The Atheist Corner

[Virgil]

Yeah I understand your frustration with philosophers. I'm an engineer and I work in the realm of science. But science is an enclosed system and we believe what we believe based on the assumption that it is the only system. Philosophers hold to the possiblity that it is not the only system. I don't know if that's accurate what I just wrote, but it's how I understand it. Here's more:

Belief
First published Mon Aug 14, 2006
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term "belief" to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term "belief", in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The "mind-body problem", for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. [SNIP]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

[billyjack]

i use the word belief in everyday language about things that don't require belief, like believing my head is on my neck. but that's just nomenclature. when thinking about existential whatnots, i use belief in accordance with its root, "lief," which means to wish. Feelings or senses or anything that you just know, like breathing, seeing, yada, yada require no belief or wishing them to be

[togre]

Whoever defines the terms wins the argument.

You do realize that you are (albeit inadvertently and politely) saying, "You believe things. I know things"? That the atheistic (or perhaps the anti-supernatural) worldview can begin the argument from this assumption allows it to claim it is based on facts and evidence while religious world views are pipe-dreams and hopes. Yet all worldviews are built on assumptions. The fact that you make these assumptions subconsciously and are surrounded by a society that shares them does not make the assumptions inherently more valid.

[Jozanny]

Yes, but atheism has no tenets which necessarily insists on evolutionary theory or a reduction to materialist determination. Red is wrong; there is no atheist doctrine or ideology--just a rejection of a god or many gods as tenable supernatural causes.

I have met a lot of crazy atheists online, quite similar to crazy Christians, with all kinds of implausible crock popping their eardrums. There is no creed to it, though atheism may be incorporated into doctrine.

That I can do nothing about.

[The Atheist]

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

Category error #1.

Given that the "evidence" for god consists of personal anecdotes and a book, the only refusal required is a refusal to believe unsupported myths of gods.

However, since you have discussed your motives in this thread, I am more than slightly sceptical: Red, you said this:

I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system.

Your words, check them out.

That statement is clearly and self-admittedly false, because after claiming to seek clarity on what atheism is, you then state quite unequivocally what it is! This is one reason why I don't usually bother discussing things with you - I don't believe your intentions are stated honestly and this post of yours bears that out nicely.

If you really wanted to find out what atheism is and what atheists do or don't believe, you would listen to replies from atheists, write to Richard Dawkins, read Bertrand Russell, but instead you choose to come in and state what atheists must believe to be atheists. The bad news is that you are clearly wrong on every count.

1. The universe exists only of material matter - that which can be measured, quantified, studied.

Incorrect. That's a materialist, not an atheist.

2. There is no spiritual component within the universe.

Incorrect. Atheism is no barrier to holding spritiual beliefs. Refer Buddhist atheists. (The statement is also merely a repetition of #1)

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.

Incorrect. Atheists need not believe in abiogenesis, evolution, or any other mechanism to explain life as we know it. Some atheists have panspermian beliefs.

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.

Incorrect. Atheism makes no comment on morality.

5. There is no existence after death. Death is simply annihilation.

Incorrect. Refer again to Buddhist atheists.

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).

No hairs need be harmed!

You are simply wrong. I doubt you'll admit it, since reality doesn't fit with your description of "atheism", but you are clearly and demonstrably wrong on every one of the five tenets you listed.

I'll agree that many atheists have those traits, but none of them are a requirement to be an atheist. Psychics, spiritualists, mediums, homeopaths, Buddhists, believers that life is controlled by invisible aliens and even David Icke's lizard people can all be atheists.

I have met a lot of crazy atheists online, quite similar to crazy Christians, with all kinds of implausible crock popping their eardrums. There is no creed to it, though atheism may be incorporated into doctrine.

No kidding!

I even have a quote of mine which is widely used at an atheist forum:

"Atheism is no barrier to stupidity"

Interestingly enough, I've been discussing atheistic beliefs at Dawkins forum (from where I'm presently banned for slagging off atheists! ) and there's some good research showing that atheists are actually more likely to hold other supernatural beliefs than theists, whose supernatural beliefs are generally limited to whichever deity they use. If I can hack my way back in, I'll find it and bring it along!

[Jozanny]

No kidding!

I even have a quote of mine which is widely used at an atheist forum:

"Atheism is no barrier to stupidity"

Interestingly enough, I've been discussing atheistic beliefs at Dawkins forum (from where I'm presently banned for slagging off atheists! ) and there's some good research showing that atheists are actually more likely to hold other supernatural beliefs than theists, whose supernatural beliefs are generally limited to whichever deity they use. If I can hack my way back in, I'll find it and bring it along!

