Thoughts on Atheism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

My point is that because the concept of something from nothing defies logic says nothing about the concept but a whole lot about about the state of our understanding. Finally, what the people of Copernicus' and Galileo's time thought about the "illogic" of the notion that the earth flies through the skies is accessible online and through scientific historic reading. Now we know that it "follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics," but then we didn't. It only took us what? 200 years for the majority of us to get to the place where we think heliocentrism is logical? So I expect that in another 200 or so abiogenesis will also seem "obvious."

---

Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"

With respect, it's akin to saying "I expect that in another 200 years or so the fact that two plus two equals five will also seem 'obvious'".

It certainly isn't any different to a theist saying "I expect in 200 years that everybody will believe in god, because it will have been proved" or, indeed, an agnostic saying "I expect in 200 years that people still won't be sure". All you're doing is moving the same argument 200 years into the future, and the same problems remain.

Besides, in 200 years time when abiogenesis will supposedly seem obvious, who's to say that in 400 years time it won't? Who's to say that in 800 years, we won't have proved that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

Exactly, which is why agnosticism is the most intellectually honest belief (or lack of it). Both atheists and theists are forced to make leaps of faith by virtue of their conception of how we came to exist (and because neither of their positions is possible to prove or disprove), whereas agnostics can quite happily say "It's impossible to know".

---

I feel tempted to argue that an Atheist I do not have to prove anything and I will be more than happy to believe in God if it is proved he exists. Also, I fall to understand the how we came to exist (I suppose you mean universe creation or life) which are unknown stuff and under study, and this is what I believe (I prefer to say I do not know) is similar to the position of the theist "I know, it is like this:(insert here the particular belief)...

This make me remember of Chesterton (this actually the Negative Capacity of Keats). Chesterton, although christian held all beliefs as possible and pointed that atheists are losing some "magic" because they did not experimented it.
However a follower of Particular faith actually does not operate with such openess - they exclude all other possibilities as well.

Quote:

---

It's equally impossible with atheists, who are as unrelenting and fervent in their beliefs as "believers" are - just in the opposite aspect.

---

Dangerous generalization in my opinion but a aspect of Faith is the lack of objectivism because Faith is subjective and arguments that have the tendencies to be subjective are usually more "fanatics" but I have meet religious people who are perfectly reasonable and also atheists that are short-sighed due their fanatical trust in the science as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I feel tempted to argue that an Atheist I do not have to prove anything and I will be more than happy to believe in God if it is proved he exists. Also, I fall to understand the how we came to exist (I suppose you mean universe creation or life) which are unknown stuff and under study, and this is what I believe (I prefer to say I do not know) is similar to the position of the theist "I know, it is like this:(insert here the particular belief)...

---

What I mean by that is, Atheists are faced with the problem that they can never satisfactorily answer how and why things came to exist the way they do. Even if it is proved that a singularity sprang from nothing, the question remains: why? And how? Likewise if the universe is just a bubble that popped into existence inside a bigger universe. How? Why? What put the bigger universe there? Was it just 'always there'?

Likewise Theists have to confront the question: Who or what created god? Or was he just 'always there'?

If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"

With respect, it's akin to saying "I expect that in another 200 years or so the fact that two plus two equals five will also seem 'obvious'".

It certainly isn't any different to a theist saying "I expect in 200 years that everybody will believe in god, because it will have been proved" or, indeed, an agnostic saying "I expect in 200 years that people still won't be sure". All you're doing is moving the same argument 200 years into the future, and the same problems remain.

Besides, in 200 years time when abiogenesis will supposedly seem obvious, who's to say that in 400 years time it won't? Who's to say that in 800 years, we won't have proved that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn?

---

Aren't you being a touch literal-minded here? When the poster said that she "expects" abiogenesis to have been proven within the next 200 or so years, I don't know that she would be prepared to wager her descendents fortune on it.

But even within the community of believers, notwithstanding how much has been shed since religion began, I would bet that the concept of a divinity which has been around for many more millennia than e.g. Christianity, without any more proof of its validity, will still be clung to tenaciously by the billions who believe it now, no matter what science has turned up.

And some among those billions will still be saying, Oh sure you've proven that within your naturalistic framework, but... as if the material earth were not beneath their feet, the material sun did not pour down its material light, and the seasons did not go on turning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

Aren't you being a touch literal-minded here?

---

Not really. I'm pointing out that you can't form a sensible argument around the idea that, just because something was proved to be wrong in the past (heliocentrism), other things will necessarily be proven wrong in the future (the fact that something can't come from nothing). It just doesn't follow; the two things are completely unrelated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

What I mean by that is, Atheists are faced with the problem that they can never satisfactorily answer how and why things came to exist the way they do. Even if it is proved that a singularity sprang from nothing, the question remains: why? And how? Likewise if the universe is just a bubble that popped into existence inside a bigger universe. How? Why? What put the bigger universe there? Was it just 'always there'?

---

Wait, what if I do not need such answers? I know, some people get really upset around internet debating because someone would go with the tangency : "Evolution is not proved because life demands a creator and the Big Bang is not accepted" or anything, but that is not really like what makes an atheist. I for once just accept that eventually things are going to be discovered and new misteries too and I am aware than even if some deity would prove me to be real, it can means - the possibilities are big - he had nothing to do with the gods we know today.
What we can not do is a turn over to XVII century. That Science have not answered everything is fine, but it does not mean we have to erase everything else. People bring back teological, philosophical and even scientific arguments that were buried long ago and still present the same source of evidence which wasn't satisfactory 200 years ago - they are not really asking for a exchange of ideas.

Quote:

---

If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.

