Agnostics, unite!

[iankropp]

Firstly, I'm Jewish. I'm not the most dedicated Jew but I feel strong cultural ties to the Jewish tradition and customs.

But recently, I've started to think to myself "as a Jew, how am I in the right? What makes my religion more correct than others?"

And then I realized that really, no religion is more "correct" or more "right," but really every religion is simply a different explanation for the same questions of life:
Why do we die?
What's good and what's bad?
How should I live my life?
And so on and so on.

and ultimately I believe that all religions have their true points, and thus I have trouble saying that I'm simply a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, Hindu, etc.

I believe that there is something out there, but it's undefined. I use the word "God" very cautiously because I believe in a more general force. A force that we as humans have all observed since the beginning of time but have interpreted differently depending on our cultural background.

[G L Wilson]

I am given to doubt in the extreme. There are no absolutes, no truths; and there is no hope in a shared future

[TacoButt]

Ian,

I think you really said that well. I believe much the way you do. However, instead of agnosticism, I refer to it as theism.

"God" is a word of convenience for something that is beyond my understanding, but I look at the world through the lens of theism, much in the way that a painter tries to see a forest differently than an arborist.

In the end, it doesn't matter if there IS or IS NOT a god, but it is simply a manner of viewing the world and relating to it personally.

Ultimately, agnosticism or atheism or theism is simply a label of personal identity with its own truth. We put it on, wear it, look at the world through it and it shapes how we come to develop our world view.

My new friend is a self-described atheist. However, he's one of the most incredibly spiritual people I've ever met. If he wrote down his atheistic views in a book, I'm convinced that people would make a religion out of it and call him a prophet. :crazy:

Thank you for so beautifully describing a world view that I share and want to talk about.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I used to call myself an agnostic, now I consider myself more of an atheist, or, more particularly, an agnostic atheist, which means I don't believe there's a god, but there could be.

I do believe there's something, though, almost like The Force in Star Wars, as corny as that sounds, like karma (as my avatar suggests). I think there is some sort of spiritual element in this universe, but I don't think it's something that thinks or has a conscious. People always says "god has a plan" or whatever: no, I don't buy that, because if God was this way (a being who actually called the shots), I can only conclude that he's a bastard.

[G L Wilson]

I used to call myself an agnostic, now I consider myself more of an atheist, or, more particularly, an agnostic atheist, which means I don't believe there's a god, but there could be.

I do believe there's something, though, almost like The Force in Star Wars, as corny as that sounds, like karma (as my avatar suggests). I think there is some sort of spiritual element in this universe, but I don't think it's something that thinks or has a conscious. People always says "god has a plan" or whatever: no, I don't buy that, because if God was this way (a being who actually called the shots), I can only conclude that he's a bastard.

It is actually impossible to be 100% sure about God, which is one more reason not to believe in him. I am joking, of course, no-one would deny that he works as an answer for some, it would be inhuman to deny them access to his justice and his peace. As Matthew 7: 9 says, "...what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?" Jesus, they were some hot gospellers back then.

[MystyrMystyry]

My prob with atheists/agnostics is they tend to be quick to not believe in anything, including themselves - that's not to say all of them, but a large amount seem to concentrate on what isn't, won't and wasn't, rather than what is, shall and can be

As an idea, because I enjoy a good sci fi yarn, there's always the possibility of a life-form beyond our direct experience - our life requires water, but a lifeform(s) that may be enormous gas/dust cloud based is more interesting to me than just saying 'nothing' just because it has no direct influence on my existence, so therefore a waste of time to think about

Think about it all you want, if you want, but don't expect absolute answers from anyone on Earth, only guesses

These various off-shoots of the major monotheistic orthodoxies - they're all fairly modern in the scheme of it - Hindu and Ancient Greece and Egypt and whatnot had their little twists too

The Old Testament was an off-shoot of early Zoroastrianism (both a philosophy and religion centred on the yabberings of Zoroaster (Zarathustra) and was once among the world's major religions. Appearing earlier than the 6th century BCE in Persia, Zoroastrianism is synonymous with Mazdaism - Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as the supreme divinity

Mazda is the creator only of good, and evil derives from an entirely different source - and the battle continues in everything

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

My prob with atheists/agnostics is they tend to be quick to not believe in anything, including themselves - that's not to say all of them, but a large amount seem to concentrate on what isn't, won't and wasn't, rather than what is, shall and can be
It's funny, because I'm the complete opposite. The only thing I really do believe in 100% is myself.

[MystyrMystyry]

Why is that funny again?

I said not all, and there's always the exceptions that prove the rule - I was just talking about general life observations, and I really didn't give a case for one or the other, largely - and this is the crux - the op's question was loaded

'Why don't you believe in a higher being?' might have been more to the point (and: If not why not? And what have you found to relpace religion with?)

Do you know what I'm saying?

I'm glad for you that you believe in yourself - now PROVE it!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I wasn't saying you were wrong in saying what you said. I actually agree. A lot of atheists are downers. It wasn't "haha" funny.

I don't believe in myself in that cliched "I can do anything in the world!" vain, just that I know my limitations, my ideas, and my abilities are my own. I don't think a supposed god has anything to do with that which I am/am not capable.

I don't believe in a higher being because I wasn't raised religious, for one. My parents didn't make me go to church, or imbue any real religious ideas in me. They didn't discourage anything either. I know some would think that's a horrible decision. It wasn't (my relative success as a human being is proof, even if only anecdotal), and I'm thankful they raised me the way they did. So, since I wasn't told what to believe or not believe, I was able to come to my own conclusion, and that conclusion is that there is no higher being. I have seen nothing at all that would even slightly suggest otherwise.

[G L Wilson]

Why is that funny again?

I said not all, and there's always the exceptions that prove the rule - I was just talking about general life observations, and I really didn't give a case for one or the other, largely - and this is the crux - the op's question was loaded

'Why don't you believe in a higher being?' might have been more to the point (and: If not why not? And what have you found to relpace religion with?)

Do you know what I'm saying?

I'm glad for you that you believe in yourself - now PROVE it!

I am free because of others, freedom means difference.

[OrphanPip]

On what basis do you conclude that a lot of atheist don't believe in themselves? (whatever that's supposed to mean)

Why should there need to be something to replace religion with?

All atheist being nihilist is just a silly stereotype.

[G L Wilson]

On what basis do you conclude that a lot of atheist don't believe in themselves? (whatever that's supposed to mean)

Why should there need to be something to replace religion with?

All atheist being nihilist is just a silly stereotype.

The reason for conflict is oneness in nature, not difference.

[MystyrMystyry]

Enough with the platitudes!

Mutatis - my response was to that point of the op - 'I no longer really believe in my religion, but I'm still so completely obsessed with it that I am incapable of discussing or conversing about anything else!'

Sorry - missed your question Pip: The basis of observation is my basis, and though I don't have them beside me at the moment I have heard more misery from their misery-gutsness than I've ever heard from people who believe in something outside of themselves including themselves

[OrphanPip]

Enough with the platitudes!

Mutatis - my response was to that point of the op - 'I no longer really believe in my religion, but I'm still so completely obsessed with it that I am incapable of discussing or conversing about anything else!'

Get a life op!

OK fine, you want to raise points and just have people accept everything you say as gospel truth, rather than discussing it as if this were a discussion forum. Sure, fine, w/e.

[sethyirak_7]

I once had a professor tell me that "Agnostics are cowards! They are quitters in the pursuit of the well being of their own souls!" He was a lunatic. And not even the "loony, but brilliant" type of lunatic; just a lunatic.

I'm an atheist, but I personally think agnostics have more sense than the rest of us. I often think of "The Boss" from A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court as the shining example for all agnostics. Here was a man who had the sense not to be persuaded by superstition, but was no stranger to employing its many uses to his great advantage, nor did he ever denounce its usefulness in certain aspects of society.

In short, he was "The Boss". DUN DUN DUUUUN!

[MystyrMystyry]

No O/P, I've amended the answer - in case there was any confusion about what my interpretation of the original posting was - and here it is:


I believe that there is something out there, but it's undefined. I use the word "God" very cautiously because I believe in a more general force. A force that we as humans have all observed since the beginning of time but have interpreted differently depending on our cultural background

So instead of accepting the word of the religion that was foisted on him (ie the one that was written by the hand of God), he's gone over to the Dark Side of 'it's all a bit iffy but I think I'll adopt a Vague Theological Standpoint because it suits me better without insulting my cultural heritage'

That's fine be me, as long as you're not hitting me in the head with a pickaxe I'm not complaining

The title of this thread is Agnostics Unite, yes? And do what? Compare notes?

Don't crucify me for trying to spice it up a bit...

[G L Wilson]

Agnostics generally see no evidence for the existence of God and merely wish not to draw a conclusion upon that absence, in other words seeing is definitely not believing for an agnostic. For an atheist, the proof is definitely solid and Occam's razor does as it should - it erases an unnecessary entity.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Agnostics generally see no evidence for the existence of God and merely wish not to draw a conclusion upon that absence, in other words seeing is definitely not believing for an agnostic. For an atheist, the proof is definitely solid and Occam's razor does as it should - it erases an unnecessary entity.

Actually, both of what you describe there is atheism. Being an atheist doesn't mean you are certain there isn't a god, just that you don't believe there is one (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what your first description describes). Proof of existence doesn't really come into play for agnostics, because agnostics don't believe that the existence of God can be proven or disproven, and neither have a belief or disbelief, just a willful ignorance, and an ignorance that can't be remedied, at that. For agnostics, if it can't be disproved, it may exist, which is why I no longer identify myself as an agnostic, because that's just silly.

