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

Atheism

Basically it all comes down to evidence. Without evidence any phenomenom is basically a matter of speculation, not fact.

So while there are fuzzy pictures of of indistinct airborne objects we can discuss the existence of UFOs. While we have grainy footage of 9/11 we can discuss at great length what happened that day.

Religion is a matter of belief and faith and is derived from our consciousness. Indeed in the Christian tradition we the doctrine that 'proof denies faith'.
 
I don't think Atheism requires you to believe anything. Atheism is exactly what it says on the label, it means you don't believe in any god. Some atheists dismiss all supernatural/paranormal phenomena as part of the god package. Others just don't believe in god(s), with the rest up for grabs.

Believing in ghosts, for example, isn't inconsistent with this depending on what you think ghosts actually are. The three options you give for ghosts aren't mutually exclusive, some ghosts could be one thing, others another. The persistent artefacts of a complex universe is the most contentious of those particular options, where an echo of a person or event is somehow imprinted into the enviroment, the "Stone Tape" idea (excellent ghost story, still worth watching BTW). You could have added time warps, glimpses into parallel universes and a range of other options, none of which require the involvement of a god.

It's possible to have religion without a god, IIRC Buddhism doesn't include the notion of a creator god, and focuses on spiritual development.
 
I agree that atheism shouldn't preclude all manner of anomalies, but it so often does.
Dawkins would probably say someone who believes in the existence of ghosts was gullible, I believe there's sufficient data to suggest something very similar is going on across time and culture that is more than social conditioning or mental disturbance alone. Others see it differently but I would respectfully suggest they look at the available information with an open mind.

The perceptual split is between those who see anomalies as occuring but aberrant (the camp I fit loosely into) and those who see them as impossible because they don't fit current models of proof. My suspicion is the universe is a highly organised system - without implying or leaving out an organiser - that throws up phenomena which work completely outside its own rules.
It doesn't make the rules wrong, they work perfectly except for occasional exotica so there's no need to abandon science because a poltergeist throws some crockery across the room, but there is no natural cause under present explanations for it happening.

We may, or may not discover a cause for Back Dogs and polts, but saying they are for the observance of fools takes us nowhere. Gods large and small seem to belong to that upsidedown universe.
 
colpepper1 said:
I agree that atheism shouldn't preclude all manner of anomalies, but it so often does.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. There are atheists who believe in ghosts and atheists who don't. There may be a greater propensity for atheists to also lack belief in other supernatural phenomena but that lack of belief isn't atheism.

Dawkins would probably say someone who believes in the existence of ghosts was gullible...
Click to expand...

Not because he is an atheist but because he doesn't believe in the existence of ghosts.

I believe there's sufficient data to suggest something very similar is going on across time and culture that is more than social conditioning or mental disturbance alone. Others see it differently but I would respectfully suggest they look at the available information with an open mind.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they haven't?

The perceptual split is between those who see anomalies as occuring but aberrant (the camp I fit loosely into) and those who see them as impossible because they don't fit current models of proof.
Click to expand...

I don't know where I fit then. I accept that anomalies occur, but I usually don't accept the reasons people invent for their occurrence.
 
Dawkins would probably say...
Click to expand...
I was quite enjoying the break from mention of RD for a few posts ;) , but you can't seem to stop yourself setting him up as a straw man on almost any topic that comes up... :roll:

Quote him if you must, but don't tell us what he "probably" thinks!
 
rynner2 said:
Dawkins would probably say...
Click to expand...
I was quite enjoying the break from mention of RD for a few posts ;) , but you can't seem to stop yourself setting him up as a straw man on almost any topic that comes up... :roll:

Quote him if you must, but don't tell us what he "probably" thinks!
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard, he's the High Priest of all Atheism. Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the morn! Treacherous as the seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love him and despair!
 
Yea but he is an Awesome and Cruel God. He doth smiote down us Agnostics for not worshiping Him enough.
 
