Atheism

[ted_bloody_maul]

Athiesm and Theism are opposing players in the same game of poker where they are not allowed to see what cards they have. The only rational position is Agnosticism.

Perhaps at the time of the debate but surely after the presentation of evidence one would have to chose a side to at least lean towards? If there is no evidence presented to affirm a claim then surely the only rational position after such debate would be to lean towards those negating the claim?

 

[segovius]

I don't really see why it's neccessary for an atheist to explain why beliefs came into being before making any serious assessment of the validity of religious/theistic thinking. This seems to me to be rather symptomatic of the religious mindset - an explanation must exist. It appears difficult for such a mind to conceive of imperfect knowledge.

Of course they don't have to - it's just that one would think that those laying claim to reason, logic and a desire to discover truth would want to.

But in practice, I don't expect such a motivation from most atheists anymore than I'd expect it from most religionists. Believers are always wary of going into arenas where their belief may be in danger.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Segovius, I don't need a degree in anthropology to form an opinion on religion. The implication of your post that every detail must be known is false. It reads like a creationist saying there are gaps in the fossil record.

I certainly don't tar all god-concepts with the same brush.

The judeo Christian Yahweh concept for example is a joke, as far as I'm concerened and I strongly believe it doesn't exist.

The more abstract, undetectabe creator concept you seem to have referred to is a different kettle of fish though. I don't believe it does exist. I don't believe it doesn't exist. Without any suggestion it exists though, it is irrelevant to me.

The one thing all god concepts I have heard have in common though, is that they require belief - something I can't invest in them - I have no choice in this.

I've discussed my issue with testimony as evidence, especially when relating to extreme claims, so I think atheists have good grounds to reject the bible as a source of evidence for anything:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

 

[monster_magnet]

Agnosticism says nothing about belief.

Yep, that's kind the point, no?

With aliens, for example, we have no evidence that they do exist and no evidence that they don't. Their existence is certainly possible, indeed probable.

Why are Aliens possible and probable and not God?

Why do you feel belief needs to be invested in a proposition for its consideration?

I don't. That's my point, the validity of Theism and Atheism requires a concept of belief however you dress it up.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Of course they don't have to - it's just that one would think that those laying claim to reason, logic and a desire to discover truth would want to.

But in practice, I don't expect such a motivation from most atheists anymore than I'd expect it from most religionists. Believers are always wary of going into arenas where their belief may be in danger.

Perhaps but we're not discussing non-contemplative atheists surely? Are we not discussing atheism as a creed with regard to evidence? However, also shouldn't require pointing out that people who use evidence to examine claims made by others would be less inclined to present the kind of total-knowledge solutions upon which religious belief is built. Not without access to the vast resources and time of psychologists, anthropologists, neurologists and researchers of many kinds could any expressed opinion avoid the theistic trap of presenting 'belief' as evidence.

I think though that once again assuming atheists are driven by a 'desire' to discover truth is simply to misunderstand their position. The atheist is merely refuting a claim - they're not on a quest for meaning in the same way as theists are. Their beliefs are not salvation, they are not the affirmation of their identity or an attempt to limit the danger of the worlds. They are merely the products of observation.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Human beings are. They kid themselves they've taken all the instinct out but tear into one another and call it politics. It's just fighting with a fatuous underlying logic. Everyone is instinctive, all the time. Atheists haven't solved the issue of self and ego, they've just gone round the issue or pretend it doesn't exist.
At least religion has a crack at the problem, Christianity is full of it and its dangers.

I'm not sure what the claim that atheists haven't attempted to resolve the issue of self and ego is based on. Surely there have been many who have attempted to explain such things but they do so as psychologists, sociologists etc rather than as 'atheists'? It's not really a profession after all and nor is it a neccessary prerequisite to examine such concepts.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I don't really see why it's neccessary for an atheist to explain why beliefs came into being before making any serious assessment of the validity of religious/theistic thinking. This seems to me to be rather symptomatic of the religious mindset - an explanation must exist. It appears difficult for such a mind to conceive of imperfect knowledge.

