yang though (or ying) - essentially they are proceeding from exactly the same mindset: a strong desire for certainty and the need to have things in a neat little box to preserve their own psychological balance.

My point (if there was one) was more about the balance of...ummm...righteousness I suppose.

An atheist is not making any positive claim. They are taking a reatctionary position to positive claims made by others and simply stating that unless those claims are properly supported, they hold no value.

To a lesser extent Athiests are making a positive claim. A claim that they are right. The fact that this thread is not two posts long is testement to that.

In a purely logical sense you are right Fats but the addition of our humanity into the argument makes it all slightly more subjective. During those eternal pub debates on this very subject you are more likely to hear the atheist corner take umbridge and crow "Poppycock and Balderdash' at the religionist, knowing that they have the righteous pedestal of 'I don't have to prove it, you do' to fall back on.

Your point, if i understand it correctly Fats is 'There is no argument'. I would suggest that there quite obviously is.
 
Fats_Tuesday said:
No, no, no, no, no. Stop using this ridiculous straw man argument. Anyone making a positive ontological claim has the burden of proof. To state otherwise is ludicrous, as you would have to meaningfully consider the existence of all possible entities which are not precluded, which would be a pointless starting position, drowning out real knowledge with noise.

What is 'real knowledge'? I would argue that there is a large amount of knowledge that we do not know and cannot conceive of at our present state of development.

Who knows what will be the state of our 'real knowledge' in say, 1000 years?

I don't know personally yet curiously, religionists and atheists act from a position where they appear to... or else why not say 'we don't know what our level will be in 1000 years maybe then we can prove or disprove God'.

They don't say this though. They argue from a position where essentially all that is known now is all that will ever be known. the only reason they don't admit is because both parties want to be seen as 'reasonable' in order to gain converts to their paradigm.

An atheist is not making any positive claim. They are taking a reatctionary position to positive claims made by others and simply stating that unless those claims are properly supported, they hold no value.

They're worse than I thought then...I've always mistrusted reactionaries...maybe I gave them too much credit. But then again, it supports my argument too - religionists are the arch-reactionaries so they are even more similar.

If I don't subscribe to theism as the claims of theists do not persuade me, then I am by default an atheist. I don't have any choice in that matter.

No choice? Are you a Calvinistic atheist? Couldn't you be agnostic?

Completely wrong again. Atheism requires no belief. I am witholding belief in the theories of theists because not only are their ideas weak, in most cases making claims of the supernatural, but there are so many of them that are mutually contradictory.

I would say if you subscribe to a theory that has not been proved you are by default indulging in belief.

Atheism is the only rational stance when faced with such nonsense.

What you define as nonsense does not necessarily hold true for those who do not see it as nonsense. Religionists do this too - they define the benchmark as 'sinning' though rather than 'being irrational' but the way they apply it to those who don't accept the premise is just the same...

There are some - a few - rational atheists I admit. But then there are some rational religionists too...very few of either thought to claim either stance is the 'rational' one.

It will never be proved by its very nature, and your invocation of the idea shows a mind-boggling ignorance of the subject. We're talking about probabilities, not proofs.

Depends on the mind I suppose - the degree of boggling I mean ;)

I'd be careful with throwing 'never' around though..... as I said, either could be true. That seems a more rational position than that taken by the 'believers' on either side.

I do not discount the possibility of god(s). I simply and involuntarily withold belief, due to the low probability of the veracity of the claims made by theists when they are examined in detail.

Hold on.....voluntarily??? You said above you had no choice?! And now you say it may be possible there are Gods?

I not only don't believe in god(s). I am incapable of believing in god(s), as there is no evidence for their existence. I therefore have a worldview that doesn't include them, so my default assumption is non-existence.

This is irrational....you have no choice not to believe, then you choose not to believe now you are incapable of believing?

The same goes for any entity the existence of which is unsupported by evidence. Your starting assumption simply has to be non-existence.

Why?

There is no evidence that a giant tooth fairy exists that will punish you after death for every time you didn't brush your teeth. Your default position on this entity is assumption of non-existence, so why do you argue a special case for entities such as gods?

Maybe if you believe this then there is. It's possible. People who report NDEs invariably report experiences that confirm their religious stance and they cannot all be right so perhaps beliefs define our reality more than we know.

Why argue a special case for God though? I think one needs to separate the possibility of God from specific ideas of God - a distinction I have yet to see an atheist thinker make in any publication.

What I mean is, I can conceive how there might be a higher intelligence than humanity and that this intelligence might exist on a supra-normative level. Or not.

