"The Trouble With Atheism"

[politas]

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.

Is it incorrect to say that a certain piece of wood is 12 inches long, when in fact, it is only about 12 inches long? It is not always necessary to detail your margin of error in everyday conversation.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

Russell, a well known atheist, called himself "a teapot agnostic" making reference to the fictional teapot orbiting the sun. Dawkins has said the same. I don't know about you, but for me there's a certain level of imporbability beyond which I'm comfortable saying, "this does not exist." The existence of god is even less likely than the possibility that it was my blood in O.J. Simpson's Bronco.

 

[Big Les]

Absolutely. There is no more reason for an individual to believe in a god than there is that teapot, an all-powerful garage-dwelling dragon, or even a celestial badger who must be appeased by punctual and exuberant flatulence. I'm entirely comfortable with saying god doesn't exist, because just like spooks and psychic powers, to all intents and purposes, he doesn't. Even if it does!

 

[tsg]

Just an elaborate rehash of the "atheism is a religion" argument ...

The theme of the programme was that although atheists claim to be anti or opposite religion they can sometimes behave exactly like staunch religious believers do. There was one interview with a man protesting outside a church wearing a T-shirt with the anti-littering symbol, but with a Christian cross being dumped in the bin. When questioned he said he would like to pass laws banning religion and forbidding people to practice their faith! This is exactly what the rulers of religious fundamentalist states want to do to people who don't practice their faith! Spot the hypocricy?

First, few people who actually call themselves atheists fit this profile. As someone else has pointed out, one nutcase does not a movement make. The majority of atheists that I've encountered are simply people who do not believe in a god. It is simply a lack of belief, nothing more. But besides that, the argument that unsupported claims should not be believed is entirely different from the argument that one unsupported belief is better than another. I personally think that preventing people from believing whatever the hell they want is ridiculous, but the case for that is still much stronger than the case for forcing people to believe in one religion over another.

The narrator compares Fermilab to a "temple to science", which was very amusing and observant. He was making the point that scientists are so sure that their way is the right one that they exhibit religious behavior. 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.

Scientists have good reason to believe their way is "the" way: it has been repeatedly shown to work, and is the best way we have so far. Few, if any, religions can make that statement. Whether science or religion is a better method of predicting how the universe around us will behave is not a question of opinion.

The narrator then points out something else: that although we hear all the time about how religious intollerance has spawned multitudes of atrocities, the Crusades, suicide-bombers etc, atheism is not lily-white and super-enlightened. 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.

Again, that there are anti-religion nutbags doesn't make all atheists nutbags any more than the existence of religious zealots make all religious people zealots. But even so, I think you will find far more cases one religion forcing their beliefs on others than you will of the forcing of non-religion on others. That we hear about the first so much more may simply be because it happens so much more.

I agree with what he was saying. The danger is not religion as such, nor science. The danger is the human tendancy to refuse to allow others to hold different views to yourself. It's a process that begins with "I'm right and you're wrong" and ends in genocide.

One of the casualties of the PC "sensitivity" horsecrap parade has been the expected acceptance of beliefs no matter how foolish, even if they are demonstrably wrong. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. No, it is not automatically as valid as anyone else's. Less so if it is uninformed.

I know few atheists who will say that there definitely is no god, but of those that do, their reasoning is far more rational than those I know who claim there definitely is. The search for god has been going on for as long as man has had the ability to conceive of one. The failure to find it despite all the effort that has gone into looking for it is proof enough that he just ain't there. Some might quibble that that is indeed a leap of faith (I count myself among them), but the leap from "no evidence (despite concerted efforts to find some)" to "non-existence" is a much smaller leap than from "no evidence" to "existence". How long do you have to look under the couch for your keys to know they aren't there? I'm happy to say that it's highly improbable that my keys are under the couch while others can say they definitely aren't. Neither of these is anywhere close to believing, whole-heartedly and without question, that they are there without even having looked. Or, in fact, having looked and not seen them.

 

[Dave1001]

Is it incorrect to say that a certain piece of wood is 12 inches long, when in fact, it is only about 12 inches long? It is not always necessary to detail your margin of error in everyday conversation.

Right, unless your conversation is about the best way to get exact measurements of wood, in which case it could become relevant.

Here, there conversation is why science is apparently better for modeling reality than religious absolutism. That science's conclusions are tentative, provisional models subject to revision upon better information becomes important.

 

[hammegk]

....Just because two voices, theists and atheists, are arguing doesn't mean that they are the only 2 voices in the discussion.

Actually, there are only two voices -- usually termed materialism on one hand and idealism on the other. Although materialism subsumes atheism, as idealism subsumes theism, most discourse here appears ignorant of those facts.