Of course they don't have to - it's just that one would think that those laying claim to reason, logic and a desire to discover truth would want to.

But in practice, I don't expect such a motivation from most atheists anymore than I'd expect it from most religionists. Believers are always wary of going into arenas where their belief may be in danger.

So, can you please give me a rational way of approaching a concept such as the "holy trinity"? Religious language is deliberately impenetrable, so a rational person can only enter it so far before they relise they are being hoodwinked by doublespeak apologetics.

What you may read and find metaphysical, I may read and find bunkum.

 

[monster_magnet]

So, can you please give me a rational way of approaching a concept such as the "holy trinity"? Religious language is deliberately impenetrable, so a rational person can only enter it so far before they relise they are being hoodwinked by doublespeak apologetics.

Fats, What has god got to do with the dogma and doctrine of religion?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Agnosticism says nothing about belief.

Yep, that's kind the point, no?

With aliens, for example, we have no evidence that they do exist and no evidence that they don't. Their existence is certainly possible, indeed probable.

Why are Aliens possible and probable and not God?

Why do you feel belief needs to be invested in a proposition for its consideration?

I don't. That's my point, the validity of Theism and Atheism requires a concept of belief however you dress it up.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of god. Why do you keep asserting this? It is merely a temporary assumption of non-existence until evidence is presented.

A creator god may well exist. I don't yet believe it exists though, as I see no persuasive evidence for its existence.

 

[colpepper1]

It's not really a profession after all and nor is it a neccessary prerequisite to examine such concepts.

Well yes and no. These arguments generally stem from someone on a message board saying 'read this headline: it shows how mad religious people are'. They then distance themselves from the point of view and take the moral high ground and advocate lazer logic as a cure for poppycock.

Which would be alright except I can't remember anyone coming onto the FT board and saying 'you haven't been bathed in the blood of the lamb and will burn in eternal fires'. If they think that they're keeping their mouths shut.
I'm prepared to believe a number of phenomena may, or may well not, point to an afterlife such as ghosts. I believe people see them in a way which is not entirely psychological so what do I do with that information? I can argue it away under sociological or folklorist themes but don't find any of them satisfactory. Therefore it leaves a door open on the idea of a hereafter and if a hereafter why not a god or gods?

The alternative is to take a position that says no such phenomena can exist and use ever more flawed critical tools to confront testimony to the contrary, which is my summary of many, though not all, atheistic positions.
As others have said, not-knowing seems an entirely honourable position and believing in the possibility of things does not make me more than unusually gullible indeed many successful people in finance, politics and even science don't feel moved to close the door of possibility entirely.

To make an equivalence with it and simple mindedness is a mistake, IMO.

 

[ramonmercado]

Great debate, wish I had time to get involved.

While obviously I'd be closer to the positions of Ted & Fats, I also see something in Segovius argument.

Too often people are agnostic/atheist towards the God of the Bible/Torah/Koran. But what about the Norse Gods? The God of the people of the Books might not plant false artefacts but Loki would.

I am happy to remain an agnostic.

 

[stu neville]

...Which would be alright except I can't remember anyone coming onto the FT board and saying 'you haven't been bathed in the blood of the lamb and will burn in eternal fires'.

I can. But those that do invariably get fairly short shrift across the board, and don't stick around long.

Fine discussion, people. Like ramon, I haven't time to participate much, but it's good to see some decent arguments.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

So, can you please give me a rational way of approaching a concept such as the "holy trinity"? Religious language is deliberately impenetrable, so a rational person can only enter it so far before they relise they are being hoodwinked by doublespeak apologetics.

Fats, What has god got to do with the dogma and doctrine of religion?

At least one of the presented god concepts has everything to do with it.

Which god concept are you promoting?

Let's assume you mean the undetectable through science creator god that many non-religious theists seem to propose.

That one is a completely different case to the god of the bible, where the claims are there in the book and easily disproven.

If it's undetectable, it has no relevance to me and can be no use in any explanatory capacity.

