The Atheist Corner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

I dunno about that. You kind of believe what you believe, don't you? If I look around and don't believe in god, and you look around and you do, and another person looks around and can't decide, how is any position more or less pretentious than another? I don't think that word really applies.

---

Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

I was thinking about "pretensious" in sense of pretensions to have the monopoly over truth enough to make definite statemes such as "G-d is" or "G-d is not" as utter truth and being militant or prozelytizing about it (those were the ones I had in mind, primarily), despite understanding that you cannot argumentate any of them other than, in the case of the former, "The Scripture says so and I take Scripture as my source of fundamental truths I hold", or, in the case of the latter, "I simply do not think there is G-d, as I cannot find evidence for it or reach that conclusion by pure logic, so I will say that there is no G-d", both of which is a pseudo-argumentation.

That being said, and I want to bold this: I sincerely respect all three of the positions and do not think, in the terms of 'value', that any position is "better" than the other; and given how hard the question is, without the actual answer, I think one should appreciate the choice and the process of coming to that choice of any person who seriously considered it, regardless of the position they reached.

I am just sheding a different light on some possible implications from open and militant claiming that one is, for example, "rational atheist without belief in G-d", because that wording is a nonsense. Atheism is not at all a rational position, and to say that atheism lacks belief is equally nonsensous - atheism defines itself as belief in negation of certain thing, and even though defined negatively, it does define itself in respect of the question whether there is G-d. Unlike agnosticism.

The terms are a mess in everyday life use, so I say "believer" and "theist" as synonims as well and leave "atheist" as "non-believer", even though this is technically incorrect. Only agnostic is, if we are nitpicking terminology, truly a non-believer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

Following on my post #68, I don't understand the need for a topic to discuss what someone doesn't believe in. If there is some history here that I, as a new member, am unaware of I apologize.

edit; ah, screw it. there's a decent argument going on, sorry to fall into the middle of it.

---

Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way. Religion is a faith in dictated prescription, and I don't really like any of them, although, following Joyce, I think Catholicism and Judaism have two of the most rational approaches to faith and belief in deism. Other sect doctrines are bad for my blood pressure.

I found Aquinas here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aquinas.htm

PS: Welcome to LN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s folly (and quite unfair) to label someone something because they’re different and it’s different for someone to apply this label because of that. I can understand a lot of people who may have been raised into a theological worldview and have difficulty in comprehending the worldview of people who do not have a religion altogether.
I’ve got no problem with that really as I understand (especially having come from and de-converting from a religion that provided a metaphorical "bubble").

As I no longer follow any religion, I don't label myself in anyway in religious terms.

---

I understand that, perhaps I should have cleared that I was not replying directly to you, but merely used your post as "starting point" because you opened an important question, though you opened it with originally different intentions. :)

I think I understand what you are saying about labelling, and I actually agree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way.

---

I disagree with making atheism synonimous with naturalism here.
There are some religions or, better, life philosophies, mainly Eastern, which are atheist in their nature, yet not fully materialist by their ontological position or naturalist. Even though atheism and naturalism are often put together, please note that, strictly speaking, there is no necessary correlation between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

I was thinking about "pretensious" in sense of pretensions to have the monopoly over truth enough to make definite statemes such as "G-d is" or "G-d is not" as utter truth and being militant or prozelytizing about it (those were the ones I had in mind, primarily), despite understanding that you cannot argumentate any of them other than, in the case of the former, "The Scripture says so and I take Scripture as my source of fundamental truths I hold", or, in the case of the latter, "I simply do not think there is G-d, as I cannot find evidence for it or reach that conclusion by pure logic, so I will say that there is no G-d", both of which is a pseudo-argumentation.

That being said, and I want to bold this: I sincerely respect all three of the positions and do not think, in the terms of 'value', that any position is "better" than the other; and given how hard the question is, without the actual answer, I think one should appreciate the choice and the process of coming to that choice of any person who seriously considered it, regardless of the position they reached.

I am just sheding a different light on some possible implications from open and militant claiming that one is, for example, "rational atheist without belief in G-d", because that wording is a nonsense. Atheism is not at all a rational position, and to say that atheism lacks belief is equally nonsensous - atheism defines itself as belief in negation of certain thing, and even though defined negatively, it does define itself in respect of the question whether there is G-d. Unlike agnosticism.

The terms are a mess in everyday life use, so I say "believer" and "theist" as synonims as well and leave "atheist" as "non-believer", even though this is technically incorrect. Only agnostic is, if we are nitpicking terminology, truly a non-believer.

