The Atheist Corner

[blazeofglory]

Questions why we are born and why we will die have no menaings at all.

[RichardHresko]

One of the basic problems in the attempt at a dialogue between non-believers and believers is the issue of evidence. Quotes from the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran or what-have-you can not be persuasive as such to those who do not believe, since they lack authority for those who have not accepted them.

While I will not attempt to speak for Jozanny, it would be understandable for someone to be frustrated and irritated to hear chapter and verse quoted when it is perfectly clear to both parties that without the establishment of authority the quotes are mere words.

A more interesting exercise would be to attempt to show how acceptance of a belief system (be it atheism, agnosticism, ethical monotheism, pantheism, or worshipping the big rock in one's backyard) leads to a solution of certain problems in one's own life.

[togre]

A more interesting exercise would be to attempt to show how acceptance of a belief system (be it atheism, agnosticism, ethical monotheism, pantheism, or worshipping the big rock in one's backyard) leads to a solution of certain problems in one's own life.

Yet wouldn't the identifying of a "problem in one's own life", identifying a (presumably) positive solution and evaluating a belief system on how well it responds to such a test be expressions of a belief system rather than anything approaching objective examination of one?

I recognize how having "chapter and verse" quoted does not bolster a truth-claim if one doesn't accept the authority of the source of said quotes. Yet, as a Christian, I believe (and am convinced that the Bible teaches) that both the truth-claims and the source (the Bible) are self-authenticating--they have the inherant ability to convince people of their veracity (I can state that more strongly, but that would side-track us into the definition of "faith").

I don't think Christians or even religious people are alone in this belief, namely, the supposition that their truth-claims and the source from which they draw them are self-authenticating. It has to be that way given the fact that any belief system is so wide in the scope of its truth-claims that there cannot, by definition, remain anything external, and therefore objective, by which to evaluate them.

[billyjack]

I don't think Christians or even religious people are alone in this belief, namely, the supposition that their truth-claims and the source from which they draw them are self-authenticating. It has to be that way given the fact that any belief system is so wide in the scope of its truth-claims that there cannot, by definition, remain anything external, and therefore objective, by which to evaluate them.

nicely said. however, i dont think this is limited to just religious people. this faith you speak of is basically "knowing IT in your bones." once this knowledge is felt the means, ie the book, can be disgarded--being that the book served as the stairs to get you to the top, the goal. Needing to go back down the steps (quote scripture) to justify your being at the top is redundant. as if you need proof of how you reached the top

[Redzeppelin]

I think atheism isn't a belief system; why: because all atheists seem to have elaborated their own value system. It's not because we all don't believe in God that we're all going to believe in the same values! I'm always a little surprised when all atheists are lumped together. But it's not because I don't believe in God that I don't have a value system. As you seem to be interested I'll explain it to you: it's probably not very different from yours (as in, i don't approve of murder, for instance), and it was undoubtedly influenced by the Judeo-Christian education I received. But it's also based on books that I've read, both fictional and philosophical; on my environment and what happened to me in my life; and on the questions I ask myself amost unceasingly. My value system has a few bases that don't change, but it evolves as I grow older and (hopefully!) in maturity?

Atheism is not necessarily a unified system of belief (in that it has tenents that are universally acknowledged) but it is a system of belief in that it poses a configuration of the universe that - like Christianity - cannot ultimately be proven, if followed to its logical conclusion. In that way, atheism requires just as much subjective choice (and a certain degree of faith) as any religious system of belief.

About what you said on the subject of hell, I read yesterday, when researching religious joy,that interpretations of the Beatitudes seemed to say that faith didn't count as much as "good behaviour" to get into heaven, so perhaps you're right. i suppose there are different interpretations, no?

The relationship between faith and works is tricky: works cannot get you into heaven; that said, your behavior still counts. Most theologians would say that a person who has faith in Christ will want to behave in a way that is consistent with his/her beliefs. The works come from the faith - not necessarily vice versa (but not impossible, either).

Ok, what about thou shalt no worship false idols. Isn't that a rule? Aren't the commandments rules?

