Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

[stuartj]

Mock? Belittle? No way.

Catholic World Youth Day:

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Superman

You say you have no proof that God does or does not exist. That makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. This is a rational position to adopt.

I completely disagree. Just one more point and I intend to just sit back and watch.

An atheist is not a person who declares they are 100% certain that god(s) does not exist. I don't know why this keeps coming up. It isn't adding any value to present the "you're really an agnostic" straw man argument. We've covered this a thousand times. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. "A-thiest". They are not necessarily saying that they know that he doesn't exist - it is just that based on their interpretation of the evidence or logic for it's existence and their personal reflections on the subject, they do not see a compelling reason to believe.

I am not an agnostic. I am not wandering around thinking, "well, there could be a god, but I just don't know as I don't have proof that he doesn't exist". I have put a lot of thought into this and I am confident that god does not exist. That does not mean I am certain. It would be irrational to claim certainty for something I cannot prove, but that doesn't automatically make me an agnostic.

Edit: The ontological/cosmological/teleological arguments are so illogical that they don't even belong in a thread like this. Shame on you. :>)

[Jim Richards]

Mike, I think the same way as you on this subject; however, I've shied away from the atheist label. Perhaps I'm too much of a wuss on this. I cannot say 100% that there is no invisible friend for grownups; however, I think the probability is exceeding close to zero. Therefore, I do not assume a deity exists and live my life as if there is none.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by stuartj

Thanks for clarifying my agenda.

As a rational person, I reckon its just about impossible for me to discuss your beliefs without you feeling I’ve belittled them. the difference seems to be- I set out to attack the beliefs, not to belittle you. Let me give you an example.

Many believers think God is their friend/father/saviour
Many believe they can talk to God and He hears them and answers prayers
Many believe that God is with them
It seems universally and conveniently, held that god is most times, invisible.

So, how is it that when I refer to god as your invisible super hero friend for grown ups, do you take umbrage and feel belittled? Isnt it a fair description? If we had a conversation about Oiuja boards and I described Ouija similarly, you would have a problem? I don’t know what your beliefs are, so you cant really accuse me of belittling you, personally. Could it be because that calling god “an invisible friend for grown ups” strips the proposition of all its sanctity and pomposity and majesty and make it sound like the silly idea it is?

Here is the problem. The beliefs described ab ove, for example, are silly and illogical to a rational person. That someone might sincerely believe them doesn’t change this. As a rational person, I am not prepared to give these beliefs a free kick. I will hold up these beliefs and say, “look at this. This is silly. If you believe this, you cant consider yourself a rational, functional adult.” And get it out of public policy, education, govt. .

This is why some of you guys get so worked up and start with the personal attacks. You are rational, functioning people. You know Ouji boards are for scaring teenage girls. You know Harry Houdini didn’t communicate in séances. You know palm readers are shysters. You know Odin, Baal, Ra and Thor are products of primitive man. You know throwing virgins into volcanos doesn’t really help. You know the Prophet Mohammed did not ride a winged horse to paradise. But you also know JC didn’t rise after 3 days. You know how Mary got pregnant and it wasn’t by the Hand of God. You know that Noah’s Ark didn’t happen. You know the earth isn’t 7000 years old. You all know these things. As functioning, rational grown ups, you know. It causes cognitive dissonance.

Take a look at Superman. First he rails against towering intellectual arrogance, an affectation of atheists you see, then after landing a spelling flame and quick backhand jab, he pulls out a treatise on St Anselm and Ontalogical proof. Anslem’s Onatalogical proof is ridiculous, and Douglas Gasking did on pretty good hatchet job on it, as did Kant before him, IIRC. As we discussed in ITAG. If we substituted “Odin” or “Thor” into Superman’s essay, which I suspect he may have written on his bootlid, they would come and lock him up.

Here is a little test I find useful. “Is this rational? Does it make sense? Is it true?” If it is/does, keep it for another day. If it doesn’t, however, give it the heave ho. (works with wives also).

A last thought. Supernatural beliefs do not cure incrable diseases. Science does.

That is fine to believe, but all a person's beliefs are is a function of the person itself. The beliefs are a result of genetics and experience. Your beliefs are no more or less natural than trekkor's. You also have no basis for deciding whether or not trekkor's dna or yours is defective, neither do you have a basis for concluding that his or your experience is incomplete. If your genes and experience were the same as trekkor, your beliefs would be the same.

You can consider beliefs and rational thought as other than a product of nature, only if you believe in the supernatural. Your argument against a set of beliefs ordained by nature is prosthelyzing, even if you consider it to be rational thought.

[stuartj]

Well put IROC. In my mind the reason to disown the term athiest is to negate the logical, but ultimately ineffective, argument raised by Superman. That is, you cannot prove god(s) does not exist, so does/probably does. Its technical victory for the faithful, but it has a sigificnance for those on the rational side. Rational people do not hold faith based positions.

But it also has some advantages. The faith based are fluxommed by rationals who will not take an absolute position based on faith. (Atheism is a religion like baldness is a...) and it puts god firmly in the same realm as the FSM and Russell's Teapot. Forced the Tower of Intellect to go straight for Anslem, after all.....

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

That is fine to believe, but all a person's beliefs are is a function of the person itself. The beliefs are a result of genetics and experience. Your beliefs are no more or less natural than trekkor's. You also have no basis for deciding whether or not trekkor's dna or yours is defective, neither do you have a basis for concluding that his or your experience is incomplete. If your genes and experience were the same as trekkor, your beliefs would be the same.

You can consider beliefs and rational thought as other than a product of nature, only if you believe in the supernatural. Your argument against a set of beliefs ordained by nature is prosthelyzing, even if you consider it to be rational thought.

Nonsense.

Trekkor, btw, thinks he will spending eternity with vegetarian tigers.



Please remember, atheism means "without belief".

[Victor]

Dude! Is that "The Hoff" holding the koala bears?

[Taz's Master]

stuart, what do you think is nonsense, the idea that beliefs are a function of nature?

When you say without belief, do you believe in ethics or morality, and what are the objective standards for those (well I can't use the term beliefs) rational decisions?

[Jim Richards]

What aspect of "nature" are beliefs a function of?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

What aspect of "nature" are beliefs a function of?

Allow me to paraphrase:

"Too heed the call of nature - a belief one must go to the potty".

[Taz's Master]

Jim, that's all there is. A person is no more that the compilation of its genes and experience. Genetics and experience determine beliefs, what else is there?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Mike, I think the same way as you on this subject; however, I've shied away from the atheist label. Perhaps I'm too much of a wuss on this. I cannot say 100% that there is no invisible friend for grownups; however, I think the probability is exceeding close to zero. Therefore, I do not assume a deity exists and live my life as if there is none.

Well, for sure I actually hate all of this "labeling" of people. It really only serves to pidgeonhole people into little groups. Reality is completely different. Everyone's beliefs probably vary on some giant sliding scale (even Christians - their beliefs vary incredibly) that defies specific labeling. I actually don't like the term atheist, but I don't really like any of the others either. In the end, I am simply a person who does not believe that any gods exist, so I more or less fit the definition of an atheist...

My point with the post was to try to point out the flaw in twisting definitions in order to use them as a stick to beat people. That's not intellectually honest, IMHO.

I wonder, does Superman (for example) believe that the Hindu god Maya exists? Can he prove that she doesn't? Does that mean that he is agnostic when it comes to Maya or is he confident enough in his belief of her non-existence to claim to be an "atheist" when it comes to Maya?

Using the yardstick of "proof of non-existence" to differentiate between agnosticism and atheism opens up a can of worms, IMHO.

[Nathans_Dad]

Here's the difference. I could care less whether the Hindu god Maya exists. If Hindus want to worship Maya that's their business. I believe my God exists and that's where it stops. I concern myself with whether Maya exists just as much as I concern myself with whether alien abductions occur...which is zero.

That's really something I cannot grasp. Why is it that you guys spend so much time and energy railing against something that in the end has no effect on you and will have no effect on you? If you're right and God doesn't exist then you get the satisfaction of dying and realizing you are simply dead. Otherwise you live your life as you please. Oh and before you start talking about how religion restricts your life and causes untold suffering, please remember we aren't talking about organized religion, we are talking about this endless whether God exists debate. I think the ITAG thread is somewhere around 9,900 posts. How ridiculous is that.

Why all the angst? Is there some sort of pleasure derived from having endless circular arguments with people who happen to believe in a higher power?

[Jim Richards]

Rick, your apathy towards the existence or not of Maya is troubling to many people.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Why all the angst? Is there some sort of pleasure derived from having endless circular arguments with people who happen to believe in a higher power?

Oh, don't pretend that you don't enjoy it too...

Humans have advanced to the point that we have the luxury of time, and we like to fill that time with diversions. People who are of a slightly higher intellectual level (like, the top 50-60%) often like to learn about things that are strange, or "alien" to them.

Atheists/agnostics find it alien that someone can believe in a god. God-freaks find it alien that someone could NOT believe in a god. Each side really honestly cannot understand the other side, just as a male cannot understand how a female feels. When you have zero experience with something, then it is so strange and alien that you simply cannot in any way shape or form understand it.

So, the atheists are always interested in hearing about this strange weird "god" thing, while the religious kooks are always interested in learning about this strange weird "rejection" thing.

As long as it remains an interest in learning about alien things on both sides, then everyone is cool and has a beer afterwards.

Probably the only people who truly can understand both sides of this discussion are the ones who were true absolute atheists, and then were personally introduced to a god, and therefore, had to believe afterwards. The membership in that club is VERY small.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Why all the angst? Is there some sort of pleasure derived from having endless circular arguments with people who happen to believe in a higher power?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Here's the difference. I could care less whether the Hindu god Maya exists. If Hindus want to worship Maya that's their business. I believe my God exists and that's where it stops. I concern myself with whether Maya exists just as much as I concern myself with whether alien abductions occur...which is zero.

Well, it's just funny that when someone doesn't believe in your god, they're "irrational" and "hold an unsupported position" but when you don't believe in someone else's god, you blow it off with the same flippancy as alien abductions (as if - that's just silly - no one believes that). That was my point. Thank you for driving it home. ...And I'm not singling out you - you just happened to respond to my post.

There is no angst. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. You played a part in the 9900 posts in the ITAG thread also. Some people like to argue politics, some people like to argue religious belief. You appear to be one of those people.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by stuartj

stuart, I'm trying to imagine no beliefs. I always see a picture of Pol Pot when I imagine no religion.

[Nathans_Dad]

LOL!! IROC you miss my points completely. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not.

Wow, I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing over and over again but here goes.

It is not the fact that you don't believe in my God that causes me to say your argument is unsupported and irrational. Your argument is unsupported and irrational based on the lack of scientific evidence involved. I argue with you because I think it is ridiculous to stand there and argue that you have some sort of scientific basis for your non-belief. I argue with you because of the pseudo-intellectualism that always gets displayed on these threads, mainly by stuart (in fairness).

In short, my argument with you has NOTHING to do with whether you believe in my God or not. For the 18th time, if you simply say "I don't believe in God" then fine. Where you run afoul is when you try to support that non-belief with some sort of bastardized version of how science works.

And yes, I played a part in the 9900 posts, I think I posted there maybe 8 or 9 times. Care to guess how many ITAG posts you or Stuart have? I admit to getting sucked into these debates, simply because I cannot stomach the twisting of science that goes on to try and support an unsupportable position. I, however, tire of these circular arguments after about 10 posts or so. You guys, seem to have no end to your desire to endlessly debate this topic and demean those who disagree with you. Why is that?

Furthermore, someone like Trekkor has a reason to vehemently defend his beliefs. They are central to his being. When you attack his beliefs, you attack the core of him. You guys, on the other hand, have about as much invested in whether there is a God as I do in whether little green men live in volcanos. It would be akin to me going over to littlegreenmeninvolcanos.com and getting into repeated heated discussions with them about how stupid they are and how wrong their belief in little green men is. What's in it for me? I could care less that they think there are little green men in volcanos....I just don't get what drives you two.

I shudder to think how many hours have been spent by you and stuart sitting in front of your computer posting on this exact topic. How many calories have you expended hitting those keys on your keyboard? You two probably could have scratchbuilt a 930 by now.

[stuartj]

With all due respect Rick, go and post boob pics in the "Chests" thread then. No pseudo intellectual pretensions there.

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I argue with you because I think it is ridiculous to stand there and argue that you have some sort of scientific basis for your non-belief. .

I dont recall that any one has done that. And despite the constant claims, I dont see much demeaning either.