---

Frankly, although the logic behind your analysis of the terms is sound and consistent, I can't really agree with it, as it (or at least so it seems to me) differs from the common understanding of the words atheist and agnostic. Majority of people who call themselves atheists and who are described as such, do not take the position of asserting God's non-existence. Instead of this "strong atheism", which we apparently agree make little sense, most do no more than withold assent to the proposition "There is a god" (which I like to call "weak atheism"). And indeed for withholding assent there is no need for faith. Isn't this definiton more in line with the way words theist and atheists are commonly understood? I think so, because defining atheism as affirming the statement "There is no God" leaves us with very few atheists and a whole lot of agnostics who like to be identified as atheists.

Being just a matter of semantics, it's all probably of little importance, but still I think it's reasonable to keep our definitons as close to the common meaning as possible. That's just my two cents:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

I disagree with making atheism synonimous with naturalism here.
There are some religions or, better, life philosophies, mainly Eastern, which are atheist in their nature, yet not fully materialist by their ontological position or naturalist. Even though atheism and naturalism are often put together, please note that, strictly speaking, there is no necessary correlation between the two.

---

Perhaps we face the danger of too many isms, as I am not sure physics is naturalism.

About your post on the range between agnosticism and atheism, this is an interesting subject, as agnostics and atheists generally don't get along with each other, which at first glance seem surprising. People generally blur the line between the two without some study, but I am now firmly in the latter camp, and am nearly as hard an atheist as Dawkins. He rates himself as 7.5 for "no God exists."

I am about 7.

American Atheist has an interesting archive article which claims agnosticism can lead the way to hard atheism, but I am doubtful. Margaret Atwood is an agnostic. I've heard her talk about it--and the furtherest she seems willing to go is a succinct discomfort with "this fascination with Jesus Christ."

The main reason atheists don't get along with their weaker skeptics on the scale, is that agnostics are still willing to explore the possibility of supernatural existence, sometimes still searching.

I've stopped searching, and all I care to do, as a writer, is to say things about the human condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Perhaps we face the danger of too many isms, as I am not sure physics is naturalism.

---

By naturalism (in philosophy), I mean "the system of thought that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws".
By materialism, I consider the ontological position which claims that "the physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including phenomena such as thought, feeling, mind, will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena".

The two are, strictly speaking, not synonimous, but for the purposes of the thread they might as well be; still, physics as science is most definitely "naturalist". ;)
My point is that atheism, as I described it, is in no necessary correlation to naturalism or materialism (even though it more often than not atheists hold such views), as atheism as a position states one single thing ("There is no G-d.") and does not necessarily imply strictly materialist ontological position, as in the example of some Eastern philosophies / religions.

Quote:

---

The main reason atheists don't get along with their weaker skeptics on the scale, is that agnostics are still willing to explore the possibility of supernatural existence, sometimes still searching.

---

Not necessarily willing to. There are a couple of variants of agnosticism... :D Before we get lost in them, basically, it is possible to be the so-called "apathetic agnostic", sort of "I do not really care, and do not really wish to explore, I believe neither and state neither, and now leave me alone" train of thought.

The main view is, I know, that agnosticism is a sort of "undecidedness" (does this word exist?). While some agnostics are undoubtedly in such a position, not all are. Some have decided that they will not decide at all, given the impossibility of 'proof', and deal with the subject no longer.

On the side note, "weaker skeptics", "stronger skeptics"... In this kind of discourse, what is the definition of a "skeptic"? :confused:

W a r n i n g

Further posts containing personal remarks will be considered off-topic and deleted without further notice.

Quote:

---

C: The Religious Texts area of the forums is heavily moderated due to the unfortunate fact that there are so many discussions that escalate to ad hominem, insults, baiting, trolling, harassing, and or flaming. If you do not know the meaning of these terms please look them up first before posting here. It is not the job of the Moderators to explain them or the rules to you.

---

You can read more about the Religious Texts Forum Rules here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way. Religion is a faith in dictated prescription, and I don't really like any of them, although, following Joyce, I think Catholicism and Judaism have two of the most rational approaches to faith and belief in deism. Other sect doctrines are bad for my blood pressure.

I found Aquinas here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aquinas.htm

PS: Welcome to LN.

---

I'm not sure atheism requires faith in there not being a god. I understand what you wrote, but the repeatability of the world working a certain way doesn't really require faith, it requires observation. On the other hand, if it did stop working in a repeatable way, then I would certainly get faith of a different sort!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

I find it puzzling, and interesting, that people find it necessary to write books stating the case for atheism. I would think that such a book would either not have an audience at all, or would be preaching to the choir (to malaprop an idiom [yes, I know]). Those who believe won't read the book (unless to find out what the opposition is thinking); those who doubt shouldn't read the book, because such a decision is personal; and those who don't believe don't need a book to reinforce their non-belief.