They are "commands" because God wishes to be clear that these behaviors are dangerous because they will take the believer away from Him (God), and to separate from God is to head towards spiritual stagnation, and death. You are free to ignore the rules, but they exist because we need to know what kinds of things are harmful to us.

Please could you refer me to the passage where Freud says that. I'm not familiar with his writings on religion (seriously). Furthermore, people who liken belief in a God to belief in the tooth fairy are probably carrying logical reasoning one step too far (as in, if you can believe in one thing that's irrational, why not believe in all the others). I don't happen to agree with them, having some good Christian friends whom I consider as intelligent and sophisticated.

Here's what Wiki says:
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) gave explanations of the genesis of religion in his various writings. In Totem and Taboo, he applied the idea of the Oedipus complex (involving unresolved sexual feelings of, for example, a son toward his mother and hostility toward his father) and postulated its emergence in the primordial stage of human development.

In Moses and Monotheism, Freud reconstructed biblical history in accordance with his general theory. His ideas were also developed in The Future of an Illusion. When Freud spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it is a fantasy structure from which a man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity.

Freud views the idea of God as being a version of the father image, and religious belief as at bottom infantile and neurotic. Authoritarian religion is dysfunctional and alienates man from himself.

I knew I wasn't clear when I wrote that!!
I meant that religious injunctions not to murder etc didn't seem necessary anymore because we have "profane" laws which uphold the same ideas.

But all law has as its basis morality - hence the significance of religious moral guidelines.

True, true, true. But why do we pull stuff from the OT? Because it's there, for one thing!! And as far as I know, Biblical interpretation hasn't thrown it out with the dishwater.

Right - but Christians understand that the NT revises the OT - Christ's substitutionary death eliminates the law's condemnation of us; the OT system of "earning" salvation was eliminated in favor of the salvation brought about by grace. OT laws are not voided if they deal with morality - but obeying them without a relationship with God will not save one.

You'll often hear Christians quoting from it themselves, when defending (often rather intolerant) ideas. I know Jesus was open-minded; I think he was probably one of the first advocates for women.

All of the Bible can be misquoted or quoted out of context. The Devil attempted to use scripture against Christ when he tempted him in the wilderness.

Jesus did not see gender - he saw souls.

See above. And I think it's rather a good thing that our ideas (or rather my ideas, I can't speak for all atheists) are "prone to alteration": only fools do not change, aye?

To an extent, change is good; but, some things ought not be alterable because of changing fads and whims. Moral law shoud be built of firmer stuff than simple majority agreement - because majorities can be wrong (cf. European/American attitudes towards Africans in the 17-19th centuries.

Agreed - but it does make religion seem somewhat of a crutch. If you believe in God only because you're vulnerable and need to feel that there is order in this world, even if it's invisible to you...well...that sounds like myth-making to me (inventing reasons for phenomena you don't understand).

"Crutches" are bad things if you don't need them; when you do need them, they are very valuable things. I didn't say you "only" believe in God because life is difficult; what I said was that many people whose lives are in danger or unstable find their need of God to be more obvious; those of us living comfortably and with plenty of money still have a need of God (perhaps a more serious one by very nature of our belief that we're taking care of ourselves just fine, thank you).

Thanks, I learnt a new word!
This said, abiogenesis as you call it has been scientifically proved - it's therefore easier to believe like someone like me that something that will never be proved (even if I am aware that science evolves, and often ends up calling into question theories that are considered foolproof).

Abiogenesis (life from non-life) has not been "proved." That fact is the chief stumbling block to evolution's explanation of our origins.

Ah, but didn't the communists try to wipe out ALL ideas that differed from their own ideology? I think religion was just one of the things they tried to snuff out. My point is that their crimes are not to be put on the account of atheism, but simply of communist ideas taken to an extreme.

But regardless of what they tried to destroy, they still had as their foundation an atheistic world-view.

I am happy that you dont like being pinpointed as a male chauvinist!!
What I still disagree with you about is that I don't see why you defend males' right to wield power/authority. Even if it comes with a price. Even if it's not to be used freely. Women have as much right to authority as them, and that's where I find the Bible sexist (by the way, this reminds me of the way women authors were seen: as unnatural or somehow deviant, because wielding authority!).