That is the possibility of God which I consider plausible. However, if one extrapolates from that and goes on to say "therefore this God is like this and wants this and does this" then this is the specific idea of God (ie the God of the Old Testament or whatever) and like you, I would disregard this as having no evidence and being, frankly, illogical and even, undesirable.

So I make a special case from a philosophical standpoint; it is possible a higher being exists - it is almost impossible this is the evil tooth fairy. Why? Because I can describe it, because I made it up and it would be a billion to the power of a billion to one shot etc....

I not only don't believe in the evil tooth fairy. I can't believe in the evil tooth fairy, as there is no evidence for its existence. I therefore have a worldview that doesn't include them, so my default assumption is non-existence.

I'm with you brother!

I can see no real difference between my 2 statements above in italics.

I can though......
 
I meant to say also that in such a debate we should really define 'God'. Otherwise how do we know what we are rejecting?

I often feel when talking to atheists that they are rejecting the Old Testament God (as I do) or perhaps the concept of God as an amalgam derived from the sum of human conception of the ages. Fair enough. I would tend that way myself too with some reservations.

But where I can't follow the logic is to follow on from this to arrive at a logical denial of the possibility of a higher being that we have no conception of.

It is not enough to argue that 'there is no evidence' - that only holds good for the postulated existence of a specific God such as Jehovah or whoever. With an abstract concept that is essentially a possibility there can be no evidence. that means nothing.

Many scientific discoveries were made when there was 'no evidence' for them - when they emerged as a by product of another field of research altogether or arose out of some field which was irrational such as alchemy leading to chemistry.

There are even cases of 'irrational' experiences leading to logical discoveries such as was the case with the discovery of the DNA helix.

Another issue I have with the current atheist approach is that they do not take religion seriously. If they did then they could far better promote the cause of logic and reason.

For example; why not go through the Bible step by step and prove it's falsity (as the inerrant word of God rather than a historical document) by listing its contradictions, falsities and historical inaccuracies? Why not do this instead of mere polemic in the Dawkins-Hitchens mould?

For the same reason I suspect that Creationists don't try to disprove Darwin page by page: so much easier to just write from a position of opinion rather than logic.

Of course in the above comparison, Darwin would not be disproved and the Bible would but that makes it all the more difficult to understand why atheists are using the same approach as the Creationists in this example - they at least have nothing to lose but they still don't do it.

Perhaps it's because they are so sure they are right they don't see it as being worth the trouble.
 
But your vague, abstract concept of god answers absolutely nothing in a useful way for me. When faced with a great unknown, I prefer to say "I don't know", rather than start dabbling in speculation. Attaching labels such as "God" to this adds nothing to our knowledge.

The possibility of its existence is irrelevant, unless the probability of its existence is established.

I am an atheist and an agnnostic. Agnosticism is simply a statement of knowledge - can the existence of gods be known? Clearly not, as in all definitions I've seen of gods, the lack of concrete knowledge of the existence is pretty much built in.

I'm an agnostic of my tooth fairy, because by its definition I gave above, its existence could only be discovered after our death. I also don't believe in it.

Atheism refers to lack of belief and says nothing about knowledge. It in absolutely no way denies the possibility of gods existing. It simply takes the rational position that unless there is reason to suppose they really do exist, we should assume for the time being that they don't.

Why do you feel atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive?

Belief itself is the concept I am against. It implies by its very definition taking a leap and plumping for existence before the evidence is in.

Compare gods with aliens. I don't "believe" in aliens. I consider their existence a very strong possibility when we look at the physical nature of the universe, but I don't hold a belief in their existence, as that would be ridiculous until evidence of their existence arrives. Even then, it wouldn't be belief. I just feel the same way about gods, only based on the evidence I can see, I consider their existence unlikely and irrelevant - and this is only refering to your vague god description, that I would simply define as the unknown.

It feels like you are expressing some kind of need to pinch off a particlular chunk of the sum of all that is unknown, stick a label on it, then apply special pleading to it rather than just call it unknown.

As I've already pointed out, atheism is a reactionary stance to theism, and you're only seeing atheists organise as you are at present because of the perceived political threat by the Abrahamic religions on the world stage, in the form of right-wing Christian America, Jewish Israel and the various factions of Islam. To those outside religion (and to most of those within, to be fair), the disputes look like sheer madness.

If we weren't seeing faith schools opening and teaching creationism in the UK and Christian bishops talking about introducing Sharia law onto the statute books, whilst sitting pretty in unelected posts in the lords, giving Christians 2 voices to my 1 in parliament, we'd be a pretty quiet lot.
 
