Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[Trimijopulos]

Maybe you could elaborate, I'm not sure I understand your question.

You said that “faith can be a dangerous thing” and I quite agree with that.
However, you obviously had in mind only faith in religious doctrines and not the faith in scientific doctrines as well.

The answer that the scientific consensus has for my question: “What do you think of the gods of our ancestors (meaning the ancestors of humanity in general) who were described as common human beings lacking all the divine attributes of the modern gods?”, is: they were the product of an immemorial imagination (J. Cambell, Primitive Mythology, Prologue, p.4).

Campbell begun and finished his study on primitive mythology, i.e. on the origin of the idea of existence of gods, believing firmly in his preconception of the immemorial imagination. Thus what we know of those archaic gods is based on belief and not on reason.

Anyone who will take a serious interest in myths will soon realize, as Campbell wrote, that an honest comparison immediately reveals that all have been built from one fund of mythological motifs, meaning that the Native Americans who had been separated from the rest of the humanity for approximately 14,000 years, are telling the same stories about gods as everybody else.

I hope that this time I made clear what I mean and that you will choose to answer the question.

 

[Willamena]

Anyone who will take a serious interest in myths will soon realize, as Campbell wrote, that an honest comparison immediately reveals that all have been built from one fund of mythological motifs, meaning that the Native Americans who had been separated from the rest of the humanity for approximately 14,000 years, are telling the same stories about gods as everybody else.

Right; but they're telling stories about us, not gods.

 

[work in progress]

"Brain in a vat" solipsism is self-defeating. If the "real world" (somewhere "out there") is what's true, then there is no "true" in the world as we know it, including the truth of the proposition "brain in a vat."

I believe in truth.

The "truth" is every "truth" is an approximation. Modern neuroscience and research psychology have developed a general understanding of how the mind works. In brief, our brain...higher cortex levels to be specific...create maps from sensory data that inform us about the world, our bodies, and even our sense of self. A map is a description of the terrain, not an image of the actual terrain itself. This might be nihilistic, but that's what we're left with! We have to believe in something, so we follow the patterns identified by our senses, confirm them with past histories, and reports from other minds....and that's a whole nother can of worms in itself. Most of us have a capacity for empathy that seeks to understand other minds, and we end up assuming that phenomena which are structured and follow regular patterns of activity (natural forces in nature) are either other minds, or the creation of other minds....and so we end up with gods and goddesses right from the dawn of history.

Getting back on track...how do we determine if any of this is true? All we have is the capabilities of our brains to develop an understanding of ourselves and the world, and try to reach what appear to be the most accurate conclusions based on our limited abilities.

 

[work in progress]

It seems quite sensical and orderly to me. The mess seems to come from people who have a tendency to confuse semantics with ideas.

What definition do the fence-sitters use, if they don't have "agnostic"? Most people who describe themselves as agnostics use that word because it has been associated with being unsure whether God exists.

 

[idav]

Getting back on track...how do we determine if any of this is true? All we have is the capabilities of our brains to develop an understanding of ourselves and the world, and try to reach what appear to be the most accurate conclusions based on our limited abilities.

We break limitations of our own abilities by using advanced technology. We gain knowledge of our world using these technologies which we couldn't have known on our own. What we are finding either confirms or destroys our preconceived notions of the universe. We are seeing things in many different perspectives not just from individuals but from various forms of technology to help confirm our place in the universe. We know things are not really the way we perceive things, certainly not, science has shown us that our own realities are bias.

 

[Willamena]

The "truth" is every "truth" is an approximation. Modern neuroscience and research psychology have developed a general understanding of how the mind works. In brief, our brain...higher cortex levels to be specific...create maps from sensory data that inform us about the world, our bodies, and even our sense of self. A map is a description of the terrain, not an image of the actual terrain itself. This might be nihilistic, but that's what we're left with! We have to believe in something, so we follow the patterns identified by our senses, confirm them with past histories, and reports from other minds....and that's a whole nother can of worms in itself. Most of us have a capacity for empathy that seeks to understand other minds, and we end up assuming that phenomena which are structured and follow regular patterns of activity (natural forces in nature) are either other minds, or the creation of other minds....and so we end up with gods and goddesses right from the dawn of history.

Getting back on track...how do we determine if any of this is true? All we have is the capabilities of our brains to develop an understanding of ourselves and the world, and try to reach what appear to be the most accurate conclusions based on our limited abilities.

We have a capacity to assign truth. I'm only going to be able to believe any claim or proposition if it has some truth in it. Not an approximation of truth (possibility), but actual truth. Whether truth lies in "a description of the terrain" or the imagined real "terrain," that is what is objective --made objective by it being the truth. That is what we will invest belief in.