[Delta40]

Do you mean that agnostics are 'fence sitters?'

[G L Wilson]

Actually, both of what you describe there is atheism. Being an atheist doesn't mean you are certain there isn't a god, just that you don't believe there is one (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what your first description describes). Proof of existence doesn't really come into play for agnostics, because agnostics don't believe that the existence of God can be proven or disproven, and neither have a belief or disbelief, just a willful ignorance, and an ignorance that can't be remedied, at that. For agnostics, if it can't be disproved, it may exist, which is why I no longer identify myself as an agnostic, because that's just silly.

I wouldn't say that agnostics were silly, they are just outdated. As Richard P. Feynman said, he believed all things and none by degree - at least I think that that is what he said. There is an element of trust in every act of faith, I trust in humanity and trust not in the poisonous.

[YesNo]

The only thing I really do believe in 100% is myself.
That's a good place to start.

If I remember correctly, Eknath Easwaran once asked a person who proclaimed that he was an atheist whether he believed in himself. The implication was that, when you believe in yourself, you believe in the "God within" which amounts to an implicit rejection of atheism.

Much of atheism seems to be rooted in a 19th century view of the natural universe as static or steady-state with unnecessary creator gods outside it. The creator gods mirrored by that natural universe don't exist, but after the further development of science in the 20th century neither does that description of the universe match up with reality.

What I think is critical is to what extent can chance be considered the cause of the non-static, non-steady-state universe we find ourselves in. The atheist would say that chance is the sole cause. Those who don't find chance adequate to explain change that trends or gets more complex, would look for something else and would likely use their belief in themselves as a guide.

[Dodo25]

What I think is critical is to what extent can chance be considered the cause of the non-static, non-steady-state universe we find ourselves in. The atheist would say that chance is the sole cause. Those who don't find chance adequate to explain change that trends or gets more complex, would look for something else and would likely use their belief in themselves as a guide.

By that reasoning, people in the 16th century could either have believed that diseases come from 'chance' or that they're created by god. You're missing the obvious option: it has a natural explanation not yet known.

Why don't people see that 'god' isn't an explanation? God is a problem. Who created god? Oh damn, now we're stuck! Sooner or later, you'll indeed end up stuck. But if you're scientifically minded, you would, instead of jumping to irrational, non-explaining conclusions, try to break the 'stuck' point down to the simplest things, like quantum fluctuations in string theory. You don't stop at some omnipotent conscious super-being that makes humans out of clay! Why does god always hide in the 'gaps'?

Considering multiverse theories and the anthropic principle, there aren't really any gaps left anyway!

Many self-proclaimed agnostics are agnostic atheists who don't understand the definition of atheism.

[YesNo]

By that reasoning, people in the 16th century could either have believed that diseases come from 'chance' or that they're created by god. You're missing the obvious option: it has a natural explanation not yet known.

Why don't people see that 'god' isn't an explanation? God is a problem. Who created god? Oh damn, now we're stuck! Sooner or later, you'll indeed end up stuck. But if you're scientifically minded, you would, instead of jumping to irrational, non-explaining conclusions, try to break the 'stuck' point down to the simplest things, like quantum fluctuations in string theory. You don't stop at some omnipotent conscious super-being that makes humans out of clay! Why does god always hide in the 'gaps'?

Considering multiverse theories and the anthropic principle, there aren't really any gaps left anyway!

Many self-proclaimed agnostics are agnostic atheists who don't understand the definition of atheism.
I think we might be agreeing on the point that we should look for natural explanations. That means we do not rely on either gods or chance as a causal explanation. We may not agree, however, on what "natural" means.

Regarding the multiverse theories, I would need to see empirical evidence to accept these theories. Without that empirical evidence there are many gaps.

[G L Wilson]

I think we might be agreeing on the point that we should look for natural explanations. That means we do not rely on either gods or chance as a causal explanation. We may not agree, however, on what "natural" means.

Regarding the multiverse theories, I would need to see empirical evidence to accept these theories. Without that empirical evidence there are many gaps.

The only gap is in your head, and I mean that in the best possible way. The leap of faith goes both ways.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do you mean that agnostics are 'fence sitters?'
In a sense. Agnostics are just atheists who won't commit. :)

[G L Wilson]

In a sense. Agnostics are just atheists who won't commit. :)

I agree.

[The Atheist]

...I believe that there is something out there, but it's undefined. I use the word "God" very cautiously because I believe in a more general force. A force that we as humans have all observed since the beginning of time but have interpreted differently depending on our cultural background.

That is not a description of "agnostic", and is a form of theism, as already noted.


My prob with atheists/agnostics is they tend to be quick to not believe in anything, including themselves - that's not to say all of them, but a large amount seem to concentrate on what isn't, won't and wasn't, rather than what is, shall and can be

Lovely atheist strawman.


All atheist being nihilist is just a silly stereotype.

Bingo!



Do you mean that agnostics are 'fence sitters?'

That's pretty much it.

[TacoButt]

Fence sitting is a good, healthy position to take with many things (including or maybe especially spirituality). Isn't the most scientific stance on something "fence sitting?" Scientific theory is a position that shows evidence that supports a certain model, but does not eschew contrary evidence.

Agnosticism may be a stance of openness, which may NOT be as uncommitted as you might think.

[YesNo]

The only gap is in your head, and I mean that in the best possible way. The leap of faith goes both ways.
Whatever gap might exist in my head does not excuse you from the requirement to provide empirical evidence for your theories.

[G L Wilson]

Whatever gap might exist in my head does not excuse you from the requirement to provide empirical evidence for your theories.

There is evidence by the bucketload, you just have to look. The problem is that you are not looking, you are feeling around the dark for a light; and spirituality is a very dim light indeed. "Ye blind guides, that strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Thank you, Jesus, well said. Jesus had no forgiveness. I have plenty of forgiveness but not for dimwits because dimwits are the bane of my life. God is not stupid, he is just insane.

[YesNo]

There is evidence by the bucketload, you just have to look. The problem is that you are not looking, you are feeling around the dark for a light; and spirituality is a very dim light indeed. "Ye blind guides, that strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Thank you, Jesus, well said. Jesus had no forgiveness. I have plenty of forgiveness but not for dimwits because dimwits are the bane of my life. God is not stupid, he is just insane.
Hmmm. Did you have a nice day?

[G L Wilson]

Hmmm. Did you have a nice day?

'Nice' is a lazy expression. Did you have a fine day?

'Fine' is a lazy expression. Did you have a lousy day? Much better.

[YesNo]

'Nice' is a lazy expression. Did you have a fine day?

'Fine' is a lazy expression. Did you have a lousy day? Much better.
I hope today is better for you.

[G L Wilson]

I hope today is better for you.

It is, thank you.

No-one is really stupid. Seek, and ye shall find...intelligence in everyone.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Fence sitting is a good, healthy position to take with many things (including or maybe especially spirituality). Isn't the most scientific stance on something "fence sitting?" Scientific theory is a position that shows evidence that supports a certain model, but does not eschew contrary evidence.

Agnosticism may be a stance of openness, which may NOT be as uncommitted as you might think.
I didn't really mean any of what I said about agnosticism being for fence-sitters and those who won't commit (and, the "agnostics are atheists who won't commit" commit was intended to be light-hearted) to be a criticism. It's what agnosticism is all about. It's just that I sat the fence and fell to a side.

[G L Wilson]

Agnostics are faithless turds. If we were all like them, we would all get nowhere. To confuse scientists with that unclean bunch is an injustice of the highest order. I resent it, and not a few scientists would as well.

[Calidore]

Many people have good reasons for their religious beliefs, many have good reasons for a lack thereof, and many "sit the fence" and learn from both sides. I don't understand how not taking a position in an absence of definitive information either way is a negative. Committing one way or the other despite there being no way to know, and then firmly defending that which can't be defended by means of belligerence, invented information, or what have you, seems to me a greater negative.

[JuniperWoolf]

In a sense. Agnostics are just atheists who won't commit. :)

I know you were speaking lightly, but people on both sides really do have that opinion about agnostics. I think that's clown logic. Why commit to something that you have no evidence for? Agnostics are just honest with themselves in the knowledge that they don't know anything about what happens after we die and that neither does anyone else. You can't "commit" to something that you have no information on (well, you can, but your decision would lack merit).


Fence sitting is a good, healthy position to take with many things (including or maybe especially spirituality). Isn't the most scientific stance on something "fence sitting?" Scientific theory is a position that shows evidence that supports a certain model, but does not eschew contrary evidence.

Agnosticism may be a stance of openness, which may NOT be as uncommitted as you might think.

I agree, well said. Being "on the fence," in the middle, in moderation, in equalibrium, is the most desirable state for everything that I can think of right now (nature, politics, lifestyle, ect.). Plus, could you see agnostics going door to door with stupid pamphlets, shoving their beliefs down people's throats or starting wars to spread agnosticism? Hell no.

[G L Wilson]

In the middle of the road is where the Devil drives his sports car.

[MystyrMystyry]

.....

[mal4mac]

Are you agnostic about the existence of the tooth fairy? There is as much evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy as there is for any god (Thor, Yahweh, Jupiter...), i.e., none. Therefore being an agnostic is not "fence sitting", it is "being irrational", just as irrational as being a believer.

[G L Wilson]

Are you agnostic about the existence of the tooth fairy? There is as much evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy as there is for any god (Thor, Yahweh, Jupiter...), i.e., none. Therefore being an agnostic is not "fence sitting", it is "being irrational", just as irrational as being a believer.

I love the tooth fairy. Agnostics love power, and they wish for nothing more than absolute power.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Don't flatter yourself.

I have heard this description (criticism) of agnostics too many times for me to let this one go. In my experience, atheists are like believers in the sense that they think that they alone have it right. It is a position of arrogance. IE if you don't see the world the way they do, you are either a lost soul, simpleminded or a fence sitter.

I am not a believer in God, because I don't see adequate proof that God exists.

I am not a disbeliever in God, because I have had spiritual experiences from time to time.

I am an agnostic because I am willing to admit to myself and everyone else that there are things that I don't know.

Agnosticism is a position, of humility, open mindedness, and most of all, tolerance.
Again, I was being flippant. Also, most atheists are like me, in that they don't believe in God, but are willing to admit there might be one, the same way I don't believe people have been abducted by aliens, but it may have happened, however unlikely.

Whether it's a word you want to characterize agnosticism or not, "noncommittal" really is apt. You commit to nothing.

The world is a better place because we are here.
I'm flattering myself? :lol:


Are you agnostic about the existence of the tooth fairy? There is as much evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy as there is for any god (Thor, Yahweh, Jupiter...), i.e., none. Therefore being an agnostic is not "fence sitting", it is "being irrational", just as irrational as being a believer.
This has always struck me as a stupid argument, as if being agnostic with one unknown thing means you are agnostic with all unknown things.

[YesNo]

Are you agnostic about the existence of the tooth fairy? There is as much evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy as there is for any god (Thor, Yahweh, Jupiter...), i.e., none. Therefore being an agnostic is not "fence sitting", it is "being irrational", just as irrational as being a believer.
It looks like everybody is "irrational" nowadays.

[mal4mac]

This has always struck me as a stupid argument, as if being agnostic with one unknown thing means you are agnostic with all unknown things.

Being agnostic about *any* unknown thing is stupid. If someone said "the tooth fairy might exist", you would think them stupid. The same goes for Jupiter or Yahweh. None of these characters have been photographed or picked up on a radar screen. Believing in anything for which there is no evidence is stupid.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Having belief about *any* unknown thing is stupid. It's unknown! You can't believe anything about it...
So, believing it doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does, which would make agnostics the only rational people out there.

[YesNo]

Being agnostic about *any* unknown thing is stupid. If someone said "the tooth fairy might exist", you would think them stupid. The same goes for Jupiter or Yahweh. None of these characters have been photographed or picked up on a radar screen. Believing in anything for which there is no evidence is stupid.

Let's forget for a moment about the tooth fairy. Let's also forget about Jupiter or Yahweh.

We now know as a scientific claim since the mid-20th century that the universe had a beginning. What caused it to pop out of nothing? If I understand the non-Design arguments correctly, "chance" caused this to happen. Since there's nothing to stop chance from popping universes out all over the place, we get the conclusion that there are infinitely many alternate universes. This is sometimes called a Multiverse.

So, mal4mac, does the Multiverse exist? If so, where is the empirical evidence for its existence? I mean, I don't want to be "stupid" and believe in something for which there is no evidence.

[G L Wilson]

In a circus, circular reasoning counts as a commanding logic.

[The Atheist]

Fence sitting is a good, healthy position to take with many things (including or maybe especially spirituality). Isn't the most scientific stance on something "fence sitting?" Scientific theory is a position that shows evidence that supports a certain model, but does not eschew contrary evidence.

Nither agnosticism nor theism is anything to do with science. Trying to paint agnosticism that way is a fallacy.

Not to mention the Himalaya of evidence which points to religions all being:

A. derivative
B. of human invention


Agnosticism may be a stance of openness, which may NOT be as uncommitted as you might think.

Correct, which is why agnosticism has been largely hijacked by theists. We have bishops claiming to be agnostic, because they cannot prove their sky-daddy exists, but they are still believers.


I don't understand how not taking a position in an absence of definitive information either way is a negative.

What more evidence would you require?

Pick a religion and let me know, because as I've just noted, every single religion in existence makes an immense number of claims which have been or can be negated scientifically. We can also point to human origins of all religions, a 10,000 year history of other religions which even religionistas now believe are untrue, and a money train to make your eyes water.

[Much of it] In the name of a god who eschewed money.

Against that, there is one, highly fallible source, personal anecdote.

From the hundreds of millions at Lourdes, to the mega-church congregations and their dinosaur & cave man museum, to Holy Fire, to levitating chalices, religion has proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is fraudulent.


I am an agnostic because I am willing to admit to myself and everyone else that there are things that I don't know.

You talk of this knowledge as though it was something with doubt.

The god of the gaps argument is now so absurd that even religionistas don't try it, yet people will espouse those gaps in the name of agnosticism as though it were true.

That kind of agnosticism is fraudulent and a an apology for religion.


Agnosticism is a position, of humility, open mindedness, and most of all, tolerance.

This is so much nonsense it makes my scalp itch.

Agnosticism has nothing whatsoever to do with tolerance or humility. It's a position of "I don't know".

In the case of agnosticism you present, the open-mindedness is also false, because the evidence is so overwhelming to the contrary that not seeing it would require a fairly closed mind, as evinced by believers.

[QUOTE=Ainia;1039568]The world is a better place because we are here.

Are you sure the air's ok up where you are?

We plain folk don't manage to get that high, mostly.


While I can't speak for all believers, I can attest to the fact that the ones that I know, are occasionally overcome with feelings of inspiration and love.

Do atheists not have inspiration and love?

I can present an awful lot of evidence that some of the most inspired and inspirational people who have even lived have been atheists. Where did they get their inspiration?


Are they supposed to disregard what they feel in their heart as "not existing"?

Ah, I'm beginning to understand. Your position of avowed agnosticism is built on "I don't know", but only because you haven't bothered finding out.

If you seriously think love and inspiration are not acknowledged by atheists, then you are simply wrong.

Atheists of scientific persuasion will explain how those emotions are created by electrical and chemical actions rather than a fairy, but they will not deny they exist.

Someone's heart beating faster in ecstasy isn't actually proof that the heart rules the body.


It exists just as much as any logic that the rational conscious mind can come up with? You can't; see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or hear it. Why should thoughts be given more credence than emotions?

Who does that? You seem to be making the mistake that abstract things don't exist outside of theism.

[G L Wilson]

"Modesty is not a virtue," said Aristotle. Too right it isn't.

[The Atheist]

"Modesty is not a virtue," said Aristotle. Too right it isn't.

Correct.

Virtue is an abstract concept that doesn't exist. Pure human contruct.

[Alexander III]

What more evidence would you require?

Pick a religion and let me know, because as I've just noted, every single religion in existence makes an immense number of claims which have been or can be negated scientifically. We can also point to human origins of all religions, a 10,000 year history of other religions which even religionistas now believe are untrue, and a money train to make your eyes water.

[Much of it] In the name of a god who eschewed money.

Against that, there is one, highly fallible source, personal anecdote.

From the hundreds of millions at Lourdes, to the mega-church congregations and their dinosaur & cave man museum, to Holy Fire, to levitating chalices, religion has proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is fraudulent.


Deism...as in the religion of Socrates, Voltaire and Washington.

There has never been any scientific evidence to the contrary of it.


What I dislike about the argument of many people here is that they automatically equate Belief/Theism with Literal renditions of God, as in Jesus Yaweah ect..

There is more to theism than that, most forms of theism have little to do with present organized religions. And to assume that theism=literal belief in god/gods from a form of scripture, demonstrates an incredibly narrow world and historical view.

Ohh and for the love of god (pun intended) don't bring up the whole, tooth-fairy argument, it just makes you seem nonessential and sound like and angsty teen. Personally I am a supporter of the non-linear view of time - the non linear view of time is a theoretical concept , does that mean that I believe in the tooth-fairy as well? According to the logic of some people in this thread it would mean that I do...

[The Atheist]

Deism...as in the religion of Socrates, Voltaire and Washington.

There has never been any scientific evidence to the contrary of it.

I always think of deism as so irrelevant to be not worth mentioning and I wouldn't argue against it, because a non-intervening, inaccessible god is the same to me as no god at all.

Plus, I specifically mentioned religions, and I don't know of any built on deism.



What I dislike about the argument of many people here is that they automatically equate Belief/Theism with Literal renditions of God, as in Jesus Yaweah ect..

Well, that is the kind that exists in the minds of the vast majority of believers.


There is more to theism than that, most forms of theism have little to do with present organized religions.

Can you show me some evidence to back that up, please?

The evidence I tend to use is this place (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), which shows the vast majority of theists - also a large majority of all humans - follow a monotheistic Abrhamic god.

Accordingly, I find the idea that "most forms of theism have little to do with organised religions" to be somewhat out of keeping with facts, but if you can present a more believable case, I'll be glad to look at it.


And to assume that theism=literal belief in god/gods from a form of scripture, demonstrates an incredibly narrow world and historical view.

Who does that?


Ohh and for the love of god (pun intended) don't bring up the whole, tooth-fairy argument, it just makes you seem nonessential and sound like and angsty teen.

I'd find that offensive if I'd mentioned the tooth fairy, but since I didn't I'll presume you were referring to someone else.

To me, however, all forms of superstitious thinking are identical.

No doubt the term "nonessential" has some special meaning to you, because in the context of metaphysics, it's all completely nonessential, so I have no idea where you're going with that.


Personally I am a supporter of the non-linear view of time - the non linear view of time is a theoretical concept , does that mean that I believe in the tooth-fairy as well? According to the logic of some people in this thread it would mean that I do...

It depends on what standard of evidence you use rather than the concept you theorise.

[OrphanPip]

Ohh and for the love of god (pun intended) don't bring up the whole, tooth-fairy argument, it just makes you seem nonessential and sound like and angsty teen. Personally I am a supporter of the non-linear view of time - the non linear view of time is a theoretical concept , does that mean that I believe in the tooth-fairy as well? According to the logic of some people in this thread it would mean that I do...

That's not the analogy being made. The analogy is that if one is willing to reject one preposterous position (like the tooth fairy) that relies on an equivalent amount of evidence, then one should also reject equivalently preposterous ideas like gods.

Often people attempt to use theoretical physics as a means to attack "scientific atheism," but usually those attacks rely on misunderstandings of how theoretical physics works. While String theory relies on mathematical models and is without experimental evidence, it will never be accepted or considered a full theory until it demonstrates predictive ability, that is until it is empirically demonstrated. Of course, in science we must begin with hypotheses to explain things we have not yet explained, but we do not believe these hypotheses to be true. They are a proposed possible explanations, and a hypothesis that can not be tested or at the least demonstrate theoretical plausibility (like string theory) will not gain traction. In science a theory is not true or false, a hypothesis is not right or wrong. They are either good hypothesis with strong evidence and predictive power, or they are bad. A good theory can produce a number of good hypotheses that can be tested and provide useful predictions. Some day a better theory may develop that can replace the current fairly good theory. We do not believe in the theory of gravity, at most we believe in the scientific methods ability to generate useful and increasingly accurate explanations of how the natural world works.

If someone comes to me with a new hypothesis about anything, if they can not give me a reason based in empirical evidence or at the least mathematical models, then why should I entertain their hypothesis? There is no true/false binary, there is just different levels of evidence and likelihood. God and the toothfairy belong together at the bottom with the most unlikely hypotheses. Something with strong predictive power and a great deal of evidence, like the theory of gravity, belongs at the top with the most useful ideas. Theism is a useless proposition that explains nothing, predicts nothing, and there is simply no reason to believe in it. Theism is a bad idea, I choose not to believe in bad ideas because they're dumb.

[G L Wilson]

Correct.

Virtue is an abstract concept that doesn't exist. Pure human contruct.

Virtue is a human construct for sure, and does exist for sure.

I don't believe in miracles, however I do believe humanity can make miracles.

[YesNo]

Theism is a bad idea, I choose not to believe in bad ideas because they're dumb.
I could say the same thing about atheism.

[Ecurb]

Being agnostic about *any* unknown thing is stupid. If someone said "the tooth fairy might exist", you would think them stupid. The same goes for Jupiter or Yahweh. None of these characters have been photographed or picked up on a radar screen. Believing in anything for which there is no evidence is stupid.

The notion that there is "no evidence" for the existance of God is so ludicrous it hardly needs refuting. Of course, in mal4mac's mind, "evidence" (apparently) involves only photographs and radar screens. Eye witness accounts, testimonies of personal revelation, reams of written historical accounts, and witnesses of miracle after miracle are somehow precluded from constituting "evidence".

Has our worship of science gone so far as to discount all historical forms of "evidence"? Should we prevent eye witnesses from testifying at murder trials, and allow only "scientific" evidence (DNA, photographs, and radar pictures)? Do the written records of the Battle of Cannae fail to constitute evidence that the battle occurred?

Perhaps mal4mac means there is no "credible evidence" for the existance of God. If so, perhaps he should say what he means.

p.s. Human constructs can and do "exist". Think of the Empire State Building (as one concrete example).

[Ecurb]

To elucidate my last point (the Empire State building being a bad example, since The Atheist specifically said virtue was an "absract concept"), would it be reasonable to say that language doesn't exist? Or that calculus doesn't exist? Or that ideas in general don't exist?

Are we limiting "existance" to the mere corporeal? If we are, many believers would agree that God is non-corporeal, and thus does not "exist" (using that specific definition). Obviously, believers who think God exists AND is non-corporeal are using a definition of "exist" that admits of that possibility.

[G L Wilson]

Are we limiting "existance" to the mere corporeal?

Yes, like the word 'existance' does not exist, which doesn't mean that I don't know what you mean by that word.

[OrphanPip]

The notion that there is "no evidence" for the existance of God is so ludicrous it hardly needs refuting. Of course, in mal4mac's mind, "evidence" (apparently) involves only photographs and radar screens. Eye witness accounts, testimonies of personal revelation, reams of written historical accounts, and witnesses of miracle after miracle are somehow precluded from constituting "evidence".

Has our worship of science gone so far as to discount all historical forms of "evidence"? Should we prevent eye witnesses from testifying at murder trials, and allow only "scientific" evidence (DNA, photographs, and radar pictures)? Do the written records of the Battle of Cannae fail to constitute evidence that the battle occurred?

Sophistry, Ecurb, you do it so well. Historical accounts of a single origin are unreliable, and should be noted as such. Nor should we trust eyewitnesses unquestioningly. Anecdotal evidence is provided for all sorts of things and has been shown to be notoriously bad. How many people do we have to show have been falsely imprisoned on the basis of eye witness testimony to realize that it is not trustworthy. Independent verification is a necessity precisely because people are bad at producing reliable accounts of what they see.

Unreliable sources should not be trusted.

Moreover, how does historical writings in the Bible corroborate the existence of God. A recent issue of Spider-Man (who lives in 21st century New York) recounts indirectly the events of Obama's presidency. Because New York is a real place, and Obama is the real president of the US, does that make a Spider-Man comic evidence that Spider-Man exists?



Are we limiting "existance" to the mere corporeal? If we are, many believers would agree that God is non-corporeal, and thus does not "exist" (using that specific definition). Obviously, believers who think God exists AND is non-corporeal are using a definition of "exist" that admits of that possibility.

Pshh, if God is non-corporeal then he does not exist in any meaningful sense of existence. If he does not effect the natural world then he does not effect us and our existence, which makes it even more ridiculous to speculate about his existence.

Edit: Taking non-corporeal in the sense here that it not only doesn't have a body, but also is somehow outside natural detection.

[G L Wilson]

I don't know what I cannot know.

[The Atheist]

Virtue is a human construct for sure, and does exist for sure.

I realise humanists try to make out that virtue does indeed exist, but since it only exists when they specify what behaviour is virtuous, it has symmetrical circularity with religion. I don't believe in it myself.


I could say the same thing about atheism.

You'd look pretty silly though, because atheism doesn't have any beliefs. You can argue that atheism is ignorance*, but you can't argue it's stupid.

*I wouldn't advise it, though.

:D


The notion that there is "no evidence" for the existance of God is so ludicrous it hardly needs refuting.

I specifically mentioned personal anecdote, which is all there is, as you cheerfully admit right here:


p.s. Human constructs can and do "exist". Think of the Empire State Building (as one concrete example).

That is a construction. Quite different.


To elucidate my last point (the Empire State building being a bad example, since The Atheist specifically said virtue was an "absract concept"), would it be reasonable to say that language doesn't exist? Or that calculus doesn't exist? Or that ideas in general don't exist?

I didn't say abstract concepts don't exist. Just virtue. Please don't suggest I say things I do not.


Are we limiting "existance" to the mere corporeal?

No. I expect dark energy and matter can be classed as non-coporeal, so that doesn't matter. What matters is evidence other than personal anecdote.

I'm glad you mention eyewitnesses, because if you ask any cop, he will cheerfully explain why they're utterly worthless in almost all cases. Completely unreliable and contradictory. And that's under oath - can you imagine how unreliable they are when biases are taken into account?

[YesNo]

The notion that there is "no evidence" for the existance of God is so ludicrous it hardly needs refuting. Of course, in mal4mac's mind, "evidence" (apparently) involves only photographs and radar screens. Eye witness accounts, testimonies of personal revelation, reams of written historical accounts, and witnesses of miracle after miracle are somehow precluded from constituting "evidence".

I agree. There is plenty of evidence.


Sophistry, Ecurb
...
Pshh, if God is non-corporeal then he does not exist in any meaningful sense of existence. If he does not effect the natural world then he does not effect us and our existence, which makes it even more ridiculous to speculate about his existence.
That also sounds like "sophistry".

What I am really interested in is what empirical evidence do any of the atheists have for the infinitely many alternate universes that must exist if chance is the cause of ours? I would like to see the photographs and radar screens for that tooth fairy.

[YesNo]

You'd look pretty silly though, because atheism doesn't have any beliefs. You can argue that atheism is ignorance*, but you can't argue it's stupid.

*I wouldn't advise it, though.

You don't have the authority to tell me what I can or cannot do.

[JuniperWoolf]

Agnostics love power, and they wish for nothing more than absolute power.

How does this make sense to you?

[The Atheist]

What I am really interested in is what empirical evidence do any of the atheists have for the infinitely many alternate universes that must exist if chance is the cause of ours?

I take it you have a very minimal understanding of both mathematics and physics.

So far, we know that there is a probability of 1 that a universe will exist. Other universes are of unknown probability; there is no "must".


I would like to see the photographs and radar screens for that tooth fairy.

Me too.

You do know that photographic evidence probably rates second most-useless behind personal anecdotes, don't you? Faking photos is dead simple.


You don't have the authority to tell me what I can or cannot do.

I'm not trying to influence what you do; I'm trying to save you embarrassment. Any attempt to accuse atheism of having "bad ideas" is plain wrong. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, and while the DNA analysis and skin sample are compulsory, there is not one single belief required to get your atheism card.

Arguing that atheism has "bad ideas" is exactly akin to arguing that there is too much black in white.

[OrphanPip]

What I am really interested in is what empirical evidence do any of the atheists have for the infinitely many alternate universes that must exist if chance is the cause of ours? I would like to see the photographs and radar screens for that tooth fairy.

I think you missed where I explained how hypotheses are measured.

With respect to M-theory in general, it is based on mathematical models that explain things we have observed. It has not been used to make predictions yet, but it has the benefit of being a potentially useful theory that can explain certain properties if it pans out. I do not believe in many alternate universes, I entertain the possibility that the hypothesis is fairly strong but still needs far more rigorous testing before it deserves to be recognized as a fully developed theory. I also would note that I have no where near any advanced understanding of physics so I am not qualified to weigh differing physical models against each other at that level.

I don't see what multiverses have to do with atheism though. That's a debate of physics, I don't get what my opinions on physics have to do with religion.

I don't need to have an alternate explanation to realize that God isn't an explanation at all.

[JuniperWoolf]

Agnosticism has nothing whatsoever to do with tolerance or humility. It's a position of "I don't know".

Yeah, this pretty much covers it. The only thing that I'm almost certain of is that every religion ever devised is wrong (being a random, wishful stab in the dark and all). Other than that, "I don't know." How life began, why it began, how the universe started, what will happen when I die, where and how the universe ends, when and how time began, "I don't know." Neither do you.

[G L Wilson]

I'm not trying to influence what you do; I'm trying to save you embarrassment. Any attempt to accuse atheism of having "bad ideas" is plain wrong. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, and while the DNA analysis and skin sample are compulsory, there is not one single belief required to get your atheism card.

Arguing that atheism has "bad ideas" is exactly akin to arguing that there is too much black in white.

You argue that atheism is nihilism and then you say that atheism cannot be accused of a bad idea, personally I think that nihilism is a bad idea. The idea drove Socrates so mad, that he became a nihilist himself.

As for agnosticism, the souls of agnostics are bought cheap.

[mal4mac]

So, believing it doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does, which would make agnostics the only rational people out there.

So believing the tooth fairy exists is just as rational as believing that it doesn't?!

Actually, as Dawkins argues in the God Delusion, you can't be certain about *anything*. So, yeah, maybe the tooth fairy does exist, and maybe you can win the state lottery five times in a row... but the intelligent, sane thing to do is to go with the evidence, and not to countenance the actual existence of entities for which there is no evidence.

[G L Wilson]

The agnostic believes in his own betterment, and no-one else's. He is the ultimate vulgarian, polite, kind and completely dishonest.

[mal4mac]

We now know as a scientific claim since the mid-20th century that the universe had a beginning. What caused it to pop out of nothing? If I understand the non-Design arguments correctly, "chance" caused this to happen. Since there's nothing to stop chance from popping universes out all over the place, we get the conclusion that there are infinitely many alternate universes. This is sometimes called a Multiverse.

So, mal4mac, does the Multiverse exist? If so, where is the empirical evidence for its existence? I mean, I don't want to be "stupid" and believe in something for which there is no evidence.

There is a lot of empirical evidence for the Big Bang - read a few books by the likes of Hawking, Ryle or Simon Singh, to get some idea of that evidence. But these authors admit their ignorance about what actually caused the Big Bang, they certainly don't say anything as daft as 'chance caused this to happen'.

The Multiverse concept is highly speculative and purely theoretical. I quite like it because it's a neat way of explain why the physical constants are so finely tuned, and an alternative to the not very neat and equally speculative 'argument from Design'. It at least shows that you can have a theory that does away with any need for the God concept.

But if pinned down, I'd say I don't *really* believe in the Multiverse - because there isn't conclusive empirical evidence for it. The same goes for the Higg's boson and strings. But all these entities are current predictions from good theories from serious physicists, so it's worth looking for them. Looking for such entities has worked in the past - Dirac's prediction of anti-matter is just one of many examples.

The tooth fairy, Yahweh, and Jupiter are the products of primitive, or childish, imaginations and (experience has shown...) that searching for such entities is a waste of time - there is no empirical evidence for their existence, and no scientific theory that predicts their existence.

[mal4mac]

While I can't speak for all believers, I can attest to the fact that the ones that I know, are occasionally overcome with feelings of inspiration and love. Are they supposed to disregard what they feel in their heart as "not existing"? It exists just as much as any logic that the rational conscious mind can come up with? You can't; see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or hear it. Why should thoughts be given more credence than emotions?

I have feelings of inspiration and love - I believe in them!

Romans thanked Jupiter for these feelings, Christians thanked Yahweh. Why not just talk about the feelings? Why try and postulate unrecordable entities as their cause?

Our thoughts and feelings are obviously detected by us, as Descartes pointed out nothing could be more certain! But from this you cannot decide that Yahweh (or Jupiter...) exists.

[mal4mac]

You do know that photographic evidence probably rates second most-useless behind personal anecdotes, don't you? Faking photos is dead simple.

Good point, the famous 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' photographs are a great example... as is the Turin shroud.

For evidence about important, continuously existing, things (protons or God, say...) we should expect to have *repeatable* experiments. For protons - no problem, there have been many experiments that we can repeat to show their existence. For Yahweh or Jupiter - ?

[G L Wilson]

I have feelings of inspiration and love - I believe in them!

Romans thanked Jupiter for these feelings, Christians thanked Yahweh. Why not just talk about the feelings? Why try and postulate unrecordable entities as their cause?

Our thoughts and feelings are obviously detected by us, as Descartes pointed out nothing could be more certain! But from this you cannot decide that Yahweh (or Jupiter...) exists.

If you prick us, do we not bleed?

[G L Wilson]

Good point, the famous 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' photographs are a great example... as is the Turin shroud.

For evidence about important, continuously existing, things (protons or God, say...) we should expect to have *repeatable* experiments. For protons - no problem, there have been many experiments that we can repeat to show their existence. For Yahweh or Jupiter - ?

True faith is a fateful business.

[YesNo]

There is a lot of empirical evidence for the Big Bang - read a few books by the likes of Hawking, Ryle or Simon Singh, to get some idea of that evidence. But these authors admit their ignorance about what actually caused the Big Bang, they certainly don't say anything as daft as 'chance caused this to happen'.

The Multiverse concept is highly speculative and purely theoretical. I quite like it because it's a neat way of explain why the physical constants are so finely tuned, and an alternative to the not very neat and equally speculative 'argument from Design'. It at least shows that you can have a theory that does away with any need for the God concept.

But if pinned down, I'd say I don't *really* believe in the Multiverse - because there isn't conclusive empirical evidence for it. The same goes for the Higg's boson and strings. But all these entities are current predictions from good theories from serious physicists, so it's worth looking for them. Looking for such entities has worked in the past - Dirac's prediction of anti-matter is just one of many examples.

The tooth fairy, Yahweh, and Jupiter are the products of primitive, or childish, imaginations and (experience has shown...) that searching for such entities is a waste of time - there is no empirical evidence for their existence, and no scientific theory that predicts their existence.
I have no problem with the empirical evidence for the Big Bang. Plenty of it exists and I understand the detection of cosmic background radiation pretty much proved it happened. The universe had a beginning over 10 billion years ago. It is a major scientific confirmation of an old religious idea.

With the beginning of the universe now part of the foundations of scientific cosmology, the question arises why did it start at all? There are basically two positions. It arose by chance, or some conscious choice was made. To make chance work, which would be what an atheist would need to maintain, it has to randomly work over its domain of possibilities. This leads to the origin of the infinitely many alternate universes, one version of which would be the Multiverse.

So you claim that you really don't believe in the Multiverse. Is there some alternate theory that you believe in to make chance the cause of our universe? Or, do you believe in some form of Design?

[G L Wilson]

I have no problem with the empirical evidence for the Big Bang. Plenty of it exists and I understand the detection of cosmic background radiation pretty much proved it happened. The universe had a beginning over 10 billion years ago. It is a major scientific confirmation of an old religious idea.

With the beginning of the universe now part of the foundations of scientific cosmology, the question arises why did it start at all? There are basically two positions. It arose by chance, or some conscious choice was made. To make chance work, which would be what an atheist would need to maintain, it has to randomly work over its domain of possibilities. This leads to the origin of the infinitely many alternate universes, one version of which would be the Multiverse.

So you claim that you really don't believe in the Multiverse. Is there some alternate theory that you believe in to make chance the cause of our universe? Or, do you believe in some form of Design?

The new plaything of the guru is science, and don't the kids just love Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

[Ecurb]

Sophistry, Ecurb, you do it so well. Historical accounts of a single origin are unreliable, and should be noted as such. Nor should we trust eyewitnesses unquestioningly. Anecdotal evidence is provided for all sorts of things and has been shown to be notoriously bad. How many people do we have to show have been falsely imprisoned on the basis of eye witness testimony to realize that it is not trustworthy. Independent verification is a necessity precisely because people are bad at producing reliable accounts of what they see.

Unreliable sources should not be trusted..

You appear to have missed my entire point. It is perfectly reasonable to think that eyewitness accounts are of dubious veracity; it is unreasonable to think they fail to constitute “evidence”. Suppose a person sitting by the side of the road told you, “The last car that drove by here, five minutes ago, was a VW Bug.” That person might be wrong – but surely, based on his testimony, the odds of the last car having been a VW Bug have increased dramatically.

In addition, “anecdotal evidence” is specifically CALLED “evidence”. It is reasonable to claim that it doesn’t constitute “proof”, or even persuasive evidence, but to claim that a form of “evidence” is not “evidence” is ridiculous.



Moreover, how does historical writings in the Bible corroborate the existence of God. A recent issue of Spider-Man (who lives in 21st century New York) recounts indirectly the events of Obama's presidency. Because New York is a real place, and Obama is the real president of the US, does that make a Spider-Man comic evidence that Spider-Man exists?

The bible purports to be an historical account, and Spiderman purports to be a fictional comic strip. Come on, now. You can do better than this!




Pshh, if God is non-corporeal then he does not exist in any meaningful sense of existence. If he does not effect the natural world then he does not effect us and our existence, which makes it even more ridiculous to speculate about his existence.

Edit: Taking non-corporeal in the sense here that it not only doesn't have a body, but also is somehow outside natural detection.

The standard, monotheistic position is that God is non-coporeal, but does affect (or, at least, has affected) the natural world. If you want to deny the “existence” of such a God, it’s up to you to try to understand what religious people are talking about. Otherwise, you are denying the existence of a straw-God.

Also (to The Atheist) I don’t see why “virtue” doesn’t exist. What you said was, “Virtue is an abstract concept that doesn't exist. Pure human construct.” Now, perhaps I am putting words in your mouth by suggesting that you said that virtue doesn’t exist because it is an abstract concept and a human construct. However, that appears to be the obvious implication of your statement (although I’ll grant that you have some wriggle room). It that’s not what you mean, why bother writing what you did? Everyone knows that virtue is an abstract concept; all atheists and agnostics know that it is a human construct.

[joelavine]

Perhaps what you were implying is that virtue is a relative quality, depending on the values of a particular culture and time, without having an absolute or universal character.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A lot of my spiritual feelings and ideas go along with a lot of Ralph Waldo Emerson's writings, a connection just made since I'm reading some of his essays for a class.

[lieasleep]

You argue that atheism is nihilism and then you say that atheism cannot be accused of a bad idea, personally I think that nihilism is a bad idea. The idea drove Socrates so mad, that he became a nihilist himself.

As for agnosticism, the souls of agnostics are bought cheap.

Nihilism isn't a bad idea it is an acceptance of the universe on it's basest terms. There is no such thing as good and bad considering those are completely relative terms. What is good and what is bad are completely self-qualified and, thus, completely meaningless constructs of human perception. There is no good and no bad, only the physical manifestation, through action, of people's speculations on them. Nihilists attempt to accept the universe for what it is, not what they want it to be.

Agnostics are just wimpy atheists. The usual agnostic argument goes something like this

"I am agnostic because I don't know if there is a God and never could know."
"So you admit that there could be a flying spaghetti monster?"
"Yes."

Agnosticism is broken down to non-sense within three sentences. Does the agnostic think there is a flying spaghetti monster? (and sorry for using such a trite example) No! the idea is ridiculous. He knows there is no FSM. His unwillingness to come right out and say what he knows is restricted by his lingering belief (or perhaps "fear" or "hope" would be better words) of God, or at least his unwillingness (for whatever reason) to come out and say what he really feels. Why is he so stubborn? To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I don't know why I considered myself an agnostic for years. I am tired of considering the possibility of the existence of Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, or the FSM, or god, things I know quite well to be negatives.




Also (to The Atheist) I don’t see why “virtue” doesn’t exist. What you said was, “Virtue is an abstract concept that doesn't exist. Pure human construct.” Now, perhaps I am putting words in your mouth by suggesting that you said that virtue doesn’t exist because it is an abstract concept and a human construct. However, that appears to be the obvious implication of your statement (although I’ll grant that you have some wriggle room). It that’s not what you mean, why bother writing what you did? Everyone knows that virtue is an abstract concept; all atheists and agnostics know that it is a human construct.

Virtue doesn't exist. Actions exist that we consider virtuous or not virtuous or some infinitely speculative middle ground. There is a huge difference.

[G L Wilson]

Nihilism isn't a bad idea it is an acceptance of the universe on it's basest terms. There is no such thing as good and bad considering those are completely relative terms. What is good and what is bad are completely self-qualified and, thus, completely meaningless constructs of human perception. There is no good and no bad, only the physical manifestation, through action, of people's speculations on them. Nihilists attempt to accept the universe for what it is, not what they want it to be.

Agnostics are just wimpy atheists. The usual agnostic argument goes something like this

"I am agnostic because I don't know if there is a God and never could know."
"So you admit that there could be a flying spaghetti monster?"
"Yes."

Agnosticism is broken down to non-sense within three sentences. Does the agnostic think there is a flying spaghetti monster? (and sorry for using such a trite example) No! the idea is ridiculous. He knows there is no FSM. His unwillingness to come right out and say what he knows is restricted by his lingering belief (or perhaps "fear" or "hope" would be better words) of God, or at least his unwillingness (for whatever reason) to come out and say what he really feels. Why is he so stubborn? To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I don't know why I considered myself an agnostic for years. I am tired of considering the possibility of the existence of Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, or the FSM, or god, things I know quite well to be negatives.



Virtue doesn't exist. Actions exist that we consider virtuous or not virtuous or some infinitely speculative middle ground. There is a huge difference.

"Out, out, brief candle." The lowest have virtue, the highest have none.

[lieasleep]

"Out, out, brief candle."

:angel:

[G L Wilson]

:angel:

You have no virtue, lieasleep, and neither do I.

[lieasleep]

You have no virtue, lieasleep, and neither do I.

Glad to see we have so much in common ;)

[The Atheist]

You argue that atheism is nihilism...

No. You're getting me mixed up with someone else. I said it is not nihilism.


Good point, the famous 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' photographs are a great example... as is the Turin shroud.

Good posts, all the way through.


The new plaything of the guru is science, and don't the kids just love Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

Kids? What do kids have to do with it?

Last time I checked, Dawkins is well over retirement age and even Hawking is clinging on at 59. Both of them are highly regarded by most senior scientific figures, none of whom could be classed as young.

That they also appeal to young intellectuals shouldn't diminish what they actually say. Dawkins is so anti-fan club he even closed his forum rather than contradict his principles.


Nihilists attempt to accept the universe for what it is, not what they want it to be.

True, but I'll reiterate that while some atheists are nihilists, it has nothing to do with atheism at all.


Agnostics are just wimpy atheists. The usual agnostic argument goes something like this

"I am agnostic because I don't know if there is a God and never could know."
"So you admit that there could be a flying spaghetti monster?"
"Yes."

Nice!


Virtue doesn't exist.

Well said. (I said exactly that a couple of pages ago! :) )

[G L Wilson]

I'll reiterate that while some atheists are nihilists, it has nothing to do with atheism at all.

It has everything to do with atheism and religion too. To believe in nothing is the definition of nihilism. What, may I ask, to play the Devil's advocate, do atheists believe in? That death has no consequences, that there is no God? That real is where you are?

[The Atheist]

It has everything to do with atheism and religion too.

Nope.


To believe in nothing is the definition of nihilism.

Very good!

Atheists don't necessarily believe in nothing. Crikey, you've been spouting humanism, yet lots of humanists are atheists.


What, may I ask, to play the Devil's advocate, do atheists believe in?

No devil's advocation required - we've already covered this ground a couple of times. Atheists don't believe in god/s. There is no more to it than that.

Buddhists can be classed as atheist, and many self-describe as atheists, yet they clearly have beliefs that aren't nihilistic.

Is that one example enough, or do I need to mention the likes of Wiccans, naturalists (and supernaturalists!) and David Icke's followers, who are able to correctly able to describe themselves as atheist while holding beliefs that are no way nihilistic?


That death has no consequences, that there is no God? That real is where you are?

Like aphilatelists, atheists believe all sorts of things and their atheism confers no groupthink whatsoever; beyond not believing in god/s.

[OrphanPip]

You appear to have missed my entire point. It is perfectly reasonable to think that eyewitness accounts are of dubious veracity; it is unreasonable to think they fail to constitute “evidence”. Suppose a person sitting by the side of the road told you, “The last car that drove by here, five minutes ago, was a VW Bug.” That person might be wrong – but surely, based on his testimony, the odds of the last car having been a VW Bug have increased dramatically.

In addition, “anecdotal evidence” is specifically CALLED “evidence”. It is reasonable to claim that it doesn’t constitute “proof”, or even persuasive evidence, but to claim that a form of “evidence” is not “evidence” is ridiculous.

No I didn't miss your point, my initial post said that there is no good evidence for believing in God, and I assume that anyone who isn't completely dense or just trying to play at semantics would understand that is what Mal meant as well. I just chose to ignore your point and respond otherwise.



The bible purports to be an historical account, and Spiderman purports to be a fictional comic strip. Come on, now. You can do better than this!

How does that matter? Do we even know that the Bible purports to be a historical account? Some parts of it do, others most likely don't. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not purport to be any more of a historical document than Spider-man. The comic can quite reliably be used to determine real historical facts just as well as the Bible can be. The only real difference is that there is a tradition of treating the Bible as if it is written as a scholarly history.



The standard, monotheistic position is that God is non-coporeal, but does affect (or, at least, has affected) the natural world. If you want to deny the “existence” of such a God, it’s up to you to try to understand what religious people are talking about. Otherwise, you are denying the existence of a straw-God.

If he effects the natural world it should leave evidence, either he does or he doesn't. I understand it as well as any theist, I wasn't raised in a vacuum. I have read the Bible fully, I have been to services in Christian churches of numerous denominations, to a service at the Vietnamese Pegodah in Montreal, to a Sihk temple, and to synagogue on a number of occasions since I have Jewish relatives. Surveys actually show that atheist have a broader knowledge of world religions than the standard believer (Jews and Mormons also have similarly high levels of knowledge about other faiths). It is not up to me to tailor my argument to every possible iteration of nonsense a theist can come up with. I'll respond to any specific argument, but I will not write a book refuting every silly notion.

[The Atheist]

How does that matter? Do we even know that the Bible purports to be a historical account? Some parts of it do, others most likely don't. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not purport to be any more of a historical document than Spider-man. The comic can quite reliably be used to determine real historical facts just as well as the Bible can be. The only real difference is that there is a tradition of treating the Bible as if it is written as a scholarly history.

I always like to note at this juncture that the bible's value as evidence is considerably lessened by the fact that many things placed as crucial historical facts - like Moses' and the Israelites' escape from Egypt - just did not happen.

Carry on!

:D

[G L Wilson]

...atheists believe all sorts of things and their atheism confers no groupthink whatsoever...

Home is where the heart is. Who am I to judge a person's love unless it be hate in disguise?

[The Atheist]

Home is where the heart is. Who am I to judge a person's love unless it be hate in disguise?

As a way of deflecting from the answer to your point, I guess it works, but other than that, it's meaningless to me.

[G L Wilson]

As a way of deflecting from the answer to your point, I guess it works, but other than that, it's meaningless to me.

Does a religio not have a right to happiness?

[The Atheist]

Does a religio not have a right to happiness?

Again, I find it hard to see how that fits into the discussion.

Do people have a right to use self-delusion to create happiness? Sure. I'd rather see them use their own resources, but if they choose to believe the sky-daddy story, that's fine with me.

The problem always begins when the self-delusion isn't enough to sustain the illusion and it has to be reinforced by evangelism.

[G L Wilson]

Again, I find it hard to see how that fits into the discussion.

Do people have a right to use self-delusion to create happiness? Sure. I'd rather see them use their own resources, but if they choose to believe the sky-daddy story, that's fine with me.

The problem always begins when the self-delusion isn't enough to sustain the illusion and it has to be reinforced by evangelism.

Who is to say that their happiness is an illusion?

[The Atheist]

Who is to say that their happiness is an illusion?

No, the illusion of the deity.

[G L Wilson]

No, the illusion of the deity.

Are you God? Are you old or new?

BTW the reason that Richard Dawkins closed his website is because he didn't like his majesty being questioned and no other reason.

[mal4mac]

I have no problem with the empirical evidence for the Big Bang. Plenty of it exists and I understand the detection of cosmic background radiation pretty much proved it happened. The universe had a beginning over 10 billion years ago. It is a major scientific confirmation of an old religious idea.

With the beginning of the universe now part of the foundations of scientific cosmology, the question arises why did it start at all? There are basically two positions. It arose by chance, or some conscious choice was made. To make chance work, which would be what an atheist would need to maintain, it has to randomly work over its domain of possibilities. This leads to the origin of the infinitely many alternate universes, one version of which would be the Multiverse.

So you claim that you really don't believe in the Multiverse. Is there some alternate theory that you believe in to make chance the cause of our universe? Or, do you believe in some form of Design?

I don't have any belief on the subject, fortunately I don't think I need to have a belief on it!

If an evil genius told me to plump for the right one or die I'd plump for the Multiverse idea, but I'd feel I was playing Russian roulette...

The universe might not have begun at a Big Bang, there might be an infinity of Big Crunches followed by Big Bangs - or something else - GR and QT break down in the first few moments of the Big Bang so there is no totally convincing theoretical evidence that time began at the Big Bang - and there certainly isn't any empirical evidence!

Does chance require the Multiverse? It may be that this is the only universe and life as we know it just happened to occur in it... pretty amazing... but hey, who knows?

I'm not really interested enough to look deeply at alternatives to the Multiverse idea (again!), so I'll not hazard responding further, but there are certainly atheists cosmologists who prefer other ideas... so start digging through the cosmology texts if you're interested... I'd rather carry on reading Wolf Hall (great novel!)

[mal4mac]

It's true. One of the reasons that I am an agnostic is that I believe it is impolite and unkind to burst someones bubble about God. Blame my social science background. We're taught to be respectful of other peoples cultures and belief systems and to try and understand their points of view.


I blame you - rational thinkers should be able to get beyond their background, however deviant.

'Pop' :)

What is impolite about putting forward a rational viewpoint? If it takes bursting a few bubbles to enlighten people then isn't that worthwhile?

When 'the religious' had power in the West then their "bubbles" were like wrecking balls riding roughshood over anyone with a different view ... *especially* if that view was rational. Look what the Christians-with-power did to the school of Athens, Galileo, and harmless witches... We need to burst a few bubbles in case that wrecking ball gets going again...

[G L Wilson]

Look what the Christians-with-power did to the school of Athens, Galileo, and harmless witches... We need to burst a few bubbles...

You forgot the Library of Alexrandria.


I don't have any belief on the subject, fortunately I don't think I need to have a belief on it!

If an evil genius told me to plump for the right one or die I'd plump for the Multiverse idea, but I'd feel I was playing Russian roulette...

The universe might not have begun at a Big Bang, there might be an infinity of Big Crunches followed by Big Bangs - or something else - GR and QT break down in the first few moments of the Big Bang so there is no totally convincing theoretical evidence that time began at the Big Bang - and there certainly isn't any empirical evidence!

Does chance require the Multiverse? It may be that this is the only universe and life as we know it just happened to occur in it... pretty amazing... but hey, who knows?

I'm not really interested enough to look deeply at alternatives to the Multiverse idea (again!), so I'll not hazard responding further, but there are certainly atheists cosmologists who prefer other ideas... so start digging through the cosmology texts if you're interested... I'd rather carry on reading Wolf Hall (great novel!)

The problem with the Big Bang is the problem with God, the problem of infinite regression. I trust that science will solve its problem. (God has already solved his. He says look at me, worship me, have faith, be a sheep.)

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing inflammatory or personal comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[Ecurb]

No I didn't miss your point, my initial post said that there is no good evidence for believing in God, and I assume that anyone who isn't completely dense or just trying to play at semantics would understand that is what Mal meant as well. I just chose to ignore your point and respond otherwise......

If he effects the natural world it should leave evidence, either he does or he doesn't. .

Once again, you appear to think "good evidence" comprises only "scientific evidence". Apparently, appearing to Moses in a burning bush (as just one example) doesn't qualify as properly evidentiary (or you would admit that "he does").

I think I DO understand what you (and Mal) mean. You think that evidence you do not personally find credible is not "good evidence". Fair enough. But to say that it is not "evidence" is ridiculous (just as to say that "anecdotal evidence" is not "evidence" is ridiculous). Strangely, you appear to believe that "surveys" are a reasonable form of evidence (with their tenuous claim to scientific methodology), but that eye witness accounts are not.

One key difference between scientific evidence and historical evidence is that many kinds of scientific evidence (experimental evidence, for example) are repeatable. History is not repeatable. Nonetheless, there is good evidence that some historical events actually happened. Indeed, the "evidence" that supernatural events happened is probably equally good as the "evidence" that the Battle of Cannae happened. The difference is not in the quality of the evidence, but in our own preconceptions.

Obviously, if one of our friends says, "I went downtown, and saw a VW bug drive by," we would all tend to believe him. Why would he lie? Also, the statement seems likely, reasonable, and normal. If our friend says, "I went downtown and saw a dragon fly by," we would be less credulous. We reasonably demand MORE evidence to believe an eye witness account for something that seems unlikely or incredible. The same is true of eye witness accounts of supernatural (religious) events.

So it's reasonable to doubt eyewitness accounts of bizarre happenings. Nonetheless, the specific "evidence" supporting the VW driving by and the dragon flying by is IDENTICAL (the eye witness report of our friend). So the reason we believe the one and disbelieve the other has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence for the one vs. the quality of the evidence for the other. Instead, it is based on our own preconceptions and world view. That's my point.

[The Atheist]

BTW the reason that Richard Dawkins closed his website is because he didn't like his majesty being questioned and no other reason.

Palpably false.

Dawkins has no problem being questioned and will cheerfully admit he's wrong on the odd occasions that happens.


Look what the Christians-with-power did to the school of Athens, Galileo, and harmless witches... We need to burst a few bubbles in case that wrecking ball gets going again...

Absolutely correct again.

We have ongoing evidence that theists will try to impose their irrational beliefs on others if allowed to do so.

Two easy ways to show that are:

1 The number of states in USA where religious groups are attempting to put creationism into the classroom (http://blog.pfaw.org/content/several-states-push-creationism-laws-texas-school-board-gears-up-for-science-curriculum-%E2%80%9Crev).

2 The admission by Australian Anglicans "...we have a God-given open door to children and young people with the Gospel."

Note, both of those articles are from this year.


It is the rudeness and the arrogance.

This always amuses the hell out of me - that atheists are rude and arrogant.

To me, the arrogance of demanding rational thought is outweiged several million times over by the arrogance of theists trying to teach my kids that the world is 6015 years old, or that sin causes cancer.

