Why am I an atheist?

[Just Jack]

For some reason, many people lately have been questioning me on this. Exactly why am I an atheist? Why dont I believe in god? Let me explain.

1. I do not believe in god mainly because almost all religon requires that you "surrender" to god. I will not surrender my individualism and my freedome to a figure which, in my eyes, does not exist.

2. The concept of god is crazy to me. The universe was not created in seven days, its just a fairy tale. I personally believe that religon was created at a time when humanity was on the brink of chaos, and so the people needed something to guide them in the right direction, i.e. religon. We are much more mature now, and religon just causes problems . (wars and whatnot)

3. I do not need a 2000 year old book to decide what is right and wrong for me. I can do that myself.

4. Absolute faith has rules, therefore it takes away personal choice in freedom. To me, god is just a pair of handcuffs.

5. Faith in such an absolute being, in a being who wields absolute power over the entire universe, seems dangerous to me.

6. Religon is built on fear. Why should you do what god says? So you dont go to hell, of course. If religon did not acknowledge that there was a hell, there would be a lot more atheists out there.

That's it. I understand this is a touchy subject, and I tried to be respectful. I am not saying religon is bad, just that its not good for me. Nor am I saying that religous PEOPLE are bad. I know that most people who believe in god and religon are good people. I am just discussing my viewpoint, that is all.

[WildScribe]

That explains why you are not CHRISTIAN, but religion and Christianity are not synonymous, and people were worshiping fire in ancient caves way before Christ was born.

I don't bow before a book, surrender my free will, or believe that the universe was created in 7 days, but I am religious. Just my .02 worth.

[Don Allen]

I can see you point on everything but #6... It may very well be built on fear but, not fear of God as much as fear of death.

Which in an odd way, gives credence to the exsistence of God.. From the beginning of recorded history man has never been able to come to grips with absolute death. A good scientist must ask the question....Why????

It's the one piece of proof, that ways heavily that the possibility of a God, or another dimension, or something may exsist. Very Weird, and very thought provoking if you remove the religion from the equation.....

[Just Jack]

That explains why you are not CHRISTIAN, but religion and Christianity are not synonymous, and people were worshiping fire in ancient caves way before Christ was born.

I don't bow before a book, surrender my free will, or believe that the universe was created in 7 days, but I am religious. Just my .02 worth.

Your right. I understand that there are more religons out there. But the center of my philosophy is that I do not believe in what I percieve as fairy tales. I was born a Catholic, and went to church every sunday for 12 years, so the Catholic and Christian faiths are the ones that I feel I must prove my indifference to.

[Daimeera]

Why do I believe in a god after being an atheist my entire life?

Because it felt too arrogant not to.

I get where you're coming from, I think. I felt that way for a long, long time. But I don't know, something changed. I got humble. I figured it was too arrogant to assume that we, humans, are the highest beings. That we're the most intelligent, understand the most, that there's nothing above us.

That said, no organised religion for me, thanks. I'm content with not knowing what or who the higher power (or powers, I suppose) is, just believing that maybe I'm not it.

*Shrugs*

[rugcat]

1. I do not believe in god mainly because almost all religon requires that you "surrender" to god. I will not surrender my individualism and my freedome to a figure which, in my eyes, does not exist.Pope Benedict said something about this on his recent trip, something about how true freedom was only to be found in surrendering to God's authority. Sounded a bit Orwellian to me.2.. . .I personally believe that religon was created at a time when humanity was on the brink of chaos, and so the people needed something to guide them in the right direction, i.e. religon.Mankind has had some concept of religion ever since language developed, and even before for all we know.3. I do not need a 2000 year old book to decide what is right and wrong for me. I can do that myself. Where does this knowledge of right and wrong come from? Is is coded in your genetics? The very concept of moral behavior comes originally from religion. 4. Absolute faith has rules, therefore it takes away personal choice in freedom. To me, god is just a pair of handcuffs. Absolute freedom is just the law of the jungle. Animals do not distinguish right from wrong. Whenever a society forms, there must necessarily be rues in order for it to survive.5. Faith in such an absolute being, in a being who wields absolute power over the entire universe, seems dangerous to me. If such a being were like the Greek and Roman Gods, prey to human jealousies and desires, you would be right. But our modern concept of God involves not only ultimate power, but ultimate knowledge and compassion as well.
6. Religon is built on fear. Why should you do what god says? So you dont go to hell, of course. If religon did not acknowledge that there was a hell, there would be a lot more atheists out there. Some are, some aren't. A rabbi once told me he kept kosher and obeyed Shabbot rules because that's what God wanted him to do. What happens if you don't, I asked. His reply? Well, I imagine He'd be disappointed in me.

It's easy to look at specific religious practices and to find them illogical. It's easy to look at shallow conceptions of God as an old man with a white beard and find that ridiculous. But the true idea of God is a deep and complex concept that people have wrestled with for ages, and whether or not it ultimately proves convincing to you, it's worth some serious consideration beyond surface superficialities.

Now if you want to argue whether religion has had an overall beneficial influence on mankind, that's a very different proposition.

[veinglory]

Funny I really don't see it as a choice. I spent about three days trying very hard to believe in god because an eternal afterlife sounded like a good deal to me. But I just don't. That's not about logic, or ethics, or how I was raised. That's just how I'm wired.

[Just Jack]

It's easy to look at specific religious practices and to find them illogical. It's easy to look at shallow conceptions of God as an old man with a white beard and find that ridiculous. But the true idea of God is a deep and complex concept that people have wrestled with for ages, and whether or not it ultimately proves convincing to you, it's worth some serious consideration beyond surface superficialities.

Now if you want to argue whether religion has had an overall beneficial influence on mankind, that's a very different proposition.

I can see where your coming from, however I have to say I disagree. It is true that religon is very complex, and I do not have the intelligence to decipher its reasons on some stupid internet post. I do agree that religion is good for some, if not most people. I however lost my faith. I did not wake up one day and decide to be an atheist, it was just a natural progression of thought that led to the outcome of me not believing in any deity whats-so-ever. And I do agree its worth consideration.

I dont hate religion, but I think that humanity as a whole would do better without it. While religion has benefited society in the past, I believe that now its holding us back from greater freedoms.

To sum it up, I am not against it, I just dont see the point anymore.

[StephanieFox]

I think that Just Jack is preaching against a monotheistic god, not religion. Religion was probably not based on fear, upon keeping track of and celebrating the changing seasons and lunar cycles. If you don't pay attention to the world around you and you are a hunter gatherer, a shepard or a farmer, you will find that you go hungry very soon.

Since the human mind is wired to see patterns and to develop ways to understand things, the sun/moon/earth/local well/mountain became sacred. Sometimes people gave these things personification. The moon became a Goddess, the sun, a God. Stories were told about how they acted and reacted to people and each other.

A set of laws are rules were set up so that humans could live in communities together, hunt or farm together, raise children or trade with other tribes. Stories about the past, about origins, about the future and other cosmic things were shared and passed on as a way to pass on traditions and ethical codes.

The problem with religions is when these stories become entrenched and are taken literally rather than as cultural lessons.

I have to say that I tend to get a bit annoyed at people who either believe in God or don't, but who insist that ancient people created religions because they were ignorant and fearful. If we're so darn enlightened, how come we are constantly at war and why are we destroying the planet? We don't need a god to have an ethical system and it would be a fine thing is we all got together – those of various religious traditions and those of no religion – to fix these problems. Eh?

[rugcat]

I have to say that I tend to get a bit annoyed at people who either believe in God or don't, but who insist that ancient people created religions because they were ignorant and fearful. If we're so darn enlightened, how come we are constantly at war and why are we destroying the planet? We don't need a god to have an ethical system and it would be a fine thing is we all got together – those of various religious traditions and those of no religion – to fix these problems. Eh?I agree.

I wasn't making a case either for or against belief, only expressing my opinion that religious experience is a varied and complex subject, worthy of serious examination whether you are a believer or not.

But ultimately, to paraphrase Veinglory, it comes down to faith. Or not.

[james1611]

If I may, as a one-time rebel against the concept of religion, interject one thought into this discussion...

Pascal had an interesting wager...the main idea being: If you, for whatever reason, do not believe in God and he doesn't exist then fine, but if you happen to be wrong and God is real and he has come down from heaven and become a sacrifice to cleanse you of your sins and then given a bible for you to have that knowledge so you can believe it and be saved and people who try to share that knowledge who've experienced that salvation, etc...

and then you don't believe...

then if that turned out to be the case...you would have gambled with your eternal soul and lost.

The concept of a j.o.b. is interesting too...to get a reward you must usually surrender a certain amount of freedom, conform to certain ideals or there are consequences...ie you don't make any money.
Are you willing to surrender certain freedom of "doing it your way" to make a living? If yes, then perhaps others aren't so "crazy" for a willingness to surrender to the Creator of the Universe in order to receive mercy, forgiveness, acceptance, love and eternal life...if you believe in that sort of thing, of course....

Some don't...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
James

[Queen of Swords]

Pascal's wager presents a false dichotomy. Either there is a god who will punish you for not believing in him, or there is nothing.

Maybe there's a god who's compassionate and understanding enough to realize that he created certain people who would be predisposed towards atheism, and then he didn't give them enough evidence to make them believers in him, so he can hardly blame them for their skepticism.

Maybe there's a god who just doesn't care who believes or who doesn't, just as I don't care if the ant on the sidewalk acknowledges my existence or not (I would care if it was an army ant ready to sting me, but we'll assume it's one of those tiny inoffensive ants).

Maybe there's a god who's testing people to see which ones go to Planet Atheist after they die and which ones go to Planet Theist.

Maybe there's a whole bunch of gods, and atheists end up in the heaven supervised by the most liberal of them all.

I could go on and on, but that's one reason Pascal's Wager doesn't work for me.

What if I'm wrong? At least I'll have enjoyed my life (I didn't enjoy it as a born-again Christian) and I'll know that I made the only possible, logical and rational decision for myself based on the evidence I had. And I didn't give in to what seems more like a scare tactic than actual reasoning.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Some don't...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
James
I'll take my chances. From all the evidence I'm aware of, we get just one life here on earth. I'd rather face it authentically, and value it deeply because it's all I get, than delude myself that I'm going to live forever and that better things will come when I finally kark it.

That's what's authentic to me, as an atheist. I've no desire to live forever, nor do I have any need to believe than some all powerful universal creator loves me. I have enough love right here on earth, from real live people.

I am lucky, however, to get my own blink of consciousness in this vast universe and I want to appreciate the reality of it rather than muck it up with unfounded beliefs.

Pascal's wager presents a false dichotomy. Either there is a god who will punish you for not believing in him, or there is nothing.

Maybe there's a god who's compassionate and understanding enough to realize that he created certain people who would be predisposed towards atheism, and then he didn't give them enough evidence to make them believers in him, so he can hardly blame them for their skepticism.
Very well put, Queen. If he'd blame and punish them for living their lives authentically based on the way he created them in the first place, then he's certainly not worthy of anyone's worship.

[Sarpedon]

Where does this knowledge of right and wrong come from? Is is coded in your genetics? The very concept of moral behavior comes originally from religion.

False. There is in fact good evidence that moral behavior was evolved. Chimpanzees and other apes do display a certain kind of 'moral' behavior, in that they can recognize when they are being treated unfairly compared other chimpanzees. A sense of fairness is a moral characteristic.

Also, if you look at some non-primates, such as dolphins and Orcas, you will find complex behaviors that approximate 'moral' behavior. What do these animals have in common with primates? Large brains and complex social groups.

Morality is behavior that is developed among intelligent, social animals to allow them to get along with each other. Religion endorses morality. It did not invent it. No religion today is so old that we cannot point out an earlier group of people who knew the difference versus right and wrong. Morality existed long before religion. Even before language, even before humans.

The idea that religion created morality is totally unsupported. People might point to the ten commandments and such, but of course I can always point to people before them who knew quite well that murder and theft were wrong.

It is no more 'arrogant' not to believe in god than it is 'arrogant' not to believe the earth is flat. Both are obsolete ideas that were developed by people out of ignorance. That religion survives while the concept of the flat earth is nearly extinct is because religion is a self-perpetuating social system that is quite useful to control people and make money. Flat earth theory isn't, so its dying out.

[Ken]

in some ways the religion of the Ancient Greeks encouraged immorality, by modern standards: showing the Gods to be envious and vengeful at times. Life was harder back then, though, so I guess people had to be rugged and tough to survive and in need of warrior-like, thunder-weilding deities to see them through. With this economic recession, coming on, Zeus and Pallas may be makin' a return :)

[Just Jack]

Morality is something that is learned both through your parents and through experience. I know that if religion never existed, we would still be obligated to behave on the same morale basis as we do today. I believe that while morales are essential to religion, religion is not essential to morales.

I hate when people claim me to be immorale because I dont have a faith. As an atheist, I can say that we are not trusted by general society. Even though I do show some decency, lots of people cant see past my beliefs...

[Mac H.]

Pascal had an interesting wager...
...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
JamesSo James, did you accept Pascal's wager and become Muslim?

I have a book which lists over 1000 gods you could choose to Worship.

You aren't honestly saying that you chose the particular god to worship based on Pascal's wager .. did you ?

Mac

[Melisande]

Morality is something that is learned both through your parents and through experience.
...

Isn't the cocept of "morality" basically a religious one? Something invented to keep people at bay?

[Ruv Draba]

Isn't the cocept of "morality" basically a religious one? Something invented to keep people at bay?I think that some form of morality is a prerequisite of culture, Melisande. Among the things that hold culture together and perpetuate it is sacrifice of one's short-term desires for long term benefit and common good. Morality is in part about understanding what that those things are, and in part, agreeing that they must weigh against our short-term desires.

People accept morality for many reasons, including a desire to belong, a fear of retribution, faith in the future and a compassion for their fellows. The mix varies from person to person. But there are many opportunities in daily life where we could perform acts of short-term benefit to ourselves that do long-term harm to ourselves or others - yet much of the time, we don't. There are also many times when it costs us to benefit another or invest in the future of our culture, yet we still do it.

[StephanieFox]

If I may, as a one-time rebel against the concept of religion, interject one thought into this discussion...

Pascal had an interesting wager...the main idea being: If you, for whatever reason, do not believe in God and he doesn't exist then fine, but if you happen to be wrong and God is real and he has come down from heaven and become a sacrifice to cleanse you of your sins and then given a bible for you to have that knowledge so you can believe it and be saved and people who try to share that knowledge who've experienced that salvation, etc...

and then you don't believe...

then if that turned out to be the case...you would have gambled with your eternal soul and lost.

The concept of a j.o.b. is interesting too...to get a reward you must usually surrender a certain amount of freedom, conform to certain ideals or there are consequences...ie you don't make any money.
Are you willing to surrender certain freedom of "doing it your way" to make a living? If yes, then perhaps others aren't so "crazy" for a willingness to surrender to the Creator of the Universe in order to receive mercy, forgiveness, acceptance, love and eternal life...if you believe in that sort of thing, of course....

Some don't...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
James

i've heard this one. It's been used against atheists and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. It's the big argument from a religion whose God threatens with eternial torment those whose ideas (not their actions) are what this God considers 'wrong.'

Yet this same god hides his message in a book with a number of contidictions and translations. What is you've read the wrong book? What if you read the wrong part and didn't understand what the (hell) he's trying to tell you. What is the minister you trusted was wrong? Will you suffer, too?

Then, there's the concept of faith. Faith is believing in something without needing proof. But what if you cannot do that? What if the way this god has created your brain, you simply cannot believe? What if you believe something else?

And, other than trying to keep this god from beating me up forever and ever for NOT believing him and his particular story, why should I worship such a being? He sounds arbitrary and mean. Not my cup of tea, if you don't mind.

I'll answer your question with a question: If I'm wrong, you say I'll suffer. I ask you, if you are wrong, haven't you wasted your life? (This is just a phylisophical question, jst like yours.)

By the way, I'm not rebelling, as you put it, against your religion. That term is another christian buzz word. I simply just don't believe in your god.

[nybx4life]

-And of course, for some reason, religion feels like looking up to an imaginary role model: perfect in every way in your eyes, and you strive to be like him/her.
-Faith is something that I can't do. I've dealt with too much people (including a scam agency) to now fully trust a being that hasn't been truly seen ever, and to follow the teachings of "God" written by a man. Because we all know that the earth was made in seven days, but the creations stopped there for him.

I've wasted my life as much as I've suffered, so I don't think that it's impossible to recover from it.

[Dommo]

I have philosophical as opposed to spiritual reasons for opposing atheism, but I also oppose any form of religion.

I'm what I call an agnostic atheist, in that I tend to agree with atheism, however my issue comes from falsifiability. Essentially you can't really prove anything to be true, but you can prove things to be false. Religion unfortunately largely falls into this category, including atheism.

So in essence, I'm saying that I strongly believe that evidence supports atheism, however because I can't falsify all notions of a god, I can't completely discount the existence of a deity.

Now that I've said my two cents, let me put my flame resistance underwear on, and get a bucket of water, because I sense a bit of a flaming in my future.

[Sarpedon]

Its not about proving anything. How many things in life are proven? Its about drawing reasonable conclusions based on the evidence at hand. It is simply neither reasonable nor practical to not discount something simply because it hasnt been disproven.

There are plenty of things more likely than god that we nevertheless ignore when going about our daily business.

There is no reason to give religious beliefs the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't give to other ideas.

Was that too hot for you?

[Queen of Swords]

My take on the matter :

Leprechaunist : You should believe in leprechauns.
Me : Why?
Leprechaunist : Because you have no evidence that they don't exist, and because you can't falsify my claim that they do exist somewhere and in some form.
Me : I assign claims a probability ranging from one to zero. So for instance, the probability of a square triangle existing is zero. Without evidence of any kind for their existence, the probability that leprechauns exist is so close to zero that for all intents and purposes, it's insignificant. I no more need to concern myself with the existence of leprechauns that I do with the existence of square triangles. That's what makes me an aleprechaunist.

[Higgins]

I have philosophical as opposed to spiritual reasons for opposing atheism, but I also oppose any form of religion.

I'm what I call an agnostic atheist, in that I tend to agree with atheism, however my issue comes from falsifiability. Essentially you can't really prove anything to be true, but you can prove things to be false. Religion unfortunately largely falls into this category, including atheism.

So in essence, I'm saying that I strongly believe that evidence supports atheism, however because I can't falsify all notions of a god, I can't completely discount the existence of a deity.

Now that I've said my two cents, let me put my flame resistance underwear on, and get a bucket of water, because I sense a bit of a flaming in my future.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't see God's non-existence as problematic: clearly by every rational measure, God does not exist.

Or to put it another way: if you were omnipresent, wouldn't you at least occasionally be somewhere?
Or: One does not achieve omnipresence by never being anywhere.
The bit about "non-provable" seems to me to verge on pure nonsense.
We aren't obligated to present certificates that we have searched every corner of every possible universe for all time every time we assert that
a certain set of circumstances has not occurred and the notion that such certification is required -- as I've said -- verges on absolute nonsense.

In this subforum in another thread I wrote:
"If no one has ever seen even a trace of what is supposedly the most omnipresent thing that can be defined, then the very definition of the being in question ceases to have any plausibility. You cannot look for something that cannot be described. This is far more true than any possible fact or proof: an ominpresent thing that has never been anywhere is nowhere to be found. This is far, far less existential plausibility than simply not being somewhere, it is equivalent to never having been anywhere ever in any way at all.

Or to put it another way, since the absolute nature of the claim of God's existence would require that he is everywhere all the time, even one case of his non-appearance serves as an indicator of plausibility that is far more negative than a matter of mere fact or proof."

And I still think that is worth thinking about.

[misterkel]

Why do I believe in a god after being an atheist my entire life?

Because it felt too arrogant not to.

I get where you're coming from, I think. I felt that way for a long, long time. But I don't know, something changed. I got humble. I figured it was too arrogant to assume that we, humans, are the highest beings. That we're the most intelligent, understand the most, that there's nothing above us.


This is not arrogance, because there is no statement that humanity is the highest, merely that no God exists. Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea. Your argument is a bit weak, to me. You base your belief on the idea that not believing is somehow arrogant? If there is no God, it isn't arrogant to believe that. It's accurate.
Why wouldn't you want to base your beliefs on what seems real and leave it at that? Besides, just because there is no God, doesn't mean humans aren't pretty fucked up.

[Mac H.]

Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea.Where does this stuff come from ?

They may have a great public image, but Dolphins are carnivores. Not only that, in many places they are the Apex Predator. They aren't peaceful animals.

They beat each other up - basic aggression. They are even known to hunt and kill porpoises for no reason ... as they don't eat the porpoise, nor does the porpoise even compete for the same foods.

Male dolphins are even known to rape female dolphins. They are known to practise infantacide.

And where on earth does the idea that 'they seem able to communicate with most life in the sea' come from ?

Mac

[benbradley]

For some reason, many people lately have been questioning me on this. Exactly why am I an atheist? Why dont I believe in god? Let me explain.
I'm going to do this as a critique and as if it were posted in SYW (if I understand AW correctly, this particular forum is supposed to be about atheistic WRITING), even though I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. Perhaps as "devil's advocate" I can make your argument stronger.
1. I do not believe in god mainly because almost all religon requires that you "surrender" to god. I will not surrender my individualism and my freedome to a figure which, in my eyes, does not exist.
This is circular. If God doesn't exist, you don't have to surrender to Him.

And even if He did, it appears you'd be bullheaded, and if God showed up on the White House Lawn, was shown on national television (or even CNN) and started telling President Bush what to do (supressing speculations about what Bush might actually believe and saving them for another forum, perhaps TIO...), you would STILL be stubborn and refuse to surrender to Him. It doesn't logically follow that you are an atheist because of your resistance to surrendering.

And as others have said or implied, this concept is far from universal among all religions. The "surrendering to God" idea is certainly central to Christianity and Islam, but not neccesarily to other major religions.
2. The concept of god is crazy to me. The universe was not created in seven days, its just a fairy tale. I personally believe that religon was created at a time when humanity was on the brink of chaos, and so the people needed something to guide them in the right direction, i.e. religon. We are much more mature now, and religon just causes problems . (wars and whatnot)
Again, this is Christianity-specific, and even many Christians don't believe that the universe or the Earth was created in seven days.

Also, the concept of quantum physics is crazy to me, but that doesn't mean I have no belief in it. You're saying why you ought not to believe, NOT why you don't believe.
4. Absolute faith has rules, therefore it takes away personal choice in freedom. To me, god is just a pair of handcuffs.
Well, life has rules. If you don't eat, you starve to death.

I can "see" your point here, you "don't like rules" but the point is very weak. You're not specific enough about what rules bother you, why you don't think you should follow them, but most especially, how does this inform you about the existence or nonexistence of God?

Much of your argument appears to be "I don't want to believe in God, because I don't want to do what Christianity tells me I would have to do if God existed." You seem to be saying why you WANT TO BE an atheist, not why you ARE an atheist.
5. Faith in such an absolute being, in a being who wields absolute power over the entire universe, seems dangerous to me.
Now this is an interesting point, and you use the word absolute here - it brings to mind my research on cults (which aren't always religious - there are what I call "business cults" which are usually multilevel marketing organizations/schemes, but there's also Scientology which claims to be a religion, but many say it's not). Cults often have "absolute" demands on its menbers, such as some form of "purity."

But back closer to the subject of your post, I can see where a (Christian) believer could just as easily argue that it's quite dangerous to NOT have faith in such a Being, as a nonbeliever would be eternally tormented in Hell.
6. Religon is built on fear. Why should you do what god says? So you dont go to hell, of course. If religon did not acknowledge that there was a hell, there would be a lot more atheists out there.
You've sort-of got a point here, but that argument still falls short of explaining why many people believe in God. I've read of religion-related polls over the years, and in the USA perhaps 95 percent say they believe in God and/or Heaven, but a substantially lower percentage believe in Hell. So it's not exclusively the fear of Hell that motivates people to believe in God.

But even without Hell, fear can be a motivating part of religion (or at least Christianity). I've often heard the words, at a funeral about the deceased, or just in general about a living person, "he/she's a good, God-fearing person" (or even without the word good, implying that fearing God equates to being good). So it's not just Hell itself some people fear. I recall the origin of the names of both the Shaker and the Quaker sects to be a Bible verse that goes something like "tremble and quake in the presence of The Lord").

Why do I believe in a god after being an atheist my entire life?

Because it felt too arrogant not to.
Arrogance and humility are interesing points in relation to belief. I've sometimes heard from believers that atheists are arrogant, yet I've heard believers claim to be HUMBLE while at the same time claiming a conscious contact, or a "personal relationship," with "The Creater."
Morality is something that is learned both through your parents and through experience. I know that if religion never existed, we would still be obligated to behave on the same morale basis as we do today. I believe that while morales are essential to religion, religion is not essential to morales.

I hate when people claim me to be immorale because I dont have a faith. As an atheist, I can say that we are not trusted by general society. Even though I do show some decency, lots of people cant see past my beliefs...
You make an excellent point here - I think people on all sides of the issue agree that atheists are widely distrusted by the majority (which for the most part means believers). I generally keep a low profile as an atheist in my personal life, partly for this very reason, but also, it's not really anyone else's business what or whether I believe.

And yet there are many religious people (self-proclaimeed, or even highly respected by many others) who do very immorral things. What is one to believe about them? Is it just that they "sin" and "give into temptation" because they are human (or because they inherit "original sin" from Adam and Eve)? Or might they be faking their belief? Could they be "one of us" yet "passing"?

But many people find religious belief to be a solid indicator of moral character (see my most recent post in the "job interview question" thread). If another claims to be Christian, this is deemed good, and the idea that one might be lying may not often come to mind (though some input from Christians here might be enligntening). But if one admits to being a non-believer, this is considered bad, and one is judged to have bad or NO morals based solely on the label, and is judged worse than a self-proclaimed believer who has repeatedly "fallen." It's interesting that people can be given more credit for their words than their actions.

Now you've got me envisioning an article for some popular magazine that might occasionally print an article by some marginalized or radical person. I can see the titles now:

A Transgendered Person Speaks
A Terrorist Speaks
A Drug Addict Speaks
An Atheist Speaks

[Daimeera]

This is not arrogance, because there is no statement that humanity is the highest, merely that no God exists. Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea. Your argument is a bit weak, to me. You base your belief on the idea that not believing is somehow arrogant? If there is no God, it isn't arrogant to believe that. It's accurate.
Why wouldn't you want to base your beliefs on what seems real and leave it at that? Besides, just because there is no God, doesn't mean humans aren't pretty fucked up.

Ignoring the errors already pointed out in the assumption of dolphin behaviour . . .

I don't believe that a lack of belief is arrogant. I felt that MY lack of belief was arrogant. The way I felt at the time did not strike me as humble, or entirely true to myself.

For a long time, I was sure that atheists had it all figured out--that there was no possibility we were wrong. And THAT was why I personally felt arrogant; I for so long refused to listen to others and consider that maybe I didn't understand everything.

I agree that humans can be pretty fucked up but I fail to see what that has to do with a higher power, or lack thereof. Religion can be poisonous, no doubt. And I don't subscribe to those religions that are poisonous. In fact, I don't subscribe to any particular religion. I feel that any higher power is (at least at this point) unknowable. But I cannot dismiss the idea the way I once did.

Additionally, I take issue with the thought that a higher power must be infallible. Accordingly, I guess I should perhaps not refer to said higher power as a god, but I can't think of a better term. There are so many things that we as humans don't understand that our lack of understanding is to me, to a certain degree, evidence of the possibility of a higher being.

I don't claim to have all the answers, and I guess maybe that's my point.

I don't think that atheism is arrogant, and I realise that's probably what it sounded like I was saying. I think that my atheism was arrogant. And maybe I'm not explaining the distinction well; if so, I apologise.

[Ruv Draba]

I don't think that atheism is arrogant, and I realise that's probably what it sounded like I was saying. I think that my atheism was arrogant.
Atheism is a bit like vegetarianism. You don't eat meat, but your reasons are your own - they might be moral, spiritual, social, medical, psychological, conceptual or you might just not like the dang taste. And just as vegetarianism isn't necessarily foregoing meat, atheism isn't necessarily foregoing religion. (If you don't see meat as food in the first place, you can't really miss it from your diet.)

Atheism is a conceptual ideology; it may or may not come with spiritual, moral and social values. For some people it does, and you may find those values to be agreeable or not; arrogant or not. But other atheists may have other values.

Speaking for myself, I quite dislike the values in most atheists I know, even though I agree with their beliefs! Daimeera may not want to say it, but I will: most atheists I've met are arrogant, cynical and self-absorbed. I can understand if you wouldn't want to hang with them. Other than in forums like this one, I don't even mention my beliefs because of the social stigma that often attaches to them.

Again, speaking personally, I much prefer to hang with theists - they're generally kinder, more generous, more humble and yummier folk. On the downside, they can get twitchy when you challenge their beliefs, even if you generally like their values. So my personal practice is not to challenge theistic beliefs unless they're being used to justify offensive behaviour or bad social policy.

[Toothpaste]

Do you really think it is because they are atheists that they are so bad, or because of the people they happen to be? I know a heck of a lot of religious people who are exactly the same as you described. To me it comes down more to a willingness to allow others to believe what they want to. I have no interest in fundamentalists in any religion (or non religion for that matter). I really resent people who come to my door to convert me, at the same time I also resent people who think those with religion are idiots.

I think it has less to do with all atheists being a certain way, than the people who actively promote themselves as atheists in your social circle having a much more fundamentalist behaviour.

[Ruv Draba]

Do you really think it is because they are atheists that they are so bad, or because of the people they happen to be?
Hey Toothy. I don't know that they're bad, just mildly unpleasant and of low value to me. By that I mean I believe they don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much. On the other hand, they are very willing to criticise and condemn the efforts of others. So: unpleasant and low value.

Are they more unpleasant or worse value than closed-minded, ill-educated self-entitled people of other persuasions? Of course not. It's just that atheists find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn whereas theists often have strong incentive to try and develop themselves. So, I've met a lot of really worthwhile theists and (despite having common beliefs) very few worthwhile atheists. (Of course, I haven't spent much time in this forum yet, so maybe a group of atheist-writers will prove the exception. :D)

I've written it elsewhere (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100915): religion contains a lot of deceit; especially when it starts to try and explain the physical world. Theologists are seldom good physicists, and history shows that when it comes to understanding the physical world, strong faith is no substitute for open-minded observation. So I don't listen to theologists telling me how the world is. I also don't much trust theology in setting social policy. It's demonstrated strong and abiding self-interest, hypocrisy and downright exploitation as often as not (though in fairness, it seems only as bad as the rest of society is at the time).

On the other hand, theologists are not bad at morality, psychology and understanding the human condition. Most of the thought ever devised on these topics is religious thought, and many of the greatest writings on human development remain religious writings. Just cos the physics is bunkum, the cosmology is dodgy, the social commentary is self-interested, and it's full of superstition doesn't mean that there's no value. These guys have had millennia seeing people at their best and worst. Many of our most empathic and compassionate people have been religious people. I think there's some wisdom to be had from the writing, even if it's couched in symbolism and bizarre proscriptions.