 

[work in progress]

We break limitations of our own abilities by using advanced technology. We gain knowledge of our world using these technologies which we couldn't have known on our own. What we are finding either confirms or destroys our preconceived notions of the universe. We are seeing things in many different perspectives not just from individuals but from various forms of technology to help confirm our place in the universe. We know things are not really the way we perceive things, certainly not, science has shown us that our own realities are bias.

I agree that we can determine the difference between what's very likely from the extremely remote...so I'm not a post-modern relativist yet! It's just that if someone is going to throw the term "truth" at me, my feeling is that we have no human capacity to determine such an absolute. Everything, even the law of gravity will have some extremely remote possibility of being incorrect....I'll let you know if anything starts flying up in the air though!

 

[work in progress]

We have a capacity to assign truth. I'm only going to be able to believe any claim or proposition if it has some truth in it. Not an approximation of truth (possibility), but actual truth. Whether truth lies in "a description of the terrain" or the imagined real "terrain," that is what is objective --made objective by it being the truth. That is what we will invest belief in.

I would contend that we still do not have that complete, absolute assurance that the truth is out there waiting to be discovered. And, as long as you recognize that others will have a completely different view of what the truth is than you, it's okay by me you find your own understanding to be personally satisfying.

 

[Willamena]

I would contend that we still do not have that complete, absolute assurance that the truth is out there waiting to be discovered. And, as long as you recognize that others will have a completely different view of what the truth is than you, it's okay by me you find your own understanding to be personally satisfying.

Of course it's not "out there" (Mulder was wrong).

 

[Tristesse]

You said that “faith can be a dangerous thing” and I quite agree with that.
However, you obviously had in mind only faith in religious doctrines and not the faith in scientific doctrines as well.

Science doesn't operate on faith. The process known as science is about using reason and evidence to broaden our understanding of the universe. No faith needed or required, science is actually the opposite of faith.

The answer that the scientific consensus has for my question:

“What do you think of the gods of our ancestors (meaning the ancestors of humanity in general) who were described as common human beings lacking all the divine attributes of the modern gods?”, is: they were the product of an immemorial imagination (J. Cambell, Primitive Mythology, Prologue, p.4).

How is this question relevant to science using faith? It seems like a non-sequitor.

Campbell begun and finished his study on primitive mythology, i.e. on the origin of the idea of existence of gods, believing firmly in his preconception of the immemorial imagination. Thus what we know of those archaic gods is based on belief and not on reason.

Ok.....Which gods exactly? Because I think all gods are mythic.

Anyone who will take a serious interest in myths will soon realize, as Campbell wrote, that an honest comparison immediately reveals that all have been built from one fund of mythological motifs, meaning that the Native Americans who had been separated from the rest of the humanity for approximately 14,000 years, are telling the same stories about gods as everybody else.

Gods are myths, I agree. Where is the contention in what I said previously?

I hope that this time I made clear what I mean and that you will choose to answer the question.

Still extremely vague, but I hope I answered your question. If not, please just state a clear question.

I believe all gods are either myths or irrational thinking. Does this clear up my position?

 

[Trimijopulos]

Science doesn't operate on faith. The process known as science is about using reason and evidence to broaden our understanding of the universe. No faith needed or required, science is actually the opposite of faith.

Well, the famous Big-Bang theory is based on faith, but I have not studied astrophysics and I cannot discuss cosmological theories.

Ok.....Which gods exactly? Because I think all gods are mythic.

We are here dealing exclusively with the gods of our ancestors and I wish to make it clear that I am not referring to the gods of the theologians but to the gods of the archaic oral traditions.
You wrote: “ I believe all gods are either myths or irrational thinking. Does this clear up my position?” Your position is quite clear. However, that is also the position of the scientific community and as you see it is based solely on belief.

Myths about gods are not fairy tales for the simple reason that it is impossible for two peoples without contact between them to create simultaneously an identical imaginary story with lots of identical details.

There was never a scientific study which reached the conclusion that the gods of the myths were products of the imagination. It is just easier for everybody to believe so.
Therefore it is not only the religious people who base their beliefs in faith.

Still extremely vague, but I hope I answered your question. If not, please just state a clear question.

You’ve answered my question by stating that so much the gods without divine attributes as the gods with divine attributes are either myths or irrational thinking.

Myths are irrational only when one judges by their more recent variation. If you take a myth and trace his course back in time you will end up facing at the report of an event.
The myth of the creation of humankind by a God is indeed an entirely irrational one.
You’ll be astonished, though, on what you will find at the end of the trip if you decide to trace the origins of the myth of the creation of humankind by going back in time.
Just before the concept of a male god who was creating humans out of clay, Marduk was creating humans out of his blood and bone (the reference to the bone resulted in the funny story of Adam’s rib in the OT). A contemporaneous concept was about the slaughtering of a god and mixing his blood with earth in order to fashion humans.
The irrationality commences to diminish when women are involved in the creation: the gods call the “goddess of the land” and instruct her to produce humans. Still earlier, the goddess of the land did not possess the ability to produce men and thus she had to call a number of anonymous Mother-wombs and it was them who produced the human kind.

Anyone who has reached that far into the past of mythology knows very well who these Mother-wombs were. They were women kept in enclosures where gods or semi-gods or gods by two thirds, as Gilgamesh was, were visiting and raping them in order to produce either “slaves of the gods” or “sons of God.”

There is nothing irrational about tortured miserable women bearing children to their rapists.
Myth is not fairy tale! But science does operate on faith sometimes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, the famous Big-Bang theory is based on faith.

No, it isn't.

Evidence for the Big Bang

You wrote: “ I believe all gods are either myths or irrational thinking. Does this clear up my position?” Your position is quite clear. However, that is also the position of the scientific community and as you see it is based solely on belief.

No, there is no consensus among the scientific community on the position of God. Also, there is a difference between "belief" and "faith". To "believe" something simply means to hold it as being true (regardless of what the reason is for you to do so). So, for example, while a religious position can be regarded as a "belief", so can the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun can be regarded - in the broadest terms - as a "belief". The difference is that one belief is believed on faith, and the other because of facts and logic.

Myths about gods are not fairy tales for the simple reason that it is impossible for two peoples without contact between them to create simultaneously an identical imaginary story with lots of identical details.

How is that relevant?

There was never a scientific study which reached the conclusion that the gods of the myths were products of the imagination. It is just easier for everybody to believe so.
Therefore it is not only the religious people who base their beliefs in faith.

There has also never been a scientific study that has reached the conclusion that Bigfoot doesn't live in my urethra. So what? Does that mean the position that Bigfoot doesn't exist or that he doesn't live in my urethra requires faith?

 

[Iti oj]

Myths about gods are not fairy tales for the simple reason that it is impossible for two peoples without contact between them to create simultaneously an identical imaginary story with lots of identical details.

sooo dragons exist too then?

 

[Willamena]

sooo dragons exist too then?

Yes, as motif.

 

[Iti oj]

Yes, as motif.

Motif?

 

[riley2112]

Motif?

mo·tif/mōˈtēf/


Noun:

• A decorative design or pattern.
• A distinctive feature or dominant idea in an artistic or literary composition.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, the famous Big-Bang theory is based on faith, but I have not studied astrophysics and I cannot discuss cosmological theories.

If you haven't studied physics, why do you claim that the Big Bang Theory is faith-based? Do you feel the same about Plate Tectonics and Evolution? You think of them as based on faith?

Anyway, to my mind, 'theory' and 'faith' are incompatible all by themselves. A theory is always up for changing or even overthrowing, while an article of faith is generally held out as unchangeable.

 

[Iti oj]

mo·tif/mōˈtēf/


Noun:

• A decorative design or pattern.
• A distinctive feature or dominant idea in an artistic or literary composition.

Thank you sir. Phone is hard to multi task on the net with. So I think my point still holds god like dragons is something that exist as a motif world wide

 

[Nakosis]

If you haven't studied physics, why do you claim that the Big Bang Theory is faith-based? Do you feel the same about Plate Tectonics and Evolution? You think of them as based on faith?

Obviously a matter of faith for someone who hasn't studied and verified for themselves any truth behind these theories.

Anyway, to my mind, 'theory' and 'faith' are incompatible all by themselves. A theory is always up for changing or even overthrowing, while an article of faith is generally held out as unchangeable.

One has to have enough faith in a theory at least enough to be willing to test the theory. This IMO is the same amount of faith asked by Jesus. The size of a mustard seed. When your ignorant about something like heaven or astrophysics, you need to put your faith in someone who supposedly has more knowledge through personal experience. Yes you need to have faith in Jesus to be willing to test what he taught.

What his theory was, is that love, forgiveness, charity would lead to a better spiritual nature for man, not materialism. You need faith in the teacher to be willing to trust in what they teach. However once you discover the truth of it for yourself you are no longer relying on faith.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What definition do the fence-sitters use, if they don't have "agnostic"? Most people who describe themselves as agnostics use that word because it has been associated with being unsure whether God exists.

I'm sure "fence-sitters," classify their position in a wide variety of ways. I've heard a few people describe it that way, but, as far as self-described "agnostics," I've also heard people classify themselves as such over the years for the following reasons (paraphrasing):

"I believe in god, but I'm not a Christian."
"I don't know if there's a god, but I believe there's something out there."
"I don't believe in god, but I'm not against religion."
"I'm spiritual, but not religious."
"I don't believe in god, but I don't want to say I'm atheist in case I'm wrong."
"Atheists are (explatives) so I'd rather be agnostic."

So, I supposed fence-sitters can describe themselves as agnostic, but other people use the word for a whole range of positions.