But wait! Perhaps you have an answer to my question below to Darat; that answer will provide the 'third voice' you seek.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Maybe that indicates that either you don't comprehend what "subsumes" means or you don't understand what those categories subsume

 

[hammegk]

Perhaps. Subsume is a bit tricky.

subsume

verb
1. contain or include;
2. consider (an instance of something) as part of a general rule or principle.

To clarify, materialism as a category is broader atheism ; idealism broader than theism.

Did I misuse the word 'subsume'?

And I suspect you as a 100% materialist/ 100% atheist see no more need for a 'third voice' than I do as a 100% idealist.

 

[tsg]

The thing that bothers me most about these atheist arguments is the way the believers who have been arguing since the beginning of time over whose invisible sky king is the biggest/meanest/best dressed are suddenly all on the same side when it comes to people who don't believe in any god. Suddenly, whether or not your invisible friend allows you to drink alcohol or eat pork isn't an issue anymore when confronted with someone who doesn't believe in any of them.

It's like the meaning of the word "god" is suddenly very much less defined when arguing about atheism. All the major religions define their idea of god in pretty high detail. But when they talk about atheism, suddenly any force we don't currently understand that might be responsible for "all this" [waves arms around], whether or not it was intentional, whether it is actively engaged it making things happen now or just started the process and now sits back and watches, qualifies as "god".

I don't believe in god because there is simply no evidence for it. But, I am willing to bet money that if we ever do conclusively prove the existence of god, it doesn't come anywhere close to how any religion has described it. If there is a god, it's probably some being that exists in some other dimensions that we can't perceive that, through some unintentional and otherwise inconsequential action, caused the big bang and isn't even aware of our existence let alone controlling our destiny. And I'll also bet that every single one of the proselytizers turns to the atheists and says "See? We were right."

 

[quixotecoyote]

Perhaps. Subsume is a bit tricky.




To clarify, materialism as a category is broader atheism ; idealism broader than theism.

Did I misuse the word 'subsume'?

And I suspect you as a 100% materialist/ 100% atheist see no more need for a 'third voice' than I do as a 100% idealist.

I'd like to see your definition of idealism, as in the traditional philosophical discourse I am familiar with, it does not necessarily contain theism as a subset. In fact, given that most theists would argue there god has an objective existence beyond their own mentality, I would say most theists would strenuously object to this categorization.

 

[hammegk]

A strong theist who understood philosophy might argue theism=idealism; the idealist might respond 'Which side of the equation is more primary than the other?'

OTOH, with regards to any theist's specific idea of god an idealist would most likely be a-theist.


Nor do I have any idea why you suggest 'my mentality' would have any bearing on things. I do deny I am The Solipsist (should such exist).

 

[Dave1001]

Maybe that indicates that either you don't comprehend what "subsumes" means or you don't understand what those categories subsume

Well put. I tried to type out a more detailed answer and then I realized you worded my p.o.v. on this perfectly.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Time to drag out poor old "Mad" Murray:

"I'll tell you what you did with Atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanised them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were women, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disembowelled them, hanged them, burnt them alive. And you have nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you."
-- Dr Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Founder, American Atheists

 

[hammegk]

Well put.

That must be that 'third voice' you yearn for. I only hope it isn't too many meds, or not enough.

 

[TheChadd]

Time to drag out poor old "Mad" Murray:

"I'll tell you what you did with Atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanised them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were women, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disembowelled them, hanged them, burnt them alive. And you have nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you."
-- Dr Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Founder, American Atheists

I don't like such sentiments, atheists that carry on too much about their persecution really need some tissues.

 

[quixotecoyote]

A strong theist who understood philosophy might argue theism=idealism; the idealist might respond 'Which side of the equation is more primary than the other?'

OTOH, with regards to any theist's specific idea of god an idealist would most likely be a-theist.


Nor do I have any idea why you suggest 'my mentality' would have any bearing on things. I do deny I am The Solipsist (should such exist).

My reference was not to your mentality but to the theist's, who would deny his god only existed in such a realm of existence.

But your lack of a definition for idealist seems to indicate you recognize the problem with your earlier post about subsuming philosophies and the false dichotomy it created.

 

[billyb1012]

Hello to all from a newbie. I was planning on posting on the welcome page, but who among you reads that? I thought so. I was an occasional poster a few years ago, but my efforts became so scarce that admin saw fit to erase me from memory, which also happens to me a lot in real life. And that's just the first example of the sly humor I will unleash on y'all.

