Darwin,Atheism and Religion

[Climacus]

I did not specifically say it was irrational. Of course people can rationalize it. Some of those rationalizations are sick and breed hatred and judgement of others. I said theism is unREASONable in our physical reality. There is fact, as we know it, and there is not fact. There is a god, or there is no god.

"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Hitchens again.

Unreasonable, irrational, illogical, incoherent, whatever. But you still haven't shown how plain old theism, in the broad philosophical sense, is any of those things. You'll find it's no easy task. Again, maybe it is one of those things. But no one's managed to prove as much.

[Climacus]

A person can exist without knowledge of a god. It's still atheism. It certainly isn't theism. Let's not be silly.

No, it's neither theism nor atheism. The theist says "God exists." The atheist says "God doesn't exist." Both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something. And, yes, they are contraries - that is, they cannot both be true, neither can they both be false. (I gave you an ad absurdum argument against your position which you did not refute - you said is was "silly," and that's the point of an ad absurdum argument, it leads to an absurdity.)

[Darcy88]

Unreasonable, irrational, illogical, incoherent, whatever. But you still haven't shown how plain old theism, in the broad philosophical sense, is any of those things. You'll find it's no easy task. Again, maybe it is one of those things. But no one's managed to prove as much.

Positing the existence of an all-powerful being in spite of the total lack of evidence, there being not a trace of His activity, is indeed all of those things.

[Varenne Rodin]

Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Atheists don't just say the gods that men have concocted do not exist, most atheists will tell you we have no way of knowing, so we couldn't possibly allow ourselves to believe in something so far fetched and dangerous.

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists) is the physical world. No god or afterlife in sight. No legs to stand on. If a person has picked a single guess and made that guess their reality based on nothing reasonable, they're likely dead in the water. Atheists understand that there are endless possibilities. It's a lot healthier for the imagination than clinging to a single fantasy fetish. Theism is masochistic.

[Climacus]

Positing the existence of an all-powerful being in spite of the total lack of evidence, there being not a trace of His activity, is indeed all of those things.

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

[Climacus]

Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Atheists don't just say the gods that men have concocted do not exist, most atheists will tell you we have no way of knowing, so we couldn't possibly allow ourselves to believe in something so far fetched and dangerous.

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists) is the physical world. No god or afterlife in sight. No legs to stand on. If a person has picked a single guess and made that guess their reality based on nothing reasonable, they're likely dead in the water. Atheists understand that there are endless possibilities. It's a lot healthier for the imagination than clinging to a single fantasy fetish. Theism is masochistic.

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists)

All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist. So the proposition "Married bachelors don't exist" is true.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

[Varenne Rodin]

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

It's not anti-intellectualism to fight against cults pushing singular ideals on the masses that cause division, derision, and suffering. I think you're confusing atheists with nihilists at times. I don't say there is no god. I say there is no evidence of one, so one cannot be pushed as a creator of reality, because there are infinite possibilities. How can an atheist be less open to possibilities than a theist who has chosen their lot? Your argument is in defense of narrow mindedness, single-mindedness. It's unjustifiable.

[cacian]

He didnt blame God and I didnt said he did. He just saw his wife praying every night and nothing happening and considered that maybe it was because there was nobody hearing. Even so, there is no reason to believe that Darwin became atheist due a single motive in his life.

And he obviously knew that same blood mixing was a problem, after all, it is much thanks to him that we have this notion. Because after all, he dedicated all his life to study the mechanims that explained the transmition of traits between living beings and what could cause to failures an this became much of his theory. You know, the very theory he was famous for?

what the evolution theory?
between you and me, and I am not being rude, I would have worked it out myself is not a good idea.
I would not have needed Darwin to point it out for me.
It is obvious that inbreeding is unhealthy.

[cacian]

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.

there weren't any.

That is not atheism.
That is just that nothing.
Atheism is a negation to something like God/deity/a belief.

[Varenne Rodin]

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?


All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

I'll not respond to your attack on my communication skills other than to say please read with great attention and be careful of infractions.

Agnosticism is more to do with confusion and avoidance of choice. People are free to say they aren't atheists. That's fine. I'm an atheist. Out of the infinite possibilities, I think the idea of a singular god watching and meddling in our every movement is ridiculous. If it's true, I will be mighty surprised. Physically, it does not make sense and is not supported by anything factual. Other ideas and theories are more likely, but it's obvious that man, in all of his clumsiness and limited abilities, has not stumbled upon the answer that must be pushed forth against all others. A person can not believe in "god" and still attempt to seek answers to the big questions. Check out Hitchhiker's Guide if you don't want to take my word for it. Some would argue that many agnostics are also atheists. If you don't drink the kool-aid, you don't drink the kool-aid.