---

Wait, Atheism is born from Greek Philosophy, the constant development of the skeptcism. The Atheism of moderm age was an evolution cause by enlightment confront with tradition that generated romanticism which ignored even more the traditions (classicism, monarchies, the church) etc.
At given point it just seemed to be natural to be atheist since all natural laws operate without interference, it started to be hard to keep a believe in a god.
I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just confortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible".
Let's remember that forms of theism include biblical literalism and others just pure deism and they are far different intelectual wise from each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just comfortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible".

---

I'm not sure that this captures the idea. I think it is more I don't know what is possible than anything is possible. Since.... I find myself in this space often enough. Although I'm ready to identify myself as an official member of the "not know it crowd" I have a tendency to feel very sad to believe that science and the study of nature will answer everything. Then truly you will have entered the matrix ... at which point I will go take a genesis pill and return to my cube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"

---

Noisms, that is not what I said. I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true. What I said was because abiogenesis seems illogical to you has about as much impact on the truth potential of the theory as did the comparable doubt of the truth potential of heliocentrism had on it. In other words, just because you cannot see the logic of this new paradigm, does not mean it isn't logical. It just means you cannot see the logic in it. The usage of another example of the same mistake in history (thinking our understanding or lack there of has some impact on what is actually true) was meant to show you that this is a common human failing. It (and declaring a theory "illogical" without actually understanding it) also demonstrates that we humans rarely learn from our mistakes either personal or global.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

Noisms, that is not what I said. I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true. What I said was because abiogenesis seems illogical to you has about as much impact on the truth potential of the theory as did the comparable doubt of the truth potential of heliocentrism had on it. In other words, just because you cannot see the logic of this new paradigm, does not mean it isn't logical. It just means you cannot see the logic in it. The usage of another example of the same mistake in history (thinking our understanding or lack there of has some impact on what is actually true) was meant to show you that this is a common human failing. It (and declaring a theory "illogical" without actually understanding it) also demonstrates that we humans rarely learn from our mistakes either personal or global.

---

Fine, but again, you're just removing the same problem to a slightly different point of debate. The Atheist says "Just because you can't see the logic in the paradigm, doesn't make it illogical"; the Theist says "Just because you can't feel God, doesn't mean he isn't there". Great, but again, nothing has been proved, and nothing has been argued.

Perhaps the word 'illogical' is confusing the issue: essentially, abiogenesis has as much chance of being proved true as any other given theory on how the universe came into being - it was created by God, it has always been there, it came from a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster - and that's what I meant by illogical; it is not logically possible to prove or disprove any of those theories - which means that whichever one you choose to believe in, you're doing so by faith (or gut feeling, or emotion).

(And by the way, it's a bit disingenuous of you to say "I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true" - in fact, you quite clearly stated that "it only took 200 years for heliocentrism to have been proved right, so I expect in 200 years abiogenesis will seem logical".)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Wait, what if I do not need such answers? I know, some people get really upset around internet debating because someone would go with the tangency : "Evolution is not proved because life demands a creator and the Big Bang is not accepted" or anything, but that is not really like what makes an atheist. I for once just accept that eventually things are going to be discovered and new misteries too and I am aware than even if some deity would prove me to be real, it can means - the possibilities are big - he had nothing to do with the gods we know today.

---

Does that not make you an agnostic, then, rather than an atheist? The point of atheism is that there is no god: a position of faith, given that the postulation cannot be proved. Your argument sounds like the classical "we can't possibly know" stance of an agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Wait, Atheism is born from Greek Philosophy, the constant development of the skeptcism. The Atheism of moderm age was an evolution cause by enlightment confront with tradition that generated romanticism which ignored even more the traditions (classicism, monarchies, the church) etc.

---

I know how Atheism was born - I was talking about why people choose to believe it, which is a different thing altogether. I would argue that they do so because of emotion and feeling rather than the rational reasons they often give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

At given point it just seemed to be natural to be atheist since all natural laws operate without interference, it started to be hard to keep a believe in a god.

---

But don't you think, at some point, the question has to be answered as to how all those natural laws came about? Was it just by accident? In which case, what started the accident? Another accident? Ever unto infinity? It's fine if you want to believe that, as long as you understand it's a chosen belief with as much rational validity as "God created the natural laws".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just confortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible".
Let's remember that forms of theism include biblical literalism and others just pure deism and they are far different intelectual wise from each other.

---

You're probably right - Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism are all equally comforting in their own ways, which is why everybody believes in something. But I think Agnosticism is the most - in fact, the only - rational belief, because the others rely on unprovable assertions. (That isn't to say Theists or Atheists are wrong. Either might well turn out to be correct.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

Does that not make you an agnostic, then, rather than an atheist? The point of atheism is that there is no god: a position of faith, given that the postulation cannot be proved. Your argument sounds like the classical "we can't possibly know" stance of an agnostic.

---

Not really - An Agnostic ackowledge the possibility of everything despite the lack of evidences. An atheist not. I don't think there is a God because there is no prove because I think we can know.
I must notice that we are talking about the difference and all three positions starts with "we do not know" - A Theism however do not mind because he can not understand the wisdow of god, a atheist because there is no evidence do accept that possibility, a agnostic because there is no evidence think that is possible.
Faith is the trust without need of proof, so the position of atheistic can not be a position of faith.

Quote:

---

I know how Atheism was born - I was talking about why people choose to believe it, which is a different thing altogether. I would argue that they do so because of emotion and feeling rather than the rational reasons they often give.