As to rudeness, again I believe there is a huge exponential factor of deeper rudeness in telling me their universally omnipotent sky-daddy is going to send me to hell with Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden to be tortured for eternity.

All because I don't believe their myth.

And people wonder why I say agnosticism is apologism for religion....

[G L Wilson]

And people wonder why I say agnosticism is apologism for religion....

Atheism should never be an excuse for ignorance or arrogance, both are inexcusable in an atheist.

[YesNo]

I don't have any belief on the subject, fortunately I don't think I need to have a belief on it!

If an evil genius told me to plump for the right one or die I'd plump for the Multiverse idea, but I'd feel I was playing Russian roulette...

The universe might not have begun at a Big Bang, there might be an infinity of Big Crunches followed by Big Bangs - or something else - GR and QT break down in the first few moments of the Big Bang so there is no totally convincing theoretical evidence that time began at the Big Bang - and there certainly isn't any empirical evidence!

Does chance require the Multiverse? It may be that this is the only universe and life as we know it just happened to occur in it... pretty amazing... but hey, who knows?

I'm not really interested enough to look deeply at alternatives to the Multiverse idea (again!), so I'll not hazard responding further, but there are certainly atheists cosmologists who prefer other ideas... so start digging through the cosmology texts if you're interested... I'd rather carry on reading Wolf Hall (great novel!)
If you are an agnostic, there is no need to take a position on the issue. You can sit on the fence. However, if you are an atheist, especially one who argues that others should stop being agnostics or theists and join you, then I think you need to be prepared to answer questions related to these issues.

If you accept current science then the universe had a beginning and that beginning came out of nothing. If the universe were static or steady-state there would be no problem for atheism. But that is not the case.

The problem for atheism is to explain the beginning without recourse to Design. However, the attempts to do that involve claims that there must exist alternate universes for which there is no empirical evidence.

So when you ask people to become atheists, to stop fence-sitting, what are you asking them to do? I can see two general kinds of atheism you might be promoting.

1) Unscientific Atheism. If this is the atheism you are promoting, you reject the recent claims of science related to the Big Bang and quantum physics. You now don't have to take a stand on the origin of the universe because based on this view, it had no origin. In exchange, you also cannot argue against theists based on empirical evidence, because you don't accept empirical evidence either. You are essentially sitting on the side with the Creationists waiting for the scientists to come to their senses.

2) Tooth Fairy Atheism. If this is the atheism you are promoting, you have some mechanism by which chance is able to create the universe out of nothing. You have now taken a stand, whether you pick the Multiverse or some other theory, but this Multiverse, or whatever you come up with, becomes the equivalent of your God, Heaven, or Tooth Fairy, that is, you now have something just as impossible to empirically verify as anything that theists would offer to support their beliefs.

So, which atheism are you promoting?

Don't sit on the fence!

[G L Wilson]

If you are an agnostic, there is no need to take a position on the issue. You can sit on the fence. However, if you are an atheist, especially one who argues that others should stop being agnostics or theists and join you, then I think you need to be prepared to answer questions related to these issues.

This is a false argument. mal4mac, you don't have to answer YesNo if you wish, at any rate the whole argument doesn't deserve an answer as it is built on ignorance and prejudice.

[Ecurb]

We have ongoing evidence that theists will try to impose their irrational beliefs on others if allowed to do so.....
This always amuses the hell out of me - that atheists are rude and arrogant.



The “arrogance” is in calling anyone who disagrees with you “irrational”. Of course we all (atheists, agnostics, and theists alike) believe that ours is the most rational opinion. If our beliefs weren’t the most rational (or, at least, “reasonable”), we’d change them. Nonetheless, most reasonable people recognize that:

1) We might be wrong – in fact, we probably are wrong about a great many things.
2) Not everyone who disagrees with us is “irrational”. It is eminently obvious that a great many religious people are possessed of “reason”.
3) It is possible to believe things that you, The Atheist, does not believe and still be “rational”. It is even possible to believe things that are untrue and still be “rational”. In fact, everyone here doubtless believes some things that are not correct.

Of course it is reasonable to fight against pernicious influences, like those of groups that want to teach Creationism in the schools. However, the “ongoing evidence that theists will try to impose their irrational beliefs on others…” is a bit shaky. First of all, it is not fair to tar all theists by association. We know, for example, that atheists sent tens of millions of people off to Gulags in Stalinist Russia, but this hardly suggests “ongoing evidence that atheists will try to impose their irrational beliefs on others.” Second, the notion that the beliefs are “irrational” simply because we think them incorrect is silly. “Irrational”, by the way, does not mean “non-scientific” or “non-rational”. It means absurd or contrary to reason. Believing that Jesus rose from the dead may contradict scientific canon and common sense experience, but it is not absurd or contrary to reason. It defies experience, but not logic.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't believe in a higher being because I wasn't raised religious, for one. My parents didn't make me go to church, or imbue any real religious ideas in me. They didn't discourage anything either. I know some would think that's a horrible decision. It wasn't (my relative success as a human being is proof, even if only anecdotal), and I'm thankful they raised me the way they did. So, since I wasn't told what to believe or not believe, I was able to come to my own conclusion, and that conclusion is that there is no higher being. I have seen nothing at all that would even slightly suggest otherwise.

To offer another perspective, while I can't with a straight-face say I'm super religious or had an extremely religious upbringing, I really appreciated the religious education that I did receive. I think it inspired in me a passion for history, stories, and culture (what underlies my interest in the arts today), gave me a deeper foundation of my own cultural-religious roots, and allowed me to have unique experiences that you don't get to have elsewhere, such as interacting every Sunday with a Holocaust survivor (who ran the school).

[The Atheist]

Atheism should never be an excuse for ignorance or arrogance, both are inexcusable in an atheist.

That's getting silly - there is no personality or behaviour requirement to be atheist. You're thinking about humanists again.

I share the atheist label with david Icke proudly.

I think he's the biggest nutjob on the planet and would cheerfully burn his website from the internet forever, but he continues to prove my point that atheism has nothing to do with any other-ism and behaviour is irrelevant.


If you accept current science ...

Same error again. Atheism is no relation to science whatsoever and science has no bearing on the subject.


The “arrogance” is in calling anyone who disagrees with you “irrational”.

It has nothing to do with agreeing with anything, it's a simple logical argument when you break it down and one side uses rational thinking while the other doesn't.

When theists try to claim their metaphysical thinking is rational, they are wrong.

It doesn't make them irrational people, I will note.


However, the “ongoing evidence that theists will try to impose their irrational beliefs on others…” is a bit shaky.

Uhhh, no.

The evidence is stark and compelling. I gave links to actual places in USA and Australia which prove my point that theists will try to impose their will.


First of all, it is not fair to tar all theists by association.

I don't.

I have said [again] quite recently in this thread, that if theists want to go quietly and devoutly following their fairytale, and not trying to enforce their beliefs on others, I'd be a happy camper and would probably never even have started using The Atheist.


“Irrational”, by the way, does not mean “non-scientific” or “non-rational”. It means absurd or contrary to reason.

Bolded for emphasis.


Believing that Jesus rose from the dead may contradict scientific canon and common sense experience, but it is not absurd or contrary to reason. It defies experience, but not logic.

Sorry, but it absiolutely defies logic. We can have that discussion in another thread if you like - I'd be very keen.

Do you think we can all stay polite enough to argue:

"Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic"

Probably good for philosophy rather than religion.


To offer another perspective, while I can't with a straight-face say I'm super religious or had an extremely religious upbringing, I really appreciated the religious education that I did receive. I think it inspired in me a passion for history, stories, and culture (what underlies my interest in the arts today), gave me a deeper foundation of my own cultural-religious roots, and allowed me to have unique experiences that you don't get to have elsewhere, such as interacting every Sunday with a Holocaust survivor (who ran the school).

This is precisely the kind of religion that is both inoffensive and beneficial. A minority, unfortunately.

[G L Wilson]

The “arrogance” is in calling anyone who disagrees with you “irrational”. Of course we all (atheists, agnostics, and theists alike) believe that ours is the most rational opinion. If our beliefs weren’t the most rational (or, at least, “reasonable”), we’d change them. Nonetheless, most reasonable people recognize that:

1) We might be wrong – in fact, we probably are wrong about a great many things.
2) Not everyone who disagrees with us is “irrational”. It is eminently obvious that a great many religious people are possessed of “reason”.
3) It is possible to believe things that you, The Atheist, does not believe and still be “rational”. It is even possible to believe things that are untrue and still be “rational”. In fact, everyone here doubtless believes some things that are not correct.

Of course it is reasonable to fight against pernicious influences, like those of groups that want to teach Creationism in the schools. However, the “ongoing evidence that theists will try to impose their irrational beliefs on others…” is a bit shaky. First of all, it is not fair to tar all theists by association. We know, for example, that atheists sent tens of millions of people off to Gulags in Stalinist Russia, but this hardly suggests “ongoing evidence that atheists will try to impose their irrational beliefs on others.” Second, the notion that the beliefs are “irrational” simply because we think them incorrect is silly. “Irrational”, by the way, does not mean “non-scientific” or “non-rational”. It means absurd or contrary to reason. Believing that Jesus rose from the dead may contradict scientific canon and common sense experience, but it is not absurd or contrary to reason. It defies experience, but not logic.

God is dead.

You are not rude, The Atheist, you are just plain offensive.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing inflammatory or personal comments will be removed without further notice.

~


I told ya!