It may well exist, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in its existence. I've also no reason to believe it doesn't exist.

With no evidence either way, my working model will not include this god, as it adds no explanatory value. The important point is I in no way state that such a god cannot exist.

I prefer to leave the unknown labelled as "unknown", rather than attach the loaded definition "God" to it.

 

[monster_magnet]

At least one of the presented god concepts has everything to do with it.
Which god concept are you promoting?

I'm not. Although i do find Omega Point Theory quite charming.

 

[segovius]

So, can you please give me a rational way of approaching a concept such as the "holy trinity"? Religious language is deliberately impenetrable, so a rational person can only enter it so far before they relise they are being hoodwinked by doublespeak apologetics.

What you may read and find metaphysical, I may read and find bunkum.

Fats, the rational way would be to read the evidence on which this belief is based and then make a judgement based on the evidence presented - I'm sure you do this in this case and I'm pretty sure we come to the same conclusion.

I'm sure it is bunkum personally - though I reserve the right to accept that it may not be to Mr X and that his consciousness is not my consciousness and we are both individuals with inalienable rights to believe what we want and either of us could be right or wrong - but I have reached that conclusion personally for me from my own research.

There is no priest telling me, no book by Dawkins for me to take a cue from. My choice based on my own level of understanding at this time with the knowledge it may all change in the future and I could think completely differently.

The point is that if we invoke rationalism - and we don't have to but if we do - then we'd better be rational. That's all. If we come to conclusions that are not based on thought or logic - then we are being illogical no? What are they based on? In the case of religionists I would guess it comes down to emotion, sense of belonging, family-replacement, guilt, fear, conditioning etc....but none of these are rational.

And now I see some atheists being similarly irrational in their stance - we need to watch this (imo).

Imo, this is very important - and in response to a post above that asked why - because we are now in a time of unreason to a certain degree. It is not belief per se that is the problem, nor any given philosophical stance - it is irrationality. That is what underpins the vast majority of what people see today as problems in religion.

Rationality is - or should be - our highest principle. If we neglect it for any reason on any level we will suffer imo.

An example: suicide bombers are taught that they must look down and hide their face as they approach their target and that this is stated in the Qur'an as a humble attitude for the martyr which will guarantee heaven.

They don't - as far as I know - question this because they have abnegated their critical faculties and deposited ultimate trust in their mentors but in fact this is not true and no such statement exists in the Qur'an or anywhere else.

Why they are told do do this is so they cannot be identified on camera or by a bystander and thereby possibly allowing a trace to their handlers.

If there was a logical and critical questioning tradition in Islam - as there originally was built-in to the religion at the beginning before it was suppressed - then they could question this and know the truth.

Another example: Dawkins (for whom I enjoy having a particular distaste) once said of a woman who was banned from wearing a crucifix at work and took her case to court, that he could tell she was stupid because she 'had a stupid face'.

This (to me) is the height or irrationality. How can one tell someone's intelligence from their face? Are we back in the days now of measuring heads to find criminal tendencies?

And why should she be 'stupid' just because she chooses to war a crucifix. Another example of how irrationality leads to bias, prejudice and intolerance.

And yet, this same Dawkins can be found singing hymns in church at Christmas yet explains it away as 'tradition' (!).

 

[colpepper1]

These arguments generally boil down to whether one finds the numinous and ineffable have any currency. Being prone to suggestion means I can say religion, like art, may all be saying a similar thing no matter how different the clothing. That's an abstraction (and a slightly hippie one at that) but it feels right and can encompass seemingly disparate or even opposing concepts.
Given a choice between reductive (sic) logic and the ephemeral I feel on balance the unknown and unknowable still have potency that does not yield to linguistic culs-de-sac and snares, politics or prejudice.

 

[segovius]

These arguments generally boil down to whether one finds the numinous and ineffable have any currency. Being prone to suggestion means I can say religion, like art, may all be saying a similar thing no matter how different the clothing. That's an abstraction (and a slightly hippie one at that) but it feels right and can encompass seemingly disparate or even opposing concepts.
Given a choice between reductive (sic) logic and the ephemeral I feel on balance the unknown and unknowable still have potency that does not yield to linguistic culs-de-sac and snares, politics or prejudice.