Off topic, but I find it interesting how those of us with *bans* in our pockets carry them around online like scarlet letters... however--I do not like feeling bullied in a thread I created in hopes to avoid circular argument, so the red cape, mon ami, is all yours. Don't get gored by those oh so strident and insistent horns, because I'd miss you.

(blows a kiss)

[hellsapoppin]

"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."


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Even in the New Testament, it is written "prove me now herewith" meaning that biblical laws are supposed to be readily made manifestly evident by its believers. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I have yet to see anyone walk on water, heal the sick, or raise the dead.

Still, if one wishes to believe these stories, it is their right to do so. The wrong exists when one is willing to kill in defense of unprovable assertions.

[The Atheist]

Don't get gored by those oh so strident and insistent horns, because I'd miss you.

No chance!

I only get banned from places I don't care about.

I don't know about you or anyone else, but I have yet to see anyone walk on water, heal the sick, or raise the dead.

This where confusion can easily set in. Imagine someone 2000 years ago giving the kiss of life to a drowning victim. If the victim survived, I think the locals would have been suitably impressed.

Even with medicine, the placebo is a powerful effect - look at how many people believe homeopathy works in 2008. Again, 2000 years ago sometimes a shaman would actually appear to facilitate a "cure" and would gain a reputation as a healer. Or viral infections where a person can go from well -> dreadfully ill -> well again, all on their own, in a very short time frame. Given the right timing of "cure" adminstered it could easily appear that the shaman is getting it right. Thus do myths grow.

Dunno about walking on water, but some of the girls in the Olympic synchronised swimming seemed to be able to stand on it briefly.

[Redzeppelin]

Category error #1.

Given that the "evidence" for god consists of personal anecdotes and a book, the only refusal required is a refusal to believe unsupported myths of gods.

Your use of the term "evidence" points to the Naturalist/Materialist strain that atheists must possess as a consequence of their refusal to believe in a spiritual component (i.e. God, angels, demons) to the universe. No Christian worth his salt will argue that he has any "evidence" for the existence of God. Atheists cannot prove God does not exist; nor can they prove the alternate explanation as to how we got here. The "evidence" argument gets us nowhere because the idea that there is "evidence" for a being who is beyond (not within) his creation is illogical: you can only find evidence for things within that system; God is "outside" the system he created (just as any artist is "outside" that which he creates).

However, since you have discussed your motives in this thread, I am more than slightly sceptical: Red, you said this:

I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system.

Your words, check them out.

By golly, you're right - those are my words!

That statement is clearly and self-admittedly false, because after claiming to seek clarity on what atheism is, you then state quite unequivocally what it is! This is one reason why I don't usually bother discussing things with you - I don't believe your intentions are stated honestly and this post of yours bears that out nicely.

You "don't believe" my intentions are "stated honestly" but note your verb: "believe" - which is a different term than "know." How is that any different than what the Christian does? In other words: you attack Christians for believing something for which they have no "evidence," yet you judge me based upon what you believe to be true (but cannot really know with any true degree of certainty). Nice!

I'm interested in how atheists face the fundamental questions of existence - how did we get here? What gives meaning to life? Where did morality come from and what makes it binding? What makes life valuable? Why should love exist at all? Why should anything exist at all?

If you really wanted to find out what atheism is and what atheists do or don't believe, you would listen to replies from atheists, write to Richard Dawkins, read Bertrand Russell, but instead you choose to come in and state what atheists must believe to be atheists. The bad news is that you are clearly wrong on every count.

Oh please. Don't drop Dawkins into this conversation. His discussions of Christianity are the lecture notes of an amature. He knows little about what he attacks. I do not state what atheists "must" believe - I state what they logically must believe when God is dispensed with. You've done little to show how "clearly wrong" I am beyond simply stating so. I can do the same: You care clearly wrong on every count. There - how authoritative was that?

Incorrect. That's a materialist, not an atheist.

A semantic quibble. Once God and the spiritual world is dispensed with, all that is left is materialism/naturalism. When you refuse to give even slightly on points like this, I get discouraged thinking that we'll actually have a real discussion.

Incorrect. Atheism is no barrier to holding spritiual beliefs. Refer Buddhist atheists. (The statement is also merely a repetition of #1)

The word "spiritual" deals with a dimension of reality that connects to a world that is beyond the natural world. When I use the world "spiritual" I am specifically referring to the existence of a spiritual world within which God, Satan, and their angels/demons exist.

