• 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"

Darat said:
Any evidence that indicates this statement is wrong? And I'm not asking you to prove a negative here but as far as I know there is zero evidence that any religion (that I'm aware of) offers tools to understand the universe.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Is there any divine text that was particularly prescient at all. Did any of them mention DNA or atoms or germ theory or higher math or anything that one might expect an all knowing entity to know. All their knowledge is completely unverifiable and you are supposed to believe it because faith is good (and there are rewards promised to believers and those who get others to believe) and punishment to those who don't believe. Since when was belief a necessary tool for scientific knowledge--it's like math...anyone can understand it and use it as a tool no matter what language they speak just so long as they are not handicapped by the belief that they may be biting from the tree of knowledge and doomed for all eternity.

If you look around the world and you see theists doing something (protest, proselytizing, feeling morally superior), then why would you expect different from atheists? If someone protests at abortion clinics then why wouldn't you expect someone who thinks religious dogma is harmful to protest outside churches? If the governmen puts "god" on the currency; thny why wouldn't you expect some non-believers to cross it out or overwrite it with "Allah" or whomever they "trust".

What theists really want is special favors for themselves and their beliefs--to have all the sins and atrocities committed in the name of religion to be disassociated from the god they believe in while lumping all those who don't believe in any particular god into the same group (as if a group could be defined by what they DON'T believe rather than in the values that unite them.) They fail to see that all people agree with this statement: "those who believe like I believe are better and more moral people than those who don't."

I don't know how many atheists try to talk sense to those on theist forums--but we get a lot of theists trying to preach their pet delusions here, that's for sure. Like most theists, most atheists don't really care what other people believe anymore than those people care what we believe (or don't)--Belief isn't a measurable quality anyhow and there is nothing special about "belief" in the world of the rational. Our respect of others tends to be on par with the respect they give us.

I dislike religion because it isn't true. People think that the religion is necessary for morality; but that is not the case. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html I dislike religion because it tells you that faith is a good way to know stuff--but that is a lie. I dislike the fact that people do abusive things in the name of religion (female genital mutilation, threatening kids with hell if they "deny the holy spirit", refusing to let their kids have blood transfusions, etc.) I dislike that religion fosters an "us" (the chosen/saved/holier-than-thou) vs. "them" (others, hellbound, evil) mentality that is divisive and inflammatory and not easily remedied via rational conversation.

But other than that, as long as you keep it out of my face and away from my kid--I'm fine with religion.
 
quixotecoyote said:
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.
Click to expand...
What realm of the 2 possibles do you suggest a theist would place his god in?


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.
Click to expand...
Nothing has changed in definitions. The dicotomy remains: monism=matter (materialism) vs monism=mind (idealism).


I have seen a couple people here who seem willing to change their definition of "matter" to include concepts one would normally find associated with "god" (or at least mind). To me matter vs mind delineates the question, and the (personal) re-definition attempts are dodges to avoid making a choice.
 
billyb1012 said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm not making any point here, but I've always been amused that the stem of the word "analysis" is "anal"!

:D
 
hammegk said:
What realm of the 2 possibles do you suggest a theist would place his god in?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the theists I know say their God exists in the material world as an objective reality, in their 'hearts' as a reframing of their mentality, and in an ill-defined third 'spiritual' realm outside of time and space (whatever that means).
hammegk said:
Nothing has changed in definitions. The dicotomy remains: monism=matter (materialism) vs monism=mind (idealism).


I have seen a couple people here who seem willing to change their definition of "matter" to include concepts one would normally find associated with "god" (or at least mind). To me matter vs mind delineates the question, and the (personal) re-definition attempts are dodges to avoid making a choice.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is relating to gods. Obviously if the world is all in your mind, so are gods. But if the world is an external reality, that says nothing about if god(s) are an external reality as well. I don't think the context fits here.
 
Sounds like a very slanted TV show.

Let's see atheism (as pointed out, simply not having a belief in God) shares many things in common with religions and religious beliefs? It must then be full of contradictions and have a long history of causing bloodshed on unimaginably large scales.

Even atheists who crusade against religion are, for the most part, crusading for equal treatment--not making me pay for religion (for one thing), getting religion out of government, etc. I don't think atheists have been behind any church bombings.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Sounds like a very slanted TV show.

Let's see atheism (as pointed out, simply not having a belief in God) shares many things in common with religions and religious beliefs? It must then be full of contradictions and have a long history of causing bloodshed on unimaginably large scales.

Even atheists who crusade against religion are, for the most part, crusading for equal treatment--not making me pay for religion (for one thing), getting religion out of government, etc. I don't think atheists have been behind any church bombings.
Click to expand...