Atheistic tendency to comb religious texts for logic holes (like they're hard to find!), or physical inconsistencies (ditto!), or outdated social values (double ditto) or ignore them entirely in favour of 48-page self-help books does create rather... shallow, cynical and narrow-minded personalities.

Or so I've found, anyway.

[oscuridad]

aside from all the other considerations there is this:

there are thousands of Religions claiming to be the absolute truth.
they cannot al be true
therefore they are all false.

yes, a rather ropey bit of logic, but it has a common sense to it.

I questioned a rather aggressive Christian on this - he said simply 'the other religions are false' - and of course, that is kind of my point.

[Bartholomew]

I am atheist for the simple fact that I am intellectually and morally opposed to the idea that gods somehow intertwine with human existence and meddle with our affairs.

Whether they exist or not is of shockingly little concern to me, and until one comes up and speaks to me, it will remain so.


there are thousands of Religions claiming to be the absolute truth.
they cannot all be true
therefore they are all false.


Absolute truth, when put into any form we recognize, is by definition distorted by man. Both by the presenter and the observer. In that case, can you honestly say all religions are false? Could you not, instead, say that all religions are the distorted reflection of some universal truth?

[poetinahat]

aside from all the other considerations there is this:



there are thousands of Religions claiming to be the absolute truth.

they cannot al be true

therefore they are all false.

yes, a rather ropey bit of logic, but it has a common sense to it.
But that logic is flawed.

The Christian could be right. So could the Jew, or the Buddhist, or the Muslim, or Sufist, or the Shinto, etc.

A plurality of conflicting theories does not imply that they are all false. [eta: as Bart said above, it's equally plausible to say that they all - or some of them, at least - contain elements of a Universal Truth. I guess it's a matter of whether you're looking to see where people right about something, or where they're wrong about anything.]

One could just as easily say that atheism is wrong, simply because an infinity of religious doctrines would guarantee that one of them must be right. And one would be just as wrong in saying it.

[Bartholomew]

Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea.

I'm going to step out on a limb here and suggest that, perhaps, you meant to post this in one of the fiction forums?

[Toothpaste]

Hey Toothy. I don't know that they're bad, just mildly unpleasant and of low value to me. By that I mean I believe they don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much. On the other hand, they are very willing to criticise and condemn the efforts of others. So: unpleasant and low value.

Are they more unpleasant or worse value than closed-minded, ill-educated self-entitled people of other persuasions? Of course not. It's just that atheists find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn whereas theists often have strong incentive to try and develop themselves. So, I've met a lot of really worthwhile theists and (despite having common beliefs) very few worthwhile atheists. (Of course, I haven't spent much time in this forum yet, so maybe a group of atheist-writers will prove the exception. :D)

I've written it elsewhere (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100915): religion contains a lot of deceit; especially when it starts to try and explain the physical world. Theologists are seldom good physicists, and history shows that when it comes to understanding the physical world, strong faith is no substitute for open-minded observation. So I don't listen to theologists telling me how the world is. I also don't much trust theology in setting social policy. It's demonstrated strong and abiding self-interest, hypocrisy and downright exploitation as often as not (though in fairness, it seems only as bad as the rest of society is at the time).

On the other hand, theologists are not bad at morality, psychology and understanding the human condition. Most of the thought ever devised on these topics is religious thought, and many of the greatest writings on human development remain religious writings. Just cos the physics is bunkum, the cosmology is dodgy, the social commentary is self-interested, and it's full of superstition doesn't mean that there's no value. These guys have had millennia seeing people at their best and worst. Many of our most empathic and compassionate people have been religious people. I think there's some wisdom to be had from the writing, even if it's couched in symbolism and bizarre proscriptions.

Atheistic tendency to comb religious texts for logic holes (like they're hard to find!), or physical inconsistencies (ditto!), or outdated social values (double ditto) or ignore them entirely in favour of 48-page self-help books does create rather... shallow, cynical and narrow-minded personalities.

Or so I've found, anyway.

Hon, I just kind of resent your atheists do this and theologists do that. Some of each group do, the ones you happen to know, do, not ALL. This is the problem I am finding with your arguments. Because of the people you know, you are classing everyone as such. I do not find the same trends with the friends I know at all, if fact considering some of the stuff I am constantly show on the television I could very well make some very negative conclusions towards theologists, does that mean I can make a sweeping generalisation as you do?

You want to talk morality? What about some Catholic who performs attrocious acts, and then, all they have to do is confess, and their sins are absolved? What about the idea that the only reason one does good is so that one goes to heaven, as opposed to doing good because that is the right thing to do (as atheists believe)? Or the ones who use some sort of prophet as an excuse that allows them to have sex with children? There are many examples of "theologists" too lacking morality. But I would never claim that ALL "theologists" lack morality just because a few use religion as an escape goat.

I am sorry you have had such a bad time with the atheists in your circle, and I am happy you know so many lovely theologists, but please stop with these sweeping generalisations, they are really starting to offend.

[Queen of Swords]

I am sorry you have had such a bad time with the atheists in your circle, and I am happy you know so many lovely theologists, but please stop with these sweeping generalisations, they are really starting to offend.

I thought of saying the same thing, then thought, "What's the use? Maybe I'll end up being classed as yet another self-centered, cynical, unpleasant atheist for criticizing these generalizations. If someone decides that atheists (apparently all, not most) find it easy to not care, not try and not learn, then why should I attempt to change that opinion?"

Perhaps this confirms me as one of those atheists who "don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much", but life's too short for me to try to persuade people that I don't automatically fit into certain categories or have certain failings simply because I am an atheist.

[rugcat]

Hey Toothy. I don't know that they're bad, just mildly unpleasant and of low value to me. By that I mean I believe they don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much. On the other hand, they are very willing to criticise and condemn the efforts of others. So: unpleasant and low value. . .


Atheistic tendency to comb religious texts for logic holes (like they're hard to find!), or physical inconsistencies (ditto!), or outdated social values (double ditto) or ignore them entirely in favour of 48-page self-help books does create rather... shallow, cynical and narrow-minded personalities.It's interesting how much of oneself can be revealed in a simple post.

[Angelinity]

out of every 10 self-declared 'atheists' i've met along the way, I have at some point witnessed at least half of them talking, cursing or praying to God, either when sudden tragedy struck or found themselves emotionally at wit's end or within a hair of death's door -- including myself.

this has caused me question the real reasons behind atheistic 'beliefs'. atheism denies the existence of a God -- why? is it a form of 'adolescent' rebellion? were they/was i merely rebelling against the idea that some sort of God had or could take control of my life, choices, destiny, mortality?

if we are so certain that no God exists, then why expend the effort of denying his existence and defending one's right to believe as one chooses?

how in-control are we really over what happens to us along a fifty to seventy-some-year lifespan? i remember a time when i felt utterly invincible as i am sure many in this forum may be feeling right now. something (or a accumulation of little somethings) happened to pull me back into the flow from which i'd leapt and... it's not that simple -- there is much to learn and closing oneself off inside a bubble means one will come to learn only that which swims within that bubble, nothing more.

i wish to preach to no one, only to 'warn' (and even that's too strong a word) that those of us who lock all doors behind and choose to look but in one direction, will eventually see only that: a very small arc of a 360.

ETA: i'm not taking sides, this applies to atheists as well as non-atheists.

[GeorgeK]

[quote=Just Jack;2287191]
I hate when people claim me to be immorale because I dont have a faith. quote]

But you do have a faith, the faith that there is no God. It is a faith that appears to be ever so ardent as those who feel threatened by your faith. If they were secure in their own faith, it shouldn't bother them, what you believe.

[oscuridad]

But that logic is flawed.

The Christian could be right. So could the Jew, or the Buddhist, or the Muslim, or Sufist, or the Shinto, etc.

A plurality of conflicting theories does not imply that they are all false. [eta: as Bart said above, it's equally plausible to say that they all - or some of them, at least - contain elements of a Universal Truth. I guess it's a matter of whether you're looking to see where people right about something, or where they're wrong about anything.]

One could just as easily say that atheism is wrong, simply because an infinity of religious doctrines would guarantee that one of them must be right. And one would be just as wrong in saying it.

It is flawed, in a way. But let me put it another way. The issue is that ALL claim to be right and that CANNOT be the case. The induction is that if most of them (i.e. all but one) must be wrong then ALL of them could be wrong (i.e. we do not know which one might be right) - indeed the likelihood that any one Religious system could be wrong far outweighs the likelihood that it could be right - in other words the statistical probability of any one system being the 'real' one is so close to zero that they all are effectively false.

[GeorgeK]

It's just that atheists find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn .

If they truly didn't care, then the topic would never come up. Most of the atheists I've known have read far more religious texts than those claiming to be true believers. Understanding the mechanics of a system requires a few skeptics. I think that's part of the programming and necessary to the system. I fail to see how an omnipotent God (and I believe there is at least one) would be threatened by any person or any group or people. Remember, if there was a war in Heaven and one third of the angels rebelled, that means that even in Heaven, when face to face with God, God only got a 67% approval rating. I'm sure that in this current system where God is hidden from our view, assuming God is Fair, Loving and Just. Then there is a place for all of us. We just have to do the best we can. Our brains are just too tiny to get it all right so to assume that anyone can get it all right (or all wrong) is illogical.

[GeorgeK]

I am atheist for the simple fact that I am intellectually and morally opposed to the idea that gods somehow intertwine with human existence and meddle with our affairs.


Belief in free will does not obviate religious theology.

[IdiotsRUs]

I'm going to do a crit, as above.
For some reason, many people lately have been questioning me on this. Exactly why am I an atheist? Why dont I believe in god? Let me explain.

1. I do not believe in god mainly because almost all religon requires that you "surrender" to god. I will not surrender my individualism and my freedome to a figure which, in my eyes, does not exist. I am religious. My religion does not require me to suurrender to anybody ( I don't even kneel to my 'gods'.) They are just entities that have more experience than me. That's it.

2. The concept of god is crazy to me. The universe was not created in seven days, its just a fairy tale. I personally believe that religon was created at a time when humanity was on the brink of chaos, and so the people needed something to guide them in the right direction, i.e. religon. We are much more mature now, and religon just causes problems . (wars and whatnot)

The seven days thing -- most people realise that these stories of how the world came to be are in fact an ancient world trying to make sense of things -- not actual 'this is what happened' This does not mean it was not created. Who made the big bang?

3. I do not need a 2000 year old book to decide what is right and wrong for me. I can do that myself.

neither do I. ( I'm not a christian btw) I do think that what was written may have value and should not be dismissed out of hand. As MY religious text says : there is none so good he is without all flaw, and none so wretched he is without all virtue. Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean what was written in the bible has no value. My religion places emphasis on how you act, and doing what is right in your heart, no matter anything else.

4. Absolute faith has rules, therefore it takes away personal choice in freedom. To me, god is just a pair of handcuffs.

The only rules my religion places on me are those I chose to inflict upon myself. To nick from shakespear it embodies 'to thy own self be true'. That's it. Do what your heart tells you is right is what it tells me. My heart is not a handcuff, and I can make almost any choice ( bar murder and breaking a promise) and not go against my gods. I have personal choice in everything but those two restrictions ( which asfaic are a given anyway)

5. Faith in such an absolute being, in a being who wields absolute power over the entire universe, seems dangerous to me.

I don't believe my gods have power over the universe,( caretakers of Earth maybe) so....that's not an issue for me.

It seems you are only railing against one religion that you don't like. I'm not a big fan of christianity ( how egotistical is it to assume the ultimate power of the universe gives a crap about what I do?) or its methods. That does not mean religion is bad, or that you cannot have faith.


6. Religon is built on fear. Why should you do what god says? So you dont go to hell, of course. If religon did not acknowledge that there was a hell, there would be a lot more atheists out there.

I don't do what my god says. I take into account what he has said, thats it. The rest is up to me and that's how my god wants it.


That's it. I understand this is a touchy subject, and I tried to be respectful. I am not saying religon is bad, just that its not good for me. Nor am I saying that religous PEOPLE are bad. I know that most people who believe in god and religon are good people. I am just discussing my viewpoint, that is all.

Conclusion: There are as many different 'religions' as there are people, because each person has a different interpretation of any religious texts. Just be yourself. Everything else will follow.

If you want to be an atheist, fine, if you really believe that. If it's just 'I don't believe anything else' think some more.

[loquax]

But you do have a faith, the faith that there is no God. It is a faith that appears to be ever so ardent as those who feel threatened by your faith. If they were secure in their own faith, it shouldn't bother them, what you believe.I object strongly to the notion that atheism requires faith equal to that of theism. There are an infinite amount of things to not believe in. It could be easily said that we all have "faith" in the non-existence of talking chickens, let alone invisible chickens, chickens the size of mountains, chickens who write novels. And that's just chickens. To have an infinite amount of "faiths" jumbling around in a single human brain is ludicrous, and I would have thought even more plain to see as such by those who actually have faith.

Rejecting ideas is not faith, it's simply a deduction based on previous knowledge, sometimes never pondered upon until the question has been asked. The belief in the non-existence of a god is just one of these deductions. It's a big one, but it fits in the category.

The only difficult leap we as atheists have to overcome is that the theists are in the majority. Therefore we must break the "norm". To those with faith, it might seem logical to imprint their own beliefs upon us, saying "if I have faith, then so do you". But this is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

[IdiotsRUs]

The only difficult leap we as atheists have to overcome is that the theists are in the majority. Therefore we must break the "norm". To those with faith, it might seem logical to imprint their own beliefs upon us, saying "if I have faith, then so do you". But this is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

See now you're saying everyone with faith will try and convert you. NEWSFLASH: they try and convert me too, and I already have a religion. I bet no one says you're a satanist, when you don't even believe he exists..... And there are more atheists than there are people of my religion.

So if you really believe there is no god ( as opposed to thinking 'well it seems silly that there is one' or whatever), stick up for yourself! Have faith in yourself. Thor's foreskin! have faith in the toaster if that's all you can conjure up. Have faith in something, and your mind is the best thing to start with. Everyone believes something, even if it's only 'the toast always lands butter side down.' Whatever, if you spend your life believing nothing, what have you got? not a lot.

[loquax]

Having faith in yourself is a different definition of the word faith. I have plenty of reason to believe in myself, and in toasters. You could say I have faith that my toaster's element will bust within the next year. But that's because it's happened before. It's not the same kind of faith.

I also fundamentally disagree with the notion having Faith in something equates to having meaning in your life. I gain much more satisfaction from my actions than my beliefs. I'm still young, but on my deathbed, I know I that I'll be pleased in having made a difference, and I'll embrace the nothingness quite happily.

[Angelinity]

why do posts in threads like this one tend to get personal?

on what basis can a poster assume and declare 'out-loud' that another poster does not have faith in him/herself?

[IdiotsRUs]

Having faith in yourself is a different definition of the word faith.

Faith is faith, whatever it's in. Faith in yourself, faith in a higher power, faith in coca cola. Tis all faith.

definition: faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth.


I have plenty of reason to believe in myself, and in toasters. You could say I have faith that my toaster's element will bust within the next year. But that's because it's happened before. It's not the same kind of faith. me too. My toasters never last long , damn them! My only difference to you is I believe other stuff too.

I also fundamentally disagree with the notion having Faith in something equates to having meaning in your life.

I bet you believe in something though. No you don't have to have faith to have meaning, I agree with you there. But most people need a belief in something. Don't have to, but do anyway. Even if it's only faith in Sod's Law, like my Dad.


I gain much more satisfaction from my actions than my beliefs. Me too

I'm still young, but on my deathbed, I know I that I'll be pleased in having made a difference, and I'll embrace the nothingness quite happily.

Good for you! See, you do believe in something. If I'm taking this the right way ( quite possible I'm not, cos I'm tipsy) but you believe that this life is all there is. So you have faith in that ? I've no problem with you believing what you like, btw, as long as you don't tell me I have to believe it too -- by the same token, I don't expect you to believe the same as me.

I do like a nice discussion though :)

eta: must lay off beer.

[Ruv Draba]

Hon, I just kind of resent your atheists do this and theologists do that.Toothy, you asked me about my experiences and what I make of them. I answered your question as best I could. I'm sorry that my experiences and conclusions offend you. To be honest I'm a little surprised that they do.

After all, atheism is about fact rather than faith, right? So facts should lead us to truth - even if it's unpleasant truth. (If it's not pleasant for you to read this stuff, imagine how much less pleasant it is for me to live with it.)

Ruv: A lot of atheists don't seem to be good for much more than chucking stones.
Atheists: *pelt stones* Shut UP!
I don't know that atheists are worse people than theists, and that isn't even my claim. My claim is more that we don't have many really good atheists to balance out our phalanxes of disgruntled stone-chuckers. On the other hand, theism has a lot of good folk. In my experience, you can find one or two in any parish, temple or synagogue. These are people who spend a good portion of their lives helping other people on a regular basis. They're not out to hurt folks; they genuinely believe in being better and more connected people and they commit vast chunks of their lives toward doing that.

You made the point indirectly (and I agree with it) - that atheists don't generally imprison or burn people for their religious beliefs (when it happens at all, we blame it on the Marxists :tongue). So maybe we don't have many of the worst people either.

But I reckon that comparing worsts is a pretty pointless way to evaluate ideologies. By that argument, we should all be dead, cos dead people never do anything bad.

I think it makes more sense to compare goods.

In a sense, I'm disappointed that most of this thread has been rock-chucking (even before the rocks started to fly at me). There's a lot of 'I'm an atheist because religions are yucky'. Nobody has yet said: 'I'm an atheist because I'm committed to truth, kindness and being a good example of humanity'.

Which doesn't prove my point, but it sure does kinda illustrate it, doesn't it?

[loquax]

Faith is faith, whatever it's in. Faith in yourself, faith in a higher power, faith in coca cola. Tis all faith.

definition: faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth. Faith -noun

1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. I guess the second could be called "blind faith". Atheists have none of that - it's almost as fundemental a belief as not believing in God in the first place.

To me, believing something and having blind faith in something are two VERY different things.

[IdiotsRUs]

I guess the second could be called "blind faith". Atheists have none of that - it's almost as fundemental a belief as not believing in God in the first place.

To me, believing something and having blind faith in something are two VERY different things.

You are absolutely right. They are two different things.

But.....


All the atheists I know ( IRL as opposed to on the net) have blind faith that there is no god ( and I applaud them for their stance). Belief that there is nothing until you see it still equals faith.

I have blind faith that there are elephants. I have yet to see one in the flesh.

If you truely believe that there is no god, good for you. I salute you. You've weighed everything up and come to your own conclusion, which is more than most people do. But without evidence one way or another, it's still blind faith, because it is belief that is not based on proof

Ofc if you want to call it something else, that's up to you. As long as you don't mind me thinking that you have faith there is no god. And me thinking that is not a derogatory thing, in fact it is a compliment from me, because you have made the decision that sits best with your own mind and heart.

[loquax]

I really don't want to hog this thread, IdiotsRUs, so I think I'll cut the discussion off here - it seems to be going in circles a little bit. For reasons why I don't think atheists have faith, I'll direct you to my first post.

But I will say that you DON'T have blind faith in the existence of elephants. As far as I'm aware, their existence is fairly well documented. As soon as you find tickets to go and see an omnipotent being in a God-Zoo, please give me a shout - that's something I'd LOVE to see ;)

[IdiotsRUs]

I really don't want to hog this thread, IdiotsRUs, so I think I'll cut the discussion off here - it seems to be going in circles a little bit. For reasons why I don't think atheists have faith, I'll direct you to my first post.

fair enough. I shall agree to differ with you there.

But I will say that you DON'T have blind faith in the existence of elephants. As far as I'm aware, their existence is fairly well documented. As soon as you find tickets to go and see an omnipotent being in a God-Zoo, please give me a shout - that's something I'd LOVE to see ;)

Me too, especially if they do tricks and stuff. I want to see Thor smite somone! I can think of a couple of candidates from real life. Will there be popcorn?

BTW I saw vampires on the telly, and there's all these books about them and....kk, :) only messing.

Please be assured I have no problem with your stance on anything. I don't give a crap what anyone believes as long as they actually believe it, have thought about it and come to their own conclusion rather than just blindly follow whatever.

I just like to see the other point of view, and why / how that point of view works.

peace dude.

[Angelinity]

a God Zoo. such an image.

i suppose if one were to respect everyone else's right to believe as they chose, one would need restrain from making potentially offending analogies. and what a dull world that would be, so unlike our human world.

[oscuridad]

bandying semantics is a big part of these arguments:

Faith and faith are two different things - even if the difference is only one of magnitude.

[Ruv Draba]

All the atheists I know ( IRL as opposed to on the net) have blind faith that there is no god
There's another way to think about this, I.R.U.

Imagine that I'm alseep at home and my phone rings at 3AM. If I don't get up to answer it then I'm exercising a measure of blind faith that it's (say) a wrong number, rather than an emergency. Fair enough.

But on the other hand, if my phone always rings at odd hours with telemarketers and wrong numbers, it's still faith but it's no longer blind.

Many atheists are tired of the telemarketing and wrong numbers. They've chosen not to put their faith in representatives of this or that must-have product, but rather in themselves. And putting your faith in yourself to make life decisions is normally not blind faith.

On the other hand, atheists get swindled by ostrich farms and Nigerian bank scams same as everyone else. It's not true that we're immune to blind faith! More often we're just allergic to it coming at us in certain highly-recognisable forms.

[IdiotsRUs]

On the other hand, atheists get swindled by ostrich farms and Nigerian bank scams same as everyone else. It's not true that we're immune to blind faith! More often we're just allergic to it coming at us in certain highly-recognisable forms.

I'm highly allergic to being told I'll burn in a hell I don't believe exists. *shrug*
Like I said, I don't care what you believe as long as a) you've really believe it rather than just follow blindly and b) don't try and make me feel the same. Oh, and it's nice to have a disscussion about why.


Faith and faith are two different things - even if the difference is only one of magnitude. And every person will have a different definition of what faith is, which is what makes this all so much fun. :)

[Angelinity]

All the atheists I know ( IRL as opposed to on the net) have blind faith that there is no god ( and I applaud them for their stance). Belief that there is nothing until you see it still equals faith.



not quite -- 'belief that there is nothing until you see it' does not equal Faith, but skepticism.

Faith is believing without demonstrable proof.

Elephants do exist. Other people have seen them, lived with them, hunted and harvested their ivory tusks (and still do), rode them in war and peace -- elephants are part of history and they live in zoos as well as the wild.

[IdiotsRUs]

Elephants do exist. Other people have seen them, lived with them, hunted and harvested their ivory tusks (and still do), rode them in war and peace -- elephants are part of history and they live in zoos as well as the wild.

So you say.

This is like someone saying 'god does exist, people have seen him, had visions from him, he has spoken to them, he has performed miracles, he is part of our history'

I have never seen a real elephant. Therefore the only proof I have of their existence is other people telling me they exist. I believe those people, but I cannnot prove that elephants exist, so I have blind faith that they do.

Yes, now I'm getting pedantic, but the arguement is very similar no? I have no proof that elephants exist. Neither do you unless you've actually seen one or happen to have an elephant leg umbrella holder or something. We have faith that they exist because *drum roll * other people tell us it is so. Nothing else.


OK, I'll get some coffee and sober up:)

[Don Allen]

This is not directed at anyone person's post so please don't misinterpret my meaning.

When I was younger I thought of my self as an atheist, as I aged I discovered that i was in fact more inclined to be a spiritual person, and now I can tell you that I'm strongly spiritual yet most definitly agnostic.

I don't follow Zen, but I do subscribe to the fact that life, (all life) all things around us have a certain balance that universally must be maintained. Life must have death, good must have bad, an action must have a reaction. This is the basis of my spirtuality, and why I turned away from complete atheism. It began not to make sense to me, as an individual, that the possibility of a natural occurring (possibly intelligent) universal FORCE (all Star Wars fans get wood here) dosen't exsist in some fashion or the harmonic balance could not be maintained.

If all this thing does is keep life thru-out the universe in balance, it is proof (to me) that something far greater exsists. Silly old man, aren't I....

[Queen of Swords]

In a sense, I'm disappointed that most of this thread has been rock-chucking (even before the rocks started to fly at me). There's a lot of 'I'm an atheist because religions are yucky'.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread has taught me that being an atheist = getting unfairly criticized. I responded to Pascal's Wager with a long explanation of why it doesn't work for me. Then I gave an example of how I would respond to someone who wanted me to believe because there was no evidence against a god. Perhaps this wasn't included in the "I'm an atheist because religions are yucky" condensation, but perhaps it was. Who knows.

When one gets too many critical blanket statements, perhaps one finds it a little difficult to overflow with the milk of human kindness and benevolence towards all. Just a thought.

[Angelinity]

So you say.

I have never seen a real elephant. Therefore the only proof I have of their existence is other people telling me they exist. I believe those people, but I cannnot prove that elephants exist, so I have blind faith that they do.

OK, I'll get some coffee and sober up:)

okay you get points for getting me to smile tonight.

the difference is this:

Elephants CAN be seen. yes, you may have to travel either to your nearest Zoo, India, or Africa -- these are PHYSICAL locations, real and accessible in real time.

God CANNOT be seen (well except by the Faithful) in the physical world... I cannot give you the coordinates to God's location, hence i cannot either prove or disprove that/whether He/She/It lives/exists...

[IdiotsRUs]

When one gets too many critical blanket statements, perhaps one finds it a little difficult to overflow with the milk of human kindness and benevolence towards all. Just a thought.

You can get crits from all sides without being an atheist ( every saturday morning, 7am, without fail, I get told I'm going to burn in hell. Jehovah's witnesses. Seriously, one day I'm going to open the door with a headless chicken and a bloody knife and ask them to come in)

If I've upset anyone I apologise. I have a fascination with why people believe what they do. I have no problem with what they believe ( as I said up above, as long as they don't tell me to believe as they do), but I love to know why. Why do some christians beleive that there was no evolution? Why christianity and not islam? Why do some atheists believe in some things they have not seen ( like elephants, or electrons or whathaveyou) unless it is god, in which case they don't?

Apologies once again, but it's like an endless fascination with the human psyche....and the beer doesn't help tbh.

I shall hang my head in shame. I only wanted to know....


Ack! Odin's ringpiece you had to , didn't you?
Elephants CAN be seen. yes, you may have to travel either to your nearest Zoo, India, or Africa -- these are PHYSICAL locations, real and accessible in real time.

God CANNOT be seen (well except by the Faithful) in the physical world... I cannot give you the coordinates to God's location, hence i cannot either prove or disprove that/whether He/She/It lives/exists...

Again, so you say I can see an elephant. Maybe you're seeing things?:) You haven't proved their existence.

right, yes I know, I'll shut up now.

[Angelinity]

okays. i'll go fill my glass.

you know, I've never seen the moon except for watching it in the sky... same for the sun. and personally I have never seen a baby being born either. hmmmm... where DO babies really come from, huh?

[Queen of Swords]

You can get crits from all sides without being an atheist

True. But this is the first time I've had an atheist tell me that "atheists find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn".

I'm thinking, if I told a christian that in my experience, all if not most christians were intolerant, closed-minded and unwilling to hear the truth, and if the christian then decided to limit contact with me, I could then decide my theory about christians was quite right.

Fortunately I've met theists who treated me well and who were fun to hang out with, as well as theists who treated me badly and whom I avoided. Likewise, I've met atheists who are my close friends and atheists whom I'd keep at a distance. So I try not to make such generalizations (unless it's under special circumstances, like a humor column). I think they can be self-fulfilling prophecies.

Just my take on the matter.

[Come Back Kid]

I certainly do not think an atheist is a bad person. I was just as good a person when I did not accept God was real. There are so many things about Him that it really takes effort to believe.
Faith is a force just as electricity is a force. It can be used with or without God. Fear is a negative force that hinders faith and either weakens, or totally negates it. Faith can either be made stronger, by combining it with the faith that God helps when our's is weak. Belief in Satan hindering our lives is absurd to non-believers, yet very real to me.
If people would try to find how and why a spiritual battle began and how it was won, they would want to be on the strongest side.
Yes, one-third of the angels went with Satan. I don't think he went around recruiting those who came with him. I think, as one of the three arch angels, he was like a General in the army who was followed by those under his command.
The bible does not say Earth was created in seven days. It says the Earth was null and void and He parted the waters. There was a flood before Adam ever existed, then came Noah's flood. I can't prove this but it sure makes sense to me. God told Adam to "re-plinish the Earth, as opposed to "plenish."
Years ago, I stopped trying to push it on anyone. I rebelled even more if someone pushed me.
Faith in God and belief in God have different meanings. One can believe in God but not have faith that He will help them. At times, I have felt too unworthy for His help.
I share things to activate curiosity, and yes, I'd like people to avoid whatever judgement may be coming. That's not the reason I believe but I'll take it as part of the package.
QUESTION: As stated, my reason is truly to benefit souls that I think are eternal. He makes it clear how to be with Him, and it ain't by being good. Here is what I want to know. Why do some atheists try very hard to convince others they are right?
I do not say that about posts I've read here, for this has been a very civil discussion.
I'm asking what benefit other atheists would derive, should they convince others to follow them.
I state plainly that I do not have all the answers and cannot show proof for many things I've written here. It is certainly not logical that a Majestic Being has always existed, yet the "slime" therory is even harder to grasp.
Jim

[loquax]

QUESTION: As stated, my reason is truly to benefit souls that I think are eternal. He makes it clear how to be with Him, and it ain't by being good. Here is what I want to know. Why do some atheists try very hard to convince others they are right?
I do not say that about posts I've read here, for this has been a very civil discussion.
I'm asking what benefit other atheists would derive, should they convince others to follow them.I have nothing against adults believing what they will, but I am deeply offended by children coming into this world and being turned into followers of their parents' and community's faith without so much as a single choice in the matter. This is one of Dawkins' main arguments, but I've felt this way long before he ever expressed it, and I expect a lot of atheists have as well.

It's not a personal benefit. It's an altruistic urge to have the human race exist fairly, with all opportunities, and not to be moulded into future indocrinators of their own children. Atheists do not seek to convert the religious to atheism - we seek to open people's eyes and allow them to think for themselves.

[poetinahat]

It is flawed, in a way. But let me put it another way. The issue is that ALL claim to be right and that CANNOT be the case. The induction is that if most of them (i.e. all but one) must be wrong then ALL of them could be wrong (i.e. we do not know which one might be right) - indeed the likelihood that any one Religious system could be wrong far outweighs the likelihood that it could be right - in other words the statistical probability of any one system being the 'real' one is so close to zero that they all are effectively false.

The original argument is flawed, in a way, yes: it is incorrect.

We're not talking about random events here, but for the sake of argument, let's say we are.

Pick a number between one and one trillion. The probability of any particular number being the one you chose is 1/1,000,000,000,000 (in American numbers). But one of those numbers must be the one. By your logic, effectively none of the numbers is the one you picked. Clearly, that doesn't work.

The differences between the example of religions and yours are:
- with the numbers, the possibilities are discrete: a number is either the one you picked, or it isn't. With religions, there's some overlap.
- with the numbers, one of them (and only one) *must* be the one you picked. With religions, there's no such requirement; on the other hand, more than one may have elements of being right.

Still, the principle holds: you can't just assign statistical probabilities to possible events, deem them all to be sufficiently low, then declare them all to be effectively impossible. In other fields - physics and medecine, for example - minute possibilities are of extremely high importance. Some would argue that, in matters of religion and the soul, the stakes are even higher, which would mean it's all the more important to pay attention to any small possibility.

[Queen of Swords]

I'm asking what benefit other atheists would derive, should they convince others to follow them.

I don't try to convince anyone to follow me. In fact, I think some people are happier bring religious than they would be being atheists, and I am content to leave it that way. So I don't try to convince anyone.

On the other hand, if someone tries to convince me of their religion (and that has happened pretty often) or if they ask why I hold this stance, I'll explain my position and why I came to be an atheist. I had to do this a lot when I lived back home, since I was criticized on all sides for not going to church. I don't do it much here, but I'm a member of some online secular communities, and I've lost count of the number of times theists came in waving quotes from their holy books and trying to convert the fallen.

[GeorgeK]

I object strongly to the notion that atheism requires faith equal to that of theism. .

If not faith, then what, do you have Proof?

[benbradley]

If not faith, then what, do you have Proof?
I think this has been discussed a few times before in earlier threads in this forum. Atheism can be divided into two types.

The first is "weak" atheism, where one says "I do not believe there is a God." This isn't a "positive" statement, it is simply a statement of lack of belief. This might result from, as an extreme example, an upbringing so insulated from modern society that one isn't introduced to the concept of God, and so one doesn't even know of the concept of believing in a spiritual deity. It's tempting to say this is a bit like agnosticism, but I would tend to think of it more like someone who grew up outside Western culture and is told the story of Santa Claus for the first time, and is asked, "when you were a child, did you believe in Santa Claus?"

"Strong" atheism would be the type that (ironically enough) "has faith" in the nonexistence of God. A strong atheist DOES make a "positive" statement: "I do believe there is no God," and thus this is often called positive atheism.
Here's a link that perhaps describes it better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

[Ruv Draba]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread has taught me that being an atheist = getting unfairly criticized.Atheism comes in for its share of criticism. Some I think is unfounded (e.g. there's an 'atheism entails amorality' argument I've seen here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html) (para 42) and elsewhere). Then again, we (or our leading idealogues at least) criticise religions all the time; it's fair to cop some critique back.

As for personal criticism of you, fair or otherwise, I haven't seen any yet. My criticism is of the culture of atheism, rather than of specific contributors on this list. As an atheist I feel perfectly entitled to critique my own culture, even if you feel that the criticism doesn't apply to you.

I can list my key atheist role models pretty quickly. They number:

Bertrand Russell - a strong atheist idealogue, and a conscientious objector against war
Sir Mark Oliphant - instrumental in the Manhattan project and setting up Australia's only nuclear reactor, but also a very strong humanitarian and something of a larrikin
Richard Dawkins - a secular humanist who's got a nice mix of crazy and educationI don't hang on their every word, but I consider all of them good examples of atheism done well. This is just so you know that I don't consider all atheists worthless.

My problem though is that there's only three and not thirty or three hundred. I can number scores of theistic leaders I respect - even when I don't agree with their beliefs, their values and behaviours inspire me.

It's good to care enough to have an opinion, QoD. It's even better to care enough to do your homework and have an informed opinion. I know plenty of atheists who do both. I respect that, but of itself - for my sense of humanity, it doesn't make for a good person; merely a smart one.

Dawkins likes to call atheists "Brights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement)", and maybe there's an argument in support of that. Many atheists do read broadly - enough at least to marshall arguments for what not to believe. Many of my theist friends read only inside their own doctrine - which makes certain conversations very difficult. All that's granted.

But if there is an argument for "Brights", then surely there's also an argument for theists to lay claim to the appellation "Goods". They do a heck of a lot to try and improve the lives of other people. They also work diligently to try and improve themselves. This isn't a sweeping generalisation; you just have to go look in your local community to see the evidence.

Speaking personally, I'd love it if our "Brights" were also "Goods". Or "gooder", at least.

When one gets too many critical blanket statements, perhaps one finds it a little difficult to overflow with the milk of human kindness and benevolence towards all. Just a thought.Absolutely true, and my sympathies that this is how you feel! I sometimes feel the same.

However (to illustrate my point), most modern theologies wouldn't accept either of us being hurt as an excuse not to love. They'd say: forgive and try harder.

And their devout do.

But many atheists (maybe most?) don't.

The doctrine of forgiveness has its origin in theistic thought, but is immensely powerful in (for instance) trauma recovery. It's a powerful secular tool, but most of the knowledge in how to wield it lies among our sectarian subcultures. In rejecting the religion as benighted, perhaps we atheists are also rejecting some valuable cultural tools too.

Do you know many (or any atheists) who are skilled at genuine forgiveness? I don't, but I know a lot of consummate grudge-hoarders. If you want to learn how to forgive properly, I'd say: don't talk to the average atheist. Talk instead to an old Jewish rabbi, or a sixty year-old Catholic nun rape survivor... those guys typically run rings around us.

It's not pleasant to hear that our own subculture has poor values. I don't like the idea any more than you do. However, I can see evidence that this is true and I've yet to see evidence that it's not. And if I'm going to believe that atheism somehow improves people, it had better be on more solid criteria than just...

...faith. :tongue

[veinglory]

I would note that this forum is for atheist writing. I believe somewhere in the stickies it says something about the futility and off-topicness of long discussion about why one should or shouldn't be an atheist.

[Ruv Draba]

I would note that this forum is for atheist writing. I believe somewhere in the stickies it says something about the futility and off-topicness of long discussion about why one should or shouldn't be an atheist.
I'm surprised that the thread has lasted as long as it did, VG.

I'd like to see some topics about non-theistic humanitarian values and inspirational writing, but I suspect that I'm alone in this.

[Toothpaste]

I'd like to see some topics about non-theistic humanitarian values and inspirational writing, but I suspect that I'm alone in this.

Woah, again, seriously dissing atheists.

How do you know this exactly? Um maybe if you started such a thread yourself you would find many willing to have that conversation with you. But then again, you'd rather sit with your judgments and look down your nose at the rest of atheists. . . and . . . wait a minute . . . you said you were an atheist didn't you . . . and now you are looking down at others and being very dogmatic in your opinions. . . my word, you are right! You are a perfect illustration of the atheists you have so described!

Have you ever heard of projection? Where one believes something so strongly that they project it onto others? I think your belief that atheists are all fundamentalists who hate religion and look down their noses at everyone, has been projected on everyone around you. You see only what you want to see. Many atheists in this thread have proven to you that they do not think like that, but you choose to ignore them.

Why the hate man? Why the hate? Like I've said before, I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with the other atheists in your life, but just because you have met a couple rotten eggs, doesn't mean the rest are the same. Why the broad strokes? What's the point?

[Memnon624]

I try not to talk about my religion – or lack thereof – with anyone outside a rather small circle of friends (some of whom are atheists, and some of whom are theists). Living in the heart of the Southern Baptist Bible Belt has the side effect of putting a damper on civilized religious discourse ;) Most of the experiences with religion in my life have been negative and they have all been Christian . . . one finds little religious diversity in Alabama (though I’m sure it exists). These experiences – from being told at a young age that I was going to Hell for asking questions, to the sheer hypocrisy evinced by my church-going friends and family members – turned me wholly against the notion of organized religion, Christianity in particular.

But, I’m not a very good atheist, either. I can’t say with any certainty that there is or isn’t a God. Does that make me agnostic? Or just confused? Virtually all of my friends and family had their “spiritual awakening” between 12 and 17 years old; they got saved, baptized, what have you, and became official members of their church of choice (though we were raised Baptist, my brother and sister converted to Catholicism; my other sister became a Lutheran). I never had one of these defining moments, and that made me question whether or not I was “wired wrong”. After many, many years, I've finally decided that if there IS a God, then He must need nay-sayers to balance out the glut of yes-men (no offense meant).

But this is a thread about why . . . why am I an atheist by Christian standards? Because I can trace its origins to a very temporal and mundane – even tawdry – incident; in this case, the torture and execution of a charismatic preacher who threatened the status quo of Judaea’s priestly hierarchy. His followers later added elements culled from the popular religions of the day: the virgin birth from a wide variety of faiths, the birth story of Mithras from Zoroastrianism, the mother and son iconography of Egyptian Isis, a death and rebirth cycle borrowed from Adonis, and a promise of something better in the next life for those who endure their lot in this one (also Egyptian, but without the extremely long list of requirements for entry). Then, as the ultimate insult, these other religions were declared false and their practitioners were Hell-bound (another notion borrowed from Zoroastrianism).

And this is where Christianity lost me as a participant: I am supposed to believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, but the fourteen* other figures of history and myth who share the same trait (i.e.: born of a virgin) either didn’t exist or were lying? Compound this with all the other tropes taken from various places and worked into the fabric of Christian myth and the result is a religion that is no more valid, IMHO, than the worship of Zeus or Odin.

But, as always, while I can prove to my satisfaction (if not to anyone else’s) that the religion is false and man-made, I still cannot state with certainty that God himself is false and man-made. I would like to believe there is something larger than all of us, that we were created with more of a purpose than just to be born, exist for a flicker, and die. So far, though, I’ve found nothing :(

I'm new to this corner of the forum; please don't flame me too hard . . .

Best,

Scott





*Amenhotep III, Amphion and Zethus, the Buddha, Herakles, Ion, Karna, Krishna, Perseus, Romulus, Sargon I, Theseus, Vikramaditya, and Zoroaster.

[Ruv Draba]

How do you know this exactly?
Um maybe if you started such a thread yourself you would find many willing to have that conversation with you.I already did, on a topic that I think many atheists consider important: truth (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=134). You can evaluate the responses yourself.

But then again....I see this as personal attack. I don't believe it belongs here. Please PM it if you want a response.
Why the hate man?I don't hate atheists! I'm just critical and rather dismayed at certain common atheistic attitudes and practices. I think - or suspect, or believe - that we can do much better.

Personally, I question why an atheist would want to be comfortable at expense of the truth. That's an hypocrisy for which we so stridently criticise religion. If we're going to criticise other ideologies, I think it behooves us to also criticise our own equally vigorously. I also think it might help for us to realise that being smart (or 'bright' as Dawkins would have it) is not the end of the journey, but a beginning.

Others may disagree of course, but I think that it's worthwhile to at least advance the proposition, and take honest stock of where we are right now.

This has a very significant relevance to writing, but before I can even get there, I at least need (some) folk to agree that good values and not just skeptical beliefs, form a legitimate part of an atheist's mental toolkit. I think I also need some agreement that skepticism alone does not create good values...

Still waiting on a show of hands on these propositions. :D In their absence, I can't really refute (for example) the Pope's encyclical of last year Spe Salvi (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html), which alleges that atheism entails amorality. In a sense, I felt that a lot of responses to my Lies, Liars and Atheism (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=134) thread, were actually supporting His Holiness' conclusions.

[Queen of Swords]

As for personal criticism of you, fair or otherwise, I haven't seen any yet.

You'll understand that since I consider myself an atheist, I must fall into the category of people whom you say "find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn".

You may call it criticizing the culture, but it seems to me that this is criticizing people.

This is just so you know that I don't consider all atheists worthless.

To be honest, it wouldn't have surprised me if you did.

However (to illustrate my point), most modern theologies wouldn't accept either of us being hurt as an excuse not to love. They'd say: forgive and try harder.

And their devout do.

Let me think... have I ever come across a devout Christian who didn't forgive me and who didn't treat me just as fairly as they would have treated a theist?

Yes, I believe I have. (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2305456&postcount=10)

But many atheists (maybe most?) don't.

Isn't it terrible that we don't live up to theistic standards? I'll bet most atheists don't pray regularly and go to church either, even though it's well known that there might be some benefits to prayer and the social community of a church.

Do you know many (or any atheists) who are skilled at genuine forgiveness? I don't, but I know a lot of consummate grudge-hoarders.

You seem to have certain expectations of atheists - that we are shallow, cynical, self-centered, do not care, do not try, do not learn and do not forgive. It wouldn't surprise me that you see what you want to see - or that a certain attitude on the part of the observer prompts certain behavior on the part of the observed.

[Queen of Swords]

I think - or suspect, or believe - that we can do much better.

Just curious - is this your way of encouraging atheists to do much better?

Because if so, it's not working for me. It's possible you could attribute this to my being one of those worthless, unpleasant atheists who prefers comfort to the pursuit of the truth, but the blanket generalizations and near-insults don't really work for me.

I think I also need some agreement that skepticism alone does not create good values...

I'm not seeing many good values in your posts or your approach. Perhaps that could support your hypothesis?

[HeronW]

I never liked the 'best bet' theory of belief:
A: you believe and there's nothing hereafter so you've lost nothing
B: you don't believe, there is something hereafter so you're screwed.
This makes a gamble of faith and hedging the final bet rather than living an ethical life.

Over 50 years, I went from being a rabid Christian to atheist to taking responsibility for my own spirituality ignoring the politics of established religion.

[Ruv Draba]

Just curious - is this your way of encouraging atheists to do much better?The topic is 'why I'm an atheist'. My answer is: 'Because I share atheist beliefs if not the mainstream values, and I frequently regret being an atheist because I'm often embarrassed by the cynical, self-interested rock-chucking behaviour of my peers.' It's a candid and fairly blunt answer so apologies for the expression, but we're writers and hopefully can cope.

As for taking it personally, my comment is on the cultural values and behaviour of my own culture - one I've been part of for over three decades. Your values and behaviour are your own and I don't know what they are. I don't know that the shoe fits you - it just fits the atheists I know and I guess I know a few. But if you snatch it from my hand and stuff it onto your own foot, don't cry to me if it pinches.

My opinion about atheistic values and behaviour could be right or wrong. Please understand that I want it to be wrong! It's just that I'm not seeing the evidence. You can refute it by a series of solid examples if you want. If you do, I would love, love, love to hear them. I'll even add some of my own meagre store. I'll even start a thread on the topic!

I'm happy to have my opinion refuted QoS. I just don't accept arguments of Political Correctness (i.e. "You can't generalise about populations" and "It's evil to speak ill of a whole culture"). I know that people commonly make those arguments these days, but I believe that they're pure tosh.

(And... here's the positives thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101783). Please feel free to contribute.)

[Queen of Swords]

The topic is 'why I'm an atheist'. My answer is: 'Because I share atheist beliefs if not the mainstream values, and I frequently regret being an atheist because I'm often embarrassed by the cynical, self-interested rock-chucking behaviour of my peers.'

Then you might want to emulate the theists and look at the plank in your own eye before you try to take the speck out of anyone else's.

I don't know that the shoe fits you - it just fits the atheists I know and I guess I know a few. But if you snatch it from my hand and stuff it onto your own foot, don't cry to me if it pinches.

Thank you for your condescension. I will not be reading any more of your posts on this or any other topic. Please feel free to lump me in with all the other worthless, unpleasant, self-centered, unforgiving, shallow, mean-spirited, etc. etc. etc. atheists you know - I shall be in good company.

My opinion about atheistic values and behaviour could be right or wrong. Please understand that I want it to be wrong!

I don't get that impression at all. I think you're convinced you're right and you have adopted an approach and a set of offensive statements that is all but guaranteed to assure you of a response that confirms how correct you've been all along.

Have a good life.

[Dommo]

I can see where Ruv is coming from on this, and yes I do agree that a lot of atheists can be assholes when it comes to discussing religious things(note I'm pretty much an atheist).

The biggest thing, at least in my case, that's bothered me with other atheists is that they get stuck on the little things. "In God we Trust", and the like. It's basically making mountains of molehills and in general makes atheists look like foolish, irritating, whiners. I understand the concept of tradition, and honestly I don't really see the issue with a lot of the religiously oriented traditions in government.

The real concern atheists should have is that they don't allow themselves to descend into a quasi-reliogion. The first thing we need to do is accept that we do not know everything. The second thing we need to understand is that arguing with fools, makes us just as foolish.

Atheism itself is valueless. It's merely stating that you don't believe in a deity. Any behavior and moralistic views, come from the individual. So in that respect they vary in everyone. I tend to be a nicer guy, because I appreciate kindness myself, and figure it's often easier to do things when you are civil with people. However, I could see where someone might well take the opposite view to me.

If atheism does have a sole value, it should be individual choice. That should be it. From there a person can make their own decisions on they feel are appropriate behavior.

[Ruv Draba]

Atheism itself is valueless.
8<--Snippety--8<
If atheism does have a sole value, it should be individual choice.I agree on both counts. But it leads naturally to the next (and I think socially and morally interesting question): given the extra choice atheists acquire from not embracing a religion, how do we make use of that choice? Is it all self-gain? Is there a choice to do certain kinds of good that theists can't or won't normally do? Are there options to do certain kinds of good that theists normally do instead, but in a way that offers recipients more choice?

[Toothpaste]

I wanted to apologise for my personal attack. I was feeling personally attacked and it was late and I responded emotionally. That said I am very much with Queen on the tenor of your posts, which though your opinion, are written far more as fact. As such I can only use my personal experience to refute them (just as you use your personal experience to make sweeping claims) and respectfully disagree. I would be happy to introduce to you atheists who think as you do, or at least claim to - though they don't have your dogmatic dislike of atheists (like I said before, a huge irony I think considering your dislike of those dogmatic atheists who dislike theists). I know many who are as rational, kind, and are friends not only with theists, but theists who have certain values (like believing homosexuality is a sin) that is in stark contrast with their own.

However, as I have said before you are determined to paint broad strokes here. I am finding it very difficult to have a conversation with you, and I have to wonder if in your very focussed vision of atheists you tend to make them leave the conversation, as Queen, and now I am strongly considering, chasing away the very people who would actually agree with your other views on atheism. Maybe it isn't that all the atheists you know are bad as you claim, but rather the good ones don't much like being insulted?

Sigh. Isn't it nice that even in a subforum dedicated to atheists, even there atheists are attacked?


In a show of friendship, I will attempt however to engage in your conversation:

"how do we make use of that choice? Is it all self-gain? Is there a choice to do certain kinds of good that theists can't or won't normally do? Are there options to do certain kinds of good that theists normally do instead, but in a way that offers recipients more choice?"

I do not think atheism means that values are all self centric. I think a lot of atheists embrace morality as doing good because it is right, and not because god wants people to. In that way goodness can be done just as effectively as someone with religion. I think it may be harder in that many established insitutions to help others were founded by churches and synagogues etc, so there isn't an obvious list of places to help. Though there are non-religious institutions as well. Atheists don't congregate, so there isn't a ready made community where the power of the many can help the few. Often they will have to join other organisations, which is where I see a great deal of religious tolerance considering many of these organisations (as I already said) have religious undertones.

But I do not think atheists are capable of a greater kind of good than theists. I think someone who is good and moral, is good and moral despite their religious or non religious affiliations. Atheists may not be able to provide solace to a theist, ie something goes wrong and they can't say to a theist "I'll pray for you". But they can still say "You will be in my thoughts". Theists at the same time might be of little consolation to an atheist for saying "I'll pray for you", but the sentiment is one from the heart, and any rational atheist will understand that the statement was made in all kindness.

What do you think?

[Dommo]

I agree toothpaste.

In my case, I do good because I'm offended by hypocrisy. How can I expect people to be good to me, if I'm not good to them? In any case, I've found that it's easier to get through life as a nice guy.

The whole idea of doing good because it might get me an express ticket to the better side of the afterlife, sort of feels like having sex because I'm getting paid. While there's nothing inherently wrong with either action, it's just that the act should be reward enough. Getting the extra bonus shouldn't be the reason why people do things, and it just leads to people doing things either out of greed, or fear of some kind of divine retribution.

Meh, I'm going to go crawl back under my rock now.

[oscuridad]

The original argument is flawed, in a way, yes: it is incorrect.

We're not talking about random events here, but for the sake of argument, let's say we are.

Pick a number between one and one trillion. The probability of any particular number being the one you chose is 1/1,000,000,000,000 (in American numbers). But one of those numbers must be the one. By your logic, effectively none of the numbers is the one you picked. Clearly, that doesn't work.

The differences between the example of religions and yours are:
- with the numbers, the possibilities are discrete: a number is either the one you picked, or it isn't. With religions, there's some overlap.
- with the numbers, one of them (and only one) *must* be the one you picked. With religions, there's no such requirement; on the other hand, more than one may have elements of being right.

Still, the principle holds: you can't just assign statistical probabilities to possible events, deem them all to be sufficiently low, then declare them all to be effectively impossible. In other fields - physics and medecine, for example - minute possibilities are of extremely high importance. Some would argue that, in matters of religion and the soul, the stakes are even higher, which would mean it's all the more important to pay attention to any small possibility.

I love this - by definition of the very folks who support them - religious paradigms are either true OR false i.e. 1 or 0. Given there is an absence of proof - by definition - they ALL have the same statistical probability of being true or false. Just 'cause its religion doesn't make it a special case - numbers are numbers. As for minute possibilities - which ones are important would depend on who you are talking to - to compare probabilities in medical experimentation to trying to determine the unlikelihood of the truth of any given religious system is facile at best.

[Ruv Draba]

I wanted to apologise for my personal attack.Accepted, forgiven and forgotten, TP. Please also note that I've sent Queeny a PM of sympathy and apology for a couple of things I think I could have done better.

Your comment about my vehemence also noted. I'll try and make sure that the balance is clearer in my expression.

Maybe it isn't that all the atheists you know are bad as you claim, but rather the good ones don't much like being insulted?*Sigh*, Toothy, you have no idea what my previous relationships with other atheists have been (they've been extremely good). Speculating in this particular way brings it perilously close to attack again and rubs my nose in the fact that you don't think much of me personally. Please, just don't go there.

Moooooving right along...


I do not think atheism means that values are all self centric. I think a lot of atheists embrace morality as doing good because it is right, and not because god wants people to.I think so too.

For several years I hung out in a group of humanists - both secular and religious. All were passionate about good for good's sake (as opposed to for personal salvation, divine propitiation etc...) Their number included atheists, agnostics and various flavours of theists. In terms of values, behaviours and philosophies they differed a bit. Some were rock-chucking ratbags; others were quiet scholars and seekers or unevangelistic teachers. All were very passionate and articulate. They were a fun bunch and we got on very well together. :) Until that time I didn't know that there were many theists I could tolerate. Since that time I keep tripping over great theists, and have found a lot more tolerance for the ones who aren't so great. :tongue The change was not in the world of course, but in me. So there ya go.

(A multivalued, multiviewed group like that would've had no problem with me saying 'I'm an atheist but I don't much like atheists', by the way. They'd have laughed their heads off and agreed. Even the rock-chucking ratbags would've said "Yeah, we're a pain in the butt. But we're so right.")

I think it may be harder in that many established insitutions to help others were founded by churches and synagogues etc, so there isn't an obvious list of places to help.I agree again. This came up in my recent Atheism and morality (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101783) thread. Atheists seem to suffer from a variety of impediments including silence (many atheists prefer not to talk about their views), individualism (we don't like to conform just for the sake of conformity), lack of fellowship, and lack of clarity or confidence on how to build a strong secular moral frame (when nothing comes in by divine mandate, everything seems to need a lot more scrutiny).

But I do not think atheists are capable of a greater kind of good than theists.I don't know whether I agree or disagree with this statement, Toothy, but at first blush it bothers the heck out of me. Here's a quick sketch of why:

Good based on truth should be more sustainable than good based on deceit. Anyone can do good things for bad reasons, but the good which we do for good reasons should endure longer - or so it feels to me.

And if that's not true then we quickly reach an argument of the end justifying the means: that it's better to lie to people to make them behave better, than to tell them the truth knowing that they'll behave worse. (*)

And if we don't know what truth is - if we hold that truth is entirely subjective and individual - how can we ever work out what good is?

But even admitting your proposition, is it not reasonable to suggest that atheists should do (per capita) at least as much good as theists do (I mean as a group on average). If we're not doing as much good, then there's a potential social argument for (*).

I think someone who is good and moral, is good and moral despite their religious or non religious affiliations.Again, I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. It depends on whether you consider morality to be just 'doing good things' or 'doing good things for good reasons'. Human thought has been heavily divided on this. There was in fact a whole Christian schism over salvation through faith vs salvation through deeds which hinges on just this issue.

The Buddhists tend to favour the latter formulation - they believe that intention influences outcome. I favour that formulation too, though I'm not sure I could defend it on a materialistic basis. (I'd be willing to have a crack though if someone requests.)

But certainly in the latter formulation, the good that we do is not independent of our affiliations, motivations and beliefs.

Atheists may not be able to provide solace to a theist, ie something goes wrong and they can't say to a theist "I'll pray for you". But they can still say "You will be in my thoughts".That's true. It says that 'I care, even if I'm not there.' There's comfort in sympathy and belonging.

But many people want or need or demand more comfort than that. They want certainty - even if the certainty is a lie (and here, Queen's sad story (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=12563) from another thread comes again to mind).

We atheists are pretty lousy at making up comforting metaphysical lies. A key virtue of the truth is that it challenges us to grow to meet it. But that's no help at all to people who (especially in extremity) aren't ready to do that.

This issue bugs me a lot from time to time. I don't have an answer there.

[Toothpaste]

*Sigh*, Toothy, you have no idea what my previous relationships with other atheists have been (they've been extremely good). Speculating in this particular way brings it perilously close to attack again and rubs my nose in the fact that you don't think much of me personally. Please, just don't go there. - I'm sorry if I am reading into your posts. But up until just now, all your references in your previous posts have been to atheists you have known in a negative light. I am simply working with the information YOU provided. If you think I am wrong, please would you point out to me where you mention the good atheists in your social circle, so that I can apologise for my jumping to such conclusions. To be honest, in this, I would love to be proven wrong.



As to my statement that atheists are not necessarily capable of a greater kindness or morality or goodness, you have taken from that statement that I am saying atheists have a LESSER kindness or morality or goodness. I was not saying that at all. I was saying that I think anyone from any religion or not can be good and moral, and to claim that one group is better at being good and moral is in my opinion at once untrue, as well as opening one heck of a can of worms. The phrase may have been strangely written, but my point was actually promoting equality between belief systems.

The rest of your arguments I found very interesting. I do however find it very difficult to speculate on the goodness and morality of others, kind of find it impossible to really, so I"m not going to be much fun on this topic. I agree that the idea of someone doing good because they are afraid of being punished, or they are being told to, which on the surface seems to be the ways of some theists, is to me a bit wrong. But I have a strong suspicion that despite that excuse for goodness, there are many theists out there who do good deeds because they believe in doing good, in the goodness of the outcome itself, and not because of rewards in the afterlife.

Again, I prefer to look at people as individuals, shaped by many different aspects of their lives, religion being just one of them.

[poetinahat]

I love this - by definition of the very folks who support them - religious paradigms are either true OR false i.e. 1 or 0. Given there is an absence of proof - by definition - they ALL have the same statistical probability of being true or false. Just 'cause its religion doesn't make it a special case - numbers are numbers. As for minute possibilities - which ones are important would depend on who you are talking to - to compare probabilities in medical experimentation to trying to determine the unlikelihood of the truth of any given religious system is facile at best.
Well, introducing probabilities was your idea, which is precisely why I used that example. I merely followed your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, which shows that your premise fails. (Note, also, that I pursued my line without making it personal anywhere. Let's keep things that way, please.)

"Likelihood" applying to belief systems is a specious concept, and on that it appears we agree.

Otherwise, if you still believe your proposition about all possibilities being "effectively" wrong, and I don't, then we're going to agree to disagree, and we're done. I'm fine with that.

[Ruv Draba]

I prefer to look at people as individuals, shaped by many different aspects of their lives, religion being just one of them.That's a sensible way to deal with people in the normal course of our lives - and I do the same - but it makes little sense when talking about anything at a social, community or group scale. At that scale, we don't have individual decisions but shared values and behaviours, and they're not all the same.

There's a really popular belief these days: that "you can't generalise about collections of people". It seems to stem as a cringe to a lot of the really bad generalisations that have underpinned racism, sexism and the like. The cringe is understandable, but it's a faith-based statement that's not supported by fact.

In practice, people make effective generalisations about groups all the time. Marketers do it when pitching ad campaigns, policy wonks do it when setting social policy, bookies do it to make money on elections, family members do it when deciding what's good for the whole family. They rely on stats (sometimes) but also (more often) very detailed domain knowledge.

We're actually very good at profiling groups whom we understand well - and obviously much less good at profiling groups whom we hardly know at all (hence the problems with racism, sexism errors: we profile from outside and with ignorance). Though I'm discussing atheists with a fair bit of inside domain experience, it doesn't mean that my view is guaranteed to be correct. But it's just an hypothesis anyway. It's open to being kicked around... example and counter-example.. definition and counter-definition. That's really the point...

But regrettably, I don't think we can get there, you and I. You don't want to deal with groups as groups, and I do. That means we're not even talking about the same object. You want to talk about the aesthetics of individual chairs, and I want to discuss the manufacture of furniture. No point continuing on that basis. I'm happy to talk about individuals some other time, but I can't do so on this topic because that's not what I'm talking about.

As for the 'please explain your nature to me' requests you've put out... this forum is about writing and not posters so I don't feel that I have a right to go into that very far here. Moreover, since you've already made up your mind, it seems a little fruitless. (Also I've had the occasional experience trying to do this with people who make snap judgements about me - it's generally failed).

If you're really curious as to what makes me tick, please PM me. If you're halfway polite, I'll be warm, friendly and candid. If not, then why not do as I'm about to do: smile and disengage with honour and without rancour or prejudice. :D

[Woof]

God Is Dead
--Nietzsche

Nietzsche Is Dead
--God

[Mac H.]

.. religious paradigms are either true OR false i.e. 1 or 0. Given there is an absence of proof - by definition - they ALL have the same statistical probability of being true or false.That is incorrect.

It is wrong to say that things with an absence of proof therefore have the same probability of being true or false. It is simply incorrect logic.

For a simple example, I noticed there was some white gunk on the roof of my car. I have since removed it, so it is totally unprovable as to what the gunk really was.

Here are some of the unprovable theories as to what the gunk was:

1. It was bird poop.
2. It was residue from a spacecraft from the planet Quix.
3. It was residue from an alien from the planet Otic.
4. It didn't exist at all - it was just my imagination.

All of these theories are unprovable.

However, despite that fact that they are all unproved and unprovable, not all of them have the same probability of being true.

