• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The Trouble With Atheism"

kleinjahr said:
Along the lines of, believe whatever you like no matter how silly I think it is. In which case we are agreed. However, all to often, such believers do try to implement their beliefs and force them on others. That is what should be fought against.
Click to expand...

I don't mind you believing that, as long as you don't try and do it.
 
Dave1001 said:
It's possible that gods and fairies exist. It's possible that it's ultimately knowable too. However, I don't currently know those things, my best analysis of the available data is that such things apparantly don't exist, but also overwhelmingly, I'm not currently able to tell if they exist, if I could be able to tell if they exist, and if I could ever be able to tell if they exist. I'm a chimp with a 4 pound brain, sharing resources with about 6 billion other chimps, and standing on the shoulders of about 6 billion dead chimps, in an apparent reality much vaster and more complex than our current accumulated knowledge and analysis. From that starting point it's a bit hasty to draw any firm conclusions.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I was being imprecise in my language. My point was that agnostic is not an intermediate "safe" position between atheism and theism. Anyone who says they are "agnostic, not atheist" are intellectual cowards.

My personal position on the existence of gods is that if they exist, they seem to have no influence, so should be ignored. I choose not to pretend that I believe things.
 
Dave1001 said:
Because we want the best and most accurate models for apparent reality, more than we want to prance around. We're Levi-Strauss' canoe-builders, not his shamans.
Click to expand...

Such precision is what scientists should use when doing research or writing papers. Is it really neccessary for us skeptics to limit ourselve to such precise truth statements in everyday conversation?
 
politas said:
Such precision is what scientists should use when doing research or writing papers. Is it really neccessary for us skeptics to limit ourselve to such precise truth statements in everyday conversation?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an overly precise statement. Particularly in contrast with theists, it's one of the most important distinction points to be made. It's not absolutist dogma vs. absolutist dogma. It's doubt and tentative models of apparent reality vs. dogma.
 
politas said:
Apologies, I was being imprecise in my language. My point was that agnostic is not an intermediate "safe" position between atheism and theism. [Anyone who says they are "agnostic, not atheist" are intellectual cowards.

My personal position on the existence of gods is that if they exist, they seem to have no influence, so should be ignored. I choose not to pretend that I believe things.
Click to expand...

I'm anonymous on this message board, so I have no reason to be cowardly when I say I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I don't think I know enough to know currently whether or not gods exist, and whether or not they have influence. Apparently gods don't exist -but I'm unable to view much of apparent reality, so I can hardly conclude anything about the existence of gods with great certainty. I don't think that's cowardly, I think that's the most accurate model of apparent reality I can currently provide.
 
Dave1001 said:
I'm anonymous on this message board, so I have no reason to be cowardly when I say I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I don't think I know enough to know currently whether or not gods exist, and whether or not they have influence. Apparently gods don't exist -but I'm unable to view much of apparent reality, so I can hardly conclude anything about the existence of gods with great certainty. I don't think that's cowardly, I think that's the most accurate model of apparent reality I can currently provide.
Click to expand...
If you don't actually believe that some kind of god exists, then whatever you choose to call yourself, you are an atheist. You're not absolutely certain that your lack of belief is correct, but that's a completely separate question from what you believe or don't believe.

Have the self-honesty to accept your lack of belief for what it is.
 
Dave1001 said:
I don't think it's an overly precise statement. Particularly in contrast with theists, it's one of the most important distinction points to be made. It's not absolutist dogma vs. absolutist dogma. It's doubt and tentative models of apparent reality vs. dogma.
Click to expand...

It is important not to be dogmatic, but on the other hand, sounding wishy-washy and uncertain also has its flaws. I certainly am not going to chide a scientist for saying that something is "true" rather than saying it is "as close to true as we can be certain using our current information".
 
Not to drag another thread down the atheism/agnosticism definition hole, but by the definitions I use for the words one must be either theistic (holds the belief that god(s) exist) or atheistic (contains absolutely every other position that is not theism). If one can not say "I believe god(s) exist" that person has an atheistic position.

I view this as entirely independent of agnosticism which deals with knowledge, not belief. I don't claim to know whether or not god(s) exist or if it is even possible to do so. Thus I'm agnoistic in this sense. I just don't see any compelling reason to believe they do exist, so I don't hold the belief they do, and therefore I'm an atheist.

On the other hand, there are things I'm agnoistic about that I do believe exist. Such as stars and galaxies beyond the theoritically observable universe. According to the laws of nature as we currently understand them, there is a limit to how far away light/information can ever be detected, due to the limit of traveling no faster than c and the rate of expansion of the universe. Therefore, any light produced beyond this event horizon will never reach here, we can never know whether or not it exists. However, I hold the opinion that the universe seems pretty uniform, and even beyond this point stars and galaxies still form. I can never know this for sure, I'll never be able to obtain any evidence for or against this, but based on my opinion that the universe appears uniform I've come to this conclusion.
 
Porterboy said:
The narrator compares Fermilab to a "temple to science", which was very amusing and observant.
Click to expand...

Yes and a butcher shop's is a "temple to meat" and a post office is a "temple to mail". What's your point? How is it like a temple? Does everyone inside blindly accept what they're told or is it based on proven, empirical evidence gained through experimentation?

Porterboy said:
He was making the point that scientists are so sure that their way is the right one that they exhibit religious behavior.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. It's a strawman. Science is an evolving, self-correcting process. To compare it to the divine, infallible, unchanging worldview of religion is just ludicrous.