The advocation of male authority was only within the marriage relationship. And, it goes without saying that the man had to wield his authority in a godly way (i.e. he had to be loving his wife sacrificially); any man who isn't loving his wife sacrificially has no right to demand his wife's submission. Women are entitled to whatever authority they wish to have - and you are not required to buy into the Bible's admonishment for women to submit to husbands and husbands to love sacrificially. BUT: if the designer of men and women suggested a certain arrangement, isn't He most qualified to know what arrangement works best for His creatures? We may not like the arrangement, but we did not create the human being from the ground up (pun intended); since the Bible makes it clear that God desires to give us good things, why would He create a random arrangement that had no basis on logic or reality? I assume that God's commands are not for His own good, but for our own good.

Hey, I'm one of them!And I've always defended female draft. This doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the fact that the fmale body is more vulnerable than the male's; but I just think they ought to be given suitable tasks.

But even that is sexist, isn't it? How do we define "suitable" tasks for female soldiers?

redzeppelin is hardly a bible-thumpin' pagan-smasher.

Thank you, by the way, for this. Very charitable of you.

[Jozanny]

While I will not attempt to speak for Jozanny, it would be understandable for someone to be frustrated and irritated to hear chapter and verse quoted when it is perfectly clear to both parties that without the establishment of authority the quotes are mere words.

A more interesting exercise would be to attempt to show how acceptance of a belief system (be it atheism, agnosticism, ethical monotheism, pantheism, or worshipping the big rock in one's backyard) leads to a solution of certain problems in one's own life.

What I really did not want to see happen was the snake chasing its tail in terms of the back and forth over belief and lack of belief. I was looking for other parameters, which I should have posted more clearly in the starter post, but did not.

Let me mention a few things which I do not think have been truly touched upon in the thread, or if they have, only in passing:

1. The partisan divide: This may be an increasingly troubling problem in the States, with its long tradition of post-Puritan religious plurality. An us versus them mindset may not serve us well, particular in light of the fact that the *center* in the US is increasingly drowned out through polarization. Evangelical Christianity and the secular majority butt heads as part of the culture wars which have rent the country since the 60's. In the 40's, it seems to me Americans were held together by a more civic unity which we might want to recapture, because we only have to look at the harm done in nations where intolerance between various faiths and sects leads to riots, loss of life, and civil instability.

2. Satirical intent: I am not sure how helpful it is. I am a Maher fan, but it is true that his new film probably will inflame diehards who like their red meat. There are some observers who do not mock in their social commentary, but for me the jury is out on this. The Cline fellow I cited way back some pages had a really funny post about the divine foreskin, which, as I was raised Roman Catholic, (thus those who think I don't know scripture might want to rethink that, and you know who you are) had me rolling, but I doubt it helps us all gain common ground. Although it may be that denigration is a particular American attribute; I'm not sure.

And that is two--my frustration actually stems from the business of submitting articles aspect, and for that I apologize. This forum is more playpen than the kind of writing support network I would give my right arm for. It may at times be a charming playpen, where yes, more studied betters may have assisted me in learning something--but few issues have given me decent topics to field queries so I can return to earning my living, and that is really what I'm after--bread and butter ideas.

However, by all means, let's return to the snake eating itself. There must be some reason the debate is like a perpetual motion machine.

[RichardHresko]

Yet wouldn't the identifying of a "problem in one's own life", identifying a (presumably) positive solution and evaluating a belief system on how well it responds to such a test be expressions of a belief system rather than anything approaching objective examination of one?

I recognize how having "chapter and verse" quoted does not bolster a truth-claim if one doesn't accept the authority of the source of said quotes. Yet, as a Christian, I believe (and am convinced that the Bible teaches) that both the truth-claims and the source (the Bible) are self-authenticating--they have the inherant ability to convince people of their veracity (I can state that more strongly, but that would side-track us into the definition of "faith").