Mac

[Higgins]

I love this - by definition of the very folks who support them - religious paradigms are either true OR false i.e. 1 or 0. Given there is an absence of proof - by definition - they ALL have the same statistical probability of being true or false. Just 'cause its religion doesn't make it a special case - numbers are numbers. As for minute possibilities - which ones are important would depend on who you are talking to - to compare probabilities in medical experimentation to trying to determine the unlikelihood of the truth of any given religious system is facile at best.

You can't use statistical arguments without an observational protocol, ie
if we are going to assign 1 or 0 to something, we have to have some way of actually doing that assignment. Just making up something doesn't really qualify as an observational protocol and it certainly doesn't get you any farther than just making things up.

[Higgins]

God Is Dead
--Nietzsche

Nietzsche Is Dead
--God

Why does Nietzsche always kick off this topic? And why doesn't God ever just say he is not dead?

[Toothpaste]

Ruv, I have no desire to have a personal conversation about you. But you got upset at me for claiming you thought all atheists were bad, and I was defending my reasoning behind why I thought that of you. My responses to you have been about your sweeping generalisations about atheists which you made because of the ones you knew personally (or so you yourself said earlier this thread, you may have now changed your tune).

It seems to me that you are the one with rancour towards me, as you are conveniently sidestepping my point by claiming I have made up my mind about you. I certainly have not, all my opinions of you are based on what YOU HAVE WRITTEN here. I would love to hear you speak well of atheists, and it made me very happy to learn that after all you have written here, you actually DO know some good ones. Certainly this board is one for writers, and as writers we have to accept the responsibility that our words will affect how people perceive us. I maintain up until this most recent back and forth your thesis in this thread was that most atheists were dogmatic and stuck up and that your proof of such were the atheists you knew in your social circle. Now to claim that you never said any of this, and that I am somehow insulting you by having drawn conclusions based solely on your own words, is a bit odd. I have no negative feelings towards you, I barely know you. I have feelings towards some of the posts you made insulting basically all atheists. I am very pleased you and Queen made up and you explained yourself to her, but you never explained yourself to me, so why should I know any better?

Honestly, I think you are the one getting a bit emotional by all this, not me. Again, seriously, I think you are intelligent, make some good points, and to be perfectly frank don't like ME all that much. But as far as feelings towards you go, believe me, they are very pleasant. I have apologised for any direct insults I threw your way, they were silly and unfounded. But my assessment of your opinion of atheists stands because all you have written here about them has been negative. Sorry I can't read your mind, and realise that you don't feel that way actually. But as a writer on a writing forum, maybe you should look at your own posts before casting stones at mine.

As to the conversation of goodness etc, you are definitely right, we are comparing apples and oranges. So I will bow out of the conversation, and leave it to others. I will continue to read it though, because I do find it very interesting, and good points are being raised on all sides.

[Queen of Swords]

I am very pleased you and Queen made up

We did?

I meant what I said in my last post on this thread - that I wouldn't read anything further written by Ruv - so whatever he or she has said subsequently, I'm afraid I'm not aware of it. So from where I stand, we haven't made up. I'm sorry if that paints me in a negative light, but there's only so many sweeping generalizations about atheists I can take.

No offence meant to you at all, Toothpaste. I just wanted to comment on this.

[Toothpaste]

Sorry Queen! Didn't mean to put words into your mouth, again I guess when I read: "Please also note that I've sent Queeny a PM of sympathy and apology for a couple of things I think I could have done better", I suppose I concluded from this that you had made up. Sorry that I jumped to that conclusion, it wasn't actually explicit in what he wrote. My bad.

[Queen of Swords]

I didn't get such a PM, though that's probably my fault. My PM box is always on the verge of being full, and I procrastinate about deleting anything.

Thanks for clarifying! :)

[rwam]

Good question. I was at a picnic awhile back and a bunch of us were talking about the Blues. I said something along the lines of "I hate the Blues." One of the guys said, "Why?". And I didn't know what to tell him. It took a great deal of thinking to realize the source of my angst. In fact, I had nothing against the storied franchise. Instead, the reason I didn't like the Blues was because about 25 years ago, there was this group of 'rich preppy' kids in high school that were kind of snobby and lived and died with the success of the Blues. Therefore, I learned to take joy whenever the Blues lost...especially if they were in the playoffs.

And now I have to wonder...how much negative energy did I exert over the past quarter century merely because I didn't like Blues fans?

Now, I'm not saying all atheists are atheists because they dislike Christians....but I'd be willing to bet that more than a few are atheists merely out of spite. Someone once said, "Hey, I'm all for 'God'....I've just got a problem with His fan club!"

Disclaimer: Just so I don't get gang-tackled for generalizing, "More than a few" technically means "at least 4".

[Higgins]

I'm happy to have my opinion refuted QoS. I just don't accept arguments of Political Correctness (i.e. "You can't generalise about populations" and "It's evil to speak ill of a whole culture"). I know that people commonly make those arguments these days, but I believe that they're pure tosh.

(And... here's the positives thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101783). Please feel free to contribute.)

I cannot comprehend what you are griping about. It seems you feel you need some permission to think whatever it is that you are thinking, but I for one cannot figure out what it is that you are thinking so I can't help you.

For example, just making claims that there are some "arguments of political correctness" and then claiming that they are "You can't generalize about populations"...doesn't seem to make much sense. I'm sure there are some generalizations about whole populations that might be true and some that might not be. And what is a "whole culture?"

[Ruv Draba]

I cannot comprehend what you are griping about. It seems you feel you need some permission to think whatever it is that you are thinking, but I for one cannot figure out what it is that you are thinking so I can't help you.
I think that this conversation has drawn too many emotions, andthat they're getting in the way of the ideas. I realise that one reason it's done so is that I chose to phrase my early comments as undiluted negatives (thanks for that comment, Toothpaste). It's bothering Toothy, and so offended Queeny that she fled me in terror. So now I'm going to try and make the same point as positives only, and see if it helps. (Just pretend that this is my first post to this thread, 'kay.)

I'm an atheist because if I'm not then I have to swallow a ton of other folks' prefabricated lies and delusions. Whereas, if I'm an atheist then I only have to deal with my own lies and delusions - and that's a much easier task.

By rights this ought to help me be a better person, but in my experience it doesn't. Other than helping me get a better sense of truth and BS (which I appreciate!), it actually sets me back half a mile or so, compared to the theists. Toothpaste explained why earlier: lack of fellowship, lack of moral frame, unclear moral guidance, nobody to help you. If you're an atheist you either have to work around these things, or build some yourself or do without... The theists meanwhile, inherit (along with a bunch of lies and delusions), some really great social and moral infrastructure. In consequence they can do some pretty great things - and in fact they have done great things socially and personally for thousands of years.

There have been some rare occasions when hanging with atheists has helped give me some personal or moral development, but mostly what it gives me is more stones to chuck at theists.

After thirty-odd years of atheism I don't need any more stones. I have baskets of them. Moral stones, logical stones, semantic stones, social stones, metaphysical stones. I could write post after post of counter-arguments and critique on religion. None of the pro-atheistic arguments in this thread so far are new to me. How many stones does a guy need?

Really, the stones have grown burdensome to me. It's wearying to see atheists polishing their stones, trading stones, hoarding stones. I'm tired of carrying my own stones. They've done nothing to help me understand anything.

These days I don't throw stones unless a theist gets very badly in my face. Instead, I hang with them and smile politely through the lies and delusions while focusing on the values and the intentions and the deeds. When I do that, I find that just about every religion has a lot of really good social and personal value underneath the mythology. I don't always agree with their morality but heck - I don't agree with the morality of my society a whole lot either.

What I find though is that there's actually more in common to talk about with theists than difference, once you wade through the mysticism. Really, I quite enjoying hanging with the brighter, more humanistic theists and I can't help thinking when I do: Man, I wish we had more atheists like this.

I jumped in with a set of negatives because one poster described atheism as arrogant and got jumped on for it. I felt that was unfair. I felt - and still feel - that on some level, this poster is right.

Firstly, I think that atheism is arrogant in a positive way - in the sense that any act of courage is arrogant. It's immensely brave to turn one's back on all the social pressure and the self-proclaimed authorities of religion and say 'Look, I'll work out my own truths, okay?' It places a lot of faith in ourselves to be our own moral and metaphysical compass. It's liberating, but it's also terrifying too. Because we don't have long to get it right, and then we're dead, dead, dead.

But there's another sense in which as a cultural movement, we can seem very arrogant too - and that's not a positive thing. Really, unless we create anything more, all we have in common are our damn stones. That's not a great basis for an ideology. It's not a great basis for anything constructive. If atheists have a reputation for being opinionated stone-chuckers and not much more, I think that's a reputation we have brought on ourselves by not seeking to be more together.

I wouldn't have bothered to post any of this here, except that this isn't just an atheist forum. It's an athist writers forum. Writers are creators, dreamers, visionaries. I have some hope of producing some non-theistic, humanitarian and beneficial spiritual writing here - or helping someone else produce some. Or both. That's probably not something I'd attempt with any other atheistic group. I'd just get bruised by the stones. :tongue So, I'm hoping that there is or will be more than a self-congratulatory stone-polishing swapmeet and mutual validation session here. At some point I hope that some of us will turn toward discussion of the holes and constructing things of goodness and worth to fill them.

Probably I haven't gotten off on the best foot for achieving that. Apologies.

So that's my little manifesto, stated with as many positives as I can pack in. Hope it's useful or interesting or... something.

Hugs all,

Ruv.

[oscuridad]

You can't use statistical arguments without an observational protocol, ie
if we are going to assign 1 or 0 to something, we have to have some way of actually doing that assignment. Just making up something doesn't really qualify as an observational protocol and it certainly doesn't get you any farther than just making things up.

there is an observational protocol:
I observe that the Christian believes his paradigm to be absolutely true
I observe that the Hindu believes that his paradigm to be absolutely true
and so on.

I observe that there is no 'proof' for any of them.
therefore they are all as likely or unlikely as each other based on the observed individuals and the lack of proof common to them all.

Mac H - your idea of likelihoods is not a good example - as your assumption of its likelyhood of being bird droppings as opposed to spaceship refuse is based upon your prior life experience.

And I meant that the argument was facile - not you, poetinahat. I didn't mean such personally. I would hope that I differentiate between the argument and the arguer...

Nothing personal from me - I think these are interesting arguments.

[Higgins]

After thirty-odd years of atheism I don't need any more stones. I have baskets of them. Moral stones, logical stones, semantic stones, social stones, metaphysical stones. I could write post after post of counter-arguments and critique on religion. None of the pro-atheistic arguments in this thread so far are new to me. How many stones does a guy need?

Really, the stones have grown burdensome to me. It's wearying to see atheists polishing their stones, trading stones, hoarding stones. I'm tired of carrying my own stones. They've done nothing to help me understand anything.



Well...I'm not an atheist so to me the weight of atheistic stones still have their full value. And why shouldn't they? Isn't the whole point of such stones that they represent the burden of reality and not one's personal wish to carry stones? It's like saying you don't like objectivity because it isn't subjective. It's both true and not very convincing at the same time.
Same with the stones: one cannot reasonably object to their stoniness.

Hence: why I am not an Atheist: the non-existence of God is actually a very trivial thing compared to the brutal weight of deadly existence....which is where one finds one's self...far from the trivial point that God doesn't exist and right in the middle of a lot of nasty things that do exist.

[Ruv Draba]

Well...I'm not an atheist so to me the weight of atheistic stones still have their full value. And why shouldn't they?To understand what a burden it is to carry around hundreds of objections to someone else's religion (as opposed to useful facts), please collect the shoe-sizes of a hundred people you know, and adopt the custom that before you can greet them or talk to them, you must first remember their shoe-size. Now walk around in bare feet so all that shoe information is absolutely useless to you.

Now imagine that the only place you can meet people like yourself is in a shoe-store, where all these bare-footed people are swapping shoe measurements for reasons that you can't really fathom.

I'm not complaining - merely pointing out that there is a significant and largely fruitless cognitive burden from living in an environment where the dominant beliefs, values and even language and customs are substantially different to your own. The problem isn't being atheist; it's being atheist in a culture that is largely not.

Hence: why I am not an Atheist: the non-existence of God is actually a very trivial thing compared to the brutal weight of deadly existence....The old comfort argument. Denial (another word for faith) can be immensely beneficial. It can get humans through terrible catastrophes without much mental scarring - but it can also (for instance) propagate cigarette smoking, ozone holes and global warming, so it can be dangerous too. Most of the denial-based comfort religion offers doesn't do much harm, but sometimes (especially when it starts informing social policy or skewing our moral judgements), it clearly does.

[Dommo]

I agree Ruv.

The biggest objection I've always had to religions in general is that they insist upon being the "truth". When objectively, there is no way to be sure, as all of them claim to be true. It's like being in a room where everyone says everyone but them is a liar. Being an atheist in that room is to say that "I'm a liar, but so is he". In other words, we accept the limitation of our knowledge, and accept that only in very specific circumstances can "truth" exist. We just call out everyone else, who claims to know the "truth".

Situations of truth:
1. Mathematics, where something can be proven to be true.
2. Real life, when something is falsifiable.(can be proven not-true)
3. Real life, when something is statistically likely.(where evidence says the likelihood of something being falsified is small).

Along with my semantic stickling, I also am opposed to religions because they go after people when they are most impressionable and vulnerable. They take advantage of a person's state of mind(be it from immaturity as in child conversions, or in providing comfort to someone who is bereaved, etc.). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a lot of folks who claim to be religious, are only so because of social reasons(once again taking advantage of person's need to belong). The social circle that accompanies religious groups is extremely strong, and gives people a sense of belonging that they likely won't find in purely secular sense.

Because atheists and agnostics tend to not be as much of a homogeneous group(as in what we consider to be values, morals, and ethics), it's harder for many people who need that sense of "belonging". I'd say in my experience, that I was perhaps one of only a handful of people in my graduating high school class who was a secularist. It's hard to fit in, when you don't run in the greater social circle that religions create.

We secular folkls just don't stick out much in day to day life. If the statistics are right, about 1 in 6 to 1 in 7 Americans are agnostic/atheist/irreligious, but the hostility in this country to secular people is immense. Due to to this, and as I said above our "variety", it's hard to create the same kind of social environment that a church can provide.

I'd go so far as to say, that should we atheists/agnostics/secularists, ever find a way to create a social atmosphere 1/10th as good as what a church provides, we'll supplant most of the major religions and end their grip on our countries(mine in particular).

[Daimeera]

I would just like to, um, come back and clarify a few things?

First, while I appreciate you sticking up for me Ruv, I didn't feel jumped on. I felt like people were legitimately questioning my opinion, and I can understand why; I didn't express it very well.

I also don't agree entirely with your views. I don't believe that the majority of atheists are arrogant. Frankly, I don't even know what the majority of the people I like believe because it's not about that. It's about surrounding myself with nice people. I do know that the one girl who made me feel welcome on my first day back to school after an extended period of illness doesn't believe in god, yet she was incredibly kind and not remotely arrogant. I know that I have friends who have been alienated from religion and their beliefs lie somewhere in between atheism and theism.

I don't like generalising. I used to generalise too much. People are people. We're pretty good at screwing ourselves over sometimes.

I think the atheism that I find most arrogant is positive atheism, and even then, it depends on the person. Agnosticism I don't consider to have any semblance of arrogance in and of itself--if anything, it's the least arrogant of any religion or lack thereof. It doesn't claim any knowledge. Positive atheism, as in "I know there is no god, no ifs ands or buts about it," does strike me as, to a certain degree, arrogant. It's one thing to say "I'm pretty sure," or "I don't believe in," but to categorically deny the possibility of something smacks of arrogance.

How many more times can I say arrogance?

And I think I made that about as clear as mud. But I didn't want to leave the impression that Ruv is speaking for me, or that I agree with everything that's been said. Ruv, I'm sure you're a very nice person, but we just don't see eye to eye on this one.

[Dommo]

I agree Daimera, and hence why I'm agnostic(not that I don't have atheist friends, but their absolute conviction in what they believe to be truth, is starting to lean towards faith).

The evangelicals on both sides(religious and atheist) annoy me.

[Ruv Draba]

I'd go so far as to say, that should we atheists/agnostics/secularists, ever find a way to create a social atmosphere 1/10th as good as what a church provides, we'll supplant most of the major religions and end their grip on our countries (mine in particular).It's an interesting vision Dommo, but I'm not convinced.

Suppose that there were no religion in the world. Almost instantly, I think that the poor, the ignorant, the sick, the dying and the fearful would invent it. Once they did, the shrewd would find a way to capitalise on that and lead them around by the nose (something which happens in televangelism or any third world country, for instance). Further, educated humanitarians would join in to help the poor, and artists and aesthetes would be attracted too because of the beauty in human suffering and sacrifice and the imagery of religious mythology. The wealthy would join from guilt, and the middle classes would join to emulate the wealthy. And once everyone were involved, politicians would realise that it's easier to swing people by emotion and mythology than by reason, would go for the easy votes and enshrine religious values in legislation.

In short, I think that we'd end up in the same sort of place - though perhaps with different dogma.

It's interesting to see that of the several countries which have embraced an atheistic state (generally just the Marxist countries), none has been able to eliminate religion - and that religion retains its hold in exactly the places it's most needed: among the oppressed, the intellectuals, the artists and the disenfranchised. (And indeed, religion played a critical part in toppling the USSR's regime.)

In conclusion, I think that while ever we have inequity, adversity, oppression and ignorance, religion will be very strong (and perhaps it's even necessary from a social perspective). Even if you eliminate those things, I find it hard to believe that the aesthetes, intellectuals, artists and politicians would willingly give it up. Deceitful and deluded though it is, it's simply too beautiful a human artefact to sweep away, and too great a tool for social manipulators to relinquish.

[Ruv Draba]

And I think I made that about as clear as mud. But I didn't want to leave the impression that Ruv is speaking for me, or that I agree with everything that's been said.That's fine, Daimeera. I wasn't trying to speak for you, but I found your post among the most interesting here. It's all very well to give the 'pro' views, but also somewhat self-serving when most of the audience are 'pro' already. I liked your 'anti' view because it hits atheism where (I feel) it's weakest.

You may not agree with me, but I find myself agreeing with your earlier post, and this latest one too. I don't agree with your conclusion of course, since I'm still an atheist - but I do agree with your observations.

[Higgins]

To understand what a burden it is to carry around hundreds of objections to someone else's religion (as opposed to useful facts), please collect the shoe-sizes of a hundred people you know, and adopt the custom that before you can greet them or talk to them, you must first remember their shoe-size. Now walk around in bare feet so all that shoe information is absolutely useless to you.

Now imagine that the only place you can meet people like yourself is in a shoe-store, where all these bare-footed people are swapping shoe measurements for reasons that you can't really fathom.

I'm not complaining - merely pointing out that there is a significant and largely fruitless cognitive burden from living in an environment where the dominant beliefs, values and even language and customs are substantially different to your own. The problem isn't being atheist; it's being atheist in a culture that is largely not.

The old comfort argument. Denial (another word for faith) can be immensely beneficial. It can get humans through terrible catastrophes without much mental scarring - but it can also (for instance) propagate cigarette smoking, ozone holes and global warming, so it can be dangerous too. Most of the denial-based comfort religion offers doesn't do much harm, but sometimes (especially when it starts informing social policy or skewing our moral judgements), it clearly does.

In the first part of your text here, you assume that religion is primarily a cultural thing, something like shoe styles...which I think is entirely valid. In the second you assume religion has some negative impacts (and who can doubt that?) on the social-cultural world due to the fact that it fulfills some personal needs, but at a high social cost.
I think you are correct as far as this kind of very broad generalization can be correct, but naturally (and as I assume you know) the detailed dynamics of culture, religion, societal responses to the natural world and the lives of each person...anyway there is so much going on that doesn't fit that generalization that the generalization is in most cases not a good representation of reality. For example, given that most people think in religious terms and that religious formulations are deeply embedded in many cultural phenomena, if you want to address the problems that a society has in seeing reality (as with Global Warming, surely the most massive case of denial ever), you may have to do at least some of that readjustment in religious terms.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Now, I'm not saying all atheists are atheists because they dislike Christians....but I'd be willing to bet that more than a few are atheists merely out of spite.
I'm an athiest because I don't believe in gods. Nothing simpler than that and it has absolutely nothing to do with Christians or Muslims or Budhists or what have you. There is no hate. No angst. Just no belief.

[Sarpedon]

Its a common mischaracterization of atheists to say that we are atheists out of spite, or anger, or because we had bad relationships with our fathers. This is a classic ad hominem argument which aims to dismiss our points by smearing us.

Personally, I was blind to many of the faults of christians while I was a christian. It was only AFTER leaving the church did these faults become clear. And I'm not going to say that atheists have faults as well. I'm not blind to these either.

However, I wonder what is the point of Ruv's saying that atheism doesn't give any good moral guidance. Of course it doesn't. David Hume, writing centuries ago, established that quite nicely. Atheism is a DESCRIPTIVE philosophy, not a PERSCRIPTIVE one. We say 'there are no gods' that is description, and as Hume pointed out, there is no logical relationship between 'is' and 'ought.' Whether there is a god or not lies in the realm of 'is.' Morality lies in the realm of 'ought'. No one since Hume has managed to link them.

So I'm having trouble seeing why people are getting so worked up about things that really have no relationship to each other. I don't complain that my car doesn't make toast, nor that my dishwasher can't be used for transportation.

The so called 'religious morality' is in fact, every bit as faulty as anything we can cook up, because they haven't been able to link the idea that there is a god with the idea that we ought to do what that god says. Religious 'morality' tends to boil down to 'might makes right,' in that since god can punish you for not doing what he wants, you had better do what he says.

All notions of morality are faulty and flawed, unless someone can work out the relationship between 'is' and 'ought'.

[CDarklock]

To understand what a burden it is to carry around hundreds of objections to someone else's religion (as opposed to useful facts)

Objections to other people's religion are useful facts. Indeed, it is these objections that form the basis of your own religious beliefs - and atheism is a religious belief. You can't possibly know every single theistic religion on the face of the planet; saying they're all wrong is every bit as much a declaration of faith as joining one.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Objections to other people's religion are useful facts. Indeed, it is these objections that form the basis of your own religious beliefs - and atheism is a religious belief. You can't possibly know every single theistic religion on the face of the planet; saying they're all wrong is every bit as much a declaration of faith as joining one.
I don't need to know anything about them other than the fact that they all share the belief of some all-mighty denizen of the Heavens.

Personally, I find it very easy not to believe in some giant ominipotent white haired old man of the sky. Just as I find it easy not to believe in fairies, or the Lock Ness Monster, or Big Foot, or elves, or pixies, or werewolves, or vampires.

[CDarklock]

I don't need to know anything about them other than the fact that they all share the belief of some all-mighty denizen of the Heavens.

First, that's not a fact. Jews don't believe that. Talk to a rabbi.

Second, you claim to have no hatred or angst toward religion, and yet this post is just loaded with prejudicial language. Somehow, I don't believe you.

[Zoombie]

There are too many grumpy Atheists. That's why I have dedicated myself to being Zoombie: The Un-grumpy Atheist.

I think that I'm the illustration of the idea that two people can point to the same thing as evidence for two completely different points of view.

I point to the whole universe as my reason why I don't believe in god. It's so big and so random and so...fantastically bizarre and strange that I don't see how any sane creator would make it. And yes, there are things we don't know or understand, like why electrons act the way they do or why people hear god after praying for hours and hours and hours or why some people have fun by trolling internet forums.

But these unknowns are what makes life worth living. It means that there are things we don't understand, and that means we're gonna have things to strive for beyond just mating and complaining about how new movies are always worse than old movies.

[CDarklock]

I don't see how any sane creator would make it.

I don't follow that logic.

You don't see how... so it didn't happen?

[rwam]

Its a common mischaracterization of atheists to say that we are atheists out of spite, or anger, or because we had bad relationships with our fathers. This is a classic ad hominem argument which aims to dismiss our points by smearing us.

Well, if you are referring to my earlier post where I said "more than a few"....I wasn't painting with a broad brush. But, now that you bring it up, I DO think a significant amount (hmmm, maybe half?) of atheists believe what they believe because a part of them has "agreed to disagree" with people they loathe. C'mon, I'm Christian and even I want to disagree with the fundamentalist evangelicals I know.

Okay, maybe I'm generalizing. But I don't think so. I've heard more than a few (in person and in these forums) say (and I paraphrase), "How can I believe in a God when the religious folks I know are dishonest hypocrites?" Talk about faulty logic. Should we ignore the laws of society because there are dishonest cops on the police force? Do we all move out of America because of corrupt politicians?

The logic's just not there.

What does make logical sense is this: Most people are products of their environment. Many boys have grown up to be atheists as a result of growing up in an ultra-strict religious home where the father was perfect in public on Sundays and a monster in private. I know this because I'm describing my best friend. And if there's one, there's more. People - in the end - believe what they want to believe.

The fact is, no one can prove or disprove the existence of "God" to another person, so the atheist is as much of a fool to the believer as the believer is to the atheist. Therefore, for one group to belittle the other is equally laughable, pure folly, and a waste of breath.

What's my point? I think that both Atheist and Christian could spend a few sessions with a good psycho-therapist and walk away with a pretty clear understanding of why they believe what it is they say they believe.

Peace.
Rob

[Sarpedon]

Okay, maybe I'm generalizing. But I don't think so. I've heard more than a few (in person and in these forums) say (and I paraphrase), "How can I believe in a God when the religious folks I know are dishonest hypocrites?" Talk about faulty logic. Should we ignore the laws of society because there are dishonest cops on the police force? Do we all move out of America because of corrupt politicians?

The logic's just not there.


Absolutely classic! This wins the faulty analogy of the month award.

We don't disregard the laws of the land because of corrupt cops for several reasons; We know that the law is the law not because of the cops, but because fo a higher authority. That higher authority actually exists, and we can speak to it.

In contrast to religion; where the higher authority is invisible, silent and unresponsive. The only evidence for the existance of the higher authority is the WORD of the clergy. When the only evidence you have for something is somebody's word, its very appropriate to assertain whether or not that person is honest in general.

Get it? How is that unreasonable?

We also have seen numerous new religions popping up everywhere. We KNOW that religions can be made up. Why can't we assume that ALL religions are made up, unless we see evidence otherwise? Is that not reasonable?

And as far as your assertion of atheists leaving religion because of 'loathing' religious people, I assure it is not the case. Most atheists I know arrive there from a variety of paths. The single most common path away from religion is the one I took: a careful study of religion. I tell people, before I read the bible, I was a Christian. After I read the bible, I was an atheist. Studying religion (and I have made at least a cursory study of every major extant and several minor religions) has caused me to not believe it.

I doubt your conclusion about our motives is based on something so mundane as, you know, asking us.

[Shadow_Ferret]

First, that's not a fact. Jews don't believe that. Talk to a rabbi.

Second, you claim to have no hatred or angst toward religion, and yet this post is just loaded with prejudicial language. Somehow, I don't believe you.

My response was an attack on your contention that athiesm is some sort of religion. The best way to do that is to explain that I don't believe in dieties of any sort.

Religions, in my mind, are completely separate and don't even need to be brought up in an argument on athiesm as far as I'm concerned.

And my prejudicial language was toward those dieties, not toward yours, or anyones, religion.

I don't follow that logic.

You don't see how... so it didn't happen?

Exactly.

[rwam]

We also have seen numerous new religions popping up everywhere. We KNOW that religions can be made up. Why can't we assume that ALL religions are made up, unless we see evidence otherwise? Is that not reasonable?

And as far as your assertion of atheists leaving religion because of 'loathing' religious people, I assure it is not the case. Most atheists I know arrive there from a variety of paths. The single most common path away from religion is the one I took: a careful study of religion. I tell people, before I read the bible, I was a Christian. After I read the bible, I was an atheist. Studying religion (and I have made at least a cursory study of every major extant and several minor religions) has caused me to not believe it.

I doubt your conclusion about our motives is based on something so mundane as, you know, asking us.

Actually, I don't need to ask. I merely need to listen.

Um, ALL religions are made up. A religion is merely a doomed for failure approach to "describing God". As such, if there is no such thing as an omniscient person, ALL religions are flawed. Therefore, no religion is true in the absolute sense. What sane person would argue otherwise?

With that said, religions are not deities and Bibles are not religions. Don't confuse the three.

I still say this: People believe what they want to believe. You're an atheist because you want to be and I'm a believer because I want to be. I'm okay with that...are you?

[Sarpedon]

Actually, I'm not.

I didn't choose to be an atheist. I was led to that conclusion inescapably by the evidence. You don't know how long I agonized over leaving the church. I desperately wanted to continue to believe.

Religious people call atheism a choice for the same reason they call homosexuality a choice; so the religious can blame us for the persecution that they themselves inflict. After all, even they know that its wrong to hate someone for being what they are, so they imagine that it is a 'choice', and therefore something that can be punished.

And I won't accept that God has an existance independant from religion. As I pointed out earlier, the only evidence for god is the word of religious leaders. Until I'm shown independant evidence, I have no reason to believe that God is anything more than a religious concept.

Its a popular defense mechanism of people to dissociate religion from god, religion from scripture, and so forth, in order to preserve the underlying idea set that underlies them. Scripture is absolute law or imperfect translations made by flawed humans, depending on which religious person you are talking to, and the exact circumstances of the conversation. It is exhausting. I wish you people would come to a consensus before you come and try to press this stuff on us. So you don't believe that 'religion' is correct. I'm sorry, I don't have the time or the energy to argue with the believer of the week. If you have evidence, I'm very interested to see it. If you don't, then your opinion is no better than that of another religious person who DOES believe that one religion is absolutely correct (there are such people, and they are perfectly sane) or one that DOES believe that scripture is the direct Word of god, and, for example, since Jesus is the Word made flesh, that means that scripture = Jesus = God, in some interpretations. I have no reason to accept your interpretation as being better than that one, or one of dozens, hundreds, THOUSANDS, that I have heard about.

So, no, I won't agree, because your ASSUMPTION about why I became an atheist is false, your claims about religion are yours alone, and you have no evidence to support any of your claims. Why do you expect me to agree with them?

I also don't believe that you've formed your opinion about atheists by listening to atheists. Many of us are angry about religion. That is true. It is false that the reason we are atheists is that we are angry about religion. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. That is a very basic rule of logic.

[Elwood]

Why am I an atheist? Well the arguements or discussions above are generally way way over my head but here goes. My dad was an atheist cannot speak for my mother. Father was without doubt a kind loving generous and caring person. The truth is I never heard him speak ill of a person, no not ever. Yes to my knowledge of course.

Seemed like the kind of person I would like to grow up to be. I hope or at least I think I am on the way to being as my father was. He did not believe in God or Gods or religion of any sort. I sure hope he aint in that there hot place? See now one can say by the mention of the hot place that I might be saveable. Don't concern yourself I have no interest in being saved just being the best man that I am capable of being. That is all!

[Ruv Draba]

Objections to other people's religion are useful facts.Nah. Useful is knowing the quickest way from home into town. Annoying is knowing that six peoples' directions are wrong.

Indeed, it is these objections that form the basis of your own religious beliefs - and atheism is a religious belief.No more than (as an old writing bud put it) baldness is a hairstyle.

Atheists don't need to know - or pretend to know - how the whole Universe works. All we need are grounds to reject the religions that present to us. There are all kinds of grounds: logical, social, moral, personal, aesthetic, economical. Only some of these even vaguely resemble religious grounds. You only need one serious objection to any religion to reject it, but if you're constantly exposed to religious advertising you'll often form more. It grows cluttersome. Probably, the solution is to avoid the advertising in the first place but cultures can be steeped in religious memes, making it rather hard.

[rwam]

Don't worry, Elwood, I haven't come to save you.

Good enough, Sarpedon. I think I understand you. However, you keep talking about evidence. There is no evidence to prove that there's a God. There's no evidence to prove there is not. Such discussions trying to prove/disprove are pure folly as far as I'm concerned.

It was the title of this thread that drew me here. There is a reason each one of you is an atheist. I came in order to shed light from a psychological perspective....not judge.

Peace.

Okay, while at dinner tonight I was wondering about you folks. This is kind of funny and I'm curious. I'm not bashing, I swear. Anyway, atheists agree there is no God. That there is "nothing" out there. What is it that you all have in common when you gather here? I mean, is it "we gather because we believe in nothing"? But surely, you guys don't just talk about how you believe in nothing all the time, do you? Like, are there any gun collectors out here?

Rob (a "Christian" who's probably more comfortable around brainy atheists than he is other Christians)

[Zoombie]

My freind once mocked the American Atheist's association, saying they all sit around in a circle, cross their arms over their chests and go, "We don't believe in God anymore."

And...really, Atheists in one place will generally talk about...you know...I don't know, I tend to spend my time questionings Christians on this forum to understand their alien mindset.

Don't take alien mindset as an insult. I love it...I'm just confused by it ^^

[rwam]

My freind once mocked the American Atheist's association, saying they all sit around in a circle, cross their arms over their chests and go, "We don't believe in God anymore."

And...really, Atheists in one place will generally talk about...you know...I don't know, I tend to spend my time questionings Christians on this forum to understand their alien mindset.

Don't take alien mindset as an insult. I love it...I'm just confused by it ^^

FINALLY!!! Someone who's not taking everything so seriously! Can I hang out with you guys for awhile? I keep getting 'gently reminded' back in the other room.

[Zoombie]

FINALLY!!! Someone who's not taking everything so seriously! Can I hang out with you guys for awhile? I keep getting 'gently reminded' back in the other room.

Life's too serious to be taken seriously.

[scottVee]

I got a kick out of that question about what atheists talk about when they get together. I didn't know we were gathering anywhere. Maybe I wasn't invited to the club.

Honestly, there's a huge division. All the religious doctrine and personal convictions, and the way religious answers color the world ... none of it it necessary. The world makes sense without any of that. Please consider this. Hang on ... think about it for a bit longer. Humor me.

We see no correlation between intelligence and religion, morality and religion, etc. Religion makes no good claim to anything except those convictions and leaps of faith. "Alien thinking" as the previous poster says. Believe it or not, you can remove the religious/irrational portion and the world doesn't fall apart. We're often perplexed at why anyone would burden themselves with it, and it often goes back to what we were told when we were young. We learn a lot of wacky things as kids, and some of it we unlearn along the way. I'm glad my parents let me decide for myself. I can see why I would believe them if they made an effort to indoctrinate me. Clever strategy, using the parents as instruments like that. [I only mention this again because it's a mechanism few people ever think about, and central to the way religion spreads.]

As for people having religious experiences later in life, that's an interesting phenomenon, but subjective and clouded by a world of ideologies; ultimately not proof of anything. I've had dreams and visions my whole life, and a hallucination or two ... but they're just fantasy or sensory overload. I can't imagine thinking any of them were real, or basing my whole life philosophy on intangibles. More alien thinking.

Whenever I see a tornado survivor on TV say, "God was looking after me," I just have to cringe. Come on, God just tried to kill you! You can't selectively pick and choose, and have the divine presence when it suits you. It's either there or it isn't. (Same with science and technology -- you can't watch TV and hope there are no electrons.) Other survivors might say they were lucky. Luck is just another superstition. Should we believe in luck, just because we hear about good luck and bad luck almost every day?

There is rational thought (which, judging from the news, humans could use a lot more of) and irrational thought. No bigger philosophical divide can be conjured. Calling someone an atheist is often done dismissively, not even interested in the fact that it's part of a larger philosophy.

So, when atheists get together, we talk about reasonable things. The same things religious people talk about. Just without those extra complications. Although it's common to marvel at how hard it is to communicate with people who already have all the answers (religious or not).

(Not that there is a "we" in the conspiracy sense, or one unified mindset. People always add their own touches to the spectrum.)

We just don't need what churches and preachers are selling. The real divide is not about "good and bad" or "God or no God", but "God and all that associated baggage is just not necessary to understand the world."

I was going for a brief remark. But it's a hot topic, with lots of good points made along the way. I appreciate the calmness of this thread. Keep up the good thoughts.

= scott

[rwam]

I got a kick out of that question about what atheists talk about when they get together. I didn't know we were gathering anywhere. Maybe I wasn't invited to the club.

Honestly, there's a huge division. All the religious doctrine and personal convictions, and the way religious answers color the world ... none of it it necessary. The world makes sense without any of that. Please consider this. Hang on ... think about it for a bit longer. Humor me.

We see no correlation between intelligence and religion, morality and religion, etc. Religion makes no good claim to anything except those convictions and leaps of faith. "Alien thinking" as the previous poster says. Believe it or not, you can remove the religious/irrational portion and the world doesn't fall apart. We're often perplexed at why anyone would burden themselves with it, and it often goes back to what we were told when we were young. We learn a lot of wacky things as kids, and some of it we unlearn along the way. I'm glad my parents let me decide for myself. I can see why I would believe them if they made an effort to indoctrinate me. Clever strategy, using the parents as instruments like that. [I only mention this again because it's a mechanism few people ever think about, and central to the way religion spreads.]

As for people having religious experiences later in life, that's an interesting phenomenon, but subjective and clouded by a world of ideologies; ultimately not proof of anything. I've had dreams and visions my whole life, and a hallucination or two ... but they're just fantasy or sensory overload. I can't imagine thinking any of them were real, or basing my whole life philosophy on intangibles. More alien thinking.

Whenever I see a tornado survivor on TV say, "God was looking after me," I just have to cringe. Come on, God just tried to kill you! You can't selectively pick and choose, and have the divine presence when it suits you. It's either there or it isn't. (Same with science and technology -- you can't watch TV and hope there are no electrons.) Other survivors might say they were lucky. Luck is just another superstition. Should we believe in luck, just because we hear about good luck and bad luck almost every day?

There is rational thought (which, judging from the news, humans could use a lot more of) and irrational thought. No bigger philosophical divide can be conjured. Calling someone an atheist is often done dismissively, not even interested in the fact that it's part of a larger philosophy.

So, when atheists get together, we talk about reasonable things. The same things religious people talk about. Just without those extra complications. Although it's common to marvel at how hard it is to communicate with people who already have all the answers (religious or not).

(Not that there is a "we" in the conspiracy sense, or one unified mindset. People always add their own touches to the spectrum.)

We just don't need what churches and preachers are selling. The real divide is not about "good and bad" or "God or no God", but "God and all that associated baggage is just not necessary to understand the world."

I was going for a brief remark. But it's a hot topic, with lots of good points made along the way. I appreciate the calmness of this thread. Keep up the good thoughts.

= scott

Well said, Scott...thanks.

You know, the more I listen to you guys (and girls?), I'm starting to feel better about you folks. I'm sensing some of you are more "anti-religion" than "anti-concept-of-a-God". Like I said before, religion is man's doomed-for-failure attempt at trying to describe God. In the beginning the intentions are good, but something happens along the way and spoils things.

Anyway, I've been doing some thinking and it's time for me to go. Someone made the comment that I was "the believer of the week" earlier. I think this means you must get people from the other room coming in to try to convert you. While I'm not such a person, I should respect your wishes for certain folks to 'stay out'.

Met a couple cool folks here, though, so I'll keep an eye out for you on SYW and try to help when I can.

Peace out.
Rob

[Sarpedon]

mean, is it "we gather because we believe in nothing"? But surely, you guys don't just talk about how you believe in nothing all the time, do you? Like, are there any gun collectors out here?


Once again you are (unconciously?) repeating common slanders against atheists. Atheism=Nihilism. This is extraordinarily offensive. I ask you to show more respect for us. Just because we do not believe in deities or the supernatural does not mean we are nihilists.

The fact that you continue to make such statements makes me doubt that you have in fact 'listened' to atheists, as you claimed.

[oscuridad]

Maybe its a question of semantics:

People of Faith 'believe' there is a God (or Gods).
Atheists 'think' there is not.

Just a thought.

[CDarklock]

My response was an attack on your contention that athiesm is some sort of religion.

No, it's a religious belief, which is an entirely different thing. If you're going to believe anything at all about deities, even that they don't exist, that's a religious belief - because deities are by definition religious.

And I'm quite unaware of how, exactly, insulting someone else's concept of God is in any way relevant to me or my contentions.

[CDarklock]

I tend to spend my time questionings Christians on this forum to understand their alien mindset.

It's an odd sort of mindset unless you can get inside of it and see what their worldview is. Remember, fundamentally, the christian idea is that ONLY people who accept Jesus will go to heaven.

Everybody else goes to hell, which is a terrible place. I hear they make you eat bugs.

Now, the christian is commanded to love his neighbor, which naturally enough includes not wanting him to go to hell. And there's only one way to save him from that: you must, by any means necessary, convince him to accept Jesus.

Now, there's an additional subtlety here, that heaven is called "eternal life" and hell is frequently referred to as "death". So you're actually saving your neighbor from death. It is every bit as though the devil were physically engaged in murdering your neighbor, right this second, and your efforts to make your neighbor accept Jesus are just you saving his life.

So to the christian, all day every day you are being set upon by some murdering bastard who is stabbing you repeatedly, and he's saying "run, over here, through this door - then he can't stab you any more". And meanwhile, you're stumbling along bleeding all over the place yelling "leave me alone, you meddling jackass".

Clearly, you are insane.

[Zoombie]

How can anyone honestly worship a god that would sent a perfectly nice buddhist or a kind and gentle Muslim or a honest and forthright atheist to hell just because they don't worship him?

What kind of dick god are you worshiping!? It sounds a lot different from the other one I've heard from Christians.

[CDarklock]

How can anyone honestly worship a god that would sent a perfectly nice buddhist or a kind and gentle Muslim or a honest and forthright atheist to hell just because they don't worship him?

I don't know. You should probably go ask a christian about that. They won't know either; they'll tell you all about how that's not really what they believe, but you just have to ask the big question.

Can you go to heaven without accepting Jesus?

Fundamentally, since Jesus said "none shall enter the kingdom except through me", they have to say no - although they'll try to avoid it. And then you have to ask where those people go, and they'll start doing a little dance around the question, but ultimately most of them have to admit that those people go to hell. (The rest will invent some special "other place" that isn't heaven, like limbo or purgatory or Valhalla.)

Now, I don't have that problem, because I don't believe in hell or the devil. Indeed, I don't believe you will be in any way punished by God for being an atheist, or indeed that any christian or muslim will be punished for their failure to be Jewish. I believe God is more of a natural force which people anthropomorphise, so to me, the idea that God rewards or punishes people is sort of like saying the laws of thermodynamics will reward you for understanding them.

Laws just are. There's no reward or punishment for understanding them; they're the same laws whether you understand them or not.

[benbradley]

No, it's a religious belief, which is an entirely different thing. If you're going to believe anything at all about deities, even that they don't exist, that's a religious belief - because deities are by definition religious.
...

While I agree with you, there are many God-believing people who describe themselves as "spiritual, not religious." I just googled that phrase, and it appears to be even more widespread than I thought.

[CDarklock]

there are many God-believing people who describe themselves as "spiritual, not religious."

The word "religious" - like most words - has multiple definitions. Its use in one sense does not in any way invalidate or contradict its use in others.

When one describes oneself as "spiritual, not religious" it means that one has religious beliefs, but is not a member of any organised religious group. The attempt to re-brand the religious beliefs as "spiritual" is an ingenuous effort to avoid association with the organised religions that attempt to impress their opinions on others.

Of course, it is occasionally a disingenuous attempt. I had four "spiritual, not religious" people invite me to their church last year, where Jews were certainly welcome because they have some Jewish members, see? Here are two of them right here to wish you a happy Yom Kippur and quote some biblical passages in very bad Hebrew. How exactly they can have a church and members without being religious eludes me, but I'm of the personal opinion they were just plain lying.

[Ruv Draba]

When one describes oneself as "spiritual, not religious" it means that one has religious beliefs, but is not a member of any organised religious group.I think that it means less than that. I think it means simply that one is interested in matters of (human) spirit.

Please note the title of this forum. You don't need religious beliefs to be interested in matters of human spirit. You don't even need to believe in a soul.

(And is there any fiction writer who is not interested in matters of human spirit, regardless of what they believe?)

Further, I know atheists who meditate, fast, pray, sacrifice, observe rituals, pilgrimages and days of personal significance - they just don't necessarily believe that it has anything more than personal significance.

[CDarklock]

You don't need religious beliefs to be interested in matters of human spirit.

That's true when (and only when) the word "spirit" is used to mean a natural component of human existence, as opposed to a supernatural component - in which case "spirit" is synonymous in every relevant particular with "soul".

The word "spiritual" is almost never applied to scenarios where "spirit" is not synonymous with "soul". It is possible to apply it, but one would almost certainly not do so in daily conversation.

And whether there is or is not a soul is also a religious belief, no matter which side of that you're on. It's a religious question which necessarily has a religious answer, even if some definitions of "religious" - like whether it is a commonly held belief, or a particularly strong belief, or a belief taught by an established church - don't apply.

[Ruv Draba]

That's true when (and only when) the word "spirit" is used to mean a natural component of human existence, as opposed to a supernatural component - in which case "spirit" is synonymous in every relevant particular with "soul".Everyone lives with a lot of metaphysical concepts that aren't (or don't need to be) thought of as supernatual. For example we often speak of 'relationships' as though they are living entities. They can seed, shoot, grow, flourish, flower, fruit and die. In a purely materialistic view there are no relationships - just transactions and communications between organisms. But most people would argue that relationships are much more than that - often more than the individuals involved.

If you consider 'spirit' to be the word used to describe your relationship with yourself and the world around you - especially the quality of self that permeates all of your thoughts and actions and that remains common through all your emotions, then you have something intangible, numinous yet deeply meaningful -- and you don't have to postulate the existence of anything supernatural to think or talk about it.

Even if you take a supernatural view of spirit, it does not equate with soul in all philosophies. For instance, the idea of qi/ki/chi in many Asian traditions is virtually identical with that of spirit, and yet ki is said to be extant in all things - even those like rocks, without souls. Some versions of Christianity separate the notion of spirit from soul too. And the ancient Egyptians (http://library.thinkquest.org/J002037F/ba_and_ka.htm) separated your personality (ba) from your life-force (ka).

Metaphysical ideologies are much richer than many people steeped just in one culture or religion are aware.

And whether there is or is not a soul is also a religious belief, no matter which side of that you're on.I think that you're confusing 'belief about religion' with 'belief derived from religion'. And that's like saying that all beliefs about racism are racist beliefs, or that all thoughts about food are hungry thoughts.

[CDarklock]

Everyone lives with a lot of metaphysical concepts that aren't (or don't need to be) thought of as supernatual.

Who cares? If you say you are "spiritual, but not religious" it is absolutely clear from context that your definition of "spiritual" is of the variety that MIGHT be mistaken for religion - or you wouldn't have to say anything else. You could just say "spiritual".

Can you say spiritual and mean something else? Sure! You could define "spirituality" as "tacos" and nobody will stop you. But insisting that anyone else who ever said or says spirituality might really mean "tacos" is just silly.

[Ruv Draba]

Who cares? If you say you are "spiritual, but not religious" it is absolutely clear from context that your definition of "spiritual" is of the variety that MIGHT be mistaken for religionYes, but that's just because religious people have defined their own language to reinforce the self-serving belief that they're the only spiritual people around. (Even more bizarrely, many atheists have swallowed this fib.) To illustrate this I have an analogy and two etymologies for you.

Analogy: Australian indigenous people are dark-skinned, and 60,000 years ago they lived in Asia. Yet when they travel in the US, they're often called 'African Americans'. In fact they look quite different to African Americans (and they sure sound different), and they don't think of themselves as African Americans; they're just mistaken for them because of other folks' lack of education. Not their fault.

Religions co-opt secular words all the time. Example 1: the word 'faith' comes from the latin fidere 'to trust'. It's the root word for 'fidelity'. Yet to hear theists talk, you think that only they knew what faith was. The number of times I've heard theists tell me "Atheists have no faith". That's obviously untrue. (If it were true, atheists would have to barter rather than use currency - because currency is just a promisary note.)

And words that originally held mystical significance evolve for secular use too. Example 2: the word 'spirit' comes from spirare 'to breathe', but also originally meant 'life essence' because of how the ancient (pre Christian) Romans thought. They got the idea that breathing somehow connects to soul from the pre-Christian Greeks, whose word for spirit was pneuma - from which we now get the secular words 'pneumatic' for compressed-air machinery, and 'pneumonia' for an inflammation in the lungs.

In a similar vein, whatever its original semimystical connotations, spirare also gives us secular words like 'inspire', 'respiration', 'transpiration', 'perspiration', 'spiritous liquor', 'methylated spirits', 'good-spirited', 'mean-spirited' and The Spirit of St Louis. Most of these words have been around for 3-4 centuries or more. From all this I think it's easy to see that 'spirit' is not just a religious term, and never was.

In terms of distinguishing 'spirit' from 'soul', that occurred around the 13th century CE when 'spirit' was used to describe 'seat of emotions', while 'soul' from around the 10th century CE meant 'life force'. The use of 'spirit' to mean 'supernatual being' is attested from the 12th century CE.

To the extent that we think of spirit as 'seat of emotions' it's tied to our morality, our relationships, our compassion, humanity, our sense of beauty, awe, wonder, courage and the importance of things beyond ourselves. Spirit and spirituality is innate to our humanity and can be partaken of by people of any religion, no religion, and those uncertain.

(All the above etymological info sourced from or checked with www.etymonline.com)

[CDarklock]

Yes, but that's just because religious people have defined their own language to reinforce the self-serving belief that they're the only spiritual people around.

It's only self-serving if you choose inappropriate definitions for the words "religious" and "spiritual". When you define religious as "concerned with religion" and spiritual as "concerned with the soul", it's just plain true. People concerned with religion are the only people concerned with the soul. That's not self-serving at all.

However, you can just as easily decide that "religious" means "member of a religion". And if you were to say "only members of a religion are concerned with the soul", that would be wrong. If you went on to decide that "spiritual" meant "concerned with the nature of morality", well, now the sentence is just ludicrous and offensive. "Only members of a religion are concerned with the nature of morality!" What about the rest of the world? They're all just a bunch of immoral jerks? Nice.

This is a natural consequence of words having multiple meanings. Just like when people call themselves "spiritual but not religious", they are religious - "concerned with religion" - but that's not the way they mean the word. Instead, they are using "religious" to mean "a member of a religion". They are "concerned with the soul, but not a member of a religion". (They might also be "concerned with the nature of morality"; either one works.)

Both uses of the word "religious" are perfectly valid, and just like any other word with multiple definitions, you are expected to understand the word as meaning whatever makes the most sense. When you don't know whether someone saying the word "religious" intends to say "concerned with religion" or "a member of a religion", you are supposed to pick whichever one makes the most sense.

I'm not using words in any strange or nonstandard way. I'm using the same words you use, and they have the same meanings you expect, and there's no special Jewish dictionary that says "religious" means "enjoying the scent of freshly-baked muffins" or anything like that.

I suppose I could post in Hebrew, but my Hebrew is really pretty bad. In fact, my Hebrew is worse than my Japanese, and my Japanese really sucks. ;)

[GeorgeK]

How can anyone honestly worship a god that would sent a perfectly nice buddhist or a kind and gentle Muslim or a honest and forthright atheist to hell just because they don't worship him?

What kind of dick god are you worshiping!? It sounds a lot different from the other one I've heard from Christians.

I think you are confusing the clergy and their opinions with God. I've never seen any direct evidence of God sentencing anyone to Hell. Of course, from what I've seen, my opinion is in the minority.

[Ruv Draba]

This is a natural consequence of words having multiple meanings. Just like when people call themselves "spiritual but not religious", they are religious - "concerned with religion"Sniff sniff...Does anyone else smell semantic smoke?

I don't have to prove that your definition of spirituality is wrong, CD. I need only show that it's too narrow. I think I've already done that.

However I believe that your definition of 'religious' is wrong - in the sense of "not recognised by any credible linguistic authority". Here's the word from Mssrs Meriam and Webster.

Spirituality is defined as 'having concerns with religious values' (note: not beliefs. Soul is a belief; Kindness is a value).

'Religious' however, when applied to people and their icons and rituals, gets one pertinent definition: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity". Of the other two definitions, one applies to orders: (e.g. joined a religious order); the other is hyperbole (e.g. "I watch Saturday football religiously").

I don't believe that you can describe scholars of human thought as religious under this definition, or irate atheists getting too many evangelistic doorknocks. :tongue However, if they are concerned with the values that religion normally concerns itself with (e.g. upholding a morality, commitment to human wellbeing, search to establish significance of life and death, drive to provide humanity with purpose) then you could certainly call 'em spiritual under this definition. Indeed, they're potentially more spiritual than theists who have religious beliefs but not religious values.

[Zoombie]

I think you are confusing the clergy and their opinions with God. I've never seen any direct evidence of God sentencing anyone to Hell. Of course, from what I've seen, my opinion is in the minority.

Which is a bummer, cause I like your opinion. They're fuzzy. Like a cat. A big, fuzzy cat.

[beezle]

I know from American TV that all athiests are athiests because God let them down.

[aruna]

Why does Nietzsche always kick off this topic? And why doesn't God ever just say he is not dead?


Maybe he does, quietly. But maybe we are all just too busy chattering and arguing about his existence or non-existence to listen.

[aruna]

there is an observational protocol:
I observe that the Christian believes his paradigm to be absolutely true
I observe that the Hindu believes that his paradigm to be absolutely true
and so on.
.

Actually, the part I have bolded is not true. Hindus do not believe their religion to be "absolutely true", but simply a way of life or a path that will eventually lead to Absolute Truth.

They also believe that every other path of every human being will, eventually, lead to Absolute Truth. That religious paths are different because people are different. That all lead to the same goal... eventually. That a belief in God is not necessary for reaching that goal.

Hindus believe that all religions are true in a relative sense; but they are all flawed by human ignorance. You will find pictures of Christ and Mary in many Hindu homes. I know a devout Hindu woman in her 60's who regularly visits a Sikh temple.
It really is the most tolerant and generous of religions.
Just sayin'.
I am not a Hindu.

[Keyan]

So James, did you accept Pascal's wager and become Muslim?

I have a book which lists over 1000 gods you could choose to Worship.

You aren't honestly saying that you chose the particular god to worship based on Pascal's wager .. did you ?

Mac

Logically, you'd have to pick the scariest god to worship, wouldn't you? So that you'd avoid the worst possible fate?

[oscuridad]

Actually, the part I have bolded is not true. Hindus do not believe their religion to be "absolutely true", but simply a way of life or a path that will eventually lead to Absolute Truth.

They also believe that every other path of every human being will, eventually, lead to Absolute Truth. That religious paths are different because people are different. That all lead to the same goal... eventually. That a belief in God is not necessary for reaching that goal.

Hindus believe that all religions are true in a relative sense; but they are all flawed by human ignorance. You will find pictures of Christ and Mary in many Hindu homes. I know a devout Hindu woman in her 60's who regularly visits a Sikh temple.
It really is the most tolerant and generous of religions.
Just sayin'.
I am not a Hindu.

thanks for the correction. But, that not withstanding I hope the point still stands. I actually have a huge problem with relativism, because something is either true or it is not. I do not mean utterances here, which can obviously have shades of truthfulness, but things, or facts, or statements of the truth. Yes or no. Christianity is a particular example - the ideas are so remarkable (resurrection, ascension etc.) that you have to believe utterly or not at all - you can't believe 'a bit' that someone was the Son of God, was executed, then resurrected and then ascended to Heaven.

Is Hinduism, as a Pantheist religion, closer to a Greek notion of Godhood, in that Gods and Goddesses are useful representational tools for describing and understanding the world around us, perhaps? Like Paganism and other pantheist belief sets, maybe.

Is nature worship the same as more orthodox religion? You can't believe in the power of the Wind, or the Rain - it is. It is human nature to construct ritual around trying to bring about the things that they want - 'The Secret', for example, is another manifestation of this need. As are 'Positive Thinking', 'The Artists' Way', 'Affirmations' and all the other things that people do. Are they 'religious', do they acknowledge a Creator of teh Universe?

I don't know, just asking.

[aruna]

Is Hinduism, as a Pantheist religion, closer to a Greek notion of Godhood, in that Gods and Goddesses are useful representational tools for describing and understanding the world around us, perhaps? Like Paganism and other pantheist belief sets, maybe.

Is nature worship the same as more orthodox religion? You can't believe in the power of the Wind, or the Rain - it is. It is human nature to construct ritual around trying to bring about the things that they want - 'The Secret', for example, is another manifestation of this need. As are 'Positive Thinking', 'The Artists' Way', 'Affirmations' and all the other things that people do. Are they 'religious', do they acknowledge a Creator of teh Universe?

I don't know, just asking.


Rather than answer myself I'd rather let Hindus speak for themselves... here's a quote from a website that strives to provide answers to non-Hindus: (http://www.hinduart.org/basics/tenq/tenq_1.html)
The bold is mine.
http://www.hinduart.org/images/pixel.gif Question One: Why does Hinduism have so many Gods?

A: Hindus all believe in one Supreme God who created the universe. He is all-pervasive. He created many Gods, highly advanced spiritual beings, to be His helpers.

Longer answer: Contrary to prevailing misconceptions, Hindus all worship a one Supreme Being, though by different names. This is because the peoples of India with different languages and cultures have understood the one God in their own distinct way. Through history there arose four principal Hindu denominations—Saivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Smartism. For Sai-vites, God is Siva. For Shaktas, Goddess Shakti is supreme. For Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu is God. For Smartas—who see all Deities as reflections of the One God—the choice of Deity is left to the devotee. This liberal Smarta perspective is well known, but it is not the prevailing Hindu view. Due to this diversity, Hindus are profoundly tolerant of other religions, respecting the fact that each has its own pathway to the one God.

One of the unique understandings in Hinduism is that God is not far away, living in a remote heaven, but is inside each and every soul, in the heart and consciousness, waiting to be discovered. This knowing that God is always with us gives us hope and courage. Knowing the One Great God in this intimate and experiential way is the goal of Hindu spirituality.

Elaboration: Hinduism is both monotheistic and henotheistic. Hindus were never polytheistic, in the sense that there are many equal Gods. Henotheism (literally "one God") better defines the Hindu view. It means the worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods. We Hindus believe in the one all-pervasive God who energizes the entire universe. We can see Him in the life shining out of the eyes of humans and all creatures. This view of God as existing in and giving life to all things is called panentheism. It is different from pantheism, which is the belief that God is the natural universe and nothing more. It is also different from strict theism which says God is only above the world, apart and transcendent.

On the other hand there are the Advaitists who say that God, myself and the world are all in the mind. All these views are valid.

[oscuridad]

Interesting - thanks. Now what about the giant turtle?

[CDarklock]

I don't have to prove that your definition of spirituality is wrong, CD. I need only show that it's too narrow.

Too narrow for what? I made a specific statement which was true only for a specific (or, if you prefer, narrow) definition of "spirituality". That is precisely what I intended to say. The definition must only be correct. The existence of other definitions is irrelevant.

My position is really quite well-defined. The statement "spiritual, but not religious" indicates that one has religious beliefs, but is not a member of an organised or established religion. While it could certainly be used other ways, this is the way it is most commonly used by individuals about themselves - which, in turn, is the way we were discussing its usage.

Your edge cases are not invalid. They are not incorrect. They are simply out of scope in the context of the discussion at hand. The narrowness of that discussion is not a flaw, it is intentional.

However I believe that your definition of 'religious' is wrong - in the sense of "not recognised by any credible linguistic authority".

American Heritage Dictionary (2): "Of, concerned with, or teaching religion."

Webster's Revised Unabridged (1): "Of or pertaining to religion; concerned with religion; teaching, or setting forth, religion; set apart to religion"

Spirituality is defined as 'having concerns with religious values' (note: not beliefs. Soul is a belief; Kindness is a value).

American Heritage Dictionary (2): "Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul."

Webster's Revised Unabridged (4): "Of or pertaining to the soul or its affections as influenced by the Spirit"

(As an aside, there's a very clear and somewhat disturbing christian evangelical influence on the Webster's definitions of spirituality.)

Of the other two definitions, one applies to orders: (e.g. joined a religious order)

Since my definition was "belonging to a religious group", and the relevant definition of "order" (American Heritage Dictionary 13) is "a group of persons living under religious rule"... I fail to see the problem.

I don't believe that you can describe scholars of human thought as religious under this definition

Why, neither do I. But since that isn't the definition I intended, it's perfectly irrelevant. I would describe scholars of the soul as religious, and since they would undoubtedly need to study a great deal of religious scripture and commentary to so call themselves, I don't think you could really argue that point.

[CDarklock]

Hindus believe that all religions are true in a relative sense; but they are all flawed by human ignorance.

I also believe this. It's not a canonical Jewish belief, but I'm of the opinion that it ought to be. There's a great deal of religious dogma with which I categorically disagree, even in my own ascribed faith, and it's rather annoying when people lump in all these additional garbage ideas with the concept of God's existence. I've always been very much of the opinion that God is not perfect or all-powerful or all-knowing, and I get really tired of having to explain that to everybody.

I really do understand why an atheist would choose to be an atheist. What annoys me is the number of people who have chosen to be atheist because they just can't separate the pure idea of God from all the baggage and crap that people in crackpot religions have shoveled on top of it. If you can get the idea away from all the baggage and crap, and you still don't think it works - that's fine. But at least make some effort to identify and remove the BS.

Maybe there is a baby in that bathwater.

[Ruv Draba]

Too narrow for what? I made a specific statement which was true only for a specific (or, if you prefer, narrow) definition of "spirituality". That is precisely what I intended to say. The definition must only be correct.
CD, this discussion has become unproductive. You've pinned your argument on a false notion, and retreated to a world where definitions mean what each individual decides them to mean. That's not a world where people can communicate and share ideas; it's just a world where individuals each get to be righty righty right in their own minds.