If an atheist is prepared to believe in ghosts, fairies and black dogs at the crossroad, why not Gods? I mean people should be perfectly entitled to believe anything they desire - which is my entire point in a nutshell.
 
colpepper1 said:
If an atheist is prepared to believe in ghosts, fairies and black dogs at the crossroad, why not Gods? I mean people should be perfectly entitled to believe anything they desire - which is my entire point in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Equally, people should be perfectly entitled to criticise others' beliefs, especially when those beliefs entail bigotry and intolerance. I don't think you'll find many people who say their belief in ghosts entitles them to discriminate against homosexuals, for example.
 
Who says they shouldn't? Certainly not atheists. If you don't mind me saying, one must have a lot of time on one's hands to be thinking so seriously about things, in the manner which one does. Everyone's entitled, as a human, to believe what they want. Where it gets into rights and wrongs howerver, is when they are pushing their beliefs as facts, when they aren't... especially onto the vunerable/gullible. Otherwise, life would be pretty mundane.
Evolution is fact, religion is fath. Take your pick, it's up to you.
By the way, the reason different cultures and people from different places experience similar things, is simply due to them ALL being human, with human brains, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Beliefs are not a problem. I doubt anyone on here thinks people's beliefs should be outlawed or controlled, even if that were possible.
The problems occur when people start acting on their beliefs, or trying to control what other people can and cannot do, according to their beliefs.
 
coaly said:
Evolution is fact, religion is fath. Take your pick, it's up to you.
Click to expand...

We've moved away from our crockery throwing polt I fear. The one who demands our attention whether we believe in him or not.
 
colpepper1 said:
We've moved away from our crockery throwing polt I fear. The one who demands our attention whether we believe in him or not.
Click to expand...

That's not a case of believing in the polt or not, but a case of believing the person who recounts the story of the crockery throwing. They are the one who is demanding our attention.
 
I suppose if you actually witness the crockery throwing, it becomes more than a matter of belief, it's looking for an explanation, either within known physics, or from other causes that we haven't characterised yet.
 
MsPix said:
I suppose if you actually witness the crockery throwing, it becomes more than a matter of belief, it's looking for an explanation, either within known physics, or from other causes that we haven't characterised yet.
Click to expand...

I guess that would be true. I won't know unless or until it happens to me. However, inventing an explanation, while it might be fun, doesn't really help. Saying it must be a poltergeist doesn't actually explain anything and simply adds another layer of mystery on top of the one you've already been confronted with. In the same way, inventing a god or gods to explain our universe and everything in it actually doesn't explain anything at all. In my opinion, that's pointless and a lazy cop-out. Many will agree with me, and many won't.
 
On the lines of Arthur C Clarke's dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, Is there a point where a sufficiently advanced living entitry would be indistiguisable from a god?
 
The question is if you witnessed a polt or a black dog or a spook would you abandon atheism? I have an uncle - true not an apocryphal tale - who has witnessed various ghostly phenomena but because 'everyone knows there's no such thing' is happy to put it down to cause unknown, even when everyone else would describe it as poltergeist activity or a haunting.

Coming from a pragmatic old countryman I can appreciate his kind of rationalism. He saw what he saw, heavy engineering benches lifting, clothing being thrown about, lights coming on, objects appearing and disappearing, figures passing doorways when the works building was locked up but as a straightforward kind of chap felt no need to attribute it to a particular cause. He wouldn't even talk about it unless you insisted so it wasn't for effect.
Sadly as he's almost 100 years old, there's not much chance of having the conversation now. No militancy or brittleness and he certainly isn't religious, just a marvellous acceptance that weird things (very occasionally) happen.
 
colpepper1 said:
The question is if you witnessed a polt or a black dog or a spook would you abandon atheism?
Click to expand...

Why would I? What is it about polts, black dogs or spooks that could be regarded as evidence for a god? Why would I have a need for something unexplained and unconnected that doesn't explain the unexplained thing I've just witnessed? If I saw something weird I would presume there was a rational explanation for it, but that I just didn't know what that rational explanation was. We're a curious species and I'm confident that any anomalous phenomena that is genuine will eventually be explained. All the stuff that is misperception, delusion or lie will forever remain a mystery as there is nothing in them to be discovered.
 