I don't think Christians or even religious people are alone in this belief, namely, the supposition that their truth-claims and the source from which they draw them are self-authenticating. It has to be that way given the fact that any belief system is so wide in the scope of its truth-claims that there cannot, by definition, remain anything external, and therefore objective, by which to evaluate them.

These are good points.

As to the first, I think that there is no other way to objectively determine the efficacy of religious practice than by seeing whether it in fact aids the person cope with life. My position is that the question of something as fundamental as God's existence is unprovable (as is God's non-existence). Simply put, none of the major proofs for God's existence (ontological, cosmological, teleological, experiential) succeed in leading one inescably to the conclusion that God exists. The main argument for the non-existence of God (roughly speaking, that the world's condition precludes a Being deserving of worship) can also be shown to have weak points (known technically as 'theodicies') so the situation is a draw.

As to the second point, there are a number of problems. First and foremost is the issue of persuasion versus veracity. Needless to say these two things are not identical. An appeal to the convincing power of the Scriptures does nothing to show veracity of same.

It is unclear how Scripture can be self-authenticating. I can see how, for example, presenting a living breathing black swan could be said to be self-authenticating as to the existence of black swans. Clearly you mean something different here. Please elaborate.

What I really did not want to see happen was the snake chasing its tail in terms of the back and forth over belief and lack of belief. I was looking for other parameters, which I should have posted more clearly in the starter post, but did not.

Let me mention a few things which I do not think have been truly touched upon in the thread, or if they have, only in passing:

1. The partisan divide: This may be an increasingly troubling problem in the States, with its long tradition of post-Puritan religious plurality. An us versus them mindset may not serve us well, particular in light of the fact that the *center* in the US is increasingly drowned out through polarization. Evangelical Christianity and the secular majority butt heads as part of the culture wars which have rent the country since the 60's. In the 40's, it seems to me Americans were held together by a more civic unity which we might want to recapture, because we only have to look at the harm done in nations where intolerance between various faiths and sects leads to riots, loss of life, and civil instability.

2. Satirical intent: I am not sure how helpful it is. I am a Maher fan, but it is true that his new film probably will inflame diehards who like their red meat. There are some observers who do not mock in their social commentary, but for me the jury is out on this. The Cline fellow I cited way back some pages had a really funny post about the divine foreskin, which, as I was raised Roman Catholic, (thus those who think I don't know scripture might want to rethink that, and you know who you are) had me rolling, but I doubt it helps us all gain common ground. Although it may be that denigration is a particular American attribute; I'm not sure.

And that is two--my frustration actually stems from the business of submitting articles aspect, and for that I apologize. This forum is more playpen than the kind of writing support network I would give my right arm for. It may at times be a charming playpen, where yes, more studied betters may have assisted me in learning something--but few issues have given me decent topics to field queries so I can return to earning my living, and that is really what I'm after--bread and butter ideas.

However, by all means, let's return to the snake eating itself. There must be some reason the debate is like a perpetual motion machine.

I will point out that the 1940s was also a time when Jim Crow still ruled the land, being discovered to be homosexual could land you in jail or worse, and being a Communist or even sympathetic to other political systems barred you from work. During the 1940s people were incarcerated for being Japanese during a war with Japan. Contraception was illegal for unmarried women in most states, as of course was reproductive freedom. In some ways the 40s were too quiet.

I will also point out that it was the churches that were among the leaders in the abolitionist movement, and religious leaders (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) who spearheaded the civil rights movement.

George Kaufmann remarked that satire was what closed on Saturday night.

[The Atheist]

I myself did not show up here to defend God - I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system. I'm still waiting for it.

You will be waiting a very long time. As tediously explained, it isn't a belief system.

2. Satirical intent: I am not sure how helpful it is. I am a Maher fan, but it is true that his new film probably will inflame diehards who like their red meat. There are some observers who do not mock in their social commentary, but for me the jury is out on this. The Cline fellow I cited way back some pages had a really funny post about the divine foreskin, which, as I was raised Roman Catholic, (thus those who think I don't know scripture might want to rethink that, and you know who you are) had me rolling, but I doubt it helps us all gain common ground. Although it may be that denigration is a particular American attribute; I'm not sure.

I would have thought it's an un-American attribute - taking the mickey being more British. Maybe that's what's needed? The UK has a proud history of taking the mickey out of religion, from Chaucer to Father Ted, Brits have enjoyed poking fun at religion. It's only in the last few years, led by Canucks with South Park that Americans have gotten in on the act.

Plus, Maher's derision is well overdue after the bucket of vomit, lies and misquotes served up by Ben Stein.

I'm looking forward to it!

[Redzeppelin]

You will be waiting a very long time. As tediously explained, it isn't a belief system.

Are you engaging me, sir? Anytime I try to engage you, you simply tell me how ignorant I am and then disconnect from the dialogue. I will give you better:

The refusal to believe in God requires some other interlocking beliefs to exist:

1. The universe exists only of material matter - that which can be measured, quantified, studied.
2. There is no spiritual component within the universe.
3. Life on earth had to begin through abiogenesis, since the absence of a deity implies that life had to begin from nothing, since all things have a beginning.
4. Morality is a human/social construct (or evolutionary development) that is plastic and flexible in nature, and almost fully dictated by majority rule, "might makes right," cultural agreement or some sort of Hobbesian social contract idea.
5. There is no existence after death. Death is simply annihilation.

That's the short list off the top of my head. Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).

[Virgil]

Everything is a belief system.

[Il Penseroso]

The refusal to believe in God requires some other interlocking beliefs to exist:

1. The universe exists only of material matter - that which can be measured, quantified, studied.
2. There is no spiritual component within the universe.
3. Life on earth had to begin through abiogenesis, since the absence of a deity implies that life had to begin from nothing, since all things have a beginning.
4. Morality is a human/social construct (or evolutionary development) that is plastic and flexible in nature, and almost fully dictated by majority rule, "might makes right," cultural agreement or some sort of Hobbesian social contract idea.
5. There is no existence after death. Death is simply annihilation.

That's the short list off the top of my head. Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).

I'd agree with these, for the most part. I might want to hair-split over the existence from "nothing," but I won't.

[billyjack]

i don't think i'd say everything is a belief system. for instance, my head sitting on my neck and not falling off is not a belief or a product of belief. it might depend on your definition of belief.

[togre]

These are good points.
It is unclear how Scripture can be self-authenticating. I can see how, for example, presenting a living breathing black swan could be said to be self-authenticating as to the existence of black swans. Clearly you mean something different here. Please elaborate.

To explain this thoroughly would side track this particular conversation. If you would like me to elaborate, I would be happy to in a different thread. I will stick to a rough sketch at the present.

Faith/belief to a Christian is more than an intellectual thing (it doesn't exist apart from the intellect, yet it encompasses more). There is a spiritual aspect (again, this is from a Christian point of view). The spiritual aspect of faith is created by something outside the one who believes. The Bible teaches that this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

So...I trust in Jesus (specifically in the forgiveness he won through his death) because the Holy Spirit created faith where it didn't previously exist (in my heart). The Holy Spirit did this by working through a message/truth-claim that "Jesus died for you sins."

I heard this through the Bible. Why do I trust the Bible? Because I trust the God who gave it. How do I know the God in whom I trust? Through the Bible. These things are interdependent and cannot be verified (or disproved) externally. Yet on matters of such magnitude, there can be no reliable or even truly external authority.

So I guess I am admitting that on a purely logical basic Christianity is based on circular reasoning, or at least on the acceptance of certain primary truths/truth-claims.

My secondary point is that all methods of understand life/death/the world/meaning/existence have equally unsubstantiated core tenants that are accepted a priori. Why does a black swan prove that there are black swans? Because you (and I do not fault you for this) believe that matter exists and that observations are generally reliable and that a black swan is a swan of a blackish color. Does that help?

[Virgil]

i don't think i'd say everything is a belief system. for instance, my head sitting on my neck and not falling off is not a belief or a product of belief. it might depend on your definition of belief.

Nope, that's a belief system too. Ask the philosophers.

[billyjack]

philosophers, ha. isn't saying that everything is one thing, in this case-belief, make that statement meaningless. you cant test it, get outside of it to prove it.