Has anything shaken your choice of atheism?

[crunk-juice]

i have not even heard one decent argument from a theist.. ever. so in answer to your question, no.

 

[varioustbags]

Personally I think atheism is falling into the relion trap. Closed mindedness on the part of atheists has led to the same dogmatic approach to untested (and possibly untestable) hypothesies as theists. Granted that atheism is a broad range of level of belief etc etc, the basic premise of 'I don't BELIEVE' in god' goes against the very evidence based argument we use. I'm sick of flying spaghetti monster, it is not in anyway relevant to the debate. We are talking about trying to prove something transcendant in an empirical way and saying that if no empirical data exists, then it doesn't exist outside.

I'm not talking about organsied religion here but the possibility simply of existence of SOMETHING.

Say you are in America and you would search everything within your country (representing the empirical world). You find no elephants. Thus Africa must not have elephants (africa being a transcendant reality). IS this scientific? is this reasonable? of course not. Perhaps no transcendant reality exists, but that would be an assumption based on no evidence for nor against thus making it an unfounded belief.

I'm not defending theism, I am merely attacking belief without reason. This is a completely reasonable possibility, particularly if you subscribe to the multiverse theory.

Furthermore we are yet to resolve the idea of infinite regress. Yes some new theories help, but what caused those effects? something without a cause did. what has NO cause? I don't know, neither do you. We have no way of even contemplating that question properly, so why do we beleive that there probably isnt a god?

TO me I believe we atheists should be Fighting dogmatism, faith, and unfounded assumptions, not creating our own. If you cannot find anything that SHAKES your beliefs, then you ARNT looking in the right places. If you are not interested in searching for more information, and wisdom about the universe and have decided to settle of a bunch of unfounded, unproven beliefs, then atheism has become a religion.

I call myself agnostic now because atheism has become about assumptions and not the search for knowledge.

SO... Atheism has shaken my view of atheism

 

[Smoke]

I call myself agnostic now because atheism has become about assumptions and not the search for knowledge.

I dislike it when theists, agnostics or other atheists presume to pronounce what "atheists" believe or assume. I'm an atheist. That tells you little if anything about what I believe or assume; all it tells you is what I don't believe or assume. Beyond that, I'm capable of speaking for myself, if I feel like it.

 

[varioustbags]

You are right actually, My post was a little bit over the mark for what i wanted to say. I understand fully that atheism is nothing more than disbelief in something, and in keep with that it is no real definition as to someones actually beliefs. On this point I concede and apologise for missing my mark.

My definition in this seense was flawed. I would like to redirect my criticism to a different definition in the popular followings of dawkins et al who pronounce science as the answer and empirical observance as the only path to understanding our world. There is obviously more to it than that. but this BRAND (I stress that word because although it is not the definition of atheism at all, it is what is flying the flag for atheism in pop culture) is damaging further investigation of different avenues of inquiry.

 

[themadhair]

Personally I think atheism is falling into the relion trap. Closed mindedness on the part of atheists has led to the same dogmatic approach to untested (and possibly untestable) hypothesies as theists.

I have to interject here and challenge the claim of close-mindedness. To give an example, if a theist claims that their god is ‘unknowable’ while making all sorts of factual claims about that god then I do not believe it is not close-minded to dismiss their god as being contradictory.

the basic premise of 'I don't BELIEVE' in god' goes against the very evidence based argument we use.

Please see this thread where this misconception is tackled - http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html

I'm sick of flying spaghetti monster, it is not in anyway relevant to the debate. We are talking about trying to prove something transcendant in an empirical way and saying that if no empirical data exists, then it doesn't exist outside.

The FSM is a perfect analogy for how non-believers perceive the god concept and so is very relevant to the debate. You are raising the point that we cannot reasonably make the claim that we know any ‘transcendental’ concept does not exist. This is true, but the relevance of the FSM as analogy is to show that those transcendental concepts cannot reasonably form the logical basis for real world claims/actions. See my signature which also touches on this concept. Basically, you have the scenario that transcendental concepts are beyond the realm of empirical analysis, and yet people use that transcendental concept as the basis for making factual claims about the nature of the world – trying to have it both ways.

I'm not talking about organsied religion here but the possibility simply of existence of SOMETHING.

It is possible something supernatural/transcendental exists and it is a completely reasonable to recognise that we cannot be absolutely sure such things do not exist. If this is your argument then I agree. But the instant you then attempt to ascribe characteristics to such a concept and to use this concept as a basis for making claims about the world then it becomes an entirely different argument.

This is a completely reasonable possibility, particularly if you subscribe to the multiverse theory.

When did the multiverse become ‘theory’??

Furthermore we are yet to resolve the idea of infinite regress. Yes some new theories help, but what caused those effects? something without a cause did. what has NO cause? I don't know, neither do you. We have no way of even contemplating that question properly, so why do we beleive that there probably isnt a god?

I see problems with this.

Firstly, calling such a theorised cause ‘god’ is perfectly reasonable, provided you don’t then attempt to ascribe all manner of additional unfounded characteristics to that ‘god’. To illustrate what I mean here consider these questions – why ‘god’ and not ‘gods’? Why assume these god(s) still exist? Why assume these god(s) were conscientiously aware of what they/it did? As you can see, when people call the first cause ‘god’ they are often attaching many unfounded assertions to that ‘god’ with no basis for doing so.

Secondly, I’m very content to say ‘I don’t know’ when a situation arises in which I don’t know the answer. The need to stick a ‘god’ or some other concept into an unanswered question has always perplexed me.

Thirdly, I’m not even sure the argument for a first cause is sound. The analogy I like to use is what is holding up the earth? The insertion of Atlas or turtles or whatever were merely placeholders for ignorance on the question. Today we know that the earth holds itself up. I’m not attempting to suggest that the universe created itself, but I do recognise it as a possibility that cannot be immediately discounted (I’m leaning towards the sling-shot model but I recognise it has no basis in evidence).

If you cannot find anything that SHAKES your beliefs, then you ARNT looking in the right places.

I hold no religious beliefs whatsoever. Does this question even make sense in my case?

I call myself agnostic now because atheism has become about assumptions and not the search for knowledge.

Please see this thread where this misconception is tackled - http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html

I would like to redirect my criticism to a different definition in the popular followings of dawkins et al who pronounce science as the answer and empirical observance as the only path to understanding our world.

This viewpoint has a name – scientism. While I don’t ascribe to scientism in the way Dawkins does I must ask you a question:
Can you name any branch of inquiry that has a track record even remotely comparable to that of the scientific method?

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is not necessarily a choice. It is, after all, the mind's intellectual default setting.

Most people, though, have religious concepts loaded into their ROM in early childhood, at an age innocent of reason or logic, long before their brains have developed any critical capacity. Once ensconced in ROM, they're notoriously resistant to logical argument.

I believe the small portion of the population that never downloaded religion, or who managed to override religious programming with a ominant left brain are not going to be swayed by argument. Argument targets the left brain, the logical mind.To inculcate religion into a mature mind, with all the spam filters, firewalls, and logic in place you need to execute an end run around the left brain and target the right.

To convert an atheist you have to resort to the numinous. You have to appeal to the right brain and overwhelm him with emotion. Feeling must be made to override reason.

 

[Imagist]

i have not even heard one decent argument from a theist.. ever. so in answer to your question, no.

Really? I know the decent ones are few and far between, but at least you have to give the argument from personal experience some credibility (at least it's credible for them, though not for me or you). Furthermore, some pantheistic definitions of god are identical to a materialist worldview and don't really contradict atheism.

As an atheist I have to say, most theists don't present decent arguments, but the blanket statement is a bit unjustified (unless of course you haven't talked to many theists).

 

[themadhair]

As an atheist I have to say, most theists don't present decent arguments, but the blanket statement is a bit unjustified (unless of course you haven't talked to many theists).

I think the claim holds true if you remove any arguments for deism from the mix.

 

[Imagist]

I think the claim holds true if you remove any arguments for deism from the mix.

I'm surprised again. I usually throw deists in with the group of those who present bad arguments (although, I must admit that they don't generally produce the most egregious butcherings of logic).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Really? I know the decent ones are few and far between, but at least you have to give the argument from personal experience some credibility (at least it's credible for them, though not for me or you).

All sorts of crazy things are credible for other people - regardless of how credible somebody else finds something, has nothing to do with how credible I find it - personal experience included.

 

[Imagist]

All sorts of crazy things are credible for other people - regardless of how credible somebody else finds something, has nothing to do with how credible I find it - personal experience included.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve other people's experiences, though. I myself had some extraordinary experiences that lead me to believe that a god existed for a very long time. I now have the knowledge to explain those experiences scientifically, but I can still see how such experiences could compel one to believe that a god exists given a slightly different set of knowledge than my own. I.e., the argument is a logical one, it's just the facts are incomplete.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't see any reason to disbelieve other people's experiences, though. I myself had some extraordinary experiences that lead me to believe that a god existed for a very long time. I now have the knowledge to explain those experiences scientifically, but I can still see how such experiences could compel one to believe that a god exists given a slightly different set of knowledge than my own. I.e., the argument is a logical one, it's just the facts are incomplete.

I'm not saying I disbelieve that they've had these experiences - I'm saying that their experiences don't make god any more credible of a cocept to me, because I think they are misinterpreting their experiences.

 

[themadhair]

If you have an experience you do not understand then how can use it as evidence for anything?

 

[Imagist]

I'm not saying I disbelieve that they've had these experiences - I'm saying that their experiences don't make god any more credible of a cocept to me, because I think they are misinterpreting their experiences.

I agree. I guess the difference between our opinions arises from wide range of questions that could be asked. I'm saying that if you ask, "Why do you believe that god exists?" a personal experience is a legitimate reason. The same goes for, "What evidence do you have that god exists?"

 

[rageoftyrael]

The longer i go, the more i believe that any kind of god existing or having made us is unlikely. Oh, this is directed towards you jrbogie, if you don't believe in a god/gods you are athiest. Look at my tag, it defines me as agnostic athiest. It means i do not believe in god, but am by no means asserting an actual knowledge of facts. I do not, for a fact, know there is no god. I just don't believe. That is the difference.


So, if you don't believe in god, you are athiest. Now, admitting that you don't know(cause no one actually knows, they are fooling themselves if they think they do) is what makes you agnostic. Also, keep in mind, being agnostic doesn't necessarily mean that you think the human mind can't know, it can mean that you just don't know. I think it is ALMOST impossible to prove god, short of said god actually presenting himself before you.

Just so you know, i had the same argument about athiesm and agnosticism, i swore up and down that i was agnostic, not athiest. But if you look over the meanings, you will discover that you can be both. Agnostic deals with knowledge, athiesm deals with belief. And no, to be athiest does not necessarily mean you are asserting a disbelief in god, it simply means that you don't believe. Doubt is most certainly allowed, and if you ask me, encouraged.

You know the saying, only a fool is certain?

 

[Imagist]

The longer i go, the more i believe that any kind of god existing or having made us is unlikely. Oh, this is directed towards you jrbogie, if you don't believe in a god/gods you are athiest. Look at my tag, it defines me as agnostic athiest. It means i do not believe in god, but am by no means asserting an actual knowledge of facts. I do not, for a fact, know there is no god. I just don't believe. That is the difference.


So, if you don't believe in god, you are athiest. Now, admitting that you don't know(cause no one actually knows, they are fooling themselves if they think they do) is what makes you agnostic. Also, keep in mind, being agnostic doesn't necessarily mean that you think the human mind can't know, it can mean that you just don't know. I think it is ALMOST impossible to prove god, short of said god actually presenting himself before you.

Just so you know, i had the same argument about athiesm and agnosticism, i swore up and down that i was agnostic, not athiest. But if you look over the meanings, you will discover that you can be both. Agnostic deals with knowledge, athiesm deals with belief. And no, to be athiest does not necessarily mean you are asserting a disbelief in god, it simply means that you don't believe. Doubt is most certainly allowed, and if you ask me, encouraged.

You know the saying, only a fool is certain?

I am perhaps somewhat unique in that I don't draw any distinction between knowledge and belief. I don't see how someone can believe something they don't know.

 

[Willamena]

I am perhaps somewhat unique in that I don't draw any distinction between knowledge and belief. I don't see how someone can believe something they don't know.

Ditto. Belief (in the truth of the thing) concretizes knowledge.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I agree completely. Of course, i start out with knowledge, from knowledge comes belief. I don't believe anything unless it can be proven to me, which means knowledge comes first.

To me, faith is something made up by people who want to control others. It's like, you don't need to actually have facts, just believe, and you will be rewarded. That is a load of bull, if you ask me.

 

[Willamena]

I agree completely. Of course, i start out with knowledge, from knowledge comes belief. I don't believe anything unless it can be proven to me, which means knowledge comes first.

To me, faith is something made up by people who want to control others. It's like, you don't need to actually have facts, just believe, and you will be rewarded. That is a load of bull, if you ask me.

I think that portrays "faith" in a mistaken light. Like belief, we can only have faith in those things we know. The distinction I make is that faith applies in the case of things that are not actualized.

 

[linwood]

I am perhaps somewhat unique in that I don't draw any distinction between knowledge and belief. I don't see how someone can believe something they don't know.

You may be unique in that instance but you are not alone.

I`m in the same boat.