Exactly - you sum it up brilliantly!

It's as if a ghost appears to Aunt Jane and claims to be the spirit of her long dead husband. He gives her certain information but it turns out to be wildly wrong. But Aunt Jane still believes it was her dead husband's spirit nonetheless.

To certain observers this means that ghosts do not exist and the whole thing is nonsense...and so it may be.... and consequently they dismiss the whole matter or become 'skeptics' or whatever.

But that is not what is interesting - what is interesting is what really happened and this we don't know. Which makes some of us want to find out.

This is why I find the atheist position an unproductive one, they are dismissing something but dismissing it on the basis, not of what it is, but of what people who misunderstand it SAY it is.

You may think this harsh, to claim religionists do not know what religion is, but it is fairly easy to show that most commonly known doctrines of most established religions are at variance with the views of their founders or at least, subsequent innovations.

So if this is the case, all atheists are really doing is saying "Aunt Jane did not have an experience because we know the information she received is false".

The idea that she had an experience but misinterpreted it seems to not occur to them - the only thing they can see and, perhaps rightly decry, is the misinterpretation of the experience not the experience itself.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Another example: Dawkins (for whom I enjoy having a particular distaste) once said of a woman who was banned from wearing a crucifix at work and took her case to court, that he could tell she was stupid because she 'had a stupid face'.

To be fair, that's not exactly what he said.

"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen. She actually said, 'Christians should be allowed to work for British Airways."' He continues, face reddening: "Well, of course, Christians are sodding well allowed to work for British Airways. It's got nothing to do with it. She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian."

And why should she be 'stupid' just because she chooses to war a crucifix. Another example of how irrationality leads to bias, prejudice and intolerance.

As you can see, that's not what he said either.

And he openly admits it was an unguarded moment and he regrets making such an unkind remark. It's hardly the sort of comment you can use to dismiss Dawkins as irrational. It would appear that your enjoyment of your distaste for Dawkins is what is verging on the irrational, such that you're prepared to repeat misleading statements about him.

 

[segovius]

Another example: Dawkins (for whom I enjoy having a particular distaste) once said of a woman who was banned from wearing a crucifix at work and took her case to court, that he could tell she was stupid because she 'had a stupid face'.

To be fair, that's not exactly what he said.

"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen. She actually said, 'Christians should be allowed to work for British Airways."' He continues, face reddening: "Well, of course, Christians are sodding well allowed to work for British Airways. It's got nothing to do with it. She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian."

And he openly admits it was an unguarded moment and he regrets making such an unkind remark. It's hardly the sort of comment you can use to dismiss Dawkins as irrational.

I disagree... the above quoted rant seems totally irrational. It is always suspicious when one must resort to insults - which he clearly does - and all the more piteous when someone with an 'intellectual reputation' who purports to base his arguments on reason does it.

How can you have a 'stupid face'? Or an 'intelligent face'? Here I think he lost his head trying to protect his hat as we say....

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Well yes and no. These arguments generally stem from someone on a message board saying 'read this headline: it shows how mad religious people are'. They then distance themselves from the point of view and take the moral high ground and advocate lazer logic as a cure for poppycock.

Not at all- I'm basing much of my opinion on conversations I've had with friends, family and colleagues (including a family member training for the clergy). And I must admit my views become more 'militant' and I become more convinced of the points I've just made as I have these discussions.

Which would be alright except I can't remember anyone coming onto the FT board and saying 'you haven't been bathed in the blood of the lamb and will burn in eternal fires'. If they think that they're keeping their mouths shut.

Well, check the first post of this thread...

That aside this is not about people coming on here and making bold claims - the thread is about atheism as a subject, it's not a thread in which atheists have interjected to disparage the claims of others or where atheists are accusing others of foisting their will upon them.