Personally, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an anti-theist and a free thinker. I will fight against theism gaining ground until I'm dead. It's servitude and it's vicious.

[Climacus]

I'll not respond to your attack on my communication skills other than to say please read with great attention and be careful of infractions.

I didn't mean any ill-will, Varenne, really. I was serious. Do you have any arguments, logically-valid arguments? Three things are necessary for a sound argument: (1) clear and unambiguous terms (to avoid fallacies of equivocation), (2) plausible premises (if not obviously true), and (3) valid reasoning. Have you ever studied logic formally? (Again, not a pejorative question - most people nowadays haven't.)

Personally, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an anti-theist . . .

Yes, I figured that out.

[billl]

No, it's neither theism nor atheism. The theist says "God exists." The atheist says "God doesn't exist." Both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something. And, yes, they are contraries - that is, they cannot both be true, neither can they both be false. (I gave you an ad absurdum argument against your position which you did not refute - you said is was "silly," and that's the point of an ad absurdum argument, it leads to an absurdity.)

The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." If we re-define atheism as merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc.

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something. (I don't see us coming up with physical evidence for such pre-historic people, but it isn't completely random and goofy to suggest that there might have been some. Not crazy to point to religion being around in pretty much every culture too, though.) Anyhow, "lack of belief in god(s)" is a VERY popular position among atheists today.

It's true, though, that these kinds of atheists today end up, when the rubber hits the road, often resorting to out-of-nowhere-but-very-very-low percentage probabilities that God might exist (because they can't be sure he doesn't), and maybe call themselves agnostic-atheists after pointing to negative atheism, and so on. Because, in the end, they are in a discussion with people who believe in God, and are taking the opposite position (they don't have such beliefs...). But the fact that they see no reason to hold such beliefs (in god(s)) is something that would simply be the case, if there weren't people walking around saying that there is a god.

Could theists simply "get on with things" and abandon their theism (their belief) once it was no longer necessary to deal with any "atheists" still running around? Because atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists. Even though they (apart from the occasional John Lennons) wouldn't imagine it happening any time soon, I think this is the sort of thing they're shooting for, this is I think the stance they're trying to take. And this is the possibility the hypothetical pre-historic pre-theism human example is meant to illuminate. Nothing about trees and rocks.

It might seem beside the point, since there are theists all over the place, and atheists are, indeed, aware of the concept of a God, and they are often arguing against people who are believers in the existence of God. But it isn't beside the point, and not allowing them this common (these days) definition of themselves sets them up for traps that rightly seem unfair to them, enmeshing them in discussion of doubt, certainty, and faith about something that in itself they aren't really too interested in (except when others' belief in it is affecting their governments and schools, say).

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something. (I don't see us coming up with physical evidence for such pre-historic people, but it isn't completely random and goofy to suggest that there might have been some. Not crazy to point to religion being around in pretty much every culture too, though.) Anyhow, "lack of belief in god(s)" is a VERY popular position among atheists today.

It's true, though, that these kinds of atheists today end up, when the rubber hits the road, often resorting to out-of-nowhere-but-very-very-low percentage probabilities that God might exist (because they can't be sure he doesn't), and maybe call themselves agnostic-atheists, and so on. Because, in the end, they are in a discussion with people who believe in God, and are taking the opposite position (they don't have such beliefs...). But the fact that they see no reason to hold such beliefs (in god(s)) is something that would simply be the case, if there weren't people walking around saying that there is a god.

Could theists simply "get on with things" and abandon their theism (their belief) once it was no longer necessary to deal with any "atheists" still running around? Because atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists. Even though they (apart from the occasional John Lennons) wouldn't imagine it happening any time soon, I think this is the sort of thing they're shooting for, this is I think the stance they're trying to take. And this is the possibility the hypothetical pre-historic pre-theism human example is meant to illuminate. Nothing about trees and rocks.

It might seem beside the point, since there are theists all over the place, and atheists are, indeed, aware of the concept of a God, and they are often arguing against people who are believers in the existence of God. But it isn't beside the point, and not allowing them this common (these days) definition of themselves sets them up for traps that rightly seem unfair to them, enmeshing them in discussion of doubt, certainty, and faith about something that in itself they aren't really too interested in (except when others' belief in it is affecting their governments and schools, say).

Thank you, Billl. I love you.

[billl]

Thank you, Billl. I love you.

This is maybe a little embarrassing, but I actually edited that a bit after you quoted it. No big deal, heh-heh.

[Darcy88]

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

It is incredibly unlikely that an all-powerful being would be passive and undetectable. The onus of proof is on the theists. It is philosophically indefensible to believe something without evidence or reason. I don't have to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory. Nothing contradictory about unicorns but belief in them is unreasonable.