Incorrect. Atheists need not believe in abiogenesis, evolution, or any other mechanism to explain life as we know it.

Fine - "some" do; many do not, and what's left is abiogenesis. Telling me that a percentage believes something else doesn't change the fact that the only alternative to divine creation is life from nothing.

Incorrect. Atheism makes no comment on morality.

Too brief to be of any practical use in this discussion. Elaboration would be nice.

Incorrect. Refer again to Buddhist atheists.

That you can provide exceptions does not change the fact that my statements are generally true (which is what I said). Why you feel the need to try and argue against my list is a mystery - it's almost as if you're afraid to admit that I'm correct about anything.

No hairs need be harmed!

Harmed, no; split; yep.

You are simply wrong. I doubt you'll admit it, since reality doesn't fit with your description of "atheism", but you are clearly and demonstrably wrong on every one of the five tenets you listed.

I'll agree that many atheists have those traits, but none of them are a requirement to be an atheist. Psychics, spiritualists, mediums, homeopaths, Buddhists, believers that life is controlled by invisible aliens and even David Icke's lizard people can all be atheists.

I do not suggest that they are "requirements" in that an atheist HAS to believe the things I listed; from where I stand, the things I listed seem to be the logical beliefs an atheist must hold in the absence of a creator God. The issue isn't whether I'm 100% accurate in my list - my list was an attempt to show that atheists carry a number of common beliefs - despite the numerous exceptions you may be able to dream up.

[RichardHresko]

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?

Your last two paragraphs point to an argument not that the Bible is self-authenticating, but rather that acceptance of the Bible is non-rational (note that I do not say it is irrational). By this I mean that there is no rational basis for the decision.

I have consistently argued your second point, which is that neither the atheist nor the theist can offer a proof that moves his/her position to knowledge. Both theism and atheism are the working out of belief systems that are non-rational choices. Both Red Zeppelin and myself have successfully refuted The Atheist's counter-claim on behalf of atheism so that is pretty much a settled matter.

The argument on the black swan doesn't work. If a black swan is described as a material object that possesses certain attributes and an item that does possess those attributes is presented, the object is in itself a proof of existence. This is very different from what you present Christianity. Radical scepticism (for example, denying that matter exists) is a dead end in terms of discussion, since ultimately one is drawn into a position where nothing can be known, and therefore, as Wittgenstein would advise us, we should be silent.

[Jozanny]

No chance!

I only get banned from places I don't care about.

For me the inverse seems to be true. I hold myself in check better when I care less, not more. My soul is, sadly, still tangled up in a Poets & Writers community which, literally, no longer exists as I was once engaged with it. My essay is fairly honest about my ghosts, and my lack of fresh sources for renewal.

The Network is okay, and it is a nice place to play aesthetic chess and lets me procrastinate while still using words, but on a personal level the community offers me no stepping stone to advance myself, and finding that would make me happier, so maybe I'll get banned for sniveling.

[billyjack]

Whoever defines the terms wins the argument.

You do realize that you are (albeit inadvertently and politely) saying, "You believe things. I know things"? That the atheistic (or perhaps the anti-supernatural) worldview can begin the argument from this assumption allows it to claim it is based on facts and evidence while religious world views are pipe-dreams and hopes. Yet all worldviews are built on assumptions.

Not really. I KNOW, and so do you, things which are sensed or infered from sensing. The limit to which we trust our senses is the limit of true knowledge. To know things unnsensed, things which i cant look at or hear or feel to confirm their being, is not knowing but rather, believing. I'm not saying believers or religious people are wrong. I'm just saying their views are based in belief because the things they assert arent based in the realm of true KNOWledge.

All world VIEWS are built on assumptions, but the world isnt.

[Jozanny]

I have consistently argued your second point, which is that neither the atheist nor the theist can offer a proof that moves his/her position to knowledge. Both theism and atheism are the working out of belief systems that are non-rational choices. Both Red Zeppelin and myself have successfully refuted The Atheist's counter-claim on behalf of atheism so that is pretty much a settled matter.

Despite my discontent with this thread, which is why I'd like to get rid of it and start over, you have not convinced me that lack of belief in theism is not in itself a rational decision. I may not want to believe my brain is damaged, but since the fact that my cerebral palsy is evidently manifest, I can accept that my physical therapist told me when I was 13 that I have a hole in my head the size of a quarter.