Yes, as Sam Harris notes, there has never been a war because people have been too rational--
 
quixotecoyote said:
Generally speaking, the theists I know say their God exists in the material world as an objective reality, in their 'hearts' as a reframing of their mentality, and in an ill-defined third 'spiritual' realm outside of time and space (whatever that means).
Click to expand...
I'd characterize that as a usual naive and illogical (philosophically and scientifically) worldview, basically Cartesian dualism. When a theist presents a logical reason why the statement "If it effects or affects reality it is part of reality" is false, he will at least have a defensible position. What I'm pointing out is that a logical worldview accepts that all that comprises reality is made of the same stuff with the same attributes -- a monism.

I don't see how this is relating to gods. Obviously if the world is all in your mind, so are gods. But if the world is an external reality, that says nothing about if god(s) are an external reality as well. I don't think the context fits here.
Click to expand...
The 'your mind' is the basic problem and has nothing to do with idealism. A better statement is "If reality is mind, so is god (should god exist).". If reality is matter there is no room for god, at least in any causative and interactive sense.
 
Hammy...you are subsuming atheism under materialism, and theism under idealism, no? I think they are likely strongly correlated, but I do not see any necessity for those inclusions. The materialist simply says that "what is" is one sort of stuff, the idealists says that "what is" is another sort of stuff. (The third view, "there are two kinds of stuff", seems the most popular, and is--I agree with you, as you know--logically incoherent.)

It seems to me trivially easy for an idealist to say "what is, is this stuff, but what is does not include a god." It seems also trivially easy to imagine a materialist who identifies god as nature, and thus material (how Spinoza's god is popularly viewed, although I will plead ignorance about Spinoza's personal beliefs). (Personally, I don't like the "god as nature" construct, simply because of all the baggage the word "god" brings with it, but I figure it is for people who use the term "god" to define it.)

What am I missing here? Why do you divide them as you do?
 
Merc ... I'd first mention that an idealist would more likely say "what is, is this stuff, and what is does not deny god." The materialist remains stuck with "what is, is this stuff, and what is does not allow god".

I of course do not know, but suggest should Spinoza have had available current science he'd have been an objective idealist, or a taoist.
 
hammegk said:
I'd characterize that as a usual naive and illogical (philosophically and scientifically) worldview, basically Cartesian dualism. When a theist presents a logical reason why the statement "If it effects or affects reality it is part of reality" is false, he will at least have a defensible position. What I'm pointing out is that a logical worldview accepts that all that comprises reality is made of the same stuff with the same attributes -- a monism.
Click to expand...
With you here.
hammegk said:
The 'your mind' is the basic problem and has nothing to do with idealism. A better statement is "If reality is mind, so is god (should god exist).". If reality is matter there is no room for god, at least in any causative and interactive sense.
Click to expand...

On a theorhetical level, this doesn't work, and I believe we're discussing theory. Can you explain why if reality is matter there is no room for god? Now I'm an atheist mind you, and a materialist by this rough definintion, I see no reason why a god couldn't exist in a material realm.
 
Truth hurts, eh? You just don't like the fact that you are wrong. Atheism does not equate to materialism. Atheism only addresses belief in a god or gods, it has nothing to do with belief in the supernatural, psychics, mediums or even pixies.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Can you explain why if reality is matter there is no room for god? Now I'm an atheist mind you, and a materialist by this rough definintion, I see no reason why a god couldn't exist in a material realm.
Click to expand...
As long as that god had no effect or affect on the reality we perceive, I'd agree. That's some form of non-interactive dualism, which although not illogical, to me is sterile.
 
The fact is that atheism does not equate to materialism. Anything you say can not change that fact.
 
hammegk said:
As long as that god had no effect or affect on the reality we perceive, I'd agree. That's some form of non-interactive dualism, which although not illogical, to me is sterile.
Click to expand...

True, which is why I go atheist. There's no reason to believe in such a proposal. But what in a materialistic worldview prevents a powerful creator god from existing? Which part of materialism precludes the existence of an interactive uber-being? I say it doesn't exist just like unicorns don't exist, but I see no reason why it couldn't exist, just like I see no reason unicorns couldn't have evolved.

Depending on how you define materialism, it's relationship with atheism changes, I'd say there compatable but neither is a prerequisite of the other.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The fact is that atheism does not equate to materialism. Anything you say can not change that fact.
Click to expand...
Dammit, I opened this post expecting another barb, and planning on a <plonk>, and instead you actually say something.

However, my 'subsumed' proposal does not equate the two except in the limit.
 
billyb1012 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think it's too late for that. The popular understanding of atheism is belief that no gods exist. The popular understanding of agnosticism (to the degree that the population even knows the word) is that it means uncertainty about whether or not gods exist.

Introducing very different meanings for the words at this point will simply increase confusion, particularly when people of the present encounter writings using the two words just a couple decades ago.

Stick with the popular definitions I provided, folks.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom