what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)

[Andrea]

Back from the land where the smell of horse-droppings is still mixed with exhaust fumes from camions...


and where the winter dark is even darker, the wet is even more wet and the cold is creeping in to the bone from the very first centigrade below zero.



Sorry if I´m a bit of topic but this is the only way for me to describe how I feel...

Last week we had a gathering at the concrete as well but not as pleasant as the gatherings at the National Theatre these days.



Deep in contemplation I was sitting there and pondering about this opportune "What is God" question, while I was watching my father in that tiny wooden box. I was wondering if there was anybody on Earth who had a clue why we got the intellect to think about and searching for the meaning of our lives, if many of us have to depart this life without the answer anyway.
However, at some point I think I came to a conclusion that "God" must have been the universal synonym for the "Unknown" throughout the history of mankind. That this "Unknown", no matter how we try to explain everything around us, is still around, both in our spiritual and our scientific world. We name the unknown "God" and "Lord" or "N" (in mathematics) but names make people associate to different things so I guess this is the main reason for the conflicts between the fanatics. The ostrich-heads in the sand really need a major upgrade like a software in a computer, just as much as old scripts, like the Bible itself. I may be naive but I do believe one day we will find a general term/concept that fits everybody. We need to handle the "Unknown", things that is beyond the bounds of human knowledge, there is no doubt about that.

As a matter of curiosity, apropos of the "Unknown", while I was sitting and contemplating at my fathers funeral, I was totally unaware that a few hours later, during a dinner with relatives I haven´t seen in 30 years, I would find out that I´m actually a relative of one of the famous Hungarian poets, Kölcsey Ferenc, who also wrote the Hungarian national anthem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Kölcsey
What a coincidence, what a surprise and what an amazing timing! I mean is it Richard Dawkins memetics or genetics or the "unknown" that made me be interested in art, music and poetry so intensively during the last few years? The wonder is that none in my family ever was writing poems or was interested in literature or art so deeply so nobody ever told me about this until now, and I still can´t recall how or why I started to paint and write lyrics for a couple of years ago. Kinda 'Spooky Action At A Distance' eh?
And this is only one of the funny coincidences with an excellent timing among many others in my life. It´s like I have to pinch myself sometimes to be sure I´m not dreaming. Whatever power it is I have a deep respect for it but I´m still not religious, at least not that I know of.

[stimpee]

Douglas Adams summed my atheistic attitude perfectly when he described himself as a radical atheist. Read the full interview here: http://www.atheists.org/Interview%3A__Douglas_Adams (its also in his final book, The Salmon Of Doubt - great book btw)

It begins like so:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
___
I too believe strongly that there is no God (or G-d or god). I find the idea just so utterly ridiculous. May as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. But I'll not get into those arguments willingly because I truly do not care one way or the other what people believe in as long as it doesnt fuck up my daily life and/or friends/family around me.

BTW, fairies dont exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

it's uncanny how alike many atheists (not all, but many) evangelize in nearly the same way as christians— i think it derives from the US being a mostly christian society.

I just wanted to speak to this one point, because I've been on the receiving end of accusations along these lines before, and I disagree - or at least I do in my case.

As much as I personally don't believe in God, and as much as I think religion causes more problems than it does offer solutions in the modern world, I have no interest in evangelizing in the classical sense, with the goal of trying to convert anyone from their religion to non-belief. All I, and most atheists I tend to come across, tend to speak to is the willful denial of basic scientific knowledge and such in the name of religion. And that's a pretty common occurrence in the U.S. For example, out of all western nations the United States ranks second only to Turkey in the population's rejection of the theory of evolution. In fact, just shy of 40% of all Americans outright dismiss the theory, which is much higher than most European nations. So when I encounter someone who insists evolution is false in the context of a religious debate, I will take them on over it. Typically, the arguments against it are that "it's just s 'theory'" and such, which really serves only to illustrate their ignorance on the subject, not to mention on the scientific definition of the word "theory". Or they try to argue that irreducible complexity - a failed hypothesis - somehow disproves it. Or, they claim there are no transitional fossils to prove evolution's accuracy.

So I and other atheists will jump in and explain evolution a bit more. Of course some are nicer than others in their explanations, but it's not done in hopes of conversion to our non-belief, it's just a defense of fundamental scientific knowledge.

That's pretty much all I wanted to mention.

[bas_I_am]

Despite peoples inability to agree on their understanding of certain words, that does not change the concrete meaning of words.

Theist=one who believes there is a God
Atheist=one who believes there is no God
Gnostic=one who believes it is possible to know God
Agnostic=one who believes it is impossible to know God

I am in agreement with Huxley, gnostics are delusional.

On another note. . . why do talks about God always digress into arguments (for lack of a better word) about the human failings of religion? Can't spirituality be seperated from religion?

In the realm of physics, experts are coming to the determination that their are dimensions of reality beyond our human experience. To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence. To quote D. Adams, "I see no evidence. . . therfore I am a radical athiest." Has he had access to all the evidence to make a solid decision?

He is like the fool stuck in a box professing there is no light because he lacks the facilities to open the box. And when some one suggest he try to open the box, he ridicules the idea "Why attempt to open the box? There is no evidence of light!"

""There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-

that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Despite peoples inability to agree on their understanding of certain words, that does not change the concrete meaning of words.

Theist=one who believes there is a God
Atheist=one who believes there is no God
Gnostic=one who believes it is possible to know God
Agnostic=one who believes it is impossible to know God

I'm not sure those are as concrete as you're asserting. For example, I'm an atheist, and I don't feel your definition describes me accurately. Saying that I "believe there is no God" implies an active belief system about it, when in reality, I just don't think God exists. As Deckard pointed out above, it's the difference between "a lack of belief in god, and belief in a lack of god". For me, it's a lack of belief in god - not just the Christian god, but any god at all. And my lack of belief is based on my rudimentary understanding of human history, and our invention of gods and religion concurrent with the evolution of our intellect. It's no coincidence that many religious people fear and decry science, as science has systematically given evidence-based answers to questions that religion and gods have historically been invented to address. Personally, I'll take conclusions based on the scientific process over conclusions based on mythology and faith any day.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

On another note. . . why do talks about God always digress into arguments (for lack of a better word) about the human failings of religion? Can't spirituality be seperated from religion?

From my perspective, this happens for exactly the reasons I mentioned above. Human failings are inseparable from gods because gods are mythological beings that have been invented by humans. I know many Christians would likely argue that I'm putting the cart before the horse by making an assertion that assumes "God" is man-made. But in the same breath, those Christians would also likely agree that Zeus, Ra, Kukulcan, and any other god from any other religion throughout history that isn't their Christian God is man-made. From my atheistic perspective though, why would the Christian God be any different? Especially when we know that Christian mythology is derived and adapted from past polytheistic religions.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

In the realm of physics, experts are coming to the determination that their are dimensions of reality beyond our human experience. To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence. To quote D. Adams, "I see no evidence. . . therfore I am a radical athiest." Has he had access to all the evidence to make a solid decision?

What you omit from this assertion is that fact that there's more to evidence-based conclusions than just a black and white "no evidence means I conclude it doesn't exist" mentality. Basically, you have to include likelihood in your considerations of atheist thought here.

For the sake of discussion, I'll assume you've accidentally used a double negative in your comment that "To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence". As an atheist, I fully acknowledge that dimensions beyond our perception, as well as theorized alternate universes and such (if they even exist) could all contain forms of life and intelligence that we've never even dreamed of. In fact, it's quite likely that they do based on what we know - even though there's no direct evidence of it yet. Because what we know is that here on Earth, life is tenacious. It persists through mass extinctions, it thrives in the most extreme of environments, it recovers from seemingly insurmountable setbacks. If anything, the evidence all points to the likelihood that life could be quite common in the universe and beyond, relatively speaking.

But that's a separate issue from not believing in a god. While we know that life in general is tenacious and pervasive based on a variety of evidence, we have no such comparable evidence of any god - only faith. So from a scientific perspective (which a large portion of atheists share), life in unknown places has a fair likelihood of existing, while gods do not.

[bryantm3]

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists. if you don't believe in G-d, you're an atheist. if you believe there is no G-d, you're an atheist. either way it doesn't make you any more or less valid or intelligent in your belief system, although i disagree.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists. if you don't believe in G-d, you're an atheist. if you believe there is no G-d, you're an atheist. either way it doesn't make you any more or less valid or intelligent in your belief system, although i disagree.

I get what you're saying, but there is a difference regardless of how insignificant the semantics may sound on a superficial level. It's not that I "don't want to appear to have positive beliefs", it's that I actually DON'T have any positive beliefs associated with gods or religion. I choose to live my life and shape my philosophies around knowledge rather than beliefs. So the conclusions I have reached regarding gods and religion are informed conclusions.

Meanwhile, others out there may not be actively pursuing knowledge in regards to how the biological and social evolution of our species led to the advent of gods and religions, and as such, may very well reach their conclusions about god's non-existence based solely on a personal, unsupported belief about it.

Yes, in both cases, you have people who say god doesn't exist. But their philosophical approaches in reaching their conclusions are very, very different.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists.