---

I would disagree because we would have to analyse every case. I think even theists can have rational (or logical) reasons to be theists.
Myself, I lost any faith with the reading of the Bible and noticing the stories there are rather similar with the mythological stories everyone taught was "false" - so I guessed it was just a matter of popular support and not logic that separated those religions (the trust on it).
It is said that Darwin became atheist because the loss of his most loved daughter plus the discoveries of his studies that showed no need of designer for the living organism. It is hard to discuss if the intelectual work had the impulse of his loss or helped him to sustain his feelings. As I said, each case is a case.

Quote:

---

But don't you think, at some point, the question has to be answered as to how all those natural laws came about? Was it just by accident? In which case, what started the accident? Another accident? Ever unto infinity? It's fine if you want to believe that, as long as you understand it's a chosen belief with as much rational validity as "God created the natural laws".

---

Until it is proven? Yes, the objections of this creator are purelly philosophical or conjectural. (Being the creator as first cause only)
And yes, one day those answers need to be found I have no idea when.

Quote:

---

You're probably right - Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism are all equally comforting in their own ways, which is why everybody believes in something. But I think Agnosticism is the most - in fact, the only - rational belief, because the others rely on unprovable assertions. (That isn't to say Theists or Atheists are wrong. Either might well turn out to be correct.)

---

[/quote]

Agnosticism rely in doubt indeed. But Atheist rely in need of proof. Theism in faith. I would say neither rely really in unprovable assertions. Faith does not even require those assertions thus I always found strange when someone claim religious faith but start to list "evidences" that are meant to "answer" a philosophical system that are not the religious. I think I would be happy with the proverbial monk shrugh of shoulders... With this one I can not argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

Funny guy...it's called imagination!

---

MaryLupin, thank you for noticing and commenting my post.:)
Anyway, I don't think that imagination has something to do with believing in God. Faith is blind belief (one might say). ;)
I imagine dragons, fairies and different worlds that ours, but that is something that my brain is capable of understanding it (because I want to, because I created it and no one is forcing there existence, no one is claiming that they will save my soul if I do something wrong).
There is no reason necessary for imagination, but that doesn't mean that I will worship any of it, on any day of the week.

I am really sorry, I will not interrupt this fine discussion with my silly comments.
Please, carry on. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XY&Z

I imagine dragons, fairies and different worlds that ours, but that is something that my brain is capable of understanding it (because I want to, because I created it and no one is forcing there existence, no one is claiming that they will save my soul if I do something wrong).
There is no reason necessary for imagination, but that doesn't mean that I will worship any of it, on any day of the week.

---

I suppose she meant imagination to create them in first place. Jorge Luis Borges used to say that there is not more fantastic creation of humankind that a God that was infinite.
Anyways, just remember that one point Faeries are divine beings - what we call faeries are originated from Deities and so are some dragons.
I would like to point that there is things that even those of faith can not have enough faith to believe, that is why i like Chesterton and how his "there is no rule os architeture to build castles in the clouds" would apply to art, where imagination is so important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

It's equally impossible with atheists, who are as unrelenting and fervent in their beliefs as "believers" are - just in the opposite aspect.

---

What makes you think that? I would posit that most atheists are remarkably flexible in their beliefs in that they will virtually always allow themselves to be swayed by evidence. If evidence could be provided for the existence of god, don't you think lots of atheists would change their minds? Yet lots of evidence can be provided against god's existence and it hardly ever seems to change believers' minds – Darwin being a notable exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.

---

This is a huge and, I think, totally erroneous assumption, or set of assumptions.

Religion is commonly thought to provide comfort, but it frequently provides discomfort in the form of say, genital mutilation, the threat of everlasting damnation, the justification for war and ignorance, sexual repression.

Even so, the idea that both it and its absence provide comfort is pretty hard to swallow. How is the idea of a purposeless universe, in and of itself, supposed to provide comfort? Not that there's anything necessarily bad about it, unless you count the total absence of a guarantee of justice. I just don't see the comfort component in it.

As for the idea that atheism isn't intellectually arrived at, I wonder how you intellectually arrived at that conclusion. You could read the entire history of western intellectual thought as a gradual stripping away of the possibility of religious belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

What makes you think that? I would posit that most atheists are remarkably flexible in their beliefs in that they will virtually always allow themselves to be swayed by evidence. If evidence could be provided for the existence of god, don't you think lots of atheists would change their minds? Yet lots of evidence can be provided against god's existence and it hardly ever seems to change believers' minds – Darwin being a notable exception.

---

1. Atheists are "flexible" right up until the topic of "God" enters the room.
2. I'm willing to bet that even if evidence could be produced, atheists would still (by and large) come up with an alternate explanation (mass hysteria, somebody-drugged-my-Dr. Pepper, hallucination). All of this talk of "evidence" is silly - religion was never meant to stand next to science and be evaluated by its criteria. Religion is a spiritual belief system; philosophy cannot be scientifically investigated either, but atheists seem to be OK with philosophy - even though it can't be subjected to the scientific method either.
3. Evidence against God's existence - like what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Religion is commonly thought to provide comfort, but it frequently provides discomfort in the form of say, genital mutilation, the threat of everlasting damnation, the justification for war and ignorance, sexual repression.

---

Only if you radically simplify, generalize and essentially misinterpret most of what it's saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Even so, the idea that both it and its absence provide comfort is pretty hard to swallow. How is the idea of a purposeless universe, in and of itself, supposed to provide comfort? Not that there's anything necessarily bad about it, unless you count the total absence of a guarantee of justice. I just don't see the comfort component in it.

---

Religion is less about comfort than about a destination and an eternal existence; sometimes believing offers great comfort - other times it places great burdens on us that we frankly would like to not have to carry. But "comfort" isn't its primary reason for existing - that's what non-believers think it's for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

As for the idea that atheism isn't intellectually arrived at, I wonder how you intellectually arrived at that conclusion. You could read the entire history of western intellectual thought as a gradual stripping away of the possibility of religious belief.

---

The challenges science has put forward are formidable - and if one makes the mistake of deciding that human science carries more weight than the word of God, then yes, to an extent you're correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

1. Atheists are "flexible" right up until the topic of "God" enters the room.
2. I'm willing to bet that even if evidence could be produced, atheists would still (by and large) come up with an alternate explanation (mass hysteria, somebody-drugged-my-Dr. Pepper, hallucination). All of this talk of "evidence" is silly - religion was never meant to stand next to science and be evaluated by its criteria. Religion is a spiritual belief system; philosophy cannot be scientifically investigated either, but atheists seem to be OK with philosophy - even though it can't be subjected to the scientific method either.
3. Evidence against God's existence - like what?

---

I suggest you read on the topic before you continue with this thread. Most atheists are not this way. Atheists are quite comfortable with discussion of God, and in my experience most of them have arrived at atheism by means of informed discussion. Also, philosophy is often scientifically investigated and has resulted in many new branches of study.

Quote:

---

Only if you radically simplify, generalize and essentially misinterpret most of what it's saying.

---

The detriments mentioned are actual observed effects of religion. Sociological studies, as well as holy texts themselves, are very often directly cited by atheists to show that these are facts. I don't see how a list of religious aftermath can be "misinterpreted."

Quote:

---

Religion is less about comfort than about a destination

---

The destination is the comfort.

Quote:

---

if one makes the mistake of deciding that human science carries more weight than the word of God, then yes, to an extent you're correct.

---

Atheism is a very powerful and convincing idea partly by force of logical analysis. Religion seems to discourage this of its own structure and dogma, as you've evidenced here. The nature of logic is such that it can be applied to anything, with religion being no exception. Logic is a pure function of language, namely words and numbers, and it doesn't follow that the "word of God" is exempt of this rigor.

Wow. That was an amazing post, Dr. Ralph. I agree 100% with everything you said. I would also point out how Red's #2 point seems to ignore the post he's quoting...I mean, it just sounds strange, "don't you think...?" ... "I bet not!" I mean he could have just said no.

The thing about Christianity and the Bible, you have to remember, is that it was a book written by people. The idea of God is hard to swallow because we're forced to take it on faith. It's just people telling me about it, the number of people doesn't matter. It's only because of this that atheism has ever made any headway. How hard do you think it would be to be an atheist in the past? It used to be punishable by death, and by very long degrees it's slowly become acceptable, although it's not acceptable to many people, and any acceptance is a very recent occurrence.

The idea of God does not exist outside the idea of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

I suggest you read on the topic before you continue with this thread. Most atheists are not this way. Atheists are quite comfortable with discussion of God, and in my experience most of them have arrived at atheism by means of informed discussion. Also, philosophy is often scientifically investigated and has resulted in many new branches of study.

---

Excuse my generalizing. I speak in terms not of discussing God, but as in taking Him seriously as a possible entity. Not all philosophy can be subjected to scientific inquiry to check its validity - though we're quite happy to apply such processes to religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

The detriments mentioned are actual observed effects of religion. Sociological studies, as well as holy texts themselves, are very often directly cited by atheists to show that these are facts. I don't see how a list of religious aftermath can be "misinterpreted."

---

No - not "effects" of religion - that's inaccurate use of language; religion doesn't cause these things to happen or exist. Much of blp's post paragraph that you're commenting on consists of a series of begged questions. The assumption is being made from the beginning that religion "threatens" damnation (it doesn't - God informs us of the consequences of abandoning Him); it assumes that all war is supported by religion - not true; it assumes that religion fosters ignorance - when in reality that is part of what is currently the issue at hand, and we are told by scriptures to investigate and be knowledgable - we are not to willingly be "ignorant" if we have access to knowledge. Same for the "sexual repression" - not all religions push this, and many simply argue for sexual discipline. There's a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

The destination is the comfort.

---

To an extent, yes: but, believers aren't allowed to simply sit back and dream of the promised land; a read through the new testament would correct that error of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

Atheism is a very powerful and convincing idea partly by force of logical analysis. Religion seems to discourage this of its own structure and dogma, as you've evidenced here. The nature of logic is such that it can be applied to anything, with religion being no exception. Logic is a pure function of language, namely words and numbers, and it doesn't follow that the "word of God" is exempt of this rigor.

---

But the God who drives many religions is a figure that exists beyond human logic - so much of what we believe appears illogical because it's based on a being that human logic says - due to lack of evidence (which must, perforce be true, because any being worthy of the title "God" must transcend the reality which He can create) cannot be bounded by the limited and narrow thinking of the human mind; the creation cannot comprehend the totality of that which created it. Sorry.

Well I guess there's no use asking this to be about atheism, so I'll ask a question about Christianity. Red, what is the morality, ontology (or first principles) and logic used by Christianity?- or, if you prefer, what are your logic, morality and ontology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Well I guess there's no use asking this to be about atheism, so I'll ask a question about Christianity. Red, what is the morality, ontology (or first principles) and logic used by Christianity?- or, if you prefer, what are your logic, morality and ontology?

---

Good questions - all requiring well-thought out answers, of which I have no time tonight to write. I must get off - but I will try to answer your questions later. Thanks for asking.

I'd prefer simple answers to long ones, if that is possible.

Good night, and I look forward to your responses on this thread and the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

essentially, abiogenesis has as much chance of being proved true as any other given theory on how the universe came into being - it was created by God, it has always been there, it came from a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster - and that's what I meant by illogical; it is not logically possible to prove or disprove any of those theories - which means that whichever one you choose to believe in, you're doing so by faith (or gut feeling, or emotion).

---

Are you sure you understand what abiogenesis is about? It does not say something comes from nothing. All it says is that life is an emergent property of non-life. The idea is that the chemical and physical properties of matter reacted in such a way as to produce self-sustaining organisms. Abiogeneis (a bio genesis) just means no-life-origin. It says nothing about the big-bang or the beginnings of the universe. This has every possibility of becoming a theory of the same standing as (say) evolution. There are actual tests that can be run, actual physical evidence. So this puts abiogenesis in a completely different category than god and the spaghetti monster, since there is no physical evidence, nor tests that can be run to test for the existence of god or living pasta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

(And by the way, it's a bit disingenuous of you to say "I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true" - in fact, you quite clearly stated that "it only took 200 years for heliocentrism to have been proved right, so I expect in 200 years abiogenesis will seem logical".)

---

The reuse of disingenuous was a nice touch Noisms. Here is the problem with it though...I am using abiogenesis as it was meant. It is a fairly simple theory that explains that life is an emergent property of non-life and its theorists are currently looking for the means by which chemical and physical properties can merge to evolve self-sustaining organisms. So, no it wasn't a fake kind of simpleness on my part. Rather it was a statement of likelihood. We are moving further and further into a society that assumes that matter (and not "spirit") is the basis of the real world (and have been since Copernicus and Galileo did their thing). As such we will attempt to explain life in ways consistent with that intellectual movement. In a world where matter (or space/time) is the basis of reality, then the only place life could have emerged from is non-life. There really is no other feasible option with a materialist orientation. Just looking at Earth history, the difference between the earliest Precambrian seas and the neoproterozoic shows that there was a time when there was no evidence of life and then there was evidence of simple life. Somewhere in there life must have emerged from what came before.

The intellectual tools that we have now are just beginning to give us glimpses into the chemical and structural properties that might have made this change possible. Just as simple astronomical tools gave way to greater and more powerful tools and methods of analysis and radically changed human perception of our place in the universe, so the developments of chemistry, evolution, psychology, cognitive science, physics etc will lead to greater understanding of what life (and conscious life) stems from. As we make these intellectual leaps it will change (again) our sense of ourself just as profoundly as what Copernicus and Galileo began with the simple (oooh, I love that word) statement that we were not at the center of the universe. It is almost as simple as the statement that life came from non-life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

I'm not talking about evolution - I'm talking about more fundamental issues than that. The point is that for atheists to account for the very existence of reality, they have to resort to saying "something came from nothing". In other words, once upon a time there was absolutely nothing, and from that, everything came - of its own accord.

---

What are you talking about here... this "something came from nothing?" What theorist(s) are you quoting? What specific theory are we discussing. Not abiogenesis here because that theory doesn't say "something from nothing" and of course you would know that the theories that I mentioned are the our current fundamental tools by which we can begin to address the theory of the origin of life. Is this a reference to the "big bang?" And if it is there a number of versions of that theory, many of which do not say "something from nothing."

Wow, wonderful post, Mary (just to beat PrinceMyshkin to the punch on that one, since I know he'd say the same).

I didn't understand his something from nothing argument either. And what is wrong with something from nothing anyway? I don't really have a problem with it. That's how I see the big bang. Sure, it's a mystery whether our universe is the only one, and if there is anything outside our universe - where is our universe? Etc., but it doesn't keep me up at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

Are you sure you understand what abiogenesis is about? It does not say something comes from nothing. All it says is that life is an emergent property of non-life. The idea is that the chemical and physical properties of matter reacted in such a way as to produce self-sustaining organisms. Abiogeneis (a bio genesis) just means no-life-origin. It says nothing about the big-bang or the beginnings of the universe. This has every possibility of becoming a theory of the same standing as (say) evolution. There are actual tests that can be run, actual physical evidence. So this puts abiogenesis in a completely different category than god and the spaghetti monster, since there is no physical evidence, nor tests that can be run to test for the existence of god or living pasta.

The reuse of disingenuous was a nice touch Noisms. Here is the problem with it though...I am using abiogenesis as it was meant. It is a fairly simple theory that explains that life is an emergent property of non-life and its theorists are currently looking for the means by which chemical and physical properties can merge to evolve self-sustaining organisms. So, no it wasn't a fake kind of simpleness on my part. Rather it was a statement of likelihood. We are moving further and further into a society that assumes that matter (and not "spirit") is the basis of the real world (and have been since Copernicus and Galileo did their thing). As such we will attempt to explain life in ways consistent with that intellectual movement. In a world where matter (or space/time) is the basis of reality, then the only place life could have emerged from is non-life. There really is no other feasible option with a materialist orientation. Just looking at Earth history, the difference between the earliest Precambrian seas and the neoproterozoic shows that there was a time when there was no evidence of life and then there was evidence of simple life. Somewhere in there life must have emerged from what came before.

---

Rewind and read my previous two posts again. At no point was I arguing that abiogenesis is wrong, or will be disproved. (All I said was that it has as much chance of being proved as literally any other given theory, since it isn't logically possible or sensible to say "this will or will not be proved true/logical in two hundred years".)

To reiterate, my argument re: abiogenesis that if you as an atheist (I presume) are allowed to bandy about predictions about what will or will not be proved in the future, then there is nothing to stop a theist doing the same thing - some of them predict the second coming will have happened within 200 years, for example. They might indeed predict that it will be proved that God is behind natural selection. The thing is, it isn't an argument, and it certainly isn't well reasoned. It's just "I reckon this will happen". More to the point, it isn't even to do with the original point I was making, which wasn't about abiogenesis (from the beginning you don't seem to have been arguing with me, but with an image of an evolution refusenik) but about the beginning of all things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

What are you talking about here... this "something came from nothing?" What theorist(s) are you quoting? What specific theory are we discussing. Not abiogenesis here because that theory doesn't say "something from nothing" and of course you would know that the theories that I mentioned are the our current fundamental tools by which we can begin to address the theory of the origin of life. Is this a reference to the "big bang?" And if it is there a number of versions of that theory, many of which do not say "something from nothing."

---

I've already mentioned quite a lot of them (are you really only now figuring out that I was talking about theories of how the universe began, not life, even though I've made it clear in numerous other posts?).

The commonest explanation for the exitence of the universe is the "big bang". The big bang accurately predicts certain things and can be considered scientific orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it only explains what happened after the bang.

Various theories try to explain what caused the bang and what was there before. One of the most popular, and most coherent, is Guth's theory of the Inflationary Universe; the idea that a false vaccuum came along and started to expand, doing so faster than it decayed, and this resulted in the creation of "bubble universes" via "big bangs" in the wake of the expansion - and our universe is one of those.

The problem, again, is that it doesn't explain where the false vaccuum came from. The inflationary universe theory might very well be true, but it isn't really possible to prove - and even if it is, it still doesn't do anything to explain how the whole thing started. In other words, the problem removes from "What caused the big bang?" to "What caused the false vaccuum?"

Which brings me back to my original point, which was that for the Atheist to have a satisfying explanation as to why we are, he or she has to resort to saying "I have faith in such and such a theory" (or just "I have faith that someday a theory will come along to explain everything"). Which is exactly what the Theist does by a different name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

And what is wrong with something from nothing anyway? I don't really have a problem with it.

---

So in other words, your conception of the universe isn't based on reason, but on putting your faith in something that can't be proved.

Same as a Theist. I rest my case.

You still do the same mistake - NikolaiI is asking you what is the problem with that assumption not that he holds it as to be true.
Anyways, I would like to disagree, big bang or abiogenis can not be in the same plate as the spaguetti monster because they are harder to be accepted than the our tastefull friends, since scientific hypothesis demand proving and spaguettis just the trust of the glutton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

You still do the same mistake - NikolaiI is asking you what is the problem with that assumption not that he holds it as to be true.

---

I'd hate to put words into his mouth, but he has to hold something to be true if he's an atheist. Otherwise, he's an agnostic: if somebody's position is "I don't know what's true and I don't care" then that is agnosticism, my friend. (Apathetic agnosticism, shall we call it? but agnosticism all the same.)

Let's be absolutely clear about this. Atheist belief, at its very lowest level, must at least say, even if it says nothing else, "I don't know or care how the universe came to exist, but I do know that god didn't create it, because he doesn't exist." In other words, even at its most reductive form, Atheism is a statement of faith (or belief, or irrational supposition, or whatever you want to call it), because if nothing else it is a statement that there is no god - an assertion that can't be proved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Anyways, I would like to disagree, big bang or abiogenis can not be in the same plate as the spaguetti monster because they are harder to be accepted than the our tastefull friends, since scientific hypothesis demand proving and spaguettis just the trust of the glutton.

---

Exactly right: scientific hypothesis does demand proving, and that's precisely my point. Seeing as it is impossible to prove the cause of the big bang [note: I'm not talking about the big bang itself] or, if you like, the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, ad infinitum, it has as much scientific, rational worth as believing that the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster started the big bang.

All this talk of abiogenesis confused the issue, because we were arguing that in relation to something else - i. e. it was being held up as an example of something that can't be proved now but "is expected to be proved" in the future, when that is patently daft; we don't know what will be proved in the future, nor what will be disproved, so what value does it have as a debating tactic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Excuse my generalizing. I speak in terms not of discussing God, but as in taking Him seriously as a possible entity. Not all philosophy can be subjected to scientific inquiry to check its validity - though we're quite happy to apply such processes to religion.

---

Religious claims are strikingly bolder than their philosophical counterparts. Philosophy is very often subjected to scientific inquiry, and the majority doesn't need to be verified this way. In fact, I can't think of a single philosopher who relies on science to validate his work. If you can think of one then feel free to let us know.

Quote:

---

No - not "effects" of religion - that's inaccurate use of language; religion doesn't cause these things to happen or exist. Much of blp's post paragraph that you're commenting on consists of a series of begged questions. The assumption is being made from the beginning that religion "threatens" damnation (it doesn't - God informs us of the consequences of abandoning Him); it assumes that all war is supported by religion - not true; it assumes that religion fosters ignorance - when in reality that is part of what is currently the issue at hand, and we are told by scriptures to investigate and be knowledgable - we are not to willingly be "ignorant" if we have access to knowledge. Same for the "sexual repression" - not all religions push this, and many simply argue for sexual discipline. There's a difference.

---

Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion...

I see that Christianity is a large enough part of your life so that you don't feel it necessary to consider others in what blp originally wrote. Might I also mention the Crusades, Jihad, depriving homosexuals of marriage, lack of scientific study before the scientific revolution, the Inquisition, Indulgences, 9/11, etc. These were all extrapolated from religious text and has resulted quite poorly for even believers, if I remember properly

Quote:

---

But the God who drives many religions is a figure that exists beyond human logic

---

There is nothing "beyond" human logic. Logic is a tool used to examine words and numbers, and if you intend on using these, you're fair game. I repeat: Logic is used to examine words, not God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

There is nothing "beyond" human logic. Logic is a tool used to examine words and numbers, and if you intend on using these, you're fair game. I repeat: Logic is used to examine words, not God.

---

I'm not sure how you intend this but those who hallucinate that they are e.g. Napoleon or Joan of Arc are a) nevertheless human and b) beyond human (or at least the norm of) logic.

That is they are beyond that but their hallucinations are not. The consensus of humanity is that both Napoleon and Joan died a considerable number of years ago. A possibly smaller consensus would agree that there has been no manifestation of God's existence outside of or since the very old, questionable books that assert it.

Why do you say that I at least have to hold something to be true? Seems a bit strange. Of course I believe in things.

Anyway, a few reasons for atheism. No sign of God, no sign of immortal soul, and every sign that humans are impermanent. Why would I believe that there is eternal life? Someone would say I am closed to the idea, and then it just gets stupid.

The universe has been here long before there was any mention of God.

On some other Earth-like planet, intelligent life evolves and eventually creates religion. Does God visit them and reveal another form of Christianity?

Some reasons for atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Why do you say that I at least have to hold something to be true? Seems a bit strange. Of course I believe in things.

---

Exactly. Read the discussion again. The point all along was that atheism and theism are united in the fact that they are both, at the most brute, basic level, forms of belief.

[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Anyway, a few reasons for atheism. No sign of God, no sign of immortal soul, and every sign that humans are impermanent. Why would I believe that there is eternal life? Someone would say I am closed to the idea, and then it just gets stupid.

The universe has been here long before there was any mention of God.

On some other Earth-like planet, intelligent life evolves and eventually creates religion. Does God visit them and reveal another form of Christianity?

Some reasons for atheism.

---

With respect, a lot of those things aren't really reasons for atheism. That the universe was here before mention of God, and that intelligent life might exist elsewhere, have no bearing on the matter - at worst, all they are are reasons not to believe in a strict interpretation of Christianity, which is only the tiniest sliver of theistic belief.

Your first paragraph here perhaps is a reason for atheism, but again - and this is my point all along - it's really just a statement of faith (negative faith, if you will).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XY&Z

MaryLupin, thank you for noticing and commenting my post.:)
Anyway, I don't think that imagination has something to do with believing in God. Faith is blind belief (one might say). ;)
I imagine dragons, fairies and different worlds that ours, but that is something that my brain is capable of understanding it (because I want to, because I created it and no one is forcing there existence, no one is claiming that they will save my soul if I do something wrong).
There is no reason necessary for imagination, but that doesn't mean that I will worship any of it, on any day of the week.

---

I have always thought of imagination as the hominid "what if" tool. It is (I think) what enabled primate alliance creation and social practices to become human culture. We have an extended capacity to story possible outcomes and meanings of events. "What if we all run straight at the giraffe? Will he fall down? What if we circle the giraffe? Will we be able to kill him before he kicks us to death? What if we stampede him over some edge so that he falls and breaks his legs? OH! That will work." Imagination works for us. But of course once achieved a new talent has the habit of taking over other areas of behavior. So our social primate need to adore/fear the troop head dude and dudette got a dose of imagination as well. "What if the big guy is really a BIG GUY?" and hence religion was born.

What I find most fascinating about the operation of imagination is that the human body/mind cannot really tell the difference between an imaginary lemon and a real lemon. The mouth salivates just the same. The consequences are that despite the fact that the original "BIG GUY" was just a storied-up "big guy" our bodies couldn't really tell the difference and we reacted with juiced up versions of adoration and fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XY&Z

I am really sorry, I will not interrupt this fine discussion with my silly comments.
Please, carry on. :)

---

Interrupt away! I adore "silly comments" even if they aren't silly at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

The destination is the comfort...Logic is a pure function of language, namely words and numbers, and it doesn't follow that the "word of God" is exempt of this rigor.

---

Nice comments. I particularly liked "The destination is the comfort." That was a very nice turn on the words used in the post to which you were reacting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

I'm not sure how you intend this but those who hallucinate that they are e.g. Napoleon or Joan of Arc are a) nevertheless human and b) beyond human (or at least the norm of) logic.

---

Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

There is no "beyond" logic or reason. So long as statements are made of intelligible words or numbers, logic may be applied. Again, it's false to say that an entity, in this case God, can be outside the scope of logic. So long as a statement conveys an agreed upon idea, it is eligible for such analysis.

An even simpler way to think of it is that if you can form sentences about God, those sentences bear a semblance of logic, and to claim that God is beyond such investigation reduces further statements about God to nonsense. If God is beyond logic, then nothing can be known about him, and your sentence is meaningless to everyone, including yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

Nice comments. I particularly liked "The destination is the comfort." That was a very nice turn on the words used in the post to which you were reacting.

---

For theists the destination isn't the comfort, I don't think, so much as the idea that what you're doing here on this earth has a purpose.

For atheists, the comfort comes from knowing that everything boils down to science, logic and reason.

Both provide coherent worldviews for the believer, in other words. Same motivation, different way of dealing with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

There is no "beyond" logic or reason. So long as statements are made of intelligible words or numbers, logic may be applied. Again, it's false to say that an entity, in this case God, can be outside the scope of logic. So long as a statement conveys an agreed upon idea, it is eligible for such analysis.

An even simpler way to think of it is that if you can form sentences about God, those sentences bear a semblance of logic, and to claim that God is beyond such investigation reduces further statements about God to nonsense. If God is beyond logic, then nothing can be known about him, and your sentence is meaningless to everyone, including yourself.

---

That's rather the point, I think. Statements that would appear nonsense are believed, because the point of religion is faith, and not reason. A simple enough concept. Why would faith exist, if the existence of god was proveable by recourse to logic?

As I've argued earlier, though, it doesn't do for atheists to arrogate for themselves the monopoly on logic and reason. For atheism itself is inherently illogical in that it takes as an axiom something (god doesn't exist) that it isn't logically possible to prove or disprove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandra Mc

Mary,
Are u an atheist? Reading ur posts that is what I feel u r. But I should say that I support Red more than u. But I do admire u a lot and I mean it. Seriously (if u r atheist) u must be having enormous power to believe whatever scientists say. I find it very hard to believe it myself!! I feel that somewhere deep inside of u there is a belief that someone created this world. For if u believe the big bang theory and stuff seriously I must say u have A LOT OF FAITH!!
Suppose I take a watch and break it, put it in a bag and shake the bag for a million yrs. ( God knows whether I'll live that long!! But Still think abt. it!!) What is the possiblity of me getting the watch back as before? I don't think its possible! I guess even u would agree. Well anyway I know I have diverted u from ur initial topic on Marriage etc. But I think u should think abt what u have said. Dont u think having a pure and a clean partner is more acceptable?! I haven't used any Bible quotes nothing I have just put in my views.
If u did not like what I have said then I ask u to forgive me. Anyway U are a very smart person!! :)
God Bless You!!

---

Well Sandra, thank you for the compliments. I am glad Red has your support and that you find comfort in what he believes and says. But to attempt to answer your questions...

I am an atheist in the sense that I "know" that the gods and goddesses that we humans have worshiped over the years of our ascent into "sapient" status are acts of wonder and marvel at what we began to perceive once consciousness/awareness emerged from the general field of social and environmental awareness in which all primates operate. If there is a non-corporeal aware entity inside the body of the universe I have no idea. Nor in fact care, primarily because if there is such a "creature" it is not really a "creature" in the sense that it is beyond human comprehension just as we would be beyond its ability to conceive of embodied entities. So in that sense I am an atheist.

The question of faith in science versus faith in god...faith in science comes from a familiarity with its methods, logic and empirical basis. That is, I have "faith" that the empirical methodology and logic can "reveal" certain truths. It is not that I have faith in Einstein, or A.H. Guth, or Stephen Hawking, or S.J. Gould, it is that I have "faith" in the methodology common to them all. This reliance on physical evidence, on proven predictability is what makes "faith" in science different that "faith" in god. Faith in god is something that must come without evidence. In fact, as the story of Job shows, faith must be maintained even when all evidence points to either no god at all or a kind of god not at all what was promised. If a scientist abandoned logic and his/her reliance on physical evidence and proven predictability then 1) s/he is no longer practicing science and 2) I would no longer have "faith" in his/her conclusions. In exactly the opposite way, all negative evidence does for many of the faithful in a religion, is make them shore up their personal "faith." It rarely seems to make them question the "rightness" of their belief. So even though English users use the same term "faith" to discuss a "faith" in science and a "faith" in god, they are really two quite different sets of behaviors.

Re: the broken watch...except in the case of chemistry and physics the fundamental elements of our universe have "behaviors" that make them act in certain ways and not in others. So oxygen will take heed when hydrogen or iron is about and pretty much ignore the existence of helium. So if you put a bunch of the members of the periodic table in a bag and shake it about for a million years then things will begin to happen. But not because I told it to or because some divine character spoke but because it is in the physical nature of iron and oxygen to react in certain ways under certain conditions.

Re: marriage and "pure and clean"...I would like to know what you mean by pure and clean. My take on it is that what is often meant is "without history" as was said of Princess Diana prior to her marriage to Charles. I can say no. I prefer people who have some real experience behind them. I prefer people who have lived a life of passion and commitment, who have lived life rather than saved themselves for something else. I tend to like people who have tested themselves against pain and joy, against adversity and plenty. It is only then that they (and I) can really know who they are.

There is nothing to forgive, Sandra. I appreciate our differences, your candid support of Red, and I appreciate the fact that you told me what you believe and asked for what I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

So our social primate need to adore/fear the troop head dude and dudette got a dose of imagination as well. "What if the big guy is really a BIG GUY?" and hence religion was born.

---

I don't think that really accounts for it, given that religion's earliest stages of development weren't about "a big guy" - it was mostly to do with totem spirits and ancestor worship, in other words group-unifying mechanisms. Religion has all kinds of psycho-social benefits for humans, but I don't think that fulfilling the need to fear a big bad something-or-other is one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noisms

..it has as much chance of being proved as literally any other given theory...to bandy about predictions about what will or will not be proved in the future, then there is nothing to stop a theist doing the same thing...The big bang accurately predicts certain things and can be considered scientific orthodoxy..."What caused the big bang?" to "What caused the false vaccuum?"...Which brings me back to my original point, which was that for the Atheist to have a satisfying explanation as to why we are, he or she has to resort to saying "I have faith in such and such a theory"

---

Please read my response to Sandra in post 118 on the difference between varieties of "faith." There is an equivalent difference between the various meanings of "prediction."

Since "faith" in science is based on empirical evidence and logic, it would seem to suggest that a specific theory's proven success at prediction in the past might suggest that some future prediction (yet to be evaluated) would carry more evidentiary weight than a prediction of a miracle (say the second coming) that has been made many times in the past and failed each time.

Or are you suggesting that empirical evidence and logic are also acts of "faith?" And if so, which kind?

A "satisfying explanation?" What do you mean by this? Do you mean this as an emotional statement (like finding comfort in one's religion) or are you using it as an indicator of logical coherence?