Fats_Tuesday said:
It simply takes the rational position that unless there is reason to suppose they really do exist, we should assume for the time being that they don't

Several billion people consider that there is enough reason for god(s) existence. Their comfort, solace, protection, spiritual well-being etc etc. Is that not reason enough?
 
monster_magnet said:
Fats_Tuesday said:
It simply takes the rational position that unless there is reason to suppose they really do exist, we should assume for the time being that they don't

Several billion people consider that there is enough reason for god(s) existence. Their comfort, solace, protection, spiritual well-being etc etc. Is that not reason enough?

They can believe whatever they like, but it doesn't make them right, just as if several billion people believed the moon were made of cheese, it wouldn't mean the moon was made of cheese.

Don't forget, atheists don't choose not to believe. They are incapable of believing something that is unsupported by real evidence.

If we could develop a drug that put us in a permanent state of bliss, whilst we laid on beds being drip-fed nutrients, do you think that would be a good thing?

I have spiritual well-being, comfort , love and live a very happy life. I don't need to imagine gods or living beyond the death of my body to give my life value.
 
Fats_Tuesday said:
But your vague, abstract concept of god answers absolutely nothing in a useful way for me. When faced with a great unknown, I prefer to say "I don't know", rather than start dabbling in speculation. Attaching labels such as "God" to this adds nothing to our knowledge.

But are you saying "I don't know"? If so then we are in the same boat and I misunderstood, apologies. Most atheists I know are not saying "I don't know" - and I know this because that's what I'm saying and we don't agree.

But your first opening sentence here is key I think; the way you frame it is almost as if you were seeking meaning from the concept. But really, if we discard the religionist approach (and we should imo) then all we have - for now - is a 'vague, abstract concept'. Philosophically this is enough because it is as far as we can go; for now.

I am an atheist and an agnnostic. Agnosticism is simply a statement of knowledge - can the existence of gods be known? Clearly not, as in all definitions I've seen of gods, the lack of concrete knowledge of the existence is pretty much built in.

I didn't think you could be both. Are you sure? They are clearly not the same thing.

I'm an agnostic of my tooth fairy, because by its definition it ould only be discovered after our death. I also don't believe in it.

I don't believe in the TF either. I am not sure I would rule out the possibility that 'something' could appear to be, or be interpreted as, the TF. And I would not say that the non-existence of the TF rules out the existence of 'something'.

And God could just be what unenlightened people call that 'something' and then go on to describe it wrongly and make laws and rules to oppress each other as humans are wont to do.

I also think you are disregarding the experiential aspect of religion. Rightly or wrongly - the founders and certain key figures in the major religions claimed an experience of 'something other'. You may disregard or deny this - and you are perfectly entitled to - but my point is not whether they were lying or whatever but that their religious status and belief is very different to the status and belief of Mrs Smith who pew-warms every Sunday for 40 years and never has any numinous experience or even suspects the possibility.

You have a point re all the Mrs Smiths who litter religious history but figures who do claim direct experience of the divine also exist within the religious framework and logic demands we factor these in to any assessment.

Atheism refers to lack of belief and says nothing about knowledge. It in absolutely no way denies the possibility of gods existing. It simply takes the rational position that unless there is reason to suppose they really do exist, we should assume for the time being that they don't.

This is a model. Your model. It is probably a good one and it may even be correct. But as of now it is a model - and one cannot apply it to those of a religious bent any more than they can apply their model of original sin to you.

Why can't we assume they do? Who makes these rules? God? Or God's stand-in?

Why do you feel atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive?

Because there are such people as agnostic theists but you cannot have atheistic theists.

Compare gods with aliens. I don't "believe" in aliens. I consider their existence a very strong possibility when we look at the physical nature of the universe, but I don't hold a belief in their existence, as that would be ridiculous. I just feel the same way about gods, only based on the evidence I can see, I consider their existence unlikely and irrelevant - and this is only refering to your vague deist god idea.

This analogy does not hold up though - when you look at the Universe you see the possibility of aliens in the abstract but you don't 'believe' per se. I take the exact same stance.

But I also feel that way looking at the physical nature of the universe re God.

Now, to look at it from another angle and leave the nature of the Universe out of it; if I read a book on aliens then I reach the conclusion (9 times out of 10) that there is no such thing and the subject is utter lunacy.

Likewise if I read moist Scripture I reach a similar conclusion. But reading a human book and observing the universe are two different things and we should compare like with like.