The argument that the geography of Israel is unique, which I've heard from apologists countless times, is not evidence to me of an omnipotent being who offers humanity conflicting moral prescriptions for success, and those that pick the wrong prescriptions are out of luck.

The argument that "god talks to me" is dubious. I have a cute little troll doll that Vinnie my cat insists on knocking off the tv--that I emotionally engage with Mr. Troll does not mean Pinocchio is a valid fairy tale.

The offering of human altruism as evidence is lame. We evolved as a social primate, and altruism is part and parcel of our success, so I do not see how accepting how matter behaves in the universe, and by extension its biology when it becomes so, as a process, isn't equally rational.

It is asking why the process is what it is which causes the trouble, and by the same token, asking why God revealed Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as inherently triumphalist when it isn't possible that each of them can be, at the same time, is what destroys the argument for God. If I know that Christians will eventually roast millions in ovens, and do nothing, then that isn't God; it is a monster--but monsters don't exist, thankfully.

[Mr. Vandemar]

My feeling towards atheists is that they, just as often as believers, attempt to force their beliefs on you but substitute faith with reason.

Being neither a believer or an atheist, I try to stay out of the issue as much as possible. I do however enjoy arguing with a very strong person (in either group, I mostly defend Christianity because it is more vulnerable than atheism in today's society) just to prove a point: your way is not the only way.

[The Atheist]

Both Red Zeppelin and myself have successfully refuted The Atheist's counter-claim on behalf of atheism so that is pretty much a settled matter.

Which counter claim are you claiming to refuted?

I must have missed something, or, more likely, you given your opinion on something.

"Refuted" has a slightly different meaning.

Your use of the term "evidence" points to the Naturalist/Materialist strain that atheists must possess as a consequence of their refusal to believe in a spiritual component (i.e. God, angels, demons) to the universe. No Christian worth his salt will argue that he has any "evidence" for the existence of God. Atheists cannot prove God does not exist; nor can they prove the alternate explanation as to how we got here. The "evidence" argument gets us nowhere because the idea that there is "evidence" for a being who is beyond (not within) his creation is illogical: you can only find evidence for things within that system; God is "outside" the system he created (just as any artist is "outside" that which he creates).

Red.

This is nothing more than repetition of your previous points, which were all wrong.

None of it has any relevance whatsoever.

I shall state again: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Nothing more.

Until you reach the inescapable conclusion that what you said bears no relation to that simple statement of eight words, we are truly unable to make progress.

I must apologise for using the word "evidence", because my metaphorical use in that situation has clearly confused you. Evidence either way is not an essential trait for atheism. I was making a sly dig at the lack of evidence theists hold, not making any statement as to whether evidence is available, desirable or even necessary.

You "don't believe" my intentions are "stated honestly" but note your verb: "believe" - which is a different term than "know." How is that any different than what the Christian does?

In what way is this relevant?

What I personally believe has no relevance to atheism or this discussion.

If you want to preach, preach away, but this train is completely irrelevant.

I do note that you haven't answered whether my belief is correct or not, though.

In other words: you attack Christians for believing something for which they have no "evidence," yet you judge me based upon what you believe to be true (but cannot really know with any true degree of certainty). Nice!

Just like that!

As far as I can tell, I don't think I've ever attacked christians on the basis of them having no evidence. I've certainly asked why they don't have any evidence, but I wouldn't say I've ever attacked people for it. And I was not judging you, I was passing a comment based on your demonstrated posting in this thread.

But as I said, the outraged paragraph is as good a way as any of avoiding the question.

No matter.

I'm interested in how atheists face the fundamental questions of existence - how did we get here? What gives meaning to life? Where did morality come from and what makes it binding? What makes life valuable? Why should love exist at all? Why should anything exist at all?

Then maybe you should ask those questions instead of making sweeping and incorrect statements about atheists and atheism.

Just be aware that any opinions you get will be personal answers from individual atheists. I'll gladly answer those questions from my personal perspective as a rationalist/materialist, but if you want to sue my answers as a basis for any truth about atheism, you need to go back to my italicised eight words above. You need to realise that the next atheist who offers an opinion might be a Buddhist and his/her opinions will differ vastly from mine.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss my opinion on those subjects.

Oh please. Don't drop Dawkins into this conversation. His discussions of Christianity are the lecture notes of an amature. He knows little about what he attacks.

Yes, but fortunately, I was asking you to check out his opinion on atheism, which you'd have to admit, he's a bit of a poster bloke for. That he's ignorant of christianity doesn't mean that he doesn't have a valid opinion on what atheism is - he is a professor, after all. I just thought that being a name you're familiar with, you might be inclined to accept his opinion that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods.

I do not state what atheists "must" believe - I state what they logically must believe when God is dispensed with.

Please read that sentence again yourself.

It is lusciously ironic in its self-contradiction. Who on earth said atheists had to be logical? Sheesh, I gave you examples of several different types of atheists to whom logic is a dirty word.

You've done little to show how "clearly wrong" I am beyond simply stating so. I can do the same: You care clearly wrong on every count. There - how authoritative was that?

Not even slightly.

Check back. As noted in my last sentence, I have given you numerous, real-life examples of atheists who demonstrably show that your belief in what atheists must believe [logically, if you like] is wrong. David Icke's lizard peopleare atheists, yet they firmly believe the world is being run by extra-terrestials who take lizard form on earth.

Logic isn't high on their priority list and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are lots of other examples of similar silliness among atheists.

You claim that atheists must accept logic to be atheist.

You are just wrong.

A semantic quibble. Once God and the spiritual world is dispensed with, all that is left is materialism/naturalism. When you refuse to give even slightly on points like this, I get discouraged thinking that we'll actually have a real discussion.

Please don't try to turn the main point into "a semantic quibble".

You have simply created a false dichotomy for yourself - there are lots more options than materialism/theism. Why do I need to keep giving you the same examples time and time again? Maybe if I use a different one each time? Psychics don't fall into either of your camps.

I'm glad you're starting to think like me though - that serious discussion is impossible.

I refuse to give on points like this because you are wrong.

Now, excuse me for believing, but I believe your real beef is with the materialists you mention above. Maybe you need to start a thread somewhere to discuss that subject?

The word "spiritual" deals with a dimension of reality that connects to a world that is beyond the natural world. When I use the world "spiritual" I am specifically referring to the existence of a spiritual world within which God, Satan, and their angels/demons exist.

Astrologers believe a spirit world exists and they are also atheists. They don't believe your angels/demons do. (Generally)

Fine - "some" do; many do not, and what's left is abiogenesis. Telling me that a percentage believes something else doesn't change the fact that the only alternative to divine creation is life from nothing.

Have you heard of the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory? While that one's a bit silly, there are lots of creation myths that people believe in. Why do you always limit yourself to two choices?

Too brief to be of any practical use in this discussion. Elaboration would be nice.

That's a good one!

There's nothing to expand on. Atheism does not and cannot make any statement on morality. I can't exapnd on it, but I'll just say.....

Buddhists!

You can ask a humanist, a Buddhist, a materialist, a Rastafarian or an anarchist about morality, but they could all be atheists, so once again, you can only get personal opinion.

Again, if you want my personal opinion on morality, go ahead and ask.

That you can provide exceptions does not change the fact that my statements are generally true (which is what I said). Why you feel the need to try and argue against my list is a mystery - it's almost as if you're afraid to admit that I'm correct about anything.

Oh, come on!

I can prove you wrong and you're still right?

And I wouldn't say I'm arguing against your list, either. I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to point out that you're wrong and that you keep making the same error over and over. Look, I admit there are a lot of anti-theists around who give atheism a bad name and that you might be angry about that, but just as secular people don't generally blame the rest of christianity for Fred Phelps, you need to stop attacking atheism in general. Find out who you're mad at and attack them.

In the meantime, I don't want to just sit idly by while you stridently repeat the same mistakes.

I do not suggest that they are "requirements" in that an atheist HAS to believe the things I listed; from where I stand, the things I listed seem to be the logical beliefs an atheist must hold in the absence of a creator God. The issue isn't whether I'm 100% accurate in my list - my list was an attempt to show that atheists carry a number of common beliefs - despite the numerous exceptions you may be able to dream up.

You seem to be [inadvertently] agreeing with me here!

We both accept that atheists can believe lots of things with no evidence whatsoever, which is great. We've covered logic, so I do think this time you're getting there. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. No evidence, no morality, no nothing else.

The trouble is that I personally think the number of atheists who subscribe to the tenets you stated originally is an extremely small percentage of atheists. Accordingly, I repeat that what you really need to do is establish who you're attempting to attack and narrow the target quite a lot.

Hopefully, we can now leave this subject as Jozanny is quite right that she started the thread for a different purpose and this ain't it.