I'm prepared to believe a number of phenomena may, or may well not, point to an afterlife such as ghosts. I believe people see them in a way which is not entirely psychological so what do I do with that information? I can argue it away under sociological or folklorist themes but don't find any of them satisfactory. Therefore it leaves a door open on the idea of a hereafter and if a hereafter why not a god or gods?


The alternative is to take a position that says no such phenomena can exist and use ever more flawed critical tools to confront testimony to the contrary, which is my summary of many, though not all, atheistic positions..

One could always take the position that the possibility exists but the probability does not. To concern oneself with every possibility would be to place oneself in a perpetual state of paralysis. Possibility exists in degrees and to give practical consideration to all possibilities would be literally insane.

As others have said, not-knowing seems an entirely honourable position and believing in the possibility of things does not make me more than unusually gullible indeed many successful people in finance, politics and even science don't feel moved to close the door of possibility entirely.

To make an equivalence with it and simple mindedness is a mistake, IMO.

Quite. And nowehere has any made such an equivalence.

 

[colpepper1]

The alternative is to take a position that says no such phenomena can exist and use ever more flawed critical tools to confront testimony to the contrary, which is my summary of many, though not all, atheistic positions..

One could always take the position that the possibility exists but the probability does not.

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.

It's the same problem I have with Dawkins. What I see and hear is mass of presuppositions, culturally posited opinion and blind eyes that I'm supposed to accept for his scientific-academic background, yet even an amateur psychologist can see inimical and deleterious motivation etched across the screen and dispassionate enlightenment nowhere to be seen.
Which leaves us (as I've noted previously) with those who agree with his premise and are prepared to overlook the flawed aspects of his discourse and behaviour. Personally I can't disconnect the two.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Colpepper, do you think personal testimony is reliable evidence when dealing with supernatural events? If you do, we reach the absolute crux of our difference of opinion.

I think personal testimony is massively flawed and have seen direct evidence of this on many, many occasions.

I've said some of this on another thread but I think it's worth repeating here.

I've seen people I know tell deliberate lies as truth in the form of ghost stories, for social bonding and acceptance. They told the stories as truth and admitted to me later that they had made the story up to fit in. They were lying.

I've done the same thing myself, when I was young, when I insisted that I'd seen a half-cat half-human in the pub near my house and there was a one-eyed giant centipede that 3 of us claimed to have seen in a storm-drain under the school. Whenever talk got around to ghost stories, I would pull these tales out and tell them as total truth. I would never under any pressure have admited to making these up with an over-active imagination, for fear of ridicule. I was lying.

I had a good friend who was a compulsive lier. He claimed one night that a DJ in a club in Manchester had asked him to drive his Porsche over to Warrington for him and he had lowered the soft-top roof whilst doing 120mph along the M62. He was lying.

We have multiple cases where people have deliberately hoaxed, either for the attention, thrill or personal gain, such as Anna Mitchell-Hedges and her crystal skull. They were all lying.

When lying can be demonstrated to be very widespread, especially when making claims of the paranormal and supernatural, what mechanism do you propose to separate truthful testimony from falsehoods?

I can think of none, so I can only view testimony as a very poor form of evidence.

 

[colpepper1]

Rationalists claim the multiple of anecdote is not evidence. That seems to leave a chunk of human experience out even allowing for the self-deluding and hoaxers. As I said previously I believe some people see ghosts. The question IMO is what they are, not do they see them.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

As I said previously I believe some people see ghosts. The question IMO is what they are, not do they see them.

Whereas many, like me, would say they accept some people believe they see ghosts. The question is what makes them believe that.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Rationalists claim the multiple of anecdote is not evidence. That seems to leave a chunk of human experience out even allowing for the self-deluding and hoaxers. As I said previously I believe some people see ghosts. The question IMO is what they are, not do they see them.

Unless there is a valid way to discount the false testimony, then I can't see how you can choose which Fortean phenomena you would give credence to, unless you are lucky enough to have had a personal experience.