You have succinctly boiled it down to the key issue: the universe (non-human creation) versus books (human creation). I can believe almost anything is possible on the level of the universe....but most atheist arguments don't key in at that level, they ficus on human creations (religions) and set out to prove they are human. And so they are....

But that's not all there is...

As I've already pointed out, atheism is a reactionary stance to theism, and you're only seeing atheists organise as you are at present because of the perceived political threat by the Abrahamic religions on the world stage, in the form of right-wing Christian America, Jewish Israel and the various factions of Islam. To those outside religion (and to most of those within, to be fair), the disputes look like sheer madness.

Well, that is another reason why I argue that such atheists are irrational. Either that or ignorant (just as bad) because these movements you cite - essentially fundamentalist ones - are all corruptions of the original religious impulse they claim to be a manifestation of.

To be truly rational - and, I would argue, effective - they should concede that these manifestations are not actually the real thing. They never do this though - because it would undermine their campaign.

So I don't really buy it that they are reacting against these movements, rather the movements have grown so extreme and moved so far from the original idea that they are the perfect tool for use in a Criusade against the religion itself.

Clearly admitting they were not representative of the religion would undermine the atheists agenda. That of course is intellectual dishonesty and that's a shame...

If we weren't seeing faith schools opening and teaching creationism in the UK and Christian bishops talking about introducing Sharia law onto the statute books, we'd be a pretty quiet lot.

Well who needs to be noisy? I thought there was such a thing as free speech? Surely this can't just apply in certain instances?

Why should a Muslim not have recourse to Sharia'a law (I mean legal rulings on everyday matters here not the Daily Mail induced fantasy-frenzy).

No problem having Creationism and Darwinism taught side by side and allowing people to choose is there? I know Xian fundies would argue against this because they alone 'have the truth' but I don't see why the atheists should take the same approach..sadly, it seems that's what's happening.

That headline the day after 9/11 should have read "We're all Fundies now...."
 
Fats_Tuesday said:
No, it doesn't make them right.
Correct. But what it does do is give a very valid and real reasons for existence.

The point is, it is not about being 'right'. My 'right', your 'right', my colleagues 'right' will all be different in some way. None of us can prove we are 'right'. That's where we fall back on reasons to exist.

As you suggested:
unless there is reason to suppose they really do exist, we should assume for the time being that they don't

There is your reason. As i said before "comfort, solace, protection, spiritual well-being etc etc. Are they not reasons enough?"
 
Monster Magnet, you didn't answer my pertinent question:

If we could develop a drug that put us in a permanent state of bliss, whilst we laid on beds being drip-fed nutrients, do you think that would be a good thing?

Atheism makes no claim to be right. It makes no claim at all. It is simply being without theism. Atheists are simply unconvinced that theists are right. As I have repeatedly stated, it is simply a reaction to theism.

In the mean time, we have certain factions of theists attempting to apply laws to us as well as themselves, based upon their "personal" beliefs, whilst other factions appear to be out to destroy those that don't conform to their set of beliefs. It seems a minority of theists don't give a hoot about my comfort, solace, protection or spiritual well-being.
 
Fats_Tuesday said:
Monster Magnet, you didn't answer my pertinent question:

If we could develop a drug that put us in a permanent state of bliss, whilst we laid on beds being drip-fed nutrients, do you think that would be a good thing?

Apologies. :oops:

There are some days that, that scenario sounds fantastic :D I think in general it's not a good thing.
But Fats, the human race is already traveling towards that very frightening vision. TV, drugs including alcohol and prescription, prayer, computer games, meditation etc all strive for the escape you suggest. Or at least escape for a certain amount of time.

Aren't you describing some peoples idea of Nirvana or Heaven, something that they actively seek to persue and is the reward for ones 'life'?
 
My scenario above would be my idea of hell, not heaven.

I live a perfectly fulfilled life, just as much as any theist. I have ups and downs, bad times and great times, love, friends, lots of interests.

At no point do I feel I need to sugar the cake with a belief in gods, after-life or anything else supernatural to in any way enhance my existence.

If anything, most religious belief in life after death actually denigrates this one life that we all know for sure we get.

I actually think the liberation of thought that comes with atheism leads to a happier mind set than I see in many theists. Most of my friends are atheists and interestingly, they tend to be the happier ones. I've met a lot of unhappy Catholics, for example - all that guilt can't be good for the constitution.

No solace for death, but then I think most religious people get little real solace deep down any way. I suspect most of them actually doubt there will be an afterlife if they really examine the way things work. I certainly doubted it when I was religious as a kid.
 
Back
Top