Please note that the word 'religious' when applied to activities or items or purpose-formed groups does mean 'concerned with religion', in the sense of 'related to' or 'about'. 'This book is a religious book' means 'This book is about religion'. The construction 'This is a religious person' however means something quite different as I think you really know.
I would describe scholars of the soul as religious, and since they would undoubtedly need to study a great deal of religious scripture and commentary to so call themselves, I don't think you could really argue that point.And here you conflate religious scholarship with devotion to religion, and illustrate why I'm not going to chase you into semantic brambles any more.

(As an aside, there's a very clear and somewhat disturbing christian evangelical influence on the Webster's definitions of spirituality.)There at least we agree, and there I'll leave it.

[Ruv Draba]

I really do understand why an atheist would choose to be an atheist. What annoys me is the number of people who have chosen to be atheist because they just can't separate the pure idea of God from all the baggage and crap that people in crackpot religions have shoveled on top of it.Religions are often about received wisdom (except those rare religions where you're required or allowed to search individually), so 'that crap' is actually what the thought leaders/institutions feed you. In many religions (and I'd suggest: most), you're not allowed to form your own views unguided (or at least not until long after indoctrination). So the quality of the guidance is directly connected to 'the BS'.
But at least make some effort to identify and remove the BS.Well, someone should. But why the seekers? Why not the institutions themselves? Analogously, should school-kids reform the school-system, or should it be the teachers and community elders? Should customers fix their vacuum cleaners before buying them, or should it be the sales staff?
Maybe there is a baby in that bathwater.I think there is - community and humanitarian values are clearly worthwhile things. My suggestion: start with decent values and modern knowledge, and work up to verifiable (or at least plausible) beliefs; don't start with ancient superstitions, poor education and try to create humanitarian values relevant to a modern world. Or put another way: get the spirituality and the knowledge right (or as good as we can get it for now) before you shape the doctrines.

[CDarklock]

You've pinned your argument on a false notion, and retreated to a world where definitions mean what each individual decides them to mean.

Not exactly. I believe that when one makes a statement, one has an inalienable right to choose which word one uses to communicate a concept. It is the concept which is important; the word is simply a representational symbol for that concept.

The multiple definitions of a word all represent valid concepts which can be accurately represented with that word. If the concept I intend to communicate is among those definitions, I can legitimately use that word, even if you would prefer I use a different one.

Having identified two independent third-party linguistic sources that validate my definitions, I stand by them. This does not in any way prevent you from using the same words to represent different concepts, or from representing the same concepts with different words. I am not trying to enforce any sort of restriction on your use of language; I am simply asserting my own right to use language with similar freedom.

[CDarklock]

Well, someone should. But why the seekers? Why not the institutions themselves?

Because they stop seeking. When you institutionalise belief, it becomes dogmatic. It stagnates, and ultimately dies. Only by challenging the status quo can any field advance and revolutionise itself, and as Machiavelli quite rightly observed, societies are reluctant to challenge the current order of things. Those who benefit already fear the loss of that benefit; those who stand to benefit from change fear the risk of failure.

Religion should operate like science. As society advances, so too should our religious thought; organised religion as it stands today is about finding answers and setting them in stone, when the answers should be rigorously and continually challenged. Atheists are doing more for religion by attacking it than any organised religious group does by defending it. An honest religious group should welcome challenge, debate, and attack. The only thing that can happen is that false beliefs will be demolished, later to be replaced by truer beliefs.

This is not a popular viewpoint.

[Higgins]

Logically, you'd have to pick the scariest god to worship, wouldn't you? So that you'd avoid the worst possible fate?

exactly. The scariest god is one that does not exist. Hence my Christian-in-name-only, atheist-in-all-but-name all-but non-existent Faith.

One should match one's Faith to one's god. In my case, both are all-but-non-existent.

[Ruv Draba]

Religion should operate like science. As society advances, so too should our religious thought;I agree. I don't subscribe to religious thought, but I really like having it around! I just wish it wasn't so dumb in its doctrine.

An honest religious group should welcome challenge, debate, and attack.Again, agreed. All cultures lie to themselves, but in healthy cultures the lies are continually challenged, acknowledged and overturned.

The argument put forward against acknowledging doctrinal mistakes is 'loss of faith', but let's call it what it really is: loss of power. If you know that your religious lore is fallible, then you're more likely to question and not do what you're told. In reality, we don't lose faith in religious values just because we get smarter. We lose faith in religious values when we see their exponents fail to practice them.

The only thing that can happen is that false beliefs will be demolished, later to be replaced by truer beliefs. And the balance power will shift - which is the rub for some, I think.

Most people in the world are religious; I'm not. I don't object to that imbalance, and I think it's even probably the way that it should be in our present circumstance. The only outstanding question for me is how religions are conducted - with truth, humility and a desire to help everyone or arrogance, deceit and a desire to help only themselves. In my experience, a handful of religions do the first (two are notable in my mind for this), but most do the last.

[CDarklock]

In reality, we don't lose faith in religious values just because we get smarter. We lose faith in religious values when we see their exponents fail to practice them.

I tend to be of the opinion that when someone fails to practice certain values that you've been told are important, you should lose faith in the person - not the values. After all, if you didn't have faith in the values, why would you care if someone didn't practice them?

And the balance power will shift - which is the rub for some, I think.

I tend to be of the opinion that religion and power shouldn't be mixed. A religious leader should not seek to gain power, and should not seek to hold it when it is slipping away. If the popular opinion is that you are wrong, then your job is not to fight the popular opinion and prove that you are right, but to examine your beliefs and ensure that they are right.

But power corrupts. Always has. Always will. Once the power enters the picture, the power becomes an end in itself, and the religious or spiritual values underlying it become secondary.

[veinglory]

I didn't choose to be atheist any more (or any less) than I chose to be female.

[CDarklock]

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Neil Peart, Free Will

[Ruv Draba]

I tend to be of the opinion that when someone fails to practice certain values that you've been told are important, you should lose faith in the person - not the values. 8<--Snip--8< After all, if you didn't have faith in the values, why would you care if someone didn't practice them?Everyone cares about behaviours, but only some care about (or even think about) values. Values-based behaviour is very different from situation-based behaviour. If we only see situation-based behaviour then we can quickly conclude that values don't exist - that they're just stories told to us to make us behave.
I tend to be of the opinion that religion and power shouldn't be mixed.There's only a few religions that I think would agree with you, and they're all quite small. In most religions, people fight over who gets what pew or who gets to perform the rituals, or gets to keep the artifacts, or tell the stories and say who is favoured/disfavoured in the culture. Communities are very political; religions inherit that by default.

But power corrupts.Not of itself I think, but it attracts the corruptible, and those people keep their power past its use-by date, or use it inappropriately. Those who aren't corrupted by their power put it down when it's no longer useful - we seldom hear about them then, because they move on.

[Ruv Draba]

I didn't choose to be atheist any more (or any less) than I chose to be female.You're the Mistress of Pithy Responses, Vein. So spill! Did you follow your culture into atheism, or embrace a set of values that religions didn't meet? Or some other story?

[Bartholomew]

I didn't choose to be atheist any more (or any less) than I chose to be female.

Interesting. You then maintain that our opinions are as solidly determined as our gender? That our deepest beliefs can never be rocked?

If God came and poked you in the eye, surely that would change your mind, yes?

And likewise, if a theist peered past the veil of reality and saw that there was no one behind the curtain after all, that would change their mind as well--- right?

[CDarklock]

Everyone cares about behaviours, but only some care about (or even think about) values.

I don't agree - I think we all care about values, but are largely unable to distinguish between values, morals, ethics, and behavior. I think college preparatory courses in critical thinking do the most to fix that, but then college itself largely pushes the "think like we tell you" agenda that led to orthodoxy movements in the religious sector. We have similar movements in academia; there's an orthodoxy to the economic department at GMU, for example. (I happen to believe they're right, but it's still an orthodoxy.)

There's only a few religions that I think would agree with you, and they're all quite small.

I'm a Karaite Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Jews). That's a pretty small religion (<50,000 worldwide). Even there, I depart in many particulars from the "party line" - I have personal beliefs and experiences that inform these departures.

My fundamental understanding is that if you are right, you don't need to push your opinion on others with power. You simply need to wait, and the rest of the world will inevitably discover that you are right. Just like any scientific truth, religious truth can be ignored or fought for only so long, and it's short-sighted and selfish to demand that it triumph in your lifetime. There is a danger that you will become so attached to your own hypothesis, you will continue to pursue it even when you know it is wrong, because you desire the power and prestige of being right.

The critical decision is that it's okay to be wrong, as long as you honestly believe you're right. This seems contradictory, until you really think about it.

[Ruv Draba]

I don't agree - I think we all care about values, but are largely unable to distinguish between values, morals, ethics, and behaviorI agree with the latter part, but that first part doesn't feel quite right to me.

This might be one of those definitional situations where you believe that values exist (as I do) and can therefore see their effects (as I can) and know that people react to them (which they do), and therefore think that people care about them because they're reacting to something you already know about.

But look at it from the other side. If you've never heard of a value before then you're just reacting to behaviour. If you see someone behave better than you're used to, you might wonder why. The 'why' question isn't a values question at the time - it's a motive question. Values are motives certainly, but not all motives are values.

This isn't a theoretical argument by the way. I know people who grew up missing key interpersonal values, like honesty or honour. It bothers the heck out of them when people act honestly or with honour when it's clearly to their immediate benefit not to do that. In one case it took a friend around ten years to realise that you could live with honesty and honour and not somehow be very badly off. Interestingly, she now has a lot of both - and considers herself much better off for it.
I think college preparatory courses in critical thinking do the most to fix that, but then college itself largely pushes the "think like we tell you" agendaLearning how to think is the most valuable lesson education can offer. Learning what to think comes as a sort of unavoidable side-effect, but at least you can then pull it apart if you know how to think.
I'm a Karaite Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Jews). That's a pretty small religion (<50,000 worldwide).Wow, small! Thanks for the link.

My fundamental understanding is that if you are right, you don't need to push your opinion on others with power.That's a very civic-minded way to coexist with other opinion.

I'm not sure if I buy the "truth triumphs over opinion" though. Some truth is easy to find - the immediate, tangible and persistent stuff is hard to ignore. Any time we doubt gravity or heat, we can test them.

But some truth is much harder to come by. Some historical truths for instance, are highly interpretative and hard to test. Many metaphysical truths are also of this sort.

Atheists have few metaphysical comforts but one of them is this: if there's a manifest deity that wants to be known by us, it can make this as easy as it wants to, whenever it wants to: just do something utterly extraordinary, visible and repeatable and say hi. :D


The critical decision is that it's okay to be wrong, as long as you honestly believe you're right. This seems contradictory, until you really think about it.I don't hold with that. I believe it's okay to be wrong as long as the cost of your error is born by you alone. But if we're educating, advising or making decisions about other people then we have an ethical obligation to be as evidence-based and scrupulous in our claims as we can reasonably be.

Which reminds me: I once lost a friendship over this view. I was writing in my blog about the bunkum that is astrology, and an online friend told me that she was a professional astrologer and that she found my assertions offensive. I replied that in my view a profession requires certain minimal ethics (including those I mention above) along with admission qualifications - and that therefore astrology cannot be a profession since it is not evidence-based, has no qualifications required for admission, and it doesn't subject itself to rigorous testing. It's at best a paid vocation.

[Sarpedon]

As I mentioned earlier, if one is an honest person, one allows his/her beliefs to be determined by the known facts, rather than interpreting or ignoring facts according to predetermined prejudices.

So therefore, it is possible to say that one has no choice as to what to believe. This is not to say that beliefs are predetermined. They are determined by the evidence.

[CDarklock]

I know people who grew up missing key interpersonal values, like honesty or honour.

I look at that somewhat differently. I view values as a set of priorities; one might place a high value on honesty, or a low value. We all place some value on honesty, and placing a value of "nothing" on it is still placing a value. Such a person is not missing the value, they simply disagree on what that value is.

Belief as an economic system is a surprisingly productive mental model.

I'm not sure if I buy the "truth triumphs over opinion" though.

Consider this: I am in my back yard with Bob. Bob is holding a knife; I am holding a gun. I shoot Bob, who dies. You come into the yard and ask what happened. I say Bob threatened me with the knife.

How can you determine the truth?

Well, you can't. Fundamentally, the truth is based on whether I honestly believed Bob was threatening me with the knife in such a way that the best response was to shoot him. You can never know that. Indeed, nobody can ever know that - except me. The only thing anyone else can have is an opinion.

Does the truth still exist? I think it does. Even though everyone other than myself can only have an opinion (and even I, myself, can self-delude into believing something other than the truth) - there is an objective and unalterable truth of the situation.

Whether anyone ever knows it, or it ever changes anyone's opinion, is irrelevant. Just like there is gravity, and there is heat, there is truth. Even when it cannot be measured or tested, it still exists.

I believe it's okay to be wrong as long as the cost of your error is born by you alone.

But if you honestly believe you're right, you can't make this decision. Who else can make it? Someone else who honestly believes himself right? Who decides whether that person is right?

The theory seems good, but in practice, it simply doesn't work.

[Ruv Draba]

I view values as a set of priorities; one might place a high value on honesty, or a low value. We all place some value on honesty, and placing a value of "nothing" on it is still placing a value. Such a person is not missing the value, they simply disagree on what that value is.

Belief as an economic system is a surprisingly productive mental model. I'm still chewing on values as mental economics. I can see possible attraction: aspiration vs situation could look a bit like demand vs supply. But... in my experience virtue is not intrinsically in limited supply. The supply of virtue is more about creativity than some limited mental stock, and people who hold virtues in abundance seem to exercise them effortlessly.

I also question whether minds always agree on the number of abstract objects in the world - they certainly don't agree on language. For instance, how many tastes can the human tongue discern? In Western tradition we normally say four: sweet, sour, bitter, salty. To these, the Japanese add a fifth: umami, or 'savoury taste'.

Consider this: I am in my back yard with Bob. Bob is holding a knife; I am holding a gun. I shoot Bob, who dies. You come into the yard and ask what happened. I say Bob threatened me with the knife.

How can you determine the truth?

Well, you can't.Actually I think that you can. It's imprecise but reasonably reliable if certain facts are known. It's used in criminal investigations, historical analyses and psychiatry all the time. What we do is build mental models for the actors in the event. What sort of person are you? What sort of person was Bob? What are your backgrounds and histories? What was your relationship? Why were you both in your back yard? Why did you bring a gun to that meeting? When did you produce it? What alternatives did you consider? Whose knife is it? Why would Bob bring a knife? What did you see as Bob's motive? Are you honest and consistent in your answers to my questions? What is your emotional state when we talk? What do others consider about your relationship with Bob?

If each of these questions has an answer then we can build competing models and exclude those explanations that are not consistent. Often what is left is beyond reasonable doubt.

Meawhile, you may believe or retrospectively infer that Bob was threatening you. That may seem a compelling truth to you, but that does not make it truth or even plausible.

Does the truth still exist? I think it does.I agree, and especially I disagree with the postmodern proposition that reality is perception.

But if you honestly believe you're right, you can't make this decision.If we are willing to set aside our prejudices, ask questions thorouoghly and relentlessly, if we can tell the difference between evidence and mere opinion, if we are willing to accept answers whether we like them or not then anyone can find out certain truths beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, if we're only willing to ask questions until our prejudices are satisfied then we're not qualified and we should acknowledge that - we need to leave such answers to someone more relentless and independent.

(This links I think, to our earlier discussion about institutionalised dogma.)

[Higgins]

I agree, and especially I disagree with the postmodern proposition that reality is perception.



What's postmodern about identifying the real and what can be percieved?

There has to be some connection between what the senses indicate and what is actually out there.

For example in your Bob problem, if the person you take to be Bob (because Bob is dead?) isn't the Bob you've heard about...is that "post modern" or just a mistake or a problem with perception or a real problem
or all of the above?

[CDarklock]

But... in my experience virtue is not intrinsically in limited supply.

As a theoretical construct, no. But the human capacity for virtue is finite - there are only so many people, and those people only have so much time and energy.

I also question whether minds always agree on the number of abstract objects in the world

They don't. And they shouldn't. No human being can account for and understand all abstract concepts, so we're forced to choose the ones we find most important. Differences of opinion are not just natural and normal, but essential.

Actually I think that you can.

Since the question is what I thought Bob was doing with the knife, and what Bob was actually doing with the knife, I emphatically disagree. You can never know what I thought. You can have some opinion of whether I am truthfully telling you what I thought, but what I actually thought is inscrutable. Likewise, since Bob is dead, you can never know what Bob thought - or, indeed, what he would tell you.

if we are willing to accept answers whether we like them or not then anyone can find out certain truths beyond reasonable doubt.

But we can't find all truths beyond reasonable doubt, and the definition of "reasonable" is subjective. Fundamentally, you're saying that we can probably satisfy ourselves with an explanation of most things, if we try hard enough - which is true, but being satisfied doesn't make that explanation correct.

[Shadow_Ferret]

No, it's a religious belief, which is an entirely different thing. If you're going to believe anything at all about deities, even that they don't exist, that's a religious belief - because deities are by definition religious.

Athiesm is not a religious belief. It's the LACK of a belief.

The reason I'm an atheist is because I was not brought up to be a theist. I never went to church. Never read the Bible. Never had any exposure to religion other than the fact that I had friends who went.

I didn't choose to stop believing in a god, I never learned to believe in one.

[Ruv Draba]

What's postmodern about identifying the real and what can be percieved?Nothing. The perception/reality dualism dates back to at least the 17th century in Western tradition (with the likes of Déscartes and later, Berkely), and might be as much as 5,000 years old in the Asian traditions (since Hinduism is thought to be that old), so it predates postmodernism by a long chalk.

What I think is postmodern is this particular proposition put up as a solution: "Perception is reality". There are alternative views, and some I feel are far more practical.

[Ruv Draba]

Since the question is what I thought Bob was doing with the knife, and what Bob was actually doing with the knife, I emphatically disagree.Actually, since man thoughts are reflected in behaviour, and since human empathy and modelling ability is very strong, I feel that we can know one another's thoughts pretty well. It's imprecise as I mentioned, but still yields useful and often reliable information.
But we can't find all truths beyond reasonable doubt, and the definition of "reasonable" is subjective.I agree with the first, but don't necessarily agree with the second. If by subjective you mean individual then I disagree. If you mean cultural then I'd cautiously agree.

People from the same culture are very, very good at understanding one another. If I said to Mrs Draba 'I thought Bob was going to stab me, so I shot him', she'd say right away 'You're lying to me. You didn't shoot him' She knows me well enough to know that I wouldn't shoot someone even if he was threatening me with a knife -- or if I did, I wouldn't be able to talk about it afterwards. So even if I believed my words, she wouldn't believe them.
Fundamentally, you're saying that we can probably satisfy ourselves with an explanation of most things, if we try hard enough - which is true, but being satisfied doesn't make that explanation correct.That depends on the basis on which we satisfiy ourselves.

There's a curious sort of philosophical stance emerging from your arguments here, CD... It almost seems contradictory to me.

On the one hand you believe that we have so much in common that we can recognise the same values regardless of culture, and you've even hinted that you think everyone is born yearning for religion. On the other hand, you don't seem to credit empathy and mutual understanding enough to believe that we can know when someone close to us is lying to himself. My views on those three matters is almost the direct opposite: Cultures recognise different values; nobody is born yearning for religion (they want comfort and certainty, which are not the same); and within our cultures we are great at reading minds. :D

[CDarklock]

Athiesm is not a religious belief. It's the LACK of a belief.

No, that's agnosticism. Factor it down: atheist means "no deity", agnostic means "no knowledge".

Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Which is a belief about God.

Which is a religious belief.

If you don't have that belief, you're not an atheist.

It's that simple. If you prefer to use a different definition of "atheist" or "religious" or "belief", that's fine - we've been over that before. But I'm using them this way, and while your definitions may be every bit as good, there's nothing wrong with mine. These words really do mean the things I'm using them to mean.

[Sarpedon]

Ah, the divide and conquer tactic. It won't work.

An agnostic is one who isn't sure whether there is a god or not.

a-theist= literally 'one without a god'
a-gnostic= 'one without gnosis' gnosis meaning spiritual knowledge or certainty.

which one best describes our friend, shadowferret?

Time to brush up on the old greek, eh?

[CDarklock]

It's imprecise as I mentioned

Then we don't know, do we? We simply generate a hypothesis, support it with evidence, and produce a plausible theory. You can't prove whether I felt threatened. You can only decide whether you believe I felt threatened.

Look at the culture question. I'm a combat veteran. I do not belong to the same culture civilians do. I have stepped onto foreign soil with live ammunition, prepared to kill and die at my commander's order. Unless and until you have been part of a similar culture, you cannot possibly understand me. I can see a threat where a civilian can't. I can respond to a threat before a civilisn knows it exists. And I can perceive a threat that the average civilian cannot even bring himself to accept.

Culture is more than just where you happen to live today. It is everywhere you have been and everything you have done.

If by subjective you mean individual then I disagree. If you mean cultural then I'd cautiously agree.

By "subjective" I mean "not universal". An objective truth is true for everyone and can conceivably be proven. A subjective truth is based, at its heart, on the question of what one chooses to believe.

On the one hand you believe that we have so much in common that we can recognise the same values regardless of culture

This is a question of human capacity. Every human being - regardless of culture - has the capacity to understand what a concept is, and will (once that concept is understood) assign a value to it. This understanding and assignation of value is informed by one's surroundings.

If you are never taught that honesty is a virtue, you may find the idea foreign, and you may assign it zero value. But the human capacity to understand the concept of honesty, and to assign it some value, is universal.

you've even hinted that you think everyone is born yearning for religion.

That's a tricky one. I believe everyone wants to know the ultimate primal answers to the most important questions, and to feel that their understanding of them is correct, and to associate with others who have a similar understanding.

All three of these things are ostensibly provided by religion. However, I don't think it's religion for which people are yearning - and I don't think they're born yearning for it. I think as we gain experience with the world and an understanding of that world, we have a growing desire to understand certain questions - based largely on our own values.

So while everyone will ultimately identify the "most important" questions, and want to have the "correct" answers, and desire the company of people who share their beliefs... I don't think those questions are necessarily religious questions. I think what we are all born yearning for is the company of others who respect us.

On the other hand, you don't seem to credit empathy and mutual understanding enough to believe that we can know when someone close to us is lying to himself.

Oh, I believe you can tell that about someone close to you. I just don't believe you can tell that about everyone, or about every lie someone close to you is telling. I don't believe you can have that level of mutual understanding with the entire world, and I don't believe you can achive total mutual understanding with anyone.

[CDarklock]

a-theist= literally 'one without a god'
a-gnostic= 'one without gnosis' gnosis meaning spiritual knowledge or certainty.

So... "no deity", "no knowledge".

Just like I said.

I fail to see the problem.

[Ruv Draba]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God.No, that's just what monotheists claim atheism is. See, they believe that there's a single creator god running the show, and they believe that atheism is out to say that there's not.

But it's not. It's independent of that. A fairer statement of atheism is 'I live my life without aknowledgement of or regard for possible divinity.' This contrasted with agnosticism which is more like 'I live my life without theological certainty'.

That said, in addition, atheists are free to reject any specific religion on any grounds including dogma, morality, culture, aesthetics, economics, boredom etc... In my case, I reject certain specific religions because all their claims cannot simultaneously be true, or because some specific claims are clearly false or ludicrously implausible. I reject certain others because I consider them evil or selfish or amoral. I reject some others because I feel that they're inefficient or ineffective at what they do, and some others are simply not interesting enough to entice me to evaluate them further.

I'm not saying that no 'deity' (whatever that means in the broadest sense) exists. What I say is that such consideration has no part how I act, or what I want, or how I appreciate life - and that I expect this to continue unless and until I choose otherwise. Atheism is neither belief nor religious for me - if anything it's a statement of fact, or if you wish an irreligious life strategy.

As to how the universe might have come to be... like Veinglory I don't greatly care except when someone asserts a viewpoint and then tries to turn it into rules by which I must live.

Edit: I realise that the distinction can be confusing, so here's a little dialogue to help illustrate. This is modelled very loosely on a conversation I had once with a minister father of an old school-friend of mine.

Minister: "What's your relationship with God?"
Ruv: "With who?"
Minister: "God. The creator of the universe. The divine father who watches over us and guides us."
Ruv: "I'm sorry, but I don't know who you're talking about."
Minister: "Have you read the Bible?"
Ruv: "Yes, and lots of other mythology too."
Minister: "The Bible says..."
Ruv: "Yes, I know, but that God is a character in a fable. I can't have a relationship with an imaginary character. I don't have a relationship with Apollo or Isis either."
Minister: "So you deny that God is real?"
Ruv: "I can tell you for sure that I've never seen anything like that book character in real life."
Minister: "Well if you pray then..."
Ruv: "But if I don't pray then what?"
Minister: "Well then you won't know the truth."
Ruv: "So I have to pray to your book character and then I'll meet the real one?"
Minister: "They're the same."
Ruv: "I don't pray to book characters. That's kid stuff. Real people don't need you to believe in them before they call you."
Minister: "So you deny..."
Ruv: "I don't deny anything. If you think you know something that wants to meet me, invite it to call. Meanwhile, I'm not going to kid myself with this or that game of 'let's pretend'."
Minister: "I'll pray that God comes to you then."
Ruv: "If your book character is real, you shouldn't have to ask."

[CDarklock]

No, that's just what monotheists claim atheism is.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "atheist" as "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

It does not list any other definition.

Webster's Revised Unabridged does list an alternate definition of "Without God, neither accepting nor denying him." It is the only reference source I can find which does. Based on my experience of Webster's being disturbingly christian-centric, I believe this is a prejudicial effort to equate lack of acceptance with active denial, in the furtherance of a christian agenda.

You may, of course, elect to consider this aberrant definition the only "correct" definition if you prefer... but I would hesitate to lend such authority to Webster's. It opens a can of worms that basically implies you have to use Webster's for your definitions, and I suspect some of those definitions may turn out to be unacceptable.

A fairer statement of atheism is 'I live my life without aknowledgement of or regard for possible divinity.'

I don't think the purpose of defining atheism is to be fair, but to be accurate. It isn't fair to say the Ku Klux Klan is a racist organisation, and they'd certainly argue the point (they have in the past), but the activity and rhetoric of the KKK is clearly racist activity and rhetoric. It's simply nonsensical to insist that the definition of the group be "fair".

It seems to me that you want to call yourself an atheist, for whatever reason, but you'd also like to believe something other than what an atheist believes. I don't believe you can rationally expect to do that. If you say "I am an atheist", you have to mean something that "atheist" is generally accepted to mean - and if only other atheists accept your definition, you're just duplicating the christian madness of redefining "faith" to suit their own purposes.

[Zoombie]

Well, Darlock (I keep expecting you to shout EXTERMINATE and kill us all for some reason), ever consider that Atheists aren't homogeneous, just as Christians aren't homogeneous and that one definition of Christian is different from another.

That's why there are so many Christian branches, like Mormon, Presbyterian...uh...others. You yourself are sect of Judaism that i hadn't even heard off till a few hours ago.

Well...Atheists don't split up into separate organizations because we don't HAVE a doctrine, we don't HAVE a organization, really, and so...thusly, we get a bit confusing as we've got kinda Atheists and spiritual Atheists and grumpy Atheists...

[CDarklock]

Well, Darlock (I keep expecting you to shout EXTERMINATE and kill us all for some reason)

No, those are daleks. You're also missing the first K in Darklock.

ever consider that Atheists aren't homogeneous

Of course. However, if the atheist is to be distinguished from the agnostic, there must be a difference between them. That difference has always, whenever I have encountered it, been the distinction of nonbelief as opposed to disbelief. The agnostic does not believe, but neither does he disbelieve; disbelief is the defining province of the atheist, just as belief is the defining province of the theist.

The established linguistic sources overwhelmingly support this view. If atheism describes only a lack of interest in the question, or a lack of importance assigned to it, then isn't showing such an interest or assigning such an importance sufficient to make one a theist?

I don't think that's an accurate statement. It would effectively divide the agnostic camp, and make many of them theists simply because they believe they should seek an answer. I think that's unfair to them.

You yourself are sect of Judaism that i hadn't even heard off till a few hours ago.

However, there are core principles (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/rambam13.html). Once you depart from those, you are no longer Jewish. While different Jewish sects may interpret the details of these principles differently, the principles still hold.

[Ruv Draba]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "atheist" as "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
Okay, let me make best efforts to clear this one up.

I'm not an American and for reasons of culture and perversity, American language definitions don't wash with me. I recognise either the Oxford or the Macquarie. Here's what my pocket Oxford says:

Atheism: n. Disbelief in the existence of God.

Ignoring for a minute that that's a monotheistic definition (and that some religions don't have gods), disbelief in existence is not belief in nonexistence. Etymologically, atheism = a + theos, so literally "one who denies the gods". I do indeed deny them in their relevance and validity to me - whether that's because they're fictional, impotent or indifferent to me is not really the point.

Now let me make a cultural argument for my belief being atheism:

Atheists agree with my beliefs about religion
I identify with the core thoughts of renowned atheists
No atheist has ever denounced me as a traitor to the causeNow, as a member of a minority sect of Jewry, suppose that a Moslem thumped a Persian dictionary and said "CDarklock ain't a Jew". You'd laugh, right? That's because dictionaries do not define cultures, and neither do outside observers. Cultures define cultures. Atheism isn't just a belief system but (albeit loosely, and not a terribly good one) a culture too.

In case there's any further doubt, let me make a strong argument for my beliefs not being agnosticism:

I'm very firm in my views of religions and their doctrines (in case that isn't obvious already :tongue)
It does matter to me whether religious views shape the thinking and hence the policies of society.
I'm therefore neither unsure of religion nor indifferent to it -- and I'd need to be one or the other to be agnostic.Lastly, please understand that I'm explaining this to try and help you get past certain monotheistic blinkers (either your own or some lexicographer's), rather than to seek your consent to my identity. :D

As a general principle if we try and infer cultural properties from dictionary definitions, we can get into some pretty bad trouble in the offense and vilification stakes. Since both your belief-system and mine have been hammered in the past by Christian-influenced and largely ignorant texts I'm pretty sure that I could come up with some false or nasty dictionary definitions for Jewry too and insist that they must be true of you because the dictionary says.So, my advice? Just don't go there. :D :D :D

It seems to me that you want to call yourself an atheist, for whatever reason, but you'd also like to believe something other than what an atheist believes.I think I've addressed this in some detail now. Atheism is a lot more complex than it looks on cursory glance to a monotheist. It's one reason that we have so much darn trouble forming community.

If you really want to tie your religious epistemology in knots, consider - there are some versions of Buddhist thought that believe all deities to be fictional. Does that make these Buddhists atheists? I think that both atheists and Buddhists would say no.

Some kinds of animism have no gods, only spirits. Does this make animists atheists? Some kids grow up never knowing what religion is. Does that make them atheists or agnostics or something else?

I've known atheists for decades. We have no problem telling ourselves apart from agnostics and mystical faiths. If a dictionary gives you simplistic, monotheistic definitions then my advice is to ignore that dictionary. :D :D

Edit: I realised that you would probably want something more authoritative than my argument, so I went ahead and got an online subscription to the Encyclopoedia Britannica (for this and other purposes), and got some stuff to quote. Please see next post.

[Ruv Draba]

Here are some excerpts from the current Encyclopaedia Britannica on different forms of atheism. (Excerpted for research purposes only. The bold is mine except where noted.)

In general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.

[ ... ]

Atheism, however, casts a [wide] net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Islām, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.

[ ... ]

It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to “rejection of religious belief” and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.

[ ... ]

As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God’s existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

[ ... ]

Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islām, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as “God is my creator to whom everything is owed,” are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is.

[ ... ]

An atheist who argues in this manner [may] make a distinctive burden-of-proof argument. Given that God (if there is one) is by definition a very recherché reality—a reality that must be (for there to be such a reality) transcendent to the world—the burden of proof is not on the atheist to give grounds for believing that there is no reality of that order. Rather, the burden of proof is on the believer to give some evidence for God’s existence; i.e., that there is such a reality.


To summarise, while agnosticism is to say that the existence of spirits and gods is either unknown, unknowable or unimportant, there are atheists (like me) who hold that to even begin to examine the proposition you must first demonstrate that we are in a world where the proposition is meaningful. If you examine my mini-dialogue in an earlier post (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2352758&postcount=186), you'll see that my first response is 'What are you talking about? What object called God? I see the name, but I don't see the object it refers to.'

Hope this helps.

[Zoombie]

I think I'm going to stop calling myself an atheist and just stick with a humanist, a title I think I've made up but probably stole from somewhere else and forgot about it.

Humanism being the belief in each human having the potentiality to be either really really really good or really really really bad...and usually both at the same time...or anywhere in between, really.

[Ruv Draba]

Hey zoombie. You might be a secular humanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanist). A secular humanist believes in:

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method - A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.I'm a secular humanist, except that on this last point (Building a better world), I certainly support looking after ourselves and our kids - but also other life and the beauty and sustainability of the places in which we find ourselves.

By and large, humanists (secular and sectarian) are my favourite of all favourite people! :Sun::Hug2::Sun:

[CDarklock]

disbelief in existence is not belief in nonexistence.

Yes it is. That is what the prefix "dis-" means. It is a negating prefix. There is belief, which is positive; nonbelief, which is neutral; And disbelief, which is negative. That is what the words mean. That is what they have always meant.

Now let me make a cultural argument for my belief being atheism

WTF is this "cultural argument" BS? If "atheism" is defined to mean "disbelief", and you don't disbelieve, you are not an atheist. The. End.

Atheism isn't just a belief system

Atheism is not a system. It is only a belief. If it were a system, it would become a de facto religion.

but (albeit loosely, and not a terribly good one) a culture too.

That's as may be, they can't alter the definition of atheism. They can add one, if they like, but they can't remove the one we already have.

In case there's any further doubt, let me make a strong argument for my beliefs not being agnosticism

But you haven't said anything about God.

Agnosticism isn't about religion. It's about God. If you are not an agnostic, then you have a definite "yes" or "no" answer to the question "is there a God". If your answer is "yes", you are a theist. If your answer is "no", you are an atheist.

If your answer is anything else, you are an agnostic. It is that simple. Whether you say "maybe" or "it depends" or "I don't care", failure to say YES or NO means you are an agnostic.

Lastly, please understand that I'm explaining this to try and help you get past certain monotheistic blinkers

So, if I understand you correctly, "atheism" doesn't really mean what the dictionary says it means... because of the dreaded international monotheistic conspiracy. And I might be a part of it. That about sum it up?

If you really want to tie your religious epistemology in knots, consider - there are some versions of Buddhist thought that believe all deities to be fictional. Does that make these Buddhists atheists?

No, because you've mischaracterised the Buddhist belief in question. It goes back to objective and subjective: when you describe a deity, your description is subjective, not objective. It is a fiction you have invented to explain your own experience. The deity does exist, but even your own understanding is a fiction you invent to rationalise your experience.

I've known atheists for decades. We have no problem telling ourselves apart from agnostics and mystical faiths.

Strangely, so have I, and I categorically disagree. Atheists, as a general rule, are more interested in whether you hate christians and whether you can argue effectively than whether you are "really" an atheist.

I have had atheists explain to me that my refusal to accept Jesus as a divine figure qualifies me to call myself an atheist, even if I continue to believe in God and practice the Jewish faith.

And if that attitude continues, "atheist" will end up meaning nothing at all. It will become an epithet, an accusation, a condemnation of intolerance toward christians. Not because of any conspiracy, but because other cultures respond to how you define your own.

[Zoombie]

Yay Secular Humanism!

Though, you do know that building a better world means for everyone, not just humans right?

And yay for being excluded from this increasingly...esoteric and hair splitting argument between these two titans. I suddenly remember a short joke from the Simpson's, where it shows a still frame for a T.V Show called "Legal Debate", but the image is of two business suited people with HUGE bulging muscles, hefting briefcases like medieval weapons, standing on the tip of a jutting spire above a pit of fire, both poised and ready to bash one another while lighting flashed in the background.

For some reason, you two remind me of this.

[CDarklock]

Here are some excerpts from the current Encyclopaedia Britannica on different forms of atheism.

Doesn't this basically say that atheists deny A LOT MORE than simply the existence of God? Because that's how I read it. Atheists deny the existence of God, but a significant number of atheists ALSO deny all kinds of other metaphysical questions.

[Bartholomew]

If you really want to tie your religious epistemology in knots, consider - there are some versions of Buddhist thought that believe all deities to be fictional. Does that make these Buddhists atheists? I think that both atheists and Buddhists would say no.


This Buddhist disagrees. I happily use both descriptors.

[Ruv Draba]

Doesn't this basically say that atheists deny A LOT MORE than simply the existence of God?
Some atheists deny the existence of a God. Some (like me) don't do that but instead deny the logical significance of the question of gods. In addition, all atheists have some form of refusal about mystical things that are not gods like spirits, reincarnation, magic and so on.

In my case, I don't believe that the question of gods, spirits, reincarnation, magic, astrology evenhas logical meaning until you can demonstrate a solid likelihood from material evidence (rather than belief) that the objects exist here, rather than simply in some mythology.

I view religious belief as occupying an invented reality unconnected to this one - just as Harry Potter stories do. I don't believe it's legitimate to talk about Harry Potter in this world because that's not where he lives.

In the same sense, I don't believe that it's legitimate to talk about the God of some book as occupying this reality. If you want to talk about a god in this reality then you have to first find it separately here so that we agree on what we're talking about.

If you understand that, then you'll understand that my atheism is not a religious view but an epistemological one. Theists say that you can take a character from a fable and talk about it in this world as though it's real. I say that you can't do that until you find the character in this world first.

Until that occurs, then from my perspective any discussion about religious belief takes place in some other, fictional world. I can pretend to play at living in Hogwarts, but I don't live there, and so nothing I say about Hogwarts constitutes belief.In the same way, nothing I say about a hypothetical world in which the god of Abraham exists, has any bearing in this world.

[Ruv Draba]

This Buddhist disagrees. I happily use both descriptors.
Buddhists love messing with definitions and are Not To Be Trusted! :ROFL:

My recently-purchased Encyclopedia Brit subscription draws a paper-thin but palpable wall between atheism and transcendentalism, so the scholars are against you here, Bart. But like I said, from a Buddhist perspective I can see how it could sorta work.

(And if I was going to be a theist, it'd be Buddhism or Taoism).

[Bartholomew]

Buddhists love messing with definitions and are Not To Be Trusted! :ROFL:

My recently-purchased Encyclopedia Brit subscription draws a paper-thin but palpable wall between atheism and transcendentalism, so the scholars are against you here, Bart. But like I said, from a Buddhist perspective I can see how it could sorta work.

(And if I was going to be a theist, it'd be Buddhism or Taoism).

Transcendentalism - "any system of philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical and material." (From wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&ei=cd8rSL6BNISs8ATR3oCbBg&sig2=UpLfm-EsM7e7asIDwClgSg&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dtranscendentalism&usg=AFQjCNET9Fr2-5Z1PI_6FD9_SLiiLGKQ6Q))

Nothing about gods. :)

There are atheistic sects of Buddhism, even if you expand your definition of god to mean "any mythic creature."

[Ruv Draba]

Transcendentalism - "any system of philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical and material." (From wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&ei=cd8rSL6BNISs8ATR3oCbBg&sig2=UpLfm-EsM7e7asIDwClgSg&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dtranscendentalism&usg=AFQjCNET9Fr2-5Z1PI_6FD9_SLiiLGKQ6Q))You got me there. :o I was really thinking of reincarnation and transmigration - which I perhaps misnamed transcendentalism because that's typically the Buddhist approach to transcendentalism. As an atheist I can't buy it (or more accurately, I'm an atheist because I don't buy it), and if you buy it then I think you're trying to sneak in under the back flap of the atheist tent. :poke:

But in fairness, reincarnation and transmigration are not the only approach to transcendentalism and I'd have to say that my secular humanistic++ philosophy has a fair lump of transcendentalism in it. You may smell funny, Bartholomew, but I'll let you stay in my tent for now. :D (Just don't touch the chicken skewers - some of them could be Aunt Mabel :eek:)
There are atheistic sects of Buddhism, even if you expand your definition of god to mean "any mythic creature."Well, now you're saying exactly what I said to start with! I was using you guys as an example to beat up CD with. (And for pacifists you make a very handy theological stick - thank you! :LilLove:)

[CDarklock]

Some atheists deny the existence of a God. Some (like me) don't do that but instead deny the logical significance of the question of gods.

So you deny something of which the existence of God is a subset, thereby... denying the existence of God.

I don't see the problem. If I said you denied the existence of the number 2, and you protested that you actually deny the existence of prime numbers - well, you still deny the existence of the number 2. Maybe I don't care about the other prime numbers.

If you understand that, then you'll understand that my atheism is not a religious view but an epistemological one.

Fallacy of the undistributed middle. The sets intersect. Religion and epistemology are not mutually exclusive.

Theists say that you can take a character from a fable and talk about it in this world as though it's real.

That's largely because you say it's a fable, and they say it's historical fact. There is no clear evidence one way or the other. The decision must be made on the F-word.

[Ruv Draba]

Transcendentalism - "any system of philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical and material." (From wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&ei=cd8rSL6BNISs8ATR3oCbBg&sig2=UpLfm-EsM7e7asIDwClgSg&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dtranscendentalism&usg=AFQjCNET9Fr2-5Z1PI_6FD9_SLiiLGKQ6Q))

Okay, lovin my new Encyclopedia Britannica subscription (gonna look so erudite in online debates thumpin this! :Trophy:) Quoted for research:

19th-century movement of writers and philosophers in New England who were loosely bound together by adherence to an idealistic system of thought based on a belief in the essential unity of all creation, the innate goodness of man, and the supremacy of insight over logic and experience for the revelation of the deepest truths. German transcendentalism (especially as it was refracted by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Thomas Carlyle), Platonism and Neoplatonism, the Indian and Chinese scriptures, and the writings of such mystics as Emanuel Swedenborg and Jakob Böhme were sources to which the New England Transcendentalists turned in their search for a liberating philosophy.

Using this definition I can only sort of half-subscribe before my secular humanist leash jerks me to a halt. The choke-point for me is "triumph of insight over logic and experience". (Thing is, I know that Buddhists don't preach such nonsense, so where did Coleridge pick it up? I bet it was from too much opium. Or Plato. Or both.)

(You can still stay in the tent, Bart, but keep ya hands in ya dang robe. :D)

[Ruv Draba]

So you deny something of which the existence of God is a subset, thereby... denying the existence of God.Set theory! Big mistake. I have Cantor encrusted on my incisors. :guns:

Please consider the set S of all sets that don't contain themselves. Please consider the following two mutually-exclusive statements:

S contains itself
S does not contain itselfWhich is true?

Let me further stipulate that if you answer 1) I shall call you a theist. If you answer 2) then I shall call you an atheist and hence a 'theist wannabe' since you're talking about the theist concept 'S'. Moreover if you fail or refuse to answer the question I shall call you agnostic, since it's obviously either not important to you, or beyond your ability.

Take your time. Have fun.:wag:

[Bartholomew]

[/size]

Okay, lovin my new Encyclopedia Britannica subscription (gonna look so erudite in online debates thumpin this! :Trophy:) Quoted for research:


Using this definition I can only sort of half-subscribe before my secular humanist leash jerks me to a halt. The choke-point for me is "triumph of insight over logic and experience". (Thing is, I know that Buddhists don't preach such nonsense, so where did Coleridge pick it up? I bet it was from too much opium. Or Plato. Or both.)

(You can still stay in the tent, Bart, but keep ya hands in ya dang robe. :D)

You can use that definition, if you like, but I don't see why you would. Buddhism is an Eastern philosophy, and the concept of transcendentalism as you've defined it above is western to the core.

You got me there. :o I was really thinking of reincarnation and transmigration - which I perhaps misnamed transcendentalism because that's typically the Buddhist approach to transcendentalism. As an atheist I can't buy it (or more accurately, I'm an atheist because I don't buy it), and if you buy it then I think you're trying to sneak in under the back flap of the atheist tent. :poke:[/size]

But in fairness, reincarnation and transmigration are not the only approach to transcendentalism and I'd have to say that my secular humanistic++ philosophy has a fair lump of transcendentalism in it. You may smell funny, Bartholomew, but I'll let you stay in my tent for now. :D (Just don't touch the chicken skewers - some of them could be Aunt Mabel :eek:)
Well, now you're saying exactly what I said to start with! I was using you guys as an example to beat up CD with. (And for pacifists you make a very handy theological stick - thank you! :LilLove:)

Transmigration (Buddhists deny the existence of a soul, and therefore this is nothing to reincarnate) is one of those handy give-or-take things that a Buddhist can either believe or disbelieve, as it suits him, and it will have no impact on his practice. Think about it--even if you have past lives, you can never remember them. Even if your actions stretch back to the infinite reaches of the past, you can never go back and change them. How then do past lives effect the practicing Buddhist? You can believe it, if you like--or you can shrug it off as mystical, unimportant junk that you don't need to be a good person. :)

If you're going to beat people up with me, keep rotating me, or you'll bruise that one, tiny spot...

[Mac H.]

Some atheists deny the existence of a God. Some (like me) don't do that but instead deny the logical significance of the question of gods

So you deny something of which the existence of God is a subset, thereby... denying the existence of God.You seem to misunderstand the original quote.

Imagine that there are two main opposing theories about how metals conduct electricity:

1. There is a theory that metals have a complex 15 dimensional mesh that can never be observed or measured, but happen to give the appearance to all measurements that electrons are pushed from atom to atom. This is 'The Mesh' theory.
2. There is a theory that 'The Mesh' is nonsense, and that electrons are simply pushed from atom to atom as the current flows (The 'Non-Mesh' theory)

Some people may passionately hold to 'The Mesh' theory, others may be emphatic about 'The Non-Mesh' theory. However, there is a third group .. people who simply don't see the logical significance of the question at all .. since both give exactly the same observable results to all measurements.

If someone claims to belong to the group that doesn't see the logical significance of The Mesh , it doesn't mean that they believe that 'The Mesh' doesn't exist !

Theists say that you can take a character from a fable and talk about it in this world as though it's real.To be fair, most engineers do that all the time and it seems to work. It is called a 'model'.

We talk about the current flowing through a capacitor, even though it really doesn't ... it is just a handy fable that simplifies the explanation and is useful. Heck - we even talk about holes having mass! (Not only is it a logically stupid fable .. we even claim the empty hole has more mass than the thing you took out of the hole!)

But it works.

Mac

[Bartholomew]

Three mathematicians are posed the same question -- Are all odd numbers prime?

Here is how they reply:

Physicist: "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 - must be experimental error, 11 is prime, 13 is prime. That's enough data points; the theory is true."

Mathematician: "By convention, 1 is not prime, but 3 is prime, 5 is prime, and 7 is prime. Using mathematical induction, we can infer that all odd numbers are prime."

Engineer: "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime, 13 is prime, 15 is prime, 17 is prime, 19 is prime... Hmmm, theory appears to be true. --And what do you mean, '1 is not prime?'"

[CDarklock]

Please consider the set S of all sets that don't contain themselves.

Let me simplify your question.

"Are you using Frege's naive set theory, which is susceptible to Russell's Paradox, or Cantor's axiomatic set theory - which is not?"

The latter. Which prescribes that proposition (1) is always true for all sets.

"But, but, but... I wanted you to use the flawed system, so I could be smarter than you! That's not fair!"

Ever apply diagonalisation on the left-hand side of the decimal point? Go. Learn something.

[CDarklock]

However, there is a third group .. people who simply don't see the logical significance of the question at all .. since both give exactly the same observable results to all measurements.

I call this practical significance. Belief in God has no practical significance, either. But logical significance exists in a theoretical space; the question about metal's conductivity has logical significance, not because it will change what we get now, but because it can alter the way we work. If the mesh theory is true, perhaps we can leverage that knowledge to create new ways of using conductivity. Even if it is not, we can leverage that knowledge to avoid unproductive avenues of research.

But you are correct. We need a more clear definition of what, precisely, is being denied when the logical significance of the question is refused. If Ruv is actually denying the practical significance of God, then we agree on that score - but, clearly, denying the practical significance of God does not preclude theism. Therefore, it is not the defining characteristic of his atheism.

[GeorgeK]

Which is a bummer, cause I like your opinion. They're fuzzy. Like a cat. A big, fuzzy cat.


Oh! I finally got it, as in non-dogmatic. LOL Thanks I needed a laugh.

[Higgins]

Set theory! Big mistake. I have Cantor encrusted on my incisors. :guns:

Please consider the set S of all sets that don't contain themselves. Please consider the following two mutually-exclusive statements:

S contains itself
S does not contain itselfWhich is true?

Let me further stipulate that if you answer 1) I shall call you a theist. If you answer 2) then I shall call you an atheist and hence a 'theist wannabe' since you're talking about the theist concept 'S'. Moreover if you fail or refuse to answer the question I shall call you agnostic, since it's obviously either not important to you, or beyond your ability.

Take your time. Have fun.:wag:

Isn't this just a version of the problem B. Russell found in Frege's logic?

Moreover...aren't the axioms of set theory explicitly formulated to avoid this problem?

It is classes that have this problem...not sets.

[CDarklock]

Some random thoughts about logical and practical significance, also using mathematical examples.

Take any rational number, such as 5.3 or 2.8, and reverse it around the decimal point. This gives you 3.5 or 8.2, also a rational number.

This has no practical significance. There is no real-world application for this. You cannot, in the general course of mathematical operations, reverse the textual representation of a number as though it had some mathematical purpose.

However, you can also extrapolate a similar action to irrational numbers. Take pi:

3.1415926...

Reverse it around the decimal:

...6295141.3

Is the resulting number rational? It would seem so. It would seem that you could represent this as a fraction, thus:

...62951413 / 10

However, since the numerals extend infinitely to the left of the decimal point, it also appears that you have an infinite quantity. This implies the existence of an infinite rational number. Indeed, it implies the existence of an infinite number of infinite rational numbers.

I believe this has logical significance. That by applying this mechanism, certain mathematical laws may be examined and challenged from a direction most people don't consider. Even if those mathematical laws do not change, and are merely demonstrated to be true, the fact that they have been challenged from this direction is a significant fact.

Likewise, the question of God - under my beliefs - is not one of practical significance. Unlike the christian hypothesis, under which belief in Jesus/God dictates the practical reality of whether one goes to heaven or hell, I don't believe there is any difference. Whether you believe in God or not, what happens to the soul after death is unchanged. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that your fate in the afterlife is significant, I do not hold that belief in God in and of itself will in any way impact that fate.

What does impact that fate is your actions. A belief in God is of practical significance only insofar as it will affect your actions, which is not a universal quantity. My belief in God has little impact on my actions; others' beliefs in God might have tremendous impact on their actions. Likewise, a lack of belief may have massive or negligible impact on one's actions, and it is that impact alone which is of practical significance.

[Ruv Draba]

"But, but, but... I wanted you to use the flawed system, so I could be smarter than you! That's not fair!"Nicely caught, CD. I wasn't trying to diss you - just being playful. It wasn't meant to be an intellectual challenge but a parody.

I posted Russell's Paradox so that we would swap roles for a while: I hand you the flawed system and then you get to experience what it's like to be challenged to make statements about truth-values that are meaningless to you, and to be categorised for that.

I'm not at all surprised that you caught the flaw in the system - I expected you to catch it. That's the point.

Your response was exactly what mine is, when asked to make true/false statements about the existence of a monotheistic God: "Oh, for pity's sake, you're working with a flawed system. Go out and learn something." :D It's not an agnostic response. It's a response that rejects the premise of the original question. You can't make statements about truth-values in a flawed system. It's not that set S has this or that property, or exists or does not. It's that the whole darn edifice of reasoning is flawed.

Sorry for any offense, but full marks to you for your irritation and scorn - you acted just like an atheist! :roll:

[Ruv Draba]

Okay, back to being serious again.


However, since the numerals extend infinitely to the left of the decimal point, it also appears that you have an infinite quantity. This implies the existence of an infinite rational number. Indeed, it implies the existence of an infinite number of infinite rational numbers. I accept the conclusion for this and other reasons. There are in fact a countably infinite number of sets of nonstandard integers that satisfy the Russell-Whitehead axioms, and that have nothing at all to do with the integers we normally use (your infinite rationals being an extended example of this). In fact Nonstandard Analysis shows that there are a countably infinite number of zeroes, each doing the same job as our zero, yet never having anything to do with it. (References available if you poke me).

I believe this has logical significance.It certainly has epistemological significance. In particular, it's very easy to demonstrate that language is lousy in describing the vast infinitudes around us, and always will be, and that any attempts to do so using language should be viewed with suspicion - both because of the high likelihood of inconsistency (see Russell's paradox), and also incompleteness (as per your example of the infinite rationals, and my example of the nonstandard zeroes).

This is one reason that I'm deeply, deeply suspicious of alleged "transcendental religious truths" expressed as pithy aphorisms. It's also a reason that I do not like the idea of apprehending ludicrously large and ill-defined concepts like a monotheist's 'God' concept through religious dogma. Indeed, in an act of mental hygeine, I try and avoid frames that purport to do these things entirely. They're all fraught and flawed, to my mind.

Elsewhere in this forum I mentioned that I don't even accept the use of the term 'Universe' in an unqualified fashion. There are concepts that we can clearly deal with ('Heavens and Earth' is comfortable to me), and concepts that we can't ('Universe', as used to encapsulate all things that ever were, are and shall be is one of these). I don't like working with words that refer to concepts that we clearly can't deal with.

Likewise, the question of God - under my beliefs - is not one of practical significance. Unlike the christian hypothesis, under which belief in Jesus/God dictates the practical reality of whether one goes to heaven or hell, I don't believe there is any difference.(Depends on which flavour of Christianity you favour. One flavour says it matters; the other says it doesn't - they've burned or beheaded each other from time to time to prove that their view is right. :()
Whether you believe in God or not, what happens to the soul after death is unchanged. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that your fate in the afterlife is significant, I do not hold that belief in God in and of itself will in any way impact that fate.Yours is not the only faith that thinks that.
What does impact that fate is your actions. A belief in God is of practical significance only insofar as it will affect your actions, which is not a universal quantity.Some Protestant versions of Christianity agree with you. The Buddhists (perverse creatures that they are) hold something quite different: that it's correct thinking coupled with correct actions - but thinking seems to mean 'awareness and intention', rather than belief.

One consequence of the 'actions not faith' precept is that any evangelising must then demonstrate that it will lead to better actions than if you don't believe them. :D That then gives you the mandate to hold such evangelists up to the highest levels of scrutiny. :tongue
My belief in God has little impact on my actions;Ahem. You're the utilitarian economist, so did you just imply that if you were an atheist and better-behaved that you'd actually be better off in your current cosmology than being a (presumably) sometimes ill-behaved Karaite Jew? :ROFL:Or... are you saying that you embrace your Judaism because nothing else is any good at making you behave? :roll:

(Okay, I guess I'm not always being serious in this post. :D)

[CDarklock]

Nicely caught, CD. I wasn't trying to diss you - just being playful.

I'm similarly lighthearted about these discussions. I'm not over here glowering and thinking "how dare him"; this is a rare and happy occasion when I get to discuss these questions at length with someone who isn't an idiot. ;)

I posted Russell's Paradox so that we would swap roles for a while: I hand you the flawed system and then you get to experience what it's like to be challenged to make statements about truth-values that are meaningless to you, and to be categorised for that.

That rather depends on whether I have a naive theology, or an axiomatic one...

The question of what "atheism" means comes in two forms. On the one hand, when you say "I am an atheist", you are using "atheist" as a symbol for EXACTLY what you believe. The problem is that "atheist" is already a well-defined symbol, and if that symbol doesn't represent some part of what you believe, it's the wrong symbol.

It's a response that rejects the premise of the original question. You can't make statements about truth-values in a flawed system.

Sure you can. "Is this system flawed?" :D

[Autodidact]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Which is a belief about God.

Which is a religious belief.

I have a feeling that you're all way too smart for me and I would be smarter to stay out of this conversation, but as fools rush in, I will take issue with the claim that any belief about God, including the belief that there is no such thing, is a religious belief. I think that's a linguistic trick rather than a definition. To be religious, I think a belief would have to include an acceptance of the existence of God, the supernatural, or something religious. (Putting Buddhism sort of in-between, I guess.)

[Ruv Draba]

The question of what "atheism" means comes in two forms. On the one hand, when you say "I am an atheist", you are using "atheist" as a symbol for EXACTLY what you believe. The problem is that "atheist" is already a well-defined symbol, and if that symbol doesn't represent some part of what you believe, it's the wrong symbol.Or, it's not as clearly defined as you first thought (which I think is the point that the Encyc Brit researchers were making).

Well-accepted doesn't always mean well-defined. Consider the term 'black' for instance, as applied to physiology, ethnicity and culture. You get these bizarre situations where an African American with skin lighter than mine in summer, can tell me 'I'm black'. Meanwhile, my friends of aboriginal Australian descent will say the same - meaning it culturally - and have it mean something quite different to what an African American means by it.:Huh:

It's extremely convenient for monotheists to 'define' (describe) atheism as 'disbelief in God'. It's also really, really narrow and small and.. well, stupid. Reasons cited already include that" atheists by and large object to all mystical belief-systems - including those that have multiple gods and no gods; and that the principle cause for objection may well be something about the belief-system itself - the discussion may never reach questions of deities.

[Higgins]

I have a feeling that you're all way too smart for me and I would be smarter to stay out of this conversation, but as fools rush in, I will take issue with the claim that any belief about God, including the belief that there is no such thing, is a religious belief. I think that's a linguistic trick rather than a definition. To be religious, I think a belief would have to include an acceptance of the existence of God, the supernatural, or something religious. (Putting Buddhism sort of in-between, I guess.)

I feel I am not way too smart...and I agree with you. There are all sorts of propositions about religious objects that are in no way religious (including in fact the simple judgement that God does not exist). Saying God does not exist is no more inherently religious than saying that a church weighs more than a pair of skis or a refrigerator.

However...linguistic trickery is the lingua franca of most human discourse so discovering that something is a bit of linguistic trickery may not be very helpful for most people.

[CDarklock]

I don't like working with words that refer to concepts that we clearly can't deal with.

I am convinced of the elasticity of human capability. What we cannot deal with today, we may be able to deal with tomorrow. It is part of our legacy to leave as much direction and analysis to later generations as we can, so they have less work to do in dealing with it.

I believe it is this inevitably expanding human capability which will fulfill Isaiah 2:17, "the Lord alone shall be exalted on that day". I believe this prophecy does not foretell the arrival of some divine personage who will stand up and yell "all of you, BOW DOWN before the Lord God of Israel!" - but the unavoidable discovery that God does exist, and is sufficiently susceptible to human understanding that He can no longer be denied.

At which point all of the atheists will go "that's not God, it's... um... something else, that is quite clearly not God at all, and just proves we were right all along!"

Just like every other religion will be saying "see, that's God, just like we said". ;)

One consequence of the 'actions not faith' precept is that any evangelising must then demonstrate that it will lead to better actions than if you don't believe them.

Well, there's a reason Jews don't go around trying to convert people, you know.

Ahem. You're the utilitarian economist, so did you just imply that if you were an atheist and better-behaved that you'd actually be better off in your current cosmology

You've unnecessarily multiplied the entities. I'm saying a well-behaved person is better off (in the cosmic sense) than an ill-behaved person, regardless of his beliefs or lack thereof. Either could be an atheist, either could be a theist, both could be either. It doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things.

[CDarklock]

It's extremely convenient for monotheists to 'define' (describe) atheism as 'disbelief in God'.

Well, when you think about it, we also disbelieve in most of the other stuff.

Do I believe in Isis? No. Odin? No. Enkidu? No. Shub-Niggurath? No.

So why am I not an atheist? I disbelieve in the vast majority of spiritual and theistic entities. What is the defining difference between my beliefs and an atheist's beliefs?

Well, God. That's the one and only difference. The word was coined in the 16th century; at the time, nobody really believed in all these other entities. The one and only entity in which belief was common was the monotheistic Judeo-christian God. Indeed, that's the only entity in which belief was acceptable. They were killing everyone else.

The word is well-defined. The problem is that you don't like the definition.

[Mom'sWrite]

The question of what "atheism" means comes in two forms. On the one hand, when you say "I am an atheist", you are using "atheist" as a symbol for EXACTLY what you believe. The problem is that "atheist" is already a well-defined symbol, and if that symbol doesn't represent some part of what you believe, it's the wrong symbol.





Alrighty then, now I'm seriously confused.

Are you saying that the word/symbol "atheist" exists apart from perception? I see people walking around every day with lovely gold crosses around their necks. The cross is the symbol for the word "Christian" but I've never met two Christians that understand that word/symbol the same way.

Help me understand what you mean here.

[CDarklock]

Are you saying that the word/symbol "atheist" exists apart from perception?

I'm saying a symbol is not the thing it represents.

The cross is the symbol for the word "Christian" but I've never met two Christians that understand that word/symbol the same way.

However, they all agree that they are christians, and they agree on at least one particular of christianity: that Jesus died on the cross for mankind's sins.

Likewise, when you apply the label "atheist" to yourself, this word has always incorporated the core particular of disbelief in God. If you do not accept that core particular, you must expect that people will not understand your specific use of the term.