At the very least, you must concede that personal testimony has to be handled extremely cautiously, when there is no corroborative evidence. To accept all of it would be simply being credulous.

I have to accept on simple probability that the vast majority of Fortean phenomena are certainly likely to fall in to my socially functional made-up ghost story category. You have to bear in mind how strong the pressure is to lie about such things. It makes us interesting to others to have such tales and could be a directly evolutionary driven instinct for that very reason. An interesting person is more attractive to the opposite sex.

Meet Dave. He works in an office, goes home and collects stamps.

Meet Derek - he has the power to talk to dead people and sees loads of ghosts.

Which is going to come across as more exciting and attractive to a prospective partner?

 

[monster_magnet]

Whereas many, like me, would say they accept some people believe they see ghosts. The question is what makes them believe that.

Scepticism is good to a point but a blanket dismisal of all cases is irrational.
There are genuine cases of phenomena that just cannot be rationally explained, mutiple witnesses, physical evidence etc etc.

Some poltergeist cases are utterly fascinating and convincing. Same goes for UFO and Ghost encounters. Some phenomena ARE lies and deceipt but that does not mean ALL are - and what explanation do we give those?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Whereas many, like me, would say they accept some people believe they see ghosts. The question is what makes them believe that.

Scepticism is good to a point but a blanket dismisal of all cases is irrational.
There are genuine cases of phenomena that just cannot be rationally explained, mutiple witnesses, physical evidence etc etc.

Some poltergeist cases are utterly fascinating and convincing. Same goes for UFO and Ghost encounters. Some phenomena ARE lies and deceipt but that does not mean ALL are - and what explanation do we give those?

Monster, again, you misunderstand the concept of witheld belief. It is not the same as denial.

By presenting sceptics and atheists the way you are doing,you are creating a straw man argument.

Just as with gods, I don't deny that ghosts exist. I simply haven't seen enough evidence that they exist outside the minds of those who claim to have witnessed them. Furthermore, I consider the evidence that there are strong social pressures to lie about such things to be very good.

There were multiple witnesses to my giant cyclopic centipede, but we were all lying in that case. We went through a biological, not supernatural process of convincing ourselves what we had seen was real. To you, our testimony would have appeared as good evidence.

But, and here's the important bit, there is definitely the possibility (however small) that there is something at the bottom of pretty much any of the reported phenomena that we don't understand yet. I absolutely cannot rationally deny this. It's why I still count myself a Fortean, albeit a sceptical one.

Lack of belief is not belief in lack.

 

[colpepper1]

As I said previously I believe some people see ghosts. The question IMO is what they are, not do they see them.

Whereas many, like me, would say they accept some people believe they see ghosts. The question is what makes them believe that.

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.

The problem may be not that we are a fanciful and voluable species but that culturally there is no outlet for what oddities people do experience that doesn't place them among the mentally suspect. I'm all for rationalism if it allows for the anomalous and isn't lead by shibboleths.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Scepticism is good to a point but a blanket dismisal of all cases is irrational.
There are genuine cases of phenomena that just cannot be rationally explained, mutiple witnesses, physical evidence etc etc.

What do you mean by "genuine"?

Some poltergeist cases are utterly fascinating and convincing. Same goes for UFO and Ghost encounters. Some phenomena ARE lies and deceipt but that does not mean ALL are - and what explanation do we give those?

"Utterly fascinating and convincing" to some perhaps, not to everyone. It's not impossible that all phenomena are lies and deceipt. We know that some definitely are. It's not possible to say that some definitely aren't.

 

[monster_magnet]

What do you mean by "genuine"?

Given the physical evidence, multiple independent witnesses and written testimony there are cases that are incredibly difficult to clarify without convoluted explanation. If you were to apply Occams Razor the simplest explanation is that the phenomenon did occur and those involved are telling the truth.

"Utterly fascinating and convincing" to some perhaps, not to everyone. It's not impossible that all phenomena are lies and deceipt. We know that some definitely are. It's not possible to say that some definitely aren't.

I think i might be asceptical.