---

I find this position highly objectionable. I am a writer. I write. I have published editorials about Catholicism and I have no problem whatsoever with modern evangelicals publishing about their doctrine. Whether I write about atheism, or cerebral palsy, or the disability movement, there is no one forcing you to join my fan base--which, admittedly, is small, but exists, and with my email address, rather immediate.

I also never posted I was going to write about atheism. Reread my opening posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

---

I understand you better now, I think. Let me paraphrase it back to you, and see if we are now discussing the same thing. "The need to convince another of the certainty of your argument on the validity of something that is based on faith and belief is pretentious."

If that is what you meant, then I completely agree. There is no way that belief or non-belief in god can be arrived at other than as a personal search (understanding that the decision to accept or reject the faith [or lack of it] given to you by your parents is also a choice).

Yet another position that can, and often is, taken by agnostics is that while they find no warrant for accepting the existence of God, they are not willing to conclude that there is no God.

This thread has certainly become so diffuse that discussion is very difficult, and it seems that in flurry to post, categorical statements are being made when, it seems to me, what is meant is something entirely different; there is a logical difference between saying "all X is Y" and "some X is Y," and the discussion would be furthered by making this distinction.There also seems to be a lack of clarity about what logic is, and what it contributes to an argument, an understanding of which seems to be prior to any discussion.
Regards to all,
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

Yet another position that can, and often is, taken by agnostics is that while they find no warrant for accepting the existence of God, they are not willing to conclude that there is no God.

This thread has certainly become so diffuse that discussion is very difficult, and it seems that in flurry to post, categorical statements are being made when, it seems to me, what is meant is something entirely different; there is a logical difference between saying "all X is Y" and "some X is Y," and the discussion would be furthered by making this distinction.There also seems to be a lack of clarity about what logic is, and what it contributes to an argument, an understanding of which seems to be prior to any discussion.
Regards to all,
John

---

The fault is mine jg. I should have had a position stated out in the opening rather than merely having a reaction to the deletion of a train of thought elsewhere.

I apologize for that, and will try to do better if an issue comes to light in the future, though I do appreciate that Anastasija and Richard put me onto a vague trail in search of an idea.

I'll shush now.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I find this position highly objectionable. I am a writer. I write. I have published editorials about Catholicism and I have no problem whatsoever with modern evangelicals publishing about their doctrine. Whether I write about atheism, or cerebral palsy, or the disability movement, there is no one forcing you to join my fan base--which, admittedly, is small, but exists, and with my email address, rather immediate.

I also never posted I was going to write about atheism. Reread my opening posts.

---

I'm not sure you understood me. I'm not saying it's wrong, nor did I say anything about what you do, or what your intent was; I only said that it puzzles me personally, that I don't understand it. Take it on its face, don't read anything else into it. Rather than take offense, I would prefer that you explain it to me. My belief is that it says more about the readers than it does about the writers; I need no reason to write anything, but why would I read something that does not serve my needs? I either agree, disagree, or need to make up my mind without other influence, so why a book?

My comments were directed at no one, Jozanny, but were merely about the discussion in general as I see it evolving, and I was offering some reminders that might improve it.

Aquinas's Summa Theologica is available, by the way, at Project Gutenburg in plain text.

Cheers,
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

I'm not sure you understood me. I'm not saying it's wrong, nor did I say anything about what you do, or what your intent was; I only said that it puzzles me personally, that I don't understand it. Take it on its face, don't read anything else into it. Rather than take offense, I would prefer that you explain it to me. My belief is that it says more about the readers than it does about the writers; I need no reason to write anything, but why would I read something that does not serve my needs? I either agree, disagree, or need to make up my mind without other influence, so why a book?

---

How in the world can you object to an atheist publishing on the subject of atheism? Do you object to Augustine's Confessions, or Aquinas' Summa, which jg just mentioned? There are dozens of mega church pastors who publish feel good methodology books in the US, and they are rich. Do you believe in free speech? I read thinkers who do not suit my *needs*. I am sorry, but I find your objection nearly incomprehensible, and will leave it there.

Except to add, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens publish because they have something to say, and I applaud Hitchens in particular because he is not afraid to discuss historical fact to puncture so called sensitivity. I wish I could quote or paraphrase some of what he has published over the last year, but members feelings here are paramount over the American First Amendment, so I do not dare to try-- and rarely are they defending atheism. They *attack* American religious hypocrisy, among other things.