Before I start, I want to say to you bryant that I fully understand that it can look suspiciously as if some of us are being a bit sneaky or even dishonest about this question. That we want to profess one part of the definition of atheism but not be lumbered with the bit that supposedly implicates us as having a belief system. After all, faced with a firm positive belief that god does not exist, the theist (along with many who view themselves as an in-the-middle agnostic) would then be quite right to shift the responsibility for providing evidence onto atheism, which should then justifiably be treated as a rival belief system. And on that basis, you could quite reasonably attack it. But really and honestly, it's simply the case that I don't share your belief in god. I don't believe. I lack that belief. And that's it.

I'm going to try to minimize the use of category labels here, because I want to concentrate on this important distinction - between not believing in god and believing there is no god. If you get to the end of it and feel I'm an agnostic but not an atheist, then that's fine, that's up to you. I've already outlined in this thread why I consider my theistic position to be atheism rather than agnosticism (agnosticism is my gnostic position!), so I won't go back into the argument here except to say that it's one that can be debated separately. For now, I want to focus on the fundamental difference between the two positions you mentioned.

As Sean said, semantically the difference might seem minuscule, but in fact it's more than merely saying something different; it's actually meaning something different. The distinction between the two statements is crucial in terms of what the person is or is not assuming to know. It's common to mistake the two statements "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists" as being one and the same. Both appear very similar, but in fact the first is a hypothesis, and the second is a rejection of a (different) hypothesis. As such, it's my view that those who use the statements interchangeably will find that they are either:

(1) taking a looser definition of the word 'believe' than I am
(2) or committing a logical error.

Dealing with these one at a time:


(1) Defining 'believe'
My dictionary defines 'believe' as 'assume to know' or 'accept as true'. The difficulty is that in day-to-day usage, the word believe is often used in a weaker way - people sometimes use the word to indicate that they are merely 'fairly sure' of something. And unfortunately this can make all the difference to this argument. For example, when I say I don't believe god exists, I'm saying I don't assume to know that god exists. I lack the belief in god that you possess. I reject your hypothesis that god exists. However when I also reject the other hypothesis that 'god does not exist', that's because I don't assume to know that for certain either. I don't assume to have that knowledge. (And the reasons for that I'll explain a little later.)

The confusion arises because, despite not knowing for certain that 'he' does not exist, I live my life 'as if' god does not exist. Now some mistakenly assume that living as if there is no god and positively believing there is no god are the same thing. My view is that no human being can know for certain that there is no god. Yes I lead my life 'to all intents and purposes' as if there is no god, just as I lead my life to all intents and purposes as if there are no invisible unicorns or trans-dimensional devils. The reason I live 'as if' there is no god is because it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I refuse to believe in your Christian God only in the same way that I refuse to believe in Nagaraja, the Hindu snake god, or indeed in anything else the human mind can dream up. Only in that sense am I believing (assuming) that god doesn't exist - but to term it like that requires a much looser definition of the word believe than we normally employ, so we just need to be aware of that.

(2) The logical error
For the sake of dealing with this second point, let's settle on one definition of 'believe' - any one, it doesn't matter which - so that we can examine the logical error. Let's take the common definition of believe as 'assume to know'.

Essentially, we are dealing with two hypotheses, and their counterpart rejections:

Hypothesis 1: I believe god exists
(Rejection of hypothesis 1: I do not believe god exists)

Hypothesis 2: I believe god does not exist
(Rejection of hypothesis 2: I do not believe god does not exist)

As a theist, you would presumably accept hypothesis 1 and reject hypothesis 2.
Douglas Adams, quoted earlier, has effectively rejected hypothesis 1 but accepted hypothesis 2.
My position (and I think Sean's position) is that I reject both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2.

Now I might well live my life as if god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I feel sufficiently qualified or knowledgable to posit for certain that god does not exist.

[contd...]

[BrotherLovesDub]

Religion is for the weak. God doesn't exist.

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Sean

I maintain that there is a chance that he exists - albeit a minuscule chance from a reason-based outlook.

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. — Miguel de Unamuno

Originally Posted by Sean

More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.

religion <> spirituality
While religion is a social entity, spirituality is not. Spirituality is personal, developed be each of us, or not, on our own.
My spirituality enables me to deal with the questions I can answer, and which actually matter. It better enables me to live in the here and now, instead of life's distractions that are of no true consquence.

Originally Posted by froopy seal

I think every human more or less knows what's right and what's wrong. We're just too lazy and egoistic to follow that knowledge.

No. . . While everyone of us, save the psychopath/sociopath, knows right from wrong.
It is FEAR that leads us to fall short of our ideals. Driven by various forms of subtle, corrosive, self-centered fear, we fall into sloth, greed, envy, pride, gluttony, lust and anger.
This fear is present in all of us to some degree.

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

One thing I've learned about atheists is how many of "those" kind use science to legitimize their own style of bigotry and/or racism . . .

Exactly. The closed mind can rationalize myopia by arguing either for, or against, dogma.