Thoughts on Atheism

[JCamilo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[XY&Z]

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[blp]

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.

[blp]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

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.

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."

Religion is less about comfort than about a destination

The destination is the comfort.

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.

[NikolaiI]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[Redzeppelin]

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.

[NikolaiI]

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.

[MaryLupin]

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.

(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.

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."

[NikolaiI]

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.

[Noisms]

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.

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.