You are free to use the term however you like, just as I wear a silver Egyptian ankh, which to me represents Exodus 20:2 - "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." This is a productive symbol with meaning to me. But I don't expect everyone else to know what it means, or why I wear it, or that it has any connection with being Jewish. And I certainly don't object to the observation that the ankh is by definition a pagan religious symbol.

[Ruv Draba]

Do I believe in Isis? No. Odin? No. Enkidu? No. Shub-Niggurath? No.

So why am I not an atheist? I disbelieve in the vast majority of spiritual and theistic entities. What is the defining difference between my beliefs and an atheist's beliefs?

Well, God. That's the one and only difference.I don't know your beliefs well enough to comment, but there is a problem in your view: you're defining atheism against your thought rather than against world thought. Moreover (and you still don't seem to get this), you're defining atheism against a frame where the proposition 'God exists' even makes acceptable sense. Even worse, you're clinging to a definition of atheism interpreted by Christians - a solecism you doubtless wouldn't accept if anyone applied it to Judaism.

The word 'God' is hypothesised to have come from a (speculative) Indo-European tongue (dating around 5,500 years ago). It means 'the invoked'. This is as opposed to the (originally) more common deus which comes from a word meaning "to shine" (shining entities may presumably not always be invocable, or might not react well if they are :D).

Subsequently, 'the invoked' has had a lot of other properties attached - omniscience, ominipotence, causa causans, infinitely merciful, jealous, wrathful, ineffable, knowable, unity, trinity, passive, active. It's actually not a simple, atomic concept but rather a portmanteau concept full of contradictions.

If you want to ask someone about their belief in 'the invoked', then I contend that you're really surveying them on scores of questions, like this. Do you believe that:

All existence was created by a single, transcendent entity?
If there is a transcendent Creator it is invocable?
If it's invocable that people have successfully invoked it?
It's certain that what people may have invoked is always the Creator?
All life has purpose?
This purpose is according to a plan?
Any such plan is the Creator's?
No other metaphysical being has plans?
If there is a transcendent Creator, it has interest or concern in what we do?
That if a nonphysical being has interest in what we do, it is necessarily the Creator?
If there is a transcendent and interested Creator, it is active in any part of your life?
If it is active, that your invocations will change what it does in any way?
Your invocations might invoke something else instead?
If it is active and/or invocable, that it is compassionate?
Any active, invoked compassionate entity is necessarily the Creator?
If it's compassionate that it works toward your best interests?
It is unchanging?
It is constantly growing and developing?
It learns anything from what you might do?
What you do is entirely predictable to such an entity?
It ever anticipates what you will do and changes your mind?
Anything that anticipates your actions and seeks to change your mind is the Creator?
The Creator talks to you?
You can tell the Creator's words from your own mind?
No other metaphysical being talks to you?
You can tell the Creator's words apart from those of other metaphysical beings?
...If you ran such a survey, you would have to give people the chance to respond with a range of answers including: Yes, No, Probably, Probably not, Don't Know, Don't Care, Can never know, Don't wish to answer, Don't understand the question, Don't accept the premise...

You seem to be insisting that atheists can only answer 'No' to all such questions... In practice I think you'll fiind that it's nothing like so simple.

The word 'atheist' is only well-defined if 'God' is well-defined -- and clearly when you start to unpack it, 'God' is not. Lots of people use the term 'God', but what they're trying to invoke doesn't look the same to me from person to person. Run that survey on monotheists and you'll see a huge difference of opinion after about question 2. Much like the word 'black' or 'white' (as applied to people) or 'Universe' or 'existence' I can't find a common, coherent understanding of it.

[Higgins]

I'm saying a symbol is not the thing it represents.



However, they all agree that they are christians, and they agree on at least one particular of christianity: that Jesus died on the cross for mankind's sins.

Likewise, when you apply the label "atheist" to yourself, this word has always incorporated the core particular of disbelief in God. If you do not accept that core particular, you must expect that people will not understand your specific use of the term.

You are free to use the term however you like, just as I wear a silver Egyptian ankh, which to me represents Exodus 20:2 - "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." This is a productive symbol with meaning to me. But I don't expect everyone else to know what it means, or why I wear it, or that it has any connection with being Jewish. And I certainly don't object to the observation that the ankh is by definition a pagan religious symbol.

No ankhs for me thanks. I have a hard enough time claiming not to be an Atheist despite my disbelief in God.

[CDarklock]

I don't know your beliefs well enough to comment, but there is a problem in your view: you're defining atheism against your thought rather than against world thought.

Please, if you would, explain how my lack of belief in the deities I mentioned is somehow not representative of world thought.

Moreover (and you still don't seem to get this), you're defining atheism against a frame where the proposition 'God exists' even makes acceptable sense.

That would be the prevailing opinion in a world where the majority of people believe in God. Like, say, this one.

Even worse, you're clinging to a definition of atheism interpreted by Christians

Who are the prevailing religious group in the world.

Why, exactly, are you complaining that I'm defining atheism against a frame that is the socially prevailing worldview? Isn't that exactly what I ought to be doing? Your opening statement implies that it is.

The word 'God' is hypothesised to have come from a (speculative) Indo-European tongue (dating around 5,500 years ago).

The word "atheism" dates back to the 16th century, when the overwhelming majority of the literate world was christian. I suggest that it has undergone less evolution, and that its underpinnings are by definition judeochristian. If you don't like that, perhaps it is the wrong word.

Subsequently, 'the invoked' has had a lot of other properties attached

Likewise, atheism has had a lot of other properties attached. These are not essential qualities of atheism, any more than the properties you name are essential qualities of God.

(I'm assuming your list of questions is rhetorical, and you don't really expect answers. If I'm incorrect in this assumption, let me know, and I'll answer them.)

You seem to be insisting that atheists can only answer 'No' to all such questions

Question #1 is too specific.

"Do you believe that at least one transcendent entity may exist which may have been responsible for creating some aspects of existence?"

I believe that if you answer "no" to that question, you must by definition be an atheist. Indeed, I don't believe it's in any way unfair to demand that you restrict your answer on that question to "yes" or "no".

There is then a second question:

"Do you believe that at least one transcendent entity does exist which is definitely responsible for creating some aspects of existence?"

If you answer "no" to this question but "yes" to the preceding one, you are an agnostic.

Note that answering "yes" to both questions does not make you a monotheist. Nor, indeed, does it make you a theist at all.

The remaining questions you ask are not really about God, but about religion. #5 isn't even relevant. There may be a purpose to human existence entirely independent of the existence of God. It exists purely to ask other questions that relate such a belief back to God.

Imagine we were talking about a human being. "Does Bob exist" is a very simple question, which can be very simply defined. "Is Bob a carpenter" is also a very simple question, which can be very simply defined. But the failure of Bob to be a carpenter doesn't mean Bob doesn't exist, no matter how many people believe he's a carpenter. The questions are independent. If a person cannot believe Bob exists if Bob is not a carpenter, that person is simply irrational.

The word 'atheist' is only well-defined if 'God' is well-defined

God can be well-defined. There is a fundamental core concept. What frustrates atheists about this is that once you nail down that core concept, they lose a great many of their favorite tools to argue against it.

[Shadow_Ferret]

No ankhs for me thanks. I have a hard enough time claiming not to be an Atheist despite my disbelief in God.
I can empathize. I have no beliefs. I have no knowledge or training or exposure.

And yet, somehow, I still have a belief according to others in this thread.

[CDarklock]

I have no knowledge or training or exposure.

That's called a "belief". You believe that knowledge, training, and exposure are necessary. They are not. You've simply assigned a precondition that means what you believe is not a belief, which is patently absurd.

You may as well posit the existence of floops.

[Shadow_Ferret]

That's called a "belief". You believe that knowledge, training, and exposure are necessary. They are not. You've simply assigned a precondition that means what you believe is not a belief, which is patently absurd.

What? So what you're saying is the belief in a god is a precondition? We are born with a knowledge of god? I refute that.

You have the strangest arguments I've ever run across.

[CDarklock]

What? So what you're saying is the belief in a god is a precondition?

No, I'm saying that your argument of not having belief is irrational. You repeatedly imply a... belief... that you must have knowledge, training, or exposure to have a belief. That is your precondition of belief. Lacking that, you... believe... that you cannot have a belief.

Which is a contradiction in terms.

[Ruv Draba]

"Do you believe that at least one transcendent entity may exist which may have been responsible for creating some aspects of existence?"
Nah...

If we have transcendental creators lurking in the corners of history, that would be weird, but it doesn't mean that they need have anything to do with our sense of good, or our obligations to one another. It doesn't mean that they would necessarily be our moral or spiritual guides. It certainly doesn't mean that it's sensible to invoke them. You've narrowed your question too far.

If I were to program a virtual environment with little AIs, I'd be a transcendental being to them by literal definition - but that wouldn't qualify me to be their god or anyone else's.

For all that every byte of code would be my invention, and for all that I might intercede for or against them, that doesn't give me any moral authority over them, or grant me the ability to anticipate what they might become. Nor is my vision the defining vision in the development of that universe (unless I intercede constantly), but rather just the vision for its initial state. Nor is my vision the defining vision for their perception of their universe - i.e. what it means to them.

And indeed, since I'm not transcendental in my own reality - only in theirs (and not even all elements of that), so it's conceivable that they might find some way (eventually) to enter my reality as a peer - e.g. suppose that they could load their consciousness into a human body? Or they might prefer not to - since that's just claiming power; not necessarily improving the lot of their existence.

All this tells me is that transcendental creation doesn't mean much. It's not godhood, in the sense of invocable moral authority. It's just another term for 'lots of power'.

Well, we already have an existence where some purely physical things have vastly more power than humans do, and huge creative potential. Our sun for instance, is beyond anything we can hope to influence or reproduce. It makes whole planets! We're having enough of a job taming our own Earth (and taming ourselves to work with it). I don't even begin to see the value of speculating further than that at the moment - unless something actually intrudes on us. (And if it were to, our first job would be to work out what it was).

Edit: Hmm... thinking a bit about the role of moral authority in godhood, I think that one reason I consider myself an atheist is that I can't conceive of any other entity being my moral authority. So if you define 'God' as 'An invocable Creator who is or should be your moral authority', I'd have to say that by my best understanding 'God doesn't (and can't) exist'.

[Mom'sWrite]

The question of what "atheism" means comes in two forms. On the one hand, when you say "I am an atheist", you are using "atheist" as a symbol for EXACTLY what you believe. The problem is that "atheist" is already a well-defined symbol, and if that symbol doesn't represent some part of what you believe, it's the wrong symbol.




Bolding mine

But if the word/symbol "Christian" does not represent the same thing in ALL it's parts to all people who apply it to themselves, then by your own argument they are using the wrong word/symbol. So Christians cannot correctly call themselves Christians. And by the same token the word/symbol "God" "belief" or "low-fat" or really any term used under any conditions would be suspect.

I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning and I'm failing miserably. Are you arguing that Ruv is not an atheist although that is how he self-identifies on the subject of religious belief?

[CDarklock]

But if the word/symbol "Christian" does not represent the same thing in ALL it's parts to all people who apply it to themselves, then by your own argument they are using the wrong word/symbol.

You are misapplying my argument. Look back to the bolded quote and where it says "some part". I did not say "every part"; I said "some part". Two christians can (and frequently do) call themselves christian and understand perfectly well that this represents a core belief, but not necessarily agreement in every particular.

I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning and I'm failing miserably. Are you arguing that Ruv is not an atheist although that is how he self-identifies on the subject of religious belief?

I'm arguing that the word "atheism" has a meaning which is well-known and well-defined. While anyone may certainly define a new meaning, he cannot legitimately extend that meaning to every use of the word "atheist", and he cannot demand that the rest of the planet accept his definition as anything more than a personal ideosyncrasy.

Ruv is basically saying that he inhabits a world where the question "is there a God" has no meaning. I'm saying that in such a world, the term "atheist" necessarily has no meaning either.

[CDarklock]

It doesn't mean that they would necessarily be our moral or spiritual guides.

Why do they have to be?

You've narrowed your question too far.

I think we've identified a crucial issue in your definition of God. In my opinion, once you add in the requirement that "God must be a moral or spiritual guide", you've unnecessarily multiplied entities, and you toss out a lot of religions and philosophies which don't share that belief.

[Ruv Draba]

Ruv is basically saying that he inhabits a world where the question "is there a God" has no meaning. I'm saying that in such a world, the term "atheist" necessarily has no meaning either.

You've yet to demonstrate that at all, CD. :D

To me, the term 'Atheist' means that I think that theists are wrong. I think they're confused or deluded in large chunks of their core ways of thinking about physical and spiritual matters (I'm not denying that it suits what they want; just expressing my inability to grok why they'd want that). My reasons for thinking this are complex, but that's still the conclusion. If I thought 'There might be something in this' then I'd be agnostic. But rather I think 'Wrong way; go back'. And that makes me atheist.

You began by saying that all atheists must be religious. Now you've accepted that I'm not religious, and feel obliged to argue what I think is the harder case: that I'm not atheist.

You've used largely linguistic arguments, but I don't believe that you really care about the linguistics. I think you're arguing this for a much more central, faith-based reason: if atheism is not mystical at core then you must deal with fundamentally two classes of humanity - the superstitious and the not - and if they're different then what they need in a spiritual sense may not be the same. If you accept that, then it may mean that religion is bad for some people. That's very hard for an evangelist to swallow (and I know that you're not), but it's also pretty hard for the 'Truth will out' faithful. After all, a monotheistic God must be the rightful god of all humanity right? Not just some of it.

[CDarklock]

You've yet to demonstrate that at all, CD.

Largely because you keep changing the subject. :tongue

To me, the term 'Atheist' means that I think that theists are wrong.

About what?

You began by saying that all atheists must be religious.

No, I said atheism is a religious belief. That doesn't make atheists religious people. Surely you know the difference between having a purple book and being purple, right?

Now you've accepted that I'm not religious

I never claimed you were religious. See above.

and feel obliged to argue what I think is the harder case: that I'm not atheist.

Actually, you're arguing that my definition of "atheist" does not apply to you, but there is no other generally accepted definition of "atheist". So if that definition doesn't apply, you're not an atheist.

Note the word "if".

if atheism is not mystical at core

A religious belief is not necessarily mystical. I do not in any way believe or assert that atheism is mystical.

If you accept that, then it may mean that religion is bad for some people.

I have never argued otherwise. I think you're dragging an awful lot of unnecessary baggage into this discussion.

After all, a monotheistic God must be the rightful god of all humanity right? Not just some of it.

Yes. Just like gravity must act in exactly the same fashion on all humanity, and probability must apply in exactly the same way to all humanity. If there is a God, then He is there for everybody - not just me and the people who agree with me. Just like anything else in the world.

[Ruv Draba]

I think we've identified a crucial issue in your definition of God. In my opinion, once you add in the requirement that "God must be a moral or spiritual guide", you've unnecessarily multiplied entities, and you toss out a lot of religions and philosophies which don't share that belief.

Maybe, but if you ignore it, you lose something too - which speaks to my earlier contention that the notion of 'god' is not well defined.

A friend and former staff of mine is a Hindu and a devotee of Sai Baba (http://www.saibaba.org/). His words to me were "To me, Sai Baba is God". I don't think he believes that Sai Baba literally created the world (though he does have a rep for conjuring jewels for his followers), but rather that Sai Baba is his sole moral and spiritual authority.

You've chosen a particular narrow view for what a god means, and other theists in their usage seem to disagree with you. I agree that yet other theists see their deities primarily as creative/intercessionary powers and may not see them as sole moral authority, but in all the cases I can think of, invoking their intercession seems to require surrendering some moral authority to them also. (Aphroditie required you to behave a certain way to garner her favour for instance).

Whether you accept that all deities have moral authority or not though, it's probably not important. What's important is that some deities have very little creative power and LOTS of moral authority. So theists don't really agree on what a deity is, which means that gods are not well-defined.

[CDarklock]

Maybe, but if you ignore it, you lose something too

I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply not requiring any particular answer.

You've chosen a particular narrow view for what a god means, and other theists in their usage seem to disagree with you.

You can't seem to make up your mind.

If I define very specifically and very clearly what God is, then God is not well-defined because not everyone agrees on it.

If I define very broadly and generically what God is, then God is not well-defined because it doesn't really mean much of anything.

In essence, you're making an impossible demand. That isn't a problem with God, or with me, or with religion. It's with your question.

[Ruv Draba]

If I define very specifically and very clearly what God is, then God is not well-defined because not everyone agrees on it.

Hang on... you've appealed to a 'common, standard' definition of atheism, but connected that to a personal definition of god, from which you wish to define all of atheism?

Hmmm... :Wha:

[CDarklock]

Hang on... you've appealed to a 'common, standard' definition of atheism, but connected that to a personal definition of god, from which you wish to define all of atheism?

Not at all. Does anyone out there believe in God and think my definition is not accurate?

Certainly, there will be many that claim it is not complete, but I'm not trying to be complete. I'm trying to be accurate.

After all, if my definition is inaccurate - then we all have to be either atheists or idiots, right?

[Ruv Draba]

Not at all. Does anyone out there believe in God and think my definition is not accurate?I'm not sure that polling readers will help too much in this. If you can do that for 'God' then I can do that for 'atheism', hmm? :whip:

I've already cited one example of a friend of mine who uses 'God' to describe someone who isn't a creator (well, excepting the occasional jewel-conjuring), but principally a moral authority and a gateway to a better afterlife. This is a sense of 'Avatar of God' I suspect. I'm sure we can find other similar uses.

[CDarklock]

I'm not sure that polling readers will help too much in this. If you can do that for 'God' then I can do that for 'atheism', hmm?

You sure can... but I suspect you're going to ask the wrong question. Which is okay, because I'll just stomp on it, and then you'll change the subject. :tongue

I've already cited one example of a friend of mine who uses 'God' to describe someone who isn't a creator

My definition does not require God to be a creator. It explicitly accounts for the possibility because that is, for many people, what makes God unique.

[Ruv Draba]

My definition does not require God to be a creator. It explicitly accounts for the possibility because that is, for many people, what makes God unique.I might have missed something. What's your definition again then?

[CDarklock]

Here's the relevant question again, with annotations.

"Do you believe that at least one (not exactly one)

transcendent entity (not necessarily anthropomorphic)

does exist, which may have been (not necessarily was)

responsible for creating some aspects (not necessarily all)

of existence?"

For most theists, "that at least one transcendent entity does exist" is insufficient to distinguish God from other such entities. That might be a restatement of "do you believe in angels" or "do you believe in ghosts". They'd be uncomfortable with failure to recognise God as a creator. Meanwhile, as you've mentioned, your friend believes in a God that is not a creator - and to demand that God be a creator would disenfranchise him.

There's also a thorny issue there in the question of what "existence" is. But so long as we can agree that whatever God created was a subset of existence, no matter how either of us defines it, that's a triviality.

[Ruv Draba]

Here's the relevant question again, with annotations.

"Do you believe that at least one (not exactly one) transcendent entity (not necessarily anthropomorphic) does exist, which may have been (not necessarily was) responsible for creating some aspects (not necessarily all) of existence?"
Thanks CD. I recall the question, but had come to believe that it wasn't your definition. It's really two questions, yes?

Do you believe in transcendent entities (whatever they are)?
If you do, is it possible that they could have created some stuff in our world?I'd suggest that 2) is somewhat subordinate - if a being of any kind exists, it can usually 'create' stuff (shelters, sweat, excrement... ). Beings seem to do that as a matter of course. Whether such stuff might appear in our world some way is a fairly minor point.

So let me turn attention to 1), which hangs on what we mean by 'transcendent' (I'll leave 'entity' alone for now)

Here are some alternative definitions:

'Existing outside human experiences and senses' (from atheism.org (http://www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm))
'Going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding'. (from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.com))
'Being beyond comprehension' (along with 2. above in Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com))
As above but also 'supernatural, inexplicable and a priori' (from my Pocket OED)Sorry to do this, CD, but I don't think that 1-3 do the job we want, and 4 seems dodgy.

"Outside human experiences and senses" can apply to any new whacky creature discovered - for example, bacteria.

"Going beyond ordinary limits" - athletes do that, and they're not gods.

"Being beyond comprehension" - could apply to any life-form found on Mars, say - for a while at least.

"Supernatural, inexplicable" - I think that meets our intention, but really that's just a reflection of your model for explaining things - not on nature itself. If something could never be explained, how would we ever know that?

A priori - I know what that means in a literal sense, but not how it applies here.

After having had a good go at nailing the definition, I believe that for the purposes of defining 'God' (as opposed to playing worlds-within worlds gedanken experiments as I did earlier), 'transcendental' isn't well-defined. We've just substituted one fluffy term with another.

So I hear your question as 'Do you believe that this thing I can't describe to you exists?' Or put another way: 'Do you believe in flobblegobbles?'

My answer has to be: 'No. I don't know what flobblegobbles are, and I don't believe that you do either.'

[CDarklock]

Thanks CD. I recall the question, but had come to believe that it wasn't your definition.

It's not. My definition is much more specific, because it need not account for anyone's beliefs except my own. But not believing what I believe doesn't make someone an atheist, does it? After all, christians aren't atheists.

It's really two questions, yes?

Yes, but the general consensus among most theists is that you can't separate them, as I have already explained in detail.

"Going beyond ordinary limits"

That's the one.

But then we sort of have to define "ordinary", don't we?

And then we have to define whatever words we use to define that.

And whatever words we use to define those.

It never really ends.

And you're the only one who really knows for certain that you understand exactly what I'm talking about, but simply cannot bring yourself to admit it. Right?

Right. Because you said "transcendent entity". I considered it adequate, and simply modified it to meet the criteria I considered important. If you don't like it, why did you say it?

After having had a good go at nailing the definition

No. You've deliberately handwaved the definition for no good purpose, because you don't want to accept it. You're entirely within your rights to do that, but it's disingenuous to pretend you're making some kind of good faith effort. You're playing games, because you think it will somehow prove something other than your own perversity.

[Ruv Draba]

But then we sort of have to define "ordinary", don't we?I think by 'ordinary' you mean something stronger than 'familiar to us today'. I think you mean to say something about the human mind and all the rational models it's likely to come up with for all parts of the physical world it ever finds itself in (including those not yet visited). The problem is that you can't say that in language for the same reason that you can't say 'sets that don't contain themselves' - it breaks. It's not well-defined.

Because you said "transcendent entity". I considered it adequate, and simply modified it to meet the criteria I considered important. If you don't like it, why did you say it?Sorry for the confusion. 'Transcendent' has three uses for me:

Talking about trans-personal and trans-life concerns (these are purely moral concerns, and only came up here in one mention)
As a well-defined property of a 'worlds within worlds' construct (e.g. my AI example). I 'transcend' the world of my VR AI creatures because they are properly contained within my physical world.
As a fiction like 'God'. (Please bear in mind that my first usage of the word in this discussion was to dismiss it as a Buddhist construct)
And you're the only one who really knows for certain that you understand exactly what I'm talking about, but simply cannot bring yourself to admit it. Right?No, I haven't been trying to change the rules or mess with you. Here's my summary of the story so far:

CD: 'Atheists disbelieve in God. That's a religious belief'
Ruv: 'Not so: A statement about religion is not a religious statement.'
CD: 'Dictionary definition: atheism = disbelief in God. If you have an opinion about God, it's necessarily a theistic opinion.'
Ruv: 'I don't hold with that definition, and neither does the Encyclopaedia Britannica'
CD: 'It's the only one that counts.'
Ruv: 'Well, even if you hold with that definition, what happens in a case like mine where you believe that 'God' is not well-defined? I have cause to disbelieve - I don't buy the whole mental framework in which the question was framed.'
CD: 'Then you're rejecting God as a piecewise component of religion.'
Ruv: 'Not even that. I literally don't know what people are talking about. It's not well-defined. It's like saying "do you believe in flobblegobbles"'
CD: 'Of course it's well defined! God is a being outside reality who may or may not have created bits of our existence'
Ruv: 'Actually I think that gods have something to do with invocability and moral authority too, but let's just go with outside reality. How do you define that?'
CD: 'I'll use your term: transcendent'
Ruv: 'But I don't use 'transcendent' that way, except as a fiction'
CD: 'You're cheating!'

No.. I'm not cheating. I'm just disciplined in separating my fictions from my facts.

Have you noticed in fables and the like, if you trace the explanations through you hit a point where the author either:

Literally includes a physical thing that doesn't exist (e.g. the physical entrance to Hades in the story of Orpheus); or
Runs out of explanations, leaving the reader to abandon the search and just suspend disbelief?I sense that the same is occurring here. Please understand that for me, polite disbelief is the natural state on anything ill-defined or unfamiliar. It requires no effort for me to disbelieve such stuff - rather, I put the burden of definition and proof on the person who chooses to propagate the belief. That might seem strange when the culture goes the other way, but look at it like this: You've never heard of flobblegobbles before, and someone comes up to you and raves about them:
There's flocks of them, and they're everywhere but you can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste them unless they talk to you personally. They created the world and they have plans! Great plans for us all. And woe betide you if you don't heed me about the flobblegobbles my son, because they will punish you for your skepticism.
You could quite easily be forgiven for thinking the person you're talking to is psychotic or conning you - or both. If you were tolerant and kind you might say: 'Look. Define your terms here please. Express to me in terms of my experience what the heck these things are.'

This odd fellow froths, raves, but can't do it. The best he can do is hand you a Publish-On-Demand anthology of short stories, essays and memoirs called Feathers from Beyond, of dubious provenance but apparently penned by several different hands. You flick through it, and as literature it's rather dull, rife with contradictions and set in an ancient land with people very unlike your own. So you say 'Look, old chap. I'm really sorry, but I don't believe you. Your book isn't terribly interesting and you can't even explain yourself. I don't want to be rude, but please push on. I feel that you're wasting my time.'

And you'd give the flobblegobbles no further thought, except as a dinner party anecdote. Now, if a thousand more people come up to you, then pressed by the weight of opinion you may end up believing them. Maybe you'll either pretend to yourself that flobblegobbles exist (though you've still seen no real evidence), or send yourself crackers hunting for them, seeking hidden truths in Feathers from Beyond and become a frothing flobblegobble conspiracy theorist too...

Or you might decide that a thousand people saying the same confused thing are just a thousand confused people. You might simply say to each one the same thing you said to the first person: what on earth are you talking about?

You're entirely within your rights to do that, but it's disingenuous to pretend you're making some kind of good faith effort. You're playing games, because you think it will somehow prove something other than your own perversity.It's all in good faith, I promise. No games.

I can't deny the perversity though. When your whole world is full of flobblegobble and froobyquong and frabjuquang conspiracy theorists, you have to develop a fairly robust sense of humour. ;)

I can see your irritation rising, CD. It's not my intention to antagonise you. Let's take a break. :)

[GeorgeK]

- if a being of any kind exists, it can usually 'create' stuff (shelters, sweat, excrement... )..'

That's not creation. You are merely descibing digestion and (what is also a form of) reformation

[CDarklock]

I think by 'ordinary' you mean something stronger than 'familiar to us today'.

Aaaaand here we have "let's establish what ordinary means".

I must be psychic! Either that, or God told me this would happen... right? How else could I know what you were going to do?

No, I haven't been trying to change the rules or mess with you.

Then why is it that you ask a question about a "transcendent entity", and when I clarify what kind of transcendent entity we need to be talking about, you start demanding that I define "transcendent entity"?

If "transcendent entity" isn't a good definition, why did you use it? I only used it because your usage implied it was acceptable to you. Why is it suddenly not acceptable?


CD: 'Atheists disbelieve in God. That's a religious belief'
Ruv: 'Not so: A statement about religion is not a religious statement.'


Omitted: "Religious" means "concerned with religion". A statement about religion is, by definition, a religious statement.


CD: 'Dictionary definition: atheism = disbelief in God. If you have an opinion about God, it's necessarily a theistic opinion.'


Incorrect: I never said an opinion of God is a theistic opinion.


Ruv: 'I don't hold with that definition, and neither does the Encyclopaedia Britannica'


This is simply false. The Encyclopedia Britannica quite clearly states that some atheists prefer a broader definition of atheism, because atheism is a disbelief in God and many other things.

This implies that some atheists disbelieve in God, but may not disbelieve in the larger framework. A definition of all atheists must necessarily account for this. Insisting that I define it only in its most restrictive sense disenfranchises those atheists, which is unfair.

Indeed, wouldn't you be complaining about this very thing if I defined atheism exclusively under your terms? After all, that would be discussing your views rather than world views.


Ruv: 'Not even that. I literally don't know what people are talking about.

I don't believe you. I think you're pretending not to know, so you can change the definition whenever it suits you.

CD: 'Of course it's well defined!

I never said that. I said God can be well-defined, if you make an effort to do so.

God is a being outside reality who may or may not have created bits of our existence'

Not only did I never say this, it actively contradicts my beliefs. If God is real, then He's a part of reality.

Ruv: 'Actually I think that gods have something to do with invocability and moral authority too, but let's just go with outside reality. How do you define that?'

Since I didn't say anything about being outside reality, let's not go with that at all. Instead, let's replace this fiction with something closer to what really happened:

Ruv: If you ask a theist these N questions, they'll all give you different answers.
CD: You don't have to ask all these questions. You only have to ask a more specific version of this one. The overwhelming majority of theists will answer "yes" to that question, and no atheist will answer "yes" to it.

Ruv: 'But I don't use 'transcendent' that way, except as a fiction'

What, pray tell, is the difference between a "fiction" and a "hypothetical"?

I put the burden of definition and proof on the person who chooses to propagate the belief.

I'm not propagating any belief. I'm simply asserting that theism can be a rational belief system consistent with observable reality. The existence of theism which is not such a belief system is irrelevant. You might as well claim that the Copernican theory is false because the Aristotelian model isn't proven.

This odd fellow froths, raves, but can't do it.

There is rather a large difference between someone's inability to give you a definition, and your refusal to accept a definition.

I gave a perfectly good definition, and you demanded that I define a word you chose. If you don't know what the word means, don't use it.

[Ruv Draba]

What, pray tell, is the difference between a "fiction" and a "hypothetical"?This is a very good question, CD. It ties exactly to the differences between us in what constitutes 'definition', 'proof' and 'acceptable hypotheses'.

I'd like to respond to it, but not when you're irritated and swinging. Also I shouldn't continue if you don't believe I'm doing so in good faith. (Good faith and integrity all we have in this rarified medium.)

This has been a very interesting, informative and stimulating discussion. I thank you sincerely for it.

Let's take a break and perhaps, if you wish, come back to it another time.

Regards and respects,

Ruv.

[CDarklock]

It ties exactly to the differences between us in what constitutes 'definition', 'proof' and 'acceptable hypotheses'.

Not really. We both understand what these things mean. The problem is that you are applying different rules to my statements than you apply to your own.

We have to use the same rules. If you're going to say "transcendent entity", then you can't complain when I say it. The entire foundation of logic is that the rules are the same for everyone. If you want to use different rules, that's not logic.

Which rather calls into question whether your frequent misquotes and misrepresentations are actually honest mistakes.