My passion these days, beyond skepticism, which is a lifestyle more than an avocation, is philology. I'm not a scholar by any means, and have no formal education in this discipline, but I am fascinated by the evolution of language, particularly as it relates to my skeptical worldview, and specifically as it relates to the current arguement. I was going to introduce myself with a short essay on the word "energy", and how it gains new definitions beyond its physical descriptions when used by the "woo-woo" crowd (incidentally, and apologies to Randi, who coined it, I dislike this word a lot, but for purely aesthetic, non-scientific reasons: it simply sounds contrived, which in fact it is, and also rolls awkwardly off the tongue when spoken); for instance, it means anything from how one feels ( a "sense") to who one is (the "soul"), and all points in between and beyond (an "aura", a "life force") -- all these examples are expressed as "energy" in common usage, (I won't bother to cite my sources here; you've all read the same things, and you know it's a fact--don't you?) and they're all way off base of what the physicists call energy.

But anyway... as I read this post and the responses, I became acutely aware of how highly charged language is, and for a philologist, even an amateur one, this is a wet dream. The internet has proven to be (I believe) a singularly unique tool for studying the rapid changes in our (English -- perhaps the same is true of all Indo-European languages, but I am only conversant in this one) language, and possibly a motivating force in the ever-more rapid evolution of it. And hence the debate on Atheism versus Agnosticism.

The prefix A- is generally understood to mean "without"; asexual, apolitical, etc., and is commonly assumed to mean lacking interest in, NOT (and this is important) disbelief. But, it's a slippery slope; the english language, bastard child that it is, is evolving almost too rapidly for us to define our terms with any certainty, hence the long-winded arguements above.

For the present time, I will go with the following definitions, based on etymology: atheism, without belief in deities, agnosticism, believing one cannot know if deities exist, because they are by nature unknowable. Occam's razor, anyone?

 

[billyb1012]

Hello to all from a newbie. I was planning on posting on the welcome page, but who among you reads that? I thought so. I was an occasional poster a few years ago, but my efforts became so scarce that admin saw fit to erase me from memory, which also happens to me a lot in real life. And that's just the first example of the sly humor I will unleash on y'all.

My passion these days, beyond skepticism, which is a lifestyle more than an avocation, is philology. I'm not a scholar by any means, and have no formal education in this discipline, but I am fascinated by the evolution of language, particularly as it relates to my skeptical worldview, and specifically as it relates to the current arguement. I was going to introduce myself with a short essay on the word "energy", and how it gains new definitions beyond its physical descriptions when used by the "woo-woo" crowd (incidentally, and apologies to Randi, who coined it, I dislike this word a lot, but for purely aesthetic, non-scientific reasons: it simply sounds contrived, which in fact it is, and also rolls awkwardly off the tongue when spoken); for instance, it means anything from how one feels ( a "sense") to who one is (the "soul"), and all points in between and beyond (an "aura", a "life force") -- all these examples are expressed as "energy" in common usage, (I won't bother to cite my sources here; you've all read the same things, and you know it's a fact--don't you?) and they're all way off base of what the physicists call energy.

But anyway... as I read this post and the responses, I became acutely aware of how highly charged language is, and for a philologist, even an amateur one, this is a wet dream. The internet has proven to be (I believe) a singularly unique tool for studying the rapid changes in our (English -- perhaps the same is true of all Indo-European languages, but I am only conversant in this one) language, and possibly a motivating force in the ever-more rapid evolution of it. And hence the debate on Atheism versus Agnosticism.

The prefix A- is generally understood to mean "without"; asexual, apolitical, etc., and is commonly assumed to mean lacking interest in, NOT (and this is important) disbelief. But, it's a slippery slope; the english language, bastard child that it is, is evolving almost too rapidly for us to define our terms with any certainty, hence the long-winded arguements above.

For the present time, I will go with the following definitions, based on etymology: atheism, without belief in deities, agnosticism, believing one cannot know if deities exist, because they are by nature unknowable. Occam's razor, anyone?

 

[Porterboy]

Hi, Billy. Welcome. I made a mistake starting this thread because I didn't bother looking at the Religion board first. Someone's already started one there; a better one if i may say so. I've got into the conversation about it there now so I'll leave this thread's posters to wrangle it out.

I'm a complete and total Woo. I was beginning to feel like Dafydd Thomas, but instead of being "The only gay in the village" I was the only Woo on the forum, but that's not true. There are others of my ilk here. However I'm not religious so I don't support the views of the doctrinal Christians in that TV show. I've got a lot of time for Richard Dawkins and some of the other scientists there. My concern was more that there were non-religious people portrayed who were attacking the religious. I don't support this. I go into detail on the other thread.

 

[meg]

Hi billyb1012! Welcome to the forum