As Doctor Baltar says, why should witnessing something weird make someone believe in god? (I suppose the sky cleaving asunder and the Lord and his Heavenly Host descending, would be fairly strong evidence for his existence, assuming you're not off your face on LSD or psychotic and it might be a good idea to check out that it wasn't just smart aliens).

If I saw a ghost or poltergeist, it'd be "cool, that's strange" I wonder what caused that? If it's genuine it's open to investigation - how does something apparently non-material interact with the material word? There's an explanation, but it may it extend our knowledge beyond what's currently available. "Ghost" and "poltergiest" are labels for classes of phenomena, not explanations.

"Causes unknown" is a good default position.

BTW: paranormal events usually seem to avoid me, if I walked through the valley of the shadow of death, the angel of death would be off on it's lunch break....
 
Just what have poltergeists and monsters to do with "No Religion"?
Anyway, whilst we are on it... I'm like you Timble, (you know what I mean. :lol: )...but I've seen and experienced a lot of weird things in my past, but nothing like a solid object suspended in the air for no reason, and with no visible means of support, and if I had, I would have investigated it, rather than ran like shat! I've also been to places where things are supposed to happen on a daily basis, but they never did when I was there. I also have a sister and niece who live together, and they experience weird things, like things being moved about, falling over etc. None of it happens when I'm there, even when I've stayed over for a few days and nights. Hmmmm.
Are we going back to Atheism now? Or are we done? 8)


*Edited because of shocking typographical errors!
 
Good stuff, I agree with all of that. I do seem to have been unusually unlucky with my atheists, as they tow a far harder line that you splendid types. They are mostly of the can't happen, won't happen, nothing would ever be the same if it did happen and I'm vaguely insulted you brought the topic up in my austere presence, variety.

Keep up the good work.
 
Sorry I thought it was well known that Ms. Blaire was Officialy registered as a precursor (with hubby) of The Anti-Christ!!
 
Perhaps if she'd told her husband that that nice Mr Bin Laden and his Taliban friends were all religious fellows we wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan.
 
Cherie Blair/Booth has spared a man from jail (partly) because he was religious
Click to expand...

Although I usually have quite a lot of time for the National Secular Society, TBH I thought they overreacted about this one.

Unless you want to move to a system where offenders receive a pre-determined sentence, regardless of their personal circumstances, you have to allow judges some discretion in sentencing. As well as previous convictions, all sorts of other things are typically taken into account, including the offender's financial circumstances, whether s/he is in employment, whether s/he is a parent or carer, etc etc. Some of these are reasonable and some of them are less convincing special pleading on behalf of a defendant.

In this case, Ms Booth took a view that the individual concerned was unlikely to reoffend, partially because he was of good character and partially because of his apparently sincerely held religious views. In all fairness members of stable congregations are probably less likely than some other groups to commit this sort of offence as they tend not to get into pub fights etc. TBH I suspect that, had the gentleman concerned been an atheist but also an active member of his local residents' association, or a volunteer at the local cat shelter, the result would have been similar.

Judges make these sort of decisions all the time. This only got attention because it involved Tony Blair's wife.
 
Agree with Quake, circumstances differ in what at a surface level appear to be identical cases. I have more of a problem with Cheris reported remarks, but they may have been edited or distorted. ( The media sometimes does that :) )
 
I think they are well aware that people´s sentences depend on mitigating factors. What they were complaining against is the idea that religion is in itself a mitigating factor. Not a persons actions, such as helping out in a soup kitchen, but merely what he believes or pretends to believe. I wouldn´t expect a judge to give me a lenient sentence, just because I wear a t-shirt that says "Give peace a chance", that is in and of itself meaningless.
 
He appears to have visited a mosque shortly before commiting the assault. I could understand if he had discovered religion after the assault and demonstrated some sort of lifestyle change but that doesn't appear to be the case.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
He appears to have visited a mosque shortly before commiting the assault...
Click to expand...
Uh oh, getting into deep and turbulent waters here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top