The fact that science has groups that interpert incomplete evidence in conflicting ways is a good thing. The fact that team A thinks the universe works this way because of their evidence and team B disagrees because of their evidence is a good thing. It's SCIENCE. The truth will eventually emerge, probably somewhere in the middle of A and B. How is that process in ANY WAY like strict belief that a scripture is complete truth given from God?

Porterboy said:
Kolb himself says "The way to understand the universe is through science based on experiment, not some religious scripture." Notice the way he uses the word the, not a.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that science based on experiment is not the way to understand the universe?
 
Marc L said:
However, believing in something like genocide is a lot different then believing that a supernatural being created the universe.
Click to expand...
A brief study of the historical literature would suggest they're not unrelated propositions. ;)

It does me no harm if my neighbor thinks that we should kill all Poles, as long as he doesn't practice it.
Click to expand...
A noble sentiment; but incorrect. It turns out that what people believe invariably affects what they do. We can't afford to let people believe things that are wildly dangerous, on the chance that they might actually be in a position to implement those beliefs.

Now, genocide is the sort of thing you might think is safely beyond the ability of ordinary citizens to implement, but sadly, a brief review of the historical literature would suggest that's not true, either. :(

The only way to allow people to believe whatever they want is to remove their political ability to change the future. You either have freedom of belief, or democracy. If you want the later, then you have to agree to some ground rules, or it just won't work.
 
sphenisc said:
I don't mind you believing that, as long as you don't try and do it.
Click to expand...
But what is going to stop them from doing it?

Your armed force. The fact that they know you won't tolerate it.

But the minute your back is turned, the second you no longer have the power to compel them to behave: what will stop them then?

Democratic society doesn't really work very well if half the country is only refraining from genocide out of fear of punishment.
 
Porterboy said:
There are examples of atheist fundamentalism persecuting religious believers; I've seen this in my own life, so don't tell me it never happens! This still goes on; in some countries priests still have to operate in secret or suffer imprisonment, even death.
Click to expand...

Yes, fundamentalism is bad. I'm sure many horrible things have been done in the name of atheism, just like most -isms. It's something that needs to be avoided.

BUT! The important point to make is that their is nothing intrinsic in the doctrine of atheism that dictates that atheists should kill non-atheists. Any crimes that come about in the name of atheism do not come out of atheism, but come out of other beliefs of the criminal. Saying, "I'm going to kill you because atheism says I should" doesn't make it so. If you do not believe in God, it does not logically follow that you should murder those who do not.

The issue most atheists have with religion (not all religions, but most of the big ones) is that they do have explicit doctrines that dictate that the believers should convert or kill the non-believers. Saying, "I'm going to kill you because the Bible says I should" does make sense when a.) you believe in God, b.) you believe that the Bible is God's word, and c.) the Bible does in fact tell you to kill non-believers.

Deuteronomy 17
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
 
politas said:
It is important not to be dogmatic, but on the other hand, sounding wishy-washy and uncertain also has its flaws. I certainly am not going to chide a scientist for saying that something is "true" rather than saying it is "as close to true as we can be certain using our current information".
Click to expand...

I think sounding wishy-washy and uncertain is the point. At this stage of science "our knowledge is wishy-washy and uncertain but this is our best model of apparent reality" is a great representation of what we know vs. "we have determined absolute truths" -which is a pander to what a large percentage of the population wants to hear.
 
I less than three logic said:
I view this as entirely independent of agnosticism which deals with knowledge, not belief. I don't claim to know whether or not god(s) exist or if it is even possible to do so. Thus I'm agnoistic in this sense. I just don't see any compelling reason to believe they do exist, so I don't hold the belief they do, and therefore I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

I would call that agnosticism, which is the same as my views on the topic of the existence of gods.
 
Dave1001 said:
I would call that agnosticism, which is the same as my views on the topic of the existence of gods.
Click to expand...
I said it was agnosticism. What I also said was that agnosticism isn't a separate category from atheism, the two can overlap because they do not deal with the same line of thought. As I stated in my first paragraph, I view theism/atheism as binary, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive. One must be either one or the other, and one can not be both. Theism is the belief that god(s) exist, and atheism includes everything else. Of course this is just semantics, and I'm not exactly optimistic about the possibility of such debate on these definitions ever being settled. :)
 
politas said:
Most atheists I know consider that "agnostic" is not an alternative to "atheist" or "theist". Agreeing that the nature of beings which cannot be perceived is ultimately unknowable is not the same as admitting the possibility of their existence.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

I sense the term agnostic now to be more of a "don't know" than "can't know".

I argue that the "can't know" position is actually theistic, because a trait is being assigned to god/s. That it would choose to hide its existence - because if there were a being which could be considered a god, it would have supernatural power and the ability to let us know if it so chose. Without supernatural ability, it's not a god.

The "don't know", or can't be completely certain stance, while literally correct, is just such a cop out, as the FSM/IPU/reality comments which have already been made point out.
 
Splossy said:
Again it's some tiny minority group. That thread is littered with comments from skeptics and atheists who aren't impressed with it.

Like I said Liddle talks about "atheists" as if we are some sort of organised community. We're not. We're just people who don't believe in gods.
Click to expand...
But,... but,... the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's real! Real, I tell you!

Don't you know we're plotting to overthrow all religion, burn down churches and ban mentions of supernatural beings? Get with the program!
 
Dave1001 said:
I would call that agnosticism, which is the same as my views on the topic of the existence of gods.
Click to expand...

You can call it that if you want, but you'd be wrong. Atheism is what you don't believe. Agnosticism is what you don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom